[HN Gopher] Boston Dynamics' Stretch robot can move 800 heavy bo... ___________________________________________________________________ Boston Dynamics' Stretch robot can move 800 heavy boxes per hour Author : pseudolus Score : 89 points Date : 2021-12-29 11:48 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org) (TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org) | andrew_barger wrote: | Seems like this is a competitor to my company's ULTRA Loader: | | https://www.bastiansolutions.com/assets/1/6/ultra_cutsheet_3... | | I work in a different division, so I can't really speak to how | this was developed. But, it's interesting to see the different | design decisions, particularly the decisions to integrate or not | integrate conveyor with the robot itself. | | Our robot is much larger due to the integrated conveyor, but from | what I understand this simplifies navigation. We remain | stationary on the outside of the trailer, so we sidestep the | problem of navigating in an arbitrary trailer. This is a big | challenge according to some of the AGV vendors I've spoken to. | Maybe it comes down to mapping techniques - not my area. | jcims wrote: | Any interesting design or engineering challenges that the HN | crowd might not be aware of (but certainly are willing to opine | on :)? | geijoenr wrote: | Finally Boston Dynamics is releasing a robot that looks like a | regular industrial robot. | | It seems the pressure to generate sales is forcing them to | produce more down to earth products that can be marketed easily. | lp0_on_fire wrote: | I'm curious how this works on the other side of the warehouse - | in shipping. Especially once you start thinking about the games | of tetris that are played when loading the container. Boxes are | often not uniform in dimensions or weight, nor should they be | loaded like they are in the picture if it can be avoided. They | need to be interlocked (assuming non-cubic boxes) so that the | entire load doesn't come crashing down if it shifts. | narrator wrote: | Perhaps we can use the golden hammer of deep learning for this? | Maybe the input layer would be a 3d tensor with a 1 for the of | space taken by each box, or the edge of each box, and a zero | for everything else. The output layer would be a quality score | that would be the result of a simulation of how badly the boxes | were damaged given the truck shifting wildly. Then the model, | when sufficiently trained, could be used by the packer robot to | iterate solutions on the boxes it had for packing to achieve | the best predicted quality score? | b9a2cab5 wrote: | You don't need (unreliable, prone to out of distribution | breakage) deep learning for this. Bin packing is a well known | problem in optimization literature and there are established | algorithms for solving it with bounds on distance to | optimality. | candiodari wrote: | But when it comes to actually controlling the putting of | the boxes in the truck the way the bin packing algorithm | wants, you need deep learning. In case the robot slips a | bit, changing direction a bit, on someone's handkerchief on | the floor or whatever. | b9a2cab5 wrote: | There exist methods to guarantee robustness within a | certain L_p ball on your parameters (in this case the box | positions). I'm sure with only a few hundred boxes they | would be tractable to solve to optimality. | | The actual robotics part is definitely deep learning | though. | Jensson wrote: | > The actual robotics part is definitely deep learning | though. | | Why? Moving machine arms smoothly has been a thing for a | long time. | candiodari wrote: | If you can provide exact coordinates of every box, then | yes, mostly* (including correct guesses of where the box | can be grabbed without ripping it. Of course exact | coordinates are required even when the box is moving. If | it shifts when you're grabbing/lifting/putting it down, | you still have complete the action correctly). Or to put | it more in engineer wording: it's going to be far more | robust to environment changes. | | And I would argue that whilst the machine learning way is | pretty complex it's still simpler than 3d motion planning | of moving robot platforms. And one machine learning | solution can adapt to many robots with just retraining, | without redoing the formulas from scratch. | | * technically on a moving robot platform it hasn't | entirely been solved, but good enough solutions do exist. | Jensson wrote: | Ah, right, image recognition for the boxes. But I don't | think they would use it for moving the arm. | | > And I would argue that whilst the machine learning way | is pretty complex it's still simpler than 3d motion | planning of moving robot platforms. | | On what grounds do you think this? 3d motion planning | isn't complex in these scenarios. | | > And one machine learning solution can adapt to many | robots with just retraining, without redoing the formulas | from scratch. | | You don't redo the formulas from scratch, you just plug | in the specs of the robot and then you have it. | Positioning and moving arm parts is a solved problem. | Redoing machine learning for every arm seems much more | cumbersome. | mattlondon wrote: | The article mentions this - TL;Dr: not yet for the robots due | to planning complexities that you mention. | sb057 wrote: | Speaking from experience, there's two main strategies: | | 1) Diligence, care, time, and luck on the part of the loader, | carefully stacking boxes in such a way to make sure there isn't | any room for the boxes to shift in transit or fall over when | unloading. | | 2) Just throw it all in a big pile and hope nothing breaks. | | Both are roughly equally common. | tomcam wrote: | Yeah, I use UPS too | awofford wrote: | I used to work at a factory that was doing this (loading the | trucks for shipping with a robot). It took much longer to | implement than expected, but eventually worked pretty well. In | the beginning, we would test by driving the loaded truck on a | typical route and then checking the contents. The first few | times were a disaster with boxes thrown all over the trailer. | It was very cool to watch the robot work. | Animats wrote: | That's routinely done by automatic palletizers. Here's a | standalone robotic palletizer for mixed pallets.[1] | | Here's an entire automated distribution center.[2] This is more | traditional automation. Pallets come in, are broken apart, and | items put into storage. Then items are assembled to fill | orders, and stacked on pallets. They even call it "automated | Tetris". They try to stack the items to match a retail store's | planogram, so the people doing shelf restocking usually have | what they need next on top. Objects are lifted from the bottom, | or sometimes grabbed from two sides, so they don't rely on | super-strong cardboard. | | The forklifts that empty and fill trucks with pallets are still | human-driven in that system. Automated forklifts do exist.[3] | They're still rare, though. | | All this gear seems to come from more advanced countries that | don't have an underclass for cheap labor. New Zealand, Germany, | the Scandinavian countries. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMtH19n3CzE | | [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB9T-I7Fh7U | | [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxEEmukZ4R4 | BbzzbB wrote: | I find the introduction video [0] better shows what it does/can | do. So... I guess inserters [1] are a thing, wonder how long | until we get the tech for fast and stack inserters. Glad we | skipped the burners, good strategy as it is such a mess to | reconfigure. | | 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYUuWWnfRsk | | 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLb8TJ6-Z2M | p_l wrote: | On one recent project we had a stacking robot arm we nicknamed | inserter-zilla. | | It was large, powerful (800kg max moved mass), and it killed | few bits of industrial machinery before we patched in enough | interlocks. | Stevvo wrote: | Is it meant to get distracted by dancing with another robot | after 60 seconds of work? | [deleted] | matsemann wrote: | I work with the systems on a warehouse where robot arms similar | to these are doing stacking of boxes. It's not really that | efficient. Using robot arms is the natural improvement when | automating a previously manual step, but rethinking the whole | process instead yields a much bigger boost. | | At least that's what we hope with our new process soon up and | running.. If anything, the new automation process is much simpler | at least, there are sooo much that can go wrong with big robot | arms. They look cool, though, great for recruiting. | AussieWog93 wrote: | >rethinking the whole process instead yields a much bigger | boost. | | Reminds me of a Tom Scott video where he checks out the Ocado | warehouse in the UK: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssZ_8cqfBlE | | It's crazy; they've rethought the entire system to have it | navigable by machine. | ozim wrote: | I have never seen driving robot arm. | | Ones I have seen were always mounted in place. | | If this one can drive around as I understand -"omnidirectional | mobile base"- with a box it is different game from my point of | view. | matsemann wrote: | True. But given the complexity and also safety considerations | for a stationary arm, I'm not envying those having to deal | with a mobile one, heh. | deadmutex wrote: | > but rethinking the whole process instead yields a much bigger | boost. | | This is pretty underrated, IMO. There are some good examples of | Robots being outdated by simpler processes: e.g. the new | process for building Teslas is vastly simpler than having so | many precisely calibrated giant robots joining different parts. | hitekker wrote: | That's quite intriguing to hear. Do you have a link that | offers more details? | ibejoeb wrote: | Similar to Energy Vault and other potential energy storage | schemes. Conceptually it's sound, but the implementation is | weak with respect to real-world constraints. | thamer wrote: | Is this a sponsored article? It reads like an advert, gushing | over this technology with no mention of downsides, limitations, | or competitors. It's all great and perfect and the future is | awesome. | | I believe the term "advertorial" applies pretty well here. | [deleted] | pickler_85930 wrote: | Shameless plug: we are working on solving trailer load and unload | at Pickle Robot and we're hiring rapidly. Feel free to reach out | to me if you'd like to learn more--I really love working at | Pickle and I'm always happy to connect. | | Email: adam at picklerobot dot com | | Jobs: https://www.picklerobot.com/jobs | LeifCarrotson wrote: | I'd love to learn a little more; I'm unlikely to move family | from Michigan to Massachusetts but I'm professionally curious. | | What's your stack like? Are you building your own motion | control gear to run on off-the-shelf manipulators, running ROS, | RoboDK, or similar on commercial arms, or something in the | middle? | | I've got lots of experience with "off-the-shelf" robotic arms | like Fanucs, Densos, and Epsons, as well as experience with | embedded and general-purpose programming languages like C, Lua, | C#, and Python. Achieving reasonable fault tolerance and | flexibility is hard enough in controlled environments of the | automation cells I've built, but I estimate that fully | automated trailer load/unload would be almost completely | intractable without access to a general-purpose programming | language. | | The disparities between the two fields have lead to lots of | frustration with the hamstrung vendor development environments | that either make it impossible to type text at all, or restrict | you to idiosyncratic Basic-but-not that's been chained to a | slow-moving manufacturer since the 80s. It almost makes me want | to throw out the vendor's kinematics and IO to just hook the | servos directly to an EtherCAT bus, or to throw out the robot | controller replace it with a generic CNC controller. Have you | finally done that? Programming robots in Python as you describe | would be blissful in comparison to some of the vendor tooling | I've used! | | The arm in your videos looks a little like the Tormach ZA6 arm | that I've been following; is that the OEM you are using? | pickler_85930 wrote: | Our stack is exclusively Python, which has been working out | beautifully, and we use off the shelf robots from Kuka and | Universal Robots. In my opinion, the vendor kinematics for | these robots is pretty good, and we get nice control over our | motion. | klyrs wrote: | Sounds cool, but I'm only doing remote work going forward. | analognoise wrote: | Same. Remote or bust. | nightshift1 wrote: | They have some videos on their youtube channel: | | https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlL_rsmcRMZd4EgwMU5kHy_pr... | mattfredfry wrote: | Can all boxes be safely picked up by suctioning the top? Seems | like most packaging is designed to be supported from the bottom. | malcolmwhite wrote: | Not all, but enough to make this a viable product. There are a | lot of high volume, low-sku warehouses where each product is | light enough for Stretch's arm. | | As with any robotics project, there are a lot of ways that this | might fail, but my money is not on boxes being too heavy or | flimsy. | ruste wrote: | I don't think this is as much of a constraint as you'd expect. | Imagine you manage to pull 1 psi over a 10x10" patch of box. | That's 100lb of lifting force. If you're worried about whether | the cardboard can handle it spread the area and lower the | pressure more. I don't think 1lb per square inch of cardboard | would be an issue and it looks like they have more surface area | for suction than that. | BugsJustFindMe wrote: | Without bottom support, contents might fall through an | inappropriately supportive box. | | The answer is "no, not all boxes, but yes some boxes". | dijonman2 wrote: | Last time I moved I spent a fortune on double corrugated | boxes. I bought a cardboard stapler and taped it. | | Heavy boxes still needed support from the bottom. | smegsicle wrote: | idk what kind of sci-fi cardboard they're working with, but | here they're picking up boxes from a single side: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYUuWWnfRsk | robocat wrote: | Yeah, it seems like such a terrible constraint. Maybe okay for | loading in a factory where: | | * in a factory the boxes can be changed to suit the robot | (limited by how automated the box loading and top sealing is). | If the boxes need changing then it makes selling the robot far | more difficult. | | * in a factory the contents are of a predictable weight, and | the boxes are predictable sizes | | * in a factory the loads are not mixed | | * the factory doesn't palletise their boxes | | Is there a marketplace where you can bet against the success of | an individual product? Although given than most products fail, | then either (a) the odds are poor e.g. win 10% more than your | stake, or (b) you pay out huge amounts if the product succeeds | (similar to how you can lose a lot of money shorting a stock). | | They talk about a fence around the robot, which is only viable | if the robot needs help very rarely. If the robot needs help a | lot (boxes over 23kg, boxes of unsupported sizes like TVs) | safety issues would quickly arise, and liability kills the | product. | [deleted] | toss1 wrote: | Yes, I wondered that from the first demonstration months ago. | I've got no doubt that sufficient suction can be generated for | the needed lifting forces, but indeed, will the packaging | tolerate it? | | While my shop doesn't do a huge amount of shipping and is not a | big shipper, and most boxes can tolerate it, I can definitely | think of both outgoing and incoming boxes I wouldn't want to | see picked up by the top... . | Kinrany wrote: | They could be stored in small containers. | xfour wrote: | Seems super practical for something that likely is difficult to | create a one-size fits all conveyor. | miki_tyler wrote: | I saw the video and it can move the boxed out, but, can it grab | boxes from the conveyor and pile them inside the container? | amelius wrote: | How useful is this when e.g. opening the boxes takes 10x the | amount of time? Wouldn't it make more sense to first put robots | where the bottleneck is? | daenz wrote: | I'm getting real factorio vibes[0] from this | | 0. https://wiki.factorio.com/Fast_inserter | dukeofdoom wrote: | I thought it was going to be a robot for cleaning toilets . | hellbannedguy wrote: | tyrfing wrote: | It's a little unfair to call this 80% of a solution, but it | pretty much is. | | The demonstrated speed is awful, which is alright in theory since | you can just run more of them in parallel, but it does pose an | issue if it's added to a facility that is running near capacity | and can't put more trailers on doors. | | 50 lb limit is below state of the art (humans), but some | companies have that as a limit. It's ok. | | The real deal breaker is that it seems to be designed solely for | cube volume, and not just any cubes, perfectly regular cubes. The | demo videos also seem to be very light stuff (10-20 lbs?) and | have a lot of impermeable surface like tape, I'd guess that 50 | lbs is only doable under very good circumstances. Maybe even | dusty boxes would be a problem. | | edit: 40-50lbs is plenty for cardboard cubes to warp, flex, start | breaking apart, etc depending on the contents. This happens even | with a human holding onto opposite corners, relying on a single | flat surface just isn't very robust. | | I think grip is the big problem. When a robot can reliably toss | poly bags, strapped printer paper boxes, and tubes, it's going to | get a lot of use. I've seen that sort of stuff for smaller | things, but it seems to be extremely hard to scale up to heavier | weights. | | It's a bit funny, but this is probably 5x as useful in reverse, | loading trailers and pallets. | AaronM wrote: | They say they aren't planning to replace humans, instead of one | human unloading one truck, it will be one human supervising | robots unloading 4 trucks. Sure seems like a replacement to me. | PhileinSophia wrote: | mandeepj wrote: | > unloading one truck | | The Stretch robot (shown in the article) can't unload a truck. | It's not designed to lift itself up and enter a truck. | Although, the other robots from BD (shown in the dancing video) | might be able to do so. | drusepth wrote: | A truck with some mild modifications (a belt on the floor, | for example) could probably queue a full load of | boxes/contents to a reachable position for unloading. Stretch | looks like it's got a pretty tall/long acquisition range. | | Obviously wouldn't work OOTB, but definitely seems doable in | some niche truck modifications (and likely little-to-no | Stretch modifications). | Victerius wrote: | What you're missing is that each human who used to move heavy | boxes will be replaced by 4 robots. | | No business wouldn't want to increase their total productivity. | chillingeffect wrote: | >"Typically, you'll have two people unloading each truck. | Where we want to get with Stretch is to have one person | unloading four or five trucks at the same time, using | Stretches as tools." | | GP is correct. 1 supervisor + 8 robots replaces 8 people. | vinayan3 wrote: | Many people would not want to or can lift boxes all day, like | people with back problems. The robot supervisor job could be | appealing to more people. So it's not replacing but creating a | different job which more people could work. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-30 23:00 UTC)