Sign up to see the future, today<\/p>\n
Can\u2019t-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech<\/p>\n
Elon Musk and other AI leaders have repeatedly insisted that the solution to the industry\u2019s extremely costly and energy-intensive data centers is to launch them into space<\/a>, taking advantage of unfettered access to solar energy and virtually limitless real estate.<\/p>\n Late last month, SpaceX \u2014 now merged with xAI<\/a> \u2014 filed a patent for an orbital data center constellation<\/a> with the Federal Communications Commission. The idea is to have up to one million satellites circle the Earth at altitudes between 310 and 1,200 miles at a Sun-synchronous orbit to maximize the amount of solar energy captured.<\/p>\n The application didn\u2019t elaborate on any of the specifics, suggesting SpaceX had only begun to ponder the idea. That\u2019s despite Musk promising<\/a> that space-based data centers could overtake their Earthbound counterparts as the most affordable way to power AI within just three years \u2014 likely yet another one of his characteristically overambitious<\/a> timelines.<\/p>\n Many experts remain highly skeptical, questioning<\/a> the financial feasibility and the technological limitations of running data centers in space.<\/p>\n And as Rebekah Reed \u2014 former NASA associate director and Harvard University associate director of the Program on Emerging Technology, Scientific Advancement, and Global Policy \u2014 argued in an essay for the Financial Times<\/a>, it may be an even more cursed idea than we initially thought, pointing out considerable environmental concerns, on top of glaring questions regarding costs and operations.<\/p>\n \u201cTreating orbit as a workaround for AI\u2019s current energy-hungry training needs is, as OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman recently put it, \u2018ridiculous,’\u201d she wrote. \u201cOrbital data centers are many years, perhaps decades, away.\u201d<\/p>\n While Google CEO Sundar Pichai has predicted we\u2019re only a decade away<\/a> from orbital data centers, Altman ridiculed the idea, arguing during a recent conference<\/a> that we\u2019re simply \u201cnot there yet.\u201d<\/p>\n Reed made the case that launching all of that mass into orbit would be prohibitively expensive. To become \u201ceconomically viable\u201dwould require costs to fall below $200 per kilogram, a \u201csevenfold reduction from current levels.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat threshold isn\u2019t expected until the mid-2030s,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s the issue of maintenance. In case a chip were to malfunction \u2014 or inevitably become obsolete \u2014 there\u2019s a simple fix like sending an IT technician to rectify the issue.<\/p>\n \u201cIn orbit, that task requires either sophisticated in-space servicing or acceptance of degrading performance and stranded capital that becomes orbital debris as components age and fail,\u201d Reed wrote.<\/p>\n Worse yet, falling satellites could inject harmful pollutants, including metals, into the upper atmosphere, an environmental toll scientists are still racing to understand<\/a>.<\/p>\n Reed pointed to recent findings by researchers at Saarland University, Germany, who found that the carbon footprint of space data centers could exceed that of terrestrial data centers when taking manufacturing, launch, and disposal into consideration.<\/p>\n \u201cResults show that, even under optimistic assumptions, in-orbit systems incur significantly higher carbon costs \u2014 up to an order of magnitude more than terrestrial equivalents \u2014 primarily due to embodied emissions from launch and re-entry,\u201d they wrote in a yet-to-be-peer-reviewed paper<\/a> last year.<\/p>\n Finally, an enormous orbital data center constellation of thousands of satellites could further clutter the Earth\u2019s orbit, raising the \u201crisk of collisions and debris, threatening communications, weather and navigation services,\u201d Reed concluded. \u201cScaling data centers to match terrestrial demand would accelerate congestion and degrade the night sky.\u201d<\/p>\n