The Bot Board (BOTS)

[XenaLives]

GeckoSystems has two robotic applications ready to market but can't raise the funds for final testing and production.

The OTC is worthless.

www.geckosystems.com

Here's part of the problem too:

This explains part of the reason why GOSY is having trouble raising funds:

Of $29 billion of venture capital raised by companies in 2011, only about $160 million went to robotics companies.

http://teresaescrig.com/silicon-valley-is-not-a-leader-in-robotics/

Apparently most VCs don't understand the potential here.



In the mean time, millions is getting poured into academic projects here and abroad that never get commercialized.


No wonder the economy's messed up. We need new industry that creates jobs.

[chunga1]

At Robot Show, Future of Warfare Is on Display
DENVER (Aug. 27) — From robotic insects that can crawl and fly to spy drones that look and move like real hummingbirds, the future of warfare was on display this week at a massive robotic conference here.

This year's Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International show attracted more than 6,000 visitors --- well above what organizers expected. But perhaps more striking than the number of visitors was the diversity of military and civilian robots and drones on display.

Once it was considered a niche market, but the demand for unmanned aircraft and robots has boomed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The military in recent years has deployed thousands of bomb-clearing robots and unmanned aircraft of every shape and size, and law enforcement agencies are also buying up some of the technologies.

Military labs and companies showcased some of their far-out concepts, like robotic insects and birds, while others highlighted robots that are already on the battlefield. Drones like the Predator and Global Hawk are longstanding staples of the drone world, but now companies are focusing more on future aircraft concepts.

Defense giant Lockheed Martin revealed its "MPLE" (pronounced "maple") aircraft at the show, a spy drone that can fly for up to five days straight. The company says the multipurpose drone could be used to track pirates and look out for roadside bombs, among other missions.

For many companies still in the conceptual phase of building unmanned systems, finding someone to sponsor their projects and build a working aircraft is challenging. One company, LaserMotive, is pitching unmanned aerial vehicles powered by beamed lasers, a novel concept that would, at least in theory, help overcome some of the power limitations of current drones.

Frontline Aerospace, another small aerospace firm, brought a mock-up of its V-Star aircraft to the show, a vertical takeoff-and-landing vehicle with an unusual diamond-box wing and ducted fan engines.


Sharon Weinberger for AOL News
HDT Engineered Technologies demonstrates its robotic arm that can grasp objects -- in this case, a free water bottle being distributed at the conference.
"We think we have the better mousetrap," Ryan Wood, the company's president and CEO, told AOL News.

The aircraft could be used for supplying troops, or be reconfigured to carry weapons or spy sensors. Wood said the company, which recently pitched the idea to the Defense Intelligence Agency, could build the aircraft in just 28 months with $19 million.

For the time being, however, Frontline Aerospace is continuing to work on the aircraft on its own dime.

Some of the concepts are still only in the PowerPoint phase. William Fredericks, an engineer at NASA's Langley Research Center, presented a study of a concept for a vertical takeoff-and-landing vehicle that could stay aloft for 24 hours and launch from elevations up to 15,000 feet.

The study, which Fredericks said proved such an aircraft was theoretically feasible, was performed for "another government agency," giving an aura of secrecy to the idea (and the possibility that the CIA, which has also invested heavily in drones, is involved).

Asked which agency has sponsored the study, Fredericks replied: "I can't really talk about that one, sorry."

http://www.aolnews.com/tech/article/future-of-warfare-on-display-at-robots-and-drone-show-in-denver/19610893

[chunga1]

Israeli Robots Remake Battlefield
Nation Forges Ahead in Deploying Unmanned Military Vehicles by Air, Sea and Land.
By CHARLES LEVINSON
(See Corrections & Amplifications below).

TEL AVIV, Israel – Israel is developing an army of robotic fighting machines that offers a window onto the potential future of warfare.

Sixty years of near-constant war, a low tolerance for enduring casualties in conflict, and its high-tech industry have long made Israel one of the world's leading innovators of military robotics.

WSJ's Charles Levinson reports from Jerusalem to discuss Israel's development of robotic, unmanned combat systems. He tells Simon Constable on the News Hub how they are deploying unmanned boats, ground vehicles and aerial vehicles.
.
"We're trying to get to unmanned vehicles everywhere on the battlefield for each platoon in the field," says Lt. Col. Oren Berebbi, head of the Israel Defense Forces' technology branch. "We can do more and more missions without putting a soldier at risk."

In 10 to 15 years, one-third of Israel's military machines will be unmanned, predicts Giora Katz, vice president of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., one of Israel's leading weapons manufacturers.

"We are moving into the robotic era," says Mr. Katz.

Over 40 countries have military-robotics programs today. The U.S. and much of the rest of the world is betting big on the role of aerial drones: Even Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite guerrilla force in Lebanon, flew four Iranian-made drones against Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War.

When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it had just a handful of drones. Today, U.S. forces have around 7,000 unmanned vehicles in the air and an additional 12,000 on the ground, used for tasks including reconnaissance, airstrikes and bomb disposal.

In 2009, for the first time, the U.S. Air Force trained more "pilots" for unmanned aircraft than for manned fighters and bombers.

U.S. and Japanese robotics programs rival Israel's technological know-how, but Israel has shown it can move quickly to develop and deploy new devices, to meet battlefield needs, military officials say.

"The Israelis do it differently, not because they're more clever than we are, but because they live in a tough neighborhood and need to respond fast to operational issues," says Thomas Tate, a former U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who now oversees defense cooperation between the U.S. and Israel.

Among the recently deployed technologies that set Israel ahead of the curve is the Guardium unmanned ground vehicle, which now drives itself along the Gaza and Lebanese borders. The Guardium was deployed to patrol for infiltrators in the wake of the abduction of soldiers doing the same job in 2006. The Guardium, developed by G-nius Ltd., is essentially an armored off-road golf cart with a suite of optical sensors and surveillance gear. It was put into the field for the first time 10 months ago.

In the 2006 Lebanon War, Israeli soldiers took a beating opening supply routes and ferrying food and ammunition through hostile territory to the front lines. In the Gaza conflict in January 2009, Israel unveiled remote-controlled bulldozers to help address that issue.

More on Israel David Furst/AFP for The Wall Street Journal. Israel pioneered the use of aerial drones like the Heron, under construction, above, at Israeli Aerospace Industries.
.WSJ.com/Mideast: News, video, graphics .
Within the next year, Israeli engineers expect to deploy the voice-commanded, six-wheeled Rex robot, capable of carrying 550 pounds of gear alongside advancing infantry.

After bomb-laden fishing boats tried to take out an Israeli Navy frigate off the coast off Gaza in 2002, Rafael designed the Protector SV, an unmanned, heavily armed speedboat that today makes up a growing part of the Israeli naval fleet. The Singapore Navy has also purchased the boat and is using it in patrols in the Persian Gulf.

After Syrian missile batteries in Lebanon took a heavy toll on Israeli fighter jets in the 1973 war, Israel developed the first modern unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV.

When Israel next invaded Lebanon in 1981, the real-time images provided by those unmanned aircraft helped Israel wipe out Syrian air defenses, without a single downed pilot. The world, including the U.S., took notice.

The Pentagon set aside its long-held skepticism about the advantages of unmanned aircraft and, in the early 1980s, bought a prototype designed by former Israeli Air Force engineer Abraham Karem. That prototype morphed into the modern-day Predator, which is made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc.

Unlike the U.S. and other militaries, where UAVs are flown by certified, costly-to-train fighter pilots, Israeli defense companies have recently built their UAVs to allow an average 18-year-old recruit with just a few months' training to pilot them.

Military analysts say unmanned fighting vehicles could have a far-reaching strategic impact on the sort of asymmetrical conflicts the U.S. is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Israel faces against enemies such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

In such conflicts, robotic vehicles will allow modern conventional armies to minimize the advantages guerrilla opponents gain by their increased willingness to sacrifice their lives in order to inflict casualties on the enemy.

However, there are also fears that when countries no longer fear losing soldiers' lives in combat thanks to the ability to wage war with unmanned vehicles, they may prove more willing to initiate conflict.

In coming years, engineers say unmanned air, sea and ground vehicles will increasingly work together without any human involvement. Israel and the U.S. have already faced backlash over civilian deaths caused by drone-fired missiles in Gaza, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those ethical dilemmas could increase as robots become more independent of their human masters.

Write to Charles Levinson at [e-mail]

Corrections & Amplifications
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. manufactures the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle. A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that General Dynamics Corp. manufactured the UAV.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126325146524725387.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

[chunga1]

Leaping Robot Hops Closer to War

By Sharon Weinberger September 15, 2009 | 12:00 pm | Categories: DarpaWatch, Drones

It’s one giant step for robots on the battlefield. Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico has just released video of its leaping robot in action, showing the Precision Urban Hopper clearing a tall metal fence.

Funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the autonomous robot is designed to reduce military casualties by providing reconnaissance. The robot uses a powerful leg to help hurdle itself over tall barriers. Once completed, the four-wheeled robots will use its leg to hop more than more than 25 feet, says Jon Salton, the Sandia program manager

The Massachusetts-based company Boston Dynamics is under contract to build the leaping robot, which is set to be delivered in 2010.


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/leaping-robot-hops-closer-to-war/

[chunga1]

U.S. Robotics Rodeo aims to save lives

RIPSAW-MS1

19:52 GMT, September 3, 2009 FORT HOOD, Texas | A Robotics Rodeo began Tuesday with exhibitors from all over America descending on Fort Hood to show off the latest advancements in robotics technology.

"If we're not fielding, we're failing; it's all about saving Soldiers' lives," said Lt. Gen. Rick Lynch, III Corps commanding general. "It's not about technology demonstrations, not about how much money you can garner from the U.S. government, it's all about saving Soldiers lives."

Robotics are currently in use in many areas of the military. There are robotic doctor's assistants that video the Soldiers' wounds to enable long-distance monitoring of vital signs and allow consultations with distant medical specialists. Robots also search for and disassemble improvised explosive devices.

The most recognizable integration of robotics in the Army may be the unmanned aerial vehicles that provide surveillance and reconnaissance assets for warfighters such as the Predator.

The focus of the Robotics Rodeo is autonomous robotics capabilities. Autonomy allows robots to function without a user interface, which helps significantly in areas of low or no communication ability or when Soldiers have other tasks to focus on, said Derek Wadsworth, a robotics researcher and operator with Idaho National Laboratories.

"We don't want to give them (Soldiers) a tool that they have to focus on instead of focusing on the task," Wadsworth said. "We want to give the Soldiers a tool that acts as a companion, not something they have to babysit."

The three-day event is packed with more than 30 different exhibitors running their robots through field demonstrations. Soldiers and civilian evaluators are on-hand to give feedback based on the demos and hands-on experience.

The rodeo ends Friday and the evaluators will turn in their feedback sheets to help determine what systems will best meet their future warfighting needs.


http://www.defpro.com/news/details/9567/

[chunga1]

Killer robots and a revolution in warfare:Bernd Debusmann 22 Apr 2009 14:04:33 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

By Bernd Debusmann

WASHINGTON, April 22 (Reuters) - They have no fear, they never tire, they are not upset when the soldier next to them gets blown to pieces. Their morale doesn't suffer by having to do, again and again, the jobs known in the military as the Three Ds - dull, dirty and dangerous.

They are military robots and their rapidly increasing numbers and growing sophistication may herald the end of thousands of years of human monopoly on fighting war. "Science fiction is moving to the battlefield. The future is upon us," as Brookings scholar Peter Singer put it to a conference of experts at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania this month.

Singer just published Wired For War - the Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century, a book that traces the rise of the machines and predicts that in future wars they will not only play greater roles in executing missions but also in planning them.

Numbers reflect the explosive growth of robotic systems. The U.S. forces that stormed into Iraq in 2003 had no robots on the ground. There were none in Afghanistan either. Now those two wars are fought with the help of an estimated 12,000 ground-based robots and 7,000 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the technical term for drone, or robotic aircraft.

Ground-based robots in Iraq have saved hundreds of lives in Iraq, defusing improvised explosive devices, which account for more than 40 percent of U.S. casualties. The first armed robot was deployed in Iraq in 2007 and it is as lethal as its acronym is long: Special Weapons Observation Remote Reconnaissance Direct Action System (SWORDS). Its mounted M249 machinegun can hit a target more than 3,000 feet away with pin-point precision.

From the air, the best-known UAV, the Predator, has killed dozens of insurgent leaders - as well as scores of civilians whose death has prompted protests both from Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Predators are flown by operators sitting in front of television monitors in cubicles at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, 8,000 miles from Afghanistan and Taliban sanctuaries on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan. The cubicle pilots in Nevada run no physical risks whatever, a novelty for men engaged in war.

TECHNOLOGY RUNS AHEAD OF ETHICS

Reducing risk, and casualties, is at the heart of the drive for more and better robots. Ultimately, that means "fully autonomous engagement without human intervention," according to an Army communication to robot designers. In other words, computer programs, not a remote human operator, would decide when to open fire. What worries some experts is that technology is running ahead of deliberations of ethical and legal questions.

Robotics research and development in the U.S. received a big push from Congress in 2001, when it set two ambitious goals: by 2010, a third of the country's long-range attack aircraft should be unmanned; and by 2015 one third of America's ground combat vehicles. Neither goal is likely to be met but the deadline pushed non-technological considerations to the sidelines.

A recent study prepared for the Office of Naval Research by a team from the California Polytechnic State University said that robot ethics had not received the attention it deserved because of a "rush to market" mentality and the "common misconception" that robots will do only what they have been programmed to do.

"Unfortunately, such a belief is sorely outdated, harking back to the time when computers were simpler and their programs could be written and understood by a single person," the study says. "Now programs with millions of lines of code are written by teams of programmers, none of whom knows the entire program; hence, no individual can predict the effect of a given command with absolute certainty since portions of programs may interact in unexpected, untested ways."

That's what might have happened during an exercise in South Africa in 2007, when a robot anti-aircraft gun sprayed hundreds of rounds of cannon shell around its position, killing nine soldiers and injuring 14.

Beyond isolated accidents, there are deeper problems that have yet to be solved. How do you get a robot to tell an insurgent from an innocent? Can you program the Laws of War and the Rules of Engagement into a robot? Can you imbue a robot with his country's culture? If something goes wrong, resulting in the death of civilians, who will be held responsible?

The robot's manufacturer? The designers? Software programmers? The commanding officer in whose unit the robot operates? Or the U.S. president who in some cases authorises attacks? (Barack Obama has given the green light to a string of Predator strikes into Pakistan).

While the United States has deployed more military robots - on land, in the air and at sea - than any other country, it is not alone in building them. More than 40 countries, including potential adversaries such as China, are working on robotics technology. Which leaves one to wonder how the ability to send large numbers of robots, and fewer soldiers, to war will affect political decisions on force versus diplomacy.

You need to be an optimist to think that political leaders will opt for negotiation over war once combat casualties come home not in flag-decked coffins but in packing crates destined for the robot repair shop.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LM674603.htm

[chunga1]

Fashion robot to hit Japan catwalk
Mon Mar 16, 10:47 am ET

TSUKUBA, Japan (AFP) – Japanese researchers on Monday showed off a robot that will soon strut her stuff down a Tokyo catwalk.

The girlie-faced humanoid with slightly oversized eyes, a tiny nose and a shoulder length hair-do boasts 42 motion motors programmed to mimic the movements of flesh-and-blood fashion models.

"Hello everybody, I am cybernetic human HRP-4C," said the futuristic fashionista, opening her media premiere at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology outside Tokyo.

The fashion-bot is 158 centimetres (five foot two inches) tall, the average height of Japanese women aged 19 to 29, but weighs in at a waif-like 43 kilograms (95 pounds) -- including batteries.

She has a manga-inspired human face but a silver metallic body.

"If we had made the robot too similar to a real human, it would have been uncanny," said one of the inventors, humanoid research leader Shuji Kajita.

"We have deliberately leaned toward an anime style."

The institute said the robot "has been developed mainly for use in the entertainment industry" but is not for sale at the moment.

Hamming it up before photographers and television crews, the seductive cyborg struck poses, flashed bright smiles and pouted sulkily according to commands transmitted wirelessly from journalists via bluetooth devices.

The performance fell short of flawless when she occasionally mixed up her facial expressions -- a mistake the inventors put down to a case of the nerves as a hail of camera shutters confused her sound recognition sensors.

The preview was a warm-up for her appearance at a Tokyo fashion show on March 23.

Like her real-life counterparts, robot model HRP-5C commands a hefty price -- theinstitute said developing her cost more than 200 million yen (two million dollars).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090316/wl_asia_afp/lifestylejapanscienceitfashion

[chunga1]

BigDog robot goes through paces at Ft. Benning
By Mass High Tech staff

The BigDog four-legged robot made by Waltham-based Boston Dynamics Inc. set a new autonomous distance record for legged robots last year by traveling 12.8 miles without human intervention. And the Defense Department-funded robot recently spent some time undergoing tests at Ft. Benning, Ga., according to a video from the Ft. Benning news site the Benning Report.

The BigDog followed a series of GPS waypoints to set the record and walked at a rate of 2.5 mph, avoiding obstacles autonomously across a varied terrain until its fuel ran out.

Boston Dynamics engineers were contracted in August 2007 to develop a robot with the ability to run, maneuver and jump to avoid obstacles. The robot would measure 1 meter tall and 2 meters wide, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. The goal of the project, which was slotted to last 15 months, is to produce a robot with animal-like strength, speed and mobility, according to defense officials.

The DARPA contract, which was commissioned by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego, includes three one-year contract renewals valued at total of $40 million. Waltham-based Boston Dynamics spun out from MIT and was founded in 1992.

http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2009/02/23/daily55-BigDog-robot-goes-through-paces-at-Ft-Benning.html

[chunga1]

Military Gears Up for Bomb-Bot 2.0
By Noah Shachtman February 25, 2009 | 4:33:48 PM

Bomb disposal robots have saved thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the machines are still pretty crude -- with limited vision, and tiny brains. That could start to change soon, however. The U.S. armed forces are getting ready to launch the next generation of bomb-bots.

According to a Navy presentation obtained by Danger Room, the military is planning two models for its Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Robot System (AEODRS). One machine would be a little smaller and a little longer-lasting than iRobot's Packbot 510 explosives-handler. The other would be a little heavier than Qinetiq's Talon bomb-bot, but a human-like hand would cope with the weapons, in addition to the Talon's claw.

The really substantial changes would be inside the machines: beefed-up sensors, for "self-awareness and environmental awareness," as well as "improved perception and intelligence ... for increased autonomous navigation." The tech would free up military robot-handlers who now have to guide the machine's every move -- and make decisions based on the bot's often fuzzy video feeds.

The AEODRS program is also designed to give the maintenance guys a break. In the current setup, they can only use Packbot sensors on Packbot machines, and Talon devices on Talon robots. The military wants to replace that with an architecture that allows "Sensor A from Robot B [to] be seamlessly swapped and used on Robot C for Sensor D." A controller from one company should be able to guide the other firm's robots, too.

After some initial consultations with robot manufacturers in 2007, the military says it's ready to start the project this fall. Production could begin on the newest bomb-bots by 2013.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/02/new-bomb-dispos.html

[chunga1]

Military’s killer robots must learn warrior code

Automatons revolt to form a dictatorship over humans in Asimov's I, Robot

Leo Lewis
Read the report in full

Autonomous military robots that will fight future wars must be programmed to live by a strict warrior code or the world risks untold atrocities at their steely hands.

The stark warning – which includes discussion of a Terminator-style scenario in which robots turn on their human masters – is issued in a hefty report funded by and prepared for the US Navy’s high-tech and secretive Office of Naval Research .

The report, the first serious work of its kind on military robot ethics, envisages a fast-approaching era where robots are smart enough to make battlefield decisions that are at present the preserve of humans. Eventually, it notes, robots could come to display significant cognitive advantages over Homo sapiens soldiers.

“There is a common misconception that robots will do only what we have programmed them to do,” Patrick Lin, the chief compiler of the report, said. “Unfortunately, such a belief is sorely outdated, harking back to a time when . . . programs could be written and understood by a single person.” The reality, Dr Lin said, was that modern programs included millions of lines of code and were written by teams of programmers, none of whom knew the entire program: accordingly, no individual could accurately predict how the various portions of large programs would interact without extensive testing in the field – an option that may either be unavailable or deliberately sidestepped by the designers of fighting robots.

The solution, he suggests, is to mix rules-based programming with a period of “learning” the rights and wrongs of warfare.

A rich variety of scenarios outlining the ethical, legal, social and political issues posed as robot technology improves are covered in the report. How do we protect our robot armies against terrorist hackers or software malfunction? Who is to blame if a robot goes berserk in a crowd of civilians – the robot, its programmer or the US president? Should the robots have a “suicide switch” and should they be programmed to preserve their lives?

The report, compiled by the Ethics and Emerging Technology department of California State Polytechnic University and obtained by The Times, strongly warns the US military against complacency or shortcuts as military robot designers engage in the “rush to market” and the pace of advances in artificial intelligence is increased.

Any sense of haste among designers may have been heightened by a US congressional mandate that by 2010 a third of all operational “deep-strike” aircraft must be unmanned, and that by 2015 one third of all ground combat vehicles must be unmanned.

“A rush to market increases the risk for inadequate design or programming. Worse, without a sustained and significant effort to build in ethical controls in autonomous systems . . . there is little hope that the early generations of such systems and robots will be adequate, making mistakes that may cost human lives,” the report noted.

A simple ethical code along the lines of the “Three Laws of Robotics” postulated in 1950 by Isaac Asimov, the science fiction writer, will not be sufficient to ensure the ethical behaviour of autonomous military machines.

“We are going to need a code,” Dr Lin said. “These things are military, and they can’t be pacifists, so we have to think in terms of battlefield ethics. We are going to need a warrior code.”

Isaac Asimov’s three laws of robotics

1 A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm

2 A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law

3 A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law

Introduced in his 1942 short story Runaround


http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5741334.ece

[chunga1]

Merciless robots will fight future wars: researcher
1 day ago

LONG BEACH, California (AFP) — Robots will be armies of the future in a case of science fact catching up to fiction, a researcher told an elite TED gathering on Wednesday.

Peter Singer, who has authored books on the military, warned that while using robots for battle saves lives of military personnel, the move has the potential to exacerbate warfare by having heartless machines do the dirty work.

"We are at a point of revolution in war, like the invention of the atomic bomb," Singer said.

"What does it mean to go to war with US soldiers whose hardware is made in China and whose software is made in India?"

Singer predicts that US military units will be half machine, half human by 2015.

The US Army already recruits soldiers using a custom war videogame, and some real-world weapon controls copy designs of controllers for popular videogame consoles.

Attack drones and bomb-handling robots are already common in battle zones.

Robots not only have no compassion or mercy, they insulate living soldiers from horrors that humans might be moved to avoid.

"The United States is ahead in military robots, but in technology there is no such thing as a permanent advantage," Singer said. "You have Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran working on military robots."

There is a "disturbing" cross between robotics and terrorism, according to Singer, who told of a website that lets visitors detonate improvised explosive devices from home computers.

"You don't have to convince robots they are going to get 72 virgins when they die to get them to blow themselves up," Singer said.

Robots also record everything they see with built-in cameras, generating digital video that routinely gets posted online at YouTube in graphic clips that soldiers refer to as "war porn," according to Singer.

"It turns war into entertainment, sometimes set to music," Singer said. "The ability to watch more but experience less."

Robotics designer David Hanson offered hope when it comes to making robots a little more human.

Hanson builds robots that have synthetic flesh faces and read people's expressions in order to copy expressions.

"The goal here is not just to achieve sentience, but empathy," Hanson said.

"As machines are more capable of killing, implanting empathy could be the seeds of hope for our future."

Hanson demonstrated a lifelike robotic bust of late genius Albert Einstein that makes eye contact and mimics people's expressions.

"I smiled at that thing and jumped out of my skin when it smiled back," TED curator Chris Anderson quipped. "It's freaky."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iYmGo87FaeVFdRRaP39VIKM9-hqA

[chunga1]

Japanese security robot nets intruders

Jan 22 01:34 PM US/Eastern


Japanese on Thursday unveiled a security robot that can be operated remotely by cellphone and launch a net to capture an intruder.
The prototype T-34, jointly developed by robot developer tmsuk Co. Ltd. and security company Alacom Co. Ltd., looks like a small wheeled vehicle and is loaded with sensors that detect anything untoward in an office building.

It can move at a maximum speed of 10 kilometres (six miles) per hour under the command of a person who sees real-time images of where the robot is on the screen of his cellphone.

"Security sensors often set off false alarms but examining the location with the robot will lead to more efficient operations," the companies said in a joint statement.

http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=CNG.c2041e940f4762afd9c98babc6561ae5.41&show_article=1

[chunga1]

Swallow a Surgeon

Scientists from the Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems at ETH Zurich (IRIS) are developing tiny robot pills that will be swallowed and then perform surgical operations inside the body. These robot pills will be controlled from outside the body, which should make surgeries far less invasive, safer, faster, and more efficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Zoltan Nagy (Credit: The Institute
of Robotics and Intelligent Systems)

Seven years ago, pill shaped micro-cameras were first developed by the Israeli company Given Imaging and are now used successfully by physicians across the world to study the gastro-intestinal tract. However, these cameras are passive and do not effect their surroundings by releasing drugs or taking samples from areas that seem to require further investigation. For several years a European Union project called ARES (Assembling Reconfigurable Endoluminal Surgical System) is developing tiny robots with insect-like limbs that can be remotely controlled and will allow the robots to move around the stomach freely. Several research groups are exploring the use of such devices for gathering biopsy samples.

One of the most complex issues with this technology is the need to miniaturize the electronic systems. There is very little space for the entire system, including its power supply. In the existing micro cameras, the battery takes up around 60% of the pill's volume. So if a “simple” camera requires such an amount of energy supply, what about a robot that has to perform micro-surgery? How can a robot that is required to be more than a passive observer be so small?


An artificial stomach as a test
environment for the magnetic mechanism
of the stomach robots (Credit: ETH)

Zoltan Nagy, a doctoral student at the Institute of Robotics and Intelligent Systems at ETH Zurich (IRIS) which is a part of ARES project suggests an ambitious solution – the patient will swallow several pills in a specific order. Each “robot pill” will be fitted with individual functions, such as the controller or forceps for tissue sampling. Together they will assemble a larger, more powerful system only when they reach the stomach - a bit like a Power Rangers super robot. Nagy developed a magnetic mechanism that controls the assembly process of the full scale robot in the stomach. The individual components are polarized at right angles to the surface, which enables them to arrange themselves in a predictable sequence when they form a whole.

Nagy ran tests on an artificial stomach model and has reached a 75% assembly success rate. There are challenges in moving a rigid chain of robotic components through the stomach and intestine. To reduce the difficulty of passage, Nagy has developed intermediate links that make the system more flexible and mobile. After these improvements, the surgical system will move as a whole through the stomach and intestine, like a multi-link chain. The magnetic field changes in a specific way each time two members of the robotic chain come together. These changes are measurable and a computer picking them up could decrypt the exact position and arrangement of the robotic chain, making the robotic assembly a well monitored process.


A model of a self-assembling stomach
robot: a magnetic mechanism connects
three modules together via
intermediate linkages (ETH)

However, several important issues must be solved before the robotic micro-surgeon dream becomes a reality. First of all, as aforementioned, there is still no efficient way to constantly supply energy to the robotic system. However, according to Nagy, this problem could soon be eliminated by using a combination of a battery and induction. Another major issue is biocompatibility – we wouldn't want a patient to have a severe allergic reaction during surgery or sustain any tissue damage due to the robot’s operation inside the body. Finally, it is crucial for the system to also be capable of being dismantled into its individual parts at any time if complications occur.

TFOT has covered the first smart pill camera to be magnetically controlled in order to gain more precise images of the stomach and esophagus, developed by a team from the Fraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering in Sankt Ingbert, Germany. We have also covered the Philips Research’s intelligent pill (iPill) for electronically controlled drug delivery .

If you wish to find out more on swallowing-the-surgeon, visit the ETH press site.

http://thefutureofthings.com/news/6200/swallow-a-surgeon.html

[aries4747]

Future battle will play out for the heart of robots

Commentary: Microsoft making big push to compete with open source
By Therese Poletti, MarketWatch
Last update: 12:01 a.m. EST Nov. 20, 2008

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Battle-lines-forming-nascent-robotics/story.aspx?guid={FA2B30F1-B78B-4E33-91A4-F7F3D07DECCB}

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - Microsoft Corp. may or may not want to buy Yahoo Inc., but the software titan has very clearly set its sights on what could be the next big field of technology - robots.



That was apparent this week, where Microsoft (MSFT) had a major presence at a Silicon Valley trade show for robotics programmers and other developers. The software behemoth is laying some early groundwork in the still nascent field, where it has been providing tools for developers over the past couple of years -- software tools to help developers write applications for robots.

Robotics is still a young industry, Microsoft and others say it's right now reminiscent of the early days of the personal computer industry. Indeed, robotics conferences and contests where robots race each other recall the early PC clubs, like the Homebrew Computer Club, where bearded geeks in T-shirts played with the early PCs, with exposed guts of the products in full view, as the hobbyists hacked and experimented together.

At the Robo Developer Conference this week in Santa Clara, Calif., Microsoft showcased products in the works and research projects using its Robotics Studio tools. Since the conference focused on developers, it lacked some of the excitement of other more consumer- and business-focused robotics shows, where companies demonstrate consumer robots and toys, like iRobot Corp.'s Roombas and PackBots, and Ugobe's Pleo dinosaur.
Still, a few robots were to be found. Mobile Robots Inc. of Amherst, N.H., had a four-foot talking and roving computer-screen-on-a-pedestal that greeted visitors at its booth.
And a South Korean firm, Roboware Ltd., demonstrated a robot called E3, a robotics platform that can be developed by others. The E3 uses Microsoft's tools, and an Xbox controller, to teach English, show emotions and respond to voice commands. But Mike Kim, president of Roboware, estimated that the E3 would cost between $2,000 to $2,500 when it comes out next year, which it will sell to companies to develop and create their own robots, either to sell as home companions, construction robots or medical robots.

Since the Roomba vacuum became the first popular affordable consumer robot, selling more than one million units in 2004, it inspired a generation of roboticists who could see that cheaper hardware and faster processing power could create useful low-cost robots.

The Roomba, which now costs around $200, and other products developed by iRobot (IRBT) have been taken apart by hackers who have used them to jerry-rig home surveillance systems and toys. Other small startups and hobbyists have developed copy-cat products and many of them have used Linux and other open source programs.

Microsoft spotted an early opportunity and did not want to be left behind. Two years ago, about the same time of its first version of its Robotics Studio, co-founder and chairman Bill Gates wrote an article in Scientific American entitled "A Robot in Every Home." He compared the early developments in robots to the evolution of computers and likened the expensive industrial manufacturing robots used by auto makers to mainframe computers.

The race is on

One promising competitor to Microsoft and its ambitions is a research incubator called Willow Garage of Menlo Park, a privately-funded venture that doesn't like to talk about how much money it has raised. The think tank is developing and building upon existing open source software, including the Linux operating system, for robots. The company reportedly has funding from one of Google Inc.'s (GOOG) early employees, Scott Hassan.
A team of about 30 developers at Willow Garage are working on ROS (Robot Operating System), in collaboration with Stanford University. The group is also developing a robot, Personal Robot 2 (PR-2), and plans to give away 10 to universities next year to help them in their development of robotics software. Willow Garage also plans to spin off any commercial possibilities. For example, if its hardware is successful, it could spin off a separate company.

At the conference this week, a crowd spilled outside the room to hear Steve Cousins, the CEO of Willow Garage, describe ROS. He estimates the software will be released next year. Early versions are available for developers to work with and provide input and changes.

"It's two different paths to market," Cousins said, when asked if Microsoft was a competitor. He noted that the software giant is also generating a "huge amount of excitement" for robotics, which is a good thing for the industry, which needs more software development to catch up with the hardware.

Robotics have certainly come a long way in the past decade. Tandy Trower, general manager of Microsoft's robotics initiative, said hardware costs have dropped drastically. "The Sony Aibo cost about $2,000," Trower said. "Pleo costs about $350, and it's very much the same kind of robot," he said referring to Sony's robotic dog and Ugobe's robotic dinosaur.
With the economy slipping into a recession, cheap robots may be the only way to keep this nascent industry moving. And as developers and entrepreneurs look for the lower-cost ways to create useful robots, my bet is that they will look more frequently to the open source movement and groups like Willow Garage for their tools.

Therese Poletti is a senior columnist for MarketWatch in San Francisco.

[chunga1]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1085059/Pictured-The-robot-pull-faces-just-like-human-being.html

[SiouxPal]

We just have to keep living long enough for many great things to happen for us.

[chunga1]

imagine the possibilities

[SiouxPal]

That is so cool.

[chunga1]

Robot Rebuilds Itself From Scattered Pieces
By Ryan Singel September 27, 2008 | 4:06:48 PMCategories: NextFest 08
ckBots break apart, but they don’t stay that way.

If you kick apart this robot, its separate pieces wake up, look around for each other and then collaboratively decide how to reunite.


It’s a way of building large robots out of small robots, according to University of Pennsylvania associate professor C.J. Taylor.

“Think of cells in the body,” Taylor said, while helping set up the ckBot exhibit at Wired NextFest's expo of future technology. The free show runs for two weeks, starting this Saturday, in Chicago's Millennium Park.

Each unit contains own camera, accelerometer, wireless connection and signaling light.

When separated each unit turns on its signaling light – which works like a lighthouse that emits a unique signal – so the other parts know not only where another unit is, but also which unit it is.

Fellow UPenn associate professor Mark Yim’s Modular Robotics lab provided the bots that could crawl and join together, while Taylor’s research inspired the optics that allowed the parts to find each other.

“It was like peanut butter meets jelly,” Taylor said.

It’s not just an academic exercise – the robots already decide when reconfiguring which will be the arm and which the leg this time.

From there it’s not far from you deciding if your robot should be in the shape of a vacuum cleaner or a guard dog when you leave the house.

Or from having a guard dog robot that's not going to be stopped even by the hardest of kicks from a would-be burglar.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/robot-rebuilds.html

[chunga1]

Exoskeleton Update
thanks rd!

The idea of an exoskeleton in a military application conjures up images of a digital cammie robocop, perhaps; and one day we may treat "exos" the same way we treat body armor. But the nearer-term utility of exoskeletons are somewhat less glamorous.

In 2007 the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center assumed responsibility for the management of the Exoskeleton project from DARPA. The Natick project is currently funded through FY 2009 and its goals are as follows:

1) In conjunction with the U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command, develop a set of performance specifications for a full body Exoskeleton that will be the basis for a requirement for a version of the Exoskeleton that can assist Soldiers in accomplishing physically demanding tasks associated with loading and unloading supplies and heavy materiel, and performing vehicle maintenance.

2) Improve the human interface, biomechanical efficiency and ergonomic acceptability of the Exosketeton.

3) Develop compact, portable, efficient, safe power sources.

4) Reduce the cost and ruggedize the system.

5) Demonstrate reliability and safey for use by Soldiers.

During my recent visit to Natick, Exo-czars Jeffrey Schiffman and David Audet explained that they were focused on helping Soldiers make repetitive tasks like loading boxes on racks and rolling oil drums up ramps easier. They also have a vision of assisting Air Force and Navy ordies with loading missiles and bombs. Whereas it might take four guys to lift, say, a Sidewinder missile onto an F-16's wingtip station, an Exoskeleton would allow the same task to be performed by one guy.

Schiffman and Audet allowed that their main concerns right now were power sources and safety backup modes if the Exoskeleton suffers a mechanical failure. (Not a good thing if you're the ordie holding a Sidewinder, for instance.)

But otherwise Natick (in coordination with contractors like Sarcos and Raytheon) has the test plan on track. So maintainers and loggies everywhere take heart. Help for that aching back is on the way.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004403.html


shut up and play your guitar

[mrnatural]

Check out Big Dog from Bosten Dynamics...
Also check the related video section there are a lot of interesting video's there.

[chunga1]

Robotic suit could usher in super soldier era

May 15 01:44 PM US/Eastern
By MARK JEWELL
AP Business Writer

Rex Jameson bikes and swims regularly, and plays tennis and skis when time allows. But the 5-foot-11, 180-pound software engineer is lucky if he presses 200 pounds—that is, until he steps into an "exoskeleton" of aluminum and electronics that multiplies his strength and endurance as many as 20 times.
With the outfit's claw-like metal hand extensions, he gripped a weight set's bar at a recent demonstration and knocked off hundreds of repetitions. Once, he did 500.

"Everyone gets bored much more quickly than I get tired," Jameson said.

Jameson—who works for robotics firm Sarcos Inc. in Salt Lake City, which is under contract with the U.S. Army—is helping assess the 150-pound suit's viability for the soldiers of tomorrow. The suit works by sensing every movement the wearer makes and almost instantly amplifying it.

The Army believes soldiers may someday wear the suits in combat, but it's focusing for now on applications such as loading cargo or repairing heavy equipment. Sarcos is developing the technology under a two-year contract worth up to $10 million, and the Army plans initial field tests next year.

Before the technology can become practical, the developers must overcome cost barriers and extend the suit's battery life. Jameson was tethered to power cords during his demonstration because the current battery lasts just 30 minutes.

But the technology already offers evidence that robotics can amplify human muscle power in reality—not just in the realm of comic books and movies like the recently debuted "Iron Man," about a wealthy weapons designer who builds a high-tech suit to battle bad guys.

"Everybody likes the idea of being a superhero, and this is all about expanding the capabilities of a human," said Stephen Jacobsen, chief designer of the Sarcos suit.

The Army's exoskeleton research dates to 1995, but has yet to yield practical suits. Sarcos' technology sufficiently impressed Raytheon Co., however, that the Waltham, Mass.-based defense contractor bought Sarcos' robotics business last November. Sarcos also has developed robotic dinosaurs for a Universal Studios' "Jurassic Park" theme park ride.

Jack Obusek, a former colonel now with the Army's Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center in the Boston suburb of Natick, foresees robot-suited soldiers unloading heavy ammunition boxes from helicopters, lugging hundreds of pounds of gear over rough terrain or even relying on the suit's strength-enhancing capabilities to make repairs to tanks that break down in inconvenient locations.

Sarcos' Jacobsen envisions factory workers someday using the technology to perform manual labor more easily, and firefighters more quickly carrying heavy gear up stairwells of burning buildings. Disabled people also may find uses for the technology, he said.

"We see the value being realized when these suits can be built in great numbers for both military and commercial uses, and they start coming down in cost to within the range of the price of a small car," said Jacobsen. He declined to estimate how much the suit might cost in mass production.

But cost isn't the only obstacle. For example, developers eventually hope to lengthen the suit's backpack battery's life and tinker with the suit's design to use less energy. Meanwhile, the suit can draw power from a generator, a tank or helicopter. And there are gas engines that, while noisy, small enough to fit into the suit's backpack.

"The power issue is probably the No. 1 challenge standing in the way of getting this thing in the field," Obusek said.

But he said Sarcos appears to have overcome the key challenge of pairing super-fast microprocessors with sensors that detect movements by the body's joints and transmit data about them to the suit's internal computer.

Much as the brain sends signals to tendons to get muscles to move, the computer sends instructions to hydraulic valves. The valves mimic tendons by driving the suit's mechanical limbs, replicating and amplifying the wearer's movements almost instantly.

"With all the previous attempts at this technology, there has been a slight lag time between the intent of the human, and the actual movement of the machine," Obusek said.

In the demonstration, the bulky suit slowed Jameson a bit, but he could move almost normally. When a soccer ball was thrown at him, he bounced it back off his helmeted head. He repeatedly struck a punching bag and, slowly but surely, he climbed stairs in the suit's clunky aluminum boots, which made him look like a Frankenstein monster.

"It feels less agile than it is," Jameson said. "Because of the way the control laws work, it's ever so slightly slower than I am. And because we are so in tune with our bodies' responses, this tiny delay initially made me tense."

Now, he's used to it.

"I can regain my balance naturally after stumbling—something I discovered completely by accident."

Learning was easy, he said.

"It takes no special training, beyond learning to relax and trust the robot," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90M7EDO7&show_article=1

[HoosierHoagie]

Now this is cool. <G>


Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto: Deployed Dad Meets Baby Boy via Robot
Saturday, 19 April 2008



Army Staff Sgt. Erik Lloyd's face is displayed through an RP-7 robot at Brook Army Medical Center on Fort Sam Houston, Texas, as he interacts with his wife and newborn son from Baghdad. U.S. Army photo by Cheryl Harrison.FORT SAM HOUSTON TEXAS — A robot, normally used by doctors to perform work remotely, recently allowed a Soldier in Baghdad to virtually interact with his newborn son in Texas for the first time.
An RP-7 Remote Presence Robotic System, a wireless, mobile, remote-presence robot that allows a doctor to be in two places at once, allowed Army Staff Sgt. Erik Lloyd to meet his seven-day-old boy Blake, April 10.

The RP-7 can move untethered, allowing a remote physician seated at a control station to freely interact with patients, family members and hospital staff from anywhere, anytime.

In this case, the robot gave Lloyd the opportunity to interact with Blake and with his wife, Kristie. Because of his deployment, Lloyd had missed Blake’s April 4 birth.

Lloyd is assigned to the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research here, and he is currently serving with the Deployed Combat Casualty Research Team, located with 86th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad.

While Lloyd looked through a computer screen in Iraq, his wife and members of the institute’s staff gathered around an RP-7 in a conference room at Brooke Army Medical Center here, to introduce the Soldier to his baby boy.

“So, who do we have here?” said Lloyd from Baghdad, panning the monitor of the robot around to see everyone gathered around the 5-and-a-half-foot tall robot.

Lloyd used a joystick connected to a laptop to control the robot’s advanced digital camera to zoom in and focus on his son. The camera’s high resolution, which normally allows a physician at the control station to read monitor screens or printouts, allowed the Soldier to clearly focus on his son’s features.

“Hey! Is he asleep? Poke him to wake him up. Hold his head so we can get a picture from our end,” said Lloyd playing with the controls and making the most of the robot’s capabilities.

Between the “ooohs” and “aaahs” over the 2-week-old infant, Lloyd kept a grin on his face and eyes on his son. He asked Kristie questions about his son and conducted conversations with other members of the group in the room, while using the robot’s controls to look at people around the room.

“He’ll be walking and potty trained by the time I get back, right?”, joked Lloyd, who is due to return home in six months.

Lloyd said he was delighted to have the opportunity to see his son in a way that allowed him to have control over the interaction.

“It was such a wonderful experience to be able to actively interact with my wife while she was able to show me our son for the first time,” Lloyd said. “I was able to control the robot and actually move around the room a bit to get a different perspective than what a conventional video camera would have allowed.”

Lloyd said he was grateful to his leadership and his units for allowing him to have this experience.

“I am very appreciative of the command groups, both here at the 86th CSH and the Institute of Surgical Research, for allowing me to utilize this amazing piece of technology. It is really a wonderful feeling to be part of two commands that know how to take care of their Soldiers and their families in a time of need.” Lloyd said.

“It was an awesome experience. I am far from the first father in this conflict who has missed the birth of their child … however, with this technology I was in a small way allowed to feel more like I was part of a family than I had been … since he was born,” Lloyd said.

Kristie said she was also impressed with the robot’s capabilities and what it allowed her husband to experience.

“I talk to him every day, and he demands pictures all the time. We use a Webcam but the connection isn’t good,” Kristie Lloyd said. “But this was great. Erik was playing with the controls and trying to figure out how to use the robot.”

Unlike Lloyd, Army Maj. Kevin Chung, medical director for the Burn Intensive Care Unit at Brooke, is an expert on using the robot. So much so, in fact, that members of the staff have nicknamed the robot “Chungbot”. Chung uses it from home, while on leave, temporary duty assignments, or while at conferences from outside the state in order to have access to the Intensive Care Unit. When outside the ICU, Chung is available to the ICU via the robot.

Chung said Lloyd was “amazed at the technology and the clarity of the video link” and really benefited from the experience.

“The interaction they had was amplified by his ability to move the robot around and zoom in and out with the camera. He was able to see his son close up. Granted nothing is better than being there in person, but given the circumstances with him being half a world away, this technology allowed him to be ‘remotely’ present with his newly expanded family.”

Chung added that “the entire session was very emotional for all those who had the opportunity to witness the remote interaction.”

(Story by Cheryl Harrison, Fort Sam Houston Public Information Office.)

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18593&Itemid=1

[chunga1]

Robot war future -- Part 1


Published: April 10, 2008 at 10:02 AM

By ILYA KRAMNIK
UPI Outside View Commentator
MOSCOW, April 10 (UPI) -- The political and human impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been widely reported and much discussed.

But of even greater historical significance, is the revolution in military practice and technology that today's conflicts are coming to signify.

The previous revolution, which affected all aspects of war without exception, took place during and after World War II. This revolution produced new military hardware -- nuclear weapons, guided weapons, ballistic and cruise missiles, radars, jet fighters and bombers, helicopters, pilot-less aircraft and unmanned ground vehicles. It also changed the art of military operations and tactics.

Air-defense operations, large-scale strategic troop deployments, carrier-based units, and combined combat units of ground forces, which combined the flexibility of motorized infantry with the mobility of tanks and the firepower of self-propelled artillery all appeared. All of these achievements and many others were made in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

The human race is still using the fruits of this revolution, and is moving forward. But gradually the price of war is becoming prohibitive -- production of modern military equipment, its upkeep, and qualified soldiers are becoming increasingly expensive. Combined with the development of electronics and robots, this has created the prerequisites for a revolution in robotics.

The first remotely controlled military vehicles appeared in the 1930s, and were broadly used during the war. It is enough to recall U.S. and German experiments with unmanned flying bombs, or Goliaths, the Nazi remote-controlled demolition vehicles. The quantity of remote-controlled equipment was growing until quantity changed into quality at the turn of the past century -- now ground-, air-, and sea-based robots of all kinds are playing an increasing role in warfare.

Pilot-less aircraft are used for reconnaissance, targeting, and missile guidance. Some of them can even destroy targets. Ground-based robots are used for mine clearing, and breaching barriers. Many of them are armed and can be used in warfare in high-risk urban environments.

Robots have started to be employed in logistics support. The Oshkosh Truck company is developing unmanned trucks; while Boston Dynamics has produced a porter-robot called Big Dog since it is reminiscent of a big dog. It can carry loads up to 165 pounds.

The potential of robotics for carrying out air, land and sea tactical operations in war is rapidly growing, but it will take robots a long time to match soldiers and human-controlled technology.

The main barrier is optics: No electronic optical system can compare with how the human brain and eye work together. One more restriction is the absence of a high-level artificial intellect, which would be capable of promptly reacting to ever changing situations. This is why remote controlled rather than fully autonomous robots are used.

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Industry/Analysis/2008/04/10/outside_view_robot_war_future_--_part_1/5160/

Robot war future -- Part 2


Published: April 11, 2008 at 12:06 PM
By ILYA KRAMNIK
UPI Outside View Commentator
MOSCOW, April 11 (UPI) -- There will come a time when robots will become the best value for the money for the conduct of tactical operations in war.

When this happens, a couple of battalions will be able to destroy an enemy tank division. Each battalion will consist of a control company and four companies with 15 to 20 vehicles carrying from 10 to 15 robots each. Each robot will be armed with two guided missiles and a machine gun.

Equipped with a total of 1,200-2,400 robots controlled by 200 to 300 operators from a distance of several miles, these two battalions will be able to inflict heavy losses on enemy divisions, and destroy most of their tanks and infantry combat vehicles.

There is no doubt that a tank battle against these machines will be similar to the feats of Zinovy Kolobanov or Otto Karius -- Soviet and German tank aces of World War II. Heavy armored vehicles with powerful artillery, equipped with active protection and interference systems will destroy robots practically without armor and protection systems (produced for less money) as in the testing grounds. But...

Even if one combat vehicle costs these future battalions 20 robots, a total of 1,200-2,400 robots will be exchanged for 60-120 tanks and infantry combat vehicles, with hundreds of killed and wounded crew members. Human losses of robotized battalions will be minimal unless an artillery regiment of the tank division destroys the control company. But it is likely to lose the artillery duel to the artillery division of the robotized enemy, which will be actively using pilot-less aircraft to adjust its fire.

As a result, to cover the losses one side will have to call up several people and spend considerable resources on the production of more robots, while the other side will have to replace several hundred servicemen and spend a somewhat smaller sum on new combat vehicles. The latter will be very well protected, heavily equipped with arms and mobile but nonetheless vulnerable -- with the inevitable loss of human lives.

The situation in the air may be similar. Enemy aircraft will be destroyed not by fighters, but by pilot-less flying vehicles controlled from flying command posts. Each fighter can destroy five or six such vehicles, but at some point there will be no missiles left and it will be downed by the seventh, or by another fighter, which will be able to approach it unnoticed under the cover of pilot-less flying vehicles.

The situation under water is likely to be identical. Nuclear-powered submarines with a price tag of a billion dollars or more will encounter the massive use of relatively compact underwater robots capable of carrying torpedoes. The latter will have inferior sonar systems, but they will come in large numbers. As a result, warfare will become a race of life against hardware. Its outcome is obvious: It is much easier to mourn robots than people. Will our army start updating its equipment in time? A delay may be more dangerous than it was in 1941.

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Industry/Analysis/2008/04/11/outside_view_robot_war_future_--_part_2/4230/

[PENNIEStoSTACKS]

BACK TO THE MOON
http://anon.nasa-global.edgesuite.net/anon.nasa-global/CEV/Lunar_Exploration_Trailer.mov

[SPIN]

Astronauts will assemble robot in space


This illustration provided by The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) displays "Dextre" (Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator).

Astronauts bound for orbit this week will dabble in science fiction, assembling a "monstrous" two-armed space station robot that will rise like Frankenstein from its transport bed. Putting together Dextre, the robot, will be one of the main jobs for the seven Endeavour astronauts, who are scheduled to blast off in the wee hours of Tuesday, March 11, 2008, less than three weeks after the last shuttle flight.

By MARCIA DUNN
AP Aerospace Writer

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. --
Astronauts bound for orbit this week will dabble in science fiction, assembling a "monstrous" two-armed space station robot that will rise like Frankenstein from its transport bed.

Putting together Dextre, the robot, will be one of the main jobs for the seven Endeavour astronauts, who are scheduled to blast off in the wee hours of Tuesday, less than three weeks after the last shuttle flight.

They're also delivering the first piece of Japan's massive Kibo space station lab, a float-in closet for storing tools, experiments and spare parts. For the first time, each of the five major international space station partners will own a piece of the real estate.

At 16 days, the mission will be NASA's longest space station trip ever and will include five spacewalks, the most ever performed while a shuttle is docked there. Three of those spacewalks will feature Dextre, which is sure to steal the show.

With 11-foot arms, a shoulder span of nearly 8 feet and a height of 12 feet, the Canadian Space Agency's Dextre - short for dexterous and pronounced like Dexter - is more than a little intimidating, at least for astronaut Garrett Reisman.

"Now I wouldn't go as far to say that we're worried it's going to go run amok and take over the space station or turn evil or anything because we all know how it's operated and it doesn't have a lot of its own intelligence," Reisman told The Associated Press last week.

"But I'll tell you something ... He's enormous and to see him with his giant arms, it is a little scary. It's a little monstrous, it is."

Dextre will be flying up aboard Endeavour in pieces, and it will be up to a team of spacewalking astronauts to assemble the 3,400-pound robot and attach it to the outside of the space station. That job will fall to Reisman, Michael Foreman and Richard Linnehan.

"I feel kind of like dad on Christmas Eve, you know, opening up this present and trying to put it together for the son or daughter and going, 'Whoa, what have I gotten myself into here with this 'some assembly required' part of the space station," Foreman said.

Reisman, who will be moving into the space station, can't wait to see Dextre rise from its shuttle transport pallet, rotating up "almost like it's Frankenstein's monster coming alive."

In reality, there's nothing sinister about Dextre. The robot, in fact, was once in the running to be the Hubble Space Telescope's savior.

Following the 2003 Columbia disaster, NASA canceled the last remaining Hubble repair mission by shuttle astronauts because of safety concerns, and considered sending Dextre up to do the job. The shuttle flight was restored after a change at NASA's helm - it's scheduled for late summer - and Dextre went back to being a space station assistant.

Dextre - which cost more than $200 million - was created by the same Canadian team that built the space shuttle and space station robot arms.

Equipped with a tool holster, Dextre is designed to assist spacewalking astronauts and, ultimately, to take over some of their dangerous outdoor work.

Dextre can pivot at the waist, and has seven joints per arm. Its hands, or grippers, have built-in socket wrenches, cameras and lights. Only one arm is designed to move at a time to keep the robot stable and avoid a two-arm collision. The robot has no face or legs, and with its long arms certainly doesn't look human.

Space station astronauts will be able to control Dextre, as will flight controllers on the ground. The robot will be attached at times to the end of the space station arm, and also be able to ride by itself along the space station arm's railway.

Canadian officials said they're convinced Dextre could have pulled off the Hubble repair job, and should have no problems replacing old batteries and other space station parts.

"It's quite surprising what a robot like Dextre can do with its sense of touch and its precision," said Daniel Rey, a Canadian Space Agency engineer who heads the project.

Dextre has only three tools, for now, versus the more than 100 tools available to spacewalking astronauts, Rey said. It will probably take months to learn how to properly use the robot; its first real job could come next year.

Linnehan, who worked on Hubble in 2002, wonders just how much Dextre will be able to do.

Even though it's suited for space station maintenance, astronauts are faster, Linnehan said. As for Hubble, he said Dextre cannot compare to a human repairman because it lacks fine motor control, and cannot think and react to problems that might crop up.

That said, Linnehan acknowledges it's "a cool project" that reminds him of Japanese animation shows from decades past, namely Gigantor the space-age robot. NASA officials agree that a big part of Dextre is learning how robots operate in space, for future exploration.

Dextre, by the way, isn't necessarily a "he."

"I tend to use 'he' because I think Dextre is a masculine name," Rey said. "But it's a robot. It's tele-operated. It doesn't have artificial intelligence yet. So I need to be more careful when I say 'he.' "

http://www.bnd.com/living/health/story/276042.html

[chunga1]

Japan Looks to a Robotic Future
AP
Posted: 2008-03-02 14:42:35
Filed Under: Business News
TOKYO (March 2) - At a university lab in a Tokyo suburb, engineering students are wiring a rubbery robot face to simulate six basic expressions: anger, fear, sadness, happiness, surprise and disgust.


Hooked up to a database of words clustered by association, the robot - dubbed Kansei, or "sensibility" - responds to the word "war" by quivering in what looks like disgust and fear. It hears "love," and its pink lips smile.

"To live among people, robots need to handle complex social tasks," said project leader Junichi Takeno of Meiji University. "Robots will need to work with emotions, to understand and eventually feel them.

While robots are a long way from matching human emotional complexity, the country is perhaps the closest to a future - once the stuff of science fiction - where humans and intelligent robots routinely live side by side and interact socially.

Robots are already taken for granted in Japanese factories, so much so that they are sometimes welcomed on their first day at work with Shinto religious ceremonies. Robots make sushi. Robots plant rice and tend paddies.

There are robots serving as receptionists, vacuuming office corridors, spoon-feeding the elderly. They serve tea, greet company guests and chatter away at public technology displays. Now startups are marching out robotic home helpers.

They aren't all humanoid. The Paro is a furry robot seal fitted with sensors beneath its fur and whiskers, designed to comfort the lonely, opening and closing its eyes and moving its flippers.

For Japan, the robotics revolution is an imperative. With more than a fifth of the population 65 or older, the country is banking on robots to replenish the work force and care for the elderly.

In the past several years, the government has funded a plethora of robotics-related efforts, including some $42 million for the first phase of a humanoid robotics project, and $10 million a year between 2006 and 2010 to develop key robot technologies.

The government estimates the industry could surge from about $5.2 billion in 2006 to $26 billion in 2010 and nearly $70 billion by 2025.

Besides financial and technological power, the robot wave is favored by the Japanese mind-set as well.

Robots have long been portrayed as friendly helpers in Japanese popular culture, a far cry from the often rebellious and violent machines that often inhabit Western science fiction.

This is, after all, the country that invented Tamagotchi, the hand-held mechanical pets that captivated the children of the world.

Japanese are also more accepting of robots because the native Shinto religion often blurs boundaries between the animate and inanimate, experts say. To the Japanese psyche, the idea of a humanoid robot with feelings doesn't feel as creepy - or as threatening - as it might do in other cultures.

Still, Japan faces a vast challenge in making the leap - commercially and culturally - from toys, gimmicks and the experimental robots churned out by labs like Takeno's to full-blown human replacements that ordinary people can afford and use safely.

"People are still asking whether people really want robots running around their homes, and folding their clothes," said Damian Thong, senior technology analyst at Macquarie Bank in Tokyo.

"But then again, Japan's the only country in the world where everyone has an electric toilet," he said. "We could be looking at a robotics revolution."

That revolution has been going on quietly for some time.

Japan is already an industrial robot powerhouse. Over 370,000 robots worked at factories across Japan in 2005, about 40 percent of the global total and 32 robots for every 1,000 Japanese manufacturing employees, according to a recent report by Macquarie, which had no numbers from subsequent years.

And they won't be claiming overtime or drawing pensions when they're retired.

"The cost of machinery is going down, while labor costs are rising," said Eimei Onaga, CEO of Innovation Matrix Inc., a company that distributes Japanese robotics technology in the U.S. "Soon, robots could even replace low-cost workers at small firms, greatly boosting productivity."

That's just what the Japanese government has been counting on. A 2007 national technology roadmap by the Trade Ministry calls for 1 million industrial robots to be installed throughout the country by 2025.

A single robot can replace about 10 employees, the roadmap assumes - meaning Japan's future million-robot army of workers could take the place of 10 million humans. That's about 15 percent of the current work force.

"Robots are the cornerstone of Japan's international competitiveness," Shunichi Uchiyama, the Trade Ministry's chief of manufacturing industry policy, said at a recent seminar. "We expect robotics technology to enter even more sectors going forward."

Meanwhile, localities looking to boost regional industry clusters have seized on robotics technology as a way to spur advances in other fields.

Robotic technology is used to build more complex cars, for instance, and surgical equipment.

The logical next step is robots in everyday life.

At a hospital in Aizu Wakamatsu, 190 miles north of Tokyo, a child-sized white and blue robot wheels across the floor, guiding patients to and from the outpatients' surgery area.

The robot, made by startup Tmsk, sports perky catlike ears, recites simple greetings, and uses sensors to detect and warn people in the way. It helpfully prints out maps of the hospital, and even checks the state of patients' arteries.

The Aizu Chuo Hospital spent about some $557,000 installing three of the robots in its waiting rooms to test patients' reactions. The response has been overwhelmingly positive, said spokesman Naoya Narita.

"We feel this is a good division of labor. Robots won't ever become doctors, but they can be guides and receptionists," Narita said.

Still, the wheeled machines hadn't won over all seniors crowding the hospital waiting room on a weekday morning.

"It just told us to get out of the way!" huffed wheelchair-bound Hiroshi Asami, 81. "It's a robot. It's the one who should get out my way."

"I prefer dealing with real people," he said.

Another roadblock is money.

For all its research, Japan has yet to come up with a commercially successful consumer robot. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. failed to sell even one of its pricey toddler-sized Wakamaru robots, launched in 2003 as domestic helpers.

Though initially popular, Sony Corp. pulled the plug on its robot dog, Aibo, in 2006, just seven years after its launch. With a price tag of a whopping $2,000, Aibo never managed to break into the mass market.

One of the only commercially successful consumer robots so far is made by an American company, iRobot Corp. The Roomba vacuum cleaner robot is self-propelled and can clean rooms without supervision.

"We can pretty much make anything, but we have to ask, what are people actually going to buy?" said iRobot CEO Helen Greiner. The company has sold 2.5 million Roombas - which retail for as little as $120 - since the line was launched in 2002.

Still, with the correct approach, robots could provide a wealth of consumer goods, Greiner stressed at a recent convention.

Sure enough, Japanese makers are catching on, launching low-cost robots like Tomy's $300 i-Sobot, a toy-like hobby robot that comes with 17 motors, can recognize spoken words and can be remote-controlled.

Sony is also trying to learn from past mistakes, launching a much cheaper $350 rolling speaker robot last year that built on its robotics technology.

"What we need now isn't the ultimate humanoid robot," said Kyoji Takenaka, the head of the industry-wide Robot Business Promotion Council.

"Engineers need to remember that the key to developing robots isn't in the lab, but in everyday life."

Still, some of the most eye-catching developments in robotics are coming out of Japan's labs.

Researchers at Osaka University, for instance, are developing a robot to better understand child development.

The "Child-Robot with Biomimetic Body" is designed to mimic the motions of a toddler. It responds to sounds, and sensors in its eyes can see and react to people. It wiggles, changes facial expressions, and makes gurgling sounds.

The team leader, Minoru Asada, is working on artificial intelligence software that would allow the child to "learn" as it progresses.

"Right now, it only goes, 'Ah, ah.' But as we develop its learning function, we hope it can start saying more complex sentences and moving on its own will," Asada said. "Next-generation robots need to be able to learn and develop themselves."

For Hiroshi Ishiguro, also at Osaka University, the key is to make robots that look like human beings. His Geminoid robot looks uncannily like himself - down to the black, wiry hair and slight tan.

"In the end, we don't want to interact with machines or computers. We want to interact with technology in a human way so it's natural and valid to try to make robots look like us," he said.

"One day, they will live among us," Ishiguro said. "Then you'd have to ask me: 'Are you human? Or a robot?"

http://news.aol.com/business/story/_a/japan-looks-to-a-robotic-future/20080302115909990001

[chunga1]

Experts Warn of Robotic Terrorism
Associated Press | February 28, 2008
LONDON - Military experts have warned that terrorists could use unmanned drones in aerial attacks, saying robotics offered a frighteningly easy way to evade security.

The know-how and materials for manufacturing lethal, improvised robots are easily available, according to experts at a conference Wednesday on robotics at the Royal United Services Institute, a 177-year-old forum on military affairs.

"Sooner or later we're going to see a Cessna programmed to fly into a building," said Rear Adm. Chris Parry, who formed the Ministry of Defense's Development, Concepts and Doctrine Center in 2005. He said small, remotely piloted planes or even converted model aircraft were "ideal weapons" for terrorists because they are easy to build and could evade radar.

"They are cheap. They don't need as much motor power or fuel, and they're difficult to detect - about as difficult to detect as a blackbird," he said.

Parry's statements were echoed by other speakers, among them computer scientist Richard Starkey.

"It is very easy to go to the Internet ... or go down to the scrapyard and put a robot together," Starkey said. "You don't need (it) to last long if you want to explode it among a civilian population."

Both pointed to Hezbollah's deployment of pilotless aircraft against Israel in 2006, when the militant group sent a series of unmanned aerial vehicles hovering above Israeli territory. Parry alluded to the use of unmanned submarine-like vessels to ferry drugs across the Pacific.

In February 2003, six Hamas militants died in an explosion as they were examining a remote-controlled model airplane that Israel and Hamas said was intended to be used in an attack.

Al-Qaida-linked groups have also reportedly considered using unmanned aircraft - in 2006 American radical-turned-FBI informant Mohammed Junaid Babar accused an alleged Canadian co-conspirator, Momin Khawaja, of working on fitting a model plane with explosives.

Unmanned vehicles, from hunter-killer planes like the U.S. Predator to explosives-disposal buggies, are also playing an increasingly important role in the U.S. war effort in Iraq and elsewhere.

The Pentagon wants $3.4 billion for 2008 to fund its unmanned aircraft programs, and a strategy document put out by the U.S. Department of Defense last year outlined plans to automate a third of the Army's new ground combat vehicles by 2015.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163010,00.html

[chunga1]

Expert: Robots Used for War Are Threat to Humanity
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 27 Feb 08:18 EST (03:18 GMT) Print | Email

PARIS - Increasingly autonomous, gun-toting robots developed for warfare could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and may one day unleash a robot arms race, a top expert on artificial intelligence told AFP.

"They pose a threat to humanity," said University of Sheffield professor Noel Sharkey ahead of a keynote address Feb. 26 before Britain's Royal United Services Institute.

Related TopicsEurope
Americas
Intelligent machines deployed on battlefields around the world - from mobile grenade launchers to rocket-firing drones - can already identify and lock onto targets without human help.

There are more than 4,000 U.S. military robots on the ground in Iraq, as well as unmanned aircraft that have clocked hundreds of thousands of flight hours.

The first three armed combat robots fitted with large-caliber machine guns deployed to Iraq last summer, manufactured by U.S. arms maker Foster-Miller, proved so successful that 80 more are on order, Sharkey said.

But up to now, a human hand has always been required to push the button or pull the trigger.

If we are not careful, he said, that could change.

Military leaders "are quite clear that they want autonomous robots as soon as possible, because they are more cost-effective and give a risk-free war," he said.

Several countries, led by the U.S., have already invested heavily in robot warriors developed for use on the battlefield.

South Korea and Israel both deploy armed robot border guards, while China, India, Russia and Britain have all increased the use of military robots.

Washington plans to spend $4 billion by 2010 on unmanned technology systems, with total spending expected rise to $24 billion, according to the Pentagon's Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032, released in December.

James Canton, an expert on technology innovation and CEO of the Institute for Global Futures, predicts that deployment within a decade of detachments that will include 150 soldiers and 2,000 robots.

The use of such devices by terrorists should be a serious concern, Sharkey said.

Captured robots would not be difficult to reverse-engineer, and could easily replace suicide bombers as the weapon of choice.

"I don't know why that has not happened already," he said.

But even more worrisome, he said, is the subtle progression from the semiautonomous military robots deployed today to fully independent killing machines.

"I have worked in artificial intelligence for decades, and the idea of a robot making decisions about human termination terrifies me," Sharkey said.

Ronald Arkin of Georgia Institute of Technology, who has worked closely with the U.S. military on robotics, agrees that the shift toward autonomy will be gradual.

But he is not convinced that robots don't have a place on the front line.

"Robotics systems may have the potential to outperform humans from a perspective of the laws of war and the rules of engagement," he told a conference on technology in warfare at Stanford University last month.

The sensors of intelligent machines, he argued, may ultimately be better equipped to understand an environment and to process information.

"And there are no emotions that can cloud judgment, such as anger," he added.

Nor is there any inherent right to self-defense.

For now, however, there remain several barriers to the creation and deployment of Terminator-like killing machines.

Some are technical. Teaching a computer-driven machine - even an intelligent one - how to distinguish between civilians and combatants, or how to gauge a proportional response as mandated by the Geneva Conventions, is simply beyond the reach of artificial intelligence today.

But even if technical barriers are overcome, the prospect of armies increasingly dependent on remote-controlled or autonomous robots raises a host of ethical issues that have barely been addressed.

Arkin points out that the U.S. Defense Department's $230 billion Future Combat Systems program - the largest military contract in U.S. history - provides for three classes of aerial and three land-based robotics systems.

"But nowhere is there any consideration of the ethical implications of the weaponization of these systems," he said.

For Sharkey, the best solution may be an outright ban on autonomous weapons systems.

"We have to say where we want to draw the line and what we want to do - and then get an international agreement," he said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3393730&c=EUR&s=TOP

[chunga1]

Cannot Stop The Robot Helicopters
February 22, 2008: The U.S. Navy's new helicopter UAV, the RQ-8A Fire Scout, is being assigned to another class of ships. The RQ-8A was originally developed for use on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), and was due to enter service next year. But the LCS is behind schedule and the Fire Scout isn't, so the navy is assigning the Fire Scout to other ships. It's uncertain what other ships will get the Fire Scout, perhaps some that are operating in the Persian Gulf or off the Somali coast. This would give the Fire Scout some real world experience, especially since it is able to fire Hellfire missiles and unguided 70mm unguided rockets.
The RQ-8A can stay in the air for up to eight hours at a time (five hour missions are more common), has a top speed of 230 kilometers an hour, and can operate up to 230 kilometers from its controller (on land, or a ship.) The RQ-8A is being developed for use on the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Three production models have been delivered, and nine more are under construction.

The U.S. Army is buying the slightly more capable RQ-8B, which will be particularly useful supporting combat operations in urban areas. Both versions carry day and night cameras, GPS and targeting gear (laser range finders and designators). The RQ-8 is based on a two seat civilian helicopter (the Schweizer Model 333), and has a maximum takeoff weight of 1.5 tons. With its rotors folded (for storage on ships), the RQ-8 is 23 feet long and 9.4 feet high. Max payload is 600 pounds, meaning it would probably carry hundred pound Hellfire, or 44 pound Viper Strike missiles. Each RQ-8 UAV costs about $8 million (including a share of the ground control equipment and some spares.) The flight control software enables the RQ-8 to land and take off automatically.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20080222.aspx

[aries4747]

BRHI: Braintech Releases Random Bin Picking(TM) Software

via COMTEX
February 18, 2008

New Technology Is Integrated Into eVisionFactory(TM) Release 5.1

NORTH VANCOUVER, BC, Feb 18, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX News Network) --

Braintech, Inc. (OTCBB: BRHI) has developed and integrated Random Bin Picking(TM) (RBP(TM)), the much sought after "Holy Grail" of Vision Guided Robotic technology (VGR), into its latest release of eVisionFactory (eVF(TM) version 5.1), a software platform and vision library for the development of VGR applications with greater efficiency and scalability than custom programming.

Braintech's Random Bin Picking uses the Company's unique VGR technology to locate and grasp randomly situated materials from generic bins, allowing them to be moved through assembly and manufacturing lines without high annual costs associated with manual labor, dedicated sorting machines, custom bins and trays. Braintech's technology solves the bin-picking problem in a highly unstructured environment where parts are completely jumbled within a bin and are under various degrees of occlusion.

"We believe this is a major advancement," Braintech Chief Executive Officer Rick Weidinger said. "Our team has made Random Bin Picking a priority in the last several months and they have done a tremendous job solving the problem of handling components which arrive at facilities in containers, including those jumbled together during shipping and throughout the entire material movement process. It streamlines the process along assembly lines by removing the need for purpose-built mechanisms, expensive custom crates and human interaction, which represents a significant return on investment for our customers.

"Our research indicates that there are approximately ten times as many random bin picking opportunities for any type of material movement application than current automation practices allow. We will target these opportunities."

Braintech is hard at work on more advancements in robotic technology.

"We strive every day to develop software tools that enable our customers to be more productive," Weidinger explained. "As a result, Braintech is successful because it enables its customers to be more successful."

Braintech's technology team, led by Chief Technology Officer Babak Habibi, has developed RBP to effectively deal with extreme part overlap and occlusion, significant lighting variability, few distinct part features and robot collision avoidance with other parts.

"Those were all very demanding challenges and we've overcome them. I feel we have the highest caliber and most cost effective research and development staff focused on solutions. While solutions exist for specific examples of structured problems, there are no widely applicable solutions that exist for unstructured problems. Not until today. Most companies talk about developing RBP -- we have accomplished it," Weidinger said.

Through its integration with eVF 5.1, RBP takes advantage of Braintech's other VGR technologies including the award-winning Single Camera 3D. For the automotive industry, eVF is packaged as TrueView(TM) and sold exclusively by ABB.

"Braintech's new development is the next big stepping stone in Vision Guided Robotics," ABB Robot Automation Vice President and General Manager Jerry Osborn said. "Bin Picking has been a major point of discussion for intelligent material handling for some time. Several companies already claim to have random bin picking capability, but in reality, what has been offered to date is what we would consider 'semi-structured' bin picking. No one has managed to build a product that can successfully handle truly randomly jumbled parts like this, until now."

For more information about Braintech, visit http://www.braintech.com.

For more information about ABB Robotics, visit http://www.abb.com/robotics.

About Braintech, Inc.

Braintech, founded in 1994, is a recognized leader in the field of Vision Guided Robotics. The company designs, develops and commercializes Vision Guided Robotic software and technology for Industrial, Government/Defense and Consumer/Service applications. Braintech continually creates products in the areas of vision recognition and robot guidance. Its industrial product, eVisionFactory, features the Henry Ford Technology award-winning Single Camera 3D Vision Guided Robotics technology. For the consumer/service markets Braintech has developed VOLTS-IQ, a software development product that integrates advanced vision technology to Microsoft Robotics Studio.

Braintech's software and plug-and-play product portfolio enhances processes in material handling in manufacturing, distribution, object recognition, slewing and edutainment. With a customer list that includes global powerhouses Ford, Toyota, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson and Battelle Memorial Institute, Braintech's software is being utilized every second in every day with installations on over 150 robots in diverse applications around the world.

Braintech, Inc., 2008. All rights reserved. eVisionFactory, eVF, Random Bin Picking, RBP, Single Camera 3D and SC3D are trademarks of Braintech and all its subsidiaries. eVisionFactory Patent Number US 6,816,755, Random Bin Picking (RBP) is Patent Pending.

TrueView is a trademark of ABB in connection with Braintech, Inc.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Statements in this document that are not purely historical are forward-looking statements and reflect the current views of management with respect to future events and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Forward-looking statements in this news release include the statement that the breakthrough in robotic vision science allows those using eVisionFactory, Random Bin Picking or TrueView to reduce annual investments. It is important to note that the Company's actual results could differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include risks and uncertainties such as technical difficulties in developing the products; competition from other suppliers of similar products; pricing that may not be acceptable to potential markets; and many other known and unknown factors.

Readers should also refer to the risk disclosures outlined in the Company's 10-KSB and 10-QSB Forms filed from time to time with the SEC.

Distributed by Filing Services Canada and retransmitted by Marketwire

Kait Jones Braintech, Inc. - Marketing #102 - 930 W 1st Street Vancouver, BC V7P 3N4 604-988-6440 ext 204 Email Contact Tim Tuttle Public/Media Relations 765-246-6335 317-432-1169 Email Contact

SOURCE: Braintech, Inc.

http://www2.marketwire.com/mw/emailprcntct?id=ED481D16F3A19B4F http://www2.marketwire.com/mw/emailprcntct?id=96C3AA33752A3A5A

Copyright 2008 Market Wire, All rights reserved.

[Ovidius]

OT: can anyone tell me why December was booted out of IHub? TIA

[chunga1]

9 Questions for Carnegie Mellon Robot Chief Matthew Mason


It’s the world’s biggest bootcamp for bots—and arguable the best, with projects ranging from swimming microbots driven by the flagella of living bacteria to Zöe, a prototype robotic astrobiologist whose future relatives may one day study life on Mars (enough for a 2005 PM Breakthrough Award). Now, the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon is coming off a $2 million win in November’s DARPA Urban Challenge (pictured above), and director Matthew Mason sits down with us to discuss what’s next, from the Google Lunar X Prize to super artificial intelligence. —Logan Ward

Is this an Age of Robotics?
Interesting fundamental ideas involving robotics go way back. The real question is how do we produce the kind of behaviors that we associate with animals and humans—an awareness of the physical world and the ability to take effective action. Can that kind of lifelike behavior be produced by ordinary stuff cleverly assembled: silicon and aluminum, steel, plastic, and bits and bytes. People have being working on that question for centuries, sometimes with very simple machines but also in literature and science fiction. Now we actually do have the technology base to settle that question. In fact, I would say it has been settled. You look at today’s more interesting machines—the soccer-playing robots for example—and it’s obvious that they’re able to take effective action.

So is this an Age of Robotics? It’s not so easy to see that smudge in ground and decide we’ve crossed the line, but I think with some additional years of perspective we’ll say, yeah, we crossed that line somewhere around the mid 1990s.

How have robots improved our lives?
A lot of the products that people are so excited about—that are so capable and yet so inexpensive—can only be made so cheaply because of automated manufacturing at incredible speeds without human attention. The main impact this has had is to give us access to growing Internet and better communication with each other.

Any other ways besides manufacturing?
Everybody wants to know when they’re going to have a personal servant to pick up after them and do the dishes and cook and all of that. Until we have that there are going to be people who think a Robotics Age is just a myth. I don’t think that’s really the most exciting or most impactful application of robotics technology.

One of things I’m most excited about is how robotics technology is being used in education. That sounds dull in a way, but let me give you an example: Project Listen. The idea is pretty simple. If you have speech recognition capability on a computer with some understanding of how children learn to read and how to interact with them and guide them, you can have a device that actually listens to a child reading. It can encourage and guide the child. It offers appropriate readings. Nothing about it needs to be expensive, which means that having a personal reading tutor is something that could be affordable and therefore cross cultural boundaries and the economic divide.

A skeptic might say we’ve already got teachers for this.
Project Listen is not really competing with teachers. It’s competing with inattention. In classrooms you typically have one person getting attention from the teacher and the other 30 or so just reading to themselves, if they are reading to themselves. In other cultures there might be no teacher available at all. For instance, Project Listen has been tested in Ghana to teach English language skills.

Will we have those personal servants someday?
I think we will, and it will be fun. People want it. The question of when comes down to when the capabilities and costs reach a certain point that people will go for it. There are a few outrageously wealthy people who are buying machines now that purport to be mechanical servants, but those robots don’t do as much as they would like.

How else will robots improve our lives?
The driverless car is going to be quite an amazing change in our society. Advances in medical robotics. Just how we see the world around us, having technology that can actually watch and pay intelligent attention to all the space around us—for personal security, border security, national security—and the spaces inside our bodies. There are lots of very high impact applications coming down the pike.

So what are the most exciting projects happening now at CMU?
You know about Boss. We’re very excited about the future of autonomous driving. We’re also excited about space. We recently had some of our motion-planning software deployed on Mars. The Spirit and Opportunity rovers are now using a program called Field D*.

The biggest story in the coming year or two is likely to be the Lunar X Prize effort [to land a privately funded craft on the moon]. Red Whittaker has been the guy leading the Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge, and he immediately launched himself into the Lunar X Prize. The team’s already off and running. It’s an awesome challenge, but he’s somebody who can pull it off.

You’ve said that one of the biggest complications for designing intelligent robots is the uncertainty of the real world. How do you overcome this and if you do, what will that mean for robots?
Humans have lots of ways of dealing with uncertainty. Eyes and sense of touch and all the other senses are a big part of it. But it turns out that people use a lot of other tricks as well. We keep the world organized using all kinds of mechanical tricks. If you need to get screw in a hole, you don’t blindly stab it in the hole. You might drag along the surface until you feel it drop in. If it doesn’t go, you might say, Oh, there’s a burr in the way, or Oh the label was still on and it’s blocking the access. It’s a very quick mechanical analysis, a kind of common sense physics applied to the task to come up with an answer in a matter of a few seconds. That’s a kind of intelligence that robots have a very hard time with. But roboticists here and at many institutions are working on it.

And if you solve that problem?
If you could really solve it at a human level, that would imply a kind of common sense understanding of how the world works so profound that you could apply robots to new tasks without having to do all the detailed programming yourself. It would be like when you point a human at a task. Oftentimes you don’t have to tell them anything. Humans just get it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4244208.html

[chunga1]

Military eyes new robotic vision system

disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only
by Staff Writers
Washington (UPI) Jan 25, 2007
Researchers say the military may employ small robots equipped with advanced three-dimensional vision technology in as little as a year.
The U.S. military plans to use three-dimensional flash laser radar-, or ladar-, equipped robots to explore chemically contaminated areas and researchers see the technology reaching the consumer markets shortly thereafter, the Christian Science Monitor reported Friday.

Current vision technology requires large transportation mediums but ladar allows for much smaller machines.

One researcher hails the program as "one of the holy grails of robotics" to employ advanced vision technology on small systems.

Systems in place now stall on many pedestrian-avoidance trials, but the flash ladar uses radar feed-back technology to produce a 3-D image in a field as wide as one kilometer almost instantaneously.

The program is a joint venture between iRobot, which makes the automated vacuum cleaner Roomba, and Advanced Scientific Concepts.


http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Military_eyes_new_robotic_vision_system_999.html

[chunga1]

Robots are everywhere. Especially at the 2008 Consumer Electronics Show last week. But here's the good news -- you'll be able to buy many of the robots you'll see talking, posing, and rolling around in the above exclusive Switched video. Check it out.


http://www.switched.com/2008/01/14/robots-youll-want-to-buy-in-2008/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[chunga1]

Robots Taking Over The Job On Offshore Oil Drilling Platforms
ScienceDaily (Jan. 1, 2008) — In the future, offshore platforms could be run by robots alone, with human beings staying on land.


“Well, now you have seen the individual sensors and special tools. Shall I put the robots into action?”

SINTEF scientist Pål Liljebäck is standing in the new NOK 80 million laboratory financed by Norsk Hydro. The lab covers only 30 square metres and lies deep in the basement of one of the Electro buildings on the SINTEF/NTNU campus on Gløshaugen in Trondheim. An orange robot arm hangs from a steel beam that spans the room at ceiling height, framed by large, sky-blue support beams.

At the control panel, Liljebäck has pre-programmed a huge range of rapid movements of the colossus inside the room. The robot arm glides silently back and forward on its beam, suddenly moves out in a wide arc to the left, and then straight towards the scientist, before turning downwards to the floor. Liljebäck says that the framework, traversing crane and robot arm weigh a total of seven and a half tonnes. It would not be a good idea to get too close.

Hydro wants to automate

Nor will the petroleum operators find themselves in close contact with the new robots when, if all goes according to plan, they are ready for installation in 2015. The operators will remain on land and control them from there, reducing both risks and costs.

Hydro (now StatoilHydro) has long been focusing on futuristic new technological solutions for extracting oil and gas; among them are robot-operated platforms.

“If we can automate our platforms, we will have an alternative to subsea platforms,” says Anders Røyrøy in StatoilHydro. “Both technologies are aimed at small and medium-sized field which are not exploited today because it is not profitable to use normal manned platforms. An automated platform doesn't need personnel, and therefore neither does it need fire systems, sound insulation, catering or a whole range of other installations. Automated platforms also have another advantage: whereas subsea systems statistically only manage to recover about 45 percent of the oil or gas in a reservoir, a topside platform can take out almost 55 percent. And then, maintenance at the surface is much simpler."

The whole platform will be adapted for the robots. In collaboration with both Hydro and Statoil, therefore, Aker Kværner started to draw up a rough layout of such a platform. With an internal layout in the form of shelves, these platforms might look like hi-tech warehouses, with the robots moving up and down the rows of shelves like fork-lift trucks.

The SINTEF test laboratory represents the next step, in which the scientists will find out how robots can be used to remotely monitor and control platform processes. The scientists are looking at the sensors and tools with which the robots will have to be equipped, and how the operators can safely and simply control the robots on the platform without them colliding with the process equipment.

Convincing

The research results that are emerging from SINTEF will demonstrate to Hydro that it would pay to automate. Within the company, there are still many people who are sceptical to the idea of robots. The new technology will have to be sold within the company, via convincing demonstrations.

And the results are starting to come in. Pål Liljebäck is proud to show off the various applications of the system. For example, the robots will be able to inspect the equipment on board the platform. Mounted on traversing beams, they move around, listen, take photographs and make measurements.

“Here you can see the “toolbox”, says Liljebäck, pointing to a stand in which four or five large drill-like heads are parked.

“Shall we connect up one of the tools?”

He seats himself at the control desk and operates the robot via a mouse. Soon he has got the robot arm to move down to the toolbox, where it picks up and connects a measurement device.

Liljebäck claims that the applications performed by the robot here are unusual. “We are creating a robotised inspection system. This is something quite different from industrial robots that stand by a production line and perform a well-defined task over and over again. This system will make it simpler for the operator on shore to carry out operations that may not have been planned in advance."

Spooky

The robot has connected a special instrument for measuring vibration and temperature to the end of its arm, and just a few seconds later the arm is pointing over the high protective fence and through the glass screen. On the right of the control desk are two highly coloured beings have appeared on a screen: the human occupants of the control room!

However, Liljebäck demonstrates how the robot measures vibration just a few minutes later, when he points the appropriate special instrument at a pipe in the laboratory that has just been made to vibrate. The measurement curve drawn on the computer screen will enable the shore-based operator to check that all is well.

“The challenges lie in ensuring that the robots are capable of performing predefined and programmed tasks – and are also able to function properly under unanticipated conditions. If the operator suddenly finds that he needs to inspect something or other under a pipework system, the robot must be able to do this,” says Liljebäck.

Avoiding collisions

Obviously, a lot of things have to be thought out carefully when human actions are replaced by robot movements. Sensors are one aspect of this. Another is the matter of operations that involve contact, such as when a robot has to pick up something from the floor. Contact operations are a particular challenge, because the robot is very strong and it can easily destroy the equipment with which it comes into contact, unless we keep its strength fully under control. The scientists have therefore fitted the robot with a force sensor that enables them to measure the forces exerted by its grippers, for example.

The robot is similar to a computer, in that it does exactly what it is told. Unlike a human being, it will not stop moving by itself or move aside if it collides with something else. On a platform where a number of robots are in operation, there could be collisions between them and other equipment. One of the systems on which the researchers are working has the straightforward aim of ensuring that the robot will never collide with anything.

“This is where our mathematicians come in,” explains Pål Liljebäck. “When we have 3D models of the robots and we know their positions, we can input these data into a 3D model that calculates the distance between the robot and other equipment. As long as the distance between them is greater than zero, there can be no collision.”

“We are pleased with the results and the progress of the project,” says Anders Røyrøy in StatoilHydro. “The next step after the technology has been handed over will be full-scale testing of certain parts of the system in order to see whether everything functions properly in its real environment.”

Competence/Gemini Centre

So far, some 15 to 20 scientists from four different SINTEF divisions have been involved in work at the robot lab. The Department of Technical Cybernetics at NTNU is also heavily involved. All of these research groups also form part of a newly established Gemini Centre for Advanced Robotics. Like the 12 other Gemini centres, the Advanced Robotics Centre aims to bring together all of SINTEF and NTNU's expertise within a particular field, in order to give them extra power. The scientific group at the Gemini Centre for Advance Roboticsconsists of 11 research scientists and six professors, and it offers advanced expertise for industry that ranges from subsea robotics to robots for inspection and maintenance.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071221230852.htm

[chunga1]

Robot Boats Hunt High-Tech Pirates
Popular Mechanics | Erik Sofge | December 21, 2007


The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard have expressed interest in the 30-ft.-long Protector, which comes mounted with a machine gun and could be retrofitted for commercial use.

Robots versus pirates -- it's not as stupid, or unlikely, as it sounds. Piracy has exploded in the waters near Somalia, where this past week United States warships have fired on two pirate skiffs, and are currently in pursuit of a hijacked Japanese-owned vessel. At least four other ships in the region remain under pirate control, and the problem appears to be going global: The International Maritime Bureau is tracking a 14-percent increase in worldwide pirate attacks this year.

And although modern-day pirates enjoy collecting their fare share of booty -- they have a soft spot for communications gear -- they're just as likely to ransom an entire ship. In one particularly sobering case, hijackers killed one crew member of a Taiwan-owned vessel each month until their demands were met.

For years now, law enforcement agencies across the high seas have proposed robotic boats, or unmanned surface vessels (USVs), as a way to help deal with 21st-Century techno Black Beards. The Navy has tested at least two small, armed USV demonstrators designed to patrol harbors and defend vessels. And both the Navy and the Coast Guard have expressed interest in the Protector, a 30-ft.-long USV built by BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Israeli defense firm RAFAEL.

The Protector, which comes mounted with a 7.62mm machine gun, wasn't originally intended for anti-piracy operations. But according to BAE Systems spokesperson Stephanie Moncada, the robot could easily fill that role. "Down the line, it could potentially be modified for commercial use as well," she says. Instead of being deployed by a warship to intercept and possibly fire on an incoming vessel, a non-lethal variant of the Protector could be used to simply investigate a potential threat.

A favorite tactic of modern-day pirates is to put out a distress call, then ambush any ships that respond. The unmanned Protector could be remote-operated from around 10 miles away, with enough on-board sensors, speakers and microphones to make contact with a vessel before it's too late. "Even without the machine gun, it could alert the crew, give them some time to escape," Moncada says.

The 55-mph Interceptor could become the long-range patrol boat of the future, while the jetski-size Sentry (inset) could help prevent a terrorist plot such as Al Qaeda's attack on the USS Cole in December 2000.

This past summer, Florida-based Marine Robotic Vessels International (MRVI) unveiled a USV that emphasizes reconnaissance over firepower. The 21-ft.-long Interceptor can travel at up to 55 mph, and is designed to be piloted both remotely and autonomously.

For a patrol boat, autonomous control would be a huge advantage, allowing it to traverse huge stretches of open sea, instead of having to remain within radio range of a given vessel. While the Interceptor could be fitted with a water cannon or other non-lethal offensive system, its primary mission is to serve as a sentry.

According to MRVI President Dan Murphy, the Interceptor is available now. But the USV market is just getting started: Two months ago, British defense firm Qinetiq debuted its own robotic vessel, the jetski-size Sentry. Among its potential duties is intruder investigation, which could include scouting out unidentified boats, along the lines of the raft that detonated alongside the USS Cole in Yemen, as well as offering a first look at a possible pirate-controlled vessel. The Sentry, however, can only operate for up to six hours at a time, severely limiting its ability to operate at sea.

Although the Protector is currently deployed by the Israeli and Singaporean Navies, the U.S. Navy has yet to field a full-production USV, much less a pirate-hunting one. But if piracy continues to escalate around the world, it may only a matter of time before the private sector gets fed up and buys a few unmanned boats to act as scouts. After all, one of the best things a robot can do is get blown to pieces ... so you don't have to.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158732,00.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl

[chunga1]

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=25612300

[chunga1]

Robot Surgeons Closer Than You Think
Popular Mechanics | By Erik Sofge | December 20, 2007
While aboard a DC-9 aircraft, a remote operator uses a robot to suture a section of simulated tissue.

If a robot surgeon is treating you, your life is in danger. That's not due to any machine-borne malice, but because current research into autonomous surgery is focused on battlefield casualties barely clinging to life and astronauts injured on distant planets. To demonstrate how that research is progressing, Silicon Valley-based SRI International and the University of Cincinnati held a series of tests this past September that sound like a cross between a PR stunt and a B-movie: human doctors squaring off against a robotic surgeon aboard a nose-diving DC-9 aircraft.

During periods of zero gravity and sustained acceleration of 1.8 g's, a robot made incisions and applied sutures on simulated tissue, while a human surgeon did the same. The purpose: to measure just how precise a remote-operated robot can be, especially in a turbulent or gravity-free environment. SRI hasn't released its results, but according to PM Advisory Board member Dr. Ken Kamler, who participated in one of the flight tests, the robot seemed to hold its own—until its compensation software was turned off. "The difference was huge," Kamler says. "It was virtually impossible [for it] to tie a knot." But with compensation engaged, the bot performed as well as it did on Earth.

And so the tests' true purpose was to showcase SRI's software. "We're not mimicking a surgeon," says Tom Low, SRI's director of medical devices and robotics, "but looking at what a robot can do better." By focusing on adaptive algorithms, SRI wants to move away from remote telesurgery and closer to autonomy. The company plans to build a system for NASA that could treat an astronaut on Mars, where communication delays of more than 20 minutes would make telesurgery impossible.

For now, SRI is developing a robotic operating room for the battlefield, called Trauma Pod. In March, SRI demonstrated the concept with a team of robots treating a mannequin. The final Pentagon-funded version would need to be small enough to fit in a ground or air vehicle. Designed to treat wounds that would otherwise be fatal within 30 minutes, Trauma Pod could be used midevacuation, relying heavily on compensation software. It would also have significant autonomy. The robots would ventilate the patient's airway and try to control bleeding, with specialized tools and auto-targeting systems potentially speeding the treatment. A remote human surgeon would simply oversee the work. Pending Pentagon approval, SRI hopes to field-test a Trauma Pod by 2009.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,158736,00.html

[HoosierHoagie]

This ones for you chunga.

Army wants $3.5B for FCS in 2009

By Kris Osborn - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Dec 21, 2007 12:51:36 EST

The Army’s leader wants testing of the robotic Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle and Micro Air Vehicle to begin earlier than planned, possibly allowing the systems to arrive up to five years earlier than their planned 2015 deployment.

The late-autumn decision by Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey may lead to buying more SUGVs and MAVs, FCS spokesman Paul Meheny said. Earlier this month, the Army approved a request for 40 MAVs for the 25th Infantry Division in Iraq.

Army officials want to finance the acceleration by shifting about $78 million from other programs in the 2008 budget, sources said.

Meanwhile, service leaders are pitching their 2009 budget proposal to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It includes $3.5 billion for FCS, including $3.18 billion for research and development and $328 million for procurement.

More than $800 million was cut from the planned FCS spending from 2004 to 2007, and another $200 million from the proposed $3.6 billion 2008 budget.

And in early 2007, Army officials cut $3.4 billion in planned FCS spending for 2008 through 2013, deleting the FCS Class II and Class III unmanned aerial vehicles; one kind of unmanned ground vehicle; and the Intelligent Munitions Systems, a remote-controlled device that gathers information with sensors and transmits it over a wireless network.

Gen. Richard Cody, Army vice chief of staff, warned that the Army may have to delay the arrival of some FCS spinout technology if the upcoming 2009 request is cut. Those spinouts include the SUGV; the MAV; the Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System, a box of 15 precision-guided rockets able to change course in flight; and Tactical and Urban Unattended Ground Sensors, designed to transmit images from strategic locations.

The 2009 budget request, to be finalized in coming weeks and presented to Congress in February, is crucial to the spinouts, which will see their Milestone C review — go or no-go for production — in that fiscal year.

“We think the program is on track,” Cody said. “We’ve laid out a solid program objective memorandum for FCS. The money we have in 2009 is the money we need, and anything that gets cut in 2009 just keeps pushing things to the right.”

Cody said the spinout technologies would be used in the war zones.

“We need to get them vetted, bought and moved out as fast as we can because we are going to be in this conflict for some time,” he said. “We will have the Manned Ground Vehicle by the end of June of 2008. Our spinouts are on schedule, and now we are moving toward building an FCS brigade to be ready by 2013 or 2014.”

But one congressional staffer source said the spinouts might not be delayed even if extra money is not approved.

“If you look at what the spinouts are — the rockets in a box [NLOS-LS], sensors and computers for Bradleys, tanks and Humvees — they are small in dollar terms compared to other systems,” said a congressional source familiar with the Army budget. “They were never intended to be fielded with the most advanced software anyway.”

SUGVs, MAVs

In January, the Army will deliver four iRobot SUGVs and five MAVs to the Army Evaluation Task Force at Fort Bliss, Texas. Twenty more SUGVs are to be delivered by July, with six more JTRS-equipped MAVs arriving in June.

“The acceleration is in support of the chief of staff of the Army’s direction for FCS to send small quantities of these systems, so soldiers can help us determine the capabilities and limitations of these platforms. Their assessment will go to the chief of staff in September 2008 for a production decision,” said Army Lt. Col. Steve Noe, product manager for FCS unmanned ground vehicles.

The SUGVs will be tested to determine whether they can send images to troops and moving Humvees, an improvement over iRobot’s PackBot and the other remote-controlled tactical robots used to beam images from caves, buildings and strategic locations.

“By 2010, the SUGV is to receive JTRS with Soldier Radio Wave form,” Noe said.

The 2-foot vertical-takeoff MAV can hover and stare, beaming video to nearby soldiers or convoys. The MAV’s “gimbaled sensor will be able to rotate the camera and look in different directions without having to move the air vehicle from its hover or static position,” said Army Maj. Gregg Deller, MAV assistant product manager.

Roughly 20 MAVs with a Navy explosive ordnance disposal team have been in Iraq since April conducting an assessment, said Rich Fisher, FCS Unmanned Aerial Systems project manager.

“With route-clearance missions, the MAVs provide a great capability that was not found in other systems,” Deller said.


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/defense_FCS_071221/

[HoosierHoagie]

Last Updated: Thursday, 28 October, 2004, 23:53 GMT 00:53 UK
By Roberto Belo
BBC News Online



The research focuses on how human-robot interaction should be
Robots are learning lessons on "robotiquette" - how to behave socially - so they can mix better with humans.
By playing games, like pass-the-parcel, a University of Hertfordshire team is finding out how future robot companions should react in social situations.

The study's findings will eventually help humans develop a code of social behaviour in human-robot interaction.

The work is part of the European Cogniron robotics project, and was on show at London's Science Museum.

Back to the future

"We are assuming a situation in which a useful human companion robot already exists," said Professor Kerstin Dautenhahn, project leader at Hertfordshire.

"Our mission is to look at how such a robot should be programmed to respect personal spaces of humans."


I want robots to treat humans as human beings, and not like other robots

Professor Kerstin Dautenhahn,
University of Hertfordshire
The research also focuses on human perception of robots, including how they should look, and how a robot can learn new skills by imitating a human demonstrator.

"Without such studies, you will build robots which might not respect the fact that humans are individuals, have preferences and come from different cultural backgrounds," Professor Dautenhahn told BBC News Online.

"And I want robots to treat humans as human beings, and not like other robots," she added.

Pass-the-parcel

In most situations, a companion robot will eventually have to deal not only with one person, but also with groups of people.

To find out how they would react, the Hertfordshire Cogniron team taught one robot to play pass-the-parcel with children.

If you think of a robot as a companion for the human being, you can think of 20 years into the future

Professor Kerstin Dautenhahn
Showing off its skills at the Science Museum, the unnamed robot had to select, approach, and ask different children to pick up a parcel with a gift, moving its arm as a pointer and its camera as an eye.

It even used speech to give instructions and play music.

However, according to researchers, it will still take many years to build a robot which would make full use of the "robotiquette" for human interaction.

"If you think of a robot as a companion for the human being, you can think of 20 years into the future," concluded Professor Dautenhahn.

"It might take even longer because it is very, very hard to develop such a robot."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3962699.stm

[chunga1]

The Pentagon's Robots: Arming the Future
by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. and Andrew Gudgel
Backgrounder #2093

Robots have stepped out of the science fiction pages and onto the battlefield. Thousands are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, supporting military operations on land, at sea, and in the air. Some robots cost as little as several thousand dollars each. Controlled remotely by soldiers, sailors, and airmen, they perform tasks such as disarming roadside bombs, scouting danger­ous territory, and patrolling the sky.

As technology advances, robots will become increas­ingly autonomous of human supervision, providing new cutting-edge national security applications that could give the U.S. military significant competitive ad­vantages. Robots on the battlefield will not bring an age of "bloodless" push-button warfare nor provide "silver-bullet" solutions to every combat challenge, but they can offer U.S. forces tactical advantages for outfighting both conventional (regular armed forces) and uncon­ventional (e.g., terrorists and insurgents) enemies.

The U.S. government should continue prudent investments in robotic technologies, particularly for autonomous operations--an area of research not adequately supported by commercial research and development. Congress can help by establishing a framework that will facilitate national security re­search and development programs and by addressing concerns about the risk to humans with legislative guidelines for liability and safety issues in research, development, and procurement.

When the Future Arrives

The challenge of imagining the future of war is often a question of timing. Promising technologies are often derided or dismissed simply because their proponents' imaginations outpace the capacity of science and technology to deliver.

World War I offers a case in point. The nascent technologies described by 19th century science fic­tion writers and military futurists were not ready for prime time and incapable of breaking the gridlock of attrition warfare. While H. G. Wells and Jules Verne are often praised for their foresight in envi­sioning the proliferation of weapons like tanks, air­planes, and submarines, the machines that they described were little more than fanciful, completely out of the reach of foreseeable technologies. Military writers were more conservative in their appreciation of how machines would change warfare, but even they missed the mark.[1]

In World War I, the future arrived too fast, before new technologies had matured to the point that they could reshape the face of conflict. If World War I had been avoided and the great powers had not tested these new technologies until the 1940s when they were more mature, both science fiction writers and military futurists might have been much closer to making more accurate guesses.

Timing may not be everything, but it can dra­matically affect the process of turning imaginative vision into reality. This may turn out to be the case for robotics. The vision of robots in combat, popu­larized in science fiction since the cliffhanger movie serials of the 1930s, never came to fruition in the succeeding decades. The Pentagon had little to show after decades of research, leading the promise of robotics in battle to be largely derided and dis­missed as a failure of overly exuberant imagination.

Dismissing military robotics as a failed future vision may be premature. The armed services' increasing expertise in robotic technologies, the effectiveness of robots in recent military operations, and promising new research developments suggest that artificial warriors may yet prove to be the next big thing.

The Pentagon's New Weapons

After decades of military research and develop­ment, robotic technologies have finally matured to where they present significant national security applications. Their effectiveness is most notice­able in environments that are ill-suited to manned warfare.

Robots have proven most efficient and cost-effec­tive in combat tasks involving the three Ds--dull, dirty, and dangerous. Dull assignments are those that require routine functions such as monitoring a bridge crossing site. Dirty jobs are performed in harsh environmental conditions, such as searching contaminated areas. Dangerous missions involve tasks in which humans could suffer physical harm, such as disarming an improvised explosive device (IED). Currently, the U.S. military employs three different robotic platforms for three-D operations:

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.Unmanned aerial vehicles(UAVs) have emerged as the most frequently employed robotic platform on the battlefield. Ironi­cally, the failure of numerous programs during the Cold War initially earned them the reputation of "‘vampires' of military acquisition," "sucking" up research and development dollars without deliver­ing any practical utility. That began to change when UAVs first proved their effectiveness during the first Gulf War (1991) "when the low-tech, short-range Pioneer [short-range reconnaissance drone resem­bling a large model airplane]," as J. R. Wilson points out, "helped to identify artillery and naval gun tar­gets, detected high-speed Iraqi patrol boats, and even became the first ‘robot' to which enemy com­batants surrendered."[2]

Throughout the 1990s, all of the military ser­vices developed new applications for UAVs. Many of the new capabilities were battle-tested in combat operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Today, over 700 types of UAVs support U.S. military forces.[3] The armed services employ about 3,000 individual UAVs in Iraq alone.[4]

The Predator--a medium-altitude, long-endur­ance, remotely piloted aircraft--stands out as the most notable UAV in military service. Initially used for reconnaissance, the Predator has also been armed with Hellfire air-to-ground missiles and has been used to conduct combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other UAVs range from the hand-launched Raven, used by ground troops, to Global Hawk, a high-alti­tude, long-range, long-endurance platform with a wingspan as wide as a commercial airliner that can conduct surveillance missions anywhere in the world.

UAVs are being used more heavily because of their increasing capacity to loiter over the battlefield for a long time and provide a persistent presence. For example, the Predator B can stay airborne for a day or more. The current generation of UAVs can track specific targets for extended periods and can attack the target or relay information to ground troops. Insurgents in Iraq have become so wary of UAVs that they are reluctant to loiter in any open place for more than a few minutes. Both Americans and their enemies now see UAVs as a ubiquitous presence on the battlefield.

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles. The Navy is developing unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) to hunt and destroy sea-based mines. Remus, a three-foot-long robot that can detect mines under­water, is being retrofitted with an explosive charge so that it can attach itself to and detonate underwa­ter bombs and mines. Remus also carries a sensor payload that allows it to identify entities in the sur­rounding waters.

The Navy has tested Remus in real missions, using the robot to clear mines in the port of Um Qasr, Iraq, in 2003. Remus robots searched nearly a square-mile area and removed a number of mines in 16 hours. Divers would have needed 21 days to complete the same mission.[5]

Unmanned Ground Vehicles. Unmanned ground vehicles have played a critical role in combating IEDs, the deadliest weapon used against U.S. troops in Iraq. Roadside bombs have accounted for more than 70 percent of U.S. casualties.[6] The Pentagon's Joint Robotics Program, established in 1990 to oversee robotics technologies, established a plan to acquire "small, man-portable robotics systems" equipped with explosives ordnance disposal (EOD) tools that would be "fielded as quickly as possible to assist EOD forces in the mission to defeat IEDs."[7]

Initially deployed to Afghanistan to search caves for weapons caches, the first small unmanned ground vehicles (SUGVs) arrived in Iraq in April 2004. One of the early SUGV models was the Pack­Bot, a 30-pound robot that is small enough to fit in a backpack. It is also extraordinarily rugged. A PackBot can be thrown from the second story of a building and still work. PackBot has recently been equipped with a manipulator arm with a two-meter reach and a camera that allows the operator to remotely identify and disarm bombs.

Today, SUGVs are integral to ground operations. According to press reports, the military has de­ployed "nearly 5,000 robots in Iraq and Afghani­stan, up from 150 in 2004…. Soldiers use them to search caves and buildings for insurgents, detect mines, and ferret out roadside bombs."[8] By the end of 2005, robots reportedly had rendered safe or ex­ploded more than 1,000 IEDs.[9]

In addition to their utility, SGUVS are relatively inexpensive compared to other robots. Predators cost between $4.5 million and $8.3 million each, UUVs about $5.5 million, and PackBots between $80,000 and $150,000.[10] This low cost has enabled rapid procurement, deployment, and adoption of ground-based robots.

Empowering New Systems

Currently deployed robots are teleoperated, meaning that a human must direct their every move. However, robotic technology is moving toward more autonomous action. Autonomy will enable robots to sense, react, and even make decisions without human intervention. On the battlefield, these capa­bilities will transform robots from adjunct assets to independent combat platforms that can ferry sup­plies, search out and interpret intelligence for sol­diers, make critical decisions with the most up-to-date information, guard roads and supplies, hunt enemy forces, and even engage in combat.

To achieve autonomy, research is focusing on three core aspects: sensors, cognition, and networking.

Sensing the Environment. Sensors allow robots to observe the world around them. Many robot designs use sonar, laser range finders, television cameras, and microphones. For example, the Mas­sachusetts Institute of Technology and the Naval Research Laboratory are conducting extensive research into map-creation by robots to enable them to guide themselves.[11] A NASA laboratory is inves­tigating the use of infrared sensors on a flexible outer body, allowing the robot to sense objects in its path.[12] Researchers at the University of Nebraska are developing a system to give a robot a sense of touch that equals that of the human finger.[13] These efforts are only a few of the entire spectrum of projects being undertaken by government and uni­versity research centers.

To encourage the development of self-guiding systems, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has established the Grand Chal­lenge, a competition for robotic vehicles. The goal of the race is to identify technologies that will enable robots to navigate complex terrain autonomously over a long distance. In the first Grand Challenge in 2004, not a single team completed the 150-mile course. The most prevalent difficulty was the robots' inability to navigate around detected obstacles while maintaining their GPS-derived locations. In the 2005 race, participants were able to surmount this critical problem. Six vehicles completed a 132-mile course. In November 2007, DARPA sponsored a 60-mile contest in an urban environment.[14]

Cognitive Action.To streamline robot-human interactions, researchers must develop machines capable of reasoning like human beings.[15] Autono­mous robots must be capable of learning and mak­ing decisions. In dealing with humans, the robot will need not only to reason, but also to have cogni­tive skills, such as being able to follow an ambigu­ous order that requires intuitively understanding what the command means.

Evolutionary robotics is a newly emerging field of robotic design in which a machine system works out a solution and then repeats the process until the robot determines the most efficient process. The solution then guides the control system in operating the robot's physical attributes, such as walking.[16] Such innovations may presage the deployment of autonomous robots.

To maintain a level of control over autonomous robots, the military services are investigating "vari­able autonomy," combining aspects of autonomy and human control.[17] The Naval Research Lab is researching human control of robots through voice commands and hand movements.[18]

Network-Friendly. It is essential for robots to communicate and work together with the surround­ing humans. In 2001, the Pentagon released the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems protocols to standardize communications software for unmanned systems. With these standards, systems can be config­ured to match a variety of human-machine environ­ments in which robots, soldiers, civilians, and enemy combatants may share the same battlespace.

Developers of the Army's Future Combat Sys­tems (FCS) are using the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems to develop interoperable pro­gramming for FCS robotic platforms. Robots will be operated under an umbrella of systems that will manage FCS, including the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T). Under WIN-T's Joint Tactical Radio and Ground Mobile Radio systems, soldiers and robots will be able to communicate via software networks that provide multichannel voice, data, imagery, and video communications.[19]

The Next Generation

Autonomous robots are closer to real combat capa­bilities. The Army will soon field the Mobile Detection Assessment Response System (MDARS), a semi-autonomous security-guard robot. This nine-foot, 3,500-pound robot can travel up to 20 miles per hour using inertial and satellite navigation and can scan the sur­rounding environment with radar and infrared beams. Using its on-board sensors, MDARS will able to con­duct independent patrol or sentry duty, avoiding obsta­cles and detecting intruders up to 300 meters away.[20]

The Army is also developing the semi-autono­mous Multifunctional Utility Logistics and Equip­ment (MULE) vehicle, a six-wheeled, 20-foot robot that can autonomously traverse rugged terrain, car­rying 1,900 pounds of equipment.[21] MULEs will perform convoy operations and support ground assaults. Currently, one-fourth of the planned sys­tems for FCS will be robotic, including both remotely piloted air and ground vehicles.[22]

The Navy recently tested two UUVs as part of the Long Term Mine Reconnaissance System. Sub­merged submarines launched and recovered the vehicles through their torpedo tubes.[23] MANTA, a proposed underwater system, would detach itself from a submarine's hull and be able to deploy torpe­does or small UUVs. These remote robots and weapons could extend a submarine's range into shallow waters that the boats cannot traverse.[24]

In the air, prototypes for fully autonomous UAVs are being developed. In August 2005, Boeing Cor­poration successfully tested two X-45A unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs). In these tests, the two X-45As took off, planned a route, evaded threats, and reached a designated target.[25] One recent study concluded that UCAVs offer significant potential for extended operations at long range.[26]

Continuing Development

Congress and the Administration should con­tinue to promote the development of robotics. While the private sector is actively researching the applica­tion of robotics to a wide range of uses from building cars to sweeping floors, commercial research is not sufficiently focused on national security needs to develop the cutting-edge robotic applications that the military needs. Thus, in the decade ahead, commer­cial off-the-shelf products are unlikely to provide the Pentagon with dramatic new capabilities. Congress should therefore encourage and support national security robotic research.

Specifically, a few key initiatives would bolster the development and utilization of robots.

Interagency coordination. Currently, each mili­tary service prefers separately managed programs geared to its individual needs. However, the Govern­ment Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the military could save money and resources by com­bining the services' 13 UAV programs. The GAO cited the Fire Scout UAV program as an example of the potential of interagency cooperation. The Army and Navy are pursuing common components under the Navy contract, saving an estimated $200 million in research and development costs.[27]

The Department of Defense should accelerate this type of cooperation, promoting common configurations, harmonizing performance require­ments, and drawing on common testing, evalu­ation, and support. Cooperation should extend to the Department of Homeland Security, sup­porting the UAV requirements of the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection.

Continued funding. Congress should continue to fund robotic research, development, and procure­ment across the board. Their success on the battle­field merits the resources necessary to meet the Pentagon's goal of replacing one-third of its armed vehicles and weaponry with robots by 2015.[28]

Establishing a legislative framework. As autono­mous robots come closer to becoming reality, safety will be a major issue. Robots, especially on the bat­tlefield, should have "safety-critical computing" to maintain human control and to ensure they do not behave in unintended or dangerous ways.

Public policy needs to recognize these dangers but to address them in a manner that does not unduly hold back research that could bring dramatic new capabilities to the marketplace and further national security. Congress can speed the development of autonomous robotics by creating a legal frame­work in which research can occur without unnec­essary restraint. The framework should include input from the Defense Department, the Depart­ment of Homeland Security, and NASA.
A Window of Advantage

America's capability to seize and maintain a stra­tegic advantage in robotic national security applica­tions could be lost without sustained and focused commitment from the Administration and Con­gress. Congress should provide adequate funding, encourage increased coordination, and craft policies that encourage prudent investment in robotic tech­nology. Congress can facilitate national security research and development programs by establishing a framework that addresses concerns about the risk to humans from autonomous robots.

James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for Inter­national Studies and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Andrew Gudgel is a freelance writer cur­rently residing in Maryland. Oliver L. Horn, a Research Assistant in the Allison Center, assisted with this report.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]Antulio J. Echeverria II, Imagining Future War: The West's Technological Revolution and Visions of Wars to Come: 1880-1914 (Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International, 2007), pp. 95-96.

[2]J. R. Wilson, "A New Generation of Unmanned Aircraft," Aerospace America, January 2007, at www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/
pdf/AA_Jan07_WIL.pdf (August 9, 2007).

[3]Ibid.

[4]Tim Mahon, "In Harm's Way: New Missions, Technology Shape UAV Combat Tactics," C4ISR, October 2006.

[5]Associated Press, "Military Increasingly Looking to Robots to Clear Waterways of Dangerous Mines," International Herald Tribune, July 27, 2007, at www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/27/america/NA-GEN
-US-Mine-Destroying-Robots.php(August 14, 2007).

[6]Associated Press, "Explosive-Sniffing Robots Headed to Iraq to Help U.S. Military Counter Deadly Roadside Bombs," Niagara Gazette, March 29, 2007, at www.niagara-gazette.com/newtoday/gnnnewtoday_story_088144250.html (August 9, 2007).

[7]Ibid., pp. 20-21.

[8]Associated Press, "Explosive-Sniffing Robots Headed to Iraq."

[9]Ibid.

[10]Strategy Page, "Buying Predator Bs," February 8, 2006, at www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20060208.aspx(August 15, 2007); "2 REMUS 600 Systems for UK Royal Navy," Defense Industry Daily, September 23, 2007, at www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2-remus-600-systems-
for-uk-royal-navy-03860(October 4, 2007); and Kris Osborn, "U.S. Wants 3,000 New Robots for War," Defense News, August 13, 2007, at http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2956107&C=thisweek (August 14, 2007).

[11]John J. Leonard, speech at program on "Robots: The Future is Here," audio file, The Heritage Foundation, June 5, 2006, at www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev060506a.cfm (December 13, 2007), and U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, "Natural Interface and Control for a Segway RMP Robot," at www.nrl.navy.mil/aic/iss/aas/SegwayRMP.php(June 19, 2006).

[12]Lori Keesey, "High-Tech Robot Skin," National Aeronautics and Space Administration, May 11, 2005, at www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/everydaylife/vladskin.html (June 6, 2006).

[13]Rebecca Morelle, "Robot Device Mimics Human Touch," BBC News, June 8, 2006, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5056434.stm (June 12, 2006).

[14]Press release, "DARPA Announces Third Grand Challenge: Urban Challenge Moves to the City," U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, May 1, 2006, at www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/docs/urb_challenge_announce.pdf(June 23, 2006).

[15]John Bluck, "NASA Developing Robots with Human Traits," National Aeronautics and Space Administration, May 24, 2005, at www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/roboticexplorers/robots
_human_coop.html (June 19, 2006).

[16]Andrew Nelson, "Evolutionary Robotics," at www.evolutionaryrobotics.org(June 23, 2006).

[17]U.S. Army Research Laboratory, "Robotics Alliance," modified July 28, 2006, at www.arl.army.mil/main/Main/default.cfm?Action=9
3&Page=156 (June 16, 2006), and U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, "Adaptive Systems," at www.nrl.navy.mil/aic/as/index.php (September 25, 2007).

[18]U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, "Human/Robot Interaction," at www.nrl.navy.mil/aic/iss/aas/IntelligentHumanRobotIn
teractions.php (October 17, 2007).

[19]Doug Beizer, "Talk About an Evolution," Washington Technology, August 6, 2007, at www.washingtontechnology.com/print/22_14/31155-1.html(August 29, 2007).

[20]Kris Osborn, "Army Set to Field Autonomous Security-Guard Robot at Bases," Marine Corps Times, July 16, 2007.

[21]Kris Osborn, "Multitask MULE: Semi-Autonomous Robot Moves, Fights, Transports with Troops," Defense News, April 30, 2007.

[22]U.S. Army, "Future Combat Systems," Web site, September 19, 2005, at www.army.mil/fcs/index.html(October 17, 2007).

[23]Mark O. Piggott, "USS Scranton Completes Successful UUV Test," Navy Newsstand, March 9, 2006, at www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=22618(June 26, 2006).

[24]Edward C. Whitman, "Unmanned Underwater Vehicles: Beneath the Wave of the Future," Undersea Warfare, Vol. 4, Issue 3 (Summer 2002), at www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_15/wave.html (June 26, 2006).

[25]News release, "Two Boeing X-45As Complete Graduation Combat Demonstration," Boeing, August 10, 2005, at www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q3/nr_050810m.html(December 17, 2007).

[26]Thomas P. Erhard and Robert O. Work, "The Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration Program: A New Dawn for Naval Aviation," Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Backgrounder, May 10, 2007, at www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/B.20070510.The_
Unmanned_Comba/B.20070510.The_Unmanned_Comba.pdf (December 5, 2007).

[27]"Collaboration Key to ISR Programs," C4ISR, June 1, 2007.

[28]"Robot Wars," The Economist, April 17, 2007, at www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9028041(August 18, 2007).



http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2093.cfm

[chunga1]

Attack of the Drones
Flying bots rule the skies in combat zones around the globe. Now the battle is on between the joystick jockeys and the fighter jocks.
By Noah Shachtman



Feature:
Attack of the Drones
Plus:
The Unmanned Air Force
Drone School, a Ground's Eye View
The F-16s had come and gone, dropping a pair of 500-pound satellite-guided bombs on an insurgent safe house in Iraq's Sunni Triangle. Now it was up to Major Shannon Rogers to see whether they had hit their target. With a tug of the throttle, he brought his plane to 10,000 feet for a closer look.

Typically, it takes hours, even days, to get an accurate idea of the damage bombs have caused in a war zone. GIs on the ground have to make their way to a target and report back. But Rogers can get the job done in minutes.

As his plane passed over the site of the safe house, dawn was breaking - a clear, sunny morning that had yet to give way to the August heat. But for Rogers, it was after sunset. He was operating his Predator unmanned aerial vehicle - a drone - from a secure terminal at Nellis Air Force Base, near Las Vegas.

Tracking the feed from the Predator's camera, Rogers could see rubble where the safe house had been. He and a sensor operator on his crew watched a crowd gather to ogle the destruction. Then a white Dodge pickup rolled up with a .50-caliber heavy machine gun in the back. Five men climbed out, ran into the house, and returned to move the truck to a secluded alley. They began loading ammunition and arc-welding the .50-cal's mount.

Back at Nellis, Rogers wasn't limited to just assessing battle damage. He could also inflict it; his Predator was equipped with two Hellfire laser-guided missiles. Rogers, who flew F-15s (call sign: Smack) before switching to drones, radioed for authorization to destroy the Dodge. He got it.

"We left their truck one big smoking hole," he remembers. "My heart was pumping as we were doing our business. It felt just as real to me, however many thousands of miles away, as if I was sitting right there in that cockpit."

Rogers' Predator is one of more than 1,200 UAVs in the US military arsenal; three years ago, there were fewer than 100 in the field. Today drones as small as a crow and as big as a Cessna are searching for roadside bombs, seeking out insurgents, and watching the backs of US troops. They're cheap, they can stay in the air longer than any manned aircraft, and they can see a battlefield better - all without risking a pilot.

Those capabilities tell only part of the story. UAVs give rank-and-file soldiers powers once reserved for generals. They push generals into the thick of battle. And they're blurring the lines between the fighter jocks and the grunts on the ground. Firmly entrenched hierachies don't change easily, but drones are reshaping military culture.

Private Joel Clark doesn't have any macho dogfight stories. He doesn't have a cool call sign or the swagger of a guy who has pulled 9 gs. In fact, Clark has never held a throttle. He did, however, flunk high school English. And that's how the milky-pale 19-year-old became one of America's newest pilots.

Clark had planned to join the Army as a Blackhawk helicopter mechanic. But that F kept him from graduating on time, forcing him to reapply. The second time around, his recruiter suggested he try instead to be a "96 Uniform" - Army-speak for a UAV operator. Clark had never considered becoming a pilot. But the idea of running a robot spy plane sounded pretty rad. Now he's one of 225 soldiers, reservists, and National Guardsmen training on a lonely airstrip at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, a 125-year-old outpost 10 miles from the Mexican border.

In a sense, Clark has been prepping for the job since he was a kid: He plays videogames. A lot of videogames. Back in the barracks he spends downtime with an Xbox and a PlayStation. When he first slid behind the controls of a Shadow UAV, the point and click operation turned out to work much the same way. "You watch the screen. You tell it to roll left, it rolls left. It's pretty simple," Clark says. But this is real life. "So you have to take it more seriously. If you crash one of these, you have to bleed and piss" - in other words, take a drug test.

Clark has no intention of nose-diving, however. Crashing a $550,000 Shadow isn't as catastrophic as riding a $4.5 million Predator into the ground (or a $55 million F-15, for that matter). But Clark has gamed away the past 11 months in Arizona, and today, finally, is his last "check ride." After this takeoff, he'll be certified to fly the Shadow 200. He'll spend a few months at Fort Hood, Texas, training with the 4th Infantry Division. Then he'll ship off to what his sergeant calls the Big Sandbox: Iraq.

"Striker 1-5, we have lights. Are we clear to launch?" Clark asks into his headset. The low buzz from the plane's engine shifts into a high-pitched, 105-decibel whine. "Departure approved," the control tower squawks back, barely audible over the din.

"Outstanding," Clark smiles, checking his instrument panel one more time. "Five. Four. Three. Two. One. Launch, launch, launch!" he says, as the plane jumps into the Arizona morning.

The flat gray Shadow gets propelled skyward on a nitrogen-pressurized rail; when Clark is ready to land, a hand-sized antenna dish on the side of the runway will guide the plane to the ground by transmitting coordinates a lot like GPS. Sitting in a Humvee, Clark flies the Hunter by using a mouse to point and click pixelated dials and sliders modeled after the ones in a physical cockpit. Alternatively he can just click a route on a map, or program a destination and let the plane figure it out. Clark doesn't have a throttle, and he can't see out the front of the plane. In fact, there is a camera, but the soldier sitting to Clark's left is working the joystick to take the pictures that make the whole mission worthwhile. Clark is just driving the bus.


Feature:
Attack of the Drones
Plus:
The Unmanned Air Force
Drone School, a Ground's Eye View
During the Cold War, US pilots were nobody's chauffeurs. They were aces, ready to mix it up with more agile Soviet MiGs. Today, few countries have fighters that can match US forces. The days of dogfights are over, unless the United States is planning to start a war with Israel or India. So if UAVs are getting simpler to operate, and if there are no more "duels in the sky," says retired Marine major general Tom Wilkerson - a quintessential fighter jock, a Top Gun graduate with more than 3,000 hours in the front seats of F-4s and F/A-18 Hornets - "maybe you don't need any fighter pilots at all."

Nearly six decades after World War I ace Carl Spaatz became its first chief of staff, the Air Force is still ruled by fighter pilots. They're the guys who can smile through barrel rolls that make lesser men lose their lunch, guys with the kind of toys that go Mach 2.

UAVs have been in that toy chest for decades. The Air Force sent a supersonic drone over China in the 1960s; in the Vietnam War its shark-shaped Lightning Bug flew 3,500 unmanned reconnaissance sorties. More experiments followed through the 1980s and 1990s.

Drones had their successes, but Air Force jocks never accepted them as a part of top gun culture. UAVs were considered so second class, the Air Force had to order pilots into drone duty. After all, airmen earned less money operating a Predator, and too much time as a drone pilot could lead to a loss of flight privileges for manned planes. They weren't much fun to fly, either. At a fraction of the weight of an F-15, they get pummeled by the wind on takeoff and landing; 25 have crashed since 2001. That means questions, accident reports, and a blot on your record. And let's just come out and say it: You're not exactly risking your life for your country flying a mission from behind a desk at Nellis.

All these attitudes began to change in 2001, when the CIA and the Air Force rigged a few Predators with Hellfire air-to-ground missiles. Suddenly, a UAV could do more than just float over a target for 20 hours at a time, watching and taking pictures, already a significant asset. It could also be a killer.

What a difference a missile makes. Nowadays, drone pilots get treated better. Predator flight time counts the same and pays the same as time in a fighter. When Major Rogers got the chance to command a squadron after four years at the Air Force Academy and a dozen years behind the stick of F-15s and other jets, he didn't care at all that his planes would be thousands of miles away, or that he wouldn't be able to feel turbulence or smell a burning engine. "Most of the time, I get to fight the war, and go home and see the wife and kids at night," he says.

The Pentagon brass like what drones can do, too. Thanks to UAV imaging and data-transmitting, generals back at HQ now have access to a lot of the same intelligence as their people in the field. "The higher echelons fight in the depths of the battle in real time," says retired Army general Wesley Clark, whose use of drones in Kosovo set the stage for today's UAV frenzy. Others talk about that change less glowingly. "It's like crack for generals," says Chuck Kamps, a professor of joint warfare at the Air Command and Staff College. "It gives them an unprecedented ability to meddle in mission commanders' jobs."

Either way, drones have become popular because they bring new speed to the battlefield. Ten days into the Iraq invasion, a Predator spotted what one analyst at US Central Command headquarters in Qatar thought was an Al Samoud surface-to-surface missile launcher. No way, another analyst said in a secure online chat room. That's a truck, and there's a building right next to it - a house, maybe - which could mean serious civilian casualties if the Predator fired.

While dozens of officers and analysts in on the chat debated what to do, a JAG officer - a military lawyer - came into the room. The building looked like a house to him, too. He suggested bringing a general in.

At the same time, officers at the Combined Air Operations Center in Al Udeid Air Base began preparations to scramble manned attack aircraft to the area. Military intelligence groups got ready to deploy signal-collection planes, to pick up cell phone chatter after the missile hit.

The general reviewed the situation and gave his OK to fire. The Predator launched a Hellfire, and the "truck" exploded so violently that the heat overloaded the drone's thermal sensors. It had been an Al Samoud after all.

The whole thing, from legal decision to command to execution, took five minutes. Tacticians call that time line - target acquisition, deployment of force, order to attack, destruction of target - the "sensor-to-shooter cycle" or "kill chain." It's a measure of any military's reflexes; in Gulf War I, the kill chain was often three days.

It can still take days for satellite pictures to be captured, scoured by imagery analysts, forwarded through the military hierarchy, and passed on to someone with a gun. But that's changing. With an armed UAV, the sensor is the shooter. The kill chain is only one link long.

Convinced at last of drones' value, the Air Force is making a behind-the-scenes play to become the Pentagon's "executive agent" for UAVs, the hub and gatekeeper for robotic aviation. In other words, it's looking to run the whole unmanned show. Air Force planners aim to buy 144 more armed Predators, boosting the number of squadrons from 3 to 15. It's building an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Center for Excellence at Nellis to guide future drone development and has taken over from Darpa the development of next-generation bomb-carrying, highly autonomous UAVs.

The ironic thing about the Air Force's excitement is that drones aren't exactly airplanes. Sure, they have wings and fly, but they're more like guns (or cameras) with wings than planes with guns.


Feature:
Attack of the Drones
Plus:
The Unmanned Air Force
Drone School, a Ground's Eye View
That's not how the Air Force sees it. Air Force rules say that only rated pilots, guys trained to pilot a B-52 or an F-15, are allowed to operate Predators. It costs $685,000 to train a pilot (not counting salary, bonuses, and equipment costs for refresher flights), which means a lot more money to staff all those planned Predator squadrons. But "you have to understand flight, know how to talk to a controller," says Colonel Tom Ehrhard, a former Air Force missile commander now working at the Pentagon. "It takes an aviator to do that."

The Army doesn't think so. It woke up to the potential of drones during 1996 war games at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. For the first time ever, Army units defeated the elite trainers of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, a tough, experienced unit on its home field. The winning side had Hunter UAVs, split-tailed drones with what look like a mushroom growing out of the fuselage - an antenna. The 11th couldn't make a move without getting spotted from above. The Pentagon had canceled the project earlier that year after building only 56 drones. But the upset win proved to strategists that drones finally had the onboard navigational intelligence and GPS locating capabilities to make them useful in the field.

Nine years later, grunts have a new favorite gadget. The most popular drone in the US military is the Army's Raven, a 3-foot-long unarmed flier that weighs half as much as a loaded M-16 and costs a bit more than a loaded Camry. "You throw the bird up when you want to throw it. You land it when you want to land," says Captain Matt Gill, a UAV company commander with the 82nd Airborne. Trained pilots need not apply - one of the most famous Raven operators is a cook from the 1st Cavalry. In 2002, the Army had 25 Ravens; today, it has more than 800 in combat or on the way. The Marines have about a hundred similar Dragon Eyes in the field. By 2010, the military will have nearly a thousand of the tiny, tactical drones.

Why the boom? Eyes in the sky keep soldiers from getting killed. "The way you used to get intel on the battlefield was you fought for it, sending your squad into a building, forcing your way in," says former Army captain Phillip Carter. Now company commanders can see around corners and over hills - a God's-eye perspective that once was the domain of generals, with their Predators, manned spy planes, and satellites.

Ravens transmit information locally, too narrow a view for a general, but the intel gets into the hands of the person who needs it most: a field commander. And he doesn't have to climb the chain of command to get it. "It flattens the org chart," says Kamps, the joint warfare professor.

Everyone's on board with drones - the question is who do you let fly them. The Air Force model considers them planes, which require expensive pilots who need to fly hundreds of hours in manned aircraft each year to keep their certification up. The Army model lumps them in with other tools, from cameras to guns, and puts them in the hands of anyone who can use them. Drones, meanwhile, are getting smaller, easier to operate, and even disposable. The technology, in other words, is trickling down, just like computers did a generation ago. Yet the Air Force still treats them like mainframes, to be operated by a highly trained elite. Are the flyboys on the wrong side of history?

Not necessarily. Different kinds of drones fly different kinds of missions. Tactical UAVs such as the grunt-flown, 1,000-foot-range Raven serve small groups in the field; endurance UAVs like the pilot-flown Predator send pictures back to generals and throw Hellfire missiles. The Air Force model suits the fighter-sized drones with full attack-plane features; the Army model fits the backpack-sized cameras with wings. But as drones continue to evolve, both models are morphing into something new.

At Huachuca, right next to where Private Clark is finishing his last takeoff, techs are prepping a Hunter. Beneath each wing is a 3-foot-long bright orange cylinder, a placeholder for a Viper Strike laser-guided bomb. These modified Hunters may never see combat. It doesn't matter. It's an experiment, a step closer to the Army's next-generation drone, the Extended Range/Multi-Purpose vehicle.

Like the Predator, the ERMP will be able to stay in the air 24 hours straight and communicate with its pilot via satellite. It'll have Viper Strike missiles, packing the sensor-to-shooter cycle into a single drone. Early prototypes have already destroyed tanks and buildings from 25,000 feet. But the critical advantage is in the ERMP's controls, which will be nearly identical to what Clark is now certified to use. The kill chain will be in the hands of a geeky teenager like Joel Clark, his fingers flying over a keyboard.


Feature:
Attack of the Drones
Plus:
The Unmanned Air Force
Drone School, a Ground's Eye View
The Unmanned Air Force

Drones are taking off in every branch of the military. Here are four of the most widely used:



PREDATOR
Service Branch: Air Force
First deployed: 1995
Wingspan/Length: 48 feet / 26 feet
Typical Air Time: 24 hours
Maximum Altitude: 26,000 feet
Special Equipment: Hellfire air-to-ground missiles



RAVEN
Service Branch: Army
First deployed: 2002
Wingspan/Length: 5 feet / 3 feet
Typical Air Time: 80 minutes
Maximum Altitude: 1,000 feet
Special Equipment: Interchangeable payload nose



GLOBAL HAWK
Service Branch: Air Force
First deployed: 1998
Wingspan/Length: 116 feet / 44 feet
Typical Air Time: 24 hours
Maximum Altitude: 60,000 feet
Special Equipment: Wideband satellite communication



SHADOW
Service Branch: Army
First deployed: 2002
Wingspan/Length: 14 feet / 12 feet
Typical Air Time: 6 hours
Maximum Altitude: 15,000 feet
Special Equipment: Hydraulic catapult launch system

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/drones.html?pg=1&topic=drones&topic_set=

[chunga1]

What’s Next for Ground Robots?

By Grace Jean

When the Pentagon’s premiere research lab held a robot race across the California desert three years ago, it not only generated excitement in industry and academia, but also created skeptics who scoffed at the idea of driverless cars and trucks traveling 142 miles on their own. Indeed, critics had plenty of ammunition after none of the teams crossed the finish line. The best entry only completed seven miles of the course.

After a more successful desert race in 2005, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency raised the stakes this year on its competition by challenging teams with a 60-mile urban course at the former George Air Force Base in Victorville, Calif. Loaded with sensor suites and on-board computing systems, vehicles ranging from cars and sports utility vehicles to military trucks navigated the streets and executed tasks that simulated battlefield supply missions.

Like beginning student drivers, the unmanned vehicles balked at intersections before merging into moving traffic, which was composed of 50 human-driven cars and other teams’ entries. They swerved into the paths of oncoming vehicles, hopped curbs, and in a few cases, swiped other competitors and collided into barriers and buildings.

But six of the 11 finalists successfully finished the race, emerging mostly unscathed and providing the Defense Department with some viable technologies that it may want to consider for taking troops out of harm’s way. Carnegie Mellon University’s Tartan Racing team won the $2 million first prize with “Boss,” an automated Chevy Tahoe that completed the course in 250 minutes and 20 seconds.

With military forces suffering major casualties from roadside bombs in Iraq, Congress’ mandate that the Defense Department turn one-third of its manned combat vehicles into autonomous systems by 2015 has become more urgent. DARPA’s hope is to further accelerate the development of autonomous ground vehicle technologies to help the Pentagon meet that objective.

“These are very lofty goals,” said John Beck, chief engineer for unmanned systems at Oshkosh Truck Corp., and leader of the company’s team entry, TerraMax.

Driving across the desert requires certain technical advances in obstacle detection capabilities and computing; driving through a city-like landscape demands even greater technological finesse to mimic human judgment and reactions. DARPA’s Urban Challenge is pushing those technologies to the edge, he said.

The team in previous challenges relied upon laboratory-based instruments to automate its vehicle. It now applies commercially available sensors that may expedite the production of its robot, said Gary Schmiedel, vice president of advanced product engineering at Oshkosh, which produces the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement truck for the Marine Corps.

For the competition, the company automated a modified version of its MTVR. Engineers took the base of the 6x6 tractor variant and removed the last axle to enable the vehicle to turn in a 42-foot diameter circle. They then integrated a suite of sensors, including three light detection and ranging system units and a global positioning system, into the bumper of the truck and incorporated cameras into its cab. The computing hardware — the “brains” of the vehicle — was mounted underneath the passenger seat.

“Other than a new screen in the cab, you can’t tell that it’s an autonomous vehicle readily,” said Christopher Yakes, director of the advanced products group.

Standing 12 feet tall, 22.6 feet long and weighing 24,500 pounds, the TerraMax dwarfed the other finalists’ Chevys, Fords and Volkswagens. However, after completing four of the six checkpoints during the competition’s first mission, the truck drove into a building and was disqualified from the race.

The team is focusing on integrating the sensors to a greater degree.

“Ultimately, our goal is to be able to provide this technology to our vehicles in a kit form, such that we could retrofit our vehicles with this technology throughout the world,” said Yakes.

The company has incorporated the kit onto its military heavy cargo truck that carries an 18-ton payload. It also has applied the kit to its latest variant of the heavy expandable mobility tactical truck, the A4, said Schmiedel.

“We think that the requirements by the military to field something like this would be slightly different. But the technologies that we’re developing in order to meet the goal for the Urban Challenge are helping us gain the ability to meet the requirements that the military may provide us,” said Beck.

Schmiedel added that the next logical step in challenging industry and academia might be for military commanders to determine a challenge for the teams to solve. The services have yet to announce the types of missions they envision for unmanned ground vehicles.

“Do they want to do leader-follower convoys? Do they want the follow vehicle to be 5 meters behind, or five days behind? Those are the sorts of questions that we’re really looking for next, to have some tactics developed so we can tailor the operation of the autonomous system to achieve those tactics,” said Schmiedel.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/December/ScienceTech.htm

[chunga1]

New iRobot PackBot Payload Offers Ruggedized Situational Awareness

The Mapping Kit payload technology is the result of years of advanced research and development at iRobot.
by Staff Writers
Burlington MA (SPX) Dec 13, 2007
iRobot has announced the iRobot PackBot with Mapping Kit, a proven platform with a new payload designed to help warfighters deftly manage the dangerous tasks of search, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. PackBot with Mapping Kit is the first field tested and deployed robot to integrate real-time mapping and semi-autonomous remote operational capabilities, delivering soldiers advanced situational awareness while they remain a safe distance from danger.
"PackBot with Mapping Kit utilizes new technology that directly addresses the needs of modern warfighter and other first responders to safely gather crucial environmental intelligence without having to enter hazardous situations," said Vice Admiral Joe Dyer (U.S. Navy, Ret.), president of iRobot Government and Industrial Robots division. "We foresee it becoming an invaluable addition to small unmanned ground vehicle operations that require fast and reliable navigation capabilities in rugged environments."

The Mapping Kit payload technology is the result of years of advanced research and development at iRobot. Through a state-of-the-art combination of sensors and artificial intelligence, PackBot with Mapping Kit can relay a real-time two-dimensional structural map of the environment it is moving through back to its operator, while simultaneously detecting and avoiding obstacles in its path. The soldier still maintains control of the robot, but if an obstacle is encountered, PackBot is capable of autonomously changing course to avoid imminent collisions. This advanced autonomy enables the operator to navigate faster and smarter through unknown environments, increasing the safety and tempo of operations in time-critical situations.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/New_iRobot_PackBot_Payload_Offers_Ruggedized_Situational_Awareness_999.html

[chunga1]

Humanoid teaches dentists to feel people's pain: researchers


by Staff Writers
Tokyo (AFP) Nov 28, 2007
Japan's future dentists may soon be able to better appreciate patients' pain by training on a humanoid robot that can mumble "ouch" when the drill hits a nerve.
The robot, resembling an attractive young woman with long black hair and a pink sweater, also can listen to instructions and react to pain by moving her eyes or hands.

A group of robot and computer makers presented the high-tech dental patient in Tokyo at the 2007 International Robot Exhibition, a four-day technology showcase that opened Wednesday.

The medical simulation robot, named "Simroid," is designed to be used for clinical training at dental schools, said Tatsuo Matsuzaki, an official at robot maker Kokoro Company Ltd., which developed the body and control system.

The 160-centimeter (five-foot-three) robot can say "it hurts" and frown when it feels uncomfortable from the dental drill.

"Because it's so real, dental trainees can see patients' feelings and will be able to develop good skills as they treat it, not as an object, but as a human being," Matsuzaki said.

"The point is that we can share people's pain without hurting people," Matsuzaki said.

Naotake Shibui, a professor at Nippon Medical School, which introduced the robot in September, said Simroid can help dentists "learn how to communicate with patients."

"Treatment technique is important but it's also important to feel what it's like to be a patient," he said.

But in case anyone thinks the robot is too real, it also has a sensor on the breast area that keeps track if it has been touched inappropriately, an engineer said.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Humanoid_teaches_dentists_to_feel_peoples_pain_researchers_999.html

[chunga1]

Japan looks at everyday use of robots


by Staff Writers
Tokyo (AFP) Nov 29, 2007
Japan, which has taken the lead in developing a generation of high-tech if quirky robots, is now getting down to reality by looking at what humanoids can actually do for people.
Some 200 companies and more than 50 organisations from Japan and abroad are taking part in the 2007 International Robot Exhibition in Tokyo, one of the world's largest robot shows.

At the last event two years ago, Japanese companies displayed their state-of-the-art inventions ranging from a two-legged trumpet player to a robot receptionist, which both starred at the World Exposition in central Aichi.

In contrast to the extravagant showcase in 2005, the four-day exhibition which opened Wednesday features a number of robots designed to be used in everyday life.

"Two years after the Expo, which showed the future of life with robots, it's time to see how we can use robots," said Shoichi Hamada, a senior official at the Japan Robot Association, one of the organisers of this week's event.

"Now practical application of robots is in sight," Hamada told AFP. "Many companies here are in a position to let people see what the robots can actually do at this stage of technology."

While many of the security-guard robots displayed here are already in commercial use in Japan, newly unveiled humanoids are also ready for sale.

"We can see the light in the practical use of robots," said Tatsuo Matsuzaki, an official at Kokoro Company Ltd., which is showing off a dental patient robot that can mumble "ouch" when the drill hits a nerve.

"Now we are in a transition period from a world of animation or exhibition to a real world of life with robots," Matsuzaki said.

The medical simulation robot, named "Simroid," is designed to be used in clinical training at dental schools. It can also listen to instructions and react to pain by moving its eyes or hands.

"There have been a number of simulation models for medical training, but we have to train future dentists to be able to share patients' feelings," said Naotake Shibui, a professor at Nippon Medical School, which introduced the robotic patient in September.

"For that purpose, we need a real simulation humanoid which is as close to a person as possible," Shibui said.

Japan's most famous robot is arguably Asimo, an astronaut-looking humanoid developed by Honda Motor Co. which has been hired out as an office servant and has even popped up to offer toasts at Japanese diplomatic functions.

Robot makers are seeing a big opening for robot use in Japan, where the number of elderly people is rapidly growing.

"Helping people out is one of the main objectives of robots," said Kenji Kusunoki, an official at Kyokko Electric Co. Ltd., which is showcasing a wearable sensor that functions as a robot remote control.

"Robot technology is very useful in an ageing society," Kusunoki said. "Now we are gradually sorting out what robots actually can and should do, and what in fact we can't expect from robots."

Japanese researchers on Tuesday unveiled a new humanoid designed to lend a hand with housework, particularly for the elderly.

The 147-centimetre (four-foot-10) white robot with blue eyes and red arm joints put its skills on display by helping an elderly person get out of bed and preparing breakfast.

Japanese are famed for longevity, with more than 30,000 people aged at least 100 years old, a trend attributed to a healthy cuisine and active lifestyle.

But the ability to live longer is also presenting a headache as the country has one of the lowest birthrates, raising fears of a future demographic crisis.

Hamada, however, said not to expect a science-fiction world of robots taking all jobs from people.

"There are some things robots can't do," Hamada said. "By nature, there are jobs only people can do such as those involving physical contact. I believe robots and people will share jobs in the end."


http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Japan_looks_at_everyday_use_of_robots_999.html

[chunga1]

An EEG-controlled robotic arm
Many researchers around the world have tried to build robotic devices able to help people with paralysis. Now, European researchers have developed a robot control system based on electroencephalogram (EEG). The patients using the Brain2Robot system might regain some of their lost autonomy. The users will control the robotic arm with their thoughts. To control the robotic arm, the Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) developed at one Fraunhofer Institute in Germany is combined with an eye tracker. The signals are sent to a computer which performs the main learning task. According to the researchers, the robotic arm could become commercially available in a few years.



You can see above how such a robotic arm controlled by its user's thoughts could one day make life easier for people with paralysis. (Credit: Fraunhofer FIRST) Here is a link to a larger version of this sketch. If you prefer to look at photos, you can read a previous annual report from Fraunhofer FIRST, What does humankind need?" (PDF format, 78 pages, 3.34 MB) and jump to page 56.

I guess that you're asking yourself the question: How can thoughts be translated into instructions for the robot? The solution is based on a concept known as a brain-computer interface (BCI). Researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Architecture and Software Technology FIRST and the Charité hospital in Berlin have been working on this type of interface for almost seven years. "For the input, they use a perfectly normal electroencephalogram (EEG), just like the ones used in everyday clinical practice. Electrodes attached to the patient’s scalp measure the brain’s electrical signals, which are amplified and transmitted to a computer."

The computer scientists also have developed highly efficient algorithms to "analyze these signals using a self-learning technique. The software is capable of detecting changes in brain activity that take place even before a movement is carried out. It can recognize and distinguish between the patterns of signals that correspond to an intention to raise the left or right hand, and extract them from the pulses being fired by millions of other neurons in the brain."

Now, let's take a look at the Brain2Robot project page for more details. In particular, how do you start the system? "an eyetracker first determines the direction in which the robot arm should move. The direction of the patient’s gaze is monitored by two cameras mounted on a specially designed pair of glasses. First, the exact position of the pupils is captured in stereo (stereo eyetracking). In addition, a headtracker determines the position of the head. A software component analyzes the two systems’ data and derives from this the intended direction of the movement. The test person sees an object, looks at it, imagines moving his/her arm, and the robot grasps the desired object."

And here are more details about how the system is learning. "Electrodes attached to the patient’s scalp measure the brain’s electrical signals. These are then amplified and transmitted to the computer. High-efficiency algorithms analyze these signals using machine-learning methods. They are capable of detecting changes in brain activity triggered by the purely mental conception of a particular behaviour. They can, for instance, unequivocally identify patterns reflecting the idea of moving the left or right hand and extract them from the many millions of neural impulses. They are then converted into control commands for the computer, enabling one to choose, for example, between two alternatives."

For your information, the Brain2Robot project has been awarded 1.3& million euros in research funding under the European Union's sixth Framework Programme (FP6) under the name "A Robotic-Arm Orthosis Controlled by Electroencephalography and Gaze for Locked-In Paralytics." Here is the fact sheet of this project which started on January 1, 2005 and is scheduled to end on December 31, 2008.

http://www.primidi.com/2007/11/25.html#a2018

[chunga1]

New Japanese lightweight robot on wheels can talk

Combo photo shows Japanese electronics giant Hitachi unveiling the company's new humanoid robot "EMIEW 2" (Excellent Mobility and Interactive Existence as Workmate) equipped with the world's first convertible legs, which enable them to convert four-weels, two wheels and two feet to clear maximum three centimeters gaps at the company's laboratory at Hitachinaka city in Ibaraki prefecture, 21 November 2007. (L-R) four-wheel, two-wheel and legs version of the robot which measures 80cm tall and weighs 13kg. Photo courtesy AFP.
by Staff Writers


Hitachinaka, Japan (AFP) Nov 21, 2007
Japanese engineering giant Hitachi Ltd. on Wednesday unveiled a new lightweight robot that can converse while easily scooting around people.
In a first for a humanoid, the robot has convertible legs, allowing it to walk on two legs or roll about on either two or four wheels, Hitachi said.

In a demonstration near Tokyo, Hitachi showed how the robot, clad in a red jacket and cap, could be used to bring drinks or paperwork or guide guests at an office.

Standing 80 centimeters (31.5 inches) tall and weighing just 13 kilogrammes (29 pounds), the "EMIEW 2" robot demonstrates a step towards production of machines that can live with and support humans, a company statement said.

Sensors on the machine enable the robot to learn the locations of objects and open spaces in an office while recognising moving people.

The robot can also serve as a receptionist or after-hour security monitor, Hitachi said.

Hitachi is one of a number of Japanese companies which has been trying to develop humanoids to compensate for a future labour shortage in Japan, whose population is rapidly ageing but which rejects large-scale immigration.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. earlier this year started renting out humanoid robots which can recognise about 10,000 words necessary for daily life and can work the front desks of offices and hospitals.

[mgland]

Cockroaches can succumb to peer pressure, study finds

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

November 19, 2007

Many a mother has said, with a sigh, “If your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump, too?”

The answer, for cockroaches at least, may well be yes. Researchers using robotic roaches were able to persuade real cockroaches to do things that their instincts told them were not the best idea.

This experiment in bug peer pressure combined entomology, robotics and the study of ways that complex and even intelligent patterns can arise from simple behavior. Animal behavior research shows that swarms working together can prosper where individuals might fail, and robotics researchers have been experimenting with simple robots that, together, act a little like a swarm.



Advertisement“We decided to join the two approaches,” said Jose Halloy, a biology researcher at the Free University of Brussels and lead author of a paper describing the research in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
Halloy and his colleagues worked with roaches because their societies are simple, egalitarian and democratic, with none of the social stratification that mark some other insect societies – no queen bees, no worker ants. “Cockroaches are not like that,” Halloy said. “They live all together.”

They also have weak eyes, which allowed the researchers to create a robotic roach that resembles a miniature golf cart more than an insect. In the roach world, however, looking right is not as important as smelling right, and the scientists doused the machines with eau de cockroach sex hormones.

They set up a cockroach arena one yard in diameter. Two 6-inch-wide plastic discs were suspended over it, providing the dark shelters that cockroaches prefer to congregate in. But one disc was darker and a more likely cockroach hangout.

When 16 cockroaches were placed in the arena, they naturally gravitated toward the darker disc, following what the researchers believe is an internal calculation of the amount of light and the number of other roaches, finding comfort in company.

Halloy then replaced four of the cockroaches with four robots equipped with sensors to measure light and the proximity of other robots. When the robots emulated the real roaches, the group continued to seek the dark and crowded place.

When the four robotic roaches were reprogrammed to prefer the lighter disc, however, the real roaches followed them about 60 percent of the time, in essence deferring their own judgment as the preference grew more popular. (The other 40 percent of the time, it was the robotic roaches who succumbed to peer pressure and headed for the darkest place.)

“It's a cascade of imitation, so a small effect can become quite large,” said Stephen Pratt, a professor of life sciences at Arizona State University. “This one is a real step forward. They've developed these theories about what kinds of individual behavior rules would have to follow to generate a collective intelligence. I thought it was very gratifying they could get the roaches to do what they normally would not do.”

The scientists plan to extend their research to higher animals. The next creation: a robotic chicken, which will look a little like a ball on tank treads with loudspeakers. The experiment would then test to see if newly hatched chicks would bond to the robot as if it were their mother.

The current research did not test whether the robots could lead the cockroaches to something they really disliked, like broad daylight or insecticide. Halloy said the results also apply only to cockroaches. “We are not interested in people,” he said.



»Next Story»