Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Building Futuristic Space Exploration Group
coondoggie writes "What started out as an idea about how to further explore the outer reaches of space is now beginning to take more serious shape as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) today issued a call for industry information on how to form such as cosmic entity. Specifically DARPA said it issued a Request For Information intended to solicit ideas and information on structure and approach, and identify parties qualified and interested in furthering what's known as the 100 Year Starship project."
Grow up. Dreams are our contribution to the universe and the foundation of our legacy. The individual's small contributions to mankind's monuments is the essence of life after death.
From the fine article
Methods to incentivize researchers,
Ummm, I'd try money.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Said organization must comply with the following requirements: - Uniforms should be brightly colored, vaguely indicating role, and adaptable to look good while allowing for command-level officers to engage in hand-to-hand combat on a regular basis. - All senior officers should be skilled in everything. Yes, everything. We'll decide who does what based on who's standing around at the moment, not based on some specialized set of skills or designated responsibilities. - The organization should construct a fleet of vessels, with one vessel getting all the priority assignments while the rest of the fleet does Sudoku until needed for a well-intentioned but otherwise ineffective show of support. - The organization should be composed of scientists and explorers who just so happen to run around with the most powerful weapons currently available. Asteroids can hurt, right?
Close, but not quite. Unlike religious dogma, which is pretty much all fiction (it has zero real evidence supporting it), space age dreams are completely feasible and possible. The problem is that it takes political will, hard work, and a lot of money, over a long time (not just one election cycle) to make them happen. That's why they'll never happen here in the USA. The populace doesn't want to pay for it (though they'll happily pay over half their tax revenues to invade other countries), the corporations don't want to invest in it (because there won't be a big ROI within 5 years), and frankly, the populace just isn't capable of it any more because there aren't enough people with technical (science/engineering) educations able to pull it off.
The USA dreaming of large space projects is a lot like Zimbabwe dreaming of large space projects. It's just ridiculous to think about it. Now China, OTOH, is a different matter. While it'll be a little while before they're ready to do anything big in space, they're getting there quickly, because they have the political will and the money, and don't mind putting in hard work unlike Americans these days.
I think that XKCD is either incorrect, or pessimistic. It would be absolutely true, however, if it said "number of living Americans" instead of "people". I think it's likely we'll have more people walking on other worlds in the next few decades, but they sure as hell won't be Americans (unless they're billionaires paying some foreign space agency for the privilege).
Would that be the Medicare cuts that are part of Obamacare? Or another set of cuts?
Or didn't you ever bother to notice that part of the financing on Obamacare was Medicare cuts?
Admittedly, even while those Medicare cuts were being used as part of the "revenue-neutral" financing of Obamacare, the White House was saying that they expected future Congresses to cancel them.
Personally, I expect that if we don't cut all spending by about 30%, we're not going to climb out of our deficit hole without massive inflation.
Note that even the bipartisan deficit reduction committee is only talking $4 trillion in cuts spread over ten years.
Which, by the way, leaves you with deficits greater than $1 trillion in each of those ten years.
And this doesn't even count the off-budget spending. Like, say, disaster relief.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Wait a minute, how can DARPA get money to *invest*. Remember the reason Umurikans voted for Tea Party folks is to *cut cut cut* government spending. Shouldn't this really be carried out by a private business -- particularly those private businesses that don't worry just about quarterly profits and share prices--- now don't everybody rush for the opportunity --- line forms to the left for all those interested businesses --- .
The TEA Party supports cutting government funds that go to programs not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. DARPA falls under the defense budget, which is Constitutional.
Read the 10'th Amendment for more information.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I am glad to see someone else help pick up the long-term research slack.
NASA is on the top targets of the tea party mood under the misconception that is accounts for a large percentage of federal budget. Plus one president terminating the shuttle and the next president terminating its replacement.
Can you show me where TEA Party members are calling for NASA to be cut or are you just making shit up because the truth won't justify your hatred of the TEA Party?
Actually, about 30 seconds of research has revealed that you are lying your ass off:
The Save NASA, Stop Obama group was lead mainly by people who consider themselves Tea Party activists, even though many are well known as Republicans. Organizer Ken Clark, a county commissioner, said the effort was mostly grassroots from the Tea Party members in the area.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I want to be optimistic. When I chose engineering as a career, my goal was to aid humanity in colonizing space, because I could see that we've run out of terrestrial expansion room.
But TFA is Michael Cooney's Layer 8 blog. Cooney mines the Federal Business Ops website for RFIs and RFPs and then writes entire articles based on conjecture and conclusions reached by means of Boots of Springing and Striding. I've worked on programs that have received Cooney's attention and was amazed at how wrong he was on so many points, and how he presented his erroneous assumptions as facts. It's hard to take anything I read on Layer 8 credibly.
For instance, Cooney regularly glosses over the transient nature of the RFIs he cites. Keep in mind that an RFI is merely a "Request for Information." It's an unfunded solicitation of ideas and white papers, used to identify whether there's anybody credible out there who has an idea plausible enough and attractive enough to warrant going back to the DARPA Director and, eventually, Congress with a budget request for a real RFP and phase I study program. Many RFIs result in either nothing, or an RFP for an unfunded IDIQ or a shoestring SBIR type contract. They're fishing expeditions. And sometimes they're done for internal projects just to get new ideas for free, or for programs hardwired for an existing contractor just as a sort of threat. (But on the other side of the coin, DARPA is usually not tricksy like that... but there's still no guarantee of any money available.)
Still, I'm very glad that DARPA is soliciting ideas, at least... there's a phrase in the R&D world: "DARPA Hard." DARPA doesn't consider ideas that are just matters of engineering -- making existing tech lighter/faster/cheaper. They want to push the state of the art and hope to sponsor real, fundamental science that opens up new possibilities. Starships are indeed DARPA Hard.
I can see the fnords!
I thought even more though provoking was the little alt-text that accompanied the comic:
'The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space -- each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.'
it's about bashing homosexuals, killing non-Christians, invading other countries to establish imperialism, etc.
Seriously I don't want to start an argument with you or anything, but I think you're way out of touch with christianity. All you do is cast generalized accusations at people based on parodies of them. You can find the lowest of the low on either side, and cast that in to the image of those who oppose you, but that isn't helpful at all. My father goes to Guatemala twice a year to help a village there by building a school and donating money. He is sent there by the church he attends and going there to help has pretty much infected him with an enthusiasm I've never seen him have. In what way is that not about love and instead about killing non-Christians and invading other countries? My wager is very few christians really think to themselves "we should kill brown people and establish an empire!" and the few that do aren't really christians. You may see that as the results of their philosophy, or the intentions of the people they support, but it is WILDLY wrong to suggest that is how christians think. So since they know they don't believe that, all you do by accusing them of that is make them blind to your real point, which is that those are the consequences of their policies of choice.
You see Jesus as a hippy, I see him as the model citizen, sent to show us what we should be like. Meanwhile our very libertarian God has all the power to force us to behave the way he wants us to, but allows us to live our lives as we see fit because it is our life. That's the point here. I can't speak for all libertarians, but as one of many I give to charities, I help people when I can and I do not believe in passing laws to force people to do what I do. I am me, I choose what is right and wrong for me, and I act accordingly. I believe the model person should give to charity, should help people on the street and should volunteer more than just money but also time to make the world a better place, but not even God forces people to do what in his mind is "right". That is the failing logic behind most liberals I encounter who rail against the tea party and libertarianism. They cast not wanting to force somebody to do something to mean they want the opposite of that thing to happen.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
# 1: Female uniforms must include mandatory Shiny Purple Sexy Wigs.
http://fortresstakes.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/ufo_moonbase_girls_purple_wigs.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UFOTVDVDnew.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_(TV_series)
Said organization must comply with the following requirements:
- Uniforms should be brightly colored, vaguely indicating role, and adaptable to look good while allowing for command-level officers to engage in hand-to-hand combat on a regular basis.
- All senior officers should be skilled in everything. Yes, everything. We'll decide who does what based on who's standing around at the moment, not based on some specialized set of skills or designated responsibilities.
- The organization should construct a fleet of vessels, with one vessel getting all the priority assignments while the rest of the fleet does Sudoku until needed for a well-intentioned but otherwise ineffective show of support.
- The organization should be composed of scientists and explorers who just so happen to run around with the most powerful weapons currently available. Asteroids can hurt, right?
That's because the "neighborhood" has little air pressure, only a minuscule amount of oxygen or water (mostly in a form that would require extensive processing to even get at it), intense cosmic radiation, little in the way of complex minerals or ores, and no topsoil. It's also either very hot or very cold (depending on which direction you head). And it requires a huge amount of time and energy to get from house to house.
That's why we stay in the basement, and probably always will, whether we like it or not.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Stranded in deep space... Kind of like we are now huh? Home is where you come from. Few Americans I know spit on effigies of the people that first emigrated here for "stranding them in a foreign land". I don't think I have ever heard of a human that complained because humanities first explorers left the birthplace of mankind, and stranded them on whatever continent they ended up on.
The problem of a generational ship wouldn't be that the inhabitants hated the original crew. The problem would be getting them to leave the ship when it got to the destination, as after a generation or two, the inhabitants wouldn't see the ship as a means to a destination, they would see it as home.
So you see no ethical problem with the idea of selling someone's entire family into indentured servitude, for as long as their family & descendants should live, so long as the first person signing the contract agrees that it'd be cool and fun to be an indentured servant? So why can't we sell families into servitude today? Sure, the first couple people you sell into slavery will object, but once they breed, those kids won't know anything but servitude, you'll have created a sub-class of servants for life! Right?
I'd remind you that people being dissatisfied with the "natural order of things" have brought us just about every bloodbath, massacre, revolution, civil war, and assassination in recorded history. Taking lots of people, cramming them into crowded living spaces, subjecting them to high stress, and leaving them with no sense of self-determination is pretty much a recipe for disaster - mass murder, suicide, mutiny, self-destruction.
And remember, we're talking about trips that could take *thousands* of years. How many slave revolutions, civil wars, mutinies, and assassinations have happened in that time here on earth? And why should we expect life on a generational ship to be vastly different?