Article View: comp.robotics
Article #1759Small vs. Large Rovers (was Re: How to Explore Mars)
From: Brian Yamauchi
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 02:13
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 02:13
48 lines
3170 bytes
3170 bytes
In article <GERRY.93Jan8231255@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes: >The >question of using small robots versus large ones is almost a religious >question. The greatest failing of those proposing small robots is the >naive assumption that using multiple, small robots increases overall >system reliability. This is not true because one can not assume a >priori that the failure modes are independent. That is, if the robots >are identical, and one of them fails in a particulr manner, this >implies that the others will also be prone to that particular failure >mode. I'm impressed with what the Ambler group has accomplished, and very impressed with what the Erebus group accomplished in a very short amount of time. I think they deserve a great deal of credit, despite the unfortunate glitch that ended the test. That having been said, I'll have to come down on the "small rover" side of the debate. (I'll admit to being biased, since I spent a summer working with the JPL microrover group.) The failure modes may not be independent, but at least the failure occurrences are. Suppose there is a 10% chance that a certain failure will render a robot immobile sometime during its lifetime. If you have a single large rover, you have a 10% chance of losing the rover. If you have ten microrovers, you will probably lose one, but you only have a 1% chance of losing all ten of them. The other advantage of multiple rovers is the ability to obtain data from several sites at different locations on the surface of Mars. >From a technical viewpoint, the major drawback to small robots in >telemetry. To transmit a signal from Mars, you need a moderately >large antenna and a bunch of power, if you want reasonable data rates. How about putting a satellite in Mars orbit and using it as a relay between the rovers and Earth? Would that solve this problem? It seems to me that the primary disadvantage with small rovers is their inability to carry large scientific payloads. My opinion is that this disadvantage is outweighed by the advantages above, but I suppose it depends upon one's particular interests in research and exploration. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi Case Western Reserve University yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu Department of Computer Engineering and Science _______________________________________________________________________________
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<YAMAUCHI.93Jan9021313@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!yamauchiReferences:
<HAGERMAN.93Jan7224103@rx7.ece.cmu.edu> <1993Jan8.230824.12476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <GERRY.93Jan8231255@onion.cmu.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!yamauchi From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) Newsgroups: comp.robotics,sci.space Subject: Small vs. Large Rovers (was Re: How to Explore Mars) Date: 9 Jan 93 02:13:13 Organization: Case Western Reserve University Lines: 49 Distribution: world Message-ID: <YAMAUCHI.93Jan9021313@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> References: <HAGERMAN.93Jan7224103@rx7.ece.cmu.edu> <1993Jan8.230824.12476@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <GERRY.93Jan8231255@onion.cmu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu In-reply-to: gerry@cmu.edu's message of 9 Jan 93 04:12:55 GMT