Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US Army spent millions developing giant, six-legged walking trucks in 1980s

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 173 posts

Re: The US Army spent millions developing giant, six-legged walking trucks in 1980s

#61

Post by m0zg »

Animats wrote: post #23

Oh, that thing. Back when I was into legged locomotion, I found out more about that machine than I ever wanted to know. The designer was really into four-bar linkages. The leg mechanism is set up so that one actuator moves the leg in X, one in Y, and one in Z, with a four-bar linkage encoding that into the leg position. This simplifies the control problem, while complicating the mechanics. I suspect they wanted to be…

That timber harvester is pretty unbelievable for 20+ years ago. I wonder what Boston Dynamics would be able to do with it today.

Re: The US Army spent millions developing giant, six-legged walking trucks in 1980s

#62

Post by Anon4Now »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #26
melling wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, a single M1 Abrams tank costs over $4 million, and we have 9000 of them. DARPA R&D money always feels like money better spent than a lot of other military spending. We get future dividends, often civilian.

What are you talking about? Everyone is poor and miserable, families arent making rent. My uncle was just dumpster diving to feed his family two months ago. They're wasting the people's money over at DARPA.

I feel for you, but military spending is a massive federal jobs program. Each job created has a job multiplier effect, creating additional jobs in the surrounding area. Manufacturing jobs producing military equipment have a much bigger job multiplier effect. So if you were to wave a magic wand and half military spending overnight, the economic impact would be disastrous, and many more people would be in dire economic situations.

Re: The US Army spent millions developing giant, six-legged walking trucks in 1980s

#64

Post by brianwawok »

hutzlibu wrote: post #58
Animats wrote: post #23

Oh, that thing. Back when I was into legged locomotion, I found out more about that machine than I ever wanted to know. The designer was really into four-bar linkages. The leg mechanism is set up so that one actuator moves the leg in X, one in Y, and one in Z, with a four-bar linkage encoding that into the leg position. This simplifies the control problem, while complicating the mechanics. I suspect they wanted to be…

About the timber harvester: I assume better here is meant from a economical perspective, because from a ecological perspective the walkers are superior, as they do not devestate the ground so much. But that is sadly not really a issue for most wood production, but I could imagine, with rising awareness for the forests, market demand for not so intrusive wood harvesting(along with advances in the field in general) cou…

Would 500 trips with a giant mech walker wouldn’t hurt the forest as much as a dirt trail and wheels? Both would seem pretty messy

Re: The US Army spent millions developing giant, six-legged walking trucks in 1980s

#65

Post by brianwawok »

Anon4Now wrote: post #62
jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Everyone is poor and miserable, families arent making rent. My uncle was just dumpster diving to feed his family two months ago. They're wasting the people's money over at DARPA.

I feel for you, but military spending is a massive federal jobs program. Each job created has a job multiplier effect, creating additional jobs in the surrounding area. Manufacturing jobs producing military equipment have a much bigger job multiplier effect. So if you were to wave a magic wand and half military spending overnight, the economic impact would be disastrous, and many more people would be in dire economic…

So what if we used military construction money on schools and education? Or maybe capturing carbon? Plenty of useful things to the world we could spend the money on. No need to just cut spending and bank the money.

Re: The US Army spent millions developing giant, six-legged walking trucks in 1980s

#66

Post by atum47 »

I've been talking about this kind of stuff with some friends. You can't just tell reality from fiction by the news, anymore. Sometimes is a crappy politician who you wouldn't believe act / say / do the things the news report (I'm Brazilian by the way, I have grounds to say this). Some other times is this crazy sci-fi things no one in a bar conversation would believe you if you told them.

Go ahead, next time you're on bar with your friends (In a few months I think the bar are going to be open - hope) tell them this exactly headline and see how they react to it.

Re: The US Army spent millions developing giant, six-legged walking trucks in 1980s

#67

Post by Judgmentality »

atum47 wrote: post #66

I've been talking about this kind of stuff with some friends. You can't just tell reality from fiction by the news, anymore. Sometimes is a crappy politician who you wouldn't believe act / say / do the things the news report (I'm Brazilian by the way, I have grounds to say this). Some other times is this crazy sci-fi things no one in a bar conversation would believe you if you told them. Go ahead, next time you're on…

> Go ahead, next time you're on bar with your friends (In a few months I think the bar are going to be open - hope) tell them this exactly headline and see how they react to it.

I don't think many Americans would doubt our military has funded all sorts of crazy stuff. There are confirmed paid studies for mind control and attempting to kill goats using telekinesis by the CIA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats

It's even been made into a Hollywood movie, so this stuff isn't that fringe. And the fringe stuff is really weird.

Re: The US Army spent millions developing giant, six-legged walking trucks in 1980s

#68

Post by d2v »

Anon4Now wrote: post #62
jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Everyone is poor and miserable, families arent making rent. My uncle was just dumpster diving to feed his family two months ago. They're wasting the people's money over at DARPA.

I feel for you, but military spending is a massive federal jobs program. Each job created has a job multiplier effect, creating additional jobs in the surrounding area. Manufacturing jobs producing military equipment have a much bigger job multiplier effect. So if you were to wave a magic wand and half military spending overnight, the economic impact would be disastrous, and many more people would be in dire economic…

Couldn't we use that money to create jobs that have a more meaningful impact on people's day to day? Invest in alternative energy, fixing our infrastructure, improving public transit, etc... Put that investment in technology into technology that is more productive instead of the nth iteration of some piece of military technology that we'll never use.

I want that sweet high-speed rail, baby!

Re: The US Army spent millions developing giant, six-legged walking trucks in 1980s

#70

Post by gdubs »

hutzlibu wrote: post #58
Animats wrote: post #23

Oh, that thing. Back when I was into legged locomotion, I found out more about that machine than I ever wanted to know. The designer was really into four-bar linkages. The leg mechanism is set up so that one actuator moves the leg in X, one in Y, and one in Z, with a four-bar linkage encoding that into the leg position. This simplifies the control problem, while complicating the mechanics. I suspect they wanted to be…

About the timber harvester: I assume better here is meant from a economical perspective, because from a ecological perspective the walkers are superior, as they do not devestate the ground so much. But that is sadly not really a issue for most wood production, but I could imagine, with rising awareness for the forests, market demand for not so intrusive wood harvesting(along with advances in the field in general) cou…

Totally. I want that walker for my woodland, because it looks a lot less damaging to the soil (less soil disruption / compaction). The other thing is it would be nice for climbing to spots that don’t have easy road access. This way you can pick a few trees without devastating a whole area just to reach them.
Post reply on HN