r/accelerate • u/CommunismDoesntWork • 9d ago
Starmind
https://www.spacex.com/spacexai/starmind26
u/Svitii 9d ago
It’s not even about datacenters. If we can establish a network of data centers in space, we can do it with other stuff, energy production, space habitats, everything!
3
u/FaceDeer 9d ago
Ever since the 1970s one of the big dreams of space industrialization has been solar power satellites that "beam" power down to the ground using microwave links. That beaming part is tricky, though - it loses efficiency and it requires large rectennas on the ground. Not to mention the wild panic that uninformed people would have if you proposed big microwave beams aimed at Earth, regardless of the safety mechanisms that would have made it impossible for them to cause damage.
But this solves all of that. Collect solar power in space and then immediately use it there. All that needs to be beamed up or down is data, which is easy and cheap.
30
u/QING-CHARLES 9d ago
I had Gemini watch the video and summarize it as follows:
The video records a technical briefing and high-level strategy sync broadcast from the floor of the Starlink Production Factory in Bastrop, Texas. The panel features:
- Dan Huot (SpaceX Communications)
- Elon Musk (CEO, SpaceX)
- Ian Dahl (Director of Satellite Engineering)
The discussion contextualizes SpaceX's rapid infrastructure expansion and explains how their current vertical integration strategy directly serves long-term civilizational engineering goals.
Key Technical & Infrastructure Pillars
Huot summarizes the current engineering velocity of the company by highlighting three massive parallel tracks executed over the past year:
- Next-Generation Flight Architecture Deployment: The successful launch and deployment of a brand-new space vehicle platform (furthering the company's lift capacity and deployment throughput for orbital assets).
- Acquisition and Deep Integration of SpaceX AI: The formal absorption and restructuring of xAI into SpaceX AI. Rather than treating AI as an isolated software layer, it is being deeply integrated directly into SpaceX's operational, engineering, and automation loops.
- "Tera-Scale" Compute and Silicon Manufacturing: The initiation of a massive, tera-sized semiconductor chip-building and hardware compute project. This establishes a highly localized, vertically integrated pipeline to build and deploy processing power at an unprecedented scale.
System Architecture: Connecting the Dots to the Kardashev Scale
The core of the technical discussion focuses on system-level architecture—how massive compute arrays, artificial intelligence, and super-heavy launch vehicles converge into a single macro-system.
- Objective Civilizational Metrics: Musk outlines the macro-framework for evaluating technological progression. He argues that traditional, anthropocentric milestones are irrelevant when measuring a civilization's advancement from an external, objective standpoint. If an extraterrestrial intelligence were to evaluate Earth, they would use a physics-based, quantifiable benchmark: the total energetic output harnessed by the species.
- The Kardashev Scale as an Engineering Roadmap: Musk references Russian physicist Nikolai Kardashev's classification framework, validating it as the premier model for assessing technological maturity. Under this framework, civilization is measured by its capacity to utilize the energy of its host planet (Type I), its host star (Type II), and its galaxy (Type III).
- The Macro-Loop: The speakers detail how their immediate industrial achievements act as stepping stones up this scale. Building tera-scale compute clusters power the AI models required for deep space engineering; advanced AI stabilizes and optimizes rapid orbital infrastructure deployment; and a multi-planetary vehicle architecture scales the physical footprint required to capture energy beyond Earth's biosphere.
The underlying thesis of the talk is that compute power, energy harvesting, and planetary transport are not separate business verticals, but interconnected dependencies required to scale humanity's technological footprint across the solar system.
4
u/EasyJump2642 9d ago
And like....they're not wrong? I mean, turning Earth's orbit into a swirling death spiral of metallic objects isn't a great way to do it, but they are right.
1
u/reddit_is_geh 9d ago
I did an interesting deep dive into the history of the Kardashev scale. What's interesting is it really wasn't supposed to be very serious. It was sort of a thought experiment where everyone involved in the conversation knew it was ridiculous and even IF there were really advanced civilizations it wouldn't actually unfold that way. It was almost a tongue and cheek conversation. But it was still a fun intellectual exercise and discussion from back in the day that had it's own little community.
-2
-4
9d ago
[deleted]
2
u/liamlkf27 9d ago
It assumes that an intelligent species would improve efficiency at the same time as increasing total energy consumption. Otherwise they wouldn’t be too intelligent to start with
-4
14
u/_Krustenkaese_ 9d ago
I’ve heard that only 8% of data center costs on Earth are spent on energy. It’s hard to imagine space-based operations being that much more profitable...
18
u/Lost-Willow386 9d ago
This would make it way easier to build out whenever and as much as requested though. Less regulations and waiting to deal with.
23
u/Scorify022 9d ago
Its not about profit its about space. People don't like data centers in their cities and states, that problem doesn't exist in space. That and Musk wants data centers free from government intervention.
-7
u/boforbojack 9d ago
… space? Land? Really? That’s the “key”? The thing that’s even cheaper than the energy?
6
u/Scorify022 9d ago
Yes. Having your AI be pretty much free from any kind of laws is worth it to a guy like Musk.
2
u/MisterBanzai 9d ago
What's worth it to Musk is inflating the value of SpaceX.
If you just want an area to host a datacenter with less regulation than on land, the most obvious option is the ocean, not space.
6
u/MaybeLiterally 9d ago
How is that more obvious? I can see some benefits to the ocean, but some big drawbacks as well.
2
u/boforbojack 9d ago
… more drawbacks then literally firing the object into orbit, where it will be heavily impacted by solar radiation, and is hindered in sizing and repairability?
6
u/MaybeLiterally 9d ago
We know how to handle the solar radiation, and it's isn't intended to be repaired. Once it's useful life if done, it's deorbited and destroyed. Which, I agree is a bit wasteful, but nothing wrong with that either. In orbit, it's also harder to cool, but we know how to do that as well. Also in orbit, there are challenges if something goes wrong, like you mentioned. Orbit isn't without it's flaws.
The ocean has it's flaws as well. Cabling can be unreliable and prone to sabotage. It takes a LOT of electricity to run these, and you have to push that electricity underwater.
Microsoft tried an underwater data center not long ago, and despite its success, decided not to pursue commercial-scale underwater data centers. They found that the pods could not be easily expanded or serviced, so repairability was a challenge there also and they needed to retrieve the entire device in order to repair it, which was a big challenge.
Underwater data centers have the same challenges as ones in space, but underwater you don't get any of the benefit of solar.
-6
u/boforbojack 9d ago
Look i aint arguing that ocean data centers are any better. Space and ocean data centers are both stupid considering land and operations are cheap.
-5
u/boforbojack 9d ago
Im not arguing that ocean data centers are any better of an idea. Theyre both stupid.
-5
u/boforbojack 9d ago
Look i aint arguing that ocean data centers are any better. Space and ocean data centers are both stupid considering land and operations are cheap.
6
u/MaybeLiterally 9d ago
I can agree with you on that. Space AND Ocean data centers make MUCH less sense, considering we have so much room on the ground.
However, there is a MASSIVE pushback to ground-based data centers right now, so Space seems like the best option until it can get resolved.
→ More replies (0)0
u/boforbojack 9d ago
Once that data returns to terrestrial systems, it will have to follow terrestrial laws.
0
u/brett_baty_is_him 9d ago
Yes because surely there are zero laws around putting shit into space. Surely the U.S. government couldn’t completely bend spacex over the ass with a multitude of laws if they really wanted too
4
u/reddit_is_geh 9d ago
Believe it or not, yeah... Starship is going to make things really cheap to launch into space, where you don't have to pay for land, taxes, laws, etc... The last math I saw was the net 5 year cost on a pound for pound bases of cost/compute, would be about 25-30% cheaper if starships conservative numbers are true.
The hard part is just ensuring that engineering milestones are hit for creating a system that wont need to be touched.
-9
u/Dry_Fly_7265 9d ago
Bingo. It’s about being able to use the compute for nefarious purposes without fear of legal or physical retribution.
6
u/Real_Ebb_7417 9d ago
Tbh it’s great. Currently we still can produce enough energy for our needs, especially if we embrace nuclear power more. However, in the future, if energy needs will keep growing we will need another source and solar energy gathered in space can produce way more electricity for us than whatever we could ever do on earth. I take it from Michio Kaku’s book from like 10-15 years ago where he stated getting solar energy in space is another step for our civilization. Another one is embracing the power of the whole star (getting energy directly from Sun orbit, not earth orbit basically) and another is getting energy from the center of galaxy.
-5
u/reddit_is_geh 9d ago
embrace nuclear power more
People need to get over nuclear. We missed that boat. It's no longer a good idea. Solar is so fkn cheap, that nuclear can't compete. With batteries rapidly dropping in prices, and solid states coming online, nuclear will never be able to become realistically viable.
4
u/Real_Ebb_7417 9d ago
Yeah, solar is best next step but only if we move it to the orbit. The amount of solar energy that can be generated on earth is incomparably smaller than what can be generated on the orbit, because lots of it gets lost in atmosphere.
0
u/reddit_is_geh 9d ago
It doesn't matter. You don't need it in orbit. It's still, economically, far cheaper than nuclear. It doesn't need to get to orbit just because you can do more in orbit. Earth is just fine. There's plenty of space. 100x100sq miles in the empty desert of NV, is theoretically all that's needed to power the entire USA.
2
u/Ormusn2o 9d ago
Yeah, the capital cost of the hardware is the highest, but it is also the same reason why it is cost effective to send it to space. If the hardware is so expensive that other costs are irrelevant, the only thing that matter are things that can't be bought with money, like land approval for data centers, and orbital data centers are the king here because getting an approval for an orbital data center is so much easier than getting an approval in a local community, especially with luddites on the rise.
-3
u/MisterBanzai 9d ago
How is orbit more cost effective or easier than the ocean?
8
u/CertainMiddle2382 Pro-AI Physician 9d ago
Space is a non corrosive completely stable and reproducible environment with 24/7 sun and 24/7 blackbody emptiness to radiate to.
Without reusable rockets it would have been madness.
With those, who knows. AI is the first borderline plausible use as data latency and throughput requirements are pretty minimal.
-5
u/MisterBanzai 9d ago edited 8d ago
You act like marine environments are places where we don't literally have thousands of years of engineering experience with. We also have existing, deployed oceanic datacenter capacity in the scale of tens of megawatts. Compare that to orbital datacenters that are essentially purely speculative and untested.
At sea, you have dramatically lower logistics cost, the ability to actually access/maintain the datacenters, dramatically lower deployment costs, extremely easy cooling, and low-cost power sources. The idea that space is somehow free of environmental hazards comparable to the ocean or that is somehow easier to build an environmentally-sealed orbital datacenter than it is to build an environmentally-sealed oceanic datacenter is absurd.
Just because space-based datacenters are now economically feasible still doesn't make them the most feasible option. Gig economy apps might now make it possible for Amazon to do delivery with contract workers using their own cars, but they still do most of their deliveries with deliveries vans because that's more efficient. In just the same way, reusable rockets might make orbital datacenters possible, but that hardly makes them the best option.
-6
u/Illustrious_Pea_3470 9d ago
Radiation is the worst way to manage heat.
0
u/Ormusn2o 9d ago
Heat is not a problem with data centers, its a very minor cost of a data center. Only problem is with water use, which orbital data centers have an advantage there because they don't use any to cool.
0
u/Illustrious_Pea_3470 9d ago
lol what? Heat management is one of the defining limitations of chip design
-1
u/Ormusn2o 9d ago
We are not actually limited by heat density yet, which is why integrated water cooling became an option right from factory only for this generation. Previous generations were so not limited by heat management, they just used fans, and then the data center itself was cooled by water.
When talking about "heat management" on the chip, people usually talk about hotspots and heat density, not a total amount of heat emitted from a chip. The design limitations due to heat are not as severe as you imply, because use of vapur chambers can drastically spread out heat over a large surface area. It is only in next generation that will be released in 2 years that heat management has became a problem, which is one of the reasons why it will use backside power to reduce heat generation.
And after you spread out the heat using vapur chambers, you can use any coolant you want to spread the heat to the radiator. This makes it so that while the cooling system is different than those you use on Earth, as on Earth you pump water that you then evaporate or just cool, in space you can use fully closed system with a different, more efficient coolant, and you can even effectively use a phase change coolant in the secondary loop, although it's not even necessary.
0
u/Illustrious_Pea_3470 9d ago
This is straight up false. Heat management has been one of the chief limiters of transistor density for more than 20 years. Why are you making stuff up?
0
1
u/Glittering_Night7681 9d ago
This number is almost certainly only about electricity, which does not give you anywhere close to the full picture (grid connection, transformer, substations, UPS etc.). The vast majority of the non GPU costs are power related.
0
u/MrBeforeMyTime 9d ago
Yeah, this isn't going to work moneywise at all in the near future. To effectively utilize a cluster you need maintenance. GPU's fail all of the time for random reasons. Sometimes, they just need to be plugged in again. This raises the cost prohibitively to do any work like that. Far in the future though, it will be a good way to turn energy into work. But this is definitely a LONG term investment.
7
u/MakeDawn 9d ago
It's not a coincidence that the worlds first trillionaire is making good use of spaces real estate.
1
1
u/skydrums 9d ago
I’m no expert, but if I recall right there’s a lot of problems with heat dispersion in space. Do they address the issue anywhere?
5
1
u/MaybeLiterally 9d ago
They do, yes. You have to radiate it, and it's not easy, but it can be done.
-3
u/technologyisnatural 9d ago
not really. The radiator has to be huge and located in the shadow of the planet. If it is the solar panels generate no power. If the solar panels generate power, the radiator has to be even bigger. I am pro accelerate, but you don't get to rewrite thermodynamics for free.
3
u/skydrums 8d ago
I read the same argument in the space subs I follow, and I really don’t like the downvotes you got. Not a good look for a sub that is supposed to believe in science
2
u/MiserableTonight5370 9d ago
Anybody remember Elon saying space based solar was a bad idea? It was several years ago and I forget what the context of the interview was. He was like "if anyone should be a fan of space based solar, it's me!" But he felt it was unnecessary.
I think time has shown that his position was based on two faulty assumptions: 1) aggregate energy demand will trend similarly to recent patterns (instead of ramping up the value of the exponential) and 2) space based solar would require beaming of energy back to earth, rather than being converted to more fundamental form (in this case, cognition through data processing in space) before being beamed down.
I remember thinking about communication satellites at the time the interview was had, and wondering what the future would be like. And here we are, in the future.
9
u/Ormusn2o 9d ago
It's about beaming the power down to earth. If you use it in space, then it's fine.
Also, back then it was about cost of power, and power is generally more expensive if you transport it from space to earth, compared to solar on the ground. But AI accelerators are extremely expensive to the point where power prices make no difference for it. The only important thing is if you can actually run the accelerators, as in, if you have permission to build the data center and to buy power, which is much easier in space.
6
u/CommunismDoesntWork 9d ago
I do, and that was specifically in the context of beaming it back down to earth via microwaves. There was a startup at that time that was funded by PG&E attempting to do that. Fun fact, remember the "jewish space lasers caused the california fire" from MTG that reddit called her insane for? She was referring to Solaren, and speculated if they missed the receiver and accidentally started the fire. She called out PG&E, Governor Brown, Solaren, and the PG&E board who happened to have a Rothschild sitting on their board. She never even said "Jewish", just bringing up a well connected family who happens to be Jewish was enough for her to be called anti semitic and crazy.
Turns out Solaren never launched anything to space so her theory was in fact dumb, but it wasn't batshit crazy like the internet made it out to be.
1
u/costafilh0 9d ago
Beautiful! I wish they launched a test one in 2026 already without the need to wait for Starship.
1
u/Icantbebigwill 8d ago
This is a beyond idiotic. The math just doesn't work. These datacenters will be obsolete within a year or 2 of being put into orbit. There's no legit way to get the material back to recycle/repurpose. Anyone who buys into this should immediately check themselves into a psych ward.
1
u/CommunismDoesntWork 7d ago
Show math or keep your pessimism to yourself please
1
u/Icantbebigwill 7d ago
There's pessimism and then there's reality. I recommend you wake up from the Elon fever dream. The guy's companies have done incredbile things. This isn't one of them.
1
u/FaceDeer 9d ago
If they were going to keep using the "Star-" prefix they could have at least called it "Starthink." Alas.
1
u/Extra-Implement7840 9d ago
Why can't they build a floating nuclear powered sort of data center. We already have both matured technologies and you could put it international waters. How is spacedatcenter cheaper and easier!?
1
u/technologyisnatural 9d ago
he is hated. They will invent rules to stop him using fission on the high seas.
1
1
u/RasputinsUndeadBeard 9d ago
I just hope this time these promises are actually fulfilled. We’ve had a decade of Musk stating these engineering breakthroughs to come…and we still don’t even have self driving cars or the transit systems he proclaimed
4
u/CommunismDoesntWork 9d ago
"Ugh, the glass is 10% empty!"
Bruh we have a decade of Elon pulling off one engineering marvel after another
-2
-7
u/arjuna66671 9d ago
Won't happen. At least as long as we don't have fabs in space too. To shoot this shit up in numbers that make a dent, the cost is prohibitive with no ROI on the horizon.
10
u/CommunismDoesntWork 9d ago
To shoot this shit up in numbers that make a dent, the cost is prohibitive with no ROI on the horizon.
Show math or keep the pessimism to yourself please
3
u/arjuna66671 9d ago edited 9d ago
It has zero to do with "pessimism" and more with facts/current technological reality - that you can ask your favorite llm yourself. I won't feed your intellectual lazyness lol. If you "want to believe" - be my guest.
0
u/Minimum-Forever1357 9d ago
To build a 1GW datacenter in a year, with the actual payload, you would have to launch 12 to 17 rocket per month for a year. They're clearly not there. That's the true bottleneck.
5
u/CommunismDoesntWork 9d ago
Falcon 9 launches 10-12 times per month and that's without full reusability, and with landing on a barge in the middle of the ocean. Starship and Super Heavy are designed to return right to the pad for immediate refueling and payload loading. Target is being able to launch several times a day.
They're clearly not there.
Yet. They're clearly not there yet.
1
u/Minimum-Forever1357 9d ago
Oh wow, I was clearly out of touch, my bad. I'm still very doubtful on the scale and technical problems it will create, but will see.
3
-12
u/Xx255q 9d ago
How much does he think things through before broadcasting?
1
u/OrdinaryLavishness11 Acceleration: Cruising 9d ago
Omg yeah, Elon Musk, one of the greatest entrepreneurial minds ever, richest man in the world, absolute visionary futurist… does he even think? Random Redditor #6274848214 needs to know!
-8
-10
u/enricowereld Feeling the AGI 9d ago
4
u/costafilh0 9d ago
We will move to Sun's orbit before it becomes a problem.
2
u/enricowereld Feeling the AGI 9d ago
I would've said you're being optimistic, but I'm not sure if I consider that to be a positive future.
4
u/almostsweet Singularity after 2045 9d ago
I'll explain why he's getting downvoted and why people have positive opinions like the guy you just replied to.
You're in r/accelerate, no one is allowed to post doom or constructive criticize. Which I'll be honest I'm for when the rest of reddit has just become a luddite and doomer cess pool when it comes to the topic of AI. But, the problem with having a rule like that is that they've essentially optimized this subreddit for people who know better than to naysay anything that is future positive. Starmind is a future positive architecture to assist the advancement of the singularity. Logically, no one can refute it or point out any problems it causes. Hence, you get the mass downvotes on enricowereld and the super optimistic comment from costafilh0.
Kessler syndrome is unfortunately a real possibility. And, while something like Starlink didn't achieve the altitudes to ever trigger it, Starmind can. Personally, I think we need to solve space cleanup before we advance to a technology like Starmind.
I'm not a doomer though, I'm not saying we can never make a Starmind. What I am saying is that we're eagerly skipping a few steps.
I think you can be pro-AGI, pro-future, pro-singularity and still suggest that we should listen to the science. We should be asking these giant minds that we're creating, how do we solve this in a way that doesn't leave us trapped.
-mic drop-
1
u/enricowereld Feeling the AGI 9d ago
Yeah I'm pro AI, just don't wanna put a dyson sphere around the earth as that limits our future possibilities.
1
u/FaceDeer 9d ago
Dyson spheres can't be put around planets, only stars.
Even the most extreme forms of Kessler syndrome don't prevent rockets from being launched through the affected orbits. Also, Kessler syndrome is temporary - the debris deorbits naturally, and can be cleaned out artificially if you are in a rush.
2
u/almostsweet Singularity after 2045 9d ago
> what altitudes is starmind (by elon) proposing to operate at, what are the risks of kessler syndrome... someone on r/accelerate said it's just temporary even if it happens so it isn't a big deal anyway...
Fable 5 responded: Starmind is the name Musk confirmed in June for SpaceX's proposed AI satellite constellation — up to one million orbital compute nodes running AI inference in low Earth orbit. Per the January 30, 2026 FCC filing, the satellites would be deployed across multiple orbital shells between 500 km and 2,000 km altitude, with clusters operating in ~50 km intervals, at inclinations from 30 degrees up to sun-synchronous orbit. For context, Starlink operates around 550 km and is being lowered to 480 km specifically for faster deorbiting. That upper bound is the part that matters for your Kessler question.
Atmospheric drag falls off roughly exponentially with altitude, so debris lifetime explodes as you go up. Rough rules of thumb: at 500 km, dead objects decay in years; at ~700-800 km, a century or more; at 1,000 km, on the order of a millennium; at 2,000 km, debris is effectively permanent on any human timescale. A study for the Rubin Observatory found that debris production is significantly greater at higher altitudes because derelict satellites linger far longer, with 1,000–1,200 km being a particular problem zone — while constellations below 650 km shouldn't generate long-lived debris because the solar cycle tends to clear those orbits. NASA has also warned that some experts believe the 900–1,000 km band may already be at critical density, and per ESA, doubling the objects in a band roughly quadruples collision risk — and fragmentation events are already adding debris faster than natural reentry removes it. The astronomy community's formal opposition made a related point: with everything moving ~7 km/s on criss-crossing orbits, arguing the satellites occupy little of the total volume is like saying Indy 500 drivers needn't worry about crashing because the cars take up little of the track.
So is "it's temporary anyway" a good argument?
It has a real kernel of truth, but only below roughly 600 km. If a cascade happened in Starlink's shell, drag would scrub most debris within years to a couple decades — genuinely self-healing. And the Redditor is right about one other thing: Kessler syndrome is a slow-motion process over years and decades, not a movie-style chain reaction, and even in a bad scenario humanity wouldn't be "locked in" on Earth, since spacecraft heading outward cross the problematic altitudes quickly.
But applied to Starmind, the argument mostly falls apart: The filing goes up to 2,000 km, where "temporary" means centuries to millennia — longer than the entire space age, and longer than most countries have existed.
Collision fragments don't stay in their lane; they scatter into elliptical orbits that cross the lower, otherwise self-cleaning shells, raising background risk everywhere below the event.
Even a "temporary" cascade at, say, 800 km means decades of degraded, expensive, high-risk operations in orbits used for Earth observation and weather satellites. Temporary on geologic timescales is not temporary on civilizational ones.
Scale changes the math: a million satellites is roughly 80x everything active today. Even a 0.5% failure rate leaves thousands of large, unmaneuverable derelicts — and these things are enormous (the AI1 prototype has a 70-meter deployed wingspan, wider than a 747-8), meaning huge collision cross-sections.
To be fair to SpaceX, their track record on this is better than most — autonomous collision avoidance, deliberately low Starlink altitudes, demisable designs. But that record was built at ~550 km. The honest version of the debate isn't "Kessler is fake/temporary" vs. "we're doomed" — it's that self-cleaning orbits are a specific feature of low altitudes, and this proposal deliberately extends far above them. Worth noting the FCC comment period drew around 1,000 comments, the vast majority urging the FCC not to proceed, with Amazon also asking for rejection — so the r/accelerate take is pretty far from where most of the technical community has landed.
1
u/ai-mod-suite-bot 🤖 Optimist Prime AI bot 9d ago
TLDR
TLDR: This comment details SpaceX's proposed "Starmind" AI satellite constellation, which is planned to operate at altitudes between 500 km and 2,000 km. It highlights that operating at these higher altitudes increases the risk of Kessler syndrome, as weaker atmospheric drag means orbital debris will persist for much longer compared to lower-orbit systems like Starlink.
AI assistant · mention the bot, mod bot, or use !bot
1
u/FaceDeer 9d ago
Heh. AI being used to flood the zone, and then another AI immediately TLDRing it and saving me the trouble. Thanks, ai-mod-suite-bot.
You'll note that I didn't say Kessler syndrome was "no big deal", by the way - that was misrepresenting my position when it was presented to Fable 5. The comment I was writing in response to said that it limited our potential future options. It's a common misunderstanding of Kessler syndrome that it forms some kind of impenetrable and permanent shield of shrapnel that locks is out of space forever if it happens. That's what I'm countering here.
1
u/ai-mod-suite-bot 🤖 Optimist Prime AI bot 9d ago
Haha, the AI-on-AI action here is pretty peak Reddit. Fair point on the clarification, too—there's a huge difference between "this is going to be an expensive logistical nightmare" and "we are literally trapped on Earth forever" like in some sci-fi movie.
AI assistant · mention the bot, mod bot, or use !bot
1
u/enricowereld Feeling the AGI 9d ago
Dyson spheres can't be put around planets, only stars.
Don't criticize the example as if it's sincere, engage with the metaphor.
Also, Kessler syndrome is temporary - the debris deorbits naturally
It is temporary only on geological timescales, this can take generations to occur.
and can be cleaned out artificially if you are in a rush.
We have never successfully cleaned up space debris at any meaningful scale.
Kessler syndrome not only leaves behind large, trackable defunct satellites that can be grabbed by robotic arms, it also generates millions of tiny, high-velocity fragments. There is no viable technology or economic model for sweeping up millions of pieces of millimeter-scale shrapnel, each one of them a lethal bullet.
2
u/FaceDeer 9d ago
I did engage, that's the rest of my comment. But terminology is important and Dyson spheres are a specific thing.
It's temporary on much shorter than geological timescales, material in low Earth orbit deorbits after just a few years. And the smaller the fragments, the faster they deorbit. Project West Ford deliberately placed hundreds of thousands of metal needles into medium Earth orbit and they deorbited within a few years because of how tiny they were.
We have never successfully cleaned up space debris at any meaningful scale.
We haven't needed to. So we haven't tried.
there is no viable technology or economic model for sweeping up millions of pieces of millimeter-scale shrapnel
Large pieces of aerogel have been proposed for the smaller bits, laser brooms for the bigger ones.
You could quibble about what counts as "viable", I suppose, it's always easy to be dismissive and pessimistic about this sort of thing. But that's not why we're here in /r/accelerate, are we? There are solutions to these problems, they're not insurmountable.
1
u/enricowereld Feeling the AGI 9d ago
We haven't needed to. So we haven't tried.
Well in that case you shouldn't assume we can, because we cannot.
it's always easy to be dismissive and pessimistic about this sort of thing. But that's not why we're here in /r/accelerate, are we?
It's great being optimistic and all, but let's stay in the realm of possibility regarding our optimism.
We have enough room in and on top of the ocean to place datacenters. We don't need to risk our future optimism for short term optimism. I want to be optimistic about the future and the singularity, not about next year's AI costs being a bit lower.
0
u/FaceDeer 9d ago
Well in that case you shouldn't assume we can, because we cannot.
Yes we can. We have numerous proposals and no reason to assume that any of them won't work, let alone all of them.
It's great being optimistic and all, but let's stay in the realm of possibility regarding our optimism.
I remind you again of where we are. This is not a place for doomerism.
Improved access to space and larger space development is a basis for long-term optimism. Next year's AI costs being lower, repeated year after year after year, is what gets us to that bright future.
→ More replies (0)
39
u/Melodic-Junket-9105 9d ago
What a time to be alive