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

Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

military.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

#71

Post by Someone »

grogenaut wrote: post #51
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.

Why? What are they going to do with it?

Sell it to a country that has the technology level needed to copy it. Russia and China likely would be interested; they might not want to do business with the Taliban directly, but might be willing to buy them through a middle man, say Pakistan.

It is fairly common for countries to let other powers take a look at technology that lands in their hands (sometimes before returning it to them). See for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko#Aftermath

Re: Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

#72

Post by adventured »

walshemj wrote: post #62
ceejayoz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are they against militarizing robots? It pays the bills. Because money isn't everything? > There's not some magic that prevents consumer developed technology from reaching the battlefield. That doesn't mean you're required to actively help it along.

Google is based on the internet which came out of DOD research

The Internet didn't only come out of military research and spending. A lot of the technology, thinking, and origination came out of the private sector and universities as well. Not to mention the actual early days of the Internet were overwhelmingly private + university based, and not military. Nearly all of the advances that the Web was actually built upon, were not military. The deployment of Google occurred on top of an almost entirely private infrastructure circa the late 1990s. The specific technology stack that made Google possible at the time was almost entirely not military.

Re: Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

#73

Post by Gracana »

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.

I used to have some old (tube-based) test equipment that included instructions on exploding it with a grenade in the event that it had to be left behind. The grenade was not built in, however.

Re: Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

#74

Post by Gracana »

grogenaut wrote: post #53
davidw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Walking the wonderland trail a few years ago I was remarking to my friend that in some of the most remote meadows at the top (7-8k feet) ( https://www.google.com/maps/@46.9181125,-121.7649511,731m/da... ) of the trail there were long stretches of very nice chat trails. He was saying what a pain it would be to bring the chat up and was trying to decide if it was ATVs or mules or whatever. I guessed helicopter. We aske…

I figured "chat" was gravel or something from the context, but had never heard the term before. Maybe I'm the lone idiot, but in case anyone else is confused:

"Chat is a term for fragments of siliceous rock, limestone, and dolomite waste rejected in the lead-zinc milling operations that accompanied lead-zinc mining in the first half of the 20th century. [...] Although poisonous, chat can be used to improve traction on snow-covered roads; as gravel; and as construction aggregate, principally for railroad ballast, highway construction, and concrete production."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chat_%28mining%29

Re: Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

#75

Post by 1024core »

homerowilson wrote: post #2

There are these things called "mules." They're quiet, can carry about 200lbs., and can refuel themselves as they go by eating grass and drinking water...

Though sometimes the tables are turned: http://imgfave-herokuapp-com.global.ssl.fastly.net/image_cac...

Re: Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

#77

Post by justinator »

I'm having a hard time seeing why you couldn't take something like a fat bike, and put an electrical assist motor on it, and have troops use that, mostly by pushing it. If you run out of battery, it still works 100% except now you have to push all the weight (or pedal, which could also be used to charge the battery). Gotta leave in a hurry? Use the bike, or just throw it away. Slash the tires and it's pretty much useless for the enemy.

Probably < $1,000 wholesale in off the shelf parts. Def. less than $40mm. Easily carry 100lbs of gear.

Re: Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

#78

Post by sitkack »

walshemj wrote: post #62
ceejayoz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are they against militarizing robots? It pays the bills. Because money isn't everything? > There's not some magic that prevents consumer developed technology from reaching the battlefield. That doesn't mean you're required to actively help it along.

Google is based on the internet which came out of DOD research

And the nature of DoD research back then was more generally applicable to things besides killing. The Mansfield Amendment is what turned ARPA into DARPA and pushed to curtail pure research. If you couldn't kill someone with it, it wouldn't get funded.

    The Mansfield Amendment of 1973 expressly limited 
    appropriations for defense research (through ARPA/DARPA) 
    only to projects with direct military application. 
    Some[who?] contend that the amendment devastated American 
    science, since ARPA/DARPA was a major funding source for 
    basic science projects of the time; the National Science 
    Foundation never made up the difference as expected.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA#Later_history

Re: Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

#79

Post by sitkack »

justinator wrote: post #77

I'm having a hard time seeing why you couldn't take something like a fat bike, and put an electrical assist motor on it, and have troops use that, mostly by pushing it. If you run out of battery, it still works 100% except now you have to push all the weight (or pedal, which could also be used to charge the battery). Gotta leave in a hurry? Use the bike, or just throw it away. Slash the tires and it's pretty much use…

http://www.fortmissoulamuseum.org/blackbicyclecorps.php

Re: Marine Corps Shelves Futuristic Robo-Mule Due to Noise Concerns

#80

Post by orionblastar »

varjag wrote: post #48
outside1234 wrote: post #8

is it range anxiety that drives using a gas motor versus battery pack and solar panels?

It takes more energy per mile for a walker versus a car, so apparently batteries are ruled out so far. Solar is not an option in practical transportation. The energy yield per surface area is way too low.

So then no AT-AT or AT-ST walkers because of the same problems. Better stick to tanks instead.
Post reply on HN