Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | cakealert's commentslogin

This is fairly naive, Elon isn't the only investor in SpaceX.

My guess is "that they did the math" and had an engineering study which convinced them that getting AI datacenters into space will make sense.

It's also not hard to imagine why, the process alone once perfected could be reused for asteroid mining for example, then mirogravity manufacturing, either of which alone would be enormous capital intensive projects. Even if AI dataenters in space are break-even it would be a massive win for SpaceX and leave their competition far behind.


Are you a bot or are you just stupid?

There are several other companies that have announced efforts to try data centers in space.

I know this is hackernews and we like to get hyped up for new technologies, but, like, this just straight up isn't happening.

There is no benefit to putting data centers in space versus the giant cost that you would incur by doing so.

Can people please try and use their fucking brains for a second?


> Can people please try and use their fucking brains for a second?

Have you considered that people smarter than you think it is plausible?


> Have you considered that people smarter than you think it is plausible?

I know many people smarter than me, plenty of them who have spent careers building data centers, and not one of them think this is plausible.

You should consider whether people smarter than the average investor are pulling a fast one.


Maybe we are talking about different things here?

I don't doubt spacex can fail at this.

I also don't doubt we are fairly close to making this plausible.

> plenty of them who have spent careers building data centers

Famously, plenty of people who have spent careers building rockets would swear that reusable rockets would absolutely never work.


>I also don't doubt we are fairly close to making this plausible.

Maybe you should doubt that. There's literally no reason to think this is plausible besides some hype merchants' say-so.


> some hype merchants

Excluding Spacex:

Nvidia, Google, China, European Commission, Blue Origin

And this being HN, a YC funded company has put a single GPU rack in space and demonstrated training a reasonable sized model on it.

But yeah, it's all hype, sure.


On the off chance you're sincere and not just heavily over indexed into Elon stocks:

It's trivial to understand why this is all hype if you pay attention to physics, as another commenter suggested earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

Assume you're radiating away the heat for a single B200 (~1kW), and the max radiator temp is 100C, you find A = ~3m^2.

So that's 3 square meters per GPU. Now if you take into account that the largest planar structure deployed into space is ~3k m^2 (https://investors.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases/news-rele...), you're looking at 1000 GPUs.

That's a single aisle in a terrestrial data center.

Cost to deploy on earth vs satellite is left as an exercise to the reader.


You are missing one important thing here.

You do not radiate all the heat away from a GPU, a modern GPU can run pretty hot. Also look up how this is getting better for the next generation of GPUs.

Maybe repeat your calculation with updated assumptions?

But even if you were completely right, your argument is that we can't do this tomorrow, yes I agree. Typical technology development cycles are about 5-10 years.


> You do not radiate all the heat away from a GPU, a modern GPU can run pretty hot.

Fascinating. Tell me more.

Where does the heat energy that isn't radiated away go?


>You do not radiate all the heat away from a GPU, a modern GPU can run pretty hot.

LOL. If you don't radiate the heat the spacecraft just gets indefinitely hotter (until it glows and the heat is forcibly irradiated). It's space, there's no fluid to provide convection.


Have you considered that people smarter than you are scamming you?

Yep, definitely being scammed by not dismissing things outside my area of expertise out of hand.

I wish I had your confidence about everything!


I am yet to see any actual numbers showing how the economics of this would work or compare to the cost of building traditional data centers.

Please come back to reality.


> Yep, definitely being scammed by not dismissing things outside my area of expertise out of hand. I wish I had your confidence about everything!

Instead you put your confidence in Elon, who has zero expertise in this area?


> Instead you put your confidence in Elon

No, I put confidence my ability to do a web search, pretty rare skill nowadays ;)

You'll see that none of these are Elon/spacex, hopefully?

https://medium.com/@cognidownunder/google-just-announced-the...

https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/starcloud

https://www.informationweek.com/it-infrastructure/lunar-data...

https://ascend-horizon.eu/

https://www.axiomspace.com/orbital-data-center


I often wonder that same thing about many hn commenters!

Yes that guy is extremely weird, he should delegate operations and community management to someone who isn't weird and stick to development.

The same way that having motorized farming equipment was a race to the bottom for farmers? Perhaps. Turned out to be a good outcome for most involved.

Just like farmers who couldn't cope with the additional leverage their equipment provided them, devs who can't leverage this technology will have to "go to the cities".


Please do read up on how farmers are doing with this race to the bottom (it hasn't been pretty). Mega farms are a thing because small farms simply can't compete. Small farmers have gone broke. The parent comment is trying to highlight this.

If LLM's turn out the way C-Suite hopes. Let me tell you, you will be in a world of pain. Most of you won't be using LLM's to create your own businesses.


But modern tillage/petrol based farming is an unsustainable aberration. Maybe a good example for this discussion, but in the opposite direction if it is.


This wasn't even true 10 years ago...


The idea that a group of people would spend so much of their time trying to get linux to work on Apple hardware through reverse engineering always seemed absolutely crazy to me. I would never consider buying Apple hardware precisely because it doesn't support linux and the work they put in achieves nothing because the risk will always remain that they will lock the hardware further. Nevermind the fact that they will likely never fully reverse engineer all the components.

It just seems like a completely pointless endeavor... perhaps some people buy into it? why would anyone buy overpriced hardware with partial support that may one day be gone? the enhanced battery life doesn't really hold much appeal to me, and the arm architecture if anything is just another signal to stay away.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that they wanted the achievement on their resume, and in that given recent developments they succeeded?


You overlooked the UTM app on the App Store (and open source available too), which wraps Apple Silicon virtualization excellently, or you can use Qemu (which I don't).

I used to use Asahi, but the sleep modes power drain was tedious.

With UTM, I install a latest Fedora ISO (declaring it a "Linux", which exposes the option to skip QEMU and use native Apple Silicon virtualization.

It's fantastic. I mention this only because it's been super useful, way better than Asahi, with minimal effort.


The hardware isn’t overpriced, it’s best in class. It’s just that that class isn’t what you’re looking for, and as a Linux user it’s not for you, which is valid! But the hardware for what it is is one of the absolute best price to performance ratios on the market right now and I’m tired of people pretending it isn’t. You can get a brand new m4 MacBook Air for under $800 right now, and that’s simply one of the best deals around. For an M2 for asahi Linux? Second hand the prices are even better.


It's like Hackintosh all over again but with Apple hardware rather than their cursed software.


Maybe they just needed a hobby. I for one think it's a pretty cool one.


A sufficiently seeded torrent is a high latency static CDN.

You just need a client that can make use of it.

I'm not sure if anyone will be interested in making one however, you can already get a patched Spotify APK from the usual mobile piracy spaces that's good enough.


Wasn't popcorn-time basically video streaming backed by torrent ? Why can't it be the same for audio ?

The metadata is 200 GB which can be easily indexed and could be made searchable, then you download only what you need


Now that's a cool idea.


When they say "worse" they do mean the AI will get better which will be worse because they are ideologically opposed to AI.


I'm not ideologically opposed to AI. The problem will get worse because while the quality of the music will improve, it will still be bad and there will also be a lot more of it.

We aren't really short on music. Diluting the good stuff with 100x more mediocre filler is not a good thing.

If AI generated music ever actually becomes good then that's another story but that is quite a way off.


when you combine a residential proxy with a tool like curl-impersonate (there are libraries in Go for this type of fingerprint spoofing now) they dont even show up as scrapers anymore, just users. especially when they adjust timings to mimic humans.

clouflare only blocks the most dumb of bots, there are still a lot of them.

this is why cloudflare will issue javascript challenges to you even when you are using google chrome with a VPN, they are desperate to appear to be doing something. and every VPN is used to crawl as well. a slightly more sophisticated bot passes the cloudflare javascript challenge as well, there really is nothing they can do to win here.

i know some teams that got annoyed with residential proxies (they are usually sold as socks5 but can be buggy and low bandwidth) so they invested into defeating the cloudflare javascript challenge and now crawl using 1000's of VPN endpoints at over 100 Gbit/s.


Is "residential proxy" another name for an hacked/owned computer that the bots have access to? Or are there legitimate services that sell access to residential IPs?


People legitimately sell egress. It's "free" money. But of course, if you have a botnet, you can sell that through the same channels, no one is looking too closely.


Gemini 2.5 was a full broadside on OpenAI's ship.

After Gemini 3.0 the OpenAI damage control crews all drowned.

Not only is it vastly better, it's also free.

I find this particular benchmark to be in agreement with my experiences: https://simple-bench.com


The answer to that is simple: They hate AI and the environment angle is just an excuse, much like their concern over AI art. Human psychology is such that many of these people actually believe the excuse too.

It helps when you put yourself in the shoes of people like that and ask yourself, if I find out tomorrow that the evidence that AI is actually good for the environment is stronger, will I believe it? Will it even matter for my opposition to AI? The answer is no.


> The answer is no.

You don't know that. I don't know about you (and whatever you wrote possibly tells more about yourself than anyone else), but I prefer my positions strong and based on reality, not based on lies (to myself included).

And the environment is far from being the only concern.

You are attacking a straw man. For you, being against GenAI, simply because it happens to be against your beliefs, is necessarily irrational. Please don't do this.


> I prefer my positions strong and based on reality, not based on lies (to myself included).

Then you would be the exception, not the rule.

And if you find yourself attached to any ideology, then you are also wrong about yourself. Subscribing to any ideology is by definition lying to yourself.

Being able to place yourself into the shoes of others is something evolution spent 1000s of generations hardwiring into us, I'm very confident in my reading of the situation.


> Subscribing to any ideology is by definition lying to yourself.

What a bold claim.

An ideology is a set of beliefs, principles or values. Having beliefs, principles or values is not lying to oneself.

Keeping beliefs despite being confronted to pieces of evidence that negate them is.

And yes, of course I'm attached to some ideologies. I assume everybody is, consciously or not.

Also, you might want to double-check what "by definition" means, nothing in the definition of ideology reads "concerns people lying to themselves".

> Then you would be the exception, not the rule.

Citation needed. And if you can't back this up, the claim is just your intuition. A belief. Which is not worth much to us.


> Having beliefs, principles or values is not lying to oneself.

The lie is that you adopted "beliefs, principles or values" which cannot ever serve your interests, you have subsumed yourself into something that cannot ever reciprocate. Ideology by definition even alters your perceived interests, a more potent subversion cannot be had (up to now, with potential involuntary neural interfaces on the horizon).

> Citation needed

I will not be providing one, but that you believe one is required is telling. There is no further point to this discussion.


I can't make any sense of your first paragraph. And again, please look up "by definition".

> I will not be providing one, but that you believe one is required is telling

Telling what? That you have the burden of proof?

Suit yourself though.

> There is no further point to this discussion.

I'm afraid I agree with you here. Good day / good night.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: