Human Exoskeletons Getting Closer

ColdWetDog writes "It's not Sigourney Weaver tossing aliens about, but The Register has an interesting blurb about a real human-capable exoskeleton that looks pretty cool (Lockheed-Martin press release). Runs for three hours at 3 mph on internal batteries; max speed is 7 mph. Of course, no price is listed but I suppose if you have to ask you can't afford it. Team this up with a Big Dog and you've got the ultimate high-tech cross-country team. Bring your own batteries. Or just wait for your jetpack to arrive."

Comments

Yeah but the boot sequence is too complex.

[GrpA]

Seems you have to stand spread-eagle and shout "Power Extreme" to start it up :(

GrpA

Re:Yeah but the boot sequence is too complex.

[Anonymous Coward]

Offtopic? Someone never watched Centurions...

Re:Yeah but the boot sequence is too complex.

[L4t3r4lu5]

This is the best first post I have ever seen.

I don't care if I get modded offtopic; It needed to be said.

Speed

[Anonymous Coward]

Max speed is 10 not 7.

Re:Speed

[pmarini]

is that mph or km/h ?
because 7 mph is roughly 10 km/h so you both might be right...

Re:Speed

[Lord Pillage]

Give it to Spinal Tap and they'll crank that thing to 11!

Re:Speed

[tomatensaft]

It's maximum 10 mph for short bursts, 7 mph for longer marches. This information is presented in this PDF file: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/PC/MFC_HULC_Product_Card.pdf

Re:Speed

[Anonymous Coward]

These go to 11. That's one more faster, now isn't it?

Re:Speed

[JohhnyTHM]

Max speed is 10 not 7.

Until they make one that goes up to 11 I'm not interested.

Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Jane Q. Public]

Companies have been making exoskeletons ever since the "Hardiman" of the 1960s. While more modern versions have actually bordered on the practical (see the suit worn by Ripley in the movie Aliens... that is a real machine), they have always had to drag a power tether in order to do anything useful. Of course they did not show that part in the movie.

The decision to do away with arms, for now, was probably a good one. One can still carry heavy loads, which is the main point.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[timmarhy]

i have to agree. it's the knee's that give out first on an old solider. carrying 40kg's of gear isn't good for you at all, and i'm betting this kind of thing will be targeted at hilly terrian such as afganistan. i wonder how weird this would feel to walk with?

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Capt. Cooley]

FTFA: it uses a four pound lithium battery, not a power cord. So yeah, they WOULDN'T show that part in the movie. Also mentioned: it's capable of carrying more than the standard load of a soldier, so it could carry back-up batteries. If I were a soldier, I'd want this.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[fractoid]

FTFGPP: It was the suit from Aliens, and other historical ones, that had a hidden power cord in the movie. At least, that's how I read it.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, I was referring to the lifter that Ripley wore in the movie Aliens. The real "suits" of that type have power cords. I believe they also experimented with on-board generators, which of course tended to be loud and pumped out lots of exhaust.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[mr_snarf]

Companies have been making exoskeletons ever since the "Hardiman" of the 1960s. While more modern versions have actually bordered on the practical (see the suit worn by Ripley in the movie Aliens... that is a real machine), they have always had to drag a power tether in order to do anything useful. Of course they did not show that part in the movie.

What do you mean by a 'real machine'? I am skeptical that the prop was a powered exoskeleton, even with an external power source. Or do you mean parts of it were powered? Would be cool if it was real though!

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[ratbag]

see the suit worn by Ripley in the movie Aliens... that is a real machine

Citation required.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Anonymous Coward]

The suit in Aliens was manhandled from the inside by a large weightlifter who was 'puppeted' around by Weaver. (in the same way you'd give a ride to a young child standing on your feet).

  It was made from vacuum formed plastic and required frequent retouching by the prop guys to keep it looking 'real'.

As I recall (this is all from the 'making of' part of the Aliens DVD) it was so unstable there was also a tether from the top to keep it upright.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Nefarious Wheel]

Companies have been making exoskeletons ever since the "Hardiman" of the 1960...

As with so many innovations, Heinlein came up with it almost first -- Kimball Kinneson greased Helmuth in one in Smith's Galactic Patrol, but Heinlein's powered suit was more accurate and interesting. Mobile Infantry, powered suits. Read "Starship Troopers". The book, not the fun-but-not-faithful movie.

Although the shower scene was very cool...;)

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Cowmonaut]

Okay, no. Heinlein is a great author (at least in my opinion) but he did not come up with powered armor for soldiers first. That officially belongs to E.E. Smith's Lensman series. That's right, over a decade before Starship Troopers.

If you like space operas and haven't read Lensman get yourself a copy. You won't regret it.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[LordGlenn]

the autoloader from "Aliens" was a prop. Details are in the "Making of" mini-doc on the DVD. the "fact" that it was a real machine is a common net myth though.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[tcopeland]

> The book, not the fun-but-not-faithful movie.

Starship Troopers is on the Navy reading list in the junior enlisted section. Look around and you'll see Ender's Game there too...

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[camperdave]

As with so many innovations, Heinlein came up with it almost first -- Kimball Kinneson greased Helmuth in one in Smith's Galactic Patrol, but Heinlein's powered suit was more accurate and interesting.

If you carefully re-read the post, you'll notice the qualifier "almost". I missed it too, so don't feel too bad. I was wondering, in light of your post, how someone who knew the name Kimball Kennison, and knew of the Galactic Patrol, would not have known that they predated Starship Troopers. So I re-read the post and saw the qualifier.

I second the recommendation of the Lensman series. I haven't read them all, but I liked what I have read. Man, I wish my local library had a decent SF collection. My birthday's coming up in a few months if anybody is looking for someone to give books to.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[XeresRazor]

Except the suit from Aliens didn't actually work, it was just a big fiberglass structure suspended from a crane, with the body suspended the rest was light enough that it could be moved around just with muscle power.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Gilmoure]

Starship Troopers was one of the reasons I joined the military. Really imprinted that civic duty thing. Books are dangerous. Especially on young minds. They should all be banned and replaced with video games.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Jane Q. Public]

Those particular suits might not have been real, but machines very much like them have been made for years. No, they were not very practical, because they always had to drag their power tethers around.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Jane Q. Public]

The one in the movie was not "real". I meant that there ARE machines like that. But they never got anywhere. You can see how impractical it is: it takes up as much room as a forklift, but it has to balance on two feet, etc. Might as well just use a forklift.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Gilmoure]

Never read that one. Once I got to basic, I realized I never needed to read again.

'Til the internet came along. It sucks you in with porn and then turns you on to blogs. Insidious.

Cool!

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[Nefarious Wheel]

Just to nail it down, I started reading E.E.Smith when I was about ten, about the same time I started reading Heinlein. I've worn out at least seven full sets of the paperbacks, and still live in hope that some day I will develop a "precisionist-grade mind".

Thank you for noticing the qualifier.

Re:Looks like there has finally been progress.

[CAIMLAS]

Starship Troopers 1 was a cruel joke; ST3 was a farce of epic proportions. Surprisingly, they made Starship Troopers 3. Even more surprisingly, it's a half-decent movie, has Mobile Infantry (of a guise) and I found myself coming away entertained.

And Starship Troopers is one of my favorite books, at that.

HEV? PCV?

[Z80xxc!]

This definitely reminds me of the vest that you wear in Half Life: Opposing Force, or Gordon Freeman's HEV. It can be run off of a power source, helps you lift things better, has optional attachments, cooling systems... huh. Does it come with a crowbar?

Re:HEV? PCV?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Yeah. It'll totally keep you alive during a Resonance Cascade too!

No, this reminds me more of the leg braces worn by Chell in the Portal game, but only in that it will take the strain away from the user's legs in normal motion. I doubt it would respond well to jumping from great heights.

Honda Walking Assist

[jeti]

The Honda Walking Assist device has a rather unique and elegant design:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2191712/honda_walking_assist/

Re:Honda Walking Assist

[hitchhacker]

The Honda Walking Assist device has a rather unique and elegant design:

Unique, sure.. but elegant? It looks like that guy has a robot stuck up his ass.

-metric

Re:Honda Walking Assist

[Jarik C-Bol]

i'd have to say that looks like the single most uncomfortable thing you could ever do to your balls, in terms of general transportation.

Re:Honda Walking Assist

[NinjaCoder]

you may change your mind, if you are 80 years old and largely infirm. It's not a coincidence that Japan - with a large percentage of old people, and a famously long-lived society - is developing this sort of technology.

Why America sucks

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I don't hate America, I love it. I wish only the best things for this country.

But I hate articles like this, and I hate the truly American values it reveals.

Why is it that when Americans think of powered exoskeletons, the first thing they think of is soldiers? It's really sad that militaristic thinking has pervaded almost every facet of our society.

Compare that to Japan's take on exoskeletons. Over there, they think of how these things can be used in day-to-day activities to help people. It's a far cry from a fat-ass soldier lugging around a giant backpack and a gun.

I can only hope that the wisdom of the American people that was so on display when Obama was elected will bring an end to our fascination and worship of our military.

Re:Why America sucks

[BadAnalogyGuy]

No, I'm suggesting that in a time where much of the country has been stirred into anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-intellectual sentiment, an all or nothing mindset, a with us or against mindset, and a government with policies to match, that people were able to elect someone who speaks clearly in full sentences instead of jingos and soundbites, who has a background living in many different parts of this great country and experiences exceeding that of most Americans, and who is progressive thinking, inclusionist, and open-minded.

Maybe you think he's special because he's black. I don't know what that says about you. You can figure that out yourself.

But it says a lot about the American people at that one brief moment in time to have chosen someone so at odds with the general zeitgeist. I'm not talking about Obama as President here. I'm talking about the opportunity to change and grow as Americans. The article and video showing off this technology as a military tool leaves me less hopeful.

Re:Why America sucks

[Nailor]

I don't hate America, I love it. I wish only the best things for this country.

But I hate articles like this, and I hate the truly American values it reveals.

Why is it that when Americans think of powered exoskeletons, the first thing they think of is soldiers?

War and military industry just tend to do that: invent things to help you win the battles easier. It's always been like that.

War (even the one now in Iraq) is a quite good accelerator for military industry research and the industry creates a variety of products during a war. The bigger the war the bigger the influence on technology.

Even though it's bad that the things are developed for the military, the research eventually helps normal people: when the war ends, the military companies start selling licenses for the products or continue researching to create a product for consumer markets.

War so far has been a huge boost in techonology, if you think inventions like nuclear power, radar, V2 missiles, which later on lead to the Saturn V, medical breakthroughs (especially in first aid) etc.

Impact of the war on technology is just something you just can't deny.

Re:Why America sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

And in America it will be only obese people, just like they're the only one with little motorized carts. In the rest of the world requiring some type of machine just to 'walk' around would make people ashamed and commit seppuku.

Re:Why America sucks

[Fallen Seraph]

My question to you would be... why does the intent matter?

Though a tremendous portion of the American annual budget goes toward the Military-Industrial Complex, a tremendous amount also goes toward initiatives such as DARPA, which helps fund more applied research than almost anyone, and in support countless universities and research centers. We have commercial air travel today because the US military helped jump start the commercial aviation sector before World War 2 (The Luftwaffe alone had more planes the all the Allies combined, and we knew we'd need private commercial help manufacturing aircraft in those quantities). The internet itself exists because the US military was seeking a way to maintain communications in the event that a major city was destroyed with an atomic bomb, causing a disruption in telephone communications. We have atomic energy because of the Manhattan Project, we have mass-produced Penicillin because of World War 2, along with radar, jet propulsion, and the birth of rocketry. Even going back to the Revolutionary War, the US government invested heavily in mechanized manufacturing and research into interchangeable parts for firearms.

The fact is that the military is often willing to make investments into technologies that no one else is willing to even look at. Our investments in war have done terrible things. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, countless deaths in every war we've been in, etc. But many of these wars and conflicts would have taken place without the technology, and without the investments we've made into the military. The fact is that technology, in particular engineering, advances by leaps and bounds when war is at it's heels. Though we should never forget the cost at which it comes, it's important to realize that technology often has ripple effects and sometimes, like the internet, it becomes something wholly different than what was intended.

Re:Why America sucks

[timmarhy]

"Maybe you think he's special because he's black"

throwing the question back at me is high school debating tactics. but fyi, i don't care either way, i'm not american. take it from someone removed from your countries politics and hype - he hasn't really changed how your country is percieved around the world. it's going to take a lot more than a new figure head to change that.

Re:Why America sucks

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's not the intent of the technology that I'm fretting about here. Rather, it is the presentation of the technology.

If we were discovering nuclear power today, we'd be touting its role as a weapon whereas it is vastly more interesting and useful as a form of energy.

The media may be said to shape our perceptions, but it is also a reflection of our collective mindset. Talk of weapons sells newspapers. Giving nurses the ability to perform their job in physically demanding scenarios doesn't.

I like to think it began with our deification of paramilitary groups like the police and firefighters after 9/11. Then with the rising body count in Iraq, people just became enamored with the military and military spending. Now, when new technology comes along, it isn't "wow, what can we do with this?", rather it is "wow, how can this help our troops?"

Technology is what it is. It's use defines whether it is good or bad. But its presentation provides a vivid picture of how the general populace is likely to consider it.

Re:Why America sucks

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

I like to think it began with our deification of paramilitary groups like the police and firefighters after 9/11. Then with the rising body count in Iraq, people just became enamored with the military and military spending. Now, when new technology comes along, it isn't "wow, what can we do with this?", rather it is "wow, how can this help our troops?"

I hate to break it to you, but the military industrial complex predates 9/11 by a substantial amount of time.

You do have something of a point concerning the near-deification of police and firefighters following 9/11. It has become more than a little excessive. Firemen do deserve a lot of praise. Job or not, it takes some courage to run into a building like that to help people, but the praise has become rather over the top.

But... paramilitary? Where did that come from? I know several firemen, all very nice people. If I were to pick words that describe them as a group in general, they would be something like risk-takers, and maybe reckless. But paramilitary is way off the mark.

Re:Why America sucks

[KDR_11k]

That's why no power armor is complete without the prerequisite chainsaw sword.

Re:Why America sucks

[pmarini]

just a little historical correction: the V2 technology was "stolen" (ehm, acquired as war chest) from the Germans at the end of WW2
but otherwise I understand the social usefulness of the .gov.usa wanting to "sell" products and licences of research entirely funded by the taxpayers... how is that going to make me happy ?
not to mention that we don't know what to do with nuclear waste, the sky is already a very busy highway with or without radar (and wait for the day when we'll all use a personal flying vehicle), and medical research has always been under conditions and not really aiming at "helping normal people" as you say, otherwise pharmaceutical companies would be happy to have their products distributed in poor countries for a price affordable to those living there !

Re:Why America sucks

[Gorshkov]

The Luftwaffe alone had more planes the all the Allies combined, and we knew we'd need private commercial help manufacturing aircraft in those quantities

Are you sure about that?

German aircraft production, all types, 1941: 11,776
Russian aircraft production, all types, 1941: 15,735
(source: Russia's War, Richard Overly, page 155)

If you *really* want, I'll see if I can find the figures for 1939 - I've got the figures in at least one of my books here, somewhere - but it might take hours to find it, and to be honest I'd really rather not have to bother. And I don't do wikipedia.
The Russians, by themselves, had more tanks and aircraft than the Germans, even in 1939 - I don't know the figure off the top of my head, but even the Russians had a massive numerical superiority.

Re:Why America sucks

[L4t3r4lu5]

Maybe he should watch this video and approach Lockheed Martin with "Hey, that's great and all, but can you modify it to allow heavy loads to be lifted up a staircase in a factory?"

Re:Why America sucks

[somersault]

He wasn't saying the USA military industry invented all those things, just that war was the catalyst for inventing them, no matter where they came from. I'm not even going to get into the other stuff you mention. They have nothing to do with how war drives engineering forward - they are just nonsensical arguments for the sake for arguing.

Re:Why America sucks

[Renegade88]

Who's buying the new technology? I'm sure Lockheed will gladly make such an exoskeleton for peaceful purposes as soon as purchase orders from civilian entities come in. If the military is the only customer for the technology, you can't complain that Lockheed is marketing it with it's military applications.

And lay off the political shit, everyone's had enough of Obama the Chosen. Tell us how special he is after 3 years of service to the country, thanks.

Re:Why America sucks

[sledge_hmmer]

But it says a lot about the American people at that one brief moment in time to have chosen someone so at odds with the general zeitgeist.

I know you are BadAnalogyGuy, but I'll give this a try.

What you are trying to say is that America was used to Paris Hilton, and then at one brief moment in time chose to elect Angelina Jolie.

Re:Why America sucks

[Steauengeglase]

Here is the trick, if you took the pure peace route and had such a suit made only for firefighters, police and other high hazard workers, you would only produce less than a 10th of the number of suits you would have made for the military and have had a suit that cost 10 time as much to make.

Re:Why America sucks

[hesaigo999ca]

Dude, the sad truth is that ALL TECHNOLOGIES GO THROUGH THE ARMED FORCES FIRST, before coming mainstream to the population (that is of course useful inventions, not just any idea). They have the budget to make it commensurable, then once in production, the owners can take it to the public
(usually 2 or 3 years down the road) and end up making it main stream. Like cell phone jammers, now even you and I can buy one, to jam those pesky cell phones from work to avoid employees using their cell phones.

Re:Why America sucks

[gtall]

This might have something to do with Japan relying on the Americans to keep those naughty Chinese from walking all over them. They have that luxury because the Americans pay for it.

Gerry

Re:Why America sucks

[pete-classic]

Will you still say that America showed wisdom by electing Obama if he invades Pakistan? Is he ending our fascination with missle strikes?

-Peter

Re:Why America sucks

[Anspen]

German aircraft production, all types, 1939: 8,295
USSR aircraft production, all types, 1939: 10,382
UK aircraft production, all types, 1939: 7,940

German aircraft production, all types, 1940: 10,247
USSR aircraft production, all types, 1940: 10,565
UK aircraft production, all types, 1940: 15,049
(source: Richard Overly,Why the allies won (1996), page 331)

Of course the USSR wasn't at war with Germany in 1939-1941 and an enormous part of the USSR planes where destroyed in the initial phase of the German invasion. But throughout the war Germany had less aircraft than the allies, the only possible exeception would be during the Battle of Britain, but even then the difference must have been small). It's generally forgotten that Britain and France really cranked up the production of military equipment in the late thirties, while the Nazi's didn't really squeeze the most out of the German economy until fairly late in the war.

Re:Why America sucks

[Bruiser80]

Maybe he should watch this video and approach Lockheed Martin with "Hey, that's great and all, but can you modify it to allow heavy loads to be lifted up a staircase in a factory?"

OSHA would never let heavy loads be regularly moved up and down stairs in a factory.

The key benefit of this device is mobility. Give them to movers that have to do one-time movement up or down stairs.

UPS might like these too.

If you look at it as a fatigue reliever, they could be modified to help people with trouble walking distances.

The military application is just the easiest to show. Who has to lug 200lbs over rough terrain at 7-10mph? Extreme campers?

Re:Why America sucks

[internerdj]

The government is here primarily to protect me from hostile things bigger than myself. Build a better forklift for non-military use doesn't fit the bill. If I need something like this for personal or professional use, it is my job or the job of someone I pay to come up with it, not every taxpayer in the country. I, personally, can only hope that the decisions of the American people will not leave us vulnerable to those who hate us. However, I also hope that the diplomatic focus of this new administration will promote peace in ways the last administration was unable to.

Re:Why America sucks

[easy2resist]

Big deal of their economy is sustained through the use of brute force (military) against others, ask the Afghans or the Iraqi. In contrast Japanese are just focused in something else: work and improve their working conditions.

Maybe I'm jumping to fast into conclusions but I don't I'm far away from the truth.

Re:Why America sucks

[dfenstrate]

he hasn't really changed how your country is percieved around the world. it's going to take a lot more than a new figure head to change that.

Hate to burst your bubble, but much of America only cares about the opinion of nations and people we respect.

That's a shorter list than you might think.

If I think your government and people are soft, effette, and shirk from the duty of free men everywhere, I'm not going to be particularly interested in what you think of me and my country.

This is especially true if I know your displeasure is a particularly common sort- that is, an impotent oral rage.

Re:Why America sucks

[mapkinase]

Mark my words, American cowards-in-armor will be still slaughtered like chicken by Mujahedeen.

The only change is more burden for American taxpayer, more loopholes for idiots who could not get into colleges otherwise, and more leeways for immigrants to bypass normal immigration procedures.

Re:Why America sucks

[Gilmoure]

Wasn't the Red Cross and organized trauma care developed in response to the Civil War (during the war, actually)? Same thing for precision manufacturing (canon/gun barrels), transportation enhancements, etc.

Re:Why America sucks

[Koreantoast]

The reason is because only the military has the money to afford a product like this so early in the development cycle. If this were a civilian product, it would probably be another twenty years for the production costs to reach a point where civilians could afford it. However, for something that's so cutting edge, only the military has the money to afford a product still in prototype.

Believe me, being the good capitalists they are, I'm sure that Lockheed and its partners for this product are already planning on how to sell this to construction companies, medical purposes, etc. Its just that only the military is willing to cough up the insane amounts of capital at this point to get this thing from cocktail napkin to prototype, and these companies are catering to them at this point.

Re:Why America sucks

[Dread_ed]

I didn't RTFA, and the first thing I thought about was using a powered exoskeleton for rehabilitation and healthy excercise for disabled persons while providing them with the necessary mobility to be functional and even productive in society.

Use this article as an object lesson in meta-reading and learn what many conservatives have learned over the years: If you take the sentiments expressed by journalists as the sum total of American values you will miss the real landscape of American opinion. Also, generalizations like those you use are just a form of self imposed ignorance. And, as we all know, ignorance leads to bigotry. Give your fellow Americans some credit and use a little logic. One journalist's story does not express a majority opinion for the people of the US and is insignificant data for a consensus.

Re:Why America sucks

[AP31R0N]

*groan*

It's not America that sucks, it's willful ignorance that sucks.

It's about where the money comes from. In Japan they have gigatons of old people and no young people to take care of them. So for them, that's an area where they need tech. If the Japanese had to rely on themselves for defense, they would have different priorities. As it is, they rely on US. We are their military. China knows that one boot on Japan would mean B-52s over Beijing. We in a very real way are the military of all of Western Europe and many other nations. Most nations guard their land and a few miles outside of their coast. We have a much larger AoR. Consequently, these nations can have awesome social programs. If the US retreated and left Germany to fend for itself against an angry/frightened/desperate Russia, you'd see a shift in their budgeting.

Also, few soldiers are fat asses.

Don't worry, i'll tell the girl at the campus bookstore how multi-culti and sensitive you are.

Re:Why America sucks

[BoothbyTCD]

Maybe that wasn't the objective in electing him.I know that personally how he would alter our image abroad had very little to do with why I voted for him.

Re:Why America sucks

[holmstar]

Wrong... the "military industrial complex" has been around for centuries, not barely a century, and has always been a driver of invention. Trying not to get killed while killing/neutralizing your opponent will make anyone inventive as a matter of necessity.

Re:Why America sucks

[pmarini]

oh well, that was precisely my point: I would like to argue how having an humongous budget and really not caring abot project failure would make the military industry worth of the glory and praise that you claim...
do you know what's the rate of failed military project ? if I have to be taxed a sock and a half to have the military (in any country) try to find a way to make Foucault pendulum work in space, then thank you but no
and if you are suggesting that a good way to make progress in technology/engineering is to start a war, well good luck with that too !

Re:Why America sucks

[somersault]

Well going by historical evidence it is a good way to drive innovation, I didn't say that it was my preferred method of advancement though ;) I doubt the rate of failed military projects will be that much higher than the average rate of failed commercial projects..

Re:Why America sucks

[ROU Nuisance Value]

AC, may I suggest you read a bit more on this subject? I'd recommend you start with Manual De Landa's "War in the Age of Intelligent Machines". The author is no fan at all of the current US military/industrial complex (neither am I), but he has read the historical record on the impact of arms races on general technical development quite closely and is generally an honest reporter. He dates the starting point of this phenomenon much earlier than you seem to think, and if you bother reading this short and fascinating book, I think you will agree with him.

Energy density

[mcrbids]

Projects like this are always limited by a single factor: energy density.

Loads of heavy batteries that only seem to last an hour or so, or loud, smelly, fault-prone ICEs are par for the course. See, millions of years of evolution have resulted in bodies that are surprisingly efficient in a wide variety of circumstances and pack loads of energy into a very little weight. When your body truly runs out of energy in sustained exhaustion, it can even burn its own motor (muscle tissue) for a last bit of energy!

The problems are many and severe. It will be a while before exoskeletons are worth much.

Re:Energy density

[elthicko]

Muscle is actually relatively inefficient compared to modern engineering. I think muscle only converts energy into work at an efficiency of about 0.3 after millions of years of evolution, while motors can be around 95% efficient. The difference is that the body can store and generate a lot more energy than a battery can.

Re:Energy density

[high_rolla]

That may be true. What about nuclear batteries however?

New 'Nuclear Battery' Runs 10 Years, 10 Times More Powerful

Nuclear Battery in Your Laptop

I know they're not available now but it looks like they may not be too far off. (I actually don't know much about these so if someone knows why they wouldn't be viable I'd be interested to know)

Re:Energy density

[Yvanhoe]

Can you run 400 miles at 80 mph without a refill ? Or even 100 miles as electric cars do ? Our body is efficient but we did better.

Re:Energy density

[timmarhy]

no, but i can walk 25 miles in a day on a single plate of food without even having to go to extemes like burning muscle. pound for pound we convert food into energy far more efficently than any engine.

Re:Energy density

[mavi_yelken]

It has the option to run on a silent (don't know how silent) jet fuel powered generator for 8 hours a day for three days. That sounds to me like a workable solution for the (hypothetical) heavy weapons guy in assault squads in the field.

Re:Energy density

[feyhunde]

So you're saying we should make our exoskeletons outta meat?

Perhaps some sort of Meat creature we could ride into battle that could carry our armored bodies and heavy weapons?

Re:Energy density

[bencoder]

You need to get a patent on that idea quick!

Re:Energy density

[pmarini]

the other main difference is the variety of "fuel" that can be used to replenish one or the other... namely we are only starting now to see hybrid or dual-fuel engines, while you can almost put anything in your mouth !

Re:Energy density

[pmarini]

what else can it do othen than "move along this road" ?
a human being is much more versatile and surely can be given some slack on dedicated tasks, even though I've heard of some in this species who have reached altitudes of 8 km or distances of 6000 km without too much refuelling or servicing :-)

Re:Energy density

[pmarini]

are you talking about giant cockroaches with a chip in their brain ?

Re:Energy density

[Yvanhoe]

At 80 mph ? While carrying another person ? (And I am being a bit unfair : the 80 mph is quite low)

Re:Energy density

[TheLink]

They're not using exoskeletons to replace vehicles. They want them for scenarios where you need foot soldiers, and there are many such scenarios.

Right tool for the job and all that. Good luck going 80mph through a forest/jungle or even a dense concrete jungle.

If I were a soldier, I'd rather be in places where the aircraft and tanks can't easily blow me away. And in those places it's typically hard to travel at 80mph.

What would be useful is some sort of augmentation that would allow soldiers to operate in "sprint mode" for extended periods of time without permanent or significant damage or severe discomfort, and without too much excess bulk.

If the cooling glove (and other technologies) mentioned in the following article really work then there might be potential for significant augmentation:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/bemore_pr.html

Of course a cooling glove can get in the way, so perhaps they can figure out some other alternatives.

Imagine if your soldiers could become the equivalent of top human athletes AND sustain that performance for 30-90 minutes.

Even better if the system can be powered by something edible (cooking oil?).

Re:Energy density

[TheLink]

Actually the current big difference is, you're going to have the body there anyway, whether you like it or not.

So batteries, ammo, body armor etc are "extra options" which the body may or may not grumble about.

Re:Energy density

[Yvanhoe]

I couldn't agree more with you. The original argument was about energy density of a human body, vs a battery pack.

Re:Energy density

[TheLink]

Thing is as long as the human body is not optional, the extra stuff has to be very much better.

So an exoskeleton or vehicle has a higher bar for acceptance.

For instance, even if the human body is more inefficient you're still going to have to supply food for for it.

The other thing is the human body also self repairs given decent food and rest, and so if you factor in the logistics and supplies required to maintain vehicles in the field, the human body isn't that bad :).

BTW just the other day I was looking at the various types of military rations over the years, and I guess they still have a long way to go. Can't have it all - nutritious, tasty, cheap, light, compact, easy to use, long shelf life, doesn't make too much noise when you carry it, etc.

Re:Energy density

[stephows]

Something like a horse? Hope you brought a spade and a bucket.

Must resist

[dexmachina]

From TFA:

The user can hump 200lb with relative ease while marching in a HULC

So...many...jokes...

Re:Tekkaman Blade

[gohmifune]

So close to Pegas...so close. Aside from this, its great, sole military usage is always short term, especially since there isn't likely to be any significant large scale wars for a long time. It will be great however, to see this trickle down to police or firemen.

Exoskeletons will be of little value to soldiers

[Colin Smith]

The power requirements mean it will have to dissipate huge amounts of heat, generate lots of noise which means it'll essentially be carrying a "shoot me!" sign and individuals without any form of body power assist can already kill tanks, bring down helicopter gunships etc.

As a form of fork lift I can see some advantages in logistics, but not on the sharp end of a military.
 

I got your jetpack right here.

[NonFerrousBueller]

ColdWetDog wrote:
Or just wait for your jetpack to arrive.

One step ahead of you, mate.
http://www.martinjetpack.com/

Re:Exoskeletons will be of little value to soldier

[feyhunde]

The military has some odd uses for technology and what they need and fund has odd spin offs. And sometimes what they intend will shift.

Some folks at the dull end love this because they see how much more a solider can carry. There's a practical limit of around 50 pounds of gear a solider can take on their person. What that gear is suppose to be and really is can vary. There's some great stories about differing philosophies to armor plate inserts, not only between the Brass and the guys in the field but between guys in the field because of how heavy it is.

Alot of brass loves the idea of 200 pound loads because they can put everything they think is useful on a solider and have them run faster with bigger loads and maybe a bigger gun. Which is pretty much why you have something like a humvee or a Stryker.

Course the actual use for this in military applications alone will take several years of practical use to really figure out. Might be great for special forces in certain situations (or might suck depending on Opforce). Definitely potential in logistics and things like setting up bases when 'man portable' equipment can be moved by one person quickly.

Private sector applications will also take a long while to sniff out. I can see surveyors and firefighters have this be a huge ideal. Imagine a firefighter with cooling systems installed. The best hope of the military here is to figure out these uses quick so if the whole super-suit bit fails the uses elsewhere still get them the respect the project deserves.

Crawl seems to be problematic

[libcrypto]

Anyone else notice in the video that the user seems to be dragging his weight with his hands while crawling. The legs are not assisting him at all.

Re:Why not just put wheels on the backpack?

[pushing-robot]

Why not just put wheels on the backpack? Then you could pull it at ground level no back problems, saves bazillions of dollars.

I can see the product slogan: Real American soldiers don't climb stairs—they level the building.

Why so shortsighted?

[Iamthecheese]

Am I the only person to see the uses? I want an air conditioner when I step outside. I want to not be limited to my own physical strength. I want to run without getting tired. I want to walk down to the hardware store... for 50 bricks and some fertilizer. I want to jump up onto my house's roof. I want a backup air supply just in case. And since I'm not limited by weight, why not a backup com system, a palmtop computer, a couple of extra batteries, a first aid kit, a change of clothing, and the other stuff people put in their cars and have to go back to their cars for. I want to lay aside concerns of endurance. I want to carry my six years old son about all day. I want to jack up my car by looking around for a sturdy piece of something, lifting that side of the car, and propping it up. I want to carry home six shopping bags without sweating. I want to carry heavy boxes sometimes. I want to wear a set of airbags that will tripple my chances of surviving most accidents. I want to punch through a wall, throw a big rock, run up to the top of a skyscraper. I want to hike to the top of Mount Fuju without stopping OR taking 6 months to get into shape. I want to take my dog out for a run at his speed. I want to climb mountains after learning how, not after an extensive weightlifting regime. I want to transplant a tree without heavy equipment. I want to fight a bear, catch a horse, hold down an aligator. I want to say a permanent goodbye to being physically inferior to any animal. I want to clean my house all day, play with my sons for hours, fix my roof, and mow the lawn without getting too tired. I want this suit!

Re:Why so shortsighted?

[Shrike82]

So you want to be Chuck Norris?

Re:Why so shortsighted?

[gatkinso]

I suppose that you also want to view supernova explosions with something other than the ridiculous gelatinous orbs in your skull.

Re:Why so shortsighted?

[Ifandbut]

Mod parent up! Really, why did we evolve (or were created) to only see a limited portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. I want to hear X-rays and see Gama-rays!

Re:Why so shortsighted?

[geekoid]

"I want this suit!"

No, what you want are magical flying ponies.

Re:Why so shortsighted?

[Iamthecheese]

Do explain the "magical" part of anything in that list. Tell me one of thosse this suit can't enable. If it can support weight at the speed I can already move, I can punch through a wall or jump to the top of my one-story tall house with it. (jumping down is a different story)The air-bag system I mentioned isn't for sale because no one wants to carry it around. Given a powered suit both weight and heat become non-concerns. Did you mis-interpret "run to the top of a skyscraper?" I meant using the stairs. No everything I said becomes possible when I can have a machine that lifts considerable weight and moves with me.

Re:Why so shortsighted?

[gatkinso]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that xrays and gamma rays, in sufficient quanity, kill us.

So while being able to see them might be cool... it is doubtful that you would live long enough to pass along the trait to your kids (who would be oddly shaped assuming they managed to be born).

wont be bagging the chicks with it though?

[Probie]

minus a million cool points, he's not exactly iron man!

No thank you

[jlebrech]

I'm perfectly happy with my endoskeleton as it is thank you!!

Oh i can have both! didn't RTFA.

Re:Exoskeletons will be of little value to soldier

[KDR_11k]

A man-sized armored target (there's a mention of sticking armor on it) is still very hard to kill, the usual anti-infantry weapons will be less effective (only the big ones will even hurt it) while the antitank weapons are designed for much larger targets. IEDs can damage anything but while they may be demoralizing and look bad in the news of the target's home country they are no serious way of stopping an army. Of course it's not going to bring losses to zero but it's going to make your dudes a whole lot harder to kill.

Re:Exoskeletons will be of little value to soldier

[Shrike82]

The power requirements mean it will have to dissipate huge amounts of heat, generate lots of noise which means it'll essentially be carrying a "shoot me!" sign

And currently human soldiers generate no heat, and are completely silent. </sarcasm>

I get your point, but I don't think this would make significant difference to the visibility of a soldier. Simply not using it on the front lines, where mobility and stealth might be needed would negate your point. If it's for carrying heavy loads then it's probably more likely to be used behind the front lines, for support and simply carrying stuff that might otherwise have required two men, or a vehicle.

Stephen Hawking has had one for years

[roelbj]

...according to the place where I get my news.

Re:Why Parent Sucks

[antirelic]

"a tremendous portion of the American annual budget goes toward the Military-Industrial Complex"

Ah yes, I know, this is slashdot, and I'm going to get modded troll/flaimbait, but just for your edification, our Federal government was created with a very limited amount of powers in mind, most of which were focused DIRECTLY at military affairs. I'm not sure why people whine and complain that the government spends tons of cash on defense but not on XYZ, when its the job of the government to spend money on defense.

For a list of enumerated powers (not the squishy interpreted ones), check out:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

I'm glad to see the government spend money on things it is SUPPOSE to... now if it would just cut out the shit that its not (like social security, Medicare, ponies, butterflies, and good will towards men).

Imagine a platoon of Marines ...

[bigsteve@dstc]

... wearing Techno-Trousers. :-)

Re:LM all all the freedom fighters need is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason it's easy to kill tanks/Humvees with mines is that you can just put your mines on roads, which big vehicles are mostly restricted to. A team of soldiers in powered armor has more options, like walking off road, or taking side streets. Will you start mining alleyways? Goat paths?

k2backhoe

[k2backhoe]

BOGUS! Sorry, but as nice an idea as this is, the video is a CONCEPT not a product. Watch how the person stands while carrying the supposed enormous weights. The balance (center of gravity) is wrong unless the packs are very light. Additionally, there are too few servos to act torsionally on the legs. There is nothing to act on side to side motion of legs. Compare this with the Japanese versions and you can see that this device is powered by the human, not the motors/pistons. The very idea that the device supports weight even when batteries are depleted is ludicrous. That might help in a stiff-legged march down hill, but will not help once the knee is bent. Sorry, nice video, no credibility.

Re:Exoskeletons will be of little value to soldier

[tomatensaft]

And a lot more scary, too!

Re:Why Parent Sucks

[Idiomatick]

I don't know why they don't just rename it the second bible and get it over with already. Ever think things may have changed in a few hundred years or that you got some things wrong? Its not some higher powers will, you are allowed to question it. You know it was written by fallible men.. Yet so many americans treat it as otherwise.

Exoskeleton wears you?

[need4mospd]

In Soviet Russia, exoskeleton wears you!

Re:Exoskeletons will be of little value to soldier

[krnpimpsta]

The power requirements mean it will have to dissipate huge amounts of heat, generate lots of noise which means it'll essentially be carrying a "shoot me!" sign and individuals without any form of body power assist can already kill tanks, bring down helicopter gunships etc.

As a form of fork lift I can see some advantages in logistics, but not on the sharp end of a military.

Really? My desktop computer consumes about 220watts and is about 30dB with all my fans (quiet fans). According to TFA, this exoskeleton eats up about 250 watts, alot of which will be used up in motion. 95% of the 220 watts in my computer go directly to heat, because the only moving parts are small fans.

*sigh* Iternet ! build to be bomb proof...

[Akardam]

The internet itself exists because the US military was seeking a way to maintain communications in the event that a major city was destroyed with an atomic bomb, causing a disruption in telephone communications.

Why, oh why do people keep trotting out this tired old myth?

The ARPANet wasn't created to survive a nuclear holocaust. Hey geniuses, it used common (though pricey and high speed) telco circuits - the same as carried telephone communications. They weren't hardened or anything like that. Explain to me how they'd stay put when everything else went kablooie?

The original purpose of the ARPANet was to allow resource sharing between research centers with computing resources that were being funded by and/or involved in defense level research. Even after the first dozen-odd IMPs (routers of their day, and amazingly only refrigerator sized, compared to the behemoths that they interconnected), they weren't even hardened.

Ironically, it would be over 20 years from the inception of the ARPANet that there would be a sufficiently large number of nodes and more imporantly links to give the Internet the level of robustness that might give it a reasonable chance of surviving an all out nuclear attack, the kind that people continually champion as its original raison d'être.

Anyone who's interested in learning more should really read the excellent book, _Where Wizards Stay Up Late_.

Meh...

[asm2750]

Wake me up when we have a suit using muscle wires.

Real Machine.

[camperdave]

Real as in "In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were REAL men, women were REAL women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Aplha Centauri.". The load lifter in Aliens, now that was a REAL machine.

Re:Why Parent Sucks

[Beezlebub33]

If the powers of the government are not those listed in the constitution, then what are the powers? Can they do literally anything they (the government currently in power) want to do?

Yes, things have changed in a few hundred years. That's why the constitution can be amended. You know, someone proposes an amendment, we talk about it, people vote on it, etc. You can't just say 'things are different' and then ignore it because then there is no basis for discussion of what the government can or should do.

Re:Exoskeletons will be of little value to soldier

[Bender0x7D1]

After the first rocket, artillery round, mortar shell or bomb go off you won't have to worry about the enemy hearing you at all. Even training with earplugs in, your ears are ringing after a live-fire exercise and that's with the shells detonating at a "safe" distance, not right on top of you.

As for heat - a human already shows up pretty well in infrared - especially at night since the ground is cool.

Sure, an unassisted human can carry a variety of weapons that can damage armor or helicopters. However, do you have any idea how much all that stuff weighs? In general, you have as many infantrymen as you can carry one shell or rocket. If you can add even 30-40 pounds to what they can carry, that goes way up. If we call it 20 pounds for a rocket, then we can carry 3 of them instead of 1, tripling the available ammunition.

If it actually does allow carrying up to 200 pounds, that means you can grab someone who is injured and carry them to help at 7 MPH. THAT is probably one of the best things about it. Carrying someone, you might manage 7 MPH for a short sprint but, if you have to go any distance, you are lucky to average 3 MPH. Disclaimer: These numbers are based on personal experience/guesstimation and may not reflect reality.

Re:LM all all the freedom fighters need is...

[AHuxley]

The powered armor team is still going to need a supply convoy at some point :)
Then you get some of the powered armor team, the maintenance contractors (high value targets), the service equipment (expensive), the spares and the big vehicles.

Development takes money

[Inominate]

Developing things like this is expensive. There is one source of money which is available for speculative projects with no immediate application. Government projects. The military(especially in the US) being one of the biggest spenders on this type of stuff, is a prime source. Therefore military applications should be the first thing considered.

Re:Why Parent Sucks

[drinkypoo]

I'm glad to see the government spend money on things it is SUPPOSE to... now if it would just cut out the shit that its not (like social security, Medicare, ponies, butterflies, and good will towards men).

I think you mean, if it would just cut out the shit that its not, like harassing citizens, taking away our basic freedoms, incarcerating people for "crimes" which have no victim, legislating morality...

Forrest Gump

[InsertWittyNameHere]

I've seen Tom Hanks using this.
Run Forrest run!

Armour of the Adeptus Astartes has begun.

[Viewsonic]

"With our enhancements to the HULC system, Soldiers will be able to carry loads up to 200 pounds with minimal effort," said Rich Russell

The logical conclusion would be to add 200lbs of armor plating to the soldier. Then they would upgrade it to 400lbs, and add more plating. Until they're finally wearing nuclear powered backpacks powering a suit that weighs close to 1000lbs and is able to resist nearly every type of hit while being able to wield ordinance that are typically mounted on top of jeeps and other vehicles.

Re:Armour of the Adeptus Astartes has begun.

[Technopaladin]

I just want my Larraman organ

Translation

[daem0n1x]

Runs for three hours at 3 mph (5 Km/h) on internal batteries; max speed is 7 mph (11 Km/h).

Cool

[Locke2005]

After all, what could possibly go wrong?"

Re:Why Parent Sucks

[ncc74656]

Ever think things may have changed in a few hundred years or that you got some things wrong? Its not some higher powers will, you are allowed to question it.

That's why the Constitution provides for amendments. We've ratified 27 of them over the past 220+ years. You don't just start ignoring the parts you find inconvenient, as Democrats (with their blather of a "living Constitution") are wont to do; that way lies madness (or, more specifically, lawlessness). If it's not getting the job done, you propose an amendment. Get two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of state legislatures to sign off on it, and it becomes part of the highest law of the land. (Those supermajority requirements keep the Constitution from being amended for trivial purposes.)

Given that our form of government has far outlasted most others in existence at the time of its founding, I kinda suspect that the founding fathers actually were a bit smarter than the average bear. They're certainly a damn sight better than the chuckleheads who infest DC nowadays.

Re:Exoskeletons will be of little value to soldier

[Gilmoure]

As a past aero-medevac tech (Fighting Unicorns!), anything to help with all the lugging stuff about would be a great help. Add in the fact that we were anywhere from 5-10 miles back from the front line, wouldn't be a lot of issues with another machine running.

a walkin assist in your crotch or u happy to c me?

[Scrameustache]

unique and elegant design:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2191712/honda_walking_assist/

You're half right.

be real: just follow the money

[Scrameustache]

Why is it that when Americans think of powered exoskeletons, the first thing they think of is soldiers?

He asked on the evolved version of a DARPA funded network.

M.A.N.T.I.S.

[HTH NE1]

What, no references to the Mechanically Automated NeuroTransmitter Interactive System?

Re:M.A.N.T.I.S.

[Mursk]

And Exosquad. What about Exosquad?

Re:M.A.N.T.I.S.

[HTH NE1]

I didn't really notice the exoskeletons in Exosquad. I paid more attention to the plight of the Neo-Sapiens. I also wasn't much of a toy collector at the time.

Re:Why Parent Sucks

[pitchpipe]

Ah yes, I know, this is slashdot, and I'm going to get modded troll/flaimbait, but you ever notice how starting out your post with "Ah yes, I know, this is slashdot, and I'm going to get modded troll/flaimbait," never gets modded troll/flaimbait, except for this post?

Re-printing?

[Jane Q. Public]

I saw a new paperback copy of "Triplanetary" in my local store the other day. Looks like somebody decided to reprint the series.

"Human Exoskeletons Getting Closer"

[DynaSoar]

I had to quote the title to make the response more obviously from the Epistles of Stooge:

"Slo-o-o-owly they turned.
Step by step.
Inch by inch...."

LockMart's Failed attempt to duplicate Japan

[Liger-Zero]

The LockMart solution is a pale attempt to duplicate what Japan has already started to mass product the HAL-5 System (Cyberdyne www.cyberdyne.jp) Which is 1000 different ways far superior to what LockMart is trying to produce. I know because I have had the actual misfortune of seeing a live demo, and it sucks, What we should have done is take the HAL-5 system as a core unit and then make it better, even convert it into a Mjolnir type of suit.... Or Better yet, kick LockMart off the contract and just give the contract to Cyberdyne for HAL-5 mass production units! IMHO

Re:Why Parent Sucks

[dave420]

Wow. You'd want to live in a 1700s country for the rest of your life? Because that's what's going to happen if the government spends like a 1700s government. For fuck's sake - governments, just like everything else on the planet, need to change with the times. Human kind has learned a great deal since the US was first created, and yet you are willing to flush that down the toilet just so the founding fathers were infallible? Muppet.

Re:Why not go compressed gas?

[holmstar]

Because a compressed gas cylinder makes one heck of a boom (or alternatively a nice rocket if a clean hole is made) if it is hit by a projectile.

Re:Why Parent Sucks

[ROU Nuisance Value]

Pony-WNED!

Re:Why Parent Sucks

[ROU Nuisance Value]

You don't just start ignoring the parts you find inconvenient, as Democrats (with their blather of a "living Constitution") are wont to do; that way lies madness (or, more specifically, lawlessness).

Yes. Do please explain to the class about all the chuckleheaded Democrat blather about Terry Schiavo and FISA and the Patriot Act.

If it's not getting the job done, you propose an amendment. Get two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of state legislatures to sign off on it, and it becomes part of the highest law of the land. (Those supermajority requirements keep the Constitution from being amended for trivial purposes.)

Right, that's all you need: An amendment. Such as the 18th Amendment, which was proof postive that the amendment system works brilliantly against trivial stuff. It also shows how good ideas can become permanent parts of our constitution, since the 18th's continuing presence in that hallowed document has given rise to wonderful, successful, completely constitutional government programs like the War on Drugs!

Given that our form of government has far outlasted most others in existence at the time of its founding, I kinda suspect that the founding fathers actually were a bit smarter than the average bear.

Too true, older is always better (why, it's the main qualification for successful racehorses, football linebackers, fashion models, cartons of milk, eggs...I could go on forever!). And US democracy is far older than, say, systems of government around in 1776 like, say, the Parliament of the UK. Of course, monarchy is old as dirt and has not completely died out, but really, who today pays any attention at all to petty kings and their tiny fiefdoms?

They're certainly a damn sight better than the chuckleheads who infest DC nowadays.

Or the pig-ignorant and/or thoughtless drones who seem to have inherited the rest of the USA from the Founders, and want to return it to a constitutional "reality" that never existed. Dude, before you post again, visit ClueMart.