Students Demo Firefighting Humanoid Robot On US Navy Ship 55
An anonymous reader sends this report from Robohub: In fall 2014 in Mobile Bay, Alabama, Virginia Tech engineering students made history during a five-minute demo that placed an adult-sized humanoid robot with a hose in front of a live fire aboard a U.S. Navy ship.The robot located the fire and sprayed water from the hose. Water blasted the flames. The demo, four years in the making, is part of a new effort by the U.S. Navy to better assist sailors in fighting fires, controlling damage, and carrying out inspections aboard ships via user-controlled unmanned craft or humanoid robots. The firefighting robot is named SAFFiR, short for Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot, and the U.S. Office of Naval Research envisions a future — long off, but tangible — in which every ship has a robot as a tool for firefighters.
Program it to say action movie phrases (Score:2, Funny)
puts out fire, "You've been fired", austrian accent optional
Re: (Score:1)
Incredible! (Score:2)
So now one remote-operated robot accompanied by a team of support humans managing it's umbilical can fight fires as effectively as one human moving in super-slow motion. This changes everything!
An interesting v0.001 version of the technology though, I'm sure eventually it will reach the point of actually being useful.
Robot for more hazardous firefighting (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus since we are talking warships there are also issues of live ordinance. There was at least one, maybe more, fires on board aircraft carriers in the 1960s where a dozen or so crew members fighting a fire on deck were killed when an aircraft's bombs cooked off and detonated.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good but the reality is, if you want to be safe when a warship is on fire, you had better not be on that warship. When magazine go boom, you go boom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] three survivors and most of those who died were no where near the fire. Person on the hose not only is meant to direct the hose on the source of the fire, but also unburnt gases produced by the fire to cool, wet down areas near the fire to prevent spreading of the fire, persons down near the fire and people going near t
Re: (Score:1)
Humanoid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does it need to be humanoid? Wouldn't a quadruped with a single arm to control and direct the water be a much more stable platform?
Re: (Score:1)
Why does it need to be humanoid?
My first thought exactly. It seems like an incredible over-complication when the goal is "simply" to fight fires. Don't they purpose build robots to walk like humans... and they still aren't really all that convincing?
Any robotics experts out there know why they'd want to have a biped do this? Not trying to rain on their parade (pun intended), but I'm really just curious why a humanoid was a necessary part of this solution.
Re: (Score:1)
Any robotics experts out there know why they'd want to have a biped do this?
Most likely so that it could move through a ship designed for bipeds, and use equipment designed for bipeds. To be effective, it would need to use stairwells, open hatches, and manipulate valves, that were designed for humans. The most logical way to do that, is to give it a human form.
Re: (Score:3)
Stairs, Ladders
Humans navigate ladders as quadrupeds not bipeds.
Re: (Score:1)
Humans navigate ladders as quadrupeds not bipeds.
Quadrupeds have more trouble with stairs, either going up them or going down them. There are lots of spaces in the typical ship that you must rotate to move through. The ship is designed for humans, and we're bipeds. If the average ship were designed for canines or centaurs, a quadrupedal design might well have made more sense.
Re: (Score:3)
A better question is why not just lay the plumbing for an automatic fire suppression system throughout every compartment.
Re:Humanoid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they already have that, and it is boring? Because robotics are cool and fundable even where they are pointless and useless? Because the people that approved it have watched too many WW II movies? Because automated fire suppression systems might be vulnerable to damage elsewhere, requiring some system capable of dynamically bypassing nearly arbitrary intermediate zones of damage by archaic means like "fire hoses" in order to deliver fire suppression? Maybe a bit of all of these?
One can certainly imagine a scenario where a cruise missile or torpedo or even a shell strikes a ship in such a way that it knocks out most built in systems in some zone and sets that zone on fire, at which point sending humans in to fight the fire puts them at high risk and not sending humans in to fight the fire might put them at even greater risk from a sinking ship. At that point sending in a robot (humanoid or not) instead could be a lifesaver.
One is reminded of any number of science fiction stories, though, by Asimov and others. Building a humanoid robot for this purpose seems incredibly stupid. One doesn't want a robot to run a vacuum cleaner as if it is a metal version of a french maid. One wants a robot that is a vacuum cleaner, or a vacuum cleaner that happens to be a robot. Take vacuum cleaner. Add mechanism for moving. Add mechanism for navigating. Add minimal hardware needed to perform standard operational maintenance (that is, dump the dirt and clean filters). Add judgement/programming (or not, make it remote operated by humans sitting in a chair somewhere by remote control). In the end, one is more likely to end up with R2D2 with a carpet-sweeping vacuum base and "arms" that ARE extensible, manipulable tubes with nozzle(s) than with anything that looks like C3PO pushing a Dyson. And ditto for fire-fighting, only even more so.
rgb
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody needs to guess what happens w/a missile strike and resulting fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
One doesn't want a robot to run a vacuum cleaner as if it is a metal version of a french maid. One wants a robot that is a vacuum cleaner, or a vacuum cleaner that happens to be a robot.
Obvious retort #1: This is slashdot, obviously, I do want the metal version of the french maid... but some parts should be made of rubber.
Obvious retort #2: (The real objection) I don't want to need a separate robot for each function. One robot which can perform multiple tasks will do just fine, thanks. And one which uses the same tools that I do is also one whose tools I can use... point being, I don't want special-purpose robots nor special tools which can only be used by robots. A humanoid robot is the l
Re: (Score:2)
And when the day comes that we can build general purpose robots, your obvious retort #2 will be apropos, although even then one will have to compare the operational efficiency and cost-benefit of a really, really good firefighting robot that is designed and "hardened" to be ideal for fires vs a slender, athletic, wide-hipped robot with highly flammable rubber padding in strategic places and a variety of special "attachments" that happen to include an appendage that can spray whipped cream or class B fire fi
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like ant bots. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A better question is why not just lay the plumbing for an automatic fire suppression system throughout every compartment.
Because its a warship. There is a significant risk that such plumbing will be damaged by the "event" causing the fire.
Re:Humanoid? (Score:4, Insightful)
A better question is why not just lay the plumbing for an automatic fire suppression system throughout every compartment.
If the ship is attacked, the plumbing is likely to be damaged. You need defense in depth. During the USS Forrestal fire [wikipedia.org], the fire fighting equipment was mostly destroyed, and the crews trained to use it were among the first casualties.
Fire fighting was a decisive factor at Midway. The Yorktown was able to suppress fires, and return to action. It was still launching sorties after the Japanese thought it had been sunk. The fires on the Japanese carriers quickly went out of control, igniting fuel and causing extensive secondary explosions.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Humanoid? and a cute one at that! (Score:1)
>> Humanoid Robot Fights Fire On US Navy Ship
>
> Why does it need to be humanoid?
It doesn't simply need to be humanoid. She needs to be a gynoid per se. Otherwise it would be difficult to make "robotic schoolgirls run warships" themed anime, that sells "Arpeggio of Blue Steel" exclusive Blu-ray boxes and PVC figurines.
By the way, "Girls und Kreuzer" is rumored for 2016, another milestone in Japan's quest for the infantilization of armed conflicts. (Which initiative seems to be secretly financed a
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess that turning radius might be a big part of the equation. Ship's corridors and walkways are pretty tight, and they're designed around people - who actually occupy a fairly small footprint, can turn in place, and can corner pretty tightly.
/former USN.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a better idea;
How about a hollow snake with a bunch of short legs that work somewhat like a millipede. Put it on the end of a hise and it can snake it's way through debris where even a person can not go. If you can make it somewhat intelligent with a knowledge of the layout of the ship one may just need to launch it.
Re: (Score:2)
If there are 100 of them pushing in unison probably. That would be much better than two patches of contact which may be contaminated by oil.
This is a good idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Shitronyms (Score:2)
Acronyms are great, "backronyms" are stupid, "hackronyms" and "recursonyms" are fucking retarded.
SAFFiR for "Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot" takes the fucking cake though. Why not SAFER for "Shipboard Autonomous Fire Extinguishing Robot"?
Or how about just Firefighting Robot?
Re: (Score:1)
Cringe-worthy. (Score:2)
Having been both a squid and a robotics researcher in a previous century, this has issues. Shipboard fires truly are environments where no human wants to be, as anyone could easily believe. Somewhat fewer people know all of the factors involved: Navy ships are not stable platforms in anything but dead-calm water, which rarely occurs. Next, passageways are designed with 'walking through them' as an afterthought. You have to step over and duck under something every few feet belowdecks. While the ship is bucki
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not good but better than wading through leech-infested mud in south-east Asia, which was my other option.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you talk to why a more traditional fire suppression system (such as sprinklers) wouldn't work? It seems like building something into the ship itself, which would take up little space compared to a big bulky robot that needs to wander the ship, would be an enormously simpler problem to solve. I realize that fire in a warship is going to often be accompanied by structural damage (while in a building the structural damage would probably be a result of the fire rather than the cause of it), but you'd thin
Student's are firefighting a humanoid robot? (Score:1)
kids (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of shit. Holy crap, who has been lying to these kids their whole lives? That clunky thing, on a ship?
They let people who think joining the military is a good idea on the ship, so the bar is already pretty low.
gotta stop procrastinating (Score:2)
I feel SAFFiR already! (Score:2)
Why not an exosuit? (Score:2)
I love robots, and I understand this is still in development, but wouldn't their money be better spent on making a fireproof exosuit for a human firefighter? This robot is slow, awkward, and ponderous. It's not really autonomous at all, requiring a team of human operators. it's tethered by a large cable. And it looks like even with the flimsy suit they dressed it in, it's wires and electronics would be highly vulnerable to burning/melting.
Re: (Score:2)
This robot is slow, awkward, and ponderous.
So is a man in a full fire suit.
It's not really autonomous at all, requiring a team of human operators.
In the Navy, that's called a "crew".
it's tethered by a large cable.
Aboard a ship, it's not going to have to ride a truck to the fire.
And it looks like even with the flimsy suit they dressed it in, it's wires and electronics would be highly vulnerable to burning/melting.
I believe you acknowledged it's still in development.
Who wouldn't want a robot (Score:2)
that squirts seamen?
Dumb (Score:2)
There is no way this thing is half as efficient as a team of trained sailors manning firehoses etc. Here someone will say "what about toxic gas or heat? To which I point out fire fighters have had gas masks and protective clothing for awhile. And if the heat is overwhelming the clothing the your little robot is going to melt too.
Add to that... all you need to stop a fire is to cut off the oxygen in most cases. Very few fires even on a military ship are going burn without oxygen. So... what makes more sense?