Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Toys Technology

Another DARPA-Sponsored Robotics Competition 56

Posted by michael from the ed-209 dept.
dexterpexter writes "While some say that DARPA played unfairly in eliminating Grand Challenge teams they deem unworthy, they, the Department of Defense, and General Motors (among others) sponsor an autonomous robotics competition in which they exercise less control over who competes and who does not. The rules are more lenient and the prizes are less illustrious, but this competition still holds the spirit of 'openness' and rewarding innovation that the Grand Challenge seems to have lost. Of course, you must be from a university to compete, but any university-based vehicle passing the competition-day qualifications gets a fair shot at winning. No pre-competition disqualifications. My team has competed for several years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Another DARPA-Sponsored Robotics Competition More

Another DARPA-Sponsored Robotics Competition

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @06:52PM (#7875778)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Dupe!!!! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/02/153723 0

  • Prizes, less illustrious ?!?!?! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MajorDick ( 735308 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @06:57PM (#7875817)
    Hell they can call those prizes ? I doubut first place $1500 would recoup the cost of batteries...
    I didnt read enough, (I rarley do:) but many of these contests are nothing but brain suckers, like the X prise, unless theyve changed it you are basically sighning away your rights to the tech if you win, even that prise $10 mi, is a joke for the tech to CHEAPLY put someone into space, on the public market a cheap easy way would be worth billions.
    What does DARPA have to loose, maybe 50k in all the prizes TOTAL ?
    I mean competition is good, the best, but I have a feeling the comercialization of these technologies is much more valuable.
    The sad part is frustrated people from the original competiton will see this a a boon and join to do nothing more than expose their innovations to someone that has the ability (read GM) to bring it to market.

    • Re:Prizes, less illustrious ?!?!?! (Score:5, Informative)

      by dexterpexter ( 733748 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @07:16PM (#7875962) Journal
      You are absolutely right, the prizes do not recoup the losses, but since most research costs money, it is nice to offset the cost a bit. For most teams, this competition is a good deal. Since student time is free and many groups are heavily funded by outside organizations and their respective universities, and taking into consideration the fact that the rules stipulate that the students receive the reward money, not the university, the real thinkers on the project in a sense do get rewarded. With a $10,000 Grand Prize, distributed through our three team mates, that is a substantial amount of cash to students who would do it for free otherwise. I think that this competition is in the spirit of open source because students work and freely submit their work, detailed in technical papers, so that all can see the general idea of how their work was done, but in the case that the students have an especially good robot, they are rewarded financially for it. AND, all students get class credit for it, and I don't know too many university students who get paid to go to class.

      It is true that the universities do tend to want to claim ownership of materials and property, but we get to take with us the learning we gained above and beyond our classmates. I know that this project has impressed two major players into offering me jobs upon graduation, so the reward of a potential job and marketability outweighs the small prizes.

      You will also notice that the $1500 was for a single event. There are several ways of getting rewards. One team has won over $10,000, which goes straight to the students.

      If we want to take what we learned and go apply that to future robots that we independently want to sale, then that is fine. DARPA cannot claim our technology. Only the university can. And they can't claim lessons learned.

      And, as for the GM support, that is because they are working on autonomous vehicle lanes. They already have a test lane in Texas. :)

    • Trying to create an anti-free, anti-share/cooperation meme?

      There are more important things than dollars. Deal with it.

      ---

      Open source works because of simple statistics. There are 6,300,000,000 people in the world. It is a statistical certainty that a small fraction of that population will have both the means and motivation to create free software. And once it's been created it can be copied millions of times. Software per-copy pricing is broken and doesn't recognise this. Reform IP law.

  • Pah! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04, 2004 @07:04PM (#7875869)
    The only way you can get a decent, fair competition is to let anyone play and put it on TV...

    Robot Wars!!!

    No seriously, it's open to more than 'just universities' and it's (reasonably) fun to watch. All it needs is a push away from simple remote control vehicles into something more automated (i.e. robotics) and some sponsorship. I know I'd watch more episodes if they let you use projectile, beam and electronic weapons. Sure safety shouldn't be compromised, but there's gotta be a way to let people be just a bit more adventurous than building a wedge shape round an RC car?

    I mean, let's be honest - Lego Mindstorms is more robotic than Robot Wars. A proper Robot Wars could eventually yield some useful technology through having fun...

    • The best way to make robotics produce results is to create a robotics "scene" that doesn't limit itself to people who come from universities. And it should allow innovation to become widespread, instead of giving it to the government so it can be ignored. That said, "Robot Wars" kinda cheapens robotics by turning it into something that resembles the WWF. Not the best way to attract new minds-although it will generate interest.

  • Universities only? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by musingmelpomene ( 703985 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @07:10PM (#7875918) Homepage
    I wonder if anyone's thought about the fact that many of America's most talented, creative young people - and many of its most technologically gifted - aren't in college.

    Many see it as a waste of time and money that could be better spent creating a business, or working on their pet project.

    Why should this sort of competition be limited only to those who are conventional enough to find a home in the traditional university setting?

    • Re:Universities only? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dexterpexter ( 733748 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @07:30PM (#7876081) Journal
      That is true. I have no illusions, and I doubt do the competition sponsors, that college students are the most innovative in the country. The purpose of the competition, I believe, is to give those university students who are working on robotics anyways a chance to compete said robots against each other and to show what students (i.e., not big companies with lots of money) with little experience can do. It is also helping cultivate a new generation of engineers. I don't think its an exclusion based on believing that university students are better than anyone. But pitting three unexperienced university students against Boeing (not because of $$--well, it is a little bit about the money--but it is the engineering experience that will get you) would counterbalance the competition a bit.

      Basically, they found a fun way to teach and DARPA and other sponsors saw what the students were able to produce and decided to reward them for it. What a way to learn! Instead of sitting in a classroom sleeping, we get to work toward something great, learning through experience, and we have a chance at getting paid to do so. Neat.

      This is just one robotics competition. Another poster has mentioned one that is open to EVERYONE in which the money prize is much, much higher. You are welcome to compete in that if you wish. :)

  • Delivering what .EDU isn't (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mr_KnowItAll ( 20538 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @07:12PM (#7875927) Homepage
    As one of the accepted entrants in the DARPA Grand Challenge, I interpreted the "original" challenge as an opportunity to advance practical AUV technology by breaking with the traditional grant-based funding of research institutions. Each approach has its place, but putting the prize money at the end of the route seems to motivate teams rather effectively. I think it's fair to presume that the Grand Challenge was/is motivated by a desire to get more for the taxpayer's buck than research grants have been achieving.

    From DARPA's own statement...

    "The purpose of the challenge is to leverage American ingenuity to accelerate the development of autonomous vehicle technologies that can be applied to military requirements."

    The recent events that have led to the outcry about the fairness of DARPA's management of this contest are truly unfortunate. I'm actually concerned about the viability of this and future Grand Challenges based simply on the number of legitimate complaints that could be brought that may delay the prize award. Yesterday on DARPA's forum a team reported that the "secret" route that was to be announced only two hours before the start of the race had been "leaked" to some teams. If it's legitimate, for teams using a human pre-planning strategy it's a substantial advantage, and thus it's unfair.

    When anything in the Grand Challenge is described as unfair, what's really being said is that there may actually be an attempt to defraud the American taxpayer via an unjust award of a million dollars. People go to prison for much less! I think that the organizers did not adequately consider the implications of running a contest such as this, particularly since they (the US Government) is held to a much higher standard of fairness than any private contest organizers.

    -sf

  • I keep wanting... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hogwash McFly ( 678207 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @07:13PM (#7875938)
    I keep wanting to enter my robot into competitions, but it keeps saying that it can't let me do that.

    Regards,

    Dave
  • is there any reason this is only open to University teams? I am quite certain there are many more intelligent people on this earth that can make genuine efforts at creating robots. Is it because they dont think these people have the collateral to make a serious competition of it?

  • I'll bite (Score:3, Insightful)

    by qedigital ( 545151 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @08:32PM (#7876693) Homepage
    I've competed in the last three IGVCs and plan on being there again this summer. Until the announcement of the DARPA Grand Challenge (and the subsequent IRRF spinoff), the IGVC was really the only choice for land-based autonomous robotic competition. While the problems presented by this competition are challenging and tend to get more difficult each year, the 'only game in town' mentality is reflected in the way that the whole competition is organized. The venue and activities have remained relatively unchanged (albeit when the competition is held in Orlando in conjunction with the AUVSI Robotics Symposium) . Going on experiences at a variety of other North American engineering competitions, one would expect boasting prominent sponsors and judges from the likes of GM, Ford, and the US DOD TACOM that some industry tours and media attention would be organized. With teams spending thousands of dollars and travelling great distances to participate, such things would bring even more meaning to this important competition.

    In terms of the actual IGVC events, it's important to note that they are heavily software based. Very little emphasis is placed on mechanical design or aesthetics and for this reason entrants have actually submitted milk crate and plywood based vehicles and other such contraptions that have zero real-world utility.

    The meat of the IGVC is in the Autonomous Challenge. It consists of an obstacle course that the robot must navigate without leaving a defined lane or displacing an obstacle. This event has yet to be completed by a robot since it was overhauled a few years ago and made much more difficult with increased complexity and the introduction of a variety of traps.

    This post is not intended to put down the IGVC or its competitors. The competition is an excellent way of getting some academic experience in the field of autonomous robotics without the enormous time and dollar committment of something like the DARPA Grand Challenge. At the same time it is important to recognize that there is room for improvement at the IGVC and that other competitions should be encouraged as this field matures.

  • Why would I even think about putting work into another project for darpa? What garountee do I have that they won't just screw over the other contenders?

  • I did this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Sunday January 04, 2004 @10:34PM (#7877613)
    Some friends and I entered the 2nd IGVC and took 2nd place. We used an old electric wheelchair frame, a PC, an old-style camcorder mounted on a tripod clamped down on the base, a big battery, some old Kodak sonars, and a cheapo power inverter to run the PC. Oh, and some homebrew software. You'd be amazed how many teams are still struggling with basic issues right up to competition day. The amount of re-learning is incredible, just about every team has ground-loop issues at some point in development. The cost these days is certainly = the prize if your thrifty (laptop + webcam + some controllable motors). I still stop by when I can, as this competition is always fun to watch.
    • Yeah -- I remember your machine. We were all pretty happy that someone local managed to do well. I was working on other projects (Rube Goldberg competition at Purdue and SAE Supermileage) so I didn't get involved in any of the IGVC teams, but I do remember watching some of them working on the vehicles.

      I worked security for the 3rd contest, and was still pretty surprised by how many entries were failing due to simple problems.

      As you stated -- there were a lot of very basic problems with most entries back
  • I am the lead engineer of the team 'R Junk Works'. Our paper was submitted and approved by DARPA for the Grand Challenge. They then put us in the'Partially Acceptable' category just after approval. This was no big deal for us as we had our prototype vehicle already built for testing. Their 'Site Visit' seemed like just another hoop to jump through before entering the race. The only three people on our team have worked at the 'Lockheed Martin Skunk Works', so our little group is the spin offs - or the

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close