DARPA is offering $0.5 million for organizational proposal to get to a star in 100 years. Ideas?

[Leo Bloom]

I found a stunning solicitation for proposals from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for setting up an organizational structure for a "100 Year Starship"TM. (The "TM"is official.) Like the man said, it is a (very) long range plan to get something to a star a century from now. They're not interested in technology ideas now, but how to set up an "investment vehicle" for business, entrepreneurs, and "technology visionaries," which can respond to "the accelerating pace of technological, social, and other change" over the next 100 years.

Sounds like a plan....Anyone want to kick around some ideas here before sending in your application?

The long PDF solicitation and mini-essay/justification for the project is here. A one paragraph Web summary is here (at the bottom of the page).

[Boyo Jim]

I think that a bunch of right wingers and hippies got together and dropped acid to dream up this idea. There is simply NO WAY that an expedition to another star can be mounted with a reasonable expectation of a profit within the lifespan of the investors.

Near space exploration could conceivably be made profitable by asteroid mining, if a whole lot of technology is developed. And maybe even a good deal of the technology could be applied to an eventual star ship. But even if that is done, when in generations from now someone would have to make the decision to go ahead and build the star ship, a private sector agency will never, ever do it. A government would have to step in and pay for it, purely for whatever knowledge might be gained.

[Boyo Jim]

Oh, I wanna add, this smells to me like a Republican scheme to take government out of space exploration. "Let the private sector handle it!" Yeah, sure.

[MichaelEmouse]

The job of DARPA is to come up with far out ideas. It's like a government agency dedicated to brainstorming. As with any brainstorming, the vast majority of proposals are junk.

[Boyo Jim]

American companies and investors in particular have a reputation of always focusing on short term profits at the expense of long term viability and profits. I have seen press reports suggesting that Japanese investment strategy is more long term oriented. I don't know if it is true, but if it is, how much longer? Longer than their expected life spans?

Because that is what this RFP boils down to - convincing investors to buy into an idea they will not see a return from in their lives, and therefor won't even be able to know if it will pay off for the their children or grandchildren.

Honestly, the most realistic proposal for this would be a very strongly socialist economy with government having a very much larger say in the strategies and operations of business. If DARPA loved this idea and funded it, the next day Republicans would be introducing bills in Congress to kill the agency.

The good part is, that a wacky idea might get you half a million bucks -- I doubt DARPA would be shut down so fast they didn't have time to write the check. I am willing to think up some wacky ideas and write them up in a few pages for that kind of payoff. Hell, I do it here for free every day.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Let's put it in a relative concept as it was explained to me:

If our solar system was contained in something the size of a teacup then:

Let me interrupt. The Sun is about 93 million miles from the Earth and the Earth is one of the inner planets. Neptune, Uranus, look it up.

So the outer planets are within the diameter of the teacup. Where would the closest star be?

Remember we are talking relativity. Our entire solar system is within the teacup. The nearest star would be about 3,000 miles away on a relative basis.

With methods of travel as we know them, accessing even a nearby star is beyond anything we can practically conceive. A method of travel would have to be totally revolutionary. 1/2 million dollars is chump change. So, I'm calling bullshit. Anybody that would think that such an offer is attractive is FOS and insane. $50 billion dollars might make a little bit of sense. A trillion dollars might be more like it.

[Boyo Jim]

It's not a half million dollars as the budget for the trip, it's half a million dollars as a prize for coming up with the idea of how the private sector can finance and carry out the trip in a century's time.

Oh, which reminds me of another good thing. The winner will have spent the money and died long before the impossibility of the idea is proven.

[TriPolar]

This sounds like a traditional public/private cooperative effort in technology. The idea is a to find a way to allow competing companies to mutually fund an independent research effort. The result will be a set of rules drawn up by founding members, a publication, conferences, and of course these days, a web site.

From the link in the OP:

3. Credibility of Offeror’s Team
• Qualifications of key personnel
• Extent and soundness of teaming or relationships
• History of performance on comparable ventures
• Likely ability to raise private capital quickly and at scale

This sounds like only major players in the aerospace industry need apply.

[Declan]

Its obvious, sell space bonds

Declan

[Leo Bloom]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

This sounds like a traditional public/private cooperative effort in technology. The idea is a to find a way to allow competing companies to mutually fund an independent research effort. The result will be a set of rules drawn up by founding members.

This sounds like only major players in the aerospace industry need apply.

Agreed. I daresay that Boeing, eg, and a myriad of subcontractors and their corporate structures were inconceivable a century ago. And the pace of technological change has changed fantastically (as have financial instruments), and will only increase over the next 100 years.

The details of the suggested (and of course that'a all DARPA can hazard) project are fascinating. If nothing else, they are some pure futurology a la Stanislaw Lem, and wonderfully American quasi-capitalist. First comes the business plan.

(Plus, most likely a Republican Party as we know it will most likely not exist by then.)

[Smapti]

$500,000 won't build you a launching pad, let alone an interstellar spacecraft.

[Boyo Jim]

Sure it will. It will launch me on my way to Vegas, baby!

[Francis Vaughan]

Plan A. My first thought is that the best bet is to found a new religion.

I was amused to note that in the Q&A section someone had clearly already already had thoughts similar to my plan B.
Should any proposed investment vehicles be bound by the laws and rules that govern the securities industry in the United States?
Sadly the answer seems to be yes. So massive Ponsi schemes are out.

Plan C. Launch a transmitter to fake a signal from another planet. Hard, really hard actually. But would help a great deal with plan A.

[Heracles]

Make a very inspiring, original movie about going to another star. Something like "The man who sold the Moon" (the book), but better. Put Taylor Lautner in it. Put in many visual references to Lockheed (or equivalent), somehow presenting the company as the Apple of spaceship makers.

Invest the box-office proceeds in the project. Or, if you're still waiting for some Unobtainium, just put it in U.S. treasury bonds.

Hollywood will automatically issue a remake of the movie every 15-20 years for the next century, in 3D and then in Odorama and then in Touch-o-rama, collecting more money along the way.

[Alka Seltzer]

For $500,000, you could probably hire a gang of heavies to kidnap Bill Gates.

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by R. P. McMurphy

Let's put it in a relative concept as it was explained to me:

If our solar system was contained in something the size of a teacup then:

Let me interrupt. The Sun is about 93 million miles from the Earth and the Earth is one of the inner planets. Neptune, Uranus, look it up.

So the outer planets are within the diameter of the teacup. Where would the closest star be?

Remember we are talking relativity. Our entire solar system is within the teacup. The nearest star would be about 3,000 miles away on a relative basis.

With methods of travel as we know them, accessing even a nearby star is beyond anything we can practically conceive

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Alka Seltzer

For $500,000, you could probably hire a gang of heavies to kidnap Bill Gates.

Bill Gates isn't rich enough. The only reason he has enough money for a new Apollo program is because the R&D's already been done.

I don't think it's premature to say that this isn't going to produce anything that's even slightly plausible. It's like wanting to go to the Moon in a universe where it is physically impossible for anything to move faster than a brisk walk.

[An Arky]

My idea would be for people to collectively tell DARPA to fuck off and do their own research. Besides, they have no intention to go to a star, they just want to cadge ideas for new ways to spy on or kill people, and they're offering an insulting amount of chump change for it.

[Mangetout]

What's the closest star that lies within, say, 5 degrees of the plane of the ecliptic?

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by Grumman

Bill Gates isn't rich enough. The only reason he has enough money for a new Apollo program is because the R&D's already been done.

Ah, but you invest the Gates money in more heavies, and kidnap more billionaires. It's only business model I can think of that would sustain any sort of meaningful attempt.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

What's the closest star that lies within, say, 5 degrees of the plane of the ecliptic?

That would be Banard's Star, at six light years. And an unmanned mission there using completely new technology would still take fifty years.

[bldysabba]

Originally Posted by Leo Bloom

They're not interested in technology ideas now, but how to set up an "investment vehicle" for business, entrepreneurs, and "technology visionaries," which can respond to "the accelerating pace of technological, social, and other change" over the next 100 years.

Most posters seem to be ignoring this aspect of things. It appears to me that DARPA is actually asking for a commercial construct that could function over such a long time horizon. I noticed someone mentioned space bonds. I was thinking of something similar - a company that would hold rights to whatever possible scientific information that comes out of the project, and be funded by selling stocks. Let entrepreneurs who see returns in this make a business plan and invite investment. People who believe in the idea can buy stocks. Returns don't necessarily have to come at the end of the 100 year window if the stocks are allowed to be traded. The returns would be based on how likely or not it seemed for the ship to make money. For instance, if the stocks are floated tomorrow, and 10 million people buy them for a 10 dollars each, and somehow, with this 100 million in equity, 5 years from now the company actually launches the vehicle with a credible proposition for making money off it when it reaches the star, the stock value could go up.

For the most part though, I think a market based solution, as DARPA seems to be looking for, is unworkable because markets simply are not built to handle things like long horizon, investment intensive scientific research, which has high externalities, low reward/risk ratios, and high asymmetries of information. Which of course raises the point, should this particular project be carried out?

[FasterThanMeerkats]

There are also opportunities to profit not just on what information comes back from the spacecraft, but what goes out on it. After all, certain money now is better than uncertain money 100 years from now.

-Create a small cargo area and sell the rights to it. You want your ashes sent to a star, now you can.

- Install a small stereo system. You want your favorite music broadcast continuously from an interstellar vehicle, now you can.

- Sell off design decal space for all non-essential paneling (inside & outside). This thing could be covered in profit producing graffiti.

All these things should be marketed to all types of entities: individuals, corporations, and countries.

[billfish678]

At first blush this does sound a bit silly. But lets look at it like this. If DARPA just hired a company to study this problem 500,000 dollars would would only pay for about 5 professionals working/thinking about it for a year (and maybe not even that). What are the chances of those few people working for that short a time coming up with a good idea?

Now, since its a contest, you'll have WAY more many people than 5 or so thinking and working on it hoping to "win" the big bucks. Of course all the losers are suckers really if they spend any real amount of time and effort on it. Its almost like a lottery where you have to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars to have an even chance of wining 10.

And while the goal may seem silly, unrealistic, or just plain unachievable thats kinda beside the point. Many smart people (like mathematicians for example)have sat around solving problems that appear to have no bearing on real life or just arent important. Then a paper gets written up. Then, later somebody comes along and realizes that the solution can be applied to a real world problem.

DARPA (or somebody else) IMO could end up with a "solution" thats worth WAY more than half a mill. And, if nothing else is doing their gambling on the cheap.

[Reverend Meade]

Originally Posted by An Arky

My idea would be for people to collectively tell DARPA to fuck off and do their own research. Besides, they have no intention to go to a star, they just want to cadge ideas for new ways to spy on or kill people, and they're offering an insulting amount of chump change for it.

Cite?
I find this mildly libelous. From my viewpoint DARPA has always seemed to understand that defense =/= killing. Defense involves killing, lots of it and they would love to show you new and better ways to do in, but there are other things involved and they study those too. Things like not keeping all our people in one spot where they are one big target, but spreading them out to other planets. This contest is totally within their sphere of operations and consisting of their usual modus operandi of geting outsiders to do most of the work so as to maximize spread of reaserch money. If you want to covince me of anything else you'll have to produce some evidence, because right now you just come off as insulting and ignorant.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by bldysabba

Most posters seem to be ignoring this aspect of things. It appears to me that DARPA is actually asking for a commercial construct that could function over such a long time horizon.

I don't think anybody is clicking on the first link in the OP. DARPA is not looking for the space exploration plan, they're looking for the means of maintaining the focused research and development for space exploration over a long period of time.

[Dewey Finn]

This reminds me of the Long Range Foundation in one of Heinlein's novels, which invested in really long-shot technologies.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I think that a bunch of right wingers and hippies got together and dropped acid to dream up this idea.

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Oh, I wanna add, this smells to me like a Republican scheme to take government out of space exploration. "Let the private sector handle it!" Yeah, sure.

Moderator Note

Boyo Jim, I am sure you know that political jabs are prohibited in GQ. No warning issued, but don't do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[wolfman]

My 500k idea.
1. Take a billion dollars,
2.Put it in a big pot.
3.Solicit,the best ideas from around the world on how to go to space in a hundred years.
4. Give the best ideas the billion dollars on a quality of suggestion basis.


I'll take the 500k in small bills please.

[samclem]

Since the OP will require more along the lines of opinions, let's move this from General Questions to IMHO.

samclem, Moderator

[Leo Bloom]

Originally Posted by samclem

Since the OP will require more along the lines of opinions, let's move this from General Questions to IMHO.

samclem, Moderator

::sniff, whimper::
GQ, I hardly knew ye'
::/sniff, whimper::

[Jamicat]

http://www.universetoday.com/15403/h...-nearest-star/

"...So, if Voyager 1 was travelling in the direction of the red dwarf Proxima Centauri, how long would it take to get there? At a constant velocity of 60,000 km/hr, it would take 76,000 years (or over 2,500 generations) to travel that distance. And what if we could attain the record-breaking speed of Helios 2′s close approach of the Sun? Travelling at a constant speed of 240,000 km/hr, Helios 2 would take 19,000 years (or over 600 generations) to travel 4.3 light years..."


"Fastest (theoretical): Nuclear Pulse Propulsion = 85 years"


We haven't even made a warp bubble yet...

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Because that is what this RFP boils down to - convincing investors to buy into an idea they will not see a return from in their lives, and therefor won't even be able to know if it will pay off for the their children or grandchildren.

I think you're missing the point. The intent is to come up with a way to drive consistent R&D toward the long term goal of going to another planet. Yes, the ultimate going to another planet will never pay out in these investor's lifetimes, so the point is to develop ideas on how to drive investment that will pay out. Because the stepping stones to an eventual star ship do not have to only pay out with the eventual star ship. Each stepping stone can have independent use in a much shorter time frame, that also has an eventual use in the bigger plan.

Originally Posted by R. P. McMurphy

With methods of travel as we know them, accessing even a nearby star is beyond anything we can practically conceive. A method of travel would have to be totally revolutionary. 1/2 million dollars is chump change. So, I'm calling bullshit. Anybody that would think that such an offer is attractive is FOS and insane. $50 billion dollars might make a little bit of sense. A trillion dollars might be more like it.

As explained, this investment isn't for developing a star ship. This investment is for developing a plan that will create long term sustained investment in space technologies toward an eventual goal of creating a star ship 100 years from now. Are you saying that 100 years of consistent dedicated technology development has zero hope of developing anything?

Originally Posted by TriPolar

This sounds like only major players in the aerospace industry need apply.

No, the experts they're looking for now aren't aerospace experts, they're technology development and investment specialists. They want some combination of business types who know how to put together an innovative business plan and make it pay off with technology types who can direct and guide the R&D aspects.

Originally Posted by Grumman

I don't think it's premature to say that this isn't going to produce anything that's even slightly plausible. It's like wanting to go to the Moon in a universe where it is physically impossible for anything to move faster than a brisk walk.

They're not trying to get to the moon, they're trying to find ways to run.

Originally Posted by bldysabba

Returns don't necessarily have to come at the end of the 100 year window if the stocks are allowed to be traded. The returns would be based on how likely or not it seemed for the ship to make money. For instance, if the stocks are floated tomorrow, and 10 million people buy them for a 10 dollars each, and somehow, with this 100 million in equity, 5 years from now the company actually launches the vehicle with a credible proposition for making money off it when it reaches the star, the stock value could go up.

You're still not grasping the essence. Nobody is suggesting launching a vehicle five years from now. What they want is to launch a vehicle 100 years from now, after spending that 100 years on dedicated research toward making space drives, making space vehicles power efficient, whatever. Look at the example they listed - the Nobel Prize. This was an investment of money and a mechanism to award that money in the aims of driving innovation and improvement of society. That's what they want - a mechanism to drive innovation and development of technology with the ultimate aim of a star ship.

I don't know if there's anyone willing to even legitimately consider this proposal. I'm certainly not an investment type or business plan innovator. But I find this an inspiring idea.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Irishman

I think you're missing the point. The intent is to come up with a way to drive consistent R&D toward the long term goal of going to another planet. Yes, the ultimate going to another planet will never pay out in these investor's lifetimes, so the point is to develop ideas on how to drive investment that will pay out. Because the stepping stones to an eventual star ship do not have to only pay out with the eventual star ship. Each stepping stone can have independent use in a much shorter time frame, that also has an eventual use in the bigger plan.




As explained, this investment isn't for developing a star ship. This investment is for developing a plan that will create long term sustained investment in space technologies toward an eventual goal of creating a star ship 100 years from now. Are you saying that 100 years of consistent dedicated technology development has zero hope of developing anything?



No, the experts they're looking for now aren't aerospace experts, they're technology development and investment specialists. They want some combination of business types who know how to put together an innovative business plan and make it pay off with technology types who can direct and guide the R&D aspects.



They're not trying to get to the moon, they're trying to find ways to run.



You're still not grasping the essence. Nobody is suggesting launching a vehicle five years from now. What they want is to launch a vehicle 100 years from now, after spending that 100 years on dedicated research toward making space drives, making space vehicles power efficient, whatever. Look at the example they listed - the Nobel Prize. This was an investment of money and a mechanism to award that money in the aims of driving innovation and improvement of society. That's what they want - a mechanism to drive innovation and development of technology with the ultimate aim of a star ship.

I don't know if there's anyone willing to even legitimately consider this proposal. I'm certainly not an investment type or business plan innovator. But I find this an inspiring idea.

I think you're wrong. Most of us DO "grasp the essence". And I say the idea cannot be reasonably fulfilled, because investment strategies involve return and profit, neither of which are likely in such a plan.

I also think the Nobel Prize is very poor example. It is certainly not an investment strategy, it is the fulfillment of the will of a rich dead guy.

Now, that may be a possibility -- convince the ultra-rich (while they are alive or after death doesn't matter a lot) to offer prizes to those who are able to achieve milestones of technology that would be needed in order to carry out the mission. So maybe a foundation established to create such a list and to convince the wealthy to simply give money to get the job done without an expectation of reward is an option, maybe even the only one given the project parameters. But it's just a craps shoot.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Irishman

No, the experts they're looking for now aren't aerospace experts, they're technology development and investment specialists. They want some combination of business types who know how to put together an innovative business plan and make it pay off with technology types who can direct and guide the R&D aspects.

Agreed. My statement was exagerrated. I was pointing out that they are not looking for someone with just a good idea, but someone who can demonstrate an ability to implement that idea (which is not an idea for how to make a starship, but how to form an entity that will maintain focused R&D into the future). However, the aerospace players will be at an advantage. It's the way things work.

[Enderw24]

First, we must define Sol to be outside our solar system...

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I think you're wrong. Most of us DO "grasp the essence". And I say the idea cannot be reasonably fulfilled, because investment strategies involve return and profit, neither of which are likely in such a plan.

Perhaps, even probably. But the point of this competition is to come up with ideas for how to make an investment strategy that would involve return in a reasonable time frame. You're right, normal means don't seem to be able to meet the need. This is an attempt to rethink the means.

I also think the Nobel Prize is very poor example. It is certainly not an investment strategy, it is the fulfillment of the will of a rich dead guy.

Investment is perhaps not quite the right word. Nobel (the rich dead guy) wanted to inspire and incentivise technology developments for the betterment of society, so he did that by turning his fortune into a reward for people who made improvements to society. It may not be a viable model for what is needed here, hell it may not be particularly effective for driving the development of practical improvements. The prize has limited role in providing motivation to make practical technological improvements, because the connection between the act and the award are so distant. But it was pointed out as a means of providing for a structure that lasts beyond the founder's life and continues to play a role in the realm of science and technology development.

I was going to point to the B612 Foundation as a possible example to consider, but the website appears to be defunct, so I'm not really sure what is going on with it. That may be a sign of the effectiveness of this kind of plan.

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Investment is perhaps not quite the right word. Nobel (the rich dead guy) wanted to inspire and incentivise technology developments for the betterment of society, so he did that by turning his fortune into a reward for people who made improvements to society. It may not be a viable model for what is needed here, hell it may not be particularly effective for driving the development of practical improvements. The prize has limited role in providing motivation to make practical technological improvements, because the connection between the act and the award are so distant.

I read somewhere that the original intention with the Nobel prizes was to award work done during the previous year, so that there wasn't supposed to be such a big gap between the act and the award.

Edited to add, Nobel's will actually states, "The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

I read somewhere that the original intention with the Nobel prizes was to award work done during the previous year, so that there wasn't supposed to be such a big gap between the act and the award.

Edited to add, Nobel's will actually states, "The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."

Yes, but that could mean the benefit came in the previous year, even if the work was done many years before.

[Dewey Finn]

That's true; sometimes it takes a long while to see the impact of work done. Like the quasi-crystals that were the reason that a scientist received the chemistry prize this year.

[Irishman]

You are correct, Nobel intended the rewards to be timely. Creating a system to evaluate the technical merits of such complex fields required compromises, one of them being letting the technical merits of the ideas play out a bit.

The point being having a prize bestowed upon you after the fact for something you did anyway is not as much incentive for a person to go off and create innovative discoveries. While some probably funnel the money into new research that may or may not pay out, it's not required. So if the goal is to drive new innovations, it is not a strong plan. It does have some weak driver because people can say "And hey, this may even earn me the Nobel Prize".

But the goal as providing a reward to people who have done a service, it works pretty well. And in some ways it is easier than trying to evaluate proposals and guess which might be beneficial - the typical investment route.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Sooooo we're establishing a Nobel Prize in Space Exploration? Sounds great.

[Irishman]

Well, that's an idea, but it would need to be fleshed out a bit to qualify for DARPA's money.

[bup]

Build a star:

1) Make an orbiting thing that turns hydrogen into helium through fission and emits light.

2) Go visit it.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by R. P. McMurphy

Let's put it in a relative concept as it was explained to me:

If our solar system was contained in something the size of a teacup then:

Let me interrupt. The Sun is about 93 million miles from the Earth and the Earth is one of the inner planets. Neptune, Uranus, look it up.

So the outer planets are within the diameter of the teacup. Where would the closest star be?

Remember we are talking relativity. Our entire solar system is within the teacup. The nearest star would be about 3,000 miles away on a relative basis.

Your calculations are seriously off. Taking the diameter of Neptune's orbit (about 9*10^9 km) as the size of the Solar System, the ratio between that and the distance to Alpha Centauri (about 4*10^13 km), comes out to about 1/4500. Ergo, your "teacup" is evidently about 2/3 of a mile across.

(Now, if you mean to represent the Sun itself, you only need about a 6-inch teacup -- a bit large, but within reason.)

[Irishman]

bup, there's something wrong with that suggestion. How do you turn hydrogen into helium through fission?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nuc...Nuclear_Fusion

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Irishman

bup, there's something wrong with that suggestion. How do you turn hydrogen into helium through fission?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nuc...Nuclear_Fusion

Cold fission. It's unproven, unhypothesized too, but what the hell, we've got 100 years to work out the bugs.

[An Arky]

Originally Posted by Reverend Meade

Cite?
I find this mildly libelous. From my viewpoint DARPA has always seemed to understand that defense =/= killing. Defense involves killing, lots of it and they would love to show you new and better ways to do in, but there are other things involved and they study those too. Things like not keeping all our people in one spot where they are one big target, but spreading them out to other planets. This contest is totally within their sphere of operations and consisting of their usual modus operandi of geting outsiders to do most of the work so as to maximize spread of reaserch money. If you want to covince me of anything else you'll have to produce some evidence, because right now you just come off as insulting and ignorant.

Yeah, well, tough noogies Reverend (Fort) Meade, because this is IMHO, not GQ or GD. Slimy spooks don't get a pass, whether you think they're all that and a bag of chips or not. I'd like to see any evidence that DARPA (not their own propaganda) really wants to go to a star, because pretty much every entity that knows about such things knows it's not in the cards. Again, they're trolling for something else, and trying to be cheap about it, and they can fuck off.

[Irishman]

So what? So what if what they really want is improved space propulsion so they can send Space Marines to Neptune? Or harvest Helium3 from Jupiter? Or ice mine Saturn's rings? Who the hell cares, if it spawns investment in space technology?

The same technology that can deflect a projected Earth impacting asteroid can also deflect an asteroid into Earth. It's all in the targeting and timing.

[Reverend Meade]

Originally Posted by An Arky

Yeah, well, tough noogies Reverend (Fort) Meade, because this is IMHO, not GQ or GD. Slimy spooks don't get a pass, whether you think they're all that and a bag of chips or not. I'd like to see any evidence that DARPA (not their own propaganda) really wants to go to a star, because pretty much every entity that knows about such things knows it's not in the cards. Again, they're trolling for something else, and trying to be cheap about it, and they can fuck off.

Touche, I am slain by the sheer majesty of your wit. You must have a truly cunning mind to catch that I have the same name as NSA headquarters and try to make that somehow relevent. Verily, such skill is only humbled by the excellence of your argument, that anything related to the military can only be used to kill or spy because they're slimy. Bravo my good sir. In addition I must applaud the strenth of your moral fiber to be able to public proclaim that you don't mind reaserch into such devices of destruction as long as the government wastes money doing it. In these tough economic times many would quail at saying such things but you have no problem objecting in terms that I'm sure would impress a four year old.

Leaving sacasm territory, I will point out they never said they're trying to get to a star. They are looking for ways to convince people to invest in long term research, towards getting to a star. If you can think of a way to weponize an investment scheme I'm sure you could get a good deal more than half a million.