We've run a dozen missions in LEO aboard the ISS. Any steps to remove the friction to launch and increase the cadence is a good thing. Spending a few weeks in LEO missions like this typically land in the Australian outback
We do education outreach to K-16 learning institutions around the world. There are many things that can be studied in the near absence of gravity. Fluids are a huge area of research (surface tension, sedimentation, etc). We germinate seeds and look for genetic changes, people study brain organoids, artificial retinas, crystals, et al
Yeah, I’m not mad at this. There’s a lot around SpaceX that makes it hard to really see what an offering from them is*, but this actually looks legitimately interesting - a way to run medium-to-long-term microgravity experiments with a proper data uplink and power structure could be a real boon for a lot of interesting science. Turning microgravity into a purchasable commodity, instead of something you need a specialized project for, is genuinely one of those “human capacity building” things.
* (definitely feel free to fill in the seventy volumes of dialogue I left out of this comment in the replies, though)
> There’s a lot around SpaceX that makes it hard to really see what an offering from them is*
> * (definitely feel free to fill in the seventy volumes of dialogue I left out of this comment in the replies,
Ok, I will. You're alluding to two separate problems which are both pet peeves of mine. The less controversial one is that product marketing/communication is becoming all marketing and little communication. Why do landing pages, press releases and ads created by teams of highly paid professionals fail to clearly convey what something actually is (and is not) and why I should care? (although this case is an exception since the page does make what it is and does pretty clear.)
The second problem is it's getting damn near impossible to discuss any aspect of a high profile company, product or even technology without the politics, personalities, or social impacts related to it swallowing everything. At minimum it's now normal, if not expected, to preface any discussion by signaling your position on {related controversy} and it's accepted for people to intentionally divert the discussion off-topic. Before the last decade, normal people would think always doing that was weird. And to be clear, I think Musk's mis-adventures into politics and social media are bizarre and wrong. Yet I can discuss products and technologies related to his companies without bringing that up.
Here's an example avoiding current 'triggers': in a discussion on foreign policy in the 80s or 90, you could observe ex-president Richard Nixon's China foreign policy was bold and successful - some might agree and others disagree - but no one would feel the urgent need to signal their views on Watergate or the fact Nixon was universally considered by far the worst U.S. president ever (as well as a morally reprehensible toxic personality). Enlightened people could handle discussing different aspects of things without fearing that NOT mentioning the 'obviously problematic' adjacent aspect might somehow be taken as personally endorsing it.
> Enlightened people could handle discussing different aspects of things without fearing that NOT mentioning the 'obviously problematic' adjacent aspect might somehow be taken as personally endorsing it.
My granddad was in the military in WWII and would always mention how strange it felt to have a Toyota now and that it and VW were very frowned on by people in the war for a long time. Probably same would be felt about Tesla the nazi salute and otherwise support even back in the 80s.
Any indication what the price difference might be? (e.g. 20% less, 50%, 90%!?)
I read that SpaceX's engines deliver a bit more thrust at a bit less mass than NASA engines. But the kicker was SpaceX's were 1/200th the cost. From the cost angle it's very interesting observing space activities going from mostly public to mostly private.
Space datacenters sounds dumb and impractical to me. Manufacturing semi conductor in space is actually a pretty interesting idea. I designed a few PVD, CVD, and IBE machines before. Ion thrusters from NASA are what semi conductors use as their source anyway. I can see the business proposition for processes like MBE that requires -12 pressure. It takes days, if not weeks to pump a chamber to those values.
Given the current state of the lift industry and price per kilo, it is economically unfeasible to manufacture or mine anything in space if it needs to be transported down or up the gravity well of any planet. Not even chips.
What if zero g is the best or only place to manufacture something? Varda grows crystals in space to make medicine that works better than when grown in a gravity well.
That is a valid argument but so far I'm not aware of anyone doing the complete calculation of what that could entail and which exact medicine could be cost efficient to manufacture like that.
But if that would be a real market case, then Elon's solution is actually the optimal one, and very similar to the possible approach which more knowledgeable space analysts said for years. Basically it is super pointless for humans now to have big manned space stations for any economical purposes. We should build them of course, but they will be a net loss for centuries. If any space research or space manufacturing would be required by the market, then one-off space missions are the only rational way to do it cheaply. Something like the platform showcased here, or something bigger, like a converted Dragon/Cygnus/etc. ship into a mini lab. Commercial Space Stations is a bunk program, specifically in the word "Commercial".
Commercial manufacturing in space can be economically viable, as long as most of the components do not come from Earth.
If you build titanium stations in space, but all your titanium come from the moon, the price structure is wildly different. The price of shipping material is the price of building a railgun on the moon.
Absolutely not cheap,but the operating cost afterward is very low. And since the moon is geolocked, you can target any lagrange point with very good precision.
There will still be a need for components coming from earth, but the moon should be able to send all the material for structural parts (titanium), and also solar panels.
> The price of shipping material is the price of building a railgun on the moon.
This would be very unfortunate. Luckily, we only need to build the rail gun (and the mining/refining facilities) once. After that, the cost is marginal.
>>it is economically unfeasible to manufacture or mine anything in space if it needs to be transported down or up the gravity well of any planet
Hydrolysis can be used to make Hydrogen, so as long you have enough ice. You fill it up with fuel needed to go up again, and send in down with the gravity well with the payload.
economicaly unfeasable for you perhaps, but what Elon is offering is a chance to be in the first wave of routine commercial access to microgravity, 1000kg mass and durration of your choice, and if you can achive the materials science objective to make something, that wasn't, possible, and have a market, then it's just manufacturing, and for many business concerns, negative data is worth the same as positive, because it refines where to put there research efforts, which there competition will have to guess at.again 1000kg's , crazy!, makes building the module SO EASY, mass to BURN baby, go! go! go!
More of that generous absurdity from you, please. That's your comparative advantage
The following isn't more absurd, in fact opposite, alas. A much better payoff than microgravitated materials research, and further, it makes sense to start NOW
Evolve bony vertebrates to thrive in microgravity. Use that learning to genetically enhance humans
The time when we will be able to modify vertebrates to thrive in microgravity is much farther in the future than the time when we will be able to build interplanetary ships with artificial gravity generated by rotation.
The former requires some scientific breakthroughs for which it is unpredictable when they will happen.
The latter is an engineering problem with very little unknowns, which is guaranteed to be solvable today if enough money are provided for it.
Until now, the additional costs for rotating ships could be avoided, as long as humans did not go farther away than the Moon.
For an expedition to Mars or even to some more distant celestial body, currently there is no known way that would avoid severe health damage for the humans, without using artificial gravity.
The experiments on the ISS have shown that for mice a gravity of at least 2/3 of that of Earth is required to completely avoid all health problems, while a gravity of at least 1/3 of that of Earth is necessary to avoid the most dangerous health problems.
It is unlikely that humans will prove to be much more resilient than mice.
Should start rightaway exactly because it's so faraway. I'm also comparing to all the materials research that are being suggested here, for which specifically microgravity enabled breakthroughs seem ... quite impossible? Including efficiency breakthroughs of the economic variety, btw.
(Yes I agree rotating spaceships are cool/feasible, but what if you are dead set on finding "benefits" of microgravity?)
And out there, you have free radiation for that accelerated evolution..
FWIW, given how many places in the U.S. are passing datacenter bans, I'd expect space-based datacenters to make a lot more sense over the coming years just because it'll be illegal to build them anywhere else.
> FWIW, given how many places in the U.S. are passing datacenter bans
If you have the technical chops to set up a data center in space — with no connections to the electrical grid or municipal water, you can use your technology to build your data center with the same specs right here on earth in 90% of places that you think are issuing "bans". You'll also get much better cooling for free via convection.
A remote town with a population of 43 will be happy for a data center to employ 2 locals, but data center operators aren't doing that today because they want tax breaks tiny towns can't give, infrastructure tiny towns don't have, nevermind a well-armed police force to deter would-be GPU thieves. Space is a red herring.
If all the energy for a space appliance comes from the sun, in steady state they only have to radiate away the same amount that hits them. All long-lived spacecraft manage it.
Whether they can be worth the money it cost to put them in orbit is another story.
Apples to oranges, long-lived satellites have modest power needs. Doing a back-of-the napkin math on required size of solar array and radiative elements for a single-rack's worth of energy is a sobering exercise for those who are a overly exuberant on the topic. The all-in power estimate for a single GB300 chip is 2.1kW
Well, it can’t use more than it can get from the sun that hits it. So it can’t need to radiate more than that away. So it’s radiator size needs are in proportion to its solar panel size needs, and no worse than that.
Edit: ISS is about 90KW steady state, and the collector to radiator area ratio is about 5:1. Dunno about the mass ratio.
My point is not that space data centers are viable or sensible. Only that the need for cooling is limited. If a terrestrial datacenter was powered only by its rooftop solar panels, cooling it would be trivial. Space is harder, but there just isn’t that much heat to dump.
A simple rock in orbit radiates exactly as much heat as hits it from the sun, on average.
There is the additional problem that the GPUs are not in the panels, so to radiate the heat you must first transport it from the GPUs, then distribute it uniformly over the entire surface of the radiators, otherwise some parts will overheat.
Without gravity, it is likely that this can be done only by pumping continuously a lot of liquid, which will increase the power consumption and it will reduce reliability.
Solar panels that have heat radiators on their backside will have a higher temperature than simple solar panels, where half of the absorbed solar energy is converted into electrical energy and taken away. The efficiency of solar panels decreases with temperature, so hotter solar panels will have to be made bigger for the same electrical energy output.
Maintenance would be too expensive, so a space datacenter would have to be overprovisioned, e.g. with a double number of GPUs, to keep the average of the number of still working GPUs at the desired level over the lifetime of the datacenter. This will also increase the power and cooling requirements in the early part of a life cycle, and both the power generation and the cooling will have to be dimensioned for the maximum values, not for the average values.
It is certainly possible to design a datacenter that will work in space, but there is a very large number of difficulties that will increase the cost both in comparison with terrestrial datacenters and in comparison with existing satellites.
Until a detailed design is done by someone, it is not possible to know exactly how many times more expensive will be a space datacenter, but my opinion, as an engineer with experience in industrial design, is that the cost will be too high to make it worthwhile.
> Well, it can’t use more than it can get from the sun that hits it. So it can’t need to radiate more than that away
You are correct that the first law of thermodynamics dictates the energy, but anyone who has parked a car in the sun will tell you, the temperature where the absorption/dissipation equilibrium is achieved is often incompatible with the survival of the cargo.
edit to your edit:
> Edit: ISS is about 90KW steady state, and the collector to radiator area ratio is about 5:1. Dunno about the mass ratio.
Cool; that's about half the wattage of one modern full-height Nvidia AI rack (172kW) - you need two ISSes to service just 1 rack; extrapolate that to a data center's worth of racks and see if the math is mathing. The ISS is about the size of a(n American) football field.
It's this huge misconception that space is super cold. A better mind model is that space doesn't have much of a temperature at all just cause there's nothing there. Vacuum doesn't have a temperature.
You won't immediately freeze if you enter space without a suit. You'll die almost immediately, but it will be because your blood will begin to boil because of the lack of pressure kinda like an extreme form of divers sickness - it's just not the cold that'll get you first.
FYI; that's not how it works, you and the rock you mentioned in an earlier comment cannot have the same temperature of -18C. This is due to differences in material, and geometry to a lesser extent.
Even if you were rock-shaped, the rates of energy absorption and radiation is what determines your remains' temperature, this ratio differs for different materials, and thus difference fiilnal temperatures.
> A remote town with a population of 43 will be happy for a data center to employ 2 locals, but data center operators aren't doing that today
This isn’t true, many of these DCs are in very very rural areas and get pushback from people not even living there. Governors get pressure from people hundreds of miles away of the site and then shut it down or impose moratoriums. It’s FUD on social media trying to slow AI advancement that is the root of all of it. The genie is out of the bottle, it’s like blacksmiths trying to slow industrialization. It’s already happened.
It's not a technical problem. It's a people problem. Every data center project over the last year has experienced some form of pushback no matter where they're built
By definition, a data center in space is remote, self-reliant on electrical power and doesn't use potable water. These features require technical solutions before they become practical, and once one has cracked those challenges, they have disarmed all the push-back arguments people have raised against data centers. It's telling that the data centers want to build-out near population centers, i.e. where someone else has paid for fiber, grid and water infrastructure; it's a good old fashioned raid of the commons. This is why no-one is pushing for building data centers in locales with 0.2 people/sq mile with no one to subsidize the costs.
Not really. In sun synchronous orbit you can use solar power without battery backup. You can't do that on Earth because of night time.
Remote towns with populations of 43 are exactly the sorts of places that are pushing back on having datacenters in their areas.
And space is the ultimate physical protection. In reality a bigger issue than GPU thefts are protests or leftist groups trying to firebomb you. See the problems the Tesla factory in Germany has had with leftist violence, like setting its electricity pylons on fire (because electric cars "consume natural resources and are not sustainable", lol). The left has become very anti-AI and so the risk of attacks on facilities, especially if built outside the USA, is quite high which in turn means you have to overbuild physical security like high fences.
The number of slots in the sun synchronous orbits is limited. More slots can be accommodated if the satellites can maneuver to avoid collisions.
Moreover, a datacenter in a sun synchronous orbit must be able to maneuver anyway, otherwise without adjusting the orbit it will enter in the shadow of the Earth after a month or two, due to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
If the datacenter must make periodic adjustments of the orbit, it will need to carry a lot of fuel, especially because a datacenter will be much heavier than a typical satellite, so much more fuel will be needed for orbit changes.
Thus it is not certain that a sun synchronous orbit is the best choice. It is possible that the extra fuel required for it may make this choice worse than using another orbit where the datacenter will not have power for half of the time.
I think the data centers would get a lot less push back if they were built using new solar and/or wind power in places that have abundant water, and maybe further away from residential areas. Yes that is more expensive than what they are doing now, but it is still almost certainly cheaper than building in space. Heck, putting data centers in the ocean is probably cheaper than space.
It’s still cheaper to build in a completely undeveloped desert with no neighbors and costly utility hookups than space. By orders of magnitude. That gap will never be materially close.
Space datacenters are just SDI2, a convenient bullshit to be able to funnel more money to campaign donors.
As long as there’s space on earth, Space Datacenters can never be economical. It’s rally that simple.
An individual satellite would not be consuming megawatts.
The radiators are not a big deal. The solar panels required are much bigger. You can just run the electronics really hot to improve the efficiency of the radiation. Nobody is going to get close to those chips so the usual safety requirements don't apply.
You don't service it. Over time the chips degrade and become less useful. Eventually you deorbit it and it burns up. It's a sealed unit, not meant to be replaced.
> You can just run the electronics really hot to improve the efficiency of the radiation. Nobody is going to get close to those chips so the usual safety requirements don't apply.
The chip temperature isn’t limited by safety issues (unless self destruction of the chip counts as safety to you). Certainly not to protect the people around it.
You think people wouldn't object to building a datacenter in undeveloped (or pristine as it would be called) desert? I honestly think they'll object to building them in space.
I don't support data center bans but even if that happens in the US I'm pretty sure some other countries will welcome them. For AI inference workloads the network latency doesn't matter.
I don't think the entire nation would ban data centers. The problem is that tech companies are building them on cheap land. Which usually means land that has little water and is better used for food or oxygen or things other than a massive one-story building.
Data centers in brownfields and urban environments see near-zero resistance. There are data centers in skyscrapers in the center of most major U.S. cities, and nobody cares.
Stop plowing down the forests, slurping up the aquifers, and digging up the prairies, and people will stop complaining.
Data centers in urban areas definitely see massive resistance. Seattle straight up banned any new data centers with a capacity over 20 MW, even though water is a non-issue, and we have tons of industrial land in the south of the city.
The problem is data centers produce absolutely colossal amounts of noise that can be heard and felt for miles. Even if water is a non-issue, the noise isn’t.
Neither is a problem in the sense that both noise and water consumption can be mitigated with some minor (relative to the total cost of a project) capital investments. If these were rational objections, states and municipalities could simply issue noise codes and water access caps, then let the companies figure out how to work within the lines. Instead, we’re left with blanket bans
No, it’s not the noise it’s the power consumption. Your locale becomes a power consumption hog so your off-peak hours and your peak hours become very similarly priced. Noise can be dampened, the power bill cannot.
This is actually a meme/fake videos on the internet, where they add random noise over their videos while recording a datacenter to make it seem really loud.
Realistically you can only hear it if you're within 30-50 feet of the data center, unless there's a separate diesel/natural gas generator.
People are complaining because they are building data centers near people, and data centers produce prodigious amounts of noise pollution. They should be building them far away from civilization, where the low frequency noise has plenty of distance to attenuate.
People are complaining because of propaganda online. My middle school age children think data centers are evil and we don't have any around us nor have they ever seen one.
Feels like it would be cheaper and easier to put a data center on a platform/ship in international water than in space.
Also pretty sure there will always be empty land somewhere on earth where no one cares. It will always be easier to build and maintain even in a desert than in space.
People are radically overestimating the cost of space post-Starship. The sea is a terrible place to put inferencing chips!
1. Everything rusts.
2. There is no permanent power source, unlike in sun synchronous orbit where you have 24/7 daylight.
3. The US has no ship building industry of any size.
4. Storms can destroy things.
There is no empty space on Earth unclaimed by governments. Given the results of the American midterms essentially all land is currently controlled by left wing governments, and the left is very anti-AI. Only China really wants to build AI at scale but they don't have enough chips yet. That might change, but even then not many companies want to upload all their IP to China.
So you can forget building more or less any large industrial projects on Earth for the foreseeable future. It may not matter. There appears to be a GPU glut starting anyway, so who knows if anyone will even need new datacenters for a while?
There's an interesting company, Panthalassa [1], thats working on harnessing open ocean wave energy to generate electicity, and run inference with it. [2]
This is a ridiculous take. The reason that "people" are floating the idea of placing datacenter in space - despite the MASSIVE downsides present (cooling, maintenence, latency, availability, cost, etc.) is because you can't firebomb a datacenter thats in space as easily as you can one thats in your suburb. The regulatory friction behind a datacenter buildout is a low concern, and something that is "affordable" for hyperscalers and billionaires. Buying someones farm and building a private powerplant is small potatoes. But being terrestrial, angry people can show up and destroy it if they feel so inclined. It's much, much harder for angry plebs to launch something into orbit and then hit a moving target.
Just notice that your random $enemy_country can indeed destroy a datacenter in space much more easily than they can destroy one in suburb of one of your cities.
That tells a lot about who decision makers are optimizing against.
The world is a very, very large place and I have a hard time imagining space would be an easier place to do anything. Nobody wants to live near petrochemical factories or aluminum smelters, either, but we’ve got lots of petrochemicals and aluminum. SV execs shredded any chance of cheap public cooperation by presenting like cartoonishly evil, patronizing, greedy big corporate bad guys from some shitty legal dramedy. They need to learn from their mistakes, develop some humility, and approach people with a serious financial proposition, like the oil industry in Alaska. That’s not as cheap as it could have been if they didn’t start out acting like scaled-up shady local real estate developers trying to build condos on protected wetlands, but it will absolutely be a lot cheaper than space.
Yeah. Nowhere did I say they were actually good, but they understand that money talks and bullshit walks when they’re trying to do something unpopular. Assuming ham fisted subterfuge and bullying is sufficient is a symptom of the ludicrous amounts of hubris in this industry’s leadership.
- America. Much harder since the elections. Not appealing.
- Europe. Doesn't have enough electricity with anti-AI, anti-big tech and high tax governments. Not appealing.
- Latin America. Expensive, likely to have your assets appropriated by socialists. Not appealing.
- Africa. No.
- Middle East. Your GPU cluster might get blown up. No.
- China. To some extent yes. Plenty of power and space, pro-AI government, but many companies don't want to send their IP to a country famous for copying it and they're still under GPU sanctions.
- Japan, Korea, etc. Maybe. They're not really famous for big datacenters though.
- Australia, Canada. Possible, but you're exposed to Europe-style political risks.
There just aren't many places on Earth where it's realistic to build and operate AI datacenters once political issues and grid constraints are taken into account.
Come on… this is exponentially too reductive to be a serious counterpoint. Also, 0% of the problems you cited are likely to be less expensive than building in space. And do you imagine being in space would make your data centers more or less defensible against the likes of Russia?
Yeah? By "datacenter" are we talking about the kind of gigawatt scale facilities dedicated to AI they're casually tossing around in the USA? I haven't heard of any such projects that actually got off the ground. Stargate UK was paused. If so where do they get their natural gas from.
> SV execs shredded any chance of cheap public cooperation by presenting like cartoonishly evil, patronizing, greedy big corporate bad guys from some shitty legal dramedy.
Did they though? From what I’ve read the places where they build get lots of money and infrastructure (not only DC-related) from them.
Lots of places don’t. Some spin yarns describing job creation and huge economic opportunities, which are largely bullshit, in exchange for large tax exemptions. In Alaska, the people get money, directly, not just some institutions. The oil and gas industries are notoriously uncaring about the people near their operations, but they recognized what needed to be done to smoothly operate in Alaska, and they just did it. There’s a lot of fantastic reasons to dislike the oil and gas industries, but that’l is what mature big business looks like.
It’s also very much about GPU-focused data centers. They’ve been installing essentially illegal (with shaky loopholes) gas-powered turbines on site with no emissions control to speak of, in populated areas. They’ve made local governments sign NDAs, under false promises of huge economic development and job creation, preventing them from telling residents that the big real estate project in town was a giant data center. Cartoonish.
Oh, they do that too, but it's cartoonishly evil to go in and ask for property tax abatements and for the local ratepayers to support your infrastructure when you have valuations in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars.
Oh yes, there is lots of money going to the places near me getting DCs. Specifically to the politicians who conveniently happen to own the land the DCs are built on or construction companies that are building them.
It's hard for the citizens who live nearby to learn about all of that when the idiotic SV execs forced their civic leadership to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. Somehow, they just recently learned that was a bad idea.
> If they're so smart, why didn't they see this data center backlash coming and plan for it accordingly?
Because the backlash isn't actually about the data centers, it's about AI. 80% of the complaints about data centers are nonsense and the remaining 20% only apply to the ones where they're doing something that isn't actually required, like burning fossil fuels to power them.
Which you can tell because the demands look like "stop building data centers" rather than "to build one you have to add 110% as many watt hours in new non-fossil fuel generation to the grid as you use".
They did see it coming. Thus all the secrecy, and why datacenters in space have seen so much attention the past few years.
Maybe they didn't predict the magnitude and vitriol of the backlash, but NIMBY resistance to all infrastructure projects has only been growing over the years. For example, wrt solar and wind power. It was obvious data centers were going to see at least as much resistance because you need to build the data centers and more power generation.
Do data centers in space make less sense than build outs in more accommodating countries? Not necessarily. It's not an either/or thing, and it all depends on the concrete bottom line numbers. In space you don't have to worry about managing political winds at all; you control everything. More accomodating countries tend to be poorer with worse infrastructure, so there are more unknown risks. And you don't need to develop or manage a foreign workforce, which is why 100% of Silicon Valley jobs didn't instantly jump to India or Poland.
I don't understand how data centres in space make any sense at all given the heat constraints. Has there been some plausible breakthrough in heat dissipation technology recently?
Radiative cooling isn't as big of an impediment as people think. It's part of the reason why a desert that's 120F+ during the day gets so cold so fast unless there's cloud cover to radiate back.[1] IIUC correctly, the theoretical maximum is over 400 watts per square meter, and existing tech can achieve 80-90+% of that. It's an engineering challenge, but no more than creating reusable rockets. The real challenge is building a reliable convective system from the heat source to the radiating mechanism(s), and just the general problems of building a compact package for delivery that then unpacks and orients itself once in orbit. No new science is required, and you can pencil things out today the same way Musk did when penciling out the economics of building a reusable rocket.
Another way to think about it is whether orbiting data centers can be solar powered. Few people seem to think they can't. The amount of area you need to dissipate the incoming solar energy is approximately similar to what you need to capture it, so if you can do the later you can do the former.
Is it actually financially viable at all? And if so what fraction of data center build-out is sustainable at the increased marginal costs? I dunno. I agree there's probably some irrational exuberance involved in analyses. But don't underestimate the time value of money, marginal cost structures, and related financing and RoI dynamics.
[1] Convection effects are also involved, but that cuts both ways as the atmosphere is also radiating back at you, which is much less of a problem in space. A significant fraction of the net cooling is pure radiative.
No, but every day, armchair business analysts and people high on AI optimism expand the infinite frontier of blind faith and unfounded optimism in the future value of LLM infrastructure.
I think they couldn’t see it because they’re steeped in the cult of AI, and far too arrogant, maniacal, et al to read the room. I don’t think you have to be dumb to fail to acknowledge reality.
I agree there is a profound lack of wisdom in tech, and they seem to be proud of it… like they believe they’ve discovered a workaround.
Well, I for one think self-awareness is a much higher order of intelligence than clever manipulation of symbols or the external world, so I still find it stupid. Finding a workaround for the inability to have ironic self-distance is kind of the most pointless, dumbest activity I can even think of.
> I agree there is a profound lack of wisdom in tech, and they seem to be proud of it… like they believe they’ve discovered a workaround.
Even in discussions here I'm constantly put off by comments that are this hand-rubbing talking to oneself about how the "AI haters" are all stupid, or how they can be forced to use or consume things they don't want against their will. It kind of baits all the sociopaths out into the open, because if their deus ex machina is about to show up, why bother with the tedious masking?
> I don’t think you have to be dumb to fail to acknowledge reality.
No, but you can be emotionally stunted to force you to be dumb. Call it narcissism or whatever, but no sense of others or self = constant need to rewrite the world around you, and fearing logic and honesty like a vampire would fear sunlight. A dumb person can learn, people who are forced to act dumb cannot. They are still, effectively, very dumb. They will go to their graves dumber than an illiterate or mentally handicapped person would have. Not knowing a bunch of things that are true is meh... but thinking you know a trillion things that are all just the scab on a wound that happened in childhood, none of them true, and one dumber than the other, now that is astonishingly dumb.
The majority of data center bans on the ballot passed. I undertsand theres a little schadenfruede in calling them idiotic, but the outcome doesnt realy scream competence. These execs arent beating the allegations if not being able to pass a ninth grade civics class
Someone ought to tell the voters who supported all the anti data center propositions and politicians that they're wrong and just imagining it not being handled well.
In seriousness this is an example of the previous point. Rather than engaging with the issue the tech/DC industry seems to think they can wordplay their way out of it by quibbling about irrelevant technical details and people are primed to get extremely angry at grinfucking type behaviour nowadays.
Nah, they'll just bite the bullet and build the data centers in remote Canada or Finland or somewhere else no one's complaining (ignore Greta as per usual) and tap into the local hydropower resources. Might take a tad longer and cost slightly more money than in [quasi-lawless US state], but other than that, no problem. Aluminium smelters (basically a solid form of electricity export) in Quebec and Siberia have been doing that for decades already (like 20GW private-ish hydropower).
Finland only has limited hydro capacity that is needed for load-following due to the prevalence of wind power. It makes no sense to waste it for baseload generation. Additionally, the last major hydro power plant was built in 1976. All subsequent attempts have been massively controversial.
A recent law also gave data centers the last priority for grid access. The idea was to prioritize productive industry over less productive uses of electricity. Even something with as little added value as steel production tends to employ ~10 people (directly or as subcontractors) and produce ~€10 million/year of exports for every MW of average power consumption.
You could probably see some of those bans reversed. You just need to have companies go into communities and act like they're a multi-trillion-dollar company instead of begging for tax abatements and shoving off the cost of the infrastructure on the people who feel like they might lose their jobs from AI.
they are not gonna law itself back to stone age by making data centers illegal, it's just too much money, security implications to chain yourself up just because a few politicians wants a few votes and "enviromentalists" demands it. Don't forget there are people that are ok with data centers.
I don't really understand this perspective. The margins for data centers are such that they could pay massive subsidies to state and local governments and put them in the middle of nowhere with BTM power, and almost all that opposition would evaporate overnight. And you'd still come out way ahead of space-based DCs. They're not doing this yet because they don't have to.
Low Earth Orbit isn't suitable for unpressurized/exposed semiconductor manufacturing for two main reasons:
1) it's not a true vacuum
2) worse, the atmosphere at that altitude is mostly atomic oxygen (O), which is extremely reactive and oxidizes everything
Is it dumb and impractical when NIMBYs and folks directly opposed to your political agenda want to prevent any and all terrestrial datacenter development?
On Earth we have optimized for: single core speed, multi-core speed, performance/energy, low demand (for mobile), and performance/energy, high demand (data centers).
A new dimension to optimize for, that space is going to incentivize, is highest stable operating temperature.
Higher temperature operation sheds heat energy via radiation much faster.
Some post-silicon substrate research is aimed at wafers that can operate at extremely high temperatures.
I imagine given how often materials research pulls a rabbit out of a hat, there is a lot of head room for temperature.
> Higher temperature operation sheds heat energy via radiation much faster.
Isn't this what heat pumps are for? Then you can run the radiators at higher temperatures without needing to run the electronics at those temperatures.
This is a kind of nasty tradeoff in space. You can dissipate entropy per unit time from the same radiating area if you use a heat pump, but the heat pump itself uses power even if it’s perfect and operates at the Carnot limit, so you need a larger solar array.
There’s probably an optimum that involves a heat pump, but I don’t think it’s vastly better than not using a heat pump, and it’s certainly heavier and more complex.
Power and heat radiation are the solved problems at scale in LEO. 50+% of solar energy is attenuated by the atmosphere, so panels can be huge and thin and flimsy in zero-G and get twice as much power as on the ground. Space-Based solar power plants are being actively explored by the US, UK, Chna, and Japan. The real hitch is how to send the power to the ground via microwave without also needing a receiver 20+ km across that lightly crisps birds flying above it.
If the thing that needs the power is in orbit already, all you're doing is sending data, something Starlink already has figured out.
The impractical part is shielding, maintenance, and a modular design that can be remotely maintained from the ground. When you're already running a high-cadence launch schedule, those costs and issues narrow, and you can swap out a component within days.
Again, it makes sense on paper. It might not be more practical than a data center on the ground, but there would be trade-offs.
One thing that I haven’t seen represented as a risk in space based datacenters is the satellite reentry debris pollution. We are essentially allowing a constant rain of heavy metals, silicon, arsenic, and other nasty things if this idea goes to scale.
Even if all the technical issues can be worked out, which I doubt, the incentives are there to pump as many as possible up there. I don’t think we want to live with that raining down on us all.
Heat radiation is not solved at all due to (almost) lack of atmosphere. Look at ISS, enormous panels to radiate the heat away for an energy budget of only 170kW.
So there are a few breakthrough therapeutics that rely on samples crystallized in microgravity. One of them is Keytruda or Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inihibitor used as a neo-adjuvant in cancer therapy.
Historically, there was an issue with dosing pembrolizumab, as the manufacturing process was creating large uneven crystals that required physicians to process at the clinic to ensure proper dosing, but in microgravity? The crystallization is just gorgeous. absolutely beautiful
This is more of a scientist said at a conference to another scientist kind of story, but apparently, they got some seed crystals from the ISS that are now used on Earth.
You can do a lot more than make just seed crystals. It turns out that cells in our body are inside of a 3D environment with forces / tension acting in all directions. When you smoosh these in a lab (very literally) and try to observe how a drug behaves in a model cell / model organ, then it doesn't have the same physical constraints acting on it. BUT in 0g that's different. In 0g, cells behave slightly more similarly to how they behave in vivo and that could be a huge difference maker for drug discovery.
One breakthrough drug alone is worth more to humanity than what the ISS has cost across its lifespan.
Quite a bit of money have been raised on the premise that certain things can be easier to make in space than on earth due to gravity, which creates sedimentation
Semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, solar cell crystals, and artificial organs are on the short list. The International space station actually has done some experiments on this premise with promising results
One of the most interesting things about SpaceX, they just keep adding to their stack of internal capabilities. And with those capabilities, more and more things become doable for them that most can't do.
China seems to be catching up though. They will probably have at least one fully reusable rocket in 2-3 years.
The net and hook approach they've showcased so far seem to save 1-2 extra tons of dead weight (fuel needed for landing), so that would also give the Chinese an economic advantage.
What makes you think that they'll get upper stage reuse that quickly? From what I can tell, they're still working to replicate the Falcon 9. Their Starship competitor (Long March 9) isn't expected to go to first flight until 2033, and presumably it'll take a bit to get to full reuse.
Material science and manufacturing are two that have always seemed interesting to me, particularly monocrystalline stuff like semiconductors, optics, and metallurgy.
Don't think Varda (or anyone else) has ever sold any space produced drug? It's all very much experimental small scale. Realistically, something has to be super potent and super expensive to even consider it (that rules out anything mainstream).
Not that anything is really produced in space either, more like passively transformed into some crystal form from a liquid state or whatever. Environmental assistance more than anything else.
There's a lot of fundamental science to be done in space; some forms of crystal are much easier to grow, chemical reactions and biological interactions etc. etc. For reference, it wasn't long ago NASA was trying to figure out if spiders could form webs in space.
"When gravity is involved, the golden orb spiders will happily build their asymmetrical webs, and sit facing downwards waiting for prey. In space, their webs were more symmetrical, however when there was light, the spiders used it as a reference point and built their webs as if the light was the opposite to 'downwards'."
The primary one I've been sold on is types of crystal growth is just better up there. But due to the excess expense, the only thing that fits the bill is experimental edge case pharmaceuticals that have massive price tags that insurance mostly covers.
If the automation improves far beyond what we currently have available, maybe this means microchip manufacturing in the future, but we aren't at all there yet from the fab side of the equation.
This is an old idea, dating back to at least the 1940s. Many experiments have already been done in microgravity environments.
In the 1960s, they used sounding rockets to do experiments on how molten metals solidify in microgravity, with manufacturing applications in mind.
In the 1970s, they ran experiments, also on sounding rockets, on melting and solidifying materials without letting them touch a container: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19840059952
More recently, many microgravity experiments have been performed on the International Space Station. Experiments were done on protein crystal growth aboard the ISS in 2000, just a couple of years after it was launched. (I think it took some time to get the experimental facilities up and running.)
Here’s an assortment of links on the subject, starting with a good overview:
I remember mention of hollow core fiber optic strands being an ideal thing to produce in zero-G. Have the issues with terrestrial production been mostly solved?
The Starfall capsule has enough deltaV to deorbit, a heat shield, and parachutes.
So you tell them where to deliver it (anywhere on the planet that its orbit goes over..), they tell you when it will be arriving, and it reenters and lands there.
Article about a recent test (launched on a Falcon 9):
Presumably the same way we have always recovered payloads from space. Heat-shield + parachute. I'm assuming there would be some capability to do a retrograde maneuver so that the re-entey can be done when and where desired, rather than leaving it to the whims of pure drag.
You're not wrong! It looks that way because it's a reentry vehicle. You put this thing in a low orbit which decays over the course of a few weeks until it eventually falls from space, then you go find it.
They have thrusters and do controlled re-entry, at a location of their choosing.
The uppermost parts of the atmosphere are very dynamic, with changes in solar activity causing them to contract and expand on a scale of hours. And this is very significant for the amount of drag felt by re-entering objects. Because of this, if you slowly deorbit something naturally through drag, you are not going to be able to pick the destination, or even know where it ends up until very close to it falling down. So instead you intentionally lower the perigee so that it deorbits in a controlled manner.
I trust government agencies who are doing these things for science and research to do it safely, private companies owned by conmen who are probably operating under presidential pardons, not really.
It did mention medications. Perhaps pharmaceutical companies will charge 20% more for medications that are produced in space vs those produced on Earth?
It would be nice if SpaceX published GNSS pseudodistance/carrier phase from all Starlink satellites. It would give excellent realtime tomographic information about the ionosphere...
Here's the thing I might not love Elon or everything he does and there are plenty of things to disagree with him about and I won't comment on him as a person
But I remember watching live when they launched a Tesla into Orbit, was it dumb, was it pointless and potentially wasteful? Sure, but that moment seeing humanity once again reach out to the stars I could feel it deep in my bones the space race was starting again.
Sure have lots of problems down here but the eternally yearning of humanity to extend out our hands to grasp the cosmos, to touch heaven is a pursuit I think highly worthwhile.
There's that one photo with a dummy driver in a red tesla and in the background you can see the earth. I think it's one of the best photos ever, part of it is the absurdity of the fact that it exists at all.
> Here's the thing I might not love Elon or everything he does and there are plenty of things to disagree with him about and I won't comment on him as a person.... humanity once again reach out to the stars I could feel it deep in my bones the space race was starting again.
No need to caveat / apologize for things you admire.
Elon turning the concept of space into the vanity project of a mentally unstable man child kinda sucks though. Makes it hard to give a shit knowing he is personally profitting from it.
You can hate this man but he is doing things others don't even dream about. He almost makes them look easy.
Looks cool and if they could make chips in space, it will be beyond crazy. It will be over time and way over budget but in the end will be insanely profitable.
He essentially put a price on this, and now you can just factor this into manufacturing and if something can be made there and numbers make sense, it will be made there.
Why is it called microgravity and not freefall? Cus afaik you are experiencing almost the same force of gravity as you would on the surface, you are just constantly falling.
Among other reasons, because it's not specific enough. Skydiving is also free-falling yet it's not at all the same conditions you experience on the ISS. And it would be even more confusing to describe an object on a trans-planetary injection or a free trajectory between stars as "freefalling", since you've removed the singular frame of reference you need to "fall" toward.
Space is 12% of their overall revenue for Q3 2026 down from 20% in 2025 due to AI outpacing connectivity and space (connectivity is also more valuable than space). Investing in SpaceX is investing in an AI and ISP company that has a slightly profitable space R&D lab.
We do education outreach to K-16 learning institutions around the world. There are many things that can be studied in the near absence of gravity. Fluids are a huge area of research (surface tension, sedimentation, etc). We germinate seeds and look for genetic changes, people study brain organoids, artificial retinas, crystals, et al
* (definitely feel free to fill in the seventy volumes of dialogue I left out of this comment in the replies, though)
> * (definitely feel free to fill in the seventy volumes of dialogue I left out of this comment in the replies,
Ok, I will. You're alluding to two separate problems which are both pet peeves of mine. The less controversial one is that product marketing/communication is becoming all marketing and little communication. Why do landing pages, press releases and ads created by teams of highly paid professionals fail to clearly convey what something actually is (and is not) and why I should care? (although this case is an exception since the page does make what it is and does pretty clear.)
The second problem is it's getting damn near impossible to discuss any aspect of a high profile company, product or even technology without the politics, personalities, or social impacts related to it swallowing everything. At minimum it's now normal, if not expected, to preface any discussion by signaling your position on {related controversy} and it's accepted for people to intentionally divert the discussion off-topic. Before the last decade, normal people would think always doing that was weird. And to be clear, I think Musk's mis-adventures into politics and social media are bizarre and wrong. Yet I can discuss products and technologies related to his companies without bringing that up.
Here's an example avoiding current 'triggers': in a discussion on foreign policy in the 80s or 90, you could observe ex-president Richard Nixon's China foreign policy was bold and successful - some might agree and others disagree - but no one would feel the urgent need to signal their views on Watergate or the fact Nixon was universally considered by far the worst U.S. president ever (as well as a morally reprehensible toxic personality). Enlightened people could handle discussing different aspects of things without fearing that NOT mentioning the 'obviously problematic' adjacent aspect might somehow be taken as personally endorsing it.
My granddad was in the military in WWII and would always mention how strange it felt to have a Toyota now and that it and VW were very frowned on by people in the war for a long time. Probably same would be felt about Tesla the nazi salute and otherwise support even back in the 80s.
I read that SpaceX's engines deliver a bit more thrust at a bit less mass than NASA engines. But the kicker was SpaceX's were 1/200th the cost. From the cost angle it's very interesting observing space activities going from mostly public to mostly private.
But if that would be a real market case, then Elon's solution is actually the optimal one, and very similar to the possible approach which more knowledgeable space analysts said for years. Basically it is super pointless for humans now to have big manned space stations for any economical purposes. We should build them of course, but they will be a net loss for centuries. If any space research or space manufacturing would be required by the market, then one-off space missions are the only rational way to do it cheaply. Something like the platform showcased here, or something bigger, like a converted Dragon/Cygnus/etc. ship into a mini lab. Commercial Space Stations is a bunk program, specifically in the word "Commercial".
Commercial manufacturing in space can be economically viable, as long as most of the components do not come from Earth.
If you build titanium stations in space, but all your titanium come from the moon, the price structure is wildly different. The price of shipping material is the price of building a railgun on the moon.
Absolutely not cheap,but the operating cost afterward is very low. And since the moon is geolocked, you can target any lagrange point with very good precision.
There will still be a need for components coming from earth, but the moon should be able to send all the material for structural parts (titanium), and also solar panels.
This would be very unfortunate. Luckily, we only need to build the rail gun (and the mining/refining facilities) once. After that, the cost is marginal.
leave it in space then; massive star ships shouldnt need to come down to planets anyway
LOL.
Hydrolysis can be used to make Hydrogen, so as long you have enough ice. You fill it up with fuel needed to go up again, and send in down with the gravity well with the payload.
The following isn't more absurd, in fact opposite, alas. A much better payoff than microgravitated materials research, and further, it makes sense to start NOW
The former requires some scientific breakthroughs for which it is unpredictable when they will happen.
The latter is an engineering problem with very little unknowns, which is guaranteed to be solvable today if enough money are provided for it.
Until now, the additional costs for rotating ships could be avoided, as long as humans did not go farther away than the Moon.
For an expedition to Mars or even to some more distant celestial body, currently there is no known way that would avoid severe health damage for the humans, without using artificial gravity.
The experiments on the ISS have shown that for mice a gravity of at least 2/3 of that of Earth is required to completely avoid all health problems, while a gravity of at least 1/3 of that of Earth is necessary to avoid the most dangerous health problems.
It is unlikely that humans will prove to be much more resilient than mice.
(Yes I agree rotating spaceships are cool/feasible, but what if you are dead set on finding "benefits" of microgravity?)
And out there, you have free radiation for that accelerated evolution..
If you have the technical chops to set up a data center in space — with no connections to the electrical grid or municipal water, you can use your technology to build your data center with the same specs right here on earth in 90% of places that you think are issuing "bans". You'll also get much better cooling for free via convection.
A remote town with a population of 43 will be happy for a data center to employ 2 locals, but data center operators aren't doing that today because they want tax breaks tiny towns can't give, infrastructure tiny towns don't have, nevermind a well-armed police force to deter would-be GPU thieves. Space is a red herring.
Whether they can be worth the money it cost to put them in orbit is another story.
Apples to oranges, long-lived satellites have modest power needs. Doing a back-of-the napkin math on required size of solar array and radiative elements for a single-rack's worth of energy is a sobering exercise for those who are a overly exuberant on the topic. The all-in power estimate for a single GB300 chip is 2.1kW
Edit: ISS is about 90KW steady state, and the collector to radiator area ratio is about 5:1. Dunno about the mass ratio.
My point is not that space data centers are viable or sensible. Only that the need for cooling is limited. If a terrestrial datacenter was powered only by its rooftop solar panels, cooling it would be trivial. Space is harder, but there just isn’t that much heat to dump.
A simple rock in orbit radiates exactly as much heat as hits it from the sun, on average.
Without gravity, it is likely that this can be done only by pumping continuously a lot of liquid, which will increase the power consumption and it will reduce reliability.
Solar panels that have heat radiators on their backside will have a higher temperature than simple solar panels, where half of the absorbed solar energy is converted into electrical energy and taken away. The efficiency of solar panels decreases with temperature, so hotter solar panels will have to be made bigger for the same electrical energy output.
Maintenance would be too expensive, so a space datacenter would have to be overprovisioned, e.g. with a double number of GPUs, to keep the average of the number of still working GPUs at the desired level over the lifetime of the datacenter. This will also increase the power and cooling requirements in the early part of a life cycle, and both the power generation and the cooling will have to be dimensioned for the maximum values, not for the average values.
It is certainly possible to design a datacenter that will work in space, but there is a very large number of difficulties that will increase the cost both in comparison with terrestrial datacenters and in comparison with existing satellites.
Until a detailed design is done by someone, it is not possible to know exactly how many times more expensive will be a space datacenter, but my opinion, as an engineer with experience in industrial design, is that the cost will be too high to make it worthwhile.
You are correct that the first law of thermodynamics dictates the energy, but anyone who has parked a car in the sun will tell you, the temperature where the absorption/dissipation equilibrium is achieved is often incompatible with the survival of the cargo.
edit to your edit:
> Edit: ISS is about 90KW steady state, and the collector to radiator area ratio is about 5:1. Dunno about the mass ratio.
Cool; that's about half the wattage of one modern full-height Nvidia AI rack (172kW) - you need two ISSes to service just 1 rack; extrapolate that to a data center's worth of racks and see if the math is mathing. The ISS is about the size of a(n American) football field.
You won't immediately freeze if you enter space without a suit. You'll die almost immediately, but it will be because your blood will begin to boil because of the lack of pressure kinda like an extreme form of divers sickness - it's just not the cold that'll get you first.
FYI; that's not how it works, you and the rock you mentioned in an earlier comment cannot have the same temperature of -18C. This is due to differences in material, and geometry to a lesser extent.
Even if you were rock-shaped, the rates of energy absorption and radiation is what determines your remains' temperature, this ratio differs for different materials, and thus difference fiilnal temperatures.
You know space rocks where we live don’t melt because the Earth and moon don’t melt.
This isn’t true, many of these DCs are in very very rural areas and get pushback from people not even living there. Governors get pressure from people hundreds of miles away of the site and then shut it down or impose moratoriums. It’s FUD on social media trying to slow AI advancement that is the root of all of it. The genie is out of the bottle, it’s like blacksmiths trying to slow industrialization. It’s already happened.
Remote towns with populations of 43 are exactly the sorts of places that are pushing back on having datacenters in their areas.
And space is the ultimate physical protection. In reality a bigger issue than GPU thefts are protests or leftist groups trying to firebomb you. See the problems the Tesla factory in Germany has had with leftist violence, like setting its electricity pylons on fire (because electric cars "consume natural resources and are not sustainable", lol). The left has become very anti-AI and so the risk of attacks on facilities, especially if built outside the USA, is quite high which in turn means you have to overbuild physical security like high fences.
Moreover, a datacenter in a sun synchronous orbit must be able to maneuver anyway, otherwise without adjusting the orbit it will enter in the shadow of the Earth after a month or two, due to the revolution of the Earth around the Sun.
If the datacenter must make periodic adjustments of the orbit, it will need to carry a lot of fuel, especially because a datacenter will be much heavier than a typical satellite, so much more fuel will be needed for orbit changes.
Thus it is not certain that a sun synchronous orbit is the best choice. It is possible that the extra fuel required for it may make this choice worse than using another orbit where the datacenter will not have power for half of the time.
Space datacenters are just SDI2, a convenient bullshit to be able to funnel more money to campaign donors.
As long as there’s space on earth, Space Datacenters can never be economical. It’s rally that simple.
We’re not talking about launching little satellites here, we’re talking about replacing giant buildings.
The radiators are not a big deal. The solar panels required are much bigger. You can just run the electronics really hot to improve the efficiency of the radiation. Nobody is going to get close to those chips so the usual safety requirements don't apply.
You don't service it. Over time the chips degrade and become less useful. Eventually you deorbit it and it burns up. It's a sealed unit, not meant to be replaced.
The chip temperature isn’t limited by safety issues (unless self destruction of the chip counts as safety to you). Certainly not to protect the people around it.
Data centers in brownfields and urban environments see near-zero resistance. There are data centers in skyscrapers in the center of most major U.S. cities, and nobody cares.
Stop plowing down the forests, slurping up the aquifers, and digging up the prairies, and people will stop complaining.
Realistically you can only hear it if you're within 30-50 feet of the data center, unless there's a separate diesel/natural gas generator.
Put a data center next to BoAT, and nobody cares.
Not visited one in the middle of the day. Lived next to one 24/7.
Also pretty sure there will always be empty land somewhere on earth where no one cares. It will always be easier to build and maintain even in a desert than in space.
1. Everything rusts.
2. There is no permanent power source, unlike in sun synchronous orbit where you have 24/7 daylight.
3. The US has no ship building industry of any size.
4. Storms can destroy things.
There is no empty space on Earth unclaimed by governments. Given the results of the American midterms essentially all land is currently controlled by left wing governments, and the left is very anti-AI. Only China really wants to build AI at scale but they don't have enough chips yet. That might change, but even then not many companies want to upload all their IP to China.
So you can forget building more or less any large industrial projects on Earth for the foreseeable future. It may not matter. There appears to be a GPU glut starting anyway, so who knows if anyone will even need new datacenters for a while?
[1] https://panthalassa.com/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PCJRN7yGs (interview with the founder)
That tells a lot about who decision makers are optimizing against.
- America. Much harder since the elections. Not appealing.
- Europe. Doesn't have enough electricity with anti-AI, anti-big tech and high tax governments. Not appealing.
- Latin America. Expensive, likely to have your assets appropriated by socialists. Not appealing.
- Africa. No.
- Middle East. Your GPU cluster might get blown up. No.
- China. To some extent yes. Plenty of power and space, pro-AI government, but many companies don't want to send their IP to a country famous for copying it and they're still under GPU sanctions.
- Japan, Korea, etc. Maybe. They're not really famous for big datacenters though.
- Australia, Canada. Possible, but you're exposed to Europe-style political risks.
There just aren't many places on Earth where it's realistic to build and operate AI datacenters once political issues and grid constraints are taken into account.
I had to laugh. Not sure what Kool Aid you’ve been drinking, but you should stop.
Did they though? From what I’ve read the places where they build get lots of money and infrastructure (not only DC-related) from them.
Whether it’s A16Z tweeting about how the value of all white collar wages is their market or Anthropic basically saying entry level jobs are done.
https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-says-it-is-going-to-stop-...
https://www.wpr.org/news/microsoft-to-stop-using-ndas-with-l...
https://www.npr.org/2026/08/27/nx-s1-5879528/data-center-nda...
I mostly agree with you, and obviously there is a lot of intelligence in the valley, but there doesn't seem to be much wisdom.
Because the backlash isn't actually about the data centers, it's about AI. 80% of the complaints about data centers are nonsense and the remaining 20% only apply to the ones where they're doing something that isn't actually required, like burning fossil fuels to power them.
Which you can tell because the demands look like "stop building data centers" rather than "to build one you have to add 110% as many watt hours in new non-fossil fuel generation to the grid as you use".
Maybe they didn't predict the magnitude and vitriol of the backlash, but NIMBY resistance to all infrastructure projects has only been growing over the years. For example, wrt solar and wind power. It was obvious data centers were going to see at least as much resistance because you need to build the data centers and more power generation.
Do data centers in space make less sense than build outs in more accommodating countries? Not necessarily. It's not an either/or thing, and it all depends on the concrete bottom line numbers. In space you don't have to worry about managing political winds at all; you control everything. More accomodating countries tend to be poorer with worse infrastructure, so there are more unknown risks. And you don't need to develop or manage a foreign workforce, which is why 100% of Silicon Valley jobs didn't instantly jump to India or Poland.
Another way to think about it is whether orbiting data centers can be solar powered. Few people seem to think they can't. The amount of area you need to dissipate the incoming solar energy is approximately similar to what you need to capture it, so if you can do the later you can do the former.
Is it actually financially viable at all? And if so what fraction of data center build-out is sustainable at the increased marginal costs? I dunno. I agree there's probably some irrational exuberance involved in analyses. But don't underestimate the time value of money, marginal cost structures, and related financing and RoI dynamics.
[1] Convection effects are also involved, but that cuts both ways as the atmosphere is also radiating back at you, which is much less of a problem in space. A significant fraction of the net cooling is pure radiative.
I agree there is a profound lack of wisdom in tech, and they seem to be proud of it… like they believe they’ve discovered a workaround.
> I agree there is a profound lack of wisdom in tech, and they seem to be proud of it… like they believe they’ve discovered a workaround.
Even in discussions here I'm constantly put off by comments that are this hand-rubbing talking to oneself about how the "AI haters" are all stupid, or how they can be forced to use or consume things they don't want against their will. It kind of baits all the sociopaths out into the open, because if their deus ex machina is about to show up, why bother with the tedious masking?
> I don’t think you have to be dumb to fail to acknowledge reality.
No, but you can be emotionally stunted to force you to be dumb. Call it narcissism or whatever, but no sense of others or self = constant need to rewrite the world around you, and fearing logic and honesty like a vampire would fear sunlight. A dumb person can learn, people who are forced to act dumb cannot. They are still, effectively, very dumb. They will go to their graves dumber than an illiterate or mentally handicapped person would have. Not knowing a bunch of things that are true is meh... but thinking you know a trillion things that are all just the scab on a wound that happened in childhood, none of them true, and one dumber than the other, now that is astonishingly dumb.
https://www.govtech.com/question-of-the-day/how-many-anti-da...
In seriousness this is an example of the previous point. Rather than engaging with the issue the tech/DC industry seems to think they can wordplay their way out of it by quibbling about irrelevant technical details and people are primed to get extremely angry at grinfucking type behaviour nowadays.
A recent law also gave data centers the last priority for grid access. The idea was to prioritize productive industry over less productive uses of electricity. Even something with as little added value as steel production tends to employ ~10 people (directly or as subcontractors) and produce ~€10 million/year of exports for every MW of average power consumption.
a. put them a few miles outside urban centers
b. put them in space
Which is a cheaper, better option?
From Wikipedia, at 300km the atmosphere is around 80% atomic oxygen https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Msis_atmospheric_com...
A new dimension to optimize for, that space is going to incentivize, is highest stable operating temperature.
Higher temperature operation sheds heat energy via radiation much faster.
Some post-silicon substrate research is aimed at wafers that can operate at extremely high temperatures.
I imagine given how often materials research pulls a rabbit out of a hat, there is a lot of head room for temperature.
Isn't this what heat pumps are for? Then you can run the radiators at higher temperatures without needing to run the electronics at those temperatures.
There’s probably an optimum that involves a heat pump, but I don’t think it’s vastly better than not using a heat pump, and it’s certainly heavier and more complex.
Power and heat radiation are the solved problems at scale in LEO. 50+% of solar energy is attenuated by the atmosphere, so panels can be huge and thin and flimsy in zero-G and get twice as much power as on the ground. Space-Based solar power plants are being actively explored by the US, UK, Chna, and Japan. The real hitch is how to send the power to the ground via microwave without also needing a receiver 20+ km across that lightly crisps birds flying above it.
If the thing that needs the power is in orbit already, all you're doing is sending data, something Starlink already has figured out.
The impractical part is shielding, maintenance, and a modular design that can be remotely maintained from the ground. When you're already running a high-cadence launch schedule, those costs and issues narrow, and you can swap out a component within days.
Again, it makes sense on paper. It might not be more practical than a data center on the ground, but there would be trade-offs.
What’s the practical solution to heat radiation that doesn’t require running your chips at infeasible temperatures?
Even if all the technical issues can be worked out, which I doubt, the incentives are there to pump as many as possible up there. I don’t think we want to live with that raining down on us all.
Historically, there was an issue with dosing pembrolizumab, as the manufacturing process was creating large uneven crystals that required physicians to process at the clinic to ensure proper dosing, but in microgravity? The crystallization is just gorgeous. absolutely beautiful
Take a look at this image, https://issnationallab.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/merck_...
Left hand side are the crystals grown on the ground. Right hand side is 0g.
That change made it possible to turn it into a safe injectable that patients could take at home. And they were able to recreate those conditions on Earth, https://issnationallab.org/iss360/merck-lab-publishes-pembro...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6889310/
This is more of a scientist said at a conference to another scientist kind of story, but apparently, they got some seed crystals from the ISS that are now used on Earth.
https://techconnectworld.com/World2025/a.php?i=602
You can do a lot more than make just seed crystals. It turns out that cells in our body are inside of a 3D environment with forces / tension acting in all directions. When you smoosh these in a lab (very literally) and try to observe how a drug behaves in a model cell / model organ, then it doesn't have the same physical constraints acting on it. BUT in 0g that's different. In 0g, cells behave slightly more similarly to how they behave in vivo and that could be a huge difference maker for drug discovery.
One breakthrough drug alone is worth more to humanity than what the ISS has cost across its lifespan.
https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/89939/abstract-pdf/I...
Semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, solar cell crystals, and artificial organs are on the short list. The International space station actually has done some experiments on this premise with promising results
Not in a comforable position I'd say.
FWIW, the main supplier of iPod components in the era of the iPod nano was Samsung, and the main competitor for MP3 Players as well.
The big problem this time is probably that your supplier is the one with the reality-distortion field, not you...
Not that anything is really produced in space either, more like passively transformed into some crystal form from a liquid state or whatever. Environmental assistance more than anything else.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-happens-to-spiders-... (with video)
If the automation improves far beyond what we currently have available, maybe this means microchip manufacturing in the future, but we aren't at all there yet from the fab side of the equation.
In the 1960s, they used sounding rockets to do experiments on how molten metals solidify in microgravity, with manufacturing applications in mind.
In the 1970s, they ran experiments, also on sounding rockets, on melting and solidifying materials without letting them touch a container: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19840059952
More recently, many microgravity experiments have been performed on the International Space Station. Experiments were done on protein crystal growth aboard the ISS in 2000, just a couple of years after it was launched. (I think it took some time to get the experimental facilities up and running.)
Here’s an assortment of links on the subject, starting with a good overview:
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/applications-within-re...
https://issnationallab.org/research-and-science/space-resear...
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/the-benefits-of-microg...
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20200001550
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20150023126
https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/...
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/iss-research/optical-f... https://thedailypost.digital/how-microgravity-made-zblan-cou...
Will this mean that only governments and the military can afford to purchase next generation semiconductors which need ultra-pure silicon?
If you manufacture there how do you recover it?
So you tell them where to deliver it (anywhere on the planet that its orbit goes over..), they tell you when it will be arriving, and it reenters and lands there.
Article about a recent test (launched on a Falcon 9):
https://www.afrl.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4629122...
The graphic shows it reentering the atmosphere.
The uppermost parts of the atmosphere are very dynamic, with changes in solar activity causing them to contract and expand on a scale of hours. And this is very significant for the amount of drag felt by re-entering objects. Because of this, if you slowly deorbit something naturally through drag, you are not going to be able to pick the destination, or even know where it ends up until very close to it falling down. So instead you intentionally lower the perigee so that it deorbits in a controlled manner.
Thanks for the correction!
But I remember watching live when they launched a Tesla into Orbit, was it dumb, was it pointless and potentially wasteful? Sure, but that moment seeing humanity once again reach out to the stars I could feel it deep in my bones the space race was starting again.
Sure have lots of problems down here but the eternally yearning of humanity to extend out our hands to grasp the cosmos, to touch heaven is a pursuit I think highly worthwhile.
No need to caveat / apologize for things you admire.
https://goalkeepers.gatesfoundation.org/report/2025-report/#...
https://www.developmentaid.org/news-stream/post/203683/us-ai...
Looks cool and if they could make chips in space, it will be beyond crazy. It will be over time and way over budget but in the end will be insanely profitable.