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.
Apple announced a plan to invest over $500 billion in the US economy over the next four years. This builds on the $430 billion contributed over the previous five years and includes direct spending with US suppliers, data center expansions, capital expenditures in US manufacturing, and investments in American jobs and innovation. The company highlights key areas like 5G innovation and silicon engineering, as well as supporting emerging technologies. Apple's commitment extends beyond its own operations to include investments in next-generation manufacturing and renewable energy projects across the country.
Hacker News commenters generally expressed skepticism about Apple's announced $500B investment. Several pointed out that this is not new spending, but a continuation of existing trends, repackaged as a large number for PR purposes. Some questioned the actual impact of this spending, suggesting much of it will go towards stock buybacks and dividends rather than job creation or meaningful technological advancement. Others discussed the potential influence of government incentives and tax breaks on Apple's decision. A few commenters highlighted Apple's reliance on Asian manufacturing, arguing that true investment in the US would involve more domestic production. Overall, the sentiment leaned towards viewing the announcement as primarily a public relations move rather than a substantial shift in Apple's business strategy.
Japan's scientific output has declined in recent decades, despite its continued investment in research. To regain its position as a scientific powerhouse, the article argues Japan needs to overhaul its research funding system. This includes shifting from short-term, small grants towards more substantial, long-term funding that encourages risk-taking and ambitious projects. Additionally, reducing bureaucratic burdens, fostering international collaboration, and improving career stability for young researchers are crucial for attracting and retaining top talent. The article emphasizes the importance of prioritizing quality over quantity and promoting a culture of scientific excellence to revitalize Japan's research landscape.
HN commenters discuss Japan's potential for scientific resurgence, contingent on reforming its funding model. Several highlight the stifling effects of short-term grants and the emphasis on seniority over merit, contrasting it with the more dynamic, risk-taking approach in the US. Some suggest Japan's hierarchical culture and risk aversion contribute to the problem. Others point to successful examples of Japanese innovation, arguing that a return to basic research and less bureaucracy could reignite scientific progress. The lack of academic freedom and the pressure to conform are also cited as obstacles to creativity. Finally, some commenters express skepticism about Japan's ability to change its deeply ingrained system.
Bell Labs, celebrating its centennial, represents a century of groundbreaking innovation. From its origins as a research arm of AT&T, it pioneered advancements in telecommunications, including the transistor, laser, solar cell, information theory, and the Unix operating system and C programming language. This prolific era fostered a collaborative environment where scientific exploration thrived, leading to numerous Nobel Prizes and shaping the modern technological landscape. However, the breakup of AT&T and subsequent shifts in corporate focus impacted Bell Labs' trajectory, leading to a diminished research scope and a transition towards more commercially driven objectives. Despite this evolution, Bell Labs' legacy of fundamental scientific discovery and engineering prowess remains a benchmark for industrial research.
HN commenters largely praised the linked PDF documenting Bell Labs' history, calling it well-written, informative, and a good overview of a critical institution. Several pointed out specific areas they found interesting, like the discussion of "directed basic research," the balance between pure research and product development, and the evolution of corporate research labs in general. Some lamented the decline of similar research-focused environments today, contrasting Bell Labs' heyday with the current focus on short-term profits. A few commenters added further historical details or pointed to related resources like the book Idea Factory. One commenter questioned the framing of Bell Labs as primarily an American institution given its reliance on global talent.
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.