Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Grand Challenge Updates
GraffitiKnight writes "After only 1 team managed to successfully navigate the DARPA Qualifying course, DARPA has rewritten the rules to let almost everyone compete. Wired has the story, which also mentions rumors that the race will run to 150 miles, much less than the original plans of 210 - 300 miles." Here is some earlier Slashdot coverage of the race.
I would be pissed! To change the rules at the last minute to allow the teams that didn't do designing so well? Stupid!
Hmmm.
..that there's something wrong with DARPA's mentality.
You don't accept substandard results if nobody can produce. This is something you intend to throw massive money on eventually, you'd want the would-be contractors to put up or shut up real quick.
If I was the one team racing unless there was a time restriction I'd go Mars rover slow.
No sense taking risks when there are no competition.
DARPA put up a $1,000,000 cold hard cash for an autonomous vehicle and they got dozens of shoddy immitations that couldn't even navigate the test course.
Normally they have to pay a defense contractor BILLIONS to get something that doesn't work.
They saved loads of money, and they don't have to pay until it works, unlike, oh, other DoD projects, like the Osprey, Comanche, Patriot, TW Missile Defense, etc.
"Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
I'm sure if every project follows this model of diminishing goals, morale will be at all time high and productivity will skyrocket! I mean, failure is a terrible thing and nobody should be forced to cope with it and try to do better. Trying is hard!
Hey, it works for the public education system, right?
Screw it. If one team qualifies, one team takes the challenge. Chances are they're a shoe-in anyway considering they've already proven themselves more capable.
To all those that failed: Better luck next year, guys!
=Smidge=
Well, I can't say this is a good thing. If only one qualified, then the rest need to go back to the drawing board.
It's the same in any situation. If you lower your expectations, you'll get a lesser product/whatever. If it can't make it 200 miles, then it isn't worthy of being in the race.
My 2 cents, anywho...
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
-- You can't spell geek without a EE.
Okay, besides the endless references to Terminator I could make, this really sucks. So, we have high-school kids doing weapons research free of charge for the DOD now?
I sincerely wish that people would put more ethical concerns regarding science in the right place. While people are bemoaning the evils of stem cell research, we're happily spending money on this sort of thing.
The happy-go-lucky attitude of the article, the competition, and not to mention slashdot is a little disturbing as well. Heyhey! That's right kids, it's time for the Darpa Competition! Just build us a robot that can run around by itself, and we'll take care of putting a gun on it. It's science-fun, just like Mr. Wizard! Even Dad's helping out!
This isn't just "neat" stuff - this is stuff that has an impact in the real world, and I suggest that those people involved consider what sorts of contributions they're making. Personally, I would appreciate them not building autonomous robots for the DOD.
You mean like the 'Star Wars" Missile Defense System which has failed numerous tests of increasing ease, but is being used anyway because "it beats nothing", except that "nothing" doesn't violate treaties we signed, creates a false sense of security, doesn't motivate anyone to 'get it right' and wastes trillions of dollars.
Or the Patriot Defense System, which routinely targeted friendly aircraft during development, failed miserably the first time it was put into use(for a use it was never intended- it's never been used for what it was originally designed for, shooting down planes) and then 10+ years later was used again and resulted in the deaths of dozens of UK soldiers because it couldn't tell the difference between a helicopter traveling at less than 100 kt and an enemy missile traveling over the speed of sound?
Or the Osprey tiltrotor, which suffered an astronomical failure rate and again, caused dozens of deaths of US marines?
Then there's the Comanche helicopter, which they've been kicking around for years and finally decided, after spending billions, to just say "oh well, so much for that"?
The defense department is famous for bidding scandals(if contracts are put out to bid at all), and being happy to look the other way and fudge the requirements(or ignore them completely) if the system fails to meet original requirements.
Curiously, the russians never quite had such problems. Their fighter jets, for example, don't require pristine runways and constant maintenance; they're built like tanks, because the people who designed them knew they'd be held responsible if it failed unreasonably...and responsible doesn't mean "loose their job", it means "end up in Siberia" or "in a river with a bullet through your brain".
This country needs three things. First, a true capitalist system for defense contractors. You want to sell the Army a tank? Fine. You can do so all on your own, without a single fucking dime, and then try and sell it. If it can't compete, too bad, your company goes under- that's the way capitalism works. Second, defense contractors need to be held responsible for when their products fail. Refunds for starters, contracts that can be invalidated on failure, civil/criminal punishments for gross design/construction failures. Third, absolutely, positively, no secret budgets of any kind. I am entirely pissed off with the pentagon filling up with all the kids who had secret treehouse clubs when they were kids and want to do the same shit now that they're 40.
Please help metamoderate.
I'm concerned that the spin on this event from much of the news media is negative. It's starting to look like DARPA will end up with egg on their face if none of the vehicles do well.
What these writers forget is that the event was intentionally designed to be incredibly difficult. In earlier news releases, the idea was expressed that this would be something that would be run every year until a robot manages to win it. This is in the spirit of other super-difficult prize competitions, like the X-Prize or the ancient quest to develop a method to compute the geographic longitude of a ship.
It's too bad that an inventive, flexible and interesting approach by DARPA is being spun as a failure just because the first tries haven't been all that successful. I'm really hoping that no teams win and that DARPA does run it again next year, because by then we'll have many more good contestants. This year's entries will have gotten the basic bugs out of their systems and be genuinely ready to tackle the course; and there will be a few new entrants as well, finishing up at the last minute and just hoping that they have something that will run. Each year will see improvement. To me that would be far more interesting and enlightening than a one shot deal.