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

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#71

Post by noobermin »

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.

They already came for NSF and the NIH, how can they not also come for DARPA?

Most republicans don't believe in defense or anything like that, they believe in returning money to their investors...I mean campaign contributors who are defense contractors. A contractor makes money selling contracts, whether they affect the actual defense capabilities of the country or not.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#72

Post by hsuduebc2 »

foxglacier wrote: post #67
ballooney wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because the world keeps turning doesn't mean it's unaffected. Small shifts today can have huge consequences down the line, and brushing everything off as a 'nothing-burger' is exactly how real damage gets ignored. I wonder-what would actually have to happen for you to stop calling it that? This situation is, at the very least, unusual.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#73

Post by chr1 »

mmooss wrote: post #68
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.

E.g. https://www.eodashboard.org/story?id=primary-productivity&pa...

For water to team with life, you need materials for building cells in the same place where the light is, and in most cases there is not enough iron on the surface

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#74

Post by thom »

rayiner wrote: post #62
kamaal wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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…

This is very interesting. I know obsessing over Roman history is seen as somewhat fascist-adjacent, especially emanating from tech spaces, but I keep wanting to run a company along the lines of the Republic’s mixed constitution. No king with centralised power (CEO) but elected Consuls with term limits, who have the power to kick off and deliver big projects, aligning teams however they need to. Give every tribe (product, design, engineering, platform etc) a tribune with some degree of veto power. Create a senate with every Senior, who elect the consuls and approve new wars (projects). Employ quaestors across the company to do finops. At the end of your period you get a big triumph if you were victorious, or you get dumped in the Tiber if you abused your power.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#75

Post by afpx »

noobermin wrote: post #71
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.

They already came for NSF and the NIH, how can they not also come for DARPA? Most republicans don't believe in defense or anything like that, they believe in returning money to their investors...I mean campaign contributors who are defense contractors . A contractor makes money selling contracts, whether they affect the actual defense capabilities of the country or not.

From what I understand, the funding cuts are primarily related to DEI initiatives. And, generally the administration is trying to align activities with its goals, so it’s understandable that funds will be adjusted. DEI is a target because its goals are steeped in Marxist philosophy, which is antithetical to their own.

Also, Republicans (of whom I’m not one) believe that spending should be controlled by the states. It’s not that they don’t believe in defense - they realize it’s more effective to invest in drones and use nuclear deterrence. Those are more effective and cheaper in terms of lives as well as money. This aligns with the US’s new isolationist strategy as it withdraws from the world.

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#76

Post by Xmd5a »

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.

>In a post-accident report, NASA's Brand Commission blamed the accident on a burnt-out field crew who had been operating under on-again/off-again funding and constant threats of outright cancellation. The crew, many of them originally from the SDIO program, were also highly critical of NASA's "chilling" effect on the program, and the masses of paperwork NASA demanded as part of the testing regimen.[citation needed]

>NASA had taken on the project grudgingly after having been "shamed" by its very public success under the direction of the SDIO.[citation needed] Its continued success was cause for considerable political in-fighting within NASA due to it competing with their "home grown" Lockheed Martin X-33/VentureStar project. Pete Conrad priced a new DC-X at $50 million, cheap by NASA standards, but NASA decided not to rebuild the craft in light of budget constraints.[16] Instead, NASA focused development on the Lockheed Martin VentureStar which it felt answered some criticisms of the DC-X, specifically the airplane-like landing of the VentureStar, which many NASA engineers preferred over the vertical landing of the DC-X. Just a few years later, the repeated failure of the Venturestar project, especially the composite LH2 (liquid hydrogen) tank, led to program cancellation.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#77

Post by oldpersonintx »

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…

[dead]

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#78

Post by tlb »

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

Mangroves do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangrove

Re: DARPA Large Bio-Mechanical Space Structures

#80

Post by the_sleaze_ »

chr1 wrote: post #28
the_sleaze_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Floating trees in the open ocean. The more refined version of this are intentionally created algal blooms, ala the red tide. Then you would somehow capture the CO2 dissolved in ocean water that the algae concentrates. In this way you'd use the ocean itself as your carbon capture "filter" and "clean the filter". The issue is that since there just isn't enough nutrients for life, and adding fertilizers costs more car…

Nitrogen is easy, it can be captured from air, iron is the main thing missing in surface water that must be brought up by upwelling. But having real trees above the water is much more useful than simple carbon capture, they would serve as wavebreakers for seasteading settlements too.

You're right, there seems to be iron rich deep sea currents in some places that could be good opportunities for upwelling, especially if you had a carbon neutral way to do it.

There is also emerging technology for nitrogen fixing that could work - Electrocatalytic Nitrogen Reduction.

All this being said, if the goal is carbon sequestration building a viable business is going to be next to impossible.

The easiest way would be to use your renewable energy to pull bicarbonate out of the ocean directly with electrolysis, reverse-osmosis, whatever magic tech the wizards in MIT are cooking up.

Only then you've got the problem of what to do with it all once you've got it on hand.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36992-1

Post reply on HN