this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2026
155 points (97.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

49297 readers
636 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I am just honestly confused. There seem to be no logical reason for it, except that it would raise the stock value of rocket producers like SpaceX and Blue Origin.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BigBenis@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

it would raise the stock value of rocket producers like SpaceX and Blue Origin.

Nailed it. Data centers in space is an objectively terrible idea but most people are too stupid to understand why. They see it as free real estate in the ignorance of the logistical problems of constructing structures in space large enough to be of any use, let alone powering and cooling them. The failure of the American education system has made the populace an easy hunting ground for modern Snake Oil salesmen.

[–] decended_being@midwest.social 10 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Ding ding!

  • It's not better for cooling. - No air or water to dissipate heat.
  • It's not better for communication. - Beaming data is always more lossy than its physically connected counterpart.
  • It's not less expensive. - Just submerge it, or build closer to the poles with wind and solar to power it

Also, it throws more junk in our orbit, is more difficult to maintain and upgrade, and has a significantly more catastrophic fail result.

But why do things logically or sustainably when you* can make money?

* you = someone who already is hoarding a large portion of our wealth.

[–] KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago

But then how do they make money out of it?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

ever heard of the Nazi bases on the moon?

yeah. that's why.

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I don't think it makes any sense either:

  • Cooling will be large and expensive as hell
  • Getting computers there will be expensive
  • Getting solar cells there will be expensive
  • The radiolink to earthbound networks will be expensive and slow

The only positive is that the energy will be cheap, and that the computers are safe except from nation state actors and untracked space debris.

I lean towards this being a narrative for the markets. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. claimed a 370 billion USD total addressable market (TAM) in space enabled solutions, and a 26.5 trillion USD TAM for AI in their S-1 filing before going public. They state within that their goal over time is to launch 100 gigawatts of compute to space each year.

By making the claim that this would be worthwhile they present themselves as uniquely positioned to profit from this situation. Moreso than other AI compute companies or other rocket launch companies.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 16 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You answered half of your own question.

"it would raise the value of rocket producers like SpaceX and Blue Origin."

The other thing is a complete lack of jurisdiction. At least theoretically, nobody can go after them for generating grossly illegal content in space.

Also, pure hypermasculine fetishism.

[–] FE80@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours ago

Also, pure hypermasculine fetishism.

This is the weirdest take on data centers ever.

[–] ravelin@lemmy.ml 29 points 22 hours ago

No, it seems like you understand it perfectly.

[–] Krusty@quokk.au 9 points 1 day ago

Skynet. They want to build skynet. Go watch Terminator. I guess that's going to become a posthumous documentary.

  • Global geographic coverage with very low dependence on local infrastructure
  • Extremely difficult physical access compared with a conventional datacenter
  • Enormous distributed sensor/communications/computing network
  • Integration with Starlink's existing global communications infrastructure
  • Resilience against localized disasters or attacks
  • Direct access to governments and militaries that want autonomous communications, sensing, and computation
  • Essentially uninterruptible power source
  • Guided weapon systems, military intelligence and recon

Etc... come on. It's skynet! That's the funny thing you called a data center but really that's kind of the least of what's going on.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

There is zero economic reason. Most optimistic cost estimates are 5x more expensive than earth systems powered by solar and batteries. With near term optimism 10x more expensive.

The only reason is skynet that is immune for anyone in the US pulling the plug from skynet. Russia/China can already hit sattelites or terrestrial datacenters with missiles, and space ones are more vulnerable because Americans are more likely to cheer destruction of skynet assets used to oppress them.

The other factor is international law permits squatters rights to the most desirable orbits. 300 years from now, we may need power/data beemed to/from space. Privatizing it for oligarchy is a great long term investment if it is subsidized by US government.

[–] cinoreus@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I remember watching a real engineering video, the white paper for it doesn't go into properly explaining the cooling mechanism. There were plenty of other problems too, but this alone was enough for me to know it's running on pure hopium.

Oh and you cannot just use the corporate maths in this and not count initial costs, and costs of assembling the whole thing. Estimated area of solar panels for a datacenter of 5GW was 12.5km² assuming the best of the solar technologies used. The initial cost of putting it up there would be so high, it might even dwarf the lifetime operation cost.

In my opinion, it's just another grift like hyperloop ko keep the AI bubble from popping.

Edit:5 not 4gw

Edit 2: I had watched the video long ago, and I glossed over a lot of things,

https://youtu.be/_qpdUNMt2yg

Here's a link to the video to go watch yourself

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There's no reason, Musk is just bullshiting like with Mars colony by 2025.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 21 hours ago

BS is fair, 90% of it. There needed to be an excuse for xAI merger is origin of the BS.

[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

This. I don’t know how any supports is companies. This man has the attention span of a cocker spaniel on Ketamine.

He just says stupid shit all the time and people are supposed to pretend this it’s a wise business decision.

A list of Elon Musk’s terrible business ideas

Elon Musk’s Eight Most Outrageous Ideas

[–] TwodogsFighting@lemdro.id 17 points 1 day ago

They're harder for us to burn to the fucking ground if we can't reach them.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 day ago (6 children)

The tech billiionaires got annoyed by regulations and complaints and are looking for a easier way.

[–] harmbugler@piefed.social 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

We towed it outside the environment.

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago

Into another environment, no?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 161 points 1 day ago (13 children)

This idea is a total scam. This is just a way of asking investors for an enormous amount of money, with literally no intention of actually following through with it.

They might throw a couple of cheap satellites in orbit, just to say they "did it"...but no one with any actual comprehension of these things is honestly expecting it to yield results. The vast majority of that investment money, is going to be used for unrelated things.

In any sane world, this would be considered fraud. But, here we are.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Strider@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

Snake oil. As almost everything else.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My theory is that it's so they are beyond the reach of protesters, the law, etc. I think that is going to be a very in-demand property for servers going forward.

[–] KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz 13 points 1 day ago (4 children)

With the money that it costs to send an entire data center to space you can easily fortify and militarize your data center on earth to the extent that no protester will ever come close?

The law is anyway already largely under their control right? They don't have to go to space to evade the law.

And to the extent that the law still applies to them and constraints then, doesn't it also still apply to the necessary ground-based necessities for space based data centers? As in, if the state wants to shut them down, they can still do so?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 56 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I believe Apartheid Pedo cited space being cold as a reason (ie don't have to worry about cooling the servers), except as usual he's a fuckwit with no idea what he's talking about. Space is empty, which means there's nothing to carry heat away, so the only way to lose heat is via radiation. And that takes forever.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›