Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

sam.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 102 posts

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#31

Post by chr1 »

soared wrote: post #23
chr1 wrote: post #15

Somewhat similar and probably easier to achieve would be trees floating in open ocean, and some kind of plant capable to bring nutrients up from the large depth. Currently most of the ocean is a lifeless desert, with most of life concentrated in the places where upwelling occurs. This kind of floating trees would add enough biomass to compensate for all of the human produced CO2 and even more.

I don’t think trees and live on saltwater

Plants don't live in open space either, and yet the submitted page wants to research possibilities.

Using some genes from mangroves it should be possible to develop a plant that would grow in open sea.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#32

Post by ceejayoz »

debacle wrote: post #17

Step 1 would be to see if a nonporous wood holds up to the vacuum of space with enough durability. The biggest issue would be reclaiming moisture from the wood as it dried rather than losing it to space. Things like corals or molluscs would be too heavy (though that idea spawned a wonderful series of 16 bit side scrolling video games). Without some sort of easy orbital exit/entry, it's unlikely that being "in space"…

We're doing step one. https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/jaxas-first-wooden-satell...

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#34

Post by dingnuts »

closewith wrote: post #24
chr1 wrote: post #15

Somewhat similar and probably easier to achieve would be trees floating in open ocean, and some kind of plant capable to bring nutrients up from the large depth. Currently most of the ocean is a lifeless desert, with most of life concentrated in the places where upwelling occurs. This kind of floating trees would add enough biomass to compensate for all of the human produced CO2 and even more.

Unlikely to be any unintended consequences to foresting the ocean, too. Plain sailing. People really will pretend to believe any old nonsense rather than accept we have to cut fossil fuel use.

if you think industrialized society should give up oil without alternatives then you should be honest and say that you believe we that the industrial revolution was a mistake and that we should by-and-large go back to an agrarian society where most people subsistence farm.

you can have that belief, that everyone should give up what oil gives us and live in a pre-modern way that most people would, today, consider poverty, because the alternative is (I assume you believe) extinction.

But you should be honest about it.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#35

Post by cududa »

hirenj wrote: post #14

First question I have is what kind of nutrient base conditions can we expect to start from? Should it be like Earth, or somewhere a bit more resource constrained (and how would it be constrained)? I’d like to imagine solar reactors mimicking primordial goo to synthesise the essentials for these materials.

"A key unknown in creating such bio-mechanical structures in space is how the structure would be assembled. Feedstock must be provided (and relocated if necessary) to the growing edge, or to the area from which biological materials are being extruded. If aerobic organisms or mechanisms are required (grown in space and then desiccated by exposure to vacuum when growth is complete), the methods and support equipment required to preserve key aerobic variables (e.g., atmosphere, pressure, temperature) must be part of the biomechanical assembly system design."

Lots of nuanced details around your question in the doc! EDIT: I stupidly copy and pasted my local link to the PDF -- it appears this listing has been removed since posted. Here's another link to it https://govtribe.com/file/government-file/darpa-sn-25-51-dot...

Seems they're interested in precisely the question you pose, but coming at it from a few different directions

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#36

Post by closewith »

dingnuts wrote: post #34
closewith wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely to be any unintended consequences to foresting the ocean, too. Plain sailing. People really will pretend to believe any old nonsense rather than accept we have to cut fossil fuel use.

if you think industrialized society should give up oil without alternatives then you should be honest and say that you believe we that the industrial revolution was a mistake and that we should by-and-large go back to an agrarian society where most people subsistence farm. you can have that belief, that everyone should give up what oil gives us and live in a pre-modern way that most people would, today, consider pove…

These schemes are only ever a smokescreen to avoid alternatives, which is something you should be honest with yourself about.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#40

Post by SequoiaHope »

laughingcurve wrote: post #25
ckemere wrote: post #18

When reading these program announcements, it's important to keep in mind that the (unofficial?) mandate for a DARPA program officer is to fund proposals that lie in the boundaries of [Doesn't at face violate laws of physics, P(Success) = 0.2]. A program where the vast majority of aims were clearly successfully delivered would be a program that should have been funded by other government agencies. Of course, with R&D…

If they come for DARPA then we are all in deep shit because that means things are far worse than we could have imagined.

In the words of Han Solo “I don’t know I can imagine quite a bit.”
Post reply on HN