Ok, OK, but what about civilian use?
A robotic horse would be a much more impressive mid-life crisis purchase than a motorbike or sports car.
The US military's flirtation with robotic pack animals looks set to end: the Marine Corps has halted further testing of the BigDog contrivance from Google stablemate Boston Dynamics. Youtube Video BigDog, aka the Legged Squad Support System, has been under development at a cost of $32m, with the goal of making a four-legged …
I can assure you that Horses (the real type anyway) are much easier to fall off - at lower speeds - than a bike. With a wife and daughter who are very competent, I have stuck to the mid life bike - all the more necessary as they need subs to run the meatware.
it seems there is just one critical piece missing, sadly it is the same piece missing from practical jet packs, practical flying cars, long-lasting-on-one-charge smart watches or other stuff-of-the-future : small size, quiet, ecological and very, very dense source of energy.
Read the article.
It was the quiet part that turned out to be the problem. The Marines didn't seem to have trouble with it's range or it's terrain ability.
I smell a project with no early input from the military and the devs thinking any small engine will do, because that's the easy bit, right?
Turns out to be the main fail.
it seems there is just one critical piece missing
There is a second that is clearly visible in the picture at the top of the article: the massive (ruggedised?) controller and associated kit being used by the operator - who obviously will be unable to carry a full backpack and set of weapons and will be a liability due to then having to focus on the robo-mules. With real mules, most of the time, you simply have a leader with the lead mule on a lead and someone bringing up the rear - the mules being able to independently follow the leader and choose the best path - with the additional benefit that the leader and follower can carry a full backpack and be alert to what is going on around them.
@Big John
There is a point there and for more commercial applications, sure - it's a simple economic equation.
But situation where loads need to be carrier in dangerous areas? I can see an application.
And, as someone above said, what's missing is a compact, efficient (and preferably cheap!) power source. That's the thing - there are multiple parallel problems to solve with this kind of technology, most basically: simple mechanical function, coordination/balance, control, path-finding/obstacle avoidance and, of course, power.
That one of these is currently not advanced enough to make this particular unit fit for its intended purpose does not mean that any of the work done on the other areas is pointless.
Not, of course, that you ever implied that it was - I was just using your comment as a springboard for my own : )
@Big John
For mountain rescue its not just about cost
Mountains tend to be away from major population areas and Mountain Rescue teams are generally volunteers with day jobs. If a call comes in, they drop what they're doing, rush off to base then attend the emergency. Trying to find enough people who are physically capable, work locally and have a high degree of flexibility is a major issue.
In a lot of places they use non-robotic mules for that rough-terrain work and they are amazing at it.
It's easy to get excited about what we can do with clever and powerful machines to the point we lose touch with things that have worked for us consistently over thousands of years. I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying the machines, but evolution and selective breeding have also put some impressive tools at our fingertips if we choose to use them.
I walked the Gramd Canyon a few years ago and mules were used both as a means of shifting supplies and also as transport for tourists who hadn't brought enough fluids with them (as well as many other fubars). Chatting to a Ranger on my way back up (the Bright Angel path for anyone interested), he suggested that the service made a pretty penny by charging for their use.
As a person for whom English is a second language chronologically, but is now my primary, I'd say that one of its strengths is the capacity to bolt words together to make new ones (German does that as well, but is ... German, with weird grammar). That and absorb foreign words.
Some of these words won't survive. Some shouldn't have (proactive). But many enrich the language and keep it vibrant. Counter-example? French, which has the Academie Francaise nanny and took decades to pontificate a translation for email.
Warfighting? In the usage context, what would be a better synonym? Not overly defending it, but it doesn't seem totally ridiculous either. War waging is the closest I see.
Baby & bathwater. Can't have lots of new words without without a fair share of misses. Personally, more annoyed at the dreck of social media words that end up in the official dictionaries each year.
Perfect description of army troops albeit a bit Teutonic. But the the US Army modeled itself and its tactics after the Wehrmacht after WW2 ("Learn from the best" -- we might have been fighting them but you take suggestions and experience from wherever you get it).
Personally, I don't like the term because it feels like creeping militarism.
"How did that become a word? This is what happens when Americans are allowed near the English language."
The number of people in China who are learning English exceeds the total population of the UK. But don't let labels deceive you: they're not really interested in learning English; in fact they are learning American. Just like everyone else who learns English, actually.
"Learning English" in China is a misnomer and a current disgrace. So many of the "English Teachers" in China are not English first-language / natural speakers, and when they are they seem to have been taught English (American) in some backwards village and are happy to teach this bastardised form of English. Most should not be teachers at all!
China (but not the Chinese directly) may be the cause of the complete Americanisation (with an "s") of English and the subsequent death of all English spelling, pronunciation etc.
All spoken languages evolve, and in similar ways. This process cannot be controlled because it occurs among all the speakers of that language, down to the very lowest. See The Unfolding Of Language for an in-depth look at the subject that's readable (barely).
As for that mongrel patois English, it's currently mutating and taking over the world at the same time. We can only watch the fun, so try to enjoy it!
[quote=James Nicoll]
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
It is easy to grasp what they mean by 'warfighter', but it is the suggestion of euphemism that might people wary of it. It doesn't sound quite as fierce as 'warrior', which brings to my mind images of large bearded men wielding axes and swords, a la Beowulf. However, as someone has said above, it is better than 'peace keeper'.
'Friendly fire' - what is friendly about it?
'Crash landing' - um, okay.... though we could just call it a crash.
'Department / Ministry of Defence' - hahahaha
'warrior' or 'soldier' would work fine, if the word in question was actually 'warfighter'. But the OP got that wrong, the article talks about the 'Warfighting Lab' which implies that it is the activity that is being studied, not those doing the work.
If it was indeed 'warfighter', then, yeah, that would be a pretty useless & gratuitous synonym for 'warrior'. But it wasn't that in the article itself. That's why I am unaware of an existing word with same meaning.
Grammar pedant icon is surely warranted by now.
There is one, the Stirling engine developed by Philips during WW2 is a good example. Designed to power a generator for battlefield radio sets and be silent. It was made superfluous by better batteries and more efficient valves. Some examples still exist. Whether the power to weight ratio is sufficient is another question.
Phil.
@PhilBuk
Hi Phil,
I have one of these marvels running occasionally in my house - a Baxi EcoGen Boiler µCHP (http://www.baxi.co.uk/renewables/combined-heat-and-power/ecogen.htm) "which uses a Free Piston Stirling Engine to generate up to 1kW of electricity that can be used in your home."
For the most part, I can attest that for an engine that produces >=850W* of generated electrical power when running at full chat, it is surprisingly silent (<46dBA @1m). Even with the heavily-insulated cover off it is not overwhelming.
Compare this with a (arguably) quality 1KVA generator (http://www.mayberrys.com/Honda/generators/eu1000.aspx) which is MUCH louder at ~96dB @3m when on full load.
(*Note: Watts not KVA as is current and voltage phase-locked to mains supply. Is nominally rated at 1KW, but only ever seen 890W at peak)
Hugs, Susi xx
Yes, methanol fuel cells are readily available and, for that matter, you can get H2 storage systems that store the hydrogen as a solid and won't explode if damaged/shot/whatever. They have similar storage density to traditional hydrogen storage. They have the up side of also producing water which is kinda handy if you're in a situation where you are so far from logistic support that you need a robotic dog to carry your stuff.
And cost about as much for a 100W fuel cell as a 3kW Diesel genset. They are not very good at power to cost ratio, and I think the power to weight ratio is poor too. Then they use purified lab grade methanol, which is a truly expensive fuel. OK for a no-expense-spared racing yacht, not for normal people.
It is possible to make a low weight fairly high output generator based on IC engine technology which is not too loud for civil use; Honda have been doing it for years. Site generators and the engines used in things like mixers are not designed for minimum noise. The thing about the Boston Dynamics project is that very little has been spent on it in terms of the overall complexity. The overall benefits for something like this in disaster relief, mountain rescue, earthquake zones and the like could be very considerable, but somehow the R&D has to be amortised and governments prefer to spend money on weapons rather than things to mitigate their effects.
Perhaps the UK should be sinking some of the foreign aid budget into Boston Dynamics and bringing it over here. We're good at doing the R&D for other people to benefit from commercially.
"The overall benefits for something like this in disaster relief, mountain rescue, earthquake zones and the like could be very considerable"
Can't see it being much use in Mountain Rescue. Way too expensive and impractical. Consider that although this can do 'rough terrain' rescue teams will often find themselves having to do a bit of scrambling or crossing a bog or climbing over a high fence or wall. You get to that point and you have your robot device. You now have to unload all the equipment, leave a couple of team members/walk it back. It can't carry a casualty out either. Even transporting it to the RV would be a pain, you'd need special transport just for it.
If it runs out of fuel on a long search, you now have two problems to deal with rather than one.
Helicopters are much more useful - carry more weight, carry team members, carry the casualty out and are much faster.
Most situations where this would work a 4x4 quad bike would be better.
Disclaimer: I'm a MREW Mountain Rescuer
Yes, methanol fuel cells are readily availableAnd cost about as much for a 100W fuel cell as a 3kW Diesel genset. They are not very good at power to cost ratio
I can't see cost being the massive issue for such military uses as it would in most other areas. I suspect there are other downsides which took precedence over cost.
I agree with you & others elsewhere in this thread that a civilian model might prove to be a very worthwhile thing.
For example just consider someone in a wheelchair. They may be able to get themselves around by their own power but load carrying is pretty much a no-go. Give them a RoboMule to carry their stuff for them & they can surely be able to do more for themselves. Then there's the RoboMule's ability to act like a sled dog & pull the chair's owner if they get stuck in the mud/snow, or if they grow too tired to move the chair, or if they get injured & need to be pulled somewhere to safety, etc.
Another example could be as a sort of "Service Animal" for the Disabled. Consider a blind person using a RoboMule to carry their groceries, lead them through everyday obstacle coarses of normal pedestrian traffic, keeping them from getting struck by traffic, and generally assisting them in going about their day.
Or perhaps as a general robotic pack mule for anyone whom might want/need one. Stick a keychain "Follow me" fob in your pocket, stick all those packages you've spent the last four hours in the mall purchasing, and trigger the fob. You get to walk to your car or the bus, the RoboMule follows along behind you as it follows the tracking fob (make sure it's paired to your fob & not just a generic set of frequencies lest it suddenly wander off following the wrong fob!), and you don't have to carry the load since your RoboMule is doing it instead.
As long as the RoboMule is as least as clean (exhaust? fumes? leaking fluids?) as a standard Service Animal then there should be no problem allowing one on the bus, in a restaurant to crouch beneath your table on the floor like a dog (or hell, just use IT as a chair!), or anywhere else you can bring a Service Dog.
Sure it's not cheap in it's current form, but given enough R&D into getting it to a more economical manufacturing efficiency, the price should come down & become more affordable. We just have to get the run time up to a reasonable level & the autonomy to the point where it can follow a tracker fob while still avoiding obstacles, manage to get itself from A to B by itself using various audio-visual-electronic cues/clues from the environment so it can do it reliably.
I'd like to have a RoboMule. I'd stick it in a "Cousin It" suit & call it Baldy. Just to futz with people's minds.
*Cackle*
*Cough*
*Grins*
No creative thinking in this lot.
Use their remote control and nav system to set a herd of them free to noisily roam the countryside.
Meanwhile, troops use the distraction to position themselves elsewhere.
Having said that, I guess at $32M someone already has made a profit somewhere. What does $32M equate to? 32 Tomahawk missiles (as the US doesn't seem to measure expenditure in the equivalent of NHS hospitals)? There is probably a better way to spend that money, but it's certain that robots have come a long way. Just the power plants haven't caught up yet..
Sometimes the simplest answer is the best. A mule will carry a load all day over rough terrain, requires very little TLC (at least, compared to a complex mechanical system) and unlike a robot looks like part of the terrain. Obviously this isn't going to impress the technotrendies so you give it a bit of bling -- biomonitoring, homing and so on -- and call it a 'cybermule' or something like that.
I, for one, am glad that we didn't listen to the guy who said 'sometimes simplest is best, why do we need cars/airplanes/steamships when we already have horses/ships/sailing ships'.
The great advantage of a robotic mule thing is that you can switch it off and leave it on its own indefinitely without having to worry about it. Doesn't work so well for a live one.
During WW2, the British parachuted with mules into Burma. To avoid the braying mules giving their position away to the Japanese, they were 'devoiced' under anaesthetic. After each drop, the floor of the aircraft would have to be taken up and cleaned, to stop the mule urine from corroding the aircraft's wiring. Well, if I was a mule and shunted into an aircraft, I'd probably wet myself too.
https://spotlights.fold3.com/2012/03/05/mules-in-burma/
All they need to do to make it quiet is to put a four stroke engine in it that is equipped with a tuned exhaust.
I would think that if the trade-off were to be skewed more toward stealth, then a hybrid approach might be worth a try. The issue is that both add weight and bulk, which might have been a bigger design concern.
The US Marines hit Tripoli back when powdered wigs were fashionable. And yes, they went there to start shooting. The place was infested with Muslim pirates trading in thousands of Christian slaves, taking ships, getting above themselves, shocking stuff. The European Powers were content to pay off the pirates for safe passage, but the tiny American government was not. They went in, and eventually cleaned out most of the worst filth. Never got any thanks from the Europeans either...
Maybe there was no thanks because the Europeans were mostly at war with each other? That little matter of Napoleon and his domination of Europe.
(And the British found it expedient to use the northern African coast to resupply Gibraltar)
The trade was only limited by the US action, and not completely settled until the European nations a) cooperated b) took the coast over for themselves
Never been in combat, eh? I'll assume you're speaking in jest.
But the reality is that one simply does not go muzzle-to-muzzle in a long lines with the blue coats shooting at the lobster backs and vice versa. Until the shooting actually starts, combat these days is stealthier than ever. No more, line them up at dawn on the field of honor.
Overall.. good decision to shelf the project until there's someway of powering it quietly.
This post has been deleted by its author
For the price of one of these toys the military can buy hundreds, maybe thousands of actual donkeys, which move relatively silently, forage for their own fuel, pick themselves up when they fall down, heal when injured without tools and, worst case, are edible.
Nice advance in robotics, though.
Now they're whinging about the mule being not fit for purpose i.e. the decibels will give away their position, so big pout. But, grosso modo: have the things drop the supplies, then wander continuously and noisily about the country-side--possibly doing recon--largely in order to draw fire and, one way or another, give the *ar-heads the intel about where to shoot.
( ISTR having referred, in the mists of time, to the option of using this noisy tech to scare the living shit out of the enemy... )