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.
Is there any way one can view the coverage via the web?
From the Previous Story
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.'
I guess he was right after all...
. . . are the same guys who set the standards for testing strategic anti-missile systems.
"OK, I suppose it's reasonable for enemy missiles to have florescent 'HIT ME' signs with blinking red bull's-eyes and a GPS system transmitting their coordinates."
(Seriously, the race is still pretty cool. I'm rooting for the CMU team, who used to test their vehicles in Shenley Park.)
Stefan
Not! If anything, the govt. had very high standards on this competition.
Take the development of the stealth fighter, aka the F11A. For the preliminary round of competition, all the competing firms had a simpler start: make a model of a plane that could withstand wind tunnel and radar tests. It was way lower in scale, and was only the shell reflecting the shape of the plane. Not to mention these guys had about 6months to a year to develop just this.
With this precedent in mind, this competition was asking *way* too much for within the alloted time. Perhaps they could have used model cars or golf carts over a smaller distance of terrain. Or perhaps just one terrain as a preliminary test.
baby steps...
What kind of data are you preloading to help with the route planning? Contour map? Satellite imagery? Hand-crafted data, etc.?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
The QID was pathetic. We spent two days watching vehicles move around at 1MPH and hit big, obvious obstacles. No way can most of those vehicles operate effectively offroad.
The big design mistakes seem to be these:
Only CMU is doing well. It's not the money, by the way. Their actual cash outlays are only about $300K to date. It's the body count and the fear. They have about fifty people on the project, a slavedriver boss, and the full backing of CMU. CMU has to do well; most of the Robotics Institute funding over the last three decades is from DARPA, and DARPA can turn that money off at any time.
John Nagle
Team Overbot
I wish there was a -1: Luddite.
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
I will be more impressed if the autonomous motorcycle makes it ten miles than I will be for Red Team to win the whole thing, because at least this bike is fully autonomous and has some radical new ideas going into it, instead of just tons of resources and brute-force mapping.
----------
Host your WAP site, automatically
Funny, we built a fully autonomous robot capable of self navigation on a budget of less than $5,000 (University research fund money). It was even capable of responding to hand signals (as long as you where wearing a red shirt:) ) and doing useful work based on those.
It had it's shortcomings, primarily due to the platform we built it on. It didn't have the neccesary sensors/mechanics needed to do TRULY useful tasks (such as pour beer), but we accomplished quite a bit on a very very tight budget.
In my experience, money is rarely a significant indicator of a projects ability to succeed.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
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?
Don't blame the technology when its being used in perverted ways. You yourself said that is meant for shooting down planes. It should not have shocked anyone when they tried to use it for something else and it didn't work.
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.
I'd like you to name a bidding scandal then. Also, requirements are usually dropped because they were pointless in teh first place or just plain wrong. Valid requirements are rarely relaxed. Remember, requirements documents are written by committe. What sounds good on paper frequently doesn't work in real life. Anyone who's spent even a day on a goverment contract knows this.
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.
That's completely impractical. It costs too much to design a tank -- only about 3 or 4 companies in the United State could do it. Furthermore, the gov't doesn't want your tank, they want their tank. Most contracts work like this:
Its done this way on purpose, because the goverment likes to be in control.
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. Actually, they are held liable. There is this long whole process called testing, the contractor is liable until the item passes the tests. The gov't won't assume liability until it passes tests.
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.
The fact that you bring this up at all proves that you have no idea WTF you are talking about. People outside the defence community rarely understand the need for such paranoia or why we have it. But let me put it to you this way: how many security leaks do we have and have had in this country? The answer: not many. The reason: because the gov't takes security seriously, and understands it better to secure too much than secure too little.
From the look of things, the Ohio State Robot just decided that it could go right through something as tiny as a van - I think it had the right idea, they just stopped it before it could uttery crush the van.
Was there some kind of rule against destroying objects in your path instead of navigating around them?
Actually I am half serious as what happens to an automated supply convoy when the lead vehicle is destroyed by a mine? You'd hope the remaining vehichles could just push the thing out of the way and go on.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley