To answer 2. in some more detail:
We generally like to have GPS, cameras and lidar. Optionally, we add in IMU, radar and close in sensors (ie ultrasound).
We are approaching the ML problem somewhat differently, we try to give the robot an understanding of navigability of a space. This is done with semantically segmented images, overlayed with depth data where needed.
Once we have this, we flatten it into a 2d costmap of areas where kinematically (ie: ground clearance, terrain handling ability, allowable areas, etc) the vehicle is allowed to go. This is fed to our planner, which in turn generates valid paths for the vehicle to take.
The particular cameras and lidars used are abstracted away in a Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) that I've described a bit elsewhere on this page.
"Shoving sensors on random devices doesn't work that easy, you know that - I dont need a PHD to tell you that. "
Definitely, a lot of our work goes into ensuring our Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) works well across vehicle types and sensor types. Check out some of my other replies here to double click on this.
For your other notes, Stefan's already covered it, but the TLDR is that we are building on vehicle autonomy, not simulation environments or systems (Caladan is just to get people an easy way to use the Polymath API, without needing a robot first :) )
This is exactly correct, Caladan from Polymath Robotics is just a cheap and easy way to get a bunch of developers to try out our (fairly basic so far) API, and to start thinking about the business logic and applications that could be built on top of this.
Our actual product is autonomy on real vehicles.
We don't plan to ever build any kind of high fidelity sim, just sticking to basic Gazebo or similar.
Hello,
Great question, I haven't seen enough technical details on their system to be able to answer definitely. However, from what I've read of their approach, it's fairly similar to the way we do things.
Perhaps this means there's no reason for Rio Tinto to use us, and that's totally fine. There are 1000s of other, much smaller mining companies that can benefit from the same tech, likely at a cheaper price than what Rio Tinto spent developing their own version.
Also, from our experience, these sort of approaches bake in assumptions on particular vehicle types/characteristics. So even in Rio's case, perhaps they have other smaller models, or other types of equipment they haven't automated. In this case, we'd be happy to integrate with their existing command and control software stack.
Rio has full fleet (bobcat, bulldozers, loaders, trains, underground mining speciality (uphole drillers, etc)) ambitions and they're working their way through them all.
Some of their talent date back to sheep shearing robots in the early 1980s.
In the same geographic region (W.Australia) there are related automata projects such as self recharging drone clouds about tractors, agri-bots (visual identification + weed spraying), integrated geophysical air survey, etc.
I was somewhat curious as to your awareness of all this (eg: Rio's plans for a full automated "bottom up" $64 billion copper mine in the US (should it go ahead)).
Also, while we're here, do you have any in house mining | industry experience driving tractors, dump trucks, ship loading, etc. yourselves?
I'd challenge this assertion. Rio Tinto has been on the forefront of automation, but there's a long list of equipment they operate that they don't have an immediate pathway to automate.
To my knowledge, the main players automating ultraclass mining trucks are Caterpillar, Komatsu, Hitachi, and ASI. CAT has been working on autonomy for a long time, and to my knowledge only offers full driver-out autonomy on a handful of models. Sandvik also has some really cool see-and-repeat autonomy in underground mining. It doesn't surprise me if Rio Tinto is talking about a full zero entry mine (worth it just because no people to hit = faster driving vehicles = more production/yr), but to my knowledge they buy their autonomy from others and no one I know of (besides us) would automate all the various types of equipment that go into running a mine.
A different large mining co had an initiative to build their own autonomy, but the project got cancelled when it wasn't making fast enough progress and the CEO was replaced with someone more Caterpillar friendly.
We don't have in house mining experience - but again we're not building autonomy just for mining. We're building generalized basic autonomy so the folks starting mining-specific autonomy projects don't get stuck re-building the basic autonomy wheel.
On a technical level, I'm not sure what sheep shearing robots in the 1980s has to do with automating vehicles... but I'd love to see a video/article if you've got one! :D
As with any large opportunity, there are multiple players in the space, both new and old. As seen with the "innovator's dilemma", I'm not sure I'd place my bets on tech straight out of the 1980/90s/2000s (sheep or no sheep ;) )
