Slashdot Mirror
Marine Corps Wants a Throwable Robot
coondoggie writes "The US Marine Corps has a request — build and rapidly deploy more 10lb-or-under robots its personnel can throw into dangerous situations that can quickly gather information without endangering Marines. The throwable robot is part of a family of robots that would range from the 10lb version to one that would act as a central controlling device and weigh close to 300lbs. Marine commanders are demanding ever lighter robots so that troops don't have to offload critical equipment from their rucksacks to accommodate them."
Make explode too, eh?
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
How about a large Weeble with encrypted wifi, cameras and microphones pointing in each direction, including up? Toss it in, monitor it remotely via wifi.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Designated "GR3N4-DE"
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Just what George Lucas needs to hear about...
The robots should be carrying the equipment and throwing each other.
The marines should be making the decisions and dodging the other guys robots.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
They're about 10 pounds and very throwable.
Actually sounds more like those spider robots from "Minority report."
Although it doesn't sound like they really want a "robot," they just want something they can throw into a room and see what's in there. Just put a durable webcam in a clear hampster ball. Or if you do need it to move around after thrown, put the webcam on a small RC car.
Marines: I expect a good chunk of your R&D budget for this design.
Naw. Skynet repealed those laws.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
... Type One Autonomous Mobile Swords.
Eep!
Why not just arm one of these.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Sure, 10 lbs is heavy, but this would be a first version. That, and the summary says 10 lbs and under. 10 lbs is probably the maximum weight they asked for in their request for proposals.
On the other hand, imagine if they got it down to the size of a tennis ball or golf ball, and it only weighed a couple ounces. You could throw several into an area simultaneously, or throw them at night... I feel like I've seen several sci-fi or action films where the protagonist rolls a little ball with a camera around a corner.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
how far can you heave a 10lb weight into a situation that you can't see directly in front of you?
Further than I would want to throw myself if we're talking about into a room with a lot of angry men with guns. Also, I'm not in the same shape a marine would be, I'd expect a marine would be able to throw a 10lb weight further. The article specifically mentions "can see around corners inside buildings, sewers, drainpipes, caves, courtyards" so corners, not distances, and it sounds kind of like they're looking into remote controlled after being thrown.
Yet another rash judgement from someone didn't even RTFA, let alone knows the full story. But lets not let trivial details like facts we don't know stand in the way of our statement that fully half our military budget is completely dispensable.
(For the record, I'm a liberal and also dislike the amount we spend on the military. It's not that I'm biased in favor of dumping all our money on the military, you're just making us look dumb.)
You fool! You have two second laws, and one of them's self-referential! No wonder the robots went mad and started killing people!
First off, the summary says that the military keeps requesting progressively smaller robots. This one might be 10 lbs, but there may be a 5 lbs version in the future.
As for usefulness, it depends on the application, and how mobile the robot is once it hits the ground. For example, in a firefight situation, a robot might be able to move through the crossfire (perhaps even taking a couple of bullets in the process) in a way that a human could not.
Personally, given that urban house-to-house combat is much more prevalent these days, I'd be more interested in a robot that would have no trouble climbing stairs and turning doorknobs. Better to send a robot into booby-traps than humans...
-JMP
Who said the bot had to harm humans?
After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
...recursive no less.
CHUCK: CHUCK Hates Urban Combatants, Kill!
Typical military project wasting money on building a specially "throwable" robot - every robot is throwable (once)!
Sounds like an updated version of a monkey with a lit stick of TNT tied to his back. Easy to throw, difficult to throw back.
beats the living crap out of peeking your head around the corner and hoping nobody shoots you or blindly charging through rooms hoping you don't set off an explosive trap. Pro-tip: the taliban, terrorists, socialists, communists, or liberal media don't have a trip-mine that can respond to a robot being chucked into the middle of the room if the robot doesn't bounce into the explosive device or any triplines.
Supposing that there are people in the room, they won't know exactly where you are. You might be able to guess at their general vicinity or point of entry, but if you were sitting on your computer, your couch or having a conversation, distracted and not expecting something to come crashing through your window, door, over your wall, or whatever, and you only see the thing landing and bouncing, I'd wager every dollar I have that you couldn't a) guess within 5 feet of where the object came from or b) react to it before your door came crashing down and marines come charging through your door.
They train the armed forces personnel how to chuck things. Like they train marines how to chuck a grenade such that it spends so much time bouncing off of walls and skating across the floor that by the time you can pick it up, it will go off in your face before you can throw it back.
I'm sure they'll come up with something that won't land in the middle of a room and sit there for 2 minutes so that the operator can get a front row seat to the robots destruction and the following retaliation.
No it isn't violating the laws, at least from what i can tell after reading half the summary. The robot might not be armed, unless it lands on someone, it won't harm them (although the whole inaction thing may be an issue). It will accept any order transmitted via Encrypted RF input to scan and survey the room. And well, it's kind of screwed on the third law, but if it can move and has automated processes, it may try to skedaddle out of the way of danger provided the operator has set the switch to auto-navigate.
All of this makes me think of what could be an Acme Instant Sentry. You throw a toolbox over, it rights itself, builds up a bit, and in seconds you got a limited capacity automated sentry. If there's room, just add a speaker and program it to say "Hell-looooooooo-hoooooooo? Can-you-come-over-here? There-you-are." *ratatatatatatatatatatat!*
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Or maybe it's Modern Marvels. I've been seeing all kinds of robots over the last couple of years on these shows. I saw one that was like a little pair of wheels with a camera on the axle and what looked like a weighted antenna hanging off the back (to keep it oriented correctly). Soldiers would throw it into a room and drive it around looking for hidden bad guys or booby traps. Then, there was one that was a little track-driven thing that had a machine gun mounted on it. They were even talking about the possibility of making them rather autonomous at some point in the future.
All this stuff seems to be in the development pipeline, so I'm not exactly sure what they're asking for.
And further ..
3#
4#
4#
5#
6#
6#
Shheew.. Now everyone will think I did it on purpose.. fooled them!
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Reading about cool stuff like that, makes me want to get back in. Too bad this type of thing will already have been fielded to the Army 10 years prior to the Marines getting it...
A lot you know about counter insurgency. First of all they generally already know you are there especially if they are enemy combatants. If you approached with a lot of stealth, you wouldn't use a throwable robot if you had one that could scoot in on the ground. You could even just use fiber and peak around. Special ops guys might have that but Marines and regular soldiers aren't usually that stealthy.
Throwing means that you have an obstacle or barrier of some sort. Now, if you are one side of a wall at night and you hear voices on the other do you peak around and say "howdy!"? If they are bad guys are even a farmer with a weapon who is worried about bandits you'll get your head blown off. On the other hand if you just fling some grenades over then you might kill a room full of kids. If you throw a robot in and they are not combatants you'll find out without killing anyone. If they are combatants and throw the robot back then you just toss some grenades in return. They'd probably hope you didn't know for sure they were there so the could surprise you so they might stay very still and quiet and hope they are not detected.
The other situation is that no one is there but the place is booby trapped. Your robot may spot them or even set them off. That's much better than you or your buddies accidently setting them off. Just knowing that no one is in the room can let you to decide to bypass it or to focus on booby traps also being concerned about someone hiding there.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Obligatory XKCD link.
And the other police directives:
I would prefer a *reliable* device that added *as little as possible* to the 70lbs I already carry, that "just works," even after I throw it, drop it, sit on it in sand and gets shot twice. If it still does the job, I'll buy the damn thing myself...
unfortunately, a lot of this tech doesn't work that well, that's why k-bars and bayonets are still issued.
Also, I agree that robots should be carrying gear so I can kick some $given_enemy butt.
CAPTCHA: "uncouth" coincidence?
Not listed is an unspecified bonus if the device says "Bite my shiny metal ass" after gathering information.
it's called the throwbot http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=321
Actually sounds more like a hand grenade.
Warfare.
!#&*
I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed.
Brain the size of a planet...
Life... don't talk to me about life.
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
I'd have to say, well in excess of 23.12 m (75 ft 10.2 in).
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
How do you know there isn't a bunch of women and babies hiding from the fighting in the next room. Or for that matter, some of your valiant Iraqui allies. Wouldn't it be better to have a look see first? You could still have a couple of guys with grenades ready to throw.
How did this get modded down as redundant? :/
After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
Chairbot
I'd be more interested in a robot that would have no trouble climbing stairs
Or better yet, leveling the building.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Due to an injury in the late summer I couldn't play football my senior year, so I did Track instead...
As soon as I saw your post, I thought Shotput... 12 pounds, and Discus 4.4 pounds... and they both went pretty far.
A few years later I did some Scottish Highland Games and threw a big rock called the Braemar a 20-26 pound stone, 28 pound weight on a chain and a Telephone pole called the Caber.
The Rock went 25-35 feet, the 28 pound weight gets the advantage of a lever and goes further.
Personally I all for the idea of the Hamster ball with 3 axis movement, and a webcam floating level in the middle that you could roll quietly into the enemy camp. Obviously the surface of the ball needs to be anti-static so dirt won't stick to it, or the webcam won't see much.
And maybe this robot doesn't need to blow up on command, maybe it should strobe lights or drop a flash bang just before the entry team comes in.
I'm all for it if it saves lives.
Invent gun holders that can see around corners via telescope and infrared cameras and hold a pistol or rifle so it can be fired around corners.
Then again throwing a Throwbot instead of a Grenade means less innocents are killed that way, what if you have innocents in the other room who aren't armed and are hostages or used as human shields? Throwing a grenade means the innocents die as well, throwing a Throwbot gives you another view to take sniper shots with and only kill the armed enemy and leave the innocents alone and alive.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
For anyone that doesn't live in one of the three countries in the world that persists with imperial units, 10lbs is about 4.5kg.
Interesting point.
As my Drill Instructors used to say: "if you can see the grenade, the grenade can see you."
Now, getting the grenade to send streaming video back to the Marine who threw it, that's the hard part.
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
All robots are throwable. The key is, you have to find the one that handles the landings better than the rest.
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
I was thinking it should be put on a sling. A sling bot, then even at five pounds it should get some decent distance. Bonus, if you can hit an enemy combatant with it!
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
"But that's against the law..."
"Law", unless sufficiently backed by force, is merely an expression of wishful thinking.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The base R&D has been done. They clearly say in the article they want something like Dragon Runner with more capability.
I know a bit about Dragon Runner. Trust me, it's seriously cool and very well engineered. If you don't believe it has the "throwable" part down, watch this movie.
A visual display could be distracting in a live fire situation. Perhaps some sort of loud, auditory signal...
You know, when I was in Fallujah, we believed in sending sending anything into a room before a Marine. If the building is occupied by people shooting at you, why send a Marine, when rockets do the same thing? Same idea with robots- send that. If the enemy decides to attack after seeing a robot, let the enemy get ambushed by the Marine fireteam around the corner. Read about the shit that happens when we send Marines into fortified houses. Robots make perfect sense.
Unless you want it to be able to go up/down stairs, etc. and then you need a more expensive device.... One person will say 'spend a few million and I will create a device that can climb stairs' the other will suggest a camera attached to a small remote control helicopter.
The government will choose the most expensive option.
There are already throwable robots. The iRobot PackBot is sometimes thrown through a window to get a look inside a house. The USMC would like something a bit smaller, but the concept already works.
Previous urban tactics were to throw in a grenade or demolish houses with artillery and tanks, so there's been some progress.
If they're combatants and you throw a robot first (not knowing who they are yet) I'm pretty sure they'll be throwing grenades in return.
No sig for you!!
because the world is a pleasant campfire singalong, and no ones means any one else any wrong
as russia tries to claim the arctic, engages in neoimperialism in the caucasus, as china ramps up its military spending, as myanmar tries to get nukes, as north korea has them, as iran tries to get nukes, as venezuela ramps up military purchases of heavy armament, etc., etc.
yeah, its a world of love and good will. no need for a serious military, you're a genius
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
10lb-or-under robots its personnel can throw into dangerous situations
You mean like the I-Ball?
Mmmmm-kay. Yeah, you sound like a combat veteran who knows what he's talking about. NOT!!
What you actually sound like, is a middle aged has-been who watches to much television and assumes that Hollywood knows combat.
Challenge: Define "shelter" and "cover". Watch a dozen or even a gross of Hollywood productions. Watch carefully for every instance in which the concepts are accurately conveyed, and realistically used.
BTW - you might have RTFA. It's the MARINES who want this 10-poung-or-less-robot, not the National Guard. No one who has ever worn a uniform can possibly confuse the two.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
(Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with this company, but I know somebody who is. I should talk to him about a "complimentary robot for referrals" program.) http://reconrobotics.com/ Recon Robotics makes a product called the Scout that is designed specifically for this purpose. Each robot weighs only 1.2 pounds, is deployable and easily controllable by a single soldier, and is relatively inexpensive compared to other combat-ready robot technologies. I know I want one. ;)
There's really no need; the enemy will scream and cry after detonation, revealing their position. Plus they're dead anyway.
Early/Mid 90's there were RC cars that were moderately popular, where the body height was smaller than the wheel height, so it looked like:
O=O (my Google skills failed me)
so if it landed upside down, it was exactly the same as right-side up, if it lands on it's edge, you can either have rounded/ball-like rims, or just give it a bit of throttle and it'll right itself again... there's also the tri-wheel designs too... which allows for a larger body size, but roughly the same over-all size, both came in tracked, and wheeled versions.
$79 RC Car
$89 Wireless Web Cam with Night Vision & Audio (Link)
Couple hours modding/reinforcing... call it $250
You could also go for a more simplistic design, 2 wheels, basically just a powered axel with wheels... kinda like a small Segway without the handlebars and shit, that way you could even modify some sort of rocket/grenade launcher that was large enough instead of tossing it by hand...
yeah beacuse the US army, don't kill enough innocent civilians and obviously don't need a way to find out if there are women/children in there (cowering or as hostages)!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
It's called the Mk.II. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/metalgear/images/thumb/8/8b/Metal_Gear_Mk._II.jpg/375px-Metal_Gear_Mk._II.jpg
2 wheels, basically just a powered axel with wheels... kinda like a small Segway without the handlebars
Taking the first design you mentioned, the car that works right-side-up or upside down, you could make the two wheeler have the body hanging below the axle, instead of balanced/gyroed on top of it, so that it just naturally balances itself.
So you want a dalek?
Haven't the been using them for years? See iRobot
Unexpect the expected!
Yeah that's the idea, but you could also have smaller guide wheels to help stabilize it (because weight/pendulum based still limits it's drive power, ie: too much throttle it'll just sit there rotating) so it looks like
O.
and if you used the "launcher" the guide wheels could be spring loaded, so they collapse into the main cylinder but pop-out after it leaves the barrel, which would also be useful for quick 180 degree views (throttle it, flips over but stops because of guide wheels) instead of making it turn 180 degrees, just have a sensor that tells the camera/software to flip the image vertically.
Could probably make them as small as a tear-gas can, so pretty much every soldier could carry one, or one guy could carry 20 of them, it's not like they have to run for hours, or defuse a bomb.
I am nervous that the kids who grew up on Pokémon are all grown up and in the military now....
Are they going to throw Pokéballs at opposing forces?
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Dalek's are -not- robots, they're containers/shells over the organic components of a non human race.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
It would be ideal if the robot comes in a little ball or is ball shaped and unfolds. Being able to announce it's name for identification is a bonus. Being bright yellow for visability and being able to electricute even the entire crew of a helicopter would certainly stop any team with rockets.
Not quite sci-fi, not quite reality yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7734038.stm
"Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
how far can you heave a 10lb weight into a situation that you can't see directly in front of you?
How about approximately 15 - 20 meters?
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
No real joke intended here. But just an idea-- robotic snakes. The snake form factor does a lot better on rough terrain than anything based on wheels. If it is built to look like a real snake, it can also frighten enemies beyond belief. They can also be designed to be thrown up on telephone / power lines, hook on, then travel along the line while sending video back to the thrower. Power lines are a great vantage point.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
A useful application for this is when terrorists/insurgents, who have been known to take cover in populated houses, open fire from them. Standard procedure for clearing a house from which fire is taken is to use grenades. This has the unfortunate effect of causing regrettable, but unavoidable civilian casualties.
So what if a small device could be put into a building that would show the Marines how to direct their fire to not only protect themselves, but any noncombatants that might be in the building? Probably more useful in someplace like a mosque or school than a small house, but there are applications aplenty for someone with an imagination.
:-D
Jesus Christ, WARN US when the site auto-plays extremely LOUD audio. I almost shit myself.
Comment of the year
How a liberal, who generally is in favor of bigger government, can rail against the waste that is endemic in a big government and yet cannot recognize the dissonance between those two desires and grow up is beyond me, but that's an aside for now.
[sigh] Liberals, like conservatives and libertarians and people of just about every other political philosophy, want government to do certain things and not do certain other things. Nobody is in favor of "big government" generally, and people who tell you they're in favor of "small government" are generally lying -- they always want to shrink some parts of government and expand others. Libertarians are kinda-sorta the exception, but libertarians who align themselves with conservatives are fools, because conservatives are guaranteed to produce just as big a government as liberals, only they'll try to do it without paying.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Actually it sounds to me like they want one of the bugs from Runaway. Hell it wouldn't surprise me if some Marine bigwig saw that movie on a late night horror fest and said 'hell, mount a camera to that bad boy and I'll take a dozen!".
Of course it wouldn't surprise me if there was some tech meeting going on in the Pentagon right now where some tech bunch is getting handed some pics of the T-101 with some big brass asking "How much to give us a couple of hundred of those bad boys?"
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
That's about the same problems encountered by the Israeli's throwable robotic eyeball.
the north korean government works as a blackmailing entity: lob missiles over japan, set off nukes... get shipments of food and oil from concerned countries. rather than gee, i dunno, figuring out the korean war is over and engaging in peaceful trade with its neighbors so its able to afford food and oil on its own?
now all of what you said might be true, but i always thought the purpose of a government was to serve it's people. but a nuclear power whose people eat leaves? does that make any sense to you? to me, its the dictionary definition of an illegitimate government
the only thing the government of north korea serves is the ego of a little old man in 4 inch lifts. the north korean government does not deserve to exist. not that anyone is in a position to remove it. and even when it finally decays or implodes (which people have been waiting for it to do for fifty years) you have to deal with a psychologically traumatized population who have spent their entire lives extremely propagandized about all of the japanese and americans on hair trigger readiness to come and rape the women and eat the babies... if it weren't for dear leader vision and genius saving them. have some more leaves
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
but the usa ranks only 27th in military spending
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_as_a_percentage_of_GDP
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i wholeheartedly support it
but the usa only ranks 27th in military spending
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_as_a_percentage_of_GDP
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How a liberal, who generally is in favor of bigger government, can rail against the waste that is endemic in a big government
If you think liberals are in favor of "big government" for it's own sake, you've really confused partisan slander with reality.
We're for expanding effective programs and cutting the waste. It's only confusing if you don't realize that not everyone thinks that all government spending is inherently wasteful.
What say you put YOUR life on the line, and then tell others they are spending too much to protect you, hmmm?
You're being a simpleton. Not all military spending goes to protecting our soldiers.
If it weren't so politically incorrect, this might almost be a legitimate purpose for dwarf-throwing. :-)
and he sold it to the iranians, libyans, and the north koreans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
he may be the man indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions, one way or another, if nukes ever percolates down to even sketchier countries and entities
but pakistan's nukes are mostly a point of pride in pakistan's blood feud with india
as for iraq, iraq would have never have gotten nukes. even if the usa never existed. the reason being is that iraq's main problem is that it couldn't stop invading its neighbors: iran and kuwait. either israel or iran would have bombed any iraqi nuclear sites to stop it from acquiring nukes if no one else was going to (israel already bombed a syrian nuclear site). of course, iraq never was building nukes (ah cheney, you lying manipulative sleazebag)
north korea meanwhile, is insane and evil, but not stupid: it doesn't actually live up to all its endless military propaganda of its insurmountable strength (actually invade south korea), because then it knows it would be wiped from the earth in less than a week. its old cold war sponsors beijing and moscow have long since tired of north korea, and mainly barely tolerate it nowadays, as a rabid dog that serves the vaguely useful purpose of scaring the west and keeping its attentions diverted
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Further than I would want to throw myself if we're talking about into a room with a lot of angry men with guns. Also, I'm not in the same shape a marine would be, I'd expect a marine would be able to throw a 10lb weight further. The article specifically mentions "can see around corners inside buildings, sewers, drainpipes, caves, courtyards" so corners, not distances, and it sounds kind of like they're looking into remote controlled after being thrown.
Yet another rash judgement from someone didn't even RTFA, let alone knows the full story. But lets not let trivial details like facts we don't know stand in the way of our statement that fully half our military budget is completely dispensable.
(For the record, I'm a liberal and also dislike the amount we spend on the military. It's not that I'm biased in favor of dumping all our money on the military, you're just making us look dumb.)
Mmmmm-kay. Yeah, you sound like a combat veteran who knows what he's talking about. NOT!!
What you actually sound like, is a middle aged has-been who watches to much television and assumes that Hollywood knows combat.
Challenge: Define "shelter" and "cover". Watch a dozen or even a gross of Hollywood productions. Watch carefully for every instance in which the concepts are accurately conveyed, and realistically used.
BTW - you might have RTFA. It's the MARINES who want this 10-poung-or-less-robot, not the National Guard. No one who has ever worn a uniform can possibly confuse the two.
If you can't figure out the moderations going up and down on your post, it's because this is what Slashdoters see with default settings. You sound insane. :\
I've figured out the real thread, but the average moderator probably didn't
Slashdot, wtf.
mainly by cutting waste. but if military spending is below 5% gdp, in any country, i don't see the problem
if military spending were 10% or more of gdp, i'm with your words completely
otherwise, something as vital as military spending is under 5%? i'm trying to get upset or concerned, and i can't
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You know, basing the camera on a grenade form/body might be the best solution: forget about mobility and instead concentrate on making just a camera you can toss into a room.
I can imagine making it softball-sized, so that it would be easy to lob. Once the camera lands, it extends tripod legs to right itself. The camera can then pan in 360Â, maybe even with slight elevation controls as well. Moving the camera is done by hand, folding the legs back in so that the camera can be tossed into the next room (repeat until battery is drained).
It's possible that the camera will be tampered with, but the mere act of tampering will be usable info. Microphones can pick up voices, to tell the difference between a bad landing or if someone is trying to block the images. Also, anywhere you can toss the cam grenade, you can toss a shrapnel grenade to go with it: no need to make the cam grenade heavier with booby trap explosives.
Unlike an explosive hand grenade, the cam grenade won't kill hostages/civilians. This is important, as the marines' future missions won't allow for a "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" mentality.
I saw this device on a Discovery show called Future Weapons about 2-3 years ago, not really news. But yeah the idea is that you throw it over a wall or into a window. Sure they'll know you were at the other side of the wall but it is still better than sticking your head through the window to take a look. Also you can move from the wall once you've deployed the unit. Destroying it still lets you know someone is on the otherside with less risk to yourself, and if you get lucky and no one is around you can drive the thing around and get an idea of whats in other rooms. Also I've seen versions that were equipped with a handgun. I think it is a bigger version of the idea at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTabSf1Dxx8 which is a clip from another Future Weapons episode This one you don't throw through a window but it can climb stairs, move along river beds, and carry heavier weapons (sniper rifle, machine gun, rocket launcher, incendiary devices for anti-mine ops etc).
That's fine. In the world of future law enforcement, there's no such thing as unfair dismissal, contracts, Union representation, or employment tribunals. The CEO can just say "You're fired!" and that's it.
Man, my freebooting ass sure does love beauracracy!
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
...the Marine Corps also wants a pony.
How heavy was the first computer again?
As shitty as it is, it's kind of good to have a reputation like that.
Why would one take a hostage, if they knew they would just die right along with the hostage?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
"Law" shouldn't need to be backed by force. I'm not saying that any law which requires it is wrong, just that people need to self-regulate properly. "Acting to the detriment of society" takes many forms, but ultimately it encompasses all crimes. Speeding, fraud, child abuse, murder, theft... They all come down to depriving society of a resource or good in unjust circumstances.
If only humanity were more just.
3, 2, 1... Offtopic!
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
No, that's a hamster ball. You can't take it on a picnic.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
To get 72 virgins?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Everyone wants just the right amount of government. The argument is about the definition of what "just right" means.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
For the benefit of all the dimwits who keep posting links to shotput records, let me explain something about world record holders. They aren't average. They're really really good at whatever it is that they hold records for. In fact, they're better than really really good. Thy're the best.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Repeal thermodynamics now! Cut gravity and boost the economy!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This isn't diplomacy with quid pro quo. They already know you are there. They would have done that when you arrived if that' what they were up to. Since they didn't they are trying to avoid detection either until you go away or until you step into their ambush zone.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
"Nobody throws a robot!"
I don't care about the quantity of government. I care about the quality.
Fix the quality and the quantity will take care of itself.
I believe you can't fix the quantity and expect the quality to take care of itself, so to me the endless arguments about quantity just shows how stupid people are.
Voting for politicians just because they want "small" (or "big") government isn't going to help you get better government.
Just say you get a government of just one person, because you think a government of just one bad person reduces the amount of badness. The trouble is that one person could make bad[1] contracts with crappy organisations to do the millions of stuff he/she can't do (or doesn't want to do).
[1] Bad for the people, but good for him/her and his/her cronies.
And the last I checked, corporations in the USA do NOT necessarily have to care about "luxuries" like "Freedom of Speech". Even if the immediate government contractors are required to care, they could always keep subcontracting till the phrase becomes useless.
Gun & Ammo, water & food if not possible to get on site, the rest is optional.
If consumed, best digested with added seasoning to own preference.
Why do I picture the military throwing Furby over a wall or launching Furby from a cannon?
Then, hmm, "Uuhhh, danger, lets send in the robot". Where have all Gung ho's gone?
Also the battle situation for all those teenage marines will become more realistic. They'll be given a screen, a joystick, and they need to shoot down all the other moving dots on the screen. Less training needed, no more x weeks of Pendleton.
When it comes to the RFP, I hope they added as requirement the emitters you wear when facing the robot. Sending out the signal "f-r-i-e-n-d-l-y". Afgans , I imagine, will be rather keen to get some of those.
Seriously, lets try to see things in a positive manner - it documents the will of generals not to waste young lifes - hopefully on both sides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacky_WallWalker Wacky Wallwalker FTW.
All you need is a clear plastic hamster ball, a spring, and a webcam with wifi attached. Throw that in there, the cam will see everything and theball will roll around for a minute before it gets destroyed or loses momentum. Cost: way less than whatever robot they were thinking of developing. Does no one use their brain anymore? geez!
stuff |
How such an ignorant and shitfilled post was modded insightful I will never know. The US goes out of it's way not to kill civilians, it's not our fault the ones we are fighting are worthless piece of shit that don't deserve to live and hide behind women and children thinking we won't fire back. Simple way to reduce civilian casualties: The civilians stop ALLOWING the terrorists/enemy to hide amongst them, and they will stop dying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Why would one take a hostage, if they knew they would just die right along with the hostage?
A bit like a hydra, the more innocent people the US kill the more soldiers they get.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
This is why the military acts in coordinated units. One guy might be analyzing the data but you can bet he's got several others watching his back.
Don't project your lack of common sense on the military.
With our technology of today I could see more like 2 to 5 pounds max each...why so heavy, and for the distance they need to be thrown, have built in parachute like devises to avoid getting damaged, and lower the need for protective outer shell...would cut down a bit on the weight...throwing a 10 vs throwing a 5 pound weight is enormous.
I believe normal procedure upon encountering a mine is to jump two hundred feet into the air and scatter yourself over a wide area.
of course if i was designing this thing i would have it able to go "BOOM" on command/ when shot/after timeout
but anytime you use ordinance and don't disable any enemy is bad. disabling innocent civilians in the process is even worse.
so throw a bot into the room roll the dice
everybody in the room a valid "target" = pop the bot and make entry during the confusion
Mixed room = use Hot zone protocol (hey you know where almost everybody is)
No valid targets = put weapons on safe and pick up your bot on the way through
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Straw man. No one is saying "because the world is a pleasant campfire singalong, and no ones means any one else any wrong", "its a world of love and good will" nor are they saying "no need for a serious military". The issue was less spending, not none at all. For heaven's sake, please try to at least respond to what people say. But I guess it's easier to get modded up if you make up a point of view to argue against?
If, e.g., a certain invasion didn't happen, there'd be hundreds of billions of dollars extra to use for worrying about that other stuff.
And what, precisely, are you going to do with extra military spending in response to other countries having nukes? Invade all of them before they get them? Good luck with that. Invade them after they get them? Yeah right. Have nukes as a deterrent? The US already has them.
Was I the only one who's first thought after reading the headline was Fastball Special?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastball_Special
Now if the robot was called Wolverine, I'd be all in.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Ah, it's funny to watch you now back-peddle. Yes, the question of how much a % of GDP to spend on an issue is a matter of debate - you might say 5% is fine, the OP thought it should be less than that.
That's a completely different claim to your original argument that reducing spending would mean the US is incapable of running a "serious" military, or dealing with any of the threats that the US may face - for that, percentage of GDP is not a very meaningful measure.
If you say "sure the usa could spend less", then I see it turns out you agree with the OP after all, because that's what he was saying.
to do certain things and not do certain other things. Nobody is in favor of "big government" generally, and people who tell you they're in favor of "small government" are generally lying -- they always want to shrink some parts of government and expand others.
Most conservatives I know, believe that the parts of government that do the certain things they want the government to do are big enough and don't need expanding. Most liberals I know think the parts of government that do the certain things they want to do aren't big enough and do need expanding.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
And similarly, the answer to the question "How quick can someone run a mile?" is of course about four minutes.
And maybe this robot doesn't need to blow up on command, maybe it should strobe lights or drop a flash bang just before the entry team comes in.
I suspect that when these go into production there will eventually be a whole series of options available. Ones that go BOOM. Ones that go FLASH. Ones that give off lots of smoke. There will probably be ones that fire rifle(or pistol) rounds.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
15 meters isn't real crazy, lots of high schoolers do it:
http://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Division/Event.aspx?Gender=M&Event=12&DivID=15963
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
One prototype for this kind of robot didn't do so well in tests....
Sgt. Connor tossed the robot into a room hoping for a report - after a short period it rolled back out of the room to communicate back its findings...
Connor: Report.
Robot: HARO, GENKI?
Connor: Yeah, hi. Report, please.
Robot: HARO, GENKI? HARO!
Connor: Damnit, tell me what's in there!
Robot: CONNOR-GUNSOU, OKKOTTEIRU, OKKOTTEIRU.
Connor then kicked the robot, causing it to rebound off a wall and hit him in the head.
Bow-ties are cool.
Apparently the USMC doesn't read yahoo news:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090819/ap_on_hi_te/as_afghan_wired_war
I am nervous that the kids who grew up on Pokémon are all grown up and in the military now....
Are they going to throw Pokéballs at opposing forces?
This Penny Arcade seems rather apropos...
Bow-ties are cool.
Not just that, having to carry the thing would be a pain. To put it into perspective, the average (unloaded) M16A4 weapon system weighs somewhere around 7-8 lbs and a loaded 30 round aluminum magazine is about a pound. An M4 Carbine weighs even less. Basically, 10 lbs is your rifle and ammo. I can't imagine too many Marines would be thrilled to have to hump an extra 10 lbs of potentially useless gadgetry all day, every day. 10 lbs is a lot heavier than it sounds.
Can't they just use cats with cameras strapped to their heads?
Yes! Extremely well-trained, obedient cats who will bravely follow instructions to the letter even in the harshest, most dangerous environments...
I like this idea. I am confident that no flaws will be found in it.
Bow-ties are cool.
You mean lots of highschoolers with the correct physique, training, conditioning and rest. In other words, very few.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Yeah, I wouldn't really expect someone in the military to have the correct physique, training or conditioning (of the 3, physique would probably be the most frequent problem).
If you keep on a clicking, you will see that the site stops reporting entries at 1,000, at which point the entries are still going a bit further than 15 meters. I would guess that there are many thousands more who can easily break 10 meters. So it isn't crazy to expect there to be, out of 10 or 15 guys, a couple that can throw a 10 pound object a pretty decent distance.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Five years into the war, Alliance scientists created a weapon called the Autonomous Mobile Sword, or "screamer". The artificially intelligent screamers were subterranean, self-replicating, crawlers which target and locate a life-form by tracking its pulse. The screamers are equipped with a spinning saw blade designed to kill by "leaping" from the ground and dismembering the target.
Spooky steps to a reality for "Autonomous Mobile Sword".
Far better to have a bag of 8 ounce robots that you throw into a situation like a box of ball bearings. Let them scatter, sprout eyes, ears, chemical sensors and IR antennae, instantly network with each other and move in coordinated swarms toward a target. Just watching the beasties react to your presence would send you into a heebie jeebie fit, with a strong incentive to move away. Especially if a few of 'bots are C4 grenades which can be maneuvered forward by the network and detonated by independent circuitry. Since this can be a re-programmable network, you could have a medic fog as well as a search and destroy fog.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
I just got a mental image of a game of peekaboo gone horribly wrong.
Sure. Mistakes happen. Bad intelligence and the like. The truth is though alot of people get away because we do not want to kill civilians. The parent is also corrent that in many areas of the world the civilian populations allow the terrorists to hide within their population. If it cost them more they might be less willing to do it.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I know, from personal experience... competition-wise that I can throw a 28lbs object 72 feet and change. With a wind and one-step? 54feet last night (on a lark, demonstrating a primitive technique)
10lbs?? Might as well make me an arty unit.
Steve Ballmer has announced the release of Microsoft Chairbot 1.0. He has allegedly personally tested its throwing characteristics himself with heavy enthusiasm.
Table-ized A.I.
Look, I don't so much of an issue with the rest of your post, but IMO the statement below shows a clear misunderstanding of the socioeconomics, politics and culture in the areas where these things are occuring - it sounds nice, but means nothing in the real world.
" Simple way to reduce civilian casualties: The civilians stop ALLOWING the terrorists/enemy to hide amongst them, and they will stop dying."
It doesn't make much practical sense either, you're saying that the unarmed, downtrodden families are supposed to stop the armed ruthless thugs? Is that it?
That's like when someone who doesn't understand the drug issue talking about getting dealers off the streets:
"Hey, if the people who lived in north Philadelphia didn't allow drug sales to occur there'd be no drug sales in our neighborhood."
My point is that it's just not that simple.
For one thing, 10 pounds isn't that heavy, especially for a Marine, who is in far better shape and generally stronger than the average doofus on the street. The Marine doesn't necessarily have to throw it all that far, either -- just get it over that wall or whatever, then the robot can drive to the actual area of interest.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Friendly Fire happens. But hey. Glad you have some blame to go around.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
You point out the culture, which implies that they are culturally inclined to side with the people we are fighting, therefore we should ignore attacks launched by our enemies hiding amongst civilians who are protecting them due to a cultural kinship and that is flat out stupid. If you aid our enemy, then YOU are also our enemy, it's that simple. You don't want your neighborhood to get bombed, you don't let our enemies use it as a launchpoint for attacks or a meeting place.
>Most conservatives I know, believe that the parts of government that do the certain things they want the government to do are big enough and don't need expanding.
Right, like all those conservatives who want a smaller military.
Sure, 10 lbs is heavy, but this would be a first version. That, and the summary says 10 lbs and under. 10 lbs is probably the maximum weight they asked for in their request for proposals.
On the other hand, imagine if they got it down to the size of a tennis ball or golf ball, and it only weighed a couple ounces. You could throw several into an area simultaneously, or throw them at night... I feel like I've seen several sci-fi or action films where the protagonist rolls a little ball with a camera around a corner.
Yea, something like throw a handful of objects into a room with radar or sonar sensors on them that scatter about and each relay information back that allows you to reproduce a semi real-time 3d projection of what what's inside the room.
They'd probably all just roll into a corner under a bed and be useless but it would be cool while it lasted.
No, see, I know lots of conservatives who want the military to stay the size it is (the parts that do the things they want) and other parts of government to shrink (the parts they don't want. I don't know any liberals that want parts of the government to stay the size they are, they either want the part to grow (social programs, the part they want), or they want it to shrink (the military, the part they don't want).
I suppose you don't see the difference between wanting to keep the parts you like the size they are and wanting to make the parts you like bigger?
As I said, most conservatives think the parts of government they like are big enough, most liberals think the parts of government they like need to get bigger.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Only because the things the cons like are already over-represented to the tune of 650 billion in military spending. It didnt get that way because the cons thought that the miiltary was big enough, but over decades of demanding more defense spending, pork, etc.
Now that the cons have situated themselves well you cant sit back and say "See, theyre fiscally responsible and want smaller government." No, they are not. In fact it took Obama to stop the production of F-22s we didnt need to fight an enemy that no longer exists.
Every GOP presidency in past couple of decades has led to massive deficit spending. Clinton cleaned up the Bush years and Obama will have to clean up the other Bush's mess.
Not to mention when liberals spend we get the GI Bill and FHA. When cons spend we get f-22s we dont need and on top of it they cut taxes for their rich pals, thus guaranteeing a deficit.
My google skills show I should get that R&D budget slice.
2005: Boston police, rubber bouncy ball cam self stabalizing
2005: Israeli grenade launcher launched camera munition
2008: UK troops I-Ball
if only
That actually is the point. The advice about grenades is a special case of a more general bit of advice about all explosives. Recruits/newbies tend to want to see the explosions they make, but small devices are usually set to explode too close to the operator for safe viewing. Thus "if you can see the explosion, the explosion can see you."
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
I think if you'd made the effort to have a look at the records, I did discount the record by a bit, and being a former shotputter myself I can hazard a guess at how far they can throw it - but there's still an expectation that these guys could be trained up. These are marines after all.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Agreed - I was throwing 4kg (~8.8lbs) about 8 meters, and I wasn't exactly competition worthy at my school. Surely marines can throw 10lbs with a bit of training, and no need to worry about a foul line!
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Dear god can you even fucking read english? How the fuck can a downtrodden unarmed family possibly prevent a well armed mobile group from launching/planning attacks near their homes
therefore we should ignore attacks launched by our enemies hiding amongst civilians
Seriously Where the fuck does he say that? And above nobody is suggesting we ignore the attacks, just that arming the troops with tools to better fight the enemy without causing unnecessary civilian casualties, is a good idea
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Between the number of incidence where they bomb/shoot clearly marked journalist, bomb/shoot wedding parties, shoot cars full of women & children and there general ability to shoot their allies, US tropes have a reputation for causing huge numbers of innocent casualties! If this is in-spite of having much better tech than most, perhaps its just that you have an attitude problem or poor training!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
My failure to find the car you're talking about (I remember it well, just not the name) turned up this awesomeness. I've wanted one of these ever since I was a kid.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
These are not the droids you're looking for, these are our special throwable droids...
One! Two! Five!
$79 RC Car
$89 Wireless Web Cam with Night Vision & Audio (Link [shoptronics.com])
Couple hours modding/reinforcing... call it $250
This would not survive small arms fire for even a few seconds. Even reenforced. You are going to have to do better than that. Such a device needs to be able to take a clip worth of rounds and still have a good chance of completing it's mission.
You could also go for a more simplistic design, 2 wheels, basically just a powered axel with wheels... kinda like a small Segway without the handlebars and shit, that way you could even modify some sort of rocket/grenade launcher that was large enough instead of tossing it by hand...
This idea has a bit more promise, but one needs to think of how to make it inherently resistant to combat damage.
I was envisioning something more like a titanium koosh-ball with a split down the middle. Each hemisphere is a highly reenforced wheel. The profile of "spines" on the koosh-ball provides stability for the structure to keep it oriented correctly. The internal structure is set so that it's mass is below the center of gravity for the robot. Such a structure could be designed to survive a substantial amount of impact damage, and remain viable. A small gap between the hemispheres allows for optical elements to get a view. The drive system would be based on BLDC motors, with the magnets in the hemispheric wheels.
Optical systems could include mic, IR illumination, and a IR sensitive video camera.
Stairs are a serious problem but this is more of a deployment logistics issue. Clear the lower portion of the house, then throw the robot upstairs. Rinse repeat.
They should store them in small colorful plastic balls. Each time they encounter the enemy, everyone throws their roboball into some arena. Gogo picachu!
Dragon Runner
That's what they are currently using, which is exactly what I described (I didn't RTFA before posting), I don't really see why they need a "new one" really, perhaps just a smaller version of the same... which should be easily possible considering that one is 9 years old now.
As for protection from firearms, I don't think that's really important because it would be rather hard to have it armoured enough and still be under 10 pounds, and it can't defend itself, so someone could just as easily pick it up, corner it, stand on it, throw a blanked or board on it, flamethrower, etc... it should be tough, but it can't be invincible so may as well make it for less so you don't lose as much when it gets broken/stolen/etc.
If the goal is "Hmm. . . What's over there that can kill us?". . .
Isn't part of the challenge of throwing several robots "context?" You throw 5 in (plus the 20 you've thrown over the last hour that are still in range). . . Which of the multiple camera angles ties into the direction from the Marine's point of view? It quickly gets overwhelming and this is only useful if the data it is relaying can affect decisions in a matter of seconds.