psg@wolfman.Philips.Com (Prabha Gopinath) (05/23/90)
In article <9349@pt.cs.cmu.edu> gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >In article <BBC.90May19164725@sicilia.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: >>My first comment is to notice that both the ASV and the CM Ambler each >>weigh in at rougly 3 tons. You'd think that somebody could build >To answer Ben's question about the weight of the Ambler and its >suitability to a Mars mission, let me state that the Ambler is >designed as a proof of concept testbed and is NOT intended for >............ >or may not bear much resemblance to the Ambler. Likewise the ASV. It was designed, implemented, and tested purely as a proof-of-concept in reponse to a DARPA request. All the usual arguments in favor of legged locomotion, terrain independence (greater than wheeled vehicles), less terrain damage etc etc have been found to be true even with a 3 ton vehicle. So I guess one could say that proof by existence serves as proof-of-concept. >As to why the Ambler is soo husky, it has to do with the design >criteria, the required payload (computing, sensing, power) and >the ability to withstand certian degenerate situations (such as >muliple leg failures, failure of the underlying terrain, etc.) Once again I should emphasize that the ASV has been designed to do all this, and in fact does it now. Without appearing to pick on the Ambler I am still curious to know what NEW concepts are being addressed here. Or is the Ambler purely an engineering exercise? >gerry roston, field robotics center >robotics institute, carnegie mellon university prabha -- Prabha Gopinath (914)-945-6539 (m/c) Philips Research Laboratories email: psg@philabs.philips.com 345 Scarborough Road FAX: (914)-945-6375 Briarcliff Manor,NY 10510
mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) (05/31/90)
In article <BBC.90May19164725@sicilia.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: >My first comment is to notice that both the ASV and the CM Ambler each >weigh in at rougly 3 tons. You'd think that somebody could build >something a little more, ah, nimble. ... Brooks at MIT seems to have a reasonable solution. They've built a 6 legged walker which uses a simple Algorithmic State Machine network as the control (simulated in a single 8bit 68HC11 processor). The thing they built is the size of a cat but walks and thinks very much the way any 6 legged bio-critter does. Modifications to the network make it capable of handling any rough terrain. The talk I saw said that the work was being done for inter-stellar rovers, and a 8bit uP is certainly more robust and compact than the multiple high-speed 68020 systems used in the ADF and the Ambler (hence their size? Not the only consideration I know, but it seems people keep on trying to push AI languages onto their machines. Whatever happened to heuristic systems, by God?). Brooks is more interested in making small machines, not moon-stompers. Anybody know why this work is not in the running for space exploration? Is all. -- Mark Tilden: _-_-_-__--__--_ /(glitch!) M.F.C.F Hardware Design Lab. -_-___ | \ /\/ U of Waterloo. Ont. Can, N2L-3G1 |__-_-_-| \/ (519) - 885 - 1211 ext.2454, "MY OPINIONS, YOU HEAR!? MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!"
jackm@agcsun.UUCP (Jack Morrison) (06/01/90)
In article <1990May30.... M.W.Tilden writes: >Brooks at MIT seems to have a reasonable solution. They've built a >6 legged walker which uses a simple Algorithmic State Machine network >as the control (simulated in a single 8bit 68HC11 processor). The . . . >the work was being done for inter-stellar rovers, and a 8bit uP is >certainly more robust and compact than the multiple high-speed 68020 >systems . . . > >Anybody know why this work is not in the running for space exploration? > I know a high-school student that built a 6-legged walking robot (about 3 feet long) run entirely from a dozen or so switches on a remote panel. No computer at all! (so there :-) Not that it would walk on its own... The idea of several "small, fast, and stupid" rovers instead of one lunking monster certainly has merit, and I believe such concepts *are* in the running (walking?). They may not get as much press, maybe because prototypes tend to look like consumer toys instead of real space hardware. -- "How am I typing? Call 1-303-279-1300" Jack C. Morrison Ampex Video Systems 581 Conference Place, Golden CO 80439
nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) (06/01/90)
In article <1990May30.182249.22352@watmath.waterloo.edu> mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) writes: >In article <BBC.90May19164725@sicilia.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: >Brooks at MIT seems to have a reasonable solution. They've built a >6 legged walker which uses a simple Algorithmic State Machine network >as the control (simulated in a single 8bit 68HC11 processor). The >thing they built is the size of a cat but walks and thinks very >much the way any 6 legged bio-critter does. The last above is an assumption probably not justified by the facts. But see "A Biological Perspective on Autonomous Agent Design", by Beer, Cheil, and Sterling, at CWRU, Cleveland, OH. (which may have appeared in print by now; I have a copy I got at MIT.) These people have a six-legged walking simulator which is based on an explicitly biological neural model. The model Brooks uses isn't particularly representative of any specific biological model. Patty Maes has a technique by which Brooks' machine is made to learn to walk, but her approach isn't something one would expect from a biological system either. (It may be better; it learns to walk in a minute or so.) Actually, Brooks' machine uses multiple M68HC11 processors, connected by what the papers call "a token ring" implemented with the chip's Serial Peripheral Interface port. There's no central control, but everybody gets broadcast info on what everybody else is doing, so if you run the same control algorithm on each processor but use different outputs on each one, they all come into agreement. >Brooks is more interested in making small machines, not moon-stompers. >Anybody know why this work is not in the running for space exploration? Because he sees his machines as being much more useful than those one-of-a-kind space exploration machines. John Nagle
monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) (06/01/90)
Does anyone remember a six-legged cyndrical robot that was called I think OMNIBOT. The thing could squat down to go under obstacles, was strong enough to pick up a pickup (at least lift the rear wheels off the ground) and agile enough to climb into said pickup. I used to get Robotics magizine before it turned into an "automated arm rag" and they ran an article about it a couple of years ago. If any one knows what happened to it please post. If I remember correcttly it was built somewhere around San Jose/San Francisco. Monty Saine
bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe) (06/03/90)
In article <18280@well.sf.ca.us#, nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes: # In article <1990May30.182249.22352@watmath.waterloo.edu> mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) writes: # #In article <BBC.90May19164725@sicilia.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: # #Brooks at MIT seems to have a reasonable solution. They've built a # #6 legged walker which uses a simple Algorithmic State Machine network . . . # #Brooks is more interested in making small machines, not moon-stompers. # #Anybody know why this work is not in the running for space exploration? # # Because he sees his machines as being much more useful than those # one-of-a-kind space exploration machines. # # John Nagle Why is the assumption almost automatic that space exploration machines have to be only one-of-a-kind, gold-plated behemoths? -- Of course! I don't speak| William H. Ganoe bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu for my employer -- or | Systems & Industrial Engr. Dept, Univ. of Arizona for anyone else. | Tucson, AZ 85721; USA
mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) (06/04/90)
In article <18280@well.sf.ca.us> nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes: >In article <1990May30.182249.22352@watmath.waterloo.edu> mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) writes: >>In article <BBC.90May19164725@sicilia.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: >>Brooks at MIT seems to have a reasonable solution. They've built a >>6 legged walker which uses a simple Algorithmic State Machine network >>as the control (simulated in a single 8bit 68HC11 processor). The >>thing they built is the size of a cat but walks and thinks very >>much the way any 6 legged bio-critter does. > > The last above is an assumption probably not justified by the >facts. But see "A Biological Perspective on Autonomous Agent Design", >by Beer, Cheil, and Sterling, at CWRU, Cleveland, OH. (which may have >appeared in print by now; I have a copy I got at MIT.) These people >have a six-legged walking simulator which is based on an explicitly >biological neural model. The model Brooks uses isn't particularly >representative of any specific biological model. Patty Maes has a >technique by which Brooks' machine is made to learn to walk, but her >approach isn't something one would expect from a biological system >either. (It may be better; it learns to walk in a minute or so.) Sorry if I brought that idea across, but if you saw the evolutional stages of this device dragging it's bum in an attempt to climb over a telephone book, then you would be immediately reminded of a kitten trying to climb stairs. The similarity was so strong I burst out laughing during the one lecture I attended. I was not alone. The flyer I have from that speech given by Brooks sez "rather, like children or dogs, they do what is in their nature (...determined by [LEPROM programming] ...residing inboard...)" Brooks made no further biological references. My talks to Biochemists and Biologists however seemed to give me the idea that "yeah, that's pretty close to the mark. Needs heuristics however." It makes me wonder though if, as fractal mountians resemble real ones even though formed by completely different processes (recursion/ erosion), can complex biological behaviours be successfully mimicked by very simple FSM (Finite State Machine) interconnections? Brooks technique is to bundle his beasts with sensors and have all of them contribute to the creatures reactions. The creature has no memory of what it has done, only reactions to what is happening now. However, his creatures do not learn from their mistakes, their programmers do. I asked him why he had not thought of building a learning ability into his critters and he said "Not necessary. The turn around time for programming [the walker] is far faster than any I've seen for similar devices. More effective too." Good enough for me. I've already got a bitty-critter made which I'm going to attempt operation using the same technique. I'll post results. For those who may be looking for references, the mans name is Rodney A. Brooks of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab. If anybody has exact references to papers on this topic, a post would be appreciated. Is all. -- Mark Tilden: _-_-_-__--__--_ /(glitch!) M.F.C.F Hardware Design Lab. -_-___ | \ /\/ U of Waterloo. Ont. Can, N2L-3G1 |__-_-_-| \/ (519) - 885 - 1211 ext.2454, "MY OPINIONS, YOU HEAR!? MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!"
cesmith@micro-ix.UUCP (cesmith) (06/06/90)
In article <1990May30.182249.22352@watmath.waterloo.edu>, mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) writes: > In article <BBC.90May19164725@sicilia.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes: > >My first comment is to notice that both the ASV and the CM Ambler each > >weigh in at rougly 3 tons. You'd think that somebody could build > >something a little more, ah, nimble. ... > > Brooks at MIT seems to have a reasonable solution. They've built a > 6 legged walker which uses a simple Algorithmic State Machine network > as the control (simulated in a single 8bit 68HC11 processor). ... [stuff deleted] > Brooks is more interested in making small machines, not moon-stompers. > Anybody know why this work is not in the running for space exploration? There is an interesting article in the 25 May 1990 issue of "Science" on page 959 which discusses Brooks' work and the possibility of using his machines for planetary exploration among other things.
hmp@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Henning Pangels) (06/06/90)
Aside from everything else that's been said regarding size, one advantage of a large exploration robot is that it supports some serious scientific experiments. Core-boring, cutting/splitting of rocks, or simply picking up objects that are of the size of a football have all been mentioned as desirable capabilities. Remember, the objective is a sample-return mission, so just running around the surface of the planet and transmitting pictures isn't quite good enough. Even retrieving a bunch of small rocks and dust samples doesn't tell the whole story. -- Henning Pangels Research Programmer Field Robotics Center ARPAnet/Internet: hmp@cive.ri.cmu.edu Robotics Institute (412) 268-7088 Carnegie-Mellon University
jrv@demon.siemens.com (James R Vallino) (06/06/90)
In article <1990Jun4.160147.24319@watmath.waterloo.edu> mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (M.W.Tilden, Hardware) writes: >For those who may be looking for references, the mans name is >Rodney A. Brooks of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab. If anybody >has exact references to papers on this topic, a post would be appreciated. C. Angle, "Genghis, A six legged autonomous walking robot," MIT S.B. Thesis in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, March 1989. R. Brooks, "A Robust Layered Control System for a Mobile Robot," IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, vol. RA-2, pp. 14-23, April 1986. R. Brooks, "A Robot that Walks: Emergent Behavior from a Carefully Evolved Network," Neural Computation, 1:2, Summer 1989. R. Brooks and J. Connell, "Asynchronous distributed control system for a mobile robot," in Proc. 1986 SPIE Conference on Mobile Robots, pp. 77-84. R. Brooks, J. Connell, and A. Flynn, "A mobile robot with on-board parallel processor and large workspace arm," in Proc. AAAI-86, pp. 1096-1100, 1986. R. Brooks, J. Connell, and P. Ning, "Herbert: A second generation mobile robot," MIT AI Lab. Tech. Report AIM-1016, Cambridge MA, 1987. J. Connell, "A behavior-based arm controller," IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation, vol. 5, pp. 784-791, Decmeber 1989. P. Maes, "The Dynamics of Action Selection," AAAI Spring Symposium on AI Limited Rationality, IJCAI, Detroit MI, pp. 991-997, 1989. Brooks April 1986 paper is the seminal work which describes his subsumption architecture. The other papers describe a whole range of mobile robots (mobots) which they have running around in their lab. Maes paper describes the extensions which she has developed to add learning capabilities to the subsumption architecture. -- Jim Vallino Siemens Corporate Research, Inc., Princeton, NJ jrv@demon.siemens.com princeton!siemens!demon!jrv (609) 734-3331
cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (06/07/90)
In article <9547@pt.cs.cmu.edu> hmp@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Henning Pangels) writes: >... Remember, the objective is a sample-return mission, >so just running around the surface of the planet and transmitting pictures >isn't quite good enough. Even retrieving a bunch of small rocks and dust >samples doesn't tell the whole story. Has any work been done on cooperative minibots? It would seem that half a dozen mini rovers could get together and bring a particularly interesting rock back to a collection site of reasonable size (football sized). However this would require a slightly more complex algorithim on the part of the rovers to the extent that there would be a "I've got something neat, come help" type of transmission that would alter the nearby rovers programming to come help it. On a different subject entirely, a couple of companies have been developing and are now bringing to market samples of programmable logic devices that are essentially "RAM" programmed, ie that can be changed easily in place. Has anyone done any work on self configuring or self repairing sensor/interface studies based on this? Is this a reasonable thesis topic? Enquiring minds want to know! -- --Chuck McManis Sun Microsystems uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: <none> Internet: cmcmanis@Eng.Sun.COM These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you. "I tell you this parrot is bleeding deceased!"
bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe) (06/27/90)
In article <8485@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, kandt@ai-jupiter.JPL.NASA.GOV (Kirk Kandt) writes: > . > . > . > "exploration". BTW, why are the "moon stompers" less useful than small > machines? I don't think the issue is "moon stompers" vs. small machines. I think it is more a matter that NASA seems to lean toward big, single-shot missions with no consideration of the potential advantages of missions involving multiple copies of small machines. Certainly there are tasks that little machines can't handle, but they still might prove very valuable for reconnoitering the area around a landing site. Each mini-rover could carry one, or a few, sensor(s), and a swarm of "insects" can certainly provide mission robustness that we just couldn't afford with a big "stomper" that tried to be all things to all people. Conceivably, they could even be used to collect material for sample return missions, although individual samples would be smaller than a stomper might be able to handle. The small machine approach also allows for the possibility of multiple launches for a single "mission". While our space program has a better reliability record than the Soviets', the FOBOS mission should serve as a reminder of what can happen. (Even the doubly redundant FOBOS ended in almost complete mission failure.) If you can afford to lose some of your mission's components without endangering the entire mission (obviously more of a problem with rovers than with the static landers of past missions) you don't have to spend many years and mega(giga?)-bucks designing, building, and testing the most failure-resistant system possible. You can devote more of your time to getting and analysing interesting data. Granted, the micro-rover approach wasn't even feasible until we could miniaturize the sensors, control and communications hardware sufficiently (and people started work on mini-rovers themselves), but it would be encouraging to hear about more serious consideration of mini-rover approach to lunar and planetary exploration. -- What? Me speak for my | William H. Ganoe bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu employer? | Systems & Industrial Engr. Dept, Univ. of Arizona | Tucson, AZ 85721; USA
gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) (06/27/90)
The reason that the CMU Ambler and JPL's Robby is as large as they are is to meet a variety of mission objectives. These include such things as covering a certain amount of terrain in a given time, being able to perform meaningful scientific experiments, such as taking core samples from rocks. In addition, since the proposed mission is a sample and return mission, the vehicle must be able to carry a cargo of Martian samples without adversely affecting its mobility. These reasons seem to preclude small rovers. -- gerry roston, field robotics center robotics institute, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213 (412) 268-6557 gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu
pkenny@ADS.COM (Patrick Kenny) (06/28/90)
In article <72@tucson.sie.arizona.edu> bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe) writes: >In article <8485@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, kandt@ai-jupiter.JPL.NASA.GOV (Kirk Kandt) writes: >> . >> . >> . >> "exploration". BTW, why are the "moon stompers" less useful than small >> machines? > > > . > . > . > Certainly there are tasks that little machines can't handle, but they >still might prove very valuable for reconnoitering the area around >a landing site. Each mini-rover could carry one, or a few, sensor(s), >and a swarm of "insects" can certainly provide mission robustness that >we just couldn't afford with a big "stomper" that tried to be all >things to all people. Conceivably, they could even be used to collect >material for sample return missions, although individual samples would >be smaller than a stomper might be able to handle. What would you consider to be a small machine? Something 6 feet long and 3 feet high is not very small. If it was any smaller I don't think it would be very useful, it would have a hard time climbing over rocks and sand. Most of the room would be taken up with drive mechanics and computer hardware. This is if you consider it to be a stand alone machine. A good idea would be to use robots that act as long range sensors for the large robot. They would attach to the underside of the large robot, it would pick them up and store them. They would only have to be about 2 feet long and would be in constant contact, by radio, with the large machine. So they don't just wander away. If the large robot saw an object with it's camera, which would be about 12 feet in the air I presume. It could dispatch a small droid to investigate and relay pictures or get a sample of the object. This way the large robot could stay on it's course without running here and there and getting into possible danger. I think every machine has it's place. -pk -- ___________________________________________________ Patrick Kenny pkenny@ads.com | Purpose: To DownLoad and at Advanced Decision Systems 1500 Plymouth Street | last be free of the confines Mountain View, CA 94043 | of a shelled body.
kandt@ai-jupiter.JPL.NASA.GOV (Kirk Kandt) (06/29/90)
In article <72@tucson.sie.arizona.edu>, bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe) writes: ... <deleted> ... |> Granted, the micro-rover approach wasn't even feasible until we could |> miniaturize the sensors, control and communications hardware sufficiently |> (and people started work on mini-rovers themselves), but it would be |> encouraging to hear about more serious consideration of mini-rover |> approach to lunar and planetary exploration. |> -- A long time ago when I worked in computer vision at Hughes Research Labs we had a project funded by Army/DARPA for autonomous vehicles. This was before the Strategic Computing Project. The biggest technological problem that we had was to prevent the vehicle from falling into bomb craters, and if it did to get it out. In real-world environments a vision system will fail (on occasion) to detect such hazards. In such a case, the vehicle must understand what occured and rely on mechanical means to get out. We found a millipede-like object (on wheels) that could climb loading docks. This platform was large (about 12 feet) which gave it the ability to get out. So, if a mini-rover happens to fall into a moon crater, for example, how does it get out?
bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe) (06/29/90)
In article <!RJ$MS|@ads.com>, pkenny@ADS.COM (Patrick Kenny) writes: > In article <72@tucson.sie.arizona.edu> bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe) writes: > > . > > Certainly there are tasks that little machines can't handle, but they > >still might prove very valuable for reconnoitering the area around > >a landing site. Each mini-rover could carry one, or a few, sensor(s), > >and a swarm of "insects" can certainly provide mission robustness that > >we just couldn't afford with a big "stomper" that tried to be all > >things to all people. Conceivably, they could even be used to collect > >material for sample return missions, although individual samples would > >be smaller than a stomper might be able to handle. > > What would you consider to be a small machine? > Something 6 feet long and 3 feet high is not very small. > If it was any smaller I don't think it would be very useful, > it would have a hard time climbing over rocks and sand. > Most of the room would be taken up with drive mechanics and > computer hardware. This is if you consider it to be a stand alone > machine. > A good idea would be to use robots that act as long range > sensors for the large robot. They would attach to the underside > of the large robot, it would pick them up and store them. > They would only have to be about 2 feet long and would be in > constant contact, by radio, with the large machine. So they don't > just wander away. If the large robot saw an object with it's > camera, which would be about 12 feet in the air I presume. > It could dispatch a small droid to investigate and relay pictures > or get a sample of the object. This way the large robot could > stay on it's course without running here and there and getting into > possible danger. > I think every machine has it's place. Size is not well defined here, and I suspect that it may stay sort of flexible for a while yet. I would consider "6 feet long and 3 feet high" to be "not very small" either. Brooks has mentioned things like "3-kilogram Mars rovers", but I don't remember exact linear dimensions for the rovers that his group at MIT is currently working with. (It's definitely less than 6' x 3' though.) While something smaller might have trouble climbing over large rocks, I don't see that it should have much trouble with sand (at least relatively normal sand). The approach that Brooks is taking is to have the mini-rovers back off (or pick themselves up) and try again if they run into trouble getting over some obstacle. There might be a problem with sufficiently large solar cell arrays on very small rovers, but mini-rovers will certainly have lower power requirements than their much larger cousins. Your proposal for mini-rovers to support the mission of a larger "stomper" seems quite useful, and, perhaps, more realistic in the near term, but dependence on one (maybe a few) large rovers (and probably one launch vehicle) makes the overall mission less robust. But that is still pretty superficial. I generally agree with you that every machine has it's place. The summary to my posting said "small is beautiful -- maybe", and I noted that the issue wasn't so much big vs. little, but the perception that NASA has always seemed to go for the big "stomper" approach to space missions. -- What? Me speak for my | William H. Ganoe bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu employer? | Systems & Industrial Engr. Dept, Univ. of Arizona | Tucson, AZ 85721; USA
bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe) (06/29/90)
In article <8528@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, kandt@ai-jupiter.JPL.NASA.GOV (Kirk Kandt) writes: > A long time ago when I worked in computer vision at Hughes Research Labs > we had a project funded by Army/DARPA for autonomous vehicles. This was > before the Strategic Computing Project. The biggest technological > problem that we had was to prevent the vehicle from falling into bomb > craters, and if it did to get it out. In real-world environments a > vision system will fail (on occasion) to detect such hazards. In such a > case, the vehicle must understand what occured and rely on mechanical > means to get out. We found a millipede-like object (on wheels) that > could climb loading docks. This platform was large (about 12 feet) > which gave it the ability to get out. So, if a mini-rover happens to > fall into a moon crater, for example, how does it get out? The basic idea here is that if a mini-rover (or micro-rover) falls in a crater or whatever: (1) it will be small enough that it will be less susceptible to serious damage than a larger "moon stomper", and (2) it will try to get out of the crater more or less like a roach or other insect would try to get out of, say, a toilet bowl here. Granted, it would probably need a bit more intelligence than the current crop of MIT mini-rovers, but it won't require the computing power of older rovers -- that are supposed to understand a good bit about their surroundings. If the simple-minded approach doesn't work, the mini-rover will (in theory) be cheap enough that many could be send on an exploratory mission, and it could be left behind without making a serious dent in the mission budget -- or seriously endangering the overall mission goals. -- What? Me speak for my | William H. Ganoe bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu employer? | Systems & Industrial Engr. Dept, Univ. of Arizona | Tucson, AZ 85721; USA
jrv@demon.siemens.com (James R Vallino) (07/02/90)
In article <73@tucson.sie.arizona.edu> bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe) writes: >Size is not well defined here, and I suspect that it may stay >sort of flexible for a while yet. I would consider "6 feet long and 3 feet >high" to be "not very small" either. Brooks has mentioned things like >"3-kilogram Mars rovers", but I don't remember exact linear dimensions >for the rovers that his group at MIT is currently working with. (It's >definitely less than 6' x 3' though.) The first walker that Brooks and his people built is about 13" long with a leg span of 10". The next generation which is currently being developed will be 14" long by 12" wide. -- Jim Vallino Siemens Corporate Research, Inc., Princeton, NJ jrv@demon.siemens.com princeton!siemens!demon!jrv (609) 734-3331
jrv@demon.siemens.com (James R Vallino) (07/02/90)
In article <74@tucson.sie.arizona.edu> bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe) writes: >The basic idea here is that if a mini-rover (or micro-rover) falls in >a crater or whatever: (1) it will be small enough that it will be less >susceptible to serious damage than a larger "moon stomper", and (2) it >will try to get out of the crater more or less like a roach or other >insect would try to get out of, say, a toilet bowl here. And when the rover detects that it is stuck it can begin emitting a signal which the other mini-rovers can interpret either as a call for help or a warning to stay away. -- Jim Vallino Siemens Corporate Research, Inc., Princeton, NJ jrv@demon.siemens.com princeton!siemens!demon!jrv (609) 734-3331