Slashdot Mirror


Military's Robotic Pack Mule Gets $32M Boost

coondoggie sends word that Boston Dynamics, maker of the BigDog robot we have been following for a while, has just been awarded a $32M DARPA contract to produce robotic "pack dogs" for the military. "What kind of robot will automatically follow a leader, carry 400 lbs. (182 kg) of military gear, walk 20 miles in all manner of weather, and go 24 hours without refueling? Well, we might soon find out as DARPA has awarded a $32 million contract to build its Legged Squad Support System (LS3) which uses sensors and a GPS to walk along with soldiers across all manner of terrain in any weather without pulling any muscles."

23 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Fuck that... by Kratisto · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cast Tensor's Floating Disk!

    --
    Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
  2. Money well spent? by phy_si_kal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, the Afghans have mules, that cost nearly 0 and already pass where Humvee's stop. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2009/0504/p22s01-usmi.html

    1. Re:Money well spent? by jlowery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, come on. Do you think the complexity of these robots won't lead to breakdowns and glitches? And how cheap is it to replace a robot vs. a mule? It would be cheaper to add bionics to the mule.

      --
      If you post it, they will read.
    2. Re:Money well spent? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was reading about mules in the Italian campaign (1943-44). Compared to a legged vehicle, they suck.

      There is the food aspect, vets and language. Yes, an Afghani mule for example will need a mule skinner than can speak the mule's native language, Dari or Pashtun (that covers like 90% of Afghanistan's mules).

      And if your mules are killed or if you need more, its easier to airlift in some robots than to train or find more mules.

    3. Re:Money well spent? by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but the robot will get much cheaper over time if they are being purchased and R&D costs are paid. I would much rather see robotics technology pushed forward then provide a handout to mule breeders.

    4. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yet somehow, against the most advanced technology at the time, a bunch of mule-riding tent dwellers have fucked up the British, the Soviet, the American and the NATO armies time and time again.

    5. Re:Money well spent? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can you eat a robot?

    6. Re:Money well spent? by homunq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mules run on partly celulosic biofuels, which they convert directly into mechanical energy at the point it's needed. They include advanced elastic shock-absorbers which actually return energy for the power stroke. They have autonomous capabilities and vision systems that put any robot to shame.

      Robotics is trying to imitate all of these aspects, and is probably making great strides. But if I want to carry something over a mountain pass, give me today's mule over the 8-years-from-now robotic mule any day. Wheels, propellors, jet engines, are a way to beat nature, because evolution isn't very good at those things. But four-legged travel has been optimized by nature (and slightly reoptimized by human breeding to carry burdens). You won't beat it with any foreseeable technology, and you won't make the unforeseeable come any faster with research in this area.

    7. Re:Money well spent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Protip: the mules had nothing to do with it.

    8. Re:Money well spent? by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can you put a mule on standby?

      That's the default. Waking from standby is the trick.

    9. Re:Money well spent? by zippyspringboard · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah really, just add some kevlar body armor, a camera, blinders, and a remote controlled stick with a carrot on the end of it!

    10. Re:Money well spent? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Heinlein had a quote (from I think 'The Green Hills of Earth') that went "Horses can make other horses, that's a trick tractors haven't learned yet". Doesn't exactly work with mules (since horse + donkey = mule), but you get the idea.

      Manufacturing costs are a lot lower.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:Money well spent? by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Am I the only one would would like to hop on the thing like a pony and ride it to work every day?

      Plus, I could set it to "Terrorize H.R. Mode" and pick it up at the end of the day.

  3. Robotic mules? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, they should have no problem at all finding the mountain wampus now. I just hope the project doesn't get canceled when they run low on smithore.

  4. This is a weapons platform, not a pack mule. by d474 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they wanted mules, they'd use mules. Problem is, it's kind of hard to ask your mule to scout ahead 100m, scan territory, and post an "all clear" message back to your squad, while providing live video feeds and fire support (it may even deploy it's own microUAV during maneuvers). Old No. 7 isn't going to do that for you.

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    1. Re:This is a weapons platform, not a pack mule. by Dynedain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, even as a pack mule, it's still useful.

      I'm sure that mules aren't very effective when encountering combat situations. Something that follows the leader and doesn't run away when under fire would be very useful.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  5. If I had NASA's resources... by Snufu · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd build some good robot ass too.

  6. Pfahhhh! by 2.7182 · · Score: 3, Funny

    A robotic mule? That's ridiculous. Use a real mule. Now a robot donkey, that's different. Could be real hand. Or a bionic burro. An android ass could be the ultimate.

  7. In the pipeline, and moving right along. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has been in the pipeline for the last year, and in fact Boston Dynamics had already won the trade study contract for the Legged Squad Support System, the "LS3". This is the next phase, the contract to build prototypes, which will be field tested.

    This isn't a research program, as BigDog was. The program is now in DARPA's Tactical Technology Office, which builds prototypes of weapon systems. The next step is volume production and deployment.

    So far, DARPA isn't discussing armament. Since the USMC is involved in this program, someone is almost certainly looking at that option. It's attractive as a weapons platform. Since it already has full inertial and GPS sensors, a weaponized version could easily have a stabilized gun, like a tank, so it could fire on the move and hit targets. There's also the possibility of integrating the "automated mortar" developed a few years ago. The "automated mortar" concept is that someone up at the sharp end designates a target, the firing data goes back to the gun, and the gun duly clobbers the selected target. That's what mortar squads do now, but lugging the gear around ties up too many people and slows up the operation. The automated mortar was too heavy to lug around on foot, and mounted on a vehicle, it duplicated existing heavier weapons. The LS3 is just the right size to move that thing around.

    So there's the LS3, trailing the squad, when someone spots something that needs to be destroyed. They point something at the target, data goes back to the LS3, and the LS3 quickly launches a mortar round, which arcs over the squad and lands on the target. No more target.

    And yes, the annoying buzzing sound will go away. That was just the off the shelf powerplant used in the experimental version. The production version will use a small Diesel engine. (The U.S. military is all-Diesel. Gasoline tankers have no place on the modern battlefield.)

  8. Some personal experience... by IonOtter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mules are quite intelligent.

    I've worked with pack horses, and horses can be incredibly stupid when they've got a pack on their back, but mules are very smart. They're sure-footed
    and can sense when the path ahead is too dangerous to travel, and if they don't wanna go, they just won't go.

    Mules are intelligent, which means the operator has to build a strong relationship with them, built upon mutual respect and trust. Not that I don't think our soldiers are capable of doing such a thing, but it's something you don't want them doing. Seeing your favorite mules getting blown to bits will be just as traumatic and harmful as seeing your buddies getting killed, maybe even worse, since people often build closer bonds with animals than they do with other humans.

    Also, one last thing is that when a mule is feeling cranky and wants to ruin your day, they won't just lash out like a stupid horse. Doc Waters warned us in class that they will target your belt-buckle and wait placidly until you're in range. No laid-back ears, no swishing tail, no sign of anger or aggression. You'll walk up and *KER-POW!*

    --
    [End Of Line]
  9. Re:And when it fails... by Faaln · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So are two GIs who collapse from fatigue after marching eight hours through sand carrying over a hundred pounds of kit each.

  10. Re:And when it fails... by koan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Soldiers recover, and they are trained for the workout, machines break down and that dog is loud as fuck when it's running even with a muffler...no parts to repair = 400+ pounds of junk, stick with the human soldier.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion