Thread

Google’s Project Suncatcher to put ML infrastructure in space

233 points · 553 comments · xnx

fwlr · 1790297624 · focus · HN ↗
Yes, the physics are worse, and yes, the economics are worse, but data centers in space have the crucial advantage that they are out of range of the molotov-throwing arm of Joe Public (recently unemployed).
1. thelastgallon · 1790304034 · focus · HN ↗
  Businesses run anywhere real money can be made. Middle east is the most volatile place. Yet, the businesses are perfectly okay building infrastructure to extract, refine and ship oil from there.
  If real money can be made, there is no need of datacenters in space. Offer some country some money and they'll let you build whatever you want. The whole idea is entirely unprofitable thats why they are making up things that won't work economically. Keep giving us money indefinitely, we'll keep spending, money can be made after a few decades of spending ... trust us.
  1. throwaway473825 · 1790304698 · focus · HN ↗
    Note that you didn't mention any such country, and for good reason - there is none.
    You'd need a dictatorship where people's voices don't matter, but then there's no right of ownership either.
    thelastgallon · 1790307189 · focus · HN ↗
    > You'd need a dictatorship where people's voices don't matter, but then there's no right of ownership either.
    And there are plenty of those countries. As well as countries that aren't dictatorships. Every leader everywhere is available for sale. In democracies, usually for a small sum. Dictatorships ask for a percentage of profit.
    Everyone knows how the current administration got to power: <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/01/politics/elon-musk-2024-election-spending-millions" rel="nofollow">https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/01/politics/elon-musk-2024-e...
    Trump will gladly allow datacenters to be built on federal lands. Just like he allows Oil/Coal and bans Wind and Solar. The only reason there is new story of Space Datacenters is because even if they are given everything by the Govt, it simply won't work.
    If you see a datacenter in orbit, it means something went wrong on Earth: <a href="https://systemsthinkingcollection.substack.com/p/space-datacenters" rel="nofollow">https://systemsthinkingcollection.substack.com/p/space-datac...
    People believe all kinds of fiction and garbage, like going to Mars. (Why Terraform Mars When We Can Fix The Earth? <a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8mhib97--n4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8mhib97--n4)
    The same argument holds for AI DCs. If you can build profitable AI datacenters in space, why can't you build profitable AI datacenters on Earth? The only reason is you can't build profitable AI datacenters on earth. Just give us a few more trillions and wait a decade or two, we promise ...
    jazzyjackson · 1790307693 · focus · HN ↗
    This idea that space is a way to get out of the reach of NIMBYs is so dumb.
    a: now you’re in everyone’s back yard, since satellites in orbit can be seen by the naked eye at twilight zipping across the sky, so now the whole earth hates you
    b: you are still launching from earth, which is a pretty significant target if you’re worried about ecoterrorism.
    user43928 · 1790320890 · focus · HN ↗
    Have you considered that the 'NIMBY' problem here might be about permits and local resource usage rather than terrorism, which makes about no sense?
    XorNot · 1790322609 · focus · HN ↗
    Permits are not costing as much as a space launch and all the extra costs associated with that environment.
    If it's too expensive to outsource to another country, it's definitely too expensive to put in space instead.
    user43928 · 1790323931 · focus · HN ↗
    Cost is one thing, the other is whether it will be permitted at all.
    Then there's the power grid problem.
    I understand expanding the grid takes a long time, thus the gas turbines. Which I understand are also supply-constrained, and environmentalists are not happy either.
    I'm no scientist or financial analyst, but I could imagine that the space thing would be viable especially in a scenario where AI capabilities continue to grow.
    If AI really does replace not only most knowledge work but also other labor via robotics, and this requires enormous compute, we are going to want to scale this up at a much faster rate.
    pferde · 1790330459 · focus · HN ↗
    Are we, though? Going to want to scale this up, I mean.
    Unless economic systems around the world change significantly very soon, this AI replacement you so cavalierly mention would cause significant portion of human population to reach poverty, causing much unrest and mass deaths.
    user43928 · 1790331301 · focus · HN ↗
    No one wants mass poverty, unrest, and deaths.
    I don't buy into demonizing the rich, including Altman, Amodei, Musk and co.
    I am not concerned that this will be the outcome of the productivity surge.
    We will have enough for everyone, and ensuring comfortable living standards for the general population is going to be in the interest of those in power, even if you assume very selfish motivations.
    I'd also like to point out that both Anthropic and OpenAI created frameworks to monitor labor market impact and propose responses.
    notahacker · 1790326357 · focus · HN ↗
    Launch requires permits too, you just don't get to jurisdiction shop...
    user43928 · 1790328736 · focus · HN ↗
    When I looked it up earlier, it seemed to me that to scale this up we would require larger rockets than Starship if we cannot launch hundreds of times per day.
    Admittedly I know very little about spaceships

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.