I am struggling with a why for this (other than “huh cool, that will get investors”). All the jurisdiction and regulation arguments and the “we could get the costs down” seem to meet the objection of “for the same investment we could do just as well or better on the ground”.
The one that does not is the physics of the whole thing. I struggle to work out how exactly but being slightly time dilated compared to the ground does not seem like a win, but being able to gather data from opposite sides of the planet slightly faster than cables does seem like a potential win. Most stock exchanges make a significant chunk of their revenues renting out data space, so it seems a possibility.
But either way it seems very niche.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but since SpaceX is the only launch services provider that could actually put one of these in orbit, this smells a lot like hyperloop to me — an unserious proposal that serves as a distraction and furthers Musk’s aims, and benefits anyone who can get close enough to the piles of cash that VCs will drop on this.
You know what’s easier and cheaper than putting a data center in space? Putting one literally anywhere else other than space.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17677316
For this principle to become widely known, it needs to be communicated in a more succinct way. 400 pages is too much to ask people to invest.
Even so, as far as I understand the gist of what the paper says, the principle helps make explicit some intuition I’ve had about design for a long time.