The great data center space race includes a small company in Redmond85%

By Joshua McNichols0%

2/4/2026, 6:03:59 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Pessimism Bias, and Slippery Slope, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 56.1% saturation with 277 hits. Analysis detected 773 faulty-reasoning hits from 494 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.2% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,457 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.20% of the article peer group.

Elon Musk wants to put AI data centers in orbit. 
A company in Redmond beat him to it. 
Elon Musk announced he had merged his rocket company, SpaceX, with his AI company, xAI, this week. 
His goal was to put data centers in orbit. 
But a small company called Starcloud in Redmond has already launched one. 
Starcloud's wisp of a cloud lives in a small box that orbits the earth. 
It runs Google's "Gemma" on an advanced NVIDIA chip. 
"It's just like Google Gemini or ChatGPT," said Saadia Pekkanen, who teaches space law and diplomacy at the University of Washington, "except it says very interesting things like, 'I'm right now over Africa. In 20 minutes ,I'll be in the Middle East.'" 
Starcloud-1 might be a simple box, but according to the company's website, Starcloud-2 will have large solar panels, unfurled like a red carpet to welcome the sun's energy. 
Later, Starcloud-4 would look more like a central spine with several shipping-container-sized server nodes plugged into it. 
Tech companies see space as a source of nearly unlimited cheap solar energy. 
Solar panels can be places in "sun-synchronous orbit," meaning they're almost never in shade. 
Pekkanen said competition for orbital space, especially in that orbit, is heating up. 
"You have limited real estate," she said. 
"You have many companies which are interested, but also many countries that are interested." 
It’s not necessarily a free-for-all... but it will get congested." 
That's one reason companies are racing to claim a spot in that orbit first. 
If you're there first, others must work around your satellites. 
"So, there will be something of first-mover advantage in getting into space in these particular orbits and staying there," Pekkanen said. 
Pekkanen warned that more satellites crowding each other in orbit will lead to collisions. 
Collisions can create debris fields that damage other spacecraft, snowballing into more crashes that can turn space into a chaotic field of junk flying at lethal speeds. 
She said companies must show they can safely dispose of satellites when they stop working. 
So, do we need to worry about satellite parts falling on our heads here on earth? 
"Objects fall out of orbit every day," she said. 
The reason why you don't hear about is because most of the planet is water. 
We have, fortunately, not had any huge accidents like that, but pieces are beginning to sort of fall out of the sky in remote areas and have been doing that for decades. 
The fear is that this may accelerate as mega constellations [of data centers] go into space. 
And the bigger fear is that, if this happens, what do we do? 
Pakkenen said we need international agreements ensuring that space remains safe and usable by many nations in the future. 
For that reason, she hosts a Space Diplomacy Symposium every year at UW. 
You can follow Dr. Pakkenen's work on her Substack, the Space Diplomacy Newsletter. 
Hear more stories like this on KUOW's economy podcast, Booming: 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.8%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.7%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Joshua McNichols: 2.6%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic1.8%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.8%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.3%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 2.0%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 53.2%Joshua McNichols: 7.5%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect53.2%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 2.2%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.2%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.5%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Joshua McNichols: 5.4%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias2.6%This article: 22.7%Joshua McNichols: 2.8%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias22.7%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 6.2%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.7%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.5%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.1%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.8%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 2.1%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.7%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.1%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 56.1%Joshua McNichols: 3.8%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority56.1%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 2.0%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 11.5%Joshua McNichols: 1.9%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope11.5%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.6%Joshua McNichols: 3.6%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization2.6%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.4%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.9%Joshua McNichols: 5.8%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.1%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 2.1%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.3%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 2.8%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.2%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.2%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.7%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.4%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 3.2%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.1%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joshua McNichols: 1.0%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

494 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.