×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Cash Prize for Next DARPA Grand Challenge

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the robots-lose dept.

107

General Lee's Peking writes to mention an Associated Press article about a sad development in the DARPA Grand Challenge. Because of some new DoD-related legislation, the organization will no longer be able to award the $2 Million prize to grand challenge winners. It's not all bad, though; they still get a trophy. From the article: "The absence of a lucrative cash prize has forced some teams to retool their game plan and others to drop out. Some fear it would be harder to attract corporate sponsors and hurt media coverage of the race, which drew a throng of reporters last year and inspired a PBS documentary. 'The icing on the cake is gone,' said Ivar Schoenmeyr, team leader of California-based Team CyberRider, which is retrofitting a Toyota Prius hybrid."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

107 comments

No Cash Prize? (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519237)

So much for recovering my development expenses on these ideas:

  • Rocket-powered Army Jeep (for when you need to get out FAST!)
  • Submarine Desert Camo
  • Inflatable M*A*S*H nurse
  • Rumsfeld Magic 8 Ball
  • Linux Beowulf Cluster Bombs
  • Battlefield Mobile Starbucks
  • Solar Powered Night-Vision goggles
  • Water-proof Spy Satellite (good to 100m!)
  • Portable HUD Air Combat Training with Flash banner ads
  • Iraq Monopoly (also, expansion with Exit Strategy cards)
  • Armour-piercing stealth mosquito repellant

note: Sharks with Lasers is someone else's idea so I clearly can't try to compete with that one.

Re:No Cash Prize? (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519455)

[quote]Rocket-powered Army Jeep (for when you need to get out FAST!)[/quote]

Or for soldiers who like to post lame stunt videos on the internet.

Re:No Cash Prize? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520951)

[quote]Rocket-powered Army Jeep (for when you need to get out FAST!)[/quote]
Or for soldiers who like to post lame stunt videos on the internet.

I've only seen Royal Army humour videos on YouTube. I certain if I even tried to look I'd find dozens, nay, hundreds of others from US Forces.

I left off a couple of recent developments..

  • 35mm Automatic Schmaltz cannon
  • Semi-automatic Ganja Ray ("SOLDIER, DO NOT POINT THAT WEAPON AT like, anyone, ok? chill, dude, no need to be, like pointing, it's totally rude, so mellow out, ok?")

Re:No Cash Prize? (0, Troll)

sevyn 42 (1016195) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521151)

Sorry, the new policy states that no Defense money can be spent unless it passes through the hands of one of Bush's or Cheney's business partners. Better luck next presidential term.

Re:No Cash Prize? (3, Insightful)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521857)

Your hate blinds you, and works to the advantage to the very policies you despise. Repeat after me: Congress writes the laws; Congress controls the money; The Executive implements the laws. If you don't like laws with bad portions tacked on, blame Congress, not the president, who has no line-item veto (thank Congress for that one too). This is doubly true for anything spending related, as that is Congress' job with its "power of the purse". If you want to change things, fight the battle where it matters, in the congressional elections. Far too many people focus only on the presidential election, losing sight of the true seat of power in our government. The best way a presidental election can be helpful is by electing from the opposite party as the majority in Congress (i.e. voting for gridlock). What you can't expect, however, is a president to veto crappy laws from his own party. Don't blame the messenger.

Think of Clinton in his first two years (Clipper chip, anyone?), versus his last six. When did he do better? Look at who was the majority in Congress during those periods. Educating, isn't it? In other words, a president is at his best when he is a brake on the stupidity of Congress. Of course, for an issue like this, even Clinton/Gore/Kerry are not going to veto some enormous spending bill for some obscure and relatively minor addition. For that kind of thing, you can only blame the ones who created it, which is Congress. That is where you should fight your battle.

nice theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16522229)

ya, we are supposed to have checks and balances, etc. Perhaps you need to take a gander at the issue of "signing statements" [boston.com], and read what the attorney general has to say about federal judges [truthout.org] who might actually want to do their jobs. They have just been told to fuck off, to put it impolitely but in normal phraseology.

Oh ya, and the little matter of blackbox voting....links a-plenty there. Sure go ahead and vote! You have zero guarantees anymore, they can completely control the vote and you won't know-or be able to do-anything about it. Now, I will vote, but only from inertia. I knew this jig was up three elections ago when they got away with the hijacking, and then it happened *again*, and then again. It is the *system* now, entrenched, it is *controlled*.

All we have now is the executive branch issuing edicts. That's it. That's called a police state. The other branches are now for political show business purposes, to maintain the illusion. We now live in a dictatorship that arose from a bona fide coup, complete with a reichstagg fire event, and one which just passed a new version of the enabling act.

Re:No Cash Prize? (1)

sevyn 42 (1016195) | more than 6 years ago | (#16522301)

You seem to lack the ability to detect an attempt at humor. If I actually believed that this was the fault of the president, I would have made my statement more than two short sentences. I would have supported my statement with a fact or two and generally given it something to stand on. It would have looked more like what you wrote in response to my statement.

Halliburton, the company everyone likes to associate with this administration, since Cheney previously headed the company, has been taking in less and less revenue from the war over the last year. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop making fun of the administration.

Maybe some people will take that the wrong way. Maybe some people won't see the humor in blaming Bush for all the nations's problems the way he blames it on everyone else.

Hopefully it made someone laugh. If I thought nobody would laugh at it, I wouldn't have posted it.

Re:No Cash Prize? (1)

finity (535067) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521411)

"Battlefield Mobile Starbucks"

Without coffee, I swear the Air Force would shut down. Coffee is the real black gold.

Re:No Cash Prize? (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521927)

Without coffee, I swear the Air Force would shut down. Coffee is the real black gold.

"OK private, we're all counting on you to get through the lines. We'll try to hold out as long as we can, but you know what we're up against. Now just to be sure you've got it right, repeat your objective."

"Vente mocha soy for Johnson, latte triple shot for Malloy, grand house blend decaf for Morales, because he's trying to cut down, tall cafe' au lait for you, Sarge, iced espresso with whipped creme for Gooch and a double espresso for me."

"Good lad, off you go!"

Little investigation (1)

thisnow1 (882441) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519273)

Stifling innovation- find out the Congress folks who pushed this legislation through and make sure their staff do a little "constituent services"

Re:Little investigation (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519333)

Stifling innovation- find out the Congress folks who pushed this legislation through and make sure their staff do a little "constituent services"

Not sure exactly what you mean there, but the Defense budget is the largest it has been in ages, it's perplexing that they'd choose to cut here, unless there's some bizarre (well, not in light of the privatisation of many military services and operations) pressure to keep this in other hands, ahem, those which would prefer to sell goods and services they develop at great expense (and thus need reimbursement) and clearly some bunch of college yahoos couldn't do as well.

Re:Little investigation (4, Informative)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520069)

Not sure exactly what you mean there, but the Defense budget is the largest it has been in ages, it's perplexing that they'd choose to cut here

Two things:

  • Please do not look at absolute dollar values, they are nonsense. Look at defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The US defense budget is about the same size as it was during the isolationist period leading up to WWI. In terms of percentage, the US spends about 3.8% of its GDP on defense, putting it in the same area of the list as Tanzania.
  • Thanks to the neglect of the military under Clinton, the Air Force has ancient aircraft and can't maintain them all because they break so fast, the Navy has too few ships and many of those still in service have entire systems which are inoperable due to neglect, and the Army can no longer rely on unlimited overseas basing, unlimited Navy sealift and unlimited Air Force airlift and so must get rid of all their heavy artillery and heavy tanks to transform to a lighter force.

That said, the US defense is the smallest it's been in ages and re-equipping three branches of the military is not cheap.

Re:Little investigation (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521703)

Please do not look at absolute dollar values, they are nonsense. Look at defense spending as a percentage of GDP. The US defense budget is about the same size as it was during the isolationist period leading up to WWI. In terms of percentage, the US spends about 3.8% of its GDP on defense, putting it in the same area of the list as Tanzania.

Keep in mind that a significant percentage of defence support is now performed by private industry, thus increasing the overall budget and the Pentagon does not perform a considerable amount of services itself. it's said to be more efficient, but when the DoD performed its own services the money largely stayed within the department. Further, these large requests of 70 and 80 billion to support the war on terror, are they included in these figures?

Thanks to the neglect of the military under Clinton, the Air Force has ancient aircraft and can't maintain them all because they break so fast, the Navy has too few ships and many of those still in service have entire systems which are inoperable due to neglect, and the Army can no longer rely on unlimited overseas basing, unlimited Navy sealift and unlimited Air Force airlift and so must get rid of all their heavy artillery and heavy tanks to transform to a lighter force.

The Clinton administration hardly neglected the military. Clinton didn't actively seek out conflicts to expend material on, the largest being the Serbia/Bosnia conflict, which he brought NATO in to a significant degree (as it was most member states' own backyard this seems fair.) Clinton prefered diplomatic engagement, building support over unilateral moves. Clinton was more fiscally conservative than his successor.

Re:Little investigation (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#16522131)

I have to agree with you.

Clinton was amazingly fiscally conservative.

He was almost my dream of a succesful libertarian candidate.

Totally fiscal conservative while totally liberal socially.

Re:Little investigation (2, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 7 years ago | (#16524531)

The military has been neglected and mismanaged since the Reagan administration ended. He rescued us from the Hollow Force era, and the military has been living on the results for too long. I've been in the USAF since '81 and have not seen it this bad.
It has been under continuous drawdown, procurement of new systems is not done with thought to economies of scale, and services like the Navy and AF are slashing personnel to pay for few and overpriced new systems.
It is, provably, a bipartisan clusterfuck.

Re:Little investigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16526267)

1. This is $2-3 million dollars ffs! >
3. Get some perspective. This is nothing and inexplicable with the amount of waste.
4. Did you even need military expansion/upgrade under Clinton?!? No. Would that have been wasteful economically? *nods* Ah-ha.
4a. Dragon skin would be an upgrade but it ain't happening due to 'special interests'.
5. stfu.

Re:Little investigation (4, Insightful)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519385)

I'll give 10 to 1 odds that this is a result of some asshat policy maker (probably the one that spends all his time playing WoW) changing the rules without actually sitting down to think about the consequences of his shiny new policy... that kind of thing is a LOT more common than someone executing part of a far-reaching-conspiratorial-plan...

Re:Little investigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16519593)

If they sat around playing WoW, they would at least gain some basic insight into resource allocation. More likely, the asshat policy wonk in question spends time at the golf course with his/her defense-contractor buddies.

Re:Little investigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16519723)

So you'd rather have the military play WoW? Pathetic strategy.

Re:Little investigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16520469)

Shouldn't you be out hunting snipe, or fetching a gallon of prop wash?

Re:Little investigation (-1, Troll)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519605)

Guess which asshat? Come on, you'll never guess!

The Pentagon's research arm, which has twice hosted the high-tech contests since 2004, blames an obscure section in a defense spending law signed by President Bush this week. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency believes the law prevents the agency from awarding the $2.7 million prize money.

Re:Little investigation (2, Insightful)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519711)

I should have been more specific: by "asshat policy maker" not thinking about the consequences of "his shiny new policy", I should've said "the shiny new policy they just wrote".

El Presidente may have signed it... but you can be damned sure he didn't actually write the thing. Someone else did, and then they managed to asskiss enough politicians to get 5 minutes of his time, during which, he likely signed a policy that, as a whole, had very little to do with the DARPA prize, but probably contained some obscure fucking clause...that some nimby-pimby shit for brains managed to... .. . . . . I'ma stop now... I'm feeling a little stabby....

Re:Little investigation (4, Informative)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519777)

Oddly enough, the President doesn't get to decide exactly what obscure sections go into a defense spending law. If he did, you can bet that companies located in districts represented by Congressmen on the appropriations committee wouldn't just happen to get lots of big contracts.

Sure, you can maybe blame him for not vetoing the spending bill, but unless he really cared about this one expenditure, why would you expect him to?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to take a long shower, because I fell really dirty after actually defending the President. But can you please save your blame of him for the tons of things that are actually his fault?

Yup... (1)

Dr. Zowie (109983) | more than 7 years ago | (#16524487)

... like when some aide lined out the entire Space Environment Center [noaa.gov] from NOAA's [noaa.gov] budget a few years ago -- after all, space is outside NOAA's bailiwick, so what are those goons doing? Turns out they're only ensuring the ongoing safety of the electrical grid and all of our comsats, phone systems, and aviation network... ... or like when, in 1998, I and a host of colleages traveled to the island of Guadeloupe to study a solar eclipse, and none of our colleagues from the Naval Research Laboratory had a place to stay. Following DoD regulations, the NRL travel office had moved them from the recommended hotel to a much cheaper one just barely within the required search radius of 15 miles -- but that happened to be on a different island...

Unfortunately, the vast majority of laws and regulations are composed in a hurry by college interns or harried public servants.

Re:Little investigation (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520103)

We'd have better luck if we just banded together and formed a Non-Profit organization that sole purpose was to award prizes to robotic contents.

If everyone that reads Slashdot donated $10 to this organization, they'd have a great deal of money to award people.

Other forms of remuneration (4, Funny)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519379)

The DoD could always offer other forms of remuneration to the winner. Such a awarding contracts for supplies, such as $500 toilet seats and $250 hammers...nyet?

Re:Other forms of remuneration (3, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519439)

The DoD could always offer other forms of remuneration to the winner. Such a awarding contracts for supplies, such as $500 toilet seats and $250 hammers...nyet?

I could be wrong here, but don't think Stanford University is in the business of manufacturing toilet seats or hammers (though I dare say there's probably an ample supply of BFH's in the engineering school) The money awarded a university probably just goes into the general fund, where maybe the board would toss a bit of it as a reward (say, 10%) to the engineering school as a big 'Thank ya'. Awarding Stanford 40,000 toilet seats would be, um, ignominious, though fitting for the way the football team has performed so far.

Re:Other forms of remuneration (4, Funny)

doormat (63648) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519557)

I could be wrong here, but don't think Stanford University is in the business of manufacturing toilet seats or hammers

I dont think you got it....

1. Get awarded contract for 10,000 toilets at $500.
2. Go purchase 10,000 toilets through distributor for $100 each.
3. Profit!

Re:Other forms of remuneration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16523271)

I always wondered what #2 was. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Other forms of remuneration (2, Funny)

protolith (619345) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520765)

Its easy, They said they would award a Trophy.

If they pay $500 for a toilet seat and $250 for a hammer then a nice trophy would be like $2 million.

They could award some kind of voucher to go pick the trophy the winning team wants.

You wouldnt want them stuck with just any $2 million trophy. They should pick the one they want.

I'm sure the government has some kind of voucher that would be good at any trophy shop.

Yea maybe the Govt. bank will back the voucher so you know its good, call it a "Federal Reserve Note" or something like that. 2 million of those ought to do.

Re:Other forms of remuneration (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521067)

Its easy, They said they would award a Trophy. If they pay $500 for a toilet seat and $250 for a hammer then a nice trophy would be like $2 million. They could award some kind of voucher to go pick the trophy the winning team wants. You wouldnt want them stuck with just any $2 million trophy. They should pick the one they want. I'm sure the government has some kind of voucher that would be good at any trophy shop. Yea maybe the Govt. bank will back the voucher so you know its good, call it a "Federal Reserve Note" or something like that. 2 million of those ought to do.

I'm rather certain if it worked at all like that it would go something like this:

The award, manufactured by Haliburton Defence Award Company, is to be distributed by Kellog, Brown and Root Trophy Transportation, Logistics & Presentation Division to the recipient, Total Cost $2.7 million for a gold plated plastic chalice atop a particle wood (coated in simulated dark mahogany) stand.

You have to think about how the game is played these days.

Re:Other forms of remuneration (1)

Jamil Karim (931849) | more than 6 years ago | (#16522051)

Its easy, They said they would award a Trophy.

Yeah. A big diamond encrusted trophy with rubies and sapphires as "accents." =)

Re:Other forms of remuneration (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521589)

Some of those things are myths. Some of them rest are rumored to be 'covers' for black ops spending. The remaining ones are specialized things, such as $500 toilet seats for long range bombers that are integreated into the pilot's seat.

Re:Other forms of remuneration (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521829)

Yeah, it is often said (and I thought it has been confirmed in a few places) that black-ops spending still has to clear congress so it gets slipped into inflated prices on normal goods. I think the completely ridiculous amounts are either people getting too cozy in their habits (you could easily write $100 or $150 for something like a tire that probobly only costs $50 but writing that much for a hammer is a little too noticable because even a really nice hammer wont cost that much).

Re:Other forms of remuneration (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 6 years ago | (#16523215)

Some of those things are myths. Some of them rest are rumored to be 'covers' for black ops spending. The remaining ones are specialized things, such as $500 toilet seats for long range bombers that are integreated into the pilot's seat.
Indeed, nearly every one of those much-trumpeted examples of defense waste are not, in fact, nearly as stupid as people would like to think. The one you mention is a good example of how dumbasses read line items like "toilet seat" and automatically assume it's the same as the $30 toilet seat from Home Depot. Another classic one is the dumbshit who thought he'd be cute and show up at the IRS office to pay his $30,000 tax bill with three "Mr Coffees", because he read in the paper how the Air Force paid $10K for a coffee maker. In reality, the AF paid $10K each for built in hot soup/coffee/tea/water dispensers for the aircraft that ferry the Rapid Deployment Forces around, so the grunts in the back don't have to freeze their nadgers off on an 18 hour flight to Bumfuck. The ($250/$500/$random) Hammer is a good one too. Imagine a project where you're ordering 2500 Fancy Fighter Jets, and each jet comes with a specialized tool kit for field repairs. One item is a hammer. The budgeted "cost" of the hammer is $40-- $25 for the hammer, and $15 ($37,500/2500) for the amortized cost of the engineering team that put the specs for the tool kit together. Suddenly, the Air Force decides (or is told) they only need 250 Fancy Fighter Jets. Well, that hammer is still $25, but the engineering team cost is the same whether it's 1 hammer or a million, so now it's an $175 hammer. Anyone who thinks they hide black programs $250 at a time as "hammers" and "toilet seats" has seen too many movies and not read enough military budgets. Military budgets contain huge chunks of money specifically for black projects. All they have is a code name and a dollar amount, usually.

Re:Other forms of remuneration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16522561)

I used to be able to find web pages explaining how this urban legend started, but I can't find it any more, because it's totally drowned out by the legend itself. The funny thing is the numbers are different every single time.

Re:Other forms of remuneration (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 7 years ago | (#16524041)

I used to be able to find web pages explaining how this urban legend started, but I can't find it any more, because it's totally drowned out by the legend itself. The funny thing is the numbers are different every single time.
The myth of the $600 hammer [govexec.com], By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. is a good article on the reasons why federal budgeting seems inflated, but isn't. Most of the article is dry budget speak, but it explains the hammer explicitly, at least.

Is this really so bad? (-1, Troll)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519391)

I can't shed too many tears over having fewer entries into a DARPA sponsored event, how many more killing machines do we need? It would be a huge shame though if privately sponsored contests such as the X Prize lost funding or were inhibited with further regulations/restrictions. These contests better humanity (as opposed to creating a more deadly robot jeep) while fostering innovation and eventually our economic prosperity. Hopefully the X Prize and similar contests will continue to gain in popularity, funding, and scope ... my personal preference would be to see a prize for an economically friendly automobile (e.g. $25M for first family car that gets over 100 mpg at $40,000 price) or nontraditional power sources (e.g. $500M for first economically viable fusion reactor).

Re:Is this really so bad? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16519537)

yeah, cuz building a car that can drive itself is of absolutely no fucking benefit to humanity at all...

Re:Is this really so bad? (5, Interesting)

eaglej (552473) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519563)

Yes. The money which is no longer available was prize money, as well as milestone prizes for the track B teams. The difference between track A and track B is that track A gives all its technology to the government at the end (in exchange for $1 million of development money), and track B has no such obligation. The track A funds (contracts rather than prizes) are still fully intact, so all of the track A teams are still in it. What's been cut out is the incentive for track B teams to enter. These are the teams that are NOT giving technology directly to the government, and are using the race as a vehicle for development of technology that can truly benefit the world in ways other than making robot death jeeps. Say, for example, saving hundreds of thousands of lives in traffic accidents every year.

So yes, I would much rather see a portion of the DoD's budget spent encouraging development of revolutionary safety technology for civilian drivers rather than a big contract to a traditional defense contractor for something that directly kills people. (Keep in mind, the funds were not -cut-, DARPA's authority to use them for prizes was simply removed.)

Re:Is this really so bad? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16519809)

While I think your point is valid, I do think that the prize money added to the overall prestige of the competition, which was a motivating factor for many to enter.

Also, it seemed that the top winners actually spent more to win the competition than what they received in prize money. Not saying that the prize money didn't help to recoup costs though. It could have this positive effect in that if someone doesn't win they won't see it as a crushing blow to their finances.

Yes (Re:Is this really so bad?) (2, Interesting)

rhyre417 (919946) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521051)

The prize money is kind of like a lottery drawing, except that it's based on knowledge and skill, not so much on luck. It attracts teams who will enter despite the fact that there may be better returns on their investments of time and creativity.
The cash price would generate far more media attention than a simple awards ceremony. If we want to encourage people to invest in science and technology, this is a good way to do it.

It was non-sensical to kill it.

I'll make a public committment of $200 towards a future Darpa Grand Challenge prize, if 10,000 other people will do the same. (I'll leave it as an exercise to Slashdotters to figure out the best way to use pledgebank along with a credible escrow system to accomplish this.)

Re:Is this really so bad? (4, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519727)

$25M for first family car that gets over 100 mpg at $40,000 price

To be awarded posthumously?

It's easy enough to build such a car. Easy enough that it's been done many times over the past century.

All you have to do to achieve it is give up something else. We can strive for efficiency, but we canna change the laws of physics.

KFG

Re:Is this really so bad? (2, Insightful)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519827)

All you have to do to achieve it is give up something else. We can strive for efficiency, but we canna change the laws of physics.

Give up? What are these laws you talk of, I don't know about you, but I'm American: I give up nothing and I write my own damned laws!

Re:Is this really so bad? (1, Offtopic)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519931)

Just using today's technology, you could probably get pretty close to 100 mpg with a Prius, good lithium batteries, and additional solar powered charging (to eliminate need to plug-in the hybrid). Hand modifications would easily push the cost above $40K, but cheaply mass producing such a vehicle seems theoretically feasible, and certainly doesn't violate any laws of physics.

Re:Is this really so bad? (2, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520259)

Just using today's technology, you could probably get pretty close to 100 mpg with a Prius

I could achieve it with a Chevette using yesterday's technolgy. Hell, I got 60 mpg out of a box stock 1976 Fiesta, in traffic, once upon a time, as a demonstration of how much driving style effects gas milage (the Prius is not immune from this effect. Some of its reported efficiency comes from the fact that its drivers are preselected to focus on economy in their driving). I'll give you 3000 mpg gallon with yesterday's technology; if you're willing to give up enough for it. With real mpg figures, not some conversion of mppc (miles per pound of coal) into mpg.

If we're going allow conversion factors I could also build you a car that gets the equivilent of 3000 mpg, burns a wide variety of bio or synthetic fuels at the same time and costs only a few thousand dollars, but you'd have to give up far too much for most people to bear.

Chiefly their lack of physical fitness.

KFG

Re:Is this really so bad? (1)

Aczlan (636310) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520363)

that or make the prius with a TDI engine... the '03 Jetta TDI (no electric just a normal IC engine) gets 50Mpg... build that into a hybrid (ie a prius) and you should be able to get MUCH better Mpg...


Just my $.02
Aaron Z

Posthumously? (3, Insightful)

benhocking (724439) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520055)

To be awarded posthumously?

Why in the world would you say that? You're not one of those people that thinks bigger necessarily equals safer, are you?

All you have to do to achieve it is give up something else. We can strive for efficiency, but we canna change the laws of physics.

Sure, you might have to give up the ability to, um, I don't know. Help me out here - what exactly would you have to give up? The ability to accelerate quickly? Nope. The ability to decelerate quickly? Nope. What would you have to give up? Which "laws of physics" would one have to change? (I have an MS in Astrophysics, so don't feel that you have to speak to the layman.)

I will say this - when you're accelerating quickly you won't be getting your 100 mpg. But you can have the ability to accelerate quickly (say in an emergency) and still average 100 mpg. Forgive me for saying so, but it's not rocket science. :)

OK, so maybe you'll have to give up your "8 MPG" license plate (I actually saw one of these), but really, is that asking so much?

Re:Posthumously? (3, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520709)

Why in the world would you say that? You're not one of those people that thinks bigger necessarily equals safer, are you?

No. You'll find in my other posts that I am one of those people that thinks, small, light, uncrushable carbon fiber cars are safer ( with suitable crushables, say light foam, around the carbon fiber).

If you go back and read my post again I think you'll find that I'm one of those people that thinks the designer of the 100 mpg car has already died of old age. Hence the posthumous award.

. . .what exactly would you have to give up? The ability to accelerate quickly?

Unless you give up enough mass. There are limits to that. See the "beer can effect" in reducing bicycle weight by using thinner, larger diameter tubing. And of course mass will always be proportional to size, no matter the materials and construction techniques you use, so yes, size is one of the things you might have to give up to increase milage, which at least as important as reducing mass reduces frontal area.

The ability to decelerate quickly?

Throwing energy away is always comparitively easy. Any modern street car can be braked in excess of its ability to produce tractive force on clean, dry roads. Small, light cars with high tractive force can decelerate from 100 mph to 0 in less than two seconds with off the shelf (albeit expensive) parts.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with gas milage in street cars.

I have an MS in Astrophysics. . .

Astrophysics has always been an interest of mine, but even as an undergrad my research always focused on . . .high efficiency vehicles. Partly because of my love of human power, party because I was an undergrad during the OPEC oil crises in the 70s.

I will say this - when you're accelerating quickly you won't be getting your 100 mpg. But you can have the ability to accelerate quickly (say in an emergency) and still average 100 mpg.

Right, so you'll have to give up accelerating quickly. See my other post where I mention getting 60 mpg out of a box stock Fiesta.

Forgive me for saying so, but it's not rocket science.

I've done some work on rockets. I have a number of friends at NASA and its subcontractors. You're right, automotive engineering isn't rocket science. It's far more complicated.

OK, so maybe you'll have to give up your "8 MPG" license plate (I actually saw one of these), but really, is that asking so much?

My vehicle doesn't need a license plate and I typically run it on rice and lentils; with a few bananas and a handful of trail mix on the side. Oh, and Day Lilies when they're in season. I've "given up" a lot, but I've gained the world.

It can by hybridized to increase peak accelerations, but I'm not usually in that much of a hurry. To get the best milage all you really need to give up is your ridiculous schedule.

KFG

Doing something vs. being able to do something (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520895)

If you go back and read my post again I think you'll find that I'm one of those people that thinks the designer of the 100 mpg car has already died of old age. Hence the posthumous award.

Fair enough. I did misunderstand what you were *driving* at.

Right, so you'll have to give up accelerating quickly. See my other post where I mention getting 60 mpg out of a box stock Fiesta.

Yes, if you're one of those prepubescent kids (which I'm guessing you're not) that likes to always gun your car from the stop-light, then it's unlikely you'll be able to get 100 mpg. However, if your concern is that you want the *ability* to accelerate quickly - e.g., in an emergency - then you can still get your 100 mpg. And, yes, of course, you can't have an unaerodynamic car or a ridiculously massive car and still get 100 mpg. However, I don't see that there's anything unrealistic that you have to sacrifice.

It can by hybridized to increase peak accelerations, but I'm not usually in that much of a hurry. To get the best milage all you really need to give up is your ridiculous schedule.

I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not. (After the preceding paragraph - which I snipped out - I suspect you might be.) The first phrase makes sense, but you seem to be implying that the only way to get 100 mpg is to go really, really slow. Am I misunderstanding you again?

On the other hand, I also believe that once people are *willing* to give things up, they find that their lives are actually better. I walk to "work" every day, and I've really come to enjoy that part of my day - even when it rains.

Re:Doing something vs. being able to do something (3, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 6 years ago | (#16522265)

However, if your concern is that you want the *ability* to accelerate quickly - e.g., in an emergency - then you can still get your 100 mpg.

Right, if you give up that accelerating most of the time. That's something to give up. Some people won't. It's what they primarily want out of a motor vehicle. There are also still tradeoffs to be made, since an engine that isn't capable of that sort of acceleration can be made smaller and lighter, but then we're getting into the 3000 mpg territory I was talking about and not a mere 100.

Various efficiencies of the power plant my also vary with speed and acceleration. That's why our cars don't all just have gas turbines in them. They tried 'em in road racing and they sucked. They tried 'em in oval racing and they were so good they were banned (there were market politics involved in this. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday . . .if you're racing something that can be related to what you're selling).

Oval racers don't do much in the way of sudden accelerating.

And, yes, of course, you can't have an unaerodynamic car or a ridiculously massive car and still get 100 mpg. However, I don't see that there's anything unrealistic that you have to sacrifice.

The realism of the sacrifice is an issue I did not address. I simply stated that to get one thing you will have to give up some other thing. I'm often chided on this very forum for suggesting "sacrifices" that are "unrealistic;" and yet I obviously think they are realsitic, because I have really made them.

I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not.

Q.E.D. Ha, ha, I'm only being serious.

The first phrase makes sense, but you seem to be implying that the only way to get 100 mpg is to go really, really slow.

No, I was primarily making a social commentary, but I am implying that the slower you go the better the milage you can get. Taken to its logical extreme you will get the best "milage" by simply being content with where you already are. This applies to human power just as well as mechanical power.

However, as I said, I can make a Chevette that gets 100 mpg, while only using technology that was available at the time it was made, but the higher you want its potential performance the more you'll have to give up in milage. I'm not working with a clean slate with that one. For starters I have a given power plant with certain built in inefficienes.

The second quickest, cheapest way to increase its milage is to shed mass, but you'll have to give up passenger carrying capacity for that. The next is to reduce rolling resistence, but you'll have to give up tractive force for that. The next is to change the final drive ratio, but you'll have to give up acceleration for that. The next is to tune the engine for maximum efficiency, but again you will have to give up some acceleration for that as well. It's innate in the device. I could be on to certain aerodynamic changes, but you may have to give up "styling" for that (Hey, it's not exatly my favorite, but I don't actually object to the way a Chevette looks).

Of course the cheapest way to increase milage (irrespective of a specific target) is to simply teach you how to drive it. With gentle, unhurried patience.

Depending on local conditions this may, however, result in your getting to work at a slower average speed. It might well take as much as . . . a couple minutes longer.

On the other hand I might well beat your Porsche on my bicycle. The world is a mass of variables and one of the essential problems with designing a road vechicle is that you have to take them all into account.

For years Jaguar battled American complaints that their cars overheated. They couldn't understand it, because they kept improving the cooling system year on year, but the complaints kept coming.

So, one year, they actually sent some of the engineers to America, go figure. Their reaction?

"Bloody hell, we had no idea how hot it was in your country. How do you stand it?"

Now if we could only do something about the heating system. They need to realize that just because it often rises above +40 C here does not mean it doesn't often fall below -20 C. This is a land of extremes. As unpalatble as I personally find it the Ford takeover has had a positive effect in that regard.

And accomodating both means that even more sacrifices have to be made. I remember talking to an astrophysicist once who thought that humans could exist comfortably on a particular planetary body because he looked up its average temperature and it was reasonable. I actually had to point out to him that you don't have to survive the average, you have to survive the extremes.

However, please note that the point of my original post was that 3000 mpg is achievable and 100 isn't all that hard.

On the other hand, I also believe that once people are *willing* to give things up. . .

Selling it, on the other hand. . .

KFG

Re:Posthumously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16523377)

How much weed do you smoke?

Re:Posthumously? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 6 years ago | (#16523459)

How much weed do you smoke?

About 4 oz. last week, which is about average, but not the kind you're talking about.

And I didn't inhale.

KFG

Re:Posthumously? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#16523669)

Carbon fibre is good, and there's a chance that there will be cheap (as in aluminium-cheap) ways to extract titanium, which would massively reduce the costs of lightweight materials.


Size isn't necessarily given up. If you use materials that have half the mass per unit volume, you can have twice the volume. Car shapes tend to waste a lot of material (cuboids have a large surface area to unit volume) and a lot of internal space to aerodynamics (you still want aerodynamics, you just don't want to waste as much space). Frontal area (as far as the air is concerned) is not necessarily the same as the frontal area as far as the occupants are concerned - there was an experiment in building double-skin racing yaughts, where the outer skin was porus and the inner skin had grooves. The idea was to build a hull that broke up turbulance within the hull.


You also need to consider that the engine isn't terribly efficient. 80% of what goes in the air intake is nitrogen. Nitrogen "burns" to form various oxides, but consumes far more energy than it releases. It would be possible to electrostatically enrich the oxygen intake - you can place a charge on oxygen far more easily than on nitrogen, then use the charge to seperate the two) but it works out that because you've only a very short time to do this, it's extremely hard to get any kind of net gain at all. I don't know of any other method of de-nitrifying the air intake, but the more you can exclude, the more energy you will extract for the same amount of fuel and oxygen. (You might be able to get the same effect by extracting the energy faster or cooling the engine better, as endothermic reactions require there to be more than some critical level of energy. I've not really pursued that line of reasoning much, as cooling an engine massively is not a trivial thing to do. Electrostatic seperation requires a y-shaped plastic tube, two metal grids and some wires.)


Improving engine efficiency is one option, but not the only one. The storage of energy is another. Simply tune the engine to work optimally under a very narrow range of conditions (because then you get the best performance) and convert the energy extracted into a more usable form. Regenerative braking can also conserve some energy. It's significant but not vast. Of course, getting the energy through far more efficient means is only one part. The other part is converting the energy into momentum for the car. The process (involving transmission, gears, traction, air resistance, etc) is highly non-linear. It would be better to reduce the gear ratios, have more gears, and have the automatic transmission pick a gear based on all related conditions and not just engine revs (which we have now eliminated anyway).


Air resistance is by far the biggest killer, as cars are horribly shaped with gigantic vertical slopes at the back, a huge hole below the engine cavity and absolutely no sense of aesthetics in the plumbing underneath.

Re:Posthumously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16524887)

and have the automatic transmission pick a gear based on all related conditions and not just engine revs

Or just switch to manual gearboxes, which if driven skillfully save 10% on fuel efficiency versus even a modern auto gearbox.

Re:Posthumously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16520789)

whoever modded this up insightful was sleeping !

the posthumously in the gp referred to the fact that the inventor of such a car is already dead and buried, and that there are more than 1 of them...

and the trade-offs are more along the lines of mpg vs acceleration, comfort, noise level, cargo capacity or any combination of those.

Trade-offs (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520993)

the trade-offs are more along the lines of mpg vs acceleration, comfort, noise level, cargo capacity or any combination of those

I currently own a Civic Hybrid, and although these don't get 100 mpg yet, they have excellent acceleration, great comfort, very low noise levels, and sufficient cargo capacity. I'm confident that in the future, someone will be able to design a car that gets 100 mpg, has just as good acceleration, just as good comfort, just as low (if not lower) noise levels, and even better cargo capacity. As for noise levels especially, my experience is that higher mpg cars tend to be quieter, not louder.

Oh, and before you mention highway driving, I get almost 50 mpg on the highway in my hybrid with me and 3 passengers. (Which could be interpreted as almost 200 mpg per occupant.)

bigger USUALLY equals safer, like it or not (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16525273)

We don't need to hear about some random badly-designed pick-up truck or SUV. (jacked up 3 feet, with leaf springs, with an extra ton of chrome on the roof...) We all know.

Extra distance between you and the impact point means that the impact can take longer, thus reducing the forces. For crashing into a wall, this means you should have a long hood.

Extra mass is helpful if the other object has some give, either via crushing or via being tossed the other way. Of course this applies to trees, railings, people, motercycles, and anything else you might mow down. It also applies to big things which try to mow you down.

No Cash Prize for Next DARPA Grand Challenge ? (4, Funny)

7Prime (871679) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519413)

Solid Snake's gonna be VERY disappointed...

...wait, what DARPA were we talking about, again?

Genius (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519425)

A competition where the prize is $0! What a brilliant idea! Much cheaper to run than a regular competition! I'm amazed someone didn't think of that before.

Re:Genius (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519749)

A competition where the prize is $0! What a brilliant idea! Much cheaper to run than a regular competition! I'm amazed someone didn't think of that before.

At least, for once, development of military ideas won't cost taxpayers a dime! :roll:

Re:Genius (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16521911)

Think of it as "Development Prizes 2.0", and it'll clearly be worth more.

Re:Genius (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#16525061)

A competition where the prize is $0! What a brilliant idea!

Maybe this is a secret plan to get RMS to enter.
     

Ruined my plan (5, Funny)

bryz (730558) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519483)

Step 1. Buy Lexus LS460 with autopark
Step 2. Put ls460 backwards at starting line, tell it to park at finish line.
Step 3. Profit.

Re:Ruined my plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16520495)

I guess you'll have to change step 3 to ????

Translation: Boeing/Lockheed afraid of competition (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16519495)

The big defense contractors feel embarased by the successes of university teams in the last one; so they change the rules to make it less attractive to amateurs.


Business as usual for the military industry.

What if... (2, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519499)

What if they don't need the contest anymore? Last year's winner did amazingly well from what I remember. What if they already have what they want?

Re:What if... (1)

eclarkso (179502) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519829)

The article is informative:

Unlike previous races where robotic vehicles had to conquer the rugged desert, next year's challenge will test how well they can carry out a mock military supply mission through bottlenecked traffic.
The goal for this challenge is considerably different.

What!!!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16519583)

A government program is working and inexpensive? It must be stopped!!!!!!!

Great Idea! (1)

tont0r (868535) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519601)

"Hey, you know that amazing technology that we want you guys to build for us? Do you think you could do that for free instead?"

They'll get this fixed.... (3, Insightful)

zymurgy_cat (627260) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519733)

It sounds like it's just a bureaucratic (sp?) paperwork shuffle. The money will be available. And if not, I'm sure they can find a few congressmen/women to either put pressure on the DoD or write a bill to specifically authorize the money. No one wants to look either "soft on terror" or "unconcerned about troop safety", so this will all work out. Hell, I'm sure Bush, as CIC, can move the money if needed.

Re:They'll get this fixed.... (1)

trosenbl (191401) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519881)

It sounds like it's just a bureaucratic (sp?) paperwork shuffle. The money will be available. And if not, I'm sure they can find a few congressmen/women to either put pressure on the DoD or write a bill to specifically authorize the money. No one wants to look either "soft on terror" or "unconcerned about troop safety", so this will all work out. Hell, I'm sure Bush, as CIC, can move the money if needed.


This is what I suspect. Especially since this is a great marketing vehicle (ba-dum!) for Science education in this country, as well as the Armed Forces. I suspect a cash prize for this is well worth the attention it attracts, as compared to other more traditional advertising methods (ie: magazines, tv ads, www banner ads).

The best way to get attention is to do something positive, not just stick ads up everywhere. People ignore ads, but they don't ignore results.

RTFA (5, Informative)

Geccie (730389) | more than 6 years ago | (#16519737)

RTFA - Although DARPA has pulled the award, the current legislation does not bar awards. It moves the authorization level up one position above the DARPA director.

All they now have to do is get permission from their boss.

It appears they have chosen the ignorant route and - instead of getting requested authorization - simply claim they are not allowed

Sounds like typical Government Bureaucrats to me.

Re:RTFA (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#16522333)

There is nobody in DARPA higher than the director, so "One position above the DARPA director" means "not DARPA." The Director of Defense Engineering and Research concievably could, but when have they? Do you have a boss? When they say, "X is now my decision, not yours," do you take that to mean that your boss will decide however you want if you ask nicely?

It was DARPA's idea. DARPA's annual budget is $3e9 [darpa.mil] (check out the 7th page), and the few million they spent on the Grand Challenges was IME some of the best money they have ever spent. Why make it harder to repeat success?

Re:RTFA (1)

newt0311 (973957) | more than 7 years ago | (#16526109)

politics. like an earlier post said, "a government program works so it must be stopped." When a gov. prog succeeds, it makes the rest of the gov. look bad. therefore, it must be trashed.

Simple... (1)

Smurf_Burger (1016149) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520001)

Just get corporate sponsorship for the prize. The purse could actually become a lot larger... I would think the big guys would kill to have their names splashed around on all the videos of the contest.

Re:Simple... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521269)

Or maybe al Qaida can put up the reward cash. They need an autonomously guided vehicle that they can send to a pre-programmed destination.

Princeton hopefully wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16520023)

Princeton hopefully wins

Re:Princeton hopefully wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16522741)

No, they get beat at the last minute by some "noncompetitive admissions" college.

The Real Harm (5, Informative)

nomadicpuma (809691) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520255)

I'm on the Princeton DARPA team, and we're on Track B. The prize money at the end was a nice incentive and certainly garnered attention for the competition, but that's not where the real harm lies. For passing the site visit, there was a prize of $50,000, and for making it to the finals, a $250,000 prize (don't quote me on the amounts, that's just my recollection). These milestone prizes would've gone a long way to offset the financial disparity between Track A teams (who've received substantial DARPA grants) and the Track B teams. We're on a shoestring budget, and that money would've been incredibly useful. Instead, we now have to go the entire distance without a dime from the government.

------
http://pave.princeton.edu/ [princeton.edu]

Re:The Real Harm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16521265)

Build a bomb that targets the blackheartedness of people. Yeah thats an idea and detonate it and kill all the FAGS!!!

- Wolf Bearclaw

Re:The Real Harm (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 6 years ago | (#16522773)


Well, ask your well-heeled and well connected alumni to cough up some cash - I'm sure that exclusivity(or what you want to call "competitive admissions") can come up with the difference and then some.

No New Taxes (1, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#16520497)

"some new DoD-related legislation"

We can't spend $2M on DARPA, which gives us results like the Internet, GPS, etc. We've got to spend it on 12 minutes in Iraq [speakupwny.com].

Re:No New Taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16520771)

Yes, DARPA has no money at all, Doctor Dumbfuck.

Re:No New Taxes (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#16521273)

Moderation 0
    50% Interesting
    50% Troll

Congress is split about that evenly, barely favoring the TrollMods, which is one reason why we're getting so many 12 minutes in Iraq, and no DARPA Grand Challenge prizes.

In a few weeks, you'll get a chance (if you're an American voter) to pick your representative in the House, and probably your Senator, too. Decide whether they agree with your preference for DARPA or Iraq. Vote Tuesday, November 7 2006. You'll be stuck with the result for at least a million minutes in Iraq, through 2008.

Why do R+D when we can oursource it? (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#16522035)

Call up Bangalore U. That's where the DoD contractors are investing money.

Pretty sad (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#16522079)

For a trivial investment they were getting huge benefits.

Yet they'll continue wasting money hand over fist for way less return elsewhere in government.

Found the Bill's Text (2, Informative)

Sinical (14215) | more than 7 years ago | (#16525121)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/ ~c109i6ly2s [loc.gov]

Signed on October 17th. Look in Section 212, which has this:

(A) by striking `Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency' and inserting `Director of Defense Research and Engineering and the service acquisition executive for each military department'; and

Emphasis mine. You can see that now they have to add a dude (assuming that Director of Defense of DARPA is now "Director of Defense Research and Engineering", otherwise it's out of DARPA's hands all together). Maybe it's just a matter of signatures, but I can see how they have been forced to put the award on hold until they can, you know, obey the law as Congress has fiddled with it. And I confess that I haven't looked at the legislation that this section amends, which is:

Subsection (a) of section 2374a of title 10, United States Code

It doesn't matter (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#16525931)

The leading teams this time are Stanford/Volkswagen, CMU/General Motors, and Oshkosh Truck. The prize doesn't matter to either. And all three already got $1 million in Government money. Each.

It's a much tougher job this time. Driving in traffic, backing out of tight spots, parking and unparking. I'll be surprised if anyone wins the first year, because nobody knows quite what to expect. Year two, someone will win.

Pennies (1)

SRA8 (859587) | more than 7 years ago | (#16525979)

I dont understand how Haliburton and Kellog, Brown & Root can walk away will billions or logistical work while true research and hard work by our next generation of scientists isnt worth $2m?

Amazing (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16526259)

Companies can spend BILLIONS buying all of the congress and whitehouse, but allow DARPA to spend a million to get something done, well.....

Darpa URBAN challenge is the new Grand (1)

max_thebum (1016339) | more than 7 years ago | (#16526331)

Well if they aren't funding a Grand challenge its because they are funding the URBAN challenge. Instead of driving around a desert, we are supposed to drive around an "urban landscape" and be able to pass cars, follow california traffic laws etc. Another big change is that they are funding university teams in-ADVANCE! Our team got $1Million straight up, so we can buy a new car and all the electronics and sensors we need to make the best system possible. Since we are all students, the system we build IS going to be the best, as our interests all lie in this field, i.e. we do it because we love it, not 'cause we have to. I've heard of many other universities and programs that are also receieving funding, so if anything, they are pitching out more money that before!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...