Talk:DARPA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

advertising[edit]

This article reads a bit like an advertisement or corporate resume. There has been a great deal of criticism of darpa's role in US technology. Whilst I am not a critic, it was this aspect which I wanted to research when reading this article. That nothing of this nature is mentioned here, is a cause for the dispute of this article's neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.232.119.136 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was then (four years ago) -- Better now? -- AstroU (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect?[edit]

I believe this sentence: "In the area of information processing, DARPA made great strides, initially through the development of time-sharing (all modern operating systems are descendants of the Multics system, which resulted from the work started by DARPA in this area),(...)" is incorrect. Multics was a cooperation between Bell Labs, MIT and General Electric. Bell Labs opted out and created UNIX. The University of California, Berkeley co-develloped UNIX with Bell Labs and signed a contract in 1980 with DARPA. I will look into this further before changing anything.

update: I looked it up and it seems that DARPA funded MIT with a two million dollar grant to participate in the Multics project. The information is not incorrect, just incomplete (duh). Changed it to: "In the area of information processing, DARPA made great strides, initially through its support of the development of time-sharing (all modern operating systems are descendants of the Multics system, a coöperation between Bell Labs, General Electric and MIT, which DARPA supported by funding Project MAC at MIT with a two-million-dollar grant),"

open source[edit]

believe it or not, DARPA actually contributed to the existence of the open source concept by 'funding' Berkeley Software Distribution. [1]. will write about it later.

Requested page move[edit]

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency → DARPA — Common name, even DARPA calls itself by that name. (Also per [What links here ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved, per reasonable request, no opposition. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Found you, TNKS, AstroU (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for citation[edit]

I removed a "citation needed" from the mission section, because the entire thing is a quote. We can't provide citations for content in block quotes from other sources - if you think the main source is unreliable then paraphrase it or remove the section.

Move issue - again[edit]

There was discussion above to move this page to DARPA, because that's the common name, the name used in most media, and the name used primarily by DARPA itself. We have precedence in NASA. There was no objection (silence=consensus), and so the move took place in October 2006. Then, in December, another editor came along and unilaterally decided to move it back with no discussion, and no comment/follow-up to the previous discussion. So, I am here-by again proposing that this page be moved to DARPA. Comments? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. The protocol is to ask the community to overturn previously discussed decisions rather than to unilaterally revert them. Since there was't much of a discussion before I don't have a problem restating the case (it's pretty simple really), but the status quo is DARPA. ~ trialsanderrors 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree that DARPA is the most common and why should anyone care? The redirect from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency takes care of finding it easily enough. IMO moves should only happen to correct something like when I transposed some letters in a title once. Or for merging pages, not just because someone likes the other name better. Use a redirect. --Colputt 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - should be at DARPA just as NASA is there. - BillCJ 23:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of DARPA in Metal Gear Solid[edit]

I added this to the section entitled "DARPA in Fiction", but it was deleted. I don't know why it was deleted. DARPA plays an important role in the game, as the co-inventor of the antagonist machine in that game, and the game is fiction, ergo, that being added to the DARPA in Fiction section, is very much appropriate. You can find the "DARPA Chief"'s (as well as DARPA's fictional plan's)appearance here. C. Pineda 07:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because "in Fiction" and "in popular culture" sections are generally considered to be trivia, and are not encyclopedic. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a "in Fiction" section. It already exists, so why not add upon it? C. Pineda 19:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In MGS DARPA plays a major roll twice because in MGS3 the character Sigint(thought to be the fictional Chief Donald Anderson in MGS1 since MGS1 takes place in 1999 and MGS3 in 1960's) is said to be one of the founders at the end of MGS3 and Donald Anderson plays a key roll along with the company of DARPA as the co-developers of Metal Gear with a (I believe fictional)failing company called arms-tech. Meaning in fiction they would have been the ones to make Metal Gear Rex the result of 30 years of technological advancements and thus securing it's place in "in fiction" and not pop culture and plus if that is the case and it still lands under Pop culture A. Make a Pop culture sections since it appears in Metal gear and Ace combat not to mention animes and B.change the aircraft part of that whole warning you guys got before you post something —Preceding unsigned comment added by GasSnake or Poison Oak (talk • contribs) 00:17, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
I agree you can't just have a section called "ARPA and DARPA in fiction" and if you don't like something you call it trivia, delete it and still allow what you like to stay. You can't pick and choose what fiction you put in there. Fiction is fiction and what you did was very biased, that's the very reason why I'm still unsteady of the whole Wiki idea of an encyclopedia. Furthermore you can't just label something trivia and delete it while there is an entire page dedicated to this "trivia". 71.10.168.69 (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A better question would be "is there really a Darpa Chief", I mean is there really a "chief" rank in Darpa? And who holds it at the moment? JayKeaton (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The head of DARPA is called the director, and is currently Tony Tether. LouScheffer (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Trivia sections seems relevant here. Squideshi (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What appearances are notable?[edit]

Perhaps a good test here would be if only DARPA would do - if you could substitute some other agency just as well, then the appearance was for name only. Also, it only makes sense if the proposed operation was reasonably close to DARPAs charter. Here are my opinions, others welcome

  • The earliest mention of ARPA in fiction may well be in Tom Swift and the Visitor from Planet X[1], published in 1961.
  • Makes sense, against an unknown scientific threat DARPA scientists would be ones to consult.
  • Not likely, though DARPA might investigate the potential military uses of Thyrium, or genetically enhanced gorillas, actually making weapons and fielding forces would fall to other organizations. For example, DARPA investigates new airplane technologies, but a secret squadron of the air force actually fields the stealth planes.
  • DARPA and ARPA are brought into context in episodes of The West Wing. In one, a DARPA employee, Dr. Max Milkman, discusses the difference between the two, and focuses on some of the organization's operations and projects.
  • This makes sense since it is DARPA specific
  • In James Rollins' books Sandstorm (2004), Map of Bones (2005) and Black Order (2006) some of the main characters are part of a fictional organization called Sigma Force, a covert branch of DARPA, tasked with safeguarding, acquiring, or neutralizing "technologies vital to U.S. security."
  • This makes no sense since DARPA does not field operational branches.
  • In The Patriot Steven Seagal's character was a former DARPA scientist who specialized in biological research.
  • Not notable; the organization could be any one of many.
  • Not plausible. The CIA, NSA, and other organizations are responsible for framing.
  • In Executive Decision a fictitious DARPA project that has developed a plane that can link up with a 747 in mid-air is used to board the hijacked plane.
  • This one makes sense. DARPA might sponsor a one-of-a-kind gadget like this, as opposed to a combat force.
  • In Metal Gear Solid, DARPA are building the new "Metal Gear", i giant bipedal, nuclear capable tank.
  • Not notable - the DARPA chief would be an unlikely hostage, and unlikely to know details of current weapons. Also, ARPAs budget is relatively small by military standards; you would want to bribe someone else other than the DARPA chief to fund a nuclear robot. (The NSA is much better known for large black projects, and the chief of the NSA would make a much better hostage, since he knows where more bodies are hidden...) LouScheffer 02:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just watched an episode of the CBS drama "Eleventh Hour" for the second time that centered around a rogue DARPA researcher, and although this show is a bit far-fetched sometimes, I found all the DARPA references to be pretty on-the-mark (except I don't know that the director would actually have as much security as they showed on the show). Actually, it was that episode that lead me to come to Wikipedia and read up, and everything they said on the show -- even the quote about "100 geniuses and a travel agent" -- was on Wikipedia. I was, for once, impressed -- particularly considering how sloppy some shows can get with their facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.165.239 (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The security for the director is just for dramatic effect. The real head of DARPA (currently Tony Tether) shows up at public events (such as the DARPA "Grand Challenge" robot car races) without any special protection. LouScheffer (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Victor Appleton II, 1961. Tom Swift and the Visitor from Planet X, originally published by Grosset & Dunlap of New York, now re-published by Project Gutenberg. ARPA is referred to on page 68.

Von Braun[edit]

Someone recently added mention of "the nazi werner von braun" being involved in darpa. It was removed as possible vandalism. From what i know, i think von braun may have been involved but we need sources, people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LinoPop (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the comment referred to the Defense Department, not DARPA. von Braun worked for the Army at the time. Bongomatic (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant to this article whether von Braun was a Waffen-SS officer or not. The addition of questionable comments such as that into the text is typical of vandalism, but is also typical of POV pushing. Sourced or not, it doesn't belong in this article. Von Braun primarily worked with the US Army, and later NASA, if I recall correctly. - BillCJ (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He and the other German rocket scientists were in the Army Ballistic Missile Agency at Redstone Arsenal until the team got moved over to NASA in 1960. My von Braun book says ARPA's main role when formed in 1958 was to oversee the space proposals of the military branches with a final veto on defense related applications. So the team still worked for the US Army. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek[edit]

This page is very biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.31.148.203 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind being more specific as to how it's biased? Mind-reading abilites don't work over the internet. - BillCJ (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe DARPA will fix that someday with a research program on internet mind reading. Ketone16 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 6 months since an anonymous user claimed the page was biased, and nobody's coughed up any more detail on how. Time to nuke the flag?Valdis (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former Offices[edit]

So are ATO and SPO former offices or not? The heading says they are, but the paragraphs sound as if they're not. Odestiny (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not. I changed the descriptions to past tense. Ketone16 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV at "DARPA as a model" section[edit]

I've added the POV-section, because I think statements like "100 geniuses connected by a travel agent" without a good reference is POV. Also "Outstanding program managers: The best DARPA program managers have always been freewheeling ... The Director’s most important task is to recruit and hire very creative people with big ideas, and empower them.".
Where are we here? It seems like a PR hiring advertisement. If the section is not going to be corrected, it should be removed. --  eagleal  01:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that it is not required to remove the full section, only the POV parts. --  eagleal  01:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These statements come directly from DARPA: they are the image DARPA itself presents to the outside world. They do not come from a disinterested observer, so it is an open question whether they provide a realistic description.Fconaway (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99 red luftballoons (from russia with love)[edit]

DARPA has just started a 40k USD competiton to find 10 hidden red balloons scattered over CONUS, to celebrate 40 years of the net and to make fun of the "peaceniks", as represneted by the german treehugger pop band NINA.

See: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/46944

By the way, the GRU Space Command has already won the competition... 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this was intended to make fun of the peaceniks. Ketone16 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "Red Balloons" pointer[edit]

The current (as of December 4-5) balloon competition has a pointer to one of the competitive groups trying for the prize. Since we couldn't seem to get Wikipedians together to try for the prize, I changed the pointer to the DARPA site, to avoid giving the previously-pointed-to group an advantage (No hard feelings, I hope). Bunthorne (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Logo Updated[edit]

8 January 2009 - This is the most up-to-date logo: commons:File:DARPA_Logo.jpg DARPAOutreach (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Steven Rose[edit]

Nice page indeed. I dare to add this section just to ask if reporting a quote from Steven Rose might be useful, and eventually how to report it, from the book "The 21st Century Brain". The book is divided into various sections, one of which dedicated to the study of the brain made by Agencies such as DARPA. Rose is, i believe, a controversal figure, as his declarations were questioned, so the quote is cleary affected by bias against the military way of conducing researches. I'm italian and for languages reasons i don't know to report it well, but in the mentioned section there are a bunch of "relevant", i think, episodes about DARPA. bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.243.140 (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BusinessWeek resource[edit]

Tip for Bad Guys: Burn, Don't Shred; Coders win a Darpa challenge to reassemble shredded documents

99.190.86.5 (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of DARPA projects[edit]

At the moment, the Projects section is an indiscriminate list of wikilinks. I would much prefer an approach like List of SRI International spin-offs that gives more detail about each; and every entry is referenced. Disavian (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is for this reason that I am removing the split tag. Perhaps Improve would be more appropriate? Op47 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might be so bold to add that a good number of those active projects have only the information made available to the public. Many of DARPA's projects are classified, or at least the details of them are. I think the generic name and description work fine for here.SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I am a software engineer, and most of these projects are fascinating. I think other readers will appreciate a very brief description so they can intelligently navigate. I am trying to write brief, direct descriptions for each. The goal is that each project has a date/era, a short sentence describing the project, and if appropriate, its legacy-- for example, for example, ARPAnet became the internet, onion routing is how Tor works under the covers, the Aspen Movie Map led to Google Street View 20 years later. Sometimes, as is the case ARPAnet, the legacy (the internet) is enough to describe it altogether. With this information, a user should get a good idea of what the codename means. Maybe we can convert it to a format like the list you linked to when its fleshed out. Zeldafreakx86 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Key characteristics = marketing fluff?[edit]

The key characteristics in the article seem to be straight out of a marketing flyer handout rather than objective descriptions with relevant sources cited.

Sudiptachatterjee (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear resopnse robot[edit]

I read an editorial (Tech Jewel October 2013 Florida Trend page 144) about a competition to develop a robot capable of responding to a nuclear disaster (or similar event where its unsafe for humans to be used to respond) but I can't find anything in this article on it. Several teams are competing for the prize in the competition being held December, 2013. Seems like it is at least worth coverign here if not in a separate article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New DARPA news[edit]

Headine-1: SPACE DARPA Hopes To Build Plug-In Satellites In Space — March 11, 2014

QUOTES: “Imagine self-healing satellites built in space.” ... “Gen. [William] Shelton [who heads Air Force Space Command] says he wants to do more of this, but..." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

External Links - means out of the Wikipedia? Why every link is belong to en.wikipedia.org in this section ??? 128.73.154.146 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of article DARPA[edit]

 – In order to get attention, as Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is only a redirect to here. -- Sam Sing! 15:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to cancel this redirection to proceed with the renaming of article DARPA (acronym) with the title text, easier to understand in other articles (possibly restore after the renaming is effective). Trackteur (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this correctly the proposal is to delete Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to make way for a page move of DARPA to Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Judging from Google searches nothing has changed since this was last discussed (see earlier discussions on this talk page) and DARPA is still the WP:COMMONNAME, so I oppose the proposal. -- Sam Sing! 15:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that, and it is much easier to understand for a not especially knowledgeable reader, especially for all other articles which acronym is used as wikilink. Thank you for them. Trackteur (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand either message from the OP, but I agree with Sam that DARPA is the COMMONNAME and should be the article title, & therefore oppose any move. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit exaggerated because for many readers around the world, DARPA is not a COMMONNAME (exeption made perhaps for all readers using English as native language or Anglo-Saxon culture). Your point of view is not quite international. Trackteur (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have to reflect anything but that which is common in English, as this is the English Wikipedia. (Mind you, English is not my native language.) What other Wikipedias might wish to title this article in order to reflect what is common in other languages, that's entirely up to them. You can of course open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on this, if you wish. Best, -- Sam Sing! 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite simple to understand, for exemple:
  • Italiano: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Espagnol: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • French: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • German: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Best regards. Trackteur (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as well as all the other articles involving, ARPA, DARPA ... ARPANET, make it perfectly clear what the acronyms stand for, and this page has a redirect in place from the long version, so I don't understand where such a "confusion" can possibly come from. All of these acronyms are the primary names by which the subjects are addressed, in formal context, as well as media and speech, and not only in the US. Other language WP project may well have other habits. Kbrose (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a problem of "confusion" but of "understanding", many readers and contributors are not Anglo-Saxon culture and does not easily understand this acronym. Trackteur (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether people understand the name is actually irrelevant. These are like names used in official capacities. I would venture to say that more people understand the acronyms than what they stand for. Please stop this non-sensical edit warring. Kbrose (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters, I also oppose this move. I understand where you're coming from, and in general, you're right. The article for NSA is, and should be, "National Security Agency." But DARPA is unique in that it has been around for decades and is never referred to by its non-acronym name. It is like NATO or OPEC. (edit: another established example is NASA, as mentioned by another above) (by Zeldafreakx86 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)) No one ever refers to NATO as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or OPEC as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. And as others have noted, this being the English Wikipedia, I believe we should appeal to English readers in these exceptional cases. Zeldafreakx86 (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warp Drive research NASA Harold White[edit]

Hoi, isn't DARPA also involved in the warp drive research under Harold White? http://gizadeathstar.com/2014/12/update-dr-harold-sonny-whites-nasa-warp-drive-research/ --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New NEWS today, unmanned sub dectectors[edit]

This is astounding news .!. 

Headline-1: DARPA's unmanned sub-hunter set to revolutionize naval warfare

QUOTE: "A new vessel will patrol the world’s oceans hunting and tracking enemy submarines – and it will execute missions without a single human aboard. ... On Tuesday DARPA tweeted a picture of ACTUV being prepared for sea trials in the spring. ... this drone could hunt the enemy for months. ... How quiet is quiet? Reports suggest that some of these [Iran] subs can be 15 decibels more quiet than a humpback whale. Iran claims to have fleets of these sneaky subs." -- AstroU (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing, with picture and video.[reply]

This is HUGE! {[({And big, too :-) })]} What is interesting, at several levels, is that DARPA is being very public with their Tweet and April reveal. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Did you see the picture and watch the video in the article?[reply]

2018 film[edit]

In Tremors: A Cold Day in Hell DARPA members are involved in the film and a sign (DARPA not a misspelled acronyn) hangs on a fence with constantine wire at the top. I saw that the article was large and had an editing warning so I just thought I would list this and you can decide. Otr500 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Active projects[edit]

The Active projects section is a mess. It's a horribly out-of-date and unencyclopedic section. The section title says these are all "Active projects", yet there is no source evidence that this is true for nearly all of the statements in the various bullets of the section; there is plenty of evidence that many were active some 3 to 10 years ago. Given the way DARPA does projects, most projects never last into their fourth year; they are halted, or morph into something else. Part of this is a result of the way DARPA brings on project leads, which are nearly exclusively short-term for 2-3 years, with the intent to go after a particular project with a particular scope for a few years, and only keeps going if the early project milestones are met.

I initiated today a massive cleanup effort on the section, tagging and identifying some of the issues that need addressed in order to improve the article. Other editors could continue identifying issues, or help by checking sources to see if we can say any more than "project xyz was an active project in year yyyy", or moving the definitely non-active stuff out (deletion or some other section), etc.

There is MUCH more to do. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early history (1958–1969) contains what I believe to be an error.[edit]

I read the sentence beginning: "ARPA at this point (1959)". The second sentence begins "Fast-forward to 1959 when a joint effort between DARPA". So, two points: 1. This sentence appears to be saying we are fast-forwarding from 1959->1959! and, 2. The implication is that DARPA existed in 1959, but later in the article, it is stated that ARPA was renamed DARPA in 1972. This is rather confusing. So, I would contend that the year referenced in the second sentence (also) "1959" is incorrect, and should be modified. Willylang (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DARPA in fiction[edit]

DARPA plays a role in The Last Oracle by James Rollins and maybe other novels by him (based on hints in the book. Kdammers (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MILPOP on how to determine if a fictional appearance is noteworthy. Remember, this is not a list of every fictional appearance ever. Per WP:MILPOP: "'In popular culture' sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture." BilCat (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflating ARPA and DARPA is confusing[edit]

Please separate entries for ARPA and DARPA. 76.176.34.224 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same agency, just under modified names in certain periods. There's no need too separate them, unless you can cite reliable published sources that they are considered separate agencies. BilCat (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding ICE Program to active projects[edit]

Another active Darpa project is their ICE program, as referenced in this article: https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2022-08-16 140.194.40.44 (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DARPA&oldid=1218905267"