top 94 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 54 points 8 months ago (20 children)

There was one study where they set the price of launching at 0 and it's still a lot more expensive to use data centers in space.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    For anyone who doesn't know, this is because space is an absolutely terrible place to put computers. Getting power is actually the easiest problem to solve, and is still really hard, because building any kind of infrastructure in space is hard. Then you've got all that radiation you have to shield against because you're no longer protected by the Earth's atmosphere, and worst of all you've got the cooling problem because Jesus fucking Christ, space is not cold!

    This is why I get annoyed every time a scifi movie shows people freezing to death in space. Because it leads to this level of mass delusion and then suddenly it matters and everyone just unquestioningly believes the lie that space is cold. Space is a vacuum. A vacuum is what your Contigo travel mug uses to keep your coffee scalding hot after four hours. If vacuums are that good at keeping something hot when it naturally wants to get colder, think about what they'll do to something that is actively generating heat. All of your components are going to cook.

    There are proposals to put data centres at the bottom of the ocean that are substantially more credible than this idiocy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I'm always annoyed that people don't get that space isn't cold or hot, since heat is a property of matter, and that's exactly what a vacuum doesn't have. Your travel mug example is great. I'm going to start using it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago*

    That’s because science literacy is pretty low.

    And to be fair, the average person doesn’t need to understand vacuum thermodynamics. The issues is when a few of those “average people” are now billionaires making unilateral decisions, surrounded by yes men and feeds instead of experts informing them of reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Maybe we should put datacenters on Mars, to warm it up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I'd rather on the moon. It'll melt all the cheese and there'll be fondue lakes!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Whatever you do, don't put it on Jupiter! It'll get more stupider!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Tell me if I'm wrong, but with the shielding they have on the ISS doesn't it have issues that consumer grade computers they use last a few months due to various radiation and heat that they die? So an AI data center is going to be insane to protect long enough to make its components useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    seems the bottom of ocean equally stupid. in space you would have to deal with comsic/solar radiation damaging a satellite-type data center, and then you need solar cells/nuclear power, space debris is another problem.

    a bottom of the ocean you would have to deal with the enormous pressures, even at several hundred feet down, corrosion, critters living or clogging up the 'buildings, silt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Yes, the bottom of the ocean is a terrible place to put a data centre. And the fact that it is, somehow, still a more practical option than space is a really good indicator of how unbelievably stupid the entire notion of space data centres is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    I don't know if it would work but... Could an infrared laser expel enough heat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    You need to think about how an infrared laser works. You're taking electricity, converting it into light and then focusing the light.

    So you'd need to take the heat from your GPUs, inefficiently convert it into electricity (a lot of it would remain as heat), then inefficiently convert electricity into light (much of the electricity would turn back into heat in this process) and then focus the light away from the space data centre.

    Now, we already have a process for moving heat away from things as infrared light, without going through all those steps (which would just reduce the efficiency of the process). It's called a radiator, and it's how we cool things in space. That's literally where the name comes from; they radiate heat away as infrared light. That's why hot things glow in thermal cameras.

    It is incredibly inefficient. Radiation (ie, infrared light) is, by far, the worst way of cooling things. But in space its the only option you have, because there's no convection or conduction across vacuum.

    A top end GPU puts out about 1,000 watts of waste heat. The entire International Space Station has enough cooling for 14 of those, if it was doing nothing else whatsoever. An average server rack contains 72. The ISS cost $100 billion dollars. So at a minimum you're looking at around $500 billion to put one single server rack in space. And that's before accounting for the heat from the sun, which we can't avoid because we need solar power to run this thing. So probably closer to a trillion. In other words, twice the already ludicrous price tag of Sam Altman's "Stargate" project. For a single server rack.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    But in space its the only option you have

    Hmm, this has me thinking about the stealth ships in The Expanse. The engineering needed to make it work makes me want to cry, but in principle you could run a Peltier cooler with a swappable heat sink.

    To be clear, I don't think this is a viable option, but it's interesting to think about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago*

    Basically the way you would make a stealth spaceship would be by focusing as much as possible on energy efficiency. At every juncture you would try to use as little power as possible, and use every bit of it as efficiently as possible, so that you're not remitting waste. That waste, in the form of heat, radio waves, etc, is what gets you spotted.

    You could also run heatsinks temporarily for enhanced stealth as you suggest, then open up radiators to cool them - or eject them - once it's safe to do so.

    (For the Elite: Dangerous players, yes, that game got it right.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    You could cool them through radiative panels but you would need quite big panels to radiate away the heat a data center produces.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago*

    The entire ISS has 14GW of cooling (and a lot of that just goes towards keeping the sun from cooking it). A single server rack can produce around 72GW of heat.

    The ISS cost about $100 billion.

    Basically, if you took the entire budget of Sam Altman's "Stargate" project (money that, to be clear, he does not have and will not get) and put it into space data centres you might, optimistically, put one rack in space.

    Most data centres have dozens to hundreds.

    You're absolutely correct, but "quite big" might be the single biggest understatement I've seen in my life.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Project Icarus it was called, the fourth space program of that name and the first for which it was appropriate. Long before Jacob's parents were born—before the Overturn and the Covenant, before the Power Satellite League, before even the full flower of the old Bureaucracy—old grandfather NASA decided that it would be interesting to drop expendable probes into the Sun to see what happened.

    They discovered that the probes did a quaint thing when they got close. They burned up.

    In America's "Indian Summer" nothing was thought impossible. Americans were building cities in space—a more durable probe couldn't be much of a challenge!

    Shells were made, with materials that could take unheard of stress and whose surfaces reflected almost anything. Magnetic fields guided the diffuse but tremendously hot plasmas of corona and chromosphere around and away from those hulls. Powerful communications lasers pierced the solar atmosphere with two-way streams of commands and data.

    Still, the robot ships burned. However good the mirrors and insulation, however evenly the superconductors distributed heat, the laws of thermodynamics still held. heat will pass from a higher temperature to a zone where the temperature is lower, sooner or later.

    The solar physicists might have gone on resignedly burning up probes in exchange for fleeting bursts of information had Tina Merchant not offered another way. "Why don't you refrigerate?" she asked. "You have all the power you want. You can run refrigerators to push heat from one part of the probe to another."

    Her colleagues answered that, with superconductors, equalizing heat throughout was no problem.

    "Who said anything about equalizing?" the Belle of Cambridge replied. "You should take all excess heat from the part of the ship were the instruments are and pump it into another part where the instruments aren't."

    "And that part will burn up!" one colleague said. "Yes, but we can make a chain of these 'heat dumps,'" said another engineer, slightly more bright. "And then we can drop them off, one by one ..."

    "No, no you don't quite understand." The triple Nobel Laureate strode to the chalkboard and drew a circle, then another circle within.

    'Here!" She pointed to the inner circle. "You pump your heat into here until it is, for a short time, hotter than the ambient plasma outside of the ship. Then, before it can do harm there, you dump it out into the chromosphere."

    "And how," asked a renowned physicist, "do you expect to do that?"

    Tina Merchant had smiled as if she could almost see the Astronautics Prize held out to her. "Why I'm surprised at all of you!" she said. "You have onboard a communications laser with a brightness temperature of millions of degrees! Use it!"

    Enter the age of the Solar Bathysphere. Floating in part by buoyancy and also by balancing atop the thrust of their refrigerator lasers, probes lingered for days, weeks, monitoring the subtle variations at the Sun, that wrought weather on the Earth.

    — David Brin, Sundiver, 1980

    Here's an interesting discussion about the concept, with Brin himself explaining his reasoning.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think the point is to really build datacenters in space. The point is to convince investors that it can be done in a profitable manner so some people can create a fake businesses out of it and siphon money off the system. Much like the same as trying to convince investors that LLM + more money = AGI

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I also wonder if this is an entire red herring. There are increasing reasons for more compute in space, such as to pre-filter sensor data.

    Is it to naive/optimistic to think no one is actually looking for a space datacenter to compute terrestrial loads, but they recognize the need for processing space loads?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 109 points 8 months ago (52 children)

    My question is always how the hell are you going to cool them. Do you know hard it is to move heat in a vacuum?

  • source
  • hideshow 52 child comments
  • [–] 92 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    The problems; plural; is that the person who popularized the idea of data centers in space has little to zero understanding of any of the space sciences and yet owns and directs one of the world's largest, and privately owned, aerospace companies with massive government contracts that splits its time with their own AI work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 36 points 8 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Please tell me you aren't serious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    How would you power them?

    The surface area of solar panels exceeds the surface area needed for radiators to cool everything.

    In space I would imagine you'd find the perfect sandwich ratio. One bun solar, one bun radiators, the meat being the racks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

    Raditors. Starlink v3 can in theory already shed (edit 20) kW of heat. But they would need to figure out how to 5x that and keep things profitable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It would be 20kW for each rack or two. The types of data centre deal they talk about these days are measured in GW of compute. That's 50,000x just for 1GW.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (14 children)

    With radiators just like with every existing satellite system.

    https://youtu.be/DCto6UkBJoI&t=12m57s

    Very large scale datacenters would likely have some nasty fluid handling problems to solve.

    I'll just note that I am not a fan of putting internet infrastructure in space. I think polluting the upper atmosphere with a bunch of metals every time a satellite deorbits will certainly have negative consequences. So IMO space should be limited to things we can't do with earthbound infrastructure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] 16 points 8 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The area of radiator needed directly corresponds to the amount of power harvested by the solar panels. It doesn't matter what the load is. So a compute frame with the same amount of solar panels as the space station would need approximately the same radiatot area as the ISS, unless you are bringing nuclear power into the mix.

    I agree that space based datacenters are a bad idea, but the thermals really are not the gotcha people are making them out to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    The solar panels needed is another problem for the space data center fantasy. Once you put together all the mass over enough surface area to make it work, you would blot out the sun worldwide.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Yeah the amount of heat a data center vs a satellite your going to super heat the space in that orbit over time. It they are geostationary then its even harder as the the data center doesn't move away from the heat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Um, it doesn't make the data center in orbit thing make sense, but a geostationary satellite absolute moves at high speed and does not stay in the same place in space.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    The heat would be moving at the same speed. Though, that does mean it wouldn't be any better in any other orbit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Again, it doesn't help the case, but just.. no. The heat gets out of the spacecraft by radiating, and radiation doesn't move in a circular orbit around Earth, it moves at speed of light outwards from where it started.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Thermal energy is primarily dissipated as infrared light which moves at the speed of light. There is no way for space to accumulate heat. If that were the case the entire solar system would be unlivable. The IR emitted by satellites is truly negligible in comparison to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Radiators in space work by radiating electromagnetic energy(light). Heat can only accumulate in matter, not in space, so that is definitely not one of the things we need to worry about.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    geostationary then its even harder as the the data center doesn’t move away from the heat.

    Geostationary would leave the satellite in shadow anytime it was night time over the part of the earth since a geostationary orbit is stationary in the sky over a given point at the equator.

    That doesn't solve any of the cooling problems just saying that you do get some shadow at geostationary orbits.

    There are other orbits that get less shadow though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago*

    It'll be in shadow at midnight, yes, but not necessarily at any other time. Geostationary orbit is at about 7x the radius of the earth.

    As such, the period when in will actually be in shadow is only a short period directly behind the planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (19 children)
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    What's going to be performing convection to dissipate heat from the radiator in a manner to support the heat generated by an AI data center?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Obnoxious as he seems to be, he's actually right, there will be no convection, but they'd radiate heat in a vacuum, by IR IIRC.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    To do that they'd have to be filled with something other than something water based to be able to do that over a large area which would require constant maintenance to do so. It's not easily feasible and I doubt people who want to do this or defend it realize that. I have to look it up but it takes Anhydrous Ammonia to perform that in the ISS. Like this is a bad idea and it fries my brain people trying to defend this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    What part of radiator don't you understand?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    What you don’t understand is the size requirements those radiators would need to have to cool an entire data center.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 8 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Right. Exactly zero understanding on your part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Zero effort shit post. Cool.

    Do you ever make posts that demonstrate what your opinions are or what your own thoughts are or do you just like to talk about other people and put them down cuz it makes you feel better?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    My opinion and thoughts: dunking on idiots online brings me joy.

    So I guess the last one I suppose. If I just had to pick one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago

    You really don't seem particularly bright. So I did the math, just to double check.

    A 1 gigawatt datacenter radiating at 100C would need a square kilometer in radiator surface area to sufficiently reject/emit the heat.

    But then you need energy. With solar panels you'd need 2-3 sq km to sustain 1 GW.

    So.... The math checks out. I don't understand your arguments from ignorance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Tell me you don't know how radiators actually work without telling me. They dissipate heat via convection through the air surrounding them or gasses in general. What does space lack a significant amount of?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah so there is some confusion here. The are radiators on cars or in houses, but those are more accurately heat exchangers. Then there are things like heat lamps, which are really IR radiators that convert electricity to infrared light that feels hot.

    Most of the heat you feel at a camp fire is radiant from the flame, unless you are down wind and feeling some convective heat, but most of that heat goes straight up with the smoke.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    There's a difference certainly but do you think the people who seem to be floating this idea know the difference?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    Hard to say, but they’ve been using resistive radiative cooling In space a long time.

    Also a tech ingredients made a neat video about building one and radiating heat out into space from the ground. It was cool to see what happened when it was cloudy and stopped working.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 36 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    Don’t data-centers require massive cooling?

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (11 children)

    Yes, and it's easier to cool things on earth. In space, there's no air to help you cool thinks off, you can only reject heat through radiation. Most spacecraft are carefully designed to reflect heat/light on surfaces facing the sun and radiate heat into empty space from surfaces that are shaded.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (9 children)

    What if you build it on an asteroid or moon or planet. Uranus is ~-225⁰C, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, but the two-and-a-half hour lag each way would be a killer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    My understanding is that these "datacenters" would be used exclusively for model training, where latency doesn't matter.

    It is still an outrageously stupid idea for a zillion other engineering reasons, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    There's also the issue that around once a year the two planets will be on opposite sides of the sun. Not only would you have a lag of close to 3 hours, but communication would be completely impossible for a month or so at a time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    It would need to have an atmosphere, so asteroids and most (all? Idk not an astronomer) moons are out.

    Mars might be feasible at some point in the far future, but there's still the lag problem of 3-20 minutes depending on time of year, so not very useful for anything user facing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    most moons

    Pretty much every moon but Titan. Titan, however, would be excellent for heat dissipation. Long before generative AI was even a thing, scientists have speculated that Titan would be the perfect place for datacenters because low-temperature computation is so much more efficient.

    Of course, building a datacenter on Titan would be a several-hundred-trillion dollar endeavor, so... good luck bootstrapping your way into that industry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    None of the moons in our solar system have atmospheres. Earths moon is too small to hold on to an atmosphere, and the Galilean moons of Jupiter are too cold for an atmosphere, the gases just freeze.

    The best place would be either a space station in low earth orbit or of the L4 or L5 point. The data issue would be the problem though I suppose you could just use the data centres for training but not for active processing but then you would need to build data centres on earth for that.

    Given that you're going to build the earth data centres anyway you might as well do all of the processing on earth at the same time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago

    Ridiculous, you can't have cloud computing in space, there's no atmosphere!

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I said so long ago. Flying masses of stuff into orbit, keeping it alive in a relative high radiation environment, cooling issues (there is no local river you can conveniently turn into steam), the list is long. Getting free power from large solar panels does not make up for it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    Getting free power from large solar panels does not make up for it

    For the power required "large" is actually a gargantuan understatement. It would need to be larger than what would be easily seen from the planet surface.

    Elon is a complete moron.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    21 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post
    10 comments in c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub view that post
    8 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post
    1 comment in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post