Have you read SpaceX IPO prospectus? Their AI plans are completely nonsensical. I don’t believe there is an actual strategy here other than trying to surf on (and contribute to) the AI bubble
back
2 comments
SpaceX is betting that the world will be compute/energy constrained by 2030 and that orbital datacenters will become cost-effective for inference. If they are right about that, they will be the largest company in the solar system. If they are wrong, they will still be one of the largest telecom companies.
To me this is a classic case of low-downside, very-high-upside.
One thing I find fascinating in this thread is how orbital datacenters bring out such visceral reactions.
I understand skepticism--maybe they will never be able to compete economically with terrestrial datacenters. But the profound certainty that detractors have is amazing to me.
There are a lot of unknowns, mostly around prices in 2030 (price to orbit, price per MW on Earth), but detractors are dead certain that not only will orbital datacenters fail, but they will never even be deployed because they violate the laws of physics. It's astounding.
> I understand skepticism--maybe they will never be able to compete economically with terrestrial datacenters. But the profound certainty that detractors have is amazing to me.
I need to finish the blog post about this. I'm around 10,000 words of confident right now about how bad an idea this is, regardless of each specific possible variation I can come up with about how to do it.
Not physically impossible, by the way; just a terrible idea in multiple different dimensions at the same time.
One thing I find fascinating in this thread is how elon musk brings out such visceral faith.
I understand hope--maybe he will actually deliver something for once that isn't a total scam. But the profound trust that his bootlickers have is amazing to me.
There are a lot of unknowns, mostly around whether he will die from a ketamine overdose before 2030 (or wind up in prison for his many crimes), but his sycophants are dead certain that not only will every bit of bullshit he spews actually happen, but that he will somehow deliver things that violate the laws of physics. It's astounding.
Elon-hate explains a lot.
I hope you’re not in the business of investing other people’s money
How do you cool a data center in a vacuum?
How is Starlink cooled? How is ISS cooled? They all use radiators, which work in a vacuum by--wait for it--radiating infrared into space.
Orbital data centers do not defy the laws of physics. TBD whether they are economical relative to terrestrial data centers, but please don't succumb to misinformation.
For some perspective, the entire heat rejection system on the ISS at peak can do a little less than one rack of dense AI compute power.
All of that plumbing, all of that area, all that stuff to put in orbit just to cool one rack of compute equipment.
How much stuff do we need to put up there for each rack? The External Active Thermal Control System on the ISS is ~20,000lbs, about 10 tons. How many racks are in a single datacenter? The Colossus is allegedly ~1,500 compute racks, ignoring other equipment. So that's like 15,000 tons for just the cooling equipment if its like the ISS. At SpaceX's current public launch costs (which makes a profit for them, so not base costs) to launch that much stuff is somewhere around $40B. Just the launch cost for the cooling equipment alone for just one datacenter building worth of pure compute capacity, that isn't even that big compared to what companies are talking about building.
All of that is very rough back of the napkin math. I don't expect that to be the actual numbers at all, but I'd imagine somewhere in that neighborhood unless they've got something really radical up their sleeve.
They better have a much better way to cool these things than what the ISS is doing.
Current SpaceX design is 75 kW of computer per ton, including solar panels, radiators, everything: https://www.spacex.com/spacexai/starmind
That's ~13 tons per megawatt, or 1,330 tons for 100 MWs. That's 13 launches of Starship (at $10 million per launch, or $130 million). Of course, that's probably 600 individual satellites, at maybe $5 million per, so we're at ~$3 billion to deploy 100 MW to space.
You can sell 100 MW of compute for $3-4 billion per year, so SpaceX would make their money back in 1 year.
> Current SpaceX design is 75 kW of computer per ton, including solar panels, radiators, everything
Anyone can make a website. Let's see them actually make it and put it in orbit.
According to another Musk website we'd be riding hyperloops and drive through solo tunnels under our cities and we'd all own our own autonomous cab companies back in 2016.
Another website said we'd be able to buy a Cybertruck for $40k and the three-motor variety for $70k.
It's amazing. These guys see a conman with a history of lies and failures - hyperloop, cybertruck, full self driving teslas, robotaxi fleets - and somehow all their critical thinking goes out the window.
Let's just trust him this time guys, he's definitely going to nail it.
Okay, so you admit that they are possible, but they just might cost more than expected?
That's actually a reasonable prediction.
They do and you’re the one spreading misinformation… the amount of energy you need to radiate for inference GPUs is enormous compared to any computer currently used in space. Energy dissipation by radiating is literally the least effective method and would require insanely large radiators just to be effective on paper. You also need to mitigate bit flips, meaning you throw away around 2/3 of your compute capacity.
And that’s just the most basic things, before taking in account ALL the other problems you face doing compute in space someone with expertise in the domain could mention.
Datacenters in space is a grift that won’t happen in any meaningful capacity and can be debunked by a 15y old who followed their physics courses
You've listed:
1. Radiating heat needs large radiators 2. Bit flips require extra compute capacity
Neither of those violate the laws of physics. As I said, they may not work economically, but that depends on a large number of unknowns, including the cost per ton to orbit and the cost per GW of new power capacity on Earth in 2030. If you have a time machine and know those numbers, then can I please borrow your time machine?
Moreover, when you say, "ALL the other problems ... someone with expertise in the domain could mention," you're saying either:
A) SpaceX engineers do not have expertise in this domain. B) SpaceX engineers are hiding all the problems that they know about.
B is basically a conspiracy theory. It is one YouTube video away from saying the moon landing was a hoax.
A is just delusional.
> Neither of those violate the laws of physics. As I said, they may not work economically, but that depends on a large number of unknowns, including the cost per ton to orbit and the cost per GW of new power capacity on Earth in 2030. If you have a time machine and know those numbers, then can I please borrow your time machine?
Alphabet researchers have estimated future launch costs based on learning curves; they estimate that after Starship has launched 370,000 tons to LEO, they will have figured out how to reduce launch costs by enough to make space data centres viable.
They optimistically suggested this might take ten years.
Given the rate of development of Starship as a launch system, I suspect that Musk will reach federal pension age before this is viable.
Or potentially:
C) SpaceX engineers enjoy their cushy salary funded by a guy who won't take "that doesn't make sense" for an answer to work on rockets and neat technology, even if it may never really work out.
Do you know anyone that works at SpaceX? They get paid well, yes, but my friends who work there say they work you really hard. The bet that's being made is that there will be advancements in materials science that make data centers in space viable. If you hypothesize that there's a way to cool things down in space if you just had the right material to do it, it makes sense. Starlink satellites are already compute plus solar panels. Just scale it up! Or course "just" is doing a lot of work here, but that's the theory.
That's a different conspiracy theory, for which there is also no evidence.
So between the giant radiator per GPU and the diminished compute capacity, how much mass are we shooting up exactly? This just seems utterly infeasible.
You're missing C) SpaceX engineers know it's a bad idea, but can't say anything because it's the tyrant manchild's latest obsession, technology constraints be damned.
Remember the vision-only FSD? How's that coming along?
> because it's the tyrant manchild's latest obsession, technology constraints be damned.
Imho, there's only one reason that justifies Musk's space-based compute obsession: sovereignty.
Specifically, avoiding terrestrial country's.
This isn't about AI in space (though I'm sure dumb investors love that), it's about uncensorable Twitter in space, beamed down to Starlink terminals.
Which would be one of the few things you'd care about, if you were one of the richest people on the planet... but still subject to those damned nations and their meddling laws.
Sure man, and we'll have full self driving any day now. At some point you need to start actually using your pattern recognition skills.
I literally use FSD every day.
"Full self driving", the capability, is not the same thing as the product for which Telsa has been sued because they described it as "Full Self Driving" before it was good enough to get called that[0]; this is in much the same way that I can accurately say that "I use a Time Machine on a regular basis", but this "Time Machine" isn't suitable for the use for which you asked to borrow one in another comment, because this is the brand name of the Apple backup mechanism and not a DeLorean with a flux capacitor.
Would be nice if it was good enough that, as per what he said in Oct 2014, "I think we’ll be able to achieve true autonomous driving, where you could literally get in the car, go to sleep and wake up at your destination,"[1], or what he said in 2016 "Ultimately you'll be able to summon your car anywhere … your car can get to you. I think that within two years, you'll be able to summon your car from across the country. It will meet you wherever your phone is … and it will just automatically charge itself along the entire journey."[2]
Right now, from what I've been seeing, I think the product is roughly the level the Paint It Black video misrepresented the tech as having already reached in 2016. Which is more than nothing, but also not "full".
[0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/tesla-musk-sued-by-shareholder...
[1] Predicted in 2014 to be available by 2023: https://web.archive.org/web/20240615102623/https://www.huffi...
[2] Predicted in 2016 for 2018: https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/10/10746020/elon-musk-tesla-...
Same. Bought a used 2023 S with HW4 last year for that. FSD is brilliant, a zero to one technology. 5,000 miles in and zero troubles.
PaulG posted this just last week: https://x.com/paulg/status/2085598462146675072
Another tech friend of mine just bought a Model Y and he was similarly raving about how awesome FSD it.
Just anecdotes, I know, but I feel FSD is eventually going to go viral among normies.
Oh that's great news! I recommend relying on it fully, take a nap while you're riding. Just let the tesla do what it will.
After all, you were sold full self driving. It definitely won't ram you into a brick wall. Or maybe it will, but that's just natural selection really.
SpaceX has a monopoly on The Universe. Therefore the TAM for selling tokens to all possible alien species is what justifies the valuation.