Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics

Battle Roomba Tractor 210

Posted by CmdrTaco from the is-this-anime dept.
jazzstep writes "This article on MSNBC introduces an interesting new duo on the robotics front. iRobot and John Deere have teamed up to create a new battle-ready robot for the Pentagon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Battle Roomba Tractor More

Battle Roomba Tractor

Comments Filter:

  • the battle roomba... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bje2 ( 533276 ) * on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:14AM (#10630037)
    They better hope that the battlefield doesn't have any corners for the "battle roomba" to get stuck in...
    • Asimov will twist and turn in his grave, what about the Laws of Robotics?!

      BattleBot and Robot.. they don't mix!
      • There's only one law of robotics...

        Kill John Conner.

        ok, and maybe afterwards do some vacuuming and make some chai green tea.

      • Re:Forgeting something... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:29AM (#10631201) Homepage
        Asimov will twist and turn in his grave, what about the Laws of Robotics?!

        BattleBot and Robot.. they don't mix!

        What the hell are you talking about? If you'd actually read the book "I, Robot" you'd understand Asimov's point with the so-called "laws of robotics". They were a not meant to be taken seriously. Nearly every chapter in the book was its own little story about how yet another robot goes haywire because of its slavish adherence to the three laws. He wasn't trying to present his laws as the end-all be-all of robotic ethics. On the contrary, he was showing the folly of depending on something as simplistic as the three laws. People need to quit parroting something they heard third hand and actually read from the source.

        • This thing has nothing to do with battle...its a freaking gator with some RC capabilities built in. We've got one(sans RC since apparently the pentagon hasnt deployed them yet, or doesnt care about us. Take your pick :-). We use it for hauling dirt. Driving it was one of the few joys in my life until they made me stop. And now, they try to prevent any possibility of me ever doing it again! Those bastards!
        • Get a 12 pack, or a big pot of your favorite libation, go over to k5, and read Prime Intellect [kuro5hin.org] Which is a little less obtuse about the 3 laws.
        • the folly of depending on something as simplistic as the three laws.

          I always interpreted it as a commentary on another 10 laws that we hear so often about....
    • if problems arise, they can always resort to a court marshall [achewood.com]..

  • I am so confused (Score:5, Funny)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:16AM (#10630050)
    So, we are going to vacuum clean our enemies into submission?

    "All your dust bunnies are belong to us."

    Okay, works for me.

  • So,

    1) why the driver's seat then?

    2) will it show a preference for attacking house cats?

  • Only one thing missing.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by mikael ( 484 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:18AM (#10630069)
    ...They definitely need a strobing set of red lights that goes from side to side at the front of the car.

  • I don't get it.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ID000001 ( 753578 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:18AM (#10630077)
    Why does it takes so much money to make a remote control car? Don't we have those for kids like ages ago for less then $100? Scales it up, still doesn't justify the high price.

    • Re:I don't get it.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by se2schul ( 667721 )
      It isn't a remote control car. It has AI to make the decisions instead of someone controlling it remotely.

    • Re:I don't get it.. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hansiboy ( 219271 )
      I assume the money goes mostly to the reserarch of the autonomus part...

      the remote part isent particulatly expensive and doable with off the shelf RC gear and random junk + an old car as demonstrated in the rather bad quality clip on this page... http://jdfab.com/dp2/rccar.htm [jdfab.com]

    • Re:I don't get it.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 )
      Why does it takes so much money to make a remote control car? Don't we have those for kids like ages ago for less then $100? Scales it up, still doesn't justify the high price.

      First off, because a plastic toy that runs on batteries and an electic motor costs a whole lot less than something made of steel and a gas/diesel engine. Second, this thing can drive itself (computers, promamming costs). It probably has bullet proof armor, EM hardening around the electronics and a whole host of other things for the

  • I was hoping... (Score:5, Funny)

    by soulctcher ( 581951 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:19AM (#10630081)
    it would transform too! Room-bots, roll out!

  • Great for them (Score:2, Troll)

    by JanneM ( 7445 )
    Great new market for them I'm sure. /me decides to wait for robotic appliances not produced by a company making military gear.

    • I know, and I was going to buy a Roomba, too. Now I guess I'll just have to use an ordinary vacuum for a while longer. Oh well, I guess the exercise is good for me....

      • Re:Great for them (Score:4, Informative)

        by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @10:37AM (#10631315) Homepage
        I know, and I was going to buy a Roomba, too. Now I guess I'll just have to use an ordinary vacuum for a while longer. Oh well, I guess the exercise is good for me....

        Just so you know, iRobot was making robots for the military long before it came up with the Roomba. URBIE, the testbed that eventually led to the PackBot, was built under a DARPA grant in '97, fivr years before Roomba. If you're going to avoid a company for doing business with the military, you need to research more thoroughly. Otherwise, it's just posturing.

    • I'll believe it when they make it pass the course everyone else flunked last year with the best going 7.4 miles [cajunbot.com]. Where were those "big players" then?

    • Re:Great for them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Leebert ( 1694 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @09:47AM (#10630796)
      /me decides to wait for robotic appliances not produced by a company making military gear.

      Great idea.

      Don't forget to not use GPS.
      Oh, and don't forget that you can't get on a plane manufactured by Boeing. Or any airplane manufacturer...
      Or buy a Jeep (or any car, for that matter)...
      Or buy office furniture of any type (or even shop at Staples, Office Depot, etc.)...
      Or buy a computer from Dell, IBM, HP...

      Because Lord knows we can't support the evil corporations who sell things to willing customers with lots of money. How dare they!

      • Re:Great for them (Score:2, Interesting)

        by JanneM ( 7445 )
        When I need a navigation system I will use GPS as there is no choice.

        When I fly, I can select what plane I go on; again, little choice.

        Cars: actually, most car companies are not in the business of weapon systems.

        Office furniture and so on: again, they aren't creating weapon systems or weapon platforms.

        When I have no choice, I have no choice. Often, however, I do - as in this case. At that point I take my right to use my money as I see fit. That would include not using it for products from companies that
        • Most companies are currently making or in the past have made weapons systems or parts for weapons systems, including ordinary military vehicles. The most obvious examples include volkswagon, mercedes-benz, mitsubishi, and chrysler, but they've just about all been involved at various times to some degree. They are quite simply the companies with the tooling to do so.
      • Be careful with your blanket statement: IBM sold things to willing customers with lots of money - like 1944 Germany. Terrorists are willing customers with lots of money. Whether or not impoverished residents of third-world countries [everything2.com] deceived by clever marketing [everything2.com] can count as either willing customers or ones with any money is a question of numbers.
    • First, your /me should be on a new line by itself. Second, this isn't IRC. Third, do you say that im public?

      Great idea you decided to wait, as companies that make military gear generally don't sell to anyone who isn't a government. Keep the protest going, though. I predict your boycott will have 100% efficiency.

  • Maybe it's just me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zanidor ( 824097 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:20AM (#10630089)
    Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?

    • Re:Maybe it's just me... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JeanBaptiste ( 537955 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:36AM (#10630203)
      "Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?"

      Well it would have made me nervous..... back in 1974.

      I think such things are reasonably commonplace today, the level of automation on a modern warship such as an Aegis cruiser could easily be called AI. Same with Tomahawk missiles, Apache helicopters, unmanned recon planes...

      • Re:Maybe it's just me... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zanidor ( 824097 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:52AM (#10630307)
        What I mean when I say that AI in a killing machine makes me nervous is that the idea of relegating the task of taking human life to a _machine_ seems like a bad idea. One reason it seems like a bad idea is that they could flip out and start killing everyone in some sort of sci-fi horror scenario. But, like you said, AI nowadays is probably fairly safe. What bothers me more is that there are so many _humanistic_ considerations that go into taking life. If we eventually reduce killing to a cold-blooded machine process, it just makes it easier to do. Think of how easy it will become for the United States to start a war when the soldiers don't feel so bad about wiping out any number of people. Maybe killing someone is emotionally difficult for a reason... Like I said, maybe it's just me.

        • Re:Maybe it's just me... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Pxtl ( 151020 )
          Well, imho the problem with armed ACV's is that its putting all your eggs into one point of failure, the remote control system. If the entire command structure is gone, a soldier still has his wits to tell him what to do, or what not to do. If the automated command system has been eletronically compromised, suddenly you have a whole bunch of new charlies on your hands. The saving grace is that the maximum damage is equal to the maximum sortie deployment at one time - you can only hack that which is live.
        • LATFP (look at the fucking picture)! That thing doesn't have any guns or anything, and I don't think it will any time soon. The only way it could kill someone is by running them over, and that happens with humans behind the wheel too.
        • And suddenly, the hum of a vaccuum cleaner in the distance was heard, and zanidor was no more.
    • Where does it say this will be a "killing machine"? From the article: "The vehicle will be able to relay real-time video, audio and sensor readings from the field. Such capabilities could allow for unmanned perimeter patrols of a military installation, or for reconnaissance or carrying supplies such as ammunition, the companies said."

    • the better.

      I know you're afraid of the ole Hal 9000 syndrome.

      But I'm afraid of the opposite... robots without inhibitions.

      what happens when the guy we elect as "root" goes nuts and uses the robots to subjugate us all into his own personal slaves?

      At least human soldiers have to believe in what they are doing... which makes gradual enslavement SLIGHTLY more difficult to do within a 4-8 year period.
    • "Does the idea of putting artifical intelligence into a killing machine make anyone else a little nervous?"

      Not at all.

      Unless your name is Sarah Conner. Otherwise, I'll be back.

  • Battle Robots IN the Pentagon? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ann Coulter ( 614889 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:21AM (#10630098)
    "You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

    That's the obligatory response to any robot battles in the Pentagon.

  • Misconception (Score:3, Informative)

    by coobachey ( 782889 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:21AM (#10630099)
    RC would be more fitting than robot status. This one will be controlled via human interface remotely whereas a robot having AI enough to maneuver on its own making decisions doesnt need a human at least for periods of time.

    Welcome back to 82'!

    • Re:Misconception (Score:2, Informative)

      by jedaustin ( 52181 )
      Guess you didn't read the article :)

      The vehicle, five feet wide, has three basic modes: autonomous, remote control or manually driven by onboard human operators. Depending on battlefield circumstances, the vehicle could be controlled remotely, freeing up the soldiers inside it for other tasks, Greiner said.

      Roomba, RC, Human Driven.

      Now all we need are robotic guns onboard to complete the 'So you decided to mess with America' clue patrol :)

    • Re:Misconception (Score:3, Informative)

      by heli0 ( 659560 )
      The vehicle, five feet wide, has three basic modes: autonomous, remote control or manually driven by onboard human operators. Depending on battlefield circumstances, the vehicle could be controlled remotely, freeing up the soldiers inside it for other tasks, Greiner said.

  • Heh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:21AM (#10630102) Homepage Journal
    Reminds me of a bad film [imdb.com] I once saw. Short Circuit had the cuteness that iRobots have... with John Deere traction! Maybe it'll evolve this way?
    • Reminds me of a bad film I once saw. Short Circuit had the cuteness that iRobots have... with John Deere traction! Maybe it'll evolve this way?

      it reminds me of a quite good film - The Straight Story [imdb.com] ;-)

  • Makes sense.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:22AM (#10630103)
    So the John Deere part chops the enemies up into little pieces, and the roomba part vacuums them up?
  • I'm surprised the military hasn't done this before. We already have drone planes that fly via remote. Granted, they have very little AI and only perform one task (reconaissance), but I would have thought that the military would have started off with a land robot/roomba/automated car. I can certainly see more uses for one, like if troops are pinned down in a dangerous environment, etc.

    • Flying is easier than walking for machines (Score:5, Funny)

      by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:41AM (#10630231) Homepage Journal
      The drone planes can also attack remotely now (hellfire missiles).

      Flying is actually easier than driving because you don't have to worry about terrain and collisions as much. Take something as simple as a hill. The calculations and sensors to figure out that it's a hill, not a curb or other blockage, then figure out whether the slope is within climbing margins, etc, is actualy quite difficult. We're getting there, but people and animals have the equivalent of a supercomputer neural net trained for years just for processing visual information for this.
      • Gee gods, don't have to worry about terrain and collisions and such when flying?

        Someone shoot this guy if he ever comes within a mile of a plane.

        The cruise missle system was such an achievement precisly because it did worry about the terrain. It could follow the terrain at low level flying between hills and other obstructions to its target.

        Same with the tornado aircraft wich again is so effective because it is constantly trying to keep as close as possible to the terrain while avoid collisions.

        This stuf

        • Gee gods, don't have to worry about terrain and collisions and such when flying?

          Calm down. He means that dealing with a hill when flying is a simple matter of gaining altitude. Figuring out if passing over a hill is possible when you have wheels requires some pretty serious hill-analysis.

        • Not as much of a concern. Yes, there are all sorts of hairy things that can happen on a plane. But I was answering about why we have robot planes/cruise missiles when we can't even make an autopilot for a truck on the highway.

          You can reverse
          Not very quickly at 55-75 mph, and not even at 25 if the AI isn't quick enough. Besides, do you want to reverse after smaking into a wierdly painted sign at 65, or do you think inching along at 5-10 mph is sufficient?

          Flying is not easier then driving. You gain so

  • Picture a porch in country (Score:5, Funny)

    by Illserve ( 56215 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:24AM (#10630114)
    Two old farmers, one chewing a stalk of wheat.

    "Abe, you gettin some new equipment for the next harvest?"

    "Yep, I was gonna get me one of them Aytonomous Assault Vehicles to help in the south field."

    "the 312?"

    "nah, the 412, it's got the bailer attachment on the rear gun deck."

    "John Deer always did make good AAV's"

    "hell it'll get rid of the varmints too"
    • Nice redneck bashing, but actually robots such as this one will soon be used for crop harvesting. This will enable greater amounts of food to be made with the same number of people, thus alleviating world hunger.
      • You are relying upon an incorrect assumption: that world hunger is due mostly to a shortage of food. yes, technically hunger *is* a 'shortage of food', but what I mean is that there is food enough to feed people, but it just isn't going to those people. In many cases, such as in Swaziland, local authorities refuse to distribute food that is sitting in warehouses locally. Thus the food rots, and the people die. Not because there was no food, and not even because there was no food near them, but because peopl

  • Bad idea (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bluesman ( 104513 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:24AM (#10630116) Homepage
    Think of all the time it will waste killing people over and over again.

  • The way of the future... (Score:5, Funny)

    by D-Cypell ( 446534 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:25AM (#10630124)
    The R-1000

    Features

    • Liquid Metal Construction.
    • Ability to morph into any simple object (no moving parts).
    • Can travel back in time to eliminate your enemies while they are small, deliquent boys.
    • 70% possibility of correctly detecting corners or stairs.
  • a few weeks ago DARPA shown project aimed at building robot based on Seagway, and now Pentagon and John Deere - a tractor engineer. Don't you think that they are quite innovative sometimes?
    • If you are thinking about the old green tractor from 1950s, then you could be forgiven for that opinion. The tractors of today, however, can be extremely high-tech and run well over $100k. They are also well tested over a large variety of terrain.
  • An example slashdot article coming in the next few years.. "Introducting ... John's Deere and OCP presents the first robotic crossing guard. The ED209 With optional gattling gun hardpoint and patented "forget and fire" technology." Don't you just love it when companines/movies get their names mixed up.. TheLogster

  • The Roomba Defense (Score:5, Funny)

    by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:29AM (#10630150)
    And in other news, North Korea has just started work on its new defense -- fringed rugs!

  • Wurnstrom! (Score:3, Funny)

    by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:30AM (#10630167)
    "My killbot has lotus notes and a machine gun."
  • Will it be in Miltary green, or John Deere green?
  • Is it wrong that I wouldn't know of Roomba if it weren't for Achewood [achewood.com]?

  • Hmmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by stimey ( 819269 )
    I wonder what OS that thing runs on and if it has wireless networking.
    You dont want the "enemy" to hack into the robots and send them back to attack the creators ?
    • I don't think it will be very easy to hack this thing. The communication will probably be using a very good encryption algorithm changed regularly with key lengths of at least 4KBytes at a minimum. [Some passwords that the DoD used ten years ago had to be stored on flopies (essentialy used like a physical key).] Anything that doesn't get decrypted properly gets junked and not sent to the processor.

      I do wonder though, who is to say that they are using an OS at all? You can do plenty of things without
  • welcome our autonomous dust-sucking made-in-the-USA robot tractor overlords.

  • And in a related story... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Perdition ( 208487 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:49AM (#10630285)
    Tragedy strikes as the military's "seek, locate, EXTERMINATE!" commands are accidently downloaded into every combine and tractor in North America.

    Maximum Overdrive, indeed.

    "Nothing kills like a Deere"

  • Red Flag (Score:3, Funny)

    by adsl ( 595429 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:50AM (#10630297)
    Yes this is a huge "wheel" forward for the military. But I understand that for safety reasons (running over of friendly troops) the spec still calls for a soldier to walk in front of the machine waving a red Flag to warn our troops. If, however, he sees the enemy he switches immediately to waving a Green Flag to crush our enemies.

  • Good Idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:53AM (#10630317) Homepage

    Apparently the DOD has put a high priority on frightening the enemy's pets.

    -B

  • Crazy Taxi (Score:2, Funny)

    by Plocmstart ( 718110 )
    "Depending on battlefield circumstances, the vehicle could be controlled remotely, freeing up the soldiers inside it for other tasks, Greiner said."
    So you're putting your driver in a box somewhere behind the frontlines and letting him drive a vehicle full of people into what may be a dangerous battlezone, and without the full feedback of actually being there. Sounds like a bad idea to me, but if I get drafted I want that job. ;)
  • particularly in cornrows or hayfields. air-conditioned cab is extra. CD player is standard.
  • In response to this recent product announcement several middle eastern countries have purchased large quantities of the Roomba Virtual Wall [irobot.com] accessories and it is rumored that these are being installed along territory borders.
  • Until they can do the MIT robotic vehicle 'test' I'd be nervous....

    Or maybe the roomba will be to pass that test first and 'clean up' the prize :-) (ouch)
  • I figured a Battle Roomba [irobot.com] would look more like Ziggo [teamziggy.com].
  • Our Overbot [overbot.com] is built on the Polaris Ranger platform, which, like the Gator, has six wheels. The Ranger has a little more power, true 6 wheel drive, and a faster top speed of 40MPH.

    See our video (6MB, Quicktime) here. [overbot.com] This is our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle.

  • Will it repond to human voice ala hal9000 or furby?
  • I sure hope they seriously modified the AI from the Roomba because as someone who lives in a house that has a roomba, I can say I wouldn't want that thing on the battlefield:

    *Run over soldier
    *turn right
    *Run over soldier
    *turn right
    *no soldiers around
    *spiral until run over soldier
  • Does it bother anyone else that due to our inability to stop needing to kill one another to acheive our political goals, the human race seems to blithely be living out the plot of the Terminator franchise?
  • iRobet and JD have a booth at the annual AUSA (Association of the US Army) conference. I thought it was a reference to some wierd Asimov / lawn tractor combo. Guess I'll have to swing by tomorow.

  • From the pic, it appears to be a version of the John Deere Gator [deere.com]
    We use them at work, and the gas models aren't very sturdy. They are a maintaince nightmare.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate it. -- Franklin P. Jones

Close