“Had he said yes,” Thrun recalls, “I would have happily served on his team and never have started my own team.”
But Whittaker declined Thrun’s offer, presumably because he wanted to keep Red Team exclusive to people associated with Carnegie Mellon. After Montemerlo’s presentation, Thrun considered whether to enter the second challenge himself. Red Team had taken a year to build a robot that went 7.3 miles. If Thrun’s new lab could do better, they’d go a long way toward establishing a national reputation. SLAM would be integral to a successful performance, and Thrun and Montemerlo were two of the world’s leading experts on the topic. Thrun basically figured, why not?
So on August 14, when DARPA staged a conference for potential competitors, Thrun brought Montemerlo and several other members of his team. The conference was held in Anaheim, California. Despite the negative media coverage of the first race, even more competitors came out this time around: more than 500 people from 42 states and 7 different countries attended the 2004 competitors’ conference. Ultimately, 195 teams would register to compete, nearly double the number that signed up for the first race.
Including, of course, the Red Team. The summer after the debacle in the desert, Urmson went off and completed his PhD, then got a job working for Science Applications International Corporation, the government contractor that had sponsored Sandstorm. Urmson’s assignment was to work with Red Whittaker and Red Team on the second DARPA race. Urmson’s hopes were considerably higher for the second challenge. They’d have another eighteen months to perfect Sandstorm’s development. And they’d be doing so with a more professional group, including several engineers from Caterpillar, the construction-equipment manufacturer. The budget was bigger, at $3 million. The atmosphere was different, too. The first time out there was youthful enthusiasm. This time, there was an almost grim determination.
“I signed up to win the Grand Challenge,” Whittaker proclaimed. “This time around, the Red Team will be more like a Red Army.”
It was inevitable that the Stanford and Carnegie Mellon teams would bump into each other at the preliminary conference. Urmson noticed that Montemerlo was carrying a sheaf of papers in his hand that turned out to be the technical paper Urmson had written after the first race. The paper described the most intimate details of Red Team’s approach. Publishing for the rest of the robotics community the secrets of all competitors’ approaches had been one of DARPA’s conditions of entry. It was a good strategy. In the spirit of academia, sharing intelligence meant the whole field progressed faster. But it also made things more difficult for Whittaker and Urmson. As the country’s leading robotics lab they’d had a head start for the first race. Publishing their approach brought everyone else closer to the Red Team’s level. And the defectors, Montemerlo and Thrun, were brilliant people. That they were entering meant the prize was no longer Carnegie Mellon’s to take. Now, heading into the second challenge, Red Team faced its most serious competition yet.
Early on in its preparations, Red Team decided to hedge its bets by entering two robots. (There was a precedent for this. SciAutonics had entered two vehicles in the first race.) Partially, the step was designed to smooth relations between team software lead Kevin Peterson and project manager Chris Urmson, who were apt to butt heads in the latter half of Sandstorm’s development. There was talk of giving each deputy his own vehicle, although years later Whittaker would insist that Peterson and Urmson contributed to both robots in the lead-up to the second race. And partially, the move was pragmatic. After all, thanks to AM General’s donation, Red Team had enough Humvees.
The second vehicle, which became known as H1ghlander, was a 1999 model year, making it thirteen years younger than Sandstorm. The AM General–donated vehicle came with a 6.5-liter turbocharged engine. One of the challenges of autonomous driving involved controlling acceleration and steering. Most vehicles of the era were mechanically controlled. They relied on a human being twisting steering wheels, pushing accelerators, shifting gears, which complicated matters when a computer was supposed to do the driving. There was a margin of error when a digitally controlled actuator pressed against, say, a gas pedal.
This new Humvee, H1ghlander, featured drive-by-wire capability embedded in its controls. It had been designed to be controlled by a computer. The throttle, for example, was operated by a factory-installed engine control module. So instead of rigging up an electric motor and lever to actually push against the gas pedal, as with Sandstorm, the H1ghlander crew could hack into the newer Humvee’s computer system and control the throttle electronically. It all meant less margin of error, which made H1ghlander a better driver.
Another change was that Whittaker and his students had tracked down a different, more accurate location-tracking system. The system used in the first race had a margin of error of about a yard. This new one, from a sponsor named Applanix, featured a margin of error of about twenty-five centimeters, or less than a foot—a big improvement for the second race.
So the Red Team had a lot going for it. But so, too, did Thrun’s team. In his heart, Whittaker was a hardware guy, who came from an era when making robots work involved the precise interplay between actuators and carburetors, electric motors and solar-powered chargers. This was reflected in Red Team’s approach to the first challenge, which saw his charges spending as much time perfecting the e-box and gimbal mechanisms as writing code for the computers. But as computing power improved, robotics was increasingly becoming a software problem, which computer scientists, rather than mechanical engineers, had to solve. Whittaker was an engineer. Thrun’s team was dominated by computer scientists. Very little of the hardware that Stanford used needed to be custom-designed. In contrast to Sandstorm’s gimbal and e-box, which the Carnegie Mellon team had engineered itself, Thrun simply took sensors he found in the marketplace and bolted them to his team’s vehicle, including five LIDAR units, a color camera to aid road detection and two radar sensors designed to identify large obstacles at long distances. The philosophy of the Stanford team was to “treat autonomous navigation as a software problem.”
“My perspective was, you take a human out of a car, and replace it with a robot—there’s a bit of a hardware issue,” Thrun observes. “You have to figure out how to crank the steering wheel and press the brake. But that part is trivial. You put a little motor on the steering wheel. There’s no science … It’s all about artificial intelligence. About making the right decision. So we had this complete focus on making the system smart.”
“Carnegie Mellon was a team—it’s a humongous place, and they have experts in everything,” Montemerlo explains. “We were a much smaller group. We very much were software people. None of us had any mechanical skill whatsoever.”
That said, Thrun had learned a lot from his experiences working for Whittaker. In September of 2004, fresh off the heels of Montemerlo’s presentation, Thrun used Whittaker’s template to begin work on his own entry in the second DARPA Grand Challenge. Just as Whittaker did, Thrun recruited volunteers by asking them to enroll in a university class. Thrun’s was called “Projects in Artificial Intelligence.” At the first meeting of maybe forty students Thrun gave a Red Whittaker–style inspirational speech. “Look, there’s no syllabus, no course outline, no lectures,” Thrun recalls saying. “All we’re going to do is build a robot. A robot car that can drive on the original course.”
Thinking of the way Whittaker motivated his students to work hard by providing them with challenges, Thrun set his class a clear and well-defined objective: By the end of the two-month-long session, they were to have built a car that could travel a single mile of the first DARPA Grand Challenge course. “Red and I have very different personalities,” Thrun says. “But I tried to learn from him. And what I learned from Red was, when you give students a goal, no matter how hard it is, because