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."
Designated "GR3N4-DE"
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
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 Skynet repealed those laws.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.)
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
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
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?
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."
Something like this...????
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/gallery/2007-01/cop-tech-2010?pos=8
I have never posted on here but always lurk so apologies for the AC post. I was the lead engineer for this little gadget. Here are some details:
The system came with 2 or 4 Dragon Eggs, each on a different channel and 1 video receiver. The band was the 900MHz ISM band. The transmit power was 1W so it was not FCC compliant( so outside US or military sales only, sorry SWAT). It transmitted the 4 views( B&W, NTSC, 384x278pixels ) simultaneously to the receiver so there was 4 views on the receiver for each channel. There was an internal digital compass that displayed each camera view's direction. On this model there was NO sound. It was powered by an internal lithium-polymer battery pack and recharged off of 5V( there was even a USB charger ). It weighed about 1Kg and was spec'ed to withstand 20 consecutive 2 meter drops on to concrete AND 20 tosses into a second-story window( concrete floor ) from across the street. The body was made of machined polycarbonate( LEXAN ) and the bottom counter-weight that made it always stand upright was tungsten and this "puck" was about 1/2 the weight. Sadly, last I heard from fellow ex-co-workers, it was discontinued for the final time( it had been revived about 5 other times in past ). There were a bunch of other cool little features, like USB connectivity for firmware upgrades, onscreen display of battery life, onscreen display of "health" and to turn in on, you pulled the "pin" and tossed it.
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.
(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. ;)
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!
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?