Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA Announces Grand Challenge 2005

Posted by michael on from the calling-all-cars-calling-all-cars dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Grand Challenge 2005 Date has been announced for October 8, 2005. Check out DARPA's official webpage for details. Already several teams from last year are gearing up: Carnegie Mellon Red Team, D.A.D., and Cal Tech. Also, several new teams are entering, among them Stanford, and Florida Tech. Should be a very interesting Challenge next year!"

20 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. We'll see... by darth_MALL · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Should be a very interesting Challenge next year!" ...more so if anyone finishes

    1. Re:We'll see... by robslimo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yah. GH 2004 was such a whopping success that my brother and I started toying with the idea of entering (or at least attempting to enter) the challenge. We've got an old VW dune buggy, a webcam, a couple of old PII notebook computers, plenty of bailing wire (we're in Oklahoma, no duct tape for us) and a few distros of Linux to work with.

      Surely we can't do any worse than this year's competitors, eh?

    2. Re:We'll see... by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Should be a very interesting Challenge next year!" ...more so if anyone finishes

      More interesting for who? The crowd or the researchers? Hey, if you want an exciting race, go watch NASCAR (or not). As far as the researchers are concerned, it's probably more interesting when these things fail to finish the race than if they all completed the course without difficulty. Each failure teachs the researchers something about AI. These "lessons learned" are then used for a variety of applications and theoretical extensions, not just building a better autonomous car.

      DARPA is not putting on these contests because they expect someone to win. They are trying to give researchers a difficult problem to work on. Don't be looking at the fact that none of the vehicles came close to finishing the race as some sort of failure or "boring". The problem is quite exciting for the researchers and for anyone interested in AI. The fact that they are making it an annual thing is icing on the cake.

      GMD

      --
      watch this
    3. Re:We'll see... by asynchronous13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It should be noted that the Aerial Robotics Competition didn't have any winners for its first few years of competition. Each year they changed the rules to make it harder, even though no one finished the previous year's challenge (in fact, no team even had a vehicle capable of autonomous flight). Then, one team had a helicopter that autonomously hovered, navigated obstacles, and even located and picked up an object off the ground -- while no other team could even autonomously fly. The following year, every team had a flying entry.

      The Darpa Challenge might not have a winner for a couple of years, but if they keep raising the bar a little bit, results will follow.

  2. Based on the 'successes' of 2004... by YodaToo · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...the 2005 challenge will involve creating autonomous vehicles that can navigate one mile along a flat, empty highway with a clearly marked, solid center strip. The vehicles will have one week to navigate the course

    --
    This way to the egress...
  3. what if... by teknokracy · · Score: 4, Funny

    This year: Make a robot that will successfully find a parking spot at the mall!

    1. Re:what if... by Gorgeous+Si · · Score: 3, Funny

      This year: Make a robot that will successfully find a parking spot at the mall!

      The challenge isn't supposed to be impossible!

  4. IEEE Spectrum article by orac2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Jean Kumagai has a nice article (with pictures) on the 2004 race in this month's IEEE Spectrum Magazine

    --
    "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
  5. I wish I had... by Cyclotron_Boy · · Score: 5, Funny

    a big garage, a spare '67 IH Scout 800, a laptop I could trash, assorted robotics parts, and a month or two paid time off (or better yet- sponsored by my work)... I just *know* I could get out of the parking lot...

  6. I still don't understand why they don't by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    just build the machine itself to be relatively indestructable- handling any terrain. Say with four wheels large enough to be completely invertable and floatable. Then just add a GPS unit and skid steering, and some simple logic to try 4 times, then rotate 90 degrees, run for 100 feet, rotate back 90 degrees, and try again, recursively, plus seek out pregrogrammed destination co-ordinates. Make it go up to 60 MPH to make up time when it doesn't have any barriers to get around, and let it go. It might not take the straightest route, but it will get there eventually- kind of like my 1-year-old's bumble ball robot that has no brains at all, just a gyroscope and bumpers to keep it moving in random directions.

    Even better yet- a huge bumble ball with GPS locator to tell us where it is- just drop it into ANY terrain, and it will bounce around until it gets where it wants to be.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:I still don't understand why they don't by avalys · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Make it go up to 60 MPH to make up time when it doesn't have any barriers to get around, and let it go

      And what will you do when this thing crashes at 60 mph into one of the barriers you haven't designed it to detect?

      Collision avoidance without physical contact is one of the biggest challenges these teams face.

      Also, the obstacles aren't necessarily these big, obvious concrete barriers dumped in the middle of the desert. How would your robot deal with encountering a lake, or coming to the edge of a cliff?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    2. Re:I still don't understand why they don't by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And what will you do when this thing crashes at 60 mph into one of the barriers you haven't designed it to detect?

      Who's detecting anything? Go ahead and crash into the boulder or whatever- design the robot to bounce, use an accelerometer to detect the bounce. 60MPH bumpers aren't exactly impossible, you know.

      Collision avoidance without physical contact is one of the biggest challenges these teams face.

      Is that in the rules that they must have no physical contact? The website I saw deleted the rules for 2004 and hasn't posted the rules for 2005- but I can't imagine why they'd care if a combat-bot moving through enemy terroitory demolishes a few houses along the way, or crashes into them, detecting them as a barrier, and moves off in a different random direction.

      Also, the obstacles aren't necessarily these big, obvious concrete barriers dumped in the middle of the desert. How would your robot deal with encountering a lake, or coming to the edge of a cliff?

      Well, the lake was in the original, that's why you'd want the robot to be amphibious as well as reasonably indestructible. But I grant you the cliff- I guess it depends whether the cliff is on it's internal map of the area or not. Anyway, that's one way to detect the cliff and even find roads/bridges to cross a canyon. Another way to deal with it is with a range finder angled towards the ground- if it's suddenly WAY steeper in front of the robot than the robot was expecting, turn around and find another way.

      Or, alternatively, as long as you're making your electric-drive, 60MPH, invertable robot's body out of black-box strength steel to begin with, don't worry about the cliffs. A drop of a mile or so won't hurt it, and it will find it's way out of the canyon eventually.....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  7. Prize increased to $2M by MarkGriz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The team that completes the Grand Challenge 2005 route within a specified time will receive a cash prize of $2 million, an increase from the $1 million prize offered at last year?s event.

    In the first DARPA Grand Challenge, held on a desert route from California to Nevada, 15 teams from a field of 106 applicants progressed to the final event

    Why increase the prize to $2M? If the goal of the challenge is to develop an autonomous vehicle, why not use the extra $1M as a grant to fund the top 15 teams from the last challenge.

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  8. Florida Tech? by TXGB324 · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a proud dropout of Florida Tech, I'd just like to point out that the "Florida Tech" link goes to an article about the University of Florida. If Florida Tech is competting, I wish them all the best luck. Here's the correct link to their website: www.fit.edu

  9. Dupe? by Tree131 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This topic, although w/ slightly different wording has been chewed and swallowed/spat out couple of days ago...

  10. Re:DARPA. Aren't they... by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the same spooks that want to identify terrorists by how they walk?

    No, they're the ones who created the Internet. You know, that thing you're using right now. Plus, they happen to be a huge supporter of scientific research and development. Given the fact that industry has slashed R&D in favor of raising the quarterly reports by a half a percentage point or giving the members of the Board an ivory backscratcher as an annual bonus, let's not be too quick to insult one of the few remaining patrons of science.

    GMD

    --
    watch this
  11. Nitpicks by GillBates0 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Anthony J. Tether, DARPA director, noted: "This event is a challenge for American ingenuity. It brings together individuals and organizations from the research and development community, industry, Government, the Armed Services, academia, professional societies, and from the ranks of students, backyard inventors, and automotive enthusiasts.

    Are non-American citizens allowed to participate? I tried looking at the Rules Page but it's not up yet. I don't recall if there was a stipulation which restricted participants to American citizens.

    Given DARPA's great R&D track record in the past (Internet and what not), I would've liked to participate in the contest *purely* from a scientific curiousity point of view - and I bet a lot of nerds all over the world would like to overlook the fact that the contest is sponsored by a military agency (prize not withstanding - since it's US taxpayer money). Just as long as DARPA lives up to it's name and does not morph into OARPA - it's happened way too many times in the past.

    Incidentally, the link to the official page is incorrect on that page. The site linked to in the article seems to be just a mirror of the darpa.mil site, however.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  12. Should be good by nizo · · Score: 5, Funny
    The DARPA Grand Challenge is a field test designed to accelerate research and development in autonomous ground vehicles that will help save lives on the future battlefield.

    I can't wait to see all the new automated field medic designs. Wait, why does that one have a big gun sticking out of the top....

    --
    I Am My Own Worst Enemy
  13. wheels vs legs by HybridJeff · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Were all the entries last year wheel based? Id think when it comes to maneuverability and obstacle avoidance, a walking robot would do the job better. Of course you couldnt have one of those lame assed ASIMO type bots. Do damn slow and clunkey. Just make somthing with at least 4 legs, and you've fixed that whole falling over problem.

    Thats what Id try anyway. I'd fail miserably, but wouldnt building a mechanical cheetah b e lots of fun.

  14. Lessons Learned by texbot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As a member of Team Caltech I can say that next year's race going to be much more exciting for a couple of reasons.

    First off, returning teams already have a foundation to build upon, both in existing hardware and in technical experience. Writing software for a race like this is almost impossible to do without testing it on a working vehicle (i.e. testing in simulation only works out major problems, but does not translate well to desert racing). For example, Caltech spent 6 months getting actuators and drivers to work well enough to hand over the vehicle to the software team. As soon as that happened, we noticed several problems interfacing the actuators to the software (e.g. updating actuator positions too fast locked them up and made them stop responding). Ultimately our vehicle was not even waypoint following accurately until late February. Most teams were in the same state we were in - racing the clock, plagued by bad hardware (sensors and actuators) and inexperience. BUT we were very close to being very good. If they re-ran the race mid-summer this year the results from all of the teams would be very different. Looking to next year, teams have working vehicles which means 1 full year of onsite testing instead of 2 months.

    Another thing that is interesting about the next race is the timing relative to academic calendars. A lot of teams are university driven and it was very difficult for students to devote enough time to the project while still handling their school requirements (definitely true with a Caltech workload). The next race is at the very end of the summer which means that a crew can work on the vehicle full time for three months before the next race.

    Whether or not someone wins the next race is entirely up to DARPA. By next year there will be 5+ teams that could navegate last-race's course in

    Anyway, good luck to all teams...especially new teams - you have quite a hurdle in front of you. See you in 1 year.