The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's latest Grand Challenge is its 2012 $2 million Robotics Challenge. It invites engineers to come up with humanoid ground-based robots that can work in dangerous environments, including post-disaster scenarios like the artist's conception shown here. One priority for the challenge is developing supervised autonomous robots that non-experts can operate. These robots should also work in situations with poor electronic communications, such as intermittent or low-fidelity transmission. Tasks include driving a utility vehicle, traveling dismounted across rubble, removing debris blocking an entryway, and using a tool to break through a concrete panel. The contest will ask designers to build a single robot that performs all these tasks during several challenges, which will require new designs in both robot hardware and control software. (Source: DARPA)
BEAR reminds me of Robo-Cop. It is a great idea to use the robots to interact with victims. If the robots had audio capabilities this would/could allow two communications with victims. In the case of a rescuing a child it would be comforting for a child to hear someone's voice, like their parent to keep them claim.
Ann, it was in the post by ervin0072002 , who suggested some "sedative gas" or somesuch. The nearby comments mentioned the potential for legal grief if the robot did not deliver up to somebody's expectations.
Where the problem begins is in the minds of those who have no technical understanding at all, and presume that engineers can do anything if they choose to do it, and spend enough money on it. That, along with the inability of so very many to focus their attention long enough to learn and understand things, seems to be the basis of those who are unwilling, or unknowing-enough, so that they believe that all of their existance is "somebody else's" responsibility.
On the other side, rescue robots do need to be made to look and sound friendly and reassuring. That is why the comment about needing a very good quality speech and sound system on the robots. Fortunately that technology is quite mature.
William, I'm not sure where the idea of tranquilizing victims comes from. If you mean the Survivor Buddy, the point there was lessons learned after 9/11 about how weird, alien and upsetting a robot can appear to a human in distress. So the GUI and the machine's body language were designed to help calm the victim, as well as provide web communication with family and rescuers. Or did you mean something else?
One of the many advantages of humans (organics) is our mass to strength ratio. We efficiently convert food to energy and productivity. We have a built-in computer that has millions of parallel processors and almost unlimited memory, plus billions of input devices of various types (sound, touch, smell, optical, temperature, psychic (??), etc. No machine has all these capabilities in such a neat little package (well, "little" is in the eyes of the beholder). As we develop our little robot companions, the mass (weight, here on earth) adds up quickly and soon becomes unwieldy. Too bad, but it is a fact of life. We haven't been able to improve on God, and probably won't come close, but we can develop specific-use robots to help us in our travail through life. Rescue robots are top on my list! Too bad we have to replace so many workers with assembly line robots, but that is an economic fact of life. It will be interesting to see how our best and brightest come up with new solutions over the next few years in robotics. I will certainly be following the engineering side of this work. I hope it acts as a spring board to other areas like NASA did.
Warren, I'd guess that since most of the rescue robots are being designed for deployment by the military and first responders like police departments, they aren't likely to be deployed by civilians in a disaster. OTOH, if you buy one for help in the kitchen, you're probably on your own.
I am sure that I have seen the "BEAR" robot quite a while back, probably in Design News, and it would seem that whatever needed to be verified would be verified by now. As for a battlfield rescue robot, An American flag on the robot's chest would be enough for many, although certainly a robot could deliver a voice message as well. The very best choice would be to provide a bit of training for those likely to be rescued.
Of course, in a disaster or fire rescue a robot could certainly have a friendly human sounding voice, since it would not need much in the line of life support hardware for itself.
The concept of tranquilizing a panicy victim is about the most poorly advised idea that I have ever heard, since the legal ramifications would be horrible. We all know that.
I like the idea of robots coming to the rescue, unlike the abominable movie "I Robot", but I fear for the poor soul who sells one and gets sued as soon as it doesn't live up to human expectations. The technology is there and being used piecemeal now, but when the lawyers get hold of it, it would be better to just let the poor fool die.
Having made my disclaimer, it is time we used some of our robot playthings in universities to help mankind in more ways. We already use them, I hear, to clear roadside bombs, old land mines, nuclear (nuclur, dear George) waste,etc., but if they could come to the rescue in house or building fires, chemical spills, and so on, a lot of lives could be saved. Maybe even mine when I mess up in the kitchen...
Funny you should say that, Jack. The first time I saw the Army's BEAR robot, I thought it looked like a teddy bear, not a real bear. Come to think of it, maybe that's on purpose, to make it look friendlier.
Most cyber attacks could be avoided by adopting a list of Critical Security Controls that were created by the Center for Internet Security. Thatís the message from Steve Mustard of the Automation Federation.
George Leopold's talk at last week's Design & Manufacturing Minneapolis helped restore astronaut and engineer Gus Grissom's role in the beginnings of NASA, and outlined how Grissom played a pivotal role in winning the Space Race.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies.
You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived.
So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.