

DARPA's next Grand Challenge to focus on humanoid robots - spathak
http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/06/darpas-next-grand-challenge-to-focus-on-humanoid-robots/

======
beambot
Hey spathak... I'm the author of the original source over at Hizook.com (which
was referenced in the Engadget article):

[http://www.hizook.com/blog/2012/04/03/new-darpa-grand-
challe...](http://www.hizook.com/blog/2012/04/03/new-darpa-grand-challenge-
humanoid-robots-preliminary-unofficial-details)

We work very hard to put together these top-notch articles, and it sucks to
have other media sites get all the attention.

EDIT: I had already made a HN submission for Hizook, here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3806243> but I suppose this post already
has a lot of comments, so it should (obviously) remain. However... if you're
interested in this type of robotics news, be sure to check us out.

~~~
smokinn
Not to be a downer but if you want to be taken seriously for reporting your
url probably shouldn't be [silly sounding domain]/blog. It doesn't lend to
credibility and I'm sure I'm not the only one that given two similar titles
but one has (hizook.com) next to it will click the one with the more serious
sounding domain.

~~~
beambot
Hizook is no more "silly sounding" than many other household-name web domains
that you probably use on a daily basis (and it has special meaning to me). The
_reason_ the articles are at /blog is because I'm developing hardware products
for the site. (I'm not a "journalist", I'm a hardware hacker with a PhD in
robotics.)

As to credibility... Hizook blows Engadget out of the water. We're already
well-known by most academic and professional roboticists, and the discussions
on the site do not revolve around "robot overlords." We've been called "one of
the top robotics blogs" by IEEE Spectrum, where I'm also a contributing
author. Oh, and the HN guidelines specifically state to: "cite the original
sources."

Respectfully, your feedback is trite. I suggest checking out our site's
articles, and if you'd like to continue this discourse, then please feel free
to email me (see HN profile).

------
turing
The New York Times original article on Google X placed a lot of emphasis on
the lab's work in robotics. I have a feeling Google will be very interested in
this challenge. Keep in mind that Google's self driving car project largely
grew out of the 2005 Grand Challenge.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/technology/at-google-x-
a-t...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/technology/at-google-x-a-top-secret-
lab-dreaming-up-the-future.html?pagewanted=all)

~~~
jonnycowboy
Yes actually Google hired those that won the 2005 Challenge.

~~~
agildehaus
My understanding is that they hired a mix of people who were involved in the
challenge, not just the winners.

Part of the Stanley team is there, some of the Red team, and I believe even
the guy who attempted to make an autonomous motorcycle is working there.

------
stcredzero
The mechanism pictured in the linked article -- take that homunculus, fit it
with lots of strain gauges, and attach it to a full body haptic feedback
harness mounted on a gimbal. Create a mechanism that keeps the pilot's head
and body in the same orientation as the homunculus head and body. This enables
the pilot's own inner ear to be the stabilization gyros.

Voilà: an animated tethered "Terminator" robot that has eerie human-like
balance and motion. The entertainment possibilities for this are awesome. For
bonus points, scale it up by a factor of 3 or more. (Anime mecha giant robots,
anyone?)

The tech has actually been around for decades.

[http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rids/businesses/gis/strat...](http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rids/businesses/gis/strategic_solutions/robotics/bigarm/index.html)

------
jsumrall
Navigate rough terrain? Drive vehicles? We've been working on this for a while
with RoboCup, and walking on felt carpet is challenging. This is exciting, but
I hope they don't set the date any sooner than, say, 2018.

------
mcs
No mention of Boston Dynamics in the article?

~~~
jonnycowboy
I think the picture at the top of the article might be from Petman

------
tammer
this... this is not good.

DARPA's increasing funding to their massive tactical decision-making computer
(skynet) and only a week later they're putting it to us to build humanoid
mechanical soldiers (T-100 series)...

Needless to say, I'm a little worried.

------
dhughes
Those images of a humanoid form with arms outstretched are eery especially on
Good Friday.

------
aerique
Man, any dutch corps or universities going to participate? I want to work on
this!

------
lispm
how about investing LESS money into military research?

~~~
melling
I'm all for it once you get someone to pay for the research _before_ you spend
less on military research. It's really great to want world peace and to be
idealistic, but until you can offer real solutions to problems, you're just
creating noise by making such comments. The Internet was started by DARPA
funding. That's why we're here today.

So, AFTER you've convinced the American tax payer to directly fund this kind
of research, or you create an X-Prize crowded funded site, I think we should
be thankful that the military is willing to "invest in the future" rather than
just build bullets and bombs, which have no positive side effects.

Having a military is a necessary evil in the world in which we live. Find ways
to turn some of it into a positive force.

eg. [http://www.npr.org/2012/02/17/147047543/desert-military-
base...](http://www.npr.org/2012/02/17/147047543/desert-military-bases-could-
be-boon-to-solar)

~~~
lispm
The military spending has been long gone out of control. Funding of actually
useful civilian projects lacks money. Instead DARPA invests into more weapons.
We have already enough weapons.

~~~
melling
Once again, "military bad" doesn't lead to any sort of useful discussion.
Furthermore, complaining about it won't change anything. This is HN and I'd
like to think people here solve problems rather they go off on political
rants.

Consider that the US economy is $15 trillion. The US handbag market is bigger
than DARPA's budget.

[http://www.prweb.com/releases/handbags/leather_handbags/prwe...](http://www.prweb.com/releases/handbags/leather_handbags/prweb4264634.htm)

How can we get more people to invest in science and engineering research?
Hopefully, KickStarter and Petridish will eventualy lead to a boom in consumer
funded science research.

<http://www.petridish.org/>

<http://www.kickstarter.com/>

