ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Robots to race in suburbia

Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2007 6:29 PM by Alan Boyle

Today the Pentagon revealed its list of 36 contestants for the next multimillion-dollar race for autonomous vehicles - and also revealed where the robo-finalists will face off in November. It may be called the "DARPA Urban Challenge," but the race course is actually a slice of faded suburbia in the California desert.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency says the competition will take place on the decommissioned George Air Force Base near Victorville, Calif. - home to a 1,000-building complex that's been used for urban combat training and has thus been dubbed "Al-George."

Despite the nickname, Al-George looks less like downtown Baghdad and more like a suburban neighborhood, complete with traffic circles and street signs. There's even a golf course nearby. Once the Army finishes its current training cycle, DARPA will clean up the site (for example, removing downed trees) and get it ready for the robots.

The qualifying event for the 36 semifinalists will be conducted from Oct. 26 to 31, and the top 20 teams will move on to the Nov. 3 finals. Top prize is $2 million, with $1 million going to the runner-up and $500,000 to the third-place finisher.

DARPA is funding the competition to promote technologies that can eventually produce smarter robotic vehicles for military applications - yes, even in downtown Baghdad. Congress has told the Pentagon it wants a third of America's ground combat vehicles controlled autonomously by 2015. Along the way, civilians will likely benefit from smarter cars and trucks as well.

During the finals, the autonomous vehicles will have to complete a roughly 60-mile course in six hours, simulating a military supply mission. Al-George was selected as the site for the competition because its street network simulates the kind of terrain U.S. forces face during overseas deployments, DARPA said in today's news release.

"This adds many of the elements these vehicles would face in operational environments," DARPA director Tony Tether explained.

But it's not enough just to hit every waypoint on the route. The robots will have to obey the rules of the road - including dealing with the traffic circles, four-way stops and merging traffic. That's a change from DARPA's $2 million Grand Challenge in 2005, which merely called for autonomous vehicles to drive over 132 miles of desert roads.

"The vehicles must perform as well as someone with a California driver's license," Tether said.

During the finals, penalties will be added to the times of the vehicles involved in traffic infractions - and the winner will be decided on the basis of the adjusted time. Thus, it's possible for a reckless Bender to finish the race first but still lose out to a safe-driving C-3PO.

That may sound like a tall order, but some of the semifinalists have been working on this challenge for more than a year already. The list includes all the teams whose vehicles finished the 2005 Grand Challenge:

  • The Stanford Racing Team, whose Stanley SUV won the $2 million.
  • Carnegie Mellon University's Tartan Racing, which had two finishers.
  • Louisiana's Team Gray competitors, who got their Kat-5 car through the race even though they had to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
  • Team Oshkosh, whose monster truck brought up the rear as an official finisher.


Stanford Racing Team
Stanford's Junior is an autonomous VW Passat.

The co-leaders of the Stanford team told me that they're well into their testing schedule for Junior, a computer-controlled VW Passat wagon. They're programming Junior to deal with four-way intersections, parking-lot navigation and traffic jams. "The most challenging maneuver would be merging traffic," said co-leader Mike Montemerlo.

The other co-leader, Sebastian Thrun, told me that this year's race was likely to have more of a "random outcome" than the previous Grand Challenge. As any commuter knows, the best-laid plans to get from point A to point B are easily ruined if you get stuck behind an oafish driver.

"It doesn't just depend on yourself, it depends on the other robots," Thrun said. "If other people act very poorly, then our strategies for dealing with traffic might fail to work."

The win might well go to the vehicle that's best at avoiding traffic tie-ups. "The smarter your robot, the more it will be able to escape," Thrun said.


CMU / Tartan Racing
Boss is a self-driving Chevy Tahoe SUV, created by
Carnegie Mellon University's Tartan Racing team.

Meanwhile, Carnegie Mellon's team members say they have already logged hundreds of test miles with Boss, a self-driving Chevy Tahoe SUV.

"Boss today can handle maneuvers at 30 miles an hour that it performed at 15 miles an hour back in June," Chris Urmson, director of technology for Tartan Racing, said in a news release. "It can park itself and it can yield at intersections, not just stop."

Although Boss and Junior would have to rank among the favorites, the winner could well be Team Gray's Plan B, or Team Oshkosh's TerraMax ... or one of the other 32 teams ... or no one. In any case, Stanford's Thrun is looking forward to one heck of a show.

"I think it's going to be a major event in autonomous driving," he told me.

Here is the full list of 36, linked to team profiles on the DARPA Web site:

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Does the goal of 33 percent of 'on ground' rolling weaponry being robotic within 15 years mean we expect to still be in Baghdad 15 years from now?
It's all charmingly geeky...but planning robotic soldiers just means we have zero plans to stop this foolishness.
Will killed robots get full military funerals?
We are depending upon Crazed Geeks, willing to develop weapons in order to continue playing with their toys well into adulthood...that's some twisted caca, Kids!
But, it's all par for the current course.
Carry on!
The reasons for this program are simple: It will save lives. Having this program doesn't guarantee that we will still be in Iraq when it's finished, but the one thing that you CAN count on is that there will be another war somewhere before too long. Urban areas are where most modern day combat takes place. That won't change when we leave Iraq. With more of humanity moving to urban environments all the time, it's best to be prepared for it.
It is a shame we don't have robotic trucks for convoys, with autonomous (armed) drones protecting them on the supply routes in Iraq.

You would think we would have unmanned dirigibles and spy satellites stationary over our supply routes right now doing constant observation and interdicting any suspicious activity like placing IEDs.  Technology can make a real impact here.  Remote sensors, high altitude stationary observation platforms, drone fighters and bombers, and soon robotic convoys, tanks, and ambulances.
Interesting to compare this to the Automotive X Prize. The X Prize seems simpler, just design and build an automobile that is suitable for mass production and gets 100 mpg or more - equivalent, for alternative fueled vehicles.

Ironically, in the long run the X prize will prove to be far more important.
Does anyone remember a trilogy of movies named the Terminator? It seems to an educated person that the sci-fi of yesterday becomes the technology (vice) of the next generation. The tank and submarine were fantasies of the 19th century, which are now every day equiptment of the 20th and 21st, do you want killer robots walking around your neighborhood killing indiscriminantly because we programmed them to? I doubt anyone in Iran or Serbia or Pakistan look foward to this nightmare.
No one is talking about automating tanks here.  Vehicle weapon systems are a very small percentage of the Army rolling stock.  The logistics tail required to support a modern fighting force is huge, many times the number of fighting vehicles and personel.  Like somebody said, 'amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics'.

I hope there is a lot more television coverage of this event than the previous one.  It should also be billed as something to promote science and technology to todays students, imo.
This is said somewhat tongue in cheek, but...

If we end up creating machines that enslave us, well, we can't say that we were not warned! ( With what seems like a quarter of all science fiction movies ever made dealing with this... )

Although, the push for autonomous weapondry will obviously save lives in battle, I have to wonder if it is not something philosophically similar to Rome's use of mercenaries to fight wars. Creating an automonous fighting force will have such an appeal that I can imagine that by 2050 there will be few human foot soldiers left. With little human death involved, does this make it more likely to go to war? Can that be a good thing?

Maybe citizens of a nation should have to die in war, so that it's people and leaders keep in mind that true costs of such an endeavor.
It's money well spent, please stop the bleeding heart bit of no war. I read recently that 17,000 people were killed in homicides this year, does the war zone seem a healthier place to be, now as a taxpayer i would rather see a robotic vehicle take the heat than a live soldier, don't you.
Isn't anyone concerned that once you remove the last moral decision from behind the trigger and allow these things to be controlled from a computer ANYWHERE in the world, that we might be headed in a really bad direction?

I mean hell, blackwater, triple canopy, dyncorp, etc... are all just really nice guys, and we shouldn't worry about what might happen here.

Yeah, Right!
I thought this might actually be a challenge until I read:

"The vehicles must perform as well as someone with a California driver's license," Tether said.
CM: Actually, if every car on the road drove itself, we'd save loads in gas -- imagine smart intersections and no more stop-and-go traffic!
I agree with the first few posts that it's a shame we're still in Iraq and this type of technology could certainly save lives.  But let's look at the bigger picture:  many technological advancements that we enjoy today got off the ground with military funding and later found thier way into the public sector.  Satelites, fax machines, interstate highways, Kevlar, Goretex, nuclear energy, and of course the Hummer (okay that last one kind of suck but hopefully you get my point).  
Hey, What's next? Robot Bill Collectors? Robot Prostitutes? Robot Politicians? Amen & Hallelujia!
I bet Carnegie Mellon will have 2 entries this time too and they'll bag the 1st and 2nd prize!
"Thus, it's possible for a reckless Bender to finish the race first but still lose out to a safe-driving C3-PO."

Yeah... But then Bender would go out and STEAL the prize money and then hit it to Vegas yelling "ADIOS SUCKERS!!!" :-)
"The vehicles must perform as well as someone with a California driver's license," Tether said.

Tether should specify who that someone is. Doesn't Hilton, Lohan, and a few other recently in the news for DUIs celebrities have California Licenses?
Autonomous vehicles and autonomous weapons are not the same thing, and I am not convinced that there is a so-called slippery slope to worry about either.

I suspect that the real problem people have with systems like this is that they fear the United States will acquire the ability to wage war while not putting its own people at risk.  Guess what?  We already have that ability.  We can drop bombs from aircraft all day long without losses.  But being on the ground will let us minimize civilian casualties.
Why does everyone assume the only result of this competition will be military applications? Wouldn't perfect ambulance drivers be nice? How about long-haul trucks that can draft centimeters behind each other without worry of a crash? The DoD has already spent large amounts of money on specific autonomous vehicle projects( > $200 million for FC.S. alone ), while the relativity small prize offered for this challenge is going advance the entire field of autonomous ground vehicles. Several products have already come out of the 2005 Grand Challenge( i.e. http://www.velodyne.com/lidar and http://www.graymatterinc.com/avs.shtml ) and much more will be coming from the Urban Challenge.
"Operate as well as a person with a California Drivers license?"  Thats funny!! . . . . .
One thing I wonder: if the automated vehicle causes an accident, who gets the blame?  I mean, lets say (theoretically) that someone gets in a crash with an automated car.  If the auto-car hits that person, who has to go and pay the ticket?  Who gets blamed for the accident?  I bet none of you war people considered the aspect of these cars driving people around who don't like driving.
We are so removed from the soldiers that daily give their lives and human futures for us that it seems given that we will eventually transfer our confidence and hopes to robotic contructs of ourselves.  We may even gift them with the same emotional value that we currenly endow our soldiers with.  There seems little difference, so long as we continue the lifestyle we embue with such value!
"I bet none of you war people considered the aspect of these cars driving people around who don't like driving."

lol, THAT'S the reason I'm so interested in this stuff.  I let most people assume I don't drive because my mental illness keeps me from earning enough money for a car.  The truth is that I zone out, but where most people can continue driving when they zone out, the same doesn't happen for me.

I'll be glad when I can buy a car and know that the odds of me killing somebody have been drastically reduced.  Heck, autonomous driving might end up being safer than 90% of the drivers out there.
Can you hear the drumming? Why does almost every blog that offers a response end up as a debate between hawks and doves about the war in Iraq?

43000 lives in the U.S. were lost in just the year 2000 as a result of motor vehicle deaths.  Walking through Anytown, Irag is inherently safer than driving on U.S. streets.  

I agree that there are concerns about A.I. that will need to be addressed as it develops.  I also have to agree that despite military applications, there will be spin-offs to the public sector, much like the developments from our space programs.

I don't know that putting autonomous soldiers in battle will necessarily reduce human losses.  After all, is it not the intent of the aggressor to seek the loss of human life?  This is why 9/11 struck such a nerve with us.  It was in our own backyard!  Not a foreign land where we can reach them with our advanced tech from 100's of miles away.

If this tech reduces our battlefied losses by as much as 1 life, then I am for it.  If the spin-offs enrich our peacetime lives, I am for it.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=311434

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google