Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iron Man-like Exoskeleton Nears Production

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the suit-up dept.

fangmcgee writes "By now, with films like Iron Man, its sequel, and Avatar, Hollywood has made us thoroughly familiar with the idea of the robotic exoskeleton. Less well known, however, is that researchers are actually building robotic exoskeletons like the ones envisioned by Hollywood and the comic book visionaries from whom Hollywood pilfers its most lucrative ideas. Among the developers of real-life Iron Man suits (of which there are many, the world over) is a group called Raytheon Sarcos. And as IEEE Spectrum reports in this month's issue, its impressive second-generation exoskeleton robotics suit, dubbed the XOS 2, is nearing production."

220 comments

  1. Drinks are on me. by magusxxx · · Score: 2

    Jack Daniels not included.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  2. the 'closest' thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'The closest thing we have at the moment to the Iron Man suit.' The *closest* thing. But it's in absolutely no way anything like the suit in Iron Man. It's just the same concept.

    1. Re:the 'closest' thing by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Exactly, what makes Iron Man powerful is the completely fictitious power source in his chest. Until you can deliver power on that scale in that size, you are nowhere near "Iron Man"

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:the 'closest' thing by Toe,+The · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure I've seen one of these already in use by the CIA. There was this guy named Stan or something who was operating it...

    3. Re:the 'closest' thing by after.fallout.34t98e · · Score: 1

      The power source is irrelevant and inconsequential (it would be a side affect of creating the kinetic energy dispersal system, consider siphoning the energy off the evaporation process of a black hole as an example energy source that would be available)

      this would need:
      1. AI built in to it
      2. lasers than can instantly cut through just about anything
      3. personal jet engines / rockets and the stability software necessary for flight (ignoring acrobatics)
      4. palm based energy blasters
      5. kinetic energy dispersal system (whatever it is that makes Stark's insides not flatten when he comes to a stop like that; this is by far the most important aspect)

      I doubt we can get an AI powerful enough before 2050 even with the singularity.

      The lasers might be possible if we can come up with a powerful enough power source and miniaturization processes (they are basically industrial cutting lasers with a couple of orders of magnitude more power).

      If the propulsion system ever happens, it will be someone's fantasy as we would have already come up with far better transportation systems (due to having a solution to #5). The AI would be necessary for adjusting the system to maintain stability.

      The palm blasters are an interesting concept. It might be possible to emit a waveform with enough power to break molecular bonds and enough direction to be useful and not to leave behind harmful radiation. However the effect would be more like a lightning bolt than any energy weapon depicted in the movies. The AI would be necessary for the targeting estimates. The kinetic dispersal system would also be necessary for dealing with the recoil of the system.

      To say whether or not such a kinetic dispersal system is possible would require a deeper understanding of physics than what we currently have. Newtonian mechanics would prohibit it, but perhaps there is a way to construct something akin to a mass effect field (warp field, spacetime relocation mechanism, etc.), thus reducing the mass of the suit and contents to the point where the momentum is negligible. Such a construct would permit things like FTL travel (useful for time travel only as other uses would be covered by non-euclidean environments), non-euclidean environments (and the nearly incomprehensible energy sources and advancements available with them), and the warping of space-time to exhibit effects like teleportation (teleportation would be the act of moving in a non-euclidean environment; we wouldn't have a need for travel by motorized propulsion systems as we could simply ignore the space between points A and B).

      In short, to create the Iron Man suit, we would necessarily already be at least a type III civilization on the Kardashev scale and the concept of why we might make the suit wouldn't make sense. For weapons, lasers, bullets, rockets and blasters are quite useless compared to simply relocating the spacetime in which the opponent occupies. The concept of serious machine assisted locomotion would be equally laughable, devices that would exist would only be for our amusement.

    4. Re:the 'closest' thing by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I personally see the bigger missing piece being the actual "armor" aspect of the Iron Man armored suit...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:the 'closest' thing by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      kinetic energy dispersal is easy without warping spacetim, we'll just induce a pulse of higgs bosons in the right places and time to counter normal inertia.

    6. Re:the 'closest' thing by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      5. kinetic energy dispersal system (whatever it is that makes Stark's insides not flatten when he comes to a stop like that; this is by far the most important aspect)

      Oh, that's just the standard durability upgrade all superheros receive regardless of where their powers come from.

      You can clearly see this in the scene where Stark is testing the flying abilities of the suit and is only wearing the boots (and gloves?). He activates the jets he is flung at high velocity spine-first into the ceiling. Rather than being lucky to only be a quadriplegic for the rest of the movie, he's instead slightly bruised but okay enough to utter a witty quip.

      So we don't need to develop some fantastical kinetic energy dispersion technology.

      We just need to ensure that anyone who puts on the armor suit is a Protagonist.

      Of course this makes it unfeasible for large-scale deployment. You can't have every soldier in the platoon be a protagonist; at least some of them must be mortal in order for their deaths (preferably of the noble sacrifice variety) to motivate the Protagonist to defeat the Antagonist.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:the 'closest' thing by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      some good points. Reminds me of how laughable 'planetary defenses' are in Science Fiction when they load the starships up with mind bending power, enough to move moons and very large asteroids, planet crackers, extinguishing stars etc. How do you defend your planet when a force is altering the gravity well of the solar system itself.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:the 'closest' thing by Danieljury3 · · Score: 1

      You just need to invent floating cameras that follow people around.

    9. Re:the 'closest' thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit man, what in all hell are you talking about?

    10. Re:the 'closest' thing by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      A free higgs boson decays in something like 10^-20 seconds. So no cigar. Understanding particles that mediate forces and mass is not the same as understanding how to manipulate these forces and mass. Also the 30 mile particle accelerator is not very portable.

      ;)

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    11. Re:the 'closest' thing by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Or, just rotate the shield frequencies.

  3. Not Skynet enough by Toe,+The · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like a major purpose of these is to have soldiers wear an exoskeleton to make them more formidable both offensively and defensively.

    But can't you just skip the middleman (literally) and just have good ol' fashion killbots?

    I mean, what's the point of having actual people involved in a process so minor as, well, killing people?

    1. Re:Not Skynet enough by Brandano · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, you wouldn't want to risk having the robots getting all ethical on you all of a sudden. Humans are ethically more malleable. Also, once your adversary reaches the same technological level the end result is having robots fight other robots. I think that sort of thing makes you go blind or something.

    2. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its my understanding that these are for use in combat zones but in combat. I'm thinking heavy lifting and wounded personel evac.

    3. Re:Not Skynet enough by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Seems like a major purpose of these is to have soldiers wear an exoskeleton to make them more formidable both offensively and defensively.

      Actually, the main idea right now is for rear echelon troops or soldiers stationed in FOBs to move around materiel/supplies/other heavy stuff while in base, to avoid injuries. Eventually, they'd like to get the weight/power supply small enough to allow troops to wear assistive devices while on patrol. A 2-3 day patrol in mountains almost 2 miles above sea level is bad enough. It's a lot worse when you have to hump 100+lbs of gear at that altitude also.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then cops will eventually have them and we're all fucked. Awesome.

    5. Re:Not Skynet enough by Toe,+The · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also, once your adversary reaches the same technological level the end result is having robots fight other robots.

      Well, it's all very clean and neat then:

      1. Two armies of robots fight it out in a huge but very confined conflagration.

      2. Eventually, one side defeats the other and eradicates all their robots.

      3. Whatever victorious robots remain then, of course, go ahead and exterminate the entire enemy civilian population.

      See how neat and clean that is? Warfare will be much more decisive and the following peace will certainly be much longer-lasting.

    6. Re:Not Skynet enough by Eevee · · Score: 1

      But can't you just skip the middleman (literally) and just have good ol' fashion killbots?

      Money. It's the cost of the Lotus Notes licenses that's preventing us from deploying killbots.

    7. Re:Not Skynet enough by CommieLib · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think that's going to be the (direct) purpose of these...not for moral or ethical considerations, but a simple engineering one - there's no way the power is going to last long enough for a patrol.

      These would be absolutely terrific for combat loading, though, and don't underestimate how important that is. Imagine an aircraft comes in for resupply, a cohort of engineers in these suits...you could reload and refuel MUCH faster. The force efficacy of an asset is a function of that time.

      So you optimize the suit to work for maybe forty five minutes, and then have hot swappable batteries.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    8. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to program robots to kill the "right kind" of people.

    9. Re:Not Skynet enough by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      ...assuming one of the crew doesn't accidentally punch a hole in the side of the aircraft/boat...

    10. Re:Not Skynet enough by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The Caterpillar lloaders from 'Aliens' is way more likely (and practical) than 'Iron Man' or (book) 'Starship Troopers'.

    11. Re:Not Skynet enough by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you are looking for a Star Trek reference like Star Trek episode "A Taste of Armageddon" where the captain meets a civilization that dispenses with the nasty bits of war and plays RISK on a global scale. Of course anybody in the affected quadrant is "humanely" euthanized.

      Or perhaps you were looking for a more generic reference of the idea like The Forever War?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    12. Re:Not Skynet enough by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure there are similar accidents and such already. My brother personally destroyed two 7-tons during sandstorms while in Iraq, and saw countless other pieces of equipment get trashed while in Motor T and Bulk Fuel. I sincerely doubt that they are going to be using stuff like this around 30 million dollar aircraft for a long time. Certainly nothing that the USMC gets near, anyway.

    13. Re:Not Skynet enough by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Came here to say this: How come we haven't built one of those loaders yet? All the tech for that is definitely available...

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:Not Skynet enough by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 2

      Not a problem if the civilians are prepared.

      Needed:
      1. Area for robots to go through that is on fire. To heat the robots up. This does not stop them but readies for step 2
      2. EMP directed at the robots. Hardened robots still go through.
      3. A nice liquid O2 or liquid nitrogen bath. Makes the robots hard and brittle.
      4. Wreaking ball. This cracks them up.

      Burning the robots should melt some parts of them. That should stop many of them. Short circuited robots do less if anything. Fire and the EMP should be used to 'kill' most of the robots since liquid O2 or liquid nitrogen is harder to come by. If we have robot armies, we should have EMP cannons.

    15. Re:Not Skynet enough by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the same reason drones have not replaced the manned air force. There is often a lot of EM noise on a battefield, and some of it is quite intentional. You therefore need your soldiers - human or robotic - to be autonomous. Real combat isn't like Red Alert. The general is not clicking on individual soldiers and telling them where to walk, he's telling a captain to secure a specific objective, that captain is giving orders to squads, and NCOs are making the realtime tactical decisions. Programming that level of autonomy into a robot is really hard. It needs to be able to understand high-level objectives, like secure an area, protect civilians in another, and so on. For now, at least, it's a lot easier to put a human on the ground. Putting fewer humans on the ground is a good idea though, because people back home complain if they don't come back.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Not Skynet enough by idontgno · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "A Short History of World War LXXVIII" by Roy Prosterman: Wars among nations are simple deathmatches between unmanned robotic war machines fought on the moon, broadcast world-wide. The combatant whose warbot is the last one standing is the party (nation, coalition, etc) that wins. Outcomes are binding; the treaty empowering this is enforced by a neutral standing army capable of quickly defeating any nation that defies this and charged with personally (and capitally) punishing the leadership of any party that violates the treaty.

      An amusing and improbable little short story. I always wondered what would happen if you declared war on the supra-national organization enforcing the treaty.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    17. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did it, oh, almost 50 years ago?

    18. Re:Not Skynet enough by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      An amusing and improbable little short story. I always wondered what would happen if you declared war on the supra-national organization enforcing the treaty.

      You would lose.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    19. Re:Not Skynet enough by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I just hope the security is good enough that hackers don't figure out how to hack those suits.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    20. Re:Not Skynet enough by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      Just look up forklift stunts on youtube and I think you may answer your own question

    21. Re:Not Skynet enough by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Money. It's the cost of the Lotus Notes licenses that's preventing us from deploying killbots.

      Couldn't they just grab a copy of MySQL, Eudora and Edlin and call it a day?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    22. Re:Not Skynet enough by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Killbot gets shot: replace with another $100-million killbot.

      Man in exoskeleton gets shot: replace with another $11k/year man.

      Don't think they don't do that kind of math at the Pentagon. It's why it's there.

    23. Re:Not Skynet enough by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      I'm more concerned with what is keeping them from simply controlling the world outright.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    24. Re:Not Skynet enough by Mr_Huber · · Score: 1

      Yep. Plus, the caterpillar loaders can be near external power, meaning the wearer doesn't have to worry about the added weight imposed by the power source. A 2-3 day patrol is going to need some pretty serious power storage and generation. These systems are great for hauling 100 lbs worth of equipment, but how good are they at 100 lbs of equipment plus that in generators and fuel?

      Remember, the breakthrough that made Iron Man possible even in the movie was not a breakthrough in robotics, armor or servomotors, but the development of the perfect power source: small, light, massive output and requiring no bulky fuel. Without the arc reactor, Tony's suit was just so much dead weight.

    25. Re:Not Skynet enough by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Acknowledging that I read that story 25 years ago, I'll admit I didn't see the point of my original question and the logical conclusion you arrive at: The only real power in that world was the UN-analogue that enforced the treaty. The rest of it was, to not quite coin a phrase, "sovereignty theater".

      What can I say? I was a teenager. I hadn't realized yet to look for the real state of things behind the visible ones.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    26. Re:Not Skynet enough by Mr_Huber · · Score: 1

      In those circumstances, cables, protocols and cable tenders would even work. Imagine you're in the suit, you are restricted to this area around the airframe, your cable is on an automatic spool and you do a set series of movements worked out ahead of time to minimize crossing your own path. Cables may be a pain, but that means your lifting capacity is fully devoted to ordinance and fuel, rather than ordinance, fuel and your batteries.

    27. Re:Not Skynet enough by Greystripe · · Score: 1

      No it's not, just hook them up to credit agencies, credit rating under 700 = kill

    28. Re:Not Skynet enough by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Money. It's the cost of the Lotus Notes licenses that's preventing us from deploying killbots.

      Couldn't they just grab a copy of MySQL, Eudora and Edlin and call it a day?

      Definitely not, that would be exceeding the specifications.

    29. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like, almost, Robot Jox!

    30. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We have, they're called 'forklifts'.

      This thing is just a wearable forklift so it's more maneuverable and task-flexible.

    31. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if the supra-national organization simply decided that it should rule.

    32. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of the Birdman event, on Easter island.
      It supposedly worked.. for a time anyway.

    33. Re:Not Skynet enough by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      The agency enforcing the treaty would have to have absolute destructive power at its hands, though - "settle your petty little conflicts our way or get your 'sovereign' territory nuked into a glass parking lot". But how would that kind of power be consolidated into a single agency without everyone else getting into the arms race for MAD during the consolidation phase? The only slightly probable way I can imagine right now is that they would have to be instated after a world war which caused devastation on an yet unimagined scale. Everyone would go 'never again' for a few years, before going 'what the hell have we created'...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    34. Re:Not Skynet enough by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Don't they rule already?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    35. Re:Not Skynet enough by chronosan · · Score: 2

      Unless you won.

    36. Re:Not Skynet enough by Solandri · · Score: 1

      You could make it even simpler, and have wars decided by a huge LAN party. Then losers would then have to report to disintegration chambers to simulate casualties.

    37. Re:Not Skynet enough by AJH16 · · Score: 2

      Why not just make it a simulation and have the civilian casualties report to nice, clean incineration chambers? (For those not familiar, this is the plot of an episode of Star Trek.)

      --
      AJ Henderson
    38. Re:Not Skynet enough by after.fallout.34t98e · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be a single agency.

      Everyone would have the capability and simply decide to not use it. Many governments currently do.

      Today that functionality is nuclear weapons. Tomorrow it might be orbital kinetic bombardment. Or an engineered virus. Or an atmospheric toxin. Or satellite based microwave emission system. Or another radiation system.

      There are too many ways to destroy entire populations of humans to defend against them all. One thing we are really good at is killing each other.

    39. Re:Not Skynet enough by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that really is the funny thing about phasers, iron man, light sabers, the hand held railguns of "eraser".....if we had power sources small enough to power things like that, a "Dell laptop battery malfunction" would be like a nuclear bomb. you think a burned penis from a laptop is bad, how would you like a crater in the floor centered on your crotch?

    40. Re:Not Skynet enough by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      A Marine co worker of mine (once a Marine always a Marine) mentioned one day at lunch that the military does do these kinds of calculations, but it is far more gruesome than your example and that was on the cost to injure or kill an enemy for a given weapon system. If I remember correctly things like rockets, and bombs are pretty costly, while chemical/biological weapons provide a good bang for the buck. Small arms fire and grenades do well, but nukes are pretty much the worst. I probably have some of those out of order but then I am not a military expert. From a tactical perspective it is better to injure the enemy than to kill them since the enemy then has to expend resources on the injured. Now granted this hold for your regular forces but not so much for irregular forces like we are currently fighting and they probably don't give a crap about their injured.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    41. Re:Not Skynet enough by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      batteries? why not run the thing on diesel fuel? nice concentrated source of energy. kevlar armor the thank, obviously

    42. Re:Not Skynet enough by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      hmm, another way might be via induction from coils in the floor

    43. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tautology is tautological.
      Parent is without worth.

    44. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eventually...

      4. robots army see their own population for whom they fought for as their enemy

      5. 101001101110101....

    45. Re:Not Skynet enough by Shompol · · Score: 1

      If you learned anything from playing SC, you try to kill the enemy supply/production first. So the correct order is as follows:
      1. An army of robots "goes ahead and exterminates the entire (enemy?) civilian population."
      2. Clean up the enemy robot army, if the latter is still functional.

    46. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skip that all together and just have a video game tournament where the loser dies.

    47. Re:Not Skynet enough by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Most of it is actually to overcome physical limfacs such as lifting ability. Killbots have their place, but an exo could be much faster and handier for logistics tasks than common forklifts etc.

      A Weapons Load Crew wearing exoskeletons could unload ordnance quickly and mount it on aircraft hardpoints, for example.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    48. Re:Not Skynet enough by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Because the only organization willing to spend $500k on a high-maintenance, battery sucking exoskeleton that lets one man do the work of two is the US military...

    49. Re:Not Skynet enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually, it culturally evolves into a system in which spheres are placed on the field of battle, and swallowed by mechanical hippo-tanks. The nation who's hippo-tankbot eats the most spheres is declared the winner.

    50. Re:Not Skynet enough by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Robot Jox

    51. Re:Not Skynet enough by xhrit · · Score: 1

      your plans are easily defeated by flying killbots. and flying killbots are much easier to make, because you don't have to worry about giving them legs. you just give them jet engines and wings, and let them kill their targets with long range guided missiles.

      --
      Dungeon Tactics : Free Open Source SRPG
    52. Re:Not Skynet enough by kvezach · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered what happens after Skynet wins. Does it just twiddle its thumbs and go "Oh well, that's that, power down lads"? It's not like it knows how to do much but fight - it's a military AI after all.

    53. Re:Not Skynet enough by Skywolfblue · · Score: 1

      Would they really "decide not to use it" if sovereignty was at stake?

      MAD is kinda balanced around the idea that "you'll stay in your corner and i'll stay in mine". Once one side actually steps onto the other side's home soil everything goes downhill.

    54. Re:Not Skynet enough by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      You should ask this guy.

    55. Re:Not Skynet enough by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It reminded me more of the Mesoamerican ball game.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    56. Re:Not Skynet enough by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I kinda new all that. But I was thinking more in terms of their attitude towards our guys.

      I also remember that the number of bullets fired per enemy killed has remained roughly constant at 3,000 since at least the civil war. That includes training ammo.

      War isn't just hell. It's logistically predictable. Which makes it worse. It's mechanical, and futile. Just play the game using Basic Strategy and your side has the best chance of winning. The only thing you don't know is which random subset of your side will be there to salute the complement subset.

  4. Pouty ten-year old me says no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until it can fly and has repulsor beams its not Iron Man.

    1. Re:Pouty ten-year old me says no by Brandano · · Score: 1

      If it had been a few years ago it would have been an Aliens III exo-suit. But since the Iron Man movie is more current the concept had to be stretched to fit

    2. Re:Pouty ten-year old me says no by hedwards · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I was watching that a few nights ago and commented that they must be getting pretty close to being able to deploy those. The technology has to be pretty much there, I'd expect it to be mostly down to making them cost effective.

  5. Apple trademark suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be ready for Apple to sue them because XOS is way too close to OSX. Wouldn't want the Apple sheep getting confused and buying the wrong thing.

    1. Re:Apple trademark suit by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I though it would be more of a joint suit with Apple and IBM XOS 2 With one name you infringe on two trademarks... Well done.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Apple trademark suit by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's SOX spelled backwards. I'm pretty sure that Apple wouldn't have any more of a claim to it than the various folks that have a claim to sox.

  6. Kind of a crappy demo by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    He did a 200 lb. pulldown and lifted two 35 lb. dumbbells. I can do that with no suit. It would have been cool if he lifted something really heavy.

    --
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
    1. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by cobrausn · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but he will do that for hours without tiring or injuring himself. You won't. That's the real advantage of the suit.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    2. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Lets see you do that 1000 times in a row... every day.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how long can you keep that up? The guy in the suit would be exerting less effort than you, and thus be able to do it for much longer.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    4. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how long can you keep that up?

      Longer than the suit's batteries.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i bet they're thinking of how much damage or wear and tear the suit would sustain and how expensive it will be to repair it. i was also disappointed that he was only smashing through a stack of wooden boards instead of a brick wall.

    6. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Yup. That pulldown looked like it felt like 35 lbs.

    7. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      First of all, wake from your wet dream. Second of all, its tethered.

      Realistically, you're not going to do that for more than fifteen minutes or so - double if you're an extra ordinary athlete. Whereas with this, you can literally do a full day's work doing nothing else.

      You see the difference? In your example, its literally a delusion. That's a big difference.

    8. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

      That's my point. I understand that the suit is stronger than a person, but the why not show it doing something a person can't do in the demo?

      --
      Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
    9. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't RTFA, so I could be way off base, but it might be limited to human-doable loads, either by design or by experimental protocol. Reasons could include the ability of a human operator to handle a suit failure, and the fact that initially, there are tons of human doable tasks with known typical performance you can test it on for dexterity, reliability, mobility range, etc.

    10. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

      It kind of did. Clark Greg is a guy with a pretty average build, yet he appeared to be lifting 200lbs with little effort. It's unfortunate that they didn't demonstrate the sheer stamina of a man using such a device, but for us noodle arms who'd struggle to life 200lbs it's impressive enough.

    11. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't consider myself an exceptional athlete, but I do a lot of power lifting and 35 lbs dumbbells really are nothing once you have the strength. Now it will take a while to develop that strength and you will lose some of your endurance (I can't run like I use to) but lifting light weights like that won't put much if any strain on you. This will probably have benefits when carrying heavy loads more than anything as I got very tired carrying a heavy load (205 lb field dressed deer) a long distance (just under a mile) over rough terrain (swampy north woods of Minnesota).

      --
      Time to offend someone
    12. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did a 200 lb. pulldown and lifted two 35 lb. dumbbells. I can do that with no suit. It would have been cool if he lifted something really heavy.

      Yeah, that demo is 3 years old and if you google "US military power suit demonstration" one of the hits on the first page is the Slashdot article talking about it.
      They've actully had a more recent demo where they were using it to load/unload pallets of ammunition and supplies, and the guys doing the work were able to do it a lot faster, and were not at all worn out at the end of it.

      From what I can tell, it's not any nearer to production (5 years away from the 2011 article linked in the summary) than it was 3 years ago when they said it'd be in production by 2010. And as for their claim that they'll have a "free range" (i.e. onboard power, doesn't need a power tether) in 15 years, I highly doubt that unless we see some kind of massive revolution in power generation or storage.

    13. Re:Kind of a crappy demo by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      You do realize you just invalidate your entire line of reasoning and validated mine and everyone else's who disagreed with you.

      Gatta love slashdot...

  7. We will need this! by jameskojiro · · Score: 2

    We will need this if we want to fight off the super intelligent apes.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:We will need this! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      "actually, to cut costs that's exactly who we're going to employ to be the new legged and armed forklift operators. what could possibly go wrong?" -- the management

  8. On the plus side.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least this one won't have Robert Downey Junior inside it.

  9. Re:awesome by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can you imagine jerking it with that thing.

    It would certainly give a whole new meaning to the "off" part.

  10. Nice terminal font... by Sebastopol · · Score: 2

    I like how the opening of the video starts with a flashing TTY-like cursor, and then scans across the screen, 1,200 baud style, but uses ... ....a serif proportional font????

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:Nice terminal font... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, disregarding the fact that your comment is about the aesthetics of a few seconds of video completely unrelated to the subject of said video, I offer you this advice: Go outside. Play a nice game of [noun]ball in the park. Meet someone. Fall in love. For fuck's sake, do something, anything that doesn't involve sitting in front of a screen. You've obviously limited your spectrum of interests to a small group of closely-related subjects and that just ain't healthy.

      (TLDR: Yo dawg, I heard you like disappointment so I told someone to get a life on /. so we can waste our time while we waste our time.)

  11. How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    really?

    1. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      See Sig. Some amount smaller than the total for DoD.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    2. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Why do you consider it wasted? Less injury, and fewer personal to do the same work. Sounds like a saving to me.
      But, hey if its taxes it's automatically a waste, isn't it? dumb ass.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by PopeScott · · Score: 1

      I guess that depends on your definition of waste. By my definition $0 was wasted.

    4. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      None, this is a tremendously useful technology that will revolutionize at least two different industries when they nail it.

      The better question is why one would shill for the Tea Party without being paid for the damage to ones reputation.

    5. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jobs AND cool shit.

    6. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because giving someone the ability to life hundreds of pounds, thousands of times a day has zero applications in the nonmilitary world. A certainly, the concept couldn't be modified to help disabled people live fuller lives.

    7. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by Psmylie · · Score: 2

      Exactly, I agree 100%. There are non-military applications to this (warehouse workers, nurses using it for patient care, returning mobility to the injured/ill, and so on). This is the creation of an industry that may see big returns. The fact that the initial use for it is military doesn't mean that it is limited to that functionality forever.

      Also, as cool as this looks, what we will have in fifty years will make this look like a bunch of tinker toys powered by springs and rubber bands. But the first generation is needed in order to get to the next.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    8. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Got a source for that sig?
      The numbers seem a bit off, so I am asking. Looks like you left off some wars or something.

    9. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Who says he is a shill for the Tea Party.
      Defense is one of the areas that the Tea Party believes that the US Government should be involved in.

      Anti DoD attacks are usually done by shills for the left. Usually.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    10. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he should add the wars to the "entitlements" line item, since we did it for oil for all those people entitled to cheap gas for their fake hummers.

    11. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Wasted?

      I want one of those things so bad I can smell it.

      I wonder if they'll bundle it with a minigun...

    12. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      wikipedia

      Basically summed up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Mandatory Programs (this includes such things as unemployment, food stamps, military disability, etc...) for Entitlements. The rest are pretty straightforward. Didn't even touch other discretionary spending (105 billion), which I'm sure actually also probably includes some defense spending, and Department of State (51.7 billion), which pays for mercenaries. Wars are part of the DoD budget, they've just been going on a long time and so their sum total is harder to get, but it is attainable. Right now, Afghanistan is costing 6.6 billion per month, where Iraq is costing 5.5 billion per month.

      I think its a fairly accurate summary. If I could I'd Sig the entire thing.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    13. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      By that logic I should add a DoE entry (currently 26.3 billion).

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    14. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right - there are no warehouses in the nonmilitary world. Also aren't any jobs involving repetitive lifting of heavy things.. its a good thing only the military world has construction workers. Oil rigs too. It definitely wouldn't be useful for search and rescue for a human to lift rubble off of people. I can't stop thinking of all of the nonmilitary application this would be utterly useless for. What a waste of money.

    15. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      please add NPR into that sig.

      0 - NPR

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    16. Re:How many US Taxpayer dollars wasted on this? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Dammit I'm trying to find a link to the DEMONS system, it's a DIY exoskeleton made by some geeks, but I can't find the vids on youtube anymore!

      Well it didn't have strength augmentation, but it did have a camcorder and a paintball gun duct-taped to one arm, a slide-out blade on the other, and a VR headset sight with a targeting display. IIRC they added nightvision and a flamethrower at some point. Lots of funny vids with pudgy nerds destroying stuff to heavy metal music.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  12. Not Iron Man, Ripley by whitroth · · Score: 1

    That exoskeleton is way too vulnerable. On the other hand, think of what Ripley used in Aliens. *That* would be a great use of this: try picking up a pallet in your bare hands....

                    mark

    1. Re:Not Iron Man, Ripley by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah "We got synthetic humans, but if you want to move heavy stuff, you got to operate it your self."

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Not Iron Man, Ripley by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Right now yes, but first you get the basic technology down, then you work on hardening it. What you're suggesting would be like trying to build predator drones without first having figured out how to build toy airplanes.

    3. Re:Not Iron Man, Ripley by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      try picking up a pallet in your bare hands....

      I wouldn't worry about picking up pallets or even barrels bare handed. We already have machines that are designed to do that, they are called forklifts and are old technology. Now granted you still have to operate most of those your self, but there are some automated ones out there.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Not Iron Man, Ripley by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think what they're after is more like the exoskeletons in the STALKER games, for their foot soldiers.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  13. Pretty cool by jonahbron · · Score: 1

    The video didn't demonstrate any drastic improvements since the last time I saw this exoskeleton a couple of years ago. Sounds like the biggest thing they changed is lower power consumption. Interesting that they're talking about when it will appear in cinema, instead of when it will appear in a real-life situation. "Follow the money" I guess.

    1. Re:Pretty cool by eviljolly · · Score: 1

      Considering I saw this video a year ago, "nearing production" is a relative term. They do mention the article the same thing that's been holding these devices back, which is the lack of a non-tethered power source.

      Until we get past that hurdle, I wouldn't say it's anywhere near production.

    2. Re:Pretty cool by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If we get past that little hurdle, ICE cars will be dead.

    3. Re:Pretty cool by Yaur · · Score: 1

      "in theater" has nothing to do with cinema.

    4. Re:Pretty cool by jonahbron · · Score: 1

      Ohh, so he just meant "in production". My mistake :)

    5. Re:Pretty cool by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      "In theater" in this context means in the theater of war... As in, past production and actually deployed in Afghanistan (or wherever else we are by the time this comes out).

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  14. The suit is one thing... by geogob · · Score: 2

    The power supply seems more critical part... as it clearly can't be 'on board' with current technology, having a fixed power (electrical and/or hydraulic) source or a large generator on a truck nearby connected with an umbilical isn't very attractive for many application. Maybe a smaller, mobile (on track or wheels), power source that follows the suit might be interesting for many combat or civilian operations (disaster SAR comes to mind).

    1. Re:The suit is one thing... by cjcela · · Score: 1

      Why can't they affix a gas-powered electrical generator as a backpack to the thing? you know, with an engine like the ones in the backpack leaf blowers, but larger...

    2. Re:The suit is one thing... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Likely because the amount of fuel one would need to carry to do so would make it impractical or hinder it to the point of making erasing any benefit it has over standard methods.

    3. Re:The suit is one thing... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Likely because the amount of fuel one would need to carry to do so would make it impractical or hinder it to the point of erasing any benefit it has over standard methods.

      Fixed.

    4. Re:The suit is one thing... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That would need you need lots of fuel. It would also be loud, have a dangerous fuel and be totally useless in many possible applications.

    5. Re:The suit is one thing... by geogob · · Score: 1

      The power output of such a motor is maybe a few hundred Watts... add to this loss in electrical conversion and hydraulic conversion, you won't do much with the suit.

      My gut feeling tells me you need nominally a few kilowatts for that thing. It may be possible and give enough autonomy (eg. fuel) to be practical in a few specific applications, but the mass of the power backpack my destabilize the suit too much. Keeping the center of gravity in a comfortable position will be hard and increase the weight of the suit even more.

    6. Re:The suit is one thing... by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      If it were me, I'd just use an arc reactor. Your solution seems too complex.

    7. Re:The suit is one thing... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      That was my thought too.

      But I imagine a gas-powered engine would burn through a tank really quick. Plus there's the whole safety issue: said gas-tank would have to be big, and god forbid anything happen while you have a firebomb strapped to your back. At least cars are able to enclose that stuff and put firewalls between the engine and the passenger

      If you went with the "huge backpack of Li-Ion battery cells" route then you have other problems. Batteries are fsking heavy. A huge backpack of those would weigh an ungodly amount, perhaps enough to overpower the metal/hydraulic strength. Or at least enough to reduce the "lifting" weight, which is probably one of the main reasons to have something like that.

    8. Re:The suit is one thing... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      So much like a flamethrower then. The military still uses those.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    9. Re:The suit is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Tesla's broadcast power (even in a near field) when we need it!

    10. Re:The suit is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psh, thats not a problem. We already read about that story -> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/10/1935227/Military-Working-On-Laser-Powered-Drones.

    11. Re:The suit is one thing... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Small engines that are rated to a few horsepower (probably in the 3-4 hp or 2-3 KW range) don't consume much fuel today.Considering that a gallon of gas contains about 33 KW hours of energy (probably 8 to 10 kwh of which is extracted) it doesn't seem unreasonable that my little gas lawnmower can mow my entire law on a quarter gallon of gas and it takes about an hour and a half. This same lawnmower engine could probably put out enough power to run one of these suites (how much power are they drawing) since if it were a 4hp engine it would be capable of producing about 3 KW continuously. Granted engines are not light and you would need to add a generator and probably some peaking power storage which is probably why this type of setup become infeasible for a power suite.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    12. Re:The suit is one thing... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Small engines that are rated to a few horsepower (probably in the 3-4 hp or 2-3 KW range) don't consume much fuel today.Considering that a gallon of gas contains about 33 KW hours of energy (probably 8 to 10 kwh of which is extracted) it doesn't seem unreasonable that my little gas lawnmower can mow my entire law on a quarter gallon of gas and it takes about an hour and a half. This same lawnmower engine could probably put out enough power to run one of these suites (how much power are they drawing) since if it were a 4hp engine it would be capable of producing about 3 KW continuously. Granted engines are not light and you would need to add a generator and probably some peaking power storage which is probably why this type of setup become infeasible for a power suite.

      My dad uses a gas powered backpack blower too and that thing has some kick.

      Though I don't know if that thing is strong enough to be able to power a metal frame (itself heavy) that can move lift thousands of lbs while moving its limbs and walking.

      Then again I don't know what the power requirements for that are, or how much hydraulics come into play for power consumption.

    13. Re:The suit is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since a flamethrower lasts about 2 minutes on one tank, what's your point?

    14. Re:The suit is one thing... by BattleApple · · Score: 1

      maybe you could train that crazy robot dog thing that sounds like a weedwhacker to follow you around with a battery

    15. Re:The suit is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla may have the answer

    16. Re:The suit is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and increase the shoulderpads to comical proportions, while they're at it.

    17. Re:The suit is one thing... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well running a hydraulic pump is one thing that is fairly common for a small gasoline engine to do. My little pressure washer has a 3.5HP engine on it and produces 2600PSI @ 1.9GMP. Running it at full load it burns about a gallon of fuel every 4 hours. It would seem that this engine and pump would produce enough pressure to power a suite like the one described but I don't know the flow rate that would be needed but you can get some impressive pumps as far as flow rate and pressure are concerned and they aren't very big either. Now my little pressure washer is probably one of the more inefficient ones as it has a poor design for a pump (an axial piston pump) and has a standard low compression Briggs & Stratton engine (makes for easy starting) so there are probably gains to be made by just using a better better quality parts. Still it doesn't seem like the limiting factor would be the engine and pump but all the supporting hardware for peak usage (walking and lifting at the same time) since you would need additional flow at those times.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  15. Comabt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course the video is combat orientated....but how else does one get investment in the States? Logistics gets a mention, but it's military logistics.

  16. Testing? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Have they tested it against Aliens yet? What good is it if you can't fling Aliens out an airlock with it?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  17. Robitic exoskeleton in Avatar? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    What was the robotic exoskeleton in Avatar? Did they already make a sequel? Did I miss something?

    You mean those glorified loaders with guns? Pfft. I suppose, but as exoskeleton-ish as an Apache helicopter is. Ripley had the real deal, if only she had time to strap a flamethrower onto it. And while we're at it, Matrix '3' had those.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Robitic exoskeleton in Avatar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats Matrix 3?

    2. Re:Robitic exoskeleton in Avatar? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Revolutions, if I recall.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:Robitic exoskeleton in Avatar? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen it in a while, but wasn't the main antagonist running around at the end with a large mech?

      I "think" the arm motion was controlled by the guy's arms but I don't recall how the leg movement worked (moving his legs, ordinary cockpit, etc).

    4. Re:Robitic exoskeleton in Avatar? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      So Avatar's war machines are glorified loaders, but Ripley's un-glorified loader is an exoskeleton.

      I'd say you're making sense if you're grading on a scale of 'awesome', but then you include the ones from the matrix? Say what you will about the foolishness of the Avatar mechs, at least they tried to protect the pilot!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Robitic exoskeleton in Avatar? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Glorified loader, huge. I think the Iron Man concept doesn't apply to something so enormous, but his protagonist in the first film sure thought size mattered.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Robitic exoskeleton in Avatar? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Ripley had a real loader. Just needed some duct tape. The Avatar mechs had plastic windscreens. Not good enough, but very few movie mechs actually could be real world designs.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:Robitic exoskeleton in Avatar? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The thing in Avatar was more like a small mech, you sat in the cockpit of it, you didn't wear it like a suit.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  18. Wrong exo suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thing looks less "Iron Man", more Power Loader from Aliens.

  19. Power Supply by necro81 · · Score: 1

    Not to knock on how cool this thing is, but the article and Raytheon's previous press releases have been a little vague on what the power supply for this thing is. The actuators are high pressure hydraulics, meaning there must be a hefty compressor hanging around somewhere. How is it powered? In some of the videos you can see a pretty thick (5-10 cm dia) umbilical coming from the suit. Some of that is surely for telemetry, but I'm guessing a decent amount is power, either electrical or from a compressor. Do they plan on replacing that will a small combustion-engine-powered compressor in the backpack? Or is this going to just be for tethered operation at rollout?

    To head off the peanut gallery: appealing to a fictional arc reactor is not an acceptable answer.

    1. Re:Power Supply by llZENll · · Score: 2

      In the video he explains they are now at 50% power usage of xo1, and hope to get to 20% of its usage in order to be able have onboard power, my guess is the thing uses so much power currently its not feasible, and even at 20% power usage of the 1st model its probably only powered via onboard sources for a very short time, less than an hour. Once you get onboard power it will weigh significantly more. Even if you have to use a tether it may be useful when loading a lot of very heavy individual things that require dexterity, but it seems like such a specific application that it won't economically viable, hence their target of the military, which is the gold standard for wasting money on niche crap like this.

    2. Re:Power Supply by blair1q · · Score: 1

      loading a lot of very heavy individual things that require dexterity, but it seems like such a specific application

      That's not "specific", it's about as vague as it gets. If you don't have to design for particular tool sets, and can make 100-lb things as generically manipulable as 1-lb things, you've saved enormously from concept to EOL. It could change the way all sorts of things look.

    3. Re:Power Supply by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well this is Raytheon so they know how to sell stuff to the military.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Power Supply by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      If you don't have to design for particular tool sets, and can make 100-lb things as generically manipulable as 1-lb things, you've saved enormously from concept to EOL.

      Only in the sense of being able to schlep them around, since the thing doesn't have articulated fingers to give the same strength advantage with actual manipulation.

      Nevertheless, it does seem like it would be insanely useful around a military base.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  20. seriously Verhoven, WTF?!!! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    that's because the goddamned Starship Troopers movie didn't have any fucking powerarmor in it!!!
    not that I'm bitter or anything...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:seriously Verhoven, WTF?!!! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Aliens is a better example. The exoskeleton in TFA is basically a glorified forklift truck.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:seriously Verhoven, WTF?!!! by chronosan · · Score: 1

      #3 Had Marauder Armor and is infinitely more watchable than #2 if #2 turned you off the series.

  21. This kind of support is an exoskeleton by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    according to the tag.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    1. Re:This kind of support is an exoskeleton by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      oops posted to wrong topic, missed it by THAT much, sorry about that, Chief.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  22. only a matter of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first rule of Exoskeleton Fight Club is you do not talk about Exoskeleton Fight Club.

  23. Gigaflops per pound is the problem by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    even given the problems in "programming" an actual human brain in the suit/bot is our best bet for getting the job done (plus humans can redirect according to "in theature" situations).

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  24. Re:awesome by jomama717 · · Score: 1

    Ha! (in lieu of mod points)

    --
    while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
  25. Tethereeedd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the raytheon TETHERED system. This thing has a cord that has to be plugged in. It isn't meant for combat. It is meant it help in the support role like loading bombs onto a plane faster and things like that.

  26. Disaster Response by jomama717 · · Score: 1

    This would be great for digging survivors out of rubble in the wake of an earthquake or other disaster, being able to clamber up a heap of rubble and lift a 700 lb. block of concrete off of someone would be a real life saver.

    --
    while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
    1. Re:Disaster Response by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

      Rubble is likely to be a bit unstable for a device lifting that much weight. I imagine they'd use the boot rockets to hover above the rubble, and then employ arm mounted laser proton beams to cut the survivors free. The operator will then safely return, and after ensuring the survivors are safe, will return to the arms of their love interest who will soon be kidnapped by an evil mastermind hoping to use her to get the suit operator to turn over his super sekrit schematics.

    2. Re:Disaster Response by jomama717 · · Score: 1

      Good point. Don't forget about the mood appropriate theme music that would be blasted onto the scene at all times by fast response Humvee drama brigades.

      --
      while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
    3. Re:Disaster Response by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

      I like your style! I remember the good old days when super heroes had to stop every few minutes to allow the orchestra to keep up with them.

  27. A Case for Quanitative Analysis by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I guess the question of lifting heavy things has now been pretty much answered. But I'm thinking of applications that are not so, "Cumbersome?" Consider a Use Case of a person that is recovering from an operation, or accident and needs to go to the bathroom? or to the store? I'm thinking that the ability to just get up, and move down the hall would be very useful. And the power requirements would be on a lower scale.

  28. Since when? by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

    From TFA

    ... deliver up to 200 kg per square centimeter of force through high-pressure hydraulics.

    Since when are you able to measure force in mass per area squared? What does area density have to do with anything?

    1. Re:Since when? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Since when are you able to measure force in mass per area squared

      Since some idiot converted psi to kgscm.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Since when? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Since when are you able to measure force in mass per area squared?

      Well, this thing is ultimately going to be used in the conquest of hyperspace, so the ability to apply force in four-dimensions is very important.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  29. Yes, just like the Iron Man suit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Iron Man suit couldn't fly, had no weapons, no armor, and was tethered to a power source with a cable. Even if they got this to the point where it had its own power source, it would be a liability on the battlefield, as it greatly increases a soldier's silhouette, making him a much clearer target. And if they hit the suit itself, and disabled it, suddenly you have a couple hundred pounds of immobile metal strapped to you, which is not too helpful.

    Right now, this will only be useful for loading and unloading of equipment and so forth. It would need a hell of a set of body armor to go with it to make it worth the downsides for actual use in combat, which would then require a heavier power source. The power source, by the way, is the other major problem. You need something that's going to last a very long time to make it useful for combat. You can't just go over to the charging station every few hours like a Roomba. You need something that's going to last days or weeks, unless you're just using it for very short and precisely targeted missions, that are over in a few hours.

    It's an interesting technology, and I hope it's made practical, but I don't see it being used in combat any time soon.

    1. Re:Yes, just like the Iron Man suit... by Slashdot+Assistant · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting technology, and I hope it's made practical, but I don't see it being used in combat any time soon.

      No shit, Sherlock!

    2. Re:Yes, just like the Iron Man suit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now, this will only be useful for loading and unloading of equipment and so forth.

      You're complaining that it's only useful for the thing it was designed to be useful for?

  30. Soon I will be able to tell everyone on /. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    To bite my shiny metal ass.

    Including my mom. From my basement bedroom.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Soon I will be able to tell everyone on /. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      Your mom is on /.? Awesome!!!!
      No trolling for you. :)

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    2. Re:Soon I will be able to tell everyone on /. by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Your mom is on /.? Awesome!!!!

      She was on Slashdot, but she left when she couldn't figure out how to post her amateur porn work to her profile.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  31. Slow down! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I'm not done with my hookers and blackjack yet!

  32. What happens if the power fails? by Aphrika · · Score: 1

    I sure as hell wouldn't want it to crap out if I was loading a sidewinder missile onto a plane. Ignoring the very remote possibility of an explosion, the sudden appearance of hundreds of pounds in my hands is sure to cause some rather nasty injuries...

    1. Re:What happens if the power fails? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only simple failsafe to unexplained faults is to have all the joints lock up. If you maintain static stability (i.e. shuffling or standing), you'll just be stuck there (which is OK). If you are relying on dynamic stability (walking or running, bending over sharply, etc.) you fall over (which is more OK than torn ligaments from free joints, but the cargo's still likely damaged, and you can expect bruises at least).

      As for power failure, it's possible to have reserve power, such as a large hydraulic accumulator, to let you stabilize before it dies. As long as you react immediately to the power-fail warning, anyway.

      Still not a very appealing prospect, but hey, humans are no strangers to daily operating equipment that is likely to cause embarrassing, expensive, and possibly fatal results when it suffers a sudden failure. Think of aircraft, especially fucking helicopters (as an aerospace engineer, I consider helicopters one of man's scariest inventions ever). It sucks, but it lets you do so much you otherwise couldn't, it's worth the (properly managed) risk.

    2. Re:What happens if the power fails? by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      You have the same problem with whatever you use to load a Sidewinder now...a forklift, I guess? Seems like a one-way centrifugal clutch or something like that would be in order. It doesn't strike me as a particularly big problem.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
  33. What robots are you using? by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    You can command a robot to do something, and it will respond. If you tell a human to do something, it might respond or it might do something completely different.

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
    1. Re:What robots are you using? by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      If you tell a human to do something, it might respond or it might do something completely different.

      This could happen with a robot, in a literal genie sort of way; computers have a habit of doing what you tell them, not necessarily what you want them to do.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:What robots are you using? by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      So we can be happy that Stanislav Petrov was not a robot ? !!

    3. Re:What robots are you using? by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      That's more or less the plot in Terry Pratchett's book "Feet of Clay"

  34. Uses Ethernet by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    Now a personal area network, Ethernet has come a long way. I remember when the cables and transceivers would have weighed as much as the suit.

  35. Can You Ride a Segway In One? by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Now THAT would be truly a chick magnet!

    --
    Gently reply
  36. They're going more for Starship Troopers by Quila · · Score: 1

    The power armor of mobile infantry.

    1. Re:They're going more for Starship Troopers by chronosan · · Score: 1

      I didn't see jump jets.

    2. Re:They're going more for Starship Troopers by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      envisioned by Hollywood and the comic book visionaries

      Yeah, load of bullshit. Heinlein had this in Starship Troopers, what some of us old fogies call a "novel" (not a "graphic novel"), back in 1959.

      There isn't one single SF concept that Hollywood didn't take from literature. Then they almost always dumbed it and down and fucked it up, as in the movie version of Starship Troopers. I'm less familiar with comic books, some of them do more thoughtful things, but I doubt they challenge Michael Moorcock's New Worlds or Harlan Elloson's Dangerous Visions in the 1960s as far a being avant garde.

  37. There are cooler companies than Raytheon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that are making these. Raytheon focuses on combat applications. There's a couple of Japanese companies making exos of just one or two legs that help parapalegics or other people with issues walk normally. Eventually the bedridden can be mobile with these things. Being able lug an extra 100 pounds of ammo and 200 pounds on armor plating is cool and all, but really the end goal is just to destroy the results of human labor.

    1. Re:There are cooler companies than Raytheon by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      For example, see this:

      http://robotzeitgeist.com/2006/08/japanese-quadriplegic-attempts.html

      And look mom, no cords!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  38. Wait for the 2015 model year by Quila · · Score: 1

    As a former soldier myself, I'd love to see the auto-sleep function. Maximize your sleeping time when you'd otherwise waste too much time going to sleep and waking up.

    1. Re:Wait for the 2015 model year by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      As I recall, that was a hypnotic suggestion. Only about 90% sure, it has been a few years since I last read the book.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  39. Wrong movie references by Jonner · · Score: 1

    It's odd that of the movies mentioned, none was the most obviously appropriate. The prototype demonstrated is much more similar to the power loaders in Aliens than anything in the Iron Man and Avatar movies.

    1. Re:Wrong movie references by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      But more people have seen the Iron Man and Avatar movies and it conjures up images of something more advanced than a human form factor forklift.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Wrong movie references by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      The machines in Avatar were kind of along the lines of the power loaders in "aliens", too. Not really suits, but humanoid machines with cockpits. The main difference was the Avatar ones were combat-oriented, with weapons, armor, etc. And just a little reminiscent of the Scopedog.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  40. I think you're right by Quila · · Score: 1

    Either way, it would have been great. No bothering with sleeping bags in the freezing cold or baking in the roasting desert either, just instantly out in a temperature-regulated suit.

  41. What Failure Looks Like by lazarus · · Score: 1

    Looks awesome, but it seems like it is only a matter of time before something fails on the communication end of things and the suit rips an arm or leg off or beats the operator senseless. I'll be watching for the youtube video.

    That said, I plan to live to a very VERY old age and wear one of these to help me get around. They didn't mention the elderly as a possible target market, but I can see it.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  42. hasn't this been done? by BattleApple · · Score: 1

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/stephen-hawking-builds-robotic-exoskeleton,1629/

  43. malfunction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems great until this thing malfunctions and rips the wearer's arm off

  44. Not Ironman at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But rather looks more like the loader in Aliens. Seems to be less for combat than for other physically challenging duties (esp. in extreme hot or cold climates).

  45. realistically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this thing will cut soldiers' masturbation time by 90%, thus making them more productive

  46. what about aliens 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this really looks like the robot skeleton thing from aliens 2 more than anything else. not only that but it is doing the work exactly the way that robot suit was.
    although it was a little be larger in the movie .. this is basically the same thing. it is Nothing like robotic suits mentioned in the article.

  47. Why not bigger? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    If your going to plan on having a tethered version why not make it bigger?

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  48. Doesn't fly == NOT Iron Man like by recharged95 · · Score: 1

    But just saying Iron Man sure brings in the page clicks. And as much karma on this post.

    The XOS is more like the thing from Aliens.

  49. Carlos Owens Has a Posse! by lysdexia · · Score: 1

    Give that man a budget and turn him loose.

  50. They Forgot The Micro Fusion Reactor by tomxor · · Score: 1

    Ether that or all you're going to be lifting are some seriously heavy batteries.

  51. Re:Umbilical cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An umbilical cable worked fine for Asuka Langley...

  52. Come on, this seems a bit silly... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    I mean, really, powered exo-suits? That's kids' stuff. Cartoons. Don't waste my time with all your blabberin' blatherskite.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  53. alien came first by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Remember alien 2 came out with this first...anyways, i think its a great idea for working or even for war.....it would help with many tasks that require too many men in a danger zone...where as this would provide cover and the strength to move ...say ...a rock..out of the way.

  54. Starship Troopers the movie was different by Quila · · Score: 1

    Verhoeven was making a movie titled "Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine." He later heard of the book Starship Troopers, read a couple chapters, and bought the rights. His writers incorporated a few superficial elements of the book, and they renamed the movie.

    It's not a bad adaptation of the book because it's not an adaption of the book at all.

    1. Re:Starship Troopers the movie was different by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      His writers incorporated a few superficial elements of the book

      I don't believe that Just about every character and every event in the movie is in the novel in one way or another. It is an adaptation, but one designed to deliver the opposite message to Heinlein. And I'm not philosophically opposed to that, (Joe Haldeman, did it very well in "The Forever War"), but the problem was it was, whether it was deliberate or not, it was just dumb.

  55. That's how it happened by Quila · · Score: 1

    Verhoeven wanted a brainless bug hunt movie, optioned Starship Troopers, threw ST elements on top of it, and gave it his own message. He admits he stopped reading ST a couple chapters in.

    That's why the movie really doesn't work. It uses elements of a masterpiece to send the opposite message. The original was full of intelligent, effective tactics of a modern military, which is why it is on the military reading lists in the US. The movie had a bunch of idiots running to their doom with no plan, basically cannon fodder. A movie based on ST wouldn't do that.

    It's an okay movie if you turn your brain off and watch it for the action and special effects. Otherwise, forget it.

    Joe Haldeman, did it very well in "The Forever War

    And Harry Harrison did a great spoof in Bill The Galactic Hero.

  56. In a poll here the other day? I said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That I KNEW they were building Iron Man suits already:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2352378&cid=36942646

    Call it "inside information"...

    Now, although I voted for Capt. America though (but, it WAS close), I like Iron Man a LOT... why?

    Well - BOTH concepts are viable & possible today given the status of both engineering sciences + application in servo motors & robotics, as well as biochemical sciences (HGH & Steroids alone make "The Good Captain" a possible as well).

    APK

    P.S.=> In fact, I always considered them (both Capt. America & Iron Man) my 2 favorite "Avengers" in fact because of THAT, being close to a viable reality (Silver Age reader onwards, Avenger #15 was the 1st Avengers I read though (a beat up one I got from a pal)... I'll NEVER forget it, when Iron Man tried "taking on" the Melter on the rooftops (I thought HE looked wicked cool), & Giant Man tossing Cap's shield @ their fleeing ship only to bounce off a forcefield... I was hooked on comics & the Avengers from there onwards, circa 1969 - 1982 here).../quote?... apk