Boston Dynamics Wildcat Can Gallop — No Strings Attached 257
Boston Dynamics has been making eye-catching (and sort of creepy) military-oriented robots for several years, and we've noted several times the Big Dog utility robot. The newest creation is the untethered, gas-powered Wildcat; this is definitely not something I want chasing after me. (Not as fast as the previous, tethered version — yet.)
Re:Only one purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't order a horse to carry gear to specified coordinates unattended. Horses don't climb rough terrain particularly well either.
Re:Government waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if you strap a bomb to it, and then blow it up, someone will complain...
Boston Dynamics is a typical example of... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Government waste (Score:5, Insightful)
there is no nuclear reactor design that could power that thing like a gas engine can.
If there was we could have nuclear powered electric cars.
I really wish people could understand that. the small nuclear reactors could power a laptop or two for 30 years but could never produce enough electricity fast enough to run a clothes dryer for one run.
Second,
people see horse or mule and can't conceive of a horse or mule getting scared of bullets flying by and or getting shot. using a horse to carry your gear only works until the horse gets shot. then the horse runs away with your gear.
early cars, search & rescue, unexploded ordina (Score:4, Insightful)
Horses were better than early cars. So they shouldn't have developed cars?
I could see advanced legged robots being useful in search & rescue in rough terrain, unexploded ordinance disposal (think IEDs), and several other applications. I'd like to take some of this company's robots and engineers out to our training area, Disaster City.
Re:Boston Dynamics is a typical example of... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, a lot of our technological advances originate (or are refined to the point of being actually functional) from military projects such as this. We're all communicating over one of them [wikipedia.org] right now.
Re:Government waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Government waste (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wish people could understand that. the small nuclear reactors could power a laptop or two for 30 years but could never produce enough electricity fast enough to run a clothes dryer for one run.
You know, people would be more likely to understand that if we could stop this business of calling RTGs "reactors". The concept of a "reactor" (whether chemical, biological, or nuclear) is usually that it provides some form of support for a reaction to take place which otherwise would not take place, or would only take place in a different, less useful/safe/something way.
Radioactive decay is not in any meaningful sense a "reaction", and would be happening to the Pu (or other "fuel", if you're using something different) whether or not it's in the RTG, at essentially the same rate, generating the same amount of heat. The only thing the RTG does is feed the decay heat through a heat engine (typically a Seebeck device, but there's some work using a Stirling engine), to extract some work from the heat flow -- no reaction, so it's no reactor.
Ordinarily, I'd call such a distinction as this useless pedantry, and not engage in it, but you're correct that there's a problem with people being ignorant about RTGs and thinking they have capabilities they don't -- and since I'm convinced the general habit of calling RTGs "nuclear reactors" contributes to this, I think it's a distinction worth making.
Re:Boston Dynamics is a typical example of... (Score:5, Insightful)
The military is like porn in that respect. There's a lot of money to be made in creating new tech that serves either one. And once that tech is somewhat matured, it can then start finding new uses that weave it into everyday life.
To reverse the situation, why didn't people build the first automated robots as guide "dogs" for the blind? Or go back into history and ask yourself why were phonograph players marketed to everyone for playing music first, and not as 19th Century audio-books for the blind? Because Thomas Edison wanted to make a lot of money, and selling a handful of record players to some blind people weren't going to pay his bills. Selling a handful of guide-dog robots won't pay the staff at Boston Dynamics, either.
People who create things want to make money from what they do. That means they either try to sell their things to the people who have the most money, or they sell their things to a really broad group of customers. At this time there doesn't seem to be a broad domestic market for robotic wildcats, nor for a lot of four-legged-self-balancing-motorized porn robots. That kind of leaves the military as their go-to source of large piles of cash.
Re:Only one purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
This. Horses are a real PITA in the field. Fuel is bulky, they're heavy. Hard to drop out of planes (successfully anyway). They don't always do what you want them to do (Whoa Nelly!). They resent being shot at or blown up.
Of course, these aren't all that practical yet. It's basically electronic animal 101. But BD has some impressively cool tech. Their big problem is the energy source. Internal combustion engines are just so 20th century.