ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Mateo84 said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

All the deep space probes will likely be the last surviving man made things unless we somehow achieve interstellar travel. Pioneer 10 and 11, Voyager 1 and 2, New Horizons.

---

Well that's depressing.

Merry Christmas to all! Haha

---

I dunno. It's kind of cool to think about how those will end up. They could drift through space for hundreds of millions of years, and they'll probably last longer than entire continents here on earth.

---

Pretty cool if you were an engineer or technician who had a part in building them.

The Kraken said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Mateo84 said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

All the deep space probes will likely be the last surviving man made things unless we somehow achieve interstellar travel. Pioneer 10 and 11, Voyager 1 and 2, New Horizons.

---

Well that's depressing.

Merry Christmas to all! Haha

---

I dunno. It's kind of cool to think about how those will end up. They could drift through space for hundreds of millions of years, and they'll probably last longer than entire continents here on earth.

---

Pretty cool if you were an engineer or technician who had a part in building them.

---

Yep. That part you made or helped design will still be floating between the stars long after the ground you did it on will have been worn to nothing and pushed back up into a mountain somewhere else across the world. That's about as permanent as anything we've ever made will ever be.

Still has to clear the Oort Cloud, but odds are good.

More on the IPO timing/explanation: link:

Quote:

---

How can SpaceX play in this space? In the near term, the company plans to develop a modified version of the Starlink satellite to serve as a foundation for building data centers in space. Musk said as much on the social media network he owns, X, in late October: "SpaceX will be doing this."

But using a next-generation Starlink satellite manufactured on Earth is just the beginning of his vision. "The level beyond that is constructing satellite factories on the Moon and using a mass driver (electromagnetic railgun) to accelerate AI satellites to lunar escape velocity without the need for rockets," Musk said this weekend on X. "That scales to >100TW/year of AI and enables non-trivial progress towards becoming a Kardashev II civilization."

Based on some projected analyses, SpaceX is expected to have in the neighborhood of $22 to $24 billion in revenue next year. That is a lot of moneyit's on par with NASA's annual budget, for example, and SpaceX can deploy its capital far, far more efficiently than the government can. So the company will be able to accomplish a lot. But with a large infusion of cash, SpaceX will be able to go much faster. And it will take a lot of cash to design and build the satellites and launch the rockets to deploy data centers in space.

Abhi Tripathi, a long-time SpaceX employee who is now director of mission operations at the UC Berkeley Space Sciences Laboratory, believes that once Musk realized Starlink satellites could be architected into a distributed network of data centers, the writing was on the wall.

"That is the moment an IPO suddenly came into play after being unlikely for so long," Tripathi told Ars. "If you have followed Elon's tactics, you know that once he commits to something, he leans fully into it. Much of the AI race comes down to amassing and deploying assets that work quicker than your competition. A large war chest resulting from an IPO will greatly help his cause and disadvantage all others."

Foremost among Musk's goals right now is to "win" the battle for artificial intelligence. He is already attacking the problem at xAI and Tesla, and he now seeks to throw SpaceX into the fray as well. Taking SpaceX public and using it to marshal an incredible amount of resources shows he is playing to win.

---

Anyone considering throwing serious cash at the IPO if it happens?

Feel like it'll be a no-brainer... just depends on if you can get it.

All the yuppies in CA and NY etc. will be buying with happily even though they hate Elon.

OnlyForNow said:

---

Feel like it'll be a no-brainer... just depends on if you can get it.

All the yuppies in CA and NY etc. will be buying with happily even though they hate Elon.

---

I'll throw all the loose cash I have at it and will probably put a weekly buy in from my check. Blue Origin is the only other orbital booster that has landed. SpaceX did that 10 years ago? The difference in lift capacity from SpaceX to the rest of the world is insane.

SpaceX is on track to surpass 10,000 @Starlink satellites in orbit by February 2026.

Starlink V3 will be 20kW and launched at scale around Q4 next year:
• Gigabit connectivity
• Will add 60 Tera-bits-per-second of downlink capacity to the Starlink network
• 20X the capacity pic.twitter.com/9MPcoPmrBL

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) December 12, 2025

Some people will freak out over this image. Satellites size depicted is at a different scale as the earth is though.

I've read 30K-44K are their nominal goals to date, but that pre-dates the (now stated) objectives to build a complementary AI capacity in orbit on the backbone of the starlink V3 architecture.

Extra lox tank for the landing catch is cool to learn about.

In the bottom left corner of this image you can see the beginning of very large unknown steel truss structure that will either go around, or in front of the static fire test stand.

If it’s a vertical structure, It might end up going all the way up to the payload section of the… https://t.co/Q93QDAhONZ

— Zack Golden (@CSI_Starbase) December 12, 2025

As the Russians could attest this year, a good/secure service structure is important for the launch/static fire platforms.

Nm

And, their launches have become so common and uneventful.

Congrats SpaceX!

This marks 120 Starlink missions with 3,095 satellites deployed so far for the year — an incredible 1,133 more than full-year 2024! 🚀🛰 pic.twitter.com/myjix5shGj

— Brian Basson (@BassonBrain) December 14, 2025

SpaceX just completed its 550th booster landing

Falcon booster B1093 stuck a perfect touchdown on OCISLY after its 9th flight, delivering more Starlink satellites from Vandenberg

From the first landing in 2015 to 550 today pic.twitter.com/qUwwtXZFSl

— X Freeze (@XFreeze) December 14, 2025

The orbital DC conversation has gotten a few ballpark numbers to play with now. Andrew McCalip estimates it's about 4x the cost compared to terrestrial:

Data centers in space.

It might not be economically rational. But it might be physically possible.

I’m trying to bring some quantitative structure to a conversation that’s been mostly big-number vibes.https://t.co/d7aFGVp4dS pic.twitter.com/4BPmPRUpBO

— Andrew McCalip (@andrewmccalip) December 15, 2025

The site lets you play with the numbers, I haven't had a chance to dig into it but I think there's some real good principles. He stresses that it's all about the economics first which is realistic IMO.

Interesting. I for one am not going to trouble shoot his math but this guy essentially reached the opposite conclusion as to the cost comparison. I do think Andrew's cost for the orbital hardware is a bit high.

I made a first principles, physics based, end-to-end model and interactive simulation room for orbital compute. I broke down the Stefan-Boltzmann radiator temps, radiator mass budgets, failure curves, orbital repair capacity, and the real power-to-compute frontier. I forced the… pic.twitter.com/MD4rnYIpzW

— Pranav Myana (@princeofprawns0) December 12, 2025

Hopefully more geeks 'show us the math' over the next year or so, if/as SpaceX shows what their plans would be it should get easier.

The other thing I have seen discussed is that sea-based data centers should also be able to develop essentially limitless cooling as the ocean is a big place/thing too, but I am not seeing a lot of investment in that. Of course, ships with big generators and data centers aren't exactly as sexy as orbital ones.

nortex97 said:

---

The other thing I have seen discussed is that sea-based data centers should also be able to develop essentially limitless cooling as the ocean is a big place/thing too, but I am not seeing a lot of investment in that. Of course, ships with big generators and data centers aren't exactly as sexy as orbital ones.

---

Yeah, generating that much power on earth would twist the environmentalists' panties into a Gordian knot. Plus the concern about "you're increasing the temperature of the ocean by 0.2 C! You'll kill us all!" Not saying it isn't a better strategy (it is certainly the more rapidly achievable one), just very unlikely to get any kind of support.

It would seem difficult to get the necessary generation energy density and reliability at sea. No numbers behind that just vibes.

Zobel said:

---

It would seem difficult to get the necessary generation energy density and reliability at sea. No numbers behind that just vibes.

---

I know a big part of that is the difficulty in corrosion/buildup.

Anything in the ocean needs to be regularly repainted, scraped down, sandblasted, pressure washed, resealed, cleaned, etc. All those fouling buildups add lots of maintenance into the equation. How much extra work and cost is it if you're turning everything down every few years at best?

Zobel said:

---

It would seem difficult to get the necessary generation energy density and reliability at sea. No numbers behind that just vibes.

---

With the size of cargo ships today I am not sure why this will be entirely unfeasible. Operating in international waters might also offer regulatory/tax savings, as well (as with space-based).

Yes, it's speculative but it could happen and involve less design overhead vs. orbiting constellations, imho. Some are throwing money at it, but not at Elon/Bezos scale.

Quote:

---

A mobile, sea-cooled, power-rich platform that bypasses land constraints and permitting headaches offers an attractive alternative to overburdened terrestrial data centers.
The flexibility is notable, but the scale of the ambition raises questions, and this warrants skepticism.
Although the idea sounds perfect on paper, its real-world execution could face the same issues that has plagued similar utopian infrastructure concepts.
The MOU promises operations by 2027, contingent on "successful feasibility studies and ongoing technical developments."
Those feasibility studies will need to prove that issues like network latency, physical relocation risks, regulatory uncertainty, and long-term maintenance can be reliably addressed.
Cost and sustainability arguments hinge heavily on the reuse of existing ships.
"In addition to reducing construction costs," the project claims, "the use of existing onboard systems... is expected to reduce initial investment costs."
By avoiding new builds, the developers believe they can also cut the environmental toll of raw material extraction.
The practical advantages, such as speed of deployment, mobility, and independence from strained land-based grids, are not in doubt.
"Even in areas experiencing power shortages, offshore data centers can begin operations immediately," the developers note.
But whether this system will prove reliable, scalable, and economically sound in the long term remains to be seen.

---

Powership looks like a floating gas turbine platform. Fuel is an issue when you're talking offshore enough to avoid taxes and regs. Maybe if you co-located on a place with stranded gas? But getting volume of fuel seems pretty economic unfavorable. I remain skeptical again based only on vibes.

Conversely I wonder how much radiation and other conditions in orbit would cause significant issues. And if something comes loose during launch it's not like you have IT stroll over and just fix the issue.

Something I just thought of is that shipborne DCs might struggle with upload/download. Tough to run fiber to a moving platform so they're either stationary, have to remain close to shore for wireless (like directional/microwave links) or relying on satellite which pales in comparison to the bandwidth needed for a modern DC.

Now they have to solve the same thing in orbit as well, but since you're kinda already up there with Starlink it might actually be an easier hurdle.

The Sun is an enormous, free fusion reactor in the sky. It is super dumb to make tiny fusion reactors on Earth.

Even if you burned 4 Jupiters, the Sun would still round up to 100% of all power that will ever be produced in the solar system!!

Stop wasting money on puny little…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 14, 2025

Couldn't disagree more. First, only a tiny fraction of that power can be captured via solar, even if we put them in space. Second, it would seem to run contrary to long term goals for space travel. Traditional rocket propulsion will not be sufficient for mass colonization, even within the solar system. Nothing can come close to nuclear in terms of the amount of power produced when considering mass and volume (eg how large a solar array would have to be and the logistics associated with creating / maintaining).

Solar power is the one thing that I just can't understand from Elon. Every single engineer I know must be wrong if he's right. But maybe he is just that visionary and we are all just incapable of understanding his points.

The only logical conclusion I have is that he's trying to be consistent with owning a solar company and trying to get government or investment money for it.

Solar as some panacea energy source is just not that great, or even realistic imho.

But a 'mass accelerator' la a centrifugal launch system to get orbiting data centers up quickly/cheaply might be interesting if that is what he was referencing. Spinlaunch has been working on their design/system for a few years in New Mexico.


That could in theory be a revenue driver for a company without slowing down the other stuff like Starship/Lunar/Mars etc.

Mass accelerator makes perfect engineering sense, especially in low gravity and minimal atmosphere. But solar not so much! It's so wrong that it gives me imposter syndrome on Elon's behalf - I start to question his general technical ability when he brings it up. But he's earned some grace ha.

File5 said:

---

Solar power is the one thing that I just can't understand from Elon. Every single engineer I know must be wrong if he's right. But maybe he is just that visionary and we are all just incapable of understanding his points.

The only logical conclusion I have is that he's trying to be consistent with owning a solar company and trying to get government or investment money for it.

---

The solar equation in space is completely different than it is on earth. When your two options are solar or nuclear to get the amount of power you need, solar can do a lot of things more easily without the headache of nuclear.

Yeah it's like a magnitude more efficient in space without the atmosphere

Yeah, y'all are right about that, I should have said Solar on Earth not so useful. That's what Elon is always pushing (even in favor of solar instead of nuclear) and what he's always wrong about. One of my favorite sci fi novels is almost a treatise in solar in space, called Live Free or Die. Basically humanity harnesses solar using giant mirrors made out of asteroids. Makes perfect sense in space and the book even goes into how low grav can actually help in making the mirrors (if I remember right, basically heat up asteroids made out of silica, then rotate them strategically to purify and create shape).

In space there's no atmosphere to reduce efficiency further, no land pollution, and sun is shining 24/7. Bigger issues are going to be energy transmission and cooling

File5 said:

---

Yeah, y'all are right about that, I should have said Solar on Earth not so useful. That's what Elon is always pushing (even in favor of solar instead of nuclear) and what he's always wrong about. One of my favorite sci fi novels is almost a treatise in solar in space, called Live Free or Die. Basically humanity harnesses solar using giant mirrors made out of asteroids. Makes perfect sense in space and the book even goes into how low grav can actually help in making the mirrors (if I remember right, basically heat up asteroids made out of silica, then rotate them strategically to purify and create shape).

In space there's no atmosphere to reduce efficiency further, no land pollution, and sun is shining 24/7. Bigger issues are going to be energy transmission and cooling

---

I always assumed that just like nearly all of his other technologies, Elon was interested in monetizing solar so that he could use it in space and let somebody else pay for him to develop all the advances he needs before he implements it on Mars. Spacex, Tesla, Boring Co. Starlink, Optimus, etc. all will play important roles in developing colonies on Mars ahead of full human colonization. I don't think he really believes it is the end all for terrestrial power needs here, but it will be for the foreseeable future on Mars.

🌕 Tested on Earth. Bound for the Moon.

The BE-7 engine for our Blue Moon MK1 lunar lander just completed acceptance testing. Two 290-second tests exposed the engine to its full range of thrust and mixture ratios to verify engine performance. The engine is now off to Florida… pic.twitter.com/spkrhhOITU

— Blue Origin (@blueorigin) December 15, 2025