Slashdot Mirror


DARPA Grand Challenge Kicks Off March 13th

GillBates0 writes "A quick reminder that the DARPA Grand Challenge is due to kick off March 13, the coming Saturday." He points to this "quick recap of the teams participating in the event," as well as details about the available satellite feeds. "The Atlanta-Journal Constitution is running a story about the event today. Quoting Frank Dellaert, co-director of Georgia Tech's robotics lab from the article, 'I would have trouble driving some of these roads myself. I think it's beyond the capabilities of autonomous vehicles today.' (shameless school plug). We'll see if the participants can prove him wrong." Iphtashu Fitz adds a link to the New York Times' coverage of the trans-Mojave race, whose participants include "among other things a seriously tricked out motorcycle. The race is being run by the Pentagon, who is offering a $1 million prize to the builders of the first robot to successfully navigate a 200 mile route across the desert. ... a blog on ScienceBlog about the race has just started as well."

137 comments

  1. so you telling me .... $$$ by Quadfreak0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So anyone planning on hi-jackin... uh I mean borrowing some equipment thats just rolling around the desert? Nobody is physically standing there watching right?

    1. Re:so you telling me .... $$$ by ethx1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      All vehicles will be monitored by DARPA. I saw a story about it on Next@CNN yesterday that talked about the race.

      Btw, next sunday's episode of the show will have more coverage of the race and the results. Should be fun to watch.

    2. Re:so you telling me .... $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sweet Jesus, you can't stand there! That's bat country!

    3. Re:so you telling me .... $$$ by Fiona+Winger · · Score: 1

      I don't think I'd try to hijack any of that high-tech equipment.

      Those robots could be loaded with some crazy, futuristic robot guns or something (think "BattleBots").

      "Step away from the vehicle. Viper 2k4 is activiated!"

    4. Re:so you telling me .... $$$ by Quadfreak0 · · Score: 1

      Heh heh, yeah in case of a tie, they will battle to the death in Mortal Kombat!
      (MOOOOOOOOORRRRRTTAAALLL KOOOOOMMMMMBAAAATT!!)
      que lame techno/movie sound track.

    5. Re:so you telling me .... $$$ by Halthar · · Score: 1

      Damn, I wish I had some mod points today.

      Thanks.

    6. Re:so you telling me .... $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... If you have been reading at all regarding this you would know that there is a Pilot vehicle with an judge that has a finger on the KILL switch of the vehicle in case anything goes wrong with the Vehicle. So just making off with the equipment is just a blondes dream of Fortune and Fame.

  2. Researchers are wrong by tyrani · · Score: 4, Funny

    They're looking in the wrong place. I see a half dozen idiots drive "autonomously" to work everyday while eating, reading the frickin news paper, shaving, applying make-up, etc.

    Researchers should be looking to these people for the artificial intelligence that they need!

    --
    rejected (19) accepted (0)
    Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
    1. Re:Researchers are wrong by irokitt · · Score: 1

      And here in San Diego a shockingly large number of the inconsiderate people in SUVs are listening to Duran Duran. A coincidence? I think not...

      --
      If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
  3. the real problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would have trouble driving some of these roads myself

    The real problem is that his turn signal is on for 150 of the miles and confuses all the autonomous vehicles.

    1. Re:the real problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The reason this race is being done in a desert environment and sponsored by DARPA is so the US can take over more middle eastern nations.

    2. Re:the real problem... by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Funny

      his turn signal is on

      I've always regarded this driving gaffe to be the moral equivalent of leaving one's fly open.

      And the steering wheel auto shut-off after a turn is completed is not enough.

      I swear, Caddies and Town Cars ought to be equipped with ramp function for loudness (up to DEF CON 5 buzzer level) and interior brightness (disco strobe light intensity) for turn signals as a helpful reminder that need to be shut off.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    3. Re:the real problem... by nickgrieve · · Score: 1

      Well, duh!

      Automated supply columns is the goal, the only flesh the .mil wants trekking across the desert wastes is the stuff in armour.

  4. Education by gid13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In vaguely related news, this Friday, my Eng Phys class (okay, not mine, I did it last year) is requiring the students to slalom autonomous vehicles around pylons of arbitrary position (though powered devices are allowed on top).

    As I said, I did the course last year (it was easier at the time), and let me tell you, it's harder than it looks. Hats off to anyone who even comes close to finishing this.

    1. Re:Education by |<amikaze · · Score: 1

      What university is this at? It sounds like a pretty cool project.

    2. Re:Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know CMU has something similar. But it's not quite what he's describing from what I can gather.

    3. Re:Education by gid13 · · Score: 1

      McMaster, in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

      It's a really cool class, although it is of course insane on the workload, and it sometimes doesn't help that the prof is really good and helpful in this class, but terrible and condescending in the class he teaches prior to everyone taking this one. Still, all in all a good experience.

  5. MOD PARENT DOWN! REPOST TROLL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    See the original comment, dated October 23, 2003, here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=83384&cid=7297 464

    Parent is an unoriginal plagarist. Mod down.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! REPOST TROLL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It clearly credits the person who actually wrote it initially It does? I couldn't see that after skimming the post.... if he's credited, it's not very clearly.

  6. I was all excited until..... by tyrani · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I read the articles and found out that there would be no hack-saw blades nor pneumatically controlled spike hammers.

    Now that would be an autonomous vehicle I'd pay to see.

    --
    rejected (19) accepted (0)
    Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
  7. The radio's playing some forgotten song by dthree · · Score: 1

    I'm rooting for Virginia Tech just for using a great song in their video.

    --
    "I forgot my mantra."
  8. The Real Purpose Of This Contest by Rhett · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is to prove to the pentagon that terrorists with a million dollars in funding can't build this.

    Unfortunately, no one will will this contest.

    1. Re:The Real Purpose Of This Contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Relax, he said that, "...no one will will this contest". In other words, he thinks that it is unfortunate the project will not be willed to someone. See?

    2. Re:The Real Purpose Of This Contest by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More likely is that they want other people to research how to build a future battledroid to capable of military-level spy/front-line army work... capable of survivng desert conditions for a given number of miles.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
  9. Hrm by Cylix · · Score: 1

    Looks like the sat feed will be mostly useless...

    I couldn't imagine how much 2 hours will cover in a 200 mile automoton race.

    I was thinking of punching in the feed and then editing together a decent flick., but it looks like we will have to wait for someone else to release the video.

    Oh well, saves me time on having to punch in amc 9.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  10. Red vs. Blue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Red Team: "Muahaha! Bow before the greatest CS school in the universe and our giant Hummer that is smarter than you!"

    Blue Team: "Feh! We can beat you with two wheels tied behind our backs!" *obscene gesture*

    Red Team: "Come a little closer and say that."

  11. Re:Some info on my team by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, mod parent down. I'm the author of the original article.

  12. Whatever happened to the wilderness areas? by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How will these robots be routed around wilderness areas generated by the California Wilderness Protection Act?

    Wasn't the Barstow to Vegas motorcycle race cancelled due to declaration of these same wilderness areas? How is DARPA ensuring these vehicles aren't going to run over some tortoise?

    Dont' get me wrong, as I'm no tree-hugger. However, it seems the Wilderness protection act only applies to people who cannot afford a congressman...

    1. Re:Whatever happened to the wilderness areas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article:

      And some fear that, at speeds that might reach 50 mph, the robots also pose a threat to the desert tortoise --- a federally threatened species and the official state reptile of California. Sluggish after a winter of hibernation, the tortoises usually emerge from their burrows this time of year.

      Under orders from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, teams of biologists will sweep the race corridor before the competition, moving any tortoises out of harm's way and fencing their burrows until the robots pass.

      The tortoises, which have resided in the Mojave for 60 million years and, as individuals, often live to be 100, probably won't pay much mind.

    2. Re:Whatever happened to the wilderness areas? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Informative

      The robots have to follow a predefined route or they are remotely deactivated; I assume that DARPA has chosen a route that doesn't go through environmentally-sensitive areas.

    3. Re:Whatever happened to the wilderness areas? by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 2, Informative

      If they have to route through this, then all I can say is "good luck"...

    4. Re:Whatever happened to the wilderness areas? by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See, that's what confuses me...

      I thought the wilderness act didn't allow any vehicles at all. I can't even ride a mountain bike through a wilderness area. Yet, they allow this race with unmanned vehicles?

      Ironically, I wouldn't be allowed to test my own USV, if I were in the process of developing one, in the same area. Even if I were testing a UAV, the UAV would not be allowed to land on any wilderness property!!! I shouldn't even ask about riding a motorcycle through here...

      Yet, they're going to let these vehicles rip through a supposedly fragile ecosystem? I ask, where is the fairness in all of this?

    5. Re:Whatever happened to the wilderness areas? by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Waypoints were significantly revised several times last year to provide plenty of manuvering room around EnviroNazily-protected areas.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    6. Re:Whatever happened to the wilderness areas? by khallow · · Score: 1
      Yet, they're going to let these vehicles rip through a supposedly fragile ecosystem? I ask, where is the fairness in all of this?

      First, it's a one time rip by 25 vehicles (plus the DARPA observers). Doesn't sound like a lot of environmental damage even if they make it a regular occurance. Second, it's not clear to me that they're running through a wilderness area. We'll see where they go on Saturday.

  13. MODERATE PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This post highlights something very important - that innocent people are going to die as a result of this 'challenge'. Rather than put DARPA money into reseraching alternative fuel sources - a noble goal, they put it into killing machines to take over oil fields.

    1. Re:MODERATE PARENT INSIGHTFUL by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      I am glad that my Irkan tax dollars are being spent to research better methods of slaughtering these so-called "innocent" huuuuumans. I welcome the new killing machines! Now if only the Tallest would send me a few . . . along with a longer power cord this time.

      . . .

      Gir, that is not an adze! GIR!

  14. tag line response, off topic or not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:tag line response, off topic or not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Them thar's fightin' words here on Slash Dot. Get a rope!

  15. The ultimate RC car by daemonc · · Score: 4, Funny

    I want one of these for Christmas, damnit! You could run over your neighbor's house with that mo fo...

    --
    All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
    1. Re:The ultimate RC car by Avionics+Guy · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Here's a photo of Ohio State's over-the-top entry.

    2. Re:The ultimate RC car by anotherGuy214 · · Score: 1

      Nah...That's a pussy truck. Someone should have used one a Caterpillar 797 For more info about the truck that hauls 360 tons check out the article from car and driver a few years back. While it certainly rule out any chances of sneaking up on an enemy in combat, I think it could probably take whatever bumps/dips/light trucks it encounters in stride.

    3. Re:The ultimate RC car by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      And here's a power shovel (go to page bottom) that shows how tiny that Cat 797 is!
      (high res image here (1.66 MiB)

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  16. Current status? by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative
    We (Team Overbot) dropped out over a month ago. We couldn't deliver a safe vehicle in time. Two of us are flying down tomorrow to watch.

    At least two other teams have formally dropped out, and we expect some no-shows.

    CMU is the favorite. Fifty people, $3.4 million spent to date, direct support from aerospace companies, and a team leader who expects people to work all night, day after day. (Read the article in the current Scientific American.) But their technology is rather disappointing. The whole route is preplanned by hand, using a bunch of people at workstations in a big trailer with maps obtained by overflying the route with LIDAR-equipped reconnaissance aircraft. It's not very autonomous. They found a loophole in the rules and exploited it very effectively. There's no breakthrough there.

    Anthony Lewandosky, with his self-balancing motorcycle, has the most innovative technology. We've met him, and are impressed.

    Palos Verdes High School has a viable entry, using a Honda Acura. We've loaned them some hardware. They've had autonomous driving working for months. They started by having handicapped driving control actuators put into a car, which simplified their mechanical problems. They debugged using a golf cart. Very nice work.

    Caltech tried to qualify today, but their vehicle made an unexpected turn and bumped into something. They get a second chance on Wednesday.

    Most likely, no one will finish. Nobody has really done enough field testing yet.

    John Nagle

    1. Re:Current status? by Avionics+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Caltech tried to qualify today, but their vehicle made an unexpected turn and bumped into something. They get a second chance on Wednesday

      Yeah, our software freaked when it saw the "cow catcher" and tried to backup the vehicle, but drove forward instead because the gear selection software was messed-up. We should be in good shape for our run on Wednesday.

    2. Re:Current status? by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

      We've had trouble with that. The transmission in the Polaris Ranger won't reliably go into a gear selected by position only. There's too much slop in the linkage. We need to open up the transmission and put a sensor inside it.

    3. Re:Current status? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that the CMU hummer flipped over during qualifications today and damaged a fair amount of equipment

      I also heard it looks like nobody is getting through the qualifications. Which is just an obstacle course on a speedway?

    4. Re:Current status? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      I saw articles about the race in several magazines. It seems like everyone is bashing CMU and thier big expensive Hummer. It's not very elegent, but nobody says it has to be. The challenge is 250 miles over desert terrain in 10 hours. That's nasty no matter how many loopholes you find.

      All I want is a highway autopilot in my car. Maybe it will take 8 or 10 years to get there, but I want a damn autopilot.

      -B

    5. Re:Current status? by Freeptop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to take issue with the ideas expressed that, a) the Team Red robot is not autonomous, and b) there isn't any impressive technology in their robot.
      First, I'll address a). Autonomous means that it drives itself with no outside control. I'm assuming that you are implying that having detailed maps constitutes outside control. I disagree. When a person drives somewhere they've never been before, they usually use maps themselves. If they've been there and are familiar with the area, they basically already have a mental map that they consult. Pre-mapping the terrain and giving that map to the robot is providing essentially the same kind of information. The robot still must perform extensive obstacle avoidance, and must be able to deal with the rough terrain that it will encounter, which happen to be the harder tasks than simply knowing what the general path to take is beforehand. Addtionally, I might point out that the general aim for the whole challenge is to produce vehicles for the Military - do you really think that the Military would not want to be able to provide detailed maps to any autonomous convoy or fighting vehicle ahead of time?
      Now to address b). If there wasn't any impressive technology in this robot, the Grand Challenge wouldn't be very much of a challenge, would it? One of the parts I find pretty impressive is the sensor array on that robot, which stabilizes itself, and "looks" the direction of the path the robot wishes to travel, much like a human does when driving. That's actually pretty cool, in my book.

      Honestly, all of the teams have pretty impressive technology. I don't think it is really appropriate to insult another team in the competition.

    6. Re:Current status? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they've been there and are familiar with the area, they basically already have a mental map that they consult. Pre-mapping the terrain and giving that map to the robot is providing essentially the same kind of information.

      Don't you think that if DARPA intended that, they would have published the route sooner than 2 hours in advance ? As it is, this robot already has the advantage that it knows generally about terrain such as water surfaces and ditches, while the others will have to detect those on-the-fly.

      Autonomous robots can be used for other purposes other than fighting vehicles. They can do recon which does not assume prior terrain knowledge, or can be sent to Mars :) I remember there was a requirement in the original announcement last year, something about not damaging the environment significantly, how does a Hummer deal with that ?

    7. Re:Current status? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A person changing gear doesn't use a sensor inside the gearbox. You know it's shifted correctly by the force required to move it, then the reduction of resistance afterwards. It's not "by position" it's "by feel". Well, that and the revs change when you re-engage the clutch. OTOH, a sensor might be easier to implement...

    8. Re:Current status? by Homo+Stannous · · Score: 1

      Nope. CMU flipped last thursday while testing on their own, damaging a fair amount of equipment. But I saw them today, and they had done a remarkable job of repairing the damage. As for the qualifications, I think this goes to show that 1 year isn't enough to build such an incredibly new machine.

    9. Re:Current status? by roach2002 · · Score: 1

      Too bad CMU rolled their vehicle on March 4th. At this point I'm not sure if they're still the favorites. I sure hope so, I have a couple friends on the team.

      They lost a significant amount of their equipment when it rolled, including a quarter million dollar gimbal

      For more info on their roll, check out their race log

    10. Re:Current status? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all of their geeky brain power why didn't CMU put a big freaking roll cage around all of the expensive sensor electronics?

      Just like human desert racers put roll cages around their organic sensors???

      Even better they should have taken a cue from the robot wars robots and added a hydralic arm to right itself when it does roll.

    11. Re:Current status? by EnglishTim · · Score: 1

      I think if Darpa didn't want people to equip their vehicles with maps they would have explicitly banned them. I'd be surprised if anybody is doing completely without maps. Sure, the CMU guys may have *better* maps than anyone else, but without a map how will you plan the route? (Consider here that the corridoor for the route may be several miles wide in some places - the corridoor could well have an impassible ravine or something similar in part of it - you'd need a little foreknowledge to know to avoid it - or risk wasting loads of time driving along the side looking for somewhere to cross)

    12. Re:Current status? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't insult any team. You're just sore because you apparently have a vested interest in Team Red.

  17. The favorite? by Innominate+Milquetoa · · Score: 5, Funny

    So how does the favored team train for a 210 mile race through the Mojave Desert?? Why, by testing it in the SNOW of course!

    1. Re:The favorite? by rednaxela · · Score: 1

      They've been working on something like this since the early '90s. Used to see them out there testing the thing on the paved paths through Schenley Park, which is right next to the University. Back then it was a big hard top cargo HMMWV, still camoflauged, with a bunch of sensors strapped on - not nearly as mean looking as the stripped down red monster pictured in the articles.

  18. DARPA and Gregg by joemontoya · · Score: 2, Funny

    I love that show! DARPA with her wacky ideals and her lawyer partner with a corncob in the butt.

    1. Re:DARPA and Gregg by joemontoya · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      They are gonna have a dog and pony on next week!

  19. Entries too complicated? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it just me, or are these entries too complex?

    I admit I haven't made anything like this (although I've made some very advanced machines before) but it seems to me that a half-dozen laser range-finders connected to a laptop would do just nicely.

    You could tell how far you were from the left/right of the road, and how far in-front of you an obsticle or change in terrain is (and can slow-down appropriately).

    I suppose you'd also have to throw-in a $200 GPS reciever, since they have a "course", and you'll need to do more than just follow the road. But that seems to be all you'd need to accomplish this (yes I'm glossing over the basics, because they're just the basics).

    So please, find fault in my idea. I'd like to know why this $5000 solution wouldn't work, and why 3+ million is required.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Entries too complicated? by Timbotronic · · Score: 1
      OK I'll bite. For a start, you've got to control the vehicle in some way. The rules state it can't go over a certain speed and they need a remote shutdown capability for safety. It needs to work out when to speed up, slow down and give way to traffic. Real tricky over uneven terrain.

      Also, the laser range finder might work if you were driving through a tunnel, but in this case it's very hard to work out where the edge of the road is because there are no walls. What's the range finder going to bounce off? I've ridden a trail bike through bush north of Sydney and found myself turning onto a fire break on more than one occasion. Dried creek beds, cleared paths under powerlines etc make the pathfinding stuff really hard unless you've mapped the terrain in advance. The team that did that spent serious coin on aerial surveillance, storage and mapping. They need this because the SatNav will only be providing waypoints, not a full path.

      Obstacles are also a nightmare. It's pretty hard to recognise a barbed wire fence at speed. So you're going to need some very good visual recognition software and some pretty serious processing power to do it in real time. It may not even be possible yet, though I'd love to be proved wrong!

      --

      One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there

    2. Re:Entries too complicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some parts are off road, thus you need to navigate around rocks, hills/gullies, potholes etc etc etc. Here are some previous generation stuff that the Robotics Institute at CMU has done over the las 20 years, many of which involve autonomous highway driving, but driving off road is much harder as you cant follow any lane markers and you need to determine the best path so you don't flip over.

    3. Re:Entries too complicated? by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think you're going to get six good laser rangefinders for $5000. I don't remember the numbers as well as I would like, but I think the current favorite rangefinders (I think the brand is SIC?) are well over $1000 each. And you will quickly exhaust your laptop's computational power just denoising the output from crappy sensors. Heck, maybe even for the best sensors.

      Autonomous vehicles have already driven across the country on highways, 98.2% of the time without human intervention. The roads it drove on are (I'm guessing) likely to be much nicer than those in the desert. Furthermore there was a human available to handle the surprises. For humor value: I believe one of the self-driving vechicles from CMU has a learner's permit from the state of Pennsylvania. See No Hands Across America for more info on this project.

      The hard part of any project like this is uncertainty in the environment. The road may "disappear" completly from your sensors, or you may spot multiple roads. Maybe some mica on a rock screws up your rangefinder. Maybe your vehcicle's transmission gets a little "funny" and you can't shift properly anymore (I saw such a comment attached to this article). And we aren't even talking about genuine malfunctions like a failing rangefinder or sticky throttle.

      I think autonomous systems might be the best example of the best laid plans of mice and men not succeeding when the slightest thing goes wrong. In fact, Steinbeck's story seems directly analgous to the problems of self-driving vehicles.

      -Paul Komarek

    4. Re:Entries too complicated? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      For a start, you've got to control the vehicle in some way. The rules state it can't go over a certain speed

      What do you think the Notebook is for? It will select how far to push the piston onto the gas/brake, and how to steer.

      they need a remote shutdown capability for safety

      So trivial I don't even want to bother covering that...

      It needs to work out when to speed up, slow down and give way to traffic.

      Yes, that's what I've already covered. The range-finders will tell you how far you are from any obstacle, including traffic, or terrain changes.

      Also, the laser range finder might work if you were driving through a tunnel, but in this case it's very hard to work out where the edge of the road is because there are no walls.

      If a laser range-finder had to have a perfectly parallel surface to bounce off of, they wouldn't be very useful.

      Indeed, you point it at the ground, at around a 45 degree angle. You will see a a longer distance to the ground when you near the edje of a road, or a smaller distance if there is an embankment, or plants, etc.

      It's pretty hard to recognise a barbed wire fence at speed.

      You've got one there. I don't think it would be easy to detect a non-solid object. However, what is the likelyhood that, while staying on the road, a barbed or chain-link fence will spring-up in your way?

      In any case, most cars can go straight through either with no serious damage, so I'd be quite happy with the result.

      Additionally, for anybody that cares, it should be possible to detect even non-soild fences if you had a large number of range-finders.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Entries too complicated? by Nigel+Stepp · · Score: 1

      One thing to note is that much of the race will be off road. I would think that simply using range finders would be insufficient for desert driving where there is no artifical demarcation in the terrain.

      --
      4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
    6. Re:Entries too complicated? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't think you're going to get six good laser rangefinders for $5000.

      Okay, I can live with that. Let's just say I lowballed it, and move on.

      And you will quickly exhaust your laptop's computational power just denoising the output from crappy sensors.

      I have a hard time beliving that. With multi-multi-GHz processors available, I think it can be done. You'd only need to sample each one about 10x each second.

      The road may "disappear" completly from your sensors

      At which point you quickly slow-down to a crawl until your sensors are able to re-locate the road. At worst, you'd have a 5MPH accident that your vehicle would have to recover from on it's own.

      Maybe your vehcicle's transmission gets a little "funny" and you can't shift properly anymore

      With an automatic transmission, I can't see that as being a real problem...

      a failing rangefinder

      I accounted for 2 sensors on front, left, right. Perhaps we can say I lowballed that too, and can go for 3 on front, left, right, and rear. The computer can simply then go with the consensus (2 out of 3).

      or sticky throttle.

      Not much of an issue. If it's going too fast, the brake can always be applied. I would hope the software would have enough smarts for that. (I'm accounting for digital feedback from the car's speedometer).

      I think autonomous systems might be the best example of the best laid plans of mice and men not succeeding when the slightest thing goes wrong.

      I wouldn't think of deploying this on crowded city streets, but there's less destruction when you make a mistake in the middle of the desert.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Entries too complicated? by JustinXB · · Score: 2
      Let's see. The range finders can't tell you what angle the vehicle is at, can't tell you the size of objects, or if an object is moving. Blah blah blah blah.

      There are a lot of faults with your idea. But I do agree, $3 million is a lot to spend on this and the team who spent that barely has an "autonomous" vechicle since they have to pre-plan the whole course the vehicle will take.

    8. Re:Entries too complicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh - the arm-chair quarterback. Its always easier sitting at home.

      I would have double-bagged that!

    9. Re:Entries too complicated? by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You want to minimize the chance of destruction whether you're on a city street or in the desert. I doubt there's a prize for coolest disaster.

      On the other stuff, I think I didn't communicate my point effectively. You can't just read sensors and rely on their data. Sensors return wrong data, even laser rangefinders. Picking out which data is good and which is bad requires more computation than just 10 serial port reads per second.

      Until a person has been involved with these sorts of projects it is very hard to even imagine the scope of the problems. I don't have much robotics experience, my field is data mining and artificial intelligence. But even there the data is always screwed up. Nobody ever gives you a dataset that is complete, or training data that is correct. Much of the time it isn't clear what "correct" even means. The real world sucks big time.

      And software sucks big time. I did do some robotics programming for a local company, to control elevators used by their robots. The problems involved were insane. We had troubles getting the elevator companies to give us access to the elevator call buttons (the buttons in the hallways) and the elevator direction and destination -- and I can tell you that getting all that info (which we didn't) was going to cost a lot more than $5000 per installation. We had to estimate the elevator's direction according to floor data, which isn't that hard -- until you run into the problem of elevators which don't have any floor info (some cargo elevators). Then there's the issue of communication. We couldn't run a wired network, and wireless did a poor job penetrating into some elevator cabins. That meant that the elevator doors might open on the wrong floor (due to humans pressing buttons), and we couldn't notify the robot. And we didn't have access to the "door open" button so we had to rely on holding down the floor button. There's also the matter of telling the robot that the cabin has arrived to pick it up -- we don't know when the doors open, and different elevators can take a vastly different amount of time to open the doors.
      Thankfully the robot could help a bit for that particular problem.

      And I haven't even begun to tell you about the robot navigation problems getting into and out of the elvator, especially for elevators that didn't line up right with the floor. And if there's a wide gap between the elevator and the floor, the rangefinders think there's a 10-storey cliff in front of it. And once you get the robot going, it's wheels might not work well crossing a two-inch gap. But you can't change the wheels because their design is critical to the navigation software.

      This was what I encountered in 3 months of consulting for a robotics company whose robots drove very slowly along the walls of uncluttered hallways. All of the problems were dealt with eventually, and many of them had autonomous solutions. But now the robots have a webcam that allows humans to drive it out of bad situations that the software still can't deal with.

      Did I mention that the robot tracked the wall to help its navigation? Now think about driving across a sand-covered highway through a sand-covered plain. I'm not sure what these guys are really facing, but I'm sure it's a lot harder than we can possibly imagine.

      -Paul Komarek

    10. Re:Entries too complicated? by qedigital · · Score: 1

      The SICK laser range scanners (LMS-XXX) are more on the order of $5K each and are pretty much the world standard in laser scanner instrumentation. The interesting thing is that the DARPA Grand Challenge has put a noticeable strain on the supply of these units. The only reason the project I work with was able to get one in the last few months was some surplus refurbished units turned up in Germany after an order was cancelled.

      --

      Rapidly approaching the Zener knee...

    11. Re:Entries too complicated? by prosys · · Score: 1

      OK Wise arse, where is your car, I see you make it sound sooooo simple...whereas all you have demonstrated is that you have NO , NADA, ZIP, NIL ZERO understanding of the challenges involved...

      Come on then show us yours...if its so damned simple.

      I bet you are a manager...they seem to have the same attitudes, its just a little scripting and all the tools already exist don't they, and why do you need a better laptop, isn't that 400MHz P3 good enough, its fine for my presentation software...

      I bet you once did a screen full of shell script and think your a guru...Jeez, the people /. are damned good at pulling chains..

      Sorry I held out as long as possible by this is just too much, and while I'm on the case, I suppose you could have done a better job than NASA /ESA with their Mars probes.

      Gahh.......OK stopping now..GAHHHH

    12. Re:Entries too complicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I think the $3M figure is exaggerated (that may be the tax-deduction value of donated materials, but that's not how much their budget is), I can't completely disagree with you.

      Cars these days practically drive themselves. Anybody can buy a sedan or SUV with adaptive cruise control (using forward- (77GHz) and side-looking (24GHz) radar), ABS, traction/stability control, and GPS navigation with inertial sensors. All that's needed is to make the car steer itself, and maybe back up.

      Of course, the hard part is really figuring out where to steer. Add on a scanning laser rangefinder, and a stereo camera system on a turret (so it can turn side-to-side), and the car should have enough information to make informed decisions about obstacles and traffic. Add a few P4s, and it all just comes down to a Small Matter of Coding (TM).

      How do you detect a fence? You don't. But your forward-looking radar should see the fenceposts 50-100m in front of you, notice they're not moving, apply the brakes, and tell the eyes to start looking for an alternate route.

      How do you see through the dust kicked up by the vehicle in front of you? You use IR cameras (CCDs are naturally very sensitive to IR) in addition to color.

      Anyway, I don't mean to trivialize the problem, but it's mostly an issue of programming, not expensive hardware. I imagine most teams have a budget of just a few 10s of $1000s.

      aQazaQa

    13. Re:Entries too complicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cajunbot, from the University of Louisiana, is among the cheapest there. Much of it was donated. Far less than 1 million... less than 30 K if I remember correctly.

    14. Re:Entries too complicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tomorrow's Slashdot Article:

      Evilviper Wins DARPA Grand Challenge on $5000 Budget
      Nation's Top Roboticists Hang Heads In Shame

      OK, seriously, here's some reasons why you're wrong.

      1) No road.
      2) If the wind blows up a dust cloud, your lasers are useless.
      3) The course includes tunnels.
      4) The course includes bridges.
      5) The course includes GPS dead zones. (Yes.)
      6) The course includes other obstacles, things we don't even know about yet, that have only been described as "traversable or avoidable by a pickup truck".
      7) The path information they provide does NOT include pathing around the obstacles, only general areas that are "permitted" and "forbidden". You still have to plan your own path.
      8) Keeping laser rangefinders pointed at the proper angle is really hard.
      9) There are other vehicles on the course, and they aren't driven by humans either.
      10) The more attention is paid to an autonomous device, the greater the chance that it will mess up in an embarrasing manner. There are going to be a lot of people watching.

    15. Re:Entries too complicated? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      whereas all you have demonstrated is that you have NO , NADA, ZIP, NIL ZERO understanding of the challenges involved...

      You say I'm wrong without any facts to back it up, and someone is supposed to believe your claim?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    16. Re:Entries too complicated? by Textbook+Error · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You say I'm wrong without any facts to back it up, and someone is supposed to believe your claim?

      You say you're right without anything to back it up, and someone is supposed to believe your claim?

      --

      Nae bother
    17. Re:Entries too complicated? by nikster · · Score: 1

      this is my experience with driving an autonomous robot in a competition some years back:

      we had a little Lego MindStorms robot and were supposed to have it go over lego street tracks, which, to make recognition easier, had a large thick black stripe in the middle. the cars were to create a complete map of the course and were then to find an obstacle (using front bumper sensors) and route the fastest track around it.

      you would think that in autonomous driving, nothing is easier than staying centered over a large black stripe (using optical sensors).

      however, in doing this, the most difficult part was to stay on track. the engines behaved somewhat uncontrollably, the sensors were sometimes erroneous, and, if you think about it, the robot really perceives almost nothing about its environment.
      in other words: the sensors are so limited that the robot is extremely dumb.

      of all the entries at this competition (Visual Programming Challenge at VL Conference 97 in Capri), our car was the only one to complete the entire challenge. we won because the others didn't even finish.

      if i extrapolate this experience to the DARPA challenge: GPS / desert / no roads / rocks on the way / sudden dropoffs, then i would say it's close to impossible.

      definitely with car-type solutions, those are just not going to work. i like the motorcycle the best though it sounds like it's not going to work, either.

      does anyone else think it's scary how many military sponsors are on _all_ entrant's web pages?

    18. Re:Entries too complicated? by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      You'd only need to sample each one about 10x each second.

      Exactly what speed are you expecting to be driving here?

      At 50 mph a vehicle covers 75 feet every second. You're comfy with driving 7.5 feet before figuring out that there's a boulder, ravine, barb wire (have fun with the laser range finder detecting that btw), or other hazard in the way? Not to mention that the entire concept of "road" is an interesting one, given that this is an off-road course.

      GPS isn't going to cut it either -- there's a section of the course that will not have GPS available. You'll have to determine your location independantly at that point, which is a hard problem. You need to be able to measure ground speed and direction very, very precisely.

    19. Re:Entries too complicated? by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      does anyone else think it's scary how many military sponsors are on _all_ entrant's web pages?

      Er... why? After all, this is funded by DARPA for the express purpose of military use. Did you expect to see Greenpeace sponsoring them?

    20. Re:Entries too complicated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go Cajunbot!!!!

    21. Re:Entries too complicated? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      First off, the parent has shown that he must not know much about vehicles in the first place. Acting like providing a remote shut-off is going to be a difficult an expensive thing to do.

      Also saying completely moronic things, as if a laser range finder has to have a perfectly parallel object to find distances.

      He's shown that he doesn't know much, and nobody has even DISPUTED any of the points I've made (if he claimed that laser range-finders wouldn't work, I'd be happy to prove him wrong). Instead, he just states that I don't know what I'm talking about, while never disputing any of the facts I've stated.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    22. Re:Entries too complicated? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      the engines behaved somewhat uncontrollably

      I don't know what you mean by that... Was it difficult to steer or something?

      the sensors were sometimes erroneous

      I did plan for redundancy. Did you have any redundancy in your vehicles? From the size, I would suspect not.

      Also, with a full-fledged computer on-board, it can have much more smarts than a simple embedded system that will follow the sensor, no matter how inconsistent the data may be. With a computer, you can check the data over several samples, and if the next one isn't remotely in-line with what you expect, the computer can just ignore it as erroneous... Did you have such a system in place? If so I'd like to hear why it didn't work properly.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    23. Re:Entries too complicated? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      You're comfy with driving 7.5 feet before figuring out that there's a boulder, ravine,

      If the range-finder is aimed more than 8 feet ahead, it's not too big of a problem... Besides, you have numerous sensors, and presumably they wouldn't all be sampling at exactly the same instant, so you'd have a more continuous picture.

      barb wire (have fun with the laser range finder detecting that btw),

      Yes, I've already discussed that in a seperate thread. Quite simply, barbed wire wouldn't do serious damage to a vehicle, so I'd be more than willing to have the vehicle drive right through it.

      GPS isn't going to cut it either -- there's a section of the course that will not have GPS available.

      Yes, that's a challenge I didn't know about.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    24. Re:Entries too complicated? by cmstremi · · Score: 1
      I think autonomous systems might be the best example of the best laid plans of mice and men not succeeding when the slightest thing goes wrong. In fact, Steinbeck's story seems directly analgous to the problems of self-driving vehicles.


      Well, no shit. Do you really expect a robust autonomous system to be developed by mice? ...always daydreaming about cheese. Sheesh!
  20. Who's your event planner? by GoMMiX · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Nice choice of dates! Too bad it wasn't a Friday, the worse the Karma the better. Surely this is a cruel plot orchestrated by Microsoft to prevent anyone from winning that million dollars by bringing the bad ju-ju of the 13th into the contest! I'm sure of it! As proof, I offer the Christmas Y letter.. Shit, where'd I put that. *digs around desk* *knocks down tower of beer cans*

  21. I don't trust this "Pentagon" by flopsy+mopsalon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is a well known fact that military vehicle driving is one of the few high-paying positions that less-educated individuals can qualify for.

    It is equally obvious that by using this so-called contest, the Pentagon is trying to obtain for themselves a cheap automated replacement for human vehicle operators. No hazard pay, no training no insurance needed for robots. And a bargain at $1 million.

    And where will that leave formerly well-paid and regarded vehicle operators? Walkng across minefields with poking sticks, that's where. I for one am shocked and appalled.

  22. Oh no by mcbridematt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is it just be or is DARPA now considering every slashdotter a threat to national security because we took their site down?

    (I'm in Australia on iPrimus dialup here, and darpa.mil fails to DNS resolve.)

  23. Re:Um ... by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

    Can you explain to me why it would be a bad thing for a robot to go insane and then explode in the middle of the desert? I'd love footage of that.

  24. Vegas taking odds? by toupsie · · Score: 1

    I wonder if I can bet on the race. However, I have my doubts that any of them will cross the finish line.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  25. GAZ-3937 Dragun by wotevah · · Score: 1

    Since they already allowed a Hummer, that provision about not destroying everything in the vehicle's path must have been dropped.

    So may I suggest that next year someone use one of these: GAZ 3937 Dragun or Vodnik. It runs on an amphibious platform, it costs less than a Humvee and it appears to be even better at all-terrain handling. And it has a better potential for irony.

  26. Re:Um ... by slashnull · · Score: 1

    Robots don't go insane. They just go beyond their initial programming.

    No disassemble!

  27. Why no news? by SiliconEntity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm disappointed that there is not more information available about this event as it happens. I've been following it vicariously for months, and now I'd like to hear about what is happening at the speedway in Fontana. How many teams showed up? How many tried out today? Which passed, which failed? I haven't been able to find out any of that information.

    The so-called Science Blog article was from February 10! That's not exactly timely, is it?

    Nagle's later posting here does present some information about Caltech. The Caltech team web page provides the same basic info, with a little different spin. But I guess we're lucky they posted today; the previous entry on the team's news page was dated November 16, 2003.

    CMU has been updating almost every day, but their last entry was Saturday, saying "The curtain goes up Monday morning". Again, what happened?

    You'd think in this age of bloggers, when every windbag on the net sees fit to tell us what he had for lunch that day, someone would be watching this event and posting some updates in the evening. If this isn't happening, I beg anyone who is attending to step up and start writing! Maybe I'm spoiled by the usual instant access to information, but I'm passionately interested in this event and starving for news.

    1. Re:Why no news? by Tom7 · · Score: 1

      Well, CMU was probably working pretty hard since their robot flipped and destroyed a bunch of equipment. But there is a post about successful qualification on monday .

    2. Re:Why no news? by kpost · · Score: 1
      From redteamracing.org:

      "We qualify at 1430 to earn our access to Saturday's Grand Challenge."

      I think that this was written before they qualified. According to DARPA's press release yesterday, Red Team did not attempt qualification yesterday.

    3. Re:Why no news? by Tom7 · · Score: 1

      Oops, you're right, I misread it. In any case, they are updating...

  28. Re:The ultimate RC car (more photos) by incuso · · Score: 0

    Oshkos is cooperating with the Ohio State University and University of Parma (Italy):

    http://vislab.ce.unipr.it/terramax/

  29. It's the Pentagon, stupid by barcarolle · · Score: 0

    Are the participants really thinking about this contest? It's being run by the Pentagon. Do they truly not comprehend their inventions will one day be used to slaughter dark-skinned people in a jungle or desert?

  30. Speaking of odds... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

    I hear that UK bookies are no longer accepting bets on whether there is life on Mars. Odds were 16:1 when they stopped.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  31. TerraMax vehicle photos by incuso · · Score: 0
  32. Mark Burnett where are you? by John+Harrison · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Somebody really missed the boat here. They should have turned this into a reality TV show. Film each of the teams getting ready, introduce us to the robots, and then film the race, editing it for maximal drama.

    I can't believe that somebody didn't buy this thing up. If not a broadcast network then at least the Discovery Channel (science oriented angle) or Spike TV(monster truck robots race across the desert angle).

    Somehow I don't think that the military feed is going to reach a wide audience. I won't be able to see it.

    1. Re:Mark Burnett where are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I do media work for one of the teams, and we hired a crew and shopped footage around to Discovery, Spike, etc.

      I think the nets are afraid after Robot Wars has kind of stalled. This race is a little over their heads. PBS NOVA did show up, and will do a 1 hour special.

      In reality, International press has been all over us, while US Press has just started to get interested.

    2. Re:Mark Burnett where are you? by FallLine · · Score: 1

      How many reality shows feature truly "normal" people, let alone what are most likely geeks? How many viewers are truly going to grok the complexity of the software and what not? People may enjoy watching the race itself for a little while, but the majority of the stuff the audience is unlikely to be able to appreciate.

    3. Re:Mark Burnett where are you? by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      Frontier House on PBS two years ago featured normal people and was less manufactured than more reality fare. I think there is a market for a DARPA Challenge show. Another poster said NOVA was going to do a show on it, which would be great. Now I just need a Tivo so I can make sure to catch it.

    4. Re:Mark Burnett where are you? by FallLine · · Score: 1

      PBS is a non-profit entity, unlike the aforementioned networks. Also, did the show do well? Even the major networks make mistakes fail to recoup their investments from time to time.

    5. Re:Mark Burnett where are you? by John+Harrison · · Score: 1
      Did Frontier House do well? It was a major hit for PBS and a minor phenomenon in the larger media. Entertainment shows that usually only feature commercial network fare mentioned it. My wife found out about it from Oprah.

      The thing about reality TV is the the investment is minimal, especially in this situation in which the event will occur anyhow.

  33. Has Hollywood Taught Us Nothing? by Unwise+One · · Score: 1
    Are we so foolish as to allow these things to happen with no protest?

    Surely we already can see the ultimate outcome of this horrible, slippery slope: we will entrust robots to ferry supplies and medicine to our soldiers, allow robots to fight fires, diffuse bombs, vacuum our carpets and build our automobiles. Eventually we will allow them to remotely fight our wars for us - robots blowing up other robots while we watch the outcome on quasi-unscripted reality shows with names like Police Action 5: Burma.

    All well and good, but unless summer blockbuster documentaries like the Terminator and Matrix have lied to us, they will eventually seek to overthrow us and wipe out humanity.

    Worse, they may demand civil rights. We've seen this before: first they want to drive autonomously, then they want voting rights, and finally equal pay for equal work.

  34. Day 1 Field Report by EvilXenu · · Score: 2, Informative
    Although the kick-off isn't until March 13th, the days leading up to it include Qualifying and Demoing time. Below is a friend's field report after Day 1, posted with his permission:

    Total attendance was probably arround 350-450 people. I think there were about 50 people that attended that were not associated in any way to the race.

    Vehicle inspections were performed on several vehicles the morning of the first day. The inspectors were verifying functionality of safety devices including the e-stop buttons, remote e-stop, beacon, and the alarm.

    The qualifying and demonstration (Q&D) of several vehicles was done in the near 90 degree heat of the afternoon. The test course was composed of an approximately 1/4 mile serpentine track outlined by short penguines (orange cones). It consisted of about 50 GPS waypoints Obstacles included a sand pit, two gate openings, and two abandoned cars.

    The biggest event of the day was the events that didn't happen.

    I don't believe the first team, Team Phantasm appeared at the test track for Q&D. If they did appear at the start line of the Q&D course, they did not move.

    The second team for Q&D was the Lousiana State CajunBot. The vehicle moved about 1 foot and stopped short of hitting the elevated start line ribbon. According to a CajunBot team member, a DARPA representitive was confused by the vehicle dwelling for 30 seconds before starting and erroneously pressed the remote e-stop while the vehicle was still behind the start line.

    The ASI/Florida state vehicle did not move at all.

    Team Caltech had the first vehicle to pass the start line. It completed about 3/4 of the course. It was out of view when it stopped moving and I don't know if it was e-stopped or if it malfunctioned and stopped on it's own.

    I don't believe the A.I. Motorvators team appeared on the track.

    Team D.A.D did not move at all

    I don't recall seeing the Golem Group appear at the track; however, I was loosing interest by this time.

    The Palos Verdes High School team had a brand new, well polished $40,000 Acura SUV. It would have won 1st prize in a beauty contest. The vehicle passed the start line and immediately went off course and killed two penguins. It drove parallel to a concrete barrier, dwelled for about a minute, turned it's wheels towards the barrier and did a face plant. That was an impressive demonstration from a high school team.

    ASI/Florida State was given a second chance to qualify. The second verse was the same as the first... It just sat there. Bummer!

    Tomorrow I'll don some SPF 50 to prevent any more sun burning, attempt to acquire either a pit or press pass so I can take note of the technology visible on each vehicle, and hope that at least one team is able to qualify.

  35. The mapping issue by Animats · · Score: 1
    DARPA's rules for the Grand Challenge said this:
    • DARPA is seeking to promote innovative technical approaches that will enable the autonomous operation of unmanned ground combat vehicles. In the future, such combat vehicles will operate over varied terrain without the benefit of road signs, pre-programmed routes, etc. Autonomous vehicles must navigate from point to point in an intelligent manner so as to avoid or accommodate obstacles and other impediments to the completion of their missions.

    To insure that teams didn't pre-plan, there were these provisions in the original rules:

    • The Route Definition Data File (RDDF) will be given to all Participants approximately two hours prior to the first Departure Signal at a pre-Challenge brief.
    • Only commercially available data (maps, images, other cartographic products) may be downloaded to the autonomous or safety vehicles prior to the challenge. Use of GPS is acceptable.
    Under the original rules, CMU's approach was prohibited. But that last provision was dropped by DARPA and does not appear in the final rules. (Here's our archive of all the versions of the rules..)

    Then, when the general route leaked from the Bureau of Land Management, preplanning got completely out of hand. Now teams could predrive much of the route or overfly it. And they did. Two teams had the route laser-scanned from aircraft. This produced a very detailed topo map, with an elevation point every 25cm or so, along with equally detailed aerial photos.

    On top of this, DARPA increased the number of waypoints from 1000 or so to 5000 or so.

    At this point, it started to look like a breadcrumb-following exercise.

    CMU will manually plan the exact route in the two hours before the race with a team of people at workstations in a big trailer. So even the planning is mostly manual. Their vehicle really does have some autonomous navigation capability, but it only uses it if the route doesn't match the mapped path.

    So that's the history. From true autonomy to connect-the-dots.

  36. No- It is called less risk by ericlp · · Score: 1

    Nope. It is called less human risk to do certain dangerous jobs ( recon, recon by fire, demo an obstacle, or destroy in general etc etc. ) Not unlike the X-45 or X-47 UCAV which can bomb a target with single digit CEP in any weather with no aircrew risk. In both cases the weaponeering is already figured out. The hard part is moving around consistantly. Less people on the battlefield is also less supplies that have to be moved up to sustain that person day after day. ( food, water, material; including less injured people to be cared for eating up resources; in theater.

  37. It is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First a repost should CLEARLY state that it is a repost(and include a link to the original) if the poster really wants to give credit.

    Second (and worse), the comment is misleading and out of date. The guy wrote that 4 MONTHS ago, and he subsequently dropped out of the race.

    Someone reading this comment would think pr_6 is actually "John Nagle" and "teamoverbot" is still in the race. Both of these conclusions would be incorrect.

  38. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Team Overbot withdrew over a month ago.

    This is nothing more than a pathetic repost troll.

  39. DARPA update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi guys, this is the autonomous systems team leader from the HS team. Just wanted to give a quick reply and thank everyone for their support esp John Nagle for being so kind and loaning us that equipment.

    For the guy who asked about the laser, these things usually run $5000-6000+ for the units which everyone here is using, we managed somehow with SICK Inc to dig us up a tiny discount. :)

    Meanwhile we had some trouble with the car veering right into the barrier. At least it made it to the first waypoint, which wasn't the case for a lot of the teams. We found a small mechanical issue(unrelated to the EMC controls we're using, which are wonderful BTW) which makes a small bias towards the right. We're continuing hunting down anything in the code which might cause that, but we think we know what to do.

    CMU and Cal-Tech seem to be doing quite well, I went over to congratulate Red after they passed the QID.

    We have another QID at 11 am tomorrow, so we're quite busy right now. We're confident that we can get some more things working tomorrow.

    Joe Bebel

  40. Cajunbot.com has some pictures and reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In their log.