Beyond the power requirements for the computer, there is also the power that will be needed to transmit back to earth.

A wireless link that can pass the amount of bandwidth needed (and do it reliably) will need huge power as well.

It will be far bigger. Its mostly solar panels.

this is the current real solution on the ISS - three main computers doing everything.

I don't think you don't understand the difference between the amout of cosmic rays, which are basically any flying particle, on Earth compared to space. Small nodes would be dealing with multiple per cpu cycle. Multiple could be 1 million a second, I am trying to figure out a way to measure. It would be something like distance from atomsphere(rate of total particles) x probably of an object the size of a transitior getting hit(rate of collions). I could probably find the bit-flip rate for an off-the-shelf space resistant chip and infere the rate for the size I need, but there are other factors. A bit will not flip on every collision, shrinking transistors exponentially increases this.

A bit flip might change a 0 to a 1 or a 1 to an infinity. Even if you could just do everything three times, that triples the hardware and energy costs compared to terrestrial computing.

You have two options for shielding, one is shield the entire thing like we do with the ISS because people live there and radiation is bad for living cells. Two is to shield the smallest unitary entities to use the least amout of materials, like a shield per chip. This is physics not magic, radiation does not just go away. When everything add to launch weight it does not make sense. Redundancy systems also add to launch weight.

Whatever the end latency is, it'll be higher than starlink as these are going to be in a sun synchronous orbit and they dont talk to earth, they talk via starlink.

So you'll have to go up to starlink, then laser link the shortest route to the nearest available dish, then back.

You'd have to constantly adjust its orbit. Something that huge with massive radiators and solar panels is going to get a lot of drag.

The $200/kg launch price target is based on 150 ton capacity. That's a $30m launch costs target. Volume/foldability matters the most because that is the actual constraint that limits datacenter launch to a single NVL72 size.

Starship is huge. I dont know how tightly they can fold these expected dishes, but by weight, they can amd will do 60 starlink v3, and itd be 50 datacenter dishes equivalent. How many they can actually launch is going to depend on how well the solar and radiator folds down, so it might be a volume issue vs weight where they cant launch with the max weight capabilities of the ship.

One rack is generally going to be well more than enough for a persons inference needs.

They want to put a million of these up there long term, where are you going to find space for a million individual racks? Now it's a large datacenter again.

I did see one thing about a company adding a cluster or something to someones house and giving them a cut of it. That decentralizes the power distribution, and space requirement, but it adds other problems like vandalism / theft as how well can you protect a thing tacked onto the side of a house worth 10s of thousands of dollars.

Edit: And you don't fix or upgrade them, they deorbit in ~5 years, and get replaced with the next best thing. Radation protection to avoid bit flipping will be a cost issue, but they already have hardened chips that work in space, so I'm not sure how much new technology is needed, and starship can lift a shit ton of weight, so heavy shielding is possibly an extra option?

Edit2: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say they are going to earn enough revenue to make these things profitable like they did with Starlink, I'm just talking about the technical specs of what they say they're going to do. There's a lot of misconceptions about what they even intend to try putting up there.