Thread

1. 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?

         1. 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.

            1. 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.

               1. 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).

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.