I want Elon Musk in space, aimlessly drifting around.
I would chip in $25 to send him to space, unless it was a two-way ticket.
Elmo will have to move to Floriderp.
lol let him waste his money on an impossible technology
And kill us all by destroying the ozone layer again? No thank you.
Has anyone actually tried a genuine rollout of data centers? Eg no lying about bringing in jobs, no cheating the energy grid, no building loud data centers near homes, don’t paint people as idiot luddites for opposing AI.
I wonder how different sentiments about data centers would be if the people building them weren’t pathological. Probably not good, but having a punkass showman leading the way seems like self-sabotauge.
Kind of a double fuck in these rollouts at the moment. 1. Is the reckless build out. All the things you mentioned. 2. Is the explicit goal of using to shoot working class power, and create “algorythimc governace” and “ubiquitous policing”.
Its a sinister combo
In countries where the government is responsible and new data centers have to go through the regulatory consent process and address the public’s concerns around noise levels, water usage and grid prices there is still opposition from the public. I think* because of how big of an issue it is in America. America is a megaphone to a lot of the world so the issues spill over and the average person doesnt really seem to know what they’re mad about.
This is how it was most of the time for decades before the LLM/transformer model FOMO speculative investment
As someone from a highly industrial area, it was not.
He will do absolutely anything to not spend money on making the world he lives in a better place for all. So build a data center in space, just add a little apartment for yourself. Imagine looking down on the whole world! What power!
He’s counting on Mars. Which isn’t insane. He should go. We’re right behind him.
Is there somewhere we can donate to help make sure he
fries in a coronal mess ejectionlives the dream he’s always wanted?
An utterly unworkable, absurdly costly idea. I’m sure the same investor-lemmings who buy heavily into IPOs which have no viable business model will fall for this too.
Underwater data centers are also not that feasible, but they are a lot more feasible than putting one in space.
Yep. We already have to deal with waste heat on the ISS, where is the monstrous heat from even a traditional DC to go?
Just confirming what I’ve suspected: the point of the space datacenter thing is to keep the tools of oppression out of reach of angry mobs with torches and pitchforks.
Data center in space: untouchable
Strictly necessary ground radio station to get any usable amount of data to and from said data center: still flammable
And I don’t know if the space datacenter is quite as untouchable as he thinks…
It will obviously be in a very low orbit, because that’s the easiest to reach and construct…
-
Maybe it would be within reach of some fairly advanced amateur rocketry? We don’t have to reach a stable orbit, which makes things much easier. Just shoot it straight up, with much less velocity needed than for orbit. In fact, the speed difference between our rocket and his orbital datacenter will be very useful – that speed difference will lead to a very energetic impact.
-
Maybe it could be vulnerable to some directed energy weapons? Very strong lasers, highly directional microwave beams, that sort of thing.
-
There’s always hacking. For extra irony bonus, use Space Grok to vibe code the tools you need to hack its orbital control systems. Then you can de-orbit it or collide it with other objects in orbit.
We have had missles that you can lob from a high altitude aircraft, and hit a satellite, since the 80s.
[…] that speed difference will lead to a very energetic impact. […] Then you can […] collide it with other objects in orbit.
How to make space worse and everyone hate you - 101
Well, maybe don’t fuck over most of the population so much that they see no progress as preferable to progress that only benefits the oppressors.
It’ll be very touchable while being built.
It will obviously be in a very low orbit, because that’s the easiest to reach and construct…
Well, for a bunch of reasons, these space data centers probably won’t be at very low orbits. First and foremost, very low orbits like the ones starlink uses experience a lot of atmospheric drag. With the huge solar arrays these data centers will need, that high drag environment is a killer. Going just a bit farther out would significantly reduce that drag. Also, latency isn’t a huge concern with space data centers, so very low orbits aren’t required. Lastly, since those low orbits are so highly valuable and contested, it just doesn’t make sense to put something there that doesn’t need to be there.
TLDR: Space data center orbits are likely to be somewhere between 500 - 1000 km altitudes.
And yes, that’s in untouchable range for anything but advanced militaries.
What it’s not untouchable to is legislation. That’s the practical way to fight it.
Can we please not destroy objects in orbit? It’s already crowded up there without untrackable debris. Deorbiting is much safer and probably easier, considering the precision needed to hit anthying, especially because those satellites would have station keeping thrusters to evade other satellites.
Great way to enforce a moratorium on new large-scale projects in LEO for a few years.
@Jobe @technology The precision is do-able, at least by high-tech nation states. The closing speed is so great that evasion using low-power station-keeping thrusters is just not fast enough to avoid terminal guidance of the impact vehicle. Plus, the targeted sats may not even be looking. In around 2008, the US demo’ed an anti-sat rocket that took only 119 seconds from surface launch to kinetic impact on a satellite in a 272 mile high orbit. In that instance, we are told at 95% of the debris de-orbited quickly, with the last sizable piece taking around a year to come down. So they say. I agree that creating more space debris is not a good idea.
The following is a reference and spoiler for Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
spoiler
What we need to do is hijack a submersible fortress, steal the prototype railgun designed for stealth-launching nuclear warheads, and mount the rail gun on the fortress so you can guard it with your battle-harem of cyborg soldier women. Bonus points for getting your arm chopped off by a ninja, replacing it with a transplant, getting possessed by the donor’s ghost because you were unknowingly the child of a medium, but then getting the transplant arm replaced by a prosthetic and hypnotizing yourself into thinking you’re still possessed because reasons… Oh yeah, point the railgun at the orbital data center while all this is going on to ragebait the clone sibling of the arm donor I guess!
Easy!
A variant of the first bullet is another option: put something in orbit going in the opposite direction, then release a few dozen ball bearings in the path of Elon’s data center. Closing speed is something on the order of 100 km/hr. That should do just fine.
“Kessler” bullets, amirite?
Trying to put something in reverse orbit is even more difficult and requires a much more powerful rocket. Normal orbits follow the same direction as the earth’s rotation, because that allows you to take advantage of the earth’s already-existing rotational speed to give you a head start on achieving enough speed to reach orbit.
Putting something into reverse orbit (while possible) is significantly more difficult, because now the earth’s rotation is working against you. It has been done a few times, but it’s significantly more expensive and difficult to achieve, which is going to be a problem for amateurs trying to shoot down a space station.
Anyway, the difference between orbital velocity and a (relatively stationary) rocket that has been fired straight upward will be plenty of speed difference to cause lots of damage on impact.
I like yours better than my suggestion because it has a sort of “Home Alone in Space” vibe to it!
deleted by creator
-
Good thing the whole idea makes no sense, because repairs are impossible, you can only vent heat in infrared, you have to use expensive rockets to get them up there, and if they’re in LEO, they’ll fall back down to earth. Oh, and there’s more likelyhood that bits get flipped from all of the high energy particles up there.
It’ll just make LLMs at scale even more infeasible.
To run one rack of GPUs they will be about 100 square meters of solar panels and 30 square meters of radiators. That’s about 130 kilowatts of compute power. To get a gigawatt multiply that by 6,000. Musk is claiming he wants to send terawatts up to there.
Yeah it’s tricky, given the pushback people are showing against datacenter construction, the issues around power, the vulnerability to attack… The space data center idea is starting to become more attractive to big tech over time, not less.
Initially, everyone agreed that the numbers just don’t add up, there’s no way it could be economical. But then these terrestrial datacenters started getting a lot of bad press, everyone was concerned about the environmental impact, about the strain on the energy grid, about water usage. All of a sudden the space plan is seeming less crazy.
and if they’re in LEO, they’ll fall back down to earth. Oh, and there’s more likelyhood that bits get flipped from all of the high energy particles up there.
You’re thinking about the right things here, these are major issues! But, they can largely avoid serious problems here. Over 500 km, there’s a lot less drag and these aren’t just going to fall out of the sky. And under 1000 km the earth’s magnetic field still mostly protects them from high energy particles. They will still definitely be more exposed to high energy particles causing random bit flips, but it’s going to be in a totally manageable range.
Giant AI datacenters will truly never be an efficient or wise use of resources, at least in my opinion, it’s just a largely stupid endeavor. But for better or worse, I expect we will be seeing some of these space based data centers in the near future. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how economically sustainable they are…
Bad press doesn’t mean they can start losing even more money on space data centers (which are going to be incredibly inefficient and costly). They already do not make a profit, they’re all deep in the red.
Drag is not the only problem (even though these would definitely be LEO, it is just even more expensive to not have them in LEO and it increases latency), nor are bit flips. The biggest issue will continue to be heat. If you haven’t been to a data center before, you may be surprised at how much heat they generate. I’ve only been to non-LLM data centers, and the heat in the warm aisles was unbearable.
And that’s without the sun heating the exterior to incredible amounts. You cannot use contact to dump heat into space.
You might also be surprised at how much e-waste data centers generate, especially LLM-geared data centers. They obliterate hardware, even with optimal cooling, and that hardware requires constant replacement. How are they going to manage that?
Also, unless they use nuclear (which would drastically increase costs and add heat) they’re going to need gigantic solar arrays, much bigger than the IIS’ array.
you can only vent heat in infrared
Yeah, when you heat something, it emits infrared. Kind of the nature of hot things.
I think CorrectAlias meant that heat transfer by direct contact, which is how we cool things in general, is not available, making cooling a datacenter cluster in space actual science fiction.
This is exactly what I meant, thanks.
@phutatorius @technology So, a high-efficiency thermoelectric generator, powered by #datacenter heat directly, might be a win-win. I don’t understand why the current (jk) #technology efficiency is still so low. Surely someone must be working on this.
you still need thermal radiators to create the temperature differential.
There’s always lasers…
Good luck dumbfuck, tell me how easy it is to service, maintain and repair them when you inevitably overheat them, or don’t have the proper shielding so components burn out or degrade beyond useful parameters.
Mars is all red, maybe you want to restart those plans and take your flock of sheeple with you as soon as possible?
I read somewhere recently that they found out Martian soil (regolith) is chalk full (0.5 to 1%) of pechlorates. So I don’t know why this Martian terraform thing is even still talked about. The dust is literally toxic, any food you grow there would also be full of pechlorates as the roots will suck them up with their nitrate transport systems.
Just look at the daily temperatures on Mars. It’s all stupid.
and no, we not mining in space.
As much as I dislike Musk, he probably could tell you in detail. His company is not the only one looking into compute in space, either.
Yeah, other CEOs also fail basic physics.
Almost like Musk had to buy his physics diploma, eh?
Nah, it’s a grift. The Melon’s pitch straight up includes factually wrong physics claims. It is not easier, nor cheaper, to have data centers in space.
Actual scientists have done the math. Even disregarding maintenance for data corruption from radiation, and assuming the best near future tech. It would take 10 times an ISS equivalent structure to power and cool down a single server rack.
Musk promised he wants to get 1 Tera Watt of LLM processing power in orbit. That’s 10,000 times an ISS of solar panels and IR radiators for cooling. The enterprise is completely unrealistic.
The whole thing is just a con to get governments to funnel more money into his companies without having to deliver any actual results.
there’s no convection cooling in space, because vacuum is a very good thermal insulator. compute in space does not scale because of that alone. you would need massive (F/M)IR radiator arrays to get rid of the thermal energy.
And every single one of them is a grifter. It would be a lot easier to establish a permanent moon settlement (which can then build datacenters if they want to) than to provide meaningful amounts of compute in orbit.
Skynet, the clue is in the name.
Wow. He really is as dumb as I thought. As much as I would appreciate him investing the kind of money that would be required to orbit a viable data center into things humanity actually needs, I would also be perfectly happy witnessing him blow hundreds of billions on a fruitless project. Dumb shit doesn’t even understand basic physics and thermodynamics. It just demonstrates how he is an “ideas man” while actual smart people carry him on their shoulders. Wish he would just fuck off to mars already.
Wow. He really is as dumb as I thought.
He’s a con artist.
Exactly. Once the data center in space idea inevitably flames out, he’ll come up with some new bullshit “vision” that the rubes will lap up just as eagerly.
While he’s not smart enough to understand what a tough problem cooling servers in space would be, at least some of the engineers working on it might invent some interesting technology while failing to build a datacenter in space. Which is more than I can say about his other expenses like failing to buy elections, or failing to only have sons.
Yep. Figuring out data centers in space is pretty much a prerequisite for any sort of significant transorbital flight. Unless we want to be limited to dinky little 2-3 person capsules that fit in a garage, efficient cooling in space will be necessary.
Figuring out data centers in space is pretty much a prerequisite for any sort of significant transorbital flight
I don’t think that’s true. They seem like two separate problems.
AI datacenters use power at such magnitudes that trying to solve the cooling problem for that kind of satellite or ship might not be all that applicable to a ship occupied by living humans.
A data center satellite might be able to run hot to improve cooling characteristics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law makes radiators much more effective at higher temperatures. So maybe the solution there would involve building out chips and server components that can run hot, like above 90°C, with cooling systems designed to operate at those higher temperatures.
Meanwhile, it might be that the human occupied space stations will need to have temperatures that support human life, closer to 18°C. At the same time, why would a human occupied space station need megawatts of power, and the accompanying need to reject megawatts of waste heat?
Well, let’s do some quick napkin math– Background (Google searches) (1) Per capita global energy consumption is 22000kwh/yr, which is ~8kw (2) ISS runs on 75-100kw for a crew of ~7 or so (3) S9G reactor for Virginia class sub generates 210MW for a crew of 134 (4) Average US household comes out to ~1.5kw in electricity alone
So. If we’re setting an arbitrary limit of 10MW, that means we are limited to (1) a population of 1000, (3) a population of 7ish, (4) a population of ~6000
I’m going to discount (4) entirely, because that ignores the non-electrical energy consumption which would still have to be done with electricity in space.
Note that every other case also doesn’t cover the entire energy cost of living, because the per capita average and the ISS average doesn’t include growing food, which is free solar power on earth, and specifically case (1) is significantly buffered by people worldwide that use minimal/no power due to having a planet that handles life support for them. Nuclear sub is probably not a great comparison either, because it’s designed to operate in combat conditions and never be refueled. But they are pretty much entirely self-sufficient outside of food.
ISS is probably the best comparison, assuming regular shipments of supplies and no industry. That gives us a rough population of 60-100 per megawatt. I did specify “significant” and “transorbital”, meaning we can’t assume consistent supply shipments. So let’s cut that number in half (random guess), and we have a population of 30-50 per megawatt. Now, there are people that live in villages of 30-50 people, but those villages often rely on infrastructure and industry of larger towns. You can’t really just find a field and plant corn in space. Every space habitat is going to need some sort of industry to make it economically viable. That means workers, that means more power. Let’s guesstimate that we cut the viable population in half again. 15-25 people per megawatt. Now I think this is a viable assumption given the disparity between household consumption (say half your power is electrical, so life support is 2-3kw) and per capita consumption (which divides total power consumption, industry included, giving another 5-6kw per capita to industry).
Smallest town that had productive industry I’ve ever lived in had a population of ~10,000, with about 1500 of those people employed in the factory. Given above napkin math at 15-25p/Mw, which is 40-60kw/person, that puts us at 400-600MW of power for a self sufficient habitat/space ship capable of supporting a population of 10k. Given that the small town I just referred to has a total power consumption of 187MW, we get that same factor of roughly 4x we came up with above.
So for a future space station analogous to Rural Bumfuck, East Nowhere (pop. 10,000) were looking at half a gigawatt of juice. That’s a lot of thermal energy.
Also, S-B law works in kelvin so going from 18C to 90C is only a 33%(^4) increase. Any reasonable space radiator at that point would likely have a multiple coolant loop system. Heck, I’d expect it to be the reverse of current nuclear design, with heat being dumped into a molten salt loop that goes into the radiators themselves at hundreds if not thousands of degrees.
Primary energy use per capita is a good discussion to have about our footprints on earth, but they include significant inefficiencies that simply wouldn’t be present on a spacecraft.
First, on Earth, we consume a lot of energy on transportation. There’s not really an analogue in the spaceship side of things, except maybe the spaceship’s own propulsion. Even then, though, most propulsion technology wouldn’t generate all that heat in the spacecraft itself, so there’s no need to cool an equivalent amount of energy used.
Second, we use a lot of energy making our living spaces habitable, with heating and cooling. Using proper reflection and radiation and shielding and all that can help keep a spaceship a comfortable temperature without spending as much energy as would be required to heat or cool a residence on the Earth’s surface.
Third, with Earth statistics, we talk of primary energy usage, which includes a lot of wasted energy. Thermal power plants tend to have less than 50% thermal efficiency, and fuel-burning heat engines tend to have less than 30%. That waste heat is part of the global energy consumption stats in a way that wouldn’t need to be factored in for a solar panel powered spaceship, because there’s not an equivalent source of excess waste heat.
So I think when you look at individual energy usage, you’ll see there are literally multiple orders of magnitude difference between different individuals with different lifestyles, even within the same developed economy. A population who never leaves the confines of the ship doesn’t have to budget energy for transportation (28% of the world’s energy usage), heating and cooling buildings (25% of the world’s energy use), or anything like most of the industrial sector.
For things like cooking or heating water, there may need to be major qualitative differences in order to support a living arrangement in a ship (more enclosed cooking appliances like pressure coolers or microwaves, fewer stoves that emit waste heat all around).
And agriculture is of course the big problem. But we wouldn’t be able to naively assume that the energy use per food calorie produced would be within an order of magnitude. Photosynthesis is really inefficient. So is the whole growing of an entire plant to focus on the parts of the plant that we eat. There may need to be some form of synthetic food, or partially synthetic food, that creates edible macronutrients without a biological feedstock.
But that’s a separate problem. I still don’t think that solving habitable spaceship cooling requirements will necessarily overlap with solving space data center cooling requirements.
or failing to only have sons
Soo, he thougt his genes are “stronger” or something like it? This would be another failing to understand how things work.
If I remember correctly he had all his kids via IVF and selected for XY only.
Nature is efficient, and he is only as smart as someone with effectively infinite means needs to be.
Keeping one rack of GPU running needs basically all the uninhabited parts of the international space station. That’s roughly 100 kilowatt. That’s 10.000 ISS sized installations, man’s most expensive object ever made, for a gigawatt datacenter. I just hope he’s forced to bankroll this personally
You know he’ll take it out of our retirement like he has been doing
It’s stupid on so many levels… yeah first and foremost basically everything about space is terrible for data centers.
What are the 3 things a data center needs.
Power, cooling, good internet connection. Obviously power is complicated as heck, yeah solar is a bit more direct, but also hits total blackouts when it winds up in the shadow of things… and shielding etc… from all the radiation is a pain and a half, solar pannels will need to be drastically bigger and heavier than their earth counterparts, which is expensive as hell to send up there.
but the harder part… cooling. People think of space as cold, but that’s innacurate… there’s no air to be cold… things stay at the temperature they are… if you have something constantly pumping out heat… it’s insanely difficult to get the heat to radiate out.
Well, you’re thinking about the right things for sure! Power, cooling, Internet connection, all super important.
But as it turns out, terrestrial solar panels are actually heavier than space solar panels, like a lot heavier. Shielding against radiation is actually less of a challenge than shielding against weather and acorns. The ISS updated it’s solar array a while back and its new ones were deployed by rolling them out, they were a thin enough film to actually roll up for launch and then roll out once attached to the ISS.
Also, these solar panels won’t have blackouts. With a sun synchronous orbit, these panels simply won’t be in shadow basically ever. The one exception would be during solar eclipses.
As for cooling, you do probably need radiators with active cooling systems. Generally you need radiator panels at a ratio of about 1/5 of the area of your solar panels, but this can vary with different designs. But that’s a linear relationship, cooling doesn’t become unfeasible at some point it just remains a design concern. The more power you generate, the more radiators you need. It’s just part of the cost of power and it scales linearly with the area of your solar array.
Just read a comment about exactly this a few days ago. Anyone working on space components know that a very hat problem to work on is how to keep things cool because, well - having the fucking sun shine on things most of the time directly without the ozone layer and air to dissipate heat in and way does make things go hot.
Also, you forgot a very important thing a data center needs: people that work there. That is one of the reasons we currently build data centers so close to urban sprawls in Arizona instead of somewhere in the middle of Alaska or in polar regions. There must be personnel working onsite all the time.
Also it will need repairs. And probably more often than not due to the radiation.
And micro meteorites pelting it
It’s funny to me because the moon would be a much better choice, if latency wasn’t an issue. Don’t get me wrong, if your aim is uptime, reliability and ease of upgrades/use then terrestrial based is your only option.
But if your goal was off Earth, the moon has a number of advantages that free floating in orbit lacks. You can place the servers themselves underground in lavatubes or excavated caverns as well as install heat-sinks (or even seal a cavern, pressurize it and use what ever gaseous medium for extra heat capacity and thermal transfer) then place a series of solar on the surface with battery support (remembering that lunar nights are 2 weeks long) to generate all your power needs, as well as take advantage of the moon’s tidally locked nature to have your transmission and receivers always pointed at the Earth, or relay satellites in orbit.
Such a project could coincide with NASA or other agencies or enterprises looking to establish settlements on the moon for research or mining purposes, so you could have short or long term settlements with technicians on hand to troubleshoot any problems that arise or even get semi regular (every 18-24 months) deliveries of components for repairs and upgrades for your system, something that long term would be a lot simpler logistically and more stable than attempting a satellite or constellation of satellites any Earth orbit.
The plan is nonsensical for a number of reasons, namely the cost and long term dedication, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than trying to put an energy intensive project in orbit and hope the lowest bidder parts last more than 6 months.
I’m not sure the moon makes a lot of sense.
I mean, the two weeks of darkness is the real killer.
I mean look, let’s say our datacenter requires 100 kw of power. That means about an 800 square m solar array. If you need to store enough power to run the system through a two week night, you’ll need a lot of batteries and a much larger array. You’ll only be collecting power half the time, so the array needs to be twice as large. But there are about 30% losses in transferring energy to the battery, drain over time, and then transferring back, so some quick math says you now need somewhere around 230kw, for a 1800 square m solar array.
Currently, an array large enough to generate 100kw weighs between 1-2 tons. If we’re optimistic and say 1 ton, that’s 2.25 tons for our equivalent moon array
Now the batteries. The capacity needs to be enough to store 130kw over the course of two weeks. 130kw x 24hours x 14days = 43,680 kw hours of storage. Lithium ion batteries weigh about 5kg per kwh of storage. 43,680 kwh of storage would weigh 218 tons. And that’s just the base weight of the batteries, I didn’t factor in whatever structures or systems the batteries would need to be usable in space.
Here’s where I point out that it costs about $5 mil per ton sent to orbit. It costs somewhere between $100 mil and $1 bil to send 1 ton to the moon. Personally, I think it’s a lot easier to send 1 ton to low earth orbit, than to send 220 tons all the way to the moon. I think the only way to make data centers on the moon make sense, would be if you’re already living and working on the moon in a functioning settlement.
As crazy as orbital data centers are, if your counting in dollars, lunar data centers are literally 10,000 times crazier.
People forget that black body radiation is to the 4th power of the temperature difference. I assure you if your server cluster is at 1000 Kelvin cooling will be the least of your worries
A data center in international waters is immensely more practical in most regards, if legal jurisdiction is your complaint.
Great idea. And for each data center ship you can have a desalination ship for the cooling water. And both will burn bunker fuel, of course.
Would the water need to be desalinated if it’s only going to be cooling the equipment?
If you want the cooling system to survive, yes.
Ocean water is atrociously corrosive, prone to clogging tubes and short circuits much more easily than distilled water.
Exactly. You could of course construct a ship with a closed inner cooling cycle that then dumps the heat to the outside ocean through cooling fins or the like. But that would require developing new technology and building new ships. That would take time and cost money. We can’t possibly do that because line must go up now!
This isn’t a new idea. This is a problem that every nuclear sub deals with. From what I can gather, fresh water runs inside the reactor in two separate zones, and after powering the steam turbine goes into the condenser which is cooled by seawater.
However it works, this problem has been solved for decades.
I’m not saying it’s impossible or even difficult. But the fact is that currently no ships exist that implement this on the necessary scale. You don’t just build a completely new type of ship in an afternoon.
developing new technology
This isn’t as hard as you want to believe, nor would it require a brand new ship. If you want to do coastal designs, there are already some in place. If you want data sovereignty, the only real benefit of space data centers, a small cargo vessel with container data centers and one or more onboard generators could do this. Fueling it would be a challenge, but no more than all the issues with a space data center. As for time constraints, this would still be faster to deploy than any space-based solution.
None of this makes it a good idea, just not particularly novel, difficult, or time-consuming.
Exactly. Cooling a maritime vessel is easy, because the ocean is a giant heatsink. The heat capacity of water is so far above almost any other common material, and water is plentiful in the ocean.
Put the fresh water in a closed loop and let salt water carry the heat away from some kind of heat exchanger.
Not new technology, this is how the water heater on my boat works. Closed loop cycle that dumps engine heat into the hot water tank. There’s also a secondary inline heater I can turn on for when I’m entirely on sails.
If you want the cooling system to survive, yes.
That’s a mighty big “if”.
Interesting
For a man who keeps talking about colonizing Mars, Musk seems remarkably surprised that you can’t permanently colonize a state’s politics. Spending hundreds of millions on campaigns didn’t come with a warranty, and moving SpaceX again won’t change how voting works.
I doubt voting would be allowed on Mars if Musk gets his way.
oh no it would be allowed. but it would be designed similar to spaceX’s share policy. Voting is allowed as long as he personally either is indifferent or wants the change, but the second he doesn’t want the change his single vote will override the majority.
