Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA Grand Challenge Teams Submit Videos to DARPA

Posted by timothy on from the film-at-11-in-some-timezone dept.

doughnuthole writes "The deadline for DARPA Grand Challenge teams to submit their videos to DARPA just passed and some have posted them online. Some of the teams with these videos posted are Team Caltech, Axion Racing, Virginia Tech (on the Media page), Insight Racing, and UMass Dartmouth. The Grand Challenge is a 175 mile race run by fully autonomous vehicles. Since no teams completed the 2004 race, DARPA decided to run it again, this time for $2 million."

93 comments

  1. Last Year was appalling... by tabkey12 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Remember this anyone? Not one of them even got close.

    Let's hope the extra money makes the difference this year.

    --
    Get a free iPod Nano 4GB!
    1. Re:Last Year was appalling... by doughnuthole · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last year teams had such a short period of time, it was difficult to write all the necessary software and spend the time necessary to test and refine. Now many teams have learned a lot from the previous race and have much more time to improve. Several are now able to drive fully-autonomously at speeds of up to 20 mps while still avoiding obsticles and following a path. The maximum speeds will continue to increase and bugs will continue to be routed out as teams gear up for the race.

      Most teams are not in it for the money, but for the sake of science and engineering. Some teams will spend close to that amount before all is said and done.

    2. Re:Last Year was appalling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Most teams are not in it for the money, but for the sake of science and engineering.
      Me? I'm in it for the chicks.
    3. Re:Last Year was appalling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Remember this anyone? Not one of them even got close.

      I had hopes for the DAD team. They have a simple and robust sensor suite.

      Their problem was they had to halt their vehicle to allow the officials to tow one of the challengers out of the way. And when they restarted, their front wheel was stuck on a rock. Their software wasn't smart enough to gun it and get over that small obstacle. Must have been frustrating not to be able to kick that damn rock out of the way. Up to then they were looking good.

    4. Re:Last Year was appalling... by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope the DAD team wins too. Just imagine, the geeks who made this system will be able to brag to all their friends that their DAD drives them everywhere and not be laughed at anymore.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Last Year was appalling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      at speeds of up to 20 mps
      WoW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    6. Re:Last Year was appalling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20 meters/sec = 45 miles/hour

  2. Just Great by thynk · · Score: 0

    If we can't make a land based car that will drive it self, how much longer do I have to wait for my flying car then?

    Seriously, I've put a good deal of thought into this, and it should be fairly simple to engineer a system that would drive your car during times that it would be appropriate to use a cruse control.

    --

    Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    1. Re:Just Great by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      they have systems like this, it uses metal rods embedded in the road and sensors on the car to figure out where exactly in the lane it is.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:Just Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Seriously, I've put a good deal of thought into this, and it should be fairly simple to engineer a system that would drive your car during times that it would be appropriate to use a cruse control.
      Simple? I hope your joking. Unless you are talking about cruise control on the flying car, in which case it's called auto-pilot.
    3. Re:Just Great by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is figuring out when it needs to leave cruise control and slow down, speed up, avoid collisions, turn, etc. You know, the 99% of the time when you aren't on a straight, flat, open road with no traffic.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    4. Re:Just Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Flying cars and cruise control situations would, in reality, both be considerably aided by being in an electronic environment with constantly updated information from the road / flight path about the environment and changes in it, such as the fact that a blind corner/cloud is coming up, and there is a vehicle stationary out-of-site around it.

      What DARPA wants is a combat-ready system that can drive cross-country with little or no outside help.

      Different problems, and they require different solutions, and a system that could pass the DARPA test would be overkill and unsuitable for the daily commute to work.

    5. Re:Just Great by Glendale2x · · Score: 5, Funny

      What DARPA wants is a combat-ready system that can drive cross-country with little or no outside help.

      Different problems, and they require different solutions, and a system that could pass the DARPA test would be overkill and unsuitable for the daily commute to work.

      I suppose that depends on what one considers a combat zone; dealing with "drivers" who are busy eating a bagel, reading the paper, drinking coffee, talking on a cell phone, shaving, and putting on makeup might require a combat-ready system.

      --
      this is my sig
    6. Re:Just Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think the big problem is one of cost and transisition. The most obvious solution is that the road and car talk to each other. However, this would mean that just upgrading the largest highways would be very expensive and take a long time. This would mean that there would be little benefit to those who own cars that are equipped with the ability to drive itself. A guess this is the whole chicken and egg problem.

      The other issue is what to do about oder cars not so equipped. In addition to the road and car talking to each other, I also see cars speaking to each other about where they are going and position. Assuming that there is 90% adoption of cars with autonomous gear, what do we do about the older cars? Not allow them on the roads? Maybe they could be retrofitted, but the value of that would probably outweigh the worth of the car.

    7. Re:Just Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't worry your flying car will be controlled centrally.

    8. Re:Just Great by thynk · · Score: 1

      why is that a problem? use a simple graphics system to determine needed things, like other vehicles, edge of road, lanes, etc. use laser or radar to determin relative speed to other vehvicles. Simple modifications to the car for steering and speed control. I imagine I could do this for under $5k with off the shelf materials, and I'm not even a real engineer.

      like I said, considerable thought.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    9. Re:Just Great by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      If you were a real engineer, you'd know it isn't that easy. How do you determine another car in front of you? Shape, color? Computers are NOT good at doing graphical pattern matching. Its non-trivial to recognize slow moving identical objects, much less fast moving objects of widely differing shapes and sizes (like a sedan and a big rig).

      Detect lane edges? How? You can't assume special equipment in the road to tell you, it doesn't exist yet (and could fail if it did). Look for patches of white lines? Sure- if they aren't faded out, if they exist at all.

      How do you detect a pot hole? No two are identical in shape or size. What about road debris and litter- how do you program a computer to know whats safe to hit and what isn't? Computers are bad at such judgement calls, they aren't wired to make assumptions like humans do.

      Remember- some of the top universities in the country, most of them with fairly large budgets, competed last year. None of them made it a mile. This is not a simple project, it goes right to the differences of how computers think vs how humans do. Short of an Einsteinian leap in AI, this is a problem that won't even come close to a general solution soon. At best we can hope for a partial solution in a highly controlled test environment in the next few years.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    10. Re:Just Great by thynk · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I didn't say it was easy, it isn't trivial, but maybe that's the problem with "real engineers" is that the solution has become far more complex than it needs to be. Us engineering tech types (kind of like real engineers but get paid less) like to keep things simple.

      Let's look at how us human types drive. We basically determine what is road and non-road. More specifically, what is our lane and what is not-our lane. We keep our speed at the speed limit (in theory). We don't hit anything directly ahead of us. We have to stay in our lane and on road.

      Ok, so we know about the size, location and most important shade of color of the road. Anything that is drastically different than this is NOT road and we can't drive on it. Factor in some exceptions for known things like shadows and other vehicles on the road. Detecting the edge of a lane or the shape of a car in front of you is trivial for a visual system. You don't need to know if it's a sedan or a big rig, just don't hit it.

      How do you as a human detect the edge of a road if the lanes are faded out? I can guarentee that a computer with a camera and a half assed algo for finding the edge of something can pick them out 1000% times fainter than you or I can.

      To be fair, I do a lot of programming of visual inspection systems, so I have a bias on how easy these things are to work with. I've seen a computer inspect the solder joints on a part in light that was so dim that the part wasn't recognizable to the naked eye.

      A few years back a group (don't remember specifics) got a car to pass the German driving test. Having taken the German driving test myself, I can attest to the fact that this is quite a feat. So I would have to believe that the DARPA contest last year would of been somewhat more challenging than your run of the mill Sunday drive.

      Damn, this makes me want to fire up that spare P3 750 I've got at home and dig some CCDs out of the scrap bin here at work and get started on something like this for this weekends drive to KS to pick up my kids.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
  3. I dunno by OffTheLip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but where I live it seems most of the cars on the road are self driven. The person behind the wheel is usually taking care of more pressing things like chatting on the phone, eating, putting on makeup, etc.

    1. Re:I dunno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only they'd switch off their damned phones in morgue. Honestly, some people are so rude!

  4. What exactly is the point? by alanbs · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think this is pretty cool and all as an engineering effort, but what specific purpose does this have?

    I think that the government is secretly trying to create an army of autonomous pizza delivery drones. So long as you live in the desert, one of these few complex machines crafted by some of the world's best and brightest might get you your pizza within 30 minutes or less.

    1. Re:What exactly is the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if the goverment does create an autonomous pizza delivery drone I wouldn't want to be in its way if it thinks it isn't going to make the 30 minute mark.

    2. Re:What exactly is the point? by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Now we know the real truth -- Dubya's regime is
      planning the roll-out of a chain of Pizza Huts
      in Iraq! No doubt that Halliburton will bill the
      US government high enough delivery charges to
      make up for the occassional road-side IED
      (Improvised Explosive Device) and missed delivery
      deadlines (free pizza with your next order).

      This does not bode well for a timely exit from
      Iraq (but of course we all suspected that anyway).

    3. Re:What exactly is the point? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this is pretty cool and all as an engineering effort, but what specific purpose does this have?

      Autonomous dump trucks with carrying capacities of 100+ tonnes of ore have been in use in open pit mining operations for several years now. At the moment, it's complex and expensive to set up the control systems for them. More intelligent operation with lower start-up costs will definitely interest the big mining companies.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    4. Re:What exactly is the point? by billh · · Score: 1

      All we need to do in Iraq is put a Pizza Hut, 7-11, liquor store and strip club at every major intersection. The same plan would work in Afghanistan if there were any major intersections.

    5. Re:What exactly is the point? by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      The question is, will it be tiberium ore?

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  5. Lets hope the *software* is better! by nxmehta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of my buddies is on one of these teams (which will remain nameless). According to him, one of the major problems last year was the enormous amount of time spent on sensor and hardware development vs. the incredibly small amount of time spent on software development and testing. When you have an autonomous vehicle with great realtime terrain mapping capabilities, but with no collision detection code (!), you get a hunk of metal with great vision that likes to run into the same bush over and over again. Other teams did have collision detection in, which would back the vehicle up when a potential collision was detected. However, the vehicle would pick up too many potential collisions (lots of bushes and rocks in the desert) and continously back up! Just goes to show you that developing the algorithms for these things is pretty important. Let's hope they get it right this year... although the chances are pretty slim.

    1. Re:Lets hope the *software* is better! by jtogel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure software is neccesarily so important when compared to the hardware of these vehicles. I'm currently TA'ing a course in bio-inspired robotics, where students have to build robots to solve a variety of tasks. It turns out most tasks are solvable with the same few lines of code, conceptually similar to the wiring of the first few Braitenberg vehicles, only the robots are slighlty modified and sensors repositioned.

      Hardware, especially sensors and their positioning, matter far more than people think.

    2. Re:Lets hope the *software* is better! by whovian · · Score: 2, Funny

      one of the major problems last year was the enormous amount of time spent on sensor and hardware development vs. the incredibly small amount of time spent on software development and testing. ... with no collision detection code (!)

      I'm guessing what they really need is physics processing unit(s) with player/missle graphics.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    3. Re:Lets hope the *software* is better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardware, especially sensors and their positioning, matter far more than people think.

      Agreed, having gone through the videos its amazing how many complex sensors people manage to cram in a car. It doesn`t matter whether its bearded geeks or tall blondes listing the sensors, radar, "ladar", temperature camera????, high-res camera, stereo cameras and GPS together provide gigabytes of data to go though every tenth of a second... which may all be very very usefull.

      But no single video mentions traction, force or other feedback from the wheels. (long suspention calltech mentions, wouldn`t knowing where that supention is be usfull in figuring out what would be a "sane" speed?) These things are gonna spend a lot processing power on cameras/radar and still not notice they are stuck in mud.... Last year vehicles where in a ditch on their side and still spinning their wheels....

      I build a robot once, sure it was a Lego mindstorms robot, but it beat the competition becouse its light reflection sensor was underneath the robot instead of in fronth of it... meaning no environmental light.

      Also everyone is proud of the route planning and obstacle avoidance software... Which is ofcourse great but of no use *when* (not if) a vehicle gets stuck... Calltech claims to have learned of last year, they would be the only one becouse how many robots didn`t get stuck last year? Thats right zero, not counting the ones that didn`t even start... many due to hardware failure. Actuators and other hardware might also help. How many robot wars have been won by robot that could not put themselfs upright when tipped over?

    4. Re:Lets hope the *software* is better! by gerardlt · · Score: 1

      Here's my solution to collision detection

      --
      /* This sig is disabled. Press CTRL-W to enable. Thankyou */
    5. Re:Lets hope the *software* is better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true. I have been working on an autonmous off-road vehicle as well. Traditional obstacle detection sensors for terrain perception are stereo-vision camera's or laser range finders. These sensors detect object's that are steep without regarding the material of the object. A major disadvantage of these sensors is that they detect a lot of false-positive obstacles, like patches of high grass or small bushes.

      Color vision or texture methods can give more inside in the material type of the obstacles. But making these virtual-sensors is difficult, Color changes with weather, viewer geometry, day-time-color of the sun, shadows, and more. Texture is hard because it is dependent on distance and is more difficult to solve under real-time constraints.

    6. Re:Lets hope the *software* is better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      a hunk of metal with great vision that likes to run into the same bush over and over again

      same Bush..?

  6. Would you look at that thing! by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    This thing is the SportsMobile from Team Caltech: just imagine the advances in science if Snoop Dogg had entered the DARPA Grand Challenge! Pimpin' hard but somebody's gotta do it I guess...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  7. Team Aggie Spirit Video by atrus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As part of Team Aggie Spirit, I'd figure I should share our video:

    http://www.stackworks.net/TASVCD.mpg

    It takes an amazing amount of work to get to even this stage, but we're making very fast progress.

    We're a new, entirely student run team with a very limited budget, and always looking for sponsors. If you know anyone who can provide money, equipment, supplies or other assitance, let us know!

    1. Re:Team Aggie Spirit Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I feel sorry for that poor StackWorks website :(

      /./././././-*boom*

    2. Re:Team Aggie Spirit Video by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      why do you feel sorry? I'm downloading the file and its coming in at ~2 mbit/sec. the server is fine (until everyone wakes up in an hour).

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
  8. Don't forget.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..Team Aggie Spirit, which has put something together in two months..

  9. How about a gigantic Roomba? by Dossy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Interesting that the DARPA Challenge rule precludes hovercrafts from competing as they do not primarily use traction with the ground for propulsion.

    I hope a team enters with a very large metal hollow sphere with gear teethmarks lining the inside and the machinery be a shaft, gyroscope and gears on both ends of unequal weight. The rest of the contents can be fuel/energy cells to power the rotating motion of the machinery inside -- it essentially just has to "throw" itself in a direction and keep rolling and steering. Travelling 175 miles ought to be possible as long as the terrain isn't ridiculous.

    --
    Dossy's Blog
    1. Re:How about a gigantic Roomba? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically a giant metal Sonic the Hedgehog?

    2. Re:How about a gigantic Roomba? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I first heard about the challenge, the same exact thought crossed my mind too.

      Why do they try to make the vehicles that look like normal cars, when they do not have a driver that would require a "standing" design?

      With the sphere, the only problem would be it being a natural Faraday cage. With composite materials, this shouldn't be a problem?

      Another, easier to implement, alternative would be to make the tires of the car so large that the car would be able to travel also upside down. Think something like an APC with extra large tires.

      Oh well, as long as they keep barring foreigners from competing... :P

    3. Re:How about a gigantic Roomba? by kylegordon · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're probably looking for Rotundus.

    4. Re:How about a gigantic Roomba? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how would you mount a gun on a ball like that?

      or any form of sensors to see where you were going

      not to mention there is the possibility of partially automated military veircles (image computer drives human shoots and occasionally give the computer hints)

    5. Re:How about a gigantic Roomba? by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      More like a hovercraft would kick up such large quanities of dust and sand in a desert as to make it impossible to spectate such an event.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    6. Re:How about a gigantic Roomba? by Bobvanvliet · · Score: 1

      A yes. Duct tape. This one's a winner!

    7. Re:How about a gigantic Roomba? by Dossy · · Score: 1

      If Rotundus is for real, then someone needs to tell them to enter into the DARPA challenge!

      Great minds think alike, or fools rarely differ. The Rotundus guys are on to something! :-)

      --
      Dossy's Blog
  10. Get them to chase each other by fruey · · Score: 5, Funny
    As is well known in all film car chases, vehicles have a higher chance of survival (especially when wrecked beyond usual driveability) if they are being chased.

    A load of drone cars should be driven behind these competitors with models of druglords with machine guns, outlaws, corrupt police officers, and people to whom the teams own money.

    That way, they should be able to defy gravity enough to land from a great height at a mere 30 degrees to the horizontal without breaking their suspension or driveshafts, and continue to turn even after front side collisions which would leave bushes and pinions bent (or wheels set to cambers which would normally cause them to no longer turn). They might even get speed boosts beyond the maximum engineering speed expected for the motor, gas and gearbox actually installed.

    For an added bonus, they could have critically wounded people in the back, and an accomplice who absolutely has to jump out at 40mph somewhere mid course in order to continue some secret mission.

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    1. Re:Get them to chase each other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank You. I woke up and read this. The visual is going to be stuck in my head all day! :)

  11. How do you kill people with a robot car? by bardothodal · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. In case every forgot , their job is to kill people more efficiently. I seriously doubt any amount of money sunk into this will enable robots to kill more than humans on america's highways. What does the military need a robo-car for anyway?

    --
    No matter where you go , there you are.
    1. Re:How do you kill people with a robot car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The defense industry is not only about killing the bad guys, but keeping the good guys alive.

      One possible application in which this kind of vehicle would be interesting is transports of injured - put an injured or two in the back, make sure they are fastened, and give it a destination coordinate (some field hospital) and hit enter.

      and that's just one possibility out of many.

    2. Re:How do you kill people with a robot car? by Adrilla · · Score: 1

      To save human lives in combat.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    3. Re:How do you kill people with a robot car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, DARPA, who largely brought you the early Internet. Real people-killing efficiency-booster there. :)

    4. Re:How do you kill people with a robot car? by ianalis · · Score: 1

      They learned from the suicide bombers and use car bombs to either directly kill enemies or blame it on them :)

    5. Re:How do you kill people with a robot car? by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Informative
      What does the military need a robo-car for anyway?

      It's simple: if a soldier isn't behind the wheel of a supply truck, then he can be out shooting at insurgents. Another issue is that the long supply lines of the U.S. army are currently one of its weak points- Jessica Lynch was part of a supply convoy, for instance. Taking the soldiers off the trucks probably doesn't make the supplies safer but it could reduce the number of casualties. Further on down the line, the military will probably be fielding robots with wheels and tanks, first for reconnaissance and later with guns and missiles aboard. This technology brings us closer to being able to do that.

      Personally, I think the whole thing misses the point. Technology is great and all, but it would save a lot more American lives if you followed the Powell Doctrine: go to war only after all other options are exhausted, and then go in with a clear mission, overwhelming force, and a plan on how to get out. The Bush Administration didn't do any of those things in Iraq which is why the situation is such a royal fuckup.

    6. Re:How do you kill people with a robot car? by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

      What does the military need a robo-car for anyway?

      Supply convoys. Do you remember that story from last year where troops refused to go on a supply mission because it was too dangerous? From DARPA's 2004 FAQ:

      Q: How will autonomous ground vehicle technology benefit the military?

      A: The military is looking toward a future in which manned and unmanned systems work together on the ground and in the air to provide enhanced capabilities for U.S. forces. For an example of the utility of unmanned ground systems, consider Operation Iraqi Freedom. The combat troops moved quickly toward Baghdad, and were followed by supplies and materiel. Protecting the supply lines was critical. In the future, unmanned systems may be able to conduct resupply missions without using humans as drivers, and without requiring additional troops for protection.

    7. Re:How do you kill people with a robot car? by edunbar93 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, kind of how the ARPANet was designed to kill people more efficiently.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  12. Mind.Forth Open Source AI for Autonomous Robots by Mentifex · · Score: 0

    Standard Mind.Forth AGI is a free, Open-Source Artificial General Intelligence for use in the sort of autonomous mobile robots that will one day win the DARPA Grand Challenge and other such contests.

    Experimental Mind.Forth is a version of the free artificial robot Mind that may be run in test mode for experimental and developmental purposes. Both versions of the robot AGI Mind display the date they came to life and started thinking -- in a separatoe "grand challenge" for schools, laboratories and computer stores to see who, and how long, can hold the title of hosting the longest-running good-old-fashioned artificial intelligence (GOFAI).

    One caveat about the DARPA and other Grand Challenges is, given that the human ability to administer the home planet is precarious at best and foolhardy at times, students of mind-design are advised to anticipate such emergencies as the total collapse of human society. If a global pandemic of AIDS or avian influenza virus were to remove normal human leadership from all major countries, stewardship of the world may pass by default to intelligent computer systems. Whether as a student exercise or whether as a real-world DARPA Grand Challenge necessity, programmers with previous experience in real-time process control and who are adding AGI techniques to their set of skills, should consider embedding the following possibilities in whatever AGI they code for autonomous mobile robots.

    • Audition
      • control of all telephone land-lines.
      • control of all cellular telephone networks.
      • control of transoceanic cables, NRO satellites, etc.
    • Vision
      • control of earthbound and orbiting telescopes.
      • control of all television broadcasting and cable feeds.
      • immediate access to all 'Net-connected webcams.
    • Motorium
      • effective control of remote-control robots, drones and ships at sea.
      • control of ATM devices, point-of-sale terminals, elevators, etc.
      • control of hydroelectric and nuclear power generators.
      • nuclear weapon stockpiles of participating nations.
  13. We can't stop here, this is bat country! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    I don't suppose DARPA could grow a funny bone and rename it the Thompson Memorial Challenge? They can't claim that it isn't a gonzo event.
    "Every now and then when your life gets complicated and the weasels start closing in, the only real cure is to load up on heinous chemicals and then drive like a bastard from Hollywood to Las Vegas." Hunter S. Thompson
  14. Re:perverted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well... Basically parent is right...

    DARPA are developing small unmanned, cheap (compared to a tank) vehicles...

  15. Cornell by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm a member of the Cornell team. I've decided not to post our site, knowing that it would receive a brutal Slashdotting, but here are a couple of the off-site press releases.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041216/sfth012_1.htm l
    http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2 005 /03/02/42255e9b352d0
    http://www.cornellsun.com/vn ews/display.v/ART/2005 /02/24/421d88d386293
    http://www.automotive.com/ne ws/25/7487/

    Feel free to Google us and come visit our site.

    1. Re:Cornell by Shafe · · Score: 1

      GO BIG RED!!!

      Far above Cayuga's waters
      With its waves of blue
      Stands our noble alma mater
      Glorious to view

      Lift the chorus, speed it onward
      Loud her praises tell
      Hail to thee, our alma mater
      Hail, all hail, Cornell

      Far above the busy humming
      Of the bustling town
      Reared against the arch of heaven
      Looks she proudly down

      Lift the chorus, speed it onward
      Loud her praises tell
      Hail to thee, our alma mater
      Hail, all hail, Cornell

    2. Re:Cornell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psycho! Long live the HEV pride!

  16. What a joke. by rbmyers · · Score: 1

    Who does DARPA think they're kidding, anyway? Add a zero or two, and you'll have the kind of money the DoD would hand to a defense contractor just to work on a problem like this, never mind with a deliverable that had to work. No sane defense contractor would promise such a thing, anyway.

  17. Torrents for all Video Files by gamepro · · Score: 1

    Not Members only anymore. Heres a page with all of them. http://www.titaniumforums.com/torrent/torrentmain/ guest.php enjoy!

  18. So, who's NOT going to cheer for Axion? by SkjeggApe · · Score: 0, Troll

    I mean, have you SEEN the video???

    1. Re:So, who's NOT going to cheer for Axion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! The Axion Racing Twins sure are cute and very funny! It seems like their vehicle is actually driving itself and what about that "Axion" and "Racing" video end shot?

    2. Re:So, who's NOT going to cheer for Axion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the twins were on fear factor, and the truck does a hell of a lot of zigzags, what's up with that?

  19. Liability law stops this dead. by r00t · · Score: 1

    Just forget it. Automotive control innovation is
    not going to be taking any leaps. The auto makers
    had enough trouble with anti-lock breaks.

    Thank the lawyers in congress and the trial lawyer
    association for this.

    1. Re:Liability law stops this dead. by Crazy+Columbian · · Score: 1

      You are correct that the transition will be difficult but there is no question that the direction we are headed is for Robotic Drivers. Think back 100 years - the time of the Horseless Carriage - there were a total of 4,000 automobiles in 1905 on the surface of the earth - today we have over 250,000,000. Every minute of every day, two of these vehicles hit one another because of some stupid thing that a human driver does. We can remove the possibility of human error through the use of a robotic driver. Sure we will still have error - machine error because of maintenance problems or the need to learn something new, but these will be orders of magnitude below the number of accidents due to human error today. Our descendents will be able to read on their way to work assured that they will arrive on time and without delay. The robots will communicate with each other and with traffic signals to speed us to our destination. The type of work we will be doing will be significantly different as well, just like the type of work we do today is so much different than it was 100 years ago. In those days, 80% of the population worked in Agricultural activities. Today 80 % of us work in the Service trade - either servicing other people directly or indirectly through computers. One hundred years from now most of those who still work will be servicing robots - this is where the maintenance will come into play and where human error can still creep into the system. The transition will occur in stages with a need for hybrid control that can adapt quickly to the heuristic actions of other people. Most initial systems will be aids that provide monitoring and warning with perhaps some advice thrown in for good measure. As more and more vehicles become automated communication between each of these will allow cars to travel at speed within 6 inches of each other. More cars can get through a bottle neck than before and less bottlenecks will result. The initial use of these fully-autonomous units will be for removing people from harm's way - military is obvious, but also mining, forest fire fighting, search and rescue, travelng in cold climates, earthquake recovery, etc. The lawyers will be robotized as well as the rules become more complex requiring a complexity analysis that exceeds the human mind.

  20. Two entries from "red team racing" by gamepro · · Score: 1

    From Carnegie Mellon, I think The "Highlander" a modifed '99 hummer and "Sandstorm" Torrent of both videos http://www.titaniumforums.com/torrent/torrentmain/ guest.php

    1. Re:Two entries from "red team racing" by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's the link to CU. (Go Big Red!!)

      Here's the link to CMU.

  21. Red Team Returns by Snorpus · · Score: 0, Troll
    Carnegie Mellon's Red Team will be entering both Sandstorm (last year's entry) and H1ghlander.

  22. 5% of the student body participated at Caltech ... by __aadkms7016 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's interesting, 50 undergrads took the course in 2003 at Caltech that did technology surveys for the vehicle, and there are about 1000 undergrads at Caltech total. So, 5% of the undergraduate population took part ...

  23. Team Overbot video is on line by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Our Team Overbot video is on line.

    One of our biggest problems in Silicon Valley has been finding a big open space in which to test. We now have access to a huge parking lot built during the dot-com boom, adjacent to an unfinished building complex. So we have the Overbot winding in and out among the parking islands. We'll be testing there today in a few hours.

    In terms of technology, Team DAD probably is most innnovative. Everything runs on digital signal processors. They're building their own laser rangefinder this year. Last year, they got further than anybody else without wrecking. (CMU crashed three times; their HUMMV was able to survive the first two.)

    Nobody seems to have a breakthrough in sensing. (By this I mean sensing good enough to evaluate terrain. Detecting big, solid obstacles is trivial.) LIDAR line scanners are too limited, stereo vision doesn't register well on dirt, and strong intelligent vision processing requires a breakthrough that twenty years of research has failed to produce. The breakthrough needed is flash LIDAR, which exists, but wasn't ready soon enough for this year's Grand Challenge. (The rules prohibit the use of Government-funded patented technology not available for general sale by last August, and the good flash LIDAR wasn't available in time.) CMU has a LIDAR line scanner on a giant gimbal, and we have a LIDAR line scanner on an overly large tilt head, but that's an interim solution and a technical dead end.

    On the other hand, GPS and inertial gear gets better and cheaper every year. It's surprising how good it is.

    This year, everybody who makes it to the starting line should disappear over the horizon at the start. The minimal level of performance to make it through the "site visit" hurdle is above that demonstrated by most of the vehicles entered last year.

    And this year, DARPA is putting tank traps on the course.

  24. MIT Team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MIT has a team this year as well. http://gc2005.mit.edu

  25. Any programmers in the LA area? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    Apparently Team Robo Monster is looking for programmers in the Los Angeles area. The team is headed by the guy from the noteworthy robots that jump blog. From their page:

    We are currently seeking additional team members with the following skills and/or resources:
    * Sensor integration
    * DSP programming
    * Gumstix hardware/programming
    * Autonomy/AI - CYC/DAML or other ontology-based programming experience
    * Game engine programming (for robotic simulation)
    * Desert racing/driving experience
    * Hobby robotics competitions (e.g. Robo-Magellan, Robotica, Robot Wars)

    They've got quite a nice vehicle, and so far have things at the "drive by wire" stage.

    Not sure what's with the blink tags on their web site, though.

    1. Re:Any programmers in the LA area? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need a web designer, too. Haven't seen that much blinking text since 1998.

    2. Re:Any programmers in the LA area? by robomonster · · Score: 1

      Arggh. The "blink" tags result specifically from an obscure stylesheet declaration that happens only in firefox. Our video is posted at: http://www.robomonster.com/downloads.php (lower right links) We are definitely interested in programmers in Los Angeles. For this phase of the race (site visit) we need people most experienced in microprocessor programming and motor control. 1. For microprocessors we're looking for those experienced with 'hobby stamp' controllers, e.g. basic atom and BasicX BX-01. We're interfacing them to a very large number of IR and ultrasound point sensors, as well as other (magnetic, gps) sensors. We are also looking for anyone who's worked with the new Gumstix (http://www.gumstix.com) mini-linux computers - we would like to directly interface the microcontrollers to the gumstix via breakout boards and/or I2C. 2. Here's what we're looking for on the motor control side. We're currently using a roboteq controller. We just installed an automatic transmission, so we're looking for someone who can choose and install the right linear actuator with multiple presets and an encoder as well. We'd like to use the Roboteq to control this rather than another controller. Also, we're currently using 'giant' hobby servos on brakes/throttle, but will probably replace these with Animatics smart motors - anyone experienced here would be great. Finally, IMHO, all the cars are *extremely* cool. As another poster pointed out, it takes incredible effort even to get to the drive by wire stage. The technology has general apps for people with disabilities as well as fire/rescue - the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) is interested in doing a blind driver challenge.

  26. Ripsaw by Saville · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't forget the Ripsaw used by TeamTMT. Their vehicle looks much cooler, and more fun to drive, than the wimpy one from UMass Dartmouth. All they need to do is figure out that AI problem and they're done...

  27. Or smart enough by GWTPict · · Score: 1

    to select reverse.

    1. Re:Or smart enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      to select reverse.

      Or select reverse and drive around it. A sophisticated control program would be able to select from a robust selection of responses.

      Swearing and punching the dashboard would probably be optional.

  28. People fall for this stuff.... by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 1

    It's amazing that people still fall for DARPA's B.S., after last time when they changed the rules over 25 times and stil haf not admitted that they had changed the rules, after they ruled out my S-10 that was 25% race ready.

    It's too bad they don't have ANY integrity, and it's worse that /. is forgetful enough to cover their B.S. "race" that rules out 99% of the teams after promising the a spot.

    Andy Out!

  29. UBC Team Thunderbird by CheezWizFire · · Score: 1

    Hey,
    I am Steve Jones of UBC Team Thunderbird. We are a Canadian team based out of the University of British Columbia. We have a very clear plan for how we are going to use Fuzzy Logic to deal with the unique challenges of this vehicle and are very actively implementing those plans at this time. We have been making an incredible amount of progress over the past few weeks as we have moved into the full implementation stage after a lot of planning. We are already well beyond what is visible in the Discovery Channel segment. You can find out more about our team at http://www.ubcthunderbird.com/. (We should have our entrance video posted later today but right now you can see a segment that was broadcast on Discovery Channel and CTV.)

    Thanks,
    Steve Jones
    Instrumentation and Sensors Group Leader
    steventy@gmail.com

  30. Team Axion looking for developers by zenobia · · Score: 1

    Axion Racing is looking for talented software engineers. If you live in the San Diego area, and are interested in partipating in this historic race, please contact mdumas AT axionracing.com.

    Hope to see you at the race!

  31. theres also the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of knowing what you can safely run into and what you can't.

    sometimes its just not possible to avoid running into anything at all. we aren't talking driving on roads here.

  32. Another team's video A Tale of Fire by mkadie · · Score: 1

    Well apparently team Simple Solution Inclusive had a much harder time of it.
    They have an amusing write up of theirs trials and tribulations (and electrical fires) in getting their video ready. http://ssinc.us/TooSimple.htm
    Maybe they should be called Team Murphy's Law
    KD

    --
    KD Founder Simple Solutions Inclusive Not to Over Complicate the Matter
  33. not afraid of slashdotting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.indyrobotracing.com/ has a video which shows the modifications done to a jeep rubicon for the darpa challenge