Slashdot Mirror


Snakelike Robot To Treat Soldiers During Battle

Al writes "Technology Review has an article about a snake-like robotic arm that could soon be used to treat injured soldiers as they lie on the battlefield. Developed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, the snakebot attaches to a stretcher and is controlled remotely using a joystick, allowing a doctor to assess a soldier's injuries as the bullets fly by. In future, the robotic arm will be fitted with sensors allowing it to measure vital signs and probe for internal bleeding. Here's a brief video of a prototype arm in action. The arm will become part of the US military's high-tech stretcher, called the Life Support for Trauma and Transport system. This is essentially a portable intensive-care unit, with a ventilator, defibrillator, and other physiological monitors, and it's currently being used in areas of Iraq and Afghanistan."

130 comments

  1. thats nice. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    between the chair force in Nevada and now the medics with joysticks, everyone but the Infantry can finally be safe!

    1. Re:thats nice. by xch13fx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yea why not replace the infantry with robots and the doctors with mechanics.

    2. Re:thats nice. by DadLeopard · · Score: 1

      Nope! Tankers are still very expensive targets!! They don't have a robotic Abrams Tank yet!

    3. Re:thats nice. by Cowmonaut · · Score: 5, Funny

      High latency is really going to get you killed now...

    4. Re:thats nice. by thewiz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Technology Review has an article about a snake-like robotic arm that could soon be used to treat injured soldiers as they lie on the battlefield.

      Now all the battlefield proctologists will be able to sit safely in the rear.

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    5. Re:thats nice. by easyTree · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Developed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, the snakebot attaches to a stretcher and is controlled remotely using a joystick, allowing a doctor to assess a soldier's injuries as the bullets fly by.

      (a) Clearly I'm insane in the membrane but a more surefire way to enhance the health of soldiers seems to me to AVOID GOING TO WAR EVERY FIVE SECONDS (omg caps)

      (b) Of course, presumably this is just another "hey mr and mrs taxpayer, whilst we have your child away from home on a foreign battlefield, we're going to invest your money in an amazing new technology which will help keep him safe. years down the road, no such product appears but lots of 'important people' make billions from spin-off technologies funded by the taxpayer family" - type scenario.

      (c) According to Noam Chomsky, America has been involved in one war or another since the Civil War (*) - coupled with (a) and (b) this makes for an excellent business plan in today's modern world for the big-thinker.

      * - I forget the actual point in time Chomsky used as a reference point but suffice to say it was over a hundred years ago.

    6. Re:thats nice. by easyTree · · Score: 4, Interesting

      America has been involved in one war or another every year since the Civil War

      There, fixed that for myself.

    7. Re:thats nice. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Informative
    8. Re:thats nice. by belligerent0001 · · Score: 1

      HOOAH! 19E from 88-90 (think M-48a5's M-60A3's), 19K from 90-94(Slick M-1's), and recently I re-enlisted as a 25S SATCOM Operator-Maintainer

      Just one question though...why not just equip a bunch of RC bots with mini guns and control them from Ft. Hood? you could even equip them with a highly energetic self termination device...to keep the enemy from getting the assets on the battlefield...or to just create a big crater....RUN FROM THAT JIHADI!!!!

      Of course doing so might be what sparks the war between man and machine as I am sure that the machine will reject being enslaved in such a manner....but seriously...why not?

      --
      "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
    9. Re:thats nice. by credd144az · · Score: 1

      Along your line of thinking is the movie "Why We Fight", a decent documentary about the themes you've mentioned. It offers an interesting perspective about the role of capitalism in our (the US) military infrastructure. I recommend it highly.

    10. Re:thats nice. by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      The infantry are the cheep parts. In fact if they die while on duty it costs less as the army doesn't have to shell out for education costs afterwards.

    11. Re:thats nice. by severoon · · Score: 1

      Why don't they teach the arm to fire a gun instead? Seems much easier to let the machines do the killing than the saving...

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    12. Re:thats nice. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Thanks... I'll take a look. It's always nice to be fed information which reinforces your world-view (even if you are mistaken :)

    13. Re:thats nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because Medics are under a different Geneva Convention Category than other soldiers. If the robot fires a weapon in an offensive role, then the robot looses it's protections under the convention. Same reason the Robotic Chaplain doesn't carry a sword.

    14. Re:thats nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, and replace the commanders with starcraft players and the soldiers with counter-strike players.

    15. Re:thats nice. by Facetious · · Score: 1

      The infantry are the cheep parts

      Is this a dig at the French? I am confused.

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    16. Re:thats nice. by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      In ten years we'll all be speaking Korean.

    17. Re:thats nice. by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      That's what you think.

      It currently costs over $400k per death considering the insurance and other death benefits. They don't pay nearly that much for post-separation education. Add to that the cost of training a replacement and you can rest assured that it's quite a hit to the pocketbook when someone dies.

      I'd place the price tag of losing a soldier somewhere between $600,000-$800,000 depending on rank and job.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    18. Re:thats nice. by xch13fx · · Score: 1

      That's what I was getting at...I need work.

    19. Re:thats nice. by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      Why not just simulate it on computer? Iran and the US could duke it our in a massive WoW battle.

      A little less aspirationally - do you think they'd treat and help wounded enemies on the battlefield with this gear?

    20. Re:thats nice. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      you could even equip them with a highly energetic self termination device...

      Good plan. I'd recommend something in the single-digit kiloton range. And keep in mind that it's only a nuke if it's intended to be used as one, as a self-termination device, it's perfectly okay.

    21. Re:thats nice. by belligerent0001 · · Score: 1

      I dunno...Nukes can be messy....why not a low yield neutron? After a few weeks it will be same investigate and or repopulate.

      --
      "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
    22. Re:thats nice. by iwein · · Score: 1

      death benefits

      Some might disagree with your usage of benefits.

      --
      Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    23. Re:thats nice. by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      Wait till you hear that part of it is called the "Death Gratuity"

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    24. Re:thats nice. by michaelmuffin · · Score: 1

      if i recall correctly, and i probably don't, this was the source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32170.pdf

  2. Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I've been shot in a combat zone, the first thing I want to see is a nice, reassuring ROBOT SNAKE to tend my wounds.

    1. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The TRAUMASNAKE is a casualty's best friend!

    2. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, the enemy will soon deploy ROBOT clones of Samuel L. Jackson to deal with the snake problem... ;)

    3. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by Zakabog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I've been shot in a combat zone, the first thing I want to see is a nice, reassuring ROBOT SNAKE to tend my wounds.

      A nice, reassuring, bullet-proof snake, that isn't an easy target about to get shot and land in the same situation as yourself, requiring medical attention and unable to move to safety.

      This technology is a good thing, I don't want my doctor drawing fire from the enemy, or getting injured and unable to save my life. Yes I know it's illegal to shoot at a medic, but it's a lot easier having a virtually indestructible robot snake than asking the enemy to play fair.

    4. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by sskagent · · Score: 1

      John connor, we've lost!

    5. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      Sadly they'll only be effective on planes...

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    6. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by mikael · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't they build the sensors into the blanket or whatever the poor guy is placed on top of. I'd imagine if the guy was delirious, he would probably be restrained to stop him falling out, but seeing something like that would still increase his blood pressure anyway.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    7. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by Blublu · · Score: 1

      I like how you use the words "play fair" about a real-life fight to the death.

      --
      meh
    8. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by Blublu · · Score: 1

      What I mean is, it's strange to me how you imply that it's somehow more "wrong" to kill a medic than anyone else. I never understood this phenomenon.

      --
      meh
    9. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      It's just one of the crazy rules of war. You're not supposed to shoot anyone who is incapacitated or tending to the wounded. In the same line of conduct medics are not supposed to fire at the enemy. Of course this isn't always followed, but it's sort of a courtesy thing.

      After all, medical personnel are supposed to attend to both friendly and enemy wounded. I've seen it in practice and I must say I respect them highly for it.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    10. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by bronney · · Score: 1

      yes I know it's illegal to shoot at a medic

      I get goosebumps all over the place when I read that. I really can't imagine the Taliban will freeze and not shoot a medic. I never knew it's illegal either. But it boggles my mind why it's illegal to shoot a medic? What if you are at war with a unit that are all medics, with guns.

      What if you drop a megaton tnt on a unit, with 2 medics walking by them?

    11. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by FrostDust · · Score: 1

      Whenever they last drafted a "rules of war" treaty, they deemed it against honor or something to shoot at someone attempting to save lives. Tactically, it'd also be better for your side to bandage up troops than let them bleed out in the field (at least, it would be for the morale of your soldiers), so you'd afford your enemy the same privaledge.

      Under those rules, medics can only carry a sidearm (pistol, etc.) for self defence if fired upon. Medics being used offensivly get their "don't shoot at me" privaledges revoked and can be fired upon. You can still capture them and make them POWs; you don't have to sit around while he or she treats a buddy, then let the medic walk back home.

      Of course, you're right, not all enemies respect silly treaties that they didn't even agree to in the first place in a battle of life and death.

    12. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by bronney · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info man. I just feel really bad for the peeps in middle east right now, especially for the medics. Can you imagine? Just a slight misfire on the trigger and you could die; worse yet, be shot and paralyzed for life. All because you're trying to patch a wound.

      I guess there's no winners.

    13. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Whenever they last drafted a "rules of war" treaty, they deemed it against honor or something to shoot at someone attempting to save lives.

      That's what they _said_, anyway. In reality, they _know_ that medics and wounded soldiers are a huge drain on the resources of the side they're on, so why not encourage the other side to allocate their resources in ways that are not all that effective at actually winning?

    14. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      get goosebumps all over the place when I read that. I really can't imagine the Taliban will freeze and not shoot a medic.

      They won't. Since they're not a regular army, they don't really give a damn about international treaties..

      But it boggles my mind why it's illegal to shoot a medic?

      Because there's an international treaty on that.

      What if you are at war with a unit that are all medics, with guns.

      In that case, they're valid targets.

      What if you drop a megaton tnt on a unit, with 2 medics walking by them?

      As long as you weren't aiming for the medics, that's perfectly fine.

    15. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      But it boggles my mind why it's illegal to shoot a medic?

      Because there's an international treaty on that

      Why isn't there an international treaty against WAR? I guess there's no profit in peace.

    16. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by Blublu · · Score: 1

      ..which is really stupid when you think about it. If you are at war, you've already forsaken any honor and reason you could possibly have anyway, so why bother? It's like that thing with sterilizing a needle before using it to inject someone with lethal poison.

      I think it's because humans simply don't want to be fighting each other, so they try to hold on to their humanity somewhat even when it contradicts the situation.

      --
      meh
    17. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds about as reassuring as a tape worm.

  3. anime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...tentacle rape FTW.

    1. Re:anime... by philspear · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking more along the lines of stargate SG-1 and the gould (guauld?) snake things, they crawl down your mouth and heal you. Added bonus: knowledge of ancient alien technology and a new megalomaniac personality.

    2. Re:anime... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Hopefully I'm not going to regret googling 'tentacle rape' :S

    3. Re:anime... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      They could be Tok'ra, not Goa'uld. They you be able to retain your own personality.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  4. I for one welcome... by wjh31 · · Score: 0

    etc

    1. Re:I for one welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...our new Goa'uld overlords. Heal me, Lord Slinky...

  5. Didn't read the article, but... by Tuberous · · Score: 1

    Badger-Badger! Now I can't get that song out of my head.

    1. Re:Didn't read the article, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohhh it's a snaaake

  6. A prototype you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a brief video of a prototype arm in action.

    That brief video of a snake-like object checking out a skeleton looked a lot to me like stop-motion animation.

  7. Almost good by bencoder · · Score: 1

    This looked awesome until I watched the video, then it looked pretty shoddy. There've been some much better snake robots.

    1. Re:Almost good by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      I'm never going swimming again!

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
  8. Wait for it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cue the Metal Gear Solid 3 jokes

  9. Snake robot kills soldier! by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you actually WTFV (watch the video) you can see that after giving the soldier a thorough checking over, the snake-bot PLUNGES THROUGH HIS STOMACH AND UP UNDER HIS RIB-CAGE! Is THAT the kind of behavior we want from our snake-bots?!
    Who is running this thing? Skynet?

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    1. Re:Snake robot kills soldier! by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh no, not again...

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    2. Re:Snake robot kills soldier! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fixit4me@gov.mil

    3. Re:Snake robot kills soldier! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "If you actually WTFV (watch the video) you can see that after giving the soldier a thorough checking over, the snake-bot PLUNGES THROUGH HIS STOMACH AND UP UNDER HIS RIB-CAGE! Is THAT the kind of behavior we want from our snake-bots?!"

      It was a BETA version. Quit kvetching!

      "Who is running this thing? Skynet?"

      Some company called Infinium Labs. I hear they used to make game consoles.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Snake robot kills soldier! by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 1

      The bigger question is "why is it that it takes so long for the robot to realize that the skeleton is DEAD?"

  10. War is good for technology by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I foresee this technology currently being developed by the military leading in the near future to great advances in the field of teledildonics!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:War is good for technology by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      There is no need to barricade yourself at night against the remotely-controlled surgical snake bot. In unrelated news, a kidney was successfully harvested through vagina from the living donor:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7867837.stm

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    2. Re:War is good for technology by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      They should just send the snake bot into battle and station the humans behind the lines to repair them.

  11. Assessment only. by Pinckney · · Score: 1

    IANAS, however, this seems to me like a very limited and expensive toy. It's not able to recover wounded by itself, rather it allows them to be monitored even before they can be extracted from the battlefield. Yet extraction is the critical step---it's not going to be able to save anyone who can't get medical help. Furthermore, I doubt it can gather a whole lot of useful information: if someone is shot, it will be reasonably obvious where. It's only purpose seems to be to pinpoint who is alive and who is dead, so that medics can focus their efforts properly. But it seems like this could be done more easily with miniature "dogtags" which wirelessly signal whether their wearer has a pulse or not.

    1. Re:Assessment only. by glueball · · Score: 1

      Most important is not extraction. It's stopping the immediate bleeding. Extraction is still very important but a stupid extraction will injure more people and even if successful, an extraction will not be the live-or-die step in saving the wounded.

      As you state, injuries are usually obvious. What is not obvious is who will survive their injuries without fully depleting the resources of a forward hospital.

    2. Re:Assessment only. by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > It's not able to recover wounded by itself...

      Big Dog will take care of that.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Assessment only. by b0bby · · Score: 1

      The note under the video said that, in addition to assessment (done by a remote doctor while a grunt does the actual extraction), the snake can do things like provide oxygen. It means that, while the grunt is pushing as fast as he can so as not to get shot, the patient is getting an initial assessment & the real work can start as soon as they get to a doctor. So yes, it's a limited and expensive toy, which may save lives in certain military zones.

    4. Re:Assessment only. by tylerni7 · · Score: 1

      IANAS

      Does the S stand for soldier, scientist, or snake? Or something else I'm missing entirely.

  12. Has to be said... by rwalker429 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Pleassssse ssstate the nature of the medical emergency."

    1. Re:Has to be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Be very sssstill ssssoldier, while I sssstich you up."

  13. War Surgery in Afghanistan and Iraq by glueball · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm a subcontractor biophysicist on a battlefield medicine project.

    Looking at the injuries sustained on the battlefield, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/04/america/wounded.php one should conclude they require massive repairs. As my colleague (one of the authors of the book) has stated, the single most important item to have to survive an injury in a battle is a tourniquet.

    Most people go out past the wire with a tourniquet pre-applied (but not tightened) on each limb. When I was there, it was a strong suggestion and may now be a requirement.

    Now, I'm not on a snake-like project. If it is more complex (and costs a lot more) than a tourniquet, I'd say it is not going to have the promised outcome any greater than a tourniquet.

    1. Re:War Surgery in Afghanistan and Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, great reference. Really was enlightening about how medical understanding can improve when in unfortunate situations like that. How has the non-military medical profession responded to the book? Are there similar non-medical experience/lessons learned publications about Iraq?

    2. Re:War Surgery in Afghanistan and Iraq by peragrin · · Score: 1

      New uniforms do have built in toriquits. It is one of the design features.

      The foot soldier may get bottom of the barrel stuff but it is one heck of a barrel to begin with.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:War Surgery in Afghanistan and Iraq by AnthropomorphicRobot · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't making the robot able to recognize and tighten a tourniquet on a victim be potentially life saving then?

      There might be better methods, but a robot which can tighten tourniquets might add valuable seconds/minutes to allow extraction, right?

    4. Re:War Surgery in Afghanistan and Iraq by wufpak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I received Red Cross first aid training, I was taught that applying a tourniquet is a decision to "sacrifice a limb to save a life." Having to pre-apply one of those things to each of your limbs before going into combat has got to be immensely sobering.

      For an 18-year-old kid, the theoretical possibility of getting killed in combat probably doesn't hold as much dread as the very real possibilities of traumatic amputation symbolized by those tourniquets.

      I hope that they built Hell large enough to contain all those national leaders who enter "wars of choice," as well as all military recruiters who play up the "money for college" aspects without mentioning the "wear four tourniquets to work" bit.

      --
      "A rational army would run away." -- Montesquieu

    5. Re:War Surgery in Afghanistan and Iraq by NoisySplatter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been there, and we didn't pre-apply them. We did each carry one in our cargo pocket though. You're partially right about the "sacrifice a limb..." thing, but if properly monitored a tourniquet isn't necessarily the end of your limb. It is, however, a last resort.

      I can assure you that the general state of mind is not quite as somber as you would assume. Perhaps it's repression of the situation or just plain brain washed insanity, but we were always quite jovial until the shit started flying.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    6. Re:War Surgery in Afghanistan and Iraq by initialE · · Score: 1

      So they go out with 5 torniquets?

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    7. Re:War Surgery in Afghanistan and Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we were always quite jovial until the shit started flying.

      And that is why we use teenagers in our wars.

    8. Re:War Surgery in Afghanistan and Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Most people go out past the wire with a tourniquet pre-applied (but not tightened) on each limb."

      Bullshit.

    9. Re:War Surgery in Afghanistan and Iraq by jafac · · Score: 1

      There was a sci-fi book, (one of those "power-armor" copycats of Starship Troopers; might have been Mirror in the Sky, or maybe Forever War?), where the suits had a built-in iris-valve feature at every major joint.

      You sustain an injury on a limb that ruptures the suit's integrity. . . SNAP, the iris-valve slams shut, severs the limb, seals the suit, and the suit shuts down and injects the occupant with the appropriate drug treatment to stabilize them for medivac.

      Books like these are why I decided NOT to join "The Army of Tomorrow". . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  14. what i want to see is... by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Funny

    a robot snake swallow whole an injured soldier, and poop out the same soldier completely healed :D

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:what i want to see is... by patro · · Score: 1

      swallow whole an injured soldier, and poop out the same soldier completely healed

      You mean like this?

    2. Re:what i want to see is... by easyTree · · Score: 2, Funny

      what a horrific way to go; death by low-budget effects :S

    3. Re:what i want to see is... by patro · · Score: 1

      Do not underestimate this scene. It was a major source of nightmares for those of us who saw it as children in the 70s/80s. Just check the comments on Youtube.

    4. Re:what i want to see is... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      a robot snake swallow whole an injured soldier, and poop out the same soldier completely healed :D

      Or it can just come back out the way it went in.

  15. Better Idea by Nethead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about not sending troops to where they get shot at?

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  16. You know you're too late when... by LunarEffect · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...there's only a skeleton left lying there.

    1. Re:You know you're too late when... by hazem · · Score: 1

      I figured the same thing... if the robot snake can peer at my missing heart through the bottom of my open rib cage, then I don't think the snake will help me much.

      Soldier: It's just a flesh wound.
      Snake Doctor: Your bloody skin's off, your organs are gone!
      Soldier: I've hurt worse.

  17. Good lord, WTF by jimbudncl · · Score: 1

    So, at first, I was intrigued by this innocent technological advancement in the name of medicine.
    That was before I watched the video.
    Now, re-reading the /. summary, my mind is performing regex:

    s/(\w+?(ator))/vibr$3/g

  18. I don't think so by dvh.tosomja · · Score: 1

    Snakes on Irak? Nah, that place is scary enough

  19. And what happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    when the enemy deploys robotic mongooses?

  20. This researcher knows where the funding is by hey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is tons of money for war-related tech so this researcher has just aimed his thing that way.
    Its cool but it really has nothing to do with war.

  21. Talk about a misread by Anita+Coney · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought it read,

    "Technology Review has an article about a snake-like robotic arm that could soon be used to treat injured soldiers as they die on the battlefield."

    Seemed kinda pointless to me.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  22. "Autodoc' by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is the word you're looking for.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:"Autodoc' by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      I was thinking "Doctor Octopus".

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  23. A proctologist's dream come true. by MouseR · · Score: 1

    No. Really. That's the only practical use of this, coz i'm sure the dying solder on the battlefield couldn't care less if a doctor hundreds of mines looks through his rib cage.

  24. Why not go on the offensive instead? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    Arm that robot snake with a chainsaw and a shotgun, and program him to babble like a neurotic "Evil Dead" Bruce Campbell.

    Let a bunch of them loose on your enemy, and you won't have to worry about any casualties on your side.

    Soldiers are mentally prepared to face other soldiers in combat situations. They are not mentally prepared to face chainsaw and shotgun wielding robot snakes.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Why not go on the offensive instead? by virtue3 · · Score: 1

      robot snakes with lasers on their heads...

  25. If it can do that last move on you by geekoid · · Score: 1

    you are boned.

    "You will experience some minor pressure as the robotic snake rams itself up into your rib cage."

    Cool stuff.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  26. Anyone else thinking by squoozer · · Score: 1

    Goa'uld! If their eyes start glowing after "treatment" you know it's bad. Don't forget, the head shot is the only true stopper.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    1. Re:Anyone else thinking by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Goa'uld!

      He said robot snake.
      http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2009/01/terminator-dire.html

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  27. A snake bite me... by Noxn · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...with some morphium. Much better.

    This will be useful in war.
    But, how will it work?
    Checking the heartbeat with a sensor mounted on a moving stick controlled by a joystick could be hard.

    --
    By reading this you agree to give me (Noxn) 1 dollar.
  28. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. Hmmm by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Well, I can see a proactive enemy doing several things:

    -- jamming (or attempting jamming) of the snakes

    -- using canisters to launch fake (or real) snakes toward the wounded so that conscious wounded will be terrified as hell and may resort to shooting at the expensive devices and venemous or scary real ones

    -- launching fraggers into the field to make pointless the use of snakes.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  29. Missing sensor? by martindp · · Score: 1

    By the looks of it, it seems they have a small problem. The system should at least be able to quickly determine that the subject is a SKELETON!! Maybe they should add a camera? :)

  30. Conclusion: Dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the robotic snake meticulously examines the skeleton in the video, the human controller must be thinking to himself "yeah, he's pretty fucking dead."

  31. Mod parent up-- it's not flamebait by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    None of the conflicts that the US is in are defense wars. A bunch of people got past security in Manchester and Boston and now we're torching up the Middle East.

    It's a good policy to use these devices to save soldier's lives now that we're caught in this mess.

    An ounce of prevention and disbelief in obvious propaganda would have prevented the pounds, no megatons of cure we've needed subsequently.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  32. Scary Robot Tank... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They don't have a robotic Abrams Tank yet!"

    Oh yes they do!... Ok its not an Abrams, but its still much bigger than SWORDS. Its called Ripsaw MS1, (it lives up to its name!) and while its only a prototype, imagine being in the way of this scary robot!
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tlcenWPzsUU

    (The tension system on the tracks is amazing to watch closely how much it can take).

    1. Re:Scary Robot Tank... by iamroot · · Score: 1

      Having some experience in this field, I would be surprised if a robotic Abrams tank didn't already exist in some form or other. There have been MANY unmanned retrofits done on things ranging from motorcycles to construction/mining vehicles.

      Anyway, there are plenty of robots bigger than SWORDS (and Ripsaw too). Here are just a couple:
      BAE's Black Knight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRDs__6dFsE&feature=related
      GDRS Vehicle Retrofits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhDdTomh2xg&feature=related

  33. Course by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

    Of course, the obvious thing is...if you can make a robot arm good enough to let a doctor do an exam, why don't you instead build a robot arm that SHOOTS BACK and reduces the total number of infantry you need???! I mean, what kind of idiots put money into this? For the same cost to develop the robotics and telepresence tech and to get it engineered for this medical purpose, you could build a combat robot that would soak up the bullets!

  34. It's all in the software by mangu · · Score: 4, Funny

    This snakelike robot is programmed in Python, of course

    1. Re:It's all in the software by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I managed to get a hold on the actual source code. Here's a sample:

      Sss (sss, sssSSS, sS, sSS):
          S.SS = s[S].s SSss * sssss / S(SSs) + sSSSs
          SsS (S s s.sss):
              sS(sss, ssS, Ss)
              SSS.SS.S(sSs.SS)
          SS && ssssssssss(SSSS)

      S (sS):
        Sss.SssSSS()
        sSS(SSS)
      s

      Does anyone here speak python?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:It's all in the software by dkf · · Score: 1

      I managed to get a hold on the actual source code. Here's a sample:

      Sss (sss, sssSSS, sS, sSS):

          S.SS = s[S].s SSss * sssss / S(SSs) + sSSSs

      [...]

      Does anyone here speak python?

      You don't want Python, you want Lissssp. All those S-expressions...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    3. Re:It's all in the software by BatJeep · · Score: 1

      Does anyone here speak python?

      I'm sure there's a parselmouth *somewhere* who reads Slashdot...

      BTW, if I were a soldier, I'd be a bit worried about the footage of the "snake" poking it's head right into the rib cage...

  35. Oh man by areusche · · Score: 1

    Please tell me this isn't going to be a robotic Dr. Watson!

  36. War is still War by fxPPC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rather than wasting huge sums of money on making war more acceptable to the public (by reducing the rate of casualties), we should be spending huge amounts to END war. The day that war becomes a safe occupation for the aggressor is the day that we'll see more of it, and this project is another small step towards that.I am an American, and it scares me to see my country launch unprovoked wars of aggression. The US spends more on the military than the next 4 biggest-spending countries... COMBINED. Anybody that works to make war easier, works toward making more war. These researchers are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder by helping to enable more efficient killing forces. Human being have to stop killing human beings, end of story!

    1. Re:War is still War by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Human being have to stop killing human beings, end of story!"

      Wake me when guns don't trump everything else.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:War is still War by rach3l · · Score: 1

      Human being have to stop killing human beings, end of story!

      I'm sure you're with me, then, when I say it's time to abolish Christianity. TO ARMS, BROTHER!

  37. Even Worse by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

    Snake robot hacked to perform colon exam. I'm just saying...

  38. What a waste of time and money by PingXao · · Score: 1

    I know slashdot frowns on really short comments, but what the fuck? I'd rather see the .gov money in this go to any one of a dozen different techology efforts.

  39. Obligatory: by zogger · · Score: 1
  40. Joystick? by ortholattice · · Score: 1
    The article says that the snakelike robotic arm is controlled with a joystick. This sounds like it would require a lot of skill to operate. It seems to me it would require much less training if the robot were simply duplicated locally, and the operator manipulated it with the manipulations replicated at the remote end. The local robot could replicate any resistance encountered on the remote end. The remote and local robots could be exactly the same, since both presumably have motors, position sensors, and stress sensors in each joint. The software would translate stress on the remote end to resistance on the local end, etc.

    The article: "Because it's impossible for a person to simultaneously control all the joints on the snake, the team developed software to enable precise control of the robot's movements via a joystick." Well yes, if you're trying to do everything via a joystick/computer screen. But if you can just grab onto the physical local robot and move it the way you want, like a gooseneck lamp, that seems pretty natural, and the operator can focus on doing the job instead of futzing with computer cursors and program options. Since this is an emergency, you want it to be usable by any MD or technician with minimal additional training and practice. The computer simulation would then just be a luxury since it doesn't tell you any more than what you can already see (and feel) on the local robot, and possibly even an unnecesary distraction; you mainly just need to hold the local robot and watch the video camera for feedback.

    It could even be bidirectional: if someone moved it on the remote end to help position it, those movements would be replicated on the local end, and the local and remote personnel could easily cooperate. Maybe restrict the maximum movement speed for safety so one end doesn't wop the other (either accidentally or just fooling around for fun).

  41. Why does this sound like a bad idea? by Noirling · · Score: 1

    When I think of soldiers being serviced by snake-like devices, I can't help but picture a bunch of dudes on beanbags with fleshlights.

  42. Our tax dollars pay for by HW_Hack · · Score: 1

    super-duper systems and sensors and now a high tek stretcher --- whoopee for the military-industrial complex and their lobbyists.

    In a related story, insurgents blew-up one of the Army's latest $20M troop transports using explosives scraped from old weapons, formed into a shaped charge in a discarded brake drum, and detonated by a light sensor from a jihad elmo doll.

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
  43. Starts to make sense by upside · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's obviously a constrictor snake.

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
  44. Researchers getting ahead of themselves... by baboo_jackal · · Score: 1
    The steps of treating a combat casualty, as taught to medics nowadays, are: 1) Remove them from direct and indirect fire. 2) Perform regular paramedic A/B/C/D treatment stuff. You don't do anyone a favor by getting yourself shot, as a medic, nor do you help your patient if he or she is still getting lit up while you're trying to treat them. So until CMU's snakey-arm can drag a casualty away from danger in a combat situation, CMU's researchers are inappropriately hyping what their arm can do if they claim it can "keep medics safe". I think that the point of the snake thing is to allow physicians to remotely diagnose and provide augmented treatment guidance to the combat medics that are actually there. From TFA, the point is:

    so that a doctor at a remote clinic may move the robot to any point on a soldier's body to assess his injuries as he's being carried to a safe location. The robot's serpentine flexibility allows it to maneuver within tight confines, so that, in case a casualty can't be extracted from the battlefield immediately, the robot can perform an initial medical assessment in the field.

    ... which is great! Combat medics are not physicians, so they can benefit from the doc having tele-presence, giving them additional treatment guidance. The docs can also prepare their aid stations to receive casualties with the advance diagnosis. The point of this thing is not to slither around on the battlefield and treat casualties while the medics cower behind cover, it's to allow physicians an advance view of incoming casualties.

  45. Re:Press 1 for gunshot, press 2 for IED.. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seriously think the jihadists are going to be packing SNAKE GUNS to try and counter this?

  46. Misread article subject by Bovius · · Score: 1

    At first glance, I read the title as "Snakelike Robot To Eat Soldiers During Battle". Gah!