• kevinsky@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    I don’t know how that even got past the brainfart stage. AFAIK nobody has actually demonstrated how that would really work.

    • Despite SpaceX’s advancements in regards to things like resutable rockets, shooting stuff into space is still prohibitively expensive.
    • Server clusters are exceptionally heavy.
    • Server clusters run hot, cooling is not a triviality considering you can’t just rely on convection in space, so more mass for alternative solutions.
    • Datacenters need regular maintenace.
    • Logic boards won’t do well with the radiation in space.
    • Despite SpaceX’s advancements in regards to things like sattelite internet, getting large datacenter level quantities of data from earth into space and back, and at low latency, is no triviality.

    Not saying this won’t ever be a thing. But not in the lifetime of anybody on earth right now I don’t think.

    • SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      There is an unsolvable compute problem. The average PC on earth has multiple bit-flips a year from cosmic rays. The space hardened chips we use are 50nm and the chips used from inference are 4 to 6nm. 50nm is far more cosmic ray resistant than 6nm because of the transistor size. Are we supposed to think making H100s with a 65nm process is possible? The speed of light creates a die size limitation as well.

      • TauZero@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        60 minutes ago

        The way I see it is they are doing inference, not transfiring bank account balances. I’d be curious to see some actual experimental data, but I’d expect LLMs to skip past bit flips same way you shrug and move on from spelling errors. At worst you can do your critical calculation in triplicate on your 6nm nodes (with redo upon dissensus) and reduce your bit error from 4/year (or 4000/year or whatever have you in orbit) to (4/year)^3

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 hours ago

      People don’t understand just how difficult it is to cool stuff in space. Half of the shit sticking out of the ISS that people think are solar panels are actually radiant cooling systems, and the ISS will generate WAY less heat per volume than a data center.

      • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 minutes ago

        Not to mention the power requirements would likely require more than solar unless they put solar panels up far bigger than anything put up there before.

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      This whole idea reminds me of the “putting solar panels on highways” idea that keeps popping up from time to time. Anyone who has ever built anything understands how stupid it is. Even if you could do it, it still wouldn’t make sense over just putting solar panels next to highways.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        That, and solar windows.

        Making an expensive solar panel that lets most of the energy pass through it, and is not mounted in a way to effectively collect solar energy, is a terrible idea.

    • CorvusVolvens@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I agree, that this is at the moment not a viable thing and especially the SpaceX “concept” is complete bullshit.

      I do not agree with some of your points, since they are solved/irrelevant (e.g. “regular maintenance”, “low latency”) or could be overcome with reasonable tech advances (e.g. “rockets prohibitively expensive”, “radiation shielding”).

      Let me steelman the argument a bit with this single bit of - sadly forgotten - “super cool and innovative tech”: “Underwater data center”, like project Natick (Microsoft) or the Chinese project:

      https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/chinas-hicloud-launches-wind-powered-underwater-data-center-targets-500mw-subsea-deployment/

      Soooooo, if we will ever see something other than our current land based data centers, we will see millions of ocean data centers, before we will ever see a single commercial space data center.

      Reasons:

      • Delivery is super cheap (in comparison to space) at scale, thanks to the already existing wind farm infrastructure
      • Weight is not an issue
      • Cooling is solved
      • Maintenance is not necessary, but replacement is. Easy on scale, because modular.
      • No radiation shielding necessary
      • Connection: data cable = no extra lag or quantity limit

      Oh, and by the way, it is still not clear if even ocean data center will be viable. Just found this 😂

      https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/spacexs-orbital-data-centers-could-face-same-hurdles-microsofts-abandoned-2026-04-01/

    • festus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Unless it becomes cheaper than having a datacenter on earth per quanity of compute, it won’t happen in any meaningful scale even if these issues are solved.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      It will never be an economic thing. Only unpluggable skynet military thing. The weight is not an issue. though. It’s volume.

      • Jiral@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Weight is always the issue with lifting stuff into space. Volume might merely be an additional issue.