Live data from Hacker News

DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

sam.gov

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A few years ago an oil selling dictator, used his oil money to attack and occupy my friends country, killed my friend, and forced all the population to flee without ability to take anything with them.

So if you think that i like the situation where everyone supports dictatorships like Azerbaijan by buying their oil, you are very wrong.

But what we want and what is going to happen is often very different. Cutting fossil fuel use will not happen until there are better alternatives. And at that point most likely there will be enough CO2 in atmosphere to trigger melting of permafrost which will produce its own CO2. So "these schemes" will be needed one way or another.

That said my main interest here is seasteading, and increasing ocean biomass. Reducing atmospheric CO2 is merely a curios side effect.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#52
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…

> When reading these program announcements,

I think DARPA projects often are not what they say they are. Admittedly this project is quite out there.

> P(Success) = 0.2

They themselves admit it's lower than this, which is not 'success' but successful outcomes to limited specs.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#54
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.

Reminds me of that section of Life of Pi.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#55

I saw this at a DSO* presentation ("Darpa's Darpa") back in ~2018. Hope they've gotten some early traction, that was some of the least wild crap that was being presented. My company was pitching holographic cameras, and we weren't scifi enough. The investigator wanted to know if we could do hyperspectral 3D imaging from something the size of a sugar cube. ("Uh, no?" was our response.) * Defense Sciences Organization:…

> Seeing (sensing) the unseen

I'm reading this as a soft signal that there's still a market for marinating wizards in salty brine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project_(U.S._Army_un...

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#56
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…

> When reading these program announcements, I think DARPA projects often are not what they say they are. Admittedly this project is quite out there. > P(Success) = 0.2 They themselves admit it's lower than this, which is not 'success' but successful outcomes to limited specs.

Yeah, wouldn’t P(success) = 0.2 be pretty fantastic for any highly experimental/speculative/moonshot research entity?

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#57
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…

My reference point, the DARPA self driving challenge was in 2004. AlexNet was a sea change in image processing, which did not happen for another eight years.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#58

Looking at the comments, most people are approaching this as 'grow, like trees'. We're literally talking moonshot projects here and nowhere does the brief mention specifically trees, or aerobic respiration/processes, there is plenty of room for using Chitin, Spider silk, keratin or a combination of biopolymers to form resilient composite structures. There's already been videos of people using these as doping agents o…

You gotta forgive people. We've all been a little eroded by regular assertions that a safe underhand throws, like turning a webpage into an electron app or whatever, are moonshots.

I for one love things like this. I wish we used a little more of our colossal production power to try manifesting the wilder things from our imagination. Maybe they can contract out how to make society have a better handle on balancing compassion for self and others. Or we could be realistic and get back to making a philosopher stone. ;)

Hope I live long enough to go on a modestly priced moon vacation up the H.R. Geiger space tentacle

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#59
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.

[deleted]

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#60
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…

I started my career at a DARPA contractor. Part of the DARPA ethos also is that it’s lean and mean. Program managers have a ton of discretion, but they’re not lifers. IIRC they get a 4 or 8 year stint then are expected to leave. Office space is leased from the private sector, etc. Complete mission-oriented and non-ideological, at least it was 20 years ago.
Post reply on HN