Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Raytheon Exoskeleton Brings "Iron Man" to Life

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Fri May 02, 2008 05:29 PM
from the not-quite-as-flashy dept.
Robotics Technology
An anonymous reader writes "Raytheon is bringing 'Iron Man' to life, according to EETimes. 'The movie opens in theaters worldwide today, but the real "iron man" has already been under construction at Raytheon Company (Salt Lake City, Utah) since 2000. Raytheon's Exoskeleton project is the brainchild of project leader Stephen Jacobsen and is being funded by the U.S. Army. The project, according to the company, permits soldiers to don an Exoskeleton suit that amplifies their strength — enabling them to lift 200-pound payloads without tiring.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Raytheon Exoskeleton brings 'Iron Man' to life by Anonymous Coward
[+] News: Iron Man Released 301 comments
Slashdot reader stoolpigeon wrote about the start of summer blockbuster season, and the latest comic book to make it to the big screen. He says "Iron Man is an entertaining movie, as they go. I never was really into comic books — so I have no knowledge or concerns as it relates to following the original story line. I can't address that. The film has good action and some very humorous moments. The serious side of the film is not its strong suit. It's not horrible, but it really doesn't make too much sense. It was interesting to see how they tried to set up an anti-war message without being critical of the US military. It's really a comic book put to film. Not high art or anything, but a whole lot of fun. The film keeps up a fast pace throughout and never bogs down. Some of the product placements were so blatant that they kind of jarred me out of being into the film. The special effects were phenomenal. It was awesome in that regard. Like any movie, it is not everyone's cup of tea If you do go see it in the theater, and you are a big comic books fan, do not leave until after all the credits have run. And I mean all of them." I gotta get a sitter. Man I'm old.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Raytheon Exoskeleton Brings "Iron Man" to Life 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Favorite part of the story (Score:3, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Friday May 02 2008, @05:33PM (#23280466)

    In addition to amplifying strength and endurance, Raytheon also claims its Exoskeleton can increase a soldier's agility--enabling feats similar to those demonstrated--courtesy CGI (computer-generated imagery)--by the "Iron Man" in the film. Raytheon's Sarcos team, which has been developing the Exoskeleton since 2000, has demonstrated its wearer performing feats of strength as well as agility, including kicking a soccer ball, working out on a punching bag, climbing up stairs and navigating rough terrain.
    Yeah, I really hope that's what is in the movie - Iron Man playing soccer; Iron Man hitting a punching bag; and Iron Man climbing some stairs.

    • Re:Favorite part of the story (Score:5, Funny)

      by B3ryllium (571199) on Friday May 02 2008, @05:43PM (#23280566) Homepage
      "navigating rough terrain" is clearly a coded phrase meaning "flying around being badass and blowing shit up"
    • That EETimes.com story missed one ability of the Raytheon suit:

      waste millions of government cheese making pointless boondoggle equipment that has the same basic functionality as a forklift...Wave of the FUTURE!

      Hell, the Iron Man suit can't even compete with that!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by timeOday (582209)
        I'm not so sure. Think about special forces chasing Taliban around the rugged mountains of Afghanistan with their 130 lb backpacks. That is not something a forklift can help them do.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by bigdavesmith (928732)
          Valid point, but our guys(and ladies!) in Iraq have a hard enough time getting normal equipment. What makes you think a soldier's life is worth what these exoskeletons are going to cost? I don't see that as a reasonable application of the technology.

          On a side note, I'd hate to be wearing one of those things and carrying around 400 pounds when it breaks down :)
      • You also can't modify a forklift to work underwater (this suit can) or in space (this suit can) or in collapsed mineshafts (this suit can) or in any number of restrictive or exotic locations.
      • How about infantry that can carry 20mm Bushmasters as sidearms? Soldiers wearing as much armor as a Bradley, logistics teams that don't get injured/tired as easily and medics that can easily pick up and run off with injured troops.

        My personal favorite, once this gear is on the surplus market: powered armor rickshaw! Weld a sitting capsule to the back of the suit and run your clients through traffic. Hooahh!
  • that it can only be used by alcoholics

    if it is used by anyone else, the suit is not an iron man, it is a war machine

  • Raytheon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zoomshorts (137587) on Friday May 02 2008, @05:42PM (#23280550)
    is but ONE of many who develop such stuff.
    The exo-skeleton concept has been around for
    MANY years, just grab an old copy of Popular
    Science from the 1960's. The subject was
    "Man Amplifiers". Nothing to see here.

    • Re:Raytheon (Score:5, Funny)

      by spun (1352) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .yranoituloverevol.> on Friday May 02 2008, @05:49PM (#23280604) Journal

      is but ONE of many who develop such stuff.
      The exo-skeleton concept has been around for
      MANY years, just grab an old copy of Popular
      Science from the 1960's. The subject was
      "Man Amplifiers". Nothing to see here.
      Yeah, old news. I see that same subject of "Man Amplifiers" in my email every day.
    • Come on give me this one. I work for Raytheon. Let me enjoy it. /I used to work for EDS. It's nice to work for a company that doesn't get blasted every other day on /.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kandenshi (832555)

      enabling them to lift 200-pound payloads without tiring.
      Well, the person wearing the suit might not get tired quickly, but what about the suit itself? It has a power source, TFA seemed light about details regarding how long a portable power source for this would last holding up 200 lbs...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Gewalt (1200451)
        The power source is the plug in the wall. NOBODY has made an exoskeleton with its own power yet. Battery tech sucks, and will continue to suck for the foreseeable future.

    • The exo-skeleton concept has been around for MANY years, just grab an old copy of Popular Science from the 1960's.
      The concept alone has no value without a working implementation. If somebody has a better one than Raytheon's, I agree it should have been featured instead.

  • Alien (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bryansix (761547) on Friday May 02 2008, @05:48PM (#23280598) Homepage
    That's from Alien. Now if the suit allowed the soldier to fly then it'd be from Iron Man.
    • Yeh, that was my first thought, this is a version of the exoskeleton forklift from Alien. Which is more useful, really, than the Iron Man suit, it'd be far more versatile than a forklift in a warehouse or machine shop.
    • Yup, did you see the line under the pictures?

      "The "Iron Man" exoskeleton being worked on by Robert Downey Jr. in the movie (left) is eerily similar to the real Exoskeleton (right) being developed at Raytheon."

      They're on crack! It looks nothing like Iron Man.
    • Chairboy [slashdot.org] already made one [hallert.net] (/. story [slashdot.org]). [grin]
  • Yea, those look exactly the same.

    It's like saying we already have jetpacks then pointing at a trampoline.

  • Rent a HAL robot suit for $1000 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BagOBones (574735) on Friday May 02 2008, @06:09PM (#23280748)
    http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/04/17/rent-a-hal-robot-sui.html [boingboing.net]

    It may not have the same MAX strength gain but:

    a) doesn't still require a tether
    b) has a much lower profile
    c) You can already RENT IT.

  • 110 and 49 years ago... (Score:3, Informative)

    by dpbsmith (263124) on Friday May 02 2008, @06:58PM (#23281080) Homepage
    Exoskeletons were described by H. G. Wells in 1898, in The War of the Worlds:

    And this Thing I saw! How can I describe it? A monstrous tripod, higher than many houses, striding over the young pine trees, and smashing them aside in its career; a walking engine of glittering metal, striding now across the heather; articulate ropes of steel dangling from it, and the clattering tumult of its passage mingling with the riot of the thunder. A flash, and it came out vividly, heeling over one way with two feet in the air, to vanish and reappear almost instantly as it seemed, with the next flash, a hundred yards nearer.

    Of course, these exoskeletons were piloted by Martians, not humans.

    Exoskeletons also appeared in Robert Heinlein's 1959 (or was it 1958 in the magazine serial?) Starship Troopers:

    Our suits give us better eyes, better ears, stronger backs (to carry heavier weapons and more ammo), better legs, more intelligence (in the military meaning), more firepower, greater endurance, less vulnerability. The inside of the suit is a mass of pressure receptors, hundreds of them. You push with the heel of your hand; the suit feels it, amplifies it, pushes with you to take the pressure off the receptors that gave the order to push.


  • Primary Exoskeleton Problem (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CodeBuster (516420) on Friday May 02 2008, @06:59PM (#23281086)
    The primary problem with an exoskeleton, at least as it pertains to front line combat use, is and, as far as I know, remains the massive heat signature generated by the internal combustion engine that is required to pressurize the hydraulic components (a battery powered compressor would probably be impractical and not any less heat generating). Anyone wearing this exoskeleton would show up like the sun on infrared making them vulnerable to the types of heat seeking missiles or automated guns that would normally target vehicles and other substantial heat sources. If you are going to have the heat problem then why not just use a vehicle which can mount the heavy weapon on the chassis, carry some exhaust cooling shrouds, and provide more armor than the exoskeleton? The exoskeleton doesn't make much sense, at least in my opinion, for front line operations or at least not it its present form. It doesn't offer enough advantages over a vehicle to make it worthwhile to accept the same or similar set of drawbacks (i.e. generating large quantities of waste heat).

    • Not yet (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dreamchaser (49529) on Friday May 02 2008, @08:14PM (#23281488) Homepage Journal
      The automobile had no military value when it was first invented either. It was slow, cumbersome and weak. Now look at military transports and tanks today. As you said, "at least not in its present form". You've gotta start somewhere.
  • Anyone remember there were the 30+ story mechs along with the mini body-suit mechs? The pic in the article looks just like the beginning of those mini ones. So by that reasoning around the turn of the next millennium we'll have the huge ones, but any dedicated gamer saw this coming well over a decade ago. Can't wait for trial by combat!
  • Am I the only one who was reminded of Gray Fox/"Cyborg Ninja" from Metal Gear Solid?

  • overselling it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jollyreaper (513215) on Friday May 02 2008, @11:35PM (#23282278)
    Just giving us the Aliens powerloader would be impressive. Robocop would be even more impressive. But the Iron Man suit strays far into unobtanium territory. Antimatter powerplant, antigrav flight, there ain't no way we're getting something like that for another 50 years. That'd be like rolling out the first Sopwith Camel and saying we've made good progress towards the F-22.

  • Eerily similar? What? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Yvan256 (722131) on Saturday May 03 2008, @09:44AM (#23284140) Homepage Journal

    The "Iron Man" exoskeleton being worked on by Robert Downey Jr. in the movie (left) is eerily similar to the real Exoskeleton (right) being developed at Raytheon.
    Can somebody give a pair of glasses to Johnson?

    • I agree..

      And..

      Holy fucking shit.. Are we going to get rehashes of every robotics story we've ever heard comparing it to how it somehow is kind of like Ironman's fictional gear?

      I guess this has to happen over every geekpr0n movie. It'll get called a blockbuster before release, then everyone will run out and buy shit related to the movie, then mcdonalds will have a happy meal toy for it, slashdot people will run linking headlines to any article that merely mentions the title.

      Damn it people.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MacDork (560499)

        Whoopie... does Raytheon have awesome batteries too? No? Then they won't be getting very far in that Iron Man suit, will they? Slashvertisement indeed. The suit isn't news. The power source is the sci-fi part.

        Holy fucking shit.. Are we going to get rehashes of every robotics story we've ever heard comparing it to how it somehow is kind of like Ironman's fictional gear?

        Why not? Every time we have a Cat5 hurricane, we hear the self flagellating global warming cultists tell us we should repent for enjoying the benefits of a modern society.

        I guess this has to happen over every geekpr0n movie.

        Yep, you nailed it. Comic book movie == /. gold. Who cares if it funds another MPAA lawsuit? I want my geekpr0n!

      • One of the links in the article leads to a page about a company called Cyberdyne creating a robotic exoskeleton named HAL... http://www.cyberdyne.jp/English/robotsuithal/index.html [cyberdyne.jp]

      • The movie itself is an advertisement for non free software
        DVD players include non-free software. Video game adaptations of movies are non-free software. Is there a movie exhibited in the United States (home of Raytheon and Slashdot) that isn't an advertisement for its own DVD or video game?

        • Re:I Saw It (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AuMatar (183847) on Friday May 02 2008, @06:13PM (#23280776)
          Umm, the movie is about a man who makes weapon systems, and finds out they're being horribly misused. He then stops selling them, at a huge loss to his personal wealth. Not exactly fascist propaganda there.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Immortal Poet (1048010)
              I think what we're looking at here is less of fascist propaganda, and more of a muddled attempt at creating a topical movie. It just simply doesn't count as propaganda when the writers are too stupid to realize that the schlock they dish out, which is intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator, also happens to expound the ignorant mentality of "Us vs. Them."

                • Re:I Saw It (Score:4, Funny)

                  by Oligonicella (659917) on Saturday May 03 2008, @06:32AM (#23283370)
                  The irony is he uses terms such as "too stupid", "they dish out", "appeal to the lowest common denominator" and "ignorant mentality" in a distinct attempt to segregate himself from them.

          • Once upon a time, when arms companies were owned by families, the movie may have been less than fantasy. There have been a few arms makers who turned to things like sewing machines and not always with loss of fortune. Today, arms companies are huge multinational companies without a soul. They will make and market whatever killing machines they can. Raytheon will make and sell this suit to anyone waging wars of aggression and shirk the responsibility as "it's up to politicians to make war and peace".

            A

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Miseph (979059)
                "Ok, ok, you probably think that's an unfair question. How 'bout this: how many American-made weapons has Al-Qaeda purchased?"

                Moot question, we've outsourced nearly 100% of weapons manufacturing to foreign nations anyway. That said, Al Quaeda was formed and trained by the CIA, and their initial cache of weapons consisted largely of American arms. since then they've purchased far cheaper Soviet designs not because they couldn't have bought pricier American ones, but because they wanted more bang for their li

                • Moot question, we've outsourced nearly 100% of weapons manufacturing to foreign nations anyway.

                  That's a lie, as has already been shown by Kierthos [slashdot.org].

                  That said, Al Quaeda was formed and trained by the CIA, and their initial cache of weapons consisted largely of American arms.

                  Another lie. The CIA helped fund the original Afghan insurgency, meaning the local tribal warlords. Al Qaeda came on to the scene much later, and brought their own sources of funding. The CIA never had anything to do with them.

        • Re:I Saw It (Score:5, Interesting)

          by TooMuchToDo (882796) on Friday May 02 2008, @06:20PM (#23280828)
          Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

          I can go see a film purely for the CGI aspects. I don't always want deep meaning attached. Iron man is chalk full of western culture....because it's a western film. Also, yes, I think certain pieces of military hardware are cool (i.e. the SR-71 blackbird, the Global Hawk UAV, etc) from an engineering standpoint. So what? Hell, even weapon systems are cool when they're used properly in a movie (i.e. the Death Star was a weapons system mind you). If you're looking for something deeply meaningful, perhaps going to the movies isn't your best choice of venue.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by TooMuchToDo (882796)
              I didn't explain myself properly. My mistake. When I go to a movie, I'm not that concerned with the plot. I went to see Transformers to see the excellent work ILM did. I went to see Cloverfield to see how well their CGI work was. When I want substance, I read a decent book.

        • Re:I Saw It (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Cal Paterson (881180) * on Friday May 02 2008, @07:05PM (#23281106)

          Unadulterated fascist, racist propaganda of the lowest intent - with crypto-homoeroticism as the cincher. In other words: more American "culture".
          You are hilariously overreacting. I saw the film yesterday evening (in the UK), and it's not exactly high art, but it's a slightly above average CGI Blockbuster; the CGI is good and there are reasonable spots of humour around the place. There are certainly some low points; Iron Man saving the defenceless Afghans from each other was pretty questionable (and I mean in a moral sense, not in some theatrical way).

          I disliked V for Vendetta, because that truly was an film which took serious liberties with the source material (to the point where the original author declined to be credited). It misrepresented the plot to make it appeal to fools like you; the kind of fools that see homo-eroticism in a superhero story and aren't aware of the really sinister films; the ones that pander to the American anti-American (and I say this as a British person). I mean the kind of tiresome American who thinks that the two solutions to the current bad president are revolution or magical panacea of the democratic party. I'm sure some of the latter persuasion think they're both the same thing.

          Keep on fighting the man, man!

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.