[GuB-42]

Compute in space is doable, we already send plenty of computers up there, technologically, it is not even a challenge. It just doesn't make sense economically, even with Starship, it is making things harder for no good reason.

Starlink is different, it makes sense. Covering the entire Earth, including the oceans with cell towers for global internet connectivity is harder than having a satellite constellation. The opposite situation from datacenters.

[cameronh90]

It’s trading political difficulty for engineering difficulty.

There are now quite a few politicians running on a platform of banning data centre construction projects.

[GuB-42]

It is another common argument, but again trading a problem for a much harder one.

If politicians ban datacenter construction projects, do you think they will take kindly of the process of building them in space? Rockets are really bad from an environment perspective. We tolerate them because we don't do that many launches and the negative effects are small on a global scale.

[cameronh90]

People oppose data centres mainly for local reasons.

We already have more than 10k Starlink satellites, and there’s almost no outcry about that outside of astronomers, who are justified in their concerns… but politically irrelevant.

Plus, you can technically launch a satellite from almost anywhere if you’re not picky about the orbit, so you just need to find a single country willing to give you a logistically viable launch site. There are no international laws that would prevent, e.g., India launching 1 million satellites.

[bvcp]

how does the economics compare at scale building a persistent 24/7 supply of 1,000 gw isnt easy or cheap

[GuB-42]

It is certainly not easy or cheap, but doing it in space is harder and more expensive.