

Robotic suit gives shipyard workers super strength - ultimatedelman
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329803.900-robotic-suit-gives-shipyard-workers-super-strength.html#.U9_rW_ldVu0

======
anigbrowl
_" At the time, most of the yards we toured were significantly more advanced
in robotic welding than the US yards performing naval ship construction, and
had been for a long time," Gene Mitchell, the retired US Navy officer who led
the research told New Scientist._

That's depressing. I don't know why many US industrial firms seem so slow to
do their own training, but instead complain about a shortage of skilled
workers. There's not much point in spending a lot of money training in some
highly specialized area like heavy robotics if you don't know where the demand
is.

~~~
gk1
Commercial shipbuilding in the US has long sailed. The industry leaders are
now Japan, South Korea, and China. Nobody in the US is even trying to keep up,
because there's no way to compete with the cheap labor force and efficient
yards of those countries. For the most part, the only ships still being built
in the US are for the military.

~~~
lchengify
I was shocked to hear this so I did some research. As it turns out, it has a
lot to do with foreign subsidies, similar to solar power.

Apparently up until 1981, the US had the Construction differential subsidy
program [1][2] that subsided shipbuilding construction. During the Regan
administration, the US eliminated subsidies whereas countries in Asia did not.
Now the top 10 shipbuilding countries are in China, Korea, or Japan [3][4].

Outside of a few exceptions, such as a 1920 law forcing US-based natural gas
to only be transported on American made/manned ships [5], the US shipbuilding
industry has one customer: the military. Without additional subsidies it's
unlikely the US can effectively compete with places like China, which continue
to increase subsidies for shipbuilders [6].

In this political climate (especially post-Solyndra, post ethanol-subsidy) I
think it's unlikely the federal government would increase subsidies for a
private industry. On one hand, this might not be a bad thing: Chinese-
subsidized industries don't always work out the way they planned (e.g., the
construction of ghost towns). However if the military doesn't keep the
industry up-to-date technologically, a shipbuilding tech gap could form, which
might impact national security.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Shipbuilding_Program](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Shipbuilding_Program)

[2] [http://www.marinelink.com/article/shipbuilding/the-future-
am...](http://www.marinelink.com/article/shipbuilding/the-future-american-
shipbuilding-805)

[3] [http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/marine-
news/headline/top...](http://www.marineinsight.com/marine/marine-
news/headline/top-10-shipbuilding-companies-in-the-world-in-2012/)

[4] [http://thediplomat.com/2012/11/u-s-navy-take-notice-china-
is...](http://thediplomat.com/2012/11/u-s-navy-take-notice-china-is-becoming-
a-world-class-military-shipbuilder/)

[5] [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/20/boom-in-natural-gas-
pro...](http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/20/boom-in-natural-gas-production-
sends-us-shipyards-into-overdrive/)

[6] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/09/us-china-
shipping-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/09/us-china-shipping-
idUSBRE9B80Q320131209)

~~~
hudibras
You're completely right.

The U.S. is so far ahead of the rest of the world in almost all defense
technologies that it's a hard pill to swallow politically that there could be
one relatively-small segment (non-nuclear surface warships) that we'd be
better off actually buying from our closest allies.

We export so much defense equipment to our allies, that you'd think it would
be okay to maybe possibly import one thing that's built better and cheaper
elsewhere. But no, we'd rather subsidize our shipyards to continue churning
out ships designed in the 1980s...

------
vonklaus
I think this is an amazing and inevitable outcome. However, sort of
disappointed by the 60 kilo max. I feel like these suits need to be an ordwr
of magnitude better than humans to be viable. There are certainly people who
can lift 125lb objects. I understand that fatigue and uniformity factor in,
but it will be great to see 300lb+ suits

~~~
angersock
That's overengineering--being able to consistently lift 60-100 kg. would be
quite useful.

~~~
vonklaus
Right. That was sort of my point, I understand it is useful to consistently
lift and move heavy stiff without fatiguing oneself. I think if you were to
improve it to say, 250kg it would fit a lot more usecases. Overengineering, in
my opinion, would be asking for an iron man suit.

~~~
bpodgursky
I suspect that when you get up to 250kg you run into stability issues as much
as strength issues. Even if you could lift it easily, it would be really
tricky to hold it in a way that you won't tip over and drop it.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Yeah, it'd need to be combined with research going on atm with bipedal robots;
they'd have to be able to keep themselves balanced.

~~~
gadders
Or just have really heavy "feet". That's what the big block of steel/concrete
on the back of a forklift is for.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yeah, but automated balancing might be significantly more energy efficient
than sticking quater-ton blocks of metals to the feet.

~~~
gadders
Maybe you could use the extra mass to provide super-protective steel toe caps,
as per a comment above :-)

------
nwh
Hate to see what happens when a bug causes the wrong motors to fire and the
thing breaks all of your bones. Be awesome to use one though all the same.

~~~
humbledrone
It seems feasible to design an exoskeleton suit that is mechanically incapable
of breaking your bones. You could pick some flexibility constraints that
define a conservative model of how human limbs can bend and swivel, and then
design the hardware with physical interlocks that prevent it from moving
beyond those limits. Picture an elbow joint that has a metal flange situated
such that if the motor tried to extend the arm beyond the normal human
straight elbow angle it would be mechanically blocked.

The thing that I find more worrisome is the fact that little squishy people
will be handling things that are so heavy that, if fumbled, would carry enough
momentum to rip right through them. Imagine letting a 250 kg piece of metal
slip -- if it hit your flesh, that's a problem. Once the strength of these
suits gets high enough to handle loads like that I think we'll have to see
more actual exoskeleton armor to protect the pilots.

~~~
Cthulhu_
A 100kg limit is feasible, that's not yet heavy enough (I think?) to cause
major damage if a mishap happens. ATM workers are handling loads like that -
and heavier - with cranes and clever tools that make the pieces they handle
effectively weightless (check car assembly workers for example), those also
don't carry that much risk when handled right. Laws and regulations for these
will be just as stringent as other industrial tools, I'm sure.

~~~
michaelt
Your basic steel toe cap work boots have a toe cap rated for a 200 joule
impact. That's equivalent to a 20kg weight dropped from 1 meter.

I sure wouldn't want to drop 100kg of weight on my foot from 1 meter :)

------
beambot
Yeah... they had those in 1958:

 _Iron Man: Ralph Mosher, an engineer working for General Electric in the
1950s, developed a robotic exoskeleton called Hardiman. The mechanical suit,
consisting of powered arms and legs, could give him superhuman strength.
Mosher subsequently made a simpler version that permitted him to sit in his
chair and pick up refrigerators._

[http://www.hizook.com/blog/2010/09/07/telepresence-robots-
ne...](http://www.hizook.com/blog/2010/09/07/telepresence-robots-news)

------
wooptoo
> it can lift objects with a mass of up to 30 kilograms.

Shouldn't factory workers be able to do that anyway? Or even 60kg.

~~~
frozenport
30 kilograms is 66 pounds. OSHA recommends a two-man lift for weights over 50
pounds :
[https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/electricalcontractors/mater...](https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/electricalcontractors/materials/heavy.html)

~~~
gadders
So any child above 5 years of age needs two parents to carry them?

~~~
goldfeld
Carrying your own offspring is not the same as being employed to carry weight
all day (and not necessarily because you really like that profession.) The
regulation is in place to protect the worker, be it from the employer or those
who don't know any better from themselves.

~~~
gadders
But 50lbs is pretty light. If you're in reasonable shape moving objects of
that weight every day should be fine. It's only (approximately) one big
Olympic plate.

~~~
ASneakyFox
That's not just some thing they happen to do once a day. Its what they do ALL
day, in addition to many other things. The purpose of the exoskeleton isn't
really to increase how much you can lift. Its to make it so it is less tiring.

------
thret
Let's be honest, if these things become commonplace in shipyards - we are all
going to want one.

~~~
XorNot
There's pretty much no reason not to use them everywhere. Every construction
site on the planet would benefit from augmented workers. A ridiculous amount
of heavy lifting is still involved in putting up just normal buildings, and an
injured worker is a big cost and set back.

~~~
dvcc
Family is in heavy construction, and I think there might be a bit of a
misconception on what holds workers back - its not weight.

The most common complaint that I hear is that between climbing and harnesses,
flexibility suffers. Adding in an exoskeleton would probably not be the best
idea in that case.

------
dbg31415
Soon we will be able to fight off the Aliens.

------
ende
Why is this technology being wasted on shipyards when I could be using it to
reenact scenes from Aliens and play rock em sock em cyborg in my backyard?

