🚀 go-pugleaf

[Apologies if this is a repeat post; my news server seems to be flaky today.]

In article <GERRY.93Jan8232211@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) write
s:
>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.  The failure of the Erebus project
                                      ^^^^^^^
Well, it's good to hear someone from CMU calling Erebus something other than
an unqualified success, though I'm not sure I would call it an outright
failure.

>says little to nothing about the one big robot versus multiple robot
>scenario.

Oh, I see.  When a large robot works (like the Ambler) that's evidence in
favor of large robots.  When a large robot fails, it "says little to nothing".

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

The Prophet speaks!  And of course, no other unforseen failures would have
occurred either.

Perhaps if there had been two Dante's, the other one might have made it
further than 6 meters.  And perhaps if there had been 100 of them...

>  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.

Here at JPL we have built and demonstrated numerous robots operating
in field conditions.  We've never been to Antarctica, but we have run our
robots in Death Valley (in August, no less).  That's about as real as it
gets.

I do not want to downplay the achievement of the Dante team.  However,
just because you have been to the South Pole and had your picture on
CNN that does not give you liscence to run roughshod over other people's
work.  Perhaps small robots are the answer, perhaps they are not.  But
they are certainly not, as you often imply, a naive solution which can be
casually dismissed.

Erann Gat
gat@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov