Everyone were also betting on quantum computing and the hydrogen energy revolution.
My napkin math says that, for a system at around 75°C, you would need about 13,000 square meters of radiators in space to reject 10 MW of heat.
My napkin math says that, for a system at around 75°C, you would need about 13,000 square meters of radiators in space to reject 10 MW of heat.
As others have pointed out, investors notoriously have FOMO, so rationale actors (CEOs of big tech) naturally are incentivized to make bets and claims that they are betting on things that the market believes to be true regardless if they are so as to appease shareholders.
that's the way i see this bet as well.
your take on investors is naive and largely incorrect - its the musical chairs theory of markets.
That is NOT what you said. You said this:
> Why would they all put money into this if it is so obvious to all of you that it is not going to work?
In other words: "if these companies are putting all of this money to work then it's obvious it will work"
So, no you didn't simply say "their bets are made intelligently with serious intent". No one is saying these companies aren't serious about it, they are saying there are legitimate physics limitations involved here that are either being ignored or the companies are betting on a novel scientific breakthrough.
> your take on investors is naive and largely incorrect - its the musical chairs theory of markets.
Then you clearly have never worked with investors before.
It’s too comical to even address the “they are ignoring it part” so I’ll ignore it.
I would agree with you that part of their bet might involve hoping for breakthroughs and the investment analysis probably factored it in.
Lots of earlier investments have banked on breakthroughs like this.
Also your opinion on how markets work is naive and unscientific.
You sure about that?
https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article-abstract/21/1/19/157439...
it is a ridiculous conspiracy theory you are trying to assert - musk comes up with an absurd idea that captures investor's attention. its not like he wants to make a good product, he just wants to fool investors. not only that, he fools them, gets the money and then puts said money into this venture that obviously won't work. why does he waste his time into a venture that obviously won't work? who knows
Either you are way way smarter than him, or he's doing this for some other ulterior motive.
Also, go back and read how many people who were "smarter than him" there nine years ago:
On boring: it’s easy to say in hindsight.
So let's talk physics. Are you familiar with the radiative heat-balance problem? You can use the Stefan–Boltzmann law to calculate how many radiators you'd need.
Required area: A = P / (eps * sigma * eta * (Tr^4 - Tsink^4))
Where:
A = radiator area [m^2]
P = waste heat to dump [W]
eps = emissivity (0..1)
sigma = 5.670374419e-8 W/m^2/K^4
eta = non ideal factor for view/blockage/etc (0..1)
Tr = radiator temperature [K]
Tsink = effective sink temperature [K] (deep space ~3 K, ~0 for Tr sizing)
Assuming best conditions so deep space, eps~0.9, eta~1:
At Tr=300K: ~413 W/m^2
At Tr=350K: ~766 W/m^2
At Tr=400K: ~1307 W/m^2
So for 10 MW at 350K (basically around 77°C): A ~ 1e7 / 766 ≈ 13,006 m^2 (best case).
And even in the best case scenario it's only 10 MW and we're not counting radiation from the sun or IR from the moon/earth etc. so in real life, it will be even higher.
You can build 10 MW nuclear power plant (microreactor) with the datacenter included on Earth for the same price.
Show me your numbers or lay out a plan for how to make it economically feasible in space.
like all the employees had to do with read this and be like: wow i never saw it that way.
Investors, both commercial and individual, often have more money than sense.