🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GERRY.93Jan8232211@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)  
writes:
>The Erebus project was probably the single most ambitious robotic
>undertaking ever attempted.  To have accomplished what the Erebus team
>did was a minor miracle itself.

References?  I can think of several dozen more ambitious robotic undertakings  
that were attempted _and_ succeeded, but of course that's just my opinion.  And  
though I respect the accomplishments of Red Whitaker and his team, I'm pretty  
sure he wouldn't call the Dante project a "minor miracle."

>The failure of the Erebus project.....

But I thought the project was an "[sic] Unqualified Success"?  Or was that the  
telerobotic portion?  (Which, by the way, we've been doing routinely for years  
with basically off-the-shelf technology).

>Had the project been less ambitious, i.e., had there been
>more time available, the problems that beset the mission would never
>have occured.

Speaking as someone who has had (too much) experience with fiber optic tether  
failures, I have a hard time believing this statement.  Do you mean more time  
available to prepare for the expedition, or more time on the ice?  Or were  
there other problems of which I'm unaware?  Perhaps you could elucidate? 

>It's well and good for people sitting in their snug
>offices running robotic simulations to make snide comments, but they
>should actually try to develop a real system and see what happens.

I happen to occasionally run simulations in my snug office, and actually look  
forward to it after a month at sea.  Of course, though simulations are valuable  
(didn't the development team simulate Dante before building it?), they should  
be followed by experimentation.  However, you and I are fortunate:  not  
everyone can work in laboratories with multi-million dollar research budgets.

--
Nathan Ulrich
Deep Submergence Laboratory
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
ulrich@canberra.whoi.edu