Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!sage.cc.purdue.edu!arh From: arh@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Eric B) Newsgroups: comp.robotics Subject: Re: Micro rovers vs. Stompers Message-ID: <4348@sage.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 9 Jul 90 15:57:40 GMT References: <9792@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <25610@unix.cis.pitt.edu> Distribution: na Organization: Purdue University Lines: 30 In an article bbc@rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) writes: >cmcmanis@stpeter.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes: >> [Can the problem of martian rovers be helped by postulating a >> orbiting powersat, which could beam (eg.) microwaves down to a rover?] >It is more helpful for the satellite to act as a powerful >communication link to earth. Put large antennas, good amplifiers and >ample power onto a geostationary satellite... Consider (for an advanced colony) a network of Motorola polar-orbit communications satellites, similar to what they are planning for earth. Then these micros could carry portable phones... 8-) An argument pro-micro: remember that anything one sends to Mars will be outdated by the time it actually arrives. The Hubble was built with that in mind -- modularity. But on Mars, who will replace the modules? >So, can these small cat-like rovers get back on their feet after a >fall or stumble? Comm : Hello, LifeAlert. Synth Voice : HELP! I've fallen... and I can't get up! Comm : Don't worry micro-34, I'm calling your neighbor and police. Eric G. Bolinger 8-) arh@sage.cc.purdue.edu -- [I have the right to state my opinion as well as you have your right to state your opinion about my opinion.]