|
|
|
|
|
by bob1029
13 days ago
|
|
Certainly the idea is difficult to execute on. However, there isn't anything about it that fundamentally says it cannot happen. I think Starlink is a pretty good example of how this could go. The framing of the detractors always comes off like we intend to build Costco-style structures in space with robots tending to literal racks of unmodified server equipment running web app and credit card processing workloads. |
|
The story of SpaceX is often that Musk tried to buy a rocket, got a price estimate, and did some first-principles evaluation of the materials and engineering costs he believed was involved that came out to be much less than the going price. He ended up (through fast-forward view doing a lot of work) being largely correct.
The data-centers-in-space in space thing does not work out from a first principles approach. The waste heat generated by chips and the cooling method available (ultimately, radiative cooling), and the structures required create those surfaces, would be orders-of-magnitude beyond what could reasonably compete with a terrestrial version with the same capacity. There's no "but launch costs are dropping" adjustment that can possibly make up for that. The physics involved are the blocker.
Starlink is actually a good counter-example of where the execution--building and coordinating satellites in volume--was the bottleneck, not the underlying physics of the networking and SpaceX was in a great position to capitalize with their engineering expertise and reduced launch costs. It's a totally different situation for the data center thing, though.