DARPA Wants To Seed the Ocean With Delayed-Action Robot Pods 67
coondoggie writes "This plan sounds a bit like a science fiction scenario where alien devices were planted in the ground thousands of years ago only to be awoken at some predetermined date to destroy the world. Only in this case it's the scientists at Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency who want to develop a system of submersible pods that could reside in the world's oceans (presumably not in anyone's territorial waters) and be activated for any number of applications days, months or even years later."
I make these (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I make these (Score:4, Funny)
Mr. Lovecraft? Haven't you got the dates confused? I guess I'm not too surprised, you being dead for quite some time.
Sooooo (Score:1)
They'd become the Delayed-Action Robot Pods of America?
Re: (Score:1)
Delayed action = Wait until I get out of the pool before you turn it on. Who knows what it will do.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
TFA says (glibly)
Almost half of the world's oceans are more than four kilometers deep. This provides considerable opportunity for cheap stealth. The vastness and depth make retrieval costs prohibitive.
This of course totally misses the point that you need only recover ONE, and reverse engineer that one to obtain control over the rest.
If a relatively unsophisticated enemy can surf our live drone video stream in Pakistan right off of our own satellites, what would prevent a state sponsored group from recovering one with ROVs. Once you have one, you could theoretically take over control of these pods, launching them all at once to expend themselves well ahead of some planned attack
WTF DARPA? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't get it.
http://www.benthos.com/undersea-acoustic-release-modem-SMART-SM75.asp
The article must be glossing over what makes this unique. Do they want a factor of 10 reduction in price? I've been working on the problem of cheap deep water electronics for nearly a decade so this is relevant to my interests(honestly who in the field of oceanography hasn't? Nobody wants to pay a ship to go un-fuck a $100 science project and mass production of gizmos is not the core competency of scientists in most cases).
DARPA is essentially throwing up their hands at the problem of locomotion and saying it's cheaper from an energy standpoint to just pepper the ocean with lots of sensors than to transport a single sensor over lots of territory pushing water out of the way of its course. "Sensors" is a pretty broad catch-all for payload and can vary in price significantly, impacting the truth of that assertion.
Changing batteries isn't cheap so disposable is desirable. Why not just embed a cell phone in a block of epoxy or polyurethane? It is cheaper to drop ballast than it is to displace 100ATM of water, so they might as well settle on a solenoid fired shear pin or electric door strike type mechanism. Syntactic foam and you can do the whole thing with a cheap prepaid, a pic processor, and a solar cell. Battery life scales with price so that is a matter of mission endurance priorities.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You are totally oblivious.
Cell phones are nothing but low cost & mass produced ARM development kits with WiFi adapters and cellular modems that have had the driver compatibilities hashed out by the manufacturer. The user interface is totally redundant in this application, but I'm sure your next line of questioning is "How are you going to use a touch screen through a block of epoxy!"
Use your imagination because I don't feel obligated to connect the dots for someone who thinks that pointing out cellular
Re: (Score:2)
I have a question. These would be tethered to bouys? So the solar cell you mentioned would be on the bouy, right?
I'm not challenging you, I'm just trying to follow.
Your explanation was fine, but I'm not sure I understand the physical configuration.
Re: (Score:2)
No, of course. I'm just trying to visualize the physical setup. Right now, I'm thinking a little box with business end of things laying on the bottom of the ocean (or close to it), tethered to a micro-bouy with a solar cell on it. Or does enough sun make it to the bottom of the (relatively shallow, since it's near the coast) sea?
I don't want him to give me blueprint
Re: (Score:3)
Try reading TFA. (Yeah, I know).
They want something sitting on the ocean floor tethered to NOTHING. When it receives a signal, it becomes buoyant, rises to the surface and becomes active, and perhaps even launches an airborn observation platform, (probably balloon or short life drone).
Until triggered, it is essentially inert, it has no connection with the surface, so a long life power source is needed to keep the radio listening. They are looking for the capability to handle multiple different typ
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, that's the part I missed. I read the article, but that "rise to the surface" part didn't register.
Thanks for being a gentleman about it and not pointing out the deficiency in my reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
Photo voltaic recharging at 4000 feet deep?
You didn't bother to read the article did you?
Re: (Score:2)
Aircraft carriers don't have dicks to hang in the wind. If you want to see dick, ship out on a destroyer. We are what the airedales wish they were. We are what the airedale's girlfriends and wives were looking for. The Corps is still looking for a few good men, but the best men have already shipped out aboard DESTROYERS!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
saying it's cheaper from an energy standpoint to just pepper the ocean with lots of sensors than to transport a single sensor over lots of territory
Well, yes. There are many scenarios where it would be very cost effective to monitor a large area with scattered smart sand grains, each equipped with enough sensors to do whatever and some method to report back. Toss out a few million of them and wait, then correlate the results being fed back. If some of the sand grains get trashed, oh well. You sent out lots of them. Some will survive.
In a sense, this kind of tracking is nothing but motion capture on a very different scale than putting dots on a
Re: (Score:2)
What on Earth makes you think that they give a fuck about making it cheap? DARPA is a part of the Defense Department. We're talking about the only branch of the government that actually gets more money from Congress than they ask for.
Re: (Score:2)
DARPA is essentially throwing up their hands at the problem of locomotion and saying it's cheaper from an energy standpoint to just pepper the ocean with lots of sensors than to transport a single sensor over lots of territory pushing water out of the way of its course.
Have you seen how our military operates?
The Army has hundreds of overseas bases that cost megabucks to build, operate, and staff... just to host an airport or signit or [other].
They have no problem "pre-staging" a hundred million dollars worth of hardware on the off chance it might be needed in some random corner of the world.
One of the problems with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is that the military has more or less emptied its overseas stashes and is now much less capable of responding to new events.
The i
Re: (Score:2)
DARPA is essentially throwing up their hands at the problem of locomotion and saying it's cheaper from an energy standpoint to just pepper the ocean with lots of sensors
Static Sensors is not the principal focus here. The navy has been using sonobuoys for decades, and yes they do just pepper the ocean with them.
The payload of these pods would have active components, Waterborn or Airborn (drone or balloon) that could be triggered into action to provide eyes and ears on events of interest without having to wait till a carrier with drone capabilities arrived on scene. They are specifically talking about unarmed pods with surveillance payloads that lurk on the ocean floor, pe
Re: (Score:3)
Star Trakcs (Score:1)
I guess this reinforces my notion that DARPA is made up of trekkies.
Security (Score:4, Insightful)
These things will need some kind of command and control interface. It will have to be deployed for years, decades perhaps. If anyone finds a security vulnerability they get to own a global botnet of actual robots. Considering drones have already proven prone to hacking I'd be a little bit concerned about this.
Re:Security (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe a list of one-time pads kept securely in the DoD? I could definetely see value in being able to secure a coastline by sailing around dumping a load of smart mines armed with supercavitating torpedos and advanced sensors with the ability to tell friend from foe. Or even better, send a sub around an enemy's coastline and drop them invisibly, break in case of war. Instant blockade! Given how important control of the ocean is, this could well be an overwhelming advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a mine, so you don't have to disclose them. There is no ordinance payload.
These are not mines. They do not explode.
Let me state that in another easier to understand way: THESE ARE NOT MINES.
Rest of your rant is pretty pointless until you RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
In other terms there is an ordinance payload, the payload does explode and they are most assuredly min
Re: (Score:2)
A one time pad is fine if your implementation is absolutely perfect. Can you be sure there are no vulnerabilities in the sub's software?
Given how important control of the ocean is, this could well be an overwhelming advantage.
Yes, especially when your own drone subs start ramming your ships because someone fooled their GPS, just like Iran did with your airborne drones. Unlike airborne drones your enemy could have decades to work on cracking your security while the subs sit idle.
Activation code: (Score:3)
They've done this already (Score:4, Insightful)
They're called mines
Can't make out what to think of this? (Score:2)
Read it as:
"China Wants To Seed the Ocean With Delayed-Action Robot Pods".
Not all that novel (Score:3)
Sure, the ongoing concept of robots that can do something eventually is specifically novel, but the idea of submerging (concealing) something in the ocean for later activation and use is the old idea of captor mines - a concept at least 50-60 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR [wikipedia.org]
Their concept is little more than a replacement of the torpedo/warhead with a robotic intelligence-gathering module.
Re: (Score:3)
Their concept is little more than a replacement of the torpedo/warhead with a robotic intelligence-gathering module.
A robotic intelligence-gathering module that lies inert at 4000 feet deep doing nothing until you need an aerial reconnaissance platform in some remote corner of the globe. At which time you trigger it remotely, if floats to the surface, launches a balloon or remotely piloted aircraft with satellite up-link capabilities.
Somehow I think that's reasonably novel.
You've managed to totally misread TFA. There is no plan to have automated munitions deployed. These are not autonomous area denial weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
READ TFA.
These are not weapon platforms.
How do they tell friend from foe (Score:3)
especially at some future date.
Land mines also have this problem
Re: (Score:3)
Accepted by the deployer, usually not the deployee. Then the deployers often end up surprised that some of the deployees carry a grudge about the whole thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Modern sea mines are programmed with target profiles based on passive audio and magnetic signatures.
They can not only be programmed to single out a specific class of vessel, but even a single vessel within a class.
Re: (Score:2)
These are not weapons. READ TFA and stop making a fool out of yourself.
Caught my limit ... (Score:2)
Please don't do it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Dave69: Please read TFA, These are not weapons and they are not mines.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
3 Laws Safe? (Score:2)
Cocoon 3 plot? (Score:1)