What’s holding us back on exo skeletons anyway? The idea shave been around for decades?
I’d guess power sources? Small enough actuators? Or is it just really difficult for a human to control?
I’d guess power sources? Small enough actuators? Or is it just really difficult for a human to control?
Excavators can do amazing things in the hands of a skilled operator. They have interchangeable tools and they come in a wide range of sizes. Maybe the small ones feel more like exoskeletons than the big ones. Some even have the operator in a standing position. The smallest Bobcat (technically a "loader" instead of an "excavator") is little more than a cage on wheels with one big arm: https://www.bobcat.com/na/en/equipment/loaders/skid-steer-lo...
I guess what you're really missing to make this feel like a scifi exoskeleton is two arms, more degrees of freedom per arm, a much more capable "hand", way more speed in all of the actuators, and a more 1:1 control style with some kind of touch sensitivity/force feedback. All of that would make these things way more expensive, complex, and most importantly, fragile. Durability and ease of maintenance is a huge consideration for practical work.
Last month I watched a guy in one of these accidentally smash his jackhammer attachment on a low overhang and sever the hydraulic hoses, spraying hydraulic fluid everywhere. I can only imagine that this kind of thing happens all the time. If that was a 20 DOF robot hand with touch sensors instead of a 1 DOF dumb jackhammer attachment, it could easily have been damaged beyond repair.
I read once about a Japanese exosuit powered by compressed air. The market they were targeting was elder care. Using compressed air meant you could assist/lift elderly people around water without worry.
Maybe when it's mass produced in the millions like cars it will be more affordable.
For paraplegic wheelchair users, for example, you need an exoskeleton that fully replaces the functions of the legs: structure, balance, movement. That's much more complicated and much bigger. And the tech isn't there for consumer use, we're just starting to get there with Atlas.
Beyond that you've got many wheelchair-binding disabilities that present unique challenges and require functionalities that are somewhere in between the two exos described above. A lot of wheelchair users who retain their ability to move their legs simply use braces to enhance their structural integrity and crutches for balance, but couldn't use a powered exoskeleton due to the injuries it might cause from sudden movements or ranges of motion that aren't adapted to their limitations.
National parks have transitioned from trying to attract people to the outdoors to now trying to minimise their impact on the environment, so I assume they'd be reluctant to upgrade non-accessible trails like that. Smaller parks might have smaller budgets.
Then add risks on steep or exposed trails. My father in law is in a wheelchair (MS) and bumps/scraps doorways in our house. Move that to a trail on a slope and it would be very dangerous.
Probably beyond the reach of current technology, and impractically expensive for the time being. But in the long run, I can imagine that the cost of giving every wheelchair user something like this might be cheaper than the cost of making buildings accessible. Most relevant for newly built cities I guess. Basically run the numbers on the cost of providing exoskeletons vs the cost of making everything ramp-accessible and providing accessible transport. The exoskeleton could sprint over to your house when you summoned it ;-) Possible disadvantage: shortage of exoskeletons during city festivals when everyone wants to go out and there are lots of out-of-town visitors?
Answer, not enough to be profitable.
In military, passive exoskeletons are more useful than powered ones. They are just fancy springs to rebalance and lighten the load on soldiers.
For medical purposes, exoskeletons are used for thousands of years. They are probably not what you'd call an exoskeleton, though. A basic example is a splint.