Slashdot Mirror


DARPA Grand Challenge Updates

Red Team writes "Today is the day. The official race route for the DARPA Grand Challenge was released to the first five teams at 4:00AM PST this morning. Our race planners are pouring over the race route getting ready for the launch. H1ghlander will start first at sunrise, around 6:15AM PST, followed by Stanford and then Sandstorm. For real-time updates on the race, you can track the Red Team race-day blog or catch the webcast on the official Grand Challenge page." Update: 10/08 20:57 GMT by Z : USSJoin writes "Stanford Racing, home of Stanley, has just finished the 131.2 mile DARPA Grand Challenge course. Considering that the CalTech Vehicle (Alice) jumped off the track toward onlookers only 8.3 miles in, this demolition derby-meets-AI demo has certainly been exciting."

156 comments

  1. Popular Science has most recent updates by technoextreme · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.popsci.com/popsci/darpachallenge/1b7a1e 7eef0d6010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html Apparently, the teams all ready have traveled four times as far than last year. It is great progress for a year.

    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    1. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is this because they've been perfecting technology (no doubt they have) or because DARPA has chosen an easier route?

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    2. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by technoextreme · · Score: 1
      Is this because they've been perfecting technology (no doubt they have) or because DARPA has chosen an easier route?
      Im not entirely sure. DARPA did make sure that they the most easiest solution (GPS) would fail and that the robots would have to rely on some other method of navagation.
      --
      Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    3. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by mroch · · Score: 1

      I read that the course is actually harder this year, but I'm not sure where I saw it.

    4. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by macklin01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      From

      It's one of two entries by Carnegie Mellon. The other, a modified red Humvee dubbed Sandstorm, took third position in the trials. It was the best performer in last year's race despite covering only 7 1/2 miles of the 150-mile course. The exact route of Saturday's race will be kept secret until two hours before start time, but organizers have said it will begin and end in Primm and is expected to be more difficult than last year while covering as many as 175 miles.

      So, it's a bit shorter (by 18 miles), but expected to be more difficult. -- Paul

      --
      OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
    5. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Every team has managed to make it past the point traveled last year - except for one. The MITRE Meterorites, who in one hours and seven minutes traveled a total of 0 miles. I'll bet you they can at least double that next year. :) I have to wonder how they managed to qualify for this round if they weren't even able to leave the starting line.

      (MITRE is probably best known as "that contractor who decided that Windows NT should run that battleship that was stranded when Windows NT BSODed on its test run".)

    6. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by mroch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Found it, on the Grand Challenge home page: "Kurjanowicz also said that the course 'is tough, tougher than last year,' but added: 'The vehicles are better, smarter. That's why we held the NQE [National Qualification Event],' he said. 'We wanted to make sure they are capable of completing the course."

    7. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by Jay+Carlson · · Score: 3, Informative

      (MITRE is probably best known as "that contractor who decided that Windows NT should run that battleship that was stranded when Windows NT BSODed on its test run".)

      Cite? MITRE didn't exist when the final US battleship was built, nor did MIT Lincoln Labs. I suppose the MIT Radiation Laboratory was contemporaneous in 1944, but I expect their expertise in OS recommendations was limited. I suppose this lack of knowledge of operating systems is excusable as there weren't any operating systems.

      Oh, you mean the USS Yorktown? That's a guided missile cruiser, and back in the old days the hull would have been called a destroyer, before the Navy decided to change the nomenclature. Little bit of a difference between a destroyer hull and a battleship, but hey, AC abuse is par for the course.

      As much I relish the image of some poor ensign yelling, "Screen's blue, SIR!", nobody seems to think this was an OS-level crash. And most of the google hits I can find on "navy smart ship mitre" point to things like Think Outside The COTS . Scrolling down to Figure 1, there's a list of potential pitfalls of commercial-off-the-shelf software.

      If this seems familiar, you've been a slashdot reader for a few years: MITRE Corp. Report On Open Source In Government .

    8. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      MITRE is probably best known as "that contractor who decided that Windows NT should run that battleship that was stranded when Windows NT BSODed on its test run".)

      Nonsense. There was no BSOD. What happened was that the system was using a client/server architecture. An application program on the server was given invalid data from an operator on a client, and divided by zero. That caused the application to exit, just like it would have on any other operating system, such as Linux.

      While I personally would not use Windows in this application, Windows had absolutely nothing to do with this problem.

    9. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by SeventyBang · · Score: 1



      Isn't the race 175 miles?

    10. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by some2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was there.... just got back home. Most said the course was as challenging but less difficult to pass. On this course, the first stretch was a run over a dried lake bed to Jean, NV from Primm. Basically, if your vehicle was road worthy you should pass back to the start/finish point for a quick photo op. That was around the first 8 miles of the course. I saw one bot (think it was terramax) get locked up trying to go up the railroad overpass (B), but most bots handled that well. Most everything else was fairly out of view, so it's hard to say. The hard part was the Beer Bottle Pass (K). A few teams were complaining that their heavily ruggedized vehicles were not being fairly treated because the course was made so easily passable. More agile vehicles had an advantage in that they could get up to speed faster. There were no large boulders, trees, etc in the way of the bots, as they were supposed to stay primarily on the predefined trails. The GPS tracking had around 1000 waypoints according to several different members of a few of the teams. The Stanford bot "won" in a sense as they were the first across the line. The red bull ice containers were poured on their coach and the media was interviewing their team. The CMU/Red Team groups appeared pretty sad after the initial results came in, but the Red Team Too bot may have beaten Stanford.. we'll see. The way they are scoring this is painful because they constantly paused the bots in movement to allow for sufficient space between. The exception may have been when stanford's bot passed CMU's 'highlander' bot.

    11. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by 80+85+83+83+89+33 · · Score: 1

      when looking at the overhead view of the area, i thought it looked pretty tame, and then i came across this:

      Dr. Whittaker was confident when he emerged at 6 a.m. from the trailer where route preplanners had analyzed the route, set the strategy for each vehicle and programmed the robots. "It is an easy route; it is [a relatively] flat route," he said, even scoffing at the 1.3-mile stretch through a mountain pass known as Beer Bottle Pass, the most challenging portion of the route. "It's like driving up Centre Avenue," he said, adding that on a scale of 1 to 10, "it's a 3."

      During field testing, he noted, the Red Team had developed trail rating with four degrees of difficulty. "This one," he said of the Grand Challenge route, "is below that scale." Some of the sophisticated topographical computer programs developed for the race proved all but superfluous, and were required for only about 3 percent of the route.


      and:

      Dr. Thrun said the contrast with last year was heightened by the design of the race itself. Last year, the hardest portion was at the very beginning of the race, while a difficult, 1.3-mile mountain pass was reserved for the last nine miles of yesterday's race.

      "If you inverted [last year's] race, they would have done 130 miles," even if nobody actually finished, he added.

      --
      i disable sigs
    12. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by mroch · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Popular Science has most recent updates by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Most people call all warships "battleships". I see/hear it all the time. That might be irritating to the Naval professional or the nit-picking Naval History buff. But it's the way people talk. Jargon is always used imprecisely by outsiders.

      The important thing here is that the Yorktown was stranded by a software crash. That crash might not have been due to a flaw in NT, but that wasn't the poster's main point. Which was that the contractor responsible for that software system, MITRE, dropped the ball. As they certainly did. Despite garbling a few peripheral facts, the central point is valid.

  2. Racing against the clock by epgandalf · · Score: 1

    H1lander, Stanley, and Sandstorm are all moving at about the same speed. It is like their plans are all the same. Maybe they are all moving at the course limits. Anybody know?

    1. Re:Racing against the clock by AxsDeny · · Score: 2, Informative

      Their plans are surely similar. The guy heading up the Stanford team is a former student of Red Whittaker and was on the Red Team last year.

      --

      zork% mv *.asp /bin/darkroom
      283 files eaten by a grue
  3. No webcast by mpn14tech · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unfortunately there is not a publicly accessible webcast of the race like last year. I was quite disappointed at that.
    Still it is amazing how well the race is going this year. I hope there will be more races with greater challenges.

    1. Re:No webcast by pallmall1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even without a webcast, it's better than this year's OU vs Texas game.

      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    2. Re:No webcast by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the website sucks this year. The only cool part is the map; the entire rest of the site is a mess. The stats are completely inaccurate and misleading, the URLs in the RSS feed are broken, the updates are extremely sporadic, there's hardly any video, the UI sucks, the back button doesn't work, the text's too small, there's a stupid disclaimer on external links, external links always open popups, I could go on and on. Down with Flash websites!

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  4. We need a Google Maps Hacker by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can someone combine Google Maps with the XML here: http://www.grandchallenge.org/data/location.xml

    --
    wot no sig
    1. Re:We need a Google Maps Hacker by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 1
      --
      wot no sig
    2. Re:We need a Google Maps Hacker by pooya · · Score: 1

      Speed info: http://www.pooyak.com/utils/dgc2005/ Google map should be easy too. I may give it a shot.

    3. Re:We need a Google Maps Hacker by aerodyno · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's an Excel spreadsheet that displays that data and automatically updates every minute (it's a start)

      http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~savraj/gc-live.xls

    4. Re:We need a Google Maps Hacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:We need a Google Maps Hacker by vespazzari · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      "Alcohol, cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" -Homer Simpson
    6. Re:We need a Google Maps Hacker by pooya · · Score: 5, Informative

      Kinda late, but here it is. Map is working: http://www.pooyak.com/utils/dgc2005/

    7. Re:We need a Google Maps Hacker by anadem · · Score: 1

      nice! how about a link into google earth?

  5. This is amazing!!!!!! by Bootle · · Score: 0, Troll

    Maybe one of them will actually finish this time?

    1. Re:This is amazing!!!!!! by daegol · · Score: 1

      Nah, they have yet to encounter Beer Bottle Pass. We all know what's going to happen there.

    2. Re:This is amazing!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure hope we get to see some video of that.

      "Toonces, look out!!"

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. First races...then the WORLD!! by Druox · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sure, they're all just happy cars driving a fun race...until they rule us all!!
    I, for one, welcome our four-wheel and rear-wheeled drive overlords, and pledge my allegiance to Emperor Camry.

    --
    ~ slashdot.org - Where some of the world's greatest minds come together to scrutinize grammar.
    1. Re:First races...then the WORLD!! by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Camry is front wheel drive.

    2. Re:First races...then the WORLD!! by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Camry is front wheel drive.

            The autonomous ones go backwards.

  8. IN FACIST AMERICA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny


    the goverment use only the brightest children to design military hardware

  9. The Auto Wars by TheAdventurer · · Score: 1

    Looks like the war between GMC and Ford could someday take on a whole new dimension. :o

  10. Live video feeds? by ShawnDoc · · Score: 1

    Last year they provided live feeds of the event. I can't seem to find any for this year, anyone if one exists?

    1. Re:Live video feeds? by Thats_Pipe · · Score: 1

      Well, considering no car got past 8 miles last year, I guess the figured "Why bother?"

      --
      "You see them trees out back, I take care of them. I'm a tree, I'm a tree wizard." - Crazy Homeless Guy
    2. Re:Live video feeds? by mroch · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a webcast on campus here (Carnegie Mellon):

      "A live Webcast of the Oct. 8 Grand Challenge through the Mojave Desert will be shown on campus in Breed Hall in Margaret Morrison Carnegie Hall.

      "The Webcast will begin at 9 a.m. and end at 6:30 p.m. Breakfast will be served from 9 to 11 a.m. and lunch from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m."

      http://www.cmu.edu/cmnews/extra/050927_redteam.htm l

    3. Re:Live video feeds? by Somegeek · · Score: 1

      What the heck plugin do I need to install to get breakfast via webcast ?!?!?!?!

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    4. Re:Live video feeds? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Last year they provided live feeds of the event. I can't seem to find any for this year, anyone if one exists?

      so that we can slashdot the cars, yeah!

  11. Sensors sensors sensors by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 0

    I think this challenge is good to try and spur good sensors to be developed, but in the end I think the whole thing needs a lot of luck on its part. Sure you can map a route in GPS, and tell a car to drive it(basically what most the entries are doing), but to avoid all the obsticles, you either need sensors from the future, or you need a lot of luck. The R&D that needs to go into these next gen sensors is in the billions, so I don't think 2 million prize money is going to pay for it. My guess is that some team will accomplish this route in the next 20 years, but it will be attributed to them being lucky and not hitting obsticles.

    1. Re:Sensors sensors sensors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this has nothing to do with luck. The machines that will win this challenge have consistently produced similar results in testing.

    2. Re:Sensors sensors sensors by mroch · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you read anything about this? The course is specifically designed to prevent teams from relying solely on GPS by making them go through tunnels where they will lose their signals. Many of the bots have cameras, lasers, radar, etc.

    3. Re:Sensors sensors sensors by epgandalf · · Score: 1

      As of now, 3 teams have gone over 100 miles and 11 other teams are still going. I don't think any of the people on those teams would attribute their success to luck. Teams will complete the course today.

    4. Re:Sensors sensors sensors by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They are a lot more clever than you think they are. The qualification event was all about avoiding obstacles that were in the way and had sections with no GPS coverage.

      A couple of teams are using stereo cameras to find there way around but the vast majority are using SICK scanning laser range finders. They show you where things are over short distances which enables you to avoid obstacles at low speeds. Red Team are also using radar to be able to detect obstacles at greater distances to enable higher speeds. Unfortunately, it doesn't pick up everything. However data fusing everything together (GPS, INS, Radar, Lidar + others) allows you to move at modist speeds using current tech. Luck is always useful but technology is what is being used today.

      --
      wot no sig
    5. Re:Sensors sensors sensors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As of now (1 hour after your post) there are still 7 teams competing, and 3 over 110 miles (finish line is at 132 miles from start).
      Given their speed, the 4 other teams seem unlikely to complete the course within the 10 hours time limit.

    6. Re:Sensors sensors sensors by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Wow you are clueless. Just using cameras alone, computers can avoid obstacles fairly well. Throw in other sensors and range measurement equipment and they can do it extremely well, better than a 70 year old driver could aovid obstacles. That tells you something. Read Stanford's site, as of this time they've already completed the course. These cars have to avoid lots of things from bushes and cones to having to figure out how to avoid rivers and cliffs and mountains. Sure the general course is given to them, but when you drive to the local store, directions are also given to you, big deal. These cars are mapping the world in real time and using various analysis techniques, figuring out the best way to get from point a to point b at the safest maximum speed while maneuvering. These robots aren't just driving on flat roads like you imply, and they are also constantly surrounded by dirt clouds.
      Regards,
      Steve

  12. TGDaily.com also has a blog up by not5150 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/08/darpagrandchalle nge2005/
    With pictures :)

    Most interesting one so far is when Caltech's Alice charged through a k-rail, knocking it over and then started up a berm towards reporters. It was E-Stopped just a few feet away from hitting the media.

    1. Re:TGDaily.com also has a blog up by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good thing they stopped it before it tasted human blood. If it had we would have never stopped its killing rampage.

    2. Re:TGDaily.com also has a blog up by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Most interesting one so far is when Caltech's Alice charged through a k-rail, knocking it over and then started up a berm towards reporters. It was E-Stopped just a few feet away from hitting the media.

      If I was a car and I went crazy, I think I would munch the media also.

      Some speculation is that a dust cloud confused it. Next year maybe they want to include a dust detector such that if lots of dust is detected, to procede with caution. I am surprised they don't use feeler-like wires that stick out a few feet such that if it encounters a rock or berm, it stops. However, I imagine such may also entangle on brush.

    3. Re:TGDaily.com also has a blog up by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the feeler-like wires would be so great for pedestrians...

      --
      Sig
    4. Re:TGDaily.com also has a blog up by agent+provocateur · · Score: 1

      Maybe they mistakenly put the Sean Penn AI into that one.

      --
      Siggy Sig Sig? Where is the sig?
  13. Luck has nothing to do with it ! by timeToy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Welcome to the future ! The time now is 11h45am PST, I can predict that several cars are going to finish the course this year, one might have been luck, 3 or 4 for is not. Sensors, but more than that, the actual programs that run the car is the key here. Heck even my own personal Lego Mindstrom creations can navigate their way inside my home ! mmm I may enlist a Lego based car bot next challenge !

    1. Re:Luck has nothing to do with it ! by NightLamp · · Score: 1

      Hey hey, Team Stanford has completed the course! well done!

  14. any of the contestants here? by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    During last years challenge all contestants were complaining that the thing was rigged in order to get the red team to win. I.e. there were last minute rule changes for which the red team was prepared for, but nobody else was, and some contestants said they had an operational system ready yet they were not allowed to compete.

    I am not at all surprised of this, since the red team is sponsored by the major military contractors and we all know how they basicaly control military procurement.

    But I was wondering if similar shenanigans were happening this time around. Any of the competitors care to comment?

    1. Re:any of the contestants here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That does not make sense. We are talking about a cash prize of 1 million dollars (last years). What does winning one mil do for a defense contractor?

      Could there be another explanation for the supposed favoritism?

    2. Re:any of the contestants here? by mroch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe it has nothing to do with favoring Red Team, and more to do with the fact that CMU has one of the top robotics and AI university programs in the world, teamed with defense contractors that should be expecting something like that, so they just happened to be more prepared...

    3. Re:any of the contestants here? by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "That does not make sense. We are talking about a cash prize of 1 million dollars (last years). What does winning one mil do for a defense contractor?"

      nobody really cares about the 1 million ... they care about the contracts that will start flowing after a succesful vehicle has been made, and the army orders 50 000 autonomous trucks. It is obvious that the winner will be the one that is favoured to get the contract.

    4. Re:any of the contestants here? by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
      As a team leader of one of the teams eliminated at the NQE, I didn't see any visible favoritism by the DARPA staff. The teams that went to Primm are the teams that should have gone.

      Funding is more of an issue. Teams were supposed to have no Government funding whatsoever, either direct or indirect. Yet MITRE had a team, and they're a quasi-governmental agency. CMU has received DARPA robotics contracts for years, as has Stanford. Red Whittaker of the CMU team is still the principal investigator on a NASA grant (#NAG5-12890) until February 2006. Stanford used software developed under DoD contract, although anyone can download it and they asked DARPA for permission. It's more of a revolving-door issue than direct diversion of Government funds.

      But the real incentive for the big university teams was fear. If Joe's Auto Parts fielded a better robot than some university getting $20 million a year in robotics funding from DARPA, DARPA might well pull the plug on the school. CMU faced that prospect; originally, they weren't going to enter the Grand Challenge at all. The whole Grand Challenge was created because of unhappiness at DARPA with the rate of progress in mobile robotics. DARPA has been pouring robotics money into CMU and Stanford for thirty years, without getting much back. The head of DARPA, Dr. Tony Tether, decided that it was time to do something about that. It worked.

    5. Re:any of the contestants here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno about the others, but I bet these two aren't Slashdot readers.

    6. Re:any of the contestants here? by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      If there is anyway for Cheney to profit from the red team, I will belive you.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    7. Re:any of the contestants here? by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1


      You think the red team has major military sponsors? Look at Team Terramax. Their vehicle is from Oshkosh, the largest supplier of military trucks, and is widely in use by the military. The team's navigational system came from Rockwell Collins, another colossal military contractor. I'd say that Terramax's military ties is stronger than any other team.

    8. Re:any of the contestants here? by thoth · · Score: 1
      The whole Grand Challenge was created because of unhappiness at DARPA with the rate of progress in mobile robotics. DARPA has been pouring robotics money into CMU and Stanford for thirty years, without getting much back. The head of DARPA, Dr. Tony Tether, decided that it was time to do something about that. It worked.

      Seriously? That is like the coolest thing I've heard, a government agency using economics and incentives to get some results. Nice!

    9. Re:any of the contestants here? by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, couldn't have said it better. Contests like this are the antithesis of no-bid contracts, plus it's fun to watch the winners celebrating.

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    10. Re:any of the contestants here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teams were supposed to have no Government funding whatsoever, either direct or indirect. Yet MITRE had a team, and they're a quasi-governmental agency.

      According to MITRE's website, all their research involves government funding, so - whatever. But it's worth noting that for all that government funding, the MITRE team managed to go an impressive 0 miles, the only team not to make it to last years farthest point.

      Hm...

      Apparently there was some favoritism there in qualifying them in the first place. :)

    11. Re:any of the contestants here? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Government contracts are very rarely sole sourced (i.e. without competition) unless their is only 1 company that can meet the specifications such as clearances, ownership, technology, etc.. There are books full of regultations (called FAR and DFAR) that must be applied to level the playing field. Your oblique reference is to Halliburton's work in Iraq. Halliburton was the only US company that could do the work required on the scale required (other companies could but were not US firms...that eliminated them).

    12. Re:any of the contestants here? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually a lot of the no-bid contract talks these days is in reference to all the cronyism going on down south in the wake of Katrina and Rita. Billions and billions of dollars in contracts were awarded without bid or even research. Many of those contracts are being reevaluated and put out for bid, but only after much fuss was raised in the media and Congress.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    13. Re:any of the contestants here? by KrackHouse · · Score: 1

      Lets say the government decides to build a $300,000,000 attack blimp. They open up competition to all of the local businesses which will of course bring sorely needed jobs to the local economy. Everybody votes for it, nobody asks if it's necessary. So I guess you're right, my beef is with necessity but it's good to know there are rules in place to prevent cronyism.

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    14. Re:any of the contestants here? by theschles · · Score: 1
      As the team leader of a team that was eliminated at the site visit because our car didn't work (and then 2 weeks later we finally got it working consistently without a hitch), I'm kinda bummed that 4 (and probably 5) teams will complete the race. We were hoping that there would be a 2007 race.


      We started with zero funding and a small team of undergrad students in July 2004 - our first funding was $3,525, which we received in January 2005. Needless to say, we busted our butts and used a ton of ingenuity and we're proud to say that we can turn any car into a fully autonomous vehicle that will complete DARPA's site visit rules with about $14,000 (kinda cheap compared to CMU's rumored $3.5 Million for the March 2004 race).


      Now that there won't be a 2007 race (unless some mass disqualification occurs or DARPA just decides to be nice), we're aiming to recenter ourselves and aim for areas and applications that nobody else has done before.

    15. Re:any of the contestants here? by WebCrapper · · Score: 1

      Well, you could technically get that vehicle as gov surplus (even though they started destroying vehicles now). Its just an altered (although new) M923/939

      Honestly, I would have used an M113 APC. It has plenty of room inside for racks of equipment, enclosed space for air conditioning and air filtration, its a tracked vehicle, plenty of room on top and in front for sensors and, like all military vehicles, has (roughly) a 10 hour operating capacity (which is where the 10 hour rule came from).

      As for the software and nav systems, I agree with you. Unless its something that has been released to the public for awhile, I don't think it should be in a vehicle.

    16. Re:any of the contestants here? by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1

      The truck is a brand new Oshkosh MTVR. The company's involvement in the project is substantial, they approached the university about working with them, not the other way around as was the case with most of the other teams. Oshkosh has a huge interest in developing the autonomous transport because, in the end, it's going to be something like the MTVR and not a Touareg that the military will want to use as a platform for the technology.

    17. Re:any of the contestants here? by pontifier · · Score: 1

      I'm kinda bummed because I had a vehicle that moved, and was just a couple of days from full autonomous waypoint following... I just needed to install the brakes, but didn't get a site visit.

      I had no team... I did it all by my self. Worked on a vision system that I could have had working by may. My video was just no good... filmed myself, and edited in 20 minutes to get it out on time, I forgot to mention the work I had done that was not represented on the vehicle at the time... Mostly research and test progams for realtime fuzzy photogrammetry. Total spent: less than $2000

      --
      -John Fenley
    18. Re:any of the contestants here? by WebCrapper · · Score: 1

      You got me on that one, but the MTVR looks like the older M923, just updated. As for how many updates/improvements they made, no clue. But I agree, the military will use one of their vehicles, not what crosses the finish line.

      But with the info you gave out, I don't think terramax should be able to officially compete. If they want to run the course without prize capability, so be it.

      Frankly, if contractors wanted to compete, they should have started these projects long ago. When I was in PA about 5-6 years back, the gov was attempting to use unmanned vehicles (I believe they where using something like the Stryker) and where having horrible success - that was common knowledge.

    19. Re:any of the contestants here? by Zaphod_Beebleburp · · Score: 1

      MITRE is a not-for-profit organization. Yes, their sole income is based on government funding so indirectly (using that term as broadly and blindly as possibly)they shouldn't have entered. But since MITRE isn't allowed to use more than 10% of their income for research, most of which hardly qualified for this DARPA project, I call sour grapes. I have a sibling that works for MITRE, and almost the entire project was volunteer work. I didn't see any sponsorship logos on the Mitre Meteor. MITRE is "NOT" a quasi-governmental agency, spin it as you like. Are you trying to justify being eliminated? Not-for-profit=if they make a profit, they have to build a new parking lot instead of giving their employees a raise. I suggest you do a little research before you make blind declarations. As for the universities funding, I'm not familiar with that.

  15. Google Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here's the starting point in Primm,NV

      3537'8.83"N
    11522'39.26"W

    There's a small poor resolution band going across one section. The rest isn't bad though

  16. Lovely image! by HerrGoober · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Our race planners are pouring over the race route"

  17. DARPA's site for status update, not team sites! by vectorian798 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here:
    DARPA Grand Challenge 2005

    There is a map updated almost every minute automatically that will show you the position of all the teams and the times elapsed for each, etc. At the time of this post, Red Team Too, Stanford, and Read Team are all doing well, at 94+ miles each. Surprisingly, most of the teams are still in the running (that is, not eliminated). It is hard to compare one team to another however, because each team starts at a different time and perhaps the ones that are far behind are in the hardest part of the course and are thus moving slowly.

    1. Re:DARPA's site for status update, not team sites! by epgandalf · · Score: 1

      About 15 minutes ago, DARPA's web site listed the top three as having gone about 100 miles each, now it bumped their milage down by about 10 miles. Anybody else notice this?
      At least they are still making progress on the map.

    2. Re:DARPA's site for status update, not team sites! by mroch · · Score: 1

      Yes, very strange.

    3. Re:DARPA's site for status update, not team sites! by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 3, Informative

      There was a 10 mile error in the data from the start. Darpa corrected it which made it jump back as you noted. It is believed that the current data is more accurate read the thread here: https://dtsn.darpa.mil/grandc/forum/topic.asp?topi c_id=1652&forum_id=30&Topic_Title=Post+Time!&forum _title=Grand+Challenge+Event&M=False&S=

      --
      wot no sig
  18. I don't see it happening by AnonymousYellowBelly · · Score: 1

    I have not seen robots managing with ease and RELIABILITY even mildly unstructured portions of the world. I wouldn't trust a 3 ton vehicle to the Mars Pathfinder's 'brains', for example.
    Also, there are cost issues. Manned supply lines could be safer if you invested money (armour, more soldiers, aerial support, etc.), and maybe it is less than the cost of having an autonomous fleet of vehicles that will not be 'fool' proof.

    --
    Disclosure: I'm stupid
  19. Bolo by Hungry+Admin · · Score: 1

    This means that we are quite a bit closer to the Bolo envisioned by Keith Laumer. Of course, we are nowhere near the Mark XXX CSR.

    As it has been throughout history, the next war will be completely different, and yet the same.

    --
    Be who you are and say what you feel, because the people who mind don't matter, and the people who matter don't mind.
  20. Soldiers: Yay!; Truckers: Boo! by Saeger · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Last year the best car made it only 7 miles. This year all cars but one have made it at least 22 miles (so far), with three frontrunners past the 100mile mark (so far) and expected to finish.

    Now that's some amazing progress.

    This is great news for the soldiers soon to be removed the line of fire; "ominous" news for the millions of truckers and taxi drivers (in the US alone) who'll be quickly replaced over the next decade.

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
    1. Re:Soldiers: Yay!; Truckers: Boo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truckers and taxi drivers? I don't think so, not for a while.

      These robots have made fantastic technological progress, but there are still a lot of factors involving driving normally on a road that the cars don't take into account. For the most part, the obstacles the cars deal with are static. Throw in other drivers in the loop, get a car to suddenly cut in front, and these vehicles will probably go ballistic.

    2. Re:Soldiers: Yay!; Truckers: Boo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like they changed their status board. So all but 1 car made it at least 7 miles, not 22.

    3. Re:Soldiers: Yay!; Truckers: Boo! by hobuddy · · Score: 1

      ... "ominous" news for the millions of truckers and taxi drivers (in the US alone) who'll be quickly replaced over the next decade.

      "Quickly replaced over the next decade"? You're nuts.

      I expect it to be at least thirty years before automated vehicles are driving on ordinary public roads. In ultra-remote areas (think resource exploration in harsh environments), controlled areas (think forklifts within a freight terminal), and war zones: yes. Public roads (imagine a delivery truck threading through Dallas in rush hour): no time soon.

      The software and hardware from which these vehicles are built is certain to fail occasionally, and consider the standards an automated "driver" would be held to: if the brakes failed and a human driver crashed into others, the event would be ascribed to "bad luck" or "poor maintenance", but wouldn't be noteworthy; if the same thing happened to an automated vehicle, it'd become a political carnival, a rally point for those concerned about what they perceive to be the dehumanizing impact of technology.

      --
      Erlang.org: wow
    4. Re:Soldiers: Yay!; Truckers: Boo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already used in unloading supertankers... so you are 30 years off already:

      See: Automated Guided Vehicles here or google for them.

    5. Re:Soldiers: Yay!; Truckers: Boo! by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Driving on normal roads is vastly easier than navigating the grand challenge terrain. In fact there have already been cross-country drives of autonomous vehicles on public roads.

      We already have traction control, adaptive cruise control, automated parking and drive-by-wire on the consumer market. The only thing that is not automated is steering and braking. Pre-emptive braking and obstacle-avoidance technology is very close and will probably begin to emerge on the market within a few years (motivated by safety concerns). Automated steering at up to freeway speeds will only be a few more years behind. At first it will be a switchable system with manual override like cruise control is now, so there will be nothing for the anti-technologist to scream about (people already have accidents when cruise control systems are engaged and it does not cause an uproar), and given another decade or so when people have really gotten comfortable with the technology, vehicles without drivers at all.

      Just my $2.0e-2...

    6. Re:Soldiers: Yay!; Truckers: Boo! by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1
      Driving on normal roads is vastly easier than navigating the grand challenge terrain.

      I disagree. In the grand challenge all you have to worry about is the terrain, and really the terrain is nothing more than empty dirt road for the most part. Plus the max speed is 40 mph, GPS is completely unobstructed save for a couple of straight tunnels, and the GPS waypoints are extremely detailed and completely accurate. To create a truly driverless car of the type where you push a button and it drives you where you want to go on the normal road system is many orders of magnitude more difficult. (Note that I'm not talking about fancy cruise control here, but real driverless cars which automatically go from point A to point B)

      When driving on public roads you have to be able to go 65 mph or more, read road signs and traffic lights with _extreme_ reliability, understand the instructions on various signs (not just standard road signs but non-standard signs found in construction zones, parking lots, private roads, etc), function with complete loss of GPS readings for an extended time, compensate for incorrect or out of date map data, reliably sense the locations of other cars from hundreds of meters away, read other cars' brake lights and blinkers and predict and react to their actions, adapt to weather conditions (rain, snow, fog, ice), avoid pedestrians, navigate construction zones, avoid crashes, figure out whose turn it is at 4-way stops, recognize malfunctioning traffic lights, recognize missing or misleading or unreadable road lines, navigate parking lots and driveways for which no map data exists, be immune to simple pranks (imagine if putting some simple obstacle in the road would cause every automated vehicle that went by to turn and crash), and undoubtedly solve a million other problems I didn't think of.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    7. Re:Soldiers: Yay!; Truckers: Boo! by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Most of those problems are "last mile" issues which vary greatly depending on the endpoints. For many applications (trucking, commuting) the route is known in advance. Driving off road in the desert has a slew of hard problems as well (vibration, dust, random obstacles etc), which we now know are basically solved. The army has mandated that 1/3rd of their fleet will be autonomous within 10 years. Undoubtedly that will entail a couple orders of magnitude more effort but they have the money and the will to do it.

    8. Re:Soldiers: Yay!; Truckers: Boo! by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1
      Certainly the desert has its problems, but they pale in comparison to the problems of city driving.

      For predefined routes we already have trains and buses. There would probably be a market for an autonomous path-following cargo truck but if it couldn't navigate the last mile over city streets that market would be a *lot* smaller than it could be. Commuting pretty much requires city driving.

      Of course, eventually these problems will be solved and robots will drive us everywhere; I'm sure of that. It's just that I don't think it's happening soon, even though the Grand Challenge has been won.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    9. Re:Soldiers: Yay!; Truckers: Boo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since his '30 years' estimate was for robotic cars on *public* roads, unless you post a link to something along those lines, he is *not* 30 years off.

      Logic. It'll get you ever time...

  21. Re:Wartime Bandaids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In ten years time, this technology is going to lay a good amount of major military doctrine about logistics to waste and redesign.

    You couldn't be closer to the truth, except if you had read that :
    Indeed, the military is pushing for more machines in combat to minimize the loss of lives and to save money as well. By 2015, Congress wants one-third of all military vehicles to be unmanned.

    One of the numerous sources here
  22. Don't lose your focus by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    One contestant seems to have veered off course to hump a rock.

  23. How exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In ten years time, this technology is going to lay a good amount of major military doctrine about logistics to waste and redesign.


    hmm, not so sure about that. logistics is stil hauling stuf from where you have it to where it is needed, and you have limited resources to do that. What does it matter that there is a computer in the drivers seat instead of a soldier?
    Even in wars where one of the parties had bodies to spare (vietcong anyone?) this did not make a significant difference to the problems of logistics. You are just swappinig one problem with the other.

    What good is a truck in the middle of the road with a broken part, if you compare it to a manned truck with an emerency repairs kit? Dreaming of armadas of autonomous vehicles is nice, but unless they are made in china, it will cost way too much to buy them.
    Or alternatively let those soldiers that are otherwise totally unproductive, produce something to do something unproductive more efficiently.

    But they will make for more spectacular fireworks. Instead of blowing up one ammunitions truck at a time, 'the insurgents' can just plant a bomb on the vehicle and blow it up when it has reached it's destination. Smart ammunitions indeed.
  24. Wikipedia Article by KrackHouse · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm updating the Wikipedia page. Updates with links to videos plus google maps - add stuff if you've got it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_DARPA_Grand_Chal lenge

    --
    What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
    http://houndwire.com
  25. Down to three teams, approaching 1000 foot drop by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ten miles to go, three entries (Stanford and both CMU vehicles) are close together, with Stanford well in the lead. Now approaching the section with the one-lane dirt road with the 1000 foot drop on one side. Is there a live video feed of this area anywhere?

    1. Re:Down to three teams, approaching 1000 foot drop by Animats · · Score: 1

      Stanford's vehicle is through the last hard section and out of the mountains.
      It's all straight, flat power line road to the finish now. Four miles to go.

  26. Mod Parent Up by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 1

    Well cool. Thanks.

    --
    wot no sig
  27. Stanford racing team has won... by Harry+Balls · · Score: 3, Informative
    ...with their entry "Stanley", a modified VW Tuareg.

    Total time: 7 hours, 8 minutes for a distance of 132 miles, which amounts to an average of 18.5 mph.

    1. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by Torrenc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Err, no. They just finished with a time of 7h 28m. Maybe you mistoke the 125 mile line on the status board on http://www.grandchallenge.org/ for the finish?

    2. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by deblau · · Score: 2, Informative

      Red Team Too is the closest to the finish line, but they're over Stanley's time. Red Team (One) is at Stanley's time now, and they're up in Beer Bottle Pass, 7 miles from the finish. I don't know about adding penalty time, but it looks like Stanley has won.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    3. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by LauroMoura · · Score: 1

      Actually they have finished first, but the race isn't over. There's a ticker on the official site: "The first car to finish is NOT necessarily the winner".

    4. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by Xerotope · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not so much an issue of adding penalty time, but subtracting pause time.

      Both Stanford and Sandstorm have been paused several times to prevent them from running into the back of H1ghlander. It seems the roads are too narrow in most places to allow passing to occur, hence they stop the rear robot to allow a safe following distance to accumulate. The time the robot is in pause state does not seem to be taken into account in the unofficial results on the grandchallenge.org site.

    5. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by ketamineX · · Score: 0

      First to finish isn't the winner since they don't all start at the same time.

      Right now, the results are:

      Red Team - 7h 55m - complete
      Stanford Racing Team - 7h 58m - complete
      Red Team Too - 8h 3m - complete

      Still a few left but it looks like the Red Team 'won'. It's amazing that all 3 finishers were so close in time to complete. Just refreshed after preview and the times all shifted by a few minutes so results may vary.

      see http://www.grandchallenge.org/

    6. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by deblau · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, but why should they have to pause them at all? I'd want a real autonomous vehicle to be able to dodge moving targets directly in front of it, especially ones going in the same direction and slower than it is. Or was that simply beyond the scope of the challenge?

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    7. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by LauroMoura · · Score: 1

      After last year's results, I believe they thought it would be too much asking for this.

    8. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Well there are some rather thorny logistical issues; e.g., if two bots collided then it would be unfair to the one which was not "at fault"; also there is a chase vehicle for every bot, so the chase vehicles would have to pass as well putting the passengers at risk as well. Maybe in the next grand challenge...

    9. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The timer keeps on going (ie: if you finish it doesn't stop), the stanford team finished a good 10 minutes before the others (ie: removing the difference in travel times still puts them ahead). However as someone else said, pause times still may change the winner.

    10. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      That might have been difficult in the narrow tunnels, depending on how narrow those tunnels actually are.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    11. Re:Stanford racing team has won... by awtbfb · · Score: 1

      I view this as a 1-2-3 sweep for Carnegie Mellon fans. The Stanford team is led by Sebastian Thrun - who until recently was a professor at Carnegie Mellon.

  28. Stanford team wins by Animats · · Score: 1
    The Stanford team has won the DARPA Grand Challenge. Time was 7 hours, 26 minutes.

    The two CMU vehicles have made it through the last tough parts, and they should finish in ten to fifteen minutes.

    Four other teams are still running, but are too slow. None are halfway yet.

  29. First across the finish line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Standford Racing Team, Team number 3, has made it to the finish line in approx 7hr 30 min.

  30. Looks Like the Stanford team won by vespazzari · · Score: 1

    From the darpa site http://www.grandchallenge.org/ it appears that the Stanford team's entry "Stanley" has complete the entire course in 7h28m. Although I cant seem to find anyone posting anything about it yet.

    --
    "Alcohol, cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" -Homer Simpson
  31. Stanford Racing Team! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stanford got this one on the bag!!! This is a very grand achievement!

  32. Stanford WINS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's across, and nobody is going to beat the time it got. average 17+ mph

  33. Carnegie Mellon Team too Just finished. by Dommo · · Score: 1

    They took second 8 minutes behind stanford.

  34. Bug on the DARPA Status Board by Petroglyph01 · · Score: 1

    It looks like there is a bug on the DARPA status board. For teams that have finished the race, it appears that the time is still being counted. e.g. Stanford finished at 7 hours and 26 minutes, but as of right now, the board reflects Stanford's time at 7:46.

  35. Re:Wartime Bandaids by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
    In ten years time, this technology is going to lay a good amount of major military doctrine about logistics to waste and redesign.

    Well maybe but I can forsee smart enemy engineers disabling and reprogramming unmanned vehicles for their own purposes.

  36. Stanford and the two CMU teams have finished by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative
    Stanford is about half an hour ahead on time, so they win. (The numbers on the DARPA tracking site are wrong; the clocks are still running for the teams that have finished.) Insight Racing, TerraMax, and the Grey team are still running, but they're not even half way and can't finish within ten hours.

    So it's over.

    Autonomous vehicles will never be a joke again.

  37. Re:CMU Red Team wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    WRONG. Read parent posts before posting. You were obviously not that glued to the screen otherwise you would have noticed the clocks continuing despite Stanford finishing over half an hour ago. They also must account for various pause times, so although nothing is official, Stanford probably still won.

  38. CMU 1st and 2nd? by Snorpus · · Score: 1
    The Grand Challenge Status Board (as of 2125Z) shows Red Team, Red Team Too, then Stanford.

    Is it time for a chorus of "Fight for the Glory of Carnegie!" ?

    1. Re:CMU 1st and 2nd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the website is badly coded.

    2. Re:CMU 1st and 2nd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I'm too harsh -- parts of the site are nicely done like the ability to go back and forth between map and leader board. But it's like they never expected anyone to complete the race and gave no thought to helping viewers gauge progress given different starting times. So times just continue to mount up, rather than stopping when you finish.

  39. Re:Wartime Bandaids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A question, wouldn't an autonomous supply chain be considerably EASIER to disrupt than one driven by human beings? 'Insurgents' (being human beings themselves) are always going to be smarter than your autonomous vehicles.

    UAVs work because most 'insurgents' don't have sufficient firepower to knock them down and in all of the modern US wars we've seen the US dominates the airspace.

    However a ground vehicle would seem to be a considerably easier target.

    It just all seems part of the US fetish for replacing humans with technology in order to reduce human casualties, which in themselves are tragic but even worse for your PR when you're trying to wage an ethically bankrupt war in a foreign nation.

  40. Note On DARPA Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just thought I would mention a bit about the "Live update" times on the DARPA Grand Challenge Site since everyone keeps referencing them and they haven't been worth a damn all day:

    1 - The timers were started ~20 minutes before the bots took off for at least Red Team Too, Stanford & Red Team and never reset.
    2 - The bots were sent out at 5 minute intervals in this order H1ghlander; Stanley; Sandstorm, but Sandstorms time as only been 2 minutes off Stanley's all day, hmmmm.
    3 - As someone mentioned the official clock for each bot is stopped if it is ever paused by the chase truck but it is clear that since the clock for each of the current finishers is not stopped YET, that the "live update" times are not linked to this official timer.

    So, unless someone is posting from Primm or DARPA has posted official finish time since I started this post we all should just sit tight till those times are out.

    Although, since Stanley started second and finished first he is most likely the winner (no, I'm not from Stanford; actually from CMU).

    Kudos to all those that competed and Congrats to those that finished!!

  41. Re:Wartime Bandaids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A question, wouldn't an autonomous supply chain be considerably EASIER to disrupt than one driven by human beings? 'Insurgents' (being human beings themselves) are always going to be smarter than your autonomous vehicles.

    A supply convoy doesn't have to be completely autonomous. In hostile territory you still need an armed command and escort vehicles and those won't be autonomous.

    Even in non-hostile territory a convoy desn't have to be autonomous. One or two human drivers and maybe a tech to monitor things could handle a twenty or thirty vehicle convoy and still be on-the-spot if something breaks down.

    Just because you could have a completely autonomous convoy doesn't mean it must be completely autonomous.

  42. Re:Wartime Bandaids by KylePflug · · Score: 1

    Problems with the current technology make this very unlikely, at least in the short term. For example: Set up a flimsy but opaque wall around all four sides of the automated vehicle. Uh-oh too bad it's stuck. Send somebody in to take the supplies and commandeer the vehicle. Game over.

  43. Re:Wartime Bandaids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man I hope that tech gets some serious danger pay.

  44. Autonomous vehicles will never be a joke again ? by RGRistroph · · Score: 1

    There was this guy who had been to about every bar in town. So one night, he hopped into a taxi cab and told the robot to take him to the best bar in town.

    The robot took him to a bar, where he got half-drunk. He hopped into the same cab and said that the bar wasn't good enough. The robot took him to another bar, where the guy had the time of his life.

    The next morning, this guy was in yet another bar telling his buddy what a good time he had the night before, but he couldn't remember where he was. All he could remember was a red door and a golden toilet seat. "Man, we gotta find this place," said his buddy.

    So the two spent half the day searching for a bar with a red door until they found one. They walked in, and the guy asked the bartender, "Was I here last night and too drunk to tell? All I remember is a red door and a golden toilet seat."

    The bartender hollered to the back, "HEY, FRED. HERE'S THAT SON OF A BITCH WHO TOOK A SHIT IN YOUR TUBA LAST NIGHT."

  45. Re:Wartime Bandaids by aluminumcube · · Score: 1

    That won't work.

    If you automate the supply convoys, none of your supplies will ever be delivered because every one of those convoys will be destroyed. Why? because the enemy has no incentive to NOT attack them. They can blow up driver-less robot trucks all day long and they know that nobody in the convoy is gonna do a damn thing about it.

    Right now, there is an interesting phenomenon going on where you are statistically worse off in a uparmored HMMWV in Iraq then you are in one of the old thin skinned ones or even a Toyota 4-Runner. The insurgency is smart enough to know that if they hit the armored HMMWVs (driven by regular Army and NG units) that the convoy will simply power through the ambush, get out of dodge and never be seen again. They are easy targets because they don't put up a fight.

    Marine and Army Special Forces unit doctrine has those guys driving a bit to get out of the deadliest part of the ambush, stopping, dismounting and bringing the fight to the enemy. While the insurgents are pretty good with the sneaky roadside bomb (IED) and suicide ca bomb (VBIED), they are cowards when put into a standup fight. Marines, SF and (when they engage) Army units kill all the insurgents when they dismount and bring the fight to the enemy and the insurgency knows this. End result? Insurgents don't attack as many Marine or Army Special Forces units even though their vehicles are not as buttoned up as the Big Army.

    Automated convoys would be like a free buffet. Blow them up all you want; until you find a way to defend that convoy with some effective, automated technology, insurgents are going to attack them at will and you will never get any supplies. And no, you won't just be able to bolt on armor to solve the problem- in the race between better armor and bigger bombs, the bombs easily win.

  46. IN COMMUNIST RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    military hardware design the children! Do other countries use their dumbest children to design military hardware? That could explain the fact that America is the only superpower.

  47. Maybe its not over yet by __aadkms7016 · · Score: 1

    The ticket-tape on the grandchallenge.org site is now displaying "October 9th operations possible; no winner declared".

    Tony is probably mulling over doing some sort of tie-breaker round for the top 3 teams. Not a bad idea, there's probably something new to learn by going at it one more day.

    1. Re:Maybe its not over yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I thought they were considering continuing tomorrow because Terramax still has a chance at being the fastest. They were paused so many times, and at one point paused for a very long time, that once all of that is taken into account, they might come out ahead. I wonder if the problem approaching now is the amount of daylight left, hence the possibility of things being resumed tomorrow.

    2. Re:Maybe its not over yet by __aadkms7016 · · Score: 1

      Yes, this makes more sense than my initial guess ...

    3. Re:Maybe its not over yet by Animats · · Score: 1
      Under the rules, slow vehicles might be stopped overnight and restarted in the morning. That's what "October 9th operations possible" probably means. TerraMax is still chugging away, at 77 miles. Grey Team, at 120 miles, is coming up on the tough mountain pass with the steep dropoff. Neither will make it under 10 hours, but it's worth letting them finish.

      There's someone in a pickup following each 'bot, carrying an emergency stop transmitter. Some of those roads you don't want to drive at night.

      The rules don't allow for a tie-breaker. First 'bot to finish in under 10 hours wins.

      It's not clear why the displayed timing information is so bad. Each 'bot has a DARPA-supplied box which handles emergency stop, tracking, and timing. The units have two radio links (1W at 900MHz for emergency stop, and an Iridium satellite uplink for tracking), plus onboard logging of all events. When the 'bot gets a PAUSE command, the clock stops running at the moment the RUN signal to the bot's onboard electronics goes low; on remote restart, it continues. That timing info goes out over the radio link, and the E-stop and tracking systems can read it remotely. That's the official timing. But that timing info doesn't seem to be what's driving the "grandchallenge.org" web site, because the diplayed time keeps increasing on the bots that finished hours ago.

  48. I was rooting... by zogger · · Score: 1
    ...for Team TerraMax. I dig LARGE equipment, heh. But, the little VW that could, WHOOP!!



    Maybe next year they'll make it interesting and allow SABOTAGE while the race is running! That would be a hoot, and make it more realistic for what DARPA wants.

  49. Re:Wartime Bandaids by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

    Pair this with the Sniper finder robot and the automated attack tower we have seen in the last couple days though and I wouldn't want to mess w/ something that returns fire automatically and w/o deviating from it's primary mission.

    --
    I do security
  50. Grey Team just finished by Animats · · Score: 1
    The Grey Team has just finished. TerraMax is still on the course, with about 50 miles to go. They'll be paused overnight.

    This is impressive. Four successful finishers in under 10 hours.

  51. Re:Wartime Bandaids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "In ten years time, this technology is going to lay a good amount of major military doctrine about logistics to waste and redesign."

    In ten years time if Bush has his way the only people who will be able to afford the gas to run anything will be the Chinese military! Of course Chaney will be gone, unless he gets cloned. Knowing the oil industry this might just happen.

    Bullfrogs to the military being the most important use of robotic technology...much more important will be the advances in public transportation.

  52. Re:Wartime Bandaids by syukton · · Score: 1

    As the other poster who replied to you mentioned, there's always that sniper-finding robot to counter the scenario you describe.

    There's also a Phalanx gun, which can target and destroy an incoming projectile (like an RPG or missile) before it makes impact. I'm sure it could be modified to fit on a humvee in an automated supply convoy.

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  53. Please, it's Caltech, not CalTech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spell it right. Thank you.

    1. Re:Please, it's Caltech, not CalTech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if we just call it MITLite ?

    2. Re:Please, it's Caltech, not CalTech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be incorrect.

  54. Stanford beat CMU? by typical · · Score: 1

    ...Stanford probably still won.

    Man, you mean I have to put up with ribbing from the Stanford guy at work?

    [sigh]

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  55. Re:Wartime Bandaids by rossifer · · Score: 1

    There's also a Phalanx gun, which can target and destroy an incoming projectile (like an RPG or missile) before it makes impact. I'm sure it could be modified to fit on a humvee in an automated supply convoy.

    Phalanx guns are BIG, like several times the weight of a humvee even before you load the ammunition.

    Besides, I wouldn't be too worried about guided missiles being aimed at a convoy. You should be more worried about antivehicular explosive charges (mines) and RPG's in convoy defense. Automated convoys also need to worry about EMP devices taking out unshielded equipment (basically, external sensors) and crackers getting into control systems to divert vehicles, to state two more sophisticated attacks that might be devised.

    Regards,
    Ross

  56. Re:Wartime Bandaids by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    You do understand that George Bush is well into his second term and will not be allowed another? That he and Cheney will be long gone before your ten years are up?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  57. Stanley, eh? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    I suppose since Stanford won the race, their robot should be called the Stanley Screamer.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  58. DARPA Lies... by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 1

    I was preparing an entry for the 1st Grand Challenge, and was thrown out by DARPA's absurd rule changes.

    They changed the rules daily for more than 3 months, and claimed publicly that they had not changed anything.

    The rule changes left every team unable to build anything for the constant redesigns to meet these rule changes.

    Aparently, DARPA's methodology is:
    1. Announce a challenge, that many people were able to do the first year, with a $1 Million prize
    2. Change the rules constantly so that few people are able to mee the rules
    3. Disqualify all qualified entrants, leaving half-assed teams from the big names
    4. Lie, and say you never changed the rules
    5. Hold a disasterous challenge
    6. Finally, stop changing the rules
    7. Watch the big names build entries that meet the now-static rules
    8. Delcare that you have "done the impossible"
    9. Thank God that you have run off all the rif-raf, and that only the multi-billion dollar groups will even talk to DARPA any more, post-Grand-Challenge

    I can not be the only one who was stung by DARPA's lies in 2002...did anyone else notice the constant changes?

    Andy Out!

  59. Re:Wartime Bandaids by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    The obvious solution would be to escort the unmanned supply vehicles with manned defense vehicles. Sure, the convoy wouldn't be "completely automated" anymore, but you'd still be getting the same supplies through, while risking 90% fewer soldiers' lives, so it would still be a big win.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.