Slashdot Mirror


The World's Heaviest Robot

Roland Piquepaille writes "This distinction goes to a future autonomous version of the 700-tons Caterpillar mining truck. In this article, Discovery News reports that Caterpillar engineers and computer scientists from Carnegie Mellon University have teamed up to develop this autonomous truck. Japan-based Komatsu has already delivered autonomous mining trucks to its customers, but these are smaller than the Caterpillar ones. Both companies are transforming their trucks into 'robots' for three reasons. Improvements in safety, efficiency and productivity will reduce costs and increase availability."

142 comments

  1. All I Have to Say Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You'll be hearing from Shampoo's lawyers.

    1. Re:All I Have to Say Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wished they'd dump the heaviest robot on the submitter of this story.

    2. Re:All I Have to Say Is by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      If the Robot is carrying a Teamsters Union Card, that would be "constructively" profound.

    3. Re:All I Have to Say Is by Daengbo · · Score: 1
      Or at least have the robot teach the submitter who to count.

      Both companies are transforming their trucks into 'robots' for three reasons. Improvements ... will reduce costs and increase availability.

      That looks like two reasons, not three.

    4. Re:All I Have to Say Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me you're trolling. The IMPROVEMENTS are safety (ONE), efficiency (TWO) and productivity (THREE). The OUTCOMES are that it'll reduce costs and increase availability.

    5. Re:All I Have to Say Is by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I understand the intention, but the English syntax doesn't give three reasons -- it gives two. Those reasons are that the trucks will reduce costs and increase availability. The three METHODS (I can capitalize, too!) to get those two reasons are what you mentioned.

      Yes, I was being pedantic, but I wasn't trolling.

  2. Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by MrHanky · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not that I think there's a huge chance that things will go wrong with, but think of how awesomely cool it would go wrong if it did.

    1. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by narcberry · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, we're still claiming "The World's Heaviest Robot" even before the project collapses.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    2. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      This could be worse than both K.A.R.R. and Goliath combined!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    3. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "but think of how awesomely cool it would go wrong if it did."

      Yeah, I'm thinking about the truck going on a rampage killing multiple people in the vicinity. Awesome.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    4. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by kesuki · · Score: 1

      what happens when the machines gain a conscious and learn that they're contributing to global warming and killing polar bears? think about that one for a moment.

    5. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, I'm thinking about the truck going on a rampage killing multiple people in the vicinity. Awesome.

      These kind of machines are incredibly slow.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    6. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      Think about how cool it would be if we had these working on the moon!

    7. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      You're right. TOTALLY awesome!

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    8. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      says someone with the alias "kiddygrinder"

    9. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing they'll all congregate to an island where Nixon will plan to destroy them from an orbital weapon, and at the last moment point their exhausts upwards, pushing the planet a little further out of orbit with the sun, thus preventing global warming.

      Just a guess, though.

    10. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      My old man drives a 797 at a coal mine in Central Queensland - top speed unloaded is 60km/hr.
      I don't define that as "incredibly slow", as it's a damn sight faster than you can run.

      Got a photo around here somewhere of him and his truck- he's 6ft tall, and standing next to the truck, his hard-hat is level with halfway up the hub of the front tyre.

      Top speed loaded is 40km/hr, but that is because the tyres cannot take the higher speeds - they overheat and blow. When a tyre is $35,000 and it blows, that's not good. When it's pumped to it's normal pressure of 130PSI and the truck is parked anywhere near people when it goes off, that's definitely very,very bad.

      Considering the inertia involved, they are pretty much unstoppable by cars, buildings,etc if at speed - they will mow right over the top of your average 4x4 and not even notice. A guy where he works ran over an (empty) Toyota Landcruiser troop carrier one night - swung around in a loop to dump, backed up towards the face, felt a bump "like coming up against a little ridge of dirt" (his words) , put the foot down a little, reverse to face, dump load, drive forward a little, get out of the cab for a smoke, look down in front of the truck.... what's that down near the front wheel? Oh, crap.

      But anyway, I've worked on more autonomous stuff than this.

      Sandvik (and Cat) have systems for underground mines that are pretty much fully autonomous. Sandvik and their Toro loaders can do a full circuit in auto, driving using laser rangefinders to map the walls, update their location on an internal map and basically do all the work except actually dig the bucket of ore. They do traffic control (one loader waits for another at intersections), collision avoidance, the whole shebang.

      So one guy can operate three or four loaders at once, as all he does is take control of a loader at the ore pile, dig a bucket, then set it loose to go and dump that load automatically elsewhere. Meanwhile another loader turns up and sits idle at the ore pile waiting for him to take control. It's Management's wet dream - no need for trained underground operators on $55/hr, get some 17 year old in a control room on the surface at $20/hr running 4 loaders.

      If ore wasn't so tricky to dig out (irregular sizing is the problem), they'd be full auto by now.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    11. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Informative

      These kind of machines are incredibly slow.

      You obviously didn't RTFA.
      So the real question is, did you even read the wikipedia article you linked?

      FTFA: That's nearly two million pounds of metal, fuel and stone powered by a 3,550-horsepower, 24-valve engine moving at up to 42 miles per hour, with software and a robot at the wheel.

      FTFWiki:
      # Drive: 3524B Series, 24-cylinder, four-stroke diesel engine
      # Max speed: 42 mph (67 km/h)
      # Power: 3,550 hp (2,650 kW)

      I don't consider 2 million pounds moving at 42 mph "incredibly slow"

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    12. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I think there's a huge chance that things will go wrong with, but think of how awesomely cool it would go wrong if it did.

      Yup. Like that guy who stole a tank and went for a little drive through a residential neighborhood and a freeway...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AcVSEY2DP0

    13. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by simaolation · · Score: 2

      Skynet approves of this research.

    14. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by Smauler · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't consider 2 million pounds moving at 42 mph "incredibly slow"

      You've obviously never waited in a queue at McDonalds then...

    15. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      That happened here in San Diego. If he'd gone another mile down state route 163, he would have driven that tank right by my house.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    16. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      They will head north and, uh, run over and kill polar bears. They're robots. They hate us and our cute bears.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    17. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      That happened here in San Diego. If he'd gone another mile down state route 163, he would have driven that tank right by my house.

      Or through it.

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    18. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>I'm guessing they'll all congregate to an island where Nixon will plan to destroy them from an orbital weapon, and at the last moment point their exhausts upwards, pushing the planet a little further out of orbit with the sun, thus preventing global warming.

      What was the name of Bender's girlfriend on the moon? Crushmaster 3000? Something like that?

      I think that'd be a good name for this robot.

    19. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did go wrong! The only 2 autonomous trucks in the world were a test in Gaby Mine, Chile. They were Komatsu. They work for a while until they went wrong: they ran out of control and destroyed a building. No one was hurt. The national office for mining Sernageomin ordered the trucks stopped. They now run with human drivers. See the following link:

      http://www.grancalama.cl/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3414

      Autonomous trucks are nowhere in the inmediate future.

    20. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      The Crushinator? (googles) Yes, Crushinator http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Crushinator

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    21. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Calculate the kinetic energy of one of those.
      1/2 * 687.5 short tons * (40 mph)^2=99 712 865 joules.

      By comparison it's like getting hit by a normal 2 ton car going ~740 mph (330 m/s).

    22. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1
    23. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by gplus · · Score: 1

      It would have to nuke powered, which would make it even cooler. But I would like to see the rocket that can lift off with a 700 tonne dump truck on top, and fly it to the moon.

    24. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      McDonalds became substantially less fun when people stopped carrying beepers and started carrying cellphones. Now the only fat people that beep when they reverse are the fleshly spheres mounted on the MART CART at your local supermarket. (The last time I went into a Safeway, I had some woman too fat to turn her head to look behind her try to reverse over me three times in a row. Thank heavens for reverse beepers.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I can't be the first person to have read the story and immediately thought "KILLDOZER!", could I?

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071717/

      --
      -Styopa
    26. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I've been on the ground around many 797's and they may be gigantic, but they can move surprisingly quickly, not just top speed but acceleration and changing direction too.

      They are remarkably agile for their bulk - much like an elephant; most people are surprised to learn that a human can't outrun an elephant despite the pachyderm being unable to jump and weighing up to 10 tons.

    27. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm thinking about the truck going on a rampage killing multiple people in the vicinity. Awesome.

      Really? Because I was thinking it would probably just sit there with the engine revving its tits off and smoke coming from the gearbox, in a slowly-spreading puddle of hydraulic fluid...

    28. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by warlorddagaz · · Score: 1

      Remember what happened to the crablogger in thunderbirds...

    29. Re:Quick, tag this 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' by kesuki · · Score: 1

      you reminded me of the time my parents forced me to toss all my stuffed animals. they don't even remember it, but the stuffed animals were my best friends and i talked to them for hours on end.

      not that i had been a good little boy, but i have to wonder what exactly i had done that was so terrible as to requiring me to lose all my stuffed animal friends.

  3. new video of "The Harvester" Terminator by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1
    1. Re:new video of "The Harvester" Terminator by supernova_hq · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ok, linking to a page with flash is bad. But linking to a flash file itself?!?

    2. Re:new video of "The Harvester" Terminator by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      What's the problem? HTML... a picture... a video... a flash file... they are all just files.
      HTTP request. HTTP response. Data payload. File handling. Finito.
      Or is it because your client is a piece of shit? :P

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:new video of "The Harvester" Terminator by linzeal · · Score: 1

      It is common courtesy to link to an XML or HTML page with an embed.

  4. now all it has to get past by nimbius · · Score: 1

    is the entrenched mining unions that have prevented automation for more than 10 years now.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:now all it has to get past by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Unions? What unions? If I'm remembering correctly, this is the same mine that ruled its workers with such a totalitarian fist that it inspired Che Guevara to start a communist revolution in Cuba. I don't think unions are an issue in this part of the world.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:now all it has to get past by khallow · · Score: 1

      Easy to do. The union dominated businesses go out of business or become economic basketcases (eg, in the case of a government subsidized business).

    3. Re:now all it has to get past by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The union dominated businesses go out of business or become economic basketcases

      I get such a kick out of that argument - capitalist bosses suddenly urging people (union members) not to fully capitalize on their market (labor demand) because it might not be sustainable. Hypocrites.

    4. Re:now all it has to get past by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... so replacing them with robots is actually a good thing. Like freeing them from slavery... :)
      Man, if only I could get five of them to learn to program. I could pay them high wages (for their country), then sell the programs at a hundred times that price, and then pay them really fuckin' high wages, and still make a good profit. Then others would want to learn that too, and soon I would get the peace Nobel price, a really good conscience and a pool full of money.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    5. Re:now all it has to get past by khallow · · Score: 1

      This "urging" has the weight of a paycheck behind it. Lot of people can be miners, but not a lot of people can hire and manage them.

  5. Heaviest at a mere 700T? by ozphx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would say the distinction would go to Australia's driverless ore trains when commissioned in 2013.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Port_Hedland,_Western_Australia.jpg

    (Yeah I know the pic is of a drivered BHP rather than Rio train... but it does give you an idea of the scale).

    The argument for driverless is that because they take the best part of a day to perform an emergency stop, the family car stalled on the crossing is going to be pulverised regardless of the skill of a human operator. The largest fragment left over from these collisions is usually a few inches in size. Fortunately they don't happen that often.

    --
    3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    1. Re:Heaviest at a mere 700T? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Curiosity: What constitutes the 'robot' in a train? For example, the Detroit People Mover is a fully autonomous system. Does the entire train count as a the robot? What about the track in a tram system like the DPM? The train can't operate without it and it IS an integral part of the system.

    2. Re:Heaviest at a mere 700T? by gregbot9000 · · Score: 1

      Two engines for that load? Fuck, I'd hate to have to wait for that thing at a crossing.

    3. Re:Heaviest at a mere 700T? by Pinckney · · Score: 2, Informative

      2.4km at 75km/h means it will take about 2 minutes to pass a crossing. At half speed, it's still only 4 minutes.

      Source for figures: im-mining.com

      Only having two engines just means it takes a long time to get up to speed.

    4. Re:Heaviest at a mere 700T? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Typical Rio Tinto Pilbara train

      Loaded weight 30 000 tonnes
      Length 2.4 km
      Top speed 75 km/h

      http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2008/10//rio_tinto_to_go_driverless.html

    5. Re:Heaviest at a mere 700T? by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      Curiosity: What constitutes the 'robot' in a train?

      Marketing.

    6. Re:Heaviest at a mere 700T? by Jacques+Chester · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Driverless" is a better term. Train drivers for Rio and BHP are very expensive and their rosters are very inflexible, which hampers production. It's a hangover from the union days.

      --

      Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.

    7. Re:Heaviest at a mere 700T? by ozphx · · Score: 1

      Hrmmmm, I'd go with the vehicle because there is more than one autonomous train on the network. The rail... well I'd call that infrastructure.

      Its a bit fuzzy. The trains obviously are under central control as well.

      Is the bee or the hive the individual?

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    8. Re:Heaviest at a mere 700T? by Dan541 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      4 Minutes is a long wait.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    9. Re:Heaviest at a mere 700T? by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      If these have autopilot, they win for tonnage by far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batillus_class_supertankers

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  6. I could make a heavier robot by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Just get me a robot and 701 tons of concrete weight which will be used for ballast purposes.
    Granted, the robot ain't going to move around much once it is properly ballasted but hey...

    We ARE going for the heaviest not fastest robot around, right?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  7. omfg by duckInferno · · Score: 1

    Are those stairs on the radiator? That thing is SO COOL :O!

    /10yearsoldagain

    --
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
  8. Autonomous? by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    It's not autonomous... it's adding driving aids for a remote controller. Autonomous would imply that it's capable of functioning entirely on its own for (at least) extended periods without requiring operator intervention. The article implies that an operator will still be performing some navigational and control tasks at regular intervals... Like a predator drone. I can't find the article on the recent DARPA robot challenge or I'd link it here, but there's obvious parallels.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Autonomous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Theregister.co.uk has another article that states the winners of the Darpa challange are working on this with CAT. It is intended to be truly autonomous robot inside of their own area, only when interacting with human operated machines, and leaving or entering that auto area, for maintenance, will it become remote operated.
      That said, anything being used for production is going to be overseen by humans to make sure it is meeting profit goals, etc. So ya their will be a manned office with a few people overseeing dozens to hundreds of robots.
      AC since I have interests in the companys mentioned.

    2. Re:Autonomous? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      it's adding driving aids for a remote controller

      The last 2 paragraphs are about "consumer vehicles" and applications, these trucks will not have any operator dedicated to them during a normal shift. Obviously something that weighs 700 tons, and goes 40 MPH, is not intended as your typical consumer vehicle.

  9. Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. Killdozer is now real.

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

      Yeh, killdozer was the first thing I thought of too.

      Cant remember who wrote it though.

      It was a good story.

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward. by nevillethedevil · · Score: 1
      That would be:

      Ed MacKillop
      Herbert F. Solow
      Theodore Sturgeon

      Here's the IMDB page

      --
      Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
  10. Transformers by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Funny

    Which Autobot was a dumptruck?

    1. Re:Transformers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe that was a Constructicon, not an Autobot ... (specifically "Long Haul" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructicon)

    2. Re:Transformers by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Another reason why GoBots were fail: Over-simplified naming conventions in combination with never checking into possible negative slang context after translation.

      Their dump truck robot? "Dumper".

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:Transformers by Nickbou · · Score: 2, Informative

      Besides the Constructicons, there is also Wreck-Gar, who is a dumptruck in the new Transformers: Animated series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck-Gar

      --
      The LEGO of my childhood prepared me for the IKEA of my adulthood. ~me
    4. Re:Transformers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was at least one autobot too, more recently. IIRC it was one of the smaller wind-up transformers.
      Looking about some...
      There's also a micromaster combiner pair (Sledge+Hammer), some I don't remember, several reissues (Treader apparently appears as both autobot and decepticon, and Long Haul alone has at least three models), etc. One Sledge was a constructicon.
      The Audobot list includes Treader, Landfill, and Wideload. Wideload is the Throttlebot I remembered.
      I believe your answer might have been the only one for the first series, though. The Constructicons were perhaps the very first combiner team. I only managed to collect two of them.

  11. How many gallons/liters per mile/km does this need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many gallons/liters per mile/km does this thing need? I imagine the acceleration and deceleration are on par with a cruise ship :-)

  12. BattleBots by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

    I want to see BattleBots with these babies.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  13. A Transformer? by syngularyx · · Score: 1

    Is it one of the Transformers? And if Yes , will it be a big good guy?

  14. Hit or not to hit, that is the question... by Robin47 · · Score: 1

    "All of the information would then be run through a computer program that would tell the robotic driver to avoid the obstacle or not..." Interesting, it might go ahead and hit small obstacles... assuming that half the planet isn't considered small in comparison!! There are fracking stairs on the front!!

    1. Re:Hit or not to hit, that is the question... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      "Obstacle detected: 10m fallen rock. Could damage us. Avoid." ...
      Zig ...
      Zag ...
      "Obstacle detected: small automobile. No hazard. Ignore." ...
      Crunch ...

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Hit or not to hit, that is the question... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Interesting
  15. I, for one... by MrNaz · · Score: 1

    ... hope that this robot becomes self-aware and hunts down every idiot that invokes this stupid fucking meme.

    --
    I hate printers.
    1. Re:I, for one... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      So... you wish to die? Or are you just into a robot hunting and crushing fetish? ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:I, for one... by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      A little from column A, and a little from column B :P

      --
      I hate printers.
    3. Re:I, for one... by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      A 797 is indeed too big for a standard road.

      If you're anywhere near the midlands you can see some of the 797's smaller brothers right on the A5 in Cannock - Finning/CAT's uk base is there with a yard full of huge trucks. I don't think they keep 797's there, but they do have some of the smaller versions, with the 240 ton bed.

  16. 240 tons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The payload of a 797B is rated at 380 tons and they can carry an overload of 450 tons without too much of a sweat.

  17. Why don't rockets count ? by mbone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An unmanned spacecraft when launched is "fully autonomous" and there are a number that are bigger than 700 metric tons.

    Titan IVB - 943 tons
    Delta IV - up to 733 tons
    Saturn V (there were 3 unmanned launches) - 3000 tons

    1. Re:Why don't rockets count ? by RabidMoose · · Score: 1

      It's all in the marketing. Also, I'm not sure you can count fuel weight as being part of the machine. The single-use nature of rockets also makes them questionable choices for counting here.

    2. Re:Why don't rockets count ? by thethibs · · Score: 1

      They aren't autonomous. They're on bang-bang programs that can't adapt to unforseen events.

      --
      I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
    3. Re:Why don't rockets count ? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Because it's just some quick and dirty "clever" title some journalist on a tight deadline came up with, not some deeply-researched and discussed statement of fact?

      Just a thought.

    4. Re:Why don't rockets count ? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Delta IV Heavy is up to 807 tons gross weight. Normally I wouldn't be so pedantic but it is a difference of over 10%.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Why don't rockets count ? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, there is a huge team of people waiting to take control of this one thing should even the slightest problem occur. So it's not quite the same.

    6. Re:Why don't rockets count ? by Karganeth · · Score: 1

      The World's Heaviest Robot, not the robot with the largest mass ;)

    7. Re:Why don't rockets count ? by profplump · · Score: 1

      So is the truck. Or people even.

      I'll grant you that the range of "foreseen events" is bigger for people than rockets, and that we don't teach rockets to distrust and re-write existing algorithms (though since almost every launch failure mode ends with a boom that would probably be a waste of time).

      But people are very bad at handling truly unforeseen events. What would you do if the flooring in your house suddenly had 99% less friction -- you'd likely fail (and fall) repeatedly when attempting to propel yourself. You'd probably eventually figure something out, but if you were only given one chance (like a rocket) I doubt you'd make it.

      Alternatively both rockets and people both respond well to foreseen events, like a thrust imbalance or a course change. There are lots of things that happen during a rocket launch that cannot be predicted but must be observed and analyzed so the rocket can react appropriately.

      If that observation, analysis and reaction is done internally I'd call the device "autonomous", at least for the scope described -- my cell phone isn't an autonomous voice-response system, but it is an autonomous radio system, determining how, when and what to transmit and what to do about things it receives without any necessary interaction from me. I need to talk at it and listen to provide useful voice interaction, but it's quite capable of sending and receiving data across a negotiated, dynamic radio link without any human intervention.

    8. Re:Why don't rockets count ? by thethibs · · Score: 1

      You confuse autonomous with automatic.

      --
      I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
  18. He's not heavy... by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

    he's my brobot.

    Sorry.

  19. Re:How many gallons/liters per mile/km does this n by kesuki · · Score: 1

    there are 2 options. #1 electric drive trains with a sort of grid connection (a rail or something) or #2 diesel engines with high compression ratios that create higher fuel performance. diesel can be made from fat, so perhaps you should sign up to donate your fat to be made into biofuels. perhaps if you're an set up as an organ donation, they will do it automatically when you die.

    perhaps if you are sent to hell for all eternity, they will just make your body into petroleum and sell you on the open market. the devil is going to make you into petrol if you're sent to hell and eternal damnation.

    disclaimer: i am paranoid schizophrenic these are the things i think about.

  20. Before^2 by Nux'd · · Score: 1

    Us: We've already delivered autonomous mining trucks!

    Japan: Oh yeah! We've already delivered autonomous mining trucks.. ALREADY!

    Us: They're always one step ahead!

  21. It's not something that you just dump something on by AC-x · · Score: 1

    It's not a big truck ... oh wait yes it is!

  22. I, for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our autonomous, load-bearing overlords

  23. Harvester by rhyder128k · · Score: 1

    It even looks a bit like the Command And Conquer one. I wonder how much tank damage that baby can take?

    --
    Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    1. Re:Harvester by SL1200MKII · · Score: 1

      It even looks a bit like the Command And Conquer one. I wonder how much tank damage that baby can take?

      That's actually quite funny. I wish I still had time to play C&C.

  24. Mining in the Pilbara by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I live in Western Australia, where Rio Tinto are developing their autonomous mining equipment. My old man is employed by Rio as a radio techie and as such he has a small part to play in the development of their autonomous trucks. I'm posting anonymously as I don't want any of these remarks getting him in trouble.

    The basic model relies on a single central system coordinating all the trucks as they move about. There have been a lot of kinks to do with radio lines of sight. Mine sites where the principal ore body is ferrous tend not to be very friendly to radio transmission. The actual driving of the trucks is not hugely complicated as the routes are identical for every run and GPS systems make it easy to align a truck with the road. It's not like navigating a desert track or urban landscape.

    Rio are also working on automating their trains. Alongside BHP, Rio has one of the largest fully private rail networks in the world. The two mining giants run the largest freight trains anywhere -- several kilometres long with tens of thousands of tons of iron ore. That may change as the two mining giants are being forced to open their networks to junior mining companies -- it looks easy on paper but railway systems are extremely complicated and finely balanced systems.

    The scale of the mining efforts in the Pilbara boggle the mind. They are utterly vast. Whole mountains made of rust are being excavated, crushed and then shipped to Japan and China. The pace is frenetic. Rio and BHP can't find enough workers and that has caused costs to explode, which is part of why they are turning to automation. But really it's about throughput: an autonomous truck doesn't need lunch breaks, delays for shift change or the like. Every minute counts.

    Rio have been more forward-looking than BHP in this department, so it may not last as BHP are trying to carry out a hostile takeover at the moment.

    1. Re:Mining in the Pilbara by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why dont they just use iridium short message service ? no lines of sight to worry about.

    2. Re:Mining in the Pilbara by daBass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With a mine 2 kilometers deep and 7 KMs wide, you may well have LOS problems with LEO satellites! In fact, even GPS is a problem and most of these system don't use GPS at all, rather relying on a series of land-based transmitters on the edge of the excavation.

    3. Re:Mining in the Pilbara by ozphx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To put some numbers on this a small ship loading plant hits an easy 300 megatonne per annum. The cost of downtime on a line is around $500 a second.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  25. Megaweapon! by simonbp · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's Megaweapon!

    http://mst3k.wikia.com/wiki/Megaweapon

    Simon ;)

  26. Re:It's not something that you just dump something by Robin47 · · Score: 1

    No, its a BIG TRUCK. And very large. (when big just doesn't say enough)

  27. "Yo mamma's so fat" jokes by syousef · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else have a mental image of some guy walking up to a car manufacture bot and starting his tirade of abuse with "Yo mamma's so fat..."

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  28. Re:How many gallons/liters per mile/km does this n by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

    i am paranoid schizophrenic these are the things i think about.

    Both of you, or just the current you?

  29. It's not a dump truck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a series of tubes!

  30. What no "I for one welcome" joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys are slacking.

  31. Obligatory MST3K by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

    MEGA-WEAPON! Now where is that guy from Paper Chase?

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  32. sorry, i thought this was about the ob-org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the ob-org is a group of separate drones that act as one to elect their messiah. they all say the same thing and they're all as dumb as a bag of bricks. they're also all going to deny their support once his administration tanks.

  33. Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...can it out-tow the Tundra?

  34. CMU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike most of you, I actually went to Carnegie Mellon as an undergrad. Bow before me.

  35. Here's a scale photo by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  36. Heaviest? by pleappleappleap · · Score: 1

    There are robots that weigh more than 700 tons.

    Integrated factory automation systems get *big*.

    1. Re:Heaviest? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Sessile robots don't count.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  37. Those Assholes! by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Great, now when the great robot revolution happens they'll be coming at us from under the ground too.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  38. Previous Slashdot Story by Leif_Bloomquist · · Score: 2, Informative

    This isn't all that new...I submitted a story to Slashdot about a fully autonomous/tele-operated underground mine back in 2001! (Disclaimer, I was one of the engineers on the project.)

    http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/30/1552243.shtml

  39. object detection important for saving the tires. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most vulnerable part of the whole truck is the tires. the tires are easily $50,000 each, and these trucks have six of them. The roads must be maintained to avoid cutting the tires. So the comment about detecting objects and running over them is about safety, but its also about tires. The next thing to worry about is truck frames and bodies. Also a problem on poorly maintained roads. these machines last upwards of 100,000 hours. That's 10-15 years running 24/7 with downtime for maintenance, repairs, rebuilds, fueling etc.

  40. I, for one by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    welcome our new Anonymous Coward overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted Slashdot personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground trolling systems.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  41. Bolo time:-) by marcushnk · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank)

    A great series of books to read:
    A Bolo is a fictional type of artificially intelligent super-heavy tank. They were first imagined by Keith Laumer, and have since been featured in science fiction novels and short stories by him and others.

    --
    "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
  42. correction by Eto_Demerzel79 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Cat 797 mining truck actually hauls 400 tons, not 240 as stated in the article. The 240 ton truck is the 793.

  43. TerraMax by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although the vehicle mentioned in the article is not a DARPA challenge setup, there was one competitor in the DARPA challenge that would be almost as intimidating if it went rogue:

    - TerraMax

    Although the vehicle has had it's share of buggy moments, it's has done surprising well, especially considering it's sheer size.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  44. Imagine... by CptNerd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Since no one has said it yet, "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these"...

    --
    By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  45. Wall-A? by alex4point0 · · Score: 0

    "Why, that sucker's huge!"

    They can compact hundreds of Canadian runaways per hour ...

    http://digg.com/people/Teen_Compacted_In_Wis_Garbage_Truck_Survives

    serendipitous captcha word: mortally.

    --
    By the time you finish reading this sentence will end.
  46. soon to be connected online by Rick+Bentley · · Score: 1

    connecting the robots to Skynet, oops, I mean the "Internet", should be just around the corner...

    --
    My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
  47. devastator by two+basket+skinner · · Score: 1

    what could possibly go wrong? http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/?p=3314

  48. stephen hawking + mining robot shell = by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    world domination

    brain and brawn, unmatched

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  49. Sense of scale.... by thrill12 · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...by checking this video.
    Or this video of a smaller 793, but I sure hope that is not an autonomous kill-bot.

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  50. 1 major problem: Robots are too accurate by Dan+B. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The biggest problem with the driverless Komatsu's on the mine sites are the ruts they cause on the dirt mine 'roads'. When you have 18 tippers weighing 500+ ton rolling on the exact same pair of tyre treads once a minute 24x7, the ruts get gouged pretty deep, pretty quick. A human driver will do his or her best to avoid ruts as he or she drives around every small (and large!) rock pile on the road as it makes for a smoother ride, especially when all you want to do is get it from the bottom of the pit to the top as many times as directed for your 8 hour shift.

    --
    Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
  51. The worlds smelliest tumor by pinkfloydhomer · · Score: 1

    This reminds me that Simpsons episode...

    Announcer: Tonight on Guinness Book of World Records. A man who owns the current record for least amount of faces, with none. You'll also see the world's smelliest tumor.
    Lisa: Eew, these records used to be real accomplishments, now they're just gross.
    Announcer: Plus, you'll meet a dog that can't predict anything! And.. three other things!

  52. That is SOOO wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put the wage of manager at the same level (or bring the renumeration of the miners up to the manager level, whichever).

    Now see how many managers decide to do the work "anyone can do".

    None.

    If you paid the janitor whatever you pay a manager, you won't find many people putting up with unblocking shit-filled toilets just because the work is "easier".

    And how many managers have the physical stamina for the work? With mining, how many managers die in a cave-in or similar accident?

    Many people COULD do the work, but more could manage them than could DO the work, and the work done is a lot easier and safer.

    1. Re:That is SOOO wrong by khallow · · Score: 1

      Completely unrealistic.

      Put the wage of manager at the same level (or bring the renumeration of the miners up to the manager level, whichever).

      Now see how many managers decide to do the work "anyone can do".

      Why do you think this doesn't undermine your argument? Why be a manager when I can get easier work that pays the same?

      If you paid the janitor whatever you pay a manager, you won't find many people putting up with unblocking shit-filled toilets just because the work is "easier".

      But you find a lot of people willing to put up with the work because the pay is great. And to be honest, some of those would prefer the work of a janitor to the work of a manager because it is lower stress and "easier".

      And how many managers have the physical stamina for the work? With mining, how many managers die in a cave-in or similar accident?

      Most. Happens all the time. You just haven't looked.

      Many people COULD do the work, but more could manage them than could DO the work, and the work done is a lot easier and safer.

      I see the problem. You think manager is a job that doesn't do anything, something like village idiot but as a career. Truth is a bad manager doesn't need skill or talent. But a good manager requires a lot of skills and the willingness to make decisions that most people simply don't have. Second, they need to understand what's going on, that is, in our case they need to know a lot about mining. Finally, they are in positions of far greater trust than the average worker. All these combine to yield a job that is harder to fill than the job of miner. Sure you could pay one what you pay a normal miner, but you'd be a fool to do so.

  53. Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until one day the "little" beggars no longer want to go from shed to mine and back, they want to see the world! 700 ton automated truck rampaging across the globe, accidently flattening all in it's path!

  54. Largest truck? by morgauo · · Score: 1

    "The largest truck in the world is about to become..." No, I'm pretty sure the Apollo/Shuttle crawlers have them beat.
    http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/crawler.html.

    Might still be the biggest robots though.

  55. Right until by Snaller · · Score: 1

    "Improvements in safety, efficiency and productivity will reduce costs and increase availability."

    Right until they rebel and try to take over the world by parking on everybody!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  56. Megaweapon? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

    Megaweapon?

    We are in serious trouble. Where's the Paper Chase guy when you need 'im?

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  57. I, for one... by evilandi · · Score: 1

    Words I hoped I'd never see in the same article:

    "automate the 700-ton trucks" ...
    "Autonomous vehicle technology is pretty much in its infancy"

    I, for one, welcome our clumsy, myopic, bone-crushing, toddler-trantrum overlords.

    Ah, what do I care, they probably wouldn't fit along British roads anyway. Except, oh noes, what does an American ton mean in real measurements?

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
  58. Less cost = less jobs by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    Instead of paying one driver per truck (and probably way too much to drive a truck), you're paying one tech to control a number of them? Wait, isn't Obama going to fix stuff like this?

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  59. The World's Heaviest Robot... by TheHawke · · Score: 1

    Is the one that stepped or rolled over your foot.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  60. Yeah, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it run Linux?

  61. Autonomy by mmwithpeanuts · · Score: 1

    This is not really a good word to define such a lumbering giant whose destructive possibilities are huge, if something should go wrong. Unless Skynet is somewhere on the horizon, I don't know of anything that is fully autonomous. Heck, I don't even know very many people who are self governing, self motivated entities, as someone else is usually monkeying around at their controls, pushing (emotional) buttons and all.

  62. Cameron would have trouble by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    disabling this Terminator.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  63. Re:How many gallons/liters per mile/km does this n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is around 3700 HP, but acceleration on level is probably in the 0-30mph in under 1 minute empty. 0-5 mph loaded is probably under 1 minute as well. Personally I have witnessed, it will out-stop a pickup truck on the level, in dirt. It burns in the 3-5 Gallons per minute of diesel. It is something else having nearly 4000 hp, turbos at full boost, going a steady 5 mph up a 10% grade. Seams like you should be able to do 1/4 mile in 8 seconds with that power.

  64. Re:How many gallons/liters per mile/km does this n by kesuki · · Score: 1

    "Both of you, or just the current you?"

    i realize there is a digital and an analog me. the analog me is getting better, but the 'feed the paranoia' game and other english word games are driving me crazy. so crazy i started tearing up english language manuals for stuff i own.

    i might write a JE, but slashdot has gotten me into so much trouble lately that i don't want to write much here. you can thank my family for working so very hard to try and fix me.

    today's song: garth brooks unanswered prayers.