DARPA's BioManufacturing in Space program seeks to leverage the unique microgravity environment of space to grow large, complex biostructures currently impossible to produce on Earth. This research aims to overcome terrestrial limitations like gravity-induced stresses and nutrient transport challenges. The program will explore new biomanufacturing techniques and evaluate the feasibility of producing these structures in orbit, with potential applications including tissue engineering, organ fabrication, and advanced materials development for defense and commercial sectors.
DARPA is seeking innovative research proposals for the development of large, adaptable bio-mechanical structures for use in space. The goal is to leverage biological systems like plant growth or fungal mycelia to create structures in orbit, reducing the reliance on traditional manufacturing and launch limitations. This research will focus on demonstrating the feasibility of bio-based structural materials that can self-assemble, self-repair, and adapt to changing mission needs in the harsh space environment. The program envisions structures potentially spanning kilometers in size, drastically changing the possibilities for space-based habitats, solar sails, and other large systems.
Hacker News users discuss the feasibility and practicality of DARPA's bio-engineered space structure concept. Several express skepticism about the project's timeline and the biological challenges involved, questioning the maturity of the underlying science and the ability to scale such a project within the proposed budget and timeframe. Some highlight the potential benefits of using biological systems for space construction, such as self-repair and adaptability, while others suggest focusing on more established materials science approaches. The discussion also touches upon the ethical implications of introducing engineered life forms into space and the potential for unintended consequences. A few commenters note the ambitious nature of the project and the possibility that it serves primarily as a stimulus for research and development in related fields.
Researchers engineered 42 complex human cell lines with extensive structural variations in their genomes, including inversions, deletions, and duplications, to study the impact on cell viability and function. Surprisingly, they found that cells tolerated a wide range of these large-scale genomic alterations with minimal effects on gene expression or growth. This suggests human genomes are remarkably resilient to structural changes, challenging the conventional understanding of their fragility and offering insights into cancer development, evolution, and potential therapeutic strategies.
HN commenters discussed the implications of the study's findings, with some expressing skepticism about the robustness of the engineered cell lines. One commenter questioned whether the rearranged chromosomes would affect gene regulation in subtle, yet significant, ways that weren't captured in the initial analysis. Another pointed out the importance of long-term studies to observe potential downstream effects, such as an increased risk of cancer or other diseases. Several commenters also highlighted the ethical considerations of large-scale genome engineering in humans, even for therapeutic purposes, urging caution and further research before any clinical applications are considered. A few commenters expressed excitement about the potential of this research to advance our understanding of genome organization and its role in disease, while also acknowledging the significant challenges that remain.
Caltech researchers have engineered a new method for creating "living materials" by embedding bacteria within a polymer matrix. These bacteria produce amyloid protein nanofibers that intertwine, forming cable-like structures that extend outward. As these cables grow, they knit the surrounding polymer into a cohesive, self-assembling gel. This process, inspired by the way human cells build tissues, enables the creation of dynamic, adaptable materials with potential applications in biomanufacturing, bioremediation, and regenerative medicine. These living gels could potentially be used to produce valuable chemicals, remove pollutants from the environment, or even repair damaged tissues.
HN commenters express both excitement and caution regarding the potential of the "living gels." Several highlight the potential applications in bioremediation, specifically cleaning up oil spills, and regenerative medicine, particularly in creating new biomaterials for implants and wound healing. Some discuss the impressive self-assembling nature of the bacteria and the possibilities for programmable bio-construction. However, others raise concerns about the potential dangers of such technology, wondering about the possibility of uncontrolled growth and unforeseen ecological consequences. A few commenters delve into the specifics of the research, questioning the scalability and cost-effectiveness of the process, and the long-term stability of the gels. There's also discussion about the definition of "life" in this context, and the implications of creating and controlling such systems.
Summary of Comments ( 41 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43257473
HN commenters express skepticism about the feasibility and practicality of DARPA's proposal to grow large biological structures in space. Several doubt the cost-effectiveness compared to Earth-based manufacturing, citing the expense of launching and maintaining such a complex system in orbit. Others question the specific advantages of microgravity for this purpose, suggesting alternative solutions like scaffolding or 3D bioprinting on Earth. Some raise concerns about potential biohazards and the ethical implications of creating large, novel biological structures. A few highlight the potential for scientific discovery and acknowledge the innovative nature of the project, albeit with reservations about its ultimate success. Several users also note the military context of DARPA's involvement, speculating about potential applications in areas like bioweapons or self-repairing spacecraft.
The Hacker News post titled "DARPA exploring growing bio structures of 'unprecedented size' in microgravity" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43257473) has a moderate number of comments discussing various aspects of the linked SAM.gov solicitation.
Several commenters focus on the potential applications and implications of growing large biological structures in space. One commenter expresses excitement about the possibilities, imagining the creation of large, complex structures like trees for habitats or even spaceships. Another questions the practicality, wondering about the resources required to transport the necessary nutrients and support systems to space. The idea of resource limitations in space is echoed by other commenters.
Some discussion revolves around the chosen phrasing in the solicitation. The use of terms like "unprecedented size" and "novel bio-manufacturing methods" is seen as vague and buzzword-heavy by a few commenters. They speculate that this might be intentional to attract a wider range of proposals. One commenter suggests the wording might also reflect DARPA's genuine uncertainty about what's feasible in this area, indicating an exploratory phase of research.
Another thread of conversation focuses on the challenges of growing large biological structures, both on Earth and in space. One commenter mentions the difficulties with nutrient distribution and structural support in large organisms, suggesting that current biological limitations might hinder the project's ambitious goals. Another commenter points out the potential for unexpected biological behavior in a microgravity environment, highlighting the inherent risks and uncertainties involved.
A few comments delve into more technical aspects, discussing potential methods for achieving the desired outcomes. One commenter mentions 3D bioprinting as a possible approach, while another suggests exploring the use of scaffolding materials to support the growth of larger structures.
Finally, some commenters express skepticism about the overall feasibility and practicality of the project, questioning whether the potential benefits outweigh the enormous costs and challenges involved. One commenter even suggests that the project might be more about advancing fundamental biological understanding than achieving any immediate practical applications.