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.
..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.
It's only a qualifying round.
Look at it this way - it's more fun to watch them fail in your dust behind you as you streak past them into the distance than it is to race alone.
After all, if they couldn't qualify, but are allowed to race anyway, what chance do they have of beating the better designs ? Very little.
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.