Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A New Workhorse For DARPA

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the but-can-it-transform dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "Later this month, Carnegie Mellon University and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) will unveil the successor of the Spinner, a 7-ton unmanned robotic vehicle. Dubbed Crusher, this new 6.5-ton robot will be able to carry payloads of up to 2 tons on very complex terrains. Crusher will rely on surrounding sensors to keep its balance and learn about its environment. After intensive testings, it should start to perform its duties in 2008. Read more for additional details and pictures of Spinner and Crusher in action." However, I can see they have not yet performed the test of having Sigourney Weaver fight a hitchhiking alien with it, which is obviously crucial to our national defense.

85 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. the more things change... by prgrmr · · Score: 1

    Crusher will rely on surrounding sensors to keep its balance and learn about its environment.

    The more they stay the same!

  2. Interesting, but... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can they transform and combine to form Devastator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructicons yet?

  3. From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    "The future of war will be unmanned."

    What I think they mean is,
    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.
    1. Re:From TFA by Mr+Pippin · · Score: 1

      And if the controlling system HAPPENS to be "Skynet", I can forsee what the next generations of these robots will look like, too.

    2. Re:From TFA by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Actually the future of war will be rooms full of teenagers remotely controlling thousands of semi autonomous vehicles, ground, sea, and air, to achieve victory on the battle field. Ender's Game http://www.ender.com/ender/ describes such a future.

      Of course the real reason for developing such robots will initially be to reduce the number of troops needed to support the front line troops. Typically it requires a large number of support troops for each combat troop on the front line. By reducing the number of support troops needed you free up people that can be put on the front line. This will become a bigger issue as fewer people are opting to volunteer for duty. After that we start pushing AI enabled vehicles directly into combat. The big issue with doing that is how do you clearly identify an enemy target? With the kind of wars being fought today you can not specify a particular uniform as a target. And you don't want one of these vehicles to go off on your own troops in the field. The simple solution is to use these as area denial weapons, kind of like smart mines. Instead of lying inert in the ground like a typical mine these actively patrol and seach out targets in a defin ed area. Anything in the box is a target. Reminds of the movie Screamers http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114367/.

      Ultimately though real boots will have to be put on the ground to take and hold an area.

    3. Re:From TFA by gfxguy · · Score: 1
      The Department of Defense has announced its recruiting and retention statistics by the active and reserve components for the month of March.

      All of the active duty branches met or exceeded their recruiting goals for the month. On the reserve side, only four of the six reserve services met their monthly recruiting goal.

      Source: About.com

      So fewer people are opting for duty in the reserves, but more people are signing up for active service.
      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:From TFA by mtaff · · Score: 1

      This is not really about reducing the number of support troops. This machine will require more mechanics and technicians than the 2-1/2t truck it would replace. This is more about keeping the support troops in the rear areas, where they are safer.

      Fewer troops exposed to risk == fewer dead, wounded, or maimed troops.

  4. Re:Spiner, Crusher? by thewrathoffluffy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one welcome our...

    ...ah nevermind... There's no way this can be marked +5 Funny anymore...

  5. Pic by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 3, Funny

    Here's a pic of the robot in action

    --
    Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    1. Re:Pic by Minwee · · Score: 2, Funny

      I liked the original look better.

    2. Re:Pic by GoodOmens · · Score: 1

      Haha that makes me wonder if the creator was a Futurama fan.

  6. Oddly ironic by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Spiner and Crusher are obviously takeoffs on the actors and characters of Star Trek the Next Generation. Brent Spiner playing Lt. Cmdr Data and Gates McFadden playing the ever-luscious Dr. Beverly Crusher.

    How ironic, then, that these unmanned war machines fly in the face of the famous Star Trek TOS episode A Taste of Armageddon where the inhabitants of a planet who have been at war with each other for 500 years have simply learned to accept casualty-less war as normal life. The people who have been selected to die go to their death chambers and are peacefully snuffed out. No one has the will to stop fighting because no one really gets hurt.

    How much lower will our resolve to make peace be when the cost to ourselves in a war is insignificant? When we count our casualties by the amount of toys broken than the number of lives lost?

    Fuck these guys. War should be fought by people. It should be a horrific ordeal and one that is not entered into lightly. Making decisions based on the knowledge that there are no repercussions is tantamount to driving down Route 66 with a blindfold. Maybe you'll miss everything in the road. However the more likely outcome is that you'll kill everyone out there and evenutally yourself. This type of weapon makes America more unsafe, more prone to domestic terrorism, and more likely to get involved in other frivolous wars.

    1. Re:Oddly ironic by prgrmr · · Score: 1

      This type of weapon makes America more unsafe, more prone to domestic terrorism, and more likely to get involved in other frivolous wars.

      So you were there for the explanation they gave Dubbya on this?

    2. Re:Oddly ironic by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there will be lots of human enemies to make the war horrific enough provided this technology is successful.

    3. Re:Oddly ironic by generic-man · · Score: 2, Informative

      The robot in question is named Spinner, not "Spiner." Both of the linked articles say so; it's just the article submitter that put in the accidental Star Trek TNG reference.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    4. Re:Oddly ironic by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Never mind. The submitter got it right. It's just a few knee-jerk commenters that confused "Spinner" with "Spiner."

      --
      For more information, click here.
    5. Re:Oddly ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
      - George S. Patton

    6. Re:Oddly ironic by truckaxle · · Score: 2, Informative

      How much lower will our resolve to make peace be when the cost to ourselves in a war is insignificant?

      Cost? What cost? At the start of the last war we even got a tax break. We put the cost onto our children. Thats the way to fund a war - no pain just cool video clips on the tube.

      The current cost of the iraq war is sitting around $270 x 10^9. That is around a $1000 bill for each citizen or about $22,500 per tax payer! I think before the start of any war it should be a law that the cost should be projected and be paid by the current generation in a reasonable time span.

      If our illustrious leader presented the case for war along with the very real financial cost and let people know that taxes will increase by $3000 for the next ten years we would have looked a little harder at the "case for the war" and the evidence presented and been a little more pissed to learn it was cooked.

      Also keep in mind some citizens and families pay the ultimate price. I think every should share some of the pain and public interest in the performance of those conducting the war would be a little more critical.

    7. Re:Oddly ironic by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ...and Gates McFadden playing the ever-luscious Dr. Beverly Crusher.

      I just could never get interested in Dr. Crusher. She just didn't ever seem...foxy.

      How ironic, then, that these unmanned war machines fly in the face of the famous Star Trek TOS episode A Taste of Armageddon

      So...you're saying that unmanned vehicles shouldn't be used in war because of...a TV show? I'm sure I'm missing some of your logic here.

      ..where the inhabitants of a planet who have been at war with each other for 500 years have simply learned to accept casualty-less war as normal life.

      Almost the opposite. It wasn't well-explained in the show, but what the people were doing was accepting a war without wounded, and without damage to property. There most definitely were casualties. In fact, the crisis was precipitated by Kirk when the foxy chick was declared a casualty, and he was unwilling to accept that.

      No one has the will to stop fighting because no one really gets hurt.

      On the contrary. The casualties all got hurt. The reason they were unwilling to stop the war is because they didn't realize that the other side would find a return to a shooting war as undesirable as they, themselves, did. They thought that if they stopped the booths, the other side would start shooting real munitions instead of simulated ones.

      How much lower will our resolve to make peace be when the cost to ourselves in a war is insignificant? When we count our casualties by the amount of toys broken than the number of lives lost?

      I'm having a little trouble discerning the problem here. Suppose two countries decided to draw high card instead of have a war. Loser has to offer unconditional surrender. To quote Jacopo, "How is this a bad plan?" Oh, it's not horrific enough? You have to kill millions of people, wound three-millions, and destroy lots of stuff first? And then you can surrender?

      Making decisions based on the knowledge that there are no repercussions is tantamount to driving down Route 66 with a blindfold. Maybe you'll miss everything in the road.

      I'm drinking a glass of ice water right now, based on the knowledge that there are no repurcussions. So far I haven't hit a soul.

      -Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    8. Re:Oddly ironic by BodhiCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, Iraq is not a very cost effective war, as was also Vietnam. The Second World War, while more costly in material and lives did gain the U.S. acess to world resources and markets. If Iraq was the quick Blitzkrieg that Rumsfeld though it would be, despite the critics, then it might have been cost effective in terms of resouces gained (oil) and world prestige. Instead we are stuck in another quagmire in a country where enough of the poplulation is against us to support a strong rebellion. IANDG, but if I was a U.S. military general I would be calling for his resignation also.

    9. Re:Oddly ironic by stg · · Score: 1
      The current cost of the iraq war [nationalpriorities.org] is sitting around $270 x 10^9. That is around a $1000 bill for each citizen or about $22,500 per tax payer! I think before the start of any war it should be a law that the cost should be projected and be paid by the current generation in a reasonable time span.


            While I agree with you on principle, what will happen is just what the other reply said - all wars will just be presumed to be trivial, fast and cheap, both on purpose to gain popular support and through the cluelessness of the country's leaders.
    10. Re:Oddly ironic by chris+macura · · Score: 1

      I don't think you realize just how confusing this is to someone who has never seen star trek. (this is from star trek, right?).

      So what exactly is going on? There is a simulated fight between two different sides (say Axis vs. Allies, circa 1943), that no one gets hurt in? How then can there be casualties? People are totally killed, rather than just "scratched"?

      There must be a wikipedia entry on this.

      Thanks in advance.

    11. Re:Oddly ironic by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      The current cost of the iraq war [nationalpriorities.org] is sitting around $270 x 10^9. That is around a $1000 bill for each citizen or about $22,500 per taxpayer

      Soooo, wait a sec... only one citizen in 22 or so pays taxes?? Methinks you forgot to carry a one.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    12. Re:Oddly ironic by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Fuck these guys. War should be fought by people. It should be a horrific ordeal and one that is not entered into lightly. Making decisions based on the knowledge that there are no repercussions is tantamount to driving down Route 66 with a blindfold. Maybe you'll miss everything in the road. However the more likely outcome is that you'll kill everyone out there and evenutally yourself. This type of weapon makes America more unsafe, more prone to domestic terrorism, and more likely to get involved in other frivolous wars.

      This argument stinks. You first argue "there's no repercussions", then you argue that there still are repercussions. I don't actually disagree here. Most wars start because someone thought they would make a huge gain through war. Most wars end because those people were wrong.

      I don't actually see robotics being that useful in war. The problem is that they are currently are expensive. While that's not necessarily going to remain that way, it's worth noting that US military equipment has been progressively getting more expensive ever since the end of the Second World War (and perhaps long before that). I think this is due to the influence of defense contractors who get higher profit margins on expensive equipment. What it means though is that the US military is getting saddled with equipment that is expensive to use and break.

      When the enemy can't hit back, then it's not too bad. But when they can, then the pricy equipment actually restricts US options. Vandalism becomes an effective military tactic. If a little kid with a small amount of explosives or concentrated battery acid could do several million dollars of damamge, then that's going to change the equation of war for the US. Even if no one dies.

    13. Re:Oddly ironic by mrisaacs · · Score: 1

      The episode in question involved two races in the same solar system who had been at war for 500 years. The war was waged by computer, with casualties calculated based on simulated damage. Those individuals deemed to have been killed were notified and they voluntarily stepped into disintegration booths.

      Aside fron the death of individuals - there was none of the horror or destruction usually associated with conflict and therefore no desire to end the war. Each side was afrain that if they stopped the "game" the other would retaliate with real weapons.

      Also the gp had one mistake - the crisis was precipitated when the Enterprise - in orbit around the planet over the objections of the inhabitants, was deemed to have been destroyed in an attack. The natives ordered Kirk to have his people beam down so they could be disintegrated. The foxy chick (usual feature of ST) was a casualty on the ground.

      The gp was right in that the ggp had it wrong - the war contniued despite the loss of life, because there was no physical discomfort for the survivors, No mess, no destruction/dislocation.

      --
      ...carrier dead.....
    14. Re:Oddly ironic by guru8376 · · Score: 1

      No thats a quote from Jack O'neill. :)

      --
      ~Should i be worried when the real world starts lagging?
    15. Re:Oddly ironic by gatzke · · Score: 1

      But if you compare the current gulf war to stats on previous engagements, it is still a minor effort.

      http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

      Economic costs more than GWI but about half of Vietnam and similar to Korea, nothing compared to WWII. That page has 1990s dollars, so we are off by a decade.

      Also, a lot of the money spent goes to rebuilding efforts I believe. Think of it as military costs plus the Marshall plan.

      As for casualties and people engaged, GWII is a minimal effort.

      The scariest part of your post is that there appear to be 23 people for every tax payer. That is crazy, but probably true in the US.

    16. Re:Oddly ironic by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck these guys. War should be fought by people. It should be a horrific ordeal and one that is not entered into lightly. Making decisions based on the knowledge that there are no repercussions is tantamount to driving down Route 66 with a blindfold. Maybe you'll miss everything in the road. However the more likely outcome is that you'll kill everyone out there and evenutally yourself. This type of weapon makes America more unsafe, more prone to domestic terrorism, and more likely to get involved in other frivolous wars.

      What do you want, a baseball game? 'Cuz if it's not an even match, it won't be "fair," right? Wrong. If you're going to fight a war and you give a shit about concepts like what's fair, you're already teeing yourself up for a loss.

      Like many modern military advances, the idea of this vehicle is deterrence through overwhelming technological superiority, so that our *enemies* think twice before doing their little evil deeds. US airborne drones, while not autonomous, have been so effective that everyone -- even the Palestinians -- are trying to copy them. An added bonus is saving friendly lives, and in this case, with US convoys being a primary target in Iraq, many of us think this technology can't be deployed fast enough.

    17. Re:Oddly ironic by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Following that logic, we should not only continue to use manned supply trucks, but they should have defensive measures like armor removed to ensure that every supply run risked sufficient suffering.
      I can see trying to sell THAT to my troops! "Airman Snuffy, it's your day to be a designated casualty, er, I mean drive the supply truck.... Be assured that your heart-wrenching suffering as you are immolated by an IED blast will give the folks back home pause as they contemplate the consequences of this war."

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    18. Re:Oddly ironic by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      yup, there probably not a Star Trek reference (and if there was it'd make more sense to be Wesley Crusher, the one that was involved in a billion plot segments with Data).

      Spinner surely refers to the fact that it moves around wildly because they can't get the controls corrected, and Crusher refers to what inevitably happens when they try to move it around objects

    19. Re:Oddly ironic by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      There must be a wikipedia entry on this.

      Yes

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    20. Re:Oddly ironic by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Don't you have 10 kids? It's hip.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    21. Re:Oddly ironic by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      The scariest part of your post is that there appear to be 23 people for every tax payer. That is crazy, but probably true in the US.

      You forgot the 22 million illegal aliens in the country. They typically don't pay taxes. So they account for a large part of the number of people that don't pay.

    22. Re:Oddly ironic by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      What do you smoke? when has a leader EVER in the history of the US ever remained honest and told the people how much something costs.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    23. Re:Oddly ironic by chris+macura · · Score: 1

      Coolies, thanks.

    24. Re:Oddly ironic by chris+macura · · Score: 1

      thanks!

  7. Just a pic? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a movie

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  8. The DARPA Grand Challenge by a_nonamiss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am wondering how much of this technology is adapted from technology created for the DARPA Grand challenge? There are some interesting connections there, notable the involvement of Carnegie Mellon University. They didn't win the DARPA challenge, but they seemed to be the favorites from the outset, and took second and third place. I know that they are known for their robotics department, but did they work with DARPA as a result of thier participation in the Grand Challenge? Anyone have any insight on this?

    --
    -Arthur
    Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    1. Re:The DARPA Grand Challenge by lbrandy · · Score: 1

      I know that they are known for their robotics department, but did they work with DARPA as a result of thier participation in the Grand Challenge? Anyone have any insight on this?

      CMU and its Robotics Institute has worked with DARPA long before the Grand Challenge, and will likely continue to work with them long into the future.

    2. Re:The DARPA Grand Challenge by badonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Preface: I'm a CMU student, and have worked on this specific project. --

      This project has always been kept separate from the grand challenge. Spinner/Crusher are brought to us by CMU's NREC (National Robotics Engineering Center), while the RedTeam is responsible for CMU's involvement in the Grand Challenge. We never had communication or shared technology with the RedTeam.

      It would be rather unfair to the Grand Challenge if years of DARPA funded research/development (like Spinner/Crusher) were used to win a DARPA sponsored competition. And I can say with confidence that Spinner/Crusher would have dominated the Grand Challenge. The resources at NREC's disposal can't be matched by a (mostly) volunteer group of students.

      In short, CMU's contract with DARPA was established well before the Grand Challenge - the Spinner/Crusher research/development began several years ago. I'm flattered you think we're good enough to throw this together as a result of the Grand Challenge, though ;)

    3. Re:The DARPA Grand Challenge by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      Great. That's exactly the insight I was looking for. I didn't really think that something like the Spinner/Crusher robot could be thrown together in a year, but I was interested to know the connection between these two entities. Whether they shared technologies, and whether the DARPA Grand Challenge technology was used for the military projects. (Since that was the stated goal of the Grand Challenge in the first place)

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    4. Re:The DARPA Grand Challenge by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      I read an article in wired about the pretty spiffy, learning, video processing algorithm the Grand Challenge bot used. Not sharing technology seems kind of limiting to me.

      When are you going to mount a gun on this robot?

      Can they be produced cheaply? (are the computers just ruggedized PCs? can the sensor packages be obtained for a reasonable price per vehicle)

    5. Re:The DARPA Grand Challenge by badonkey · · Score: 1

      Not sharing technology seems kind of limiting to me.

      Your comment is based on the assumption that the research/techniques/algorithms used on these vehicles doesn't already match/surpass what was implemented by students as an extra-curricular project. Here's a bit of background:

      Before Spinner was deployed, there were two separate projects at NREC:

      1) PerceptOR - a project devoted to development of advanced processing/sensing techniques on autonomous vehicles
      2) UGCV - (Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle) a project devoted to exploring physical constraints & developing the mechanics of the system.

      These two projects were combined to form UPI (UGCV + PerceptOR Integrated), and gave birth to Spinner/Crusher. As such, these vehicles already achieved very high levels of sophistication prior to the Grand Challenge. That said, it wouldn't exactly be permissible for NREC to donate years of semi-private research to RedTeam. Plus, they did just fine on their own. (Many RedTeam participants performed their research for course credit. Why eliminate the learning experience?)

      In terms of mounting weapons, that's the military's call. CMU builds vehicles that meet certain payload specifications. What is done with the platform we develop is entirely up to the military.

      DARPA probably wouldn't be too thrilled if I ranted about technical design decisions or specific sensors, so to be safe I think I'll leave it up to them to disclose what they deem fit. Sorry.

    6. Re:The DARPA Grand Challenge by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Well, the wired article indicated the algorithm was a breakthrough. (the software 'learns' what objects shaped a certain way look like in the distance, hundreds of thousands of times)

      It wouldn't be the first time a few students from an elite school beat out a better funded project with a clever approach or algorithm. THEIR software won a contest against a lot of competitors, and made it across the desert. Is it better? It seems reasonable to speculate it might be. Apple has a lot few programmers and a smaller budget than Microsoft....

      As I recall, Yahoo and Altavista had their hardware and algorithms working for years before some punks from Stanford made google.

    7. Re:The DARPA Grand Challenge by badonkey · · Score: 1

      Apple has a lot few programmers and a smaller budget than Microsoft....

      Apple also based OSX on a research variation of Unix developed at CMU and in doing so kept their actual contributions down. Those "few programmers" didn't come close to taking the project from start to finish. Poor example, but I do appreciate your point.

      THEIR software won a contest against a lot of competitors, and made it across the desert.

      RedTeam may have won a public contest (er... second and third place?), but DARPA has been testing Spinner/Crusher privately on military bases for quite some time now - and often on more difficult terrain (who needs a path?). NREC has developed an incredibly reliable platform that exceeded DARPA's wildest expectations and it has been extensively tested. That being said, if there really are better algorithms now available, perhaps that's something that will appear in v3.0.

      In short, maybe RedTeam's software is a breakthrough. I'm certainly not going to discredit/give praise to their work without reviewing it personally (unlike the Wired author). I fully agree with you that brilliance often comes in small packages - that's part of what keeps the frontiers of technology so exciting. And I'm VERY proud of what my peers who were a part of RedTeam accomplished. Being surrounded by these people on a daily basis is really something I'm going to miss.

    8. Re:The DARPA Grand Challenge by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Thank you. The point of my post was not to point to specific technology, but the fact that the history of innovation and technology is positive choc full of examples where the smaller, less funded, sometimes flat out discredited scientists or engineers create something far better than the 'bigger' team. Microsoft seems like a smoking gun example because according to the news, they have the largest programming budget in the world. They also headhunt a ton of top programmers, and their management style is supposed to be based around their coders. They are also supposed to eat their own dog food. Yet their software sucks. It is complicated, yet it doesn't ever seem to have that specialized feature you actually NEED, but it has a shitload of useless ones. It tries to hold your hand yet often just screws up. They write programs that when doing features that have been around for decades can slow 3ghz machines down to a trot. Their word processing program shouldn't eat advanced processing power when it is only doing what word perfect for windows did 10 years ago, basic spelling and grammar checks and WYSIWYG presentation. It should load instantly.

  9. Consumer Version by VJTod · · Score: 2, Funny

    Uh... So when are we going to see a consumer version of this beast? Ala, the Jeep and the Hummer.

    1. Re:Consumer Version by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Uh... So when are we going to see a consumer version of this beast? Ala, the Jeep and the Hummer.

      Right about the time the market figures out that consumers want a 6-ton robot pickup truck the same way they want a utility/vanity off-road automobile.

      In other words, right about the time we're going to see consumer versions of the five-ton truck and the main battle tank.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  10. Awww, c'mon! by Trelane · · Score: 2, Funny
    Spinner and Crusher in action
    Am I the only one wishing they'd paint the latter one pink, give it a big feather boa, and call it "The Crushinator"?
    --

    --
    Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
  11. Robots by certel · · Score: 1

    And so it begins. Who's putting bets on judgement day? ;)

    --
    [%] Cingular Ringtones
  12. Wesley by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    I hear it's nickname is "Wesley" - it's kind of annoying while at work, but a really nice guy when not working.

  13. The Great Robot Race by gasmonso · · Score: 1

    Here's a good resource for Darpa's unmanned vehicle race: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darpa/

    http://religiousfreaks.com/
  14. How long till they are armed? by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being able to transport items combat troops is definitely going to be a major use for these machines so I have to ask the question. How long before they are armed? After all if you can just shoot it up it pretty much negates its use, if it can target and return fire that would aid the mission. Of course if you can defend yourself you can be offensive.

    This would not only be useful in "declared zones" but undeclared humanitarian ones as well. Think of a place like Dafur (who everyone refuses to allow combat troops to go to - NATO was told no as well) where you have militants who would definitely intefere with aid packages.

    Machines like this could also be equipped to go places too hazardous or just generally inaccessible by normal means. Drop one or two off in the remote areas for monitoring of conditions... If they could survive forest fires they could be used to rescue smoke jumpers who get in trouble or deliver supplies over logging roads through already burning areas.

    One of the few times automating transport is harder for ground based versus air based.

    On another note, how long before some developer decides to make them look closer to some famous movie machines?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:How long till they are armed? by Jonboy+X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being able to transport items combat troops is definitely going to be a major use for these machines...

      Quick question: If they're already being used for moving troops...why bother having it drive itself? I could see how drive-by-radio might potentially be unreliable if you think your enemy will somehow jam your control signals, but if your vehicle's already full of people, why not just make one drive the thing?

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    2. Re:How long till they are armed? by ravenwing_np · · Score: 1

      How long till they are armed? Do a google or wikipedia search for Future Combat Systems and you'll find out all that there is to know about the timeline. Look for key words like Armed Ground Vehicle. That might give you the first hint as to what they will be doing.

    3. Re:How long till they are armed? by raduf · · Score: 1



              One definite advantage over human-driven vehicles is that it could hibernate indefinitely. If they get the price down enough you could parachute 1-200 of these in a troubled spot and have them hide as best as they can (not too much, the point is to know they're there after all). And then wait for somebody to make a wrong move. If they get low on fuel they'll simply drive to the nearest base (preferably without freaking out civilians). If they're driven remotely they can probably safely use normal roads, especialy at night.
      This could really change the ideea of peacekeeping. And of course they'll be armed eventually, look at Predator.

          Heh... throw in some solar panels and let them make hidrogen from air humidity and they'll give some trouble to future archeologists :p

    4. Re:How long till they are armed? by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      I believe the OP intended to say "Being able to transport items to combat troops is definitely going to be a major use for these machines...". That's what these are supposed to be used for, anyway- the most vulnerable and costly part of an army is its supply lines. Replacing human-driven supply lines with these would allow the drivers and other personnel associated with the supply lines to be moved to the front lines, or wherever else they were needed. You could also expend a lot less resources on protecting these because they don't have humans on board to worry about.

    5. Re:How long till they are armed? by pdhenry · · Score: 1

      I have to ask the question. How long before they are armed?

      You man like this?

    6. Re:How long till they are armed? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      At 6.4 tons, they don't need to be armed. They can just run people over. Scary.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  15. Only a matter of time... by Jonboy+X · · Score: 1

    Wow! With an unmanned behemoth like that, we'll find bin Laden in no time!

    I wish there were a check box on my taxes that said, "Don't spend my tax money on military BS."

    --

    "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    1. Re:Only a matter of time... by Mr+Pippin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish there were a check box on my taxes that said, "Don't spend my tax money on military BS."

      Not withstanding that the Legislative and Executive branches would NEVER relinquish such power, I would normally criticize such a move. Primarily, it would esculate to groups demanding THEIR favorite despised branch of the government include "opt out" funding on that same tax form.
      The initial results of that would likely be agencies spending YOUR tax money on advertising on why THEY should recieve a percentage of your taxes.
      Now, if you could not only "opt out" of funding those branches, but also get that money back, that would be pretty interesting to watch.
      Bahhhh! They'd still find a way to get their money.

    2. Re:Only a matter of time... by Jonboy+X · · Score: 1

      Not withstanding that the Legislative and Executive branches would NEVER relinquish such power

      Yup, idle Monday morning daydreaming...

      I would normally criticize such a move.

      I believe you're criticizing it right now. No need for the hypothetical.

      Primarily, it would esculate to groups demanding THEIR favorite despised branch of the government include "opt out" funding on that same tax form.

      We've already got a form of that. People protest wars, they complain about where their taxes go. This way, if you're anti-abortion you don't pay the government to provide 'em. If you're anti-war you don't pay your government to fight them.

      The initial results of that would likely be agencies spending YOUR tax money on advertising on why THEY should recieve a percentage of your taxes.

      They already spend plenty of money promoting themselves internally within the government. I'm no expert, but I think the belt-tightening that goes along with real accountability might offset any "advertising" they felt was necessary to make sure people knew they were doing a good job.

      Now, if you could not only "opt out" of funding those branches, but also get that money back, that would be pretty interesting to watch.

      I'm pretty sure most people would just keep the money to reduce their tax load given the choice.

      Bahhhh! They'd still find a way to get their money.

      Yeah, but we might as well let them know that at least some of us are still paying attention.

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    3. Re:Only a matter of time... by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      While this robot is not essential to our goal of capturing Bin Laden or disabling his networks directly, you must remember that every operation "over there" requires an extremely long logistics line.

      Invariably, all operations that this unmanned cargo hauler enhances, speeds up, or makes more reliable will improve the military's overall flexability and move us closer to a totally network-centric wartime solution. A solution that will eventually yeild Bin Laden and combats terrorism much more effectivly than any previous war strategy.

      Not to mention the move from military to commercial channels. All military inventions throught history have benefitted society in some way (though it may be obscure) such as the fly-by-wire technology that allows for commercial jets to perform with more percision and more reliability. Imagine for a second that the flying wing shape of the B2 bomber was translated to a commercial jet (once proper methods of pressurizing it is devised) that will allow for greater passenger and cargo capacity, more leg room for you, and it'll still fit in the same wing length of the original jet. While perhaps the previous example is a bit oversimplified and starry-eyed (more weight requires stronger/more engines,) I don't think you can deny the eventual benefit mass automation of US cargo land transport would provide towards lowering costs (and therefore price) and improving overall logistics.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
  16. Link to Video by Compile+'em+all · · Score: 1

    Here is a direct link to the video of Crusher in action http://www.rec.ri.cmu.edu/projects/ugcv/videos/ind ex.htm

    1. Re:Link to Video by pdhenry · · Score: 1

      Actaully, I think that's Spinner....

  17. Unmanned Transport by Beefslaya · · Score: 1

    This would be a great step toward unmanned equipment transport between Hot Zones.

    Pre-planned combat information would be set and you could send this bad boy into battle to deliver supplies to front lines, carry out casualties, or even deliver pizza to the newly taken neighborhood.

    I know I'll get whacked for this last comment, but here goes:

    War is a fact of life, it will never go away, so quit whining. However, we can create things like this to minimize losses (to both our troops and enemies).

    An excellent use of technology.

  18. Is it capable of launching a nuclear weapon? by cloneofsnake · · Score: 2, Funny

    If not, we can't call it Metal Gear yet. (Which means FOXHOUND won't highjack it and the DARPA chief is safe till then.)

  19. Brilliant idea. Not. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Only if I get a box to check that says "Please spend all of my tax dollars on giant killer robots, and none of it on educating poor people or any other pansy shit."

    Seriously -- that's not a road you want to go down. Given a choice, I think a lot more people will put their money towards Things That Go Boom instead of rather boring stuff like education, libraries, or highway maintenance.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Brilliant idea. Not. by Jonboy+X · · Score: 1

      Given a choice, I think a lot more people will put their money towards Things That Go Boom instead of rather boring stuff like education, libraries, or highway maintenance.

      If you assume that the majority of the population doesn't know what's best for itself, you might as well just abandon Democracy right now. As it stands, we already elect leaders who promise to blow shit up rather than spending our taxes on things that improve our standard of living. This just cuts out the middle man.

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
  20. Pak chooie unf by CamShaft · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do not trust the crusher robot
    He is malfunctioning
    Do you have stairs in your house?

  21. Futurama gets it right once again by Derivin · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Crushinator (http://tfp.killbots.com/scans/223_crushinator.png ) is real.

  22. Re:Wars should be fought by nerf darts. by vertinox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fuck these guys. War should be fought by people.

    Well, in a perfect world, wars would be fought by a handful of kids and nerf darts. In a perfect world we wouldn't have B-52s and nuclear bombs.

    But guess what... War isn't about being nice. War is about destroying the enemy any means possible.

    War is horrible yes, but if you think they are making robots just to save human life because they are humanists, you've got another thing coming.

    Robots are coming because they win wars. Sure... A dead soldier is less expensive than a robot, but what happens in a protracted war in which a nation has tens if not hundreds of thousands of casualties like WWII?

    They can build more robots, but they can't instantly build more men. Germany lost WWII simply because it could not replace its huge casualties in its officer core nor replace all its well trained fighter pilots after several years of attrition.

    What if this same nation could simply replace all its air craft with automated fighters and robotic tanks?

    The simply have to outproduce the enemey and they win.

    Any nation that fails to use robotics in warfare will loose to a nation that correctly implements said technology. We simply do not have a choice.

    Wars will be fought by robots.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  23. Re:What happens when by NiteShaed · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...and the thing figures out its payload/mission will destroy it?

    Just tell it that it will get 72 virgin-bots in the robotic afterlife for carrying out its mission. Seems to work well enough for the human version of the scenario you just described...

    --
    Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  24. Did anyone watch the videos? by Quaoar · · Score: 1

    I totally crushed a beer can with my forehead after watching those cars get smashed at the end of the second linked video. ROCK ON!

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
  25. control by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    RC vehicles have been around for ages. To me, the only interesting question is: HOW is it controlled? How are the commands authenticated? concealed? transmitted (and jammed?) What happens when the signal is lost? What happens when bogus signals are received?

    The information security is all that really matters.

    If I were designing it, I would use a directional antenna to a satelite using RSA-type signed commands. This would be over a key-shifting or OTP encrypted link. As a backup, I would use a laser ink to a blimp or baloon.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:control by lgw · · Score: 1

      Not very creative. Bounce radio signals off of the ionization trails left by meteors, or bounce lasers off the Moon. Those two methods have been declassified, making me wonder just how bizarre the actual methods are!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  26. Re:Hmmm by nasch · · Score: 1

    Reference, please?

  27. Re:Wars should be fought by nerf darts. by PagosaSam · · Score: 1

    What we have here... is a robot gap!

    --
    :q! Oh crap, not again...
  28. Unintended Consequences by TrueJim · · Score: 1

    I predict that eventually one of the unintended consequences of using more autonomous vehicles on the battlefield will be that the U.S. military's response to any hostile force will be viewed as being "disproportionate" and unjust.

    In other words, if our "soldiers" are robots and their soldiers are men, then their attacks will simply kill our robots, but our subsequent response will kill men. Adversaries will decry, "How can you go around shooting our people when all we did was shoot at a few of your machines? You bastards!"

    --
    I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
    1. Re:Unintended Consequences by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Regardless of how many robots are deployed it will still require boots on the ground to take an area and hold. At least until we perfect AI as good as those used in BOLOs. http://users.stargate.net/~whkeith/htm/bolo.htm

      And let's hope that the AI's we develop for such war machines are like those in the BOLO stories and not like Berserkers or those in the Terminator movies.

  29. Why Crusher? by theCat · · Score: 1

    The first was called Spinner, but the second was called Crusher. Is that because "Fuchikoma" was already taken? My ghost is whispering to me...

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    1. Re:Why Crusher? by Xerotope · · Score: 1

      Because this one pushes over trees. 30 foot tall trees with 6" diameter trunks. It can basically deforest an entire area if the operator isn't careful.

      They greatly improved the front-end structure in moving from Spinner v1.1 to Crusher (Spinner 2.0). Since the first vehicle was near impossible to flip over, the inversion mechanism was eliminated (they had to use a crane top flip the vehicle over, to test the inversion system period). The result is a much more durable and capable vehicle.

  30. Re:Spiner, Crusher? by master_p · · Score: 2, Funny

    At first, it was Spinner. Then the new model will be named Crusher. The next one will be named...

    Picard!

    And not only it will be able to carry a great weight to battle, but it can also...

    negotiate!

    "WE COME IN PEACE"

    and after a few minutes of negotiating:

    "RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!"

    The latter mode is also named 'Locutus'...

  31. Spinner's name by awtbfb · · Score: 1

    Spinner surely refers to the fact that it moves around wildly because they can't get the controls corrected, and Crusher refers to what inevitably happens when they try to move it around objects

    Wrong. Spinner is named after the ability of the center core to spin around the longitudinal axis in order to right the comm and sensor masts after the vehicle is inverted.

    I don't know why they picked the name Crusher, but I'm guessing it has to do with a demo of Spinner where they ran over a car to show the terrainability of the design.

    Of course, your explanation for the names is still funny...

    Disclaimer: I know some of the people on the team.

  32. DARPA - Improving wars for you by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

    Thing is we don't want "New and improved!" wars, we just don't want wars.

    I won't even go into how ridiculous the project in question is.