We're not going to Mars
- Thread starter Catch50
- Start date
Yep going to Mars is on the same level as Columbus searching to discover America
Of course there will be a be @Catch50 Martian know it all to claim the Earthlings unjustly claimed Mars as colonial invaders of their planet
Just like The Pipe Dream of Columbus that was considered waste fraud and abuse as you so righteously speak so shall the Martian walk about be claimed by the intellectual Mt Everests until the day it becomes like the American dream
LOL, it's private money dude. You should worry about waste, fraud, and abuse of your tax dollars!
Actually, it's NOT Government putting money in the kitty just like Queen Isabella of Portugal or was it Spain
Anyway, the Space X is doing it for piles of money less than NASA
Couple years ago, I laughed at NASA for having ROOKIE ENGINERS or people like @Catch50 who have all the answers AFTER THE FACTS but are all mouth in the front end
Because the engineers failed to convert from feet English measurement to Metric Meters there was a bunch of crashed into the Mars surface costing like a billion dollars in lost equipment
Guess these engineers got promoted like the usual government policies. LOL
After the fact is we have made practically zero progress since 1972 when Apollo 17 landed on the moon.
After the fact that there is nothing to be gained by going to Mars.
After the fact of the billions $ we have wasted on space exploration
The private money won't be there. Besides, the federal DOES waste about $20 billion per year on space exploration. Trump wants us to go to Mars. He fails again.
Consider yourself a genetic Luddite
Why does the chicken cross the road
That’s why we will go to Mars
If I got to explain it well that says it all
You guys claim to stand for responsible spending but I have known better for decades.
I have been called a luddite before and you're all wrong. Investment in technology should make sense and solve a problem. Space exploration just causes more problems. A Mars mission will get astronauts killed. Furthermore, I don't oppose high tech that has proven success. Companies like Intel, Nvidia, ASML and Pratt & Whitney have all pretty much delivered when they promised advancements.
If you want entertainment, do it on your own dime.
Colonizing Mars like Elon talks about, isn't going to happen in multiple lifetimes, IMHO. However I think it realistic to think that within a lifetime we can solve the technical challenges to send humans to Mars and get them back. However I also think it realistic to think that we're going to kill people in the process. Edit: And once we do kill people (and spending all the money do do that) will we have the will/$$ to continue??
I happen to think that above all, we need to advance our capabilities in space from a pure national defense perspective. I don't like the thought that the Chinese, x decades down the road have seized the high ground and developed a capabiity in space or on the moon that we couldn't match in any reasonable timeframe. I also don't pretend to know what commercial spinoffs there are from a space program, but solving the type of technical and engineering challenges posed by space has to, logically when solved, advance our military capabilities.
For those that support a space program i think there is room for debate as to what needs to be pursued first.... goto mars, or get good at going to the moon and back, and establish ability to operate there before trying for mars.
Last edited:
Going to Mars is and should be a private endeavor. If Elon wants to send people to Mars and people want to go to Mars with him, then have at it. People thought Christopher Columbus was crazy too I am sure. Without expanding the frontier, what purpose does man have? What is a singular vision that all humans can get behind no matter your race, sex, nationality, etc? Expanding human consciousness is a goal that has been pursued since the beginning of time.
It's no surprise to me that a "progressive" wants to stop progress. There is no real vision from the left. No real passion. They just have a list of grievances and reasons on why they are failing.
Like @ANEW pointed out, many of our everyday luxuries were created due to space exploration. @Catch50 are you saying that we should not explore space at all, or just not on the publics dime?
It would seem that the Government would need to be involved in space to be competitive militarily. For Example, Ukraine uses Starlink and according to Zelensky, without it they would lose in a matter of weeks. We need to launch satellites to see what other militaries are doing etc.
It's no surprise to me that a "progressive" wants to stop progress. There is no real vision from the left. No real passion. They just have a list of grievances and reasons on why they are failing.
Like @ANEW pointed out, many of our everyday luxuries were created due to space exploration. @Catch50 are you saying that we should not explore space at all, or just not on the publics dime?
It would seem that the Government would need to be involved in space to be competitive militarily. For Example, Ukraine uses Starlink and according to Zelensky, without it they would lose in a matter of weeks. We need to launch satellites to see what other militaries are doing etc.
I am thinking the same thing about the time. Going to Mars or doing more in space will take decades and generations of people living dying and doing.
I don't see it as waste but seeking new solutions.
The development of GPS and interactive driving directions was developed by the military and space missions. On that scale one could ask why go into space. That's one simple example.
But if one wants to look at problems on earth not being funded they are funded or not funded due to people who have different ideas of fraud waste abuse.
One man's treasure is another man's junk.
I fully support space exploration, but lol at SpaceX being "private" money. They've got >$20billion in gov't contracts under their belt.
What IS happening in multiple lifetimes is the U.S. is wasting about $20 billion (in 2024 dollars) every year.
Private and military dollars are what have driven R&D for decades now. The U.S. GDP is about $25 trillion/year. Worldwide it is between $75 and $100 trillion/year.
I say without any fear that if China, etc. want to waste their money on space exploration, that is a plus for us.
It's time that society gets their heads out of their asses. I'd rather spend that money on the FBI and the DEA.
Today I learned that SpaceX plans to put data centers in orbit.
Instead of doing all the intensive calculations here on earth where we won’t have enough energy. Why not put them in space?
1) data centers can be much larger as there is more room in space.
2) solar panels operate much more efficiently in space, no obstructions from clouds, indirect sun angles.
3) No need to cool the data centers as space is cold.
Also learned Starlink will be spun off when they get 10 million customers. They currently have about 6 million
Instead of doing all the intensive calculations here on earth where we won’t have enough energy. Why not put them in space?
1) data centers can be much larger as there is more room in space.
2) solar panels operate much more efficiently in space, no obstructions from clouds, indirect sun angles.
3) No need to cool the data centers as space is cold.
Also learned Starlink will be spun off when they get 10 million customers. They currently have about 6 million
Putting data centers in space is a concept that has been explored in science fiction and, more recently, in serious discussions by tech companies and space entrepreneurs. While it may sound futuristic, there are scenarios where it could make sense, but it also comes with significant challenges. Below, I’ll outline the potential reasons it could be viable, the challenges, and whether it’s practical today or in the near future.
Reasons It Could Make Sense
Challenges That Make It Difficult
Current and Near-Future Feasibility
Scenarios Where It Makes Sense
Scenarios Where It Doesn’t Make Sense
Conclusion
Putting data centers in space could make sense in the future for niche applications like secure storage, low-latency global networks, edge computing for satellites, or supporting space exploration. The primary drivers are abundant solar energy, natural cooling, and isolation from terrestrial constraints. However, today’s challenges—high launch costs, radiation, maintenance, and communication limits—make it impractical for most use cases. By 2030–2040, with cheaper launches (e.g., SpaceX Starship), better hardware, and growing space infrastructure, it could become viable for specific, high-value scenarios.
If you’d like a deeper dive into a specific aspect (e.g., energy calculations, latency models, or a chart comparing costs), or if you want me to check for recent developments on X or the web, let me know!
Reasons It Could Make Sense
- Abundant Energy from Solar Power
- Advantage: Space offers near-constant access to solar energy without atmospheric interference or day-night cycles. Solar panels in orbit can generate consistent power, potentially reducing energy costs for power-hungry data centers.
- Context: Data centers on Earth consume vast amounts of electricity (e.g., global data centers used ~460 TWh in 2022, ~2% of global electricity). Space-based solar could provide a sustainable, high-output energy source.
- Example: Companies like Solaren have proposed space-based solar power stations, which could theoretically power orbital data centers.
- Natural Cooling in Space
- Advantage: The vacuum of space is extremely cold (~2.7K in deep space), and data centers could leverage radiative cooling to dissipate heat without energy-intensive cooling systems.
- Context: Cooling accounts for ~40% of data center energy use on Earth. In space, heat could be radiated away, though managing heat transfer in a vacuum requires specialized engineering.
- Example: Proposals like Microsoft’s Project Natick (underwater data centers) show interest in novel cooling environments, and space could be an extension of this idea.
- Reduced Land and Regulatory Constraints
- Advantage: Space eliminates the need for terrestrial real estate, which is costly and subject to zoning, environmental, and geopolitical restrictions.
- Context: Building data centers on Earth often faces delays due to permitting (e.g., Ireland’s data center moratoriums) or community opposition. Orbit avoids these issues entirely.
- Example: SpaceX’s Starlink operates satellites globally, bypassing many terrestrial regulations, suggesting a model for space-based infrastructure.
- Low-Latency for Specific Use Cases
- Advantage: For applications requiring ultra-low latency across vast distances (e.g., global financial trading, satellite networks, or intercontinental data transfer), data centers in low Earth orbit (LEO) could reduce latency compared to ground-based fiber-optic networks.
- Context: Light travels faster in a vacuum (~300,000 km/s) than in fiber (~200,000 km/s). A data center in LEO (e.g., 550 km altitude) could theoretically cut latency for transoceanic data by routing through space.
- Example: Starlink’s inter-satellite laser links already demonstrate low-latency data routing in space, hinting at potential for orbital computing hubs.
- Security and Isolation
- Advantage: Space-based data centers would be physically isolated, reducing risks of physical tampering, cyberattacks via direct access, or geopolitical interference.
- Context: High-security applications (e.g., military, blockchain, or sensitive AI training) could benefit from an environment only accessible via controlled uplinks.
- Example: Concepts like Cloud Constellation’s SpaceBelt propose space-based data storage for ultra-secure applications.
- Supporting Space Exploration and Colonization
- Advantage: Data centers in space could serve as computational hubs for space missions, lunar bases, or Martian colonies, processing data locally to reduce reliance on Earth-based servers.
- Context: Future missions (e.g., NASA’s Artemis, SpaceX’s Mars plans) will require significant on-site computing for navigation, life support, and research.
- Example: A data center on the Moon or in orbit could handle AI-driven tasks for autonomous rovers or habitats.
- Edge Computing for Space-Based Networks
- Advantage: As satellite constellations like Starlink, OneWeb, or Amazon’s Kuiper grow, placing edge computing nodes in orbit could process data closer to the source (e.g., IoT devices, satellites), reducing latency and bandwidth demands.
- Context: Starlink’s 6,000+ satellites (as of 2025) already handle significant data traffic, and onboard processing could optimize network efficiency.
- Example: Microsoft’s Azure Orbital Cloud and AWS Ground Station show growing interest in space-based computing infrastructure.
Challenges That Make It Difficult
- High Launch Costs
- Issue: Launching data center hardware into orbit is expensive, even with reusable rockets. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 costs ~$60–90 million per launch, and a data center would require multiple launches for servers, power systems, and shielding.
- Context: A single hyperscale data center (e.g., 100 MW) weighs thousands of tons, far exceeding current launch capacities (e.g., Starship’s 150-ton payload to LEO). Miniaturized data centers are feasible but limited in scale.
- Mitigation: Falling launch costs (e.g., SpaceX targeting $10 million per Starship launch) and modular designs could make this more viable in the future.
- Radiation and Environmental Hazards
- Issue: Cosmic radiation and solar flares can damage electronics, requiring heavy shielding that increases launch weight and costs.
- Context: Earth-based data centers use standard hardware, but space requires radiation-hardened components, which are 10–100x more expensive.
- Mitigation: Advances in radiation-tolerant chips (e.g., NASA’s RAD750) or AI-driven error correction could help, but costs remain high.
- Maintenance and Upgrades
- Issue: Data centers require regular maintenance and hardware upgrades, which are nearly impossible in orbit without costly human or robotic interventions.
- Context: A typical data center refreshes hardware every 3–5 years. In space, this would require new launches or on-orbit servicing, both impractical today.
- Mitigation: Autonomous repair systems or disposable satellite-based servers could be developed, but these are nascent technologies.
- Data Transmission Latency and Bandwidth
- Issue: While space can reduce latency for some applications, uplink/downlink to Earth introduces delays (e.g., ~2–4 ms for LEO) and bandwidth bottlenecks compared to terrestrial fiber.
- Context: A hyperscale data center might need terabits per second of bandwidth, far exceeding current satellite communication capacities (e.g., Starlink’s ~100 Mbps per user).
- Mitigation: Optical laser links (e.g., SpaceX’s Starlink lasers) could scale bandwidth, but infrastructure is still developing.
- Thermal Management Complexity
- Issue: While space is cold, dissipating heat in a vacuum is challenging without air or water for convection. Radiative cooling systems are heavy and complex.
- Context: Overheating could fry servers, requiring oversized radiators that increase costs and launch mass.
- Mitigation: Novel materials or compact heat pipes could improve efficiency, but these are still experimental.
- Regulatory and Legal Issues
- Issue: Operating data centers in space involves complex international regulations, including spectrum allocation, orbital slot assignments, and data sovereignty laws.
- Context: The Outer Space Treaty (1967) governs space activities, but data storage raises unresolved questions about jurisdiction and liability.
- Mitigation: Companies like SpaceX navigate these issues for satellites, but scaling to data centers would require new frameworks.
- Economic Viability
- Issue: The cost-benefit ratio is unclear when compared to Earth-based data centers, which benefit from economies of scale, cheap land, and existing infrastructure.
- Context: A 2023 study estimated space-based data centers could cost 10–50x more per compute unit than terrestrial ones, even with optimistic launch cost reductions.
- Mitigation: Niche applications (e.g., secure storage, space exploration) might justify costs, but mass-market use is unlikely soon.
Current and Near-Future Feasibility
- Today (2025): Space-based data centers are not practical for widespread use. Launch costs, radiation challenges, and communication limitations outweigh benefits for most applications. However, small-scale experiments are underway:
- Examples:
- Axiom Space and Microsoft are exploring space-based computing for research (e.g., Axiom’s ISS modules).
- Ascent Solar and LEOcloud are testing lightweight solar-powered servers in orbit.
- Starlink already performs some onboard processing, a precursor to edge computing in space.
- Use Case: Limited to niche applications like secure data storage or satellite data processing.
- Examples:
- Near Future (2030–2040): Advances could make space data centers viable for specific scenarios:
- Launch Costs: If SpaceX achieves $200/kg to LEO with Starship (vs. ~$2,000/kg today), costs could drop significantly.
- Hardware: Radiation-hardened, lightweight servers and high-bandwidth laser comms could mature.
- Use Cases:
- Edge computing for satellite networks (e.g., Starlink, Kuiper).
- Secure data storage for governments or corporations.
- Computational hubs for lunar/Martian missions.
- Players: SpaceX, Microsoft, Amazon, and startups like Lonestar Data Holdings are actively exploring this space.
Scenarios Where It Makes Sense
- Space-Based Economies: If humanity establishes lunar or Martian colonies, local data centers will be essential for autonomy, reducing reliance on Earth’s servers.
- Global Low-Latency Networks: For applications like high-frequency trading or global AI inference, orbital data centers could optimize transcontinental data routing.
- Ultra-Secure Data Storage: Governments or corporations needing tamper-proof data storage could use space to isolate sensitive information.
- Climate-Driven Relocation: If Earth’s energy or land constraints worsen (e.g., due to climate change), space could become a last-resort option for sustainable computing.
- Satellite Network Optimization: As megaconstellations grow, onboard data centers could handle edge computing, reducing ground station dependency.
Scenarios Where It Doesn’t Make Sense
- Mass-Market Cloud Computing: AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud are far cheaper and more scalable on Earth.
- Low-Cost Applications: Budget-conscious industries won’t justify the high upfront costs of space infrastructure.
- Short-Term Projects: The long lead time for space deployment makes it impractical for projects needing quick deployment.
Conclusion
Putting data centers in space could make sense in the future for niche applications like secure storage, low-latency global networks, edge computing for satellites, or supporting space exploration. The primary drivers are abundant solar energy, natural cooling, and isolation from terrestrial constraints. However, today’s challenges—high launch costs, radiation, maintenance, and communication limits—make it impractical for most use cases. By 2030–2040, with cheaper launches (e.g., SpaceX Starship), better hardware, and growing space infrastructure, it could become viable for specific, high-value scenarios.
If you’d like a deeper dive into a specific aspect (e.g., energy calculations, latency models, or a chart comparing costs), or if you want me to check for recent developments on X or the web, let me know!
If the earth is flat and we live under the firmament then we are not going but so far.
😎🤓🤪😜😊
😎🤓🤪😜😊
I rarely try to be cute. Those other things are space commerce and national defense which I support. Going to the moon and Mars is totally wasteful space exploration.
It if we weren’t aiming for mars we would not get the commercial offshoots. We wouldn’t think to do data centers in space if we weren’t aiming for Mars.
That whole saying “aim for stars and you might land on the moon” applies here.
Just like so many things with NASA. We got so many products from their curiosity.
Exploring space, aiming for Mars, will make life for humans on earth better.
My $.02 and I understand you disagree.
Which happens first data centers on mars or unsupervised FSD?
I don't think space data centers will be available this month. Will require Starship to deliver them and it still has another year or so of testing (hopefully) to be ready. But hey, if it's a year or two late i won't be butthurt like you.
Considering how much larger data centers are than typical Starship and how expensive it is to get a pound of anything into orbit ...
And data centers require teams of expensive specialists to maintain them. Of which it would never be possible to recruit workers to waste their lives in orbit. Any single botched launch would be expensive.
The problem as i understand it is that we won't have enough electricity to power all the data centers. It will require multiple new nuclear reactors to meet demand.
I think SpaceX knows the calculations on cost to orbit. This isn't something i found on the internet, this is coming from the top of SpaceX. A friend of a friend type of deal. They are seriously considering it (they called it their next trillion dollar idea fwiw) and i think they have thought about all the stuff that we don't know to think about. It's way over my head, but theoretically it makes a lot of sense. I can't think of any limitation on why it wouldn't work.
Data centers in the sky, powered by solar panels. Beam the info down by internet. What limitation is there that would say this wouldn't work? Cost is an issue, lots of technological hurdles, but I don't see any reason it can't work. Robots could be sent to maintain if needed.
Of course this is all probably 10-20 years away. But 10-15 years ago having thousands of satellites orbiting earth providing internet anywhere on earth was a crazy idea too.
Fun to think about.
Respectfully, I disagree with this. If the end game of all of this is humanity expanding off of Earth and eventually colonizing other planets, repeated trips to the Moon and Mars are highly valuable for training purposes. The more trips we can successfully make to other planets the easier it will be to set up bases there which can act as launchpads for further exploration, as well as natural resource mining colonies. You can argue it's not really worth the squeeze right now because maybe the technology isn't there yet for meaningful long term settlement, but I'm of the belief that the sooner the better.
We have everything we need on earth. Air, water, plant and animal life. Life outside of earth would be hell with death highly probable in the short term. Do you consider that it would be extremely expensive to mine on other planets? It would result in billions of $$ lost. And you could find the workers. Miners don't want to rest in their protected quarters and read. They want to go hunting and fishing. They want to be with their families.
Similar threads
