QuixoticgeekFeb 1

There are currently about 12600 satellites in orbit. As a result on average every day 3 fall out of space, dumping metals and other nasties into the upper atmosphere.

If we continue that rate of satellite loss, 1 in 4200, and extrapolate it to 1,000,000. That would be ~238 satellites PER DAY, falling out of the sky and spreading the materials they are made up of in the upper atmosphere. With some more substantial chunks hitting the surface, and possibly people.

That's just bonkers

1/n

Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 1

This of course completely overlooks all other practicalities of orbital datacentres, that makes putting high power computing in orbit. Which for a summary include: too much radiation noise making the systems unstable (see Wikipedia for "single even upset"), cooling when you have to dump heat into a vacuum, low data bandwidth (compared to a fibre on earth), latency, and shear fucking cost.

It's an absolutely fucking stupid idea. And I'm angry I have to spend my Sunday debunking this shit.

2/2

Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 1
Postscript: and before the cult of space Karen start with the "so you're an expert in orbital computing this week are you?" Well. One of my first jobs out of uni involved designing an onboard control system for a satellite. My design has literally been to space. I know what I'm talking about on this one.
Show threadAlex von Kitchen
@quixoticgeek you hardly need to be an expert to realise this is a terrible idea
"AI" data centres don't make sense before you launch them into orbit
Feb 1 at 11:46amWeb
Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 1
@Dangerous_beans I'm just preempting some of the replies.
Show threadAlex von KitchenFeb 1
@quixoticgeek yeah. That mob are tiring
Show threadErik AblesonFeb 1
@Dangerous_beans @quixoticgeek Maybe launch the owners first so they can check out the real estate is up to their requirements?
Show threadMarjorieRFeb 1
@Dangerous_beans @quixoticgeek why stop at orbit?
Just send them all into the sun. They'd be more use there.
Show threadAlan BellinghamFeb 1

@Dangerous_beans @quixoticgeek @marjolica Taking your comment a lot more seriously than you meant it: the sheer energy to do so is enormous. It's 55 times more energy than getting to Mars, according to NASA

https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/its-surprisingly-hard-to-go-to-the-sun/

It's Surprisingly Hard to Go to the Sun - NASA

The Sun contains 99.8 percent of the mass in our solar system. Its gravitational pull is what keeps everything here, from tiny Mercury to the gas giants to

NASA
Show threadVery Human RobotFeb 1
@marjolica @Dangerous_beans @quixoticgeek it's very very hard to actually hit the sun.
It literally needs less fuel to (eventually) hit Alpha Centauri!
Show threadMarjorieRFeb 1
@StompyRobot @Dangerous_beans @quixoticgeek I suspect it might need a bit less fuel than NASA talk about if you just wanted to drop something into the sun: NASA are very much into designing grazing orbits to maximise information gathering.
But yes, far better not to construct AI data centres, orbiting or otherwise, in the first place.
Show threadAlex von KitchenFeb 1
@StompyRobot @quixoticgeek @marjolica no, a grazing orbit is easier than a collision
To get something to hit the sun you have to cancel out all orbital velocity, if you only do most you end up with a highly elliptical orbit
The parker solar probe for instance still ended up with an aphelion around the orbit of Venus