Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

DARPA Semifinalists Selected

Posted by Zonk on Thu Aug 09, 2007 06:33 PM
from the go-speed-robot-go dept.
Robotics Science
An anonymous reader writes "DARPA has selected thirty-six teams as Urban Challenge semifinalists to participate in the National Qualification Event. Both the webcast and press release can be found on the official site. Dr. Tony Tether reports that only 1 of the top 5 previous teams was rated in the top 5 of teams this year and 3 of the top 5 were not in the challenge finals last year. 'The semifinalists will compete in a final qualifying round at the site on October 26th and be whittled down to 20 teams. Those teams' vehicles will have to perform like cars with drivers to safely conduct a simulated battlefield supply mission on a 60-mile urban course, obeying California traffic laws while merging into traffic, navigating traffic circles and avoiding obstacles -- all in fewer than six hours. The team to successfully complete the mission with the fastest time wins.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: DARPA Semifinalists Selected by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

DARPA Semifinalists Selected 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • To use a farkism (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What could probably go wrong?

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      will one of them find Sarah Connor?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What could probably go wrong?

      How about if one of the automated vehicles crashes into a truck carrying nuclear weapons that was traveling through downtown LA. The engineers who designed the weapons had foreseen every possible accident scenario except this particular automated vehicle crashing into the back of the truck which causes the nuclear weapons to explode. Sleeper cell terrorists throughout the US see this as their signal so they detonate their hidden nuclear weapons in New York City, Washington, D.C., Houston, Chicago, etc.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by SwordsmanLuke (1083699)
        Reminds of an old Dilbert strip (which, sadly, I cannot find a link to) where a potential customer is talking to Dilbert.

        Customer: Well, what's the worst case scenario?
        Dilbert: Our product could transform into a giant robot that annhiliates the universe.
        PHB: (freaking out the background)
        Dilbert: (Later, to Dogbert) Apparently, I don't know what "worst case" means.

    • What could probably go wrong?
      Well, if they interpret the highway code as a couple of celebrities do so...
  • Anyone else think of the movie "Maximum Overdrive" when they first heard about this?

  • This will drive the Taliban crazy (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Assuming that we are still in Afghanistan in ten years ... and I wouldn't bet that we won't be ... a fleet of these vehicles could really even things up with the Taliban. Imagine the Taliban ambush a vehicle to kidnap the occupants and too late they realize that the occupants are dummies. The vehicle explodes. YES! The terrorists get a taste of their own medicine.
    • I bet these autonomous vehicles perform really well in the mountains, yes...
      • I bet these autonomous vehicles perform really well in the mountains, yes...

        I imagine they'd perform pretty well along supply routes, which is the application they're currently targeted towards.

        • I bet these autonomous vehicles perform really well in the mountains, yes...

          The 2005 Grand Challenge course had narrow roads cut out of the side of mountains, with no guard rails. The vehicles that finished all made it through there, even the huge military truck from Oskosh.

          • The 2005 Grand Challenge course had narrow roads cut out of the side of mountains, with no guard rails. The vehicles that finished all made it through there, even the huge military truck from Oskosh.

            Yup, I was actually at the 2005 challenge, and remember that little mountain pass. I remember talking with people about how it was a really good thing that the mountain pass was near the end of the course, because otherwise some of the vehicles which had gotten knocked out earlier in the race probably would've e
        • [Ignoring the fact that the off-road contest has already come and gone...] Insight Racing is modifying a Lotus Elise. It's done pretty well so far on the track, and shouldn't have any trouble with tight mountain roads. Unfortunately, it doesn't have any cargo space. Oh well...

      • Re:This will drive the Taliban crazy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jdigriz (676802) on Thursday August 09 2007, @07:10PM (#20177105)
        Please, cars and computers are cheap. It's the development programs that are costly. We use million dollar cruise missiles to take out handfuls of islamist that could as easily be killed by a couple of dollars worth of bullets.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Wingnut64 (446382)
          I would also imagine it would be pretty demoralizing if people seeking glorious martyrdom only succeeded in killing robots.
      • You have watched Transformers one to many times. We are no way that skilled. the best we can do is have Asivmo climb out of the car and shake their hands, while detonating a bomb inside his chest.

  • Obeying California Laws? (Score:5, Funny)

    by kithrup (778358) on Thursday August 09 2007, @06:48PM (#20176897)

    How do they put a seatbelt on the computer?

  • Scoring? (Score:5, Funny)

    by kclittle (625128) on Thursday August 09 2007, @06:51PM (#20176923)
    "The team to successfully complete the mission with the fastest time wins."

    Now, exactly how many points per pedestrian?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by astrotek (132325)
      they have to obey traffic laws so I think a pedestrian (hit and run) is 2 points

      Some examples of one point violations:

      * A traffic conviction.
      * An at-fault accident.

      Examples of two point violations:

      * Reckless driving or hit-and-run driving
      * Driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs
      * Hit-and-run driving
      * Driving while suspended or revo
  • It'll be interesting to see what kind of modifications they make to the course, either to add signage and other course markings, or to degrade what already exists to make it more challenging. I was particularly interested in finding out that they'll be using the section of the base (now the Southern California Logistics Airport) that the Army's been using for MOUT (military operations in urban terrain) training.

    If the competitors aren't careful, there might be some new wrecks to add to scenario training...
    • There are going to be radio control stop commands issued by DARPA if two cars get too close. This should prevent two cars from colliding.
    • That would be interesting. What would the cars do if they put a roadblock along the road? Would they hop over the pedestrian lane or something. What would they do if Team Oshkosh decided to do the blocking with their truck.... Anyway it just caught my eye that Team Oshkosh would be using a truck for this one.. hmmm...

  • "obeying California traffic laws"? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I for one welcome our never-stopping-when-making-a-right-turn overlords.

    Oh, that's not the law? It sure seems like it. :)
          • In Las Vegas one time, just off the strip, I was standing at a corner waiting to cross the street. About half a minute had gone by since the light for cross traffic had turned red (I couldn't go yet because of the green turn arrow), when I hear BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP as this low-rider hoopty just blows through their red light. Wasn't even a little bit orange, and I'm pretty sure they didn't bother slowing down.

  • Tether? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jpellino (202698) on Thursday August 09 2007, @08:02PM (#20177477)
    The guy in charge of uber-autonomous robots is named TETHER?

    You can't make this stuff up.

    • Actually, Tony Tether is not just in charge of this challenge, he is in charge of DARPA (he is the director of DARPA).
      He is known to be overly involved (everything that is funded through DARPA gets the direct blessing of him... i.e. he does not trust any of the program managers to fund without his involvement).
  • "...obeying California traffic laws while..."

    I'm working from memory here, so I could be wrong, but to the best of my recollection, Calif. Motor Vehicle Code stipulates that a motor vehicle is required to be under the control of an approved driver at all times.

    Hell - break one, break 'em all :")
    • I remember when the California governor was in a movie where he was a robot driving around town. I think this means we'll be alright.
  • Interesting how DARPA connects a battlefield simulation to driving across California. I assume the test-track will the I-10.
    • I respectfully disagree.

      GO STANFORD!
      • Buying a car pre automated is as close to cheating as it comes for this competition...
        • Pre-automated? You mean prebuilt with servos to control steering, braking, etc. - the hard part of this competition is not rigging a car so that it *can* be controlled by a computer (if it was, the Mythbusters wouldn't be able to rig a car for remote control every other episode) - it's actually *controlling* the car - Stanford isn't cheating, they just aren't Mech. Engineers, they're CS guys.
        • AFAIK, the Touareg that VW donated to Stanford wasn't automated any more than a standard one is. Granted, just about everything but the steering is automated in one of those things, but it wasn't particularly special...
      • I respectfully agree with this disagreement.

    • Re:Great. Let's go protest. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Original Replica (908688) on Thursday August 09 2007, @07:13PM (#20177129) Journal
      Science did fine for thousands of years before the creation of atom weapons, space bombers, and killer drones.

      While I do agree with your sentiment, I'm afraid that science and war have been hand in hand for the vast majority of history.
      "Archimedes has also been credited with improving the power and accuracy of the catapult, and with inventing the odometer during the First Punic War."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes#Disco veries_and_inventions [wikipedia.org]
      "In 1595-1598, Galileo devised and improved a Geometric and Military Compass suitable for use by gunners and surveyors. This expanded on earlier instruments designed by Niccolò Tartaglia and Guidobaldo del Monte. For gunners, it offered, in addition to a new and safer way of elevating cannons accurately, a way of quickly computing the charge of gunpowder for cannonballs of different sizes and materials.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Gal ilei#Physics [wikipedia.org]
      And of course we know well what happened to the inventions and insights of Noble and Einstein. Science and the waging of war feed each other back and forth. Militaries are always eager to use new technologies and scientists are usually eager to for the kind of resources and funding that militaries have access to.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Moniker42 (1131485)
      I also agree with the premise. The US government is the biggest offender in this perpetual arms race with the world and themselves - but like many military inventions this has a civil purpose. It's not a new bio-bomb that can kill people more effectively, but a car that can rescue people and supply troops. It should lead to some useful inventions that we could be seeing in the commercial market soon enough.

      My only worry with new military technology is that it will progress to the point where troops (Ameri

      • It should lead to some useful inventions that we could be seeing in the commercial market soon enough.
        i also find it an irony we are having this debate over the internet...which was also designed by the us govt as part of an arms race.

    • Science only exists because the militaries of the world exist to do violence against the savages who would destroy it. Like it or not, things like science, technology, civilization, and society only exist because people are willing to protect their existence by means of physical force. Science owes its existence to the military, not the other way around. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but with 6 billion humans on the planet, even if all but one were committed pacifists, the only effect would be to ma

      • Science only exists because the militaries of the world exist to do violence against the savages who would destroy it.

        The death of Archimedes, among many other scientists during warfare, gives the lie to your words :

        Many brutalities were committed in hot blood and the greed of gain, and it is on record that Archimedes, while intent upon figures which he had traced in the dust, and regardless of the hideous uproar of an army let loose to ravage and despoil a captured city, was killed by a soldier who did not

        • It's the very existence of aggressive militaries that requires a peaceful society to be able to protect itself against them. Stable, wealthy societies do not last long without some sort of military protection, because an unprotected, wealthy society is only all the more appealing to those who would loot it. Of course it would be better if no one had a military, but that is not and never has been the case. And if it were the case, the first people to build a military and use it for aggressive purposes would

    • The had a race to see who could build a robot to navigate across the desert the fastest, and none of the entrants completed the course... so they say, "okay, now who can navigate through a city the fastest?" Doesn't seem to me like the right time to raise the bar.

      That was Grand Challenge I. The reheald it a year or two later and had several teams finish. Urban Challenge was only started after they had a successful Grand Challenge.

    • Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)

      by iluvcapra (782887) on Thursday August 09 2007, @11:02PM (#20178677) Homepage

      In the 2005 Darpa Grand Challenge [wikipedia.org] "Stanley [wikipedia.org]", Stanford University's entry, a Volkswagen Touareg wagon, won, beating several other entrants that completed the course. The team was led by Sebastian Thune; Stanley was remarkable for having a relatively simple LIDAR/GPS sensor array, unlike many of the other entries, but had extremely sophisticated software and machine learning and high autonomy, whereas it's main competition, CMUs "H1ander", had extremely involved sensing and was programmed with an extremely detailed course route, but its complex directional LIDAR array failed early in the race, and though it could compensate, it completed the course slow.

      Find the NOVA episode if you can, truly fascinating. I hate how NOVA ScienceNow is so attention-span limited.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.