Slashdot Mirror
DARPA To Sponsor R&D For Interstellar Travel
Apocryphos writes "The government agency that helped invent the Internet now wants to do the same for travel to the stars. In what is perhaps the ultimate startup opportunity, DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, plans to award some lucky, ambitious and star-struck organization roughly $500,000 in seed money to begin studying what it would take — organizationally, technically, sociologically and ethically — to send humans to another star, a challenge of such magnitude that the study alone could take a hundred years."
to a galaxy, far far away... ???
"I owe the credit card company twelve thousand dollars, why don't I skip breakfast today?"
Through a hole in Cheyenne Mountain.
It's nice to see that there is still at least some ambition left in our society.
4. ???
Sorry, here's one case where step 4 is not question marks. All you need is a good to trade at the destination and this handy future value formula.
a challenge of such magnitude that the study alone could take a hundred years.
Uh, no. The research and infrastructure buildup necessary to actually carry out such a mission could easily take over a hundred years. But if the _study_ on what would be necessary to do it takes a hundred years, or even ten, then you're doin it rong.
Also, if the study takes over 100 years, the grant works out to $5000 a year. Although perhaps the kind of organization that operates on $5000 a year would take awhile to get things done...
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Is a bit more than support for one graduate student for five years. Almost nothing, in other words.
DARPA To Flush More Taxpayer Money Down the Toilet
FTFY.
I have a crazy idea. Instead of flushing this money down the toilet, why don't we use it to pay the government's debt instead?
The time it would take for the water to swirl down is longer than it takes the federal government to rip through a lousy 500K. Here's a tip: the federal government's spending habits need drastic fixes, not penny ante items like this. No, it isn't a good start because it's so incredibly miniscule. 500K isn't even a rounding error. You trivialize government debt problems by commenting this amount of spare change should go towards fixing that problem.
Well, you did say it was flushing money down the toilet, which was a pretty unfounded claim considering you spouted it on an invention that was funded by DARPA.
The whole POINT of DARPA is to throw money at projects that aren't likely to succeed right away, because if DARPA doesn't do it, no one will and it will never get done.
The internet never would have happened if DARPA hadn't flushed money down the toilet for it, because when the internet/arpanet was first being assembled, no one saw any sort of profitability in large networks of computers - and in fact when the idea first started being looked at in 1968 no one saw profitability in consumer computers at all.
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
I rarely say this. I am always willing to spend money for basic research, where an immediate benefit is not obvious. But interstellar travel? Now? Ridiculous. Baby steps, please. Such a project for a permanent station on the dark side of the moon would already be very ambitious, but at least not totally scifi. Next step a permanent space station on Mars. If this can be accomplished and is more or less routine, it might start to make sense to think about interstellar travel. But certainly not earlier.
If the research is useful and worthwhile, it should be defended on its own merits[...]
Ok, how about this. In order to even begin to think about starting to build an interstellar ship there are many, many problems that need to be solved. Each and every one of them has potential benefits to the people right down here on planet Earth.
Cheap transit to LEO.
Orbital mining for metals and volatiles.
Artificial intelligence and other computer science areas.
New energy storage and generation technologies.
Genetic engineering.
Advanced hydroponics.
Yep, nothing in there worth researching at all.
The private investors are investing in things like non-orbital launch systems (Virgin Galactic/Scaled Composites); orbital launch systems (SpaceX); and orbital space stations/hotels (Bigelow Aerospace). All of these private ventures would never have happened if it weren't for almost half a century of government funding of NASA and the Air Force before that.
There are whole classes of radical advancements that, simply, can't happen without significant initial investment without a guarantee of success. Examples of such things include space travel and the nuclear bomb. Historically, some of these kinds of discoveries have been made because an individual monarch was willing to take a gamble (ex. Queen Isabella funding Columbus) but modern business structures are designed to work against such things because they are often wastes of money (ex. the search for El Dorado and the fountain of youth).
When it comes to traveling to other stars, there are obvious advantages to be had to science as well as humanity as a whole. On the other hand, even if it works in the end, there are no obvious profits to be made on it with our current understanding of science. Any resources we find in a distant solar system would be so hard to transport back to Earth that it'd be cheaper to just manufacture it (atom by atom) in a particle accelerator (which we could do with present technology). In such cases, governmental spending is the ONLY way for it to get done.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
There are two basic problems with what we would call private investment today.
First, there is the question of returns. OK, so we are absolutely assured of there being something that is needed out in space - we just have to find it, figure out exactly how to exploit it, and get it back here. None of these are trivial problems but neither are the rewards. Let's talk about exactly how much a big chunk of asteroid that is 50% gold and 50% platinium would bring on the open market. Or, a big chunk of "rare earth metals".
But these returns are not really certain within a given time period. Nobody can say they are going to be able to bring back 100 billion dollars in gold in two years. However, it is a dead certainity that you would be able to have that 100 billion in gold in a vault in 100 years.
That brings us to the other problem. Today, the world pretty much runs on an annual basis if not quarterly. The government talks about saving 400 billion dollars over 10 years - with the assumption that nothing will change for 10 years. Companies are comparing last year's revenue to this year;s and that is about it. The best investment you can get is one where the investor is demanding a nearly certain return in five years at at least 10 to 1.
Nobody on the planet is making investments for ten years and we are talking about requiring investments on the order of 50 or 100 years. The thinking has been that only a government can think that far ahead and make plans that far out. Well, that may have been true in 1492 to some degree but even then they were looking for gold on the table within a few years.
Today it is doubtful that any democratic government could get away with making an investment that wouldn't pay off for 100 years. The people just wouldn't stand for it. Hugo Chavez might be able to, but even he doesn't think he will be in power in 100 years. No, I don't see the human race making any long term comittments or long term plans. Not at all.
The high cost to the human race's colonisation of space is caused by the complexity and danger of reaching and leaving escape velocity within the earth's atmosphere.
The Space Shuttle turned out to be an expensive and dangerous white elephant, the reason the Shuttle was so expensive is, because of its complexity with millions of different manufactured parts, and the need to cover it with the equivalent of bathroom tiles.
There is another route, we can reach the edge of space no problem Burt Rutan proved this with Space Ship one, when he won the 'X' prize by reaching over 100 km twice in one week.
Yes the Shuttle was 'reusable' but in name only. They could not have turned that around in a week.
What NASA should be doing is creating rocket fuel on the moon, there is lots of water on the moon, use solar energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which when combined make very good rocket fuel, because of Newton's third law.
Use the rocket fuel to fuel a space tug, use the space tug to accelerate and decelerate Space Ship one, to and from escape velocity in the safe vacuum of space, no atmosphere = no friction = no heat = no bathroom tiles and no foam shielding on the external fuel tank.
Less bathroom tiles + insulation foam = less rocket fuel = less pollution in the Mexican Gulf.
Once we can accelerate and decelerate space craft with rocket fuel that is obtained from outside of the earth's gravity well, space travel becomes cheaper by many orders of magnitude, ok the capital cost would be very high, but once the systems are in place, the number of human beings, living in space increases exponentially.
A good example for the way very high capital cost projects work, is the Panama canal.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
If they can do it, why can't we? Maybe the government knows something that we don't. (Queue spooky music)
And man will never fly..
You have predestined us to failure. You have insufficient data to make such an outrageous claim.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Think about it. Launches are expensive. Spaceflight is expensive. Nobody has found a pure gold asteroid, and even if they did it would take more money to get any of the gold back to Earth than the gold would be worth. Communications satellites only exist because the phone companies can charge users a fortune in bills over decades.
Private investors don't give a shit about technology, and certainly certainly not for technology that has no possibility of a financial return.
Remember, billionaires got that way because they're damn stingy and only give in order to get more. Wannabe billionaires are even more that way. Where they donate, it is purely for tax reasons. (They can offset all the taxes from income and capital gains and still make a fortune.) It's not for charity and it's certainly not for the benefit of industrialists who could become rich if the technology pays off. This isn't even putting the billionaires down at all. This is simply the logic of economics and it is the logic of economics that create the uber-wealthy in the first place.
The ONLY people who have both the money AND the incentive to do this kind of work is government. That is why the US and USSR have space programs and Argentinia (which had no shortage of private individuals with know-how for sale after the war) does not. If private investors had any motivation to actually do something in space (as opposed to paying an agency to lob yet another radio/tv/bittorrent relay into orbit), it would have already happened. The closest we've seen yet are Virgin Galactic (which doesn't even reach orbit) and some guys launching small rockets from old oil rig platforms (who, incidentally, you don't hear much about these days).
As for half a million - it might sound a lot but it would pay for five mid-grade private sector researchers for a year. Not equipment, computers, space, or anything else, just the salaries of those five people. Public sector workers would be cheaper - you could get easily two or three times as many - but this is funding for a private effort so you're limited to five. This research is going to require pushing what we know about human hibernation to the absolute limits. It is going to require some amazing work on radiation shielding. In order for the people on board to develop normally, it is going to require some fantastic developments in materials science (you will need a vehicle 3/4 of a mile in diameter to be able to develop artificial gravity without inducing motion sickness - and then you will need to figure out how to put that vehicle in orbit).
And, yes, those are mid-grade researchers. Top-end researchers in the private sector would limit you to two or three people, which wouldn't even get you enough to have one specialist per major problem to be solved.
This is another reason the private sector is a Bad Choice for this kind of work. Public sector scientists are much much cheaper and, since they have access to shared regional or national computation resources, don't require as much money to get a project like this off the ground. The private sector is simply not cost-effective for this kind of work.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
In the 1800's plenty of people had proven that manned flight was impossible. It was, using nothing but muscle power and steam power. It took having a small, light internal combusion engine and gasoline to make it possible.
FTL within the bounds of Newtonian physics is impossible. We have pretty much proven that with quantum physics there are a lot more things about the universe than Newton would have ever expected. I believe on a small scale we have already seen FTL movement of particles through quantum entanglement.
Also, while travel on a galactic scale is probably pointless without FTL, with the right power source we could easily achieve a substantial fraction of C making a trip to Alpha Centauri possible within 8-10 years. Still too long for cable news networks but certainly possible within human limits.
irony (n) 1. using the Internet to trash government spending on DARPA projects
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Perhaps you'd like to look at the ROI that [D]ARPA gets from its research. For example, take a look at ARPANet. A few million of up-front investment gave the US government all of the tax revenue that every company in the .com boom paid, and the ongoing tax paid by companies like Amazon, ISPs, and so on. That tax income alone is enough to finance all [D]ARPA projects of this nature.
Your analogy would be more accurate if you said 'I owe $12,000 to the credit card company, I'll save my $2 bus fare by not going to work today'.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What should we call this device?
A brake.
No, but you still have to make some kind of goals, even if you change them later on. As the OP said, for all we know, there could be an asteroid on a collision course with us, and we haven't detected it yet. In fact, we've only started really looking for such things, and the more we look, the more asteroids we find, and there's a ton of them in the inner solar system. It's probably only a matter of time before one hits us. And it's not like it's never happened; there's tons of meteor craters on the earth now, and one of them killed most of the dinosaurs.
So if we want to be like the dinosaurs and get wiped out by a planet-killer, then we should just sit back and keep doing what we're doing now, which is nothing. But if we want to be able to detect and then defend against asteroids, we have to put plans into place ASAP. That means instruments to detect asteroids and track them all to look for earth-crossers, and also the capabilities to launch vehicles which can intercept these asteroids and move them somehow. Remember, the earlier you exert some energy on an asteroid, the more of an effect you have, so if you find a planet-killer, you need to start pushing it many years (even decades) in advance, instead of hoping for Bruce Willis to save you.
Think of this scenario: maybe there's an asteroid out there that's going to hit us in 100 years, wiping out all civilization or worse. Even with nuclear bombs, because of the delta-v and the sheer size of this asteroid, we need to get something up there in no more than 25 years to start pushing this thing off-course. After that, we might as well forget it because there's no way we'll develop the ability to harness the energy needed to move this thing in the next 75 years after that. But if we don't get started now, we're toast in 100 years. So if we get started now, we might be able to first detect the thing, and second develop and deploy something to push it off-course. But if we wait around for this supposed fast-changing technology you talk of, and then we detect it in 25 years, it's already too late, unless we can find some Class II civilization and convince them to come save us.
As for fast-changing technology, it really isn't. Look at space technology 25 years ago, and space technology now. What's changed? Not much, in fact barely anything at all. In fact, 40 years ago we landed humans on the Moon. What have we landed humans on in the last 35 years? Nothing. Yes, computer technology has changed radically in that time, but in many other sectors, there's been much less change, and sometimes almost no change.