[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Autonomous Scout Vehicles Prowl The Mean Streets The U.S. Army's decades long effort to develop a practical autonomous UGV (Unmanned Ground Vehicle) has succeeded. Earlier this month, two T2 vehicles equipped with sensors and control equipment, successfully passed realistic tests. One of the test subjects, controlled from a Stryker wheeled armored vehicle, successfully approached a village (equipped with mannequins set up as pedestrians along the streets), did a perimeter sweep at speeds of up to fifty kilometers an hour, then patrolled the streets, avoiding the pedestrians, and finally departed the area. The sensor systems uses a combination of ladar (laser radar), digital cameras and heat sensors, to provide the software with sufficient data to enable the onboard computers to identify and avoid obstacles. The key element here was the software, which, in turn, benefited from five years of competitive events that delivered software advances faster than expected. Two years ago, for the third time since 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense sponsored a race for robotic vehicles. For several decades, the U.S. Department of Defense has been trying to build a robotic vehicle. But in early 2004, the Department of Defense decided to try something different, and give enterprising civilian organizations a chance to show what they could do. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) held the DARPA Grand Challenge. Put simply, the first robotic vehicle (moving completely under software control, with no human intervention) that could complete a 240 kilometer course, would get a million dollars for its designers. No one even came close. But a second Challenge, held in late 2005, yielded several finishers, and the first one picked up the million dollar prize for navigating a 212 kilometers cross country course in just under seven hours. All vehicles operated under software control, as true robots. The third "Challenge" race was held in late 2007, and had a two million dollar prize for the first vehicle to complete a 60 kilometer course through an urban environment (an abandoned air force base) in under six hours. While much progress has been made, the basic problem is, and always has been, that there are a lot more obstacles for a robotic land vehicles to deal with on its own. At sea, and in the air, it's a much different, and much simpler, situation. Over a century ago, naval torpedoes were built that could make sufficient adjustments, while under way, to reach their intended target. Guided missiles came along half a century ago and achieved the same thing in the air. The DARPA contest has convinced developers of robotic vehicles that they have to give their creations a large amount of basic knowledge of obstacles, and how to deal with them, to consistently succeed. Until now, robotic vehicles depended on TV cameras (linked to computers that could detect traversable paths), laser rangefinders and the like to "learn on the go." But for a robotic vehicle to succeed, it needs some basic knowledge of the world. There is sufficient cheap computing power available to provide that, and robotic vehicles make use this approach. This is also creating the kind of "knowledgeable robots" that have for so long been popular in Science Fiction literature. One of the goals of all this is a robotic "infantry packbot" (a low slung vehicle that brings supplies to infantry deep in a combat zone) with a speech recognition and voice synthesizer module so that, when the troops wondered aloud who the packbot took so long to get the stuff to them, the vehicle could respond, "there was a lot of mud down the hill today and I had to go around it." Equipping a robotic vehicle with sensors that can detect water, mud, and the depth of both, is the sort of thing a successful "packbot" will require to survive on a battlefield. Being able to respond to audible commands is another feature the troops have already requested for such a vehicle. So the effort is not just to build a robotic vehicle, but a robot in the classic sense. That's how much computing power is required to enable a machine to go for a cross country trip over unfamiliar terrain, and succeed. Eventually, this will lead to robotic combat vehicles. The software advances have benefitted combat vehicles, more than the infantry packbot, which led to the most recent tests. Eventually, the military still wants to create a robotic truck that can move supplies over roads, or cross country, with only a few troops supervising a dozen or more robotic vehicles. This means you need fewer troops in the combat zone, and fewer troops will become casualties. The DARPA Challenge races have been a bonanza in terms of advancing the state of the art for robotic vehicles. For less than $10 million in prize money and expenses, the Department of Defense has created new technology that would have otherwise cost more than $100 million, and taken a lot longer to perfect. The T2 vehicle used in the recent test, also benefitted from the DARPA completion. The T2 vehicle weighs 620 kilograms (1350 pounds) and has six, independently controlled, wheels. It is very agile, and has sufficient carrying capacity to handle the sensors and computers. A scaled up T2, with enough armor to make it bullet proof and able to survive nearby explosions, would enable it to survive some ambushes or light resistance. A Stryker platoon (four Strykers) could be accompanied by two or more T2s for scouting, especially in areas where there is likely to be strong resistance. Such T2s would also be equipped with speakers, enabling an interpreter in one of the Strykers to question locals. The T2 can also be operated remotely, but the new sensor system is effective enough to let the vehicle doing all the driving, with the operator just directing the vehicle in a general direction.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Perhaps one day the technology will exist to build a wall on a border.
I used to kind of like that idea. Until I thought it might turn into a wall to keep us in. Your papers please. Welcome to the site.
Welcome to the site. Good point. Watch for that blind side, eh. Thank you. Thanks for the invite.
Don't get me wrong, I still support a border fence. Just don't want it to turn into a prison wall.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
Nah, that was a good point actually. As I always say, we're headed towards an East German/Soviet Bloc style setup right now, although who knows what it will end up as, so I suppose that has merit. My only hesistation there is that the "former Soviet East" (and other smaller nations today) sought/seek to limit the exposure of their citizens to the West and liberty in that way. But after the U.S. goes the way of Soviet nations, what's left to keep people from seeing. The moral filth from the "free west" is what drives all of the oppression at the core.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|