3 ms·

Aviation and space are a very, very different problem space from surface street navigation, because they rely, almost entirely, on "nothing else being there."

by Syonyk 5y ago

Aviation and space are a very, very different problem space from surface street navigation, because they rely, almost entirely, on "nothing else being there." We've had good automation in aviation for decades. It doesn't handle anything else in the way very well at all, and while there's some traffic conflict avoidance stuff, it's a violent "Oh crap!" style response, nothing you actually want to get anywhere close to triggering. Automated approaches down to minimums require good equipment at the airport as well as on the airframe, and if there's a truck on the runway, well. Shouldn't have been there. Same thing for landing boosters. There's nothing it really has to look at and understand that it can't easily get from some basic sensor data - speed, attitude, location, etc. It's an interesting challenge, certainly, but it's of a very different form from understanding all the weird stuff that happens in a complex, messy, uncontrolled 3D ground environment. Self driving on a closed track is a perfectly well solved problem. Self driving in an open world is clearly very far from solved.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
I don't disagree with you. I believe we're arguing between "can't be solved" versus "it's going to take a long time to solve." I'm stating I fall in the latter camp, and advocating for stronger regulation and investment in the space.
belter 5y ago
Show me Self driving on a closed track with snow or rain please.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Does open road snow count? https://youtu.be/fKiWM1KjIm4 https://youtu.be/fKiWM1KjIm4 https://torc.ai/torc-self-driving-car-dashes-through-snow/ https://torc.ai/torc-self-driving-car-dashes-through-snow/
  - belter 5y ago
    Its an interesting video but its an edited video. The company website mentions the system was able to negotiate the challenges of the driving conditions, looks like an euphemism... Very few details, no scientific publications I could find on their Asimov system on a quick search, not sure if this is a technological breakthrough or a fine tuning of existing processes and methods. Because if its a fine tuning of current algorithms not sure how long they can push this. They are relying on Lidar (and other sensors) but even as of last year, it seems most teams already realized Lidar would not be the solution for Snow, and were now pushing Ground Penetrating Radar ( sounds expensive...) "Autonomous Cars Struggle in Snow, but MIT Has a Solution for That" https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31098296/autonomous-cars-snow-mit-researchers-solution/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31098296/autonomous-cars-... Even Tesla, already realized its not just a sensor problem, solving self-driving needs a higher level algo than can put the different sensors, in context of situational awareness. Note that in no any other way I would consider Tesla an example to follow ;-) And do not think they are any closer to getting a working system. Some of the statements show at least a second level understanding of what is required. Sensors are a means to it. Its about situational awareness but also inference. "LIDAR is a fool’s errand… and anyone relying on LIDAR is doomed. — Elon Musk" https://youtu.be/HM23sjhtk4Q https://youtu.be/HM23sjhtk4Q
    - camjohnson26 5y ago
      Worth remembering that Tesla posted this “self driving” video in 2016. Editing can do amazing things. https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot I’m actually shocked it’s on the website today, first frame says the driver is only there for legal purposes.
visarga 5y ago
> There's nothing it really has to look at and understand that it can't easily get from some basic sensor data - speed, attitude, location, etc. Self landing rockets are simple, it's not rocket science, duh! Everyone and my grandma has one.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  In terms of "understanding the environment around you such that you can land a booster stage," it's not a particularly hard problem. The challenges are about designing a booster stage that can handle the flipping and reentry, then figuring out the details of how to stick the landing with several times your empty weight as your minimum thrust. "Where am I, and what's between me and my destination?" isn't the hard part, as it is with surface driving.
- throwaway-8c93 5y ago
  Propulsive landing has been achieved routinely and with perfect precision since the 60s - Apollo's lunar modules, Lunar surveyor, Lunokhod rovers. The question has never been about the feasibility of landing the booster stages - what has been questioned is whether it's worth doing. The fuel used up during landing is fuel that cannot propel the payload. The landing might fail. The effects of thermal and material fatigue are not well understood. The transportation, refurbishing and QA are unlikely to be cheap anyway.

by Syonyk 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago

I don't disagree with you. I believe we're arguing between "can't be solved" versus "it's going to take a long time to solve." I'm stating I fall in the latter camp, and advocating for stronger regulation and investment in the space.

belter 5y ago

Show me Self driving on a closed track with snow or rain please.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Does open road snow count? https://youtu.be/fKiWM1KjIm4 https://youtu.be/fKiWM1KjIm4 https://torc.ai/torc-self-driving-car-dashes-through-snow/ https://torc.ai/torc-self-driving-car-dashes-through-snow/
- belter 5y ago
  Its an interesting video but its an edited video. The company website mentions the system was able to negotiate the challenges of the driving conditions, looks like an euphemism... Very few details, no scientific publications I could find on their Asimov system on a quick search, not sure if this is a technological breakthrough or a fine tuning of existing processes and methods. Because if its a fine tuning of current algorithms not sure how long they can push this. They are relying on Lidar (and other sensors) but even as of last year, it seems most teams already realized Lidar would not be the solution for Snow, and were now pushing Ground Penetrating Radar ( sounds expensive...) "Autonomous Cars Struggle in Snow, but MIT Has a Solution for That" https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31098296/autonomous-cars-snow-mit-researchers-solution/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31098296/autonomous-cars-... Even Tesla, already realized its not just a sensor problem, solving self-driving needs a higher level algo than can put the different sensors, in context of situational awareness. Note that in no any other way I would consider Tesla an example to follow ;-) And do not think they are any closer to getting a working system. Some of the statements show at least a second level understanding of what is required. Sensors are a means to it. Its about situational awareness but also inference. "LIDAR is a fool’s errand… and anyone relying on LIDAR is doomed. — Elon Musk" https://youtu.be/HM23sjhtk4Q https://youtu.be/HM23sjhtk4Q
  - camjohnson26 5y ago
    Worth remembering that Tesla posted this “self driving” video in 2016. Editing can do amazing things. https://www.tesla.com/autopilot https://www.tesla.com/autopilot I’m actually shocked it’s on the website today, first frame says the driver is only there for legal purposes.

visarga 5y ago

> There's nothing it really has to look at and understand that it can't easily get from some basic sensor data - speed, attitude, location, etc. Self landing rockets are simple, it's not rocket science, duh! Everyone and my grandma has one.

Syonyk 5y ago
In terms of "understanding the environment around you such that you can land a booster stage," it's not a particularly hard problem. The challenges are about designing a booster stage that can handle the flipping and reentry, then figuring out the details of how to stick the landing with several times your empty weight as your minimum thrust. "Where am I, and what's between me and my destination?" isn't the hard part, as it is with surface driving.
throwaway-8c93 5y ago
Propulsive landing has been achieved routinely and with perfect precision since the 60s - Apollo's lunar modules, Lunar surveyor, Lunokhod rovers. The question has never been about the feasibility of landing the booster stages - what has been questioned is whether it's worth doing. The fuel used up during landing is fuel that cannot propel the payload. The landing might fail. The effects of thermal and material fatigue are not well understood. The transportation, refurbishing and QA are unlikely to be cheap anyway.