• vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      well any actual engineer who isn’t trying to sell them will readily tell you that a datacenter in space is a very bad idea.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        They’d better not try to sell them to anyone who has access to an engineer, then. Just a single engineer will bring the whole scheme crashing down.

        • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 hours ago

          and forget about running 4nm chips in space. shit has to be radiation hardened, which means bigger process nodes and higher energy cost, and lower speed

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Another thing they probably didn’t think of. Nobody’s run chips in space before.

            • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              18 hours ago

              they did think of it. lots of people have. I just mentioned what was required. Rad hardened processors are usually 10 to 20 times slower than what we have on the surface

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                So don’t use rad-hardened processors, put them in a radiation vault instead. Those become more mass-efficient the more hardware you’re putting inside them.

                Really, I assure you the people proposing these things have put more thought and expertise into it than a bunch of random Fediverse commentators.

        • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 hours ago

          for starters, at the loads they’re running at, they have literally hundreds of gpu failures a day. How do you propose doing that in space?

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Include spares.

            I hope they’re reading this thread and taking notes, they probably didn’t think of that.

            • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              and the infrastructure and robotics to replace them, of course.

              Assuming 200 nvidia H100 failures a day (conservativo, reality is worse) that’s an extra ~340kg of weight you’d need to launch per day. Which is an extra 120 tons yearly.

                • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  18 hours ago

                  at least two, you can’t stuff a rocket full of just gpus, you need something to actually dock and deliver the payload in space. So you need to launch at least 2 rockets (in a non-reusable configuration, so you need to pay for the whole rocket and the launch) to ship a bunch of gpus that are, at best, only 10% as fast as usual.

                  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 hours ago

                    Okay, two then. It’s still cheap.

                    in a non-reusable configuration

                    Why do you say that? 120 tons is well within Block 4’s projected capacity in reusable configuration. 240 tons is almost within it, even.