Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

Post by grogenaut » Wed, Dec 30, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

JabavuAdams wrote: post #42

lmm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logistics of keeping them fed and watered, having trained handlers, and treating them for injuries are nontrivial. And they're prone to unhelpful reactions in a firefight. There are good reasons they've largely been displaced by motor vehicles. Combining the go-anywhere ability of legged propulsion with the advantages of motor transport seems like a good enough idea to merit study.

Much easier than the logistics of keeping a robot operational in the field. You don't care whether the Taliban captures your flesh and blood mule, but you really don't want them capturing your world's-most-advanced robotic mule.

Post by grogenaut » Wed, Dec 30, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #31

thinkcontext wrote: post #27

I wonder at what price point the civilian market could support these? There must be a fair number of applications for resupply where humans (sherpas), actual animal mules or helicopters are required, ie, forestry, National Park rangers, science, recreation, etc.

> forestry, National Park rangers In most areas where these guys operate, actual mules are probably cheaper, and can be refueled with locally available forage. Not to mention they're more suitable for that kind of environment. Perhaps more 'extreme' environments where that forage is not available would be more suitable?

Post by jarmitage » Wed, Dec 30, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

gene-h wrote: post #45

jarmitage wrote: post #14

Can anyone in robotics weigh in on whether new approaches like pneubotics / otherlab [0, 1] make Boston Dynamics' super heavy/noisy/expensive robots irrelevant or not? That's what Saul Griffith has been saying at least [2], I'd like to hear an impartial take on it [0] http://www.pneubotics.com/ [1] https://otherlab.com/projects [2] "[...] we're the only game in town." 21:00 onwards https://youtu.be/gyMowPAJwqo?t=1263

In my opinion, I don't think inflatable robots are very practical.(except for niche applications) One of the most important things in robotics is reliability, the more work your robot does before breaking down or needing maintenance the more money it makes you. In industrial robot arms the gold standard for this is a Mean Time Between Failures of more than 100,000 hours. That's more than 10 years of continuous operat…

Post by kiba » Wed, Dec 30, 2015, 9:03 PM UTC

JabavuAdams wrote: post #42

lmm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logistics of keeping them fed and watered, having trained handlers, and treating them for injuries are nontrivial. And they're prone to unhelpful reactions in a firefight. There are good reasons they've largely been displaced by motor vehicles. Combining the go-anywhere ability of legged propulsion with the advantages of motor transport seems like a good enough idea to merit study.

Much easier than the logistics of keeping a robot operational in the field. You don't care whether the Taliban captures your flesh and blood mule, but you really don't want them capturing your world's-most-advanced robotic mule.

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Dec 30, 2015, 9:39 PM UTC

jonmrodriguez wrote: post #49

JabavuAdams wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much easier than the logistics of keeping a robot operational in the field. You don't care whether the Taliban captures your flesh and blood mule, but you really don't want them capturing your world's-most-advanced robotic mule.

Is it common for military electronics to have a self-destruct feature to protect technology secrets? E.g., when damaged beyond repair or abandoned in a hasty retreat, the hardware could ignite a little thermite to incinerate the electronics boards.