why do you think their stock will inflate?

Well it made you invest in them.

Yes because as I said I believe it will work out, so does Google, SpaceX, Blue Origin.

I'm not sure if you're joking, but "AI datacenter in space" is the kind of phrase that attracts investors, that's straight from Musk's playbook for keeping the stock trading at ridiculous P/Es, especially now that he is planning SpaceX IPO.

why does it attract investors if it is so obvious that it will fail?

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

You should ask yourself this, not me, you're the one who blindly believes what Musk says. He also said he was creating a new political party in the US, how's that going? Did you believe him when he talked about landing people on Mars in 2018? It’s 2026. How is boring company going? etc. I think you're overinterpreting what I wrote and projecting. I'm telling you how the physics works, and the physics is simple here: unless you change the physics or discover some exotic, cheap materials, this is 100% not economically viable today or in the near future.

So you have no clue why he's doing it? He's putting money in a thing that will obviously fail.

Either you are way way smarter than him, or he's doing this for some other ulterior motive.

You didn't answer my questions. How is The Boring company going? And in this context, you can also ask: "Is he putting money into something that will obviously fail?"

Also, go back and read how many people who were "smarter than him" there nine years ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14223020

Here Bezos, sundar, Jensen all are invested.

On boring: it’s easy to say in hindsight.

You know why I mentioned hydrogen energy earlier? There was a Financial Times article last month titled "Hydrogen dreams meet reality as oil and gas groups abandon projects", which notes that "Almost 60 major low carbon hydrogen projects—including ones backed by BP and ExxonMobil—have been cancelled" because they weren't economically feasible. Space data centers are in the same place today. It's physics. And none of the people you mentioned have invested in this. They may be interested and might research the topic, but that's not the same thing. I've yet to see any plan that explains how they'll replace failed hardware and manage heat while keeping the whole thing economically feasible.

ok so you are smarter than all of them? and if they had put you in charge instead of the phd's, they might have been better off?

You're using an uninteresting appeal to authority argument again.

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.

you are saying you can stop an entire division in google, nvidia, blue origin with this bit of theory?

like all the employees had to do with read this and be like: wow i never saw it that way.

Because "investors" are a large group. Many of them are not involved in the industry and are clueless about tech. Same reason they invest in OpenAI, that hasn't made any money.

Investors, both commercial and individual, often have more money than sense.

Do you think investors as a large group make enormous amounts of money on average?

I didn't say they make it. They have it, like an older person who grew their portfolio over time. They are an example of someone who invests in AI without knowing anything about what it is.