BigDog Robot Gets Much Bigger 158
savuporo writes "Well known Boston Dynamics BigDog prototype now has a bigger brother named 'LS3' or Legged Squad Support System. It's intended to carry heavy loads for long treks and have enough autonomy to follow soldiers around, listen to voice commands and navigate autonomously."
LOTR Quote (Score:5, Informative)
The LS3 Moves So Loud, We Could Have Shot It In The Dark
the FUTURE is HERE! ? (Score:2)
Although a pack of these trampling your village would be pretty fearsome.
wait, no, make them bigger... 1/2 truck size.
Strategy and Tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Thinking about this from the viewpoint of the opposing commander, I'd make this thing the first target. Why? Because the soldier, initially free from carrying some part of their current 100 lb load because of the LS3, will then have to shoulder (whatever is left of) the load -- and they won't have the correct pack, harness, etc. to do it, so it will slow them down even more than the original state of packing the 100 lbs prior to the advent of the LS3. Not to mention that shooting at the LS3 will probably put some highly inconvenient holes in the soldier's equipment.
A properly configured mobile force -- at the individual combatant level -- carries everything it needs in an optimally loaded manner. Start adding in support vehicles -- autonomous or piloted -- and what you have done is put the soldier's supplies at risk, and therefore, likely the mission as well.
OTOH, these would be great in civilian roles. With a decent muffler system...
Seems like a pretty niche role (Score:1)
That's why it would fit in a pretty niche role with the current sound level.
On the front lines in a battlefield? Forget it, due to noise.
Flat terrain in a controlled area? Obviously far better to use wheels.
You could theoretically have these advancing somewhat behind the front lines in uneven terrain, in big packs, especially when you don't have control of the air. Not sure how big a role that is to fit these into, but the US Army is pretty big.
Re:Seems like a pretty niche role (Score:2)
That's why it would fit in a pretty niche role with the current sound level.
I wonder if there is a reason why it has to be so loud... are they running it on diesel or something? Perhaps they could replace its power source with something quieter, e.g. batteries or a fuel cell.
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:2)
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:2)
Yeah, that'd be awesome. They could also build bare-bones versions that just run fast and kamikaze with a pack of C-4.
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:2)
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:3)
But what about the idea of a supply chain that doesn't need roads?
The US army still trains mules and pack horses and has a remote training facility in the High Sierras. Turns out this was pretty useful for the Afganistan arena. This could be a good replacement for pack animals.
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:2)
Bingo. This is definitely not a do everything, infinitely survivable means of logistical support. However, if it can beat out a mule for a reasonable price, why not keep a small unit or four around?
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:3)
This could be a good replacement for pack animals.
Except that a pack animal is far more intelligent, can help keep you warm when it's very cold, warn you of unseen danger or bad/unstable footing (by getting "spooked"), help you find water, can be self-fueling to a greater or lesser extent (grazing), and, when food supplies run dangerously low, aren't too bad with some salt and garlic!
These machines have a long, long ways to go yet to beat a good pack animal IMHO.
Strat
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:2)
Not to mention self-repairing as well, and even able to create multiple replacement copies. Well, given certain parts were not removed beforehand, of course.
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:2)
Thinking about this from the viewpoint of the opposing commander, I'd make this thing the first target.
OTOH, The machine is so loud that it would make it easy to pick off the soldiers accompanying it one by one from a distance, until the machine is alone and you get both the machine and whatever it was carrying. Besides, I'm assuming that robot takes a lot more bullets to take down, so it would be much harder to bring down while being defended by the soldiers. It just makes no sense destroying a machine which poses no risk.
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:2)
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:2)
Re:Strategy and Tactics (Score:2)
Yeah, I was thinking about the noise as a strategic con too. No stealth missions for that gear. Your suggestion is especially appropriate and brings new life to the old Indian tactic of taking out the trailing member of the squad first.
Re:LOTR Quote (Score:2)
Yeah so much for the element of surprise. Try fighting the VC with that loud beast tagging along.
Yet another reason to ditch petroleum and use electric instead. Hopefully DARPA will invest in energy storage tech.
Re:LOTR Quote (Score:5, Funny)
50 comments down there, and not a mention of an AT-AT. For shame, slashdot.
I'll leave now before you all start pulling out your Precious'es.
Re:LOTR Quote (Score:2)
I read 'Big Dog" and "much bigger" and was INSTANTLY in AT-AT land.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one.
Awfully Loud (Score:1)
Whatever you call it (Score:3)
Whatever you call it, it's still creepy without anything resembling a head.
Re:Whatever you call it (Score:1)
Check out the cut starting at 26 seconds, you'll see a sensor array tracking the man walking in front of it that's vaguely head-like, behind a protective steel cage.
Re:Whatever you call it (Score:2)
Saw that, but it makes it look more like four-legged Houndeye from Half-Life
Re:Whatever you call it (Score:2)
You can stick this on it. [service-1.org]
Re:Whatever you call it (Score:2)
No no no, put a bird on it! [youtube.com]
Re:Whatever you call it (Score:2)
Whatever you call it, it's still creepy without anything resembling a head.
Can it be de-feeted?
Pack behavior (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be entertaining if it exhibited pack behavior. 30 or 40 of them running around together would be pretty interesting to see.
Re:Pack behavior (Score:2)
It would be entertaining if it exhibited pack behavior. 30 or 40 of them running around together would be pretty interesting to see.
You mean like this [youtube.com], but then on the ground.
Re:Pack behavior (Score:5, Funny)
Narrator: See the LS3's in their natural habitat. Once a day these lumbering creatures collect around the petrol pond to hastily drink up their day's supply of the vital fluid.
camera shows a small spark flying out of one LS3
Narrator: LS3's produce small bursts of electricty - sparks - from time to time. These natural occurences are typically benign and merely help to distinguish these graceful creatures from their organic counterparts.
camera shows a close up with the label "dramatic recreation" at the bottom of the screen, showing a spark hitting gasoline
Narrator: However, when these sparks meet with petrol, disaster can strike.
camera pans over the gasoline pond, this time on fire and with wrecked husks of LS3's in it
Narrator: Our crew returned to the gassing hole a mere hour after our initial visit, and already the herd has been ravaged by the fire. The raging inferno has consumed the herd. Such is the natural order of things in the urban jungle. Even so, with the next war, the Department of Defense will place a new order, and the LS3's will once again roam free
Re:Pack behavior (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay people admit you read this with a slightly British accent in your head :)
Re:Pack behavior (Score:2)
I'm glad it was read that way. It was certainly written with that accent in mind, which is why I dropped the word "petrol" in for the narrator instead of using "gasoline" when he spoke.
Re:Pack behavior (Score:2)
"Slightly british"? I read it with freakin' David Attenboroughs voice in my head.
Re:Pack behavior (Score:2)
It sounds pretty benign as long as you have David Attenborough's voice doing the narration...
Re:Pack behavior (Score:2)
Narrator: See the LS3's in their natural habitat. Once a day these lumbering creatures collect around the petrol pond to hastily drink up their day's supply of the vital fluid.
camera shows a small spark flying out of one LS3
Narrator: LS3's produce small bursts of electricty - sparks - from time to time. These natural occurences are typically benign and merely help to distinguish these graceful creatures from their organic counterparts.
camera shows a close up with the label "dramatic recreation" at the bottom of the screen, showing a spark hitting gasoline
Narrator: However, when these sparks meet with petrol, disaster can strike.
camera pans over the gasoline pond, this time on fire and with wrecked husks of LS3's in it
Narrator: Our crew returned to the gassing hole a mere hour after our initial visit, and already the herd has been ravaged by the fire. The raging inferno has consumed the herd. Such is the natural order of things in the urban jungle. Even so, with the next war, the Department of Defense will place a new order, and the LS3's will once again roam free
Sounds like LS3OD.
animated by Gerald Scarfe (Score:2)
Obligatory jarhead joke (Score:5, Funny)
It's intended to carry heavy loads for long treks and have enough autonomy to follow soldiers around, listen to voice commands and navigate autonomously
Except for the "navigate autonomously" part, that sounds like a Marine.
Re:Obligatory jarhead joke (Score:2)
Old Army joke:
God was in heaven looking down on a platoon of Green Berets. They're running all-out, in perfect sync, singing "...the fighting men, of the Green Berets..."
Satan says to him, "Well, that's impressive. But how would they look with just half that great brain you gave them?"
Platoon slows to half speed and starts singing "...I wanna be an Airborne Ranger..."
Satan says "Okay, still pretty good. But how would they look with no brain at all?"
Platoon stops, stares around, and yells "Semper Fi!!"
Fancy prancer (Score:2)
Is there a non-high-stepping mode?
At least one need never worry about it sneaking up and prancing one to death.
Do you ever wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you ever wonder if it would be cheaper and easier just to go back to using horses? I mean, we've been breeding them for hundreds of years...and I'm sure we could make some Kevlar-and-ceramic armor for them to protect them from bullets and shrapnel...
I suppose the advantage is that robots don't need to trained not to panic in the middle of battle. But I still wonder if chasing a technological solution is the wrong path.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
How are we ever supposed to produce skynet and the terminators if we go back to horses? Come on!
Also, there's a moral issue with conscripting innocent animals into a war role. Apparently there's no such moral issue with using machines to kill people.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
And dolphins and seals and marines.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
Plus, the end game is to strap guns to these things and cut out a lot of the human element altogether.
One of my first thoughts when I saw the video was a ground based drone.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
Looks like what youd get if a donkey f****ed a lawnmower.
I' d rather have the donkey. Or you can buy a little ATV that outperforms this walking nightmare every way you can think of. Say a John Deere Gator 825. Comes with a muffler too which the smart boys in Boston never thought of.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
Looks like what youd get if a donkey f****ed a lawnmower.
I' d rather have the donkey.
Not if it's going to go around f***ing lawnmowers...
Only happened once and it involved some researchers from Boston. Don't think I won't be ready if those b*****ds show up again. I'll be sure to hear them coming. (So will the donkey.)
\
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
Machines don't require maintenance? Especially high-tech, cutting edge machines with lots of moving parts, used in hostile environments?
Even M-16s require maintenance. I imagine BigDog requires plenty also.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
I thought about that too but then realized that you can not put a mule in a crate, take it out a month later and expect it to perform. Animals take a lot more maintenance than machines and they do not transport well on unpressurized aircraft.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:3)
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
Not only cheaper and easier, but much more practical as well. They don't give away you position from a mile away (unless startled/attacked), and they refuel with grass and water, which are much easier to come by on a mission than gasoline. This looks like just about the biggest waste of money I've ever seen.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
Versus how many gallons of gas to run this thing for a day? How many days' worth of fuel can this thing haul? My guess is a pack mule has it beat.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
US forces do use pack mules in Afghanistan. Not sure about horses. I guess this could fill some part of that role, without the stubbornness. Though I'd imagine the robot is harder to keep alive over long distances.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-donkeys7-2009jul07,0,3448109.story [latimes.com]
"It's a very primitive way to carry very modern weapons," said Sgt. Joe Neal, one of the instructors. "But it works."
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
Horses? You'll be hard-pressed to find a more finicky, vulnerable and easily damaged animal than a horse. One mortar shell in close vicinity and your supplies are on their way to Dagestan. If the horse does not bolt, it will founder instead, or eat something it shouldn't, or walk straight into something sharp, or break one of those matchstick legs, or... or... or... Better to carry the pack yourself.
Horses are not made for war. Neither are humans, but we happen to be so dumb as to go looking for it voluntarily - mostly. A horse would not do this if it were given a choice. I'd say let's respect the animal's choice, and therewith keep our own sanity.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:3)
An old friend said, "Horses have two purposes in life, to eat and get away." I added, "and one more thing every few weeks if there are any mares around ..."
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
Horses are actually used in mountainous regions. But they are gentle creatures and require a lot of care, you need to feed and water them. And unlike humans (who can live a day or two without food) a hungry horse quickly loses its stamina.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
When you aren't using your robot, it sits in a packing crate somewhere. When you aren't using your horse, you have to feed him, exercise him, and muck out his stables.
Don't underestimate the difficulty of maintaining a lot of draft animals. Back in the pre-gasoline days forage was a severe limiting factor in maintaining operations. In the New Jersey campaigns 1776-1777, General Howe lost the "hearts and minds" of the American colonists, and thus arguably the war, because of the pressure finding forage put on his forces.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
And you can eat them, as was commonly done in warfare in the past.
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
And the horse can go longer than 24h without refuel if you really had to.
Only if you have one of these [slashdot.org]...
Re:Do you ever wonder... (Score:2)
And the horse can go longer than 24h without refuel if you really had to.
Only if you have one of these [slashdot.org]...
Oh, sorry..should have been: Only if you have one of these [tvtropes.org]...
Will it fetch? (Score:3)
Reactor online. (Score:5, Funny)
Sensors online.
Weapons online.
All systems nominal.
Initiating silly walk.
Woot! (Score:3)
congratulations, you've almost re-invented the HORSE!
Re:Woot! (Score:2)
Exactly what I was thinking... but then again, BiggerDog is so much better, because its manufacture would employ hundreds, which is good, because when one is destroyed on the battlefield, replacement cost is likely in the six-figure range. How else would we prop up the military industrial complex?
amazing and scary (Score:1)
These news are always amazing and at the same time a bit scary. Or is it only just me?
No Thanks (Score:1)
I prefer my robot overlords with wheels. It lets me know where I stand with them.
But how well does it do (Score:1)
How's it going to hear commands? (Score:2)
...listen to voice commands ...
And in the real world
BigBigDog: Rararararararararararararrr
Marine: Go over there
BigBigDog: Rararararararararararararrr
Marine: BigDog! Go over there
BigBigDog: Rararararararararararararrr
Marine: F*k it.
Marine goes and carries BigDog to desired location.
They definitely need a quieter version otherwise it's just not going to work!
Mandatory Feature (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mandatory Feature (Score:2)
Watch the video, it's much more appropriate for it to bray. It's a ass, not a dog.
Nice MULE (Score:2)
Now we just need to discover Smithore and we'll be all set to go to planet Irata.
Rob
Re:Nice MULE (Score:2)
Why not a real horse? (Score:2)
Real horses are quieter, self-fueling, self-reproducing, and a lot cheaper. I fail to see the advantage of this robot version. And before someone says you can kill horses with a bullet, if you put a bullet through the sensors or generator of this robot, it's not going anywhere either.
Re:Why not a real horse? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, horses may exhibit terror behavior and run totally amok.
Re:Why not a real horse? (Score:2)
Re:Why not a real horse? (Score:2)
The past few thousand years of Warfare seem to be able to breed and train Horses who keep their cool much better then their solders do.
There were no machine guns and mortars in those "past few thousand years" to frighten them a lot...
Re:Why not a real horse? (Score:2)
Ever work with real horses? They require a lot of training, they're skittish, and they're fragile. Horse people say they're born looking for a way to die. They're not as self-feeding in the desert, and require epic amounts of water.
You'd be better off with a mule or camel, creatures not known for friendliness. You need highly skilled operators. And they require care every day. They don't shut off.
Re:Why not a real horse? (Score:2)
Re:Why not a real horse? (Score:2)
None of my MREs has a "horse" option. We can fix that.
Re:Why not a real horse? (Score:2)
Re:Why not a real horse? (Score:2)
Weapon systems don't need fire control (Score:3)
Then put a soldier behind it and let him fire the weapon. You get the certainity of a human presence & control, the high firepower and ammo capacity of the M134, all on the ground, capable of close quarters urban combat in buildings. (Not to mention that it would probably deafen everyone within 50 ft.)
Aren't there already proven solutions? (Score:2, Redundant)
Why not use one of several existing cheap, proven bio-mechanical, intelligent solutions with long [wikipedia.org] track [wikipedia.org] records [wikipedia.org]?
Re:Aren't there already proven solutions? (Score:2)
Those get spooked by loud noises, and are subject to SPCA and other organization complaints.
bigdog does not spook, and can be abandoned in theatre if damaged.
Also I wait the landborne armed drone implementation, aka ED-209
Re:Aren't there already proven solutions? (Score:2)
Those get spooked by loud noises, and are subject to SPCA and other organization complaints.
bigdog does not spook, and can be abandoned in theatre if damaged.
My solutions have been used in battle for centuries. I'm pretty sure they can be trained to not spook. And I'm also pretty sure that they can be abandoned in theater if damaged.
They have many advantages, including that they are cheap, easy to replace, infrastructure and logistics for them were worked out long ago, and they can be powered anywhere there is something green growing, or even on the troops' own supplies.
Also I wait the landborne armed drone implementation, aka ED-209
They are already intelligent drones. DARPA is bragging that BigDog can avoid obstacles and follow someone. My solutions are better. Arming them is tricky, but I bet you could do remote control steering, aiming and firing.
I'm half-kidding, but I hope it has been considered.
Re:Aren't there already proven solutions? (Score:2)
Horses have been trained not to spook [wikipedia.org] for thousands of years.
Horses not only can be abandoned, but can also be eaten [wikipedia.org] in times of need.
The land drone has been done [wikipedia.org] too, though this has been criticized [animalrights.net] by animal rights groups.
Re:Aren't there already proven solutions? (Score:2)
I wonder, how would a horse or a donkey behave during a mortar strike, when fragments start flying around.
(aside from the obvious "thrashing in pain after catching a fragment" or "dead")
No Element of Surprise here (Score:2)
With a 400 pound payload, this machine can carry (maybe) the full combat gear load of four soldiers, or more practically half the load for 8.
Global Security documents that the average rifleman's combat load is 91 pounds [globalsecurity.org]. Some of this is going to stay with the soldier. Remote special forces units packs will be much higher, as they must be more self sufficient. Combat pack weight is almost directly determined by the capability of (and the soldiers confidence in) the supply train.
If you have the luxury of going in with full air support and helicopter resupply you don't need heavy packs, but you aren't going to surprise anyone either. This walker device wouldn't be needed where you have helicopter support. Where you do need this device is where you may not want it, such as rough terrain missions, with small numbers of soldiers, trying to be reasonably stealthy.
An couple of chain saw motors coming thru the outback is going to be easy to hear. In the woods you can easily hear a chainsaw two to five miles away. Having one right next to you means you can't hear anything else. Not the breaking twig, not the thump of a distant mortar tube, probably not even bullets smacking the trees right next to you.
So unless they can do something about the noise this seems to me to be a re-supply tool for use in already controlled rugged areas rather than something that accompanies combat troops. But if you already control the area, just use a chopper. Even if you do quiet the engine, I suspect this thing is less than stealthy.
And left unsaid is the weight of the second day's fuel.
The use case seems vanishingly small in its current state.
Horses/Calvary (Score:2)
The only advantage I see with the robot is you can turn it off for week or months without much maintenance.
Not only reaches the "Uncanny Valley"... (Score:3)
Anyone want a ride? (Score:3)
Ia! Shub Niggurath! Black Goat of the Woods! (Score:2)
Its different from other military contracts.. (Score:2)
...in that its super expensive and basically useless on the ground...
No, wait, its the same.
Looks like an intermediate prototype (Score:5, Interesting)
This looks like an intermediate prototype of the LS3. The specs call for a quieter power plant, which has to run on standard military diesel fuel. There's a subcontractor working on that. Clearly, that hasn't been integrated yet.
The LS3 is supposed to be about the same size as BigDog, but with with much stronger legs. That's clearly what's being tested here. BigDog wasn't strong enough to get up from the ground, while the video here shows this machine getting up. It took a lot of custom hydraulics to do that, which is why Boston Dynamics teamed with a hydraulics company.
Also, the sensor suite is much more elaborate, indicating that the autonomy level is being increased. BigDog handled balance and locomotion, but was guided by a human with a remote.
What we're seeing here is that some of the hard problems have been solved. Now the design will presumably be cleaned up for production.
Legs are cool and all ... (Score:3)
Legs are cool and all, Star Wars, but it seems a properly designed tracked unit would be much more efficient and able to carry significantly more load.
Voice commands... (Score:2)
So, someone pops out of the bushes and shouts "Return home!"
Great (Score:2)
Re:I hereby dub it (Score:2)
If that thing couldn't hunker down just about flat, it wouldn't last more than about ten seconds on the battlefield.
Re:Voice commands? (Score:2)
Accents might be a problem.
"Follow me!"
"Command 'hollow tree' not recognized."
"Follow me!!"
"Command 'swallow flea' not recognized."
"Come this way!"
"Command 'drum this hay' not recognized."
Re:Voice commands? (Score:2)
Seems to me that a very specific language would be better, similar to learning German commands to direct an Alsatian. Maybe an artificial language.
Re:Voice commands? (Score:2)
I wonder if they'd take the time to program only the phrases they'd expect to use, or would contract to the lowest bidder, who would adapt a commercial voice recognition package? Just because it's military doesn't mean it's custom made, only that it's expensive.