A New Workhorse For DARPA

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.

Comments

Interesting, but...

[voice_of_all_reason]

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

From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Spiner, Crusher?

[thewrathoffluffy]

I for one welcome our...

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

Pic

[Hogwash McFly]

Here's a pic of the robot in action

Re:Pic

[Minwee]

I liked the original look better.

Oddly ironic

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Re:Oddly ironic

[generic-man]

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.

Re:Oddly ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

Re:Oddly ironic

[truckaxle]

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.

Re:Oddly ironic

[LoyalOpposition]

...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

Re:Oddly ironic

[BodhiCat]

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.

Re:Oddly ironic

[khallow]

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.

Re:Oddly ironic

[PeeAitchPee]

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.

Just a pic?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Here's a movie

The DARPA Grand Challenge

[a_nonamiss]

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?

Re:The DARPA Grand Challenge

[badonkey]

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 ;)

Consumer Version

[VJTod]

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

Awww, c'mon!

[Trelane]

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"?

How long till they are armed?

[Shivetya]

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?

Re:How long till they are armed?

[Jonboy X]

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?

Re:Only a matter of time...

[Mr Pippin]

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.

Is it capable of launching a nuclear weapon?

[cloneofsnake]

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.)

Pak chooie unf

[CamShaft]

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

Futurama gets it right once again

[Derivin]

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

Re:Wars should be fought by nerf darts.

[vertinox]

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.

Re:What happens when

[NiteShaed]

...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...

Re:Spiner, Crusher?

[master_p]

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'...