Thread

Google’s Project Suncatcher to put ML infrastructure in space

233 points · 553 comments · xnx

kin · 1790291957 · focus · HN ↗
For those questioning viability, there's a startup called Starcloud <a href="https://www.starcloud.com/">https://www.starcloud.com/ with a public whitepaper explaining a bit their hardware and economics <a href="https://www.starcloud.com/wp">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
1. a11r · 1790296231 · focus · HN ↗
  That whitepaper puts the cost of a 40 MW cluster at $167m on land and $8.2m in space, inclusive of launch costs.
  1. j2kun · 1790298567 · focus · HN ↗
    that sounds ridiculous. How could it be so much cheaper
    [deleted] · 1790298886 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    stonogo · 1790299881 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    alexnewman · 1790302431 · focus · HN ↗
    At planet we didn't have any radiation shielding. Why would spacex need it?
    rout39574 · 1790302759 · focus · HN ↗
    On the planet we have tremendous radiation shielding. The van allen belt and the atmosphere, to start with.
    jazzyjackson · 1790308122 · focus · HN ↗
    I suppose “at planet” refers to the company Planet
    <a href="https://www.planet.com/products/planet-insights-platform/" rel="nofollow">https://www.planet.com/products/planet-insights-platform/
    NetMageSCW · 1790370889 · focus · HN ↗
    In LEO you would still have the Van Allen belts.
    stonogo · 1790342833 · focus · HN ↗
    Because running 40MW of high-speed inference on GPUs is a different sort of mission then bolting a camera to a Jetson SBC and dropping a cubesat into orbit?
    alexnewman · 1790434940 · focus · HN ↗
    Why is it different. I don't understand at all. I thought this was all shown to not be needed since even before we did it at planetlabs
    jasonwatkinspdx · 1790300094 · focus · HN ↗
    They're assuming $30/kg launch costs.
    singron · 1790309415 · focus · HN ↗
    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.
    jrflowers · 1790309652 · focus · HN ↗
    Because they have factored in a genie’s lamp, which they will use to wish costs down significantly

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.