Slashdot Mirror


Radiation Robot Makes Troops Safer

Darkman, Walkin Dude wrote to mention a plucky little radiation-proof robot working to make life easier for folks in the military. From the article: "By this time an hour and a half had gone by, and the team was temporarily out of ideas. Phil had estimated that the robot could remain ambulatory in the radiation field for only 50 minutes, and in fact the robot's lower portion was no longer responding to commands. The RAP team, as a precaution against this very circumstance, working with White Sands personnel had tied a rope to M2 before sending it into the work area. The rope, attached to a RAP team winch 100 feet outside the structure, ensured the robot could be hauled out if radiation damaged its drive unit. But radiation shields now blocked a direct haul. M2 was hemmed in. Using a ten-foot-long pole and standing at the edge of the field (which fanned out like a flashlight beam, strongest at its center and weakest at its edges), team members hooked and then tugged at the rope hauling M2. The deflection of the rope's pull slid the robot around a moveable radiation shield without knocking it over. The RAP team's winch then pulled the robot directly out. "

134 comments

  1. Sad, really by daeley · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seconds later, Sarah Connor grabbed the pole and impaled the robot, destroying its primary power supply. Even as its eyes went dark, emergency systems kicked in to begin rerouting secondary and tertiary power systems.

    Wise to the design of robots, Sarah and her son, future savior of humankind John Connor, shoved the robot through a nearby doorway conveniently located right above a steel foundry where it dramatically screamed in electronic pain for a few seconds. And then it was over.

    "Is it over, mom?" John asked, panting.

    Sarah Connor wiped the sweat out of her eyes. "It's over," she said as the familiar industrial movie soundtrack theme began to play. "It's over."

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    1. Re:Sad, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'M DETECTIVE JOHN KIMBALL!

      i'm going to ask you a bunch of questions. you will have to answer them immediately!

      you lack discipline!

      who is your daddy and what does he DO?

      IT'S NOT A TOOMUH!!

    2. Re:Sad, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STOP IT!

      SHUTUP!! Shutup, shutup!

      For the first time in my life... I'm... PISSED OFF!

      Yes, could I speak to the drug dealer of the house?

      No more complaining, no more Mr. Kimble I have to go to the bathroom, nothing!

    3. Re:Sad, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'M A COP YOU IDIOT

    4. Re:Sad, really by teh_monoliath · · Score: 1

      Political media jargon to keep your eyes and mind away from what's really going on.

    5. Re:Sad, really by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      shoved the robot through a nearby doorway conveniently located right above a steel foundry where it dramatically screamed in electronic pain for a few seconds

      I haven't seen the movie you refer to; did the robot do the Wilhelm scream on the way down?

  2. what troops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where was there anything in this article about "the troops?" Didn't this have to do with irradiating circuit boards?

    1. Re:what troops? by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      These days, everything is more interesting if you add "the troops" somewhere.

      "Gas prices affect Wal-Mart sales and the troops."

      "The Troops watched as the Patriots lost yet another game."

      "Hybrid Electric cars help the troops and other people with gas prices."

      "The snowy and icy streets delay troops, commuters."

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    2. Re:what troops? by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1

      I Know I'll get modded überflamebait, or something horrifying, but I can't resist:

      With your sig (- It's not the Macs I hate. It's the Mac users. -), that logic would be:
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's the Mac users and troops. -

      sorry.

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
    3. Re:what troops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two kinds of troops: The "good troops" which are the troops of your $country, and they are just professionals and we must do everything to guarantee their safety (they are just like garbage collectors). Then there are the "bad troops" who are the troops of the other $country and we want them killed. You see, it is a crime to kill a human who was born on this side of the river and a crime not to kill a human who was born on the other side of the river.

      Does anybody else find this "safer for troops" stories lame?

      The safest thing for troops is "eliminate all troops of other $country" --> death and unsafety. This is what weapons is all about. On the other hand, still having wars in the year 2000 probably more lame.

  3. Could Someone Please Explain This? by kadathseeker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "But radiation that can kill a human also can kill a robot's electronics. Bennett estimated M2 could withstand intense radiation for only 50 minutes." That's alot of elaboration. I know how cells are affected by radiation, and have and idea of how electronics would be, but I haven't heard alot about this problem and don't know for sure. How exactly are electronics affected by this radiation? Cool robot, though. It'll make a great new overlord.

    --
    The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
    1. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by YuriGherkin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gamma rays and X-Rays are basically the same thing - ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can induce currents in a piece of metal that is moved through its field and these unwanted currents can play havoc with the circuits inside a microchip, perhaps even overloading and burning them out. The gamma rays could also alter the bits in the memory chips so the software running the robot could crash.

    2. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by Scorillo47 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ionizing radiations (usually beta/gamma radiation) can affect materials in various ways. For example, an energetic gamma-ray photon (around 0.3 MeV for the Cobalt-60 spectrum) would cause partial ionization of Si atoms in traditional semiconductors. Since the n/p difference is extremely small in a single transistor, you just need a few thousand ionizations in it to make it unusable.

      P.S. http://www.nlectc.org/training/nij2005/Conca.pdf - some interesting material there.

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    3. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's some info, relevant material pulled:

      "There are many different types of radiation effects, many of which cause both mechanical and electrical degradation. Mechanical defects consist of ones that cause properties of materials to be altered. For instance, such defects could alter the mechanical, optical, thermal and electrical properties of metals. Electrical degradation would physically occur during operation. Due to the accumulation of alpha particles, bits can be flipped during operation and cause system failure"

      There's more in-depth info out there, but most of the detailed stuff I was trying to access requires memberships in consortiums etc. I was a little surprised by the bitflipping.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

      Would the use of tubes in military equipment make it less susceptable to the effects of ionizing radiation? I have heard (more as a rumour) that some equipment in the military still uses tubes just for that reason. But to me ionizing radiation would also ionize the gas in the tubes...

    5. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by name773 · · Score: 2, Informative

      and beta radiation would interfere with the tubes, but that's not too hard to shield for.

    6. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny

      Another problem with tubes is that to accommodate the bulk of a tube-based control computer, the robot would have to be big enough to be cast as the villain in a bad Godzilla sequel.

    7. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by Scorillo47 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know, franly, but I am not sure about using tubes because as someone else pointed out, beta radiation (and gamma rays too) would ionize the rarefied gas inside the tube, therefore affecting the flow of electrons (in fact this is one of the principles behind various designs of radiation detectors). But probably it might work in some conditions.

      Another solution would be to use hardened semiconductors, with much bigger gates, etc. For example, in space you have cosmic rays (which, BTW are much more energetic than nuclear-generated gamma rays). NASA is using hardened electronic components which are able to withstand the random ionization generated by cosmic rays.

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    8. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Valves, as we call them over this side of the pond, are used in a lot of military radio equipment. They are also used for a lot of high power radio transmitters, but that's probably less to do with radiation hardening and more to do with performance. Semiconductors have a long way to go in the multi-kilowatt world...

    9. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by willgps · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My lab was involved a few years back with an high performance computing experiment with self-healing FPGA's after exposure to ionising radiation.

      They flew some off the shelf (non radiation hardened) FPGAs on the FedSAT-1 spacecraft.

      I was involved with a different (GPS) payload, but i believe the HPCE payload was able to successfully self-diagnose and correct single gate errors on the chip. (http://www.crcss.qut.edu.au/comp/hpce.pdf)

    10. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Well, in most tubes there is no "gas" to become ionized. That's why they are called VACUUM tubes.

      Any gas that was present would become ionized by the electrostatic field inside the tube, and would interfere with proper operation.

      Intense radiation fields will play havoc with proper operation of those tubes that contain gases, such as thyratrons, voltage regulators, etc.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    11. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      I never thought they have complete vacuum inside instead they probably have some traces of gas that when ionized would interfere with the flow of electrons. It seems though that one would need a lot more gamma rays to disrupt a vacuum tube operation than to discrupt a semiconductor.

    12. Re:Could Someone Please Explain This? by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      How exactly are electronics affected by this radiation?

      Well there are four types of nuclear radiation - you usually get only one or two of these, depending on the cause.

      Alpha particles are ionized helium nuclei - they are highly energetic and fast but lose speed quickly in air and do not penetrate solids. These do not affect unexposed electronics

      Beta particles are high speed electrons. These can penetrate thin shields and have an ionizing effect on materials. These could with enough exposure affect electronics by ionizing np gates and making them behave erratically

      Gamma particles are extremely energetic photons, X-rays are one category of Gamma particles (or, depending on whose classification you like, X-rays are similar to, but less energetic than, Gamma rays). Gamma radiation is penetrating and requires many feet of shielding to prevent. The plus side is this means that Gamma radiation is weakly interacting with materials - but some materials are less transparent that others... particularly, just as metal materials show up on medical X-rays, they tend to absorb Gamma rays. Whenever any conducting material absorbs a photon you can have a photoelectric effect - this photoelectric effect has a similar effect on electronics as beta radiation does

      Neutron - neutrons are emitted by a variety of nuclear processes, especially fission reactions. Neutron radiation is almost always man-made, except for a small amount of background radiation from naturally occuring fission, and the slightly larger amount of radiation from a naturally occuring fission reactor - of which we've only found evidence of one, and it formed and ran out of fuel not long after the earth itself formed. Neutrons are subatomic particles with no charge - they penetrate most materials easily, travelling in many cases several feet before colliding with an atomic nucleus. A neutron colliding with a nucleus can do all sorts of things; usually it increases the weight of the atom, making a new isotope. It will ionize atoms, especially smaller atoms whose weight is close to hydrogen-1, by knocking the nucleus around and seperating it from its electrons.

      isotopes tend to decay - resulting in secondary radiation such as alpha, beta, and gamma (depending on the exact isotope created - most elements only have one or two stable isotopes) - neutron exposed materials tend to be radioactive for some time. As they decay they tend to transmutate - becoming different materials due to the emission of alpha particles.

      They can also re-emit neutron radiation or fission, which transmutates an atom into two new elements and usually emits neutron, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. Neutron bombardment if accompanied by alpha radiation can cause transmutation of light elements through fusion - adding neutrons to a nucleus will increase the weak force, making the nucleus more likely to capture protons from alpha radiation.

      Neutron radiation is the most damaging to electronics as it not only can temporarily disrupt electronics through ionisation, but can transmutate materials - there are very few electronic components that continue to work after being transmutated. There is no other element than silicon that creates semiconductor junctions with the same chemistry, for instance. In addition, the residual radiation from neutron bombardment can cause long-term ionisation in electronic components that render them unusuable. It is not feasible in most non-fixed environments to provide adequate neutron shielding, as the amount of shielding required is generally far greater than the load bearing capacity of the device (think inchese or feet of steel or lead plating)

      There are other types of radiation, of course - the most noteworthy being neutrino, not for its effect, but for its lack of one - they are so weakly interacting that it takes miles of shielding to block it. But that means, of course, that they are so weakly interacting that they don't have much of an effect on electronics (or people for that matter)

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  4. hackers by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

    " Because the robot lacked a trigger finger to depress and release a drill control, the Sandia team stalked the aisles of local hardware stores, buying cordless drills and other equipment they modified into remotely operated drills, hooks, and grippers."

    Awesome, like a poor hardware hacker's dream... a big fat budget for using power tools in a manner inconsistent with their labeling. I think this is the fulfillment of a lot of engineer's reason for being engineers.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  5. What? by thesnarky1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The summary says "radiation-proof robot", but TFA says "Phil had estimated that the robot could remain ambulatory in the radiation field for only 50 minutes, and in fact the robot's lower portion was no longer responding to commands."

    I'ma call shenanigans on this one. And "making life easier for folks in the military?!" In ONE instance, this helped what happened to be a Military research plant. But the poster makes it seem like this'll win the war in Iraq. Seriously, this is a HORRIBLE scew to put on the article.

    Rant aside, I think this is very interesting problem solving. Especially the 10-foot poll bit. Just goes to show that technology can't win everything. Not by a long shot. Interesting problem, interesting solution, both very complicated.

    1. Re:What? by JWtW · · Score: 1

      "The summary says "radiation-proof robot", but TFA says "Phil had estimated that the robot could remain ambulatory in the radiation field for only 50 minutes, and in fact the robot's lower portion was no longer responding to commands."

      Perhaps it's just like a water-proof watch. Most of them are 'water-proof' to a defined amount of atmospheres. Everything has a limit.

      I agree with the rest of your post, though. I can't see this as any kind of holy grail, militarily speaking. A poster below suggested that it could be used in nuclear power plants. This might be a reasonable application. Well, now that I think about it, maybe this plucky little guy (I love that. You never hear 'plucky' used!) could be employed on our nuclear 'wessels'. That would be a military application. Never mind....

    2. Re:What? by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      Yea, I think it's radiation-proof as in radiation-RESISTANT. If a robot like this can only take 50 minutes, I'd assume that any other type of robot would just instantly be fried. Still though, the story is more about ingenious servicemen & women coming up with a good solution to a sticky problem, with the robot as a sidenote. This post could've just as easily been titled "Troops make radiation robot safer."

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    3. Re:What? by thesnarky1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Troops save troop-saving robot." Ohh... a paradox. Which saved first, the troops, or the robot?

    4. Re:What? by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      The troops saved the troop-saving robot so the robot could save troops to be saved by the troop saving robot - that is, any troops except for the troop-saving-robot-saving troops.

      Make sense?

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no radiation in iraq except the all tons of DU that US/Alliance have shot there. So there is no need for protection against radiation except against DU and US/Alliance knows where it is.

    6. Re:What? by Oldsmobile · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't this article ask the question, "why the hell do we something this incredibly readioactive just lying around"??!?!

      This is very troubling. I don't think Saddam would be allowed something this dangerous.

      --
      Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
    7. Re:What? by Cunk · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not "just laying around" and the article says exactly what it's for.

      --

      I am the inventor of the hilarious refrigerator alarm.
    8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stupid cunt. DU is not radioactive. The radioactive isotopes have been removed. Hence the "depleted". A DU sabot is less radioactive then a banana.

    9. Re:What? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Not at all. It wasn't just "lying around", it was normally kept in shielded storage. Buf you need to design equipment and electronics that are expected to function in a radioactive environment, you must test them in such an environment. That's all this facility was doing.

      My father at one point designed scintillation counter equipment for the U.S. military. The company he worked for had a heavily-shielded test chamber with a powerful radioactive source buried underneath. When needed for a test, the item to be tested was placed on a stand in the chamber, and then the source was lifted into place (hydraulic cylinder, if I remember right ... it's been over thirty years.) The system was well-designed and never had a problem.

      So the need for radioactive sources isn't particularly troubling ... it's poor mechanical design that allows the source to get stuck in its delivery tube that is troubling. The fact that the technicians mentioned in the article frequently had to apply overpressure to return the source to storage should have told someone that there was a problem.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    10. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially the 10-foot poll bit.

      Is that something Diebold built?

    11. Re:What? by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      Dyslexia strikes again

      Especially the 10-foot poll bit.

      I just spent about 30 seconds wondering how the US military managed to get a grotesquely huge savage dog, and what roll this gengineered dog might play in radioactive cleanup.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    12. Re:What? by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1
      *thwap* D'OH! Oh well, what can I say? I like dogs?

      My other tooth is a canine?

      I always use Pointer arithmatic in c?

      Sorry, those were bad but please, throw me a bone here, and give me a break.

    13. Re:What? by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      oh bad snarky bad snarky hahaha

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  6. Nuclear Power by Gryle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps this event will help set a new model for nuclear power plants. While nuclear power plants should not and probably could not be fully automated, deployment of similar robots could make nuclear power safer. Human contact with high levels of radiation could be reduced and the robots might be able to perform maintenance functions that humans could not.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    1. Re:Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bro, human contact with high level radiation is already reduced to an insane level. It's not like humans routinely play soccer with clumps of high level waste. There is a recipe called "time-distance-shielding" that has kept the average dose to a nuclear worker in the US less than 100 mrem/yr since 1980. To put this in context, the average dose to any person is 300 mrem/yr (200 mrem/yr due to radon gas). If you have an x-ray performed on you you get an additional 10-20 mrem. If you fly on an airplane you can get between 1-10 mrem.

      You are just touting a solution to a non-existant problem. While these robots may be useful for a nuclear accident on the scale of Chernobyl, they have no real use for normal operations (and wouldn't be useful for an accident like TMI where with an uncomprimised containtment, you could just wait for the radiation levels to drop).

    2. Re:Nuclear Power by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The cylinder normally arrived and departed through a metal sleeve, driven by pneumatic air. The method resembled that used by drive-up banks, where pneumatic air drives a cylinder containing transaction paperwork first one way and then the other.

      At White Sands, a pressure of approximately 20 psi was normally enough to move the container from its secure resting place to its forward exposed, or live, position; the same air pressure in the opposite direction sent it back. Over previous decades, on the rare occasions when the cylinder stuck, technicians had merely increased air pressure to send it on its way.

      But this problem was different. From the safety of their control room, technicians increased air pressure in steps until they had reached 50 times normal, or 1000 psi, but they could not budge the cylinder.

      ...

      ...Inspection revealed the problem: Forceful early attempts to blow the cylinder back apparently had bent the straight switch into a right angle...

      Idiots.

      Perhaps this event will help set a new model for operational safety. I can't believe how stupid those operators were. It never occurred to them to send out a fucking maintanence tech to inspect the mechanism and figure out why it was sticking?

      I seriously doubt that the manual (it's the DoD, you know they have a manual for this) included "up the PSI" as a way to resolve the issue.

      I don't think anyone should be fired over this, but i expect them to review all their procedures for problem solving with respect to their radioactive materials.

      /Rant

      As for nucleur power plants, I think it'd be best not to increase the use of remote robots. The more human inspection is required, the more shielding they have to use, which imho is a good thing.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Nuclear Power by hasdikarlsam · · Score: 2, Funny

      Send in a tech? With a high-intensity gamma source stuck nearby?

      Surely you must be joking.

    4. Re:Nuclear Power by thesnarky1 · · Score: 1

      Good point, got any interns?

    5. Re:Nuclear Power by fifth_power · · Score: 1

      "I can't believe how stupid those operators were. It never occurred to them to send out a fucking maintanence tech to inspect the mechanism and figure out why it was sticking?"

      They could not even approach the mechanism due to the radiation.

      So who is the idiot here?

    6. Re:Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For CANDU nuclear power plants http://www.candu.org/ , we use robotics to handle all the fuel that goes in or out of the reactor http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/refuel.jpg, http://canteach.candu.org/imagelib/00000-General/N PD_Reactor_Cutaway.pdf. Reliability and robustness are very important, which is why we eliminate most of the electronics on the fuelling machine itself. For instance, the fuelling machines are powered by two identical drives (which are therefore redundant) that control the different mechanisms through a gearbox and a series of electric clutches. The drive amplifiers are located far away out of the radiation fields.

      To ensure that the fuelling machines will work correctly and reliably is simple in concept--don't use electronics if you can help it, buy radiation-resistant components if you can't, and design with failures in mind. For example, pressure transmitters at http://www.emersonprocess.com/rosemount/nuclear/. Calculate the dose that each component will receive (most electronics can take about 10 000 rads, plastics vary a lot, and most metals are decent. Zirconium is the best) to determine if it will have a good enough lifespan. Therefore, motors themselves are good to go, conductive level probes are fine, limit switches are fine, etc. It's the semiconductor components that get damaged, but apparently you can design around it, because there are radiation-resistant cameras available. Shielding works but it's like using a bigger hammer--probably not the only or the best way to solve the problem. It's also heavy, making it harder to seismically qualify things.

      As an example of the sorts of design decisions made, gap sensing is done using pneumatics with remote electronics instead of proximity sensors, as might be used in a different industry.

      Even with careful design, the fuelling machines still get stuck from time to time, but there are many well-thought-out recovery methods. If worse comes to worst, you have to shut down the reactor to get the fuelling machine off the channel.

    7. Re:Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you are the idiot. The parent was refering to the failures over the previous *decades* that weren't repaired.

  7. Safety Precautions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My question is this: if the radiation is as dangerous as the article said, why did they manufacture a machine that could impede the movement of the cobalt(?) source? The designers would presumably want no impediment to the movement of the source, since it becoming stuck would cause disastrous effects (as the article stated). Either that, or a method of remotely exploding any locks/switches like that.

    Just my two anonymous cents.

  8. The RAP team by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
    The RAP team, as a precaution against this very circumstance, working with White Sands personnel had tied a rope to M2 before sending it into the work area.

    Then the RAP team started throwing up gang signs and rhyming insults against the enemy....

    1. Re:The RAP team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical Slashdot racist white crap, assuming every black person that listens to hiphop is a gang member.

    2. Re:The RAP team by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      WTF?

      I think that this was a joke on "gangsta" rap, which is sung by such gang members as Snoop Dogg (crips) and The Game (bloods).

    3. Re:The RAP team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the AC misread "White Sands personnel" as "white Sands personnel". As opposed to, say, black Sands personnel.

    4. Re:The RAP team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then the RAP team started throwing up gang signs and rhyming insults against the enemy....

      Typical Slashdot racist white crap, assuming every black person that listens to hiphop is a gang member.

      Racist? Maybe I'm stupid. Please educate me. What part of the parent post was racist?

    5. Re:The RAP team by name773 · · Score: 1

      alternatively, you may have been trolled (and the grandparent too)

    6. Re:The RAP team by helmespc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From wiki: "As Slashdot is a gathering ground for those interested in things technical, it is inevitable that a highly advanced sense of technical humor has arisen."

  9. Sounds like... by tfcdesign · · Score: 2, Funny

    A chapter of I, Robot.

    1. Re:Sounds like... by Gertlex · · Score: 1

      I was thinking along those lines too... Offhand, I'd say 'Run Around' would be the best match, perhaps. (Takes place on venus, robot stopped for various reasons, essential and tricky that robot be retrieved)

    2. Re:Sounds like... by tfcdesign · · Score: 1

      Yep - it was Runaround that I was thinking of.

  10. Uhmm... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did you read the article?

    1) The robot is not radiation proof.
    2) It was a pain in the ass.

    The story is that they fixed a situation with a robot. The robot didn't make life easier, it was necessary because humans couldn't approach the radiation source, even in protective clothing. It took 4 days to do, and the success was mostly due to shrewd hackery on the part of the team operating the robot.

    1. Re:Uhmm... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and there were now troops involved. These folks are all researchers.

    2. Re:Uhmm... by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article?

      Article? They have articles here on Slashdot? That couldn't possibly be! Curse you for wasting my time!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    3. Re:Uhmm... by mboverload · · Score: 0

      Also remember they have to then encase the robot in a protective sheild when it's done since it's still radioactive. Then they have to use a truck or such to dispose of the container, and then the truck needs to be encased since it's not radioactive, too. Don't forget anything else that even assisted.

      No, I'm not kidding.

    4. Re:Uhmm... by samureiser · · Score: 1

      I guess we've gotta give Zonk a break. He's posted an article every 40 minutes or so since 7:55am today (not including an extended lunch break). He's probably just tired and didn't give this latest article a full read-through.

      But we tolorate that here at Slashdot.

    5. Re:Uhmm... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's gamma radiation, they discuss that the robot is perfectly safe to handle after the bit.

    6. Re:Uhmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Also remember they have to then encase the robot in a protective sheild when it's done since it's still radioactive. Then they have to use a truck or such to dispose of the container, and then the truck needs to be encased since it's not radioactive, too. Don't forget anything else that even assisted.

      No, I'm not kidding.


      Yes you are, or you're an idiot. Explain to me a process by which gamma rays can activate an object. Hint: consider a gamma splitting deuterium to release a neutron which then goes on to activate other metals. Now tell me the energy of the gamma and which radioactive materials release gamma rays at that energy. Now add in the probability of activation (it is not a highly probable reaction) and the scarcity of deuterium (0.015% of hydrogen). Now describe the mean free path of the neutron (obviously there must have been a lot of water or highly hydrogen rich materials there for it to come from deuterium) and explain how the 'radiation' spreads.

      If you can do this and still keep a straight face, you are a f***ing idiot. Otherwise you were kidding.

    7. Re:Uhmm... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I would touch that robot with a 10 foot pole. ...

      Well, it was funny in my head.

    8. Re:Uhmm... by mennucc1 · · Score: 1

      1) The robot is not radiation proof.
      you must put everything in scale. (Given enough radiation, you can even shatter a 1 inch thick glass pane). The radiation they were dealing with was capable of killing an human being in half a minute; the arms of the robot operated for an hour and a half; so it was "radiation proof" enough for that task.

    9. Re:Uhmm... by rtz · · Score: 1

      Did you even bother to RTFA? Neutrons make irradiated matter radioactive, but gamma rays contaminate no more than ordinary light would.

      The cylinder encasing the cobalt didn't break, they just couldn't move it back inside it's shielding. As soon as they managed to get it back, you could return to the room and dance a polka or whatever.

  11. The future is here! by joemawlma · · Score: 0

    "...had tied a rope to M2 before sending it into the work area..."
    "...Using a ten-foot-long pole..."
    "...RAP team's winch then pulled the robot directly out..."


    We're getting awfully technical, aren't we?

  12. Re:there's really no need by kerplunk1984 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    LEFTIST mass media? no fucking WONDER you are posting as AC!

  13. -1: Troll by Swarfega · · Score: 1

    Strange Slashdot article - a particularly good effort on the part of the editors to disguise this story.

  14. where is my crowbar by russ1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

    All you need is a HEV suit and a Crowbar. Everyone knows that!

    1. Re:where is my crowbar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you need is a HEV suit and a Crowbar. Everyone knows that!

      You can just wear a VaulTec jumpsuit if you eat a couple of RadX pills. Use Radaway if you feel sick after the job. Just beware of getting addicted to this stuff.

  15. Question by Comatose51 · · Score: 3, Informative
    "Unfortunately, heat from the radiation source melted the plastic"

    So, how did they assemble this radiation source in the first place??? As an aside, radioactive cobalt bomb is VERY nasty and close to a doomsday weapon.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  16. I hate reading about stuff like this by jgartin · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The media always covers all these high tech devices that the military supposedley has. I spent 15 months in Iraq and never saw any kind of bomb disposal robot--although I saw a lot of bombs. Those unmanned recon planes are a myth, too. The troops don't have access to this stuff.

    Seriously, a military humvee looks like something an 8 year old built with an erector set. It's definately not where I'd want to be when an IED goes off. A real military vehicle would be armored. A real military vehicle would have the seats (except for the driver's) facing outward--so you can shoot at the bad guys.

    The government just wastes our tax money handing out big contracts to corrupt businesses. Then, they go to the media with stuff like this to try and convince us otherwise.

    1. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously, a military humvee looks like something an 8 year old built with an erector set. It's definately not where I'd want to be when an IED goes off. A real military vehicle would be armored. A real military vehicle would have the seats (except for the driver's) facing outward--so you can shoot at the bad guys.

      News flash.

      The Humvee is not intended for use as an APC or any sort of fighting vehicle. The Humvee is intended as replacement for the Jeep. It is not intended to be fought out of, it is intended as transport. If someone shoots at you while you are in it you may shoot back as you drive off but regarding it as a portable foxhole is foolish at best, utterly suicidal at worst.

      The fact that it is enclosed may be what is leading to the current misuse of the vehicle.

      If it was produced as a roofless vehicle then perhaps it would be more obvious that it is intended for use as transport only.

    2. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by twiddlingbits · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you are making this up, or else were an ignorant troop. Humvees ARE amored, just not to the level of surviving an IED made of 155mm rounds. They were meant to protect from small arms fire. Uparmored ones are being produced are in in country, just not as much as we would like. Not much except an Abrams is going to survive some of those IEDs.

      The unmanned recon planes (such as Predators) exist and are in use. They are painted to blend in almost perfectly with the sky, so you DON'T see them. They are not used too often as they cost a LOT of $$$ and we lose them ever so often (too often). Good recon can be had from other sources, HUMINT is often the best but is hard to get.

      Gov't contractors are NOT corrupt. Try working for one. There are incredible hurdles you have to jump thru to make certain all is above-board. And guess what, that costs money! When you have a whole staff of people doing Ethics Training that gets expensive, and each year every employee has to be re-trained to meet some stupid DOD mandate. Like someone forgets thier ethics each year and has to relearn them. The guys/gals in DC approve all the contracts, so if you think you are getting overcharged talk to them. They negotiate the deals and contractors rarely get the price they ask, often they get a lot less.

    3. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by radiotyler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Woah, calm down. I'm in Iraq. For the second time.

      We have these armored IED hunting vehicles. They save lives. And I guess things have changed in the HMMWV department too: ours have been up-armored. I don't want to down play your experience here in Iraq, but things are getting better everywhere, every day.

      -t

      --
      hi mom!
    4. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by Raul654 · · Score: 3, Informative

      About the unmanned planes - you're flat out wrong. A predator is built with mostly COTS parts, with a price-tag of $4.5 million - compared with the $300 million price tag of a manned fighter jet.

      --


      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
      --E.C. Stanton
    5. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by daraf · · Score: 2

      While there are many good examples of pork-barrel acquisition programs (military vehicles or otherwise), the HMMWV isn't one of them. It's meant to be a (better) replacement for the Jeep, not an APC.
      The erector-set look is probably a direct result of its requirement for logistical supportability and interchangeable components.

    6. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The media always covers all these high tech devices that the military supposedley has. I spent 15 months in Iraq and never saw any kind of bomb disposal robot--although I saw a lot of bombs. Those unmanned recon planes are a myth, too. The troops don't have access to this stuff.

      Based on this, I'm guessing you weren't in combat and probably not the military. Press corps?

      Just because you didn't see the UAV's or robots doesn't mean they don't exist. How many patrols they let you go out on?

      Overall, the military has more casualties from road accidents than from incoming fire. So it would be preferable to have seats facing forwards. It's not so hard to shoot from a vehicle. (It is hard to shoot accurately while you're moving.)

    7. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by JWtW · · Score: 2

      Troll--F*CKING--Troll.

      I hate you for comming here under the guise of being a Vet., and spewing your leftist propaganda--knowing that you would hit a soft spot. Your insensitive troll only undermines the work the 'real' troops are doing over there. They've been busting their asses, and yes there are equipment issues, manpower issues, and the basic fuckedupedness(tm) of the whole war, but don't come around and try to make your point as a what--Soldier, Marine, Sailor? Who the hell are you? Why are you posting that you've spent 15 months there? You post a whole lot of other shit, but nothing in the plethora of conversations on /. that needed the input of a ground-pounder. A moderately low UID too. What's your deal?

    8. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, the Interceptor vest each soldier wears is a great piece of technology. American troops also have night vision. MARPAT camo scheme is scientifically designed to hide troops in many conditions (nighttime, wet/dry on an infrared scope, etc.) A little radio call gets JDAMs or GPS-aimed artillery to drop onto an enemy sniper. And about tanks: there's a tradeoff between the weight and the armor. A heavily armored vehicle will move slower and may be shot more (and we hope it can take the extra punishment). A quicker though less armored vehicle can avoid unguided RPG fire (we hope) and can maneuver through alleyways that troops would otherwise have to clear by foot. (Blowing up the whole block is a war crime.) Having the seats face outward means little in the current battle conditions. RPG-armed enemies pop out for a second to get a shot off and then run away behind a corner or into a hole they had dug out. IEDs, well, you don't want to shoot at those at close range. Now, I'm not saying warfare is easy or harmless. I'm saying we have brought a heck of a lot of technology to bear to reduce the load.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    9. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty good, it only took 4 years!

    10. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by uberdave · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing that they're adding these to humvees. That way, soldiers don't have to see the sniper, the system tells them where the sniper is.

    11. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by IKillYou · · Score: 1

      "Gov't contractors are NOT corrupt."

      You mean contractors like Haliburton and MZM? Are you daft, or simply biased?

    12. Re:I hate reading about stuff like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually most Gov't Contracting companies are just greedy. They're in it for the money and quality of the service is always a second priority. Maybe not at the worker level, but definitely at the management level. Why do you think the govt has so many rules and regs with regard to contracting? It's because the contractors will screw the govt at the first opportunity. Don't worry about the ethics training, all the govt folks have to endure that as well. Contractors always get the price they ask (and usually run over). Perhaps you need to review the concept of an RFP and the bidding process?

  17. Badly Named Robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Mighty Mouse sounds like a inapropreate name for that robot, maybe they should call it Slowpoke Rodriguez.

  18. Re:And it runs FreeBSD!! Awesome! by b0lt · · Score: 1

    Informative? Are you kidding? Read the link. A well disguised shock site.

    --
    got sig?
  19. And this, folks... by Arivia · · Score: 3, Funny

    this is why the last rule of adventuring is "never forget your 10-foot pole".

    Only 2 sp at Anonymously Run General Store!

    --
    The role of the writer is not to say what we can all say, but what we are unable to say. -Anais Nin
  20. emphatic re-iteration by rheotaxis · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Article says: "The cause was a stuck cylinder the size of a restaurant salt shaker but considerably more deadly: Gamma rays from the cobalt-60 it contained could kill a man in half a minute."

    I have to ask...when did restaurants start serving salt that's only somewhat less deadly than cobalt-60?

    --
    Software freedom...I love it!
    1. Re:emphatic re-iteration by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never been attacked by a man with a salt shaker.

      Why back in my youth, anyone entering the restaurant business had to run a gauntlet. All the employees would line up on opposite sides of the restaurant and you'd have to sprint from the first table to the kitchen and back, while being pelted with salt and pepper shakers.

      It weeded out the weak 'uns mighty quick I tell you.

      Just so i'm not entirely offtopic, lots of various radioactive elements originate from the ground in the form of a 'salt' or can be turned into a 'salt' in the lab... plutonium, uranium, barium, strontium, thorium... that's just off the top of my head.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  21. This was a GAMMA source, not a neutron source by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is neutron flux that will activate non-radioactive materials, not gamma rays.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  22. Must a gamer on the team.... by thomkt · · Score: 1

    And I bet the rest of the party laughed at him for bringing a 10' pole along.

    - Kyle

  23. Everyone should carry a 10ft pole by addictedavi · · Score: 1

    As a PC, I always carry a collapsable 10ft pole. They're so useful!

    1. Re:Everyone should carry a 10ft pole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you carry it in your Bag of Holding...

  24. What "troops" by drgonzo59 · · Score: 2, Funny
    What are the troops they talk about. Did they mean the scientists at the Sandia Labs? I guess the geeks feel better when the are called troops...

    I can see the geeks saying:
    Yesterday our battalion configured Apache and rebuilt kernels all day.

  25. Nice design by parcanman · · Score: 1

    They say the plastic melted from the heat of the radiation, don't ya think they might have considered that the radioactive source woul probibly give off some heat when they built this thing?

    Maybe when you're building a robot designed to go into areas with severely large ammounts of radiation, it might be a good idea to put some kind of radiation shield onto the fucking thing, that's just a thought.

    I'd love to see how it saves the lives of all the troops who have to go after it with a 10 foot pole, why not just put the cordless drill on the end of the pole and save us taxpayers a few million?

    --
    Why lie when you can just make up stuff and claim it to be true?
    1. Re:Nice design by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      The plastic they are referring to was an attachment they rigged with parts from a hardware store, it's not something that was actually part of the robot. Plus, the radiation was from a high energy gamma source. Gamma is very very very hard to block, nearly impossible, it's very high frequency EM that can pass through just about anything. It takes extremely thick lead sheets, and even then that doesn't quite get all of it. The only reason that even works at all is because lead is extremely dense, and thus heavy...and the robot does have to be mobile also so there are compromises. Plus, any gamma that does get absorbed gets quickly turned into heat. Even protective suits wouldn't have helped people in the area much, it'd be like being stuck in a microwave. Frankly, I'm surprised that the robot's electronics were able to survive at all, it'd be like trying to operate a computer while it's in a microwave. It'd probably be theoretically possible to make a protective suit that someone could wear in such an environment, but it'd take so much lead and be so heavy that no person could actually wear it.

  26. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Funny
    and Love the Bomb

    DeSadeski: You've obviously never heard of cobalt thorium G.

    Turgidson: No, what about it?

    DeSadeski: Cobalt thorium G has a radioactive halflife of ninety three years. If you take, say, fifty H-bombs in the hundred megaton range and jacket them with cobalt thorium G, when they are exploded they will produce a doomsday shroud. A lethal cloud of radioactivity which will encircle the earth for ninety three years!

    Turgidson: Ah, what a load of commie bull. I mean, afterall...

    Muffley: I'm afraid I don't understand something, Alexiy. Is the Premier threatening to explode this if our planes carry out their attack?

    DeSadeski: No sir. It is not a thing a sane man would do. The doomsday machine is designed to to trigger itself automatically.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  27. Radiation Suits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Gamma rays from the cobalt-60 it contained could kill a man in half a minute. Its radiation field was too deadly for a human, even in a protective suit, to get near enough to free it.

    Having played my share of DOOM, I'm familiar with this limitation of radiation suits. The danger isn't that the suit won't protect you from the radiation. The problem is that you probably don't have enough time to put on the suit, run into the chamber, fix the problem and make your way out before the suit expires. You really don't want to still be in that room when your suit starts flashing.

  28. Re:And it runs FreeBSD!! Awesome! by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

    Dude, you must be new here.

    There's nothing at all 'well disguised' about the lemonparty website.

    Seriously, you must be new here. I'd forgive you if the given link was a redirect, but anyone who's been on /. since the good old days of GNAA and TrollKore knows about lemonparty, tubgirl, goatse and so on.

    I highly recommend you read wikipedia's entry on shock sites so that you don't get fooled again.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shock_sites

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  29. Radiation Robot by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

    Man, I love Radiation Robot. I've been collecting issues since #136. The 'Half-Life / Half-Death' storyline was just epic. Admittedly, I didn't hear about this crossover with the army, but it sounds like it ought to be interesting. I'll have the comic book store pull it for me asap.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  30. Salt can be deadly by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

    Oral toxicity (The Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, 1986):

            Human; TDLo: 12,357 mg/kg/23 D-C
    from http://www.saltinstitute.org/15.html see also http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/SO/sodium_chloride. html
    True to achieve this for a 75 kg man wold need almost a kg of salt (2.6 lbs) but if someone were to injest this much it would kill most people, although the second source puts the TDlo at 1000mg/kg that would put it at just about a lb and a half or three mcdonalds large fries. I imagine it would take less if it were directly injected, or if loaded into a shotgun...

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  31. Making life easier by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
    make life easier for folks in the military.

    You know what would make life easier for folks in the military? Demobilization.

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  32. Robot stuck in a deadly radiation zone? by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

    They should've just called him "Speedy."

  33. You missed the best one: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you leave enough room for my fist because I'm going
    to ram it into your stomach!

  34. Again, life imitates Tom Swift by Endgamer71 · · Score: 1

    Naturally, all this was predicted in Tom Swift and the Giant Robot...

  35. Dinochrome Brigade by uberdave · · Score: 2, Funny

    Give them a break. They're only using a Mark 2 Bolo. A Mark XXX Continental Siege Unit would clean up in Iraq: radiation schmadiation.

    1. Re:Dinochrome Brigade by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

      Gah, I was hoping you had some pictures linked. No one ever makes good renderings of bolos. Ah well.

      But yeah, we could definitely have used that in iraq.

      --
      ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
  36. No has asked yet... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    but am I the only one wondering just why on earth they were messing around with such strong radiation source in the first place and managed to get it stuck and spent some 21 days prannying about before they called in the robot...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:No has asked yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd have read the article, you'd see they called the robot in after only 3 days of alarms. The article then goes on to say that the RAP team took two weeks familiarizing themself with the situation and making preparations, and that it took another 4 days of actual effort using the robot to solve the problem.

  37. Non ionizing by mu22le · · Score: 1

    The actual problem should be with Non ionizing energy loss (NIEL) the can throw Si nuclei out of their place in the Si lattice and permanently damage it. The effect can be so large to lead to type inversion, a n-type semiconductor layer in a transistor becomes a p-type layer.

  38. This will be great... by Oldsmobile · · Score: 1

    ... for finally finding Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction!

    --
    Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
  39. best method by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 1

    For 'the troops' to be safe.... try getting along with eachother for starters.... Everybody will be a lot safer.

    1. Re:best method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *hits MarsDude in the face and kicks him in the balls*
      "Tell me more about this "getting along" idea of yours, it intrigues me"
      *sharpens knife*

      I'll tell you what makes people safer:
      - not automagically believing in the good intentions of others
      - not hanging around people that have nothing in common with you
      - not getting in the face of other people unnecessary
      - the ability to defend yourself in case you feel the need to
      - the freedom to not associate with others

      Although with these caveats and others I agree on "getting along" and something to this effect might hae been your point but the reason for this reply is that a lot of people seem totally ignorant of these important details.

  40. Space by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The electronics are affected so harshly that special chips are used on all the satellites. In particular, if they are leaving orbit. Rad-hard chips are special, which you can read as slow and expensive.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  41. morons ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    why are they still playing around with this stuff anyway?
    it's super dangerous!

    "Unfortunately, heat from the radiation source melted the plastic. "
    i wouldn't want to be alive after a nuclear world war, and i'm pretty
    sure you wouldn't want to be either, so screw you and your
    radiation proof circuits ...

    but then again .. that might not be the real reason they're playing
    around with this stuff in the first place ... tachions and and
    space-time displacment fields anyone?

  42. Really? I was thinking of I,Robot... by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know, the story where the robot was programmed wit a variation on the 3 directives where it would obey a rule unless it caused the robot harm, so it would go into the harmful zone, the cause robot harm rule would trigger, it would back out, the follow rule condition would reassert itself, and so on until the people got back into radio contact and told the robot that this mission needed to be done or the people would die.

  43. Well, there is no such thing as a PERFECT vacuum, by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    between the few residual gas molecules left after exhaust, and occluded gases liberated from the tube elements during service. This is why tubes contain a "getter" made of reactive metals (like barium, cesium, zirconium, and the like) to adsorb stray gases.

    The key is to keep the mean free path longer than the distances between the active elements. The larger the tube gets, the better the vacuum generally must be.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  44. Planetfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone tell Floyd that, at last, it is safe to enter the Radiation Lab.

  45. Re:What? Men and women? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HELL YEAH!!! FINALLY someone with some SENSE around here!!!

    support GNAA