Slashdot Mirror
Raytheon Exoskeleton Brings "Iron Man" to Life
An anonymous reader writes "Raytheon is bringing 'Iron Man' to life, according to EETimes. 'The movie opens in theaters worldwide today, but the real "iron man" has already been under construction at Raytheon Company (Salt Lake City, Utah) since 2000. Raytheon's Exoskeleton project is the brainchild of project leader Stephen Jacobsen and is being funded by the U.S. Army. The project, according to the company, permits soldiers to don an Exoskeleton suit that amplifies their strength — enabling them to lift 200-pound payloads without tiring.'"
must be a crap film if they have to market it on slashdot twice in week
heavy marketing = film wont stand up for itself
is but ONE of many who develop such stuff.
The exo-skeleton concept has been around for
MANY years, just grab an old copy of Popular
Science from the 1960's. The subject was
"Man Amplifiers". Nothing to see here.
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/04/17/rent-a-hal-robot-sui.html
It may not have the same MAX strength gain but:
a) doesn't still require a tether
b) has a much lower profile
c) You can already RENT IT.
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
I can go see a film purely for the CGI aspects. I don't always want deep meaning attached. Iron man is chalk full of western culture....because it's a western film. Also, yes, I think certain pieces of military hardware are cool (i.e. the SR-71 blackbird, the Global Hawk UAV, etc) from an engineering standpoint. So what? Hell, even weapon systems are cool when they're used properly in a movie (i.e. the Death Star was a weapons system mind you). If you're looking for something deeply meaningful, perhaps going to the movies isn't your best choice of venue.
Valid point, but our guys(and ladies!) in Iraq have a hard enough time getting normal equipment. What makes you think a soldier's life is worth what these exoskeletons are going to cost? I don't see that as a reasonable application of the technology.
:)
On a side note, I'd hate to be wearing one of those things and carrying around 400 pounds when it breaks down
The primary problem with an exoskeleton, at least as it pertains to front line combat use, is and, as far as I know, remains the massive heat signature generated by the internal combustion engine that is required to pressurize the hydraulic components (a battery powered compressor would probably be impractical and not any less heat generating). Anyone wearing this exoskeleton would show up like the sun on infrared making them vulnerable to the types of heat seeking missiles or automated guns that would normally target vehicles and other substantial heat sources. If you are going to have the heat problem then why not just use a vehicle which can mount the heavy weapon on the chassis, carry some exhaust cooling shrouds, and provide more armor than the exoskeleton? The exoskeleton doesn't make much sense, at least in my opinion, for front line operations or at least not it its present form. It doesn't offer enough advantages over a vehicle to make it worthwhile to accept the same or similar set of drawbacks (i.e. generating large quantities of waste heat).
I disliked V for Vendetta, because that truly was an film which took serious liberties with the source material (to the point where the original author declined to be credited). It misrepresented the plot to make it appeal to fools like you; the kind of fools that see homo-eroticism in a superhero story and aren't aware of the really sinister films; the ones that pander to the American anti-American (and I say this as a British person). I mean the kind of tiresome American who thinks that the two solutions to the current bad president are revolution or magical panacea of the democratic party. I'm sure some of the latter persuasion think they're both the same thing.
Keep on fighting the man, man!
I think what we're looking at here is less of fascist propaganda, and more of a muddled attempt at creating a topical movie. It just simply doesn't count as propaganda when the writers are too stupid to realize that the schlock they dish out, which is intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator, also happens to expound the ignorant mentality of "Us vs. Them."
The automobile had no military value when it was first invented either. It was slow, cumbersome and weak. Now look at military transports and tanks today. As you said, "at least not in its present form". You've gotta start somewhere.
Just giving us the Aliens powerloader would be impressive. Robocop would be even more impressive. But the Iron Man suit strays far into unobtanium territory. Antimatter powerplant, antigrav flight, there ain't no way we're getting something like that for another 50 years. That'd be like rolling out the first Sopwith Camel and saying we've made good progress towards the F-22.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
"Ok, ok, you probably think that's an unfair question. How 'bout this: how many American-made weapons has Al-Qaeda purchased?"
Moot question, we've outsourced nearly 100% of weapons manufacturing to foreign nations anyway. That said, Al Quaeda was formed and trained by the CIA, and their initial cache of weapons consisted largely of American arms. since then they've purchased far cheaper Soviet designs not because they couldn't have bought pricier American ones, but because they wanted more bang for their limited bucks (all puns intended) and went for the bargain stuff. If Al Quaeda could actually afford American weapons in any significant quantity, I'm sure they'd be happy to buy them from any number of people who would just love to sell them.
"Ok, last question: how much US technology was sold to ANY communist nation during the cold war?"
How many Western technologies wwere the KGB able to acquire through espionage? That number would be a solid start.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.