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."

12 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. 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. 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

  6. 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!!
  7. 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.

  8. 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. 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?