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

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#61

Post by kamaal »

rayiner wrote: post #60
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…

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.

>>IIRC they get a 4 or 8 year stint then are expected to leave.

If they refuse to leave they get fired?

>>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.

Curious what kind of people are hired? Without overarching long term leadership its hard to chart out a continuous direction.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#62

Post by rayiner »

kamaal wrote: post #61
rayiner wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>IIRC they get a 4 or 8 year stint then are expected to leave. If they refuse to leave they get fired? >>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. Curious what kind of people are hired? Without overarching long term leadership its hard to chart out a continuous direction.

I misremembered, the terms were 2 years or 4 years: https://www.darpa.mil/careers/program-manager (Maybe they shortened it.) Sometimes you can stay longer than that, but yes, you’re pushed out. The organization is highly decentralized: much of the substantive authority to decide project direction is invested in program managers. There’s a deliberate effort not to have a central vision which, the reasoning goes, could lead to inertia and stagnation.

PMs tend to be ambitious young PhDs who want to go into industry or start their own companies. The PM on the project I worked on is now principal wireless architect at Google Fi.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#64

Post by EMM_386 »

ButOneDuck wrote: post #50

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…

The PDF discusses this more.

> 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. Anaerobic organisms or mechanisms may allow for less support hardware but may require other controls to support continued growth in the space environment (e.g. pressure, temperature, humidity)

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#65

Post by rajnathani »

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…

SpaceX started off based on a DARPA proposal/challenge too right? Or at least the DARPA challenge for re-usable rockets aligned well with SpaceX's demonstrable success.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#66

Post by hoppp »

rajnathani wrote: post #65
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…

SpaceX started off based on a DARPA proposal/challenge too right? Or at least the DARPA challenge for re-usable rockets aligned well with SpaceX's demonstrable success.

They wanted to go to mars and tried buying russian rockets first, but they were too expensive so they started building them. Nothing to do with Darpa, at least I dont find any relations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_SpaceX

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#67

Post by foxglacier »

ballooney wrote: post #48
laughingcurve wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Things already are that bad, you’re standing an inch beyond where the previous wave washed up to and saying “well if it gets here in the next few waves then suddenly we become in deep shit’ while all around people are shouting at you about the existence of a concept called ‘the tide’. This is happening right now. fight back.

Come on. Even if all of Darpa is shut down, it will hardly matter. Come back in 4 years and see that the world is still turning but you've used up your hyperbolic panic on a big nothing-burger.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#68

Post by mmooss »

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.

> Currently most of the ocean is a lifeless desert

Where can I read more about that? My understanding was that it is teaming with microorganisms or near-microorganisms, and of course there are many fauna and flora and protista and other life forms.

Post reply on HN