Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA Grand Challenge 2005 Rules Announced

Posted by timothy on from the and-roll-tape dept.

Mr_KnowItAll writes "Our friends at DARPA have released the proposed rules for the 2005 Grand Challenge. They learned their lesson from the first one, now they will expect teams to submit a video demonstration of their vehicle's ability to complete the course before being invited to participate. Good, but they're also advancing the timeline to the point that it will be very hard to any team to start now and hope to participate. After all the fuss at DARPA's last-minute rule changes in '04, it's interesting to see that they're offering the proposed rules for community review and feedback."

21 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Are they doing this wrong? by l810c · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How about setting up a series of events?

    -Terrain navigation
    -Obstacle navigation
    -Other short races that highlight various systems and their proficiencies
    -An overall skill winner
    -And THEN the race

    Each of the teams would be able to see and learn from the other various technologies and make changes/improvements in the coming years.

    This thing was just a joke this year with many of the vehicles crashing before they could display their skills.

    1. Re:Are they doing this wrong? by cujo_1111 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Set up a series of events like you suggest but make them qualifying rounds, ie. you have to meet a minimum grade to reach the final race.

      Going by this years event, there may not even be a race though...

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    2. Re:Are they doing this wrong? by Pseudonym · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's kind of what they did this year. The trouble is that only one entry (which, incidentally, is the entry that made it furthest in the race proper) actually made it through the qualifying round.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Are they doing this wrong? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think that everyone that considers to participate in this has to think about what their technology will be used for. 'saving lives on the battlefield' also mean 'being better at killing the target for the attack' and lets face it, not all attacks made are good(tm) ones.

      The military wants robotic vehicles for unmanned transport of supplies, primarily. They're not developing killer robots, nor do they have any reason to turn this into a weapons system. Humans are by far the deadliest and most effective tools the military has for killing other humans. It's one thing to oppose this because it's funded by the DoD, but it's not a weapons system and probably never will be. Robots are too easily out-thought by humans.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  2. Way to go.... by howman · · Score: 4, Funny

    you bozo's /.'ed DARPA...

    --
    flinging poop since 1969
    1. Re:Way to go.... by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Funny
      you bozo's /.'ed DARPA...

      Thank God for the apotrophe's. Otherwise, I would never have known that the suffix'es were com'ing.

      Cheer's.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  3. Re:An idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess you could do better? Oh, I forgot, this is slashdot, everything is easy...and if you fail you are stupid. Look, the best team broke an axel which caused them to stop. I bet you would have a hard time driving that course yourself. Have you ever driven somewhere where breaking an axel is a hazard? This isn't like your daily drive to work. Oh, and the CMU team drove ~3000 miles across the US in '94. I guess we should all just give up since nobody completed the course though...

    If it was easy, idiots like yourself could do it, but it is hard so it will take a few tries to get it right.

  4. Hamstrung Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DARPA has been funding development of this technology for many years. The Grand Challenge was designed to expedite the process by placing a seemingly large sum on the table for the winner. They, however, have chosen to not allow any previously government funded software.

    While that levels the playing field for all the teams, it certainly does not represent the state of the art in autonomous robotic software that has been developed under DARPA's own contracts in the past. Many of the complex image understanding algorithms for road operations, obstacle avoicance, terrain classification, etc. have required millions of contract dollars to develop. This is far in excess of the prize being offered for the completion of the GC.

    The repeat teams will certainly have a development advantage because the bulk of the necessary work is software development and integration not overall vehicle development. Most of the critical algorithms already exist but cannot qualify because they were developed under DARPA (and other government agencies) contracts.

    1. Re:Hamstrung Technology by Hacksaw · · Score: 5, Informative
      They, however, have chosen to not allow any previously government funded software.


      No, they exclude only government funded software not commercially available. And most government contractors, especially the smaller ones, will happily license their software to you.
      --

      All the technology in the world won't hide your lack of vision, talent, or understanding.

  5. Re:Fun fun fun. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the article, someone has to read it...

    "The route (see definition, p.28) will be no longer than 175 miles. It may include paved roads, unpaved roads, trails, and off-road desert areas. The route contains manmade and natural obstacles, both above and below the surface of the average terrain. Examples of obstacles include ditches, washboard, sandy ground, standing water, rocks and boulders, narrow underpasses, construction equipment, concrete safety rails, power line towers, barbed wire fences and cattle guards. Every obstacle on the route can be either traversed by a commercial 4X4 pickup truck or avoided entirely. DARPA will place on the route one or more obstacles that are designed to disable tactical vehicles. These obstacles must be detected and circumnavigated for a vehicle to successfully complete the route. The route will be wide enough for vehicles to bypass these obstacles."

    Still think this is easy? If someone can't make a robot to navigate this they are stupid? By that standard nobody is smart, except you of course...

  6. Remember this... (under 30 need not apply) by neil.pearce · · Score: 5, Funny

    We've got Top men working on it right now. Who? Top Men

  7. We Shall See! by TravisTHose · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks like all teams will require an alleged Site Visit in order to participate in this next Grand Challenge. Last time, their PreChosen Few did not need to have a site visit. As a result, you can see what happened! The newer rules will still allow them to game it any way they really want to. Actually, after reading the newer rules, it looks like it will be easier for them to refuse teams for non technical reasons. Before, they had to explain exactly why the teams technical papers did not pass their muster. Now, all they have to do is not like any teams Video Presentation in order to disqualify them! They will not even have to give a a reason why they were not chosen like they had to before! The implied answer is that they did not like your video for some reason. What once was a technical challenge has now turned into which teams are able to produce the slickest and flashiest video of their alleged race vehicle. Something tells me that technical challenge was never the case. Rest assured, they are not going to like our teams video for some, as yet, unknown or dreamed up reason even though we already fulfill and surpass the current GC requirements. We shall all see.

  8. Hard to participate? by angrist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been following the GC for a couple of months now, with the aim of setting up a team at school.

    While there are some very tough technical barriers to be overcome, getting a vehicle in 'race' shape shouldn't be THAT hard. All of the pieces needed are available, they just need to be integrated. A dedicated team of college students (engineers) should be able to start in september and still be competitive.

    That being said, let the naysaying commence.

    1. Re:Hard to participate? by Mr_KnowItAll · · Score: 5, Informative
      Good luck, and start now because you're already way behind schedule! (The team I'm on got to the qualifying event, so I've lived the behind-schedule lifestyle)

      You're largely correct in observing that the components are mostly available, but you'll find that there are still significant gaps in the capabilities of the sensors that you can get "off-the-shelf", and integration tasks always seem to introduce new issues and complexities. Try to attend the competitor's conference on August 14th and learn what the other teams have discovered in their development process, you'll save time that way. Plan, design, budget and then work like mad... and remember to have fun while you're doing it.

  9. Here's a challenge tip from British... by British · · Score: 2, Funny

    ....for God's sake DON'T enter a motorcycle, have it go for like 1 foot and have it fall over like last time.

  10. Sciam View of 2004 Results by Mr_Blank · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Another view of the first race here...
    Scientific American: From Finish to Start
    Was the Grand Challenge robot race in March the fiasco it appeared to be? Hardly, argues William "Red" Whittaker. The annual event is pushing mobile robotics to get real."
    Yeah sure the last race could have been run better. But so what. The contestants learned a lot. So did the organizers. That was the point I think. DARPA learned its lessons fast, AND increased the prize money to boot. Let's see if the contestants learned as much!!
  11. Re:Why robot cars? by Mr_KnowItAll · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Autonomous aircraft are possibly easier to build than land vehicles (note: neither are "easy"), but they really don't solve the kinds of problems that the Grand Challenge is supposed to focus efforts on. Surveilance applications are fairly well developed using airborne platforms, but moving a large payload by air just doesn't have the cost per pound per mile advantage of a ground vehicle.

    Autonomous ground vehicles are needed to get people out of the supply logistics roles that are inherently hazardous. Force protection options for a convoy of trucks are limited and mostly unchanged since the military started using motorized vehicles. Since there's no way to circumvent the ground transportation requirement, the best option available is to develop automation to keep people out of the inevitable ambushes.

  12. I would like to see by rDx666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would be interesting if they tried more unconventional vehicles. Berkeley's motorcycle was a good idea (very very efficient), but it just couldn't balance right. Maybe a tricycle design is in order? Like those 666 mile per gallon freakshows? Or a car that can flip over and still run (like some of those fancy toy RC cars)?

    I hope there will be teams who will think it's worth it to do a really radical design: we might see some strange and exciting stuff on the battlefield later on.

  13. New rules look OK. by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The new rules seem reasonable enough. The video requirement makes sense, because it will avoid a debacle like last time. Last time only seven of twenty vehicles made it out of the starting area. That's embarassing. Very bad TV. This time we should see most of the field disappear into the distance.

    John Nagle
    Team Overbot

    We're recruiting. Programmers, this time; we have most of the hardware working. Silicon Valley only; we're in Redwood City. Send us 1000 lines of C++ code that you're proud of. We'll be having an open house in late August. Watch the Overbot web site for details.

  14. A very interesting detail... by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quoth the competition rules;

    "The manual emergency stop must be easy to identify and activate safely, even if the vehicle is moving at a walking pace. The operation instructions for manual emergency stop actuators must be clearly labeled in English and Spanish."

    Who'd have thunk it, government organizations requiring instructions in English and Spanish, bilingually, for vital instructions on the vehicles. Is this a sign of the U.S. going bilingual (adopting Spanish) at snail's pace?

  15. Re:Fun fun fun. by mwood · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I am a CMU alumni."

    I found the problem. The prints showing how to make the axles strong enough were annotated in Latin, and so nobody at CMU could read them. :-)

    A Purdue Alumnus.