5 ms·

> ... data centres that won’t have an environmental impact here on Earth. Really? I wonder how they are going to get them up there without rocket launches?

Ekaros 4mo ago
And getting them down. Or allowing them to come down on their own... I doubt that is entirely environmental impact free.
- JPLeRouzic 4mo ago
  I wonder about the impact on our health of all the metals that will be present in the atmosphere after several months. For example, it is well known that lead in gasoline has increased crime.
- aruggirello 4mo ago
  LEO satellites come down on their own in a few months/years. 100 tons of metal burning in the atmosphere seems a lot, but it's barely the total mass of meteorites falling in 24-48 hours, actually.
  - johnea 4mo ago
    Totally sidestepping the issue and refuting the words. Regardless of how they fall, they still fall on the planet. And this still ignores the massive atmospheric pollution of chemical rocket launch. Space elevator would be a big help with launch, but the trash is still dropped on the ground, or in the ocean, in the end.
    - jauntywundrkind 4mo ago
      We're only starting to see and understand the damage. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/scientists-measure-air-pollution-from-reentering-spacex-rocket-in-real-time-its-never-been-done-before https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/... https://www.science.org/content/article/burned-satellites-are-polluting-atmosphere https://www.science.org/content/article/burned-satellites-ar... Leave it to the chainsaw man who has already become the millenium's worst killer, to wreak yet more sad havoc and ruin upon the sphere. What absolute trash, what a mad frivolous pointless ambition meant only to crowd out anyone from thinking of this enormous mass stupidity, destruction. Taking up/taking over of space, for no clear stated reason or value except to steal from us all, to deny & claim from the rest. Madness. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(26)00008-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
      - foxglacier 4mo ago
        Must has clearly stated the reason and value. You know that. You're just trying to be wrong because the internet told you you'll be a good person for hating him.
        jauntywundrkind 4mo ago
        Giant space data centers, up where what couple particles there are bouncing around are already 1000 degrees. It seems like an incredible amount of pollution to make, to go lord over everyone's heads. This isn't a plan that has any empathy for the earth or reason, except to just deny everyone else access, to burn as much rocket fuel as conceivably possible. So no one else can. Just go build some terrestrial solar, please, thanks. The man is the bloodiest butcher of the millennium and this is a vile stealing of shared human space. Your lack of actually saying anything and throwing random jabs my way to defend him is ignoble & distracting, adds 0 engagement.
        foxglacier 4mo ago
        His stated reasons for SpaceX and Starlink are to colonize Mars. Starlink is to generate money to pay for the rest of it. Whether that's true or realistic doesn't matter. It is what he said his reason is, disproving your claim of "for no clear stated reason or value".
  - ben_w 4mo ago
    A million satellites isn't going to be 100 tons; even if they're all on the small side, say 100 kg each, the total is 100,000 tons, therefore by your numbers if they last on orbit for 3 years they'd double to triple the mass rate burning up on aero entry. I think SpaceX actually talking about 1-10 tons/satellite making this more like 10-100x if they last 3 years, but between AI hallucinations getting and Musk's increasing disconnect from reality (let alone political toxicity) this is basically irrelevant. SpaceX won't reach these higher masses to orbit spread over this number of satellites regardless. Aggravatingly, I have seen research estimating that even the much smaller number of satellites currently in orbit is already enough to be unstable with regard to a Kessler cascade, and any question about the realism of Musk's goals from finance and engineering limits is clearly not enough to prevent this kind of scenario. Which may result in other governments interfering with his ketamine supply to make sure their satellites aren't caught up in one. Simplest helpful thing for the Kessler problem is "just"* have fewer larger satellites, and if Starship actually delivers the launch costs necessary to make space-based data centres worth the bother vs. just buying some cheap desert land, I anticipate Musk getting managed upwards by his staff in this regard. * nothing in space is "just"
  - flashman 4mo ago
    Misleading, because satellites are made of different materials to meteors. Satellites are the dominant injection source of 24 elements into the atmosphere, including Al, Cu, Ti, Nb, Co, Zn, Sn, Pb, Ag, Li, V, Hf, W, Ge, Mo, Zr, B, and Ba. This list includes many transition metals, whose catalytic effects on ozone and cloud nucleation are mostly unknown. Copper in particular is a well-known catalyst for the destruction of ozone. Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117726003509 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027311772...
    - aruggirello 4mo ago
      Sorry, you're right. My assumption was that, given meteorites are metal rich, and two orders of magnitude more mass, the human contribution was negligible. It turns out I was wrong.
- foxglacier 4mo ago
  Why are so many people just desperate to imagine environmental, economic, or social harm from any new technology or ambitious projects? Are you all just too old to enjoy the thought of an amazing future that's better than today? Or are you too brainwashed by the negativity in the media and think disasters are the only things that can happen? Or are you just bitter about life and can't have any hope? Or do you just feel smug being a nay-sayer to anything ambitious?
  - tzs 4mo ago
    > Why are so many people just desperate to imagine environmental, economic, or social harm from any new technology or ambitious projects? Rockets aren't new technology and they are not imagining the environmental harm. It has been known for a long time. It is just that with only ~300 launches per year (and about 35000 launches ever) the harm has not risen to the level of something that has to be limited. A million data center satellites is a significant increase in that harm. Furthermore data center satellite are expected to have a service life of maybe 3-5 years so there will be an ongoing 200-370k replacements needing to be launched. That's 3.3-6.2k launches per year at 60 satellites per launch.
    - foxglacier 4mo ago
      You need to quantify this "significant" amount of harm otherwise all you're saying is "doing any activity causes harm to something so doing more of that activity causes more harm" which applies to absolutely every activity. You would only point that out if you're feeling negative, not because it means something.
ReptileMan 4mo ago
100 tons is quite a lot of gpus. If they manage to solve such "minor" problems as powering and cooling them they could run for a decade or so without consuming or polluting. The methane burned to get mass into orbit is trivial - a 500MW powerplant burns that much in under a day.
- codingdave 4mo ago
  Yeah, that response trivializes the massive burn that power plants perform each day. When I worked in a midstream gas company, I recall a meeting when we were explaining the business to some new IT folk, and talking about the plants that process 100K barrels. One new guy in particular literally dropped his jaw and said, "you process 100K barrels of gas a year??" The room looked at him like he was insane and the woman running the meeting politely replied: "No, per day." So acting as if "it burns less than a power plant" somehow means it is trivial is just a really odd take. Besides, the methane burn is one piece of the puzzle. There is more to environmental impact than just methane.
  - ReptileMan 4mo ago
    Yes it is trivial when humanity is burning 100 million barrels of oil per day and 300 tons of coal per second and 100 tons of natural gas per second.
- vkou 4mo ago
  The problem isn't GPUs the problem is cooling them. Look into what percentage of the ISS by weight is radiators, look into how little power it can generate and radiate, and you'll see that space data centers is the shitcoin pitch of 2026.
  - kingleopold 4mo ago
    Also they are not building them in 3D space with current tech. We clearly don't have it. Cars barely drive themselves in cities, they are decade behind building and maintaining a. datacenter in space.
  - 4mo ago

Ekaros 4mo ago

And getting them down. Or allowing them to come down on their own... I doubt that is entirely environmental impact free.

JPLeRouzic 4mo ago
I wonder about the impact on our health of all the metals that will be present in the atmosphere after several months. For example, it is well known that lead in gasoline has increased crime.
aruggirello 4mo ago
LEO satellites come down on their own in a few months/years. 100 tons of metal burning in the atmosphere seems a lot, but it's barely the total mass of meteorites falling in 24-48 hours, actually.
- johnea 4mo ago
  Totally sidestepping the issue and refuting the words. Regardless of how they fall, they still fall on the planet. And this still ignores the massive atmospheric pollution of chemical rocket launch. Space elevator would be a big help with launch, but the trash is still dropped on the ground, or in the ocean, in the end.
  - jauntywundrkind 4mo ago
    We're only starting to see and understand the damage. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/scientists-measure-air-pollution-from-reentering-spacex-rocket-in-real-time-its-never-been-done-before https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/... https://www.science.org/content/article/burned-satellites-are-polluting-atmosphere https://www.science.org/content/article/burned-satellites-ar... Leave it to the chainsaw man who has already become the millenium's worst killer, to wreak yet more sad havoc and ruin upon the sphere. What absolute trash, what a mad frivolous pointless ambition meant only to crowd out anyone from thinking of this enormous mass stupidity, destruction. Taking up/taking over of space, for no clear stated reason or value except to steal from us all, to deny & claim from the rest. Madness. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(26)00008-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
    - foxglacier 4mo ago
      Must has clearly stated the reason and value. You know that. You're just trying to be wrong because the internet told you you'll be a good person for hating him.
      - jauntywundrkind 4mo ago
        Giant space data centers, up where what couple particles there are bouncing around are already 1000 degrees. It seems like an incredible amount of pollution to make, to go lord over everyone's heads. This isn't a plan that has any empathy for the earth or reason, except to just deny everyone else access, to burn as much rocket fuel as conceivably possible. So no one else can. Just go build some terrestrial solar, please, thanks. The man is the bloodiest butcher of the millennium and this is a vile stealing of shared human space. Your lack of actually saying anything and throwing random jabs my way to defend him is ignoble & distracting, adds 0 engagement.
        foxglacier 4mo ago
        His stated reasons for SpaceX and Starlink are to colonize Mars. Starlink is to generate money to pay for the rest of it. Whether that's true or realistic doesn't matter. It is what he said his reason is, disproving your claim of "for no clear stated reason or value".
- ben_w 4mo ago
  A million satellites isn't going to be 100 tons; even if they're all on the small side, say 100 kg each, the total is 100,000 tons, therefore by your numbers if they last on orbit for 3 years they'd double to triple the mass rate burning up on aero entry. I think SpaceX actually talking about 1-10 tons/satellite making this more like 10-100x if they last 3 years, but between AI hallucinations getting and Musk's increasing disconnect from reality (let alone political toxicity) this is basically irrelevant. SpaceX won't reach these higher masses to orbit spread over this number of satellites regardless. Aggravatingly, I have seen research estimating that even the much smaller number of satellites currently in orbit is already enough to be unstable with regard to a Kessler cascade, and any question about the realism of Musk's goals from finance and engineering limits is clearly not enough to prevent this kind of scenario. Which may result in other governments interfering with his ketamine supply to make sure their satellites aren't caught up in one. Simplest helpful thing for the Kessler problem is "just"* have fewer larger satellites, and if Starship actually delivers the launch costs necessary to make space-based data centres worth the bother vs. just buying some cheap desert land, I anticipate Musk getting managed upwards by his staff in this regard. * nothing in space is "just"
- flashman 4mo ago
  Misleading, because satellites are made of different materials to meteors. Satellites are the dominant injection source of 24 elements into the atmosphere, including Al, Cu, Ti, Nb, Co, Zn, Sn, Pb, Ag, Li, V, Hf, W, Ge, Mo, Zr, B, and Ba. This list includes many transition metals, whose catalytic effects on ozone and cloud nucleation are mostly unknown. Copper in particular is a well-known catalyst for the destruction of ozone. Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117726003509 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027311772...
  - aruggirello 4mo ago
    Sorry, you're right. My assumption was that, given meteorites are metal rich, and two orders of magnitude more mass, the human contribution was negligible. It turns out I was wrong.
foxglacier 4mo ago
Why are so many people just desperate to imagine environmental, economic, or social harm from any new technology or ambitious projects? Are you all just too old to enjoy the thought of an amazing future that's better than today? Or are you too brainwashed by the negativity in the media and think disasters are the only things that can happen? Or are you just bitter about life and can't have any hope? Or do you just feel smug being a nay-sayer to anything ambitious?
- tzs 4mo ago
  > Why are so many people just desperate to imagine environmental, economic, or social harm from any new technology or ambitious projects? Rockets aren't new technology and they are not imagining the environmental harm. It has been known for a long time. It is just that with only ~300 launches per year (and about 35000 launches ever) the harm has not risen to the level of something that has to be limited. A million data center satellites is a significant increase in that harm. Furthermore data center satellite are expected to have a service life of maybe 3-5 years so there will be an ongoing 200-370k replacements needing to be launched. That's 3.3-6.2k launches per year at 60 satellites per launch.
  - foxglacier 4mo ago
    You need to quantify this "significant" amount of harm otherwise all you're saying is "doing any activity causes harm to something so doing more of that activity causes more harm" which applies to absolutely every activity. You would only point that out if you're feeling negative, not because it means something.

ReptileMan 4mo ago

100 tons is quite a lot of gpus. If they manage to solve such "minor" problems as powering and cooling them they could run for a decade or so without consuming or polluting. The methane burned to get mass into orbit is trivial - a 500MW powerplant burns that much in under a day.

codingdave 4mo ago
Yeah, that response trivializes the massive burn that power plants perform each day. When I worked in a midstream gas company, I recall a meeting when we were explaining the business to some new IT folk, and talking about the plants that process 100K barrels. One new guy in particular literally dropped his jaw and said, "you process 100K barrels of gas a year??" The room looked at him like he was insane and the woman running the meeting politely replied: "No, per day." So acting as if "it burns less than a power plant" somehow means it is trivial is just a really odd take. Besides, the methane burn is one piece of the puzzle. There is more to environmental impact than just methane.
- ReptileMan 4mo ago
  Yes it is trivial when humanity is burning 100 million barrels of oil per day and 300 tons of coal per second and 100 tons of natural gas per second.
vkou 4mo ago
The problem isn't GPUs the problem is cooling them. Look into what percentage of the ISS by weight is radiators, look into how little power it can generate and radiate, and you'll see that space data centers is the shitcoin pitch of 2026.
- kingleopold 4mo ago
  Also they are not building them in 3D space with current tech. We clearly don't have it. Cars barely drive themselves in cities, they are decade behind building and maintaining a. datacenter in space.
- 4mo ago