Google Tests AI Data Center In Space (npr.org) 57
Longtime Slashdot reader Geoffrey.landis shares a report from NPR: Google just put a refrigerator-sized satellite into space, part of a research project the company hopes can pave the way for orbiting AI data centers powered by the sun. The prototype satellite has four specialty chips in it called Tensor Processing Units, or TPUs, that Google designed for machine learning and has already deployed in data centers on Earth. The chips will run a version of the company's Gemma AI model for 15 minutes at a time due to heat management constraints, using the open weight model to answer simple queries.
In a blog post, Google said the mission will gauge how the TPUs handle "the physical stress of spaceflight and the radiation and thermal extremes of space." The satellite launched October 1 is a prototype that Travis Beals, senior director and lead of Project Suncatcher, called "a very minimal test" to make sure the chips can run in space. A SpaceX rocket carried it into orbit, and Planet will get it up and running. Beal said Google will then fire up and test the TPUs. The goal is for the mission to be operational for a year.
In a blog post, Google said the mission will gauge how the TPUs handle "the physical stress of spaceflight and the radiation and thermal extremes of space." The satellite launched October 1 is a prototype that Travis Beals, senior director and lead of Project Suncatcher, called "a very minimal test" to make sure the chips can run in space. A SpaceX rocket carried it into orbit, and Planet will get it up and running. Beal said Google will then fire up and test the TPUs. The goal is for the mission to be operational for a year.
If they are thermally efficient enough (Score:3)
for space... then we have zero problem using them here on earth. Space is cold but is also a vacuum so you lose all of your ability to convectively cool and are reliant on radiative cooling alone.
Re:If they are thermally efficient enough (Score:4, Informative)
That has nothing to do with the topic, and everything to do with the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Obviously you are trying to sling FUD.
In the case at hand, data-centers in space make zero sense at our current stage of technology because of multiple, very bad parameters that we cannot work around. That will not change for the foreseeable future and these problems are fundamental, not in the details. (There are really bad problems in the details as well...) Fundamental problems can be verified by smart and well-educated people even when they are not experts in the subject.
Re:If they are thermally efficient enough (Score:5, Informative)
Correct, it has utterly nothing to do with the topic. It is a characteristic of /. and of the OP.
I am in my 60s, these problems were known in the space program when I was a child, almost certainly known well before that. The topic is a joke, it only exists because Elon Musk is a moron, as are Silicon Valley billionaires generally. Anyone can be an expert on this subject, it is completely known.
Re: (Score:2)
The topic is a joke, it only exists because Elon Musk is a moron, as are Silicon Valley billionaires generally.
Yes. A moron with a Physics BA (yes, it is a Bachelor of Arts) that he obviously bought, because he clearly does not even understand basic Physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid and malicious are different.
The offered narrative is "let us build the data center AI control grid now because it's only temporary until we can move it to space".
You and I both know that's not thermodynamically possible with known science.
So do the people saying it.
We have a real problem with Positive Projection where we are decent folks so we project that on people who are not. That is an error even though most people are decent folks. The parasites are not.
I only recent learned that Hanlon's Razo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If they are thermally efficient enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But they are correct - cooling in space is actually a big problem, especially for something as heat-intensive as GPUs
This will be the next frontier, the question is what happens when you keep pumping heat into them. I wonder what will it to to infrared astronomy? Also, electronics will have to stay inside the Van Alan belt, so it will be interesting how the issue of cosmic radiation flipping bits will be handled.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem on Earth is mostly NIMBYs, and also a bit the time it takes to set up new electricity supplies.
It looks like the cost to orbit is going to decrease substantially, and solar up there can cover all the power needs 24/7, and so far Space NIMBYs have not had much effect on those mega constellations.
Re:If they are thermally efficient enough (Score:5, Informative)
Cooling, communication, debris, cost of shipping to orbit, cost of station-keeping, power-generation (no, solar in space is not magic), cosmic radiation, needed size of the satellites, very easy to destroy, etc., etc.. The list of why this is a REALLY stupid idea is endless.
There is not a single aspect of this were the idea is actually good. All it does is tickle the imagination of the clueless. And that is exactly why it gets pushed.
Re: (Score:2)
"There is not a single aspect of this were the idea is actually good."
Well, it's good for convincing morons like Marc Andreessen that Elon Musk is a visionary. That's all it's about, the actual tactics are to simply take whatever they want and the country can FO. Of course it's a terrible idea, but investors don't know that.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's a terrible idea, but investors don't know that.
What I do not quite get in this context is that there are still investors around with the fundamental lack of insight these people constantly demonstrate. Is this a case of "there is a sucker born every minute"?
Re: (Score:2)
What I do not quite get in this context is that there are still investors around with the fundamental lack of insight
Well, you know, D-K... they don't know what survivor bias is.
Is this a case of "there is a sucker born every minute"?
They are sure they are smart because they got money, and don't understand that even if they did make an intelligent investment, there was a luck component.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily... I bet a lot of those investors just want their name on a satellite, or think they'll make tons from the companies stocks when the orbital DC idea works.
Sure, massive solar panels can give the DC enough power, at least until a meteorite smacks it. Sure, it's cold out there, but exchanging heat gets a _bit_ more difficult in a vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet a lot of those investors just want their name on a satellite
This seems essentially sane if they have money to burn...
or think they'll make tons from the companies stocks when the orbital DC idea works.
They read too much sci-fi, not enough science fact, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree.
I have to wonder what the AI company that "owns satellite 4850" is gonna do when a newer CPU or NPU comes out.
Bet the latency is bad enough that it'd be useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Scott Manley did a video about this, and it's not quite so half baked.
Re: (Score:3)
It is actually quite a bit worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Finding a single place willing to put up with a datacenter is as much success as deploying thousands of these hypothetical space datacenters.
For the cost of a *single* SpaceX launch, they could basically bribe an entire small town's population to be happy with them. $50K a person and they'll *probably* pass public comment.
Re: (Score:2)
A central problem is that these "high energy density" datacenters guzzle drinking water like crazy. And where do you find drinking water in substantive quantity? Bingo, in places where quite a few people live. $50k a person will only do it if that is enough for them to move to some other place.
Re: (Score:2)
"It looks like the cost to orbit is going to decrease substantially..."
Does it though? As long as you ignore the costs that won't.
"...and solar up there can cover all the power needs 24/7..."
Definitionally, as solar would be what is available. And if you can't cool it you can't power it, so power isn't really a constraint.
"...and so far Space NIMBYs have not had much effect on those mega constellations."
What mega constellations? You are better than that. And the government is already talking about China
Re: (Score:2)
solar up there can cover all the power needs 24/7, and so far Space NIMBYs have not had much effect on those mega constellations.
By far, with all these new mega constellations the biggest risk we face is from the Kessler syndrome [wikipedia.org] from which there will be no way back and end any ambitions for human space exploration for thousands of years.
It would be worthwhile to have tight international regulation as it is the one interest that all countries share.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem on Earth is mostly NIMBYs
NIMBYs aren't people who don't want things to be made. They're people who want them made somewhere else. But only the wealthy are clamoring for all of us to be replaced with computers, so that's not apt.
It's an ad programme for "new space" startups (Score:2)
The promise of "new space" startups like SpaceX is, that they will somehow be able to reduce the costs of bringing up something into space by multiple orders of magnitude. That's what they promise, if people stop believing that they can do that eventually, they will just implode.
Bringing electronics into space has it's problems, but it's essentially proven technology. We have had space stations converting many kilowatts for decades now. We can do that, we know how to do that. We know where to get the energy
Re: (Score:3)
I think that SpaceX is going to build the satellites on the Moon using robots and launch them using rails to minimize launch cost. In theory is sounds like a good plan.
Personally, I think we will invent more efficient AI faster than the factory is up and running, but I have to admit that SpaceX makes the world more interesting so I have nothing against them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, in a few 100 years maybe. People tend to grossly overestimate what technology can do.
Re: (Score:1)
The promise of "new space" startups like SpaceX is, that they will somehow be able to reduce the costs of bringing up something into space by multiple orders of magnitude.
Like this? https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Well that's one order of magnitude down, depending on where you place the goalpost. Starship only needs to halve the per kg cost of Falcon Heavy to add another one, again, depending on where you put the goalpost. If the goalpost started with the space shuttle, for example, then without question, it's doable.
The answer is that putting anything into orbit is prohibitively expensive.
You sound just like this guy:
https://x.com/Tazerface16 [x.com]
TL;DR claims to be an aerospace engineer and, for years, even as recently as April this year, was very lo
"AI Data Center" is doing some heavy lifting here (Score:2)
What they've launched is a data center the same way David Hahn built a nuclear reactor in his shed. (If he was alive today, he could IPO his reactor startup and make billions.)
Re: "AI Data Center" is doing some heavy lifting h (Score:2)
Re: "AI Data Center" is doing some heavy lifting (Score:2)
Nice deception (Score:2)
The will know this makes no sense with regards top Physics. But they are engaged in the same deception most LLM providers are: Pretending that "AI" will give us a golden age, so they can reap insane profits before it all comes crashing down.
Re: Nice deception (Score:2)
Can we launch stuff into space? Yes
Can we use solar panels in space? Yes
Can we run processors in space? Yes
Can we cool processors in space? Yes
Can we send and receive data in space? Yes
What exactly do think the problem is that Physics says makes no sense?
Finance, profitability, return on investment, depreciation are the things you want to look at
Re: (Score:2)
Are many people too stupid to think beyond yes/no questions? Yes.
You just demonstrated the difference between a competent engineer and a clueless moron with stars in his eyes nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing you're here, we had no idea how stupid we all are!
Re: Nice deception (Score:2)
You have no idea what engineering or physics are.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. My engineering PhD from one of the best tech Universities on the planet is clearly completely worthless.
Quoting JFK... (Score:2)
...disk space, the new frontier!
Some genuinely cool research (Score:1)
Interesting (Score:2)
This is exciting research. It's going to turn a lot of theory into fact. I find it fascinating.
It's humorous to read all these comments talking about how stupid the very idea of space data centers is. So many Slashdot experts in data centers, AI, and orbital space. Who knew? But despite the cocksure naysayers, the people who are actually in the business of data centers, AI, and space, think it can be done and can be cost effective. This experiment will eliminate much of the guesswork.
If it turns out that t
Re: (Score:3)
This plan is predicated on people as stupid as you, but with lots of money. That exists, so this con exists. We're all impressed, though, with your willingness to tell us how stupid you are.
Re: (Score:2)
the people who are actually in the business of data centers, AI, and space, think it can be done and can be cost effective
That's what they say.
Do you believe everything people say?
If it turns out that they can do it
They can't, and only people who know how nothing whatsoever works thinks they can.
There's a very different reason for this (Score:3)
The fascist oligarchs behind the AI/data center scam know that the public hates these and that eventually, it will occur to someone to torch one of them. That's not going to be so easy if they're in orbit.
This has nothing to do with research or innovation or anything else: it's pure self-preservation.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason some people hate data centers is the increased electrical demand that they produce and the resulting draw on limited resources and price increases that may result.
Data centers in space represent no such risk.
Leave it to the crazies who hate something, want to burn it down, but don't understand why. Useful idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, but it's easy enough to jam their communications.. might cost you a penny... but you can render them useless... and you can always burn down the control stations.
Also, the data centers aren't so easy to torch, same with control stations/com stations... mainly concrete.. hardened perimiter, usually a small onsite security force... first one or two might be easier.. then they'll be on guard and even more secure... better off with an EMP, or substation disrupution... theoretically... but then you'd like
Get rid of it (Score:2)
This is a stock price ploy (Score:3)
Google knows full well this makes no sense, but Elon Musk said we would put data centers in space so everyone has to act like they will do it too. Heaven forbid Wall Street catches on early to the data center debt bomb.