I think if those building the datacenters were more upfront about what they were building and didn't hide behind NDAs the permitting process wouldn't be so fraught.
Earth will get bulldozed soon anyway to make room for that hyperspace bypass. The plans have been available in the local planning office for a while, but nobody knows about it because they're hidden in the basement and you have to go down there with a torch.
> Announced last year, Project Suncatcher is a long-term, research moonshot exploring whether space could one day host scalable machine learning infrastructure
It’s very confusing to have a project related to space called a moonshot project.
I didn't have time to watch the videos, but in the text I didn't see anything that addresses common data center tests that require manual intervention. Swapping out obsolete or failing TPUs in 5 years is one. Rewiring or replacing connections is another. "Listening" for sounds indicating an equipment failure is a third, as I saw in another article about this type of work.
Whenever I hear about this I can't help but be reminded of the Howard Hughes Glomar Explorer, where a hugely-expensive commercial project was actually part of a secret CIA initiative to recover a Soviet submarine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer
I'm not sure that's truly the case here, but it does seem like the tech Project Suncatcher is working on has at least some overlap with requirements for military SIGINT and in-orbit imagery processing.
Why would the CIA need Google's cover for any of that? The Feds have been flying spy satellites since the 1950s and there's plenty of classified satellite launches.
Because anybody near-peer to the US at this point has the capability to shoot down satellites, and anything launched on a classified satellite launch is a prime target.
While a bit tin foil hat-y, this is an interesting (conspiracy) theory, even while space datacenters aren't as impractical as some people try to make them to be.
Alphabet holds approximately 551 million shares of SpaceX (trading under the ticker SPCX), valued at roughly $94.1 billion, which represents about a 4% to 6% stake in the company.
why would they sell? because of ridiculously large the valuation is? like, I guess at SpaceX's valuation there's tremendous downside and little upside (x2 growth is unlikely when it's a third of the tech sector)
This. China's copying SpaceX's homework and the public/private system towards that is operating so efficiently, if SpaceX lets off the gas, US is going to fall behind off the next long term gold rushes like asteroid mining, and said space datacenters.
They invested $900 million[1] in 2015, and it is worth $94.1 billion today. Why sell? They also likely have restrictions on selling post-IPO, but I don't think you can trigger a "bank run" on a stock anyway; the price will just keep adjusting as you sell/buy until it gets absurd.
A bank run happens when everyone tries to withdraw all their money at the same time and the bank runs out of cash. Not really possible in the stock market where companies literally can create/destroy shares and there is a whole secondary pricing layer to it.
"A bank run happens when everyone tries to withdraw all their money at the same time and the bank runs out of cash. Not really possible in the stock market where companies literally can create/destroy shares and there is a whole secondary pricing layer to it." Sure, it's not possible for stocks to become insolvent in the same way, but if a large shareholder sells it could trigger a panic and greatly decrease the price.
How is no one in the whole thread aware that the intention behind orbital datacenters is military? You want to process outputs of large space based sensors in space itself, and reduce latency or increase goodput.
Either it's that weird "space is easier than getting land on earth"(it's not) or the same tortured arguments about heat dissipation, no one is going to run consumer scale compute with consumer scale economics in space ffs. And maintenance and cost does not matter when it comes to strategic military assets, they are a step function useful enough to warrant even a few monthly replacement.
Everyone else with strategic weapons and a space program e.g india china is launching one as well.
From who? The crack addicts in space trying to steal copper?
The actual rack part is small, even if the solar panels and radiators are big. If this truly was super dangerous, ISS wouldn't be safe. And it's never hit mission-degrading issues due to micrometeoroids.
For those questioning viability, there's a startup called Starcloud https://www.starcloud.com/ with a public whitepaper explaining a bit their hardware and economics https://www.starcloud.com/wp.
They've already had one small proof of concept launched.
Not trying to promote, I just heard about them on the ycomb podcast
Ideally you'd put it in an orbit that wouldn't shadow earth, since if it goes in front of earth in part of the orbit then it'll go behind earth (and be in shadow) for part of the orbit. They mention they'd want it in a dawn-dusk sun-synchronous orbit, which would be in sunlight all the time and would never shadow the earth.
Because launch costs and density are completely imaginary. The whole thing is predicated on launch vehicles they hope someone builds eventually. They also appear to have profoundly miscalculated their radiation shielding costs and amounts, but I'm not really motivated to calculate that correctly.
Falcon heavy has never flown SSO, but it's probably over $1500/kg, which is >50x more expensive. Even the most optimistic estimates for a future starship launch cost is at least $100/kg, so it makes no sense to use $30/kg.
The other line items are probably similarly unrealistic since they include their own launch costs as well.
They also spec 300 racks of 500kg each, which is <40% of the weight of the comparable land rack. I doubt the full weight reduction since the racks still need to survive launch force/vibration in addition to fluid/pressure enclosures that land racks don't require. I think it's likely that just about every part of this report has a similarly cooked numbers, and we can just throw the whole thing out.
They seem to not be counting the $1B of GPUs on either side, making the difference pretty small. They also think launching 200 racks of equipment into space will cost $5M.
how much area do you need to radiate away 40 MW, assuming you want to keep your GPUs at a toasty 90 celcius. Every space datacenter fan/promoter enthuses about the free solar power, but forget to mention how the heat will be dissipated.
What happens to all the precious metals that go up with these data centers? At least with a land based data center we have a vague hope of recycling the raw materials at some point in the future.
Yes, the physics are worse, and yes, the economics are worse, but data centers in space have the crucial advantage that they are out of range of the molotov-throwing arm of Joe Public (recently unemployed).
I dunno, considering how various insurgent groups manage to make some reasonably impressive rocketry, I have to believe that in a few years with AI assistance (abliterate all the things) knocking a LEO satellite out of orbit won't be that much harder than sabotaging an electrical substation.
We're talking about an exceptionally vulnerable target with a perfectly predictable path of travel here. You just have to get near it and explode with shrapnel.
Totally illegal, of course. But it will be within the reach of millions of people if they want to do it.
Back of the napkin math says a bare minimum of ~2000kg of solid fuel in three stages to “get to” GEO using a 3-stage rocket, to deliver 1kg of “something.” You’d need a gravity assist highly elliptical orbit which is a touch harder to pull off (but probably not harder than getting 2000kg of ammonium perchlorate). Plus building the actual rocket, guidance computer, etc.
Not trivial but not impossible. If you’ve got a few hundred million people with nothing better to do, I’m sure a few dozen/hundred could pull it off.
You don’t have to intercept the satellites in orbit, they fall back to earth in a few years on their own. What SpaceX et al need to defend against is attacks while they are still on the ground or seconds after launch. Next round of investment will put the factories on the moon (only then will we see calls from the general public to Blow Up the Moon)
Businesses run anywhere real money can be made. Middle east is the most volatile place. Yet, the businesses are perfectly okay building infrastructure to extract, refine and ship oil from there.
If real money can be made, there is no need of datacenters in space. Offer some country some money and they'll let you build whatever you want. The whole idea is entirely unprofitable thats why they are making up things that won't work economically. Keep giving us money indefinitely, we'll keep spending, money can be made after a few decades of spending ... trust us.
> You'd need a dictatorship where people's voices don't matter, but then there's no right of ownership either.
And there are plenty of those countries. As well as countries that aren't dictatorships. Every leader everywhere is available for sale. In democracies, usually for a small sum. Dictatorships ask for a percentage of profit.
Trump will gladly allow datacenters to be built on federal lands. Just like he allows Oil/Coal and bans Wind and Solar. The only reason there is new story of Space Datacenters is because even if they are given everything by the Govt, it simply won't work.
The same argument holds for AI DCs. If you can build profitable AI datacenters in space, why can't you build profitable AI datacenters on Earth? The only reason is you can't build profitable AI datacenters on earth. Just give us a few more trillions and wait a decade or two, we promise ...
Why stop somewhere in between? You can go straight to the Sun and directly tap into near infinite source of energy. No need of solar panels, direct access to thermonuclear energy, too cheap to meter. The economics already works out, zero capex, zero opex for the next ~4 billion years. Just needs a few small problems to be worked out, like a pipe to transfer energy.
This is what AI was fucking promoted as being for! The utopia where machines do all our work and we receive universal basic income to enjoy our freedoms.
Taking away work was exactly the premise it was sold under.
Every time I'm reading about the technical challenges of these kind of projects, it reminds me how amazing our brains are, doing what they do with only about 30W
102 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 6.1 ms ] threadIt’s very confusing to have a project related to space called a moonshot project.
What are the proposals to address these needs?
I'm not sure that's truly the case here, but it does seem like the tech Project Suncatcher is working on has at least some overlap with requirements for military SIGINT and in-orbit imagery processing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_C...
A bank run happens when everyone tries to withdraw all their money at the same time and the bank runs out of cash. Not really possible in the stock market where companies literally can create/destroy shares and there is a whole secondary pricing layer to it.
1. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/alphabets-spacex-be...
Didnt you answer your own question? Most would consider a 100x ROI more than sufficient for taking profits
> In the right orbit, a solar panel can be up to 8 times more productive than on earth....
Either it's that weird "space is easier than getting land on earth"(it's not) or the same tortured arguments about heat dissipation, no one is going to run consumer scale compute with consumer scale economics in space ffs. And maintenance and cost does not matter when it comes to strategic military assets, they are a step function useful enough to warrant even a few monthly replacement.
Everyone else with strategic weapons and a space program e.g india china is launching one as well.
The actual rack part is small, even if the solar panels and radiators are big. If this truly was super dangerous, ISS wouldn't be safe. And it's never hit mission-degrading issues due to micrometeoroids.
I think dodging debris is challenging at that scale.
Also this is the solar cells not the radiators
Up to you how plausible you think that is.
https://www.planet.com/products/planet-insights-platform/
The other line items are probably similarly unrealistic since they include their own launch costs as well.
They also spec 300 racks of 500kg each, which is <40% of the weight of the comparable land rack. I doubt the full weight reduction since the racks still need to survive launch force/vibration in addition to fluid/pressure enclosures that land racks don't require. I think it's likely that just about every part of this report has a similarly cooked numbers, and we can just throw the whole thing out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qpdUNMt2yg
- Unlimited geothermal energy.
- Cold climate for heat dissipation
- tons of land
That's why we just annexed it.
Yoink!
We're talking about an exceptionally vulnerable target with a perfectly predictable path of travel here. You just have to get near it and explode with shrapnel.
Totally illegal, of course. But it will be within the reach of millions of people if they want to do it.
Not trivial but not impossible. If you’ve got a few hundred million people with nothing better to do, I’m sure a few dozen/hundred could pull it off.
If real money can be made, there is no need of datacenters in space. Offer some country some money and they'll let you build whatever you want. The whole idea is entirely unprofitable thats why they are making up things that won't work economically. Keep giving us money indefinitely, we'll keep spending, money can be made after a few decades of spending ... trust us.
You'd need a dictatorship where people's voices don't matter, but then there's no right of ownership either.
And there are plenty of those countries. As well as countries that aren't dictatorships. Every leader everywhere is available for sale. In democracies, usually for a small sum. Dictatorships ask for a percentage of profit.
Everyone knows how the current administration got to power: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/01/politics/elon-musk-2024-e...
Trump will gladly allow datacenters to be built on federal lands. Just like he allows Oil/Coal and bans Wind and Solar. The only reason there is new story of Space Datacenters is because even if they are given everything by the Govt, it simply won't work.
If you see a datacenter in orbit, it means something went wrong on Earth: https://systemsthinkingcollection.substack.com/p/space-datac...
People believe all kinds of fiction and garbage, like going to Mars. (Why Terraform Mars When We Can Fix The Earth? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8mhib97--n4)
The same argument holds for AI DCs. If you can build profitable AI datacenters in space, why can't you build profitable AI datacenters on Earth? The only reason is you can't build profitable AI datacenters on earth. Just give us a few more trillions and wait a decade or two, we promise ...
Taking away work was exactly the premise it was sold under.