Reddington777
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 23 March 2025
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- 2,751
DARPA - Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Research is always...
Broadly speaking, there are two types of research: foundational (theoretical) research, and industrial (implementation) research. foundational research builds the broad and theoretical knowledge base and at best ends up with a fairly crude prototype to demonstrate individual technological concepts.
You need to combine those technological concepts to make anything useful. In order to combine them, you need to prototype the combined result and try to turn that into manufacturing and development. This is type of research is industrial research, which investigates how we can take an idea that theoretically works, and actualize it.
Something that works in theory and proofed by rudimentary theoretical research prototypes isn't necessarily going to be viable in any industrial capacity. Thus, the nature of research as described above applies to both types of research.
DARPA's purpose is to work in between these two modes of research, often undertaking inherently risky theoretical concepts to try and make them viable. At its core DARPA is a research management and coordination organization working with and managing scientists across national labs and public/private universities to use a huge amount of funding to try and bridge theory with practice. The projects they take on are almost always projects that show promise but require a hell of a lot more funding than normal university research are given through grants.
All of the above are reasons why DARPA regularly needs to ...
Terminating a program could be for any number of reasons. It could very well be that the project was mismanaged from the start. Often times, you goals are too high or the objectives of the project weren't well defined enough and a lot of that also comes from the inherent nature of what research is. It could also be that the theory can't be put into practice, technology isn't mature enough yet, or more often than not - industrial base isn't ready / isn't willing.
The idea of XSP isn't terribly different from this seaplane concept if you really think about it - if we can build rockets and a planes, why can't we combine the two? If we can build boats and planes why can't we combine the two? pen-pineapple-apple-pen. In all seriousness, the idea can often be if we have demonstrator A that demonstrates tech A and demonstrator B that demonstrates tech B, why not try to combine them and see if we can make it viable?
Don't give me wrong - as a passionate red blooded American, I too find failed projects frustrating, but misdirected ire leads to people questioning and shutting down things that are extremely vital for the very things every single red blooded american defense sleuth cares about. You have a right to be angry but you should figure out exactly where to direct that anger towards. Often times the culprit isn't any single person or organization, but rather the state and the mutual interactions of everyone and everything invovled.
Research is always...
and tends to
Broadly speaking, there are two types of research: foundational (theoretical) research, and industrial (implementation) research. foundational research builds the broad and theoretical knowledge base and at best ends up with a fairly crude prototype to demonstrate individual technological concepts.
You need to combine those technological concepts to make anything useful. In order to combine them, you need to prototype the combined result and try to turn that into manufacturing and development. This is type of research is industrial research, which investigates how we can take an idea that theoretically works, and actualize it.
Something that works in theory and proofed by rudimentary theoretical research prototypes isn't necessarily going to be viable in any industrial capacity. Thus, the nature of research as described above applies to both types of research.
DARPA's purpose is to work in between these two modes of research, often undertaking inherently risky theoretical concepts to try and make them viable. At its core DARPA is a research management and coordination organization working with and managing scientists across national labs and public/private universities to use a huge amount of funding to try and bridge theory with practice. The projects they take on are almost always projects that show promise but require a hell of a lot more funding than normal university research are given through grants.
All of the above are reasons why DARPA regularly needs to ...
not all technological risks can be identified before hand. It's not just risks in concept and scientific theory. It's also risk in how you intend on designing and manufacturing the end product. Anyone should know the idea that "risk can be identified without prototyping" has been paid in much more wasted money, and often blood time and time again.
No ... not always. DARPA is a management organization. It relies upon its contracted labs, and industry partners to be able to actualize something.
Terminating a program could be for any number of reasons. It could very well be that the project was mismanaged from the start. Often times, you goals are too high or the objectives of the project weren't well defined enough and a lot of that also comes from the inherent nature of what research is. It could also be that the theory can't be put into practice, technology isn't mature enough yet, or more often than not - industrial base isn't ready / isn't willing.
No see that's the misunderstanding. It very well did hold great promise, but at what stage? On paper? in a paper? in prototype concepts? In a lot of different demonstrators demonstrating individual technologies but nothing has been put together yet?
The idea of XSP isn't terribly different from this seaplane concept if you really think about it - if we can build rockets and a planes, why can't we combine the two? If we can build boats and planes why can't we combine the two? pen-pineapple-apple-pen. In all seriousness, the idea can often be if we have demonstrator A that demonstrates tech A and demonstrator B that demonstrates tech B, why not try to combine them and see if we can make it viable?
Boeing terminated the XSP program and as a result, DARPA had to terminate the program. I'm not terribly familiar with the project, but preliminary google searches turned up nothing in terms of whether the project was mismanaged (and if so, who mismanaged it). DARPA said there weren't technological bottle necks, but that hardly gives any clear reason why Boeing terminated the XSP program.
I have no idea where this came from. I haven't seen anyone say that about any DARPA program but if you've got a source, I'd love to read it.
Don't give me wrong - as a passionate red blooded American, I too find failed projects frustrating, but misdirected ire leads to people questioning and shutting down things that are extremely vital for the very things every single red blooded american defense sleuth cares about. You have a right to be angry but you should figure out exactly where to direct that anger towards. Often times the culprit isn't any single person or organization, but rather the state and the mutual interactions of everyone and everything invovled.
Last edited:
