You can put AI chips in datacenters in the desert for far less than $100/kg. With lots of solar power available, the option to easily access your hardware and far less radiation issues.
The datacenter in space story really only exists to make it possible for Musk to sell X to SpaceX and make more money from the IPO. That's all. There is no engineering reason.
Musk's bet is dysfunctional politics will make it impossible to build enough data centres and the energy needed to power them. There are many, many reasons that might be wrong. However, if the economics are even close to viable, they could start throwing up data centres quicker than anyone can build them terrestrially (at least in the democratic west).
GMAFB.
It's stock pump bullshit from a guy who has figured out how to extract the maximum from stock markets.
But yeah, I'm sure you people with Elon Derangement Syndrome actually have it all figured out /s
well, no, they announced the concept of a space-optimized Vera Rubin designed with SpaceX:
> NVIDIA and SpaceXAI are working to adapt that foundation to the requirements of orbital computing while preserving a common NVIDIA architecture and software ecosystem.
The press release is really announcing that SpaceX's terrestrial data centres are going to use Vera Rubin.
https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/spacexai-adopts-nvidia-ve...
if you can't put them outside of Amarillo Texas without people throwing a fit then you can't put them anywhere. I mean freaking Pantex is there ffs!
Cooling is probably the easiest problem to solve, easier than power. And in both cases, the problem is solved by mass to orbit. All you need for cooling is a big f-ing radiator. Solar panels are chips, and not trivial to manufacture. But a radiator is just a hunk of metal with some pipes.
That's why the cost of mass to orbit is the most important thing. You can solve almost any space problem by just throwing more mass at it.
Solar panels are 4x more efficient in space. 2x because of lack of atmosphere and another 2x because there are 24 hours of sunlight in SSO.
Is it really that hard to just say, "I don't know if it will work or not"?
Ridiculous. Have you ever seen a container ship? One engine on a container ship puts out 80 megawatts, or around 80 orbital data centers' worth of power. So if there's not enough room for solar, which would surprise me greatly, then running a generator is not going to be a problem.
As for the lack of 24-hour operation, a ~50% duty cycle is a perfectly reasonable tradeoff for not having to launch something into LEO. You can easily deploy several times as many installations for the same money if they don't have to work in space. And they will be maintainable, to boot.
And I fully sympathize with the need to remove these things from local and even national sovereignty, having seen as an increasingly-horrified American just how destructive populist influence can be.
But putting millions of servers in orbit? That just doesn't seem like the way forward, for so many reasons.
As for weather, OK, fine, whatever. Deploy 6x as many.
But anyone who thinks they can predict those prices in ten years is wildly overconfident.
> then they will never work and SpaceX will fail
Space Datacenters eventually get quietly discontinued after finally killing the zombie brand at which point the only reaction is "huh, remember that?"
https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/21/teslas-solar-roof-is-dead-...
ETA: If you had invested $1,000 in 2016 when Tesla Roof was announced, you'd have $25,000 today. 25x return in 10 years.
If it doesn't work out, I think China's exponential terrestrial energy deployment will eventually give them the lead, IF they can get enough chips. Another big if.
If (a) demand for AI continues to increase, and (b) SpaceX can get to ~$100/kg to orbit, then they will have a ridiculously deep moat. Probably more like 10 years, though.
But as you said, who knows.