Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cive.ri.cmu.edu!gerry
From: gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Micro rovers vs. Stompers
Message-ID: <9799@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 3 Jul 90 14:36:51 GMT
References: <9792@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <25610@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Distribution: all
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 31

My previous post was not intended to be a definitive treatment
of the small rover.  It WAS intended, however, to get some of
the day-dreamers on the net to sit down with pencil and paper
and start figuring some of these issues out IN DETAIL.  The
issues of power consumption that I raised are only the tip of
the iceberg.  The design of a extra-terrestial robot is an
extremely complex task which involves multiple conflicting
goals.  For some one to sit down for the amount of time it 
takes to write a note for the net and say they have an answer
is quite ludicrous.  I have been intimately involved with both
the JPL Robby and the CMU Ambler and therefore probably have a 
better understanding of the issues than most people.  With this
understanding I have come to beleive that the approaches being
used are probably the best considering the mission objectives,
etc.

Now, a challenge to the micro-rover advocates:  take some time
to carefully plan a mission and a rover to accomplish this 
mission.  You should consider all facets of the mission, robot 
design, telecommunications, etc.  You should refernce manufacturers
data for getting accurate values for what ever parameters you need.
You need not build a protot-type mockup for study.  (Hint:  JPL and
CMU have spent more than a man decade doing this so far...)

gerry

-- 
gerry roston, field robotics center
robotics institute, carnegie mellon university
pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 15213  (412) 268-6557
gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu