Slashdot Mirror


Army Looks at Robotic Dogs

mr. squishie writes "Someone important must have gotten an Aibo...According to Wired news, the Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command has just awarded a $2.5 million contract to build a prototype of a large robot dog that would follow soldiers into battle and carry food, ammunition, and medical supplies. This is apparently part of a larger movement by various branches of the military investigating the uses of robots based on various types of wildlife, ranging from engine-repairing robot elephant trunks and mine-destroying robot lobsters to the cliched robot-fly-spy-on-the-wall trick. I wonder if they're looking into giant robot anteaters as an alternative to costly bunker-buster bombs?"

72 of 478 comments (clear)

  1. Why not.. by pantycrickets · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Work on robot soldiers, and save yourself all of the hassle of killing people at all. That would be a lot more fun to watch on CNN anyway.

    1. Re:Why not.. by YetAnotherDave · · Score: 2, Funny

      this reminds me of the 'zero gravity pen' that the US spend a ton of money on, while the soviets used pencils...

    2. Re:Why not.. by jonpublic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why not work on GIANT KILLER robot soliders? If your going for robots, you might as well go all the way. I hear the Japanese have some interesting designs for giant robots. Something about a facination with them.

    3. Re:Why not.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the story about the astronaut pen (as you know it) isn't entirely accurate.

      The pen wasn't developed by request of the US military (or any other government faction, for that matter), but by an individual organization just for the hell of it, IIRC.

      It is true that the soviets just used pencils.. google for "astronaut pen myth"

    4. Re:Why not.. by four2five · · Score: 4, Funny

      But then we'd h ave to agree with other countries as to what color our lazer weapons would be( USA = red, russia = blue, france = pink, etc.) so we can finally have a full scale GI Joe-esque presentation. If you've going to have war you need to see who's winning.


      Does this mean we'd have a robo-geraldo "entrenched" with the other robots?

      --
      -or so you'd think
    5. Re:Why not.. by PhuCknuT · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a myth. Pens don't rely on gravity to work, they are all about surface tension. Both nasa and the soviets used both pencils and pens, and the "space pen" was developed by a pen company with no relationship with nasa.

      A quick google search found this

    6. Re:Why not.. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually...that's an urban legend.

      It's the Fisher Space Pen that you refer too and the pen vs. pencil thing has been tossed around by the internet and by the West Wing TV show.

      http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.a sp

      "NASA never asked Paul C. Fisher to produce a pen. When the astronauts began to fly, like the Russians, they used pencils, but the leads sometimes broke and became a hazard by floating in the [capsule's] atmosphere where there was no gravity. They could float into an eye or nose or cause a short in an electrical device. In addition, both the lead and the wood of the pencil could burn rapidly in the pure oxygen atmosphere. Paul Fisher realized the astronauts needed a safer and more dependable writing instrument, so in July 1965 he developed the pressurized ball pen, with its ink enclosed in a sealed, pressurized ink cartridge. Fisher sent the first samples to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Director of the Houston Space Center. The pens were all metal except for the ink, which had a flash point above 200C. The sample Space Pens were thoroughly tested by NASA. They passed all the tests and have been used ever since on all manned space flights, American and Russian. All research and developement costs were paid by Paul Fisher. No development costs have ever been charged to the government.

      Because of the fire in Apollo 1, in which three Astronauts died, NASA required a writing instrument that would not burn in a 100% oxygen atmosphere. It also had to work in the extreme conditions of outer space:
      In a vacuum. - With no gravity. - In hot temperatures of +150C in sunlight and also in the cold shadows of space where the temperatures drop to -120C."

    7. Re:Why not.. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Funny

      It also had to work in the extreme conditions of outer space:
      In a vacuum. - With no gravity. - In hot temperatures of +150C in sunlight and also in the cold shadows of space where the temperatures drop to -120C."


      Hopefully they meant it had to work AFTER BEING IN the extreme conditions of space. Because if anyone ever makes me write something when it is -120C, I think I may stab them with the pen instead.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    8. Re:Why not.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had to circulate a petition during a very bad winter in Pennsylvania. It was below freezing and I needed over a thousand signatures. It took weeks. When I first started I was keeping a pen shoved into one of my gloves to keep it from freezing. A friend gave me his space pen and it was a god send.
      Anyone working out doors should have one.

    9. Re:Why not.. by magarity · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why not work on GIANT KILLER robot soliders?

      Egos not withstanding, the various punk warlords around the world that give us problems are not really giants. Indeed, since Ulysses blinded the Cyclops, giants haven't caused any trouble for the most part. So robot soldiers need to just kill regular sized people.

    10. Re:Why not.. by jonpublic · · Score: 3, Funny

      aha! I should have said, KILLER GIANT robot soliders to clarify. The soliders should be robots, and giant, and killers. Good point about there not being any giants causing trouble anymore.

    11. Re:Why not.. by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Funny

      But then we'd h ave to agree with other countries as to what color our lazer weapons would be( USA = red, russia = blue, france = pink, etc.) ...

      No, no, no! Don't you know the laws of movie physics! Good is higher than evil on the on the electromagnetic spectrum. That's why good guys always use blue energy and bad guys always use red energy. Using red lasers would make US the evil empire, instead of... of...

      I, uh.. hey, what's that's shiny distraction over there!

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    12. Re:Why not.. by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually the russians don't use pencils, they just use ordinary ballpoint pens.
      They work fine in microgravity... and besides, I dont't believe anybody actually writes anything outside the space station/shuttle, so the temperature thing is pretty much overkill as well.

      --
      "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
  2. I would suspect a bunker buster... by Lester67 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    would then be the cheap alternative.

  3. Taliban does this already! by Lispy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its called a mule.

    1. Re:Taliban does this already! by pantycrickets · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its called a mule.

      Mules are inexpensive and reliable though. The point isn't to save money!

    2. Re:Taliban does this already! by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Its called a mule.

      My exact thought. Either someone in DoD needs some training in what animal does what job, or they think that there's PR points to be gained by calling it a 'dog'. If that's the objective, they may as well call it a 'robot manatee' and really score some environmentalist points.

    3. Re:Taliban does this already! by snjoseph · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A mule is very different from a dog. So much so that the Pentagon is spending millions to develop a robotic mule as well. Check out my Slashdot Journal entry of 1-Dec-2003.

      Take that, Osama!

    4. Re:Taliban does this already! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Either someone in DoD needs some training in what animal does what job, or they think that there's PR points to be gained by calling it a 'dog'.

      The prototype is dog-sized. The company making it decided to name the project "big dog". Wired (in it's usual "hip, cool, rad" style of sloppy journalism) makes it sound like the Army asked specifically for "robot dogs", when all they really asked for was 4-legged transport prototypes. So blame the dog thing on Yobotics and Wired, not the DOD.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:Taliban does this already! by gethane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ack! Facts! We don't want no stinking facts here! It's slashdot for chrissakes!

  4. Robotic Dogs Look at Army by mccalli · · Score: 3, Funny
    In Soviet Russia...

    Ah hell, I really can't bring myself to type it. I deeply apologise for my descent into Slashdotism. It won't happen again. I promise. Honest.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  5. Makes sense. by CaptainAlbert · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if they're looking into giant robot anteaters as an alternative to costly bunker-buster bombs?

    Why not? After all, they've already got a giant robot chimpanzee as an alternative to a defense secretary.

    <rimshot>
    --
    These sigs are more interesting tha
  6. NAME ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've no problem with this idea if they don't call any of the dogs "Beagle."

  7. Mercantilism at its finest by dada21 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pretending to protect national security, provide the troops with better gear to fight terrorism, and other great headlines, our government is spending more of your money on projects that will go way over budget and provide little of the original promises.

    Unfortunately, this is how our federal government always works. We've lost our capitalist direction in the last 140 years, and are now thoroughly mercantilist. Promises are made, but in reality those promises only lead to friends of the government getting a big wad of cash -- and when they over extend the budget, they just ask for more.

    Sure, $3 million doesn't sound like a lot, but when has government ever provided anything at or under budget?

    I'm disgusted that the average citizen allows this. There is really no reason to allow more and more of our hard earned income to go into the pockets of those friendly with the powers-that-be. Both the Democrats and Republicans have lied and lied, and neither is going to help us stabilize the economy and put more money in your pocket without increasing the costs to others.

    1. Re:Mercantilism at its finest by proj_2501 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what exactly does any of that have to do with mercantilism? other than you using it as a slur, that is.

    2. Re:Mercantilism at its finest by ThosLives · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You're right. There is no reason to allow more of our "hard earned" cash to go to the current government. Simply establish a new political party, convice lots of people to give you money and elect someone from your party, then change things.

      I can't say that you will be successful, but this is an option for you to try.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    3. Re:Mercantilism at its finest by Telcontar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind that this is just a casy study, where a prototype is built. The goal is to check whether such a technology is feasible, and robust enough to be used in a battlefield.

      I find $2.25 million to be quite a reasonable amount for this, even if the result turns out to be that such a robot cannot be built in the next ten years, because stronger materials, more powerful actuators, longer-lasting batteries etc. are needed.

    4. Re:Mercantilism at its finest by dada21 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mercantilism is where the government taxes the population for "internal improvements," ie, corporate welfare. Abe Lincoln started the civil war in order to create a mercantilist country, and he succeeded.

      Mercantilism doesn't work -- it only helps those who are closely connected to government. Over the past 140 years, we have become more and more mercantilist, and this is just one more freebie for some company closely tied to government. Competitive bid? I think not. Try bidding yourself on a federal project and see how far you go.

    5. Re:Mercantilism at its finest by ThreatAdvisory · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The average citizen allows this because the average citizen is scared. My creators created me to instill a lingering "fear" of sorts, granted that most U.S. residents now see me as in a "crying-wolf" scenario, my hue shifts DO have effect, whether induced by honest reasons or otherwise.

      Items such as robo-pooch are two fold in their reason for existing. As you mentioned, pretending to protect national security, "wow! We've got kick-ass robots on our side! Terrorists are screwed now! USA!" and to supplant the mass exodus from U.S. Military service that is already occuring. The return of the draft will be too risky if Bush remains in office another term, then you will see mass exodus from the country itself. They had to begin the robo-warrior process, lest the U.S. be left with no defense when terrorists really decide to take out some frustration on the U.S. (hint: what we've seen so far isn't anything), and they probably started too late, like goverments usually do, wait too long.

      But with the current Mid-East Terror-incubators, we'll have plenty on our hands in due time (ahhh, job security is nice! My rainbow of fear certainly will not be sent overseas for cheaper work)

      Budget concerns? What makes you so naive that you actually think budgets are real? Its all abstract my friend. LOL

      --
      What COLOR scares you??

      Me at work!

    6. Re:Mercantilism at its finest by duffbeer703 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Try looking up the meaning of mercantilism, although you are probaly too dumb to understand:

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mercant il ism&r=67

      Mercantilism is all about establishing colonies and vassal states to exploit raw materials and create markets while building industry at home.

      In case you haven't noticed, the US is doing the exact opposite since WW2.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    7. Re:Mercantilism at its finest by supersnail · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another sad brainwashed libertarian.

      The entire computer industry is a product of government funding!

      Alan Turing's Betchly code buster was paid for by the British government.

      The various early US computers (ENIAC et all) were paid for by the US DoD.

      Modern large computer architecures were an offshoot of various government funded University projects (Notably the University of Manchesters various machines from the Marconi MARK 1 & UMIST machines).

      The original DARPA internet was funded by the US DoD.

      The WEB was invented at CERN ... an international project funded by various goverments .

      Just because governments are sometimes dumb it doesn't mean they are always dumb. And anyway capitalists are so much better at wasting money c.f. Enron et all

      --
      Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
  8. Troubleshooting report... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


    > ...has just awarded a $2.5 million contract to build a prototype of a large robot dog that would follow soldiers into battle and carry food, ammunition, and medical supplies.

    When the early prototype mysteriously faild to deliver the food, an investigation revealed that they had foolishly based the design on Scooby Doo.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  9. Giant Robot Anteaters by RevMike · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if they're looking into giant robot anteaters as an alternative to costly bunker-buster bombs?"

    Who is deploying giant robot ants? If no one is deployiong such a weapon, why are we creating something to eat them?

    1. Re:Giant Robot Anteaters by pantycrickets · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who is deploying giant robot ants? If no one is deployiong such a weapon, why are we creating something to eat them?

      This is another one of our preemptive measures. I mean, it's a safe bet that the Chinese are building robotic ants anyway.

    2. Re:Giant Robot Anteaters by CaptainAlbert · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who is deploying giant robot ants? If no one is deployiong such a weapon, why are we creating something to eat them?

      Because it's symbolic of American foreign policy (sticking an extra-long nose in where it's not wanted).

      In related news, the French army is said to be working on a squadron of giant robot ostriches.

      --
      These sigs are more interesting tha
  10. Re:"Red Planet" - how about Snow Crash! by aborchers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How about the sections of Snow Crash told from the point of view of the robotic guard dog.

    --
    Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
  11. Robotic Animals by herwin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At Sunderland, we're working on a 'robotic sheepdog' to help find victims in building collapses or similar disasters. This would be able to track its controller acoustically and use similar technology to localize and track sound streams of interest.

  12. Robust efficient legged vehicles by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've always thought that legged vehicles where an obvious solution to all-terrain travel and transport. Rubber tires become increasingly inefficient at the terrain becomes rougher (absorbing energy in all the deflections from rocks, etc.). And walkers can go where no wheeled vehicle can pass. The problem has always been designing legged motion systems that have the fluidity of biological walkers (the jerky move-stop-move motion of oldstyle robots is too slow and inefficient). But with faster embedded processors and sensors, true fluid walking and running are possible.

    I wonder if this presages the return of true calvary -- robotic-horse mounted soliders.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Robust efficient legged vehicles by adrianbaugh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, yeah. I'm sure the ancient sages 4000 years ago were writing all about implosion-style devices made using man-made unstable heavy elements, fallout, ionising radiation, neutron pulses etc.

      If what you intended to say was "ancient Indian mythology talks about wars where lots of people can be killed at once" then I wish you'd stick to that. Unless they're describing the phenomena pretty accurately I suggest it's not the ancient sages that are describing nuclear war at all, but their present-day interpreters.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
  13. Starship Troopers? Life imitates art. by DrZaius · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the book version of Starship Troopers by Heinlein, there is a whole military division of soldiers paired with cybernetic dogs called the K-9 Corps.

    My copy is on loan to a friend, but I did find a PDF of it on the internet through google. Don't know if it is legit though: Starship Troopers

    --
    -- DrZaius - Minister of Sciences and Protector of the Faith
  14. Lead or follow? by FTL · · Score: 4, Funny
    > just awarded a $2.5 million contract to build a prototype of a large robot dog that would follow soldiers into battle

    If I were a soldier, the first thing I'd do is reprogram my dog to walk ahead of me, not behind me. Let it step on the landmines, absorb enemy fire, etc.

    Oh wait, this robot is worth $2.5m, eh? Ah, now I understand why the soldier is in front.

    --
    Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    1. Re:Lead or follow? by RevMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I were a soldier, the first thing I'd do is reprogram my dog to walk ahead of me, not behind me. Let it step on the landmines, absorb enemy fire, etc.

      Oh wait, this robot is worth $2.5m, eh? Ah, now I understand why the soldier is in front.

      Like most things in life, reality is more complex.

      First, the $2.5m is to develop the dog. The actually cost of manufacturing one will likely be quite a bit less.

      Second, if you sent the dog ahead, you probably sacrifice many of the advantages that you can bring to the battle - reducing your safety i the long run. for instance, an enemy spotting the dog could take a reasonable guess at your position and fire upon you with mortars before you have the opportunity to spot the enemy, evaluate their strength and position, and form a plan to engage. You've given up tactical initiative.

  15. REAL Bunker Busters by Garg · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder if they're looking into giant robot anteaters as an alternative to costly bunker-buster bombs?

    How about AT-AT's?

    Garg

    --
    Garg
    Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
    1. Re:REAL Bunker Busters by CreateWindowEx · · Score: 2, Funny
      While they did have a certain psychological intimidation factor, AT-ATs were eventually abandoned by the Empire in favor of more conventional vehicles. After numerous cost overruns, mechanical failures, poor fuel economy, and a well-publicized "entanglement" fiasco, the controversial giant legged machines were deemed unworkable after sinking hundreds of billions into research and development, and they returned to more conventional wheeled vehicles.

      At present time, working AT-ATs are extremely rare, although I did see one of the civilian variants for sale recently on eBay. (these "Atters" were equipped with DVD players and leather seats instead of lasers and armor plating, and were briefly popular with wealthy suburbanites). A gas-electric hybrid version of the smaller AT-ST, co-developed with Honda and aimed at urban drivers, was briefly offered, but sales were disappointing.

  16. Why legs? by pubjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Legs aren't necessarily a great form of transport. The are slow and use lots of energy. Evolution never came up with the wheel, or tracks (like a tank) or rotating blades (like a helicopter). Why should a robotic "dog" be better than a tracked vehicle, for instance?

    Perhaps the real plan is to give them glowing red eyes and smoke coming out of their mouths, to scare the opposition. Now that would we worth doing...

    1. Re:Why legs? by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Evolution never came up with the wheel, or tracks (like a tank) or rotating blades (like a helicopter).


      Some bacteria do have propeller-like rotating spikes. The reason why there are no wheels in larger animals is because of the problem in feeding the wheels. How would a rotary joint carry blood across? Indeed, I think you are right, if Nature had evolved wheels, many animals would have tracks instead of legs.

  17. Carrying stuff and taking bullets? by Theatetus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought that's what E3's were for. Won't we be putting all our PFC's and Lance Corporals out of work?

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  18. Re:Your tax dollars at work... by pantycrickets · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not just use a real dog?

    It's much more efficient, easier to fuel, infinitely more intelligent, far less expensive


    And they taste good too!

  19. Commuter version? by Damon+C.+Richardson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I for one would love to ride a giant metal dog to work every day. And at 50 pounds per squad thats 400 pounds capacity at least.

    Then you could paint it up like a Warg Beast from LoTR.

    --

    Last one in jail is a fascist.
  20. Well... by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new robotic canine...ah fuck it. This isn't fun anymore.

  21. Re:Four Legs? by Hogbert · · Score: 2, Informative

    Innovation at its best:

    The walking forest machine by Plustech.

    http://www.plustech.fi/Walking1.html

    I'd start with something like that ... ... quote ...
    The walking forest machine is Plustech's best-known innovation.
    The goal of product development was to create a machine that has
    the best possible working stability and minimum impact on the
    terrain

    The walking machine adapts automatically to the forest floor.
    Moving on six articulated legs, the harvester advances forward
    and backward, sideways and diagonally. It can also turn in
    place and step over obstacles. Depending on the irregularity of
    the terrain, the operator can adjust both the ground clearance of
    the machine and heigh of each step. ... /quote ...

    --
    Microserf: 18.5% slashdot corrupt
  22. That's not muffet.... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...it isn't even a real dagget!

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  23. On the other hand... by mangu · · Score: 2, Funny

    A mule can be far more difficult to control and less reliable than even an MS-Windows based robot.

  24. Envisioning a lots of problems by asciimonster · · Score: 2, Funny

    For instance, I sure hope that robo-dog doesn't fetch the boms I launch at the enemy...

  25. Why not just use a real dog? by Theatetus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have and do use war dogs. The Marine kennels are in North Carolina and Virginia and the Army kennels are, I believe, in Oklahoma. In addition, MPs have canine squads just like civilian cops and many of these squads have war dog training in addition to police dog training.

    They're useful for sniffing out booby traps and ambushes. There are a couple of problems, though:

    • Training a dog is by no means cheap or easy (all told, hundreds of thousands of dollars). Robots would be cheaper once they get in production.
    • No matter how well trained, dogs have common sense and feel fear. Robots wouldn't unless we programmed them to.
    • Dogs die. Their handlers have trained with them for months or years. Losing a dog is *very* hard on the handler. Robots would not be so hard to lose.
    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
    1. Re:Why not just use a real dog? by javatips · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dogs die. Their handlers have trained with them for months or years. Losing a dog is *very* hard on the handler. Robots would not be so hard to lose.

      That is not thrue. if the robotics dog is to be really usefull it must have some form of intelligence and must be able to learn from t's environment (like the Sony AIBO).

      Some studies showed that people owning an AIBO have the same emotional attachement to the robot than people have with pets.

      Also the fact that the handlers is emotionaly attached to its dog is beneficial in the same way that soldier in the same unit will become (encouraged by their training) attached (like a familly or friend) to other in the same unit. This give a better team dynamics as each members will look out for each other.

    2. Re:Why not just use a real dog? by Theatetus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Also the fact that the handlers is emotionaly attached to its dog is beneficial in the same way that soldier in the same unit will become (encouraged by their training) attached (like a familly or friend) to other in the same unit. This give a better team dynamics as each members will look out for each other.

      Except that after a point they *don't* want the handlers attached to their dogs. The dogs are there to die so that soldiers and marines don't have to. They don't want handlers risking their lives or using first aid supplies to help dogs. If a robot could help break some of that connection, all the better.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    3. Re:Why not just use a real dog? by Lester67 · · Score: 5, Informative

      A couple of additional thoughts.

      Lackland AFB is where the Air Force trains its K9's. All branches of the service train handlers there at a school run by the DoD.

      A K9 trained (and accepted) for such a roll doesn't "fear" quite as much as you would expect. People fear for themselves, dogs fear for their handlers (which 99 times out of 100 means they wouldn't run.) You'd probably have more robots down for mechanical failures than you would have a real dog that abandons its handler.

      Dogs do die, and it is hard on the handlers (Been there, done that). An upside is, a wounded soldier would now have a protector with him (for whatever that might be worth.)

      However, climbing mountains with packs of gear on isn't going to be a dogs forte. On top of that, instead of a robot lugging batteries, you now have a handler and dog loaded down with water. That's why current MWD teams never have their animals packing any gear. It increases weight, which increases the amount of water they need.

      There is an almost immediate drop on the point of limited return in that regard.

      (Now time to show a little love to Ringo 274D. 12 years of faithful service to his country, including the invasion of Panama. What a great dog.)

  26. If you think a robotic dog is cool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...wait till you see the Army's $349,000 pooper scoopers for said dogs.

  27. My thoughts exactly, but I suspect here's why: by zapp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I couldn't agree more, but I believe the reason is animal cruelty. People are drafted rarely, but only after they have the priveledge of voting. The rest of the armed forces are all volunteers. Dogs are neither capable of voting or of volunteering, so someone would raise a fuss about it.

    Of course, war is war. People die, and yes, animals die too I'm sure. Back when wars were fought on horseback, it wasn't like the movies -- the horses DID get injured and killed.

    --
    no comment
  28. Rat Thing by depricatedFoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Unit 247 wakes up. He is excited. Others are barking. Someone is trying to hurt a nice girl. This makes him angry."

    Just how far away from Stephenson's Rat Thing are we?

    --
    .M@
    --
    do you use them for good, or for awesome?
  29. RoboFly v1.0 will be quickly followed by by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RoboFrog v1.0, which will be followed closely by RoboRedneck v1.0 (steel and aluminum telescopic gig accessory standard on the "dee-lux" model!) Also, you won't have to worry about this (although fabricated anyway) happening, as the Kevlar waders accessory are already available for ordering.

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  30. Giant anteaters? by Jerf · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if they're looking into giant robot anteaters as an alternative to costly bunker-buster bombs?

    Licking terrorists to death is probably SOME violation of the Geneva Convention!

  31. Predecessor to Aibo by userloser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    K9 from Doctor Who! Yeah!

  32. Back in 3rd century AD China... by tehanu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Reminds me of Zhuge Liang's wooden oxen (back in the 3rd century AD - though now people think looking at the plans he left behind it might just have described the invention of the wheelbarrow rather than an actual mechanical beast)! From Romance of the Three Kingdoms:

    "I have had a scheme ready for a long time. The timber that I collected and bought in the River Lands was for the construction of wooden transport animals to convey grain. It will be very advantageous, as they will require neither food nor water and they can keep on the move day and night without resting...They are being made now after my plans, but they are not yet ready. Here I have the sketches for these mechanical oxen and horses, with all their dimensions written out in full. You may see the details."

    Zhuge Liang then produced a paper, and all the generals crowded round to look at it. They were all greatly astonished and lauded, "The Prime Minister is superhuman!"

    A few days later the new mechanical animals were complete and began work. They were quite life-like and went over the hills in any desired direction. The whole army saw them with delight. They were but in charge of Right General Gao Xiang and a thousand soldiers to guide them. They kept going constantly between Saber Pass and the front carrying grain for the use of the soldiers.

    Along the Saber Pass mountain roads
    The running horses bore their loads,
    And through Xie Valley's narrow way
    The wooden oxen paced each day.
    O generals, use these means today,
    And transport troubles take away.

    Where asked where the idea came from he replied:

    "The world is filled with things of man's making. I have long observed vehicles throughout the land, and considered the principle by which beasts of burden walk, and thus invented this..."

    The story also comes with a case of military espionage as the enemy Sima Yi captures some of them and tries to copy the design.

  33. They work well until by wiredog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Some damned Rebel Flyer wraps a cable around the legs.

  34. Obligatory Simpson's quote: by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Funny

    The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
    They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
    mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
    small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is
    clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
    -- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of
    Lisa Simpson"


    What is funny is that we are already building so many robots to kill people, like cruise missiles for example, drone spy planes etc. Where has the Asimov's idea of the three robotics laws gone?

    1. Re:Obligatory Simpson's quote: by JExtine · · Score: 2

      Asimov's robots were autonomous, these would only kill who we told them to kill...

  35. The future of the military by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2

    The future is ALL robots on the battle field. It has alread started. The predator drone is the first big step. It flies and attacks remotely. All of the new DoD research money is going toward robotic replacements for soldiers. Our tanks now are controlled completely electronically. It shouldn't make a difference whether the soldiers are staring at a computer monitor inside the tank or miles away in a safe place. And why send a soldier down a fox hole, when an X10 wireless webcam and a $30 RC car from radioshack would do the job? The final step will be when mostly human-shaped robots with rifles are controlled remotely. It would be able to do most things a soldier does if it has a microphone and speakers and video cammera. He could see and hear what it does and speak through it. It will be much easier to take over 3rd world conutries when we have no casualties, soldiers don't have to sleep, and have machine accuracy for targeting.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:The future of the military by burns210 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is, if the wars are to be fought by robots, then whose robots will ours fight? The US, for good or bad, is the world sole super power, and with our gigantic(*cringe*) military budget, we can build and develop these robots. But against who?

      For the forseeable future, it will be US robots bombing military installations, so that both sides will be avoiding a frontline war in the trenches.

  36. Expect to see more about Boston Dynamics by Onnimikki · · Score: 2, Informative

    Have a look at their Engineering page. You'll see images of both Rugged RHex (featured on Slashdot earlier) as well as Sony's bipedal Qrio robot. Marc Raibert has assembled an impressive team of people to work on these very cool projects.

  37. EMP weapons? by skidoo2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone have any info on the development progress of electromagnetic pulse weapons (nuclear or otherwise)? Goldeneye-type stuff? It would seem something like this could turn a battalion of robot soldiers or field of robotic support dogs into a pile of titanium scrap.

    Hrmm. A little googling revealed this rather thorough article in the Crypt Newsletter that seems to indicate that any claims these weapons are viable is hogwash.

    So bring on the robots! Woo-hoo!