Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The New Robotics Technology Set to Change the Construction Industry

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the building-a-more-robotic-tomorrow dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

Hadrian is not the first large-scale industrial robot that can complete a whole build from start to finish. It's not even the first outdoor construction robot.

What's remarkable is it's both. As Mike told me, "Anything you can build inside a factory ... we're getting really, really good at. Trouble is, nothing's happening outdoors."

That's because environmental factors like wind and temperature variations can make life difficult for robots outdoors.

Most robots can't adjust to small, quick changes in wind or temperature fast enough to keep up.

That's fine if little wobbles won't make a big difference. But when you're working on something as large-scale as building a house and a light breeze could lead to bricks being laid way out of position, it can get very dangerous.

So up till now, any robot building on such large scales had to be indoors in minutely controlled environments.

Hadrian has overcome this problem using the precision technology Dynamic Stabilisation Technology (DST). DST was developed in Perth by Mike's cousin, Mark Pivac, back in the early 2000s. The computer program measures environmental factors an astounding 2000 times per second, then accounts for them in real time.

If robots replace the construction workers, who then will wolf whistle?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The New Robotics Technology Set to Change the Construction Industry | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 128 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:32PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:32PM (#626577)

    If you can automate something, then said automation always makes economic sense; hence, automate as much as possible.

    The fear is what to do with a bunch of people whose existence no longer makes economic sense; the major problem with those people is that they reproduce. I'd suggest paying people not to have children.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:55PM (5 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 23 2018, @03:55PM (#626588) Journal

    If you can automate something, then said automation always makes economic sense

    Patently false. For example, automation doesn't make sense when the equipment costs more than the value you'd get from using the equipment. Why buy a $40 electrical stapler for the occasional bits of paper in your home when a $10 manual stapler does the job without the need for batteries?

    The fear is what to do with a bunch of people whose existence no longer makes economic sense

    Well, don't be an idiot and make the problem worse by going out of your way to automate their usefulness out of existence. I see the people who claim that is a problem on the forefront of making it a problem. When you advocate policies like higher minimum wages, mandatory reduced work weeks, etc, you're part of the problem not part of the solution.

    • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:15PM (1 child)

      by Sulla (5173) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:15PM (#626601) Journal

      I am more concerned about the ability to find an automatic stapler that actually works..\

      --
      Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:39PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:39PM (#626617) Journal
        The thing is, even if we're charitable, and assume the $40 electric stapler works perfectly (we can always spend more for the higher quality staplers, if it doesn't - there is some level of spending for which the staplers will be reliable), we still end up with a costly solution to a simple, occasional need. And what happens when you've dug out that stapler and the batteries need to be replaced (oops, you just ran out of batteries too!) or the AC adapter is lost? Cost of automation is not just money.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:12PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:12PM (#626725)

      Obviously, the assumption is that a certain task is repetitive and without end.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:20PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:20PM (#626728) Journal

        Obviously, the assumption is that a certain task is repetitive and without end.

        Like my stapler example? The problem is not that there is a definite end to the number of papers I'll ever need to staple, but rather than this need doesn't happen frequently enough to justify the expense of the more expensive automated solution.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:08PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:08PM (#626757) Journal
        And we've moving goalposts. Before, it was said "If you can automate something, then said automation always makes economic sense". Now, we see that a certain task has to be repetitive in some way. As my stapler example indicates, tasks can be repetitive and still not be repetitive at a high enough frequency to justify even modest levels of automation.