Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

ouster.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#51

Post by holoduke »

jiofih wrote: post #49
kensai wrote: post #45

Am surprised no one yet cited Elon saying "this is fool's errand" because of price, complexity, etc. I think LIDAR will improve significantly the safety of vehicles (autonomous or not) because it can definitely see better and deeper, even in damning weather conditions (rain, fog, haze). Alas, the price of these devices has to come down at least one order of magnitude. Maybe even two. Still, I am really thankful that…

As far as I’m aware LIDAR cannot see though fog, as the light is dispersed, and even light rain might reduce range significantly. Tesla cars have radar which can see through any weather condition and detect transparent surfaces, invisible to LIDAR.

Resolution of normal radar is much lower unless you have a gigant receiver. Also there is a significant delay of 10 to 100ms That's why a combination of lidar and radio radar is desired.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#52

Post by toxik »

derek_frome wrote: post #44
withinboredom wrote: post #36

> Ouster’s engineers have paid to ensure every sensor stands up to the wear and tear IOW, no one is sure if it actually will

We do a tremendous amount of testing to ensure real-world reliability, and our customers' results bear that out. Full functional safety certification is slated for end of this year, which means it's already well underway. We make a point of this because legacy spinning lidar is unreliable. But it's unreliable because of the analog design, not because spinning is inherently unreliable.

This seems dubious to be honest. Moving parts break, simply due to mechanical wear at the very least. Gyroscopic forces for example from the spinning motion is less than ideal for drones.

I realize a solid state lidar may be a very challenging prospect but it would be a huge selling point!

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#53

Post by agoodthrowaway »

derek_frome wrote: post #35
randyrand wrote: post #32

Only temperature rated to -4F degrees. I hope they can get that lower. Up to ~25 days a year are <0F in Chicago for instance.

This is the spec for a cold start. If you give it a warm start, you can operate it much lower than -20C! For instance, it's being used in underground mines in Scandinavia without issue.

The issue will not be at cold but at high temperature. VCSELs have very poor efficiency at high temperature and it’s possible to operate them where increasing current reduces light output. In a vehicle application the temperatures are very high and humidity can also be very high and condensing.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#54

Post by runin2k1 »

toxik wrote: post #50
Calloutman wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. You can't see Ir Lasers.

IR and UV radiation can very much ruin your sight.

It doesn't matter if it is IR, UV, or visible. Only the power and duration matter.

Lidar uses very short pulses and very low power and is very safe even en masse.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#55

Post by agoodthrowaway »

derek_frome wrote: post #44
withinboredom wrote: post #36

> Ouster’s engineers have paid to ensure every sensor stands up to the wear and tear IOW, no one is sure if it actually will

We do a tremendous amount of testing to ensure real-world reliability, and our customers' results bear that out. Full functional safety certification is slated for end of this year, which means it's already well underway. We make a point of this because legacy spinning lidar is unreliable. But it's unreliable because of the analog design, not because spinning is inherently unreliable.

If the device is reliable then you should quote a FIT number. A very good VCSEL based transceiver in an indoor environment has a FIT of about 100 at Tj~65C and a CI of 60%. If we assume your FIT rate is similar (it won’t be because your operating conditions are more difficult) and have 128 of these devices your FIT rate ~12800 (assuming independent failures). This puts your MTBF at around 8.9years.

Some transceivers have a FIT rate of ~300FIT so if that’s the case your rel will only be 3 years.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#56

Post by Y-bar »

derek_frome wrote: post #35
randyrand wrote: post #32

Only temperature rated to -4F degrees. I hope they can get that lower. Up to ~25 days a year are <0F in Chicago for instance.

This is the spec for a cold start. If you give it a warm start, you can operate it much lower than -20C! For instance, it's being used in underground mines in Scandinavia without issue.

Scandinavian mines are all well above the freezing point below ground. (+2 - +5C)

From a pure temperature point of view mines are very easy with a known operating temperature and low fluctuations.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#57

Post by imeron »

kensai wrote: post #45

Am surprised no one yet cited Elon saying "this is fool's errand" because of price, complexity, etc. I think LIDAR will improve significantly the safety of vehicles (autonomous or not) because it can definitely see better and deeper, even in damning weather conditions (rain, fog, haze). Alas, the price of these devices has to come down at least one order of magnitude. Maybe even two. Still, I am really thankful that…

16k each, and Waymo has 4 on it's cars? I think Elon was right to not care about LIDAR until the price point is right.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#58

Post by usefulcat »

holoduke wrote: post #51
jiofih wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I’m aware LIDAR cannot see though fog, as the light is dispersed, and even light rain might reduce range significantly. Tesla cars have radar which can see through any weather condition and detect transparent surfaces, invisible to LIDAR.

Resolution of normal radar is much lower unless you have a gigant receiver. Also there is a significant delay of 10 to 100ms That's why a combination of lidar and radio radar is desired.

> Also there is a significant delay of 10 to 100ms

I'm curious why there is such an apparently long delay?

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#59

Post by nullc »

entangledqubit wrote: post #37

Does anyone know whether eye safety is de facto maintained when your eye is being continuously bombarded by the 100+ scanning lasers being emitted from each of the 100 cars in the vicinity of an intersection? I'm on board with the case with a handful of lasers scanning by quickly but the energy may really start to add up in certain plausible future scenarios.

865nm too, presumably it only passes as class 1 eye-safe due to an time x power x aperture exposure calculation...

I wonder how much we have to blame ITAR restrictions on >1555nm lasers for things like this not being more eye-safe on a by-wavelength basis.

Re: Ouster's new digital Lidar – 128 beams, ultra-wide view

#60

Post by solatic »

kensai wrote: post #45

Am surprised no one yet cited Elon saying "this is fool's errand" because of price, complexity, etc. I think LIDAR will improve significantly the safety of vehicles (autonomous or not) because it can definitely see better and deeper, even in damning weather conditions (rain, fog, haze). Alas, the price of these devices has to come down at least one order of magnitude. Maybe even two. Still, I am really thankful that…

There are classes of vehicles where the cost of LIDAR is less of a factor, e.g. freight trucks, taxis, public buses, which get even more economic benefit from Level 5 autonomy and can serve as a stepping stone to ramping up LIDAR production to bring the costs down.

Just because LIDAR doesn't make sense for the Model 3 today, doesn't mean it should be entirely discounted.

Post reply on HN