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. rzerowan · 1790324612 · focus · HN ↗
  Similarly to Starlink , which was hyped as a low codt alternative for marginalised people/areas and sucked in enormous subsidies to that end. While being more or less a proof of concept for a military command and control network , thats the same way this should be looked at.Especially with data centers being vulnerable on ground, coupled with the ability to reposition the space based units to be 'closer to the action' as it were.
  So bottom line a proof of concept for DARPA funds and eventual inegration into the military command and control nodes.
  1. DanielHB · 1790324821 · focus · HN ↗
    I dunno, won't a satellite be _more_ vulnerable in space? There is not anti-missile tech in space.
    I suppose it is about being out of reach of cheap drones?
    p_l · 1790326845 · focus · HN ↗
    It's really about bandwidth and availability - US satcom systems were really struggling, and the only truly global (Iridium) was quite low bandwidth. Starlink is essentially "Iridium with newer tech and mass production" and IIRC DoD through various fronts put quite a lot of early financing to make it a thing, even if later the networks were supposedly disaggregated (would make sense to start building separate one once PoC was proven)
    ethbr1 · 1790337993 · focus · HN ↗
    DoD financing for Starlink was a long term game to create pLEO sensing capabilities: initially GMTI, then AMTI.
    Both of which give the US military more persistent (revisit delay near zero because number of assets) and survivable (number of assets + LEO debris characteristics + cattle vs pets) ISTAR.
    And an advantage in persistent ISTAR is a key enabler of the way the US military is aiming to fight a peer state adversary.
    I'd be fascinated to dig into the contracts, but at 10,000' it's DoD offloading the bulk of the development cost onto NASA and the public (which in both cases, still gets good value for money).
    SwellJoe · 1790361113 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a lot of acronyms. You might be saying something interesting, but no one outside of that particular area of expertise will understand it.
    ethbr1 · 1790373834 · focus · HN ↗
    Department of defense. Persistent low earth orbit. Ground moving target indicator. Air moving target indicator. Low earth orbit. Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance. National aeronautics and space administration
    ethbr1 · 1790433811 · focus · HN ↗
    Looked back on this and correction: proliferated Low Earth Orbit
    Newer acronym, but apparently en vogue with the "How do we maintain a critical military space capability against someone who can shoot down exquisite satellites?" crowd.
    rzerowan · 1790326887 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah similar to the AWS data cneter getting trashed in UAE by cheap drones and short range missiles. I think only 3 states have the capabilities necessary to knock out satellites , and one or two others with latent potential. For the rest of the planet its basically untouchable unless theres more wisespread proliferation in missile tech.
    lanthissa · 1790328732 · focus · HN ↗
    icbms and hypersonics exist, theres no defense against the top end anywhere atm.
    if you're in a war where people are shooting your satellites out of the sky you're past the point where defenses matter. theres no grey war in space like russia hiring people to blow up stuff in europe and very few states could take out multiple satellites in space.
    beyond that if we ever did get to that point, you could develop anti missile tech in space, you effectively have the high ground sitting at the top of the gravity well.
    ElevenLathe · 1790334855 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh no! Our PeaceSat went haywire and bumped into your WarSat! Sorry dude, let's swap insurance.
    Voultapher · 1790352947 · focus · HN ↗
    Had a good laugh thanks. Indeed area of denial, increased maneuvering etc. can all be used as attacks. Space is big, but stuff moves fast.
    Turskarama · 1790335416 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm reasonably sure there are more states that could destroy a satellite than hit infrastructure on US soil. And if you try to use an ICBM to hit the US then you risk getting nuked.
    nutjob2 · 1790335423 · focus · HN ↗
    > people are shooting your satellites out of the sky
    If space powers have any sense at all they'll develop a fleet of satellites that deploy small limpet craft that attach to the enemies' satellites and drag them toward earth.
    Literal shooting sounds like mutually assured satellite destruction.
    ethbr1 · 1790337236 · focus · HN ↗
    This. Orbital debris are an area denial attack, and since there's only one shared planetary orbit (in aggregate), debris-creating weapons are more like biological weapons, poison gas, and tactical nuclear weapons. Even if you win, you've impeded yourself.
    The internationally hoped for outcome should be that China continues scaling their orbital use, to the point where it becomes mutually advantageous to sign a treaty with the US banning orbital debris-creating weapons (and ideally imposing mutually-supported consequences on non-signatories who breach the agreement).
    Then everyone would be left with more sane options of disabling-only (microwave, laser, targeted EMP, etc).
    dummydummy1234 · 1790353865 · focus · HN ↗
    The thing with starlink is that there are a lot of them. It is not a single satellite to take out it is a bunch.
  2. sebzim4500 · 1790326418 · focus · HN ↗
    Did Starlink really receive enormous subsidies? IIRC it was kicked out of the federal program in the US due to lobbying from others.
    whimsicalism · 1790326507 · focus · HN ↗
    less lobbying, more plain old punishing of political enemies
    afthonos · 1790335089 · focus · HN ↗
    “Our virtuous lobbying, their heinous punishing of political enemies”?
    ethbr1 · 1790338484 · focus · HN ↗
    Starlink was granted $880m from the FCC, but later defaulted on conditions, so didn't get most of the money.
    Starshield, on the other hand, has been directly funded by the US government to the tune of ~$9b in reported funding (much of it NRO or Space Force classified). It has ~250 satellites up as of now.
    sebzim4500 · 1790357420 · focus · HN ↗
    But presumably they have delivered (or will deliver) the services requested. It's not a subsidy if it's just a government agency buying something.
    ceejayoz · 1790368490 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
    > A subsidy, subvention or government incentive is a type of government expenditure which redistributes from tax payers to individuals, households, or businesses. Subsidies take various forms, such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services.
    SpaceX benefited from the italicized items in this definition.
  3. whimsicalism · 1790326489 · focus · HN ↗
    what proportion of use for starlink do you think is military vs rural internet consumers?
  4. ralfd · 1790343448 · focus · HN ↗
    > and sucked in enormous subsidies to that end.
    Starlink didn't get any subsidies. There were reports in summer about them potentially getting 600 Mio (btw the broadband program is 40 billion heavy) and I can't find sources that SpaceX got any program founding yet.
    [deleted] · 1790359486 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    ceejayoz · 1790365137 · focus · HN ↗
    > Starlink didn't get any subsidies.
    If you don't count the launcher it rides on, and the company that owns both.
    TMWNN · 1790365794 · focus · HN ↗
    Feel free to name the subsidies SpaceX received.
    (No, "payment to launch this satellite" != "subsidy".)
    ceejayoz · 1790366180 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/elon-musk-business-government-contracts-funding/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/e...
    You're correct that "we'll pay you to launch this satellite" isn't a subsidy. But "we'll pay you to develop this satellite launcher, and this cargo capsule, and this crew capsule, with the explicit goal of kickstarting a new launch provider" is.
    Things like the EV tax credit also apply, considering Musk has leveraged his Tesla holdings to help SpaceX at times.
    And to be clear: this was a very good use of public funds, whatever I think of Musk these days.
    TMWNN · 1790367240 · focus · HN ↗
    > But "we'll pay you to develop this satellite launcher, and this cargo capsule, and this crew capsule, with the explicit goal of kickstarting a new launch provider" is.
    "$38 billion!", the Post shouts about in the headline, knowing full well that people will take away that every cent was a true, untrammeled, unconditional "subsidy", as opposed to government contracts that came after successfully meeting that early ambitious goal the NASA development contract laid out for SpaceX.
    By that logic, every US university with federal funding is being subsidized à la Musk. Every small business that gets an SBA loan—the type of low-interest loan that the Post article highlights—is being subsidized. The NASA program that helped fund Falcon 1 were available to anyone with a promising design, and was contingent on meeting various milestones; to paraphrase the old saying about the early manned space program, no Buck Rogers, no bucks. SpaceX delivered the Buck Rogers.
    Regarding Crew Dragon, SpaceX and Boeing each signed contracts as part of the Commercial Crew program for six operational manned missions. After SpaceX fulfilled its six, NASA awarded another contract for eight more (and just purchased a few more). Meanwhile, in addition to Boeing being paid substantially much for its half of the program, the company received a $300 million special, uncontracted payment in 2016 (not disclosed until 2019) to further accelerate development.
    The Starliner flight that spectacularly ran into difficulties at ISS in 2024 was a pre-operational manned test mission (SpaceX's equivalent was done in May 2020). In other words, Boeing has not yet begun its six operational missions!
    Getting back to the Post article:
    >Government contracts to SpaceX from NASA and the Defense Department make up the majority of funds.
    Again, this isn't the US government giving sacks full of cash to Musk just because it feels like it. Biden's NASA administrator Bill Nelson quoted a member of the Joint Chiefs as telling him that SpaceX had saved the US government $40 billion for just launching military payloads <<a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/06/05/did-spacex-really-save-taxpayers-40-billion/" rel="nofollow">https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/06/05/did-spacex-really-...>.
    On the civilian side, SpaceX saved NASA $2 billion for just one payload, Europa Clipper <<a href="https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/a-year-from-launch-the-europa-clipper-spacecraft-nears-finish-line/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/a-year-from-launch-the...>, so who knows how many billions more from other launches.
    ceejayoz · 1790367493 · focus · HN ↗
    > By that logic, every US university with federal funding is being subsidized à la Musk.
    That is correct.
    > Every small business that gets an SBA loan—the type of low-interest loan that the Post article highlights—is being subsidized.
    Yes.
    > Meanwhile, in addition to Boeing being paid substantially much for its half of the program, the company received a $300 million special, uncontracted payment in 2016 (not disclosed until 2019) to further accelerate development.
    "Boeing is subsidized" is not a controversial statement.
    > On the civilian side, SpaceX saved NASA $2 billion for just one payload
    Yes, this is why we do subsidies - they pay off. We subsidize healthcare for poor people because it saves us money in the long run. We subsidize infrastructure because it helps the economy. We subsidize critical manufacturers for national security reasons.
    TMWNN · 1790368045 · focus · HN ↗
    > How is it you're reading "x is subsidized" - a simple fact - to mean "subsidizing x is bad" - a matter of opinion that varies from subsidy to subsidy and company to company?
    You and I, and everyone else, knows what "Musk got subsidies" means to the mentally reddited of the world:
    >the US government giving sacks full of cash to Musk just because it feels like it.
    ceejayoz · 1790368114 · focus · HN ↗
    > You and I, and everyone else, knows what "Musk got subsidies" means to the mentally reddited of the world…
    That he should be grateful for the taxpayers support?
    TMWNN · 1790368563 · focus · HN ↗
    >Do you base every conversation on "what would the dumbest Redditor think"?
    Sadly, the mentally reddited are too numerous and widespread—including on HN—to always blightely ignore.
    ceejayoz · 1790368652 · focus · HN ↗
    And in retaliation, you pretend the meaning of "subsidy" is some deep unknowable thing instead of a pretty clear dictionary definition for a while?
    TMWNN · 1790369198 · focus · HN ↗
    No, I'm saying that when the Post puts out an article shouting about "$38 billion" going to Musk, many, many people are going to take away from that that "Musk received $38 billion in grants, gifts, and otherwise free money from taxpayers". What was your purpose in insta-citing that article, as opposed to pointing to the one NASA program for funding promising booster designs, complete with strict standards at various milestones, that (in addition to $100 million, essentially every cent of Musk's PayPal fortune) resulted in the Falcon 1 two decades ago?
    I'll answer my own question. Your implication is that every single thing Musk and Musk's companies are doing today—Dragon, Crew Dragon, Falcon 9, Starship, xAI, Tesla, etc., etc.—are "subsidized"—again, with the "sacks of free money with dollar signs painted on them" connotation—because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago. If believing that makes you feel better about the accomplishments of someone you admit to greatly disliking, congratulations.
    ceejayoz · 1790369436 · focus · HN ↗
    > many, many people are going to take away from that that "Musk received $38 billion in grants, gifts, and otherwise free money from taxpayers"
    Maybe you're projecting your own beliefs about government subsidizing things a little on other people. The government made a risky bet; that's one of the important things governments exist for. Sometimes they pay off (SpaceX), sometimes they don't (Starliner).
    Perhaps the next time someone correctly notes SpaceX got subsidized you might lead with the clear positive cost savings you eventually defended them with?
    > What was your purpose in insta-citing that article…
    It was the first reputable source that came up in Google?
    > If believing that makes you feel better about the accomplishments of someone you admit to greatly disliking, congratulations.
    I can be a big SpaceX fan and still wish the man running it hadn't gotten brainworms.
    TMWNN · 1790377218 · focus · HN ↗
    >Falcon 1 got them the subsidies. It was the most unsubsidized part of SpaceX!
    mfw
    >I asserted Starlink has been subsidized, and stand by that claim. I'd thought we'd settled that point handily by now.
    And here you were questioning my need to speak to the mentally reddited.
    Even accepting the notion that a small NASA pay-for-performance program = "subsidy" = Falcon 1 (with Musk throwing his entire $100 million fortune into starting a cockamamie rocket startup despite having zero experience in the field having absolutely nothing to do with the rocket meeting the program's goals, of course), name the subsidies that resulted in Falcon 9, in vertical-landing Falcon 9, in Dragon, in Crew Dragon, in Starship, in Starlink, in Starshield. (And before you say it, Starlink was turned down for the FCC rural subsidy.)
    >Perhaps the next time someone correctly notes SpaceX got subsidized you might lead with the clear positive cost savings you eventually defended them with?
    As I said,
    >Your implication is that every single thing Musk and Musk's companies are doing today—Dragon, Crew Dragon, Falcon 9, Starship, xAI, Tesla, etc., etc.—are "subsidized"—again, with the "sacks of free money with dollar signs painted on them" connotation—because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago.
    ceejayoz · 1790378368 · focus · HN ↗
    > Even accepting the notion that a small NASA pay-for-performance program = "subsidy" = Falcon 1 (with Musk throwing his entire $100 million fortune into starting a cockamamie rocket startup despite having zero experience in the field having absolutely nothing to do with the rocket meeting the program's goals, of course), name the subsidies that resulted in Falcon 9, in vertical-landing Falcon 9, in Dragon, in Crew Dragon, in Starship, in Starlink, in Starshield.
    Again: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
    "Subsidies take various forms, such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services."
    Tesla received low-interest loans (and tax credits for their customers). SpaceX was given funds to develop the Falcon 9, Cargo Dragon, and Crew Dragon (and now the lunar lander). Those funds were not conditional on completion of the program (as we've seen with Starliner); they were R&D funding in milestones in hopes of a functional spacecraft at the end.
    > Your implication is that every single thing Musk and Musk's companies are doing today—Dragon, Crew Dragon, Falcon 9, Starship, xAI, Tesla, etc., etc.—are "subsidized"—again, with the "sacks of free money with dollar signs painted on them" connotation—because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago.
    No, the opposite. Falcon 1 is the single least subsidized part of it.
    They demonstrated an ability to get to orbit (after almost going bankrupt), which gave NASA the confidence to subsidize them in a larger project.
    qlte · 1790367664 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly, in retrospect it's easy to confuse with a regular commercial transaction that happens to be with the government. But only because SpaceX was ultimately wildly successful with the Falcon 9/Dragon/Crew Dragon.
    If SpaceX failed to deliver a working product after a receiving a bunch of incremental payments for the pre-delivery milestones (deliberately structured to prop up their early R&D), it might have ended up front and center as an example of government "picking winners and losers" gone wrong like how Solyndra was featured at the 2012 RNC.
  5. KellyCriterion · 1790373581 · focus · HN ↗
    > low codt alternative for marginalised people/areas
    Yes, but while I do not see the first, I can clearly see the latter :)

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.