Slashdot Mirror
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Ivan writes "According to the DARPA Grand Challenge Status Board, 2 bots were withdrawn before the race started and the remaining 13 were all disabled.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.
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.
A guy on a mule has been evading the might and majesty of the United States Army in the Afghan mountains for over two years.
The whole thing makes you conisder just how much processing power we use to control our speed around curves and avoid potholes when we're driving. We can integrate a hell of a lot of information, process the relavent signals and adjust our behavior in milliseconds. And that's not adding the additional struggle of trying to get your iPod to play through the stereo system....
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!
There were engineered obstacles, such as barbed wire and the like. And the deserts out here are not like the Sahara. They have washes and rock formations and various natural obstacles. Finally, a lot of the problems were mechanical or technical-brakes locking up and such. So it isn't as simple as it sounds.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
Hate to break it to you but the desert is far from a "completely barren plan, with very few obstacles".
Even with a previously traveled path and prepared track it's not uncommon for VERY well financed race teams to fail to finish in a desert race. Most desert racers consider it a win just to make it to the finish line and that's with a driver!
Look into the SCORE side of this challenge a bit more and you'll find a LOT of info about just how challenging desert racing is with drivers - let alone trying to do it autonomously.
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
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.
To be fair, they were looking for him in the region of Afghanistan known as Iraq.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
The first tanks could only go a thousand yards before breaking down, and they had a 7 man crew.
it didn't take long for things to change.
One might think a brick jammed on the accelerator of a jeep or H2 might have a chance to make it 7 miles.
Not without refueling, of course.
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.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
After all, you've got to remember that the world's fastest computers, the really, really big iron out there, still have about as much computational power as your average cockroach.
Not that I would condone such a thing, but, hey, if you're designing delivery systems for the US military, I think you've already lost the moral high ground.
I was lucky enough to have a press pass. We had to get to Barstow at 5:00am (driving up from LA) which was rough. Driving in the dark along the highway leading to the start, we topped a rise and in the valley below portable lights had been strung up creating an oasis of light. As we got closer we could see the satelite uplink trucks, grandstands, police, and military.
After registering and getting our fancy orange safety vests, we went to the starting line and were able to get some great pictures as the bots prepared to start the race. Red Team (from Carnegie Mellon) had the best qualifying time so they were first out of the gates. Their 3 million dollar hummer started off fast and was quickly out of sight. The four helicopters filming from the air were flying dangerously close to each other trying to get a good shot so it was easy to track where the vehicle was.
SciAutonics II was the next bot out of the gate, the also had a good start and proceeded out of view. About this time we heard the good news, Team Red was seven miles down the course. Soon after we got the bad news, Red Team's vehicle had died. The odds on favorite was eliminated by a mechanical failure after only 7 miles.
Several of the rest of the bots failed to get past the first turn, and the rest either withdrew or failed within a few miles. The six wheeled ENSCO lost control, ran up the embankment, and overturned. Of the 100+ teams who built bots, 25 were invited to qualify, 15 of those were allowed to race, and only 7 of those made it more than a mile.
All in all it was an excellent experience. My suggestions for next year (or for the openchallenge, etc) would be to do the race in segments like the WRC does. Divide the 200 mile race into 10 mile segments, teams get points based on their performance for the stage. If you fail a stage you're not eliminated, you just fall in the rankings. Teams are allowed an hour of maintenance between stages to fix any problems they think they can fix. This would make it both a lot more interesting, and a lot more satisfying.