> Some examples of structures that could be biologically manufactured and assembled, but that may be infeasible to produce traditionally, include tethers for a space elevator, grid-nets for orbital debris remediation, kilometer-scale interferometers for radio science, new self-assembled wings of a commercial space station for hosting additional payloads, or on-demand production of patch materials to adhere and repair micrometeorite damage.
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.
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.
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" will be a feasible permanent option.
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 currently on the chopping block, we'll see if the same people that complain about NSF/NIH start coming for DARPA also…
Whoops, you're not connected to Mailchimp. You need to enter a valid Mailchimp API key.
Our site uses cookies. Learn more about our use of cookies: cookie policyACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
14 Comments
heyitsguay
Cool idea, very ambitious, is there any prior research or feasible testing setup that would support getting from 0 to 1 with this?
woleium
Sounds like someone bought into the Dyson tree meme revival that was floating round the internet a month so ago!
Apofis
That would be in interesting direction for our tech to go, everything grown organically including space structures.
ge96
Cylon basestar here we come
barbazoo
> Some examples of structures that could be biologically manufactured and assembled, but that may be infeasible to produce traditionally, include tethers for a space elevator, grid-nets for orbital debris remediation, kilometer-scale interferometers for radio science, new self-assembled wings of a commercial space station for hosting additional payloads, or on-demand production of patch materials to adhere and repair micrometeorite damage.
nullbyte
This is how Zerg starts
hirenj
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.
chr1
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.
debacle
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" will be a feasible permanent option.
ckemere
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 currently on the chopping block, we'll see if the same people that complain about NSF/NIH start coming for DARPA also…
jeisc
Couldn't a self replicating structure grow out of control like vines and weeds?
TeeMassive
Someone at DARPA read Night's Dawn
feverzsj
I don't want a bloody meat spaceship. They should try crystallization.
fuzzythinker
404
Page Not Found