Slashdot Mirror
Cornell Builds Autonomous UAV
tshak writes "From Microsoft Research, 'Faculty and students at Cornell University have built an unmanned airplane with its own on-board, embedded control system. The large-scale model plane flies by accessing coordinates from an off-the-shelf GPS unit.' Not only does the plane run XP embedded, but the software is written in C# on the .NET Compact Framework. This is all powered by an 800mhz Crusoe processor with 1GB of total system storage."
...to the term "crash"
Small GPS controlled planes are old news. Check out the TAM project. Trans Atlantic Model. They flew a model plane across the Atlantic Ocean last year. Check it out here -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3145577.stm
Yes, they were given grant money from Microsoft, but that wasn't the only influence in their decisions. They've put long hard hours into the plane. XP Embedded does allow them to add functionality to the plane. A lot of companies have given then grants and sponsorships that have allowed them to build the plane. Don't forget this is Cornell here and they're not going to just rely on Microsoft to make the plane run. They also weren't attempting to make a "real" plane - this is still an UAV which isn't meant to have the power of a full aeronautical vehicle.
Unfortionatly one of their planes was destroyed in a fire at a hotel in Maryland while they went down to show off the plane. Luckily, their backup plane that is still being built was not destroyed.
Why do most people here seem to concentrate not on the fact that something very cool was accomplished, but rather on the fact that it was accomplished using technology from a vendor they don't like?
</rhetorical>
How about commenting on the project itself rather than posing conspiracy theories? The article itself even mentions that the team had gotten previous awards from Microsoft.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
I'm sure they could start from the codebase they have now, work really hard, and have equivalent expertise built into a lighter package in some number of staff-years. Alternately, they could archive the source, go drink margaritas for a couple years, and then buy the lighter package with equivalent power off the shelf and use it to run the existing already-completed software.
Which would you consider the elegant way to proceed?
"Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer." - Linux Advocac
Not to come over all gee-whiz and so on, but how relentlessly negative these posts are. The students deserve some congratulations for successfully completing an impressive piece of work. Maybe they didn't go the most efficient/difficult/brag-worthy route. So what? Everything they've learned will be useful, regardless of what hardware/software they end up using in the 'real' world. They probably had fun and have achieved something real, instead of just sitting back criticising.
Good point about the cruise missile though...
--- Yx3 = Delilah ---
In my day, when we wanted mobile computing power, we had to do it with a 6 Mhz Z80. I mean really, you DONT need a desktop computer for waypoint flying.
.net framework)
CPU Usage for UAV
XP Embedded - 35%
Waypoint system - 1%
Flight Control System - 2% (It's written in C# with
Seti@home client - 62%
What the heck is a 'sig'?
I'm sure they could start from the codebase they have now, work really hard, and have equivalent expertise built into a lighter package in some number of staff-years. Alternately, they could archive the source, go drink margaritas for a couple years, and then buy the lighter package with equivalent power off the shelf and use it to run the existing already-completed software.
Oh yeah, that's just what we need, engineering students whose mindset is that of a business owner. How about busting your butt to achieve something? researching more elegant solutions (and no, that's not yours, elegance is in the design and performance software with tough constraints)?
You totally missed the point of research. Research isn't about using technology, it's about inventing new technology. Using off-the-shell components doesn't push the envelope, it just shows the Cornell students can take envelopes from their sponsors.
Good thing not everybody thinks like you, otherwise we'd all be waiting for everybody else to solve our problems for us...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Have you read about XP embedded? It's a pick-and-choose OS, so you can select exactly what you want. That means no bloat. Absolutely none. Kinda destroys your ill-conceived argument, and shows it really was a rant against Microsoft.
They use XP embedded because you can write complex applications and do lots of programming without re-inventing the wheel.
.NET is a great choice instead of using a simple microcontroller with assembler code. Why?
In this case, I think XP +
1. Device drivers. They are using a wireless modem to get data back and forth to the ground. That's important.
2. Telemetry. The plane fly's itself without help from the ground. This isn't often done. Most of these projects the plane is a dumb terminal to a complex application running on the ground. This way is the exact oppsite. The ground system gives the plane mission goals, and the plane and it's onboard "overhead" process the goals and determine what actions are needed to get there. The goals are things like "fly between nav point 1 and 2, then directly proceed to nav point 3".
3. Advanced image processing. One of the goals of the project is to recognize objects on land. Other systems have to take a picture, transmit back to the ground station for processing. On this one the plane can do it right away, and proceed to their next point without the latency (which is significant) of transmitting back and forth.
4. Robustness. Their plane is better than most others because it can operate with very little supervision from the ground. That's pretty important step forward. It can land itself in the case of something going wrong, the plane's flight hardware failing, etc.
You really have to have tried to do something like this before to appreciate the difficulty of having an autonomous plane like this. Even the Pentagon/CIA recognizes the trouble involved. The first UAV's were basically just remote controlled. They spent two years making them more autonomous which to me is a big deal.
Lastly I doubt many people here would consider an "award from Microsoft" as being much of anything to brag about.
You mean most people wouldn't like to get cash to work on cool geek projects you want to be working on anyways?