Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-02 08:25:18

Not really because it will be at least another 6 before a manned vehicle will actually be more than vapor and pretty drawings.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-02 17:17:34

Martian Republic,
You think small Larry, I know exactly how to generate the funds required and that is my current process it will take a few years to build all the inforastructure to create the funding mechanisms, but the fun part is doing it without other people's knowledge.
To clarify your statements , any one person or corporation can generate money and create legal notes, It depends on the creditability of the underlying assets. The Treasury Notes and US Currency are based on the ability of US Government to back those with Gold or other commodities.
The same can be done by corporations eg. The British Sterling are printed by Commercial Banks in Scotland , one of those banks are owned by an Australian Bank, that still doesn't mean they can't print the documents.
Regarding Infrstructure
I noted that , yes the use is using 40+ years of infrastructure in space development, and yes they have the expertise, again doesn't mean they can't be caught up and passed, the Chinese are doing that right now in many parts of their economy using our own technology to catch and pass us.
Investment in Space
Do you now the difference in return of capital outlay and asset appreciation ? My assets thus ownership of objects grow thus my asset base grows thus my financial postion grows thus when I need to draw on loans or revolving credit facilities to fund expansion I can because of the asset value. Also Larry, we have $B dollar corporations on earth but when private enterprise goes in space there will be $T (1,000,000,000,000.00 Dollars ) or even $P ( 1,000,000,000,000,000.00 Dollars ) valued corporations a $P Corporation would have the resources of asteroids to value, moonbase, and marsbase mining facilities and more making about 4 $T Income. That is equivalent to USA Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Income equivalent to US Government Budget. Those corporation could bring 100-500$B in revolving credit easy.
I am working on corporation development, that might take my life time to truly realise its full potential but in the next 20 years be able to fund the little projects that NASA are currently developing.
Martian Republic ( Larry ), I know you don't think that is possible well, Meryll ynch became a 1$T Fund manager on earth. Don't think its not possible because it is when you put the right conditions together.

I can see that we are just going to have to agree to disagree without being disagreeable with each other.

But, I can see that your mixing paper assets in a paper economy with physical asset in physical economy. One of your example is Meryll Lynch and how it became a billion dollar company. Well just how did Meryll Lynch grow that big and what do they have to do with the physical economy where all live and there operating in a paper economy. Meryll Lynch and the other shark on Wall Street and those big banks made there money by generating paper wealth out of thin air and charging usury on the physical assets. I will give you several examples how there scam works.

1. The Federal Reserve which is a private bank that is owned by other private banks. The Federal Reserve has a government charter to act as the Central Bank of the United States. Although the President appoint the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan actually is accountable to those stockholder Private Banks that own the Federal Reserve. Also those private pick the man they want the President of the United State to be appoint as the Federal Reserve Chairman. When those bank need extra cash, one way they get it is by the Federal Reserve discount window. The Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air and loan it to them by passing it through the discount window. Another way the Federal Reserve can get money to there membered banks is by generating money or credit out of thin air loan it to them at 1% or 2% interest and those member bank loan it to the Federal Government at 3% or 4% interest or the prime lending rate that the Federal Government get it money at. Those other big banks might buy Government bonds with there money loaned from the Federal Reserve System. This is one of the things that is generating the National Debt that we have to pay back with our taxes. When you pay your taxes, you don't pay the Federal Government, you pay that private bank call the Federal Reserve. To insure that you do pay that private bank there a government agency that was also setup in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created called the IRS. But, you pay the Federal Reserve bank your Federal taxes and they pay themselves and there membered banks and the Federal Government get what left over.

2. The second method that they use to generate the illusion of wealth is by borrowing money from the Federal Reserve system or money that you deposit into there bank and loan the same money back to themselves ten times. I works like this. Let say they borrow hundred million dollars from the Federal Reserve System through there discount window. Now by law they have to keep 10% of the money in there bank, but they can loan out that rest of it. If they loan it back to themselves, they can do that ten times and generate the appearance that they have one billion dollars instead of just one hundred million dollars. It one of those slight of the hand tricks of flim flam artist done by banks and Wall Street. Of this type of money generation or more appropriately credit, note, dervishes, etc. and other such garbage, there about 50 trillion dollars of worthless paper own three major banks in American and by Wall Street.

3. The third way they glean money out of the physical economy to pump up the banks and Wall Street is by real state or to be more accurate, they generated a "Real state Bubble". It works like this. I live in Dallas/Fort Worth area and there is this house in Hurst that was built in the 1950's time frame for about $8,000 dollars. Today that same house sell for $65,000 thousand dollars. On the Hurst tax rolls, it valued at $75,000 thousand dollars. There are some places in California where they could have built that house for $8,000 in the 1950's and if you were to buy that same house today you would have to pay almost $200,000 thousand dollars for it. Do you realize in that city or area of California that some one making $50,000 a year could not afford to buy a house because there too expensive. We are just taking about one house and nothing fancy either. A two or three bedroom frame house with one bath and kitchen.

Non of these three example produced any real wealth in the physical world that we live in, but only generated debt and made everything more expensive. This jacking up the prices of houses from $8,000 to $65,000 to $200,000 so people can't afford to buy those houses is not a benefit to the American People. All your doing is stealing from the middle class and giving to the rich. It kind of like Robin Hood in reverse. We are subsidizing the rich with our tax money too through those banks and Wall Street. This is how Meryll Lynch made there money. This system does not build any new houses or build any more infrastructure, but just jacks up the price of what is already hear and creates the illusion that wealth has been created, because the dollar amount is bigger. This is kind of like the Genie in the Aladdin Lamp. He comes from the nowhere and he goes to the no place and hear I am is. There wealth was created out of thin air from the no place and it will disappear into the air at the no place and hear it is for a limited time, because disintegrating and be no more.

I wanted to illustrate the fallacy of trying to use this system to either finance space project or build infrastructure in space. It just will not work.

I would also like to make a distinction between China and a corporation. I know China can do it, because they are government and represent Chinese race of over a billion people. A corporation just represent themselves and it was the these corporation that I said could not do it and not China which is a nation.

I can show you several example where the ideas that I am putting forward have worked in the past on a national basses, but you can’t show my one example of what you claim is a viable model as ever worked on a national level or in a national economy either.

I will go with what I know works, because it had a history of working in the past.

And you can stay with your idea which has never worked in the past or in the present and they will probably continue not working in the future either.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-09-02 19:32:54

Martian Republic,

You can make people, laugh alot :laugh:

First and foremost the largest industrial corporation in the world currently is GE, that corporation is a mulit-national publicly listed company, with nearly 1 million employees across all its divisions, subsidaries and groups. But that is not big enough for all the tasks associated with development into space because employee to cash ratio is too low. You need a low employee and high cash to provide a chance to expand into space.

I think you are mistaken again about reasons for corporations particularly - family / clan corporations that build for many reasons - one is profit, another is market dominance, another is prestige, another is long term advantage , and more. Also a important note - you must not have allegiance to one particular country to do this but to earth.

What is required to have a space corporation :

All you need to know is that a corporation harness the monetary power of 300 million could do anything. 5% of the World population. To equal NASA's Budget they would need to spend approx. $ 50 each per year - If you got 600 million customers $ 25.00 per year. Online - the internet - we have 300+ million users by the time 2010 we will have 1.2 Billion users, if each user paid $ 25.00 for subscription then you have gathered ( $30.00 Billion dollars )

Microsoft is giving all its shareholder a massive $70 Billion back over the next four - five years, Think of that !!!!!!! Larry, I find your logic missing, I know you can't see it, you can only see history of things of the past and present. It hard for you.

Space Resource Pricing

I have been trying to explain in simple terms, that resource companies are valued on the field deposits. Those deposits that are on the moon, mars, asteroids and other planetary bodies, are also assets for the corporations that get there and start processing the resources.

I hope this additional information helps you, larry open those tunnel vision eyes, look back in the present and past, a see the coming future.

comstar03 · 2004-09-02 19:41:43

Martian Republic,

this is the formula for the wealth to build a space corporation, product A sold over the internet and paid to low or non-taxable country.

Product A : 12 x 29.95 x 50 million = $ 17.97 Billion Gross

12 = 12 months

29.95 pricing of product

50 million = Customer Base

Operating Costs are 25% = $ 13. 4775 Billion

SpaceNut · 2004-09-03 07:20:47

Now if some one could rease the funds and create a contract with Nasa to develop to build the CEV capsule. How could such an arrangement play out if possible?

Soyuz · 2004-09-03 15:27:18

Good old Burt Rutan keeps his word: his going to design his own spaceship for going to the moon:

The t/Space team includes Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites Inc., which made history recently by rocketing the first commercial pilot into suborbital space aboard SpaceShipOne. Another key player is AirLaunch LLC, which is under contract with the Defense Dept. to develop a low-cost responsive launch vehicle. These two companies will collaborate on the design of a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to carry NASA astronauts to the Moon in the next decade, and eventually to Mars.

And i presume he is also going to design his own mode of transport to get it in space. Looking at the company he is teaming up with, he's going for an airlaunch approach like SS1.
Read the full press release from t/Space here:
http://www.transformspace.com/pages/5/index.htm]t/Space Wins NASA Lunar Exploration Contract

Martian Republic · 2004-09-03 16:31:06

Space Resource Pricing
I have been trying to explain in simple terms, that resource companies are valued on the field deposits. Those deposits that are on the moon, mars, asteroids and other planetary bodies, are also assets for the corporations that get there and start processing the resources.
I hope this additional information helps you, larry open those tunnel vision eyes, look back in the present and past, a see the coming future.

Actually, I was responding to your use of using company that deal in financial side of house and not to manufacturing, farming or mining side of the house. But, before we get off the subject of the financial house, the Rothchild have a net worth of 100 trillion dollars and the Rockefelllows have a net worth of about 23 trillion dollars. Which is kind of interesting, because there only about 6 trillion dollars of good, services and assets like land, houses, building etc. and those houses are over valued too that are being count as physical asset.

But, you bring up an important point. The big company like Ford, GM, GE and other can't do it. Beside these companies serve the market place, they don't create the market place. They create a product for people that will need there products or services. If nobody needs there product or services then there out of business or they have to find something else to do. Every business has this flaw in it whether there big or small, it doesn't make any differences.

You said:

>>But that is not big enough for all the tasks associated with development into space because employee to cash ratio is too low.<<

Which is true.

You also said:

>>You need a low employee and high cash to provide a chance to expand into space. <<

Which I don't totally agree with, because they have the reverse problem of those big corporation. Even if they have a big cash to employee advantage, they lack the expertise that is needed to do the job. Now you may find individuals that may have expertise in certain areas, because some body has to know how do different things or can learn how to do those things. Now come the fun part, the development part or the funding of these projects. I must admit you are very creative in how you think your going to fund this thing.

You said.

>>All you need to know is that a corporation harness the monetary power of 300 million could do anything. 5% of the World population. To equal NASA's Budget they would need to spend approx. $ 50 each per year - If you got 600 million customers $ 25.00 per year. Online - the internet - we have 300+ million users by the time 2010 we will have 1.2 Billion users, if each user paid $ 25.00 for subscription then you have gathered ( $30.00 Billion dollars )<<

Do you realize that probably 80% percent of the world population make one or less in one day. I assume that you were not referring to those 80% of the world that are in that situation or about 4.8 billion people of them giving $50 dollars per year. For them it would be a major contribution or 7.3% of there entire wages earned if they work seven day a week for 365 days a year. So for these people your assumption do not apply, because they don't have the money for your project anyway. So using these people to show that it can be done in your illustration is like paddling a boat with no bottom in it. It does not function and will not work. Your going to organize financing your space venture from people who are already starving and you expect donations. Give me a break, it will never happen.

But, let go back to your illustration and with 1.2 billion candidates still available you would have to have $50 from 1/4 of the population for your $15 billion dollars and 1/2 of the population for your $30 billion dollars. But, it still doesn't answer the question how you intend to get three hundred million to six hundred million people to give you $50 dollars a year and every year for the next thirty or forty years so that you can do your project. You would be lucky to get ten million people who would donate $50 dollars a year for five hundred million dollars a year. I personally doubt that you could do that even.

You said:

Microsoft is giving all its shareholder a massive $70 Billion back over the next four - five years, Think of that !!!!!!! Larry, I find your logic missing, I know you can't see it, you can only see history of things of the past and present. It hard for you.

I can use this state to prove my point just as easily as you are trying to use it to prove your point. I can say, well this is the financial house gleaning wealth from the physical economy, but not for the purpose of building any infrastructure or developing new technology or to promote nation build or enriching the general public.

As far as the resources on moon, asteroids, Mars and other places, if you can’t get to them, it doesn’t make any difference as to what those resources are worth on Earth. It like seeing a picture of a beautiful women and lusting after her. But, then you find out she been dead for ten years. You can lust, but you can’t have her. I have not seen anything in your posting that give a credible way of getting to those resources or having a viable space program or colonizing space.

Larry,

comstar03 · 2004-09-03 18:17:41

Martian Republic,

I haven't seen anything you have said either >>>. I am working on those issues right now. Telerobotics needs smarter software, a division is working on that and also commercial software that will fund more space software development - they need to be adaptive and modular.

With software more responsive then articulation of robotics limbs are the next on my agenda, to make they again modular and easy to mass produce. I don't believe in AI more Human robotic interaction and partnering. But if I can't find human support, I will complete my goals / objectives using avatar -based controlled robotic units.

I am not going to provide extensive detail on my overall process, but I have mapped all details and timelines, I will get my objectives / goals.

So, Larry, The fact I am trying to convey to you, once you get to the moon or asteroids for mining the valuation of the combined business grows, then other activities can be happening, such as solar power platforms, cargo ship developments, human space stations, and more and more

Martian Republic · 2004-09-04 08:31:57

Martian Republic,
I haven't seen anything you have said either >>>. I am working on those issues right now. Telerobotics needs smarter software, a division is working on that and also commercial software that will fund more space software development - they need to be adaptive and modular.
With software more responsive then articulation of robotics limbs are the next on my agenda, to make they again modular and easy to mass produce. I don't believe in AI more Human robotic interaction and partnering. But if I can't find human support, I will complete my goals / objectives using avatar -based controlled robotic units.
I am not going to provide extensive detail on my overall process, but I have mapped all details and timelines, I will get my objectives / goals.
So, Larry, The fact I am trying to convey to you, once you get to the moon or asteroids for mining the valuation of the combined business grows, then other activities can be happening, such as solar power platforms, cargo ship developments, human space stations, and more and more

I want to be perfectly clear here. I support what your doing or trying to do with your robotics. It going to be individual people like you, the people of the Mars Society, Space Island that keep the idea of a progressive space program alive or even the even prospect of a colonization of space. It will be people like you that will develop the plan or the vision and maybe even some of the development work on new technology that can make it happen. It been people like you and even people in NASA that have held together the space program and would not let it go and fought to maintain a human presents in space. Admittedly most of us are not happy with NASA, but without there impute, we would be much further behind the curve as far as being able to develop space and colonize it.

Having said all this and I am as pro as pro can be on the space issue of industrialization and colonization, but I see no current mechanism operation right now that can make it happen.

But, as to your mining plan, continue doing it. At least your working out a plan that can be submitted at some time in the future for aiding in mining the resources to help the development of space. But, I have worked in the Manufacturing sector of the economy most of my life and I have a pretty good idea what it takes to transform raw material into finished product. Being able to mine the resources is only one part of being able to manufacture good or make them into finished products in space. You have to assemble an entire support team in a whole verity of areas or otherwise your just sitting there with the raw material that you just mined and you have nothing that you can do with it. Each area has to be dealt with or the whole plan will break down and become a non workable plan.

But, just for the sake of the argument, let say you can mine the moon and the asteroids remotely which is still questionable, but we will give you that position. Other areas that we going to have to deal with refining, metal alloys, the machining process, tooling, buying and/or building the specialized machines, metal types, sheet metal, bare stock, casting, fixtures, recycling chips and carbide etc. This is no small matter, because it take two or three years to build a major factory on earth and to line up suppliers to supply the casting foundry that already exist for say some new car factory or air plane factory we are building. On the Moon or in space we are not going to have those local supplier that we can just buy our resources instead of having to do everything in house. This is going to be our second major problem and it will make the first problem of being able to mine the moon and/or asteroids look like a small problem.

Larry,

MarsDog · 2004-09-04 13:54:16

5 years becomes long range financial planning,
and developers have a tendency to become bankrupt.

Research and development by government space agencies and military is difficult to access privately. Duplicate tax supported government programs and hope for a profit over the very long term ?

Even if you found a Platinum asteroid the size of the Moon,
could you make a profit within 50 years ?

Grypd · 2004-09-04 16:55:41

If we go to a hydrogen fuel based society from the current oil based platinum group metals will be needed in increasing amounts. Platinum foil is likely to be heavily used in the fuel cells that these vehicles use. It does mean that with the increased demand that it may become a financial proposition for this mineral to be mined in space.

Of course this predisposes that we can a) go to a hydrogen fuel cell based economy. b) that we can mine platinum cheaply. c) that we cant find the required platinum on Earth

Grypd · 2004-09-04 18:10:53

GCNRevenger,
I am talking about Battlefield Computer systems that are designed for those conditions. That is why you get information from Canadian Shuttle Arm designers on the environment specifications they used to develop the ISS Robotic Arm because that would be based on new data from all the shuttle missions after creation of the first series robotic arm.
I Know that the environment in space is an extreme location but can use standard components with protection for that environment.
If you use 486 (100mhz) based systems then you get the results of those slower systems, If you use a P4 ( 3000mhz) systems with large EPROM ( erasable programmable read only memory ) and Large active RAM for operating tasks you will get a increased results in precision, tasks performed, and reduced time expended to perform those tasks. also using fibre optics for interlinks from components and communication subsystems will provide reduced time to transfer volume information to systems, allowing telepresence systems to act in real-time.
Again the cost for the prototype will be high 300-600 $M but the mass produced versions will be under 20 $M each because all you are doing is copying the prototype not working out all the issues. The other main cost is the droid transporter for earth orbit. Each Droid team will be different in the capabilities - heavy build team, finishing team, general contustion team, service team, and more.

What you are talking about is a manipulator arm it is a tool, not the true telerobotics that are needed. A true telerobotic robot will be self powered and will have its own manouvering system. We cannot use solar cells as a powersource as they would restrict the places this robot could go. The NASA robotic astronaut is for use as a short term crew member, but the need is for heavier construction capable devices almost miniature space tugs. But saying that there will not be a need for anything like this until a really major space project is envisaged and we are decades at least from this.

Commodore · 2004-09-04 18:16:35

The question is, how do we get the heavy metals from orbit to earth? Add on of those inflatable heat shields, aim for the desert and hope for the best?

comstar03 · 2004-09-04 18:51:17

Commodore,

We don't, We don't move earth resources to the orbit we use the off=planet resources to expand Earth orbit , moon, mars and other platforms and space vessels.

Limits the cost for space exploration, but also allows us to develop new technologies that will eventually allow us to bring vast resources back to earth.

RobertDyck · 2004-09-04 19:11:34

The question is, how do we get the heavy metals from orbit to earth? Add on of those inflatable heat shields, aim for the desert and hope for the best?

To get metal down use an inconel aeroshell. Inconel is a nickel alloy; M-type asteroids are primarily iron-nickel alloy so nickel will be a major by-product of extracting precious metal. A reusable tug can carry the aeroshell from the asteroid to Earth and release it in a direct entry trajectory, no on-board propulsion needed. Beagle 2 was released by Mars Express on a direct entry trajectory for Mars, Beagle 2 didn't have any propulsion. But the aeroshell for mined metal won't need an airbag or even a parachute. Once it impacts the desert floor it will crumple, it'll dent and bend the metal bars, but so what? You only need to smelt platinum to 99% purity ±1%; a refinery on Earth will melt them down to produce 99.999% purity. Since they'll be melted anyway the dents don't matter.

Creating a profitable industry in space is all important. People keep talking about Mars Direct to reduce the cost of a manned mission to Mars, but sustained presence requires profit. Once profit is attained a great deal of private money is available. The new Airbus A380 as reported http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit … tm?1c]here had a development cost of $13 billion. A positive return on investment (ROI) means you make money, not loose it. With a positive ROI and low enough risk you can get enough private money for a manned mission to Mars. The 90-day report had a price tag of $450 billion, which is why it didn't happen and will never happen, Mars Direct had a price estimate of $30 billion including 7 missions if NASA ran it, but in "The Case for Mars" page 285 of the soft cover version, Robert Zubrin said a privately run mission using the Russian Energia rocket would cost $4 billion for the first mission. That was in 1996, before Energia infrastructure began to crumble, but today it would still cost less than the development cost of the A380.

So the question has to be "where's the money?" Once you can produce a positive ROI, venture capital will flood in.

Vir Stellae · 2004-09-04 20:35:11

Uhh, we cant even make robots that can drive across the desert without a 100% failure rate.. what makes you think you can make a self-sustaining robot colony ???

Martian Republic · 2004-09-04 21:22:52

The question is, how do we get the heavy metals from orbit to earth? Add on of those inflatable heat shields, aim for the desert and hope for the best?

Most of the resources in space you would not want to bring back to earth any way. We want to take people out to those heavy metals so we can build a civilization in space. So for most of those resources that we will be getting in space we will have to develop new ways to process those heavy metals in space so we can use them.

But, as for bring heavy metal down to earth, we could dedicate a desert some place where there aren’t going to be any humans for hit when our projectile lands and then go out and pick it up out of the desert. So that not a major issue.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2004-09-04 21:54:19

Uhh, we cant even make robots that can drive across the desert without a 100% failure rate.. what makes you think you can make a self-sustaining robot colony

How about a tellerobic remote control Hummer. Or perhaps use GPS measurements to have the Jeep follow a known safe root.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-05 07:19:30

"Or perhaps use GPS measurements to have the Jeep follow a known safe root."

The Desert Challenge thingie with the autonomous jeeps WERE GPS guided. Down a straight, flat, hard-topped well defined highway with plenty of gravity. All of them from ALL the contestants failed, most badly... and thats just for the robot ore truck. We simply are not that far along yet.

Telerobotics aren't very efficent when you have an eight second delay either, particularly with a big operation... anyway, I don't think its practical to operate a mining operation purely by machine, you will at the very least need some people up there for the inevitible breakdowns that aren't easy to handle and for real-time monitoring.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-09-05 08:57:06

The Desert Challenge thingie with the autonomous jeeps WERE GPS guided.

But, and here's the bit you missed, they were not following a known safe route. They had to cope with bolders, fences, and ditches strewn across their path and do so at 30mph+.

And they didn't do too bad when you remember most of them couldn't detect objects beyond a dozen meters. Many humans wouldn't do too much better if they only had two seconds warning between an obstical appearing, and it hitting the front of their car.

The 8 second delay sounds at least in part a computer problem. Better software and hardware could go along way to solving it.

ANTIcarrot.

Grypd · 2004-09-05 09:04:16

"Or perhaps use GPS measurements to have the Jeep follow a known safe root."
The Desert Challenge thingie with the autonomous jeeps WERE GPS guided. Down a straight, flat, hard-topped well defined highway with plenty of gravity. All of them from ALL the contestants failed, most badly... and thats just for the robot ore truck. We simply are not that far along yet.
Telerobotics aren't very efficent when you have an eight second delay either, particularly with a big operation... anyway, I don't think its practical to operate a mining operation purely by machine, you will at the very least need some people up there for the inevitible breakdowns that aren't easy to handle and for real-time monitoring.

That is wrong they may have had GPS but it was not a flat terrain. Certain points where given to the robots which they had to find and navigate there way too. This terrain is really rough desert terrain with deep gulleys and high dunes. Not to mention boulders and tough vegitation but it was not straight line runs with clear terrain. Frankly human controlled vehicles have trouble in this terrain and unlike human controlled vehicles its not possible to step out and dig yourself out of the terrain you just crashed into.

We have used telerobotics to do this before the Nomad project that was operated by NASA was one such idea. But the DARPA desert challenge is for completely automated robots and Hummers ATVs where used by some teams.

What we would do on the Moon/Mars is to create roads or even light rail. These roads would have had the way hardened for traffic and with the route given waymarkers. Light rail is even better with ore trains being relativelly simple machines and if you have ever played with a toy train set it shows how easy it is to automate such a system.

Rxke · 2004-09-05 09:09:54

They had to cope with bolders, fences, and ditches strewn across their path and do so at 30mph+.

and plants. Sounds stupid, but shrubs, esp without much leaves, are quite hard to 'see' with IR, echolocation etc... A lot of vehicules got stuck in low shrubbery....

Germany has a car that negociates traffic, already more than 10 years, it is totally independent (with a kill switch, of course) and has little or no problem going from A to B even during rush hour, on hi-speed highways... But that's urban driving...

Going FWD-off-road etc is quite a bit harder, as the contest showed. But despite all the negative critiques and downright ridicule in the popular press, some of the designs did quite an impressive job, for a very first try.
Be prepared to be amazed next time. As long as DARPA doesn't SNAFU the rules, organization and regulations again (which IMO was not an insignificant factor in the outcome...)

John Creighton · 2004-09-05 09:47:57

What do you mean by SNAFU?

Rxke · 2004-09-05 10:02:41

"Situation Normal All F***** Up"

Originally used in military circles (esp. grunts,) to describe typical errr... less-than-perfect situations Now even I use it, heh.

DARPA made a mess with the selection criteria etc, changing them late in the competition, changing goals to be met, excluding teams for no good reason etc etc...

A lot of teams got really mad because of this, and decided to hold their own competition (dunno how that one came along...)

It's like doing the X-Prize, and deciding at the last moment: no, we want you to reach 150 km, and you can't use wings or something like that... So a lot of teams can go back to the desinging tables, but they won't have enough time to do it right...

Grypd · 2004-09-05 10:23:16

I think what happened was DARPA where not expecting the challenge to be of as much interest as it became. They started with too many teams as a lot of what could be called amateurs joined in. There way of sifting was really a quick and not too well thought out process. The DARPA grand challenge was an attempt by DARPA to see what a little competition could do.

They should sort out the problems by the time DARPA grand challenge 2005 comes around and maybe the leaders of the challenge will be less confused and readier for the interest to be high.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-09-02 08:25:18

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#77 2004-09-02 17:17:34

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#78 2004-09-02 19:32:54

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#79 2004-09-02 19:41:43

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#80 2004-09-03 07:20:47

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#81 2004-09-03 15:27:18

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#82 2004-09-03 16:31:06

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#83 2004-09-03 18:17:41

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#84 2004-09-04 08:31:57

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#85 2004-09-04 13:54:16

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#86 2004-09-04 16:55:41

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#87 2004-09-04 18:10:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#88 2004-09-04 18:16:35

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#89 2004-09-04 18:51:17

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#90 2004-09-04 19:11:34

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#91 2004-09-04 20:35:11

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#92 2004-09-04 21:22:52

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#93 2004-09-04 21:54:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#94 2004-09-05 07:19:30

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#95 2004-09-05 08:57:06

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#96 2004-09-05 09:04:16

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#97 2004-09-05 09:09:54

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#98 2004-09-05 09:47:57

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#99 2004-09-05 10:02:41

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#100 2004-09-05 10:23:16

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

Board footer