SpaceX has taken an extraordinary step toward redefining both space infrastructure and global computing, seeking approval from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for a satellite constellation of unprecedented scale that would function as an orbital data center powered largely by the sun.

In a filing submitted late on January 30, the company proposed deploying up to one million satellites in low Earth orbit, a figure that dwarfs any constellation previously contemplated. The satellites would operate at altitudes ranging from 500 to 2,000 kilometers, spread across 30-degree and sun-synchronous inclinations designed to maximize exposure to sunlight and, by extension, solar power generation.

SpaceX framed the project as a response to the mounting constraints facing terrestrial data centers, where energy costs, grid limitations, and environmental concerns are increasingly colliding with explosive demand for computing power driven by artificial intelligence.

“By directly harnessing near-constant solar power with little operating or maintenance cost, these satellites will achieve transformative cost and energy efficiency while significantly reducing the environmental impact associated with terrestrial data centers,” the company said in the filing.

The language of the application goes well beyond near-term commercial logic. SpaceX described the constellation as “a first step toward becoming a Kardashev Type II civilization,” a reference to a theoretical stage of technological development in which a civilization can harness the full energy output of its star. In more practical terms, the company argues that space-based computing could support AI-driven applications for billions of people while advancing its long-term vision of humanity as a multiplanetary species.

Even by the standards of an industry accustomed to bold plans, the scale is enormous. For comparison, China filed plans with the International Telecommunication Union in December for two constellations totaling nearly 200,000 satellites. Rwanda, in 2021, submitted ITU filings for constellations exceeding 300,000 satellites, linked to proposals by startup E-Space, which no longer appears to be pursuing systems of that magnitude. SpaceX’s proposal would exceed both by a wide margin.

Despite the headline number, the filing offers relatively few technical specifics. Details such as satellite size, mass, and precise orbital configurations were largely absent. SpaceX said it intends to place the spacecraft in “largely unused orbital altitudes” within the proposed range, an assertion likely to draw scrutiny as congestion, debris risk, and space traffic management become central regulatory concerns.

The operational concept relies heavily on intersatellite optical links, allowing the satellites to communicate with one another and with SpaceX’s existing Starlink broadband constellation. Data would be routed through space before being relayed to the ground, reducing dependence on continuous ground station connectivity. Ka-band communications would serve primarily as a backup for telemetry, tracking, and command, operating on what SpaceX described as a “non-interference, unprotected basis,” which underpins its request for regulatory flexibility.

One notable omission is any clear deployment timeline or cost estimate. SpaceX asked the FCC to waive standard milestone requirements that typically mandate deployment of half a licensed constellation within six years and full deployment within nine. The company argued that those rules are meant to prevent spectrum warehousing and should not apply because the Ka-band spectrum would be used on a non-interference basis.

The proposal arrives as SpaceX and its founder, Elon Musk, increasingly emphasize space-based computing as a solution to the AI industry’s surging appetite for power and processing capacity. That narrative has also been tied to SpaceX’s long-anticipated initial public offering, which could come as early as this summer and potentially raise tens of billions of dollars. Analysts see AI infrastructure, alongside Starlink, as a key pillar of the company’s long-term valuation story.

Speculation has also intensified around Musk’s broader corporate ecosystem. Recent reports suggest he has explored merging SpaceX with xAI, his artificial intelligence and social media venture, or even combining SpaceX with Tesla, which has invested heavily in AI for autonomous driving and robotics. An orbital data center network would fit neatly into such a vertically integrated vision, spanning energy generation, launch, connectivity, and compute.

In its filing, SpaceX leaned heavily on the economics of falling launch costs and rising terrestrial constraints. The company argued that as demand for AI accelerates, Earth-based data centers are becoming more expensive and politically contentious, particularly where they strain power grids and water resources. In contrast, SpaceX claimed that space-based computing could soon undercut terrestrial alternatives.

“Freed from the constraints of terrestrial deployment, within a few years the lowest cost to generate AI compute will be in space,” the company said, predicting advances in AI models at “unprecedented speeds and scales.”

Central to that claim is Starship, SpaceX’s next-generation launch vehicle, which the company plans to use to deploy both future Starlink satellites and the proposed orbital data center constellation. SpaceX said Starship’s ability to deliver massive payloads to orbit could allow space-based computing capacity to exceed the electricity consumption of the entire U.S. economy, without the need to overhaul Earth’s already strained power infrastructure.

Still, the proposal raises profound questions. A constellation of one million satellites would intensify debates over orbital congestion, collision risk, astronomical interference, and regulatory oversight at a time when governments are already struggling to adapt rules to far smaller systems. It also challenges assumptions about where the future of computing should reside, shifting it from land-based facilities to a permanently orbiting infrastructure.

In corporate leadership, the most challenging moment is not the rise of power; it is the transfer of it. Many organizations fail not because the founder was weak, but because the successor was unprepared, or worse, uncommitted. The Bible offers a timeless business case in the relationship between Elijah and Elisha, a masterclass in mentoring, succession planning, and leadership seriousness.

When Elisha asked Elijah for a “double portion,” he was not asking for comfort, title, or ceremonial inheritance. In the Hebrew context, the double portion is the share of the firstborn, the one expected to carry continuity, responsibility, and growth. Elisha was effectively saying: I do not want to merely maintain what you built; I want the capacity to exceed it. That is ambition with accountability.

Elijah did not resist that request. He prepared Elisha. He walked with him, exposed him to the work, and allowed him to observe leadership in motion. This is active succession, not accidental handover. Great leaders do not disappear; they deliberately develop successors.

Before leaving, Elijah gave Elisha the mantle, a visible symbol that authority had been transferred. In modern organizations, this looks like a departing CEO staying on as an advisor, signaling continuity, confidence boosting, and institutional memory. The leader may be stepping aside, but the system is not abandoned.

Yet symbols alone do not solve problems. Elisha proved readiness when he used the mantle to part the River Jordan. He did not frame it, announce it, or debate its meaning. He deployed it. Leadership authority is validated not by possession, but by problem-solving. Power that cannot be used is not power; it is decoration.

But note this, long before that moment, Elisha had already demonstrated something rarer: absolute commitment to the mission. When Elijah first called him, Elisha burned his plowing equipment and slaughtered his oxen. This was not emotion; it was strategy. He eliminated the option of retreating. No side hustle. No fallback plan. No divided attention. He severed his past to fully enter his future. That act alone explains why he could carry the double portion because he had the capacity to carry weight.

Good People, most of the CEOs we hail make uncommon personal sacrifices, as they hold the mantle in the firm. They sign up for things we cannot commit to with adical dedication to the Firm.

In our world, people ask for authority, campaign for power, negotiate titles, but when authority arrives, they become distracted. Elected to the Senate but treating it as a part-time role. Appointed CEO but mentally invested in the side hustle. Power is requested, but mission is optional. Nations fade because of that. And it destroys companies.

Elisha teaches a lesson: if you want authority, you must be ready to deploy it, and deploy it on the assignment for which it was given

Nvidia Chief Executive Jensen Huang has moved decisively to quash suggestions of strain between the world’s most powerful AI chipmaker and OpenAI, pushing back against reports that Nvidia is reconsidering the scale of its financial and strategic commitment to the ChatGPT creator at a critical moment for the artificial-intelligence industry.

Huang’s remarks came after The Wall Street Journal reported that Nvidia was stepping back from a previously announced plan to invest as much as $100 billion in OpenAI and to help build 10 gigawatts of AI computing infrastructure. The report suggested Huang had privately emphasized that the agreement was nonbinding, raised concerns about OpenAI’s business model, and pointed to growing competition from rivals such as Anthropic and Google. It also said discussions had shifted toward a smaller equity investment, potentially still in the tens of billions of dollars, rather than the full headline figure.

Speaking to reporters in Taipei on Saturday, Huang dismissed the notion outright. He described the idea of friction with OpenAI as “nonsense” and stressed that Nvidia would “definitely participate” in OpenAI’s next funding round, according to Bloomberg. He framed the investment not as a defensive move, but as a conviction bet on what he called one of the most important companies of the modern era.

“We will invest a great deal of money,” Huang said. “I believe in OpenAI. The work that they do is incredible. They’re one of the most consequential companies of our time.”

Huang declined to specify how much Nvidia would ultimately commit, deferring instead to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on the size and structure of the fundraising. That reticence underscores a central tension now facing the AI sector: capital needs are exploding, but even the largest technology firms are wary of locking themselves into rigid, long-term commitments as the competitive landscape shifts rapidly.

OpenAI, meanwhile, has sought to project stability. A spokesperson told the Journal that Nvidia and OpenAI are “actively working through the details of our partnership,” adding that Nvidia “has underpinned our breakthroughs from the start, powers our systems today, and will remain central as we scale what comes next.” The statement reinforces the reality that, whatever the precise equity arrangements, OpenAI remains deeply dependent on Nvidia’s hardware to train and run its most advanced models.

The backdrop to the dispute is OpenAI’s extraordinary funding ambitions. In December, the Wall Street Journal reported that the company was seeking to raise up to $100 billion, a sum that would eclipse any previous private funding round in Silicon Valley. The New York Times reported this week that Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, and SoftBank are all in discussions about participating, highlighting how OpenAI has become a focal point for capital across the tech and finance worlds.

Each of those relationships carries its own strategic complexity. Microsoft remains OpenAI’s largest shareholder, holding roughly 27 percent following a restructuring last year, and continues to supply much of its cloud infrastructure. Amazon has signed a $38 billion, seven-year deal to provide AWS capacity and is reportedly weighing a further multibillion-dollar equity investment. SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son is said to be close to committing as much as $30 billion, extending his long-standing bet on transformative technologies.

However, the calculus is different for Nvidia. Unlike cloud providers that are both investors and customers, Nvidia’s dominance rests on selling chips and systems to everyone building large-scale AI. That position gives it immense leverage but also exposes it to accusations of favoritism if it appears too closely aligned with a single model developer. The Journal report’s suggestion that Huang has been vocal about competition from Anthropic and Google fits with Nvidia’s public stance that the AI ecosystem will remain plural, not winner-take-all.

Analysts say this helps explain why Nvidia has emphasized flexibility. Even if the original $100 billion figure was aspirational rather than contractual, the scale of OpenAI’s infrastructure plans is real. Training frontier models now requires tens of billions of dollars in compute, power, and data-center build-out, costs that are rising as models grow more complex and inference demand surges globally.

Huang’s comments in Taipei also come as Nvidia faces intensifying scrutiny from governments and regulators over its central role in AI supply chains. U.S. export controls, particularly on advanced chips destined for China, have already reshaped Nvidia’s product strategy. Any perception that Nvidia is wavering on its biggest AI customer could ripple through markets that view OpenAI as a bellwether for the sector’s growth trajectory.

Instead, Huang chose to send a message of confidence and continuity. He signaled both belief in the company’s mission and caution about the form that support will take by publicly backing OpenAI while declining to lock in a number. That balancing act reflects the broader state of the AI boom: enormous opportunity, unprecedented capital requirements, and strategic relationships that remain fluid rather than fixed.