hph6203 said:
Will over time approach the cost of terrestrial construction while absolutely obliterating it from a speed of deployment perspective.
AI is going to be won by quantity of compute rather than quality of model. As models improve they are going to exceed the accuracy necessary for the vast, vast, vast majority of queries made and the differentiator is going to be who can answer the most queries in a given amount of time. Whoever has orbital compute will win that competition, because their deployments are assembly line rather than bespoke deployments.
How do you figure that? How does the earth construction costs get 'obliterated' from space?
I have one place to make chips: Earth (Taiwan or AZ, take your pick). Once I've 'made' the computer, I then have an option. I can put it in a DC on Earth or put it on a satellite and ship to space. Unless you have a fab shop in space, you have one weak link for the deployment.
The next step is what are you putting in space vs. building out infrastructure.
A rack (basic google search) is 4k lbs (2 tons). Using Falcon 9, that's 9 racks per launch (launching JUST the computer rack). We'll make the VERY BAD assumption that the rack contains all the support stuff for the server (radio, batteries (not a bad assumption), power cables, etc.) and we are going to deploy them as starlink satellites.
BTW, the current thought is that each rack will be 30-60 kW of power. So the solar panels needed for EACH RACK is 13,500 ft^2 (
ISS Panels), which is half the ISS solar panels. Again, each solar panel on the ISS weighs 5,300 lbs, so we'd need 2 per rack; a net of 10,600 lbs or the equivalent of 2.5 racks.
OH, let's not forget the heat radiator as well. Heat disapation is the same as power demand; so need 60 kW of heat removal. Again the ISS has a 14kW unit at 1,633 lb; scaled up 60 kW is now ~7,000 lbs. (another 2 racks).
Right now, PER RACK, we are at 4 + 10.6 + 7 = 21,600 lbs. Falcon 9 (recoverable) is 38,600 lbs. SO every single launch of a F9 is essentially 1.75 DC racks. A single F9 launch =
$74MM So....
If we're going to build a 1 GW datacenter (In SPAAAACEE! (sorry, I loved Red Alert and still do)), that's 1,000,000 kW of computer power OR 16,666.6 (repeating) racks/systems, rounding to 16,670.
Say we get costs down to $50MM per launch, that's $833.5 BILLION in LAUNCH COSTS ALONE. Reminder, we haven't SPENT A DIME on building this, because we assume (badly) that the computer/rack costs are the same between going in space and building on earth. You can make (badly) the assumption that the solar panels/heat radiator and all the associated bits/pieces are the same costs as building a DC on Earth (concrete, land, wires, water, etc.)
But now I have an OPEX of launches of $833.5 BILLION vs power/water/labor costs on Earth. Coupled with the idea that I can FIX something on Earth vs. putting that much in space means it will all be 'thrown away' once it gets to a point that it no longer functions. While we trash computers all day on Earth, we can
technically fix things and/or repair them rather than trashing a 21,600 lb 'system' wholesale when something goes wrong.
Hell, the better idea (if you want to do distributed DC) is to put them all over the place in small buildings that are near needs. If you put 4 racks (240 kW) in a building when building it out, you now have a mini-DC in your building and surrounding area that can help with lag/speed issues. And when I say locally, I mean like put 1 in every downtown building (Houston, DFW, Austin, etc.) and now you have businesses locally covered. Besides upgrading power, you have what you need there already. Without the added costs of going to space. Or adding a new building wherever.
~egon