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 Skynet repealed those laws.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."
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
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.
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.
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?
Actually sounds more like a hand grenade.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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
(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. ;)
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!
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.
Um... LEGO beat them to it.
http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/Throwbots
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.
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!
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.
That's about the same problems encountered by the Israeli's throwable robotic eyeball.
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.
How is percentage of GDP the relevant measure here? The US is richer than most other countries; we already knew that. No matter how much money we have, the question to ask is "how much should we spend on X to get what we need" (whether X is defense or something else) not "what percentage of our wealth should we spend on X?" If you make ten times as much money as someone else, it does not follow that you have to spend ten times as much money on your house, your car, and everything else.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
How is percentage of GDP the relevant measure here?
We have more to defend, and a larger stake in global politics/stability?
Bigger stick == better?
Just guessing.
I don't see how spending FOO * Scary Nation Defense Budget BAR makes any sense. What if there are several Scary Nations and Bad Countries?
I think military spending should be greater than the combination of all 'OTHER' country's military spending, but within your means. OTHER being anyone we don't trust right now. Are we spending within our means? ~5%, I guess so. Who is OTHER now? Do you trust them enough to cut back?
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."
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
I believe normal procedure upon encountering a mine is to jump two hundred feet into the air and scatter yourself over a wide area.
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.
Yes it is. It says a lot about what that countries priorites are.
Spend per person is useless because wealth varies so much. Compare North Korea (poor but aggressive) with Switzerland (rich but pacifist).
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
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.