Powered Exoskeletons In The Near Future? 377
PhReaKyDMoNKeY writes "Discover Magazine's latest issue has a story about powered exoskeletons and how they aren't terribly far off. Sounds pretty damn cool, except maybe for the centaur flatbed model. Screw a Segway, gimme one of these babies."
diptheria (Score:2, Funny)
Faked? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Faked? (Score:2)
Now all we need are the ant creatures to fight. (Score:2, Flamebait)
I will become the machine.
-Rothfuss
Re:Now all we need are the ant creatures to fight. (Score:2)
good for commuters? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:good for commuters? (Score:3, Funny)
With this, all you need is a blue suit, two antennae, and a City and wallah Instant Tick!
Re:good for commuters? (Score:2)
Why would you run when you can roll? (Score:2)
As for the whole exoskeleton vs. segway thing, why not just segway into the exoskeleton as part of the wheels? Imagine if you had one wheel on each foot, then you can just roll down the road - and if the exoskeleton has more power available to it, it makes the speed and range even better!
Re:good for commuters? (Score:2)
I'm more interested in the strength and endurance aspect. You stick a man who can lift 2 tons into a house, and moving becomes a lot easier
BTW, the power supply for such a treadmill would make it so you might as well drive to work.
personnel-sized armored fighting units would (Score:5, Interesting)
Would this really be useful? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it?
You could, for example, outfit each soldier to be able to move at superhuman speed, and carry a couple of tons of equipment... but wouldn't it make more sense just to give that soldier a jeep? Same capabilities, and lower complexity and cost.
Want to be able to move over any kind of terrain? Send a helicopter instead of a jeep.
An exoskeleton is basically a vehicle optimized to mimic human mobility ranges. Which is silly - optimize a vehicle to work as a vehicle, and it'll be simpler and more efficient.
Exoskeletons are really, really cool, and I want one too, but I don't think they'd be terribly useful in war, for the same reason that jet packs aren't (conventional vehicles do the job better).
Try fighting from a jeep... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the recent history of warfare where tanks were available, look at what happens. You have the tanks run these rapid attacks that overwhelm large open territory but then you get into a village or city and suddenly tanks are useless (unless you plan to blow the city to smithereens). suddenly you are back to a style of warfare little beyond fighting with muskets and swords.
On the other hand, if you can make relatively heavy weapons and armor available in an infantryman size package, you can get into much smaller areas and still have overwhelming force. You'll still need infantry, but this provides a signifcant augmentation to the availabilt of heavy firepower in close.
Also, think about situations where you simply need to police a city. Policing a city with a tank is impossible because you end up killing a lot of bystanders and destroying lots of property needlessly. Having a few armored troops allows you to focus your attack much more precisely. Try chasing that rebel with AK-47 down an alley with an M1A1 and see how well it works.
Yes, it would Re:Would this really be useful? (Score:5, Insightful)
but wouldn't it make more sense just to give that soldier a jeep?
No, for several reasons. Want examples? Read Black Hawk Down [amazon.com] by Mark Bowden (warning, movie is reputed to have avoided anything involving insight or thought, but I highly recommend the book. It manages to balance readable action with reasonably objective insight).
An exoskeleton is basically a vehicle optimized to mimic human mobility ranges.
Exactly, and human mobility ranges are IDEAL for rough terrain and urban terrain. Pick a war:
Basically, there are two kinds of wars: those which offer a maneuverable battlefield, and those that don't. In the former, air superiority and ground armor (read: tanks, not jeeps) are the decisive factor. In the latter, the amount of firepower, coordination, tactical information, and maneuverability of the foot soldier is the key, and exoskeletons will allow the foot soldier to have a serious advantage in those areas, and probably to gain some armor too eventually. Note also that opponents of the US will be trying to arrange non-maneuverable battlefields, because it's becoming clear that challenging the US on that field is suicidal, just as the Arab countries have stopped starting tank wars with Israel and instead moved to terrorism and popular uprising.
Another lesson from Black Hawk Down - the amount of tactical information available is now exceeding the ability of command elements to grasp it all. The old "fog of war" meant you couldn't see. The new "fog of war" means you can't see the forest because you've got more trees than you can take in. As information and communication equipment is pushed out to the foot soldier (remember, an exo lets you carry more) this problem will only get worse, which means that the challenge for today's (high-tech) military is to improve their information processing systems so they can keep up and use the right info to make good decisions.
(Almost made it through without an Appleseed [lightrealm.com] reference!)
Re:Tactical Information (Score:2)
Without GPS you can't fire a single Cruise Missile
Not at all true - GPS is just more accurate than inertial guidance systems. When you're aiming at an airfield, power complex, or military base, the ability to hit the exact 15 feet you want is nice but not necessary. Cruise missiles did exist before GPS, you know.
Without GPS you'll find it hard to find your bombing targets / intercept enemy fighters
Not at all true - AWACS, Predator drones, and special forces on the ground with laser targeting provide that. Very few enemy fighters are intercepted at the appropriate GPS coordinates in any case. (Except the Iraqis, who could be reliably intercepted at Iranian air bases)
Take GPS from the picture and US-style "warfare" is a very different proposition.
I'm not up-to-date on the weaponry, but I strongly suspect that GPS is not the only targeting system available today - just the most commonly used, because it is the most accurate. Yes, collateral damage would go up, but the ability to wage war would not be severely impacted.
I suspect that if the GPS system was knocked out, there would be a few hours or days pause as the other guidance systems are pulled out, dusted off, and screwed on. Keep in mind, many of the bombs dropped on Afghanistan were built during the Vietnam war. Old military hardware never dies, it just sits on the shelf until it is needed.
Is there a military buff out there who is familiar with what the state-of-the-art is in non-GPS weapon guidance systems? Please chime in!
Re:Would this really be useful? (Score:2)
Anyway, this reminds me of a project I worked on a few months ago. Basically, the customer wanted a machine that would take something very much like a wound guitar string and cut both ends simultaneously. Not difficult at all. Unfortunately, the customer had an additional requirement: the cutting had to be done using the existing tool; a pair of diagonal cutters made of a particular stainless steel alloy and with handle curved so as to be comfortable for the human hand. An excellent tool if the job is being done by a human, but a really piss-poor one if the job is being done by a machine. Getting the tool securly held and properly positioned is a huge pain in the ass, and took our machinist nearly a week of guess-and-check work to get right, costing us about 5 times what it would have to build the machine if we didn't have to design it around a hand tool. And as an added bonus, every time the cutters are replaced the customer will have to send it to their callibration lab for at least a day, losing all that production time, when it could have been 10 minutes total for replacement and calibration.
The big lesson: the human body is a really incredible general purpose machine, but you should never try to model a machine after it. For any specific task there is an optimal design, and it is extremely unlikely to resemble the human form in any way.
That said, though, gant robot power armor is damned sexy!
<Homer Simpson>Mmmmm... Mecha...</Homer Simpson>
Re:Would this really be useful? (Score:3, Interesting)
US regular infantry is tougher as well. You don't have to be an expert to realize that American soldiers will have a vastly superior kill ratio to most other nations in identical circumstances. Just look at the photos of the gear that servicemen are using over in Afghanistan, they have night vision, kevlar body armor, superior command and control, superior tactics, superior weaponry, obviously superior support, and more advantages that explain why a lot more Taliban have died than Americans. You have to be the superior force to engage an enemy on his own turf, and that is the role the US army has been designed to play.
Re:Would this really be useful? (Score:2)
Re:Would this really be useful? (Score:2, Insightful)
When the Brisish Troops marched across the Falkland Islands imagine if they had been all in exoskeletons, in triplicate. Quite a sight.
But then throw an EMP mine and they're all stuck still!
Re:Would this really be useful? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Would this really be useful? (Score:2)
Re:Would this really be useful? (Score:2)
Humane warfare? (Score:2)
On the other hand if you can pack a tremendous amount of firepower and armor into a man portable unit (such as power armor). It makes it feasible to put men on the ground quickly without significantly increasing risks of casualties, etc. These men on the ground have a greater ability to precisely attack important targets than we can ever hope to achieve with a cruise missile or laser guided bomb.
The benefit is that the combatants will be the ones who really get involved and the civilians should be able to remain relatively unscathed.
Military Uses (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one thing to have a device that can handle (relatively) slow, deliberate movements, and augments strength. It's a completely different matter to have a armored, fast-responding 'cyborg'.
The biggest advantage, and use of this technology for the near term is in warehouse/repair duty. Forklifts are usually clumsy at best, where an exoskeleton could supplant (but not replace) these lumbering beasts.
They'd be great for, say, Home Depot. This way an employee can pick up a couple of 100 lb bags of cement, and stack it in the store as easily as it would be do stack a bean-bag.
But a military application? Not anytime soon. Let's not forget these devices require a power source. For the few minutes of operation, they'd be great. But don't forget that adding weapons and armor will do two things: SEVERELY tax the power supply, and when the power is gone, the frame makes the soldier a sitting duck for a fair amount of time while the suit is either re-charging/fueling, or the soldier is scrambling out of the suit.
Any more armor than enough to stop standard rifle/handgun fire would weigh FAR too much to be practical for the time being.
Even with gas-powered fuel cells... there wouldn't be enough power for an armored unit. The response time would be too great.
A neural interface at the base of the skull (to transmit the motion signals from the soldier's brain to the suit) would speed up the response time greatly. But let's not forget that things are still bound by Mr. Newton's laws. The mass of even a lightly armored limb doesn't start and stop on a dime easily (not with enough armor to stop hand-held arms fire, anyway). It would take tremendously powerful superconducting motors to achieve that feat. But then, you're adding a cryo pack to the suit for the magnets. Even more weight and parts to break.
Not that the military wouldn't toy with the idea; it's just that they realize the practical limitations as well. Strength-enhancing suits I can see; armored body-suits... not for a while.
It's a great idea, until you deploy them without a heavy support team nearby. The logistics alone on an armored suit would be prohibitive. It's not like they can operate for weeks on end with only MRE's and sanitizer-tablets.
seems they already found a use for the prototype.. (Score:3, Funny)
and this is a good thing?
Re:seems they already found a use for the prototyp (Score:2)
That scares the FUCK out of me. Why the fuck is someone part of our countrys high tech defense if they havent even used a computer? AND why The FUCK are they loading bombs?! Talk about a fucked up place and I live here.
Re:seems they already found a use for the prototyp (Score:2)
Seriously, just because someone isn't a hacker doesn't make him stupid. The USAF trains stupid guys as cooks or personnel clerks, not as bomb loaders. (This is why our records were always f*d up and we'd rather eat at the Navy mess hall if possible...) It's much safer to have someone used to manual labor doing the loading than some geek -- even if the AF managed to put some muscles on the geek. Manual laborers do develop a pretty good instinctive understanding of forces and balance; they can't calculate it, but they do know how far they can lean over while holding a 100 pound bomb. And if the bomb is big enough that manual lifting isn't going to do, then (at present) you've got these same guys driving forklifts or something. It's much safer to have them running a rig that amplifies their muscle power so they can use their experience in hand-loading, than running a fork truck with a half-dozen control levers that do _not_ work intuitively.
Re:Military Uses (Score:2)
Heh ok so you make the suit bigger, several tens of tons so it can hold a huge reactor, and we'll call it a Mech, yeah baby!
Re:Military Uses (Score:2)
how is that unfortunate?
Re:Military Uses (Score:2)
how is that unfortunate?
Nice to see someone raise that question. Anyway, to address the issue of whether this is going to be available to GI Joe anytime soon - I don't think that's the expectation of this project. It's funded by DARPA, after all, so think of this as military brain-storming. A military use may come out of it some day, but the project won't be considered a failure if it doesn't. As many have pointed out, the civilian uses may be more important than the military ones, anyway.
Re:Military Uses (Score:2)
The reason our tanks are so damn bulky is to protect the human occupants.
What we need is not to put a human into a bigger can. What we need is to remove the human altogether.
Nah, the problem's heat disipation (Score:2)
Perfect target for a heat seeking missile.
HTH HAND etc.
Re:personnel-sized armored fighting units would (Score:2)
The real interesting thing about these exoskeletons is not the heavy ordinance they let a soldier carry - the chinese make an automatic grenade launcher that is man-portable, for christ's sake (you'd have to be nuts to try firing it without pinning it to the ground, though.) If you're really concerned about improving the firepower of your man on the ground, there are a lot cheaper ways to do it - stinger missiles, RPGLs - than to put him inside a killer robot, is my point.
Also, I'm not really impressed with how tough giant robots are supposed to make people. If you recall, back in 'nam the soldiers rode OUTSIDE their APCs for safety. Of course, the vietnamese fought back. If all your enemy is gonna do is pop off a few light rounds at you while you stomp around, you're better off in Voltron.
The issue is portage of supplies. The sheer weight of a soldier's gear (food, water, ropes, kits, knives and guns, and so on) make the exoskeleton really attractive for that purpose. It's also a convenient platform to integrate all of these cool tactical and communications gadgets we want our soldiers to cart around, which have been making the problem of portage even worse. This does mean we could fit every man with sidewinder missiles and a tac nuke, but delta force paratroopers can allready reduce a hundred men each to hamburger, I just don't see the percentages.
Re:personnel-sized armored fighting units would (Score:4, Funny)
Well it depends just how giant they are. I mean, a 7 foot exoskeletal suit is one thing, a 500 foot tall mech with cannons for arms is another.
Flying Things (Score:2)
Heck, just look at these things [solotrek.com].
The prospects remind me of several cartoon series
Military tech has come full circle (Score:4, Insightful)
...is this unique? Not really. Think of the Middle Ages, when Western-style warfare was ruled by mounted knights, with their 100-pound steel suits of full plate armor and their heavy war horses. Back then, armor and equipment was more equally balanced with the lethality of weapons. Hence, small units of elite troops (heavy cavalry) could rout much larger units of normal infantry.
When firearms started to really catch on, mounted knights slowly lost their elite status as they became less effective militarily. The balance between armor and weapons swung once more in favor of weapons, and it became more important to put lots of soldiers on the ground with weapons than it was to field small, specialized units.
So, you have a circle between highly trained units and large masses of soldiers that starts with the Roman legions, goes through Middle Age heavy cavalry, on to the massive conscript armies of Napoleon, then to the German Panzer units of the initial blitzkrieg, to the advent of "endless wave" doctrine used to most effect by China and North Korea, and finally to the development of close air-supported special forces. I obviously focused on land warfare and still left out a lot of different military innovations and tactics throughout history, but you can see a reversible shift between emphasis on lots of weapons and emphasis on specialized, highly trained and well-protected troops.
Maybe more importantly for the here and now, the US military has recognized the need to be flexible, and that both types of land warfare can be effective in the right situation. The many branches of their special operations troops and their huge armored divisions both have their place at the table.
Re:Military tech has come full circle (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Military tech has come full circle (Score:4, Funny)
and I quote
"It is fatiguing to fight in heavy armor, but fighters wearing this protective gear are far from the clumsy behemoths often portrayed in film. If armor were that encumbring, no fighter in his right mind would have bothered with it, because being slowed that much would be tantamount to suicide. Modern reconstructions have shown that fighters in full suits of mail or plate can perform cartwheels, leap up directly from the ground, and even sprint for short distances. Great endurance is obviously required to fight for long periods in armor, and men-at-arms trained in armor from childhood to be able to do so."
Hasn't anyone else seen that discovery show where the guy in full plate does cartwheels?
Re:Military tech has come full circle (Score:2)
(I use here the British spelling 'armour' because that type of personal protection wasn't used much in America's history. Besides, I think it looks cooler.)
Re:Military tech has come full circle (Score:2)
Until the longbow saw regular use, battlefields were actually ruled by the sheild-wall and the spear.
Heavy cavalry troops WERE very effective in that era, but very rarely were they available in enough numbers due to the COST of outfitting them with enough armor. It's cheaper to get 500 guys with sheilds and spears and light armor than to outfit 10 heavy cavalry "knights". They were more significant as a psychological weapon, because one guy on a horse could breach a sheild-wall, mainly because he could carry a lance at high-speed that was longer than a spear (or pike, or glaive) that a footsoldier could carry, therefore he could strike with impunity. But once the mounted "knight" took out one pikeman, his buddy would come along and unhorse the knight, and that would be all she wrote. Attacking a phalanx was still a very risky venture.
Against poorly armed peasants is where the knight really shone though, because poorly armed peasants didn't have shield-walls and pikes. They'd pretty much turn and flee in the face of a charging horse, and get cut down as they ran.
Re:Military tech has come full circle (Score:2)
-jon
Re:personnel-sized armored fighting units would (Score:2)
Likely, powered exoskeletons are rather going to be useful in civilian use first. Cargo handling, building, disposal, rescue, firefighting - all of those are going to benefit way more than military use, where a failure of the technology has far greater dangers than in civilian use - while the big cost savings are in civilian, rather than military applications. Just imagine that bear-proof suit that got an IG Nobel award a few years ago, but with active joints.
And don't forget that as soon as you have a real, workable exoskeleton, the step is fairly small to have two exoskeletons - One passive, worn by the operator; and one active, unmanned, working in a hazardous environment, connected together by radio.
As a side-note, the big problem (as stated by the article) is the lack of a good artificial muscle; this is a huge problem not only in this research, but in robotics research in general. No matter how good our control systems become, we just don't have a system that even approaches the energy/weight efficiency of the muscle. Until this problem gets some headway, we're never going to see those robots we all dream about.
/Janne
Re:personnel-sized armored fighting units would (Score:2)
This is the what the whole thing hinges on, and until THAT particular technology is invented, this is never going to happen. And that's been the case for probably 10-15 years now, since the electronics and control and structural issues were pretty much "solved".
Re:personnel-sized armored fighting units would (Score:2)
Nah...
If we've learned anything recently, all you have to do is kill a few thousand civilians with little to no warning. That's a pretty hefty weapon, and all it cost is a handful of brainwashings and $1.99 at Home Depot for a box cutter.
Re:personnel-sized armored fighting units would (Score:2)
If this thing is $4 million dollars a suit, it would be way too expensive to outfit an entire army with them. You'd end up with a few hundred special squads at best. Put 1000 powered troops up against 1 million enemies with AK-47's, and I'd say you still don't have a fair fight. Those 1000 soldiers might have the combat effectiveness of maybe 100,000, but the COST of 1 million.
Obligatory Onion link (Score:5, Funny)
Stephen Hawking Builds Robotic Exoskeleton [theonion.com]. It's got a great photo.
Better use? (Score:2, Insightful)
Run..Its cyborg godzilla!!
Re:Better use? (Score:2, Insightful)
More likely, what if {USA|Britain|France} sells one of these to someone who turns out to be a despot in a couple of years time after their usefulness is over?
much older idea than in the article (Score:2)
What comes next? (Score:5, Funny)
I will believe that exoskeletons are possible when I see such other anime cliches as germ warfare, human cloning, apocalyptic events and cynical plots to form a one world government come true.
Oh wait...
power source problems (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:power source problems (Score:2)
Uuuuuuuuuuunnnnggghhhh!!!!
Doesn't work that way. (Score:2)
A person walking around is not losing energy in the same fashion... they are using just what they need to move around.
Re:Doesn't work that way. (Score:2)
I mean, if this thing were, say, wired into your brain, and new what you wanted to do.. you could be falling to the ground. Absorbing the shock of the impact could also generate energy. If you are running, that's using energy.. when you stop.. the suit could engage generators at the right moments to stop you, and conserve power.
Doubtful we'd see it in the near future.. would be a huge hinderance for a negligible increase in power.
Re:power source problems (Score:2)
cool (adj): see "Powered exoskeletons" (Score:3, Funny)
I'm worried about the dry-cleaning bill, though.
Re:cool (adj): see "Powered exoskeletons" (Score:2)
Screw the kernel updates and Microsoft vulnerabilties
of course that might change when a buffer overflow exploit is discovered in your MS Windows XBot ActiveSuit Edition.
Power! (Score:2, Insightful)
--Chag
Vaporware (wear)? (Score:4, Interesting)
Link to howstuffworks [howstuffworks.com]
I still want a veritech fighter. I'd go to war in one of those.
Read, enjoy!
Oh, oh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then so could the enemy, I would guess...
Don't buy into the hype! (Score:4, Funny)
RIPLEY: That's right.
BURKE: Running loaders, forklifts, that sort of thing?
===
It's obvious that this is a dead-end profession just waiting to happen!!! Don't buy into the hype!
Atomic Dinosaur Laboratory (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyhow, keep an eye out for stuff like this being developed by your car companies like Toyota, Honda, Mazda, Mercedes, BMW, et al... They got the stereo-3D auto-CAD systems to design it, the robotics experience, and the polymers material science to pull something like this off in real-time and at a commercial level...
Think about the Aliens construco-bot thing that is used for space construction... but with a Mercedes or Toyota logo on it.
Oh - and also think about the Battle-Bot contests on TV, and your old BattleTech and RoboTech role-playing games... Think those were just games? I don't think so...
Re:Atomic Dinosaur Laboratory (Score:2)
Oh - and also think about the Battle-Bot contests on TV, and your old BattleTech and RoboTech role-playing games... Think those were just games? I don't think so
And more in line with the idea of a (close to) human sized suit, check out the power armor wearing space marines in Games Workshop's [games-workshop.com] Warhammer 40k.
Exoskeleton picture (Score:5, Funny)
:)
Much farther off then we think (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Power source - a portable fusion reactor seems the most likely. Flywheels perhaps, but containment is an issue. (though rupturing a charged flywheel would create some excellent battlefield fireworks)
2. Light yet Strong building material - current alloys are on the right track, but so far the magic strength/weight ratio has yet to be found
3. Control methods - right now, even our most advanced robotics control is stilll slow and cubersome analog input- joysticks and buttons. Something along the line of either thought-reading or perhaps datasuits that mimic the pilot's limb motions.
Re:Much farther off then we think (Score:2)
Sorry but this is exeedingly Unlikely. Nuclear fusion at present has several characteristics that make it unsuitable at preeent.
1) It's big. Think many tons not a few kilograms for a tokamk or other fusion plant. 2) It doen't work yet. Currently and for the near future it takes more energy to produce the fusion than the fusion produces. 3) It's radioactivly dirty - yes, as dirty or dirtier than a fission power plant. Even if 1 and 2 where fixed, tons of heavy shielding are needed to bring the radiation levels down to acceptible levels. You want to have Chernobyl strapped to your back?
Re:Much farther off then we think (Score:2)
Where it's OK to be tethered (like loading cargo, construction sites, etc.), the power unit could be a big hydraulic pump & pressure tank, connected to the user by hoses. That is, wherever the exoskeleton arm needs a "muscle", you put a cylinder which is activated by letting high-pressure hydraulic fluid in and out. This gives very high power density at the user end, although it's coming from a fixed unit that outweighs him and his suit. Or a centaur unit (exoskeloton arms on the front of a truck, for example) could carry the hydraulic pump unit; this would be good for cargo handling and bomb-loading, but I don't see much use for it in combat.
The best currently-conceivable portable power technology for combat exoskeletons is to burn fuel in cylinders, which are linked in just like hydraulic cylinders. Muscles and hydraulics let you adjust the speed and force even in mid-stroke, while with fuel-cylinders it would seem that your only control is how much fuel is squirted in, when it's lit, and when you vent the exhaust gas and let the cylinder contract. So I'm not sure how much fine control you can manage with that -- but with practice, I think a man could learn to walk and run across country in such a suit, and carry 1,000 pounds of gear or so. Even if the suit is too twitchy to allow aiming a gun with the exoskeleton, you can thus have one guy in the squad carrying artillery for the others to use. But how long would a load of fuel last?
Re:Much farther off then we think (Score:2)
The first problem this would solve is that firehose nozzles (called "monitors") can generate more reaction force than a man can handle. Now the hose man is wearing a big, heavy exoskeleton; he clunks into position, then locks the suit and switches the water into the nozzle.
Second of course is the risks run going into burning buildings. With an insulated, armored suit powered by an armored water hose, you can safely walk through any fire that isn't hot enough to endanger the hose. If you don't like the situation around the available door and window entries, you can punch and kick and create a new doorway somewhere safer. The armor gives you some protection against collapsing buildings -- it wouldn't have saved them at the WTC of course, but if a normal house collapses with firemen inside now, they're probably dead, with this they're probably alive. (Not able to dig themselves out because the hose is caught, but alive, and maybe shaking things around enough to make themselves real easy to find.)
And finally, if you have to dig through a collapsed building, you can pick up much bigger pieces and toss them farther. And all the other possible uses of excess strength in rescues, wherever the hoses will reach...
These suits would be rather expensive, with the stainless steel hydraulics and all, but it seems like they would let a fire crew get into a burning building and check for survivors faster, and at reduced risk. And in some cases there would be off-setting cost savings, e.g. if one man in a suit can handle a monitor that needed three men, then you can make some staff cuts.
control methods (Score:2)
Pop-eye arms? (Score:3, Funny)
And from the article, I thus quote:
Kazerooni expects partial versions will hit the market first. "A factory worker might have just a pair of enhanced arms," he says. "There will be many job-specific applications for arms alone or legs alone."
This is providing of course that said worker is strong enough to carry and support the enhanced arms, I can't help but wonder... If a man screams in agony in an empty factory after having his arms ripped from their sockets, will there be a sound?
Re:Pop-eye arms? (Score:2)
The average has nothing to do with the middle, the half-way point, the 50% mark. The average is the average.
In a class of 10 people if you have 9 100%'s and 1 0%, your average is ((9*100 + 1*0) / 10) = 90%. You'd be hard-pressed to find 5 out of those ten people that are below 90%.
The word you were looking for is median. The median is the one in the middle and 50% of people are necessarily below that.
The mean, or the average, is the sum of all the values divided by the number of values and is not related to the median at all.
Justin Dubs
Why wait? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why wait? (Score:2)
I don't remember where it was [on TV] that I saw this, but a woman with no legs was running on devices similar to these.
It was really just a warped bend-y piece of metal, but she ran pretty fast on them. Seemed kinda cool - but they didn't show how she stopped. I could see her falling over.
Screw a Segway .... (Score:2)
If the exoskeletons are anotomically correct enough, you just might be able to do that
It already exists (Score:2)
/Janne
Turn it off, Grommit! (Score:3, Funny)
;^)
Ripley's loader (Score:2)
Before exoskeletons.... (Score:2, Funny)
Used by Special Forces (Score:3, Funny)
I probably shouldn't let the Special Forces guys hear me say tha*CRUNCH* AAGH! MY NECK!
Re:Used by Special Forces (Score:2)
Some ideas. Feel free to reject. (Score:2, Insightful)
Other things to consider: perhaps also do not label the powerpack "powerpack" and do not color it bright red when the rest of the armor is dark blue.
So what happens if it crashes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine: the onboard computer crashes and the knee motor decides to do a 360. Goodbye leg.
I've seen this happen on the legged robots here in the lab [mcgill.ca]. When that happens we just hit the kill switch and resolder the broken wires. I'd hate to have the "exoskeleton" kill someone because of a computer hiccup.
Re:So what happens if it crashes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Embedded systems need to *not crash*, period. The industry has been dealing with this sort of requirement for decades, and doing a pretty good job of it, all things considered.
McGill Lab work (Score:2)
You can count on even more terrorism... (Score:2)
It is fine and easy to level a tiny country like Afganistan, but what happens with something more like India or Indonesia???
Can I borrow it for a day? (Score:3, Funny)
Give *me* an atomic wedgie, will you?!
Maybe it's just me...
:-)
What's Been Discovered Here... (Score:2)
human limitations? (Score:3, Insightful)
In heavy lifting, how would the weight be transferred from arms to feet? It looks like the arms module is separate from the feet module, which does not touch the ground. So would the soldier's spine be able to cope with the weight? Would his feet?
Now the superhuman running. Would the soldier's knees and other joints be able to move fluidly at high speed for the extended time?
Someone wake me when they're here (Score:2)
No one loves the idea of powered exoskeletons more than I do, heck, I have worn our my Aliens DVD... but I can't take another optimistic article. I never, ever want to hear about this again until I see a solider demoing one at an air show... ok, maybe when fas.org has an article on models currently deployed. I'll settle for that.
(and I never want to hear about holographic memory until I can look for it on Pricewatch, either.)
Don't get too excited (Score:2)
While these exoskeletons look impressive and will add equally impressive capablities, they're not even in proto type yet. The suit pictured in the article is just a mockup to helpd figure out how to attach the servos and sensors. Even so, the military is definitely taking this whole concept very seriously. The suit pictured is intended as a general purpose infantry enhancement allowing a foot soldier to carry heavier weapons, more supplies, or a whole bunch of body armor. Note the "or". These suits are not the "Mobile Infantry" suits of Starship Troopers. For more info, I'd suggest going to www.darpa.gov and entering "exoskeleton" into their search box. Lot's of neat projects and white papers there. They're also working on a back pack helicopter thing that looks totally cool.
Re:"Aliens" exoskeleton (Score:2, Informative)
Reading is Fundemental (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, the exoskeleton has no real peaceful benefit.
Yeah, I mean, why would a parapalegic want to walk?
Did you bother to read the story? If you had you would have read:
But François Pin, who heads the Oak Ridge effort, sees dozens of nonmilitary uses as well. "Construction is a $4 billion industry in this country, and it's very primitive. We are injuring people every day. Cargo handling, search and rescue--the possibilities are endless." Ultimately, exoskeletons could transform society. The elderly could regain the physical abilities of youth, and paraplegics could walk. "
Steve M
Re:Hoo... (Score:2)
Plus, being able to climb into a superhuman suit (superstrength) would be an EXCELLENT way to steal stuff. Crime would skyrocket, would it be introduced. Please understand that once something is invented, it is nearly impossible to uninvent it. Furthermore, the exoskeleton has no real peaceful benefit. And in today's age, no information is safe. Consider this.
The same could be said of any weapon.. I mean..
being able to climb into a tank would be an EXCELLENT way to steal stuff.
or
being able to fire a rocket propelled grenade would be an EXCELLENT way to steal stuff.
or
being able to command a crack squad of special force units would be an EXCELLENT way to steal stuff.
These are no more dangerous to the general public as any other weapon the military makes.. Crime never skyrocketted at the invention of a military grade weapon before.. what makes you think it will suddenly happen now?.. These things probably cost the taxpayer several million if not billion dollars each.. it's not like we've seen many people steal stealth bombers and go on joyrides lately.. I doubt the military will have less security over one of these things.. and it's not like the average street punk will be able to buy one..
fear and loathing (Score:3, Interesting)
F-bacher
Re:fear and loathing [OT] (Score:2)
If I could bring back the dead at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tchernobyl, I would gladly get rid of today's nuclear power plants. They are, in any case, inefficient and dangerous. Even in industrialized countries, most don't even break even without government aid.
And I know of no nuclear-based medical technologies. Are you referring things like X-rays and cancer treatment? Nuclear technology is hardly needed for those applications; all you need is to dig out a radioactive rock from the ground and expose someone to it.
No, it's clear that nuclear technology is a dangerous technology whose invention was a dark day in the history of humanity. That said, I don't have anything against these exoskeleton things. They look helpful for handicapped people and, if we're lucky, may eventually lead to an Angelic Layer [google.com]-like game :).
Interesting argument (Score:2)
Any technology is dangerous when in the wrong hands. I agree that nuclear technology does prevent a unique threat because it kills so many in such a small amount of time, but because of the spread of nuclear technology, a sufficient deterent has been created.
I bet people where saying the same thing when the cannon ball and cannon was invented. TNT could kill a lot now.
We better keep inventing. If we don't continue to advance, people who evil intentions will advance and use their advances to do great harm. If we continue to advance, we can control discovered technologies and hopefully be able to keep dangerous uses in check.
F-bacher
Re:Hoo... (Score:2)
A robbery generally requires stealth, or else the law will show up with overpowering force (they'll have powered suits too, you know).
So my guess is that anyone who walks into a bank wearing one of these huge suits, knocking around those rope separators for the lines, and generally looking like a bull in a china shop is going to get noticed and then caught.
Re:Working Design (Score:2)
Re:The AI part is kinda scary :o) (Score:2)
Not nearly as painful as bleeding to death on the battlefield. Plus, I'm sure they could probably put a syringe of morphine somewhere in the exoskeletal suit if the pain gets too bad. Trust me, the military has got some good meds.
Re:No way! (Score:2)