undefined

points

[-]

The unit economic tradeoffs aren't quite that straightforward (beamed power is lossy enough to require more panels[1], but solar cells and satellite structures have longer useful lives than inference chips so over longer time periods you likely end up launching more stuff into space with disposable datacentres anyway[2], particularly given the datacentres also need bigger radiators. Other issues which favour power being beamed to the ground are not exposing those expensive chips to radiation, and being able to replace them on cycles dictated by inference chip innovation or end-of-life rather than fixed cycles depending on a satellite propellant budget...

The other comparison point is of course plain old terrestrial power sources, including energy storage in the mix if it relies heavily on solar power without a sufficiently global grid. Not having to launch into space buys a lot of power.

C2 RTT times and edge computation of large datasets collected in space make much more sense since unit economics aren't the driving factor, but are unlikely to need datacentres on the same scale as inference compute for the general population (another reason why this use case makes more sense)

[1]but I think the underrated problem with beamed power isn't just the low maturity of the technology, but that as soon as you start talking about sending power to earth via RF or laser you're going to encounter political opposition that makes objections to terrestrial datacentres seem tame.... [2]chips can in theory be replaced on orbit, but the "million satellite" filings are disposable. Replenishing propellant for a few large power stations, potentially on longer cycles, is a simpler task.

by rayiner4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Could we have giant nuclear reactors in space? What's the power loss from beaming down power?

by TeMPOraL4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Could we have giant nuclear reactors in space?

We could. The usual stumbling block is how to ship fissile material upwell without the risk of a launch failure spreading highly radioactive material over several countries.

> What's the power loss from beaming down power?

I think it's about 10% from atmosphere alone, but you have to add losses from other components in the system, including light -> current -> RF and RF -> current legs, and I've seen estimates ranging from 15% to 40% efficiency end to end; this random article includes breakdown with estimates, that multiplies down to 37.5% efficiency end-to-end.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci...

EDIT:

This system design gives 7-14% end-to-end efficiency: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.08373

EDIT2:

Also to spell out another non-obvious aspect of beamed power, it turns out that it's not the efficiency that's the limiting factor per se, but land - you can improve efficiency by building larger rectennas, but it gets very expensive very quickly once you consider paying for land under them.

by OneDonOne45 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

See:

SNAP-10A

BES-5 (oops, sorry 'bout that Canada!)

TOPAZ-I

Kiwi, Phoebus, and NRX (Mars here we come!)

RD-0410 (Dossvidanya Solar System!)

SP-100

TOPAZ-II

Kilopower

by detritus3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

My concern is more in the realms of cooling. I know there's the potential for lots of 'free' energy up there, but how do you then ensure your space-based array of GPU farms bleed all of the resultant heat?

by alephnerd3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

From a Defense perspective, it's acceptable if multiple ODC fails and you have to re-launch another one. This is why these are being treated as part of a mesh. These aren't supposed to be a commercial DC and are intended to be a mesh of multiple racks in orbit.

The fact that the US, China, Russia, and India have already deployed ASATs means a Kessler effect if a question of when and not if.