[Flipside]

Entries for a competition to design automated response robots in human-hazardous situations, oddly enough the first few photos made me think firstly of Forbidden Planet and then of Halo...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25398416

[Luis Dias]

DANGER, Will Robinson!

[z64555]

more likely to see a Johnny Number 5 than any of the walking 'bots. Simpler, less maintenance, and easier on the movement processing.

[Aesaar]

Not everyone is comfortable about the US military developing close relationships with the teams.

"Why would Darpa suddenly want to spend millions of dollars on rescue robots at a time when defence budgets are so tight?" asks Prof Noel Sharkey, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.

"It seems more likely that this is part of a long-term agenda to develop ever more sophisticated robot weapons.

"Those involved in competing should do so in the clear knowledge that they are helping the US develop the next generation of automated weapons systems."

You mean to tell me that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is probably going to use the results of this contest to eventually build weapons?!?  Say it isn't so!

But seriously, if you only focus robotics research on things that don't have a military application, you're not going to be researching much.  Probably true of most engineering fields.

[Fury]

But seriously, if you only focus robotics research on things that don't have a military application, you're not going to be researching much.  Probably true of most engineering fields.

Sadly this is very much true. A lot of research and engineering breakthroughs have been made by people directly or indirectly associated with military. But fortunately most of that eventually if not immediately will find its way to non-military applications.

While I would wish to think armed conflicts would reduce even further than they already have, with these robots we wouldn't at least be sacrificing as many people on the battlefields. With drones slowly but surely taking over air, it is only a matter of time before we have drones on the land too and eventually sea as well.

Well, back to the topic. I find it a little odd that these robots resemble human form. I'd think it'd be easier if they instead would use insect like bodies, which probably would have easier time traversing rough terrain in enclosed spaces, such as collapsed buildings.

[Dragon]

Sadly this is very much true. A lot of research and engineering breakthroughs have been made by people directly or indirectly associated with military. But fortunately most of that eventually if not immediately will find its way to non-military applications.

Indeed. There's a good reason for that, too: the military has money. That's why I support military research. Those Soyuz rockets we fly to space? The first two stages were an ICBM back in '60s (funny enough, it wasn't even a good ICBM...). The most launched light launcher in the world? Another ICBM derivative, almost unmodified. Space Shuttle? Grew out of a military spaceplane project. Airplanes? A curiosity until military took interest in them. Jet engines? First used in fighter planes. Nuclear fission? The bomb came before the power plant. Nuclear fusion? We have the bombs, the powerplants are being developed. Amphibious drive? Primarily a military tech, though used in some civilian vehicles. The list goes on, and will go on for long. Military has a long history of bringing us inventions that can later be adapted for civilian use.

[Mongoose]

Hell, the Internet.  Case closed.

[Mikes]

Sadly this is very much true. A lot of research and engineering breakthroughs have been made by people directly or indirectly associated with military. But fortunately most of that eventually if not immediately will find its way to non-military applications.

Indeed. There's a good reason for that, too: the military has money. That's why I support military research. Those Soyuz rockets we fly to space? The first two stages were an ICBM back in '60s (funny enough, it wasn't even a good ICBM...). The most launched light launcher in the world? Another ICBM derivative, almost unmodified. Space Shuttle? Grew out of a military spaceplane project. Airplanes? A curiosity until military took interest in them. Jet engines? First used in fighter planes. Nuclear fission? The bomb came before the power plant. Nuclear fusion? We have the bombs, the powerplants are being developed. Amphibious drive? Primarily a military tech, though used in some civilian vehicles. The list goes on, and will go on for long. Military has a long history of bringing us inventions that can later be adapted for civilian use.

I'd rather say that the fact that nothing happens in certain fields until the military takes interest is an indicator for a serious case of mismanagement and false priorities in our societies.

I.e. You are praising the crutch while the problem rather is that no one *wants* to walk.

[Dragon]

Well, need is the mother of innovation, as they say. In reality, most people are content with what the world looks like now. Military is the only place that needs to be one step ahead of "the enemy", whoever they are. Other dangerous fields also contribute, but they mostly fight against nature, from which we know what to expect. In military, there's constant competition between countries, which drives the progress. When this competition vanes, so does the innovation.

WWII brought us from prop-driven monoplanes to jets. Cold War brought us from alcohol-powered glorified fireworks to 100m tall rockets that gave us the Moon landing. And now what? Cold War is done, and we haven't left LEO since then. We could've had nuclear engines and Mars spacecraft by now, but we don't. When there's no "evolutionary pressure" for designs, we tend to settle for "good enough, let's not fix what's not broken" approach. Military, especially when there's a war or arms race going on, generally provides this pressure. On the other hand, civilian world advances slower, because even with the competition between two companies, it focuses on improving existing things, not inventing new ones.

[SypheDMar]

One of the goals for the project is to prevent a Fukushima disaster from happening again. One of the problems faced during the time was that people couldn't open the doors because of the radiation. If that had happened, everything would've been less catastrophic.

It's mentioned briefly in this article, but NPR goes a bit more in-depth regarding the official reason for the competition: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/12/20/255852933/robot-olympics-test-machines-on-human-skills

That may be why most of the robots have a humanoid form-factor.

[Flipside]

As a follow up to this story, it appears that the problem with tracked robots was the fact that stairs and ladders are involved, although the bipedal robots didn't do much better....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25469077

To be honest, I think we are going to have to meet halfway with robotics at least at the start.

The whole reason that humans are flexible and agile is as much about our ability to analyze and re-interpret our surroundings as our ability to interact with it, and buildings are designed in a fashion which is human-centric for obvious reasons. I suspect we are going to have to design our reactors for robots as much as design our robots for reactors, as it were.

[jr2]

Hell, the Internet.  Case closed.

Did someone mention ARPANet?