DARPA Celebrates 50 Years of Pushing the Envelope

holy_calamity writes "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was founded in 1958 after the Soviets shocked the world by launching Sputnik. New Scientist recounts the history of the agency charged with protecting the US from 'technological surprise' and lists some of its most spectacular successes and failures."

Spectacular miss

FTA:

The mechanical elephant: Frustrated by a lack of decent tarmac in the jungle, DARPA sought to create a "mechanical elephant" during the Vietnam war. Its vision of high-tech Hannibal's piloting them through the forest never came true. It is alleged that when the director heard of the plan he scrapped the "damn fool" project immediately in the hope no one would hear about it.

Subsequent to the pulling of funding for the mechanical elephant, the head of the project suggested, "What if we build a large metal badger...?"

Seriously, tohugh, sounds to me like someone wanted to build an AT-AT.

Sweet.

Re:

Not so spectacular, and not really a miss, just (like everything DARPA does) a tad ahead of its time.

http://bostondynamics.com/content/sec.php?section=BigDog [bostondynamics.com]

Watching the video, it actually looks alive.
http://bostondynamics.com/ [bostondynamics.com]

I wish this one wasn't killed....

FutureMap: This program hoped to use a kind of terrorism futures market to predict key developments and even attacks. It was thought market valuations of possible future events could reflect the probability of their occurring. However, FutureMap was scrapped in 2003 after the notion of betting on terrorist atrocities was called "ridiculous and grotesque" by US politicians.

I really wanted to see if it would work - grotesque or not. It intrigued me that a "market" could be formed for things that aren't being bought and sold. And I wanted to see if the market could predict things.

Re:I wish this one wasn't killed....

Mod parent up.

This is another example of how politicians screw up what could otherwise be a good idea.

One could introduce an idea of how a terrorist might attack the country. If others think it's viable/vulnerable/highly possible, they buy the 'share'. As the share price goes up, it gets more attention (and hopefully response). When the response negates the risk, the viability/vulnerability/etc. goes down and people start to want to sell.

Seems a good way to use market forces to address real issues. Politicians saying, "Gosh! You're going to be proactive and creative in addressing terrorism rather than using the politically expedient FUD?! We can't have that!"

Freakin' politicians!

Re:I wish this one wasn't killed....

I don't know if I would mod this up or not. Here [iwar.org.uk] is a little more info on the program. There are a lot of obvious holes. For one, gaming national security is always a downside, and markets can be gamed. Another is the fact that government intelligence agencies would have great sway over which way the market went. With that in mind, think about how often cronyism and nepotism crop up in government. There would be huge risks in such an investment. In the end, it may be a unique idea, but I don't think it would have worked.

The important point in all of this though is that, for all the pork and excess, DARPA does foster innovation. Bringing new ideas to important problems is a good thing. If only we could create a DARPA project to lead to a solution for cutting government wastefulness.

Re:

Some stuff is just unspeakably evil, or unspeakably dumb.
A market for medical knowledge gained unethically, for example.
This is one of those can/should discussions: the fact that an action is possible doesn't make it a bright idea: http://www.youtube.com [youtube.com]

Re:I wish this one wasn't killed....

Some stuff is just unspeakably evil, or unspeakably dumb. A market for medical knowledge gained unethically, for example. This is one of those can/should discussions: the fact that an action is possible doesn't make it a bright idea:...

Who would get hurt if there was a market of this type? If anything, it would save lives. I don't see anything unethical about it. If there was anything that was unethical it was the politicians killing this for political points.

There's a huge industry that bets on when people will die. Is it unethical? It's kept many families from becoming destitute after the death of the bread winner. I'm talking about life insurance.

Re:

Apparently other people are also interested in weather markets can predict things:

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/ [uiowa.edu]
http://www.intrade.com/ [intrade.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=political+markets [google.com]

Notice at Google that major media outlets are running them now. UIowa was

Re:

Make that "whether". Stupid homophones.

Re:

FutureMap: This program hoped to use a kind of terrorism futures market to predict key developments and even attacks. It was thought market valuations of possible future events could reflect the probability of their occurring. However, FutureMap was scrapped in 2003 after the notion of betting on terrorist atrocities was called "ridiculous and grotesque" by US politicians.

I really wanted to see if it would work - grotesque or not. It intrigued me that a "market" could be formed for things that aren't being bought and sold. And I wanted to see if the market could predict things.

Um.. or maybe the idea didn't sell because there is absolutely no logic to it? If share prices go up for "terrorist incident in country X" does that mean that it becomes more likely that a terrorist incident occurs in said country? No. It just means that

Summary for those who don't RTFA

Successful projects: The internet, GPS, speech translation, stealth planes, gallium arsenide
Failed projects: Hafnium bombs, the mechanical elephant, telepathic spies, FutureMap futures market for terrorism, Orion nuclear-bomb-propelled spacecraft

Conspicuously missing:
Successful Projects: Slashdot
Failed Projects: CowboyNeal Dating Service

STOP BUILDING THE METAL GEAR, By Solid Snake.

(Adapted from an awesome post from many years ago on Gamespy.com)

STOP BUILDING THE METAL GEAR
By Solid Snake

Hello. My name is Snake. You probably know me from the first time I destroyed Metal Gear. Or, you may remember me from the second time I destroyed Metal Gear. Or, the third and fourth times I destroyed Metal Gear. Perhaps, instead, you may be familiar with me as we eagerly await the fifth time I'm going to destroy Metal Gear, due for release in June 2008.

Sometimes people ask me -- a renowned Soldier of Fortune and virtually invisible stealth operative -- how we can best keep the increasingly global threat of terrorism at bay. Time and time again the united governments find themselves at the mercy of elite squads of terrorists who, often during sweeps week, hijack indestructible robots armed with nuclear strike capability and -- for reasons that even I can't fathom -- one lone operative (me) always has to stop them against all odds. Well, I have an answer to your little terrorist problem, Mr. four-star general and united world government military advisers.

STOP BUILDING THE METAL GEAR!

For heaven's sake, it seems like every couple of years some pathetic spongecakes in suits are sitting around a conference table and one of them says, "Hey, let's build the Metal Gear again." Then they say, "Certainly those pesky terrorists won't attempt to hijack the Metal Gear this time." Then when all the hell and the hurting happens, they're not the ones strapped to a table getting electrocuted by some pony-tailed punk who looks like Colonel Sanders.

I mean it. Certainly we can figure out something else to do with giant robots aside from using them as mobile platforms for 20 megaton nuclear warheads, although offhand I can't think of anything. Why do we need giant robots at all? Why can't we all just raise dogs, like I do when I'm not silently killing people from behind? I like dogs. Dogs are always happy to see you. They jump up and lick your face. Rarely do they don invisible Predator-esque stealth outfits and gang up on you in an elevator. Hardly ever have I seen a group of dogs pre-meditate a global holocaust by assaulting a giant robot stronghold. Primarily they spend their time smelling one anothers' butts.

In Conclusion, I cannot stress enough the problems associated with giant robots. One minute they're secure on a military compound quietly protecting the free world, the next thing you know there's a floating bald dude in a gasmask convincing your girlfriend to blow her own brains out. I'm drawing the line! Next time you jackholes build the stupid Metal Gear, I'm not going to save your asses. I'm gonna hang out in Alaska, munchin' cheetos on a bearskin rug while some husky licks my face.

You hear that, DARPA chief? The next time you build a Metal Gear, you, your advisors, and your giant robot can collectively suck my stealthy ass. Just try to find me! Hah hah!

Thank you for your time.

-Snake, Solid.

Re:

Just try to find me! Hah hah!

! ...just a box.

DARPA's continued importance

When I hear arguments for cutting DARPA's budget, or for eliminating it completely because "the Cold War's over, and China won't be a threat for 30 years", I think of how long the agencies successes took to come to fruition... GPS, the Internet, etc. It took decades of work. Its not like we could shut DARPA down, re-open it in 20 years, and then just magically start churning out big results again.

Interesting "Failures"

"The mechanical elephant: Frustrated by a lack of decent tarmac in the jungle, DARPA sought to create a "mechanical elephant" during the Vietnam war. Its vision of high-tech Hannibal's piloting them through the forest never came true. It is alleged that when the director heard of the plan he scrapped the "damn fool" project immediately in the hope no one would hear about it." So we could be 30 years ahead in robotics instead of 10 years behind. Thanks, asshole.

"FutureMap: This program hoped to use a kind of terrorism futures market to predict key developments and even attacks. It was thought market valuations of possible future events could reflect the probability of their occurring. However, FutureMap was scrapped in 2003 after the notion of betting on terrorist atrocities was called "ridiculous and grotesque" by US politicians." Politicians. No further comment required.

"Orion: Set in motion shortly after DARPA was created, Project Orion aimed to drive an interplanetary spacecraft by periodically dropping nuclear bombs out of its rear end. The entire craft was designed like a giant shock absorber with the back covered in thick shielding to protect human passengers. Concerns about nuclear fallout and the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty ended the project in the early 1960s." Fallout - OK. Test ban treaty? More like political cover for killing a program disliked by the No Nukes folks.

3 of 5 were not technical failures, but political ones. Another, the "telepathic spies" project, is listed as a failure even though it did produce something important - evidence that telepathy is bullshit. The Halfnium bomb is another one. So it didn't work - BFD. are they saying that NO important research data was gained?

hear hear

Really, just calling them failures shows a considerable failure on the part of the folks compiling the list. Lack of political will is not the same as lack of technical ability. And demonstration of negative results is also good for when the matter comes up again. The telepathic spies WILL come up again within 20 years as we get more and more unthinking morons in positions of budgetary power.(and the current crop of "consensus scientists" will need to find another scam when they hit middle age)

And calling the exoskeleton a "current" project? There has been ongoing research into this before RAH ever dreamed of the Mobile Infantry.

Re:

"current" project = project with "current" funding. It didn't say 'hot new project ideas'. The Army has a current project to develop Silicon Carbide power electronic devices. It's a decade or so old now. Significant progress has been made. There's stil

Re:Interesting "Failures"

Orion overlapped a non-DARPA project called SNPO [atomicinsights.com] (pronounced "Snow-Poe") which was concerned with practical nuclear-powered space vehicles. For some reason, spewing radioactive material into the atmosphere became unpopular and the project was shelved, but not until working engines had been built and tested.

I'd never heard of Project Orion but...

The top cruise velocity that can be achieved by a thermonuclear Orion starship is about 8% to 10% of the speed of light (0.08â"0.1c). An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 3%â"5% of the speed of light.[citation needed] A nuclear pulse drive starship powered by matter-antimatter pulse units would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity between 50% to 80% of the speed of light.[citation needed] Missions that were designed for an Orion vehicle in the original project included single stage (i.e., directly from Earth's surface) to Mars and back, and a trip to one of the moons of Saturn. One possible modern mission for this near-term technology would be to deflect an asteroid that could collide with Earth. The extremely high performance would permit even a late launch to succeed, and the vehicle could effectively transfer a large amount of kinetic energy to the asteroid by simple impact. Also, an automated mission would eliminate the most problematic issues of the design: the shock absorbers.

Interesting. I'm not sure about the efficiency claims but interesting nonetheless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) [wikipedia.org]

DARPA and open source

When I worked on the DARPA COUGAAR distributed agent project [cougaar.org] they used lots of open source code and had no problems with donating code back. The whole PMD [sf.net] source code analysis tool started there and has lived on long after the sponsoring program ended... good stuff.

Re:DARPA and open source

I'm not going to follow your links. You're probably just hyping some older woman/younger man dating service. Through agents no less.

Failure =/= Mistake

I don't like the fact that they call several of the failed projects "mistakes" or "blunders." Their entire mission is to push the envelope farther than what they can imagine other people going. They're not going to come up with crazy-ass successes like the internet and stealth planes without also coming up with some crazy-ass ideas that wind up not working, like a spaceship that uses nuclear bombs for propulsion and psychic spies. Those things did fail, but that doesn't make those things mistakes - they're a natural byproduct of a process aiming for both high creativity and high productivity.

Very impressive

I don't care what anybody says. I'm still impressed that the DARPA Initiative was able to slow time down on that Island and create that cool underground bunker where those scientists had to enter the code every 108 minutes.

Re:

A massive number of people in the US just completely misunderstood what you said.

Re:

I'm able to remote view, I don't make public claims other than this one, I don't work for anyone, I don't feel the need to prove it. For some of us with the gift, money, fame, and all of that mean nothing.

Ah, yes, the typical response of the fraud: "I rea