NHacker Next
  • new
  • past
  • show
  • ask
  • show
  • jobs
  • submit
▲Google’s Project Suncatcher to put ML infrastructure in space (blog.google)
sanj 51 seconds ago [-]
Does anyone understand the math behind this bit?

> In the right orbit, a solar panel can be up to 8 times more productive than on earth....

nova22033 36 minutes ago [-]
Alphabet holds approximately 551 million shares of SpaceX (trading under the ticker SPCX), valued at roughly $94.1 billion, which represents about a 4% to 6% stake in the company.
foota 19 minutes ago [-]
It's a little crazy they haven't tried to sell it off yet. Maybe they don't want to trigger a bank rush or they're limited in their ability to do so?
zactato 4 hours ago [-]
How are they solving the heat dissipation issues?
lopsotronic 4 hours ago [-]
For real. It's an enormous problem solved only with 1) sheer scale, and 2) Science Fiction.

Both of those are expensive as hell, by the way.

Cooling via radiation follows Stefan–Boltzmann: P = εσAT⁴. Let's assume a good surface (emissivity ~0.9) at 300 K (27 °C) at 400 W per square meter per side. A flat panel radiating from both faces into deep space gets 800 W/m, not including the losses from, say, the Sun, or from IR coming off the Earth. Now, input power. Sunlight in orbit ~1,360 W/m², assume ~22% cell efficiency, we got 300 W/m². So each 1 MW compute, 3,300 m² of solar panel and minimum 1,200–1,500 m² of radiator.

In case ya didn't know - 1 MW is tiny from a present-day-datacenter perspective. It's like 8 racks. So we're talking orbital megastructures here, many many many square kilometers, and this is with all the best case assumptions, and magic radiator panels that never see the sun, or the earth, or the moon.

This is just the basic numbers here, by the way. There's a garbage truck full of other unsolvable problems if you poke your head in there.

Aside from the "Avoid Regulations" aspect, and the "Everything That Burns Deorbiting is Depreciation" aka "The Starlink Trick", I'm not sure what the hell the draw is.

ww520 2 minutes ago [-]
Don’t you get 4 faces to radiate away, assuming a long rectangular tube.
xur17 20 minutes ago [-]
> Now, input power. Sunlight in orbit ~1,360 W/m², assume ~22% cell efficiency, we got 300 W/m². So each 1 MW compute, 3,300 m² of solar panel and minimum 1,200–1,500 m² of radiator.

We need > 2x more solar panels than we need radiators. Doesn't this imply radiation isn't really the limiting factor here?

snovv_crash 4 minutes ago [-]
Getting the energy back from the solar panel is easy via copper cables. Getting the heat back out there to the radiators is a bit harder, you needed fluids and pumps and heat exchangers which have lots of moving parts and need maintenance.
rayiner 16 minutes ago [-]
It’s obvious that radiation isn’t the limiting factor, since, as you note, there’s no reason a satellite shouldn’t be able to radiate at least as fast as it gets power from the sun. I don’t know how this became a meme.
m4rtink 2 hours ago [-]
Cooling in space is hard but not impossible - while current (IMHO stupid without advanced in space infra) space data center projects work with a couple MW, many advanced space propulsion concepts might have to reject hundreds of MW if not a couple GW.

For that you might need more advanced stuff like liquid droplet radiators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_droplet_radiator), heat sinks & pulsed operation. Still, it should be eventually doable.

As for space data centers - I think the main issue is the complete lack of in space infrastructure for resource mining, processing and manufacturing & maintenance. It is kinda like building your first practical steam locomotive & the deciding to build directly an airliner. No suitable materils, experience, work force, material sources, etc.

We eventually went from locomotives to airliner, in an incremental manner & expanding the supporting infrastructure to support the ever more ambitious projects.

DanHulton 13 minutes ago [-]
It might be eventually doable, as an experiment or as a flex, sure. But it's never going to come close to being cost-reasonable versus the equivalent infrastructure here on earth.
ruszki 39 minutes ago [-]
According to Wikipedia this reduces weight and not the required area. Also AI said the same thing, but I can't trust in it this blindly. So, how smaller would be the required surface area?
foota 18 minutes ago [-]
Getting this all up into orbit it obviously the hard part, but if you're already building so much solar capacity the cooling actually doesn't seem unreasonable?
jupp0r 20 minutes ago [-]
Wouldn't this be solved like similar problems on earth by making small structures with large surface areas?
foota 17 minutes ago [-]
I don't think so. Large surface area helps with convective cooling I think by increasing the surface area that participates in heat exchange with the air (or other thermally conducting material), radiative cooling wouldn't benefit from this because you can't concentrate light beyond the source that it's emitted from (etendue).

Though I do wonder if it would be possible to have some kind of internal heat pump driven by electrical power to juice up the temperature of the radiators to increase the power being radiated away? E.g., run a heat pump to increase the temperature of a working fluid and then run high temperature radiators? I think it would work and I don't immediately see that it would violate the laws of thermodynamics? (this is ignoring all practically, I'm sure the engineering would be devilishly hard, although if you're already shooting for the moon you might as well throw in some artificial gravity to boot, it's not like the robots get motion sickness)

mike_ivanov 2 hours ago [-]
Radiating 1MW at 500K (227C) with a 0.4MW heat pump takes about 200 m^2 flat sheet surface. Inputs - solar+nuclear for double fun. So - quite feasible.
ChickeNES 2 hours ago [-]
And if you look at SpaceX's Starmind sats, they will have a 160 m^2 liquid radiator for 175kw/250kw peak compute.
cyberax 18 minutes ago [-]
Do we even _have_ semiconductors that can work at 220C? And if you're thinking about using some kind of refrigeration cycle, its efficiency is going to be bad.
Forrest7778 1 hours ago [-]
Great read, thanks for sharing. I am interested in reading some more about the other unsolvable problems that exist in this space, do you have any recommendations that you wouldn't mind pointing me at? It would be greatly appreciated, and thank you :)
JackSlateur 2 hours ago [-]
It would be a shame if a rock came out of nowhere and hit that many square kilometers stucture

Luckily, there are almost no rock in space.

tantalor 25 minutes ago [-]
Almost no rocks, but they're going 10 to 30 km/s
tessierashpool 3 hours ago [-]
there are two arguments for it.

one is marketing.

the other is that you could make tiny datacenters and flood the sky with them. in effect, not datacenters at all, but some kind of dataswarm coordinating at literal lightspeed via lasers.

they'd still be wildly expensive to deploy, and probably litter the orbit zone with fast-moving debris.

nolok 2 hours ago [-]
Your "other" makes no sense. It doesn't matter if you make a few big or a lot smaller, in space you will still need the same space for the same amount of megawatt. Or did you miss the scale of parent's post ? Because in that dream scenario of "let's ignore all the issues except that" and "the earth and the sun don't have any impact", it's still 3 THOUSANDS square meters for a MW of 8 racks.

You want to go smaller and go one rack only sure, it's still hundreds of square meters. Check the size of current orbital structure for a point of reference, you can't dwarf those and call it a "dataswarm of tiny datacenters flooding the sky".

Ifkaluva 2 hours ago [-]
From the article itself, sounds like it’s an open problem that they are experimenting with:

“ We’re working on a number of different approaches for this, including a combination of heat pipes and radiators to cool the chips. So far, our team has tested the technology in a thermal vacuum chamber that simulates both the thermal and vacuum environment in space. We’ll see how our new TPU cooling system works in space and refine our designs as we learn more.”

kccqzy 2 hours ago [-]
The article mentions that:

> The biggest challenge was how to cool the A.I. chips, which heat up when they perform calculations and process information. Fans, which typically help dissipate the heat, do not work in space. So the Silicon Valley company instead developed a cooling system that uses layers of conductive material to expel the heat into space.

> The bottom layer is made up of Google’s A.I. chips, which sit on a green motherboard. The next layer consists of “thermal interface material,” a pale green putty that comes in sheets like Fruit Roll-Ups and connects the chips to layers of aluminum and copper, radiating heat away from the motherboard. Finally, there is a radiator panel, which projects heat into space.

> The chips can operate for about 15 minutes in space before needing to be shut down so they can cool off, said Travis Beals, Google’s senior director of product management for Project Suncatcher.

xnx 4 hours ago [-]
No solution, but that is the crux of the problem. They probably need to make a radiator that 1000x smaller and lighter.

TPU: 100,000+ watts/square-meter

Radiator: ~300 watts/square-meter

https://youtu.be/ktdbUIZKeSE?t=76

JackSlateur 4 hours ago [-]
That's the neat part: you don't (ergo, this is yet another marketing crap)
ElijahLynn 2 hours ago [-]
I watched a video with Elon musk the other day and he was very confident saying it's already a solved problem and they already do it with Starlink to some degree. He was baffled that this debate keeps coming up.
0cf8612b2e1e 2 hours ago [-]
He is free to launch his own space GPU if he is so confident it is profitable*.

I will take it as a given that the Google engineers know what they are doing, and their first version can only run for 15 minutes before it needs to shut down to cool.

*Profitability requiring that other Musk controlled companies do not pay for the service at elevated rates in a classic self dealing scheme.

ChickeNES 2 hours ago [-]
> He is free to launch his own space GPU if he is so confident it is profitable*.

Are you not aware that's exactly what SpaceX is doing?? https://www.spacex.com/spacexai/starmind Sure, it's now SpaceXAI or whatever, but how is that any different than Google sending up sats and selling the compute via Gemini?

0cf8612b2e1e 2 hours ago [-]
We can wait for their profitability numbers, assuming it happens.

Regardless, those claim to have a maximum draw of 250kw. That’s one to two terrestrial data rack. Cute.

delusional 2 hours ago [-]
That guy is baffled we're not all driving around in cybertrucks talking to mecha-hitler. Why would i care?
gmerc 3 hours ago [-]
We don't. This is all cover for the militarisation of space, there's no real benefit that'd be ever economical to put a DC up in space when you could build one on the ground. The whole narrative exists to allow google to tap into the Golden Dome / Space force bucket of pork that's basically SDI II.

You don't need civilian scale compute in space, but you absolutely can put miliary application up there and get filthy rich, like Elon, who doesn't care if it ever works, because he's getting paid as taxi service to shoot stuff up.

GMoromisato 3 hours ago [-]
Please stop with this argument. This is one of the easiest problems to solve. Heat dissipation requires a radiator, which is just a dumb hunk of metal. All you need is a cheap way to launch mass to orbit, which is exactly what SpaceX (and Chinese companies) are doing.

The only valid argument against data centers in space is the economic cost. If the per megatoken price for space datacenters is higher than terrestrial, then this won't work.

But the price for terrestrial datacenters keeps going up and technology keeps dropping the price of space-based.

0cf8612b2e1e 3 hours ago [-]
That is not a fake argument, but real physics. Yes, you can design out X kw can be dissipated by this much radiators, but that adds an enormous quantity of mass, more than the solar panels that feed it.

If you are trying to generate a profit, every extra kg puts you further in the red. It still costs over $1000/kg of mass to get into orbit.

GMoromisato 2 hours ago [-]
So is it a physics problem or an economic problem? Sounds to me like you are acknowledging that it is just an economic problem. If it cost $1/kg to get to orbit then this wouldn't be a problem, right? Just make a bigger radiator.

But if it's an economic argument, then you need to do the actual math. How big is the radiator? How low could the price to orbit go? How much can you charge per million tokens in 2030?

The reason this is a fake argument is because the validity depends on the math, and nobody advancing the "you can't cool stuff in space" argument is actually doing the math.

motionlessveloc 23 minutes ago [-]
The economics is constrained by physics. AI in space is not viable if it costs $1000/kg to launch to space. Starship promises to cut that down to $100/kg (more if you believe Elon, but most don't), but that's still not competitive.

Sure, things would be different if the cost was $1/kg, but short of somebody building a space elevator that's just not going to happen.

GMoromisato 2 minutes ago [-]
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

cyberax 5 minutes ago [-]
It's a fundamental physics problem. You need to have huge radiating surfaces.

A 1GW datacenter with chips operating at 100C (which is probably doable) will need a radiator that has a surface of one square _kilometer_, and this is with all the favorable assumptions. Realistically you'll need about 2x of that.

If you want your DCs to be on a 1000km orbit (for reasonable ping times), you'll be able to _resolve_ these satellites with a naked eye!

Sorry. But this idea is fundamentally unworkable.

mzajc 3 hours ago [-]
> This is one of the easiest problems to solve. /../ All you need is a cheap way to launch mass to orbit.

So... not easy? I don't suppose we're at a point where you could reasonably send a large-enough radiator for a multi-gigawatt cluster into space?

m4rtink 2 hours ago [-]
Not only that - it would be totally insane to launch something heavy & at the same time fragile from earth (under a lot of vibrations & heavy g-loading).

This is all a weird speedrun or race. If something we should be working on setting up resource mining from the Moon & asteroids, materials processing on the Lunar surface & in orbit, simple manufacturing in space, etc.

Instead some people think we can jump straight to a computronium Dyson swarm. :P

GMoromisato 2 hours ago [-]
The plan is to launch thousands of 250 kW satellite. Doesn't sound insane at all.
GMoromisato 2 hours ago [-]
Now you've moved the goal posts. It's no longer "you can't cool stuff in space"; now it's "we can't launch a 10-gW compute cluster by the end of the year."

You don't need to send a multi-gigawatt satellite to space. You just need to launch a few thousand 250 kW satellites. That's not against the laws of physics.

devmor 3 hours ago [-]
> Please stop with this argument. This is one of the easiest problems to solve. Heat dissipation requires a radiator, which is just a dumb hunk of metal.

Convective radiation does not happen in space and this challenge is far more significant than your comment implies. Rather than "a dumb hunk of metal", radiators for spacecraft are often made of ceramics and carbon laminates with higher IR emissivity than convective radiators made of simple metals.

From the article you're commenting on:

> The chips can operate for about 15 minutes in space before needing to be shut down so they can cool off, said Travis Beals, Google’s senior director of product management for Project Suncatcher.

The Thermal Control section on NASA's Small Spacecraft documentation center is quite an interesting read for this subject: https://www.nasa.gov/smallsat-institute/sst-soa/thermal-cont...

ML Infrastructure comes with some pros (larger emissive footprint) and cons (exponentially larger TDP) compared to the concerns there, but if you aren't familiar with the challenges of heat dissipation in space, please give it a read.

There's also a pretty interesting pop-sci article on cooling the Webb telescope, since it needs to be especially cold for its purpose. Not directly related, but may give insight into both challenges and solutions as well as well. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/webb/science-overview/scien...

GMoromisato 1 hours ago [-]
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.
devmor 1 hours ago [-]
Emissivity is an important factor here because as I said, and as the sources I linked for you to reference clearly stated convective radiation is not taking place in space.

Both Google and NASA are worried about this for a reason, if you think they are wrong, you should offer your assistance to them, rather than debating me.

GMoromisato 55 minutes ago [-]
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.

teaearlgraycold 3 hours ago [-]
It will never be cheaper to put compute into orbit. And costs for AI are dropping like a rock here on Earth.
GMoromisato 1 hours ago [-]
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.

teaearlgraycold 57 minutes ago [-]
You’re right. Why am I wasting time on here?
legohead 2 hours ago [-]
and yet notice how the cooling video / section was the only one they didn't have a solution for... just saying "radiator" doesn't make sense - the radiator heats up too. it's how you get rid of the heat, not where you put it.
GMoromisato 1 hours ago [-]
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.

dekhn 27 minutes ago [-]
To your last paragraph: when opposing something, it makes sense to use the laziest argument first. Only if that doesn't achieve your goals, would you move towards less lazy arguments. I forget what the term for this is, it's generally criticized ("you should just put your strongest arguments first").
cyberax 3 minutes ago [-]
> For SpaceX's 175 kW satellites

That's like a quarter of a rack of modern AI hardware. Modern AI datacenters are now in the multi-GW range.

Avicebron 2 hours ago [-]
Is Kessler syndrome priced into cost? Or is that just like, someone else's problem?
GMoromisato 5 hours ago [-]
If data centers in space end up being economically viable, then I don't see how anyone can catch SpaceX. They are ten years ahead in both launch capability and satellite manufacturing.
m4rtink 2 hours ago [-]
Chinese rockets companies are evolving at insane pace, including RLVs. A couple of big milestones have been achieved this year alone, like first stage landing.
Y-bar 2 hours ago [-]
I certainly hope ‘economically viable’ includes properly priced externalities for e.g. side effects of burning hundreds and hundreds of tonnes of aluminium and other materials in the high atmosphere.
gmerc 3 hours ago [-]
That's the fun part, they don't need to be viable. It's just the excuse to shovel tons of money to Trump donors, by rerunning the scam that was SDI.

And they never will be because it's always going to be cheaper to build them on the ground.

2 hours ago [-]
neuronexmachina 2 hours ago [-]
Whenever I hear about this I can't help but be reminded of the Howard Hughes Glomar Explorer, where a hugely-expensive commercial project was actually part of a secret CIA initiative to recover a Soviet submarine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer

I'm not sure that's truly the case here, but it does seem like the tech Project Suncatcher is working on has at least some overlap with requirements for military SIGINT and in-orbit imagery processing.

motionlessveloc 30 minutes ago [-]
Why would the CIA need Google's cover for any of that? The Feds have been flying spy satellites since the 1950s and there's plenty of classified satellite launches.
OkayPhysicist 20 minutes ago [-]
Because anybody near-peer to the US at this point has the capability to shoot down satellites, and anything launched on a classified satellite launch is a prime target.
ilamont 2 hours ago [-]
I didn't have time to watch the videos, but in the text I didn't see anything that addresses data center operations requiring manual intervention.

Swapping out obsolete or failing TPUs. Rewiring or replacing connections. "Listening" for sounds indicating an equipment failure.

What are the proposals to address these needs?

pennomi 2 hours ago [-]
Presumably the plan is to deorbit all failing or obsolete systems. It’s phenomenally wasteful.
ForHackernews 2 hours ago [-]
that's one way to skirt e-waste recycling requirements!
trimethylpurine 2 hours ago [-]
The most obvious solution is to discard.
10xDev 7 hours ago [-]
And just like that Elon Musk shifted the overton window away from "unthinkable" on yet another topic.
GMoromisato 5 hours ago [-]

  It's physically impossible
  It's technically impossible
  It won't be profitable          <= You are here
  It's bad for the environment
  It needs to be nationalized
This is just a joke, obviously, but the debate over on ArsTechnica about Falcon 9 going away is all about how it needs to be nationalized.
fulafel 2 hours ago [-]
Did anyone at and point say it's technically impossible? There's been computers in space since the 60s after all.

It's just far out research experiment like another commented quoted from the text: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49834746

zactato 4 hours ago [-]
I think one of the reasons for putting these in space is to move them beyond the borders of any national control.
edot 3 hours ago [-]
Surely if this were the reason, you'd just put it in international waters?
tumdum_ 2 hours ago [-]
What does it matter where physically computers are located? If the owners can be imprisoned in US, the will cooperate with US government.
GMoromisato 4 hours ago [-]
You can't launch from the US without the federal government giving you permission. And SpaceX does not have (nor are they planning) any launch pads outside the US. [And because of ITAR, I'm not even sure they'd be allowed to build one.]

However, I do think avoiding local control (state/city permits) is a reason for this.

m4rtink 2 hours ago [-]
Rocket Lab has launch pads in New Zealand.
ChickeNES 2 hours ago [-]
> (nor are they planning)

Not true

nova22033 35 minutes ago [-]
You don't think Google has a self-interest in this? Google up how many shares of spacex are held by Alphabet.
helsinkiandrew 2 hours ago [-]
> Announced last year, Project Suncatcher is a long-term, research moonshot exploring whether space could one day host scalable machine learning infrastructure

It’s very confusing to have a project related to space called a moonshot project.

arcanemachiner 2 hours ago [-]
They should put data centers on the moon and call it Project Spaceshot.
hencq 2 hours ago [-]
Haha, yes. I think Silicon Valley (the show ), made fun of the same thing. "Not so long ago, people called the idea of sending a man to the moon a moonshot"
lastscattering 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
likelybot 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
ForHackernews 2 hours ago [-]
lowkey insane that it will end up cheaper to shoot your datacenter into space than get it past the county board permitting process.
Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact
Rendered at 20:39:57 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.