Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics United States

DARPA Grand Challenge 2005 Rules Announced 102

Posted by timothy from the and-roll-tape dept.
Mr_KnowItAll writes "Our friends at DARPA have released the proposed rules for the 2005 Grand Challenge. They learned their lesson from the first one, now they will expect teams to submit a video demonstration of their vehicle's ability to complete the course before being invited to participate. Good, but they're also advancing the timeline to the point that it will be very hard to any team to start now and hope to participate. After all the fuss at DARPA's last-minute rule changes in '04, it's interesting to see that they're offering the proposed rules for community review and feedback."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DARPA Grand Challenge 2005 Rules Announced More

DARPA Grand Challenge 2005 Rules Announced

Comments Filter:

  • Are they doing this wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by l810c ( 551591 ) * on Monday August 02, 2004 @07:39PM (#9865981)
    How about setting up a series of events?

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

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

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

    • Napoleon Dynamite? Is that you?

    • Re:Are they doing this wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cujo_1111 ( 627504 ) on Monday August 02, 2004 @07:54PM (#9866059) Homepage Journal
      Set up a series of events like you suggest but make them qualifying rounds, ie. you have to meet a minimum grade to reach the final race.

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

    • <tinfoilhat>
      Maybe they don't want anyone to be able to do autonomous vehicles - they just want really smart people to come up with some good ideas that they can use.
      </tinfoilhat>

      • You thought they just wanted to host a fun outing for robotics geeks? Like, they had all this money left over from the arms race and decided to spend it on something cool and froody?

        Of *course* they want really smart people to come up with good ideas they can use. That's why design competitions exist.

        It does them no good if all the contestants wash out. DARPA needs to do exactly what they're doing, in order to come up with a winnable contest so that good ideas can be identified by how well they meet th

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

    • The purpose of the Grand Challenge is to accelerate development technologies that would save lives on the battlefield through the use of robotic vehicles. Even though there was no winner at DARPA Grand Challenge 2004, DoD obtained a number of important ideas that could lead to promising developments.

      I think that everyone that considers to participate in this has to think about what their technology will be used for. 'saving lives on the battlefield' also mean 'being better at killing the target for the at
      • I think that everyone that considers to participate in this has to think about what their technology will be used for. 'saving lives on the battlefield' also mean 'being better at killing the target for the attack' and lets face it, not all attacks made are good(tm) ones.

        The military wants robotic vehicles for unmanned transport of supplies, primarily. They're not developing killer robots, nor do they have any reason to turn this into a weapons system. Humans are by far the deadliest and most effective to

        • "The military wants robotic vehicles for unmanned transport of supplies, primarily."

          Yeah, but supplies ain't just food, you know. Think munitions.

          I know it's a cool challenge and a geek-out, but I wish people really thought twice, and then thought some more, before they start doing free research for the world's most powerful military. They're getting enough of your tax money already, people. I'm sure everyone on the team that came up with the first two A-bombs dropped was a hell of a geek, but maybe they
          • "The military wants robotic vehicles for unmanned transport of supplies, primarily."

            Yeah, but supplies ain't just food, you know. Think munitions.

            I covered this angle. That argument is more a disagreement with the purpose of the DoD as a whole, as it can be applied to anything the DoD touches. The robots are not killing machines. My father, a wimpy electrical engineer with glasses who worked on the B-2 bomber, he is not a killing machine. A robotic truck designed to deliver anything from water to ammuni

  • Way to go.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by howman ( 170527 ) on Monday August 02, 2004 @07:50PM (#9866027)
    you bozo's /.'ed DARPA...

  • Hamstrung Technology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02, 2004 @08:05PM (#9866106)
    DARPA has been funding development of this technology for many years. The Grand Challenge was designed to expedite the process by placing a seemingly large sum on the table for the winner. They, however, have chosen to not allow any previously government funded software.

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

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

  • Remember this... (under 30 need not apply) (Score:5, Funny)

    by neil.pearce ( 53830 ) on Monday August 02, 2004 @08:09PM (#9866120) Homepage
    We've got Top men [stuffwelove.co.uk] working on it right now. Who? Top Men [robotprojects.com]
    • tee hee

      I play an indiana jones pinball machine that has this as the sound effect after the game is finished (right before the ever appropriate "See you tomorrow! Indiana Jones...")
    • OMG! I had this toy when I was around 12 (I think I got it in 88) my parents bought one of these in Moscow (Russia) and it could do much more than 16 commands, in fact it allowed a maximum of 99 steps in the program. It could fire lazer, sound, wait, make left or right turns at 1-360 degrees and move in steps (each step was around 20 cm)

      It was a load of fun :)

      • Haha, I forgot about that (well kinda).

        Had one when I was a young-un, probably circa 1980 or a bit before. We got ours because our aunt out on the west coast had gotten fed up with it. Ours was dark grey, but without the trailer. The front "laser" was a 6V flashlight bulb and it used a simple plastic membrane keypad on top. Only the middle wheel out of each side's set of 3 was a drive wheel. With a rubber o-ring stretched around a groove in the center to help with traction.

        I know I spent *hours* se
        • Well, except for the fact that mine was colored in white, blue and red (I think) it was exactly like that (with 99 programmable steps.) A lightbulb, rubber bands on the middle wheels, a membrane based keyboard, a speaker. Six 1.5volt batteries for the electrical motors and one 9 volt (on top, under a round lid) for the logic sound and 'lazer'. I also took mine apart, but put it back together and I think I gave my away as a gift to my little cousin about 12 years ago.

  • Why robot cars? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A spider like robot or a flying robot would have a much greater chance of success with the current level of technology, and a flying robot could get over rough terrain much faster than any wheeled vehicle and automatically avoid enemies.

    • Re:Why robot cars? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wheeled vehicles are more fuel efficient...feel better now?
    • Autonomous aircraft are possibly easier to build than land vehicles (note: neither are "easy"), but they really don't solve the kinds of problems that the Grand Challenge is supposed to focus efforts on. Surveilance applications are fairly well developed using airborne platforms, but moving a large payload by air just doesn't have the cost per pound per mile advantage of a ground vehicle.

      Autonomous ground vehicles are needed to get people out of the supply logistics roles that are inherently hazardous.

  • We Shall See! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TravisTHose ( 737937 )

    Looks like all teams will require an alleged Site Visit in order to participate in this next [earthlink.net] Grand Challenge. Last time, their PreChosen Few did not need to have a site visit. As a result, you can see what happened! The newer rules will still allow them to game it any way they really want to. Actually, after reading the newer rules, it looks like it will be easier for them to refuse teams for non technical reasons. Before, they had to explain exactly

    • Well so far as others have pointed out your website is a bunch of text with absolutely no evidence. Not saying your lieing but how hard is to have a camera and take some pictures of something?
    • I completely and utterly agree with everyones previous posts of healthy skepticism. I do indeed sound, heck, I freely admit that I AM whining like a little wimp. I am a bitter grump and whining about how unfare life has been to me. Well, not THAT unfair, but I can still complain as it is my personal way of healing. To me, everything I have said is fact. But at the same time, I can see how it looks from the outside looking in. I question my sanity all the time and can only arrive at what I feel is my own

  • Hard to participate? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by angrist ( 787928 )
    I've been following the GC for a couple of months now, with the aim of setting up a team at school.

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

    That being said, let the naysaying commence.

    • Re:Hard to participate? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mr_KnowItAll ( 20538 ) on Monday August 02, 2004 @10:41PM (#9866687) Homepage
      Good luck, and start now because you're already way behind schedule! (The team I'm on got to the qualifying event, so I've lived the behind-schedule lifestyle)

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

  • ....for God's sake DON'T enter a motorcycle, have it go for like 1 foot and have it fall over like last time.
    • ....And for God's sake don't let another bunch of high school kids wreck another SUV. I know that high school kids need experience so they can permanently be geeks/nerds//.ers, but start them out with something simpler. Was that team last place or something? Ah well, experience is the ultimate profit.

      British, perhaps they could have balanced that motorcycle better by tacking a dummy rider where the seat was. It could then shift from side to side, balancing out the bike. I'm not sure the bike's shape lets

  • Sciam View of 2004 Results (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mr_Blank ( 172031 ) on Monday August 02, 2004 @10:10PM (#9866534) Journal
    Another view of the first race here...
    Scientific American: From Finish to Start [sciam.com]
    Was the Grand Challenge robot race in March the fiasco it appeared to be? Hardly, argues William "Red" Whittaker. The annual event is pushing mobile robotics to get real."
    Yeah sure the last race could have been run better. But so what. The contestants learned a lot. So did the organizers. That was the point I think. DARPA learned its lessons fast, AND increased the prize money to boot. Let's see if the contestants learned as much!!

  • I would like to see (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rDx666 ( 801783 )
    It would be interesting if they tried more unconventional vehicles. Berkeley's motorcycle was a good idea (very very efficient), but it just couldn't balance right. Maybe a tricycle design is in order? Like those 666 mile per gallon freakshows? Or a car that can flip over and still run (like some of those fancy toy RC cars)?

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

  • New rules look OK. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 )
    The new rules seem reasonable enough. The video requirement makes sense, because it will avoid a debacle like last time. Last time only seven of twenty vehicles made it out of the starting area. That's embarassing. Very bad TV. This time we should see most of the field disappear into the distance.

    John Nagle
    Team Overbot [overbot.com]

    We're recruiting. Programmers, this time; we have most of the hardware working. Silicon Valley only; we're in Redwood City. Send us 1000 lines of C++ code that you're proud of. W

  • read between the lines in the rules:

    "DARPA will place on the route one or more obstacles that are designed to disable tacticle vehicles. These obstacles must be detected and circumnavigated for a vehicle to successfully complete the route."

    There are going to be landmines out there this time!!!

    • Funny, I thought the same thing when I first read this rule...

      There where things like concrete signs in the other challenge, but they did not succeed in stopping any vehicles when run over. The new rules specifically state that running over something is no longer an option (the red team was exceptionally good at this). I honestly see them placing anti-tank obstacles in the way. Then again, fireworks - I mean landmines would be cool, not to mention the reaction of the team when their vehicle gets blown up.
  • Sorry, but how to make the video. Run it over your course three hundred thousand times, and save the one time it works. Send to DARPA. I'm still upset that non-American entries are not allowed :-(

  • A very interesting detail... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CrystalFalcon ( 233559 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @01:49AM (#9867286) Homepage
    Quoth the competition rules;

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

    Who'd have thunk it, government organizations requiring instructions in English and Spanish, bilingually, for vital instructions on the vehicles. Is this a sign of the U.S. going bilingual (adopting Spanish) at snail's pace?
  • What's with this requirement that teams must be US citizens or at least lead by a US citizen?

    Are DARPA afraid that some foreigners might win or something? :-)

    Surely this would be like Junkyard wars where the best competitions are those involving teams from all around the globe?

    Geez, I'd have a go but I'd want to do it flying my own country's flag.
    • Well, I'm betting that DARPA wants to develop this technology for the USA & the USA only. That means training & educating US engineers & not foreign ones. Sure, they could just buy the technology off of a foreign winner, but part of this is getting the US tech industry to excel in this area.

      It's not about driving a car through the desert, it's about developing technologies for military applications. Those technologies are better kept in the US (from DARPA's point of view) with US workers
      • That means training & educating US engineers & not foreign ones

        But hang on -- who's educating who? Surely the people who make the winning vehicle will actually be bringing their technology or implementations to DARPA.

        It's not about driving a car through the desert, it's about developing technologies for military applications. Those technologies are better kept in the US (from DARPA's point of view) with US workers & companies

        So why allow any non-US citizens to be involved in the challeng
  • Ahhh, I need more time to enter my Bolo Mk I.

    I have some details to finish before starting the fusion reactor and driving to the race site. :^)
    I predict I will crush the competition.

    Then I have an idea to add a WOPR, and with the new AI the Mk III will be really impressive.

  • To: GrandChallenge@darpa.mil
    From: Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
    Subject: Rules Clarification - 3.6.4 Manual Emergency Stop Unit

    With respect to the following section:

    3.6.4 Manual Emergency Stop Unit

    Each vehicle must be additionally equipped with an externally actuated manual emergency stop capability. Activating the manual emergency stop must promptly bring the vehicle to a complete halt in the DISABLE mode. At least one actuator and its labeling must be easily visible and acces

    • As someone who worked on a vehicle last year, I can tell you what we did (and that DARPA approved it just fine): Just the brake won't cut it. What they want are big red buttons on the side of the vehicle that, when you hit them, immediately bring the vehicle to a stop. If the big red buttons trigger an actuator/wire/lever whatever that hits the brake, that works dandy for them. As for labeling, if the sign is right next to the lever, that works fine for them too. Of course, these aren't official DARPA
  • Can't afford DARPA's latest offering? Then don't enter!

    Instead, check out SRS/SERVO Magazine Robo-Magellan [robothon.org] contest. All you have to do is traverse 300 (straight line) feet - 300 grueling, twisted, Seattle Center obstacle covered feet. Of course, actual covered distance may be longer...

    Think you can do it?

Slashdot Top Deals

A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald

Close