GMoromisato

But my point is, "we just go" is exactly how we conquered the Earth. We didn't think, "let's colonize the whole planet!", we just went. We walked from Africa all the way to the tip of South America.

We weren't doomed then and we're not doomed now. We will colonize the solar system and eventually the galaxy.*

* Assuming past performance is indicative of future performance.

50,000 years ago (or so) we were a tiny species hanging out in Africa. We didn't think in terms of years, much less decades. This was before we figured out how to measure the length of the year or to predict when the winter would end.

And yet, without any central planning or coordination, we left Africa and colonized Europe, then we headed out across Asia and crossed into the Americas. Plus we sailed from Asia and colonized Polynesia.

Imagine someone saying, "We're doomed because people walk very slowly--it's going to take a thousand years to get to the southern tip of the Americas." And yet, we did.

I think the same thing will happen with space travel and ultimately the colonization of the galaxy.

Imagine you're an alien explorer. You visit Earth 25,000 krugs ago (51,304 Earth-years ago) and see a pretty standard ecological milieu: a wide variety of species, each adapted to its own little environment, no different than it was 50 million krugs before.

You return today and see that one previously unremarkable ape-like species has spread out to all parts of the world and is even orbiting in little tin cans around the planet. Almost all wild terrestrial megafauna is gone and the megafauna that remains is raised by the "humans" in massive farms. They've converted forests and jungles into farms and cities, and they're spending vast amounts of energy to make silicon think.

The fact that aliens have not nuked us from orbit out of sheer panic is, I think, strong evidence that we are alone in the galaxy.

Nightmare fuel for the next Terminator or Matrix sequel.

Neither STS disaster came out of the blue. Each had earlier clues that were ignored, and that's what both accident reports highlighted.

I think STS had so many high-criticality problems that there was probably no way to salvage it as a vehicle. The only sad thing is that they didn't sunset it after Challenger.

Agreed! But just as airliners eventually had a disaster, Starship will eventually have one too. Maybe it will be earlier and kill only single-digit number of astronauts. Or maybe it will be later, when it is transporting 100 people at a time.

The only way Starship won't kill people is if it's phased out earlier than expected (earlier than I expect, anyway).

And, of course, I very much hope I'm wrong and no one ever dies on a rocket again.

> Booster Systems Engineer Jenny M. Howard acted quickly to recommend that the crew inhibit any further automatic RS-25 shutdowns based on readings from the remaining sensors,[6] preventing the potential shutdown of a second engine and a possible abort mode that may have resulted in the loss of crew and vehicle (LOCV)

Incredible that human action during ascent (when everything is usually automated) potentially saved a crew. One of probably dozens of cases, is my guess.

STS still has the record for most astronauts killed. I don't believe we will surpass that grim record until Starship starts carrying humans.

This was a fascinating article, and the theory that the availability of iron prevented big empires seems to make sense. But then I don't get how later big empires (e.g., Athenian Empire and eventually Roman Empire) formed. What changed that allowed big empires to form even in the presence of iron?

The claim (as I understand it) is that power was centralized because tin was rare--i.e., had to be imported via sophisticated trade routes, which presumably could be controlled by the state.

In an area where tin is abundant, individuals could easily forge their own bronze weapons, thus making it harder for the state to have a monopoly on high-tech weapons.

So I think the Harappan actually reinforce the theory.

> The part I find most exciting is not that the same ticket takes fewer hours. It is that entirely different projects now fit inside a human life.

This is my favorite part too. With my own project for example, I had the agent integrate libgit into it so I could add source control to my IDE. Yes, I could have done it myself, but it would have taken me months of trying to understand the API, testing various things, and finally implementing it all. Instead, the agent did almost all the work (I still designed the architecture and how it plugged in). It took about two weeks calendar time and most of that time I was doing something else while the agent worked.

The thing is, before AI agents, I wouldn't have even attempted the work. I wouldn't have been able to afford the time.

I'm not fond of analogies, but in this case I agree.

There is a clear difference between OpenAI intending to hack something vs. OpenAI being negligent in the creation/instructions of the agent. But the latter still leaves OpenAI liable for the agent's actions and calling it a "rogue agent" doesn't avoid that.

Moreover, with a dog, we don't rely on training/alignment to prevent bad outcomes. We rely on physical restraints like leashes and muzzles. The AI's tools to access the outside world should have been restricted. Perhaps instead of giving the AI arbitrary HTTP access, it should be given semantic operations with restricted URLs, etc.

Sometimes it's easier for me to scaffold the architecture (in real, working code) and then let the agent fill in the implementation. And I make the agent document the architecture and have it refer to the documentation when coding. When I review agent code, I focus only on architecture (is it following existing architecture? is it introducing new structures, dependencies, etc.?)

Other times, I let the agent create a black box with a well-defined interface contract. I don't care about the architecture inside the black box.

You're smarter than me on that point. I got sucked into the argument and ended up wasting a couple of hours. I'm an idiot.

I honestly don't get that. The current SpaceX design is for a ~4 ton satellite with 160 m^2 radiator with peak 250 kW output. You can launch 25 of those satellites on a single Starship launch. 160 Starship launches and you get 4,000 satellites with peak 1 GW compute.

What's unfeasible about that? SpaceX has already launched 10,000 Starlink satellites. Falcon 9 launches 150 times per year.

That may be the argument, but it's a dumb argument. Most of the cost is going to go to chips, solar panels, and launch. Radiators are probably one of the cheapest parts of the satellite: it's a hunk of metal with some pumps for liquid cooling.

People use that argument because it takes zero thought to make and significant effort to refute.

How sure are you of that? How much does each satellite cost? How much will silicon on the ground cost in 2030?

How can anyone be certain of any of those numbers without (a) knowing how the technology will evolve, and (b) doing the math?

I'm just astounded that people can have such confidence.

And I agree with you on that. "Big hunk of metal" was too much of an exaggeration--SpaceX's design has liquid cooling, so I assume they have some channels or tubs running through the radiator, plus pumps, etc.

Okay, so you admit it is possible. Cooling is not the problem. We're making progress.

Now your argument is that it's unprofitable. Here's the calculator: https://andrewmccalip.com/space-datacenters

Specifically, if SpaceX can get the price of a satellite down to $8 per watt (about $2 million USD) then it will compete with terrestrial.

I just don't understand how you can be so certain that they can't do that. I'm not certain that they can, but being certain that it's impossible seems completely evidence-free.

But that calculator shows most of the cost is in the satellite. At $8 per watt (or about $2 million per satellite) the cost of orbital compute matches terrestrial.

That sounds absolutely possible. But in any event, we're now arguing a different thing.

The only thing I'm arguing is that cooling is a solved problem. I don't know if SpaceX will ever get the price down so that it is economical. But I'm convinced that there is no universe in which they hit their foreheads and say, "Oh no, we forgot about cooling!"

I don't get it. Are you saying floppy disks were usually bigger than half a fucking megabyte or smaller?

I'm missing something (as usual) because I don't see what's wrong with his statement.

You need to hang out at ArsTechnica more.

But even in this comment stream there are tons of people saying the cooling problem is insurmountable.

I don't understand your argument. Sounds like you're saying, "In theory it should work, but what if there are space pixies that keep rebooting the TPUs? What do we do then?"

The 15-minute figure is what they currently designed for because they have mass constraints. If they wanted a different figure (like forever) they could do it with a larger radiator.

As you said, the physics is solved! We know exactly how much heat a surface radiates in space--there is literally an equation for it. We know how to cool stuff in space. Will the price be low enough to make a profit? That's the real question. But stop worrying about cooling in space.

Okay, so you agree the cooling problem has a solution.

Now the argument is, what, you can't launch that many satellites?

The current plan is for 250 kW peak with 160 m^2 radiators. It will weigh about 4 tons so you can pack 25 on one flight of Starship.

Deploy 4,000 and you're at 1 GW. That's 160 launches.

BTW: SpaceX has already manufactured and launched 10,000 Starlink satellites and Falcon 9 launches about 150 times per year. None of this seems unworkable.

I won't believe less than $100/kg until I see it. I agree with you on that.

But are you sure that $100/kg is not competitive? I don't remember all the math, but even their initial AI1 design[1] would throw a lot of profit, if you can sell at the price they offered to Anthropic.

I suspect the price of manufacturing the satellite, plus chips, is the dominating factor, not necessarily the launch costs.

[1] https://www.spacex.com/spacexai/starmind

My point is you don't need fancy/expensive materials for your radiator. Anodized aluminum is at 0.8. With inexpensive coatings you can get to 0.9.

If your argument against space datacenters is "radiator materials are too expensive" then I just think that's not a very good argument.

Never is a long time and you're relying on a bunch of unknowns like the cost of launch to orbit in 2030 and the future regulatory environment here on earth.

If you know all that out to 2040 then you must be a time traveler. Please try to fix our timeline rather than wasting time on HN.

Emissivity is one factor, but it is dwarfed by the T^4 term. Sure, maybe if you use exotic materials you can get from 0.9 to 0.95 emissivity, but why bother? Just run the radiators a little hotter.

The equation is:

  A ~ (1000 P) / (2 e k T^4)

Where

  A is the radiator area in square meters
  P is the power in kilowatts
  e is emissivity (usually 0.9)
  k is the constant 5.67e-8

P and T are the dominating factors. Don't worry about emissivity.

Huh? Radiators are known technology. They have them on ISS; they have them on every Starlink satellite. This isn't like warp drive or antigravity.

Moreover, you can easily calculate how big of a radiator you need for a given power level and temperature. You can use the Stefan–Boltzmann law:

  A ~ (1000 P) / (2 e k T^4)

Where

  A is the radiator area in square meters
  P is the power in kilowatts
  e is emissivity (usually 0.9)
  k is the constant 5.67e-8

For a 1 kW test like Googles, you just need 1 square meter of radiators (assuming two-sided).

For SpaceX's 175 kW satellites, they will need ~170 square meters of radiators.

None of this is impossible or even difficult to calculate. That's why I think this is the laziest argument against space data centers. There are so many other more reasonable arguments (like whether they will be economically competitive) but people love to latch on to this one for some reason.

The plan is to launch thousands of 250 kW satellite. Doesn't sound insane at all.