Grand Challenge 1, Competitors 0

Ivan writes "According to the DARPA Grand Challenge Status Board, 2 bots were withdrawn before the race started and the remaining 13 were all disabled. Red Team and SciAutonics II tied at 7 miles, a bit short of the 142 miles required." CNN has coverage and interviews.

Comments

Congratualations to those that tried.

[onyxruby]

This was not a failure just because no one got further than seven miles. Contrary to a failure, this has been a grand success. DARPA spent around 13 million to host it, and got a lot of great minds in the public at large to start thinking of ways to solve very complex technological difficulties. In terms of sheer dollar value, the amount of technological research by private individuals easily surpassed the 13 million the government invested. Already companies are being created, and the wheels of commerce spun.

This benefits the public from the technology that is being created that otherwise lacked an impetus. It benefits industry by showing a host of new ideas that otherwise would have never come through the regular channels. It certainly benefits DARPA for sheer investment and public relations value. It can benefit future soldiers by reducing their risk to dangerous jobs. This also benefits the defense contractors that just got a small reminder that someone from out of nowhere could become a player - think of it as lighting a fire in their belly.

All told this was a challenge, and was never intended to be easily winnable. It certainly was advertised as being unlikely to be won this year. All told I think DARPA should hold more contests like this for other areas that have grown stagnant. For a historical perspective consider that Lindbergh crossed that Atlantic on just such a contest. A contest that inspired the X-Prize. Perhaps we should see DARPA become involved in future X-Prizes as well?

Just remember not to name the project skynet.

Re:Congratualations to those that tried.

[fermion]

I will go a bit further and say the thing to look at here is the process. What has been learned, what has been contributed to the nation, and how has it benefited the world. In this light the fact that there was no 'winner' or the race was not 'finished' may of little or no significance. This is why many research projects have a series of goals in which the 'answer' is only one of the many achievement that are pursued.

If you tru to do something significant that no one has done before, that is a success in itself. We hear all the time about people doing trivial things, or something that has been done 100 times before, and fawn over those achievements simply because a finish line was crossed. We too often forget about the process that went to make those things happen, and that many things are much easier today than even a year ago because the process was refined by people who perhaps never bother worried about crossing a finish line.

Re:Really pathetic showing?

[Ephboy]

I don't think you've considered the immense complexity of simply adjusting your speed/direction to avoid a rock or pothole. Turn too fast, you flip (as at least one vehicle did). Next time you get in your car pay attention to just how many tiny speed/direction adjustments you make even on straight paved roads. Now add stuff you have to avoid and the process is incredibly complicated!

What's with all the mechanical failures?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's up with all the mechanical failures? Yeah, it's rough terrain, but we've been building human-powered vehicles that can handle it for decades! I'd think that keeping your engine going or your brakes from locking up would be the least "grand" part of the challenge.

Re:Lessons?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Bull. Simulators allow you to cheaply rule out possibilities. Nothing that doesn't pass a simulation will work in the real world. And a simulation doesn't have to be a digital simulation. A 1/32 scale model running through a sandbox is a simulation. As is a wind tunnel.

It is true that passing a simulated test is no measure of success in the real world. But it will certainly be more prepared, and in a faster time and with less expense than an "all up" design method.

Look at the space shuttle if you want an example of "all up" gone bad. I'm not talking about the end product, I'm talking about billions that were squandered during development. The waste of time and money during the engine testing was extraordinary.

Another example is the Mark XIV torpedo. Google around, but the long and the short of it is the navy deployed a torpedo without testing it. A series of design flaws kept them from working, and their failure cost us dearly during the early parts of the war.

The Navy refused to believe there was a problem. The weapon worked 50 percent of the time for the 2 shots that were fired before the war. When they tested the torpedos properly they found numerous problems with the design of the guidance system and the detonators.