DARPA's Headless Robotic Mule Takes Load Off Warfighters 210
Hugh Pickens writes writes "If robots are ever really going to carry the equipment of US soldiers and Marines, they're going to have to act more like pack animals. Now Terri Moon Cronk reports that DARPA's semiautonomous Legged Squad Support System — also known as the LS3 — will carry 400 pounds of warfighter equipment and walk 20 miles at a time also acting as an auxiliary power source for troops to recharge batteries for radios and handheld devices while on patrol. 'It's about solving a real military problem: the incredible load of equipment our soldiers and Marines carry in Afghanistan today,' says Army Lt. Col. Joseph K. Hitt, program manager in DARPA's tactical technology office. The robot's sensors allow it to navigate around obstacles at night, maneuver in urban settings, respond to voice commands, and gauge distances and directions. The LS3 can also distinguish different forms of vegetation when walking through fields and around bushes and avoid logs and rocks with intelligent foot placement on rough terrain (video). The robot's squad leader can issue 10 basic commands to tell the robot to do such things as stop, sit, follow him tightly, follow him on the corridor, and go to specific coordinates. Darpa figures that it's illogical to make a soldier hand over her rucksack to a robotic beast of burden if she's then got to be preoccupied with 'joysticks and computer screens' to guide it forward. 'That adds to the cognitive burden of the soldier,' Hitt explains. 'We need to make sure that the robot also is smart, like a trained animal.'"
A Jingoistic Sentiment (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you recall what primitive people do to witches?
--
Aside:
"Stupidity common more hydrogen than. It you combat. Not try! Hard think, or not think!" - Sensei Yoda
That's not even close to Yoda-speak. "More common than hydrogen, stupidity is. Combat it, you must. Think, or think not, there is no 'try'."
Re: (Score:2)
Do you recall what primitive people do to witches?
Proper primitive folks sponsor a virgin tossing party at the local volcano to appease the Evil Spirits.
We, being civilized folks, won't let them sacrifice their virgins, but we will be more than happy to take the virgins off the hands of the primitive folks.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you recall what primitive people do to witches?
--
Aside:
"Stupidity common more hydrogen than. It you combat. Not try! Hard think, or not think!" - Sensei Yoda
That's not even close to Yoda-speak. "More common than hydrogen, stupidity is. Combat it, you must. Think, or think not, there is no 'try'."
Yes. They ask their consultant, Sir Bedivere [youtube.com], questions about their density.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A Jingoistic Sentiment (Score:5, Funny)
Many of the the superstitious, ill-educated tribesmen that U.S. ground troops regularly encounter already think the Americans are witches.
Given that the US is about the most superstitious [newyorker.com], ill-educated [ibtimes.com] nation on the face of the Earth, that's a bit ripe. But then, of course, you famously don't do irony.
Re:A Jingoistic Sentiment (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh look, another troll fishing for an insightful mod.
Seriously. If we're so damn superstition and ill educated, why does everyone still come to our schools from around the world, particularly china and india? Why are we the country that gave the world computers, space flight, airplace, nuclear physics, .... you know what, theres too many things to list.
Lets cut to the chase: You are a moron and a troll who has engaged his "must bash USA" autopilot and not worthy of any more of my time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are we the country that gave the world computers, space flight, airplace, nuclear physics, .... you know what, theres too many things to list.
Notice how all those things are in the past? Not to mention that space flight was given to you by German scientists, nuclear physics was developed mostly by Europeans (I know it's popular to think that Einstein was American when he had his Annus Mirabilis, but he wasn't), and the Wright brothers were building on stuff that had been worked on by Europeans for about 200 years. The Wright brothers beat the rest of the world by a few years, tops. Nothing to really brag about.
And people go to our graduate (and s
Beast of burden (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Beast of burden (Score:4, Insightful)
Two syllables: bul-lets.
Re: (Score:2)
Like this thing is going to be bullet resistant? You could armor-up a mule pretty easily.
Re: (Score:3)
And now your armored mule cant carry anything. Try again.
Re:Beast of burden (Score:5, Insightful)
Not bullets. The real reason is two fold:
-animals get tired
-animals get scared
robots do neither.
Re: (Score:3)
"robots do neither."
robots get tired. It will run out of power and gas... Just like an animal.
Oh and animals can be trained to not get scared. The US army has done it for over 200 years.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Soldiers get emotionally attached to animals, especially during war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Beast of burden (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmmmm donkey ribs....
Re: (Score:2)
Because the mujahideen already knows that trick.
That's how we supplied them [wikipedia.org] in the 1980's. They'll never expect this.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just turn real animals off when you don't need them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"You can't just turn real animals off when you don't need them."
Oh yes you can. They have an off switch.. Problem is the on switch has not been invented yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Beast of burden (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it's pricey and not perfect, but some cons of a mule compared to this machine:
Disclaimer: neither military, nor mule specialist ... Based on very general understandment about military
Re: (Score:2)
Because real animals have to be fed, meaning your solution to your supply problem is now *another* supply problem. Granted, machines need fuel, but you're now talking about a much smaller amount of stuff that has to be hauled for an equivalent carrying ability.
Project Pelican (Score:2)
Sounds like a very expensive donkey/mule replacement. Why not just use real animals?
I completely agree. In WWII, american scientists trained pigeons to steer bombs toward targets. One or more pigeons would actually be placed in a bomb and peck on a clear disc that would actuate the bombs fins. Training was fairly straight forward and their accuracy was better than anything else available at the time, including radar (although radar was still fairly new). The project was ultimately disbanded because the military wasn't interested.
Random questions (Score:4, Informative)
How much can a donkey carry?
How far can a donkey travel for before "recharging"?
How quiet is a donkey? Would the donkey sounds draw as much unwanted attention?
How much money would it cost to pick up a donkey in a local market and then feed it?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One you forgot (Score:5, Insightful)
How many bullets can a donkey take (or even near misses) before all your equipment is leaving you at a rapid pace?
Robots don't startle (or die) easy.
An animal has common sense, which makes it a poor companion for military use without a ton of training and even then it's pretty vulnerable.
Re: (Score:2)
Pack animals have been used by the military for millennia. Including the US military. The first cannon were drawn by horses. If they can be trained to handle cannon fire, they can be trained to ignore AK.
Re: (Score:2)
Can they be trained to ignore being shot?
Re:One you forgot (Score:4, Insightful)
Does the LS3 work after being shot up? Silly comparison.
The kinds of animals that locals use can be used locally, by definition. It would make the US troops seem more human, and caring for actual animals may reduce the dehumanisation/PTSD of those troops after a decade+ at war.
And troops can periodically donate animals to villages. Good for hearts'n'minds. (Particularly if the US breeding program selects only the most combat-trainable animals, leaving you with some excess each year, but also as the animal age too much for heavily loaded mountain patrols but are still okay for farm-work on flatter ground.)
But, the key is that if there was a need for LS3, then the US would already be using pack animals. They aren't, so there probably isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
a robot will take more than one bullet though. Unless it is a really lucky shot.
animals will only take one bullet.
Also the trick is we are using pack animals we call them humvee's. Of course that is assuming there is a road to drive it on. if there are no roads, vehicles don't do so well.
Guess what the conditions of where we have been fighting are like?
Re: (Score:2)
"animals will only take one bullet."
You have never hunted before, have you.
They can take more than 1 bullet easily. I have seen deer that were taken that had old bullet wounds that healed up and one even had an arrow head and shank inside it that healed and had a fiberous mass around it.
Re: (Score:2)
They can take more than 1 bullet easily. I have seen deer that were taken that had old bullet wounds that healed up and one even had an arrow head and shank inside it that healed and had a fiberous mass around it.
And I'm sure that deer stuck around and listened to it's handler after it was shot or hit with the arrow also.
Re: (Score:2)
its not about the number of bullets they can take.
we replaced animal when we started getting these things called "horseless carriages". yet if you know your history there were times we still used animals, primarily donkeys, in remote inaccessible places, even into WW2 and Korea, and a couple tiems in vietnam too. but even that has fallen by the wayside because now we have helicopters to get to really remote rough places.
also we lightened much of the load a soldier is required to carry; or looked at another
Re:One you forgot (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think of it as a robotized donkey, think of it as a jeep that can move in really rought terrain. Also, there's obvious future benefits to supporting this kind of thing, since walking is far superior to wheels anywhere except roads - and nothing stops you from attaching wheels on the bottoms of a walking robot's feet.
Just imagine it: a two-ton walking, climbing, rollerblading autonomous spider tank armed with lasers, capable of dodging rockets, never sleeping, never resting, tirelessly prowling the night looking for its intended targets... And just to go that extra mile, we could equip it with a glucose-burning fuel cell and have it suck its victims dry with its titanium mandibles. And if you do get a lucky hit, the thing will release a horde of flying robotized killer bees that attack everything in sight.
The possibilities are endless.
Not silly (Score:2)
Does the LS3 work after being shot up?
Why not? It could be fairly armored to take most machine gun fire without damage.
Silly comparison.
I agree. It's absurd to think a mule is anywhere near as robust in taking fire as something made of metal.
The kinds of animals that locals use can be used locally, by definition.
Most locals are not under fire often.
It would make the US troops seem more human
That is a good point, but it's the only thing better about using animals.
It also increases you need for supplies (t
The first cannon? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
can you mass produce donkeys? airdrop them without giving a shit? strap bomps to them and send them at enemies as crazy self destruct drones?
Re:Random questions (Score:5, Funny)
1. Yes, you start with at least two donkeys of opposite sex...
2. Depends on how much you like donkeys.
3. Yes, but it would be a tad mean.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This comment was a lot funnier before I read the parent.
Re: (Score:3)
How much can a donkey carry?
Up to 250 pounds [shadowridgedonkeys.com].
How far can a donkey travel for before "recharging"?
Pretty much all day. They should be given access to water every couple of hours.
How quiet is a donkey? Would the donkey sounds draw as much unwanted attention?
Not nearly as loud as the stupid Big Dog (the robot on which this thing was based).
How much money would it cost to pick up a donkey in a local market and then feed it?
Even in the US, donkeys cost anywhere between nothing and $1000. That's one hell of a lot cheaper than a complicated, high tech gizmo supplied by a single source vendor on contract to the military. Further, donkeys can make more donkeys. That's a trick that robotic gizmos have yet to figure out.
You're wasting your breath (Score:2)
On here - if its not a tech solution its not a solution. The fact that the afghans are still using donkeys very effectively and cheaply should tell the US military something , but then they wouldn't be able to waste a few billion quid on a something that is to a donkey what a water pistol is to an AK47.
Or maybe its all down to pressure by PETA.
Read Kipling (Score:2)
Like a lot of Kipling's verse, it starts off on a positive note and then the anti-war bit comes in at the end. But see the section for the "screw-gun mules".
Re: (Score:2)
More Random Questions:
Can a donkey be stored in an airtight container until its needed?
Can a donkey be given a set of GPS coordinates and expected to arrive at them in a timely manner?
Can a donkey be constantly fed (refueled) and expected to run 24/7 without interruption?
Can multiple donkeys be folded, stacked up and rapidly transported for deployment in a hostile war zone within 48 hours?
Can a donkey be humanely air dropped?
Can a donkey be trained so it is not spooked or startled by loud explosions or gun
Re: (Score:2)
you obviously know absolutely nothing at all about the subject. ... "Other than dogs, the military would never be interested in pack animals." Oh really?
http://www.veteransmagazine.com/membersarea/MagazineIssues/06thmag/hayburners.pdf [veteransmagazine.com]
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/01/special_forces_use_of_pack_ani.html [fas.org]
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Army_manual_on_using_horses_mules_0130.html [rawstory.com]
Do you just make up crap and hope that nobody notices that you have no clue at all about what you are saying?
Forgive me for injecting some reason... (Score:2, Insightful)
... but the only thing American troops should be carrying in Afghanistan now, if anything at all, is humanitarian aid. Or vacation equipment, if they came back for a personal tour of non-duty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cognition certainly is an inconvenient burden.
Re: (Score:2)
Cognition certainly is an inconvenient burden.
Granted, for a soldier, cognition is inconvenient: after all, for a job profile in which sensing and reacting are paramount, cognition becomes quite frequently a hindrance (what else do you think the army training and army regulations are about? A soldier may be wrong about anything, but s/he must be sure about everything. In other words, for a soldier, impaired/insufficient cognition must never be a reason for inaction, quite the contrary)
But... speaking about oxymorons and truisms: do you know burdens wh
Re: (Score:2)
I can paint you a picture. Imagine a poor man. This poor man suddenly gets to take as many gold bars as he can carry. This poor man now has a burden which is still mighty convenient.
Army Intelligence (Score:2)
Coulda swore... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boston Dynamics has been working on varieties of this concept since the late 1990s or early 2000s. In 2005 they came out with a lighter version called BigDog. (The LS3 is apparently the next phase of the BigDog project). Here is a video from 2006: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpBG-nSRcrQ [youtube.com]
Well done DARPA! (Score:5, Funny)
warfighters? (Score:2)
Sounds like a pulp-novel word for people who fight in wars. Specializations include gunshooter and woundfixer.
Re: (Score:2)
Warfighter:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/6492-Medal-of-Honor-Warfighter-Doom-3-BFG-Edition [escapistmagazine.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently soldiers in the marine corps are easily offended [upenn.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
As a general rule, anyone who uses the term "warfighter" is desperately trying to sell you something.
Apropos beast of burden (Score:2)
a soldier hand over her rucksack to a robotic beast of burden
adds to the cognitive burden of the soldier
Free association of ideas: how long 'til the soldier's burden of cognition is entirely handed over to the robotic beast?
So the Big Dog is deployed... (Score:5, Informative)
Boston Dynamics has been working on this (and posting YouTube videos) for years. That this exists isn't news. That it is finally deployed, OK, a little newsy, but nobody that follows robotics is unaware of Big Dog.
BTW -- here is a hilarious spoof video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXI4WWhPn-U [youtube.com]
but search for 'big dog' and watch some of the real ones first. Then the spoof - it's a crack up.
M.U.L.E. (Score:4, Funny)
The competing agency FARPA is developing competitor to the LS3 technology. The name for this project is the Military Utility Logistics Engine. The stats are about the same except: .01% of LS3 technology.
MULE has a payload of only 200lbs
MULE is quieter
MULE is capable of in situ resource utilization simplifying logistics
MULE is capable of doubling as a food source.
MULE's per unit cost is
FARPA is also working on a more advanced project known as DONKEY, that will have self replicating abilities. Unfortunately this project is still in the early development stages.
When asked about the cost discrepancy between the $5,000,000,000 LS3 project vs the much more cost effective $500 MULE project, Congressmen Porkbarrel, R, MA replied: "I'm sorry I cant hear you over the sound of all this bribe money"
Here is a link to an early prototype of LS3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en-GB&gl=NZ&v=VXJZVZFRFJc [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want the DONKEY. You want an advanced recon model, the one that pairs Data Acquisition Technology with the Autonomous Sumpter System. Included of course are HUD sunglasses.
Re: (Score:3)
"Congressmen Porkbarrel, R, MA replied: "I'm sorry I cant hear you over the sound of all this bribe money""
As a resident of Massachusetts, I'm insulted. Congressman Porkbarrel is a Democrat.
Politically Correct is Incorrect in Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
"Darpa figures that it's illogical to make a soldier hand over her rucksack to a robotic beast of burden if she's then got to be preoccupied with 'joysticks and computer screens' to guide it forward." (Emphasis mine.)
I know that people love sounding politically correct by arbitrarily changing "he" to "she," but in this particular case, it's not only silly but probably wrong. We've been hearing a fair amount lately about how female soldiers aren't allowed in designated combat zones, such as in this piece http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=166303415 [npr.org] In other words, "she" is statistically unlikely compared to "he," here.
It's a funny time when we start to trade in /actual/ correctness for political correctness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not a case of political correctness here. Part of the (largely unspoken) goal of this military project is to reduce the average mass of the soldier's gear and kit. Aside from all the obvious advantageous, it also serves to eliminate part of the physical disadvantages which most female troops have. This could eventually lead to more women in uniform and in combat positions.
In other words, the reason for the use of 'she' is because they are thinking of women in particular when looking into battlefield ap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a funny time when we start to trade in /actual/ correctness for political correctness.
It's not funny, it's sad. Very sad only.
Most Excellent for Psych Ops! (Score:2)
Give that puppy three Kerberos heads and train him in Michael Vick's Bad Newz Kennels. He should snarl, spit fire and rabidly foam at the mouth at soldiers' commands. Chainsaw saber-tooth fangs and Ginsu claws are a must.
When the local yokels see the soldiers on patrol with the Hound of the Devil, it will scare the Bejesus out of them, and they will skedaddle, like their asses were on fire.
David Blaine could ride the donkey, and perform bizarre street magic tricks that weird out the locals. The insurge
Artist's Impression (Score:2)
When asked to come up with a "headless companion to carry equipment and aid our marines when out on duty" the first suggestion was this [makefive.com]
All you nay-sayers... (Score:4, Insightful)
What all you nay-sayers forget is that this is only the very beginning of (debatable) usefulness. What comes out of this research over the next 10, 30 or 50 years, however, may prove surprising, and not just for how far this "mule" has come, but what other technologies it throws off along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
What all you nay-sayers forget is that this is only the very beginning of (debatable) usefulness. What comes out of this research over the next 10, 30 or 50 years, however, may prove surprising, and not just for how far this "mule" has come, but what other technologies it throws off along the way.
Mod parent up. This always bothers me with these kinds of stories. While the immediate usefulness of this particular project may be questionable, the long-term benefit of this type of research is potentially huge, and the best way to find the flaws and improve the technology is to put it to the test in real situations.
DARPA and NASA (and other similar organizations) projects very often result in tons of technologies that provide huge benefits across the board. When you aim for the stars, even if you fall
This isn't new at all (Score:2)
Personal Preference (Score:2)
I would rather have 2 zombies with their arms and jaw removed to carry my gear.
Making sure it's not as loud as a lawnmower... (Score:2)
and can work without a constant supply of gasoline (unlikely), would be desirable too.
Why are my taxes being spent on this? (Score:2)
I do not approve of such spending.... there are netter thing to spend tax payer money on. i.e. http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/interact/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/index.shtml [unesco.org]
This is a republic where all voices are heard and representiotives representing the taxpayers but how are they to know what or how to represent if the taxpayers have no voice in ho to use the taxes each personally pay?
Open sopurce software doesn't work the way the US corrupted politicaly system does. If it did it'd b
Voice Commands (Score:2)
> The robot's squad leader can issue 10 basic commands to tell the robot to do such things as
> stop, sit, follow him tightly, follow him on the corridor, and go to specific coordinates.
How about commands like: roll over, beg, shake hands, speak and shoot that guy over there?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:wheels (Score:4, Informative)
Those legs work in more situations than wheels do.
Re: (Score:2)
an actual mule?
Well, at least one...you don't need to pack a methane fuel cell to be able to use the mule for recharging your radio batteries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What advantage does it have over (Score:4, Funny)
I'd say the biggest advantage is that this one listens to your commands. Normal mules are well-known for doing anything -but- listen.
Re: (Score:2)
an actual mule?
Not anything. This one takes gas, the other produces it. No joystick, while the other comes with one for free. You can talk to both, but who says that either will do what you want?
Re: (Score:2)
The mule you can eat if you run out of rations...
Re:Impractical (Score:5, Insightful)
These new-fangled cars will never catch on. I could just ride my horse where I need to go.
Good luck driving a car through a swamp (Score:2)
Or a forest with no roads or a rocky slope or 101 other types of terrain where wheels are useless.
The point is that for some things animals are still better than mechanised vehicles, even ones with tracks or artificial legs.
Re: (Score:2)
It is almost certain that a horse or a donkey is better than this thing, but it's also almost certain that this thing will improve faster than horses or donkeys do, and with far less ethical problems or unfortunate implications. It might well be worth it to invest in a solution that's inferior in the short run to get long-term benefits.
And one obvious benefit this thing has is the a
Re: (Score:2)
Thats certainly true, but until its as good as the alternatives there's no point in using it on a battlefield. Horses were still being used long after the internal combustion engine was invented simply because they were far better in muddy fields than anything mechanised until the tank came along and even then it couldn't do everything a horse could do with the equipment of the day. Once equipment started being designed around the tank however that was another matter.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
This robot has all the advantages of the Terminator. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until the batteries run out.
It can be hacked. It will be hacked. We all know that. It's going to happen with the drones first. Whether it's the Iranians, some Russians in Iraq or Chinese in North Korea, it's just a matter of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Drones, on the other hand, could possibly be hacked. But I hope they are using some strong authentication system between drone and operator, e.g. 2048 bit DSA. Standard method [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My money is on some talented teen in the United States. With increasing levels of domestic drone deployment such kids will have levels of access to drones that only rural villagers on the Af-Pak border previously had.
All in the packing (Score:2)
Donkey's can be frightened pretty easy yes, Horses if they're not trained, but War-Horses can handle extreme battle conditions pretty well.
Food vs. Batteries is a pretty even trade off. The robot is screwed if an EMP goes off, Horses are going to starve if there isn't any grass. A horse can beat 20miles in a day.
Re: (Score:2)
This thing seems extremely complex, loud and expensive for something that could be done by a horse or a donkey.
Special Forces units have received training in handling horses and donkeys, because they turned out to be utterly necessary in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Army or marine units do not have the same level of autonomy as the Special Forces, which means the military would rather give them a technical solution than a living and breathing one.
More importantly, it's hard to round up enough local donkeys/horses for a large number of soldiers and you certainly can't airdrop them from a plane.
/ASFAIK, The US Milita [horsechannel.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Special Forces units have received training in handling horses and donkeys, because they turned out to be utterly necessary in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Army or marine units do not have the same level of autonomy as the Special Forces, which means the military would rather give them a technical solution than a living and breathing one.
Or, you can just use your special forces folks to train the grunts on horse and donkey handling. Somebody is going to have to be trained to use (and fix) robo mule.
More importantly, it's hard to round up enough local donkeys/horses for a large number of soldiers and you certainly can't airdrop them from a plane.
You BREED animals - that's how you make more of them. Happens pretty naturally. And you can do it in remarkably low tech circumstances. Instead of a complex of expensive buildings full of highly paid people, you can use a farm.
And animals of all sorts have been air dropped.
ASFAIK, The US Military no longer has any stables [horsechannel.com] for training soldiers in handling horses or donkeys
We still have farms, fields and oats. That, along with some vets and