The concept of mobile autonomous robots was popularised by George Lucas in the Star Wars films. In his films he refers to these machines as “Droids”. Droids, shortened from androids, were robots: mechanical beings, often an intelligent self-aware robot …although this did not imply sentience. They were used in a variety of roles and environments, often those considered too menial or too dangerous for humans. So central were these droids to the storyline that George Lucas actually holds a trademark on the term droid. Away from Hollywood, engineers at MIRA have been turning this sci-fi concept into a workable reality. As automotive specialists, rather than pursuing a humanoid machine, MIRA drew on their 60 years of experience in vehicle development to design autonomous vehicles (AV’s), as there is a ready market for such machines.

Thanks to Asimov, Lucas and others in the sci-fi community the beneficial roles that autonomous robots can assume have been fairly liberally communicated, along with a fair handful of myths. In reality the complexity of the technical challenges facing ground-based autonomous vehicles are significant, relative to the simpler proposition of aerial equivalents; this is why ground-based autonomous vehicles are only now transitioning from pipe-dream to product.

So how does reality compare with the silver-screen ideal?

Real autonomous robots are ideally suited to high-risk, high endurance environments. In un-manned vehicle form they are often smaller than a comparable manual vehicle, for the same reasons unmanned aerial vehicles sport diminutive proportions. The reduction in scale isa direct consequence of the deletion of the ‘package space’ allocated for a driver, and the ancillary systems usually required to provide commensurate levels of occupant comfort.

Consequently, the process of ‘taking the human out’ also creates some opportunity to strip cost from the design, as life support is a redundant requirement. One can also infer from this miniaturization that such AV’s are readily transportable and offer logistical benefits relative to traditional vehicles.

When analysing a traditional vehicle-driver combination, the human is invariably the weakest link. Traditionally, the specification of a vehicle in terms of its maneuverability, robustness, temperature limits, field strength etc. are all derived from what the occupant can endure. There is little point specifying a vehicle that is capable of extreme conditions if there isn’t a man alive who could survive driving in it. The designer of an un-manned AV can explore the entire performance envelope and create a far more capable vehicle. Clearly then there are sufficient motivators here to create AV’s for a range of roles, not least ground based reconnaissance.

How do you classify what is an autonomous vehicle? Surprisingly, most of us are already ‘driving’ vehicles with a degree of autonomy. Modern tailpipe emission control systems, anti-lock braking, traction control, active torque distribution (stability control) etc. all operate very effectively without human intervention. Similarly, automotive hybrid powertrains decide for themselves precisely ‘how’ to provide the level of motive force required to satisfy the driver’s need for speed, based on a set of predetermined criteria. In forecourt hybrids, drivers merely set an objective via the accelerator peddle; the machine decides whether