Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!arizona!tucson!bill
From: bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: CM Ambler Rover
Summary: Why only big machines?
Message-ID: <56@tucson.sie.arizona.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 90 00:46:58 GMT
References: <3708@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> <95816@philabs.Philips.Com> <18280@well.sf.ca.us>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Arizona SIE Dept., Tucson
Lines: 22

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