He is creating a value meal.
Gives new meaning to buying high, like right afterwards going to MCD with the munchies.
I see the Indian press is free game.
Our pants only go on one leg at a time.
Not that anyone is going to mistake me for a rocket scientist, but we have not justified DCs on Earth yet.
1 Like
Fundamentally different animal. Space is a GREAT environment for qubit circuits.
If delta T is less, and Q is practically nil, then no radiator may be required for that portion of the installation. (only a heat shield from other sources will be required to isolate the qubit circuits).
Of course in practice, there are heat generating systems to compliment the qubit circuits which will require energy - and heat rejection to meaningfully complete the task. Isolating the quantum system from it’s supporting system, the earth (infrared radiation) AND the sun will be an interesting design process.
I don’t have specifics on what that looks like in the future (it’s not going to be economic for a bit, yet). However, the above statement is directionally correct, and this has already been proven by experimental missions.
Smaller area of solar panel generators, smaller area of heat sinks due to less power consumption. More emphasis on shielding between segments of the system. Additional focus on vibration reduction (heat is vibration, too)
4 Likes
That’s just a cheap way to discredit people. I’m a college dropout myself so that does not bother me. Instead, check the real world track record.
Never saw it.
I was curious what AI had to say.
Google AI:
Elon Musk plans to cool orbital AI data centers by using the vacuum of space as a heat sink via large, specialized radiator panels. These radiators would likely use closed-loop liquid systems (like water or exotic coolants) to transfer heat from high-performance processors to panels that radiate infrared heat into space, avoiding the need for conventional air conditioning. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Cooling Strategies & Technologies
- Passive Radiative Cooling: The primary method involves huge, dark panels that radiate heat away from the satellite, which is far more efficient in the vacuum of space than on Earth. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Liquid Cooling Systems: Internal heat from GPUs and processors will likely be transported to the radiators using circulating liquids, potentially including advanced materials like liquid metal, graphene, or vapor chambers. [1, 2]
- Optimal Orientation: Radiator panels would need to be positioned on the dark or shadow side of the satellite to avoid direct sunlight, while solar panels remain in the sun for power. [1, 2]
- Material Limitations: The design relies heavily on Stefan-Boltzmann law efficiency, requiring large radiators to handle the enormous heat produced by AI workloads, which could pose challenges in terms of weight and material. [1, 2]
Challenges and Nuances
- Radiator Size: Some estimates suggest that a 50 MW data center would require roughly 22 football fields’ worth of radiator area. [1]
- Heat Transfer Difficulty: While the space environment is cold, the lack of air means heat cannot be removed via convection; only radiation works, which is slower. [1, 2]
- Operating Limitations: Radiators are less effective in direct sunlight, and solar power generation and heat rejection could compete for optimal positioning. [1]
Musk has described these space data centers as superior from a “first principles” perspective, claiming that the constant sunlight and cold of space offer a more efficient environment than Earth for power and cooling. [1, 2]
The Captain
1 Like
Good movie, I recommend it. However, my point is that using radiators to reject heat in space is not something Elon Musk came up with. It has been in practical use for well over half a century and has even entered pop culture.
Musk has described these space data centers as superior from a “first principles” perspective, claiming that the constant sunlight and cold of space offer a more efficient environment than Earth for power and cooling.
These is why Elon Musk’s statements on this topic should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Because either he has no idea what he is talking about, or he does know but is trying to mislead people. Neither is a good look.
2 Likes
It’s accurate and all the public statements make that abundantly clear.
Fundraiser who is a risk-taker would be a gentle and appropriate description.
6 Likes
He is not stupid. He is explaining something to non engineers. Engineers have a hard time with explanations to non engineers. Does he know something? He has in the past, but his track record looks at times like it is coming off the tracks more recently.
2 Likes
Everything starts with “plans”…
2 Likes
I beg to differ, as do many others, including actual experts.
Funding engineers and parroting what engineers say is not the same as being an engineer or explaining engineering.
But there are plenty of believers, so keep the dream alive, by all means.
1 Like
He claims that cooling is more efficient in space because space is cold. That’s a provably false statement. Cooling is less efficient in space because space is a vacuum.
Data centers in space could make sense, but not for reasons of cooling efficiency. They might make sense for other reasons, however.
The cooling problem has a known solution, but the known solution is expensive.
These concepts are not hard.
6 Likes
Impossible to hard… ok.
So we need to find a new solution, that is cheap, or bring the cost down for the existing solution… 
BTW, cerebras, which IPO’ed y’day, approached the chip design differently. From the fingernail size CPU/ GPU’s they have dining plate size chips, which reduces lot of NW, and generate about 35% less heat.
This doesn’t mean we may find a solution, but it is too early to dismiss innovative solutions. SpaceX showed how you can increase reliability and reduce the cost of a launch significantly. Elon may not be an engineer, but he has a way of getting the best from his engineers. There are some interesting research going on, not much covered by western press, because generally they have a dismissive view of Asian tech.
1 Like
Yep, stories and investing are dangerous to your wallet. Up there with Plans. Not disputing that.
If you won’t take it as an explanation, I need to agree. He is selling something, but his track record is better than the rest. Ya know?
Getting an engineering degree does not make anyone else fall into the “stupid category”. Again, he is not stupid. If you can get that education, then he can use it.
If you can get that education, that does not mean you can use him.
It is 830 am, I am having a very productive day, but something has to give. I have a lot to do today and need to get going. I have only scanned a couple of items in this, and cooling efficiency in space is discussed.
Courtesy of Google
A space-based data center, such as those proposed by companies like Starcloud and Lonestar, holds significant potential efficiencies over terrestrial facilities, particularly in energy consumption, cooling, and sustainability.
[image]NVIDIA Blog +1
The primary efficiencies are driven by access to uninterrupted solar energy, the ability to use the vacuum of space for cooling, and unlimited physical space for expansion, potentially reducing AI resource demands.
[image]Datacenters.com +1
Core Efficiencies of Space Data Centers
- Near-Continuous and Abundant Solar Power: In certain orbits (such as dawn-dusk sun-synchronous orbits), data centers can receive near-continuous, high-intensity sunlight, increasing solar generation efficiency by approximately 40% over Earth-based systems and eliminating the need for batteries or large-scale energy storage.
- Highly Efficient Passive Cooling: Space acts as an infinite heat sink, allowing servers to dump waste heat directly into the vacuum via radiators, eliminating the need for huge amounts of water used in Earth-based cooling towers.
- Lower Overall Energy Consumption: By using high-efficiency solar energy and eliminating mechanical cooling (HVAC), space-based data centers could reduce their power usage effectiveness (PUE) by roughly 17.7%, significantly reducing the energy cost compared to Earth-based options.
- Reduced Infrastructure Costs: Proponents suggest that by avoiding the need for heavy, water-cooled machinery, batteries, and terrestrial permitting, the cost to build space data centers could eventually be lower than terrestrial counterparts.
- Lower Latency and Global Coverage: An orbiting data center provides faster data processing and lower latency for global users, particularly when processing data from orbiting satellites rather than sending it back to Earth.
[image]Datacenters.com +3
Key Trade-offs and Constraints
- Launch Costs: While operational costs may be lower, the current cost of launching hardware into orbit is astronomical, though it is decreasing.
- Radiation Protection: Electronics in space are exposed to high levels of radiation, requiring heavy shielding or advanced, expensive hardware that increases launch mass.
- Heat Rejection Constraints: While space is cold, moving heat away from electronics in a vacuum is difficult. Radiators must be very large, and the efficiency of heat dissipation is limited by the temperature of the equipment.
- Maintenance Issues: Repairing or upgrading equipment is nearly impossible once launched, making component durability critical.
[image]Scientific American +4
Sustainability Concerns
While space data centers are touted as more eco-friendly, researchers have noted that the environmental impact of rocket launches—specifically the burning of rocket stages and hardware during reentry—could, in some scenarios, create higher emissions than those generated by terrestrial data centers.
[image]Scientific American
The big drawback is launch costs. Note Cathie Wood is not my idea of who to believe in a storm.
Courtesy of Google
AI Overview
Yes, SpaceX has a robust plan to further reduce launch costs, primarily through the full and rapid reusability of its Starship system, aiming to bring costs down to roughly $100 to $200 per kilogram to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). While Falcon 9 already offers significantly cheaper launch services, Starship is designed to enable cost reductions by orders of magnitude in the coming years.
Ark Invest +1
Key Aspects of the Plan to Reduce Costs
- Fully Reusable Starship: Unlike Falcon 9, where only the first stage is typically recovered, Starship is designed for both the booster and the ship to be fully reusable.
- Rapid Turnaround Times: Similar to an airplane, Starship is designed for quick inspection and refueling between flights, drastically increasing efficiency and lowering operational expenses.
- Massive Payload Capacity: Starship is intended to lift over 100 metric tons to orbit. By increasing payload capacity while reducing refurbishment costs—which Musk has indicated should be below of the total rocket cost—the cost per kilogram drops significantly.
- Mass Production of Rockets: By leveraging economies of scale and producing engines and vehicles in bulk, SpaceX aims to lower the initial manufacturing costs.
- Catch and Reuse Technique: SpaceX uses a “tower catch” technique (using “Mechazilla” arms), eliminating the need for heavy, expensive landing legs and simplifying the launch site logistics.
Ark Invest +6
Projected Cost Reductions
While Falcon 9 has reduced costs to under $1500 per kilogram, the fully realized Starship aims to potentially drop costs to as low as to $10 to $20 per kilogram in the long term, according to some projections.
Reddit·r/IsaacArthur +2
As of May 2026, SpaceX continues testing of the Starship system to achieve these cost milestones.
Barron’s +1
From the BIG newsletter (Matt Stoller) https://www.thebignewsletter.com/
…And regarding AI. There are some really powerful words below, that, if true, imply the over capacity is ALREADY here at the (BLEEDING) capability edge. When overcapacity arrives at the scaling edge (users x average consumption), the AI build out craze will be well and truly over.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang made this same point a few weeks ago in a different way. He was asked on the Dwarkesh podcast why he wants to export chips to China, considering China could build something as powerful as Anthropic’s Mythos model. His response was as follows:
First of all, Mythos was trained on fairly mundane capacity, and a fairly mundane amount of it. By an extraordinary company. The amount of capacity and the type of compute it was trained on is abundantly available in China.
In other words, the Nvidia chip advantage just doesn’t matter that much. As AI scientist Gary Marcus notes, there are fundamental limits on how much computing scale can really do for reasoning. Finance, however, is good at scaling, not at creativity.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The collective examples above, when referenced to compute and output costs by chinese models imply that effective work product (models deployed singularly or in groups) is already possible after training on “mundane” amounts of compute at sophisticated data centers.
The limitation isn’t the hardware, it’s the design/development process used to train algorithmic neural networks.
Does this mean that picks and shovels players are increasingly floating forward demand and capacity planning on MoMo investments and business cases, but not necessarily on basic requirements to deliver at mature efficiencies?
4 Likes
Now, so far in 2026 over 100K people were laid off by tech companies citing AI as the reason. Just wondering, whether companies are really benefitting from AI and find these folks as surplus or the companies are not really benefitting from their AI investment therefore cutting costs to continue to justify their AI investments? If AI is really accelerating and benefitting, the companies should be able to use those folks and make even more progress right?
Just a though…
The very soft hiring numbers might be worse than the 100k laid off.
Hey if we want to cripple the Chinese labor market and destroy the Chinese economy sell them all the chips we can. AI is a home wrecker for the many.
Agreed.
or just use AI to justify job cuts without actual AI productivity gains.
There will be productivity gains after cuts, because the remaining people will do the work - but is AI really meaningfully in the mix?
To be sure, there are real gains from AI, but how much nonsense is going along for the ride?
2 Likes