This is being announced to us or everyone right now? It's only around 10 weeks away: that seems surprisingly close. Have some folk already been made aware & have they had time to build for this DARPA Challenges? Generally I think of them as longer running challenges.
> Generally I think of them as longer running challenges.
Given how outlandish the ratio requirement is compared to currently available products I expect this one will be recurring for at least a few years similar to what happened with the self driving challenge 20ish years ago.
The military is waking up to the need to adapt frontline logistics. With killrates of 90% for traditional trucks in the Ukraine war, without resupply missions by UAVs/UGVs holding positions is impossible now.
Also .. if that were the case russia would not find volunteers anymore, as the large majority of russian soldiers in Ukraine are there by free will, not because they were force drafted.
on foot (not 20km, usually its something like 3-5km AFAIK, 20km is the width of both sides strongpoints + no-mans-land between), or on some fast and agile one-way craft: motorcycles, buggies, e-bikes
the key idea is that you need something which can get you onto the enemy position either before hunter drones take off, or that a drone won't take out the whole complement, hence the uselessness of trucks
going on foot is not really due to the human wave nature of the attacks, but rather its like WW1 stosstruppen - they use whatever cover they can find and a squad of 4 on foot is much easier to go through bushes used as cover or when weather is not suitable for flying
of note here is that trucks were not really used for transport on the tactical level on the frontline, however lately (with drones from destinus) logistics runs in the rear have also become a problem even 100km+ deep - thats where the 90% killrate figure comes from
> however lately (with drones from destinus) logistics runs in the rear have also become a problem even 100km+ deep
That is quite interesting but in light of that my original question remains (except shifted 100 km back) what about troop transport? Are the combatants suffering a 90% killrate on all their large vehicles near the front or if not then what is special about logistics runs?
90% killrate might be a little bit of a stretch, but the problem is real, although not for all locations and not for all types of vehicles -- small civilian SUVs and various humvee-like trucks don't have that problem: more agility and speed. Most importantly, however, is the tuning of a CNN aborad autonomous killer drone, those can figure out the military 6x6 target as it is sufficiently large and distinct to be targeted autonomously, but for smaller trucks its still a problem
So the answer for troop transport and some of the logistics shifted onto smaller vehicles, although the tendency have been there the whole war -- the key innovation was the use of small drones for recon, which basically lifted fog of war and increased kill chain speed for inter-unit operation, i.e. infantry calls an artillery strike precisely on target and from the comfort of a pillbox equipped with a large screen to monitor feeds from 5-10 recon drones hovering 24/7 over allied positions
I saw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tohImHa4f5U (Hoarder Sam, "I'm building a drone for the DARPA lift challenge") the other day and it was a pretty good discussion of the "shape of the envelope" of the problem (and what kind of lift ratios actually exist in modern air vehicles), and particularly how they've set up the constraints to eliminate a bunch of "easy" approaches.
It also reminded me that for the first round of the self-driving grand challenge, none of the vehicles even completed the course :-) They really are trying to encourage "out of the box", or at least "not in the obvious box", designs...
It doesn’t prescribe batteries as far as I can see. You can also build a gasoline powered vehicle which would get you roughly 6 times the energy density.
> Competitors must create an aircraft that is both lightweight and powerful – lifting at least 4x its weight while flying a 5-nautical-mile circuit course.
I'd make it 50NM. 5 is way too easy to bullshit with edge case engineering. Alternatively, set a minimum payload capacity of something like 100kg.
Maybe "edge case engineering" is precisely what they're looking for? Get people to think about beating the rules with cheesy strategies, in hopes some of those could, with some cleverness, scale up and evolve into proper, broad-range solution - or at least become a key previously-missing component of one. But even if it can't, very narrow capabilities can still be useful too; military isn't beyond doing silly things if they offer enough tactical advantage (enough to offset extra burden on logistics, at least).
How would you build a bullshit solution to move 2.5 pound around a 5 mile course (maneuvering) with a vehicle weight below 0.63 pound?
I think if you solve that it’s not a bullshit solution but actually useful.
Heavy life challenge: Biology usually discriminates against heavy isotopes. Can we reverse, redirect, or exploit that tendency? Find a way to get plants and bacteria to preferentially incorporate heavy atomic isotopes.
Use microbes, algae, duckweed, or plant-cell cultures to produce deuterated and 13C/15N-labeled complex biomolecules that are expensive or impractical to synthesize chemically.
I know you're joking, but changes in isotopes mildly affect reduced mass and hence enzyme kinetics. Maize and other C4 plants already preferentially enrich themselves with 13C [0-3] which occasionally buggers up metabolomic experiments. Famously, a few drugs use 2H rather than natural abundance H typically in order to exploit a kinetic isotopic effect and get a better Km in their binding pocket [4].
Personally I don't see this as joking, I think this whole space is severely underfunded and could use some publicity and moonshot contests. I mean, think of it, the planet Earth is full of beautiful and diverse nanotechnology that can literally map-reduce complex behavior over individual molecules, and we do so little to use it for practical purposes. Even most advanced manufacturing methods we use are still simple things applied in bulk, counting matter by volume instead of as objects. There's lots of unexplored potential within reach, and here we actually know it can pan out, because we see these processes happening everywhere, all the time, all at once, all around us.
Been working this for a few months now. It’s not a crazy hard problem - but it does break the mold of distance and speed taking priority over capacity. If you have any questions feel free to ask. I can get into the pros/cons of all the various options and tuning knobs.
How does the cognitive dissonance of having the luxury to express that opinion while being protected by the most powerful military in the world not rip you apart?
It feels like the US military is 90% racketeering and 10% physically protecting Americans, if that. Most of our protection comes from two gigantic oceans on both sides.
Though, I really do enjoy this racket so I guess I'm not allowed to ask any questions about the ethics of keeping it going.
Yeah I'd be interested to hear more about what the options might be. Also curious why it is that DARPA thinks this is solvable, but no one has come close yet.
The tunable influences on a rotor are primarily velocity (rotation speed) and surface area (radius). Conceptually it’s more similar to something like a human powered helicopter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVelo_Atlas) than you might expect.
Saw the one video linked here comparing other existing transport ratios, and asking for double that is 'not crazy hard'? It certainly sounds like a challenge.
jauntywundrkind | a day ago
ThunderBee | a day ago
fc417fc802 | a day ago
Given how outlandish the ratio requirement is compared to currently available products I expect this one will be recurring for at least a few years similar to what happened with the self driving challenge 20ish years ago.
[OP] mhb | a day ago
"Phase 1 | Launch
October 2025
Special Notice publishing (Oct. 23): DARPA publishes a Special Notice to broadly announce the Lift Challenge and solicit innovative design concepts.
Website launches (Oct. 23): DARPA publishes a Special Notice to broadly announce the Lift Challenge and solicit innovative design concepts.
Rules and prize announcement (Oct. 23): Detailed draft rules and prize structure are announced, specifying objective and subjective judging criteria."
Schlagbohrer | a day ago
emsign | a day ago
fc417fc802 | a day ago
sneezychl | a day ago
They don't. Life expectancy of a Russian on the front line is hours. You just send in another wave.
fc417fc802 | a day ago
lukan | a day ago
Edit, I forgot, most are not aware of that:
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-conscripts-war-combat...
lukan | a day ago
torginus | a day ago
KptMarchewa | a day ago
blini-kot | a day ago
the key idea is that you need something which can get you onto the enemy position either before hunter drones take off, or that a drone won't take out the whole complement, hence the uselessness of trucks
going on foot is not really due to the human wave nature of the attacks, but rather its like WW1 stosstruppen - they use whatever cover they can find and a squad of 4 on foot is much easier to go through bushes used as cover or when weather is not suitable for flying
of note here is that trucks were not really used for transport on the tactical level on the frontline, however lately (with drones from destinus) logistics runs in the rear have also become a problem even 100km+ deep - thats where the 90% killrate figure comes from
fc417fc802 | a day ago
That is quite interesting but in light of that my original question remains (except shifted 100 km back) what about troop transport? Are the combatants suffering a 90% killrate on all their large vehicles near the front or if not then what is special about logistics runs?
blini-kot | 16 hours ago
So the answer for troop transport and some of the logistics shifted onto smaller vehicles, although the tendency have been there the whole war -- the key innovation was the use of small drones for recon, which basically lifted fog of war and increased kill chain speed for inter-unit operation, i.e. infantry calls an artillery strike precisely on target and from the comfort of a pillbox equipped with a large screen to monitor feeds from 5-10 recon drones hovering 24/7 over allied positions
brador | a day ago
Possibly against laws of physics at energy density of 4x?
eichin | a day ago
It also reminded me that for the first round of the self-driving grand challenge, none of the vehicles even completed the course :-) They really are trying to encourage "out of the box", or at least "not in the obvious box", designs...
echoangle | a day ago
bob1029 | a day ago
I'd make it 50NM. 5 is way too easy to bullshit with edge case engineering. Alternatively, set a minimum payload capacity of something like 100kg.
TeMPOraL | a day ago
xnx | a day ago
[OP] mhb | a day ago
echoangle | a day ago
Forbidden in 3.7
echoangle | a day ago
Legend2440 | a day ago
>110 pounds is the minimum payload weight to receive a qualifying score.
childintime | a day ago
dang | a day ago
[title fixed now]
konchunas | a day ago
kreelman | a day ago
Contact DARPA for a lift !
A_D_E_P_T | a day ago
Use microbes, algae, duckweed, or plant-cell cultures to produce deuterated and 13C/15N-labeled complex biomolecules that are expensive or impractical to synthesize chemically.
Could be fun, honestly.
azalemeth | a day ago
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractionation_of_carbon_isotop... [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7577891/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1734681/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C4_plants [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterated_drug#Examples
TeMPOraL | a day ago
neonstatic | a day ago
zx8080 | a day ago
cc @dang
sysreq_ | a day ago
AndrewKemendo | a day ago
[OP] mhb | 23 hours ago
AndrewKemendo | 23 hours ago
Again…I spent 17 years as a military officer I’m not hearing anything from someone that hasn’t served anything.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48478867
[OP] mhb | 18 hours ago
Indeed not. You're the one who made the comment on something I submitted.
skulk | 3 hours ago
Though, I really do enjoy this racket so I guess I'm not allowed to ask any questions about the ethics of keeping it going.
stevage | a day ago
sysreq_ | a day ago
Catloafdev | a day ago
Saw the one video linked here comparing other existing transport ratios, and asking for double that is 'not crazy hard'? It certainly sounds like a challenge.
uberex | a day ago
le-mark | a day ago
sysreq_ | a day ago
stratosgear | a day ago