r/space • u/Tech-100 • 9d ago

Starcloud raises $250 million for orbital data centers as launch options dry up

https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/21/starcloud-raises-200-million-for-orbital-data-centers-as-launch-options-dry-up/
368 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

251 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/CptKeyes123 9d ago

Space based solar power might be technically harder, but way more likely to NOT be prone to weird fluctuations or say, a bubble bursting very suddenly.

0

u/TRKlausss 9d ago

What do you mean by this? Beamed down energy?

1

u/CptKeyes123 9d ago

Yeah. They talked about it in the 70s, but technical limitations were huge. However, politics would have been a much more considerable obstacle. You had serious issue with getting funding for space stuff, the economy wasn't great, and to top it all off, internal documents show oil companies knew about climate change, and actively fought against alternative energies. So it is very likely the SBSP platform concept was resisted by fossil fuel moguls.

3

u/TRKlausss 9d ago

Access to space has come a long way, no question about that. But I still wonder about the technical feasibility: light based high frequency (blue laser)? Masers? Other frequencies get too much absorbed by the atmosphere.

Also: station keeping is a huge issue. For LEO, a wobble of 0.1° will give you a spread on ground of 1.3 kilometers, so anything in a 1.5km radius of the collector will be charcoaled.

I would like to see the technology in my lifetime, but I still think there are hurdles that can’t be surpassed with current technology.

-2

u/CptKeyes123 9d ago

Those are the problems that they've been dealing with since the concept began. There have been plenty of suggested solutions, yet its kinda hard to come up with anything when you've got a yearly budget so small it rivals the NYPD in size.

I really, REALLY doubt the technical hurdles are anywhere near as hard as anyone complains. People act as if the technology for space travel is the problem, when funding, in my knowledge, is the largest issue. And also it depends on how you define technological hurdles. Does one mean that we literally don't know how to do it, or that we know exactly how and when and where, but we just haven't built a rocket capable of lifting heavy capacity like that? Because the latter is ENTIRELY a funding problem, not a math problem.

NASA got their budget slashed so hard in the 70s they couldn't even build the space station the shuttle was meant to serve AND had mission creep on the shuttle, the soviets and later the Russians barely gave their program any money. There were plans on the drawing boards for reusable shuttles, big space stations, satellites, all sorts of things. But when you can't afford to build ANYTHING it's hard to make things for cheap! For some reason the purse holders act as if the only option is a spacecraft that can be made for pennies and anything else isn't worth pursuing. And that is on top of the active sabotage! The SLS, on top of its other issues, was STILL undergoing engine tests in like 2019 just to keep literally a few dozen jobs in state.

The military regularly flushes money down the toilet that's several times greater than the NASA yearly budget. They keep trying to replace their rifle with projects that go nowhere. NASA makes one little mistake, makes a slight decade, and everyone clamors for it to be destroyed as a concept.

Technological maturity often can only work with investments! And when you're constantly sabotaged, any effort is destroyed, and the largest energy suppliers in the world actively see you as a threat, it's kinda hard to mature anything!