Comment by vintermann

Comment by vintermann 4 days ago

16 replies

View on Hacker News

Always remember the magic words: dual use technology. The people pushing these aren't saying to you that they want to build data centers in space because conventional data centers are at huge risk of getting bombed by foreign nations or eventually getting smashed by angry mobs. But you can bet they're saying that to the people with the dual-use technology money bag. Or even better, let them draw that conclusion themselves, to make them think it was their idea - that also has the advantage of deniability when it turns out data centers in space was a terrible solution to the problem.

throwaway198846 4 days ago

It is far easier to build them at remote places and bunkers (or both). Even at the middle of the ocean will make more sense and provide better cooling (See Microsoft attempt at that).

Reply View 3 replies
  • brazukadev 4 days ago

    it is not far easier to distribute content from a bunker than from the space.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • jeltz 3 days ago

      Did a not accidentally sneak in there? Because serving data from bunkers is done quite a bit right now.

      Reply View 0 replies
widforss 4 days ago

The reason why we don't see satellite-targeting missiles is not because the problem is hard. All relevant actors are capable of that.

Reply View 2 replies
  • amitav1 3 days ago

    All relevant actors are also capable of destroying ground-based data centres, but somehow that's not a huge problem for data centres.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • cheema33 3 days ago

      You can take out a data center in space with an accidental collision of a small runaway satellite. Taking out a data center in the middle of Oregon would be significantly harder and will invite massive retaliation.

      Reply View 0 replies
Avicebron 4 days ago

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if a non zero number of pitch meetings start with, "in order to not disrupt your life too much as the mobs of the starving and displaced beat down your door"

Reply View 0 replies
tomatotomato37 4 days ago

The only vaguely valid dual use technology I can see coming out of this is improving space-rated processing enough that deep space probes sent out to Uranus or whatever can run with more processing power than a Ti-82 and thus can actually do some data processing rather than clogging up the deep space network for three weeks on an uplink with less power than a lightbulb

Reply View 1 reply
  • Spooky23 4 days ago

    Who knows what tech is in space already. Maybe an “AI data center in space” would be the equivalent of a flock camera for an entire region.

    Reply View 0 replies
marcellus23 4 days ago

What makes an orbital facility at less risk of getting bombed?

Reply View 5 replies
  • teeray 4 days ago

    Probably needs more delta-v to match orbit than a suborbital ICBM would. Not less risk—just more expensive. Depends how valuable the target is.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • tomatotomato37 4 days ago

      Nah, they are pretty similar in difficulty for interception - the first US ASAT program used essentially the same Nike Zeus missiles used for ABM duty during the late 50s

      Reply View 0 replies
    • XorNot 4 days ago

      Except you don't. You only need to match velocities if you want to dock with something.

      Hitting something in orbit just requires you to be in the way at the right time.

      Basically an intercept is a lot easier.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • adgjlsfhk1 4 days ago

      not really. Suborbital vehicles achieve orbital heights. It's actually probably easier since you don't need a payload. The velocity alone will do the trick.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • ikiris 4 days ago

    Because its stupid, not that its hard.

    You want to push things out of orbit not turn a massive structure into a supersonic shard field for 20 years

    Reply View 0 replies