🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9349@pt.cs.cmu.edu> gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>In article <BBC.90May19164725@sicilia.rice.edu> Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu> writes:
>>My first comment is to notice that both the ASV and the CM Ambler each
>>weigh in at rougly 3 tons.  You'd think that somebody could build
>To answer Ben's question about the weight of the Ambler and its
>suitability to a Mars mission, let me state that the Ambler is 
>designed as a proof of concept testbed and is NOT intended for
>............
>or may not bear much resemblance to the Ambler.

Likewise the ASV. It was designed, implemented, and tested purely as a
proof-of-concept in reponse to a DARPA request. All the usual
arguments in favor of legged locomotion, terrain independence (greater
than wheeled vehicles), less terrain damage etc etc have been found to
be true even with a 3 ton vehicle. So I guess one could say that proof
by existence serves as proof-of-concept.

>As to why the Ambler is soo husky, it has to do with the design
>criteria, the required payload (computing, sensing, power) and
>the ability to withstand certian degenerate situations (such as
>muliple leg failures, failure of the underlying terrain, etc.)

Once again I should emphasize that the ASV has been designed to do all
this, and in fact does it now. Without appearing to pick on the Ambler
I am still curious to know what NEW concepts are being addressed here.
Or is the Ambler purely an engineering exercise? 

>gerry roston, field robotics center
>robotics institute, carnegie mellon university

prabha
--
Prabha Gopinath					(914)-945-6539 (m/c)
Philips Research Laboratories			email: psg@philabs.philips.com
345 Scarborough Road				FAX: (914)-945-6375
Briarcliff Manor,NY 10510