Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!sdcc6!icogsci1!cg108f3
From: cg108f3@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Pete Dapkus)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Micro rovers vs. Stompers
Message-ID: <11723@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 3 Jul 90 23:11:46 GMT
References: <9792@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <838@sagpd1.UUCP>
Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu
Reply-To: cg108f3@icogsci1.ucsd.edu (Pete Dapkus)
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 21


   The stationary motherbase with rechargeable microrovers buys you something
else too.  It would be much easier to send a new batch of micro-rovers either
as replacements or ones with new capabilites (new sensors, tools etc) than
it would be to send a new full size rover if it was damaged or didn't have
the needed equipment.  You wouldn't need to send the mother base again.  Just
put it somewhere safe.  It could even be a start at colonizing mars.  

   And why do the micro-rovers have to be active everyday.  Couldn't they 
recharge with solar arrays while idle for one day and then be active the next
Sure it would slow down the mission, but then you could also have more of them
and you could keep adding more.

 Well?

pete dapkus
cg108f3@icogsci1.ucsd.edu
pdapkus@ucsd.edu