!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
No, they are not. Putting a data center in space is a completely ridiculous idea. You can probably build and run hundreds of data centers on earth for the price of one in orbit.
I'd really like to know who put this utter nonsense idea in circulation. Wouldn't be surprized if it was Elons idea...
Data processing in space can be useful, albeit not in the way that Musk seems to sell it. I spoke with some people from a space startup (edgx) at a jobfair in Belgium half a year ago.
Their thing was that they did some data processing in space to cut down on bandwidth. I also remember specifically asking them about cosmic rays and they told me it's definitely manageable because their computers fly in LEO. (They already have a computer in space)
No <3
Can any kind strangers here share some reads (or anything) on heat dissipation in space? My understanding is that there is virtually no medium to carry away all that energy, but I remember reading something about satellite and space stations actually cool off and there being some sort of a solution to heat. I just wanna learn more.
ELI5 version: You know how things glow red when heated up? That takes energy, or, more precisely, that converts heat energy to light. And you know how the color changes the hotter it is? Even before its starts to glow red it actually still glows, pretty much everything does, we just dont see it because it falls outside of visible spectrum, but thermal cameras can and that's how they work. So, for space question, just take a big plate, and unlike solar panels, point it perpendicular to the sunlight. Run some coolant through it and you've got a space chiller. If you look at i.e. ISS photos you'll see big solar arays at the sides and smaller jagged square panels protruding off the middle and some off the sides, those are exactly it, the so-called "heat rejection units". Actually while double checking myself I was surprised to learn that they do not run a thermal pump between radiators and everything else, I always thought they did as hotter objects dissipate more energy, but apparently shipping more radiators to orbit was a better tradeoff than constantly wasting energy pumping the heat away.
Thanks!
this website covers heat and cold pretty well in my opinion: https://www.jameswebbdiscovery.com/satellite-technology/heat-management-in-satellites-techniques-for-dissipating-heat-in-space
since radiating heat is the only real way of getting rid of heat, the main solutions are limited size and power combined with insulation. quite opposite to what datacenters do.
heat dissipation on satellites is a cataclysmic showstopper, but even if it was solved, anything on a satellite has to survive launch, is nonrepairable and all of that expensive silicon burns down in a couple of years
"datacenters in space" story is a result of highly advanced reasoning: 1. musk has space launch company 2. musk has ai ~~company~~ cash furnace 3. musk wants more money and 4. for what i assume are completely rational reasons and not speculation fueled by cultists, ai stocks pumped and only started crashing recently
and before that, you're gonna take a real hard look on whether regular ai datacenters on ground are profitable (they're cash furnaces)
Nah, man. I have an issue with your wording. You have not been "hearing a lot of talk". You are quoting one specific lie of a prolific grifter.
Nobody in their right mind agrees with this. If you had put your question as "Elon Musk, owner of a satellite launching company, as well as several money burning pits, wants others to pay him to put some of those money burners into orbit. Is there any sense to this?", the answer would be trivial.
It has come up in talks with a friend of mine, I have read an independent article on it and I have also read Musk wants to do it. That is my experience with the topic. I think it's patronizing that you tell me how I should phrase my question.
Of course you would. But I also don't quite believe you. Everybody lies on the internet, and when I see corporate PR being regurgitated by someone pretending to be "just one of us", indignant when confronted, expecting the benefit of the doubt, I call it out.
Well just the other day I was doing my regular human activities with my biological friend Frobert, and just between consuming two Earth crustaceans, we came to talk about the benefits of alchemy to transmute people into gold. We've got the idea from Grok.
It doesn't matter to me whether you're an actual shill or someone genuinely uninformed whose talking points reflect whatever a shill would say. If you give me the Musk fan impression, I'm gonna give you the Musk fan treatment. Call me patronising if you want 🤷.
Yeah, you're being an ass.
I found several companies planning on launching data centers into orbit.
Blue Origin, Orbital, Aetherflux, and Starcloud.
Absolutely. Data centers on earth are subject to the laws of physics. Data centers in space, per SpaceX's white paper on the subject, operate beyond paltry thermodynamics, material sciences, and several other fields of science. When you're that much of an IPO boosting gigachadalphabro it's all profit.
Everyone knows physics doesn't exist in outer space. If it did, there would be gravity.
Nobody can hear you lying in space.
No, it's a stupid idea through and through.
They are all challenges that can be overcome. But at what cost. Consensus is that economically it seems hilariously unviable. Datacenters tend to have to make their money back within about 3 years. The 3 year make money back issue is also why I believe the AI DC buildout is such a high risk gamble/bubble. In a year or two, all that hardware they made a year ago will need to be replaced. You just redo the whole investment again…
Yep. Data center in space is about as dumb as an underwater bakery.
That actually isn't a bad analogy
You've been hearing the marketing hype of a Nazi space company CEO trying to prop up his company's stock price so he can unload his rotten shares.
The amount of energy required to send a human up there for maintenance is, literally, astronomical. Can a datacenter run at a profit with zero humans? You tell me.
They’re good for people selling rocket launches.
Fuck no. They're a stupid, terrible idea peddled by psychotic grifters.
Even the "energy generation benefit" is dubious. The solar panels in space might be more efficient, but if you consider the cost of transportation, installation and maintenance... It won't add up. You could just build more panels on earth and get similar results (still much cheaper). It's not like we are running low on space on earth.
Yeah its a pipe dream told by people that have not thought it through and people selling to investors by telling lies for investment dollars.
It would be astronomically expensive, wasteful, and expensive (yes twice).
Got a server rack damaged? Are the IT going up to fix it or astronauts? What kind of training would there need to be? What about upgrades? What about waste or recycling of old equipment? Do you just eject out into space wasting all the precious resources??
It's a completely stupid thought that they hoped sounded cool, but it's not really beneficial in any way
Methinks the reason techbros want to put compute in space is to have it physically away from people. Normal data centers are right there to be smashed and torched in the event of widespread societal unrest. In space, it's unreachable.
Yes because it's a bubble, none of them make real money so it's a waste to actually build them, but you have to fake it to scam investors. On earth the investors will look at land purchases and permits and power contracts and construction, so you have to spend millions of dollars to fake it. You can trade stock back and forth with Nvidia and "order" infinite chips that will never exist but you can't do that for electricians.
In space you just have to already own a vanity project rocket company. You fill out a form with the FCC and get a theoretical permit to launch "up to" 100 quadrillion datacenters into space, and then just point to a windowless factory that might theoretically have the capacity to make datacenter satellites but you can't let them see inside because you have classified defense contracts. Who knows might be a trillion dollars in shareholder value in there, you can't prove there isn't.
I, personally, would just really appreciate it if we could stop by blocking our view of the sky/solar system with so much future garbage.
What they don't show in a lot of SciFi is the mundane day-to-day stuff (AFAIK, the only shows that came close were Red Dwarf and Firefly.)
Problem is, things break. Connectors come loose. Temperature makes things brittle. Small debris cross pads and create shorts. Most automated manufacturing lines can catch assembly problems, but none have 0% failure rate. This is what post-deployment maintenance is for. Somebody shows up in a van with a bunch of test gear and replacement parts. They diagnose the problem, swap out a cable or board, and the business keeps humming.
Add IoT and fancy telemetry. Monitor sensors and run ML to do predictive analytics. It still requires someone in a cargo van with a bunch of spare parts.
If you put an installation in a remote location, under water, or in space, there are benefits. But you just multiplied the cost of basic maintenance. You can build in redundancies, but a small glitch at a single-point-of-failure could cascade to a catastrophe.
Microsoft and Google tried putting data-centers under water, and after years of trials they nixed it because of these issues. Multiply that for something far out in space.
Only alternative is to build failure into the business model. Something breaks, you just leave it to rot (or burn in the atmosphere) and send another container out. Maybe the finance math works out, but it sure is wasteful.
tl:dr: SciFi is fantasy. A clogged toilet is reality.
Oh right. I already forgot about the underwater data centre hype. Data centre in space would face much of the same challenges so the concept has basically already been tried and failed.
Don't disagree with your main point at all, just want to throw The Expanse into your list for shows that do a good job of showing things just break and it's catastrophic when they do it in space.
It's an idea used to justify merging xAI (burning through cash) and SpaceX (more profitable*). It's not remotely practical due to heat dissipation, general complexity, additional cost, and complete inability to service broken components.
Well, no, because generally things that don't work at all don't make money.
It seemed to work for Arasaka so 🤷♂️
If you find somebody willing to pay some 1000 times more for a computer because it's rotating around the sky, then yes, it's profitable. Those "1000" are probably an understatement, but there exists some number that works.
There's probably a single-digit-billions market there.
For comparison, SpaceX's space business is a 2-digits-billions business, and they claim they have a 2-digits-trillion market to grow into.
No
It's about being outside of any company's jurisdiction. Same thing for the floating datacenters at sea. Can't tax it and regulate it if it's not in any legal country.
My understanding is that computers in space need to have redundancies in the hardware design because bit flips are a lot more common. Radiation and whatnot. Regardless, you can't just shove some parts in a case and expect it to work. At least not for very long.