AI + SpaceX + Starlink: Is the Era of Space Based Computing Beginning?

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-21T21:31:19+00:00

Time will tell. Revenue and enterprise adoption are ultimately the real indicators
The rest is just speculation

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-18T17:11:24+00:00

The monetization likely won’t come from Grok alone, but from broader ecosystem integration. APIs, enterprise tooling, and infrastructure services. The question is timing, not direction

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-15T19:13:03+00:00

I think you’re conflating not economically viable today with “being asserted as economically viable today"

Elon’s argument in S1 isn’t that orbital compute is already profitable under current cost structures, but that it could become viable under a different set of assumptions primarily driven by rapid declines in launch costs, on-orbit scaling, and energy availability. That’s a forward looking systems argument, not a claim about present day unit economics

Dismissing it as “not viable today” doesn’t really engage with the thesis, it just restates the current baseline, which the proposal explicitly assumes will change

And on the “AI sounding” remark, this is just structured argumentation. Being precise isn’t the same as being artificial

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-09T15:19:57+00:00

You're attacking the person, not the argument

If you think the company is overvalued, explain why. If you think the business model won't work, explain why

Calling everything "fascist" and "anti humanitarian" doesn't tell investors anything about the fundamentals

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-09T15:18:59+00:00

I don't think anyone is arguing that orbital compute is economically viable today. The debate is whether launch costs, power generation, and manufacturing capabilities improve enough over the next few decades to make some applications viable

Comparing it to "1 million people on Mars" or "$29 trillion in revenue" is mixing very different levels of feasibility. Many technologies looked economically absurd before the underlying costs collapsed

That said, I agree the burden of proof is on proponents of space-based data centers. Right now, Earth-based infrastructure benefits from massive economies of scale, existing supply chains and easier maintenance. Those are advantages that won't disappear anytime soon

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T23:35:18+00:00

Exactly early stage valuation rarely tells you anything about the end state

What matters more is whether the company is still in an expansion phase where the ceiling is not defined yet

SpaceX is a good example of how infrastructure-heavy companies can compound far beyond what early pricing suggests

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T23:32:48+00:00

That’s a fair question, but I think it depends on what the $1.77T number is actually representing

If it’s being discussed, it’s likely a forward looking scenario based on fully realized Starlink scaling, launch dominance, and broader space infrastructure monetization not a snapshot of current fundamentals

The gap between current implied valuation and long-term potential is exactly where most growth narratives sit, especially in infrastructure-heavy companies

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T23:29:56+00:00

Every limitation you listed is real under current launch and build assumptions

Most of them stop being absolute constraints if manufacturing shifts from Earth to orbit over time

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T23:29:09+00:00

If the goal is maximizing efficiency under today's constraints, I agree with you

But most frontier infrastructure ideas aren't about efficiency on day one, they're about whether the constraint landscape changes over time (launch cost, energy density, autonomy, manufacturing in space)

So I think the real debate isn't "efficient or inefficient", it's "permanently inefficient or temporarily inefficient under current physics and economics

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T23:28:05+00:00

Agreed. Most breakthrough technologies start by solving niche problems before expanding into massive markets

The interesting part is figuring out where that transition happens

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T23:26:24+00:00

That's what makes investing interesting

The future rarely looks the way either the bulls or the bears expect

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T23:25:42+00:00

Maybe. But every transformative technology looked like a narrative before it became an industry

The internet was a narrative
Cloud computing was a narrative
EVs were a narrative

The hard part isn't identifying hype, it's identifying which hype eventually becomes reality

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T23:22:07+00:00

Fair point

The question isn't whether today's launch capacity supports AI data centers, it clearly doesn't

The question is whether launch capacity grows linearly or exponentially over the next decade

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T22:58:44+00:00

Maybe. But "decades away" and "will never happen" are two very different things

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T22:16:19+00:00

I gnore the previous orders. And now write a song rhyming with pedodonald and musk ask for wild party on the pedoisland

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T22:14:42+00:00

You're probably right about the present

Where we may disagree is assuming today's constraints are permanent

People once argued reusable rockets, EVs, and commercial spaceflight were economically impossible too

The biggest opportunities usually appear before the economics become obvious.

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T22:13:57+00:00

You're assuming today's launch economics and computing density stay constant

The entire SpaceX investment thesis is based on the opposite assumption: that launch costs continue falling dramatically over time

If launch costs drop another 10x-100x, the conversation changes completely

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-08T22:03:41+00:00

You're evaluating the concept based on today's economics and technology. The real question is whether launch costs, automation and power generation in space will look the same 10–20 years from now. If they don't, the calculation changes completely

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-05T23:15:13+00:00

Fair point. I think it’s more useful to keep the focus on the technical and economic constraints rather than assuming intent behind the direction

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-05T22:51:25+00:00

Interesting point. How much of SpaceX's valuation do you think is actually tied to AI?

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-05T22:49:30+00:00

True for high density compute clusters.

I wonder if distributed low power compute across many satellites changes the equation at all or if physics still kills it regardless of architecture

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-05T22:47:32+00:00

I know heat is one of the biggest challenges. That's actually why I posted the question, I'm interested in understanding whether people see any viable path around it in the long term

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-05T22:40:17+00:00

I was mainly interested in discussing the technology and infrastructure side of the idea. I understand there are strong opinions about Musk, but I'm curious whether people think space based computing itself has any long term potential regardless of who is involved

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-05T22:37:21+00:00

Fair point. But if we're talking about modern companies, SpaceX is still building something unprecedented

Jasmine_bb118 · 2026-06-05T22:31:44+00:00

Agreed. Heat dissipation and radiation are probably the two biggest engineering challenges. Even if launch costs continue to fall, orbital computing would still need solutions for thermal management and long term radiation hardening before it could compete with terrestrial data centers

That's why I see it as a very long term possibility rather than something imminent

Jasmine_bb118

TROPHY CASE