Xiangyi Cheng Is Bringing AR to Classrooms and Hospitals

When Xiangyi Cheng published her first journal paper as a principal investigator in IEEE Access in 2024, it marked more than a professional milestone. For Cheng, an IEEE member and an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Loyola Marymount University, in Los Angeles, it was the latest waypoint in a career shaped by curiosity, persistence, and a belief that technology should serve people—not the other way around.

The paper’s title was “Mobile Devices or Head-Mounted Displays: A Comparative Review and Analysis of Augmented Reality in Healthcare.”

XIANGYI CHENG

Employer

Loyola Marymount University, in Los Angeles

Title

Assistant professor of mechanical engineering

Member grade

Member

Alma maters

China University of Mining and Technology; Texas A&M University

Cheng’s work spans robotics, intelligent systems, human-machine interaction and artificial intelligence. It has applications in patient-specific surgical planning, an approach whereby treatment is customized to the anatomy and clinical needs of each individual.

Her research also covers wearables for rehabilitation and augmented-reality-enhanced engineering education.

The throughline of her career is sound judgment based on critical thinking. She urges her students to avoid the temptation to accept the answers they’re given by AI without cross-checking them against their own foundational understanding of the subject matter.

“AI can give you ideas,” Cheng says, “but it should never lead your thinking.”

That principle—honed through uncertainty, disciplinary shifts, and hard-earned confidence—has made Cheng an emerging voice in applied intelligent systems and a thoughtful educator preparing students for an AI-saturated world.

From Xi’an to Beijing: A mind drawn to mathematics

Cheng, born in Xi’an, China, grew up in a household shaped by her parents’ disparate careers. Her father was a mining engineer, and her mother taught Chinese and literature at a high school.

“That contrast between logical and literary thinking helped me understand myself early,” Cheng says. “I liked math, and STEM felt natural to me.”

Several teachers reinforced her inclination, she says, particularly a math teacher whose calm, fair approach emphasized reasoning over punishments such as detention for misbehavior or failure to complete assignments.

“It wasn’t about being right,” Cheng says. “It was about thinking clearly.”

She moved to Beijing in 2011 to attend the China University of Mining and Technology , where she studied mechanical engineering. After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in 2015, she was unsure where the field would take her.

An IEEE paper changed her trajectory

Later in 2015, she traveled to the United States to study at Case Western Reserve University, in Cleveland.

She initially viewed the move as exploratory rather than a long-term commitment.

“I wasn’t thinking about a Ph.D.,” she says. “I wasn’t even sure research was for me.”

That uncertainty shifted in 2017, when Cheng submitted her “IntuBot: Design and Prototyping of a Robotic Intubation Device” paper to the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)—which was accepted.

“AI can give you more possibilities, but thinking is still our responsibility.”

Intubation is a procedure in which an endotracheal tube is inserted into a patient’s airway—usually through the mouth—to help them breathe. Because placing the tube correctly is not simple and usually must be done quickly, it requires training. That’s why research into robotic or assisted intubation systems focuses on improving speed, accuracy, and safety.

She presented her findings at ICRA in 2018, giving her early exposure to a global research community.

“That acceptance gave me confidence,” she recalls. “It showed me I could contribute to the field.”

Her advisor at Case Western encouraged her to switch from the mechanical engineering master’s program to the Ph.D. track. When the advisor moved to Texas A&M University, in College Station, in 2019, Cheng decided to transfer. She completed her Ph.D. in mechanical engineering at Texas A&M in 2022.

Although she didn’t earn a degree from Case Western, she credits her experience there with clarifying her professional direction.

Shortly after graduating with her Ph.D., Cheng was hired as an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Ohio Northern University, in Ada. She left in 2024 to become an assistant professor at Loyola Marymount.

Engineering for the body—and the classroom

Cheng’s research focuses on human-centered engineering, particularly in health care. One of her major projects addresses syndactyly, a congenital condition in which a newborn’s fingers are fused at birth. Surgeons rely on their experience to estimate the size and shape of skin grafts to be taken from another part of the body for the corrective surgery.

She is developing technology to scan the patient’s hand, extract anatomical landmarks, and use finite element analysis—a computer-based method for predicting how a physical object will behave under real-world conditions—to determine the optimal graft size and shape.

Xiangyi Cheng designs human-centered intelligent systems with applications in health care and education.Xiangyi Cheng

“Everyone’s hand is different,” Cheng says. “So the surgery should be personalized.”

Another project centers on developing smart gloves to assist with hand rehabilitation, pairing the unaffected hand with the injured one so the person’s natural motion can help guide therapy.

She also is exploring augmented reality in engineering education, using immersive visualization and AI tools to help students grasp three-dimensional concepts that are difficult to convey through traditional learning tools. Such visualization lets students see and interact with a digital world as if they’re inside it instead of viewing it on a flat screen.

Teaching balance in an AI-driven world

Despite working at the forefront of AI-enabled systems, Cheng cautions her students to be judicious in their use of the technology so that they don’t rely on it too heavily.

“AI is not always right and perfect,” she says. “You still need to be able to judge whether the answers it provides are correct.”

As AI continues to reshape engineering, Cheng remains grounded in a simple principle, she says: “We should use these tools. But we should never let them replace our judgment. AI can give you more possibilities, but thinking is still our responsibility.”

In her lab and classroom, Cheng prioritizes independent thinking, critical evaluation, and persistence. Many of her research students are undergraduates, and she encourages them to take ownership of their work—planning ahead, testing ideas, and learning from failure.

“The students who succeed don’t give up easily,” she says.

What she finds most rewarding, she says, is watching students mature. Reserved first-year students often become confident seniors who can present complex work and manage demanding projects.

“Getting to witness that transformation is why I teach,” she says.

For students considering engineering, Cheng offers straightforward advice: “Focus on mathematics. Engineering looks hands-on, but math is the foundation behind everything.”

With practice and persistence, she says, students can succeed and find meaning in the field.

Why IEEE continues to matter

Cheng joined IEEE in 2017, the year she submitted her first paper to ICRA. The organization has remained central to her professional development, she says.

She has served as a reviewer for IEEE journals and conferences including Robotics and Automation Letters, Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, Transactions on Robotics, the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, and ICRA.

IEEE’s interdisciplinary scope aligns naturally with her work, she says, adding that the organization is “one of the few places that truly welcomes research across boundaries.”

More personally, IEEE helped her see a future she had not initially imagined.

“That first conference was a turning point,” she says. “It helped me realize I belonged.”

Reference: https://ift.tt/Empdz9V

This Power Grid Pioneer’s EV Prediction Came 100 Years Too Soon

Charles Proteus Steinmetz was a towering figure in the early decades of electrical engineering, easily the intellectual equal of Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla—men he considered his friends. One of Steinmetz’s most significant achievements was to quantify and characterize the phenomenon of magnetic hysteresis—the behavior of magnetism in materials—and then devise a simple law that allowed for predictable transformer and motor design. He also established a revolutionary framework for analyzing AC circuits, which is still taught today in power engineering. And from 1893, he served as chief consulting engineer at General Electric at a pivotal moment for the young company and for the U.S. effort to expand its power grid. For these and other accomplishments, he was well known in his time, even if he’s not exactly a household name today.

Steinmetz was also an evangelist for electric vehicles. In March 1920, he typed out his thoughts, comparing the pros and cons of EVs to the gasoline-propelled alternative. Among the advantages: low cost of maintenance, reliability, simplicity of operation, and lower cost of operation. The disadvantages: dependence on charging stations, limited range on a single charge, and lower speeds. More than a century later, his list remains remarkably pertinent.

Steinmetz could often be seen decked out in a suit and top hat, smoking his trademark BlackStone panatela cigar while riding around Schenectady, N.Y., in his 1914 Detroit Electric sedan. According to John Spinelli, emeritus professor of electrical and computer engineering at Union College, in Schenectady, sometimes both Steinmetz and his chauffeur sat in the backseat—you could control the car from both the front and the rear—so that it would appear to be a driverless car. With a top speed of 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour), the car ran on 14 six-volt batteries and could go about 48 km between charges.

Steinmetz’s 1914 Detroit Electric car is now at Union College in Schenectady, N.Y., where Steinmetz had founded, chaired, and taught in the department of electrical engineering.Paul Buckowski/Union College

In 1971, the car was purchased by Union College, where Steinmetz had founded, chaired, and taught in the department of electrical engineering. The car had been discovered rotting in a field, so it needed some work. Over the next decade, faculty and engineering students restored it to its former glory. Still in running condition, it’s now on permanent display at the college.

Steinmetz’s Contributions to Electrical Engineering

Karl August Rudolf Steinmetz was born in 1865 in Breslau, Prussia (now known as Wrocław, Poland). He studied mathematics, physics, and the burgeoning field of electricity at the University of Breslau. He also joined a student socialist club and edited the party newspaper, The People’s Voice. He completed his doctoral studies, but before receiving his degree, Steinmetz fled to Switzerland in 1888, after his socialist writings came under the scrutiny of the Bismarck government.

Steinmetz immigrated to New York the following year, anglicized his first name, dropped his two middle names, and added Proteus, a nickname he had picked up at university (after the shape-shifting sea god of Greek mythology). Eventually, he became a U.S. citizen.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz solved a number of important problems that helped the power grid expand.Bettmann/Getty Images

In January 1892, Steinmetz burst onto the engineering scene when he read his paper “On the Law of Hysteresis” before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, a forerunner of today’s IEEE. I can’t quite imagine sitting through the delivery of its 62 pages, but those assembled recognized its groundbreaking nature. The ideas Steinmetz outlined allowed engineers to calculate power losses in the magnetic components of electrical machinery during the design phase. Prior to this, the design process for transformers and electric motors was largely trial and error, and power losses could be measured only after the machine was built, which greatly added to the cost.

Steinmetz was not just an equations and theory guy, though. He loved working in the lab and building things. In 1893, General Electric acquired the small manufacturing firm of Eickemeyer & Osterheld, in Yonkers, N.Y., where Steinmetz had worked since shortly after his arrival in the United States. So Steinmetz began his new life as a corporate engineer, an interesting turn for the socialist. During his first few years with GE, he mostly designed generators and transformers. But he also created an informal position for himself as a consultant, giving expert opinions on various problems across divisions. He eventually formalized this role, becoming GE’s chief consulting engineer, and he maintained a relationship with the company for the rest of his life, even after joining the faculty of Union College in 1902.

By the time Steinmetz died in 1923 at the age of 58, he had been granted more than 200 patents and had made major contributions to various subfields in electrical engineering, including phasors and complex numbers (for steady-state AC analysis); electrical transients, switching surges, and surge protection (based on his research on lightning); industrial research (including how to run a corporate lab); and engineering methods (by writing textbooks that standardized practice).

Why Steinmetz Believed in Electric Cars

By 1914, Steinmetz was convinced that the future of transportation was electric. In June, he addressed the National Electric Light Association convention in Philadelphia with a bold prediction: “I have no doubt that in 10 years, more or less—rather less than more—we will see the field of the pleasure and business vehicle covered by such an electric car in large numbers. And I believe I underestimate when I say that 1,000,000 or more will be used.”

As we now know, Steinmetz was overly optimistic. At the time, there were about 1.2 million gasoline-powered cars in use in the United States, and only about 35,000 EVs. It would take until 2018 for the number of EVs (including plug-in hybrids) on U.S. roads to surpass a million. Worldwide, there are now about 60 million electric vehicles in use.

But Steinmetz had his reasons. He firmly believed that electric vehicles would flourish in urban areas, where most rides involved short distances at low speed. He also thought EVs would be a boon for power companies, which were eager to drum up more business, especially at night. With 1 million electric cars being charged about 5 kilowatt-hours on most nights, and at a rate of 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, Steinmetz predicted US $75 million (about $2.5 billion today) of new business for central power stations each year.

In 1971, Union College purchased Steinmetz’s car, which had been found rotting in a field, and faculty and students restored it to working condition.Special Collections & Archives/Schaffer Library/Union College

Steinmetz went to work to improve the electric car. He developed a double-rotor motor that was integrated into the rear axle, which did away with the need for a mechanical differential or drive shaft and drastically reduced the overall weight, which improved the mileage. Dey Electric Corp. incorporated Steinmetz’s design into its electric roadster and priced it under $1,000. Unfortunately, an internal combustion engine Ford Model T cost about half as much, and the Dey roadster flopped, ending production within a year.

Undeterred, Steinmetz formed the Steinmetz Electric Motor Car Corp. in 1920 with the initial goal of bringing to market an electric truck for deliveries and light industrial use. The first truck debuted on a cold February day in 1922 with a publicity stunt of climbing the steep Miller Avenue hill in Brooklyn, N.Y. According to a report in The New York Times, the vehicle went up the 14.5 percent grade between Jamaica Avenue and Highland Boulevard in 51 seconds. During a second climb, it stopped a number of times to show how easily it restarted. The truck had a range of 84 km (52 miles).

The company planned to manufacture 1,000 trucks per year and 300 lightweight delivery cars, plus a five-passenger coupe, but it made a total of only 48 vehicles. After Steinmetz died in 1923, the company soon ceased operation.

Steinmetz wasn’t only bullish on the electric car, but on electricity in general. A New York Times article recorded his belief that by 2023, we would work no more than 4 hours a day, 200 days a year because electricity would have eliminated the drudgery and unpleasantness of labor. He also predicted that electricity would bring about an end to urban pollution: “Every city would be a spotless town.” With an expansion of leisure time, people would be healthier, engaging in gardening (especially growing their own food) and pursuing educational interests to become “much more intelligent and self-expressive creature[s].”

Steinmetz’s Chosen Family

I decided to write about Steinmetz last year, after IEEE Spectrum published an essay I wrote about why engineering needs the humanities. The article contains this line: “In 1909, none other than Charles Proteus Steinmetz advocated for including the classics in engineering education.” I had been impressed to learn of Steinmetz’s recognition of the value of a liberal arts education. But my copy editor didn’t know who Steinmetz was or why he merited the qualifier “none other.” More people should know about this remarkable man, I decided. And so I went looking for a museum object associated with him, so I could include him in a Past Forward column.

Steinmetz [left] was easily the intellectual equal of Thomas Edison [right], whom he considered a friend.Corbis/Getty Images

The electric car is only one avenue into Steinmetz’s life. I could instead have looked into Steinmetz solids (the geometric shapes that form when two or three identical cylinders intersect at right angles), Steinmetz curves (the edges of a Steinmetz solid), or the Steinmetz equivalent circuit (a mathematical model that describes a transformer using resistors and inductors). But none of those concepts could be easily captured in a picture-worthy object. His love of his electric car, on the other hand, was a fun and fitting entry point for this most unusual engineer.

I also saw an opportunity to highlight how Steinmetz became a family man. Steinmetz had dwarfism—he stood just 122 centimeters tall—as well as kyphosis, a severe curvature of the spine, as did his father and grandfather. He didn’t wish to pass along those traits, and so he never married or had children of his own. But that didn’t mean he didn’t want a family.

In 1903, Steinmetz’s favorite lab assistant, Joseph LeRoy Hayden, told his boss that he was getting married. Steinmetz invited the couple to dinner, and then invited them to live in his large home. They agreed to this unusual living arrangement, with Corinne Rost Hayden running the household and cooking for her husband and Steinmetz. She forced the men to set aside their work for regular family meals.

Eventually, the Hayden family expanded, welcoming Joe, Midge, and Billy. Steinmetz legally adopted the elder Hayden, thereby gaining three grandchildren as well. Steinmetz, whom The New York Times had named a “modern Jove” who “hurls thunderbolts at will” (from a high-voltage lightning generator), delighted at entertaining the grandkids with wondrous tricks of electricity and chemistry.

In writing about the history of electrical engineering, I sometimes fall into the trap of focusing too much on the technology. But it’s just as important to recognize the people behind the technology—their personalities, their frailties, their feelings, their challenges. Steinmetz faced adversity for his political beliefs, for being an immigrant, and for his physical stature, yet none of that ever stopped him. In word and deed, he showed that he had a generous heart as mighty as his intellect.

Part of a continuing series looking at historical artifacts that embrace the boundless potential of technology.

An abridged version of this article appears in the March 2026 print issue as “Charles Proteus Steinmetz Loved His Electric Car.”

References

IEEE Power & Energy Magazine published Steinmetz’s pro/con list comparing electric cars to those with internal combustion engines in the September/October 2005 issue, along with a good biographical overview of Steinmetz by Carl Sulzberger.

Union College published a nice story about the restoration of Steinmetz’s electric car in 2014, when it received its permanent home on campus.

There are many biographies of Steinmetz, one published as early as 1924, but I am particularly fond of Steinmetz: Engineer and Socialist by Ronald Kline (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).

Gilbert King’s 2011 article “Charles Proteus Steinmetz, the Wizard of Schenectady” for Smithsonian magazine describes Steinmetz’s chosen family and includes several fun anecdotes not mentioned above.

Reference: https://ift.tt/3qMxoLB

Google quantum-proofs HTTPS by squeezing 2.5kB of data into 64-byte space

Google on Friday unveiled its plan for its Chrome browser to secure HTTPS certificates against quantum computer attacks without breaking the Internet.

The objective is a tall order. The quantum-resistant cryptographic data needed to transparently publish TLS certificates is roughly 40 times bigger than the classical cryptographic material used today. Today’s X.509 certificates are about 64 bytes in size, and comprise six elliptic curve signatures and two EC public keys. This material can be cracked through the quantum-enabled Shor’s algorithm. Certificates containing the equivalent quantum-resistant cryptographic material are roughly 2.5 kilobytes. All this data must be transmitted when a browser connects to a site.

The bigger they come, the slower they move

“The bigger you make the certificate, the slower the handshake and the more people you leave behind,” said Bas Westerbaan, principal research engineer at Cloudflare, which is partnering with Google on the transition. “Our problem is we don’t want to leave people behind in this transition.” Speaking to Ars, he said that people will likely disable the new encryption if it slows their browsing. He added that the massive size increase can also degrade “middle boxes,” which sit between browsers and the final site.

Read full article

Comments

Reference : https://ift.tt/ChNGO0D

Video Friday: Robot Dogs Haul Produce From the Field

Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your friends at IEEE Spectrum robotics. We also post a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months. Please send us your events for inclusion.

ICRA 2026: 1–5 June 2026, VIENNA

Enjoy today’s videos!

Our robots Lynx M20 help transport harvested crops in mountainous farmland—tackling the rural “last mile” logistics challenge.

[ DEEP Robotics ]

Once again, I would point out that now that we are reaching peak humanoid robots doing humanoid things, we are inevitably about to see humanoid robots doing non-humanoid things.

[ Unitree ]

In a study, a team of researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, the University of Michigan, and Cornell University show that groups of magnetic microrobots can generate fluidic forces strong enough to rotate objects in different directions without touching them. These microrobot swarms can turn gear systems, rotate objects much larger than the robots themselves, assemble structures on their own, and even pull in or push away many small objects.

[ Science ] via [ Max Planck Institute ]

Bipedal—or two-legged—autonomous robots can be quite agile. This makes them useful for performing tasks on uneven terrain, such as carrying equipment through outdoor environments or performing maintenance on an ocean-going ship. However, unstable or unpredictable conditions also increase the possibility of a robot wipeout. Until now, there’s been a significant lack of research into how a robot recovers when its direction shifts—for example, a robot losing balance when a truck makes a quick turn. The team aims to fix this research gap.

[ Georgia Tech ]

Robotics is about controlling energy, motion, and uncertainty in the real world.

[ Carnegie Mellon University ]

Delicious dinner cooked by our robot Robody. We’ve asked our investors to speak about why they’re along for the ride.

[ Devanthro ]

Tilt-rotor aerial robots enable omnidirectional maneuvering through thrust vectoring, but introduce significant control challenges due to the strong coupling between joint and rotor dynamics. This work investigates reinforcement learning for omnidirectional aerial motion control on over-actuated tiltable quadrotors that prioritizes robustness and agility.

[ DRAGON Lab ]

At the CMU Robotic Innovation Center’s 75,000-gallon water tank, members of the TartanAUV student group worked to further develop their autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) called Osprey. The team, which takes part in the annual RoboSub competition sponsored by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, is comprised primarily of undergraduate engineering and robotics students.

[ Carnegie Mellon University ]

Sure seems like the only person who would want a robot dog is a person who does not in fact want a dog.

Compact size, industrial capability. Maximum torque of 90N·m, over 4 hours of no-load runtime, IP54 rainproof design. With a 15 kg payload, range exceeds 13 km. Open secondary development, empowering industry applications.

[ Unitree ]

If your robot video includes tasty baked goods it WILL be included in Video Friday.

[ QB Robotics ]

Astorino is a 6-axis educational robot created for practical and affordable teaching of robotics in schools and beyond. It has been created with 3D printing, so it allows for experimentation and the possible addition of parts. With its design and programming, it replicates the actions of industrial robots giving students the necessary skills for future work.

[ Astorino by Kawasaki ]

We need more autonomous driving datasets that accurately reflect how sucky driving can be a lot of the time.

[ ASRL ]

This Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute Seminar is by CMU’s own Victoria Webster-Wood, on “Robots as Models for Biology and Biology and Materials for Robots.”

In the last century, it was common to envision robots as shining metal structures with rigid and halting motion. This imagery is in contrast to the fluid and organic motion of living organisms that inhabit our natural world. The adaptability, complex control, and advanced learning capabilities observed in animals are not yet fully understood, and therefore have not been fully captured by current robotic systems. Furthermore, many of the mechanical properties and control capabilities seen in animals have yet to be achieved in robotic platforms. In this talk, I will share an interdisciplinary research vision for robots as models for neuroscience and biology as materials for robots.

[ CMU RI ]

Reference: https://ift.tt/gr5TdHv

Bond Strength, Biocompatibility, and Beyond

Designing a medical device? This whitepaper helps you evaluate adhesive options for biocompatibility, sterilization resistance, and manufacturability — so you can make the right material decision early.

What Attendees will Learn

1. How to select between epoxy, silicone, cyanoacrylate, and UV/LED curable adhesives based on your device requirements
2. Which adhesive systems meet USP Class VI and ISO 10993-5 biocompatibility standards
3. How different sterilization methods, such as autoclaving, EtO, gamma, chemical immersion affect adhesive performance over repeated cycles
4. Why integrating adhesive selection early in the design process reduces costly trade-offs between performance and manufacturability
5. Download this free whitepaper now!

Download this free whitepaper now!

Reference: https://ift.tt/LzeB025

New AirSnitch attack breaks Wi-Fi encryption in homes, offices, and enterprises

It’s hard to overstate the role that Wi-Fi plays in virtually every facet of life. The organization that shepherds the wireless protocol says that more than 48 billion Wi-Fi-enabled devices have shipped since it debuted in the late 1990s. One estimate pegs the number of individual users at 6 billion, roughly 70 percent of the world’s population.

Despite the dependence and the immeasurable amount of sensitive data flowing through Wi-Fi transmissions, the history of the protocol has been littered with security landmines stemming both from the inherited confidentiality weaknesses of its networking predecessor, Ethernet (it was once possible for anyone on a network to read and modify the traffic sent to anyone else), and the ability for anyone nearby to receive the radio signals Wi-Fi relies on.

Ghost in the machine

In the early days, public Wi-Fi networks often resembled the Wild West, where ARP spoofing attacks that allowed renegade users to read other users' traffic were common. The solution was to build cryptographic protections that prevented nearby parties—whether an authorized user on the network or someone near the AP (access point)—from reading or tampering with the traffic of any other user.

Read full article

Comments

Reference : https://ift.tt/EQ4bitB

How Stupid Would It Be to Put Data Centers in Space?

What’s the difference between a stupid idea and a brilliant one? Sometimes, it just comes down to resources. Practically unlimited funds, like limitless thrust, can get even a mad idea off the ground.

And so it might be for the concept of putting AI data centers in orbit. In a rare moment of unalloyed agreement, some of the richest and most powerful men in technology are staunchly backing the idea. The group includes Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Jensen Huang, Sam Altman, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai. In all likelihood, hundreds of people are now working on the concept of space data centers at the firms directly or indirectly controlled by these men—SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla, Amazon, Blue Origin, Nvidia, OpenAI, and Google, among others.

Likely costs to design, build, and launch a 1-GW orbital datacenter, based on a network of some 4,400 satellites and including operating costs over a five-year period, would exceed US $50 billion. That’s about three times the cost of a 1-GW data center on Earth, including five years of operation.John MacNeill

So how much would it cost to start training large language models in space? Probably the best accounting is one created by aerospace engineer Andrew McCalip. McCalip’s exhaustive, detailed analysis includes interactive sliders that let you compare costs for space-based and terrestrial data centers in the range of 1 to 100 gigawatts. One-gigawatt data centers are being built now on terra firma, and Meta has announced plans for a 5-GW facility, with anticipated completion some time after 2030.

In an interview, McCalip says his initial rough calculations a few years ago suggested that data centers in space would cost in the range of 7 to 10 times more, per gigawatt of capacity, than their terrestrial counterparts. “It just wasn’t practical,” he says. “Not even close.” But when Elon Musk began publicly backing the idea, McCalip revisited the numbers using publicly available information about Starlink’s and Tesla’s technologies and capabilities.

That changed the picture substantially. The figures in his online analysis assume an orbital network of data-center satellites that borrows heavily from Musk’s tech treasure chest—“essentially…you just start putting some radiation-resistant ASIC chips on the Starlink fleet and you start growing edge capacity organically on the Starlink fleet,” McCalip says. The network would rely on the kind of watt-efficient GPU architecture used in Teslas for self-driving, he adds. “You start dropping those onto the backs of Starlinks. You can slowly grow this out, and this would be approximately the performance that you would get.”

Bottom line, with some solid but not necessarily heroic engineering, the cost of an orbital data center could be as low as three times that of the comparable terrestrial one. That differential, while still high, at least nudges the concept out of the instantly dismissible category. “I have my particular views, but I want the data to speak for itself,” McCalip says.

For this illustration, we picked a configuration with an aggregate 1 GW of capacity. The network would consist of some 4,300 satellites, each of which would be outfitted with a 1-square-kilometer solar array that generates 250 kilowatts. The data center on that satellite, powered by the array, might have at least 175 GPUs; McCalip notes that a popular GPU rack, Nvidia’s NVL72, has 72 GPUs and requires 120 to 140 kW.

The total cost of the satellite network would be around US $51 billion, including launch and five years of operational expenses; a comparable terrestrial system would cost about $16 billion over the same period.

Stupid? Not stupid? You decide.

Reference: https://ift.tt/ZjvlXdM