If you look at how small a Starlink sat is, and how much of that space is taken up by power generation and storage, antennas, signal conditioning, RF electronics and more, I'm sure that whatever resources are running the computing in the entire starlink fleet orbiting the world can fit all together in one single row of servers in an existing datacenter.

And yes, a space-based computing node would not need quite as much of some of these things but they'll still need them in some way. It's not like you can just plug in a power and ethernet cable into them.

I doubt this will scale to a level that is actually useful. It's a nice experiment, just like Microsoft when they threw a datacenter container into the ocean. But not practical in the current conditions: https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/sustainability/pr...

Yes they say it is amazing and sustainable there in that blog post, yet somehow they've never bothered to do it again.

They can't make them a little bit bigger? But also I found this interesting image on the scale at hand here of a given launch of starlinks, no clue how many are included in a single launch, and it is a substantial amount of rack space they have been sending up at once:

https://i.redd.it/zh7qvyfqgvx21.jpg

So to me they have solved the issue of having a space based compute array network interfacing with the earth. They have solved the issue of launching and deploying this array. And their given launches seem to have a substantial payload of compute going up at once just in sheer volume. And right now the only real difference is that the nodes they are launching are just pretty weakly specced. Everything else is in place and turnkey.

But most of that is nothing to do with compute. A rack of servers is all compute. Starlink sats are antennas, RF amplifiers, solar panels, laser links, shielding, even maneuvering thrusters and fuel for those (they could be electrical ion thrusters but they'll still need reaction mass, not sure what type they use). Probably some inertial reaction wheels too, they are used for spacecraft orientation, not positioning.

They are sending a few racks of stuff up every launch but the problem is not that it's underspecced. It's that most of it is just needed for equipment survival and communication in space.

You're talking about an environment that's full of radiation and goes from -200C to +200C every 90 minutes. That needs to be orbit managed and cooled (and sometimes also heated) without any airflow. Just sticking a few servers in a barrel isn't going to do the job.

So if they send up a starship with a hypothetical "compute rack", you wouldn't need all the redundant antennas, rf amplifiers, discrete solar panels, etc. You'd need just one of each sufficient for the whole rack, rest can be compute.

A datacenter is about data. Your network of space router is in no way something a reasonable person would consider a datacenter... Even less an inference datacenter.

Why, because on board storage is too small and the compute nodes are underpowered? And that can't ever change? A reasonable person doesn't understand technology usually. That is increasingly an understanding left to the wizard class.

I mean people make clusters out of raspberry pis and minipcs.

There is nothing magical here, you definitely don’t need to be a wizard to understand the hardware necessary for AI inference. You can make nice little clusters with rpis, yes, there is nothing magical about that, it’s pretty much baremetal 101. But no, you cannot run any meaningful inference on that cluster.

Maybe look at what is inside a datacenters, the amount of power required is very large, and the hardware to run the inference + network isn’t small. Then try to see how much sending that to space cost

> Why, because on board storage is too small and the compute nodes are underpowered?

Yes

> And that can't ever change?

It can, but but not for free. As the comment earlier in the thread was referring to, more computing power needs more cooling, and cooling in space is hard.

> A reasonable person doesn't understand technology usually.

What? Do you mean a layperson? Why does that matter when discussing the feasibility of space-based AI datacenters?

> That is increasingly an understanding left to the wizard class.

No, you can get there with a bachelor's degree in a relevant subject. Or just reading informative news sources.

> I mean people make clusters out of raspberry pis and minipcs.

So? What does that have to do with anything?

This only makes sense if the compute nodes only become more powerful in space in the future and not also on the ground.

The big advantage is if you put it in space, only people with space based capabilities can mess with it. If you build it on the ground, anyone can drive a truck full of explosives into it. Might not matter for most applications, but there are some where it absolutely matters I am sure.

They can cross that bridge when they get there. Currently they're at the stage where the energy requirement is simply too much to put in space, it's not even close, and they will work on reducing that whether or not it goes into space.