DARPA Grand Challenge

John Nagle wrote in news:NyF2f.409$7h7.204 @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

humm, What happend last year? oh yeah, what about the Civilian Grand Challenge? Wasn't it going to be called the International Robotic Race Federation, IRRF? At one time I suggested to race in Baja. oh well.

How did Team Overbot fare in the race?

- dan michaels

=========================

Oh! Yes, I think it's quite a good rip off of the public, to offer a $2 million dollar prize, reap the benefit of maybe $40 million in expenditure of engineering hours, vehicles, equipment and supplies, that would have possibly been spend on useful projects, and spend $9 million just putting on this year's event. So the government got to waste millions on adminstration as they always must, and bilked millions out of the hopeful.

Then they under-rewarded only one of the hundreds who tried.

And just like any good government project, now that it is over, nobody has anything useful or comercial in hand, to show for their efforts.

Plus, with their careful manipulation of who was "selected" and who was culled, all we had was a bunch of comercial vehicles with computers strapped on. None of the "who knows what may slither across the starting line" they originally envisioned.

As you say, it was a "far better investment of tax dollars" but as a whole, the robotic community has been literally impoverished by it, maybe to the tune of $40 million. This is not the kind of dealings I think any honorable government should engage in. How can you?

The public also benefits from the research done. You have to balance the cost against the benefit, but your analysis only mentions the cost. What other robotics projects are there that these researchers would be working on instead? Are those projects more worthwhile? I'm sure the Universities involved would have spent the money one way or the other. The private teams had sponsors which used advertising money to further robotics research. This is a good thing, because without the competition, this money would not have been available. This means more roboticists get more money, and more time, to work on what they love doing.

Yes, government bureaucracy is inefficient. Unfortunately they have the same budget every year, so at least we should be happy when they do something useful with it.

The results are useful, and commercial. It takes a leader with vision to advance these ideas. I hope the teams who lost don't underestimate the value of what they have. I wouldn't be too surprised to see automated electic carts in use in airports in the future, rather than the manually driven carts they have now. All you need is a flashing lights and a beeping sound and they expect everyone to get out of the way anyway. Could it be all that difficult?

What do you mean? It wasn't open to everyone?

Why ignore nearly a century of research of what works best crossing a desert. SUVs are very good at crossing the landscapes found on earth because thats what they were developed to do. The emphasis really was on autonomous navigation, and the vehicle only had to be able to cross the landscape. Perhaps if the challenge were retrieving molten magma from a volcano, then you would get what you might be imagining. Its not always necessary to reinvent the wheel, especially when your objective has the same requirements as the first wheel had when it was invented.

Your ignoring the sponsors, the value of the knowledge gained, and the advertising value of having the event. A lot of attention and press has been spent on these teams. I'm sure there will be many oportunities which come from thier participation alone.

I think you are ignoring more than half of the picture. I see it as the great success it is. I'm sure you will benefit from this research in ways only a non-pessimist can envision.

Brent S.

Sure! A few things that are still fresh in my mind.

- The organization was very good, at least from my point of view. The only thing I didn't know was the annoying announcer. I believe he must've been thinking he was narrating a NASCAR race... and his jokes were not really funny.

- I was expecting to see some of the smaller teams to crash in the starting chute (I know, evil me. but we all have that old primal roman arena instinct, don't we?) but neither did... I guess the technical level really rose from last year.

- The sun rising and the headlights of stanley, highlander and sandstorm at the starting chute was really beautifull

- It was very nice that some of the teams that didn't make at the NQE was also there and exposing their cars to the public. Special thanks to team Banzai and Ghostrider. They gave very good demonstrations of their technologies.

- One of the highlights of the day was really Alice running on the berm. The bots left the starting chute going north Las Vegas bound, spend some time on the dry lake then return to another pass close to the stands (very well thought for entertaining purposes). While we were watching other teams being released from the starting chute, suddenly everybody was "woooow". Then I looked at the berm and there it was alice. She came close to those big concrete islands, run over it and was climbing the berm when I think the shadow vehicle hit the e-stop. Otherwise I believe it would succesfully climb the berm, tear the fence apart and just continue forward towards the crowd.... it looked like a tractor.

- Terramax was one of the most waited bots to be launched from the starting chute.

- The healthy competition between stanford and cmu. The cheering when the speaker announced that stanford had passed highlander, and more cheering when stanley appeared on the live broadcast of beer bottle pass.

- The three first bots coming from the beer bottle pass and crossing the finish line. The stands completely full of people, all cheering and screaming for the robots.

- The 3-D live tracking of the bots were really great. My only complain is that it should be in a place where a greater number of people could be watching it constantly.

Well, this is what I could remember. I'm sure there is much more to it. And as the speaker told at least 18 times: one more page on the history books were being written right before our eyes...

Cheers

Padu

"Ben" wrote

Nothing at all! The results were very close indeed.

As that Montmerlo guy said on the webcast, their success comes mostly from lots and lots of testing under different circunstances. If you never achieved 20 miles of autonomous drive, you cannot expect to achieve 132.

ditto

Well, the live webcasts at the spectator tent weren't much better. If they really wanted to do a live webcast, they would have live video in each one of the shadow cars. That would really be great.

Specially when the first place is an almost stock SUV while you are running on a custom made off-road vehicle.

Yes, that was Montmerlo from stanford.

I don't know why but I was expecting 175 miles, and I was not the only one. But, from the results, even if it was 200 miles, chances are that results would not be too different.

Cheers

Padu

Funny you choose to summarize that way, that I am ignoring more than half the picture. On the contrary, I think I'm the only one posting here giving balance to the whole picture.

Wonderful book by Henry Hazzlitt, "Economics in One Lesson" where he opens in Chapter 1 this way:

"Economics is haunted by more falacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherient difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold, by a factor that is insignificant, say, in physics, mathematics or medicine - the special pleadings of special interests. While every group has certain economic interests indentical with those of all groups, every group also has, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them,will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible."

Henry goes on in Chapter 2 to apply his lesson in Chapter 1, and talks about a baker who has a window broken out by a vandal with a brick. Good or bad? The baker replaces the window, so some glasier makes $250, and we see that money going round and round the community making business for everyone.

The problem is, that is ignoring more than half the picture. The transaction with the window is visible to all. What is invisible, is that the baker was going to spend that $250 on a suit. He didn't. So a tailor went without business that day. And the baker, rather than having a window and a suit, has only a window, so he is poorer too.

Stanford and CMU spent $20M collectively on their two entries. That's visible. That dozens or even hundreds of other research projects, for who knows what, at those universities, got shelved, is the invisible part. Maybe one of those students would have made a nano bot that could clear arteries. Many university programs are working on such technologies right now. Maybe we'd have a cure for strokes and heart attacks by that. But we'll never know. The half that is visible, the half that is the "great success", is we now have demonstrated a few vehicles which can raise a lot of dust in the desert, follow a very carefully plowed out course, and many carefully provided waypoints, but have to be followed by chase vehicles lest they become a threat to public safety, and have no other immediate use.

Maybe there will come an industry from this. Wonderful. That too will be visible. I will reinforce the idea this was a great success. But we will never know that part that is invisible, that was lost, because it never happened. Because $20M from two Univ. alone, and hundreds of other groups in like manner was drained out of the robotics industry to chase a $2M prize. The issue is not if something good might come from it. The issue is what was sacrificed for it, and it is a truth and an expense we will never know.

"Randy M. Dumse" wrote in news:PS03f.40$Su.152 @eagle.america.net:

But the glasier bought a suit, which he would not have been able to afford had his son not thrown the brick through the window.

Maybe, maybe not. Reality is everything that happens, not a bunch of what ifs.

Many university programs are working on such

Indeed, the money might have been spent on developing biological weapons of mass destruction, and there could have been an accident in the lab, and the germ could have run rampant throughout the world and we'd all be dead. We'll never know.

If only Hitlers mother would have had an abortion, the world today would be even more overpopulated than it is, straining our resources even more.

>

No, you are ignoring 99%: The benefits of deploying the technology. Nearly two thousand Americans have died in Iraq over the last two years. About half of those from IEDs, mostly roadside bombs. That is a rate of about 500 dead per year that could be saved by deployment of automated vehicles. That is $25 million/year just for the SGLI payments. Each of those dead soldiers is the loss of a million dollars or more in lifetime earnings that they would contribute to the economy. This is just looking at the dead, without considering the seriously wounded that outnumber them ten to one. Lots of amputated limbs, etc. What is the economic cost of that?

The $2 million in prize money was worth it if it speeds up deployment of self-driving vehicles by ONE DAY. I think it is a real shame that there is not a lot more resources devoted to this problem. If the sons of senators were driving the trucks in Iraq, I think there would be a lot more urgency. Of course, if more sons of senators were in the military maybe they would have taken a harder look at the "slam dunk" intelligence, and we wouldn't have gotten into this war in the first place.

But the military applications are only part of the benefit. Much of this technology can be applied to civilian on-road driving as well. Approximately 40,000 Americans die every year in traffic accidents, and most of those are caused by human error. Even technology to make vehicles semi-autonomous, like adaptive cruise control and lane control assistance, can save many lives, as well as allowing existing roads to carry more traffic. The money saved here will eventually dwarf the military savings.

Maybe. But highly unlikely. You would be surprised at the drivel that passes for "research" in many academic facilities. For example, I have a copy of "ASME Transactions on Mechatronics" right here. It is an academic peer reviewed journal, published by a prestigious institution. You would think that this leading edge research about a field so intimately tied to robotics would be frequently mentioned in comp.misc.robotics. But you would be wrong. I just did a Google search, and it has NEVER been cited in this newsgroup. Maybe because the articles are filled with jargon and obfuscation so impenetrable it would make a career Pentagon bureaucrat blush. I can't remember ever learning anything of practical use from it. The artery clearing nano-bots are nowhere to be seen.

Can you provide some references?

-bob

No, the glasier didn't get to buy the suit. He had to pay the lawyer to defend his son in court. Again. The lawyer looked very good in his new suit, though.

But what's different in the story, is not where the money ciculated, but that the baker, who has only a window, and no new suit is poorer. He is poorer, and therefore we are all poorer.

Everyone will have their priorities, when it comes to economics, and what they see as important. I'm no different. I'd rather see a robot that could navigate arteries, than one that kicks up dust in the dessert.

Two weeks ago I had a stroke.

I couldn't sign my own name when I was admitted to the hospital. In a few days I was almost fully recovered. Good drugs. I also had a catscan and two rides on the MRI. I remember on of me college physics professors was doing Nuclear Magnetic Resonance 30 years ago. Didn't look like much then. Amazing!

They also looked in my arteries with sonograms. One sonogram, done bed side, I actually saw the inside of my heart from many different views, and watched the valves flipping in clear detail. I had no appreciation for what an athelete my heart is, until I saw it in action. Amazing!

My roommate (great guy, enjoyed him), a 72 year old man that hadn't seen a doctor since before I was born, had, unknown, a bleeding ulcer. He'd lost so much of his blood through his stomach he'd passed out on the floor getting ready for bed. They went in through his nose, they call it robotic surgery, as I understand it. They pushed back the artery, and seared the stomach wall together over the top of it. They went back in a few days later, and checked the work. I saw the _pictures_ they took while in there. Pictures from inside his stomach. Before and After. Amazing!

We both came in on a Monday evening. We both went home on Thursday. Neither of us were touched by a knife.

All the wonderful equipment used on us was a product of research.

Only reports from personal conversations.

I was a guest at University of Northern Iowa, and a number of professors from the Industiral and the Physic department had lunch with me, and mems was all the rage of discussion. They were discussing the grant money for such things as artery clearning robots. They wanted to know if industry we hoping on MEMs. I had little I could offer.

Dr. Raul Fernandez UTA working at ARRI (Automation and Robotics Research Institute) and collegues were looking at MEMs applications for surgery inside the body several years ago. It's probably been two years since I've seen him.

I've heard ARRI has a new director, come down from RIT, and his stated goal and vision for the institute is MEMs, particularly for medical applications.

I remember a similar interest stated by UTB department heads when I was in Brownsville last year.

OTOH, google turns up 12800 hits.

I am not saying the artery clearning robots exist, I am saying current research is trying to figure out how it can approach such possibilites. Whether I continue to have a productive research effort in robotics controls may well depend on the research done on artery clearing robots. While it may be of no particular concern to you, it's not exactly just an "academic question" to me.

Correction, I over stated the amount. I re-read my source, a customer of ours and competitor in the competition, who holds a very different view of than mine, and he said, "It was very important for a major research university to win, that is why CMU and Stanford spent more than 10 million collectively. If they didn't win, why fund them in the future. The 18 month head start didn't hurt them either.

Sorry, another correction. I followed up with another professor concerning Raul. His work was mostly for small incisions in the abdomen, and the new director, while is strongly interested in MEMs is not pushing medical. His vision is a shoebox factory as I hear it described.

Did you see the Blue Team's self-balancing motorcycle? The three-unit snake-like articulated vehicle? There were a few unusual entries that worked.

There was a straightforward qualification process. Your vehicle had to actually work. First, you sent in a video of your vehicle working. Everybody who had some indication of having something working got a site visit.

At the site visit, two DARPA inspectors watched your vehicle run through a very simple course they'd specified. You had to be able to avoid two trash cans. That brought it down to 43 entries for the National Qualification Event.

At the NQE, at the California Motor Speedway, each team got five tries at a 2-mile obstacle course. Everybody who had one clean run went to Primm for the main event. That brought it down to 23 teams.

Of those 23 teams, five finished the 132 miles.

Of those five teams, Stanford had the best time.

I'm not complaining, and I was the team leader of one of the losing teams. The elimination process was tough, but fair.

While one can argue about the funding of the CMU and Mitre teams, the Stanford team was funded by Volkswagen and by Mohr Davidson Ventures. Not tax money.

It sure beats dealing with NASA, which sucks robotics researchers into decade-long projects that go nowhere.

John Nagle Team Overbot

John Nagle wrote in news:jQk3f.740$tV6.304 @newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

I keep wondering there will be a civilian robot car race. Last year there was an interest in an International Robot Race Federation, the IRRF. What would you do if there was a civilian robot race with international teams? How would you fair against the Isrealies, British, French, Russians? By the way how did your team do vs. Sci Autonics?

I figured that a university with access to supercomputers, PHds, all the EE bachellors, big business corporate money, how the hell can you not loose?

I still like the idea of a Baja Robot Race.

cya

At our skewl (USQ Qld, Aus) we are spending R&D on autonomous agricultural machines

One of Walter Williams favorite stories. I've read it a number of times, and I understand your point.

I can't believe that the professors/researchers involved didn't weigh the cost vs. the benefit of several projects. I'm sure that their decision was based partly on the increased visibility of this event. One of my main points was that this visibility is worth something. The exposure will only bring more research opportunities to these Universities.

I don't think all of the spin off projects will involve chasing vehicles through the desert. It may even mean, indirectly, that more funding will be available for an artery cleaning robot due to the increased interest in robotics following such a successful and visible project. The possibilities in this case are as hard to pin down as the rules of economics. The one thing we do know about both though, is more activity is better.

I think the money eventually came back to the baker, and he then bought a new suit, because he still needed it.

The $2M prize couldn't have been their primary motive then. They each wanted to be the recognized experts in the field so that they could attract more funding, get more research opportunities, and develop even greater technologies.

They'll get around to it. It is impossible to determine whether they missed the next breakthrough opportunity, or just created it. I suspect you weren't impressed with autonomous navigation, and really wish they would have just done something else that didn't involve SUVs, or so much existing technology.

Brent S.

I now see your point with a new clarity. I hope your stroke wasn't very bad. I've heard of some promising new research where arterial plaque is eliminated over time by injecting HDL cholesterol directly in the blood stream. I hope this approach pans out before my cholesterol goes any higher. I'm eating oatmeal every morning, and I'm only 35. It is amazing what research( in many areas) has contributed to the field of medicine. The conventional approach to constructing nano-bots as if they were just small machines with metal, gears, motors, and a power source, I believe is the wrong approach. Nature should be our template. Biologists have discovered the individual structures of many biological machines within cells, and microscopic organisms. They know what makes up the motor in a flagellum. I think we should be working on creating biological machines(non-replicating) which could take their energy from their environment. Viruses are just chemical machines which take advantage of a cells energy and mechanisms to replicate itself. They are in no way alive, and can be completely modelled. We know how they do what they do, the end result being very harmful. Why can't we take advantage of what we understand to create variants which will do those things we are wanting nano-bots to do? Do I sound like a mad scientist?

Brent S.

"Randy M. Dumse" wrote (with deletions):

Randy,

It is good to hear that you recovered so well. I'm sure we all wish you the best.

There are a lot of technology spin-offs from various efforts (military, space, etc.) that result in good things for all of us for sure. One could argue that the results would be better if the money was applied to the these efforts directly but in the real world, that's not going to always happen; but the spin-offs occur nevertheless.

Again, best wishes,

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Jerry Petrey, - GNC Software Engineer, Raytheon Missile Systems

--

-- NOTE: please perform appendectomy on email address before replying

------------------------------------------------------------------------