"DARPA intends to conduct a challenge of autonomous ground vehicles between
Los Angeles and Las Vegas in March of 2004. A cash award of $1 million will be
granted to the team that fields the first vehicle to complete the designated
route within a specified time limit. "
THat means, they want robot vehicles to drive the distance without any
external guidance. Seems robot warriors may be nearer than you think
http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/overview.htm
Greetings Karl Heinz
The issue is terrain - a cruise missile can always go up to avoid
terrain - a ground vehicle can get stuck in a ditch, soft ground, washed
out in a flash flood, run over by an 18-wheeler or knocked over by a
bored teen-ager.
Reading a map is one thing, but how many maps do you know have 1 meter
resolution and data on the condition of the terrain surface (wet, dry, paved,
rocky, muddy, overgrown with weeds, new pipeline laid etc)?
The problem is going to be in the details - a 1 meter high obstacle can
be significant to a ground vehicle, whereas an aerial vehicle is going to be
unconcerned with anything less than 30 meters high.
Then make the other comparison - pilots have a relatively easy time of
navigating by instruments/GPS while people on the ground often get lost.
If it's not easy for people, then computers are going to have a tough time
too.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
How about a cruise missile on wheels, after all they can read maps already...
Regards, Matt Tope
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:34:11AM -0700, Don Maddox wrote:
> Been done "land Torpedo" can read maps but has traffic issues.....)
Armed nuclear warheads generally have the right of way.
"I brake for targets"
"Your Tax Dollars At Work"
Hmm...
R
How about a cruise missile on wheels, after all they can read maps already...
Regards, Matt Tope
Been done "land Torpedo" can read maps but has traffic issues.....)
Armed nuclear warheads generally have the right of way.
"I brake for targets"
"Your Tax Dollars At Work"
Hmm...
Stop your scarring me now, because that is just stupid enough to justify a few
billion in research.......)
> From: ~ On Behalf Of K.H.Ranitzsch
> they want robot vehicles to drive the distance without any
> http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/overview.htm
The rules in section 6(.0) and 8.5.4 don't appear to preclude a robot ringing
UPS in the two hours between the route being handed out and the race starting.
However, several potential problems arise:
8.1.3 The route may set a maximum speed limit that no self-
respecting courier would obey.
6.4.3 Nor is any courier going to be back-seat driven by a
robot squawking "My emergency stop has been activated!" More subtle means
(such as a simulated police siren) may be necessary.
8.6 Although this clause covers the possibility of the
robot being damaged in transit, enough of it needs to remain servicable to
avoid disqualification at the finish line.
Nathan "Drat, curses! Foiled again" Girdler
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Don Maddox wrote:
> Armed nuclear warheads generally have the right of way.
Was some work not already done back in the wacky, atom-happy 1950s? I've
read about proposals to put ICBMs on trains, so trucks would be an "obvious"
extension. All to keep the Commies from knowing where the missles were at any
given moment.
"I brake for targets" indeed...
If they use NIMA digital maps...
"Sir, is Denver near Teheran? No? Uh, we might have a problem here..."
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:10:11 -0700 "Don Maddox" <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com>
writes:
> Armed nuclear warheads generally have the right of way.
ObIainBanks:
"What Are The Civilian Applications?"
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:34:11AM -0700, Don Maddox wrote: