6 ms·

> The stepping of the robot was controlled by a human operator through foot and hand movements coupled to hydraulic valves. > The walking truck was one of the

> The stepping of the robot was controlled by a human operator through foot and hand movements coupled to hydraulic valves. > The walking truck was one of the first technological hardware design applications to incorporate force feed-back to give the operator a feel of what was happening. This might sound primitive in today's autonomy-driven mindset, but in contrast to autonomous robots, this is a technology that could be delivered today (or was already delivered in 1965, according to the article). So if infantry really does need hardware to move stuff from A to B, the 1965 approach -- primitive as it is -- might be the simplest solution.

icebraining 7y ago
I'm sure that approach is simpler, but from what I can tell, the (semi?) autonomous technology can also be delivered today: https://www.bostondynamics.com/ls3 https://www.bostondynamics.com/ls3
- Jaruzel 7y ago
  However, wouldn't the hydraulic + operator version be a) cheaper to develop and b) less complex to build and maintain (useful when deployed) ? I think there is a good case for KISS here.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    KISS is slapping an engine and threads or 4~6 all-terrain wheels on a box.
    - JasonFruit 7y ago
      You've made the same comment twice and I only just now managed to figure out that you meant treads, not threads. I thought you maybe meant some kind of box that could be screwed through the soil...
      - masklinn 7y ago
        > You've made the same comment twice and I only just now managed to figure out that you meant treads, not threads. Oh… oops.
      - cr0sh 7y ago
        Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw-propelled_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw-propelled_vehicle
- ckastner 7y ago
  I thought of that example, too, but thought that it had been cancelled as unsuccessful. Turns out it was cancelled for mainly other reasons. Quoting [1]: "By late 2015, the Marines had put the LS3 into storage because of limitations with the robot including loud noise, challenges in repairing it if it breaks, and how to integrate it into a traditional Marine patrol" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_Squad_Support_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_Squad_Support_System
  - taneq 7y ago
    Turns out the marines don't really need a loud, expensive, fragile machine to haul their gear when they can just use a quad bike. Robots are awesome but integrating practical robotics with mission critical operations is really really hard, especially because you're automatically competing with battle-tested best in class solutions.
    - Mvhsz 7y ago
      Actually turns out Boston Dynamics had a good idea and over-engineered it. LM built a cheaper, wheeled, semi-autonomous troop support vehicle that ended up selling pretty well. https://defense-update.com/20070529_smss.html https://defense-update.com/20070529_smss.html
      - taneq 7y ago
        That thing looks an awful lot like a quad bike with two extra wheels.
        Mvhsz 7y ago
        yeah basically, but with no driver. That was my point about over-engineering: the army didn't want an expensive re-invention of off road vehicles, just existing technology tailored to their needs. BD has a long term vision for robotics and I'm not suggesting that they should stop working towards that. Just making the point that it's possible to create robust solutions using simpler robotics even in complex environments.
masklinn 7y ago
> So if infantry really does need hardware to move stuff from A to B, the 1965 approach -- primitive as it is -- might be the simplest solution. Putting threads on a box or crap on human backs? Because whether at rest or in action (an other commenter provided a video) that thing looks like it would tip over if you looked at it funny, let alone "over rough terrain".
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Because whether at rest or in action (an other commenter provided a video) that thing looks like it would tip over if you looked at it funny, let alone "over rough terrain". A group of infantrymen should have no problem getting it back upright. Shenanigans moving heavy things is what they do when they get bored but don't have any lower effort mischief to engage in.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > A group of infantrymen should have no problem getting it back upright. Well sure but why would they use it in action aside from the fun factor of seeing this lumbering contraption (and at 1400kg empty with a top speed of 8km/h "lumbering" is putting it midly) flail and fall over every few minutes?
    - falsedan 7y ago
      > a top speed of 8km/h "lumbering" is putting it midly 8kph is a gentle jog, hardly lumbering.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      They're not gonna walk it out into a firefight but it makes sense for getting heavier weapons into the hard to get to places you inevitably wind up wanting them. This kind of vehicle is useful for moving all the weapons systems we put on top of M113 and Humvee chassis. Also, it's worth remembering that this is a prototype, not a finished system.
      - 7y ago
jjuel 7y ago
Yeah if they didn't have to go very far... > It was exhausting to control and, according to program lead Ralph Mosher who was the designer and primary driver, operators could only drive the walking truck for a limited time.
Aloha 7y ago
I suspect you're right - I also suspect modern technology could make such a thing more practical to use - as the original was difficult and tiring to control according to the article.

icebraining 7y ago

I'm sure that approach is simpler, but from what I can tell, the (semi?) autonomous technology can also be delivered today: https://www.bostondynamics.com/ls3 https://www.bostondynamics.com/ls3

Jaruzel 7y ago
However, wouldn't the hydraulic + operator version be a) cheaper to develop and b) less complex to build and maintain (useful when deployed) ? I think there is a good case for KISS here.
- masklinn 7y ago
  KISS is slapping an engine and threads or 4~6 all-terrain wheels on a box.
  - JasonFruit 7y ago
    You've made the same comment twice and I only just now managed to figure out that you meant treads, not threads. I thought you maybe meant some kind of box that could be screwed through the soil...
    - masklinn 7y ago
      > You've made the same comment twice and I only just now managed to figure out that you meant treads, not threads. Oh… oops.
    - cr0sh 7y ago
      Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw-propelled_vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw-propelled_vehicle
ckastner 7y ago
I thought of that example, too, but thought that it had been cancelled as unsuccessful. Turns out it was cancelled for mainly other reasons. Quoting [1]: "By late 2015, the Marines had put the LS3 into storage because of limitations with the robot including loud noise, challenges in repairing it if it breaks, and how to integrate it into a traditional Marine patrol" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_Squad_Support_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_Squad_Support_System
- taneq 7y ago
  Turns out the marines don't really need a loud, expensive, fragile machine to haul their gear when they can just use a quad bike. Robots are awesome but integrating practical robotics with mission critical operations is really really hard, especially because you're automatically competing with battle-tested best in class solutions.
  - Mvhsz 7y ago
    Actually turns out Boston Dynamics had a good idea and over-engineered it. LM built a cheaper, wheeled, semi-autonomous troop support vehicle that ended up selling pretty well. https://defense-update.com/20070529_smss.html https://defense-update.com/20070529_smss.html
    - taneq 7y ago
      That thing looks an awful lot like a quad bike with two extra wheels.
      - Mvhsz 7y ago
        yeah basically, but with no driver. That was my point about over-engineering: the army didn't want an expensive re-invention of off road vehicles, just existing technology tailored to their needs. BD has a long term vision for robotics and I'm not suggesting that they should stop working towards that. Just making the point that it's possible to create robust solutions using simpler robotics even in complex environments.

masklinn 7y ago

> So if infantry really does need hardware to move stuff from A to B, the 1965 approach -- primitive as it is -- might be the simplest solution. Putting threads on a box or crap on human backs? Because whether at rest or in action (an other commenter provided a video) that thing looks like it would tip over if you looked at it funny, let alone "over rough terrain".

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Because whether at rest or in action (an other commenter provided a video) that thing looks like it would tip over if you looked at it funny, let alone "over rough terrain". A group of infantrymen should have no problem getting it back upright. Shenanigans moving heavy things is what they do when they get bored but don't have any lower effort mischief to engage in.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > A group of infantrymen should have no problem getting it back upright. Well sure but why would they use it in action aside from the fun factor of seeing this lumbering contraption (and at 1400kg empty with a top speed of 8km/h "lumbering" is putting it midly) flail and fall over every few minutes?
  - falsedan 7y ago
    > a top speed of 8km/h "lumbering" is putting it midly 8kph is a gentle jog, hardly lumbering.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    They're not gonna walk it out into a firefight but it makes sense for getting heavier weapons into the hard to get to places you inevitably wind up wanting them. This kind of vehicle is useful for moving all the weapons systems we put on top of M113 and Humvee chassis. Also, it's worth remembering that this is a prototype, not a finished system.
    - 7y ago

jjuel 7y ago

Yeah if they didn't have to go very far... > It was exhausting to control and, according to program lead Ralph Mosher who was the designer and primary driver, operators could only drive the walking truck for a limited time.

Aloha 7y ago

I suspect you're right - I also suspect modern technology could make such a thing more practical to use - as the original was difficult and tiring to control according to the article.