7 DARPA Challenges We Want To See Next

1.Mars
2.Bionics/RegenMed
3.quantumPCs
4.FusionReactor
5.advanced AI

---
(Type 0.72) = We are still just cleaver monkeys!

I'm making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I'm my own boss. This is what I do, Red97.com

Well, that's 5 minutes I'll never have back. In search of a sensible suggestion.

And please, no refs to Tesla and wireless power. Tesla was a genius ( albeit highly eccentric), but he never had anything close to practical wireless power.

I have a Grand Challenge for DARPA- Show that the hundreds of millions of dollars you spend each year produce anything of value what-so-ever for American taxpayers.

I've followed DARPA's efforts closely for the past decade, and I can't think of a single program that provided a reasonable ROI for taxpayers. Maybe someone can point out where I'm wrong?

@riff_raff

i think petman will answer all your question in a moment... WHEN HE'LL GET A PAIR LASER MINIGUNS MOUNTEND IN HIS WRISTS... PEW PEW !!!

---
(Type 0.72) = We are still just cleaver monkeys!

(1) Resource recovery systems - put in any material, break it down to component materials, and utilize those materials in the production of goods.

Perferably with an energy gain, like a plasma arc furnace.

The system would need to be able to scan raw materials, break them down to useful chemicals and materials, then put out those chemicals and materials in forms that are useful (bar stock for milling and other subtractive processes or base components for 3d printing or other additive processes).

The end goal would be (1) universal recyling (useful for subs, long season ships, human space exploration, etc), (2) onsite resource utilization (mining asteroids and planets while exponentially assembling additional robotic mining and assembling systems), (3) near closed system space habitation (necessary for prolonged space habitation or interstellar travel on the generational ship model).

(2) Gravity repulsion / antigravity / counter gravity / artifical gravity. The weak forces of gravity attributed to mass and motion are what truely keeps us from flying cars, economic travel into space, and consumes much of our energy resources (moving materials is more about surface friction from gravity than air friction or inertia).

(3) Bandwith. The great limitation on computing data is not in the size of the computers, but the limitation in the radio spectrum. Merely moving from analogue to digital is only a band-aid. Universal cloud access necessary for total technological integration is going to take fundamental shifts in how bandwith is used, communicated through, and the infrastructure that uses it.

(4) Energy scale. Humanity needs energy production that is affordable, renewable, and exponentially greater in scale as we move to an electrical based system (we are currently about 50/50 with combustion being used for most transportation and heating).

Simple green energy alternatives are not capable of scales that meet growth - only supplimenting current combustion based electrical generation. Wind, earthbased solar, and tidal generation will no meet needed growth.

Space based solar, deep crust geothermal (mid-oceanic rifts), fusion, or low elemental fission might fit the needs of future growth.

(5) Eugenics. We know it, we hate that it is true, but we cannot deny it. Positive eugenics to support genetic development, negative eugenics to remove genetic hinderences. (Not racial eugenics, not human culling, and not utopian eugenics - merely fair and morally acceptable ways to wise moderate population growth while aiding humanity as a whole). Any means of eugenics that is going to avoid being abominable would need solid genetic and technological backing.