Over the course of the past year Open Robotics has taken time from our day-to-day efforts to work with our colleagues in the field to consider how the technology we develop could negatively impact society as a whole. In particular we were concerned with the weaponization of mobile robots. After a lot of thoughtful discussion, deliberation, and debate with our colleagues at organizations like Boston Dynamics, Clearpath Robotics, Agility Robotics, AnyBotics, and Unitree, we have co-authored and signed an open letter to the robotics community entitled, “General Purpose Robots Should Not Be Weaponized.” You can read the letter, in its entirety, here. Additional media coverage of the letter can be found in Axios, and The Robot Report.

The letter codifies internal policies we’ve had at Open Robotics since our inception and we think it captures the sentiments of much of the ROS community. For our part, we have pledged that we will not weaponize mobile robots, and we do not support others doing so either. We believe that the weaponization of robots raises serious ethical issues and harms public trust in technologies that can have tremendous benefits to society. This is but a first step, and we look forward to working with policy makers, the robotics community, and the general public, to continue to promote the ethical use of robots and prohibit their misuse. This is but one of many discussions that must happen between robotics professionals, the general public, and lawmakers about advanced technologies, and quite frankly, we think it is long overdue.

Due to the permissive nature of the licenses we use for ROS, Gazebo, and our other projects, it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to limit the use of the technology we develop to build weaponized systems. However, we do not condone such efforts, and we will have no part in directly assisting those who do with our technical expertise or labor. This has been our policy from the start, and will continue to be our policy. We encourage the ROS community to take a similar stand and to work with their local lawmakers to prevent the weaponization of robotic systems. Moreover, we hope the entire ROS community will take time to reflect deeply on the ethical implications of their work, and help others better understand both the positive and negative outcomes that are possible in robotics.

Ghost Robotics Vision 60 Q-UGV. US Space Force photo by Senior Airman Samuel Becker

By Toby Walsh (Professor of AI at UNSW, Research Group Leader, UNSW Sydney)

You might suppose Hollywood is good at predicting the future. Indeed, Robert Wallace, head of the CIA’s Office of Technical Service and the US equivalent of MI6’s fictional Q, has recounted how Russian spies would watch the latest Bond movie to see what technologies might be coming their way.

Hollywood’s continuing obsession with killer robots might therefore be of significant concern. The newest such movie is Apple TV’s forthcoming sex robot courtroom drama Dolly.

I never thought I’d write the phrase “sex robot courtroom drama”, but there you go. Based on a 2011 short story by Elizabeth Bear, the plot concerns a billionaire killed by a sex robot that then asks for a lawyer to defend its murderous actions.

The real killer robots

Dolly is the latest in a long line of movies featuring killer robots – including HAL in Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s T-800 robot in the Terminator series. Indeed, conflict between robots and humans was at the centre of the very first feature-length science fiction film, Fritz Lang’s 1927 classic Metropolis.

But almost all these movies get it wrong. Killer robots won’t be sentient humanoid robots with evil intent. This might make for a dramatic storyline and a box office success, but such technologies are many decades, if not centuries, away.

Indeed, contrary to recent fears, robots may never be sentient.

It’s much simpler technologies we should be worrying about. And these technologies are starting to turn up on the battlefield today in places like Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh.

A war transformed

Movies that feature much simpler armed drones, like Angel has Fallen (2019) and Eye in the Sky (2015), paint perhaps the most accurate picture of the real future of killer robots.

On the nightly TV news, we see how modern warfare is being transformed by ever-more autonomous drones, tanks, ships and submarines. These robots are only a little more sophisticated than those you can buy in your local hobby store.

And increasingly, the decisions to identify, track and destroy targets are being handed over to their algorithms.

This is taking the world to a dangerous place, with a host of moral, legal and technical problems. Such weapons will, for example, further upset our troubled geopolitical situation. We already see Turkey emerging as a major drone power.

And such weapons cross a moral red line into a terrible and terrifying world where unaccountable machines decide who lives and who dies.

Robot manufacturers are, however, starting to push back against this future.

A pledge not to weaponise

Last week, six leading robotics companies pledged they would never weaponise their robot platforms. The companies include Boston Dynamics, which makes the Atlas humanoid robot, which can perform an impressive backflip, and the Spot robot dog, which looks like it’s straight out of the Black Mirror TV series.

This isn’t the first time robotics companies have spoken out about this worrying future. Five years ago, I organised an open letter signed by Elon Musk and more than 100 founders of other AI and robot companies calling for the United Nations to regulate the use of killer robots. The letter even knocked the Pope into third place for a global disarmament award.

However, the fact that leading robotics companies are pledging not to weaponise their robot platforms is more virtue signalling than anything else.

We have, for example, already seen third parties mount guns on clones of Boston Dynamics’ Spot robot dog. And such modified robots have proven effective in action. Iran’s top nuclear scientist was assassinated by Israeli agents using a robot machine gun in 2020.

Collective action to safeguard our future

The only way we can safeguard against this terrifying future is if nations collectively take action, as they have with chemical weapons, biological weapons and even nuclear weapons.

Such regulation won’t be perfect, just as the regulation of chemical weapons isn’t perfect. But it will prevent arms companies from openly selling such weapons and thus their proliferation.

Therefore, it’s even more important than a pledge from robotics companies to see the UN Human Rights council has recently unanimously decided to explore the human rights implications of new and emerging technologies like autonomous weapons.

Several dozen nations have already called for the UN to regulate killer robots. The European Parliament, the African Union, the UN Secretary General, Nobel peace laureates, church leaders, politicians and thousands of AI and robotics researchers like myself have all called for regulation.

Australian is not a country that has, so far, supported these calls. But if you want to avoid this Hollywood future, you may want to take it up with your political representative next time you see them.

Toby Walsh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

This article appeared in The Conversation.

Humanitarian groups have been calling for a ban on autonomous weapons. Wolfgang Kumm/picture alliance via Getty Images

By James Dawes

Autonomous weapon systems – commonly known as killer robots – may have killed human beings for the first time ever last year, according to a recent United Nations Security Council report on the Libyan civil war. History could well identify this as the starting point of the next major arms race, one that has the potential to be humanity’s final one.

The United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons debated the question of banning autonomous weapons at its once-every-five-years review meeting in Geneva Dec. 13-17, 2021, but didn’t reach consensus on a ban. Established in 1983, the convention has been updated regularly to restrict some of the world’s cruelest conventional weapons, including land mines, booby traps and incendiary weapons.

Autonomous weapon systems are robots with lethal weapons that can operate independently, selecting and attacking targets without a human weighing in on those decisions. Militaries around the world are investing heavily in autonomous weapons research and development. The U.S. alone budgeted US$18 billion for autonomous weapons between 2016 and 2020.

Meanwhile, human rights and humanitarian organizations are racing to establish regulations and prohibitions on such weapons development. Without such checks, foreign policy experts warn that disruptive autonomous weapons technologies will dangerously destabilize current nuclear strategies, both because they could radically change perceptions of strategic dominance, increasing the risk of preemptive attacks, and because they could be combined with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons themselves.

As a specialist in human rights with a focus on the weaponization of artificial intelligence, I find that autonomous weapons make the unsteady balances and fragmented safeguards of the nuclear world – for example, the U.S. president’s minimally constrained authority to launch a strike – more unsteady and more fragmented. Given the pace of research and development in autonomous weapons, the U.N. meeting might have been the last chance to head off an arms race.

Lethal errors and black boxes

I see four primary dangers with autonomous weapons. The first is the problem of misidentification. When selecting a target, will autonomous weapons be able to distinguish between hostile soldiers and 12-year-olds playing with toy guns? Between civilians fleeing a conflict site and insurgents making a tactical retreat?

Killer robots, like the drones in the 2017 short film ‘Slaughterbots,’ have long been a major subgenre of science fiction. (Warning: graphic depictions of violence.)

The problem here is not that machines will make such errors and humans won’t. It’s that the difference between human error and algorithmic error is like the difference between mailing a letter and tweeting. The scale, scope and speed of killer robot systems – ruled by one targeting algorithm, deployed across an entire continent – could make misidentifications by individual humans like a recent U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan seem like mere rounding errors by comparison.

Autonomous weapons expert Paul Scharre uses the metaphor of the runaway gun to explain the difference. A runaway gun is a defective machine gun that continues to fire after a trigger is released. The gun continues to fire until ammunition is depleted because, so to speak, the gun does not know it is making an error. Runaway guns are extremely dangerous, but fortunately they have human operators who can break the ammunition link or try to point the weapon in a safe direction. Autonomous weapons, by definition, have no such safeguard.

Importantly, weaponized AI need not even be defective to produce the runaway gun effect. As multiple studies on algorithmic errors across industries have shown, the very best algorithms – operating as designed – can generate internally correct outcomes that nonetheless spread terrible errors rapidly across populations.

For example, a neural net designed for use in Pittsburgh hospitals identified asthma as a risk-reducer in pneumonia cases; image recognition software used by Google identified Black people as gorillas; and a machine-learning tool used by Amazon to rank job candidates systematically assigned negative scores to women.

The problem is not just that when AI systems err, they err in bulk. It is that when they err, their makers often don’t know why they did and, therefore, how to correct them. The black box problem of AI makes it almost impossible to imagine morally responsible development of autonomous weapons systems.

The proliferation problems

The next two dangers are the problems of low-end and high-end proliferation. Let’s start with the low end. The militaries developing autonomous weapons now are proceeding on the assumption that they will be able to contain and control the use of autonomous weapons. But if the history of weapons technology has taught the world anything, it’s this: Weapons spread.

Market pressures could result in the creation and widespread sale of what can be thought of as the autonomous weapon equivalent of the Kalashnikov assault rifle: killer robots that are cheap, effective and almost impossible to contain as they circulate around the globe. “Kalashnikov” autonomous weapons could get into the hands of people outside of government control, including international and domestic terrorists.

The Kargu-2, made by a Turkish defense contractor, is a cross between a quadcopter drone and a bomb. It has artificial intelligence for finding and tracking targets, and might have been used autonomously in the Libyan civil war to attack people. Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, CC BY

High-end proliferation is just as bad, however. Nations could compete to develop increasingly devastating versions of autonomous weapons, including ones capable of mounting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear arms. The moral dangers of escalating weapon lethality would be amplified by escalating weapon use.

High-end autonomous weapons are likely to lead to more frequent wars because they will decrease two of the primary forces that have historically prevented and shortened wars: concern for civilians abroad and concern for one’s own soldiers. The weapons are likely to be equipped with expensive ethical governors designed to minimize collateral damage, using what U.N. Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard has called the “myth of a surgical strike” to quell moral protests. Autonomous weapons will also reduce both the need for and risk to one’s own soldiers, dramatically altering the cost-benefit analysis that nations undergo while launching and maintaining wars.

Asymmetric wars – that is, wars waged on the soil of nations that lack competing technology – are likely to become more common. Think about the global instability caused by Soviet and U.S. military interventions during the Cold War, from the first proxy war to the blowback experienced around the world today. Multiply that by every country currently aiming for high-end autonomous weapons.

Undermining the laws of war

Finally, autonomous weapons will undermine humanity’s final stopgap against war crimes and atrocities: the international laws of war. These laws, codified in treaties reaching as far back as the 1864 Geneva Convention, are the international thin blue line separating war with honor from massacre. They are premised on the idea that people can be held accountable for their actions even during wartime, that the right to kill other soldiers during combat does not give the right to murder civilians. A prominent example of someone held to account is Slobodan Milosevic, former president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, who was indicted on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the U.N.’s International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

But how can autonomous weapons be held accountable? Who is to blame for a robot that commits war crimes? Who would be put on trial? The weapon? The soldier? The soldier’s commanders? The corporation that made the weapon? Nongovernmental organizations and experts in international law worry that autonomous weapons will lead to a serious accountability gap.

To hold a soldier criminally responsible for deploying an autonomous weapon that commits war crimes, prosecutors would need to prove both actus reus and mens rea, Latin terms describing a guilty act and a guilty mind. This would be difficult as a matter of law, and possibly unjust as a matter of morality, given that autonomous weapons are inherently unpredictable. I believe the distance separating the soldier from the independent decisions made by autonomous weapons in rapidly evolving environments is simply too great.

The legal and moral challenge is not made easier by shifting the blame up the chain of command or back to the site of production. In a world without regulations that mandate meaningful human control of autonomous weapons, there will be war crimes with no war criminals to hold accountable. The structure of the laws of war, along with their deterrent value, will be significantly weakened.

A new global arms race

Imagine a world in which militaries, insurgent groups and international and domestic terrorists can deploy theoretically unlimited lethal force at theoretically zero risk at times and places of their choosing, with no resulting legal accountability. It is a world where the sort of unavoidable algorithmic errors that plague even tech giants like Amazon and Google can now lead to the elimination of whole cities.

In my view, the world should not repeat the catastrophic mistakes of the nuclear arms race. It should not sleepwalk into dystopia.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on September 29, 2021.

James Dawes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Abate interviews Benjamin “Pietro” Filardo, CEO and founder of Pliant Energy Systems. At PES, they developed a novel form of actuation using two undulating fins on a robot. These fins present multiple benefits over traditional propeller systems including excellent energy efficiency, low water turbulence, and an ability to maneuver in water, land, and ice. Aside from its benefits on a robot, Pietro also talks about its advantages for harnessing energy from moving water.

Watch this episode on YouTube

Benjamin “Pietro” Filardo
After several years in the architectural profession, Pietro founded Pliant Energy Systems to explore renewable energy concepts he first pondered while earning his first degree in marine biology and oceanography. With funding from four federal agencies he has broadened the application of these concepts into marine propulsion and a highly novel robotics platform.

Links

• Download mp3 (16.1 MB)
• Subscribe to Robohub using iTunes, RSS, or Spotify
• Support us on Patreon

Aerospace conglomerate United Technologies is paying $30 billion to acquire Rockwell Collins in a deal that creates one of the world’s largest makers of civilian and defense aircraft components. Rockwell Collins and United’s Aerospace Systems segment will combine to create a new business unit named Collins Aerospace Systems.

United Technologies will pay $140 per share for Rockwell Collins shares; $93.33 in cash and $46.67 in stock. The $140 price represents a 17.6% premium for Rockwell shareholders.

“This acquisition adds tremendous capabilities to our aerospace businesses and strengthens our complementary offerings of technologically advanced aerospace systems,” said UTC’s chairman and CEO, Greg Hayes.

Both companies have subsidiaries involved in robotics, drones and marine systems but both derive most of their revenue from civilian and defense aerospace.

• United Technologies includes Otis elevators, escalators and moving walkways; Pratt & Whitney designs and manufactures military and commercial engines, power units and turbojet products; Carrier heating, air-conditioning and refrigeration products; Chubb security and fire-safety solutions; Kidde smoke alarms and fire safety technology; and UTC aerospace systems which provide aircraft interiors, space and ISR systems, landing gear and sensors and sensor-based systems for everything from ice detection to guidance and navigation. Their Aerospace Systems unit has a wide range of products for multiple unmanned platforms including unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).
• Rockwell Collins (not to be confused with (or involved in this acquisition) Rockwell Automation* which is highly involved in robotics) designs and produces electronic communications, avionics and in-flight entertainment systems for commercial, military and government customers and includes navigation and display systems for unmanned commercial and military vehicles. Their electronics are installed in nearly every airline cockpit in the world. Their helmet mounted display systems and in-car head-up displays are also big revenue producers.

According to Reuters, “The deal also follows a wave of consolidation among smaller aerospace manufacturers in recent years that was caused in part by the need to invest in new technologies such as metal 3-D printing and connected factories to stay competitive. A combined United Technologies and Rockwell Collins could similarly invest, and their broad portfolios have little overlap.”

________________

• Rockwell Automation is one of 83 members of the ROBO-Global Robotics & Automation Index of which I am a co-founder. The index is designed to leverage advances in technology and macro economic drivers to capture growth opportunity from robotics and automation.

The South Korean Navy conducted shipboard flight tests for the TR-60 tilt-rotor UAV. Source: KARI

July 10, 2017 – July 16, 2017

If you would like to receive the Weekly Roundup in your inbox, please subscribe at the bottom of the page.

News

A U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan killed Abu Sayed, the leader of the local ISIS cell. In a statement, a Pentagon spokesperson said that the strike targeted the ISIS headquarters in Kunar Province. Abu Sayed’s predecessor, Abdul Hasib, was killed in a special forces raid in April. (New York Times)

A Turkish drone strike in Anatolia reportedly killed five suspected members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. It was the first strike carried out with the Anka-S, a new Turkish surveillance and strike drone. (IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly)

Portugal will implement a new law regulating drone operations after a recent spike in reports of close encounters between drones and manned aircraft. Drone users will be required to register and purchase insurance. Speaking with members of a parliamentary committee, Infrastructure Minister Pedro Marques said that he hopes the law will be in place by the end of the month. (Associated Press)

Commentary, Analysis, and Art

At The Digital Circuit, Scott Simmie looks at how hackers are selling kits to disable the geofencing in drones made by DJI.

At the Hill, Paul Scharre argues that the U.S. should start treating drone exports the same way it treats exports of manned aircraft.

At Popular Mechanics, David Hambling looks at the technology underpinning a U.S. drone designed for research missions in the Arctic.

At War on the Rocks, Ben Brewster argues that the U.S. Marine Corps needs a long-endurance surveillance and strike drone like the Reaper or Gray Eagle.

In a speech in Washington, Gen. Mike Holmes argued that the U.S. Air Force needs greater authority to protect its facilities and aircraft against drones. (FlightGlobal)

London’s Gatwick Airport released a video showing how a drone can interrupt air traffic around an airport. (Motherboard)

At Truthout, Alex Edney-Browne looks at how on-the-ground research can shed more light on the effects of U.S. drone strikes.

At Vertical Magazine, Oliver Johnson looks at how a Canadian company is using drones to help fight wildfires.

At CBC, Dean Beeby writes that Transport Canada’s Arctic drone program was delayed because of international arms control regulations.

At Popular Science, Kelsey D. Atherton looks at how Amazon’s drone hub concepts pose big challenges for urban planners.

A drone video captured the extent of the destruction of Mosul, Iraq. (Associated Press)

Know Your Drone

A team of universities, research institutes, and broadcasters is looking to develop swarms of three to five video drones that can be used to film large sporting events. (Horizon)

Serbia’s Military Technical Institute has unveiled a prototype unmanned ground vehicle that is armed with a machine gun and a grenade launcher. (IHS Jane’s 360)

The Korea Aerospace Research Institute conducted flight trials of its TR-60 tiltrotor drone from a moving ship. (IHS Jane’s 360)

NASA has developed onboard software for drones called Safeguard that forces them to land if they come too close to a no-fly zone. (Wired)

Walmart has announced that it will conduct tests for its delivery drone program at an airport in Upstate New York. (New York Upstate)

Drone maker AirDog unveiled the ADII, a multirotor consumer drone optimized to record sports events and other outdoor activities. (The Drive)

In a test, a team at Johns Hopkins University successfully transported a medical sample under temperature control over 160 miles by drone. (SUAS News)

A consortium of three European countries is looking to develop an unmanned ship for use in the oil and gas sector. (Construction.Ru)

Israeli company Flytrex is seeking to use sophisticated air traffic management software to enable drone deliveries. (The Drive)

A Florida-based company has developed a simulated IED-equipped drone for training soldiers. (C4ISRNET)

CASC conducted a flight test of the new CH-5 Rainbow drone at an airport in northeast China. (East Pendulum)

Drones at Work

Drone maker Flyability announced that its collision-resistant Elios drone has been used to inspect the interior of a nuclear reactor building. (Press Release)

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating a possible collision between a drone and a light aircraft near Adelaide. Nobody was injured in the incident. (ABC) For more on Close Encounters, click here.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force is looking to obtain authority to shoot down small drones over its facilities after a recent close encounter between a F-22 Raptor jet and a drone. (Aviation Week)

Researchers in Boulder, Colorado used drones to survey damage caused to local trees by invasive green jewel beetles. (Daily Camera)

South Korea is looking to deploy a new system to detect North Korean surveillance drones that fly into its territory. (UPI)

A Drone Racing League RacerX quadcopter drone set a new record for the fastest civilian drone, hitting a top speed of 179.3 mph. (CNET)

Researchers at Northwestern University are developing small ground robots equipped with whiskers that allow them to precisely detect their surroundings. (Wired)

Police in Devon, Cornwall, and Dorset in England are launching the country’s first police unit dedicated to using drones. (AP)

Singapore’s upcoming National Day Parade will feature a light show of 300 drones. (The Straits Times)

Police in DeSoto County, Mississippi used a drone to help investigators search for debris from a recent military plane crash in the area. (Fox13)

North Dakota authorities dismissed criminal charges against a man who was accused of using a drone to stalk a group of private security workers at the Dakota Access Pipeline protests last year. (Bismarck Tribune)

The British Army will no longer use the Black Hornet, a micro drone made by Norway’s Prox Dynamics. (IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly)

Industry Intel

The U.S. Office of Naval Research awarded Embry-Riddle University a $900,000 grant to develop advanced communication systems for unmanned surface vehicles. (Press Release)

The National Science Foundation awarded Bakman Technologies a grant to develop a sensor for a drone to monitor emissions that contribute to global warming. (Drone Life)

Colorado’s El Paso County awarded Sanborn Map Company a multi-year contract to provide drones for a variety of missions, including disaster response and construction site monitoring. (Press Release)

The U.S. Coast Guard awarded Riptide Autonomous Solutions a $69,374 contract for an unmanned underwater vehicle. (FBO)

The French Navy awarded ECA Group a contract for unmanned undersea vehicles for mine detection and disposal. (Press Release)  

Germany’s Bundeswehr awarded EMT a $71 million contract for three LUNA NG systems. (IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly)

Thales is reportedly marketing the Watchkeeper surveillance drone to the Indonesian Air Force. (IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly)

The U.S. Department of Defense awarded Autonomous Solutions a contract to apply machine learning and artificial intelligence to autonomous vehicles operating in challenging environments. (Press Release)

CybAero Ab, a Swedish company that makes rotary drones, signed a debt-refinancing deal with Bracknor, a Dubai-based investment firm. (DefenseNews)

For updates, news, and commentary, follow us on Twitter.

Photo credit: Pierre-Yves Guernier

Technology-driven automation plays a critical role in the global economy, and its visibility in our lives is growing. As technology impacts more and more jobs, individuals and enterprises find themselves wondering what effect the current wave of automation will have on their future economic prospects.

A German Heron 1 UAV. Credit: Airbus Defence and Space

May 29, 2017 – June 4, 2017

News

A German court has thrown out a protest filed by U.S. drone maker General Atomics Aeronautical Systems over the German military’s decision to acquire the Israel Aerospace Industries Heron TP drone over the U.S. firm’s Reaper. The decision by the Oberlandesgericht, the country’s high court, allows the Bundeswehr to proceed with the planned acquisition of five Heron TPs, a medium-altitude long-endurance surveillance and reconnaissance drone. (DefenseNews)

Commentary, Analysis, and Art

At War on the Rocks, Jonathan Gillis argues that the U.S. military is not prepared for a future filled with enemy drones.

Also at War on the Rocks, Michael Horowitz considers the ways in which emerging technologies will shape how the U.S. military fights in future conflicts.

In a series of articles at Breaking Defense, Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. looks at how the U.S. military is integrating artificial intelligence into its operations.  

At Defense One, Patrick Tucker writes that Poland is planning to invest in small, lethal drones rather than large unmanned systems like the Reaper.

A study by the University of Washington found delivery drones tend to produce fewer carbon emissions than trucks when traveling short distances. (UW Today)

At TechCrunch, Brian Heater argues that the DJI Spark foldable drone is not quite the “mainstream” drone that it was made out to be.

At Popular Mechanics, Joe Pappalardo considers the role that small, disposable drones will play in the future of warfare.

At ArsTechnica, Sean Gallagher recalls his role in the U.S. Navy’s early experiments with unmanned aircraft.

At the Montreal Gazette, Marc Garneau discusses the potential threat posed by drones to aircraft.

At the Washington Post, Michael Laris considers what is likely to happen in the wake of the federal appeals court’s decision to strike down the FAA’s drone registration rule for hobbyists.

At the Jamestown Foundation, Tobias J. Burgers and Scott N. Romaniuk look at how al-Qaeda learned to adapt to U.S. drone strikes.

The New York Times reports that a former head of the CIA’s drone program will now lead the agency’s Iran operations.

A paper in Remote Sensing offers a survey of the different systems and methods for using drones for marine mammal research. (MDPI)

A paper in Frontiers in Plant Science compares the use of drones and satellite images in monitoring plant invasions.
In Critical Studies in Security, Katharine Hall Kindervater argues that targeted killings are best understood within the context of a shift towards lethal surveillance.

In the Air & Space Power Journal, Lt. Col. Thomas S. Palmer and Dr. John P. Geis II argue that effective counter-drone weapons will be essential in future conflicts.

In the Naval War College Review, Jeffrey E. Kline considers how to effectively integrate robotics into the fleet while recognizing fiscal constraints.

Know Your Drone

Researchers at the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory and Howard Hughes Medical Institute have created a system that turns live dragonflies into steerable drones. (Gizmodo)

A team at the University of Sherbrooke has developed a solar-powered drone than can autonomously land on lakes to recharge its batteries. (IEEE Spectrum)

U.S. firm Drone Aviation Holding Corp. unveiled an automated winch tethering system for DJI Inspire commercial multirotor drones. (Unmanned Systems Technology)

Amazon has been awarded a patent for a shipping label that doubles as a parachute for items delivered by drone. (GeekWire)

Meanwhile, Walmart has been awarded a patent for a system that uses blockchain technology to keep track of delivery drones. (CoinDesk)

The Office of Naval Research is developing a drone that can detect buried mines for use in amphibious landings. (Shephard Media)

Apple announced that its education programming App, Swift Playgrounds, will soon support code-writing for robots and drones. (The Verge)  

Belorussian firms presented a range of new military unmanned aircraft at the MILEX 2017 exhibition in Minsk, including the Belar YS-EX, a medium-altitude long-endurance system. (IHS Jane’s 360)

In a test flight, China’s Caihong solar-powered ultra long-endurance drone reached an altitude of 65,000 feet. (The Sun)

Defense firm Lockheed Martin successfully completed a beyond line of sight pipeline inspection operation with its Indago 2 commercial multirotor drone. (Unmanned Aerial Online)

Robot maker SMP Robotics unveiled the S5 Security Robot, an unmanned ground vehicle. (Unmanned Systems Technology)

In a test, the U.S. Army used two Raytheon Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to intercept two drones. (Press Release)

The U.S. Special Operations Command has completed testing for its Joint Threat Warning System sensor for the Puma hand-launched tactical drone. (Shephard Media)

Aerospace firm Russian Helicopters is developing a fixed-wing vertical take-off and landing drone. (Shephard Media)

The U.S. Army is planning to test its autonomous trucks on a public highway in Michigan later this month. (Voice of America)

Texas Instruments has designed two circuit-based subsystems that it claims could increase the efficiency of battery-powered drones. (Drone Life)

Drones at Work

In a proof of concept demonstration, Drone Dispatch delivered a box of donuts to a customer by drone in Colorado. (CNET)

The organizers of the Torbay Airshow in the U.K. banned the use of drones at the event. (Devon Live)

Police in Snellville, Georgia are investigating various reports of a drone being used to spy on residents in their homes. (WSBTV)

Officers from the Stafford County Sheriff’s Office in Virginia used a drone to find an armed suspect. (WTOP)

The Albany County Sheriff’s Office in New York has acquired a drone for a range of operations. (Albany Times Union)

North Dakota’s governor has established a task force to support the development of counter-drone technologies. (Press Release)

The Israel Defense Forces is equipping infantry, border defense, and combat intelligence corps units with DJI drones. (Times of Israel)

A Russian bank plans to begin using drones to deliver cash to customers. (Forbes)

Industry Intel

Speaking at the Code Conference, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich said that Intel will not develop a consumer drone. (Recode)

Snap, the social media company that owns Snapchat, has acquired Ctrl Me Robotics, a California-based drone startup. (Buzzfeed)

The Australian Ministry of Defense announced that it will invest $75 million in small unmanned aircraft systems, including the AeroVironment Wasp AE, for the Australian Army. (Press Release)

The Netherlands Ministry of Defence selected the Insitu Integrator to replace the Insitu ScanEagle. (Unmanned Systems Technology)

The U.S. Army awarded Six3 Advanced Systems a $10.5 million contract to design and develop a prototype for a squad of human and unmanned assets. (DoD)

Three German firms, ESG Elektroniksystem und Logistik, Diehl Defence and Rohde & Schwarz, have partnered to market the Guardion counter-drone solution. (Shephard Media)

2G Robotics will provide the laser scanning, imaging, and illumination systems for the Norwegian Navy’s Kongsberg Maritime Hugin autonomous underwater vehicles. (Shephard Media)

France’s Direction Générale de l’Armement will take delivery of the Thales Spy’Ranger mini drone beginning in late 2018. (IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly)

For updates, news, and commentary, follow us on Twitter. The Weekly Drone Roundup is a newsletter from the Center for the Study of the Drone. It covers news, commentary, analysis and technology from the drone world. You can subscribe to the Roundup here.

HARRIS

The Xponential 2017 national conference was held May 8-11 by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, Texas. The event took place in the largest exhibit hall ever dedicated to unmanned systems and robotics, with over 370,000 square feet. It featured over 650 robotics organizations – companies, research institutions, universities, consultants, nonprofits and more – from the U.S. and countries worldwide.

Here’s a sample of images from the world’s largest tradeshow for unmanned systems. All images by Lucien Miller, CEO of innov8tivedesigns.com.

AERYON Labs

AIRBUS DEFENCE

FIRSTEC CO

Infrared Cameras Inc

PRODRONE

QinetiQ North America

Quasonix

Robotis

STAMPEDE

TEI

TELEDYNE TECHNOLOGIES

Tianjin Aurora UAV Technology

Click here to view the full gallery.

Sailors assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 5 (EODMU5) Platoon 142 recover an unmanned underwater vehicle onto a Coastal Riverine Group 1 Detachment Guam MK VI patrol boat in the Pacific Ocean May 10, 2017. Credit: Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Torrey W. Lee/ U.S. Navy

May 8, 2017 – May 14, 2017

If you would like to receive the Weekly Roundup in your inbox, please subscribe at the bottom of the page.

News

The International Civil Aviation Organization announced that it plans to develop global standards for small unmanned aircraft traffic management. In a statement at the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International’s Xponential trade conference, the United Nations agency said that as part of the initiative it has issued a Request for Information on air traffic management systems for drones. (GPS World)

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has created a new office dedicated to drones and autonomous systems. According to Gov. McAuliffe, the Autonomous Systems Center for Excellence will serve as a “clearinghouse and coordination point” for research and development programs related to autonomous technologies. (StateScoop)

Commentary, Analysis, and Art

At the Telegraph, Alan Tovey writes that the U.K.’s exit from the European Union is unlikely to affect cross-channel cooperation on developing fighter drones.

At the Dead Prussian Podcast, Ulrike Franke discusses the role that drones currently play in the military.

At IHS Jane’s 360, Daniel Wasserbly writes that the U.S. Marine Corps will slow its acquisition of the Boeing Insitu Blackjack drone.

At the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, James Rogers argues that the Trump administration policy on drones is “likely to prove counterproductive.”

At IEEE Spectrum, David Schneider examines state and local drone regulations.

In the Journal of Archaeological Science, Sean Field, Matt Waite, and LuAnn Wandsnider consider the utility of drones for archeological surveys.

At RJI Online, Jennifer Nelson looks at what a television station in Idaho is learning about using drones for news coverage.

A report by the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights considers the “impact of drone attacks on law, warfare and society.”

At The New York Times, William Grimes visits “Drones: Is the Sky the Limit?,” a new exhibition at the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum.

In a paper in the International Organization journal, Matthew Fuhrmann and Michael C. Horowitz consider the reasons that states acquire drones.

At Bloomberg, Justin Bachman looks at how different companies are seeking an advantage in managing data from drones for commercial purposes.

At the Associated Press, Dario Lopez and Joshua Goodman write about a U.S. Coast Guard program using drones to counter maritime smuggling.

In a speech at the Xponential 2017 trade show, Intel Corporation CEO Brian Krzanich argued that data will be the most significant aspect of the drone industry. (AUVSI)

At the South China Morning Post, Li Tao writes that China’s popular consumer drone brands are increasingly turning to the commercial sector.

At Defense One, Marcus Weisgerber writes that the Pentagon is using machine-learning to help identify ISIS targets.

Know Your Drone

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology unveiled the Saqr 1, an armed drone with a range of up to 2,500 km. (IHS Jane’s 360)  

U.S. drone maker AeroVironment unveiled the Snipe, a nano quadcopter that weighs just 150 grams. (New Atlas)

In a test, startup Volans-i flew a delivery drone along a 100-mile route in Texas, a new record for a drone delivery. (Tech Crunch)

Energy firm twingtec is developing a tethered drone that harvests power from the wind. (Design Boom)

The U.S. Army is seeking a midsize cargo drone that could operate with a high level of autonomy. (FlightGlobal)

Nautilus, a California startup, is developing a cargo drone that could carry thousands of pounds of goods over long distances. (Air & Space Magazine)

Drone maker Pulse Aerospace unveiled two new rotorcraft drones for military and commercial applications, the Radius 65 and the Vapor 15. (Press Release)

Piaseki Aerospace will likely submit its ARES demonstrator drone for the U.S. Marine Corps’ Unmanned Expeditionary Capabilities program. (FlightGlobal)

Turkish defense firm Aselsan has unveiled two new counter-drone systems. (IHS Jane’s 360)

Defense firm Kratos confirmed that it has conducted several demonstration flights of a high performance jet drone for an undisclosed customer. (FlightGlobal)

Technology firm Southwest Research Institute has been granted a patent for a system by which military drones can collaborate with unmanned ground vehicles. (Unmanned Aerial Online)

The U.S. Army is interested in developing a mid-size unmanned cargo vehicle that could carry up to 800 pounds of payload. (FlightGlobal)

A student at the Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design has created a drone designed to help parents track their children. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

French drone maker Parrot is set to begin developing a line of prosumer drones. (Recode)

Defense firm Qinetiq has announced that it will pursue the U.S. Army’s Lightweight Reconnaissance Robot program. (IHS Jane’s 360)

The U.S. Army is seeking a replacement engine for the RQ-7 Shadow tactical drone. (FlightGlobal) 

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon have been crashing autonomous drones repeatedly in order to teach them how to avoid crashing. (IEEE)

An Air Force investigation found that the cause of the crash of an MQ-9 Reaper drone in Nevada last summer was pilot error. (Press Release)

A Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency press release describes in detail its recent military academy swarming competition.

Raytheon announced that it has installed ground-based sense-and-avoid systems at a number of air bases in the U.S. (IHS Jane’s 360)

The Digital Circuit has put together a compilation of images of some of the more interesting drones at this year’s Xponential drone conference.

Drones at Work

A drone flying over a bike race in in Rancho Cordova, California crashed into a cyclist. (Market Watch)

Meanwhile, a consumer drone crashed into a car crossing the Sydney Harbor Bridge in Australia. It is the second time a drone has crashed at the site of the bridge in the past nine months. (Sydney Morning Herald)

Insurance company Travelers has trained over 150 drone operators to use drones for insurance appraisals over properties. (Insurance Journal)

Kazakhstan’s armed forces displayed a number of its recently acquired unmanned aircraft during a military parade. (IHS Jane’s 360)

A Latvian technology firm used a large multirotor drone to carry a skydiver to altitude before he parachuted back down to earth. (Phys.org)

Clear Flight Solutions and AERIUM Analytics are set to begin integrating the Robird drone system, a falcon-like drone that scares birds away from air traffic, at Edmonton International Airport. (Unmanned Systems Technology)

Industry Intel

The U.S. Army awarded General Atomics Aeronautical Systems a $221.6 million contract modification for 20 extended range Gray Eagle drones and associated equipment. (DoD)

The U.S. Air Force awarded General Electric a $14 million contract for work that includes the Thermal Management System for unmanned aircraft. (DoD)

The U.S. Navy awarded Boeing Insitu a $8.1 million contract for spare parts for the RQ-21A Blackjack. (DoD)

The United Arab Emirates awarded Canada-based CAE a contract estimated at $40.9 million to train drone operators. (UPI)

Airbus opened a subsidiary in Atlanta that will sell imagery from satellites and drones to commercial clients. (AIN Online)

Turkish Aerospace Industries will begin cooperating with ANTONOV Company on the development of unmanned systems. (Press Release)

Aker, a company that develops drones for agriculture, won $950,000 in funding from the Clean Energy Trust Challenge. (Chicago Tribune)

For updates, news, and commentary, follow us on Twitter. The Weekly Drone Roundup is a newsletter from the Center for the Study of the Drone. It covers news, commentary, analysis and technology from the drone world. You can subscribe to the Roundup here.

Tech. Sgt. Mike, Master Sgt. Alex and Master Sgt. Mike stand next to a T-6A Texan II parked on the west flight line at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, May 4, 2017. They completed undergraduate remotely piloted aircraft training May 5th here and the T-6A is one of the planes they trained in. They are the first Air Force enlisted airmen to train as pilots since World War II. Image: US Air Force

May 1, 2017 – May 7, 2017

If you would like to receive the Weekly Roundup in your inbox, please subscribe at the bottom of the page.

News

The European Aviation Safety Association has proposed a set of regulations for small drones. The rules include geo-fencing requirements to protect restricted airspace, as well as the inclusion of educational pamphlets in retail packaging for consumer drones. The agency will submit a final draft to the European Commission by the end of the year following a public comment period. (Reuters)

Commentary, Analysis, and Art

At Scout Warrior, David Hambling looks at the different ways that small, low-cost drones will be used to shape the battlefields of the future.

At the Air Force Times, Stephen Losey profiles the Air Force’s first enlisted RQ-4 Global Hawk drone pilots.

At the National Interest, Samuel Bendett writes that Russia is pushing ahead with the development of unmanned ground vehicles.

At Motherboard, David Axe writes that live footage from U.S. military drones may have accidentally leaked onto the Internet.

At Recode, April Glaser and Kurt Wagner write that Facebook is turning to a tethered drone produced by a San Francisco-based startup to bring Internet to hard-to-reach areas.

The Digital Forensic Research Lab looks at the Russian-made Orlan-10 drones that have recently crashed in Ukraine.

At the Army Times, Todd South writes that U.S. defense officials are pushing to update DoD’s acquisition process in order to accommodate new technologies like drones.

At Wired, Sophia Chen profiles the ArcticShark, a drone originally designed for military service that is now being used to study climate change.

At AIN Online, Bill Carey writes that the FAA’s Drone Advisory Committee is taking steps to implement a counter-drone strategy for U.S. airports and critical infrastructure.

At C4ISRNET, Valerie Insinna writes that the Department of Defense is expected to soon release a new unmanned systems roadmap, its first since 2013.

At Deadspin, Dan McQuade examines the case of a drone user who was charged with reckless endangerment for allegedly flying a drone near the NFL Draft event.

At the Spokesman-Review, William L. Spence writes that citizens in Pullman, Washington are voicing privacy concerns about the police department’s plan to acquire drones.

At the Los Angeles Times, Samantha Masunaga looks at how an air traffic system for drones might actually work in practice.

At Dezeen, Marcus Fairs profiles a Tokyo-based architecture firm preparing for a future in which drones radically alter city life.

At ADN, Alex DeMarban writes that transportation officials in Alaska may save money by using drones instead of airplanes to obtain aerial images of structures and terrain.

A photograph by Andrew Studer captures what appears to be a drone flying illegally over a lava spout in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. (PetaPixel)

Know Your Drone

The U.S. Air Force conducted its first ever strike using a GBU-38 GPS-guided bomb from an MQ-9 Reaper in Syria, just days after completing testing of the weapon aboard the drone. (Breaking Defense)

Rapid Composites unveiled the Bullray, an armed amphibious vertical take-off and landing drone. (Press Release)

IBM has filed a patent for a system that enables the transfer of packages between two flying drones. (New Atlas)

Turkey’s defense ministry has conducted test firings of domestically produced weapons mounted on a Turkish Aerospace Industries Anka drone. (IHS Jane’s 360)

Augmented reality technology startup Edgybees has unveiled an augmented reality game that allows drone pilots to fly along a virtual obstacle course. (Spatial Source)

The U.S. Navy is studying the possibility of using drones to keep track of sailors during man-overboard situations. (Naval Technology)

Colorado firm Black Swift Technologies is building two drones that will be used to study volcanoes. (KUSA)

Researchers at the University of Nevada have developed an unmanned ground vehicle for inspecting bridges. (New Scientist)

Drone maker UAV Solutions has test-flown a drone beyond visual line of sight using a 4G LTE network connection. (Shephard Media)  

Meanwhile, chipmaker Qualcomm has announced that an extensive study shows that drones can reliably be controlled using an LTE data connection. (Engadget)

China is reportedly developing a ground-effects drone-missile hybrid. (The Drive)

The AirSelfie, a selfie micro-drone funded through a Kickstarter campaign, is now available for pre-order. (Forbes)

U.S. firm Valmie Resources is set to unveil the Transition UAV, a long endurance fixed-wing drone. (Shephard Media)

Unmanned systems maker iRobot has added Alexa functionality to some of its Roomba autonomous vacuum cleaners, allowing the systems to be controlled with voice commands. (TechCrunch)

Drones at Work

Researchers from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife are experimenting with drones for counting herds of Elk. (KTVZ)

The Lake County Sheriff’s Office in South Dakota used a drone for aerial surveillance during a standoff with an armed suspect. (KSFY)

First responders in Spanish Fork, Utah used a drone to assist the search for a man who went missing last month. (KSL)

Nevada aerospace firm AviSight has been granted permission to fly drones over the Las Vegas Strip. (U.S. News)

An MQ-9 Reaper drone being operated from Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico crashed during a flight. The Air Force has not released further details about the incident. (Holloman AFB)

A number of U.S. Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawks arrived at Yokota Air Base in Japan, where they will be deployed temporarily for a range of reconnaissance missions. (Yokota AFB)

Two men were arrested in South Carolina after allegedly attempting to smuggle contraband into a prison using drones. (Associated Press)

The Connecticut state legislature chose to not pursue a bill that would allow law enforcement to use weaponized drones. (CT News Junkie)

Police in Riverside County, California arrested a man accused of illegal dumping after he was spotted from above by a local drone pilot. (NBC Los Angeles)

The Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office has acquired a drone that was donated by a California software company. (Port Clinton News Herald)

The San Francisco city government is developing policies that would enable city agencies to use drones. (San Francisco Chronicle)

Animal rights group Showing Animals Respect and Kindness has been using drones to document activities at feedlots and a livestock research facility in Nebraska. (Cattle Network)

Industry Intel

Fortem Technologies, a Utah-based company developing a counter-drone radar, raised $5.5 million in a funding round led by Signia Venture Partners and Data Collective. (TechCrunch)

DARPA awarded Lockheed Martin a $4.5 million contract for Aerial Dragnet, a program examining the use of drones for persistent, wide-area surveillance of drones over urban areas. (FBO)

The U.S. Navy awarded Northrop Grumman Systems a $32.6 million contract modification for radar and software upgrades to the MQ-8C Fire Scout unmanned helicopter. (DoD)

The U.S. Navy awarded Aquabotix a $125,000 contract for unmanned undersea vehicles. (Defence Connect)

The U.S. Navy awarded a contract for software for the Forward Deployed Energy and Communications Outpost unmanned undersea vehicle. (FBO)

The U.S. Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman a $40 million contract for the Battle Field Airborne Communications Node for the EQ-4B Global Hawk. (DoD)

The U.S. Air Force awarded Robonic, a Finnish company and subsidiary of Safran Electronics and Defense, a contract for two Kontio pneumatic launchers for drones. (UPI)

The U.S. Army awarded Black-I-Robotics a $150,000 contract for an unmanned ground vehicle with a robotic arm. (FBO)

The U.S. Army awarded Source 4 Industries a $6,952.50 contract for pneumatic caster wheels for the MQ-1C Gray Eagle transport cases. (FBO)

Israel’s Meteor Aerospace was awarded its first contract for the Impact 700 drone by an unidentified customer. (FlightGlobal)

General Atomics Aeronautical selected GKN Aerospace Fuel Systems to supply the fuel bladder system for the MQ-9B Reaper. (Press Release)

Statistics MRC predicts that the global market for drones will reach $22.15 billion by 2022. (DefenseNews)

Applied Research Associates acquired Neya Systems, a Pennsylvania-based unmanned systems company. (IHS Jane’s 360)

Arth-Wind, a Brazilian wind energy company, contracted Portugal-based Pro-Drone to provide wind turbine inspections services. (Renewable Energy World)

Amazon announced that it will expand research and development operations in the U.K. by moving to a new, larger facility. (TechCrunch)

For updates, news, and commentary, follow us on Twitter. The Weekly Drone Roundup is a newsletter from the Center for the Study of the Drone. It covers news, commentary, analysis and technology from the drone world. You can subscribe to the Roundup here.

An Air Force airman at the control module of an MQ-9 Reaper. Credit: John Bainter/USAF

Machine ethics offers an alternative solution for artificial intelligence (AI) safety governance. In order to mitigate risks in human-robot interactions, robots will have to comply with humanity’s ethical and legal norms, once they’ve merged into our daily life with highly autonomous capability. In terms of technical challenges, there are still many open questions in machine ethics. For example, what is deontic logic and how can it be used for improving AI safety? How do we fashion the knowledge representation for ethical robots? What about the adaptiveness of the ethical governance? These are all significant questions for us to investigate.

In this interview, we invite Prof. Ronald C. Arkin to share his insights on robot ethics, with a focus on its technical aspects.

Date: February 1st 2017

Interviewee: Prof. Ronald C. Arkin, Regents’ Professor and Associate Dean in the College of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Executive Committee Member of IEEE Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems

Interviewer: Dr. Yueh-Hsuan Weng, Co-founder of ROBOLAW.ASIA and Fellow at CLAST AI & Law Research Committee (Beijing) and Tech and Law Center (Milan).

Ron Arkin

Q1 WENG: Thank you for agreeing to an interview with us. Can you tell us a little about your background?

ARKIN: I have been a roboticist for 35 years, so it’s hard to tell [only] a little, but I will do my best. Currently I am a Regents’ Professor and Associate Dean in the College of Computing at the Georgia Institute of Technology. I got my Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts in 1987, and have been working on robotics since that time. I actually have degrees in chemistry as well—a bachelor’s and a master’s in organic chemistry. So, I have a rather diverse background and followed a non-traditional path compared to most computer scientists.

Q2 WENG: What is your definition of “Ethical Robots”?

ARKIN: That’s an interesting question! I have been asked that one before. I would say an ethical robot is a robotic system that is able to comply with the ethical and social norms of human beings—in some cases in accordance with international law, in other cases in accordance with national or local law. In addition, also being able to comport with humans in a natural manner, obey, and adhere to the same principles as an ethical person.

Q3 WENG: Could you please tell us why you are particularly interested in “Embedded Ethics”? Why is this concept so important?

ARKIN: That’s why you need to read the preface of my book [Governing Lethal Behaviour in Autonomous Robots]. It’s a rather long story. But let me try to give you a short version. Again, it dates back to a meeting—the first international symposium in Roboethics in 2004—where I was exposed to international conventions, e.g., the Geneva convention. It also led me to understand the Vatican’s position on how they viewed appropriate ethical interactions. Perhaps even more important than that one experience was the fact that we roboticists that have been in the field for some time finally started to have success, and we were seeing our technology move out of the laboratory community and into the real world. As such, it wasn’t hard to see how this could go in a variety of different directions.

Some robotics technology could benefit humanity, some not so much. At that point, one has to ask, “who is responsible for this?” So I assumed that, in part, it was myself. I believe that I have to take the responsibility for the technology that I helped to create. The issue is that we, as roboticists, had actually succeeded in many ways in terms of creating technology that we only envisioned when we first started that is going to have potentially profound impact on our society and the world as a whole. As such, we should be proactive in the ways in which we move forward [in order] to get a better understanding of the consequences of the work, and the social implications of the technology we are designing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOJwkvihYtc

Q4 WENG: The IEEE Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems has published their report “Ethically Aligned Design” in December 2016. As a member of the IEEE Global Initiative, could you please tell us about your role?

ARKIN: I serve a variety of roles. First, I am on the executive committee of that particular initiative, so I work at a high-level with about 30 other people or so. We have committees that large. I also co-chair the committee in Affective Computing. Joanna Bryson is my co-chair on that.

Affective Computing is concerned with the issues surrounding the illusion of emotions we can potentially create in these artifacts, and the ways human beings can bond to them. We are exploring a variety of different things, including robot intimacy, or the notion of applying robotic nudges and moving people in certain directions subtly, and in so doing to change the way people act and behave using these technologies, while trying to understand what may or may not be appropriate guidelines based on ethical considerations.

It’s about 15-20 people in that committee. We are one of the newer committees and we only have a couple of pages in the initial design report. But actually, in the June meeting in Austin, for the next release of the document 2.0, we will have as much as the other committees do. Finally, I am also a member of the humanitarian committee. I think it is called economic and humanitarian. I don’t know the exact title, but I am interested in the humanitarian side, and potential uses of robotics for humanitarian applications.

Q5 WENG: What is “Deontic Logic”? Why does it matter to machine ethics?

ARKIN: It may or may not matter. It’s just one approach to a particular problem. Deontic logic is a logic of prohibitions, obligations and permissions. It is one type of framework that is more transparent in order to get a better understanding of the way in which systems operate in the real world. Then it explains its reasoning to a human being, as compared to say deep learning or other forms of neural networks which may indeed provide good results but provide no explanatory capability to humans after the decision has been made.

The notion of prohibitions basically tells the robot some things it cannot do. The notion of permissions describe the things it is potentially allowed to do. And the notion of obligations says things that the robot must do under specific circumstances. It provides a nice framework of being able to explore morality. Others have already explored this, like Bringsjord at RPI who has applied deontic logic in this framework. We are certainly not the first in that particular space. Much of the work we have done has dealt with first-order predicate logic as a basis. It doesn’t have to be deep because it is so explicit in many cases.

Q6 WENG: Your hybrid embedded ethics framework aims for governing lethal behavior of military robots. Can we apply the same technical framework to service robots? For example, personal care robots might have some non-lethal, but still risky autonomous behaviors that need to be regulated by machine ethics.

ARKIN: I believe so. Indeed the whole point of the architecture is trying to design the systems to make them generalizable and not ad hoc for particular sets of circumstances. We have yet to look at service robotics in a traditional sense, but we have already developed something we refer to as the intervening Ethical Governor, which we are using for health care applications—particularly for assisting the management of two human beings in a particular relationship, like a patient and their care giver.

A robot hands a medication bottle to a person. Photo credit: Keith Bujak. Source: Georgia Tech News Center

We are doing work for the National Science Foundation, joint with Tufts University, looking at how in early stage Parkinson’s there is a condition called the facial masking. The loss of muscle movements in the face of the patient can produce stigmatization, and the patient-care giver relationship deteriorates due to the loss of non-verbal communication. We just had a paper accepted at ICRA describing the architecture that we have and how it has been modified from the military version. We generalized it from the military constraint-based version to a rule-based version.

But also, instead of using the international humanitarian law, we are using occupational therapy guides as a basis for generating the responses when two human beings in the relationship step outside of acceptable bounds. So the acceptable bounds now are not defined by international humanitarian law, but they are defined by occupational therapy—such as when a patient or a care giver start to yell at each other, or one starts to leave the room. The hard part is recognizing when dignity is being abridged, particularly in the patient. So we model the moral emotions of empathy, shame and embarrassment. We tried to ensure that the empathy level in the care giver remains within acceptable bounds and that the patient shame and embarrassment doesn’t rise to unacceptable levels. So the intervening Ethical Governor intervenes when a really inappropriate event occurs. It then provides strong corrective action by the robot to encourage people to get along better. The moral adaptor component which we used in the ethical architecture—initially with the guilt model—has now been extended to other moral emotions like shame, embarrassment, guilt and empathy [in order to] try and provide more subtle non-verbal queues [to help the] robot steer the relationship in the correct way before it get out of hand.

Q7 WENG: Regarding your research on machine ethics, what kind of indicators you use to evaluate the final outputs of your project?

ARKIN: In the first one, we were designing a prototype to prove the concept of the architecture. We never make the claim that this is the best way to do it. It is just one way to do it. Then we demonstrate that particular capability through the use of simulations and other aspects. The system was not intended to be fielded, but hopefully others could take those core ideas and potentially put them to use in the real world if they so choose. For the intervening governor, we’re running human subject tests right now—not with Parkinson’s patients yet, but with the elderly population, 50 or older. We’re trying to get a better understanding of the correct sets of rules, and to correct the interventions in a normative fashion, so we can ultimately move on in the final year of the grant to work with actual Parkinson’s patients. Again, using standard HRI technics, such as recording the kinds of reactions they have and parsing the data from the sessions and using pre- and post- evaluation questionnaires.

Q8 WENG: Let’s talk about your proposed machine ethics framework. You had mentioned that it includes four main parts: (1) Ethical Governor (2) Ethical Behavior Control (3) Ethical Adaptor (4) Responsibility Advisor. First of all, what is the major difference between Ethical Governor and Ethical Behavior Control? Is it the difference between deliberative and reactive control, or something else?

ARKIN: The Ethical Governor is basically a standalone component to the architecture which is a bolt on component at the end of the existing system. In the case of military scenario: asking for permission—should it fire or not. This is an intervening stage which either grants or denies permission through the validation of permission-to-fire variable. So it is straightforward thing to be able to do. The Behavior Ethical Control is a different kind of thing as it works purely with the reactive component. What it tries to do is, for each of the individual behaviors themselves, to respond whether or not to engage a target. This is prior to dealing with the Ethical Governor making the decision; trying to make the decision correctly before it gets to the Ethical Governor, where individual behaviors are given ethical guidelines to try and ensure that the behavior is correct itself. Each of the behaviors is provided with appropriate ethical constraints. So the difference is: one is located within the reactive component in each of the individual behaviors that makes the activity of the architecture, and the Ethical Governor is at the end of the architectural chain.

Q9 WENG: What is the importance of Ethical Adaptor? What kinds of machine learning skill that you chose to improve its adaptiveness?

ARKIN: Machine learning is something we haven’t generally explored in this particular context. Especially the military context, we kind of engineer out the adaptiveness and machine learning for fear that the robot would be granted the authority to start to generalize the targets in the field, which we feel is inappropriate. Learning after action is okay. but that’s a different story. The importance of the Ethical Adaptor, and its cognitive models of guilt that we use, is the fact that even the actions the agent takes may inadvertently end up unethical. This is referred to as a “moral luck”. It could be good luck or bad luck. But if it is bad luck, you want to be able to ensure proactively that the bad action doesn’t occur again. That’s actually the functions of cognitive guilt for people as well to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence of a behavior that resulted in bad actions. By giving this to a robot we hope that if it makes a mistake it will not repeat it. The probability of that behavior reoccurring would be reduced.

The best example is the case of battle damage assessment for a military scenario. For example, if a robot does its assessment and it looks like a released weapon wouldn’t create too much collateral damage, within acceptable limits, then it will release the weapon. But after it does it, the battle damage action is actually more severe then, it initially appeared to be. Under those circumstances, we want the robot in the field to reduce the probability of releasing the weapon again under similar circumstances. That’s, in essence, the analogue of guilt we use, and eventually, it will get to the point that the robot will not engage targets at all. Again, the software is updated to make sure the use is consistent with Geneva convention.

Q10 WENG: The Laws of War (LOW) and Rules of Engagement (ROE) are written in the form of natural language. How did you transfer these norms into machine readable formats?

ARKIN: It’s important to keep it in mind that we do not try and capture all the Rules of Engagement and all the Laws of War. We always advocate that the system should be used in very narrow circumstances and very narrow situations, such as building clearing operations or counter-sniper operations. It’s impossible to capture all human morality and all the Laws of War at this particular point of time. So, the question is what are the relevant Laws of War and Rules of Engagement for these particular narrow situations that the robot will find itself in.

Let’s take a room clearing operation. We try and do this using these constraint-based approaches. The Laws of War basically say that if you see a civilian, you should not shoot them; if you see a surrendered person, you should not shoot them. For aerial vehicles, if you are outside the kill zone (this is the simulations we did) which is designated by the Rules of Engagement, you cannot fire your weapon—explain simply why you cannot do that. If you release the weapon a toward a legitimate target but it would result in damage of cultural property, like a mosque or church or some similar circumstance, that is illegal as well. You are forbidden from doing those sort of things.

So, the initial work we did was more for aerial circumstances. We also computed the collateral damage using a battle damage assessment strategy to determine whether if it is within acceptable limits for a particular target and to restrain the weapon for proportionality. To be able to do this you have to be able to understand the military necessity of the target, which is assigned by a human being. You have to be able to understand the proportionality of the weapon. In other words: Which weapon is sufficient to take out the target but to do no more damage of the surroundings than is absolutely necessary? You have to ensure that you don’t destroy cultural property as well. Basically, adhere to all necessary principles, such as discrimination which is to be able to tell apart combatants and non-combatants. We also state we should restrict the use of these particular systems for high-intensity combat operations, or inter-state warfare, and not the kind of circumstances you find in modern counter- insurgency operations. They should be used with great care and great caution in very narrow circumstances where the predictability of their performance is far more likely to be good.

Q11 WENG: Why did you choose case-based reasoning (CBR) but not rule-based reasoning (RBR) when you designed Responsibility Advisor?
ARKIN: Historically we used case-based reasoning a lot for a variety of different reasons. Part of the reason is to gain information from previous experts. One of the examples in the past was to work with snipers in the laboratory. We can work with experts. It can be legal experts, it can be medical experts, it can be military experts. Again, the primary reason is to be able to readily use the experience of warfighters to guide us in operations.

Q12 WENG: Finally, your proposal “Governing Lethal Behavior: Embedding Ethics in a Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Robot Architecture” was published in 2007. There have been great technological improvements in artificial intelligence in the past decade. Are there any recent updates from your robot ethics research, or anything that you want to share with us?

ARKIN: The project ended around 2010, so there is additional information. As I say, I would encourage those who are really interested to take a look at the book entitled “Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots” . That represents the final statement and outcome for that particular project and includes the significant technical details describing that work. Recent advances include the application in other domains, such as the caregiver-patient relationship [discussed above] using the same underlying principles, including both the Moral Adaptor and Ethical Governor in a slightly different. If we were successful, it may also be useful for assisting other human-human relationships, such as a parent and a teenager who may be at odds with one another or even in marriage consulting. We hope to use robots for the benefit of mankind, whether it’s to make sure that warfare is conducted within internationally agreed upon laws, or whether it’s to ensure that people behave appropriately toward each other

If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy:

• How do we regulate robo-morality?
• One being for two origins: A new perspective on roboethics
• Considering robot care, ethics & future tech at #ERW2016 European Robotics Week
• On the ethics of research in robotics, with Raja Chatila
• A European perspective on robot law: Interview with Mady Delvaux-Stehres
• Open Roboethics initiative delivers statement to United Nations CCW

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

The DOME Project of the Digger Foundation has been shortlisted as finalist of the
prestigious Robotics Award for Good taking place in Dubai in February 2017, where
a $1million price will be awarded to the best competitor among 10
international teams.

Mine clearance is a fundamental effort of international organizations like the United Nations, which is considering this threat as a top humanitarian priority. The world is now facing new kinds of warfare, as in Iraq and Syria, where cities are the main battlefields. Thus new Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) clearance challenges arise. The problem is so huge that the United Nations estimate that it will take decades to clear Syria of all unexploded devices, from hand grenades to hundreds kilogram aviation bombs and IED’s. Today, mine clearance is mainly done by hand, which is not only extremely dangerous, but also very slow and expensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkyXYx15vFE&feature=youtu.be

Since 1998, the Digger Foundation has successfully led de-mining projects in many countries, including Bosnia, Senegal, Mozambique and, in 2016, Angola. In rural areas, its main tool is the DIGGER 250, a 12-ton armored and remote controlled machine capable of destroying mines buried up to 20 centimeters into the ground. As a Swiss-based, non profit organization specialized in high-technology and robotics equipment dedicated to humanitarian demining, the Foundation will address the new challenge of de-mining safely in urban areas with the DOME project.

The DOME project combines robotics, bionic systems and pragmatism to bring an effective solution adapted to this new reality of urban mine clearance. The Digger Foundation has leveraged almost 20 years of field experience and research to come up with a reliable and cost-efficient concept. It solves two distinct issues: on one hand, the localization of explosive material under the rubble; on the other hand, its subsequent destruction. In a first step, mine detection dogs equipped with a DIGGER harnes–made of a GPS tracker, a camera and a loudspeaker–are deployed on the area. The combination of their smell and the smart harness will allow the dog’s handler to map precisely the location of explosives. Effective de-mining will begin with the rubble clearance and/or the transfer of the dangerous device to an open, secure space, to proceed with its destruction. This second step, during which an explosion can happen at any time, requires mechanical tools available on-site. The DOME solution is to use mass produced construction machines which will be transformed into robots and tele-operated from a safe distance, since the pilot will be able to operate the machine through a cockpit displayed in virtual reality goggles. Thus, no human lives will be put at risk even in case of a powerful explosion.

The demonstration of the DOME system will take place in Dubai on February 18 and 19
February 2017. The winner of the competition will be rewarded a $1million prize.

Click here for more information from the Digger Foundation.

If you enjoyed this article, you may also want to listen to these Robohub Podcasts:

• Robots Podcast #082: Demining and defusing, with Frédéric Guerne and Paul Bosscher
• Robots Podcast #219: ICRA 2016: Landmine Detection Challenge, with Edson Prestes

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

January 2, 2017 – January 8, 2017

At the Center for the Study of the Drone

We are delighted to announce that we are collaborating with the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in Manhattan on their exhibition, “Drones: Is The Sky The Limit?” The show, which will bring together dozens of important drones, traces the history of unmanned systems technology, its rapid proliferation, and its expansive future. The exhibition opens in May; more information can be found here.

News

A 737 passenger jet carrying 80 passengers on final approach to Tete Airport in Mozambique collided with an object that the airline believes may have been a drone. After the aircraft landed safely, ground crews discovered a large dent in the nose cone and determined that it had been caused by a large drone, not a bird. A more thorough investigation is underway. (Motherboard)  

Commentary, Analysis, and Art

At the Orlando Sentinel, Bryan Wynne argues that the Orlando City Council should not adopt new measures that could restrict drone businesses.

At The Intercept, Jeremy Scahill writes that Ibrahim al Banna, the target of a 2011 U.S. drone strike that killed Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, is still alive.

At Just Security, Luke Hartig considers whether the Trump administration may unravel President Obama’s policies governing drone strikes.

At the Hill, Lisa Ellman offers three ways that the Trump administration can positively shape the drone industry.

At InterDrone, Christina Cardoza speaks with the CEOs of drone companies about what to expect in 2017.

At Al Jazeera, John Beck looks at how ISIL is increasingly turning to armed drones to carry out suicide attacks.

At TechCrunch, Matthew Lynley reports that the GoPro Karma drone could be fixed easily with a piece of tape, according to GoPro CEO Nick Woodman.

At Bloomberg, the editorial board writes that increasing automation in some industries will require “rethinking everything from immigration to regulation, taxes to social welfare.”

At Reuters, Jeremy Wagstaff and Swati Pandey look at the growing number of companies that are developing counter-drone technologies.

At Forbes, five experts weigh in on how companies will manage the large quantities of data generated by drones.  

At Vocativ, Jennings Brown takes a closer look at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s ALIAS program, which is developing systems to turn manned aircraft into autonomous vehicles.

The Digital Forensics Lab takes a closer look at the Russian Forpost surveillance drones that have been downed in Ukraine. (Medium)

At the Harvard International Review, Stephen Goose and Mary Wareham call for greater international cooperation in the campaign the to ban lethal autonomous weapons.

CBS 60 Minutes explores how artificial intelligence and swarms of autonomous drones could “revolutionize warfare.”

The exhibition “Eternal Sites: From Bamiyan to Palmyra,” currently on show in Paris, brings together images collected by drones as part of an initiative to preserve ancient sites in Syria threatened by ISIL. (PRI)  

Know Your Drone

Amazon has been granted a patent for a system of combining many small delivery drones into a single large flying aircraft with greatly increased range and payload. (Live Science)

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced that it has conducted a 56-hour test flight of the VA001 drone, a new endurance record for a diesel-powered unmanned aircraft. (IHS Jane’s 360)

Chinese firm PowerVision has unveiled an unmanned undersea vehicle for fishing that can track and lure fish. (The Verge)

Security firm Alarm.com is developing a home security drone that tracks any unusual activities on a property. (Engadget)

Drone startup UVify unveiled the Draco, a consumer racing quadcopter. (Engadget)

Car maker Mercedes-Benz unveiled a delivery van concept featuring roof-mounted drones. (Quartz)

Meanwhile, BMW unveiled a concept for a sedan that can receive drone deliveries on the road. (Dezeen)

Epson has unveiled augmented reality glasses for use with DJI drones. (Unmanned Systems Technology)

A team at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory has developed a 3D-printed drone that can be produced and delivered in 24 hours. (TCT Magazine)  

Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute has developed a fleet management system that allows users to operate multiple drones from any distance. (Press Release)  

In an exercise for the U.S., imagery analysis firm Cogniac demonstrated a software system that can automatically analyze live imagery from a commercial multirotor drone. (UAS Weekly)  

The U.S. Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office is seeking to acquire small drones that can be deployed from the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. (Defense One)

Airspace Systems, a U.S. startup, is developing a drone that tracks and ensnares rogue drones. (Bloomberg)

Surveillance camera maker FLIR has unveiled a miniature thermal camera for drones. (Engadget)

In a demonstration, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission showed that it is possible to easily hack into several kinds of hobby drones. (Recode)

Drone maker Zerotech unveiled the Dobby, a small foldable drone designed for selfies. (The Verge)

Drone maker Yuneec unveiled the H520, a professional grade commercial drone. (Techno Buffalo)

Two firms, Geodis and Delta Drone, are developing a system for warehouse inventory using a drone and an unmanned ground vehicle. (Logistics Insight Asia)

The U.K. Royal Navy has been testing a small 3D-printed drone in harsh conditions in Antarctica. (Digital Trends)

Drones at Work

The FAA has authorized the Northern Plains UAS Test Site in North Dakota to perform beyond visual line of sight drone flights. (Executive Gov)

The Halifax Regional Fire & Emergency Department in Canada has acquired two thermal imaging drones for emergency operations. (Commercial UAV News)

Washington State legislators have filed a bill that would ban drone flights over private property.

Officials in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania are using drones to map flood-prone neighborhoods. (Reuters)

Officials in Ponce Inlet, Florida are considering an ordinance to regulate the use of drones in the town. (Aviation Pros)

Norwegian maritime firm Swire Seabed has acquired six unmanned undersea vehicles, which it will use simultaneously  for undersea mapping. (Offshore Engineer)

Industry Intel

At least four law firms, including Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, and Robbins Arroyo LLP, have either filed or are exploring the possibility of filing class action suits against GoPro on behalf of investors who purchased the Karma drone. (Press Releases)

Israel’s Flytrex raised $3 million in funding to develop a drone delivery system. (TechCrunch)

Camera maker GoPro announced that it plans to re-launch its Karma consumer drone at some point this year. (Los Angeles Times)

DJI reportedly owns a majority share in iconic Swedish camera maker Hasselblad. (Luminous Landscape)

The U.S. Air Force awarded General Atomics Aeronautical Systems a $24 million contract modification for contractor logistics support services for the MQ-9 Reaper. (DoD)

The U.S. Air Force awarded General Atomics Aeronautical Systems a $56.7 million foreign military sales contract for the MQ-9 Reapers for Spain. (DoD)

The U.S. Air Force awarded General Atomics Aeronautical Systems a $24 million foreign military sales contract for the MQ-9 Reapers for France. (DoD)

The French Direction Générale de l’Armement awarded Thales a maximum $108.8 million contract for up to 210 Spy’Ranger small reconnaissance drones. (DefenseNews)

Leonardo-Finmeccanica has acquired Sistemi Dinamici, the makers of the SD-150 Hero helicopter drone. (FlightGlobal)

Following a deal with Boeing Insitu, Australian engine manufacturer Orbital is looking to establish a factory near Bingen, Washington. (Yakima Herald)

For updates, news, and commentary, follow us on Twitter. The Weekly Drone Roundup is a newsletter from the Center for the Study of the Drone. It covers news, commentary, analysis and technology from the drone world. You can subscribe to the Roundup here.

In the field of hostile conditions, outer space is often considered the epitome of harsh environments. However, it’s not necessary to travel so far in order to locate situations with extreme conditions such as high temperatures (like an active volcano), freezing cold temperatures (for example arctic missions), humidity, high pressure levels (like an oceanic trench), reduced accessibility (in pipelines for example) or every risk associated with CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear).

To begin with, let’s talk about CBRN defence and, more precisely, how unmanned defense robotics can be profitable, even essential, to human beings. First, it can be used to reduce human labour (because it is too dangerous and/or expensive). Then, a robot can be useful to achieve some tasks that are just impossible for a human operator to complete. This kind of application can take place in an accidentally contaminated scenario (like a nuclear disaster), but also in an intentionally contaminated scenario (like a terrorist act or the use of biologic weapon). In short, the more the environment presents a threat, the more unmanned specialised robots come into play. The pictures accompanying this article show the RESCUER CBRN robot, developed by Robotnik, in its two kinematic configurations, and the tests done during a CBRN intervention mission with real radiological samples for the Spanish UME (Military Emergency Unit). The most remarkable capability of this platform, besides its high mobility, is that it’s been designed for decontamination, i.e. the complete mobile manipulator is IP67 waterproof.

There are also some foreseen and planned events where specialised robots in CBRN environment have a role to play. For example, in the case of a nuclear reactor dismantling, using a robot presents real advantages over sending human operators to do the work. Assuming that a human would be allowed to operate in such a dangerous environment, without hazard to his life, this option would be very tiring in full protective clothing, time-consuming, dangerous and expensive.

During the European Robotics Forum 2016, Thomas Vögele, from the DFKI Robotics Innovation Center in Bremen, and Joël Vanden Bosch, from Cybernetix, presented some concept strategies and lessons to develop a robot suited for harsh environments. In order to improve the reliability, it’s very important to start from scratch with a new simple design concept, and with intrinsically robust technologies instead of working from a conventional model without many improvement possibilities. In the same way, the hardware and software, even if it has been tested many times, should not be considered at its peak, but a part that must be improved in order to, amongst other things, make the robot smarter and more reliable. The team has to know to expect a very long development phase in order to reach the commercial stage, where a strong partnership is essential with the end-users in order to fully understand their needs and to be remain on the right track.

Furthermore, a big effort is necessary in the test phase, which has to be thorough. Designing and sizing a robot in the classic way, with common materials or without redundancy for example, can be sufficient for a normal environment, but not for harsh conditions. That’s why it can be necessary to develop a full scale model to focus the trials and, if possible, to integrate risk management into the development strategy. In fact, the reliability of the robot is even more important due to the high difficulty of a recovery mission in case of system damage in a hazardous environment. Finally, another key point in the development success is getting a training centre and a 3D virtual reality simulation room to constantly improve the system.

Robotic intervention in harsh environments is a growing sector where health and environmental risks are a factor, and where an improvement is an absolute necessity. Likewise, it requires greater efforts, resources and the environmental knowledge to successfully develop a robot for harsh environments. But there’s no reason to hesitate to go with robots where humans don’t go anymore.

This post originally appeared on Robotnik.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Unmanned and underneath: Stay in the know about underwater drones
• Into the heart of a glacier with a drone
• Mining and nuclear decommissioning: Robots in dangerous and dirty areas
• Unmanned combat robots beginning to appear

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Source: YouTube

In October, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission released a report, China’s Industrial and Military Robotics Development, prepared by the Defense Group, Inc. at the Commission’s request. The report examines the development of China’s unmanned industrial, service, and military robotics systems, such as drones and driverless cars, and the economic and national security implications of these trends for the United States.

China’s rising demand for high-end robotic components and service robots as well as U.S.-China bilateral artificial intelligence research present potential markets and collaboration opportunities for the United States. But the inherently dual-use functions of industrial and service robotics strengthen China’s commercial and military production and robotic capabilities, potentially improving China’s defense industry and eroding U.S. military advantages. In addition, the application of artificial intelligence can enhance the learning capabilities and the military effectiveness of unmanned systems such as drones, which may undermine U.S. technological and military advantages.

Overall, the report advocates that the U.S. government:

1. implement the recommendations of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership 2.0 Steering Committee Report and expand the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation;
2. monitor and account for Chinese advances in unmanned systems and electronic countermeasures;
3. conduct an interagency review with economic, scientific, and regional experts to assess U.S.-China cooperation and bilateral investments in artificial intelligence;
4. increase awareness among federal agencies, defense contractors, and research universities that Chinese research institutes actively collect their published materials, designs, specifications, and graphics;
5. fully implement the Cybersecurity National Action Plan;
6. use China’s state plans, procurement practices, defense plans, and other Chinese language materials to identify technologies that the PRC is seeking to acquire;
7. consider requirements to more thoroughly vet foreign participants for military or other undisclosed defense affiliations in academic exchanges and research in emerging technologies; and
8. monitor and, when necessary, investigate China’s growing foreign investments in robotics and artificial intelligence companies.

The report was authored by Jonathan Ray, Katie Atha, Edward Francis, Caleb Dependahl, Dr. James Mulvenon, Daniel Alderman, and Leigh Ann Ragland-Luce.

The report can be viewed here.

US Navy personnel launch an MK18 MOD2 UUV in August 2016. Credit: Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Blake Midnight/ USN

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from a post from November 2015 and includes recent developments and updated spending figures. 

In October 2016, the U.K. Royal Navy hosted Unmanned Warrior, a massive exercise involving 18 nations that focused on operations involving unmanned air, ground, and maritime vehicles. Popular Mechanics called the exercise the “world’s biggest robot war games.” The Unmanned Warrior exercise offered perhaps the highest profile test to date of an emerging class of unmanned systems: underwater drones, also known as unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV) or autonomous undersea vehicles (AUV). The development of such systems is a major priority for the U.S. Navy and navies around the world. These drones, some of which could eventually be capable of remaining submerged for months at a time, will serve in a variety of roles, including anti-submarine warfare and mine-hunting.

According to the Autonomous Undersea Vehicle Applications Center, a non-profit industry advocacy organization, there are 255 unique configurations of UUVs in service today, including 147 different vehicle platforms. That number is likely to grow in the coming years as the technology improves. Here’s what you need to know about UUVs:

Background

There are two types of unmanned submarines: remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) and unmanned undersea vehicles (UUVs). ROVs are generally tethered vehicles that are piloted by crew members above the surface, while UUVs are not tethered and are designed to operate for longer periods of time and at greater distances from the operator than ROVs. In 1957, the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory, with support from the Office of Naval Research, developed the Special Purpose Underwater Research Vehicle (SPURV). One of the first UUVs, the SPURV could dive up to 10,000 feet and operate for four hours. By the time the SPURV program ended in 1979, other ROVs and UUVs were being developed in the United States, particularly for marine exploration and research. In 1985, the Argo, a remotely operated underwater vehicle, found the wreckage of the Titanic and, a World War II battleship called the Bismarck in 1989.

A 1983 article in Popular Science detailing the use of UUVs for scientific exploration. Via AUVAC.

After the Soviet Union mistakenly shot down Korean Airlines 007 in 1983, the U.S. Navy deployed the Deep Drone—a remotely operated vehicle built by Eastport International to aid in the search for the “black box” of the passenger plane. In 1999, the Deep Drone was used again, successfully locating the flight recorders of EgyptAir 990 off the coast of Nantucket Island. In 2011, a team from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute used UUVs to help find the wreckage of Air France 447. Underwater drones have been repeatedly sent to aid the search for Malaysian Airlines 370 (most recently in October 2016 when a Chinese vessel was outfitted with a remotely operated vehicle for deep sea exploration).

The unmanned submersible Deep Drone is ready for deployment from the fleet tug, USNS NARRAGANSETT (T-ATF 167) during search operations for Korean Airlines Flight 007. All Hands Magazine – July 1984.

A technician controls the movement of the unmanned submersible Deep Drone from a control panel in the fleet tug USNS NARRAGANSETT (T-ATF 167). The submersible is being used to aid in the search for Korean Air Lines Flight 007. Photo from July 1984 All Hands Magazine.

As a September 2015 article in the New York Times pointed out, due to the lower operating costs and the ability to stay underwater for extended periods of time, ROVs remain an extremely attractive option for deep sea researchers. In recent years, a new generation of underwater drones have allowed both universities and small businesses access to new opportunities for undersea exploration in the same way that unmanned aerial vehicles have democratized access to the sky. Startup companies like Blue Robotics and OpenROV have utilized off-the-shelf hardware to create ROVs that are a fraction of the cost of those used in locating the Titanic and the Bismarck. In July 2016, an OpenROV team used one of their underwater drones to get a closer look at steamship Tahoe, an early 20th-century wreck in Lake Tahoe.

In the 1990’s, after two U.S. Navy ships were badly damaged by Iraqi sea mines in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, the Navy began investing heavily in Mine Countermeasures and initiated a program to build UUVs that could disable enemy sea mines. The Navy’s 1994 Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Plan set the priorities for the program; topping the list was the need to develop UUVs for organic and clandestine mine detection. In other words, the Navy needed a system that could avoid detection by operating underwater in advance of dedicated minesweepers on the sea surface. In 1996, Northrop Grumman developed the Near-Term Mine Reconnaissance System, a two-vehicle platform that was designed to be launched from the torpedo tube of a submarine and connected to the vessel by a fiber-optic tether. The NMRS was replaced by the Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System. The LMRS program produced the 20 ft.-long Boeing AN/BLQ-11 drone.

The UUVs of Today

In the years since the Navy’s first serious foray into UUVs with the NMRS and LMRS, a number of underwater drones with varying capabilities have emerged. With the release of the Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Master Plan in 2004, the Navy established nine priorities for future UUV capabilities, ranging from anti-submarine warfare to delivery supply and even strike missions. Among the most prolific unmanned undersea drones are the Remote Environmental Monitoring UnitS (REMUS) family of UUVs. The REMUS product line was developed by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Hydroid, a Massachusetts-based UUV manufacturer that is now owned by Kongsberg Maritime. During Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, a REMUS 100 UUV was used to help clear sea mines from the waterways around the port of Umm Qasr, marking the first time a UUV was deployed in a combat environment. The larger, more capable REMUS 600 is a torpedo-shaped underwater drone designed to carry a large payload of sensors down to a depth of 600 meters for meteorological and oceanographic surveying. The Kingfish, a U.S. Navy variant of the REMUS 600, is expected to replace the U.S. Navy’s Marine Mammal Program, an effort to use dolphins and sea lions to detect sea mines, within a few years.

A screenshot of a slide from a presentation by Rear Adm. Tim Gallaudet, Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy on October 25, 2016.

Mine countermeasures (MCM) remains the top priority for the Navy’s UUV programs. The Navy traditionally fields an array of air and sea systems to counter enemy mines, including fleets of minesweepers and low-flying helicopters that use sonar to detect mines. The Navy is investing in maritime unmanned systems to replace the manned vehicles used for the MCM mission. It has decided to couple unmanned mine countermeasures to existing manned vessels, including to the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), creating the MCM “module” for the LCS. Instead of sending out human divers, UUVs can be used to disable the devices with a small explosive charge, eliminating the risk to sailors. UUVs are also fitted with sonar and other sensors that can autonomously map out minefields. The Navy is under pressure to develop and deploy UUVs, as existing platforms like the Avenger-class minesweeper and the Sea Dragon helicopters are quickly reaching the point of retirement.

In Fiscal Year 2017, the Department of Defense is anticipated to spend at least $350 million on underwater drone procurement and research. Most of this funding is concentrated in Navy programs, with additional funds for UUV research allocated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The Navy will transition some UUV projects from the research to the procurement stage, marking a significant development in the plan to acquire UUVs. Since some UUV research projects are packaged within larger line items, however, the total amount the DoD will spend on underwater drones is likely more than $360 million. For example, a large portion of the Navy’s $77.2 million research project into anti-submarine warfare surveillance technologies will go toward underwater drone technology.

The Navy’s 2017 UUV procurement efforts are divided into packages like mine countermeasures and meteorological equipment. For the underwater explosive ordnance disposal package, the Navy intends to spend a total of $21 million on a few different types of unmanned undersea vehicles: the Hydroid MK18 Mod 1 Swordfish, MK18 Mod 2 Kingfish, and Bluefin Robotics HULS ROV. Under the program to deliver a replacement for manned minesweepers, the Navy will purchase two General Dynamics Knifefish UUVs for a total of $20.5 million. Finally, under the Meteorological Equipment program, the Navy will purchase 20 Littoral Battlespace Gliders from Teledyne Brown Engineering and four Autonomous Undersea Vehicles from Hydroid for a total of $22.45 million.

The mine countermeasures package for the Littoral Combat Ship has been one point of contention in recent years between the Navy and Congress. In Fiscal Year 2017, the Navy will purchase one General Dynamics Knifefish UUV for mine countermeasures for the Littoral Combat Ship. It will not, however, devote funds for the Remote Minehunting System, which was officially cancelled by the Navy in March 2016. The main product of the RMS was Lockheed Martin’s Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV), an autonomous UUV that was intended to be deployed from a Navy ship to help search for mines by towing a sonar. The concept for the RMS was actually developed in the late 1990s, and it has had a checkered history. According to the latest Selected Acquisition Report for the RMS, the acquisition cost of a single system has more than doubled from $13 million to $27.7 million between 2007 and 2015.

In September 2015, Senators John McCain and Jack Reed criticized the Navy’s Remote Minehunting System program, arguing that the RMMV had failed to meet requirements and could be scrapped altogether. “Put simply, while estimated overall spending on RMS is only a little higher than originally planned, it is only yielding half the number of systems, at more than double the unit cost, and it is taking twice as long to field it,” Senator McCain wrote in a review of the RMS program. “Also, it doesn’t work,” he added. Although RMS is no more, the AN/AQS-20A advanced minehunting sonar that was developed for the RMMV will be funded in Fiscal Year 2017.

The Next Generation of Underwater Drones

Defense funding for research into UUVs is around three times more than funds for procurement. Some of these research programs are dedicated to UUVs that the Navy is currently purchasing like the General Dynamics Knifefish UUV, which is slotted to receive $11.6 million in research funding in FY17. However, the Navy and other DoD departments have allocated considerably more funds toward researching the next generation of UUV systems and technologies. The largest of these research programs are for the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV) and the Extra Large UUV (XLUUV). Unlike UUVs intended for a specific mission such as detecting sea mines, these larger UUVs are designed to have multiple mission types, including persistent intelligence gathering capabilities and payload delivery.

The Boeing Echo Voyager could be one of the XLUUV designs that the Navy pursues in the future. Credit: Boeing

The essential difference between the LDUUV and XLUUV has to do with the fact that LDUUVs, like existing UUVs, are intended to be deployed from Navy ships, while the XLUUV could be deployed from a Navy base and operate independently of a host vessel. The LDUUV-class UUVs will have a hull diameter of more than 36 inches, while the XLUUV will have a maximum diameter of 54 inches. (The majority of UUVs generally have a hull diameter of between 7 and 21 inches.) The LDUUV will have an endurance measured in weeks, while the XLUUV will be deployed for long-range missions, traveling for months at a time and up to 2,000 nautical miles, according to a September 2016 request for information. In anticipation of the Navy’s demand for large UUVs, some companies are already independently investing research dollars into developing the next generation of underwater drones. In March 2016, Boeing unveiled the Echo Voyager, a massive 51-foot-long UUV that could potentially operate autonomously for months at a time.

In Fiscal Year 2017, the Navy plans to invest $67.6 million in researching LDUUVs and $78.6 million in a new research program dedicated to developing the XLUUV and associated technologies. The Navy has proposed purchasing five demonstrator XLUUVs in Fiscal Year 2017. However, this number could be reduced by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. In the Senate’s NDAA report from earlier this year, it took issue with this proposal, suggesting that the cut the research program by $34.4 million by only purchasing two XLUUVs.

Beyond developing larger UUVs, one important area of focus is on improving the ability of unmanned systems to communicate and operate between air, surface, and undersea domains. For example, just as manned ships and helicopters currently collaborate to locate and destroy sea mines, unmanned helicopters like the MQ-8 Fire Scout could work with unmanned surface and undersea vehicles to accomplish the same mission while keeping human operators out of harm’s way. At the Annual Naval Technology Exercise in August 2016, several U.S. defense firms demonstrated how unmanned systems could work collaboratively between the air, surface, and undersea domains. An AeroVironment Blackwing UAV communicated with a swarm of unmanned undersea vehicles and Lockheed Martin successfully launched a UAV from a Marlin MK2 autonomous underwater vehicle. Northrop Grumman paired UUVs with unmanned surface vehicles and a Fire Scout UAV.

The Department of Defense has allocated funding for more experimental UUV programs, sometimes within larger line items. In Fiscal Year 2017, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency has allocated $24.2 million towards the Hydra, project to develop a network of unmanned underwater assets that could be deployed quickly in response to emerging threats. Another project, the Upwards Falling Payloads program, is slotted to receive $14 million in FY17. The goal of this initiative is to design affordable unmanned systems that, when remotely activated, can rise to the surface to deliver either a waterborne or airborne payload of explosives or supplies. The Office of the Secretary of Defense also funds UUV research projects, although on a smaller scale than the Navy and DARPA. OSD’s Undersea Warfare and Technology Focus Area, for example, will receive $7.5 million for general research into UUV issues such as command and control and communications.

Future of the Field

Recent advances in UUV technology and affordability and geostrategic interests are among the factors driving interest in underwater drones at home and abroad. Other countries are pursuing UUV programs in the race to develop and field unmanned systems.  In 2014, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported that Japan and the U.S. were collaborating on a 33-foot-long UUV that would be used to autonomously patrol areas using sonar. A RAND report on Chinese drones released earlier this year found that Beijing is funding at least 15 different university research programs into unmanned undersea and surface vehicles with particular emphasis on UUV projects. A Russian news broadcast in November 2015 confirmed suspicions that Russia was building a long-range UUV capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. In October 2016, the U.K. and France announced that they had awarded a $164 million contract to a group of European defense firms to develop a UUV for mine countermeasures.

The Russian slide showing a concept for a nuclear-armed UUV.

Unmanned submersibles could provide a low-cost alternative to manned platforms for missions that are particularly dangerous, like minesweeping, or for mission that are tedious, like patrolling. UUVs, particularly those envisioned by DARPA, could also be a way to assert military presence in an area that is difficult to reach or geopolitically contentious. Like the minesweeper concepts, UUV platforms could be built into the capabilities of existing manned platforms like the Littoral Combat Ship or submarines. Alternatively, larger UUVs may be deployed from ports and conduct missions independent from manned ships.

However, as a 2009 RAND study of UUV systems pointed out, some of the Navy’s proposed UUV missions were not practicable and remain out of reach. Issues with reliability, specifically within the realms of power systems and underwater communications, suggested to the RAND researchers that the technology was not quite mature enough. The controversy over the Remote Minehunting System is one example of how the Navy has struggled to develop an adequate countermine alternative to minesweepers and to successfully sell UUV technology to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. While UUVs present significant advantages in terms of cost and safety over manned platforms, it will be some years before UUVs are accepted into the fleet.

For updates, news, and commentary, follow us on Twitter.

This post originally appeared on the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• What you need to know about underwater drones
• Autonomous underwater system for monitoring health of Venice Lagoon demos at #EXPO2015
• CoCoRo: Tracking the development of the world’s largest autonomous underwater swarm
• Ocean-going robot fleet successfully completes fish-tracking mission
•  ROV operations expenditures to grow to $1.5 billion by 2017

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

In this episode, Audrow Nash interviews Edson Prestes, Professor at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul and an organizer of the Humanitarian Robotics and Automation Technology Challenge (HRATC) 2016 competition. The HRATC competition challenges teams around the world to develop methods of controlling robots to detect land mines in large open environments.

According to the UN Mine Action Service, landmines kill 15,000–20,000 people every year (mostly children) and maim countless more across 78 countries. Demining efforts cost US 300–1000 USD per mine, and, for every 5000 mines cleared, one person is killed and two are injured. Thus, clearing post-combat regions of landmines has proven to be a difficult, risky, dangerous and expensive task with enormous social implications for civilians.

Edson Prestes

Edson Prestes received his B.Sc. degree in Computer Science(CS) from the Federal University of Pará (UFPa), Brazil, in 1996 and M.Sc. and Ph.D. in CS from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil, in 1999 and 2003, respectively. He is a CNPq Productivity Fellow (Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) for his contribution to Brazilian Scientific Progress. Edson is Professor at UFRGS, since 2005, and Head of ϕ-Robotics Research Group.

Links

• Download mp3 (11.1 MB)
• Competition Website
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS

Raheeb Muzaffar, an information technology specialist, has developed an application-layer framework that improves the transmission of videos between moving drones and mobile devices located at ground level. His work within the Interactive and Cognitive Environments (ICE) doctoral programme will be completed soon. Raheeb explains what makes this technology innovative and talks about his plans for the future in a conversation with Romy Mueller.

Raheeb Muzaffar was already aware of what to expect when he arrived in Klagenfurt as a PhD student, travelling from Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, December 2012: He’s travelled well before, had experience working with various universities and professional organizations, and was acquainted both with the European culture and the research environment. The doctoral programme “Interactive and Cognitive Environments (ICE)” suited him perfectly, allowing him to conduct research in an international environment. Doctoral students accepted into the programme are funded for a period of three years. During this time, they work at two universities. The research teams at the Alpen-Adria-Universität and the Queen Mary University in London offered Muzaffar, who wanted to work on the communication between drones, an environment that allowed him insight into various laboratories and research approaches. By combining the key research areas he experienced in Austria and Great Britain, he ultimately arrived at his very own topic: video transmission in drone networks.

He spotted a problematic issue in this context, which he has studied very closely over the past few years. “In a situation where several drones are airborne and are transmitting videos to several units located at ground level, we cannot currently guarantee that the footage will be reliably transmitted.” The problem is that the receiving devices do not have a feedback mechanism for the video packets being transmitted from the drones. The missing feedback mechanism causes unreliability rendering a distorted video reception. Also, when the transmitting devices and the receiving devices are in motion, the wireless transmission conditions are subject to continuous change, introducing an additional factor of uncertainty.

To address this problem, Raheeb Muzaffar has developed a so-called “video multicast streaming framework”, which allows feedback from multiple ground devices to the drones to add reliability allowing a smooth video reception. However, the framework is even more capable: “The drone does not only learn whether the video has arrived, but thanks to the feedback mechanism, the drone can adjust the transmission rate and the video quality to match the prevailing wireless conditions. Thus, the transmitting drones can re-send lost video packets following the transmission and video rate adaption.” Video communication between drones and receiving devices is useful for various applications such as search and rescue, surveillance, and disaster management.

When we asked him, if he can make profitable use of his technology, Raheeb Muzaffar laughed. At various conferences, he talked to the developers from the industry, who confirmed to him that modules endowed with similar functionality are expensive and that the WLAN protocol requires modification. However, his application is freely available. Anyone wishing to commercialise the technology as a product, is able to do so. In any case, over the course of numerous simulations and experiments, he has demonstrated that the streaming framework works and uses the conventional WLAN protocol without modifications.

Muzaffar’s research in Klagenfurt is coming to an end. By November, he will complete his doctoral thesis, and will pull up stakes in Klagenfurt, following his hopes and dreams to work in the research-based industry. The researcher was accompanied by his wife when he came to Klagenfurt. In the meantime, they celebrated the birth of their daughter. The Muzaffar family intends to travel more: “I am not tied to one location. I would enjoy working anywhere in Europe, but we also like the idea of moving to New Zealand.”

A few words with Raheeb Muzaffar

What career would you have chosen, if you had not become a scientist?

If I would not have become a scientist, I would have become a social worker. Before turning to research, I worked with Non-governmental organizations including iMMAP and UNICEF thinking that my technical expertise could help expedite the social work that the organizations are involved in. Besides the work I do plan to involve myself in some sort of social work may it be technical, educational, financial or emotional.

Do your parents understand what it is you are working on?

Yes, especially my father, he is quite interested in technology. He may not have the technical details but he is aware of research and the work I am involved in.

What is the first thing you do when you arrive at the office in the morning?

First thing in the morning is to check and answer my emails. Thereafter, I work by the plan. I always have a plan for the week/month regarding the tasks I need to do. Although sometimes things don’t go by the plan and I have to readjust the plan to meet deadlines.

Do you have proper holidays? Without thinking about your work?

Yes, at least once a year.

Why are so many people afraid of technical sciences?

In my opinion, every individual has a different aptitude to his/her work domain and one should do what one thinks he/she is interested in and can perform best. Having said that, working in the domain of technical science is quite challenging. The field has advanced and it is getting increasingly complex to even gain the basic understanding of different domains. To work in this field, one has to stay up to date. Developing something new involves a minimal margin of error. I think, people are afraid due to the complex nature of the studies that involve an extra bit of hard work, understanding, and patience.

Written by: Romy Müller, University of Klagenfurt

Originally published in German language in AAU News of the University of Klagenfurt, Austria. Also published at Medium.com.

In this episode, Audrow Nash interviews Fredrik Gustafsson, Professor in Sensor Informatics at Department of Electrical Engineering in Linköping University, about an initiative to reduce poaching in a rhino sanctuary in Ngulia, Kenya. Gustafsson discusses how he first became involved in this project, how he has worked with the rangers to develop solutions, and the future of this work.

Fredrik Gustafsson

Fredrik Gustafsson is professor in Sensor Informatics at the Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping University, since 2005. He received the M.Sc. degree in electrical engineering 1988 and the Ph.D. degree in Automatic Control, 1992, both from Linköping University. His research interests are in stochastic signal processing, adaptive filtering and change detection, with applications to communication, vehicular, airborne, and audio systems. His work in the sensor fusion area involves design and implementation of nonlinear filtering algorithms for localization, navigation and tracking of all kind of platforms, including cars, aircraft, spacecraft, UAV’s, surface and underwater vessels, cell phones and film cameras for augmented reality. He is a co-founder of the companies NIRA Dynamics (automotive safety, including tire pressure monitoring systems found in more than 20 million, here), Softube (plug-ins for music studios and software solutions for Marshall and Fender), and Senionlab (leading manufacturer of indoor navigation solutions for sm, here).

Links:

• Download mp3 (16.9 MB)
• Project Ngulia website
• A PDF overview of Project Ngulia
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS

Remote controlled vehicle to clear explosives. Source Wikipedia Commons

Download (PDF, 599KB)

Background

Robots are an increasingly common sight in U.S. police departments. These unmanned ground vehicles are used for roles that are deemed too hazardous for law enforcement officers, such as inspecting and disarming explosive ordnance.

The influx of robots into civilian law enforcement agencies follows the widespread integration of unmanned vehicles into the U.S. military, where they have played an important role—particularly in explosive ordnance disposal operations—in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the invasion of Afghanistan, for example, the U.S. Army used an iRobot 310 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle to search mountain caves for members of al-Qaeda. During the war in Iraq, the Army purchased thousands of robots for use by bomb disposal teams.

As these wars have wound down, the Pentagon has transferred a growing number of these robots to U.S. law enforcement agencies. These exchanges take place under what’s known as the 1033 Program, a Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services (DLA) initiative to reutilize, transfer, donate, or sell excess military equipment to civil agencies. The 1033 Program covers the transfer of a wide variety of usable property items each year, including many robots. While most of the robots that are acquired by police are intended primarily for bomb disposal, they may also be utilized for other missions such as reconnaissance, entering a building ahead of a squad, and other uses.

Besides the 1033 Program, law enforcement agencies have also acquired robots using federal funds from the Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security. Most of these funds are directed towards federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), or the Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP).

We have analyzed public 1033 transfer data as well as public contract announcements in order to identify robots currently in use by domestic law enforcement agencies. This is only a partial accounting based on publicly available source materials, and should not be viewed as a comprehensive list of every robot currently in service in the U.S, nor does it reflect the total amount that has been spent on this technology by police. The data lists do not include, for example, robot procurement carried out by individual offices without federal assistance.

Findings: 1033 Program

Within the 1033 public records, which are current up to May 2016, we have identified at least 717 transfers of unmanned systems to 280 law enforcement agencies across the country. These transfers included 987 items (in numerous cases, a single transfer included more than one robot). These agencies included local, state, and federal entities; 248 local agencies received 597 items, 13 state agencies received 31 items, and 19 federal agencies received 359 items.

FBI San Francisco is the single agency that received the most transfers, followed by FBI Los Angeles and the Covina Police Department in California. FBI Dallas received the most units: 99 in total.

Agencies in 43 states received transfers. California received the most transfers, a total of 167, followed by Ohio, Alabama, and Virginia.

These transfers have been occurring at an increasing rate since the program began in 2003. There were 11 transfers in the first seven years of the program to 2010. In 2011 there were 43 transfers, in 2014 there were 143. There have been 201 transfers so far in 2016.

The total initial value of all the robots acquired by law enforcement through the 1033 program is $55,232,278. A variety of systems have been transferred, ranging from small cheap systems to large expensive units. Just under half of all acquired systems, 471 out of 987, initially cost between five and ten thousand dollars.  Four hundred and twenty-three units cost $50,000 or more.

*Note: the acquisition cost represents the value of the item when it was acquired by the DoD. The value of the item at time of transfer might be substantially lower than stated in the data.

Federal Contracts and Grants

USAspending.gov, the online database that details federal spending and assistance, includes at least 173 contracts and grants totalling $8.85 million for unmanned ground vehicles for law enforcement. These contracts and grants were issued between 2007 and 2016 by the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. The majority of these funds—$6.25 million—were allocated for federal agencies such as the FBI. Of the 173 transactions, city and state law enforcement jurisdictions received 25 grants totalling $2.63 million to purchase or upgrade robots. In 2015, there were 42 contracts and grants awarded, more than any previous year.

While it cannot be confirmed that this data presents a full accounting of contracts and grants for law enforcement robots, it does offer insight into the distribution of funds. For example, nine of the top ten biggest contracts for robots awarded by the DoJ went to either the FBI or ATF. The city of Billings, Montana received a $151,000 DHS Federal Emergency Management Agency grant to re-organize its teams of bomb squads and to purchase an additional robot.

Northrop Grumman Remotec, Inc., the maker of the ANDROS robots, was the single largest awardee of DHS and DoJ contracts, receiving $2.43 million, followed by ReconRobotics with $900,514. ReconRobotics, a Minnesota-based company, makes the Throwbot, a reconnaissance robot popular among law enforcement and military personnel.

1033 Data

Download (PDF, 167KB)

Correction: An earlier version of this report incorrectly stated that law enforcement agencies paid a discounted rate to acquire these systems. Law enforcement agencies do not purchase items from the DLA.

If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy reading:

• Unmanned combat robots beginning to appear
• Robots, soldiers and cyborgs: The future of warfare
• The Drone Center’s Weekly Roundup: 7/4/16
• How might drone racing drive innovation?
• Military robots: No reason to freak out

Source: IAI

IAI’s RoBattle unmanned, heavy duty, highly maneuverable, combat and support robotic system (UGV) is being shown at the Eurosatory 2016 Land and Airland Defence and Security tradeshow in Paris this week.

The system, by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), is designed to be integrated with tactical forces in mobile or dismounted operations and support a wide range of missions including intelligence, surveillance and armed reconnaissance and convoy protection, decoy, ambush and attack. RoBattle comes equipped with a modular robotic kit comprised of vehicle control, navigation, realtime mapping and autonomy, sensors and mission payloads. The system can be operated autonomously and configured with wheels or tracks.

UGVs have been a consistent feature of military operations since the start of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thousands of UGVs were deployed during these conflicts predominantly to perform explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) operations.

Several countries – Russia, China, the US, UK, Taiwan, Estonia and Iran, to name a few – are developing teleoperated UGVs equipped with remote weapon stations. One company displayed a family of UGVs at the Singapore Air Show in February 2016 that included a stabilised 7.62mm machine guns. The same vendor is planning a non-line-of-sight missile-launching UGV (according to IHS Jane’s).

Stuart Hatfield, the robotics chief for the US Army G-8 gave a talk at the Xponential 2016 exhibition in Philadelphia in which he noted that the Army’s funding for ground robotics had tripled from $290 million in the FY 2014-2018 five-year funding plan to $900 million in the FY 2017-2021 plan. According to Hatfield, the future of UGVs is “not about a lack of resources right now… but rather the requirements, technology and funding all have to come together at the right time.”

UGV technology has made steady strides in the past several years albeit incremental baby steps. In many cases, however, challenges still remain to better optimise UGV effectiveness across the range of envisioned applications. As with most unmanned systems, increased autonomy tops the list of technology development priorities.

If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy reading:

• Robots, soldiers and cyborgs: The future of warfare
• Should robots make life/death decisions? UN to discuss lethal autonomous weapons next week
• Active military robots around the world
• Mobile robots fight against deadly legacies of war
• Robohub focus: Robots and warfare

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Unmanned Ground and Arial Vehicles in previous editions of Minesweepers competition

Landmines are one of the most lethal weapons in modern warfare. In the military, they are considered the perfect soldier: Ever courageous, never sleeps, never misses. The simplicity and cost-effectiveness of mines are major factors in explaining the widespread use throughout numerous countries, who are now faced with the mine contamination problem. The civilian-purpose demining or humanitarian demining aims at finding and removing abandoned landmines, without any hazard to the environment.

According to Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor as of October 2015, 57 States and 4 other territories are affected by antipersonnel mines, including 33 states parties in Ottawa Treaty and 24 states not party to the treaty. Five additional states parties are suspected of being contaminated with mines or have residual contamination. It is estimated that there are more than 110 million active mines scattered in these 62 countries.

Landmines kill more than 5,000 people annually, of which, 46% are children, and there are 15,000-20,000 injuries each year. This serious problem hinders economic development of rich areas in affected countries. Landmines are planted in fields, forests, around wells, water sources, and hydroelectric installations, making these unusable, or usable only at great risk. Both Afghanistan and Cambodia could double their agricultural production if landmines were eliminated.

Mine contamination as of November 2015 Courtesy: Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor ICBL-CMC

Thanks to international initiatives, Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor declared that at least 200 km² of contaminated land was cleared in 2014, an increase from 185 km² in 2013, and more than 230,000 antipersonnel mines and 11,500 antivehicle mines were destroyed. 75% of recorded clearance occurred in Afghanistan, Cambodia and Croatia. Over the past five years, approximately 976 km² of contaminated land has been cleared, and almost 1.48 million antipersonnel mines and more than 82,000 anti-vehicle mines were destroyed. In September 2015, Mozambique has declared to be free of mines. In November 2015, 29 states and one territory are declared free of mines since the entry into force of the Treaty in 1999.

However, the humanitarian demining activities carried-out to remove landmines and unexploded ordnances (UXOs) from the vast contaminated areas in the world are still not on the same level of the problem. While basic landmine detection and neutralizing theologies remain almost the same, landmine technology improved dramatically resulting in more than 2000 different types of mines around the world; among these, there are more than 650 different types of anti-personnel landmines. The conventional demining techniques commonly used nowadays make the mission of removing a great numbers of landmines very slow, labor intensive, costly, inefficient, extremely dangerous and stressful process. If demining efforts remain about the same as they are now, and no new landmines are laid, it would still take 1100 years to get rid of all the world’s active landmines using the conventional approaches.

Robotics systems can provide efficient, reliable, fast and cost effective solution for the problem of the landmines and UXO contamination.

Minesweepers competition

In order to foster robotics research and its applications in the area of humanitarian demining, Minesweepers: Towards a Landmine-free World was created as the first outdoor robotic competition on humanitarian demining. This competition aims at raising public awareness of the seriousness of landmines and unexploded ordnances (UXOs) contamination and fostering robotics research and its applications in the area of humanitarian demining in the world.

Robotic competitions provide inspirational and motivational platforms for students, researchers and laypersons alike, to present their work to a wider forum with extensive media coverage. In this competition, each participating team constructs a teleoperated/autonomous unmanned ground/aerial vehicle that must be able to search for buried and surface-laid anti-personnel landmines and UXOs. The position and the type of each detected object are visualized and overlaid on the minefield map. The robot must be able to navigate through rough terrain that mimics a real minefield.

The first two editions of Minesweepers competition took place at German University in Cairo, Egypt, third edition was hosted by Institute of Systems and Robotics at University of Coimbra, Portugal and the fourth edition was organized by Universidad Católica del Norte (Catholic University of the North) in Chile.

Statistics about the four previous editions of Minesweepers competition

The fifth edition of Minesweepers competition is hosted by Zewail City of Science and Technology in conjunction with Second International Workshop on Recent Advances in Robotics and Sensor Technology for Humanitarian Demining and Counter-IEDs (RST) in October 27-30, 2016. Latin America regional round will be organized by Universidad Católica del Norte in Chile. The competition is organized in collaboration with IEEE RAS Egypt Chapter (2015 IEEE RAS Chapter of the Year and 2012 Chapter of the Year in IEEE Region 8) and Hadath for Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

The competition is organized under the auspices of IEEE Robotics & Automation Society – Special Interest Group on Humanitarian Technology (RAS–SIGHT) and is supported by Canadian Landmine Foundation, Executive Secretariat for the Demining & Development of the North West Coast, Mines Action & Human Rights Foundation and Protection against Armaments & Consequences and African Robotics Network (AFRON).

Arena of the final round of the 4th edition of Minesweepers in the historic Ruins of Huanchaca in Antofagasta, Chile

Five categories in the competition

1) Minesweepers-Juniors: for elementary and high school students where only metallic objects are available in the competition arena and only landmine detection is required.

2) Minesweepers–Academia: for undergraduate and postgraduate students where only metallic objects are available in the competition arena and both landmine detection and minefield mapping are required.

3) Minesweepers–Industry: for professional companies where metallic and non-metallic objects with different dimensions and profiles are available in the competition arena and landmine detection, landmine imagining and minefield mapping are required.

4) Special Category-I Multiple Minesweepers: The objective of this new category is to mimic the conventional mag-and-flag approach or SOP using multiple unmanned teleoperated and autonomous vehicles. Teleoperated vehicles play the role of human deminers while an autonomous vehicle is used to mimic the supervisor/team leader’s role. The team leader has to be equipped with a gripper or a marking mechanism to mark the location of the landmine detected by the deminers. More than one deminer can be integrated into the team but only one supervisor or team leader is allowed. No mapping is required in this category. However, the robot team has to be able to work cooperatively in detecting metallic surface-laid and buried objects and marking their location in the arena.

5) Special Category-II ROS Minesweepers: The main requirement to participate in this category is to build the software system of the robot using Robot Operating System (ROS). ROS is an open source platform that provides a set of software libraries and tools to build robot applications. It provides hardware abstraction, device drivers, libraries, visualizers, message-passing, package management, and more. Building the robot based on ROS allows the Minesweepers participants making use of interesting software module and the high fidelity simulator developed by the participants of the different editions of Humanitarian Robotics and Automation Technology Challenge (HRATC) organized by IEEE RAS–SIGHT.

Objectives of Minesweeper competition

The objective of Minesweepers competition is two-fold. First is to provide technical challenge to motivate new research and applications of mobile robotics in the area of humanitarian demining. Second is to provide educational forum to teach different aspects related to mobile robotics and humanitarian demining through Frequently-Asked Question (FAQ), Facts about landmines page, Resources page, emails, social media (Facebook, Twitter and Google+) and a set of technical webinars. Different webinars are broadcast to help the participating teams in constructing the demining robots covering different related topics such as unmanned ground vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, robot perception and navigation, Robot Operating System (ROS), landmine detection, wireless communication and multirobot systems.

The ultimate goal of the Minesweepers competition is to put into practice the new strategic mission of IEEE, “…to foster technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity” and to serve as an educational and a research forum to provide efficient, reliable, adaptive and cost-effective solutions for the serious problem of humanitarian demining in many affected countries in the world. The competition also motivates the participants to create new companies and industries geared towards minefield reconnaissance and mapping technologies. Moreover, the applicability of the robotic systems presented in this competition can be extended to a wide range of other applications such as security and surveillance, search and rescue, health monitoring of civil infrastructure, pipeline monitoring, and environment monitoring.

For more information about the Minsweeper challenge, you can visit their website, Facebook page, Facebook group, Twitter, and YouTube.

In episode four of season two, we talk about some of the major issues in AI safety, (and how they’re not really that different from the questions we ask whenever we create a new tool.) We take a listener question about time series, and we talk with Nick Patterson of the Broad Institute about everything from ancient DNA to Alan Turing.

If you like this podcast, you may also be interested in:

• Talking Machines: Robotics and machine learning music videos, with Michael Littman
• Talking Machines: Women in Machine Learning, with Hanna Wallach
• Talking Machines: Gaussian processes and OpenAI, with IIya Sutskever
• Talking Machines: Real human actions and Women in Machine Learning (WiML), with Jenn Wortman Vaughan

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

The Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel getting prepped for sea trials. Credit: DARPA

2/15/16 – 2/21/16

At the Center for the Study of the Drone

In October, the White House announced that it will deploy a Predator drone unit to Cameroon. We have obtained the first photographic evidence of this drone outpost, which was erected in the northern city of Garoua. Here’s a close look at what we found.

News

Hillary Clinton was delayed from appearing at a campaign rally in Chicago by a drone flying in the area. Secret Service agents prevented Clinton from leaving her vehicle after a drone was spotted nearby. The alleged operator of the aircraft was questioned by the agents. (ABC7)

The Wisconsin State Assembly passed legislation that imposes a $5,000 fine for anyone who flies a drone over a prison. Before the vote, a provision that would have allowed local municipalities to create “no drone zones” was removed from the bill. The State Senate will now consider the legislation. (Associated Press)

Yasuo Yamamoto, a 41-year-old man who landed a drone carrying a container filled with radioactive soil on the roof of the official residence of Japan’s Prime Minister last year, was sentenced to two years in prison. Yamamoto flew the drone in protest against Japan’s policy on nuclear energy. (The Japan Times)

A man in Australia is under investigation by Civil Aviation Safety Authority after he crashed a recreational drone at a ceremony at the Australian War Memorial. The individual, whose identity has not been released, could face penalties between $900 and $9,000. (ABC)

Militant group al-Shabab claims that it has seized an armed U.S. drone that crashed in southern Somalia. Among the wreckage were six missiles, according to details on websites that support al-Shabab. In an email to Voice of America, a Pentagon spokesperson denied that any U.S. drones had been lost.

Security forces in Israel intercepted a shipment of camera-equipped drones at the Kerem Shalom border crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip. According to a statement by the Israeli Defense Ministry, the drones were intended to be used for espionage. (Times of Israel)

Meanwhile, Israeli government officials are denying that the U.S. and U.K. hacked into Israeli drones, contrary to reports published last month by the Intercept and Der Spiegel. Unnamed officials told the Times of Israel that an internal investigation found that the encryption protecting the drone feeds had not been compromised.

A U.S. Air Force MQ-9 Reaper drone crashed at Kandahar International Airport in southern Afghanistan. Although the exact cause of the crash remains unclear, Air Force officials told Reuters that the drone was not shot down.

Commentary, Analysis and Art

At the Washington Post, David Ignatius writes that autonomous weapons were a subject of discussion at the Munich Security Conference, and examines the dimensions of the debate.

Also at the Washington Post, Missy Ryan considers whether the U.S. did in fact kill a leader of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in a drone strike.

A report by Ars Technica considers whether a National Security Agency program known as “SKYNET” might have resulted in civilian deaths in drone strikes.

At the New York Times, Michael V. Hayden argues that armed drones are the best option for combating terrorism.

The Armament Research Services published a report on the potential threats posed by non-state actors equipped with small unmanned air vehicles.

In a speech at the WEST conference, Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags, the head of Naval Air Systems Command, discussed the acquisition process for the new unmanned air refueling tanker. (U.S. Naval Institute)

At Rolling Stone, Vegas Tenold takes a look at some former members of the military who are speaking out about their time operating drones.

Meanwhile, “National Bird,” a documentary about former U.S. military drone operators who now oppose the program, debuted at the Berlin Film Festival. (ABC News)

At the Diplomat, Robert Farley writes that Chinese military drones are an example of technology espionage on American drone designs and manufacturing.

In a campaign speech in South Carolina, Sen. Ted Cruz promised that he would increase the number of drone pilots in the U.S. military. (The Atlantic)  

At Motherboard, Joshua Kopstein examines the consequences of failing to register a drone with the FAA before the February 19 deadline.

Also at Motherboard, Ryan Faith argues that the push to prevent the development of lethal autonomous weapons is “pointless.”

At Defense One, Patrick Tucker examines one way that the U.S. could establish rules for the development of autonomous weapons.

At DefenseNews, T.X. Hammes takes a look the strategic implications of the development of autonomous weapons for the United States.

Also at DefenseNews, Greg Zacharias discusses the development of autonomous capabilities in Air Force weapons systems.

At War on the Rocks, Joshua Steinman imagines a future drone war involving swarms of small drones.

In a speech in Singapore, Tony Tyler, the director-general of the International Air Transport Association, warned of the threats posed by drones to manned aviation. (BBC)

A U.S. Court of Appeals is debating whether drone strikes count as an intelligence activity, which would allow the CIA to withhold information from the public about the targeted killing program. (The Guardian)

At Newsweek, Abigail Fielding-Smith, Payenda Sargand and Jack Serle investigate a drone strike in Pakistan that is believed to have killed civilians.

At TED 2016, Raffaello D’Andrea gives an example of what a swarm of tiny autonomous drones can achieve.

At Slate, Justin Peters takes a look at how drones could actually make conservation more difficult by alienating human stakeholders.

At Drone Wars, Mary Dobbing considers the implications of the U.S. and U.K.’s alleged hack into the video feeds of Israeli drones.

The show “Once Is Nothing: A Drone Art Exhibition,” now on view at the Toronto Gallery InterAccess, brings together a diverse collection of artworks that examine unmanned technology. (CBC)

Know Your Drone

Iran’s military has unveiled a new version of its Shahed-129 medium-altitude long-endurance drone. (IHS Jane’s 360)

Israel Aerospace Industries has developed two new loitering munitions drones, the Harpy NG and the Green Dragon. (IAI Press Release)

The Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton has completed the operational assessment phase of development for the U.S. Navy. It will now enter low-rate production. (Defense Systems)

The Russian military unveiled two new larger variants of its Orlan surveillance and reconnaissance drone. (IHS Jane’s 360)

The U.S. Army announced that it will test on-demand 3-D printed drones in live exercises early next year. (U.S. Army Press Release)

Singapore company HUS Unmanned Systems has developed an autonomous drone recharging station that it claims could allow continuous flight operations for months at a time. (Slash Gear)

Meanwhile, ST Aerospace, another Singapore-based company, has unveiled an unmanned hybrid vehicle that can both fly and swim. (Shephard Media)

A team at the University of Southampton announced that it has conducted successful flight tests of a drone with membrane wings inspired by bats. (Discovery News)

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has released a photo of its Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel, a large naval drone that will begin sea trials in April. (Voice of America)

Drones at Work

Security forces in Kashmir deployed a small drone during an operation against militants who stormed a government building. (Greater Kashmir)

A labor union in Philadelphia is using a drone to monitor its protests from above. (Slate)

Mexican drug cartels are reportedly using drones to monitor stretches of the U.S. border. (Fox News Latino)

The Afghan military is set to begin using ScanEagle unmanned surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft in March. (Reuters)

A camera-equipped drone glided over a field filled with giant busts of U.S. presidents. (Mashable)

A U.K. drone firm achieved the first quadrotor drone crossing of the British Channel. (Drone360)

The government of Singapore is testing drones for delivering urgent items such as documents. (GovInsider)

Industry Intel

The Spanish Ministry of Defense awarded General Atomics Aeronautical Systems International a contract for four MQ-9 Reaper drones. The contract is estimated to be worth $243 million. (FlightGlobal)

The U.S. Navy awarded Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. a $15.2 million contract to replenish manufacturing materials for the MQ-4C Triton. (Contract Announcement)

Strat Aero received a $26,000 contract from Westar Energy, an electricity provider in Kansas, to use drones to inspect 53 wind turbines. (Windpower Engineering & Development)

UMS Skeldar, the Sweden-based manufacturer of helicopter drones, is anticipated to make its first sale of the Skeldar V200 drone to a customer in southeast Asia. (DefenseNews)

The U.S. Navy is looking for customers to purchase surplus MQ-8B Fire Scouts, an unmanned helicopter. (DefenseNews)

For updates, news, and commentary, follow us on Twitter. The Weekly Drone Roundup is a newsletter from the Center for the Study of the Drone. It covers news, commentary, analysis and technology from the drone world. You can subscribe to the Roundup here.

Magician Marco Tempest performing with a swarm of drones. Credit: Marco Tempest/YouTube

2/1/16 – 2/7/16

At the Center for the Study of the Drone

Last week, the Pentagon released its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2017. The budget includes nearly $4 billion for drone-related procurement, research, and construction. We have assembled a comprehensive guide to U.S. military drone spending for 2017.

News

A U.S. drone strike reportedly killed 16 members of the Islamic State in Afghanistan. The strike targeted a group of militants in the province of Achin on the Pakistan border. The targeted individuals were of Pakistani origin, according to Voice of America.

An extensive bill reauthorizing the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has proceeded from the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for consideration by the House of Representatives. The proposed bill has taken on a number of new amendments relating to the use of drones, including a provision that would exempt commercial drones weighing less than 4.4 pounds from strict regulations. (Fortune)

Police in Tokyo have announced that a fleet of drones will be used to enhance security at this year’s Tokyo Marathon. The unspecified number of drones will be used to intercept rogue unmanned aircraft flying too close to the event and to collect aerial imagery. (Japan Times)

The Federal Aviation Administration has reduced the size of its no-drone zone around Washington, D.C. by half. In December, the city’s restricted airspace was expanded from a 15-mile radius around the capitol to a 30-mile radius, effectively grounding a number of model aeronautics clubs in the area. The new measure will return the zone to its original 15-mile radius size. (Washington Post)

A New Jersey man has pleaded guilty to a criminal mischief charge for shooting down a neighbor’s drone with a shotgun. Russell Percenti shot the drone out of the sky as it was hovering over his property in September 2014. (Associated Press)

Registered drones now outnumber all registered manned aircraft in the U.S., FAA Administrator Michael Huerta has announced. The FAA, which implemented a compulsory registration program for drones last fall, has recorded over 325,000 registrations. The total number of registered manned aircraft in the U.S. is roughly 320,000. (Washington Post)

Commentary, Analysis, and Art

In an in-depth essay at the New York Times Magazine, Daniel Bergner speaks with the family of Warren Weinstein, the American aid worker who was killed in a drone strike last year.

At the U.S. Naval Institute, Megan Eckstein writes that some Navy officials are pushing for the Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System drone to be deployed as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, at the Daily Beast, David Axe takes a look at what the cancellation of the UCLASS program could mean for the future of drone development.

At Lawfare, Herb Lin examines how the standing rules of engagement might be applied to drones.

At Global Guerrillas, John Robb considers how cheap, autonomous drones might transform warfare.

At The Hill, Brendan Schulman argues that a rule for micro drones in the FAA authorization bill would benefit the safe integration of drones into the national airspace.

A Canadian military report takes a look at how pirates and other maritime criminals might use new technologies like drones. (Motherboard)

At Drone Wars UK, Chris Cole considers whether the U.S. will open a drone operations center at a military base in the U.K.

At the Red Arrow Gallery in Nashville, Tennessee, Pakistani artist Mahwish Chishty and 200 local high school students collaborated on an art show about drones. (The Tennessean)

In a new video, Swiss magician Marco Tempest attempts to control a swarm of synchronized quadrotor drones. (Mashable)

Know Your Drone

U.K. technology firm Roke Manor Research is developing a cellular link system that could be mounted on high-altitude long-endurance drones to help eliminate black spots in cellular networks. (New Scientist)

Russian defense company United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation has unveiled a quadcopter mounted with an anti-tank rocket launcher. (Popular Mechanics)

Italian defense company Finmeccanica has developed a counter-drone system that uses a variety of sensors and signal jammers to track and intercept rogue drones. (Fortune)

Researchers at the University of Zurich and NCCR Robotics have developed a navigation system for drones based on deep neural networks. In testing, the system allowed a drone to autonomously navigate a trail through a dense forest. (The Verge)

Israeli defense company Elbit Systems has unveiled a new version of its Skylark tactical surveillance and reconnaissance drone. (Flightglobal)

Meanwhile, Elbit Systems has also unveiled a prototype for an unmanned frigate called Seagull, which the company has designed specifically for anti-submarine warfare operations. (Defense News)

French drone company Parrot has developed a multispectral sensor designed for crop monitoring. (Gizmag)

A team of researchers at University of California, Berkeley has created a robotic cockroach as part of a U.S. Army program to develop biologically inspired micro-unmanned systems. (Defense One)

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been flight testing highly autonomous multirotor drones at speeds of up to 45 mph in complex environments. (Washington Post)

Chinese drone maker Powervision Robot is developing a lightweight consumer drone that folds into a compact egg shape when not in use. (Gizmag)

The Netherlands Coastguard and the Royal Netherlands Air Force have conducted a series of successful flight tests of a sense-and-avoid system for large unmanned aircraft. (IHS Jane’s 360)

Drones at Work

The International Atomic Energy Association is working with Height Tech, a German drone manufacturer, to explore ways of using drones to spread thousands of sterilized mosquitoes in certain areas in an attempt to quell the Zika virus. (Bloomberg Business)

Disney has filed a patent for a system that incorporates drones into light shows. (Tech Insider)

The government of the Australian state of Victoria is looking to use drones for a variety of monitoring applications, including keeping an eye over planned forest burns. (The Herald Sun)

A drone was used to capture aerial footage of the Bab al-Salama refugee camp on the Syrian border with Turkey. (Guardian)

Archaeologists are using drones to track looting at a Bronze Age archaeological site on the Dead Sea Plain in Jordan. (Phys.org)

A Vancouver man used a drone to help him find his stolen dirt bike. (CTV News)

Industry Intel

The German navy has purchased an unmanned surface vehicle from Atlas Elektronik UK for minesweeping operations. (Press Release)

The U.S. Army awarded AAI Corp. a $19.4 million contract to modify the command and control data link on the service’s fleet of RQ-7 Shadow tactical drones. (Contract Announcement)

Helicopter transport company Bristow Group Inc. has teamed up with Sky-Futures to conduct drone inspections of offshore oil rigs. (Bloomberg Business)

Airbus has teamed up with researchers in Japan and France to develop humanoid robots. (Press Release)

For updates, news, and commentary, follow us on Twitter. The Weekly Drone Roundup is a newsletter from the Center for the Study of the Drone. It covers news, commentary, analysis and technology from the drone world. You can subscribe to the Roundup here.

A USAF MQ-1 Predator done crashed in southern Turkey. Via: AP

At the Center for the Study of the Drone

Today, the Center for the Study of the Drone updated its database of companies and individuals that are allowed to fly drones commercially in U.S. airspace. The expanded dataset, which covers all commercial drone exemptions through the end of 2015, is available here.

News

A U.S. drone strike in Yemen reportedly killed a senior leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Jalal Baleedi, AQAP’s combat operations commander, was killed with two others in a vehicle while traveling in the coastal Abyan province. (Reuters)

The House Transport and Infrastructure Committee released a draft bill for the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. The bill, which faces opposition for proposing major changes to the air traffic control system, calls for greater investment in development of drone technologies such as sense-and-avoid systems. The FAA’s current authorization expires on March 31, 2016. (The Hill)

The FAA established a no-drone zone around California’s Bay Area for Sunday’s Super Bowl. The zone covered a 36-mile radius around the Levi Stadium in Santa Clara, extending up to an altitude of 18,000 feet. In an interview with NBC News, FAA spokesperson Ian Gregor said that aircraft that violate the the flight restriction rules could be met with “deadly force.”

A man was arrested after he accidentally crashed a drone into the Empire State Building in New York City. Sean Riddle, a 28-year-old from Jersey City, was arrested on charges of reckless endangerment and criminal mischief. (New York Post)

A U.S. MQ-1 Predator drone crashed in southern Turkey shortly after taking off from Incirlik Air Base. According to a statement from the 39th Comptroller Squadron, the cause of the crash was a mechanical failure. No civilians or military personnel are believed to have been injured or killed in the accident. (Defense News)

Nigeria reportedly launched a drone strike against Boko Haram. In a statement, Nigerian Air Force spokesperson Group Captain Ayodele Famuyiwa said that the strike targeted a group of vehicles near the Sambisa Forest. It was Nigeria’s first successful drone strike. (Associated Press)

The New York Times reports that the CIA’s targeted killing program is at the heart of an inter-agency debate over the classification of some of Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails. According to the Times, some of the 22 “top secret” emails contain classified details about the CIA program.

Hacking group AnonSec claimed that it hacked into NASA computers, publishing what it described as protected agency data as well as evidence that it briefly took control of a NASA RQ-4 Global Hawk high-altitude research drone. NASA denied the group’s claims, telling Forbes in a statement that “NASA has no evidence to indicate the alleged hacked data are anything other than already publicly available data.”

In a written response to a question from a member of the House of Lords, Earl Howe, the deputy leader of the House of Lords, reported that British forces have launched 258 Hellfire missiles from MQ-9 Reaper drones in 2015, a sharp increase over previous years. (Parliament.uk)

Commentary, Analysis, and Art

At National Geographic, Nicholas Lund questions whether it’s advisable to force eagles to take down drones.

At NASA Watch, Keith Cowing points out that the video feeds from NASA’s Global Hawk published by AnonSec may also be obtained for free from a NASA website.

At Forbes, John Goglia argues that Congress should replace the FAA’s exemption process for commercial drone users with a bill legalizing commercial small drone operations.

At TechCrunch, Frederic Lardinois writes that the FAA reauthorization bill does little to advance efforts to integrate drones into the national airspace or the drone industry.

In an interview with The Financial Express, an executive at General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. describes India’s interest in acquiring a number of the company’s Predator series military drones.

The U.S. Air Line Pilots Association has developed a proposal for a rule that would require all would-be drone pilots to pass an online test before taking to the skies. (Air Transport World)

At Drone Wars, Chris Cole writes that number of British air strikes against ISIS, including those launched by drones, has increased in the past three months.

At the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Jack Serle takes a look at the 10 individuals who are believed to have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan in 2015.

At Geographic Imaginations, Derek Gregory reviews recent publications that tackle issues relating to drones and targeted killing.

Photographer Karolis Janulis used a drone to capture aerial images of Lithuania in winter. (ABC News)

According to Kyodo News, a forthcoming report by the United Nations Security Council Sanctions Committee is likely to recommend that sanctions on North Korea include restrictions on the sale of drones. (Japan Times)

At Popular Science, Kelsey D. Atherton takes a look at a 1976 NASA study on the potential civilian applications for drones.

At Small Wars Journal, Nathan Fisher considers whether drones could be put to use evacuating casualties in urban warfare environments.
Also at Small Wars Journal, Gary Anderson argues that robots could be a good substitute for human soldiers in the fight against ISIS.

Know Your Drone

The U.S. Navy is looking to change the course of its Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike drone program, turning the planned stealth combat drone into an unmanned aerial refueling aircraft. (USNI News)

Defense contractor Israel Aerospace Industries and Korean composites manufacturer Hankuk Carbon are teaming up to develop a vertical takeoff and landing drone for the Korean armed forces. (Defense-Aerospace.com)

NASA is sponsoring an open challenge for ideas for technologies that will help manage complex manned and unmanned air traffic systems in the future. (Phys.org)

In Dubai, the top prizes at the second Drones for Good competition were awarded for a pipeline inspection drone, an exoskeleton for children with reduced mobility, and a guidance system for the blind. (The National)

Israeli defense startup Meteor Aerospace has revealed new details about its forthcoming Impact surveillance and reconnaissance drone. Company executives claim that the Impact will be able to carry payloads of up to 330 pounds for more than 24 hours. (Flightglobal)

The Ukrainian military has taken delivery of the country’s first locally developed military drone, the Ukroboronprom BpAK-MP-1. (Defense News)

Iran’s military has conducted demonstrations of an armed variant of its Shahed-129 drone, which it claims has recently been used to conduct strikes in Syria. (IHS Jane’s 360)

A British research team carried out the first successful flight of a hydrogen-powered drone that they anticipate will be able to fly for longer periods than battery-powered aircraft. (New Scientist)

The U.S. Army is developing a universal control interface that could be used to operate multiple types of unmanned aircraft. (GCN)

Drones at Work

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using drones to count seal pups on an island off the coast of Massachusetts. (ABC)

The government of Finland is testing small surveillance drones along its border with Russia. (Christian Science Monitor)

Meanwhile, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is conducting new tests of its Predator B unmanned surveillance aircraft at a commercial airport in Texas. (Associated Press)

The Turkish Aerospace Industries Anka, a medium-altitude long-endurance drone, carried out its first operational mission for the Turkish military. (Hurriyet News)

A Russian news crew used a drone to capture dramatic aerial views of Homs, Syria. (Mashable)

A team of students at Maplewood High School in Nashville, Tennessee is using drones to inspect power lines. (News Channel 5)

Amazon is testing delivery drone systems in the Netherlands. (Fortune)

A drone was used to capture footage of damage caused by a severe earthquake in Taiwan. (Sky News)

In Oklahoma’s Tornado Alley, several universities are using drones to anticipate major storms. (PBS News Hour)

Industry Intel

Industry Intel covers the latest deals, contracts, and investments in the drone world.

The British Ministry of Defence announced that it will purchase two Airbus Zephyr high-altitude surveillance drones in a deal worth an estimated $15.2 million. (Agence France-Presse) For more on high-altitude long-endurance drones, click here.

iRobot announced that it will sell the portion of the company that manufactures military unmanned ground vehicles in order to focus solely on civilian robots. (Ars Technica)

The U.S. Army awarded AAI Corp. a $97 million contract to modify the command and control data link on the service’s fleet of RQ-7 Shadow tactical drones. (DOD)

The U.S. Coast Guard awarded AeroVironment a contract to provide a RQ-20A Puma drone and support staff for Operation Deep Freeze, a resupply convoy to the Antarctic McMurdo Station. (C4ISR & Networks)

Commercial drone company Sentera announced that it has partnered with John Deere to provide a range of aerial surveying services to the agricultural equipment maker’s clients. (Press Release)

For updates, news, and commentary, follow us on Twitter. The Weekly Drone Roundup is a newsletter from the Center for the Study of the Drone. It covers news, commentary, analysis and technology from the drone world. You can subscribe to the Roundup here.

The new stand-alone privately-held company will focus entirely on the needs of defense, public safety and security. Existing iRobot management and staff will move over to the new company which will remain in Bedford, MA. Since inception, more than 6,000 of these four robots have been delivered to customers worldwide: the FirstLook, SUGV, PackBot and Kobra.

The divestiture ends iRobot's dual focus on the military and consumer markets and ends a multi-year revenue slide in this division, albeit a strategically planned transition, as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars wound down. Colin Angle, iRobot Chairman and CEO, said:

In the spring of 2014, we engaged Blackstone Advisory Partners LP, now known as PJT Partners, to review strategic alternatives for our Defense and Security business. After a thorough and deliberate process, we've concluded the sale of the business to Arlington Capital Partners will maximize shareholder value by allowing us to focus on our much larger Home segment.

iRobot, a publicly-traded company on the NASDAQ Exchange, will take advantage of the momentum it has achieved in the consumer marketplace, particularly with their Roomba line of robotic vacuums, and plans to develop new technologies for the connected home. 

With 14 million robots in people's homes today and the leading market share within the robotic floor care segment, iRobot has revolutionized the way people clean. The divestiture of the Defense & Security business will allow us to focus on the Home Robots business, bring new products to market, continue our expansion in China and build upon successful new marketing campaigns. We are confident that our strategy of focusing on the home will position iRobot for continued growth and success.

Peter Manos, a Managing Partner at Arlington Capital, commented:

We look forward to further consolidating [iRobot's Defense & Security Division] preeminent position in robotics through organic investment and acquisitions. Arlington Capital is pleased to be partnering with the iRobot Defense & Security team on this divestiture to create a new and focused robotics platform.

A screen shot from the video purportedly from an Iranian drone that flew close to a U.S. aircraft carrier. Via: Washington Post.

At the Center for the Study of the Drone

Immediately following the detonation of Gilda at Bikini Atoll on July 1, 1946, a ghostly fleet of aircraft flew into the rising mushroom cloud. They looked like manned military airplanes, but they were actually drones. Here is the little-known story of the crucial role that drones played in Operation Crossroads.

News

Iranian state-run media released a video purporting to show an Iranian drone flying close to an American aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. In a statement, U.S. Navy spokesperson Cmdr. William Marks said that an unarmed Iranian unmanned aircraft did in fact fly in proximity to U.S. and French aircraft carriers on January 12, the same day that a U.S. Navy patrol boat was seized by Iran near Farsi Island. (Washington Post)

A report by the Intercept suggests that American and British intelligence agencies hacked into the video feeds of Israeli military drones. The program, known as Operation Anarchist, was revealed in a slideshow from the the U.K.’s signals intelligence bureau, which had been provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden to the Intercept.

A Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a Freedom of Information Act request submitted to the White House for documents relating to the Obama administration’s targeted killing program. The appeal, which was brought by Main Street Legal Services, Inc. at the City University of New York School of Law, sought the release of a list of the targets of drone strikes. (The Hill)  

Commentary, Analysis, and Art

A new paper by Michael C. Horowitz, Sarah E. Kreps, and Matthew Furhmann examines whether concerns over drone proliferation are justified. (SSRN)

At Wired, Tim Moynihan weighs the benefits and downsides of current and future traffic management systems for drones.

At Fast Company, Neal Ungerleider profiles Workhouse, an Ohio-based startup that plans to take on Amazon with a drone delivery system of its own.  

The British Airline Pilots Association is calling for stricter drone regulations over concerns that a drone could strike a passenger plane. (Financial Times)

At the New York Times, Nick Bilton reflects on what it means to be spied upon by a drone.

A report by the National Commission on the Future of the Army recommends that the Pentagon invest more in counter-drone measures. (Breaking Defense)

At Open Democracy, Daniele Archibugi argues that drone strikes are war crimes, calling the targeted killing campaign a “high-tech barbarian practice.”

At Bellingcat, Adam Rawnsley takes a look at the role that Iranian drones play in the war in Syria.  

At Drone Laws Blog, Jeffrey Antonelli offers a beginner’s guide to legally flying a drone in the United States.

At Motherboard, Jason Koebler revisits a 2011 incident in which local police in North Dakota used a Predator to help arrest a rancher.

At DefenseNews, Tom Kington reports that all five of NATO’s Global Hawks are expected to arrive in Sicily by the end of the year, along with 600 personnel.

At Slate, Jesse Kirkpatrick considers the possible psychological risks faced by drone operators.

At the Houston Press, Chris Lane argues that it is better to consult with law enforcement before shooting down a drone that is flying over your property.

The Congressional Research Service released a report that examines the different policy and regulatory challenges associated with integrating drones into the National Airspace System.

The exhibition “To See Without Being Seen,” now on show at the Kemper Art Museum at Washington University in St. Louis, brings together a diverse range of contemporary artworks that address drone warfare.  

Turkish photographer Aydin Büyüktas used a drone to create cinematic warped images of Istanbul. (Booooooom)

Know Your Drone

Belgian company Unify is in the final stages of developing an airspace traffic management system for small, low-altitude drones. (Flightglobal)

Hydroswarm, a U.S. startup, is developing a small, cheap underwater drone for a variety of applications, including undersea mapping as well as mine detection and search operations. (Guardian)

A Google patent has been released showing that the company’s proposed Project Wing drone delivery system will involve both aerial and ground-based unmanned vehicles. (International Business Times)

Meanwhile, Google is testing ways of beaming 5G wireless Internet from solar-powered drones. (Guardian)

And the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has released a report on its investigation of an incident in which a Google solar-powered drone crashed during testing last May. Investigators found that an unexpected thermal current caused the aircraft to exceed its speed limit, causing its wings to separate from the fuselage. (NBC News)

Examining the state of drone technology today, Quartz explains why drone delivery might not be as close to becoming a reality as you’d think.

Drones at Work

Japan is exploring the possibility of using drones to protect crops from intrusive monkeys. (Yomiuri Shimbun)

Sebastian Anthony, a reporter for Ars Technica, tried racing drones and found it much harder than he expected.

Meanwhile, investors raised $8 million to fund the Drone Racing League. (MarketWatch)

German airline Lufthansa signed a deal with hobby drone manufacturer DJI to use drones for inspecting aircraft surfaces and wind turbines. (Reuters)

BNSF Railway and the FAA are experimenting with drones to test air quality and inspect railroad bridges. (Mashable)

Britain’s National Health Service will equip each of its Hazardous Area Response Teams with drones for use in chemical or biological emergencies. (New Scientist)

A drone belonging to the Mid-Atlantic Aviation Partnership of Virginia Tech was used in the search for Nicole Lovell, a missing 13-year-old girl. (WSLS10)

A drone was flown inside the New Mexico State Capitol during debate over an education bill. (Popular Science)

Project Last Mile, a pilot program funded by the UNFPA and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, uses drones to deliver medical supplies to rural areas in Ghana. (Huffington Post)

Meanwhile, a project in India is attempting to use drones to quickly and safely deliver organs across busy urban areas. (Newsweek)

Researchers at Idaho State University are exploring ways of using drones to detect diseases in potato crops. (Associated Press)

Italian startup Heli-Lab is using drones to deliver Internet to remote areas of Sicily. (PSFK)

California residents are using drones to document the effects of El Niño. (NBC News)

The Footville Fire Department in Wisconsin obtained a drone for search and rescue operations and other related missions. (GazetteXtra)

For updates, news, and commentary, follow us on Twitter. The Weekly Drone Roundup is a newsletter from the Center for the Study of the Drone. It covers news, commentary, analysis and technology from the drone world. You can subscribe to the Roundup here.

Source: ELROB

Robotic competitions have sprung up like mushrooms. Beside the obvious ones like EURATHLON, RoboCross, DARPA and MBZIRC, there are hundreds of smaller contests all over the world. Some of them are academic in nature, and some try to address real world scenarios. An even smaller fraction of the latter deal with outdoor/off-road robotics in hazardous environments — these competitions usually involve a Search and Rescue (SAR) or Hazardous Materials Incident Response Operation (HAZOPER) incident. And this is where the lab meets real life! Unfortunately, it’s also where end-users are too often disappointed when their expectations — often buoyed by roboticists’ own overestimations — are not met.

Why does this happen? All too often competition scenarios are designed without deeply consulting with real practitioners like first responders and emergency service workers. This is usually because end-users’ operational requirements are so far beyond today’s robotic capabilities that participating in a competition truly designed around their needs is unrealistic for most competitors. Organizers simply don’t want to spoil all the fun!

Let’s look at an example. euRathlon 2015 was an exciting multi-robot-multi-domain competition that used the Fukushima accident as an emergency-response scenario. In one of the scenario’s the users asked for a building with massive walls, best enforced with metal. This would reflect the limitations to radio communication they face in these environments. The teams were given loads of information beforehand, including the hint that there was a massive building to enter and that the circumstances would be difficult for radio communication. The organisers did their best to keep the information flowing. In the end the vast majority of teams turned up with commercial WiFi/WLAN equipment. That wouldn’t have been a serious problem in the first place if the autonomy had worked, but since that wasn’t the case, all attempts to remotely steer a robot into the building ended just behind the first door. WLAN simply cannot be used behind concrete walls. To cut a long story short: a lot of people felt blue, and this scenario was a disappointment for participants, organizers and end users alike.

What happened? The users asked for something that is almost impossible even with the professional equipment they use themselves. With levity, some of the roboticists promised autonomy while others overestimated their radio communication capabilities. And while you might criticise the researchers for being overly optimistic, or the end-users for setting their expectations too high, the reality is that you will find an analogue picture in more or less every robotics competition: feel free to read the articles by Steve Crowe (managing editor of Robotics Trends) about the “DARPA Robotics Challenge“, for example.

Lessons to be learned? The first real challenge is to get the users, field experts and practitioners to talk to the research and development people (and visa versa, of course). But only after they have found the same (or at least a similar) technical terminology and language. This might be an arduous process, but the individuals who survive the catharsis will be able to come up with something valuable. It is the sole responsibility of the competition organisers to ensure (if not enforce) this convergence and harmonisation.

The roboticists must understand that “the user” is first and most interested in task fulfilment, not in Time and Space complexity. They are interested in tools that make their work easier, safer, and that open new possibilities. Roboticists should test their systems not in artificial settings designed by academics, but in the same training facilities as the professionals use!

The potential users must understand that R&D people are not manufacturers. It is not the mission of a university to come up with an end-product. The focus of classic R&D is the investigation of scientific or engineering problems. If the users can formulate the problem properly, the roboticists might come up with a capability concept demonstrator that has Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3-4, at maximum TRL 5.

Industry and SMEs are key figures in this process. They are the interface between user and R&D; it’s their role to transform the innovative R&D results into a mature product that meets the users’ needs. This is no doubt a tedious task. However, until now European companies have been too fainthearted to take initiative in this process. It might be one of the reasons why there are currently only a few established European robotics companies.

Since 2006 the European Land Robot Trial (ELROB) successfully combines all these aspects. ELROB offers realistic scenarios that have been developed in close co-operation with users and practitioners to reflect the most up-to-date en-user requirements.

Therefore the event is not organised as a competition but as a trial. First and foremost, this means ELROB is not about being crowned a winner and claiming a huge pot of prize money. Rather, the aim of the trial is to allow all participants to present their systems’ abilities under comparable and fair conditions. Instead of hiding their systems and code behind a shroud of secrecy, participants share experiences and work together synergistically. ELROB actively encourages an exchange of ideas and approaches between academia, industry and end-users, so that community as a whole has the chance to assess current technology as well as to pilot and govern further development. Both the tasks and the scenarios are designed by the users, and the performance of the systems is assessed by field experts. The event offers a fantastic opportunity to mingle with international experts from the field, industry and the R&D sector.

ELROB will mark its 10th anniversary in 2016. Europe’s oldest and toughest robotics event is again setting the pace by addressing the top areas of application:

• Reconnoitring of structures (with a focus on radiological and nuclear measuring and mapping)
• Mule (shuttle between two locations)
• Movements / Convoying (transport with two vehicles)
• Search & Rescue (SAR) / MedEvac (find and drag a dummy casualty)
• Reconnaissance and disposal of bombs and explosive devices (EOD/IED)

Generously supported by the Austrian Armed Forces, this time the event will be held at Tritolwerk — the proving ground used by the emergency forces and CBRNE units for training, and thus the perfect location for ELROB. The composition of the honourable judge team will ensure a good mixture between academia, users and industry.

If you are a roboticist and interested in real world applications, enrol now! SMEs and industry members should consider contributing to our exhibition. Users, practitioners and interested spectators are welcome to register at any time.

Looking forward to meeting you at ELROB 2016!

On Friday November 13th, AJung Moon from the Open Roboethics initiative delivered a statement at the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Meeting of States Parties.

So what was this meeting about? And why was ORi there?

The CCW actually has a long name that is much more descriptive of what it is all about: The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects as amended on 21 December 2001.

Put simply, the CCW is where different countries come together to review excessively injurious or indiscriminate nature of certain weapons and discuss their prohibition or restriction. It is also the forum in which a coalition of non-governmental organizations, called the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, brought up the issue of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). The Campaign has been advocating for an international ban of LAWS — fully autonomous weapons that can target and make life/death decisions without human intervention.

The CCW Meeting of States Parties is an annual meeting where all the countries subject to the weapons convention come together to “review the status and operations of the Convention and its protocols”. At this year’s meeting, part of the agenda was to decide whether and what kind of discussions they should have about the issue of LAWS next year. Should the States take the issue more seriously and formally start discussing for a ban?

What do people think about lethal autonomous weapons? Should they be developed or used? Would people think differently about use of these weapons over remotely operated alternatives, such as drones, if their own country is attacking another country? Results from our latest public opinion survey suggests that most people are reluctant to endorse the use of such technologies in waging war.

As a research-driven think tank that has been investigating roboethics related issues in a bottom-up manner (i.e., we reach out to you, the community of future stakeholders of robotics technologies, to explore roboethics related questions) the Open Roboethics initiative was there to inform the decision makers of the public’s opinion on the issue.

Below is the statement AJung delivered on behalf of ORi.

At the end of the day, the CCW meeting concluded with the decision to continue to informally discuss the topic. There will be an informal meeting of experts to discuss the topic of LAWS on April 11th to 15 of next year, just like the informal meeting of experts that was held earlier this year. While this important issue is being discussed, ORi hopes to continue to inform the decision makers and enable stakeholders of the technology — that’s all of us all around the world in our books — to chime in to the conversation.

Public Opinion on the Ethics and Governance of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: Open Roboethics initiative Statement for the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Meeting of the States Parties, Geneva

November 13, 2015

Thank you, Mr. President.

Disinguished Delegates,

I am grateful to be speaking to you on behalf of the Open Roboethics initiative. The Open Roboethics initiative is a think tank based in Canada that takes stakeholder-inclusive approaches to investigating roboethics issues. What should a robot do? What decisions are we comfortable delegating to robots? These are some of the questions we have been exploring in the domain of self-driving vehicles, care robots, as well as lethal autonomous weapons systems, or LAWS.

I would like to share with you some of the key findings from a public opinion survey we conducted this year on the topic of LAWS. As the CCW continues its discussion of LAWS, I believe the Distinguished Delegates will find the results of our survey informative in moving the discussions forward, especially in consideration of the Martens Clause that underscores the importance of the public’s role in these discussions.

While existing public opinion surveys on this topic have mainly been limited to English-speaking populations, our survey was launched in 14 different languages and have attracted over a 1000 responses from 54 countries.

The following are some of our findings:

In general, when our participants were asked to think from the perspective of an aggressor, 71% of our participants indicated that they would rather have their country use remotely operated weapons systems instead of LAWS when waging war. From the perspective of a target of aggression, a majority has also indicated that they would rather be under attack by remotely operated than autonomous weapons systems.

When asked about international ban across different types of lethal autonomous weapons for missions on land, air, and sea, 67% of our participants indicated that all types of lethal autonomous systems should be internationally banned, while 14% said that none of such systems should be banned.

When asked about the development and use of LAWS, 85% of our participants were not in support of using lethal autonomous weapons for offensive purposes. In addition, majority of our participants were also against the development of LAWS for both defensive and offensives purposes.

Given a list of common reasons for supporting the development and use of LAWS, the most supported reason was to save human military personnel from physical harm of war. However, more participants indicated that there are no valid reasons for developing or using LAWS over a remotely operated alternative.

Given a list of reasons for rejecting the technology, the most support went to the assertion that humans should always be the ones to make life/death decisions. This particular principled reasoning has been echoed in other studies.

As acknowledged by scholars, experts, and civil society, there is no agreement on the definition and interpretation of the term “public conscience” referred to in the Martens Clause. It would also be inappropriate to equate results of a single public opinion survey as an accurate measure of public conscience. However, it is also clear that we cannot exercise the requirement of “the dictates of public conscience” without proactively listening to and taking into account the voice of the public.

Based on this year’s data, it is our conclusion that the public is reluctant to endorse development and use of LAWS for waging war. However, at the moment, data on the perception of the technology from non-English speaking countries remain scarce. Our results suggests that more systematic, international public engagement is necessary to support the requirements set out in the Martens Clause.

As part of our on-going efforts to understand and engage the public on this challenging issue, we plan to continue to conduct studies in this domain across the world. In the interest of time, I shared with you only some of the findings from our study. I invite you to visit our website, www.openroboethics.org for more detailed report of our findings.

Thank you.

A UUV is removed from the water during operations off the coast of Bahrain in 2013. Credit: Specialist 2nd Class Michael Scichilone/US Navy/Released

Late last month, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus appointed Brig. Gen. Frank Kelley to become the first deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for unmanned systems, a position that was created in April. “The change to the organization is a reflection of the priority we’re placing on this emerging capability,” Secretary Mabus said in a speech at the Unmanned Systems Defense 2015 conference on October 27. Kelley will be responsible for a variety of programs ranging from the high-flying Triton surveillance drone to experimental projects like the Navy’s fleet of swarming patrol boat drones. The new deputy secretary will also be overseeing drones that plumb the depths of the oceans. The development of torpedo-like submarine drones, also known as unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV) or autonomous undersea vehicles (AUV), is a major priority for the Navy. These drones, some of which could potentially remain submerged for months at a time, will serve in a variety of roles including surveillance and mine-hunting. At the Unmanned Systems Defense 2015 conference, Secretary Mabus said that the Navy is aiming to launch a squadron of autonomous UUVs by 2020 that can operate independently from manned vessels.

According to the Autonomous Undersea Vehicle Applications Center, a non-profit industry advocacy organization, there are 251 unique configurations of UUVs in service today, including 144 different vehicle platforms. That number is likely to grow in the coming years as the technology improves. Here’s what you need to know about UUVs:

Background

Submarine drones are generally classified either as remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs) or as UUVs. The former is a tethered vehicle that is piloted by crew members aboard a nearby vessel, while the latter is not tethered and is designed to operate largely independent of a human operator. In 1957, the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory developed the Special Purpose Underwater Research Vehicle, also known as SPURV. One of the first UUVs, the SPURV was funded by the Office of Naval Research and it could dive up to 10,000 feet and operate for four hours. By the time the SPURV program ended in 1979, other ROVs and UUVs were being developed in the United States, particularly for marine exploration and research. In 1985, the Argo, a remotely operated underwater vehicle, found the wreckage of the Titanic and, in 1989, the Bismarck, a World War II battleship. As a September 15 article in the New York Times pointed out, due to the lower operating costs and ability to stay underwater for extended periods of time, UUVs remain extremely attractive option for deep sea researchers.

A 1983 article in Popular Science detailing the use of UUVs for scientific exploration. Via AUVAC.

In the 1990’s, after two U.S. Navy ships were badly damaged by Iraqi sea mines in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, the Navy began investing heavily in Mine Countermeasures and initiated a program to build UUVs that could disable enemy sea mines. The Navy’s 1994 Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Plan set the priorities for the program; topping the list was the need to develop UUVs for organic and clandestine mine detection. In other words, the Navy needed a system that could avoid detection by operating underwater and in advance of dedicated minesweepers on the sea surface. In 1996, Northrop Grumman developed the Near-Term Mine Reconnaissance System, a two-vehicle platform that was designed to be launched from the torpedo tube of a submarine and connected to the vessel by a fiber-optic tether. The NMRS was replaced by the Long-Term Mine Reconnaissance System. The LMRS program produced the 20 ft.-long Boeing AN/BLQ-11 drone.

The UUVs of Today

In the years since the Navy’s foray into UUVs with the NMRS and LMRS, a number of underwater drones with varying capabilities have emerged. With the release of the Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Master Plan in 2004, the Navy set out nine priorities for future UUV capabilities that ranged from disabling enemy submarines to delivering supplies and launching weapons. Among the most prolific unmanned undersea drones are the REMUS family of UUVs. The Remote Environmental Monitoring UnitS program was initiated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Hydroid, a Massachusetts-based UUV manufacturer that is owned by Kongsberg Maritime. During Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, a REMUS UUV was used to help clear sea mines from the waterways around the port of Umm Qasr, marking the first time a UUV was deployed in a combat environment. One of the most capable Hydroid UUVs is the REMUS 600, a torpedo-shaped underwater drone designed to carry a large payload of sensors to great depths for meteorological and oceanographic surveying. The MK18 Mod 2 Kingfish, a variant of the REMUS 600, costs the Navy around $1.3 million apiece. Although the Marine Mammal Program, the Navy’s effort to use dolphins and sea lions to detect sea mines, is still running, it is expected that the Kingfish will replace the mammals within a few years.

While the Navy has adopted an expansive view of what UUVs could possibly achieve, countering enemy mines remains a high priority. The Navy traditionally fields an array of air and sea systems to counter enemy mines, including fleets of minesweepers and low-flying helicopters that use sonar to detect mines. Instead of sending out human divers, UUVs can be used to disable the devices with a small explosive charge, eliminating the risk to sailors. UUVs are also fitted with sonar and other sensors that can autonomously map out minefields. The Battlespace Preparation Autonomous Vehicle, a Bluefin Robotics Bluefin-21, the Surface Mine Countermeasures, a General Dynamics Knifefish UUV, and the Remote Minehunting System, a Lockheed Martin Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle, all provide varying anti-mine capabilities. The Navy is under pressure to develop and deploy these systems, as existing platforms like the Avenger-class minesweeper and the Sea Dragon helicopters are quickly reaching the point for retirement. Instead of fielding specialized minesweepers, the Navy decided to couple mine countermeasures to existing manned vessels, including to the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), creating the MCM “module” for the LCS.

Funding for the UUVs is spread across several different procurement packages and research items. In Fiscal Year 2016, the Department of Defense is on track to spend around $232.9 million on UUVs, a $86.7 million increase over FY2015. However, this figure represents dedicated UUV spending, and does not necessarily include funds that are within larger spending packages. For example, while a large part of the Navy’s research into anti-submarine warfare surveillance, a $83.4 million project, will be spent on developing a UUV for detecting enemy submarines, the exact amount to be spent on this aspect of the program is unclear.

Download (PDF, 75KB)

On the procurement and acquisition side, the Navy’s budget for Fiscal Year 2016 includes $51.7 million in funding for the Underwater Explosive Ordnance Disposal Programs, a fund that encompasses a large number of acquisition efforts for counter-mine technology, including the MK18 Mod 2 Kingfish. Another procurement line is the Remote Minehunting System, for which the Navy has allocated $87.6 million. The main product of the RMS is the Lockheed Martin’s Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle, an autonomous UUV that is intended to be deployed from a Navy ship to help search for mines by towing a sonar. The concept for the RMS was actually developed in the late 1990s, and it has had a checkered history. According to the latest Selected Acquisition Report for the RMS, the acquisition cost of a single system has doubled from $13 million to $27.7 million between 2007 and 2015. In September, Senators John McCain and Jack Reed criticized the Navy’s Remote Minehunting System program, arguing that the RMMV had failed to meet requirements and could be scrapped altogether. Last month, the Navy formed an independent board to review the RMS program.

“Put simply, while estimated overall spending on RMS is only a little higher than originally planned, it is only yielding half the number of systems, at more than double the unit cost, and it is taking twice as long to field it,” Sen. McCain wrote in a review of the RMS program. “Also, it doesn’t work.”

Military funds for UUV research and development are likewise scattered across a number of different programs. Two of the most well-defined research programs are the Knifefish Surface Mine Countermeasure Unmanned Undersea Vehicle—$17.4 million—and the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle—$38.8 million. Unlike UUVs intended specifically for countering mines, the LDUUV is designed to have multiple mission types including persistent intelligence gathering capabilities and payload delivery. When Secretary Mabus announced that the Navy is planning a squadron of autonomous underwater drones last month, these were platforms that he was referring to. According to Inside Defense, the Pentagon is expected to start soliciting bids from contractors to build the new systems within the next month or so. Yet, like the RMS program, the development of the LDUUV has not always been an easy sell on Capitol Hill. The Senate draft of the FY16 National Defense Authorization Act included comments that the planned LDUUVs are “too large and expensive to deploy in quantity but are likely too small to host the systems needed for long-endurance independent operations.” The final version of the FY16 subtracted $5 million in research funding for the LDUUV.

The Department of Defense has also allocated funding for more experimental UUV programs, sometimes within larger line items. For example, a portion of the $4 million allocated to the Chief of Naval Operations Rapid Innovation Cell will go towards Project NEMO, which is developing biomimetic UUVs that can swim like a fish. The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency has allocated $32.7 million towards Hydra, a project to develop a network of unmanned underwater assets that could be deployed quickly to respond to emerging threats. Like the Hydra project, the goal of DARPA’s Upward Falling Payloads initiative, to which it has allocated $22 million, is to design affordable unmanned systems that are deployed to multiple locations and that, when remotely activated, can rise to the surface to deliver either a waterborne or airborne payload of explosives or supplies. Distributed Agile Submarine Hunting, another DARPA project to which $8.5 million is allocated, includes the development of UUV that tracks submarines.

Conclusion

Compared to unmanned vehicles in the air and on the ground, maritime drones are less well known. The impending retirement of manned vessels like minesweepers and recent geopolitical events indicate that that could change within the next few years. In the race to develop unmanned systems, other countries are pursuing UUV programs. In 2014, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported that Japan and the U.S. were collaborating on a 33-ft.-long UUV that would be used to help patrol areas using sonar along a pre-programmed route. A RAND report on Chinese drones that released earlier this year found that Beijing is funding at least 15 different university research programs into unmanned undersea and surface vehicles with particular emphasis on UUV projects. A Russian news broadcast last week unintentionally confirmed suspicions that Russia was building a long-range UUV capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Unmanned submersibles could provide decisionmakers with a low-cost alternative to manned platforms for missions like minesweeping that are particularly dangerous or for mission that are tedious, like patrolling. UUVs, particularly those envisioned by DARPA, could also be a way to assert military presence in an area that is difficult to reach or geopolitically contentious. Like the minesweeper concepts, UUV platforms could be built into the capabilities of existing manned platforms like the Littoral Combat Ship or submarines. Alternatively, larger UUVs may be deployed from ports and conduct missions independent from manned ships.

The development of ingenious new unmanned systems like Boeing’s hybrid UUV and UAV Rapid Deployment Air and Water Vehicle shows that the technology is progressing quickly. However, as a thorough 2009 RAND study of UUV systems pointed out, some of the Navy’s proposed UUV missions were not practicable and remained out of reach. Issues with reliability, specifically within the realms of underwater communications and propulsion, suggests that the technology has yet to mature. The controversy over the Remote Minehunting System is one example of how the Navy has struggled to develop an adequate countermine alternative to minesweepers. While UUVs present significant advantages in terms of cost and safety over manned platforms, it will be some years before UUVs are accepted into the fleet.

This post originally appeared on the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Autonomous underwater system for monitoring health of Venice Lagoon demos at #EXPO2015
• CoCoRo: Tracking the development of the world’s largest autonomous underwater swarm
• Ocean-going robot fleet successfully completes fish-tracking mission
• British National Oceanographic Centre launches major unmanned exploration mission
•  ROV operations expenditures to grow to $1.5 billion by 2017

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

AI researcher Toby Walsh gives a talk at TEDx Berlin on Killer Robots. Walsh will be participating in a side event and media briefing for the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots at the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly’s First Committee Meeting on Disarmament and International Security on October 20.

Campaign to Stop Killer Robots side event on fully autonomous weapons
@ 13:00
United Nations Conference Room A

“The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is a global coalition of more than 50 non-governmental organizations working for a preemptive ban on weapons systems that would select targets and use force without meaningful human control. This side event will look at recent developments including initiatives by campaign members, the artificial intelligence call for a ban on autonomous weapons, and the Future of Life Institute grants aimed at ensuring artificial intelligence is beneficial to humanity.”

Moderator

Ms. Mary Wareham, Human Rights Watch, coordinator of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots

Speakers

    •    Ms. Jody Williams, 1997 Nobel Peace laureate and chair, Nobel Women’s Initiative

    •    Prof. Toby Walsh, University of New South Wales

    •    Dr. Ian Kerr, International Committee for Robot Arms Control

    •    Mr. Richard Moyes, Article 36

Torre del Sale building, Piombino, Italy. Image: eurathlon

Inspired by the 2011 Fukushima accident, euRathlon is a civilian outdoor robotics competition focused on realistic cooperative disaster response scenarios. euRathlon 2015 takes place in the area surrounding the building of Torre del Sale, on the site of the Enel-owned power plant, and 16 teams from ten different countries have travelled to Piombino, Italy, to tackle this unique challenge. In the first day of trials, aerial, ground and marine robots had to deal with the very real conditions of a demanding coastal environment. Watch the Day One recap video.

The Opening

The mayor of the city of Piombino, Massimo Giuliani, gave a warm welcome to all the attendees, followed by the Enel engineer Antongiulio Bertoncini, Dr Anne Bajart (the project’s European Commission officer), Professor Alan Winfield (euRathlon project Coordinator) and Dr Gabriele Ferri (Head of the euRathlon 2015 robotics competition).

The Trials

The euRathlon 2015 scenarios are arranged in increasing order of complexity, with the trials first, followed by the sub-challenges and finally the Grand Challenge.

Trials are single-domain scenarios designed to encourage the participation of teams that may not have the time, resources and/or experience to directly address the euRathlon Grand Challenge. But, at the same time, they serve as a warm up for the multi-domain (land, sea and air) teams. There are a total of six trials divided into two land trials (L1, L2), two sea trials (S1, S2) and two air trials (A1, A2).

Land Trial (L1): Reconnaissance in Urban Structure

For the first of the two land trials the competitors’ robots were required to approach, inspect and map a ruined building. The land robots had to navigate across a beach filled with obstacles such as wood debris, vegetation and sand dunes. Once inside the building, robots had to look for mock damage and the entrance to the machine room.

A schematic map of the building was given to the teams at the beginning of the trial. The map didn’t include detailed dimensions of entrances, corridors and rooms. As part of the staging, entrances are randomly blocked as a result of a hypothetical earthquake and tsunami.

The seven teams participating in this land trial were B.R.A.I.N. Robots, Cobham, Bebot, ICARUS, ENSTA Bretagne Team 1, ENSTA Bretagne Team 2 and SARRUS.

The beach natural environment turned out to be a real challenge for the robots and only two teams successfully entered the building.

Team ICARUS (ICARUS EU-FP7) preparing for the land trial. Image: euRathlon

Sea Trial (S1): Navigation and Environmental Survey

The sea trial took place in the Enel-owned plant harbour, where robots were tasked with surveying an area of 15×15 metres in the basin of the dock.

The AUVs (Autonomous Unmanned Vehicles) had to navigate from the launch point to a validation gate, pass through it and search for damage on the seabed, marked by submerged orange buoys.

The 11 teams participating in the sea trial competed in parallel, in two different areas. The teams were OUBOT, AUV Team TomKyle, ENSTA Bretagne Team 2, AVORA, UNIFI, ENSTA Bretagne Team 1, AUGA, Team Nessie, ICARUS, Robdos Team and Universitat de Girona.

Teams had to contend with poor water visibility worsened by the rough sea conditions of the previous days. Although acquiring live video and images of the buoys with the on-board camera was a challenge, most of the teams succeed in the navigation task.

Team OUBOT (Obuda University) after their participation in the sea trial.

Air Trial (A1): Aerial Detection and Mapping

In this first air trial, teams were called on to conduct an aerial inspection to find a safe path from the starting point, for a land robot, to an unblocked entrance of the building.

Specific take-off and landing areas were designated for the UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles).

The robots had to map the area surrounding the building and look for objects of potential interest (OPIs) representing blocked and unblocked entrances.

The six teams that participated in this trial were UNIFI, ICARUS, ENSTA Bretagne Team 1, ENSTA Bretagne Team 2 and ISEP/INESC TEC.

Team UNIFI ( University of Florence) getting ready for the aerial trial. Image: euRathlon

The teams faced variable wind conditions during the day, but that did not stop their robots from taking-off and flying around the building. Most of the teams succeed in surveying the area and finding a safe path for the land robot. 

Watch this space for Day Two: the second set of land, and sea trials!

The location of euRathlon 2015 competition at Torre del Sale, Piombino, Italy. Photo credits: EURATHLON

On March 11, 2011, a tsunami and earthquake struck Fukushima Dai-ichi energy plant causing a major disaster. Since then emergency services have deployed robots to inspect the area and collect data. Some robot surveys were successful while others failed, underlining the pressing need to advance the state-of-the-art in autonomous robots for disaster response. Further research is necessary, and so is testing in realistic environments. Shinji Kawatsuma, from the Japan Atomic Energy Authority (JAEA), urged in his outstanding talk in euRathlon 2013: “Don’t build robots, build robot systems”. And this is what euRathlon 2015 is all about: testing the capabilities of robot systems in realistic mock emergency-response scenarios.

euRathlon is an outdoor robotics competition funded by the European Union with a focus on realistic cooperative search and rescue response scenarios for land, sea and air robots. Inspired by the 2011 Fukushima accident, the euRathlon 2015 Grand Challenge can only be met when these three domains of robotics are working cooperatively. Previous single-domain euRathlon competitions focussed on land (2013), sea (2014). These, alongside team building workshops, and have been building up to the 2015 Grand Challenge, where the overall aim is to advance the state-of-the-art in heterogeneous teams of autonomous vehicles. Multi-disciplinary and multi-organisational teams of students and engineers will survey the scene, collect data, search for missing workers, identify critical hazards, and more, all in a race against the clock. Of the sixteen teams that have qualified for euRathlon 2015, ten will participate in the Grand Challenge (sea, land and air) creating a total of 6 multi-domain teams.

The scenarios

The euRathlon 2015 Challenge will be held in the area surrounding the Tor del Sale building, and in the Enel-owned thermal power plant sheltered harbour.

Although competing robots will face mock scenarios, the environmental conditions and difficulties are intended to be as realistic as reasonably possible, and the success criteria will reflect straightforward end-user priorities such as task completion and minimal intervention with the robots.

Three different types of scenarios have been defined:

• The Grand Challenge: a three-domain air, land and sea scenario, which comprises three missions.
• Sub-Challenge: two-domain scenarios; each is a combination of two trials.
• Trial: single-domain scenarios.

The scenarios will begin with the six Trials (2 land, 2 sea and 2 air), move on to the three Sub-Challenges (land + air, sea + air, land + sea), and finish with the Grand Challenge. The euRathlon Grand Challenge main goal is task fulfilment, but autonomy and cooperation between domains are also essential for achieving the mission objectives – to search for missing workers, conduct an environmental survey, and stem a leak – within the allocated time.

Drafts of the scenarios, competition rules and the scoring/benchmarking schema were published in advance for teams to comment. However, detailed descriptions of the scenario setups, for instance the location of blocked doors or missing workers, have not been given to teams because such details would not be known ahead of time in a real life scenario.

euRathlon 2015 Grand Challenge schematic. Credits: EURATHLON

The teams

As in previous euRathlon events, teams were required to undertake a qualifying process to prove that their vehicle(s) would be able to cope with the scenarios. The teams were asked to write a Scenario Application Paper (SAP) for each of the scenarios they were planning to enter. In the SAPs they describe their robot(s) and explain how they plan to address the technical challenges for each specific scenario. A technical advisory board reviewed the SAPs and checked that the proposed solutions were realistic.

The 16 teams participating in the euRathlon 2015 Challenge are:

1. AUGA – Team AUGA (or “water” in Galego) is from ACSM (Advanced Crew and Ship Management), a company that will participate in the sea trials with one of the SPARUS II AUVs that were loaned to less experienced teams by the euRathlon organisation.
2. AVORA – The AVORA team is from the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, which will participate in the sea trials with their robot, Charle.
3. AUV Team Tom Kyle – AUV Team Tom Kyle is from the University of Applied Sciences of Kiel, Germany, which will participate in the sea trials with their robot Robbe 131 and will partner with Bebot team for the Sub-challenges and Grand Challenge.
4. Bebot Team – Bebot is a two-domain team from the University of Applied Sciences of Bern, Switzerland. They will participate in the competition with their robots Bebot (land) and Bee (Air), and will partner with AUV Team Tom Kyle to participate in the Grand Challenge.
5. B.R.A.I.N. Robots –  B.R.A.I.N. Robots e.V. from Esslingen, Germany, participated in euRathlon 2013. In 2015 they will participate in trials and sub-challenges with their robots Monique (land), Alice (land), Caro (sea) and Hannah (sea). They will team up with UNIFI Team for the Grand Challenge.
6. Cobham – Team Cobham is from the German-based company Cobham Mission Systems. Cobham was one of the winners of euRathlon 2013 with their robot Telemax. This year they will participate in land trials and will team up with ISEP/INESC TEC and Universitat de Girona for the Sub-Challenges and Grand Challenge.
7. ENSTA Bretagne Team 1 – one of the two multi-domain teams from the Institute of ENSTA Bretagne, France, that are going to participate in the trials, such-challenges and Grand Challenge. ENSTA is the only institution that participated in both euRathlon 2013 and 2014. They will participate with the robots SAUC’ISSE, SARDINE, USV, ETAS WHEEL, ETAS TRACK, buggy, and two quadrotors.
8. ENSTA Bretagne Team 2 – the second of the two multi-domain teams from the Institute of ENSTA Bretagne, France. Like Team 1, they are going to participate in trials, such-challenges and Grand Challenge. Their robots are CISCREA, EUREKA, TREX, a buggy and two quadrotors.
9. ISEP/INESC TEC Aerial Team – The team from ISEP/INESC TEC (Portugal) will participate in the aerial trials with their robot OTUS. They will team up with Universitat de Girona and Cobham for the Sub-Challenges and Grand Challenge.
10. ICARUS – This is the team of the ICARUS EU-FP7 Project, with partners from Belgium, Germany, Poland, Portugal and Spain. This multi-domain team will participate in the trials, sub-challenges and the Grand Challenge with their robots ASCAMM-LIFT-V and ASCAMM-LIFT-VI (air), UKL-SUGV and RMA-IMM-tEODor (land), INESC_ROAZ and INESC_MARES (sea).
11. Team Nessie – The team from the Ocean Systems Laboratory & Heriot Watt University (UK) will participate in sea trials with their robots NESSIE VII and E.M.I.L.Y.
12. OUBOT – The team from Obuda University (Hungary) will participate with one of the SPARUS II UAV loaned by euRathlon consortium in the sea trials.
13. Robdos Team Underwater Robotics – Robdos is formed by a group of students from the University Polytechnic of Madrid (UPM) and the Spanish-based company Robdos SRL. They will participate in the sea trials with one of the SPARUS II that euRathlon loaned to them and which they participated in euRathlon 2014.
14. SARRUS-Search And Rescue Robot of UPM & SENER – is the team of the Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (UPM), Spain, and the company SENER Ingenieria y Sistemas S.A. They will participate in land trials with their robot Summit XL.
15. UNIFI Team – UNIFI is the team of the University of Florence (Italy) that will participate in the sea and land trials with their robots FEELHIPPO (sea), MARTA (sea) and BATIGOL (air). They will team up with B.R.A.I.N Robots for the Sub-Challenges and Grand Challenge.
16. Universitat de Girona – The team of the University of Girona is formed by students and researchers of the Underwater Vision & Robotics Research Centre (CIRS). The team develops and operates the robot vehicle SPARUS II AUV that was one of the winners of euRathlon 2014 sea competition. This year they will participate in sea trials and will team up with Cobham and ISEP/INESC TEC for Sub-Challenges and the Grand Challenge.

Which teams will successfully address the Grand Challenge? Don’t miss the updates starting this week.

For pictures and more information about the teams visit: http://www.eurathlon.eu/index.php/compete2/teams2015/

The IIIM’s new ethics policy has been unanimously agreed by its staff and Board of Directors and came into force at the end of last month. It aims for the peaceful use of artificial intelligence and draws a firm line against collaboration with any organisation “even partially funded by military means within the last five years.”

“It is only fitting that a research centre in Iceland should field such a policy – a nation without a standing army and virtually no history of war in its 1100 years”, said Kristinn R. Thórisson, IIIM’s Managing Director.

“Like any other technology, AI can be abused at everyone’s expense, escalating the dangers associated with tensions between groups, governments, and nations. Researchers stand at the threshold of new technology; they should actively participate by preventing the abuse of knowledge they produce. This is, in essence, what we are doing with our new policy.”

It’s clear that the non-profit IIIM has launched its policy not only to publicise its anti-military stance, but also to mobilise other researchers and R&D centres to take similar action.

At least 87 countries are now known to use military robotics of some sort and the IIIM’s Ethics Policy joins a growing opposition to what is seen by many as an inevitable development.

Many experts and various pressure groups, including the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, adamantly and publicly oppose autonomous weapons.

Last May, a meeting was organised at the UN to assess the ethical and sociological questions that arise from their development and deployment, as well as the adequacy and challenges to international law.

In July, the Future of Life Institute released an open document calling for a ban on autonomous weapons. Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak were among the prominent names on the list of those opposed.

There are, as yet, no agreements or even proposals to ban autonomous weapons, but discussions in the UN are ongoing.

Whether or not others will follow the IIIM’s lead remains to be seen but the institute has undoubtedly made a brave decision in rejecting the billions of dollars of contracts thrown at the military weapons industries.

The moral, ethical and legal arguments against weapons that can make decisions about who to kill will rubble on. But the exponential pace of change in robotics and AI calls for safeguards and controls to be put in place before the technology reaches fruition, so IIIM’s decision is surely a step in the right direction.

For more information about the IIIM visit http://iiim.is or email info@iiim.is.

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in:

• Clearpath’s public stance on Killer Robots sets precedence in corporate responsibility
• Robots Podcast: Autonomous lethal weapons
• Ron Arkin and Noel Sharkey debate lethal autonomous weapons at UN
•  Robots Podcast: Robot ethics (Part 1), with Noel Sharkey
•  Robots Podcast: Robot ethics (Part 2), with Ron Arkin
•  Robotics needs to get political
•  Robo-Wars: The regulation of robotic weapons

FSR, the biannual single track meeting on field and service robotics, is on now in Toronto. With 42 papers on a range of applications and keynotes by Chris Urmson (Google[x]), Paul Newman (Oxford), Sanjiv Singh (CMU), and Ryan Gariepy (Clearpath Robotics), lots of ground will be covered. Robohub’s Hallie Siegel is on site at the event – check out the live tweets below.

#FSRToronto Tweets

Team TRACLabs — at Homestead-Miami Speedway [photo: DARPA facebook page]

Something remarkable is happening in Building 9 here at the Fairplex in Pomona, Calif. Imagine a long, giant warehouse-like building divided into 24 bays, within which people from around the world are unpacking their robots and preparing them for the DRC Finals. Imagine lids being pried off the tops of reinforced wooden crates, foam padding and stuffing peanuts being brushed aside, and then slowly—with the help of gantries and winches—metallic creatures rising from their shipping crypts like mummies exhumed not from the past but from a future.

That’s the technical part—the fork lifts, the tools, the LEDs blinking to life as members of this new generation of increasingly sure-footed emergency responders prepare for the difficulties that await them on the challenge course outside. But the even more remarkable part is the human half of this evolving experiment in human-robotic collaboration. Members of competing teams are visiting each other. They are sharing tips and even software. Yesterday, two teams in adjoining bays wanted to know if they could lower the eight-foot-tall privacy wall that separated them so they could work together better. In less than a day, a community has arisen.

That’s a great reminder that the DRC is not about robots going off to mitigate disasters on their own. It’s about honing the interface between humans and robots, so we can take best advantage of what each has to offer. Hundreds of people are coalescing around a common goal that demands the best of people and their machines. I could not be more inspired.

Now, as the momentum builds, it’s time for me to focus on the final details of the Finals event itself, so I will take a break from updating this page personally. But please check out DRC’s new blog page—Post Cards from DRC—which will be updated regularly over the next several days to immerse you in the excitement, the tension, the people … and yes, the robots of the DARPA Robotics Challenge.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• DARPA’s Robotics Challenge: A pocket-sized guide to the finals
• Beginner’s guide to the humanoid robot challenge (DRC)
• DARPA’s Virtual Robotics Challenge a practical step forward on the long road toward disaster-response capable humanoids
• DARPA’s legacy: Open source simulation for robotics development and testing
• DARPA’s Gill Pratt on Google’s robotics investments
• DARPA’s HAPTIX project hopes to provide prosthetic hands with sense of touch

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Illustration: James Provost & Erik Vrielink. Source: Automaton Blog.

DARPA’s latest Challenge reaches its climax on 6 June 2015, when 25 finalists compete for $3.5m of prize money in what’s possibly the most anticipated robotic contest ever. Since its inception in 2012, the event has lost its top competitor and the challenge is now even tougher. Here’s what you need to know to enjoy the event, in one handy guide.

The purpose 

In the past three years, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has invested $96.6m in the DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC) – a hugely ambitious program to develop robots capable of assisting humans in responding to natural and man-made disasters.

The DRC was inspired by the Fukushima disaster, and the US Department of Defense identifies disaster response as a priority area. In DARPA’s most recent briefing in mid-May, Programme Manager Gill Pratt broadly described the contest’s aims: “We really want to develop better tools, better techniques, ways of amplifying the effectiveness of our response to both natural and to manmade disasters.”

“If we could only better intervene from a distance in places where it’s too dangerous for human life, that would significantly add to our capabilities to mitigate the extent of disasters. That’s the problem that we’re trying to solve.”

In a disaster, one of the most problematic elements is a degradation of communication, and Pratt stressed that this is the most important aspect of the competition: “When you think about the DARPA Robotics Challenge, try to think beyond the physical robots, and focus on this very sporadic, very degraded communication between people and machines working together as partners.”

Why humanoids?

CHIMP. Source: Carnegie Mellon

According to DARPA’s research with first-response experts, the key capability requirements point to a humanoid solution – the ability to go through doors, climb steep stairs, walk on rough terrain and to use the tools on hand – are all only really achievable by a humanoid robot.

So most of the robots have bipedal designs and are humanoid in appearance, with a couple of exceptions: Tartan Rescue‘s Chimp (CMU Highly Intelligent Mobile Platform), the long armed robot that finished third in the 2013 Trials, and NASA’s RoboSimian, which has four limbs for increased stability. There’s also Team NimbRo Rescue, which has a anthropomorphic upper body on a flexible hybrid mobile base.

Human-robot interfaces must be intuitive and simplicity of use is also a primary reason why so many of the teams use bipedal, human-like forms, including DARPA’s Atlas robot model.

The challenge

This will be the final challenge in a long process that started with a virtual event in 2013 and a physical trial run later that year. Through these two preliminary rounds of competition, DARPA and the DRC teams have redefined what is possible in robot power efficiency, supervised autonomy, physical adaptability and human-machine control interfaces.

The final challenge takes place in a simulated disaster zone. It will involve two attempts at eight tasks; seven of these will be derived from the challenges of the last round, and one surprise task will be introduced at the competition.

The robots will start in a vehicle, drive to a simulated disaster building, and then they’ll have to open doors, walk on rubble, and use tools. Finally they’ll have to climb a flight of stairs. The fastest team with the same amount of points for completing tasks will win.

The main issues teams will face are communications with their robot and battery life: “Even the best batteries are still roughly ten times less energy-dense than the kinds of fuels we all use to get around,” said Pratt.

What’s happened since the last phase?

The Programme has been extended and is now truly international. Half of the teams are from the US, but Japan, Korea and the EU have invested funds. Says Pratt: “It’s a really global challenge.” 

SCHAFT

The biggest change is, however, the withdrawal of Team SCHAFT, head-and-shoulders winners of the last phase of the challenge. SCHAFT, developed by a Japanese start-up, was acquired by Google in December. Their withdrawal last June underlines both Google’s claims that it has no interest in seeking funding from the military, and the US government’s need to not be seen as funding a major corporation.

The new emphasis on the communications aspect of the challenge means DARPA will be purposefully sabotaging the link between teams and their robots. During the Fukushima nuclear disaster, it was communication issues caused by heavy radiation shielding and power outages that proved most problematic for the robots tasked with entering the site. The DRC communication outages will last up to one minute to test how well these robots deal with similar situations.

The teams are provided with situation awareness to help them visualise what the robots are up to. A change in the rules forces teams to rely less upon the remote control of individual joints and motions and instead implement task-based interfaces that incorporate advanced perception, minimal human guidance, and complex autonomous behaviour.

DARPA has also decided that the robots will operate completely untethered. There won’t be cables to provide power and data, or keep the robots upright. In view of this, DARPA has swapped the ladders used in the last challenge for stairs, making it a little easier.

The Atlas robot, created by Bostron Dynamics and DARPA, was used by several teams in the DRC Trials. Source: DARPA

The ATLAS robot, used by the seven teams that are concentrating on software instead of hardware, has had an upgrade.The platform is manufactured by Boston Dynamics – another company recently acquired by Google.

Among the improvements to ATLAS is increased energy efficiency, with some teams now able to achieve several hours of functionality without the need for a recharge.

“We’ve provided these new robots with a very large, high-performance computer now, at least for the Atlas machines,” says Pratt. “But primarily what the robot is doing is perception, and I think that’s actually the hardest part of the job that it has. So it’s using the LiDAR sensors and the visual sensors that it has and it’s trying to decide what it is that it sees.”

DARPA is being fairly secretive about the specifics of the tasks the robots must perform: “We’ve been very purposefully not giving blueprints out to any of the teams to say this is exactly what the door handle will be like or what the valve will be like,” says Pratt. “I want to push the teams far away from trying to have scripted responses.”

The teams

There will be 25 teams competing in total, half of them from the United States. Japan, Korea and Germany are well represented with a total of 10 teams between them.

Out of the 25, a total of 14 new teams from seven different countries have been added, qualifying to participate in the DRC Finals. And 11 teams previously qualified during the DRC Trials.

Seven teams are using Atlas and the other teams have developed their own robots, which come in a variety of sizes and shapes.

Speaking about the differing capabilities of the teams, Pratt said: “We don’t know exactly what all the teams are bringing to bear, but I would expect tremendous diversity in the amount of autonomy that you’re going to see there. In addition, there’s also a variety of different user interfaces. The most primitive one just leaves it to the human being to use their brain to do the imagination of what is taking place on the other side. The best of them is actually gathering all of the data since the beginning of the run and putting together a statistical view of what the most likely scenario is at the other side.”

Team KAIST. Source: DARPA

Teams tipped for top spots include: KAIST, from South Korea and US challenger, Chimp.

What you can expect: 

The robots will compete simultaneously across four courses during hour-long runs throughout the two days.

At the DRC Trials held last December, the robots often moved excruciatingly slowly and depended upon the careful control of remote human operators. At the June final, the robots will be “at least four times faster than in the trials, and perhaps even faster,” says Pratt.

However, some would disagree, in The NY Times, John Markoff writes:

“Nobody needs to worry about a Terminator creating havoc anytime soon. Given a year and a half to improve their machines, the roboticists who shared details about their work in interviews before the contest in June appear to have made limited progress.”

However, in the December trials, organisers thought it unlikely that the winning team could score more than 15 points, but four teams exceeded that number and SCHAFT won a total of 27. So expect the unexpected!

In the trials, driving appeared to be a particular challenge, with only a few contenders even attempting it. In the DRC Finals, driving will be the first task that teams will have to tackle. “With the driving challenge coming first before anything else, we will see immediately who is serious about the competition,” says Andra Keay from Silicon Valley Robotics. “It’s a big fence first up.”

Adequate power will also present a problem. DARPA are not allowing any recharging of the robots during the event. In fact, Pratt warned reporters that the challenges in June will be even harder and told them that the “degradation of communications is a fundamental part.”

Artist’s concept of robots competing in the DARPA Robotics Challenge. Source: DARPA

The planned interruptions in communications will mean that, “a substantial fraction of the teams will have difficulties here.” Although, whenever the robots do have a network connection, they’ll have significantly more computing resources than were available in the last round.

The teams have had to move a lot of the low-level mobility and manipulation skills from the human operators to the machines; the robots will need enough autonomy and intelligence to do tasks in a fraction of a minute. “You should expect to see a lot of robots falling down, and a lot failures of different sorts,” said Pratt.

This is largely due to the planned communications failures and the lack of hoists or safety ropes. If a team becomes stuck and the robot can’t get up, they can elect to take a 10-minute penalty during which a simulation is made of what it would be like to send in a second robot in to continue the mission after the first one has got stuck. “The simulation of that will be done by the team retrieving the first robot, bringing it back to the starting line, and, if it’s still in working condition, starting it over with a 10-minute penalty,” said Pratt.

It seems the DRC finalists are currently still at task level rather than mission level.

“I want to be very realistic about what stage we’re in right now,” said Pratt. “These are prototypes that are meant to advance the technology and it might be 10 years from now until they’re out in the field. There’s a huge difference between science fact and science fiction. Robots in science fact are more modest because the technology isn’t anywhere near what science fiction would have us believe – but they’re also more exciting because they point the way to what may be possible in the future.”

Want to go, or just watch?

The event is free and open to the public, who will watch from the Fairplex grandstands in Pomona, California on 5 and 6 June; several thousand people are expected to attend. To complement the competition, an on-site robotics exhibition and technology demonstrations from around 70 different robotics and disaster response groups is planned. All kinds of robotics hardware and software companies will be exhibiting. To attend the event, you only need to register: http://www.theroboticschallenge.org/media.

The whole Finals event will be webcast in realtime HD on YouTube. The best time to watch will be towards the end of each competition day, as that’s when the finest of the machines will be directly competing with each other, each on their own course.

What happens afterwards

The closing ceremony on 6 June will be be followed by a workshop on 7 June. The three winning teams will present the strategies and techniques that they used to gain the top spots. This won’t be open to the public, but it will be webcast.

There will also be talks about the international efforts in the field, other competitions that are coming up in the future, the different investments that are being made in various countries. Experts will also discuss the future of the industry.

Part of the day will be given over to “Robots 4us” – a DARPA competition for high school students who were given the opportunity to produce a winning video on the role of robots in society in the years ahead.

DARPA sees the DRC as an opportunity to lay the technological foundations for more autonomous and capable robots in the commercial market. In fact, the success of the competition lies in part in the commercial investments in robotics that it inspires. To this end, DARPA and some of the teams plan to publish their experiences academically.

And Atlas? What of him? The simple answer is that the DRC organisers have not yet reached a decision about Atlas’ future.

Could we see some of the resulting technology put to military use? “The key answer is that the technology is by its nature generic,” said Pratt. “It could be used in future systems for defense, or it could be used in a number of fields, like healthcare.”

Why it’s important

In short, the stellar progress we’ve seen in driverless cars in the last decade owes everything to DARPA’s 2004 Autonomous Vehicle Grand Challenge.

The sale of the DRC Trials favourite SCHAFT and Atlas software manufacturers Boston Dynamics to Google would suggest history repeating itself.

The DRC has also helped in the development of tools; the organisers funded the development of the Open Source Robotics Foundation (OSRF) simulator, which was first used in the virtual challenge.

It can also take some of the credit for the amount of investment the robotics industry has seen lately. Says Pratt: “DARPA’s job is to show what’s possible. We do those early investments… and the best case is that the private sector picks that up.”

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Beginner’s guide to the humanoid robot challenge (DRC)
• DARPA’s Virtual Robotics Challenge a practical step forward on the long road toward disaster-response capable humanoids
• DARPA’s legacy: Open source simulation for robotics development and testing
• DARPA’s Gill Pratt on Google’s robotics investments
• DARPA’s HAPTIX project hopes to provide prosthetic hands with sense of touch

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

As a first step, we designed the Virtual Robotics Challenge (VRC). The VRC enabled us to invite software developers, who may not otherwise have access to robotics hardware, to participate in the DRC program. DARPA would provide robots to the teams that brought the best software to control them.

In June 2013, 26 teams competed in the VRC. The competition took place exclusively in the DARPA Robotics Challenge Simulator—also known as Gazebo—an open-source, cloud-based platform. Teams competed in this virtual environment from the perspective of a robot’s onboard sensors within a 3-D virtual environment that displayed the robot sensor data in real time. The top six teams moved on to participate in the DRC Trials using an ATLAS robot.  All of these teams are now moving on to compete in the DRC Finals this June.

You can read about the details of OSRF’s role in the Virtual Robotics Challenge or watch a short video here (link is external), but more generally, what I find most impressive about the simulator is how far the technology has come in such a short time, and how quickly it has been adopted throughout the robotics industry. Since the VRC, DARPA has continued to fund OSRF to evolve the simulator to improve simulation accuracy, usability, and a range of features. As of early last year, Gazebo became the first simulator to support four different physics engines (link is external). Each engine provides a unique set of capabilities, and provides users the ability to customize simulation to an unprecedented degree. Many of the DRC finalists continue to use Gazebo as part of their preparation for the upcoming competition.

Additional planned enhancements to Gazebo over the next few months will include Windows support, aerodynamics simulation, improved performance, and more realistic rendering.

OSRF has also expanded the types of virtual environments available. Digital elevation models are fully supported, allowing for simulation of real-world terrain or fictitious landscapes. An in-simulation building editor facilitates the construction of custom multi-story structures. Finally, a new graphical model editor simplifies the process of creating and editing robot and other simulation objects.

Use of Gazebo is now common among robotics professionals working in the areas of service and industrial robots, academics, training and more. It is also being used in DARPA’s HAPTIX program, which is seeking to create an advanced prosthetic hand system that moves and provides sensation like a natural hand.

Even after the DRC is over, the DARPA-funded Gazebo (link is external)
simulation software will continue to be available to future robotics innovators.

Mark A. Gubrud at CCW 2015 delivering ICRAC’s opening statement. Source: ICRAC.

Experts from all over the world are gathered at the United Nations in Geneva today to debate questions surrounding lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The CCW runs to April 17 – follow the live tweets and check back here for updates. 

#CCWUN Tweets

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in:

• Public opinion survey on lethal autonomous weapons – voice your opinion
• Robots Podcast: Autonomous lethal weapons
• US DoD report: Preparing for war in the robotic age
• Clearpath’s public stance on Killer Robots sets precedence in corporate responsibility
• Losing Humanity: The case against killer robots
•  DARPA’s Gill Pratt on Google’s robotics investments
•  Robots Podcast: Autonomous lethal weapons
•  How will robots shape the future of warfare?
•  Robots, soldiers and cyborgs: The future of warfare
•  Robohub focus: Robots and warfare

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Photo by Paul Ridgeway.

Should robots be allowed to make life and death decisions? This will be the topic of heated debate at the United Nations (UN) Palais des Nations in Geneva next week (April 13-17th, 2015). As part of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), experts from all over the world will gather to discuss “questions related to emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems.” Take our public survey on the topic to voice your opinion. 

On topics as sensitive as decisions on human life, and the use of autonomous robotic weapons in war, we believe it is important to engage the public and understand what the public thinks about the issues. International law includes something called the Martens Clause, which explicitly gives room for the public to have a say in what should be deemed permissible internationally:

“Recalling that, in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience.” (Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions)

We believe it is critical that public opinion is heard by experts and decision makers as part of the international debate. That is why ORi will be attending the CCW meeting this year to present what the public thinks about this topic. That is also why we’ve put together a multi-lingual survey to better understand the latest public opinion.

Help us inform the discussion with your voice by participating in and distributing our multi-lingual survey (available in English, Nederlands / Dutch, Français / French, Italiano / Italian, 한국어 / Korean, and Español / Spanish, with more to come):

The survey will remain open after the meeting as well, so please feel free to share it with people all over the world.

For those of you who’d like to follow the discussion throughout next week, there will be livetweets via the hashtag #CCWUN.

#CCWUN Tweets

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Robots Podcast: Autonomous lethal weapons
• US DoD report: Preparing for war in the robotic age
• Clearpath’s public stance on Killer Robots sets precedence in corporate responsibility
• Losing Humanity: The case against killer robots
•  DARPA’s Gill Pratt on Google’s robotics investments
•  Robots Podcast: Autonomous lethal weapons
•  How will robots shape the future of warfare?
•  Robots, soldiers and cyborgs: The future of warfare
•  Robohub focus: Robots and warfare

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Sky-Futures, a UK-based company offering drone inspection services to the global oil and gas industry, through their Houston office, was awarded an FAA exemption allowing their drones to fly in US air space.

The exemption allows Sky-Futures to perform infrastructure inspections of oil and gas facilities on and off shore. The drones collect HD video, stills and thermal imagery of live flare, structural and under deck platforms which are then analyzed by flare systems and structural engineers.

This type of flying visual inspection gathers digital data enabling oil and gas operators to make informed decisions with respect to asset conditions under deck, from exhausts, flare towers, and other hard to access structural areas.

In one example, the use of a drone team for this type of inspection saved over 90% of the costs of traditional rope access inspection work – work that would have required a shutdown during the inspection and the hiring of a support vessel, plus a very dangerous job for the human inspectors.

Source: DIGGER DTR via Wikimedia Commons.

Paul Jefferson, one of the earliest humanitarian deminers, said “a landmine is the perfect soldier: Ever courageous, never sleeps, never misses”. The simplicity and cost-effectiveness of mines are major factors in explaining their widespread use throughout numerous countries that are now faced with dealing with the landmine and explosive remnants of war contamination problem.

The following facts reflect the seriousness of this problem:

• It is estimated that there are 110 million land mines in the ground right now. An equal amount is in stockpiles waiting to be planted or destroyed.
• Mines cost between $3 and $30, but the cost of removing them is $300 to $1000.
• The cost of removing all existing mines would be $50- to $100-billion.
• According to the ‘International Campaign to Ban Landmines network’, more than 4,200 people, of whom 42% are children, have been falling victim to landmines and ERWs annually in many of the countries affected by war or in post-conflict situations around the world (Fig. 1).
• According to Landmine Monitor, number of landmine and UXO casualties was 11,700 in 2002 and 4286 in 2011.
• Mine and explosive remnant of war casualties occur in every region of the world, causing an estimated 15,000 – 20,000 injuries each year.
• One deminer is killed and two injured for every 5000 successfully removed mines.
• Overall, about 85 per cent of reported land mine casualties are men, many of whom are soldiers. However, in some regions, 30 per cent of the victims are women.
• Mines create millions of refugees or internally displaced people.
• The areas most affected by land mines include: Egypt (23 million, mostly in border regions); Angola (9-15 million); Iran (16 million); Afghanistan (about 10 million); Iraq (10 million); China (10 million); Cambodia (up to 10 million); Mozambique (about 2 million); Bosnia (2-3 million); Croatia (2 million); Somalia (up to 2 million in the North); Eritrea (1 million); and Sudan (1 million). Egypt, Angola, and Iran account for more than 85 per cent of the total number of mine-related casualties in the world each year.
• Until recently, about 100,000 mines were being removed, and about two million more were planted each year.
• If demining efforts remain about the same as they are now, and no new mines are laid, it will still take 1100 years to get rid of all the world’s active land mines.
• For the military, mine detection rates of 80% are accepted since all the military needs are a quick breach in a minefield. For humanitarian mine clearing it is obvious that the system must have a detection rate approaching the perfection of 99.6%.
• The most common injury associated with land mines is loss of one or more limbs. In the United States, the rate of amputation is 1 for every 22 000 people. In Angola, it is 30 for every 10,000.
• In many of the most affected areas of the world, agriculture is the mainstay of the economy. Landmines are planted in fields, forests, around wells, water sources, and hydroelectric installations, making these unusable, or usable only at great risk. Both Afghanistan and Cambodia could double their agricultural production if land mines were eliminated.

Fig. 1 Mine, Explosive Remnants of War (WRW) and Cluster Submunition Casualties in 2011. Courtesy ICBL0CMC 2012.

The humanitarian demining activities carried out to remove landmines and unexploded ordnances (UXOs) or explosive remnants of war (ERW) from the vast contaminated areas are not on the same level of the problem. For example, the conventional mag-and-flag approach uses metal detectors operated by expert technicians to identify targets, which are then flagged for subsequent digging. These conventional methods make the procedure of removing great numbers of landmines very slow, inefficient, dangerous and costly. Even if demining efforts remain about the same as they are now, and no new mines are laid, it will take 1100 years to get rid of all the world’s active landmines .

Robotics systems in the form of autonomous/teleoperated unmanned ground/aerial vehicles can provide efficient, reliable and safe solutions for the problem of the landmine and UXO contamination.

In order to foster robotics research and its applications in the area of humanitarian demining in the world, the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society – Egypt Chapter (2015 IEEE RAS Chapter of the Year Award and 2012 Chapter of the Year in IEEE Region 8) initiated in 2012 Minesweepers: Towards a Landmine-free World as the first international outdoor robotic competition on humanitarian demining. It aims at raising public awareness of the seriousness of the landmines and UXOs contamination, and the role of science and technology in solving this problem. It also motivates professors, engineers and students working on innovative solutions.

As a robotic competition, Minesweepers provide an inspirational and motivational platform for students, researchers and laypersons alike to present their work to a wider forum with extensive media coverage. In this competition, each participating team constructs a teleoperated/autonomous unmanned ground/aerial vehicle that must be able to search for underground and aboveground anti-personnel landmines and UXOs. The position and the type of each detected object are visualized and overlaid on the minefield map. The robot must be able to navigate through rough terrain that mimics a real minefield.

The competition has three main categories:

• Minesweepers–Academia: for undergraduate and postgraduate students, where only metallic objects are available in the competition arena and landmine detection and minefield mapping are required.
• Minesweepers-Juniors: for elementary and high school students, where only metallic objects are available in the competition arena and only landmine detection is required.
• Minesweepers–Industry: for professional companies, where metallic and non-metallic objects with different dimensions and profiles are available in the competition arena and landmine detection, landmine imagining and minefield mapping are required.

The competition arena is an open 20x20m desert/wood area (Fig. 2). The field is surrounded by a 30cm-high wall. The landmine contaminated zones in the arena start 50 cm from each the boarders. Sandy soils, inclines, ditches, rocks and other obstacles challenge the robots to navigate the arena.

Fig. 2 Competition arena with surface and buried mines.

Two different kinds of artificial mines are used in this competition:

• Buried Mines: These mines are metallic and/or minimum metal objects of different dimensions and shapes. The metallic objects will be made of steel while the minimum metal objects will be made of different materials such as plastic and wood. The minimum metal objects will contain few small metallic parts that real landmine’s spring, striker tip, or shear wire. These objects are completely buried underground with maximum depth 10 cm. They mimic real anti-personnel (AP) blast mines. Real AP blast mines are deliberately designed to be small (typically 6-14 cm in diameter): this makes them cheaper and easier to store, carry and deploy. AP blast mines rely on the effect of explosive blast to damage the victim, and are designed to detonate when the victim steps on them. These mines are often buried in order to camouflage their presence.
• Surface Mines: These objects are similar to the buried objects described and are labeled in black color to facilitate vision-based detection and localization. These objects are visible and are located on the surface of the competition area. Any contact with them will be penalized. These black objects are used to simulate aboveground mines and unexploded ordnance (UXOs). An unexploded ordnance is a piece of explosive ordnance or ammunition that has failed to function as intended. Although they have failed to function as intended, UXO can sometimes require only the slightest disturbance to detonate. UXOs vary greatly in size from hand grenades the size of an apple to large aircraft bombs.

Some landmines will be organized in a pattern for easier removal and accountability and others will be scattered randomly. Locations of each landmine will be known by the jury committee.

Each team must use a teleoperated or an autonomous robot per game. The robot has to be made by team members. Teleoperated robot must be operated remotely from a base station located outside the minefield. Wireless controller based on ZigBee, for example, would be recommended to communicate the base station with the robot due to the large size of the field. In case of autonomous robots, all the actions of the robot must be completely autonomous without any human intervention. Autonomous robots will be rewarded a 40% bonus over teleoperated robots. Careful attention must be paid to the robot locomotion systems as the roughness of the terrain is very high. Both unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are allowed. Robots can be actuated using electric, pneumatic or hydraulic actuation system, diesel/petrol engine or using solar energy.

Each team can select their own set of sensors for localizing the mines. Although teams can install cameras on their robot or install them on the sides of the field, no cameras or sensors are allowed to hang over the competition area.

When a robot detects a mine, it must autonomously report this event using a light blinking signal and/or a warning siren for at least 2 seconds. The robot must also visualize and lay the type and position of the detected mine on the minefield map.

Each demining robot must provide map of the detected mines when its competition time slot finishes. The map represents a 19x19m area divided to 1x1m squares based on the common reference frame of the arena. This map can be simply a text file or text shown on the display of the robot or the base station. The sequence of the positions must be the same as the detected mines. This mine map can be represented graphically or using vector format.

The competition is organized in three rounds:

• Eligibility round: All the registered teams submit a technical report and upload a 3-minutes video to the YouTube channel of the competition showing the preliminary design and the operation of their robot.
• Classification round: All the ready robots participate in order established by gambling. The teams are sorted based on the score obtained in this round. In case of equality in number of points, the robot that finis9hed the course in minor time wins. The 8 best teams are classified for the final round. If insufficient number teams have finished the classification round, the jury committee selects some of the unclassified teams to participate in the final round.
• Final Round: The classified teams have to realize a final course, being winning the best classified one according to the same guidelines. Also required from top 8 teams to give a 15 min technical presentation on a jury panel talking about their work and robot. The total score is the sum of mission score and presentation score.

Fig. 3 Number of teams in the previous three editions of the competition.

The competition first began in 2012 as a local competition in Egypt, the country most contaminated by landmines in the world. The competition was converted in 2013 into an international competition where teams from different countries participate. Last year competition toke place in Coimbra, Portugal and this year competition will take place August 19-21 in Antofagasta, Chile and is organized by the Universidad Catolica del Norte in conjunction with The 6th International Conference on Computing and Informatics in Northern Chile (INFONOR-Chile 2015).

Fig. 4 Robots from the previous three editions of the competition.

The ultimate goal of the Minesweepers competition is to put into practice the new strategic mission of IEEE, “…to foster technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity” and to serve as an educational and a research forum to provide efficient, reliable, adaptive and cost-effective solutions for the serious problem of humanitarian demining in many affected countries in the world. The competition also motivates the participants to create new companies and industries geared towards minefield reconnaissance and mapping technologies. Moreover, the applicability of the robotic systems presented in this competition can be extended to a wide range of other applications such as security and surveillance, search and rescue, health monitoring of civil infrastructure, pipeline monitoring, and environment monitoring.

Minesweepers: Towards a Landmine-free World is organized in collaboration with Hadath for Innovation and Entrepreneurship and IEEE RAS Egypt Chapter. The competition is technically co-sponsored by IEEE RAS Special Interest Group on Humanitarian Technology (RAS-SIGHT) and is supported by Executive Secretariat for the Demining & Development of the North West Coast, Mines Action & Human Rights Foundation and Protection against Armaments & Consequences and African Robotics Network (AFRON).

For information about Minesweepers, please visit:

• Website: http://www.landminefree.org
• Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/LandmineFreeWorld
• Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/minesweepers
• Twitter: https://twitter.com/LandmineFree
• Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD2bYR2CLeKpFfQdoiDyeww

Team testing their AUVs onsite one week before euRathlon 2014 competition. Photo credit: CMRE

euRathlon is a new outdoor robotics competition that invites teams to test the intelligence and autonomy of their robots in realistic mock emergency-response scenarios inspired by the 2011 Fukushima accident. The euRathlon 2015 Grand Challenge will require a team of ground, marine and aerial robots to work together to survey the scene, collect environmental data, and identify critical hazards. euRathlon 2015 will be held in Piombino, Italy, from the 17^th– 25^th September 2015. 

The competition will take place in the area surrounding the Torre del Sale building, on the beach and in the nearby waters, and in the Enel-owned thermal power plant sheltered harbour. Competitors and their robots will face real life conditions (i.e., a ruined building, sandy terrain, etc) in a realistic mock disaster scenario.

We welcome teams from universities, research labs and industry; from single organisations or teams made up from multiple organisations. Although euRathlon is a European initiative, International teams are also welcome.

To encourage the participation of the maximum number of teams – especially teams with experience in one domain only, three different categories of scenarios have been defined:

• The Grand Challenge: a three-domain scenario, which comprises three missions
• Sub-Challenge: two-domain scenarios; each is a combination of two trials
• Trial: single-domain scenarios

There will be a total of one Grand Challenge, three Sub-Challenges and six trials.

The scenarios will be held in increasing order of complexity (i.e. the trials will be held first followed by the sub-challenges and finally the Grand Challenge). Trials and sub-challenges will allow teams to test and prepare their robots as the scenarios are based on and preparatory to the Grand Challenge. You can learn more about the scenarios here.

There is a Team Matching form available on the website for single-domain teams that wish to join with teams in other domains to create a multi-domain team before the competition.

Official information concerning the registration process, requirements, programme, scenarios and the competition can be found on the euRathlon website and the euRathlon forum.

Please visit www.eurathlon.eu for detailed information or contact eurathlon@uwe.ac.uk.

This project is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n^o 601205.

Firefighting robot: SAFFiR’s hands are strong enough to grip and hold a firehouse blasting water. When operating the firehouse in wet conditions, the robot wore custom designed “gloves” to protect it from water damage. Source: Virginia Tech.

In fall 2014 in Mobile Bay, Alabama, Virginia Tech engineering students made history during a five-minute demo that placed an adult-sized humanoid robot with a hose in front of a live fire aboard a U.S. Navy ship.

The robot located the fire and sprayed water from the hose. Water blasted the flames.

The demo, four years in the making, is part of a new effort by the U.S. Navy to better assist sailors in fighting fires, controlling damage, and carrying out inspections aboard ships via user-controlled unmanned craft or humanoid robots. The firefighting robot is named SAFFiR, short for Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot, and the U.S. Office of Naval Research envisions a future — long off, but tangible — in which every ship has a robot as a tool for firefighters.

“It’s not going to replace Navy firefighters, it’s going to assist Navy firefighters,” said Viktor Orekhov of Morristown, Tennessee, who graduated in December 2014 with a doctorate in mechanical engineering.

Orekhov is one of 15 engineering students in the Terrestrial Robotics Engineering and Controls Lab (TREC) and the Extreme Environments, Robotics & Materials Laboratory (ExtReMe) who helped conceive, design, build, and test SAFFiR.

Firefighting robot: SAFFiR, short for Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot, stands 5 foot 10 inches tall and weighs about 140 pounds. Its vision is threefold: Stereo camera, stereo thermal imaging to see through smoke and detect heat, and laser rangefinder for accurate mapping. Source: Virginia Tech.

SAFFiR is a bipedal 140-pound, 5-foot 10-inch humanoid robot that can walk, stretch and bend its legs, swivel its head, and hold and operate a hose with its hands. It has 33 degrees of freedom in movement. It can see in three formats: a standard stereo camera rig, lasers to provide precise ranges to obstacles, and stereo thermal imaging for range finding through smoke and detecting heat.

During a three-day demo in November 2014, students from the TREC and ExtReMe labs, along with faculty advisor Brian Lattimer, an associate professor with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, prepped SAFFiR for a fire suppression test onboard the former USS Shadwell, a decommissioned ship in Mobile, Alabama, now used as a damage control research center to test new shipboard firefighting techniques.

Along a slim, low-hung hallway, SAFFiR was tasked — programmed by the two labs’ imaging and manipulation team — to walk toward a sailor, stop, turn, locate the heat source of a fire behind a door, and (once the door opened) take a hose and blast the flames with water, all without falling or stopping.

SAFFiR blasts water from a hose at a fire on the former USS Shadwell. U.S. Navy personnel from the ship surround the robot. Source: Virginia Tech.

The robot passed the test to the cheers of students and Navy personnel. “And that is that. Nicely done,” John Seminatore of Irvington, New York, a master’s student in mechanical engineering, said at the demo’s conclusion.

Students spent many hours aboard the ship prepping for the demo and hundreds of hours before that in their Goodwin Hall lab designing, fabricating, and testing SAFFiR. Unlike movies with CGI gimmickry to make robots appear to move, getting a real robot to walk upright is a challenge.

The Shadwell created extra obstacles: Heat from previous test fires has buckled its floors. In the hallway where SAFFiR walked, the floor slanted away from the path the robot has to take.

SAFFiR is, of course, a prototype, and the day of robot firefighters is long off. It is user-operated now, but long-range plans are for the robot to operate autonomously. Even with added intelligence to SAFFiR, it will take remote instruction from sailors and firefighters with safety as key.

“These robots can work closely with human firefighters without firefighters being directly exposed to steam or heat, fire and smoke,” Thomas McKenna, a program manager with the Office of Naval Research, said at the demo. Robots may one day patrol ships, he said, scanning for unnatural heat, smoke, or other issues and providing a “constant watch” against onboard dangers not detected by sailors.

The robot’s presence will be welcome. “Have you ever been on a ship that’s on fire? It’s terrifying,” said Dominique Pineiro, a Navy veteran on the Shadwell during the demo. “That’s a fact.”

SAFFiR team members and the Navy unveiled the robot Feb. 4, 2015, to media and the public at the Naval Future Force Science & Technology EXPO in Washington, D.C.

Future incarnations of SAFFiR already are planned with the Navy, according to Lattimer, with upgrades including improved movement. Funding from the Navy stands at $4.5 million and could increase as the project continues.

Days before the Expo, Seminatore — the SAFFiR student project manager at TREC — looked back on the demo of SAFFiR with relief and pride.

“We have demonstrated a real world application for humanoid robots that no one has done before,” said Seminatore, an Air Force veteran. “Manipulating an empty hose or walking down a hallway is very different than operating in a heat-warped soot filled corridor dragging a hose filled with water. It was a tense month leading up to the demo, we had never seen where we were testing, never used a real hose, never actually sprayed water. … The team did great and the robot performed like a champ.”

Firefighting robot: The SAFFiR team is pictured aboard the USS Shadwell. Front row, from left: Chris Nogales, John Peterson, Jason Ziglar, Jack Newton, Joseph Starr, Associate Professor Brian Lattimer, Joshua McNeil, Yoonchang Sung, Mike Rouleau, and James Burton. Back row, from left: Robert Griffin, Mike Hopkins, Viktor Orekhov, and John Seminatore. Coleman Knabe is not pictured. Source: Virginia Tech.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Beginner’s guide to the humanoid robot challenge (DRC)
• Humanoid robot with open electronics
• Students hope their ship inspection robot will significantly reduce dry-dock time for maritime transport industry, improve safety for inspectors
  

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Example of visualization of the euRathlon 2013 Common Shared Data Set (CSDS) for the scenario “Search and rescue in a smoke-filled underground structure”. Technically, it’s a ROS rviz visualization of a recorded sensor rosbag. Photo credit: euRathlon

euRathlon is an EU-funded project that aims to set the standard for research through robotics competitions. It not only provides opportunities to test advanced emergency response robots in very challenging outdoor scenarios, but also recognises that there is an urgent need to develop useful metrics that will advance the field. A series of Common Shared Data Sets of real data gathered before and during the competitions are now available to the robotics community through a cloud tool sponsored by ECmanaged. euRathlon is staging a series of outdoor robotics competitions for land, sea and air robots, inspired by the 2011 Fukushima accident. After successful land and sea competitions in 2013 and 2014 respectively, the project will stage the three-domain euRathlon 2015 Challenge in Piombino, Italy, from 17th-25th of September 2015.

Real data in realistic scenarios

Participating in outdoor competitions is a great opportunity for roboticists to test their vehicles and gather real data in realistic scenarios. The seven euRathlon partners have contributed their expertise in each domain (land, sea and air robotics) to design realistic but also achievable scenarios that are oriented to emergency-services and industry demands. The scenarios also aim to be:

1. technically demanding, i.e. pushing the boundaries of the state of the art,
2. relevant to the research, industry and user communities, and
3. feasible in the context of a competition both in terms of logistics and evaluation.

The importance of Common Shared Data Sets (CSDS)

Teams that are either new to the competition or have limited access to proper hardware and training areas face the problem that they cannot test their system against typical settings as they would appear in the competition. Also the comparison of methods or configurations requires an exactly reproducible data stream from all sensor inputs. A classical approach to coping with this situation is to provide standardized Common Shared Data Sets (CSDS). Many fields in science and engineering employ standardized CSDS to evaluate similar research, approaches, or techniques and to provide the means for their comparison. Common Shared Data Sets are a good base from which to accelerate the progress of the state-of-the-art in research.

We believe that sharing data reinforces open scientific research, promotes new research and encourages a diversity of analysis and opinions. This is why one of our goals is to provide a framework for the community to discuss and work towards the development of metrics, scenarios and other matters of relevance. The metrics and the euRathlon 2015 challenge scenarios draft are open for discussion in the web-based euRathlon forum.

euRathlon 2015 Common Shared Data Set (CSDS) aerial outdoor task. Image acquired by the UAV at the maximum resolution during the high altitude flight. Photo credits: CATEC

euRathlon CSDS are available to the robotics community

The repository of Common Shared Data Sets produced before and during the euRathlon competitions is a valuable pool for testing, benchmarking and comparison. ECmanaged, a Spanish-based company, sponsors euRathlon with a cloud storage tool that allows the open dissemination of the data sets and other online materials to the robotics community and public in general.

In the euRathlon 2013 land competition, we have previously made available recorded real data sets of the scenarios from the real trials area; and in the euRathlon 2014 sea competition, teams could test one week prior the competition in the real location with the objects used in the competition. The euRathlon 2013 land competition CSDS and the euRathlon 2014 sea competition CSDS generously provided by teams participating in the competitions are now available to the community.

For the euRathlon 2015 competition, we have generated two datasets for the aerial domain: a dataset of indoor tasks and a dataset of outdoor tasks. These data sets have been created from real data collected with real systems in real field experiments. The experiments are designed to be similar to the scenarios that teams will face during the euRathlon 2015. The euRathlon 2015 Challenge CSDS (provided by the organisers) can be used to test and improve robotic systems, and we hope will also help to motivate multi-domain teams to participate in the competition.

Teams could test their AUVs in the real location one week before euRathlon 2014 competition. Photo credit: CMRE

About ECmanaged

ECmanaged is a multi-Cloud and IT management tool that enables users to take full control of their Cloud Platforms and Physical servers at the implementation phase and afterwards. Its design and interface allow users to develop Cloud platforms while avoiding provider-imposed restrictions. ECmanaged combines a monitoring tool with automated management actions such as alerting, auto-scaling and disaster recovery. It uses a novel approach of high-level platform modelling allowing Cloud platforms to be developed avoiding provider imposed restrictions. The deployment of applications is also simplified through the use of predefined templates and images. A key feature is the automated incident resolution with up to 80% of incidents being solved without any human intervention in less than 5 minutes.

The Singapore Ministry of Defence convened the sixth edition of the Island Forum in November 2014 to explore the emerging future of artificial intelligence and robotics, developments that could have enormous implications for societies, economies, culture, and security. Representatives from the Ministry and the Singapore Armed Forces were joined by some of the world’s leading roboticists, economists, military strategists, and ethicists to share their insights in deep conversations over the two-day event. This international, multi-disciplinary group addressed how these emerging technologies could disrupt labour markets; how human-robotic interaction might evolve; how robotic agents might influence the development of a new kind of conflict; and the importance of autonomy and ethics in these themes. The Island Forum is held in Singapore every two to three years and focusses on a wide range of key issues.

The Egyptian writer Naguib Mahfouz said you can tell whether a man is clever by his answers, and whether a man is wise by his questions. In this spirit, the Island Forum was a superb prompt for questions and questioning the impact of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) advancements. A frisson of excitability accompanies discussion of robotics and AI, and we start with questions on what’s new, temper our expectations with what might disappoint us, try to anticipate what might surprise us in a bad way/good way, and end with some takeaway questions.

What’s new?

Dr Andrew Ng, founder of the Google Brain project and now chief scientist at Baidu, observed that the performance of algorithm-based learning plateaus after a certain dataset size. Machine or “deep” learning by contrast shows continued performance improvement. This improvement allows new ways to interface with the Internet other than conventional text – such as speech and image. There is ready demand – 10% of Baidu’s search queries today are via speech – and deep learning may one day enable speech/image killer apps to expand ability of users to interact with technology they are unfamiliar with. The audience had a glimpse of Baidu’s deep learning products – the Baidu coolbox, a speech-based music streaming service for the home and Baidu Eye, a device to rival Google Glass that analyses images around the wearer.

How might we be disappointed?

“Deep” learning is not “deep” reasoning, and the type of AI favoured by science fiction writers is still decades away. Similarly, robots working with humans (co-bots) are emerging in structured environments like factory floors, warehouses, hospitals and airports, but social environments are much more unstructured. Homes or offices may be among the last spaces to see automation. Several speakers worry that the current robot or AI hype echoes past fads (e.g. the Segway), and hurts industry prospects when hype inevitably leads to disappointment.

What might surprise us in a bad way?

Joseph Dyer, retired vice admiral US Navy and former senior executive of iRobot, observes that robots and productivity combine in a way that is good for developed economies that have the combination of market demand, manufacturing/infocomm infrastructure and skillsets. Emerging economies that lack this combination can be badly hit, leading to de-industrialisation. Baidu’s Andrew Ng put it slightly differently: economies that have the requisite hardware and software ecosystem for robots are in a good position for growth.

On a different track, Pacific Social attorney Tim Hwang works with social bots – lines of code deployed on social networks like Twitter and Facebook (what he terms “infrastructures of influence”) – to control the flow of information and alter the social landscape and behaviour of users. Bots were active in promoting candidates at the 2012 Mexican presidential election, though these bots were, at the time, crude and easily detectable. Even so, these imaginary citizens of the Internet have surprising power to make celebrities, presidential candidates, and companies more popular than they really are, swaying public opinion and influencing the social and political agenda. Tim’s observation is that people are much better at handling viruses compared to spam, i.e. humans still fall for spam, much less sophisticated social bots. Would a social group be able to identify if it has been “hacked”? As organisations adopt more sophisticated and subtle bot strategies, they can shape the social landscape with less detection and controversy.

What might surprise us in a good way?

James Kuffner of Google observes how cloud robotics enables robotsourcing, which, like human crowdsourcing, can help scale hard semantic and quality control problems globally. Markus Waibel, of Verity Studios and ETH Zurich, calls this evolution of individual robots towards specialisation and coordination. This shared infrastructure enables complex cooperation and integration, allowing collective learning to overcome previous limitations. For example, a robot may breakdown below a certain time threshold (say 10,000 hours) needed to master a problem but this can be overcome via cloud robotics – 10,000 robots taking an hour each can approach mastery. 

Carl Frey of Oxford University thinks that while the prevailing worry is robotics/AI resulting in technological (human) unemployment, robot-human interaction is the key to robotics taking off in society over the next ten years, e.g. unmanned/manned teaming. Robots will then be companions, augmenting and not replacing workers. What is currently understudied is human behaviour recognition so robots can anticipate human actions better. For example, autonomous vehicles that take into account the range of possible near future actions (a few seconds out) of human pedestrians may be safer.

Ron Arkin of Georgia Tech shared how robots, building on deep learning advances in speech/image interaction, can interact with humans in a subtle and sophisticated manner, such as learning our body language and how to live with us. Humans can fall in love with what is essentially a chunk of metal, and this human-robot relationship can help bridge relationships with other humans, for example, that between a caregiver and a patient. Joseph Dyer observed that if this uncanny chasm was crossed, robots would augment humans and be able to extend the productive use of an ageing population.

Takeaways

Robots will become part of tomorrow’s “hard power”, and bots a part of tomorrow’s “soft power”. Will armed conflict be more likely? Possibly, but in the case of fewer humans involved, unmanned conflict could ironically lead to higher levels of conflict or destruction because of the disconnect that societies and governments might feel from the lack of human loss. Will conflict be more likely to escalate? The answer is a Yes/No, depending on whether humans are involved. There may be a persistent low level of unmanned conflict between robots and bots – between tomorrow’s hard and soft powers. Will conflict be more unequal? One scenario considers that more technologically advanced societies could be more likely to launch unmanned conflict and trigger conflict against lesser capable societies; but as we have seen elsewhere, militaries with technical superiority do not necessarily overcome highly motivated asymmetric forces.

The bigger question that governments will face is regulating the degree of autonomy allowed in military and non-military service robots. To what degree should autonomous weapons systems be designed with a “human in the loop”? Can robots autonomously decide to take human life? The spectre of “killer bots” waging war outside of human intervention and guidance, popularised by media, could spark political backlash to constrain the future actions of governments. There already is consideration being discussed for a UN moratorium on autonomous weapons systems. These ethical questions must be posed before robots are ever designed or allowed into service.

Authors LEE Chor Pharn and Aaron MANIAM were guests of the Island Forum.

Addie Wagenknecht
Black Hawk Paint: October, 2008, acrylic on canvas.
Black Hawk Paint is a mechanically assisted series of action paintings that Wagenknecht started in 2007. She creates them with small scale drone aircraft, and in the process, utilizes simple flight commands such as ‘barrel roll’, ‘take off’ and ‘land’.

At the Center for the Study of the Drone

In 2007, Addie Wagenknecht started using drones to make abstract paintings. Her works both challenge and celebrate the aerial robot and its power. In an in-depth conversation with Arthur Holland Michel, Wagenknecht explains how to make a drone painting, and what she thinks it means to make art by drone.

Drones are becoming big business in India. The Indian military has been investing heavily in unmanned aerial systems, which it has deployed in a variety of operations. Meanwhile, a domestic civilian drone industry is growing rapidly. Here’s what you need to know.

News

A U.S. drone strike in Pakistan is suspected to have killed Omar Farooq, a senior al-Qaeda leader, and three Taliban fighters. Farooq, a Pakistani citizen from Karachi, managed the group’s finances and was reportedly close to to Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The strike took place in Khar Tangi, a village in the semi-autonomous tribal zone of North Waziristan. (Reuters)

Alpha Media, an American broadcasting company, announced that it will start using drones for newsgathering. “We’ve entered into an agreement with a drone manufacturer, and we’ll be flying them in Portland, subject to the FAA’s new guidelines,” said executive vice president Scott Mahalick in a statement. The Oregon-based media group owns around 70 radio stations across the United States. (WTAQ)

The Sheriff of Alameda County, California will begin flying drones in search-and-rescue operations. Sheriff Greg Ahern revealed on Tuesday that his office had spent $97,000 in department funds on two AirCover QuadRotor QR425 drones. Last year, after significant public pressure, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors blocked Sheriff Ahern from using federal funds to purchase drones. (SFGate)

The U.K.’s Civil Aviation Authority confirmed that an Airbus A320 came close to a small multirotor drone as it made its final approach to Heathrow airport in July. The commercial airliner was flying at approximately 700 ft. when the pilot reported spotting the drone. (BBC)

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA. announced that she plans to introduce legislation supporting the Federal Aviation Administration’s ban on commercial drones. In a letter to FAA administrator Michael Huerta, Sen. Feinstein explained that she supported the agency’s efforts, writing that she intends to “codify and expand the moratorium on private drone use without specific authority from the FAA that is already in place.” (U.S. News)

A Russian reconnaissance drone was reportedly shot down in Ukraine. The Ukrainian military identified the aircraft as a Russian-made “Granat” aircraft. (Interpreter Magazine)

Commentary, Analysis and Art

At the New York Times, Kate Murphy takes a look at the rules and regulations surrounding the consumer drone frenzy.

For more on drone regulations and legal battles, click here.

At the Washington Post, Dominic Basulto suggests that camera manufacturer GoPro could make the consumer drone market more mainstream.

In a review of aviation safety published last week, German insurance company Allianz warned of the threats to drones posed by cyber attacks. (Financial Post)

At Popular Mechanics, Erik Schechter questions the feasibility of enacting rules that will keep drones away from manned aircraft.

Also at Popular Science, Kelsey D. Atherton reports that falcons could be trained to take down drones.

Michael Huerta, an administrator for the Federal Aviation Administration, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union to discuss the integration of drones into the national airspaces. (Politico)

At Gizmodo, Adam Clark Estes explains why the FAA isn’t concerned with safeguarding personal privacy.

At Aviation Week, John Croft questions whether the threat posed by drones to commercial airliners is overstated.

In an online lecture at the Council on Foreign Relations, Micah Zenko and Sarah Kreps discuss the impact of drones on U.S. foreign policy.

Muckrock’s Shawn Musgrave explains why he is suing the New York Police Department over its refusal to release information about its drone programs.

In Britain’s House of Lords, Robert Goodwill MP, the head of the Department of Transportation, answered questions about the civilian uses of drones.

The makers of Rotor DR1, an Internet series about a post-apocalyptic world run by drones, explain what went into putting together a drone race scene. (YouTube)

At Just Security blog, Steve Vladeck explains why “drone courts” are a “dangerously misguided solution to the wrong underlying problem.”

At Heliguy, Matthew Cairns reported on what it was like to attend the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority’s ground school for commercial drone pilots.

Know Your Drone

Defense contractor Lockheed Martin has proposed to convert several Air Force manned U-2 spy planes into optionally-manned drones, ostensibly in a bid to compete with the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk spy drone. (Foxtrot Alpha)

A team of researchers in Singapore has unveiled a prototype for an underwater drone modelled after the anatomy of an eel. (Defense One)

The U.S. Navy took delivery of a new Fire Scout unmanned helicopter drone. The new aircraft has increased autonomous capabilities. (IHS Jane’s 360)

A restaurant group in Singapore is working to develop drones to serve food to customers by the end of 2015. (Channel News Asia)

RCFlyMaps, an iPhone app, maps out all the no-fly zones inside the United States for aspiring drone pilots. (Motherboard)

American drone manufacturers showed off their wares to the U.S. special operations forces community. In October, the United States Special Operations Command initiated a call for proposals for a new medium endurance surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. (FBO.gov)

Drones at Work

NASA used an Ikhana (Predator-B) drone to find and film the Orion space capsule. (Popular Science)

Researchers at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore have started testing the ways in which drones cancontribute to precision agriculture. (Baltimore Sun)

The Idaho State Police used a drone to take pictures of a crime scene. (KREM2)

The Nature Conservancy is using a DJI Phantom multirotor to monitor the populations of Sandhill Crane in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in California. (SiliconValley.com)

The Weekly Drone Roundup is a newsletter from the Center for the Study of the Drone. It covers news, commentary, analysis and technology from the drone world. You can subscribe to the Roundup here.

Robotic weapons, whether autonomous or remote controlled, have generated widespread controversy in recent years.

Alex Leveringhaus, James Martin Fellow, Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, discusses the ethics of autonomous weapons, and in a recent policy paper titled Robo-Wars: The Regulation of Robotic Weapons, urges governments to recognise the increasing prominence of these weapons in contemporary and future forms of warfare and proposes steps towards suitable regulation.

What is an autonomous weapon?

Can the use of autonomous weapons ever be ethically sound?

Download the paper

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• RoboLaw: Why and how to regulate robotics
• A call for debate on robot policy
• US DoD report: Preparing for war in the robotic age
• Hot topic: Regulating robotics

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Minesweepers competition arena with surface and buried mines.

Minesweepers: Towards a Landmine-Free World is an outdoor robotic competition initiated by IEEE Robotics and Automation Society – Egypt Chapter that aims to raise public awareness of the seriousness of the landmines and unexploded ordnances (UXOs) contamination and the role of science and technology in solving this serious problem. The final competition took place last month at the University of Coimbra in Portugal. 

Minesweepers was designed as a technical challenge to motivate new research and applications of mobile robotics in the area of humanitarian demining, and participants had to face many challenges not typically found in other robotic competitions. The rough landscape of the minefields can take a toll on a vehicle’s locomotion system, and the sunny, hot and dusty climate makes it impossible to use traditional electronics meant for indoor use. Minefields are also frequently strewn with small metal fragments that can camouflage landmines and cause high false detection rate, and so detection systems must be able to differentiate between buried/surface mines and randomly scattered metal fragments.

The competition had three main categories:

• Minesweepers–Academia: for undergraduate and postgraduate students, where only metallic objects are in the competition arena; landmine detection and minefield mapping were required.
• Minesweepers-Juniors: for elementary and high school students, where only metallic objects were in the competition arena; only landmine detection was required.
• Minesweepers–Industry: for professional companies where metallic and non-metallic objects with different dimensions and profiles were in the competition arena; and landmine detection, landmine imaging and minefield mapping were required.

Some of the robots participating in the local and final rounds of the Minesweepers competition.

Each participating team was required to construct a teleoperated/autonomous unmanned ground/aerial vehicle that could search for underground and aboveground anti-personnel landmines and unexploded ordnances (UXOs). Teams had to visualize the position and the type of object and overlay this information on the minefield map, and their robots were required to navigate through rough terrain that mimicked a real minefield.

The competition attracted many undergraduate and postgraduate students from various universities who were primarily motived by the technical challenge and the need to raise awareness about the problem of humanitarian demining. 115 teams from 9 countries subscribed to participate in the competition, 45 of which passed the eligibility round. A local round was organized in Egypt as a classification round for the final event in Portugal. In this local round, 35 teams participated, and the best three teams from each category went on to participate in the final event in Portugal.

Participants in the final round in Coimbra, Portugal.

Five teams from Portugal and Egypt successfully participated in the final round of the competition: Husky team (ISR, University of Coimbra, Portual), Pioneer team (1st place, MUST-Misr University for Science & Technology, Egypt), Robosapien team (2nd place, October 6 University, Egypt), Minebusters team (3rd Place, German University in Cairo, Egypt) and Divergent (1st Junior team, Mansoura High School for Girls, Egypt). Other four qualified teams from Belgium, UK, Bolivia and Tunisia were unable to join the final round due to financial and technical problems. No teams qualified to participate in the industry category.

The success of the Minesweepers competition will be measured by its long-term sustainability. The goal is to run the competition annually, and next year more technical challenges will be considered, such as exploring the applicability of multirobot systems in minefield reconnaissance and mapping.

The ultimate goal of this competition is to put into practice the new strategic mission of IEEE, “…to foster technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity” and to serve as an educational and a research forum to provide efficient, reliable, adaptive and cost-effective solutions for the serious problem of humanitarian demining, which impacts many countries across the world. The competition also motivates the participants to create new companies and industries geared towards minefield reconnaissance and mapping technologies. The applicability of the robotic systems presented in this competition can be extended to a wide range of other applications such as security and surveillance, search and rescue, health monitoring of civil infrastructure, pipeline monitoring, and environment monitoring.

Minesweepers was organized this year by the Institute for Systems and Robotics, University of Coimbra under the auspices of IEEE RAS Special Interest Group on Humanitarian Technology (RAS-SIGHT) and in collaboration with Hadath for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Generous support was also provided by the Academy of Scientific Research and Technology (ASRT), Misr University for Science & Technology (MUST), October High Institute for Engineering & Technology and IEEE Robotics and Automation Society.

For more information, visit http://www.landminefree.org/

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Minesweepers: Towards a landmine-free world
• First TRADR EU FP7 Joint Exercise (TJEx)
• Introducing the Cybathlon
• € 7M EuRoC competition opens call to ignite EU manufacturing industry

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

ALCOR laboratory’s BlueBotics Absolem in the field.

ALCOR Lab members describe their experience.

From September 23rd to October 2nd the first TRADR Joint Exercise (TJEx) took place at the Tremora hospital (ex American hospital of Calambrone) near Pisa, Italy, in cooperation with the TRADR partners and the firefighters from the Firebrigade of Pisa. Using a proven-in-practice user-centric design methodology, TRADR develops novel science and technology for human-robot teams to assist in disaster response efforts over multiple missions.Various kinds of robots collaborate with human team members to explore the environment, and gather physical samples. As part of the user-centric development process adopted by the TRADR project, the Joint Exercise plays an important role in establishing and maintaining close contact with the end-users. TRADR is an integrated research project funded by the EU FP7 Programme, ICT: Cognitive systems, interaction, robotics.

A firefighter wearing the Gaze Machine.

ALCOR Lab is one of the project partners and participated at the exercise with its own UGV and the Gaze Machine, which is a head mounted device that allows estimation at each instant as the wearer looks around the 3D environment. One of the main goals was to test the system components, and to run the system at the hospital site with the participation of end-users. We also collected various useful data and ran component-level experiments.

The first week was dedicated to the appropriate set-up and test of the integrated system. At the same time, various discussion groups examined specific issues such as planning, reasoning and robot behavior, user interfaces, database technology and architecture. During the first two days, we tested the functionality of the UAVs and the UGVs in terms of autonomous navigation, mapping in 3D and high-level planning. The third day, the firefighters from the Firebrigade of Pisa offered a demonstration of the canine search team. By the end of the first week, everything was perfectly planned and ready for the second phase, when the integrated system was run in the Tremora hospital together with the end-users.

Exercise of the Pisa USAR team.

The following days, we successfully performed missions with the complete system in simulated disaster scenario. In parallel, we worked with the firefighters to do a series of experiments using the Gaze Machine. Each firefighter wore the Gaze Machine and entered a partially collapsed building, examining the environment and communicating useful information to their colleagues outside the site. During the experiments we collected data about the areas that they visually inspected, together with the information they communicated to their colleagues.

Responsible for the multi-robot planning and of course the Gaze Machine, we are pleased that our lab has contributed to the successful outcome of the first TRADR Joint Exercise.

The TRADR team captured by the UAV.

Exercise of the Pisa USAR team.

Exercise of the Pisa USAR team.

The working environment outside the hospital.

2″ Gridbots Stinger Robot brought out 30″ wooden log from a 12″ pipeline at TATA Power bringing unit alive again! Source: @GridBots

Gridbots Technologies, a start-up located in Ahmedabad, India, has focused their efforts on providing the power industry, particularly nuclear power companies, defense organizations and space agencies with robotics, AI and vision products.

The company has grown to a team of more than 30 people. Pulkit Gaur, the founder of Gridbots, let me know about this recent event that made news in Indian media:

“Recently we used one of our “Stinger” robots to extract a 30 inch wooden log from a 12 inch pipeline within 72 hours of notification. The actual removal operation only took 5 hours. This power plant was on halt because of this wooden log stuck in their steam pipeline – the steam that turns the turbine that makes the power.”

The wooden block was stuck 33 feet inside an important high-pressure steam pipe 12 inches wide at a Tata-run power plant in Mundra. “We went inside the pipe and brought the 2.5-foot long wooden log out in less than five hours with the help of our Stinger robot,” said Pulkit.

The GridBots team had only to modify the Stinger with stronger grippers.

Team University of Gerona at the euRathlon 2014 Sea Competition.  ©euRathlon.

euRathlon is an outdoor robotics competition focused on realistic emergency-response scenarios inspired by the 2011 Fukushima accident. After a successful land-based competition in 2013, a marine-based competition takes place this year in La Spezia, Italy (29 Sept – 3 Oct). The good weather present in the first two days of euRathlon 2014 helped the teams participating in the “Long range autonomous underwater navigation” and the “Leak localisation and structure inspection” scenarios. Only two of the six teams participating in the first scenario successfully finished it, while all the teams participating in the second scenario completed it.

First day scenario:  Long Range Autonomous Underwater Navigation

The scenario took place in a coastal water area free of boats and other floating obstacles. The Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) were deployed at the starting point. They had to navigate underwater a distance of 900 meters drawing a quadrilateral shape, which was marked by four waypoints. The waypoints were GPS coordinates given by the organization to the teams. The robots had to surface when reaching each of the waypoints. Teams had a maximum of 70 minutes to complete this scenario, and the task was complete when each team’s robot returned to the starting point.

The judges on the boat and inside the sonar cabin evaluated in real time the performance of the teams. Once the scenario finished, maps with the trajectories of the vehicles were created from the data given by the teams.

On Monday morning two teams decided to withdraw from this scenario due to technical problems, leaving four participating teams: University of Girona, Robdos, SAUC’ISSE and Avalon. The team from the University of Girona and the team SAUC’ISSE gave a very good performance. The French team showed the cooperation between an Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV) and an AUV. Teams had a maximum of 70 minutes to complete this scenario, and the task was completed when the robot returned to the starting waypoint.

Team SAUC’ISSE competing at the euRathlon 2014 Sea Competition. ©euRathlon.

Second day scenario:  Leak localisation and structure inspection

In the second scenario the robots had to find an underwater piping assembly that was leaking contaminated water. The leak was represented by a plume of Objects of Potential Interest (OPI), in this case white and orange buoys with numbers written on them. Once the robots found the structure, they had to inspect it and localise a stopcock. Teams had a maximum 60 minutes to complete this scenario.

This scenario was held on Tuesday in a sheltered harbour. The teams participating were: CISSAU, University of Girona, SAUC’ISSE and Avalon. All the teams completed the scenario, and gave their data logs to the judges. The judges have yet to analyse the data and decide which teams performed best.

A judge evaluates Team University of Girona at the euRathlon Sea Competition. ©euRathlon.

There are still three more days of competition to come: Wednesday 1 October “Interaction with underwater structures”, Thursday, 2 October “Environmental survey of the accident area” and Friday, 3 October a “Combined scenario”.

(read here our next post for Winners of euRathlon 2014 sea competition recap: Day 3, 4 and 5)

If you want to know more about the euRathlon 2014 scenarios and the teams’ performance, follow the competition on twitter and Facebook for daily updates.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Six teams to participate in euRathlon 2014 sea competition next week
• Don’t build robots, build robot systems
• Winners of the euRathlon 2013 land robotics competition announced!
• euRathlon and the DARPA Robot Challenge: A difference of approach

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Sunnyvale-based Liquid Robotics continues their growth-by-partnering formula by striking another collaboration, this time with Boeing.

Boeing Defense, Space & Security CEO Chris Chadwick said, “It’s a great opportunity to partner with Liquid Robotics to provide new and existing customers a unique portfolio of defense solutions and capabilities and allows the Boeing-Liquid Robotics team to solve maritime security and surveillance challenges in entirely new and highly effective ways.”

From an inquisitive mind trying to record the songs of the Humpback Whales off the coast of Hawaii, to a company employing more than 100 and with over 300 wave gliders involved in the activities described below, Licquid Robotics has grown from a single experimental wave glider to six different versions (distinguished by different features and sensors) of their third iteration of glider. Uses include:

• Defense (anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, marine domain awareness)
• Private security (fixed asset protection, monitoring marine protected areas)
• Oil and gas (seismic surveying, hyperlocal METOC forecasting, directional drilling monitoring, hydrocarbon detection)
• Commercial (site assessment and monitoring, fisheries stock assessment, marine mammal monitoring)
• Science (environmental monitoring, global weather, tsunami early warning, CO2 monitoring)

Partnering has played an important role in Liquid Robotics’ growth. Oil and gas industry activities are handled by a joint venture with Schlumberger, a large provider of technology, project management and information solutions to the oil and gas industry. Defense applications will now be channeled through their new collaboration with Boeing. NOAA is their science and research partner and Ultra Electronics USSI and a couple of Teledyne subsidiaries are amongst their commercial partners.

Swarm communication and decision-making are next on the drawing board for this fast-growing company and inventor of the Wave Glider.

Last week the Waterloo-based Clearpath publicly pledged not to develop lethal autonomous weapons, otherwise known as “killer robots”. In an open letter to the public, Clearpath’s CTO Ryan Gariepy wrote to support the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, an international coalition that is spearheading the efforts to stop lethal autonomous weapons systems from being developed and deployed. While the Campaign has garnered significant support since its launch, it has not previously had support from the for-profit robotics sector – making Clearpath’s public statement a noteworthy demonstration of corporate responsibility , particularly given the company’s background in military applications. During a short interview with Gariepy at Clearpath, he summarized the letter as:

“When it comes to lethal weapons systems, not only do we not build them, we don’t believe anybody should build them. That’s our big statement here.”

But that’s just a small part of the story.

Clearpath’s statement is important because it demonstrates how the robotics industry can actively participate in the process of designing the ethical and legal landscape of our robotic future. It essentially sets a precedence of what corporate social responsibility will mean as more robots start to roll out.

Gariepy says,

We do feel that it’s the right thing to do. We’ve looked at potential risks to the business, and we feel that though there is risk to our business, this statement supports what our team believes … and what our partners believe.

Believing in something is one thing, but making it publicly known is another. And on the surface, many robotics companies will have more to lose than to gain from making a public statement on this issue, especially those (such as Clearpath) with military contracts. However, compared to large publicly traded companies such as Samsung (which manufactures sentry robots) or iRobot (which makes battlefield robots in addition to robot vacuum cleaners), Clearpath may be young and nimble enough to set such a precedent without long term negative consequences.

Only five years old, and not publicly traded, Clearpath made the decision to take a public stance on the Killer Robots issue based on the wishes of its 56 employees. According to Gariepy, the Canadian company has been following the issue closely since Christof Heyns (United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions) published a report on this topic for the UN in April 2013. Right before Christmas of last year, Clearpath’s employees spent a Friday afternoon debating the topic of lethal autonomous weapons. This led to an internal poll to determine employee consensus on the issue, followed by the drafting of the public statement.

Clearpath is not saying that any and all military robots are bad, and they are very clear about this in the letter. In fact, developing robots for military application is at the heart of the company, which started off with a handful of University of Waterloo Mechatronics Engineering graduates building a robot to clear minefields. Mine-clearing robots are less controversial than lethal autonomous weapons systems, pointing to the existence of a grey area between the different uses of military robotics and whether they result in a net positive for the society. Yet Clearpath has drawn a line in that grey area – something no other robotics company has yet stepped up to do.

After the launch of the Campaign in 2013, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots travelled to Canada urging the Canadian government to support the cause. According to Executive Director of Mines Action Canada Paul Hannon, the Canadian government’s Foreign Affairs and National Defence departments are still discussing the issue internally and have yet to formally declare Canada’s position. So I asked Hannon whether he thinks being a Canadian company would have made it easier for Clearpath:

Being the first commercial company in the world to make such a statement took a lot of courage I think, no matter where the company is based. It is clear from the statement that they have given it very serious thought and understand the impact it could have.

My personal view is that is probably harder for a Canadian company than an American one because so much R&D funding comes from outside of Canada particularly the US. Canadian companies likely need to develop partnerships with other non-Canadian firms to access those sources of funding. Taking such a principled stand could impact current and potential partnerships, so more credit to them.

 

My intuition is that Clearpath’s attention to roboethics issues will prove to be business savvy in the long run. Robotics has had a difficult time gaining social acceptance – largely because of the ways it has been portrayed in dystopian science fiction, but also because of the inhumanity it can project onto the battlefield. As more robots start rolling out into familiar places such as our homes and offices, the call for roboethics will grow stronger, and this will surely impact the kinds of robots we will allow our governments to deploy in military applications. Public trust is at stake, and the companies that are transparent about where they stand on roboethics issues stand a greater chance of social acceptance.

Roboethics will be a natural avenue for companies to show their social responsibility , and I remain optimistic that we will see more positive movement in this direction. Google’s establishment of an Ethics Board following their acquisition of the AI company DeepMind is perhaps further evidence of this.

I second Hannon who says,

Let’s hope that more companies from many countries follow their lead.

I have my fingers crossed.

A brief history of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots

It’s been a long time coming in the history of military robotics to reach this point.

I first became interested in roboethics after learning about Samsung’s sentry robot used to monitor the demilitarized zone between the South and North Korea. That was almost a decade ago. Of course long before that, military use of unmanned aerial vehichles (UAVs) was on the rise.

With the persistent and increased use of UAVs in military applications, it became obvious that a natural next step in the technological evolution of the remotely operated UAVs was to develop highly autonomous versions of them. The discussion of lethal autonomous weapons systems among academics became heated, as you’ll find from the 2009 two-part robots podcast interviews with Noel Sharkey and Ron Arkin.

A public call to ban the development and deployment of autonomous lethal weapons happened more recently when the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) – one of the key player NGOs involved in the Campaign – drafted it in 2010. Back then, only a handful of academics and interested individuals signed up to support their cause.

ICRAC, along with Human Rights Watch, Article 36, and Mines Action Canada among other well-known international non-governmental organizations, started the campaign in April 2013, which got the United Nations to pay attention to the topic with the 117 states parties (87 countries attended the last meeting) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) this year.

Whether CCW will continue to work on the killer robots topic has yet to be decided, but the next annual meeting is scheduled for November of this year.

In this episode, Audrow Nash speaks to Russ Angold, co-founder and CTO of Ekso Bionics, about the wearable bionic suit, Ekso. This suit enables individuals with any amount of lower extremity weakness to stand up and walk over ground with a natural, full weight bearing, reciprocal gait. Walking is achieved by the user’s weight shifts to activate sensors in the device which initiate steps. Battery-powered motors drive the legs, replacing deficient neuromuscular function.

Ekso provides functional based rehabilitation, over ground gait training, and upright, weight bearing exercises. It has been designed for the needs of busy therapists treating a wide range of patients in a single day. The suit is strapped over the users´ clothing with easy adjustments to transition between patients in as little as five minutes.

[youtube.com/watch?v=4czJUGoP9q8]

Russ Angold

Russ Angold is co-founder and CTO of Ekso Bionics. He works closely with the Lockheed Martin Corporation, licensing Ekso technology to further develop the HULC_TMexoskeleton for military use. Formerly Vice President of Engineering, Russ provided many of the concepts that shape today’s current designs as well as those of the ExoHiker_TM, ExoClimber_TM and HULC_TM.

Before Ekso Bionics, Russ held various engineering positions at Rain Bird Corporation, Berkeley Process Control and the Irrigation Training and Research Center in San Luis Obispo, California.

Russ has a bachelor’s degree in BioResource and Agricultural Engineering from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He is a California registered Professional Mechanical Engineer and has two granted patents and another seven pending.

Links:

• Download mp3 (9.7MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS
• Ekso Bionics homepage

A couple of years ago, while I was living in Cape Town, I met a group of people who were so into drones and aerial filming that they managed to initiate me into the world of UAVs. It turns out that South African soil is fertile ground for UAV enthusiasm and businesses. Therefore, I will dedicate this post to the thriving drone community of the Republic of South Africa.

Let’s start with the legislation: there is none. SACAA, the South African Civil Aviation Authority created confusion some two months ago, when it firstly declared a ban on the use of drones for aerial filming, and then issued this statement, which basically says that SACAA doesn’t ban something that is illegal already. The only problem is that it is not illegal, since there is no legislation covering the issue. Meanwhile, the Cape Town Film Commission has been in discussion with the SACAA, the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry as well as the Deputy Mayor of Cape Town, and has requested that the SACAA implement their model aircraft policy for use of the drones.

If approved, the policy will require adopting the below guidelines, which are similar to those used in Europe and Australia:

• Flying only under 120m
• No flying within 4.2 nautical miles of an airport
• Flying only in line of sight of the operator (500m)
• No auto pilot flying or night flying
• No flying over public property and roads without permission

Meanwhile, filmmakers are still flocking to Cape Town to take advantage of the breathtaking scenery and skilled local aerial filming production crews. One of them is Skylab Productions. Founded in 2012, this prolific company has produced aerial shots for National Geographic, and gave its contribution to Cape Town in this (in)famous Pharell Williams “Happy” video.

Where drones are being used for filming, there is no doubt someone catering to their needs and providing them with equipment. SteadiDrone is a proudly South African UAV manufacturer, founded in 2012 in the beautiful town of Knysna. Their flagship product is the QU4D, RTF quadcopter, which uses the APM 2.5 autopilot from 3D Robotics and is able to carry a GoPro camera on board.

There are others, however, that are manufacturing a UAV with significantly less creative purpose. The Skunk Riot Control Drone is made by Desert Wolf, a South African company, and it has already been sold to mining companies, notorious for their problematic treatment of mine workers and frequent riots.

Luckily, there are more jesting endeavors. SA Beer Lift challenge, although tiny compared to the one organized by HobbyKing, still managed to produce some respectable results and some funny fails. I couldn’t find any information about whether it will happen again this year, but it would be awesome if it did. Where else could you find such cool drone fail videos?

Despite South Africa’s challenges, the drone community there seems dynamic and healthy. Dronologista hopes that it will remain so in the future, and will be happy to bring the news to the world about individuals and companies that are using or producing proudly South African drones.

ATLAS climbs a ladder in December’s DRC Trials. Source: DARPA

Teams of roboticists from around the globe will convene in Los Angeles for the third and final round of the DARPA Robotics Challenge on June 5^th  and 6^th, 2015. For this phase, DARPA will be cutting the safety tethers, power cords, and network connections that previously assisted robots. The roster of participants has also changed, with Japan, Korea, and the EU electing to sponsor teams and Team SCHAFT, winners of the last phase, deciding to withdraw from the competition. DRC Program manager Gill Pratt explained that by raising the stakes and expanding participation, DARPA is hoping to foster the development of more advanced autonomous behavior for robots that operate in complex environments.

Pratt started the announcement by explaining how the Challenge has already exceeded his expectations. At the DRC Trials held last December (check out our beginner’s guide if this is news to you), organizers expected the winning team could maybe score about 15 points, but four teams exceeded that number and SCHAFT won 27. Now that participants have shown what they’re capable of, DARPA wants to push them further.

He explained that robot hardware was, across the board, robust, and teams did surprisingly well with grasping and dexterity, mobility, and human-robot interface design. But it’s time to solve, in Pratt’s words, “the really hard part of the robotics problem.” He wants humans and robots to be able to collaborate more effectively in the field by leveraging the unique capabilities of both. To see this happen, he’s changing the rules to force teams to rely less upon the remote control of individual joints and motions and instead implement task-based interfaces that incorporate advanced perception, minimal human guidance, and complex autonomous behavior.

The trial will still involve two attempts at eight tasks. But there’s a twist: robots will now only have an hour to perform all eight consecutively. In the last round, robots attempted each stage separately and were allotted 30 minutes for each task. The tasks have yet to be finalized, but details will be sparse until the teams converge in California for the competition. Seven tasks will be derived from the challenges of the last round, but one surprise task will be introduced at the competition. Pratt pointed out that robots will be “at least four times faster than the trials, and perhaps even faster.”

“We think the robot being able to survive a fall is difficult but not too hard. We have little information on the difficulty of getting up. This is a very new thing we’re trying, very high risk, for those machines that do fall down, it’s going to be really neat to see how they handle it, because […] humans will not be able to teleoperate the machine with any reasonable performance.”

At the DRC trials last December, the robots often moved excruciatingly slow and depended upon the careful control of remote human operators. Even with this divine guidance, they still fell down on their safety tethers quite often. But these handicaps will be gone in the next round. DARPA organizers want to see how well a robot can perform in the field without an umbilical cord, so they’re cutting the robots’ physical and electrical tethers. They’ve also decided that robots will entirely lose their network connection “for a substantial fraction of the time available” explaining this had the goal of preventing direct teleoperation.

In the December trials, robots were connected to tethers that kept them from crashing with the ground. In the next round, robots will lose their leases, fall down, and — hopefully — pick themselves back up. Source: Team IHMC

Pratt explained that these requirements were added to more accurately simulate the challenges faced by disaster robots at Fukushima-Daiichi. Robots depended upon limited battery power and thick concrete and steel-reinforced walls in the plant made network connectivity intermittent at best. And there certainly weren’t any safety lines to prevent the robots from falling.

Whenever the robots have a network connection, they’ll have significantly more computing resources than were available in the last round. Organizers are curious about the new paradigm of cloud-assisted autonomy and want to see how it could be used in field robots. So robots will have access to “as much computing power, as much disk space, as much crowd-sourced expertise” as the teams desire. Robots will also be able to connect to the internet. Look for DRC robots to ask for your assistance via Facebook next summer!

In the DRC’s final round, robots will have more resources available via their network connection, but the connection will only be intermittently available. Source: DARPA

Pratt also announced that the governments of Japan, Korea, and The EU are planning to sponsor teams. In light of this funding infusion, and the surprising performance of unfunded teams in the last round, DARPA has invited more teams to join this final round of the competition. Any team that can demonstrate a robot completing several “simple” DRC tasks is invited to submit a video to the DRC website by February 2^nd, 2015. Eleven teams are qualified at this moment but organizers are hoping 24 teams will participate next June.

Another important announcement today was the news that Team SCHAFT – winner of the December trials – has withdrawn from the competition to focus on commercializing its technology. Remember that Google acquired SCHAFT last December.

SCHAFT, who won the last round by 7 points, won’t be competing in LA next June. Instead, SCHAFT’s technology might soon appear in a Google robot. Source: DARPA

Considering executives’ assertions that Google had no plans to become a military contractor and the rumor that started circulating in January, SCHAFT’s disaffiliation from DARPA isn’t too surprising. As announced in March, the funding to which SCHAFT was entitled will be distributed among two previously-unfunded teams, THOR and ViGIR.

“[DARPA hopes] companies will pick up the technology developed in the DRC, develop it further, commercialize it, and the results will be cheap enough to make reasonably-priced disaster robots.”

By making the challenge so demanding and offering a $2 million prize, DARPA is hoping to lay the technological foundation for more autonomous and capable robots in the commercial market. In fact, DARPA will measure the success of the competition in part by the commercial investments in robotics that it inspires. To help DRC technology reach the market, DARPA and some participating teams plan to publish the lessons they learned in the challenge in academic journals.

Left: Team Stanford’s Stanley, the winning car of DARPA’s 2005 Grand Challenge.
Right: The Google Car, developed by a team led by Sebastian Thrun, former leader of Team Stanford. Sources: DARPA, Google

It’s reasonable to expect success — by hosting the Grand Challenge in 2003, DARPA turned the key on autonomous vehicles. Google acquired the winning team from Stanford, so you can trace their autonomous car’s lineage back to DARPA. With SCHAFT’s announcement and Google’s acquisitions of it and Boston Dynamics, history is repeating itself. Dr. Pratt’s vision of the DRC’s legacy seems to be materializing before the competition even finishes.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• DARPA’s Gill Pratt on Google’s robotics investments
• Robots Podcast: The DARPA Robotics Challenge
• Beginner’s guide to the humanoid robot challenge (DRC)
• Robots, soldiers and cyborgs: The future of warfare
• DARPA’s Virtual Robotics Challenge a practical step forward on the long road toward disaster-response capable humanoids

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.
For more DRC reading, see our interview with Dr. Pratt.

Four researchers from Davide Scaramuzza’s Robotics and Perception Group at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, have won the prestigious KUKA Innovation Award (20.000 EUR) for their project “Collaboration of Flying and Ground Robots for Search-And-Rescue Missions” at the AUTOMATICA trade fair in Munich.

The ongoing project is part of the “Rescue Scenario” of NCCR Robotics, where researchers across Switzerland work together to develop robots that can be used to make disaster relief efforts safer and more efficient. This specific element of the Rescue Scenario involves teams of flying robots working together with ground robots. The idea behind the project is that, in a cluttered environment after a disaster, it may be too dangerous for human rescuers to enter a building, and so robots may be utilized. However, in such environments both flying and ground robots suffer from limitations: by working together, the flying robots can be used as the eye for the ground robot.

For the competition last week, the team presented the collaboration of a quadrotor and a KUKA youBot in a mock-up disaster scenario. The quadrotor is first sent to make a map of the scene, i.e., detecting obstacles and people who need help. Then, it commands the youBot to these people to deliver a first-aid package. From the air, it can tell the youBot where to go and which obstacles to remove on the way.

Have a look at the demo showed at AUTOMATICA!

Foreign Policy Magazine's recent examination of “The Looming Robotics Gap” by University of Pennsylvania International Relations Associate Professor Michael C Horowitz, and recent Pentagon insider on national security issues, is an up-to-date review of the world-wide state of military robotics.

Besides comparing Chinese and American look-alike unmanned flying robots that can land on an aircraft carrier, and Chinese, Israeli, and American Reaper look-alike high-flying surveillance bombers, Horowitz describes the attitudes (sensitivities), direction, and budgeting hold-ups and cuts thwarting America's ability to sustain its leadership while having to absorb a 33% drop in technology investment.

Companies such as Google have set their sights on developing consumer robotics to serve and fuel an international market that some estimate will generate $37 billion in annual sales by 2018. These commercial developments could have military ramifications. As automated technology becomes increasingly easy to procure, small militaries and even nonstate actors will be able to exploit robotics for military ends. 

For example, the commercial sector is leading the way in developing automated driving technology, and the software that governs a self-driving car might well facilitate the design of a remotely driven tank. As off-the-shelf robotics become increasingly advanced, it will become easier for foreign militaries to close the gap in capabilities with the United States.

More sinister is the possibility that commercially available robotics will make cutting-edge technologies available to terrorists. Even now, do-it-yourself drone technology is widely available, used by ordinary citizens and companies for everything from monitoring wildlife to filming snowboarders. In April, the FBI stopped a Moroccan citizen in the United States who allegedly was plotting to strap bombs onto simple consumer drones and fly them into a federal building.

Perhaps the biggest transition I could glean from the Horowitz article was the reversal from the past DARPA investment formula of solving scientific problems to enhance future military use, then to transfer the technology over to the commercial sector, to a newer formula taking advantage of commercial investment (such as that done by Google) to military adaption alongside commercial development. 

“The Looming Robotics Gap” is a worthwhile read.

While we haven’t been able to track down video of the UN debate, the opposing positions of Arkin and Sharkey can be found on our two-part Robots Podcast episode on robot ethics (Part One, Part Two). The following articles were also distributed by the UN in preparation for the debate:

• Arkin – Lethal Autonomous Systems and the Plight of the Non-combatant
• Sharkey – The evitability of autonomous robots warfare
• Sharkey – Towards a principle for the human supervisory control of robot weapons

The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots is holding daily side events at the CCW. For more information, see their agenda.

Tweets about “#CCWUN”

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

•  DARPA’s Gill Pratt on Google’s robotics investments
•  Robots Podcast: Autonomous lethal weapons
•  How will robots shape the future of warfare?
•  Robots, soldiers and cyborgs: The future of warfare
•  Robohub focus: Robots and warfare

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

This animatronic mannequin is designed by i-bodi Technology for Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), based in Porton Down in Wiltshire (hence the name). Its frame is made from CFRP parts, and in addition to the realistic movement emulation, it will be used to test equipment in extreme risk environments. The DSTL is the only laboratory in the world that can use chemical warfare agents to assess the effectiveness of complete clothing systems such as the chemical, biological and radiological suits used by UK Armed Forces.

Press release from UK MoD
Press release from Dstl

(via Royal Air Force / UK Armed Forces facebook page )

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Robots Podcast: Robotic fish and mannequins
• Video of Boston Dynamics’ PETMAN in action
• Two new videos show progress with humanoid robots
• humanoid related Robohub articles
• Military & Defense related Robohub articles

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

• 75% of the ROV vehicles are used as work-class vehicles; the remainder are for inspection.
• The combined purchase and operations expenditures over those years will be $9.7 billion.
• Insight into those numbers provided by Unmanned Vehicle Systems Consulting said that global ROV sales in 2010 were $850 million of which 50% were for energy use; 25% for defense and security and 25% for scientific research.
• Further, roughly 20% of the vehicles were autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs); the rest were ROVs (remotely operated vehicles).

\

When Google bought Boston Dynamics last December, the news made headlines, but it was not the first time the Internet giant has invested in DARPA-funded robotics. As part of Robohub’s Big Deals series, we asked Gill Pratt, Program Manager of DARPA’s Defense Sciences Office, to shed some light on what DARPA thinks about Google’s robotics acquisitions , and what it might mean to the robotics and open source communities.

Congratulations, Gill, on the DARPA Robotics Trials – what was your personal assessment of the event?

I was very pleased with how well the teams performed, and in particular that the hardware for the majority of the teams worked so reliably. In general, the teams did slightly better than we had expected and this was probably the result of a lot of very careful preparation. The infrastructure that we set up also worked reliably in the trials. Still, the DRC Trials were really just a beginning and showed us the potential of what can be done in disaster scenarios with robots.

Cloud computing was an important facet of the DARPA Robotics Challenge and especially the Virtual Robotics Challenge … How do you see cloud computing helping the development of robots?

The importance of cloud computing for Robotics falls into two different categories. The first has to do with simulation environments. We used cloud computing for the first time with the Virtual Robotics Challenge, which we had back in June as a precursor to the DRC Trials, to do real-time simulation of tasks in unstructured environments. We rented a whole lot of cloud computing space, we ran a very good simulator developed for DARPA by the Open Source Robotics Foundation, and we adjusted the latency – the time delay – so that it would be the same for all the teams, even though they were located in different parts of the world. It was a tremendous enabler to run a real-time competition based on simulation that also involves human-robot collaboration. Doing so required that the simulation run in real-time. That was a big first and we felt it was very successful.

Another important aspect of cloud computing is something that we have not used to date, but I think has a lot of potential for the future: the ability to have a robot’s computing and data hosted remotely. There’s a lot of potential for this, in particular for doing perception. Forty percent of the human brain is used for perception, and perception is one of the most difficult tasks for an autonomous robot. It’s very difficult to fit a computer with the size, weight, and power that you need to achieve really good perception onto a robot: the computer just gets too large, it consumes too much power, and it weighs too much. However, if you have access to cloud resources with lots of data and lots of computing cycles, they can help move that burden off of the physical robot.

Perhaps most exciting for the future of cloud computing in robotics is that when one robot learns how to perceive something, or learns how to do a particular task, that learning can be instantly shared with other robots. This sharing could have a catalytic effect on the capabilities of robots, particularly in structured environments.

This is really an up and coming field. How likely are we to see commercial interest come out of cloud computing for robotics?

If you look at the research being done we see a lot of possibilities with cloud computing for robots. In the commercial world, I think we are going to see it applied first to structured environments where there are lots of human artifacts — things like doors, stairs, furniture, tools — and where a large database of stored examples of these artifacts can help the recognition problem.

The Atlas robot, created by Bostron Dynamics and DARPA, was used by several teams in the DRC Trials. Source: DARPA

This is an interview for our Big Deals series, so we’re wondering, what does DARPA think about Google buying up some of the technologies that DARPA has spent years building? We’re thinking of the cars, the humanoids …

We are thrilled to see commercial interest. It’s one of the signs of success for the investments that we have made in future technology.

We think that it takes commercial investment to drive down the cost of technology. A very well known example is the cellphone. Cellphones have microprocessors in them that many years ago began with investments by DARPA’s Microsystems Technology Office and others. Cell phones have inertial measurement units to figure out the tilt of the cellphone. They have displays; they have GPS receivers; they have radio devices that work at low power. I can point to any number of DARPA investments that helped start those technologies, and of course cellphones now talk to the Internet, which is probably the best known output of all of DARPA’s investments. But if the Department of Defense wanted to produce a cellphone without the commercial world having picked it up and turned it into a product that billions of people use, it would cost many orders of magnitude more than it does now. It’s really because of the commercial world that we’ve seen the price of cellphones go down.

But DARPA is not only interested in seeding technologies with these early investments; we are also committed to solving real problems for national security. In fact, we have a variety of programs that use cellphones. One of these is called TransApps, where soldiers use smart phones to plan and carry out missions and layer and share data between teams. This is an example where investment by the commercial world made possible a national security capability that otherwise might not be feasible because of excessive cost.

By analogy, what’s going on in robotics is that we’ve seen some interest in the commercial world in taking this to the next step. And they have resources far beyond what DARPA has to further develop a technology and, most importantly, to drive down cost.

So these big deals are a good thing for DARPA?

Yes, they are a wonderful thing for DARPA and, more broadly, for our nation.

Do you think it’s a good thing for the field of robotics in general?

Absolutely, but I understand why there’s some anxiety.  It’s true that, for a very short time, some talented people in the field will be working for a commercial firm rather than for DARPA. However, that effect is transient and very small compared to the much more important thing, which is that these corporate investments both accelerate the field and show that it is going to be real.

This anxiety is a lot like the kind you get when your kids leave home. It’s sad, and for a while you’re going to miss them, but wait a while and then the grandkids come. The important thing is for Robotics to become a field that is not only about prototypes or lab demonstrations, but a field where significant resources are invested to make products that really improve people’s lives. We saw it with the Roomba vacuum cleaner, but we want to go beyond that. These kinds of commercial investments will make the field far more attractive to startups and to students who are planning their careers. The net effect is strongly positive.

How do you think this corporate interest in robotics will impact the open source community?

Open source is very important. It allows us to develop pre-competitive catalysts to help the whole field move forward.

In the integrated circuits world it was recognized that you couldn’t build experimental integrated circuits as easily as you could wire up a circuit with discrete components like capacitors and resistors and transistors that you solder by hand. As a result, people working in the area at that time needed to develop a simulator to allow for the experimentation of how a chip would work without actually having to make the chip. The idea was to do the design and the debug cycle on the computer in simulation instead of having to do it on the bench: when you were done you could press a button and have confidence that the chip would actually work. The open-source simulator SPICE filled that niche.

The very same kind of thing is true in the robotics field. The key is to recognize that simulation is really a pre-competitive technology now.  We don’t need to have proprietary closed simulation systems and keep reinventing the simulator over and over again. We’ve done it enough times now to know that it would be useful to apply open source. In the same way, I think that an operating system is precompetitive – it has been done enough times that a new company should not try to distinguish itself based on a proprietary version of an OS.

Rather, let’s just move on to the next thing where the real innovation is going to occur. DARPA funded the Open Source Robotics Foundation to develop an open source simulator for the DARPA Robotics Challenge because we think that it will catalyze the whole field to everyone’s advantage.

With the purchase of Boston Dynamics, some headlines were saying that Google bought military robotics. Is this an accurate assessment?

I think it’s very inaccurate. It’s based on the confusion – and the conflation – of two aspects of robotics: remote bodies and remote brains. A robot allows you to have a mechanical body take the place of a human being; for example, a robot can work in a dangerous environment while a human supervisor is in a safe place. And a robot also allows you to perform some of the function of the human brain autonomously in a remote location. When you conflate bodies and brains, and say that there is only one idea here, it’s like saying, “The robot looks like person, so it must be as intelligent as a person, and therefore I should be scared of all robots, particularly those funded by the Department of Defense.”

All of the robots that I’m aware of, except for the ones that actually have weapons or specialized sensors on them, are generic. They are neither military nor commercial. They are just robots that have mobility and perhaps some manipulation, but there are not classed to one type or the other. And they are all almost completely empty-headed: their bodies may look like ours, but their heads are almost totally empty.

In terms of autonomy, the technology has such a long way to go that the fears that have been generated are way out of proportion to the state of the art. At the DRC Trials, for example, we had people supervising the robots in pretty tight loops, telling them what to do. While autonomy may be able to handle very simple environments, close human supervision is going to be needed in unstructured environments for some time.

What do you say to people who are uncomfortable with the use of military robots in a commercial context?

I think there are legitimate concerns, but from a rational point of view it’s important to distinguish between a weapon, which none of the robots we are talking about are, and a machine that makes us feel scared because it looks like us but it’s hard to understand exactly how it works. Of course, science fiction has stoked that fear with movies like Terminator and so forth, but that reaction actually goes back a long, long way to stories like Frankenstein – anything that sort of looks like a person but is hard to understand will generate fear. It’s an emotional reaction. However, from a rational perspective, if you consider how little autonomy these real machines actually have, you realize that the worry is way out of proportion to reality.

What are some of the benefits that could come out of combining Google’s expertise in data with hardware from Boston Dynamics?

I don’t know the specific applications that Google is thinking of – it’s their prerogative to discuss them or not, and they haven’t told DARPA.

Generally speaking, when you think about data and robotics, there are a lot of exciting things that could happen. For example, you could do perception better by using a lot of data and sophisticated search. This is not necessarily the kind of search we think of when we type words into our browsers, but the kind that involves images, where a robot could say, “Okay, I see something and because of many prior examples I know what to do,” and share that data in a useful way.

Would voice commands play into this dynamic, in addition to visual search? Would it make it easier for humans to interface with robots?

I’m not an expert on voice, so I don’t want to speculate, but I know that you can train better when you have a lot of data. Voice and natural language recognition have the potential to help with planning and perception, and I think they could also facilitate more intuitive interfaces for sharing information between robots and humans.

Team SCHAFT raises the arms of its S-One robot in victory after successfully completing the Climb Industrial Ladder task at the DRC Trials. SCHAFT won that task and three others, and scored the most points of any team at the event. Source: DARPA.

What new robotic technologies will DARPA be pushing that might appeal to big companies that are not traditionally robotics focused?

We’re really interested in cooperation directly between robots and between human beings and machines. We are also interested in dealing with dynamic environments. What I would like to do for the future of the DRC, and what I think that DARPA is going to push even beyond that, is to answer questions like “What if the communication is intermittent?” and “What if the environment is beyond a set of familiar things that I’ve seen before?” … What do we do if we’re actually outdoors? How do we handle this piece of vegetation that’s in front of us? Do we go through it or around it? If we go through it, do we move the branches out of the way?

We also still have a lot of research to do to figure out how to apply cloud computing when the environment is unstructured, like it would be in disasters or outdoor scenarios.  And if the communications are intermittent, we have to figure out how to cache enough of the intelligence on the robot itself so that it can continue to do what it needs to even when it’s disconnected from the cloud. Of course, disconnected operation may be at a reduced level of effectiveness, but we don’t want the robot to stop altogether when communications go down for a little while. We want the robot to have at least some ability to complete the tasks it was given to do.

How do you actually put behavior in the cloud? How do you take a data driven approach to behavior? I think that’s very much an unknown thing right now. Data driven approaches to perception are easier to understand, but we are going to try to take the next step and look at behavior as well.

If you liked this article, you may also be interested in:

• Snowden BEAMs into TED: How robotic telepresence disrupts borders
• Google’s robot and artificial intelligence acquisitions are anything but scary
• Will companies like Google and Amazon usher in a new era for robotics?
• The robots behind your Internet shopping addiction: How your wallet is driving retail automation
• What do Google, Amazon, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and all the airlines and car companies want?
• Robots Podcast: Privacy, Google, and big deals
• Robots, soldiers and cyborgs: The future of warfare

See all the latest robotics news on Robohub, or sign up for our weekly newsletter.

Since 2011, a Nevada nuclear materials storage site has been guarded by robots (Mobile Detection, Assessment and Response System). Last week the US Marines announced that their airbase in Twentynine Palms will also be guarded by the same type of robots.

Security robots are becoming more prevalent for both governmental and corporate clients not only to lower costs but to improve surveillance and security options. General Dynamics MDARS, the robots used in Nevada and by the Marines, have been around since 2005. These devices autonomously surveil and check for intruders, investigate alarm sources, monitor high-value inventory and assess barriers, such as the doors of storage bunkers. MDARS are diesel-powered, 4-wheel hydrostatic-drive vehicles, with a payload capacity of 500 lbs. Each vehicle is equipped with a real-time obstacle avoidance system and 360-degree sensors. It can operate for 16 hours without refueling and at speeds up to 20 miles per hour.

Israeli G-nius has a whole line of remotely piloted border-patrolling devices as does Samsun Techwin in South Korea and both are being used in their respective countries.

Less lethal, newer sleeker devices are coming to the commercial marketplace. Gamma 2 Robotics and their Vigilant Robots has been winning awards for their museum, parking garage and warehouse guards – all of which are still being beta tested.

Silicon Valley Knightscope has partnerships with insurers, police and large campus organizations, and others for their stylish patrolling robots.

Turnover for private security firms is often more than 400% which is worse than the fast food industry – and there are about 1.3 million security guards in the US and 20 million globally, hence the need for this type of robot. Many of these patrol positions are ideal for mobile robotic devices such as those offered by Vigilant and Knightscope. Schools, shopping malls, data centers, museums, parking lots, warehouses, parks and stadiums are all ideal locations for these types of robots. Defense contractors, as they feel the bite of reduced military budgets will soon be redesigning their MDARS-like military devices for the commercial marketplace and offer competition, as will mobile robot makers Adept, iRobot and KUKA – but right now Knightscope and Vigilant are the closest to market. [Adept Technologies had a security mobile robot but dropped it from their line to focus on their primary business.]

In the consumer sector, there have been many tries and all have either failed or moved on to more lucrative fields. Romotive is a case in point. It was first offered as a home security device but found few takers. Most of the interest for their very successful Romo bot was (and is) as a kids toy.

WowWee’s Rovio was a big hit when it was launched but hasn’t done anything since and is no longer promoted by WowWee.

One unique start-up from St. Petersburg, Russia,  xTurion, may have found the right niche for home, second home and service space monitoring using a mobile security bot and some very capable software. The device can be equipped with smoke, heat and leak sensors, gas analyzers, and be remotely controlled to check out an alarm. xTurion is supported by iDealMachine, an accellerator associated with University ITMO in St. Petersburg, and also by the Skolkovo where xTurion is a participant in their Skolkovo IT Cluster. At present they are working to get the price down to under $1,000, build 100 beta test devices, and enter the marketplace late this year.

According to MIT Press:

This book offers the definitive guide to the theory and practice of disaster robotics. It can serve as an introduction for researchers and technologists, a reference for emergency managers, and a textbook in field robotics. Written by a pioneering researcher in the field who has herself participated in fifteen deployments of robots in disaster response and recovery, the book covers theory and practice, the history of the field, and specific missions.

Available through the MIT Press, Amazon, and as a Kindle eBook.

When we imagine the future of warfare, we often envision a battlefield where humanoid robots and other machines fight alongside or in the place of human soldiers. From the droids of Star Wars to The Terminator’s cyborg soldiers, robots play a prominent role in our collective vision of future combat.

While science fiction is populated with anthropomorphic and sometimes malevolent robots that can seem remarkably human, in the real world, robots are simply programmable machines that can sense and interact with their environment. From this point of view, most advanced weapons systems are robotic, including cruise missiles, drones, and air and missile defense systems.

Are we at the beginning of an inevitable process leading to the rise of “killer robots” predicted by science fiction, or can robots actually make war less destructive?¹ What comes next in the advancement of military robots?

Developing Robotic Weapons

So far, autonomous robots have played a marginal role in warfare. Recently, however, the use of drones to counter the improvised explosive device (IED) threat in Iraq and carry out aerial bombing campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia has elevated military robots to a more prominent role in U.S. military operations.^(a)

As the U.S. winds down its counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the most important robotic systems used in these conflicts will be far less in demand. These include IED hunters and unmanned aerial vehicles such as Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk surveillance drones and General Atomics’ armed Predator and Reaper drones. In fact, the Department of Defense plans to slash these drones’ numbers due to both their inability to survive in contested airspaces and general budgetary pressures.

Instead, there will be a greater focus on developing robotic systems for shorter but more massive air campaigns against more sophisticated adversaries with modern air defense systems, like Libya, Syria, China, or Russia. The Pentagon will likely continue its efforts to build global precision strike capability, allowing rapid deployment of unmanned weapons that can attack anywhere in the world within an hour.^(b) In addition, there will be a continuing focus on technologies and capabilities relevant for low-intensity conflicts like the ongoing War on Terror.

As for the development of robot soldiers, despite decades of intensive research and continuous breakthroughs in robotics, the progress in creating autonomous military robots has been surprisingly slow. Several projects funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have resulted in humanoid robot prototypes, but they lack the portable power source and intelligence that would allow them to act beyond very limited non-combat roles.

The most promising advancements have been the Navy’s X-47 drone, which recently mastered the art of landing on aircraft carriers, and humanoid robot prototypes such as DARPA’s rescue robot Atlas.^(c)

The Cyborgization of Human Soldiers

Another approach to implementing robotic weapons systems is to combine them with humans, whose bodies could be augmented with robotic technology. This concept offers the best of both worlds: the quick reaction times, precision, and strength of robotic systems and the control and superior cognitive abilities of humans.

DARPA’s Land Warrior and its successor projects (Objective Force Warrior, Future Force Warrior, and now Warrior Web) aim to equip soldiers with wearable computers, advanced communications gear, helmet visors with night vision and head-up-display, and robotic exoskeletons for improved mobility. While the potential may be vast, such human enhancement has suffered the same setbacks and slow progress as the development of other robotic systems. The gear is still too heavy, and the exoskeletons that could enable soldiers to carry more and move faster lack a sufficient power source.

At the same time, there has been remarkable progress in neuroscience with respect to mapping and manipulating the human brain.² Though not currently employed, a number of technologies have potential military applications. A technique called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to enhance the concentration and alertness of human test subjects.³ EEGs embedded in helmets might one day enable soldiers to control weapons through the power of thought. A research project at Duke University showed that a monkey with an implanted brain chip could control a robotic arm, and researchers at Brown University created the first wireless brain-computer interface in March.^(d)

The ultimate goal of some in the Pentagon is to develop “super soldiers” who could be deployed anywhere in the world within hours and remain in the field for extended periods of time. Their bodies and performance could potentially be enhanced through nanosensors that constantly monitor their medical status, embedded nanoneedles that release drugs when needed, and possibly even nanorobots that can quickly heal wounds in the field.^(e)

These “super soldiers” might be supported by a range of robotic devices and weapons systems, including robotic dogs to carry their gear, drones to resupply them, and robotic platforms from which to call in long-range precision strikes. The soldiers could one day assign robot helpers specific missions that they could then carry out with little human supervision.^(f)

Ethical Concerns And Scientific Unknowns

The use of military robots raises both ethical and tactical concerns. Will they be able to distinguish targets and use force proportionately? Will soldiers be willing to fight alongside completely autonomous robots? Could robots one day entirely replace humans and human-operated systems on the battlefield? What role might robots play in non-traditional wars such as the war on terror or the fight against transnational organized crime? These questions, along with other unknowns, have led United Nations Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns, Human Rights Watch, and other critics to call for a ban on autonomous military robots.⁴

Critics are also concerned that advanced artificial intelligence (AI) could develop in directions not anticipated by scientists. Because of this unpredictability, the US military has indicated that it will never remove humans from the decision loop completely. While unmanned weapons systems will become gradually more autonomous so that they can carry out very specific missions with less human direction, they may never entirely replace human soldiers on the battlefield.

The technological augmentation and modification of human soldiers raises even more troubling ethical issues than the development of autonomous robots.⁵ Since millions of dollars could go into technologically upgrading the body and mind of a single soldier, would the soldier be allowed to quit military service? What does it mean for an egalitarian and democratic society to provide certain individuals with superhuman abilities? While enhancing human soldiers may have its benefits, it opens up a web of ethical, political, and legal dilemmas.

What’s Next

Although truly autonomous military robots with strong artificial intelligence could potentially be built and deployed within the next twenty years, there are great doubts about their military usefulness and legality. Fully autonomous robots could easily turn out to be uncontrollable weapons. Furthermore, the difficult budgetary climate will not change in the foreseeable future, which means that the U.S. military has to focus its research and acquisition on the projects relevant to the most likely military needs. Instead of designing robots for war, the Pentagon may aim to enhance and even cyborgize soldiers while further developing human-operated robotic systems. Under the most likely scenarios, it may not be the Pentagon’s robots we should be worried about, but rather the changes in humans that military technology will inaugurate.

Within the defense sector, demand for unmanned air, ground and sea systems continues unabated. Drivers include combat operations, reduced military budgets, a changing national security environment and improved technologies. The chart shows what the DoD has budgeted for the next 5 years.

Hold-ups include a lack of interoperability and modularity; communications systems, spectrum and resilience; security; ability to operate safely stationary; autonomy and cognitive behavior; ability to carry and type of weaponry.

Below are the budget figures separated by air, ground and sea.

Ground systems include bomb detection and disposal, engineering and construction, route clearance, recon robots of all types.

Marine systems include mine hunting and countermeasures, port surveillance, electronic warfare, special ops, hydrographic recon, hull cleaning, sensing gliders and unmanned devices.

Aerial systems include penetrating and persistent (persistent to the military means stationary) data relay platforms and tactical devices. Small tactical devices include micro/mini devices and throwables for reconnaissance.

Source: DoD Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY2013-2038

What has the capability to strengthen homeland security, produce a ball’s-eye view of a soccer match and swim underwater with dolphins? GuardBot: the latest development in unmanned amphibious vehicle systems.

The cutting-edge spherical robot was developed by Connecticut-based American Unmanned Systems. The 54-pound bot can roll over the roughest terrain including snow, mud, rocks and sand and is the only unmanned amphibious device that is capable of navigating through water. Its motion drive system is operated by an internal battery-powered pendulum that can operate for up to eight hours on one charge. The mechanism propels the ball by shifting the center of gravity, allowing back and forth movements and 360° turns. GuardBot can maintain speeds of 6 mph on land and 3 mph in water.

You can see the bot in action in this video from Reuters:

Originally designed in 2004 to rove across the Martian terrain for a European Space Agency mission, GuardBot is currently being used for military and commercial applications. Its main tasks are guard and reconnaissance duty and rescue missions. Moving in virtual silence, the robot sentry can be programmed to operate by GPS or remotely controlled by an operator, permitting unobtrusive surveillance as well as inspection and identification of surrounding areas and objects.

GuardBot is undergoing tests by the Marines in Quantico, Va., and Camp LeJeune, N.C. Its commercial applications include dolphin research at an aquarium in Florida and a recent deployment during a live soccer match at Mexico City’s Azteca Stadium.

GuardBot Inc. is currently working to enhance the device’s systems by improving control, extending battery life and adding radiation detectors, imaging devices, advanced radios, and sonars.

CHIMP – CMU Highly Intelligent Mobile Platform – is one of 17 robots participating in the challenge.  The four-limbed robot has a wingspan of almost 10 feet and is designed to navigate on tank treads affixed to each limb.  For tasks that require use of its arms such as climbing a ladder or operating power tools, CHIMP can stand on its leg tread.  CHIMP also uses 360 degree sensing using a pair of laser rangefinder mounted to its head to visualize and map its surroundings, which a remote operator can use to analyze the disaster site.

In a recent press release, Tony Stentz, NREC director and leader of the Tartan Rescue Team said he has high hopes for the competition: “We’ve been on a fast track for the past year, doing detailed design and development of CHIMP at the same time as we were writing and testing its software on surrogate hardware. That’s an aggressive approach to producing a robot unlike any we have built and not without risk, but it appears to be paying off.”

And when it comes to his team’s readiness for the competition: “Even though we would love to have more time to practice with CHIMP prior to the trials, we’ve been pleased so far with its performance.”

The competition comes with high stakes – only eight of the seventeen teams will receive future DARPA funding to help prepare for the DRC finals next December.  All of the tasks in the competition require an extremely high level of mobility and dexterity by the robots. Some of these tasks include: driving a utility vehicle, going up a wall and cutting a hole, and opening and closing valves. If CMU’s performance in the 2004, 2005 and 2007 DARPA Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge serves any indication, this year’s Tartan Rescue Team will be a strong contender for one of those eight spots. We will still have to wait to observe the long-term effects of the DRC on the robotics industry. Will it be just another exhibition of expensive robotic gadgetry or will it expedite the commercialization of rescue robots as the DARPA Grand and Urban Challenges did for self-driving vehicles?

Link to audio file (40:39)

In this episode, Sabine Hauert interviews Paul Oh, the Director of the Drexel Autonomous Systems Lab at Drexel University. His team, spanning 10 universities, is competing in the DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC) with the HUBO humanoid made by KAIST in South Korea. The goal of the challenge is to design robots capable of assisting humans in responding to natural and man-made disasters. Trials will take place next week in Florida from December 20-21 and will require robots to drive a vehicle, walk over rough terrain, clear debris, open doors, use a hand tool to break through a wall, climb a ladder, turn a valve, and finally drag a hose and connect it to pipes. The 7 HUBO robots on Oh’s team will be competing against sixteen other teams from around the world to determine which teams continues on to the DRC Finals in 2014 with continued DARPA funding. Competing in the 2014 Finals will lead to one team winning a $2 million prize.

The video below shows Oh’s vision for robot-enabled disaster response in 2020. You can find more videos of the HUBO working on tasks for the trials here.

Paul Oh
Paul Oh is a Full Professor at Drexel’s Mechanical Engineering Department, Affiliated Faculty in the ECE Department, and Director of the Drexel Autonomous Systems Lab (DASL). He received mechanical engineering degrees from McGill (B.Eng 1989), Seoul National (M.Sc 1992), and Columbia (PhD 1999). Honors include faculty fellowships at NASA Jet Propulsion Lab (2002), Naval Research Lab (2003), the NSF CAREER award (2004), the SAE Ralph Teetor Award for Engineering Education Excellence (2005) and being named a Boeing Welliver Fellow (2006). He is also the Founding Chair of the IEEE Technical Committee on Aerial Robotics and UAVs. From 2008-2010, he served at the National Science Foundation (NSF) as the Program Director managing the robotics research portfolio. Paul Oh was named ASME Fellow in 2011.
Links:

• Download mp3 (17.8MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS
• Paul Oh’s Website
• DRC-HUBO team
• DRC coverage on Robohub

Link to audio file (34:30)

In this episode, AJung Moon talks to Julie Carpenter, a recent graduate of the University of Washington who interviewed 23 U.S. Military Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel to find out how they interact with everyday field robots. Julie is currently writing a book on the topic that is scheduled to be published next year.

Julie Carpenter

Julie Carpenter has received her doctoral degree in Education at the University of Washington with her dissertation titled The Quiet Professional: An investigation of U.S. Military Explosive Ordnance Disposal personnel interactions with everyday field robots. She primarily studies emotional attachment issues in human-robot interaction, and how it affects user decision-making in collaborative, sometimes stressful, situations.

Find out more about Julie and her work on her website.

Links:

• Download mp3 (17.3MB)
• Subscribe to Robots using iTunes
• Subscribe to Robots using RSS
• Julie Carpenter’s Website

Buildings that are collapsed or on fire, tunnels flooded with smoke or water, unstructured areas subject to radiation, chemical spills or gas leaks … these are the kinds of scenarios that place emergency services personnel at great risk, and where using robots could help contain damage and minimize injury or death. euRathlon is a civilian outdoor robotics competition supported by the European Commission with a focus on realistic cooperative search and rescue response scenarios. Inspired by the 2011 Fukushima accident, the competition scenarios have been carefully designed to provide teams with realistic challenges that test their robot’s ability to face real-world situations. Fourteen teams qualified for the event. We will be providing daily coverage of the competition, which will take place in Berchtesgaden, Germany from September 23-27, 2013.

The scenarios
When designing the event, organizers asked themselves how robots could best be leveraged by emergency services personnel in a disaster scenario: How can robots be monitored from a safe distance, so that human emergency workers can focus on other important tasks? What kinds of tasks could the robots perform? Are robots ready to succeed in real-world environments? And how can we test them?

To help address these questions, the euRathlon 2013 land competition was designed around five scenarios:

1. Reconnaissance and surveillance in urban structures (USAR)
2. Mobile manipulation for handling hazardous material
3. Search and rescue in a smoke-filled underground structure
4. Autonomous navigation using GPS, GLONASS and GALILEO
5. Reconnaissance and disposal of explosive devices

Descriptions of the five scenarios were published in advance of the competition to allow teams to prepare their robots. Detailed descriptions of the scenarios and potential hazards the robots would face were deliberately kept from the teams so as to keep an element of uncertainty, just like in a real world disaster.

Qualifying teams
Successfully tackling the competition scenarios is not an easy task, and prospective teams were required to take part in a qualifying process to prove that their robot(s) would be able to cope with the scenarios. Each team was required to write a Scenario Application Paper (SAP) explaining how their robot(s) would address the technical challenges of the scenarios they were planning to enter. The SAPs were reviewed to see if each team’s proposed solutions were realistic, and feedback from this process was fed back to the teams to help them prepare for the actual land competition. Here are the 14 teams that have qualified for participation in the euRathlon 2013 land competition:

1. ARTOR — ARTOR is a team of researchers and technical staff from the Autonomous Systems Lab (ASL) of ETH Zürich and RUAG Defence. They will participate with their robot, also called “ARTOR” (Autonomous Rough Terrain Outdoor Robot), in the autonomous navigation scenario.
2. E15 — E15 is formed by a group of 16 students from the University of Applied Sciences Esslingen, Germany. Their robot “Monique” will participate in the mobile manipulation, smoke-filled underground and autonomous navigation scenarios.
3. ELP — The ELP team represents German company ELP GmbH and will participate with their robot “PAckBot EOD 510” in the USAR, mobile manipulation, smoke-filled underground and EOD scenarios.
4. ENSTA Bretagne — ENSTA Bretagne is a small team of students and researchers from the Institute of ENSTA Bretagne, France. They will participate with their robot “Tracker” in the smoke-filled underground scenario.
5. Fraunhofer FKIE — The team of the Fraunhofer Institute for Communication, Information Processing and Ergonomics FKIE, Fraunhofer FKIE, will participate in the USAR, mobile manipulation, and autonomous navigation scenarios with their robots: “Telemax”, “TeodorPrime” and “Garm”.
6. IMM-IAIR — IMM-IAIR is a team of researchers of the Institute of Mathematical Machines in collaboration with the Institute of Automatic Control and Robotics, Warsaw, Poland. They will participate with their robot “MSAS II” in the USAR and smoke-filled underground scenarios.
7. MAJIDADA – Allen Vanguard — MAJIDADA is the team of the UK- based company Allen-Vanguard. They will participate in the USAR, mobile manipulation, smoke-filled underground and EOD scenarios with the robots “Defender D2.1”, “Digital Vanguard”, “Scorpion SUGV”, “Armadillo UGV” and “Beetle NUGV”.
8. MuCAR — MuCAR is the team of the University of the Bundeswehr Munich, Germany. The team develops and operates the robot vehicle “MuCAR-3” that will participate in the autonomous navigation scenario.
9. NAMT — The NAMT team is formed by students and staff of two institutions, the Nizhny Novgorod Automotive Technical School (NAMT) and the Moscow State Technical University. They will participate with the robot “CyberMobile” in the autonomous navigation scenario.
10. RIS — RIS is the team of the Laboratory of Analysis and Architecture of Systems (LAAS), a CNRS research unit, based in Toulouse, France. They will participate with the robots “Mana” and “Minnie” in the USAR, smoke-filled underground and autonomous navigation scenarios.
11. RI Spirit – Robotics Inventions — RI Spirit is the team of Polish company Robotics Inventions. They will participate with the robot “A-Bot Light” in the USAR, mobile manipulation, smoke-filled underground and autonomous navigation scenarios.
12. SCentRo — SCentRo is a team of 6 PhD students of the Sheffield Centre for Robotics (SCentRo) that was jointly established by the Sheffield Hallam University and the University of Sheffield, UK.  SCentRo will participate with the robot “PIONEER P3 AT” in the “Search and rescue in smoke filled underground structure” scenario.
13. SPACEAPPS — The SPACEAPPS team is formed by staff of the Belgium company Space Applications Services N.V. They will participate with the robot “MILOU” (Clearpath Husky A200) in USAR, mobile manipulation, smoke-filled underground and EOD scenarios.
14. Telerob — Telerob is the team of the German-based company telerob Gesellschaft für Fernhantierungstechnik mbH trading as Cobham Mission Equipment. They will participate with the robot “Telemax” in the USAR, mobile manipulation, smoke-filled underground and EOD scenarios.

Which robots will successfully address the scenarios? Don’t miss the daily updates next week.

For pictures and more information about the teams visit:    http://www.eurathlon2013.eu/information/competition/participants.html

See all the euRathlon 2013 coverage.

Amidst a climate of fiscal austerity and vibrant debates over the growing importance of unmanned vehicles in foreign policy and homeland security, the 2013 AUVSI Unmanned Systems Conference returned to Washington, D.C., last week after hosting the 2012 event in Las Vegas. The event was not without controversy, however, as activist group Code Pink held a demonstration outside the venue and disrupted a keynote address. The show itself was a tale of two storylines as the exhibit hall demonstrated that applications for defense and law enforcement are still the lifeblood of the unmanned systems industry, while the technical program and panel discussions pointed to a growing interest to move into commercial industries. Here’s what you missed:

UAVs as economic drivers

As expected, the Federal government’s booth presence was minimal among the nearly 600 exhibitors compared to previous years due to limited budgets. Interestingly, several states including Ohio, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona were present to promote their economic programs and bids as one of six test sites under the FAA’s UAS integration program. Approved sites will attract unmanned aerial vehicle manufacturers as the FAA begins to open U.S. airspace in 2015. North Dakota Lieutenant Governor Drew Wrigley and U.S. Congressman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) made special visits to the conference to further promote their respective states. States will become increasingly important for manufacturers as Defense procurements slow and commercial markets are opened.

Big and small vendors showcase new platforms

Among exhibitors, the vast majority of platforms continue to be fixed-wing aerial vehicles of various sizes. The big players of General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman showed the latest in drone technology, including a model of Northrop’s X-47B, which just this past July achieved a historic result by autonomously landing on the flight deck of the USS George H.W. Bush. Several quadrotor vendors were also present to market easy-to-use and agile systems for law enforcement. I was particularly impressed by systems from Aeryon Labs and navigation systems from Airware. While last year we were introduced to the unique ground platforms from Boston Dynamics such as the LS3 and RHex, no particular system stole the show this year. It was nice to see iRobot’s RP-VITA out and about with live telepresence demonstrations, however. Among maritime systems, California-based Liquid Robotics brought along “Benjamin Franklin,” recently returned from a Guinness World Record-setting 14,703 km data collection journey across the Pacific Ocean.

Self-driving cars, the future?

But it was the push toward applications in agriculture and self-driving cars that attracted the most attention and excitement among technical program attendees. The automated driving panel featured a lively discussion from panelists Chuck Thorpe, Clarkson University Provost and former Carnegie-Mellon University Robotics Institute head; Virginia Tech researcher Myra Blanco, and consultant Annie Lien. Chief among the discussion topics was the role of states in regulating self-driving cars. While California, Nevada, and others are helping get these vehicles onto roads, this approach will hinder progress and development, according to Ms. Lien. “Safety requirements are normally defined at the federal level,” she noted. Different regulations for each state will eventually create a logistical and legal headache for manufacturers and consumers alike.

Though Google and car manufacturers are making significant progress in developing and testing the necessary technologies for fully autonomous systems, the panelists noted that they are taking very different approaches toward market introductions. Among the four defined levels of autonomous cars, with level 0 being manual and level 4 being full autonomy in unstructured road conditions, panelists suggested Google is aiming directly for level 4 within five years while BMW, Mercedes and others are gradually introducing new features in time-tested industry fashion. For example, some 2014 year models will feature traffic jam assistance that will facilitate self-driving with minimal intervention in stop-and-go situations.

So where will we be by 2020? The panelists seemed to converge on the certainty of level 3 market availability, but with complex socio-technical systems such as transportation, that is still anyone’s guess. Thorpe summed it up fairly well by suggesting it is always more difficult to transform an existing industry than creating a new one. Aside from the technology and safety regulations, we are only now considering the larger societal questions such as urban sprawl: if you could work or sleep while the car autonomously drove during your commute, would you live farther away?