So ChatGPT decided to assume a constant $800/kg to estimate cost, and you're using that as evidence that cost/W doesn't decrease with scale?

Anyway, my point is that Starlink is not primarily designed to harvest as much solar power as possible the way data center sats are. I'm sure they're not making it inefficient on purpose, but what you're suggesting is like using the cost/W of a solar powered traffic camera to estimate the cost/W of a solar farm. Yes, they both use solar power, but they have entirely different design goals.

It's reasonable to 0th order to assume a ball of heat management and phased array antennae has a roughly constant cost per kg, yes. And as I said starlink absolutely wants to use as much power as they can, as communications from space are heavily limited by power.

FWIW, SpaceX is estimating their AI sats will have over double the W/kg of what that ChatGPT summary is estimating for Starlink. https://www.spacex.com/spacexai/starmind Cost/kg is not disclosed, but I think it would be a mistake to assume there were no similar improvements there.

Okay so even assuming all of SpaceX's numbers, which is extremely optimistic, even if we're an angel's advocate and assume that they spend all this money on engineering and optimize their launch costs and their satellite costs and they don't hit any hiccups, and DCs on Earth stay pretty much the same and don't get any added efficiencies. Even then over every time period orbital is still more expensive. And it gets particularly punishing the longer you extend the analysis period as the satellites need to get replaced while the DCs don't spontaneously combust all their infra.

I don't think those numbers are optimistic, I suspect they've already designed the sat in CAD and that's what the calculation spat out; it's probably quite accurate. The physics of this sort of thing are quite well known and SpaceX already has experience with the type of satellite that will be needed. There's no need for them to rely on napkin math.

Cost is a different matter of course, but it seems incongruous to me that after being confronted with the fact that your power density assumptions were off by a factor of 2x you would continue to insist ChatGPT's weird assumptions about manufacturing costs scaling linearly with mass are accurate. As was already pointed out upthread, even if all the calculator's other assumptions are correct they can turn a profit if they get the per satellite cost (excluding the cost of the GPUs) below $2 million. I think the only big question mark here is launch cost.

Upthread comment and therefore the premise of your $8/W target is wrong. As I explained, I plugged in all the announced engineering parameters for Starmind, $8/W, and $76/kg launch. It ties terrestrial over a 5yr period (the slider default) but gets crushed over a 10yr period. Naturally a longer time window is prudent absent some world-ending calamity in 5 years that renders the need for compute irrelevant. And even the 5yr tie is very sensitive to these parameters and requires everything to go right.

The calculator seems to be assuming capex costs don't increase over time with traditional data centers but that they do with orbital data centers, due to hardware failure. That does make some sense in theory; terrestrial data centers don't get completely destroyed on re-entry, though I think in practice there are other costs associated with aging terrestrial infrastructure that are being omitted here.

I guess we'll see. I think though that given we're now arguing over the particular assumptions used to estimate manufacturing cost rather than over physical limitations I've sufficiently made my point.