Humans will retain key role in robot use
With an army-green paint job and six knobby tires, Crusher rests inside Carnegie Mellon University's National Robotics Engineering Center in Lawrenceville. A metal easel nearby touts its attributes: “Quiet, patient, alert 24/7.”
The unmanned robot, built to go over terrain too rugged even for a Humvee, has become, in the words of NREC Director Tony Stentz, a “showpiece.”
Once the vanguard of a new army of ground robots, Crusher lost its place as Congress cut funding for a program, Future Combat Systems, that had the goal of making a third of military vehicles unmanned by 2015. The Army's plan had risen in cost from $80 billion to $173 billion by the time it was scrapped in 2009.
The military has instead focused on systems to provide safer operations and to “overmatch” enemies, said Pentagon spokeswoman Maureen Schumann. Likely missions include reconnaissance, bomb detection and removal, chemical, radiological and biological detection, and medical care.
“Research in unmanned vehicles is moving forward,” Schumann said. “While many of the systems under development will incorporate certain autonomous behaviors … they will operate under some level of human supervision.”
Ground robots remain in demand, said Matthew Woodward, a CMU researcher in mechanical engineering. Drones and satellites can see from the sky, but soldiers need to look inside buildings and tight places.
He has been working on a robot that can jump and glide, mimicking the motions of vampire bats.
“Rather than sending a whole bunch of people into a building, which is very dangerous, you drop a huge bunch — a thousand — of these robots on the ground,” Woodward said. “They can go ahead, survey the area, check every room and report back what they find.”
Researchers at NREC, meanwhile, are applying the unmanned driving technologies to civilian applications, such as farm tractors and mining equipment.
One team is building a human-sized robot — the CMU Highly Intelligent Mobile Platform, or CHIMP — that can move on tracks and use its limbs to operate tools. It is competing for a $2 million prize awarded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and could someday enter a compromised nuclear facility, such as Japan's Fukushima Daiichi power plant.
Crusher's smaller cousin, Dragon Runner, emerged from the NREC laboratory. British-based defense company QinetiQ, which runs a research facility in O'Hara, acquired the technology and sold hundreds of them to the Department of Defense.
Remotely controlled by soldiers nearby, the robots go into areas too small or dangerous for humans. The larger model, which weighs 20 pounds, can lift a 10-pound object and has daytime and night-vision cameras, motion detectors and a microphone. The smaller one, at 10 pounds, can go ahead of troops for reconnaissance and bomb detection.
“We're on the cusp of being able to realize things that were in PowerPoint presentations 10 years ago,” said Todd Graham, QinetiQ's director of operations. “The Holy Grail is to have fully autonomous systems. I don't really see that happening in the near future, but I see a scale of assisted autonomous behaviors where the robots are given more and more capability and are able to do different types of things by themselves.”
Andrew Conte is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-320-7835 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Add Andrew Conte to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Emergency personnel contain fire at Whitehall apartment complex
- Nude photos of Penn Hills High School students spur investigation
- Former youth volunteer facing federal child pornography charges
- Newsmaker: Connie Codispot
- Youngsters embrace technology that combines art, software in 3D printing
- Baltimore man killed in McKeesport crash
- Snow removal crews from Pennsylvania hit the road to help Buffalo
- WVU frat brothers charged with hazing pledges