What do you think?
Rate this book
The 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge: The Great Robot Race
The DARPA Grand Challenge was a landmark in the field of a race by autonomous vehicles through 132 miles of rough Nevada terrain. It showcased exciting and unprecedented capabilities in robotic perception, navigation, and control. The event took place in October 2005 and drew teams of competitors from academia and industry, as well as many garage hobbyists. This book presents fifteen technical papers that describe each team's driverless vehicle, race strategy, and insights. As a whole, they present the state of the art in autonomous vehicle technology and offer a glimpse of future technology for tomorrow’s driverless cars.
563 pages, Paperback
First published October 23, 2007
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 10, 2008
The book is a collection of papers published by each team that competed in the 2005 Darpa Grand Challenge, organized by their finishing place. Everything here was in the Journal of Field Robotics originally.
The teams that only made it a few miles mention the causes of their failure but frequently do not critique their approach that deeply- third party reporting would be better here. Usually the cause was mechanical or electro-mechanical, but the authors appear to dismiss that as unimportant compared to how successful their software would have been had not bad luck interceded. Bad luck here is equivalent prior inattention to detail, though budget and time constraints are also at fault.
Many systems are used by nearly every team, like lidars and stereo vision, so there is a great deal of repetition. Pointless details about software configuration mentioned in some of the papers should have been eliminated by a stronger handed editor.
These videos have more personal accounts of the race:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darpa/pr...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
The teams that only made it a few miles mention the causes of their failure but frequently do not critique their approach that deeply- third party reporting would be better here. Usually the cause was mechanical or electro-mechanical, but the authors appear to dismiss that as unimportant compared to how successful their software would have been had not bad luck interceded. Bad luck here is equivalent prior inattention to detail, though budget and time constraints are also at fault.
Many systems are used by nearly every team, like lidars and stereo vision, so there is a great deal of repetition. Pointless details about software configuration mentioned in some of the papers should have been eliminated by a stronger handed editor.
These videos have more personal accounts of the race:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darpa/pr...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
Displaying 1 of 1 review