Slashdot Mirror
CMU's Snooping Robot Headed for Iraq
mike_the_kid writes "Here's an interesting article about a robot near the end of development at CMU. It's a four-wheeler called the Dragon Runner. This robot has no 'right side up,' so no matter which way it lands, its ready to go. The user (currently projected to be a US Marine) throws the robot over a fence or up a flight of stairs. The robot has cameras that send live video back to the operator, and directional microphones that can relay as well. A cool feature is that it can tell the operator where there is movement (via audio or tactile feedback)." We first mentioned the Dragon Runner a while back, but the previous article was more about the Dragon Eye, a small remote-controlled airplane.
Right? RIGHT???
If they're sending these things to Iraq so late in May does anyone really believe that Iraq will be handed back to the Iraqis on June 30?
Trolling is a art,
Comes with a hooding device for remote hooding.
*torture electrodes are an optional extra
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
= 9J =
"We've thrown it out of second- and third-story windows," said Capt. Dave Moreau, project officer for Dragon Runner at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory in Quantico, Va. "We've thrown it off the back of a moving vehicle at 45 miles an hour."
If they can make the robot out of this stuff, why not make the whole Marine out of it?
The Dragon Runner is a definete improvement to the impractical (at least in it's current state) Dragon Eye. It will be much easier for a person to operate a small vehicle that is a bit more "stealthy" that a small plane. With the Dragon Eye, there were far too many variables for any combat troop to use with any real practicality.
This is definitely a neat little gizmo, that will help gather information that would otherwise be hard to collect.
If the Iraqi hostiles capture one of them, though, I would be willing to lay down cash that they will sell it to a US-hostile entity - I would guess Al Qaeda or possibly Red China.
Hope it's rigged to destroy itself via remote control...
A love beyond compare...
So far the US approach has been to bomb the crap out of building with helicopters and planes from miles away, and then go an look at the bodies.
If the marines are never close enough to people when they are alive to identify that it is a wedding party not a group of fighters then this is hardly going to help. Unless of course it can be deployed from 20 miles away.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
against that cranky old next door neighbor
A big problem with entering buildings, and around corners is that nobody knows whats behind it. If a coalition soldier sees that there are no insurgent force, or confirm that there is one, then it will greatly enhance their fighting capabilities and situational awareness.
This is exactly why continuing research of defense technologies is needed. It's not to better kill, it's to better save lives.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
While the Marines are all there staring at their TV sets, the bad guys will sneak out the back door, walk around the house and blow the crap out of the distracted Marines.
Go the glass knife every time.
Can it fetch me a beer from the fridge ? Ifso, where can i order them ?!
This thing is amazing: Dragon Runner today is a 9-pound electric vehicle about 15 inches long, a little less than a foot wide and just five inches in height. Moreau said Dragon Runner can operate in three modes:
:)
Drive mode. The machine has a top speed of 20 mph and also can be operated slowly and deliberately. The video camera transmits color imagery to the operator, who controls it using a hand-held controller/view screen.
Sentry mode. It can operate as a stationary listening post, with a directional microphone and sensors that can detect motion up to 30 feet away. If it detects something, it can alert the operator by vibrating the hand control or sending a verbal "motion left" or "motion right" alert through an earphone.
Watch mode. Again, the vehicle would remain motionless, but would use its cameras to relay information.
You can also strap a bomb or weapon to it. This thing would definitely win the top spot in BattleBots.
Which makes me wonder how long until the only "combatants" that have to be sent into a war zone are the guys who throw these robots all over the place (or drop them from planes?) then hide in a secure place and view/control/eradicate problem. No casualties (on the side with the bots, that is), and no PR problems from increases in breadth and pervasiveness of combat coverage by the media.
Unless the media gets ahold of the video stream somehow. Better encrypt that well
everything in moderation
Hey Guys, i work in the educational department for the NREC (www.rec.ri.cmu.edu/education) and i've seen this running around and its pretty cool, it gets controlled by a gameboy looking device with like a 4 inch screen in the middle. They're really quiet too, you can never hear them running around. Very cool to see this up on slashdot and also the fact that its going over to support our troops is even cooler.
If Dragon Runner performs well, the Pentagon conceivably would be interested in buying hundreds of the robots. ...he thinks applications in civilian law enforcement and firefighting might eventually outnumber those in the military.
:-P
Minority report anybody? I have the mental image of hundreds of these things crawling around my apartment building looking for criminals and interrupting ppl in the midst of.... ah.... personal business.... Oh god, what have they done.....
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Here's the original post from robots.net...
A recent National Science Foundation press release includes photos and video clips of the latest Scout emergency response robots. Scout is a small (100mm x 35mm) two wheeled, tube-shaped robot containing a video camera, IR range sensors, light sensors, pyroelectric sensors, and two-way radio links that support frequency hopping and encryption. MegaScout is a larger version that will eventually carry manipulator arms, grappling hooks, and may act as a mothership for the smaller scouts. The robots are designed to survive a six story fall or being thrown up to 100 feet into a disaster area. The Scouts are built entirely from off-the-shelf parts. The robots are being deveoped by Nikos Papanikolopoulos
and other researchers from the University of Minnesota Distributed Robotics Lab, the University of Pennsylvania GRASP Lab, and the Caltech Robotics Group. More video of the robots performing amazing feats is available on the UMN website.
If it's small and light enough for a Marine to throw one over a wall, then what's stopping someone from throwing it back?
"Insurgents stand back! This car is protected by Viper! If you do not stand back the alarm will sound!" Bleep! Bleep! Bleep!
How about one of these for $20 and an x10 cam strapped to the front? I'll sell em to the marines for 1/10th what CMU wants for theirs.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Some very cool Pics of it from the Project's Homepage.
Personally, I don't know if sending more things that don't know "right side up" to Iraq is a good decision at this point.
My operating systems professor held up our "evacuation plan" for the case of a terrorist attack. The university administration felt the need to produce one after 9/11.
:-) )
It was really pretty funny.
First of all, you have to understand that CMU borders Squirrel Hill, which is a sizeable and extremely heavily Jewish community.
So a lot of "community centers" like churches volunteer for such things in the case of emergencies -- to be gathering points to identify people that need medical care and do head counts and all that.
So there's a long list of these, including a nearby Jewish temple listed as gathering points.
Naturally, the temple (and *only* the temple) has a asterisk next to it and a note at the bottom saying "in the event that this location is unavailable, children in the day care center will be taken to an undisclosed location", yadda yadda yadda.
Some suit clearly thought "Well, when those Arabs come over here, you can be *darn* sure that in addition to nailing a research institution, they're also going to be sure to waste any temples in the area." Sigh.
(That said, the fact that kids in day care would be taken to an "undisclosed location" would seem to do more to panic parents than anything else, but what do I know.
Research institutions are pretty boring targets. Many universities do work that end up in military stuff eventually, but there is a significant lag between a university doing work and practical stuff showing up in US military hardware.
Because of some quirks (like encryption and nuclear weapon simulation, some of the early computer uses) fell under the purview of the military, a good amount of computer science funding comes from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) rather than the NSF (National Science Foundation) as one would expect. Technically, CMU doesn't do classified research on campus, but it does do a *lot* of military-funded work. The SEI doesn't like to talk about exactly what it does, even though technically most of their research is supposed to be non-classified. Also, sometimes researchers get sold things as being somewhat different from their actual use. I've twice now spoken to people that got grants and worked on "non-combat" systems that were rather misleadingly labeled. One person was working what was billed to him as a "search and rescue" vehicle that could autnomously track people, map areas, and the like. He was rather appalled when he got the final vehicle chassis and there was a rather large weapon mount and fire control system on the controls system -- hardly the innocent "search and rescue" application that he had been told about.
CMU claims that it generally doesn't work directly on "combat systems". I get the vague impression that what this tends to come down to is that DARPA and friends have CMU (and some similar institutions) do the hard work (map-building, pathfinding, missile guidance, and the like), and then hire defense contractors to do the actual integration of such systems. The academics can, as long as they choose to do a bit of eye-averting, maintain a clean conscience and truthfully claim in PR releases "we don't make weapons here".
Unfortunately, as long as so much CS funding comes from DARPA, there isn't a whole lot that can be done about the situation -- if people want to be able to do research, they need to get funding from somewhere, and that is very frequently DARPA. The only fix would be to move more government budget from the DoD to the NSF, which doesn't seem very likely to happen.
It's a lot easier for Bush to demand billions for "homeland security" (of which much eventually winds up in the pockets of research institutions and defense contractors) from scared people than it is for someone to make a convincing request for "money for research in the sciences for the betterment of mankind" when so many people are getting old and are watching the Social Security funding that they were counting on rapidly slip away.
May we never see th
In other words, you can have my military technology when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, we may have won the war against Saddam, but we could easily lose the war against fanaticism in Iraq if we are forced to pull out before a legitimate Iraqi government can control that country. Everyone hates the tactics that Saddam used, but the reality is that that was what he found necessary to control that country. Hopefully, a legitimate government won't be facing the kind of resentment Saddam's rule did, and so require less force, but there are still many other factions to deal with and that will require proportionally more effort in order to use more acceptable means than Saddam did.
Looks like something that I'd want to sneak up on from behind and cannibalize. A little LCD screen and a nice big solar panel? I'm so there. Bet it's got some nice batteries also.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
One would think that we would learn from history, but we dont.
Civilian deaths and disregard of the Geneva convention is what has plased the US in trouble a lot of times! (politically, that is)
This device is intended to minimize the civilian deaths, without getting more dead american soldiers (which gets you into trouble in the US)
These do numerous things that grenades do not. First, let me know if you can find a surveillance grenade, and further, get back to me when grenades can drive around corners and hide under a bed, or a car.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think these things should be programmed to wander around cities/suburban areas and check an encountered persons biometric ID cards (coming soon?). Of course everyone but the "terrorists" would have these cards so catching them in action should be trivial. Perhaps have it explode on request or upon finding a "target". Armies of these things could re-enforce each other.
Wow, that robot costs $46,000... but when they cost $23,000, they'll be more willing to blow it up.
I love DoD projects.
In the article, it states that the robot has no "up" side. In those pictures, it does.
It seems like you were duped by this administration too.
The iraqis will have "limited sovereignty". Basically that means that they will have no say over over the US military and the laws of iraq will not apply to the US military. It will also mean that they will not be able to control their oil fields any way they want (i.e they will not be able to privatise them). Finally they will under no circumstances be allowed to join OPEC.
In actuality they will not be able to make any decision with wich the US would disagree. Of course nobody is suggesting that a set of hand picked puppets is going to look out for the interest of iraqis over the interest of americans but they could'nt even if they wanted to.
evil is as evil does
"The problem is, he was wrong. Saddam was not making "WMD's". Saddam had not been making them since the first Gulf War."
Sorry to be all technical here, but it cannot be proven that he didn't have them, only that we didn't find them. They built facilities that our satellites couldn't see. With that in mind, it's possible they'll never be found. (On the other hand, it is pretty damning that the weapons weren't used against our army. Frankly, that overrides my previous statement.)
"Iraq was not a threat to the US."
This is bullshit. Though I am pretty much convinced that they weren't armed in such a way that we were in danger, I do feel pretty strongly that they would have been safe haven for Al Qeada (sp?) or similar groups. I also feel that Saddam would, if so inclined, pay them to do 9-11 part 2. (Note: I did NOT say they had anything to do with 9-11.) For that reason, I'm pretty comfortable with Saddam being out of the picture. If it does turn out that the US didn't have strong enough WMD reason to go in, that does miff me. (In case it's difficult to tell, I'm not pro-Bush here, I'm sitting on the fence not really sure which side to lean on.)
"Bush lied to justify an optional war against a country that was no threat to the US. He might have believed that Saddam had "WMD's", but he lied about the "proof" he had."
I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well.
Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't. All this rationale that people have proposed describing how evil Bush is is riddled with holes. Both Saddam and Bush Sr are still alive right now, so vengence doesn't seem like a likely motive. US soldiers are not building a pipeline funneling oil into Bush's house to sell, so I'm not convinced it's about oil. I doubt a politician would bet his re-election on an invasion of a country that isn't directly threatening us. Everybody thinks Bush is an idiot, you'd think they'd rule out the whole "big Romulan'esque plot" theories, yet they don't. Etc.
I could keep going but the longer this gets, the more stupid flaming messages will come. I really hope people just read, comprehend, make their own opinion, and move on. I'll listen to polite/tactful rebuttals, though. As I said before, my mind isn't made up.
"Derp de derp."
"Sorry to be all technical here, but it cannot be proven that he didn't have them, only that we didn't find them."
Nice try. Bush and Co claimed that they had exact knowledge of what was where and why it was a threat to the US.
We invade. We don't find the what at the where. We don't find the what anywhere.
Conclusion: Bush and Co did NOT have exact knowledge.
"This is bullshit. Though I am pretty much convinced that they weren't armed in such a way that we were in danger, I do feel pretty strongly that they would have been safe haven for Al Qeada (sp?) or similar groups."
Yes, the nefarious "similar groups".
By "similar groups" do you mean "groups that have attacked US citizens in the US"? If so, then you are WRONG!
The closest thing anyone has ever been able to tie Iraq with is Saddam's attempt to have Bush Sr. assassinated. That's all.
Iraq was NOT a threat.
"I also feel that Saddam would, if so inclined, pay them to do 9-11 part 2. (Note: I did NOT say they had anything to do with 9-11.) For that reason, I'm pretty comfortable with Saddam being out of the picture. If it does turn out that the US didn't have strong enough WMD reason to go in, that does miff me. (In case it's difficult to tell, I'm not pro-Bush here, I'm sitting on the fence not really sure which side to lean on.)"
Well, I'm sure you believe it is good to be so in touch with your feelings. Don't let those pesky facts get in the way.
Yes, you are "pro-Bush". That is the EXACT same "logic" that he followed. All belief and no facts.
"I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well."
Again, I cannot convince anyone as "pro-Bush" as you are that he lied. He went on national TV and talked about the "yellow cake" incident AFTER it was discredited.
Ah, but that wasn't HIM telling a lie. It was his STAFF that gave him incorrect information.
Your defense of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is that he didn't lie, he's a dupe.
"Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."
That is a side. You've sided with the "government knows more so they're right" position. Even when their public claims have been proven to be FALSE.
So, if I say 1+1=5, then you'd believe me because I know things you don't know.
"Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."
"evil"? There is no "evil". There are just different agendas and values. As I've pointed out, Bush lied when he said he had exact information about "WMD's". Now, if there had been "WMD's" in Iraq, then Bush's lie would never have been exposed.
"Both Saddam and Bush Sr are still alive right now, so vengence doesn't seem like a likely motive."
Ummm, Saddam is in US custody. Bush Sr is not.
"US soldiers are not building a pipeline funneling oil into Bush's house to sell, so I'm not convinced it's about oil."
Then you need to look at how the US government is handling Iraq's oil wells.
"I doubt a politician would bet his re-election on an invasion of a country that isn't directly threatening us."
Why not? He gets to take out a "bad man" (his words) and show the world how tough the US is AND the US gets a US friendly government with lots of cheap oil. That sounds like an assured re-election to me.
"Everybody thinks Bush is an idiot, you'd think they'd rule out the whole "big Romulan'esque plot" theories, yet they don't. Etc."
Okaaaaaaaaay. Well, it's been nice chatting with you. I'll let you get back to Dr. Spock and Kirk now. Don't hurt yourself.