HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graves@arabia.uucp (Phil Graves)
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Distribution: comp
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:01:47 GMT

>hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman) writes:
>: There has been some discussion about the tradeoffs between using one
>: large robot and many small robots for planetary exploration.  Has the
>: Erebus experiment changed the opinion of anyone here?

In article <1993Jan10.131539.21053@n1gva> fcf@n1gva (F. C. Floberg) writes:
>I wonder about 'blending' the two philosiphies... Imagine that you had
>one large, agile, and reasonably intelligent robot, and say, six or so
>smaller less sophisticated ones all linked together via some sort of
>network (on a radio link maybe?).

You have "hit the nail on the head". Each type of robotic system has
both advantages and disadvantages which might satisfy some mission
requirements but not others. This is an intelligent compromise.

Two years ago, I worked at the Space Exploration Initiative Planet 
Surface Systems office and performed feasibility studies about the 
kinds of robotic systems which were proposed for the Mars missions.
I had no vested interest in any specific technology, and was amased
when the technology brokers came racing out of the research centers 
and universities, trying to convince NASA to consider their robotic
systems. As you would expect, all of the systems we considered met 
some of the requirements, but no single system could meet all of the 
requirements. It makes sense to have several different robotic 
systems. 

The idea of multiple specialized robotic systems for Lunar/Mars
exploration is supported by two general guidelines: 1) decoupling,
so that if one system performing one part of the mission fails, it
does not prevent other systems from completing other mission goals,
and 2) redundancy, so that if one system fails, another systems can 
take its place.

Oh! I forgot about the fact that we need a really big budget, and a
launch vehicle capable of getting all this equipment there. Maybe
we can live with just one tiny robot ... 
:)


-- 
**************************************************************
Philip Lee Graves, Lockheed-ESC, Houston, TX        
graves@arabia.jsc.nasa.gov 
**************************************************************
From: nivek@cs.cmu.edu (Kevin Dowling)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: CMU tech report (real citation)
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:24:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0E059.J03.2
Reply-To: nivek@cs.cmu.edu
Organization: Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon

The paper I mentioned in my last post was presented at a conference:

Wallace et al, First Results in Robot Road Following" 
Proceedings International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
(IJCAI), Los Angeles, CA 1985

This should be available in most univiersity libraries.

					nivek

---

aka: Kevin Dowling			Carnegie Mellon University
tel: (412) 268-8830			The Robotics Institute
adr: nivek@ri.cmu.edu			Pittsburgh, PA 15213
From: sal@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Marcos Salganicoff)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:28:08 GMT
Organization: GRASP Lab, University of Pennsylvania

In article <1993Jan9.181135.21304@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>       When we have lots of mobile robots working reliably on Earth, modifying
>one for planetary exploration will be a straightforward job.  But why
>waste the research resources working on a low-volume low-payoff application
>like Mars exploration?

Yes, but if  you get  terrestrial locomotion, manipulation, perception
and navigation  down pat,  that  has  benefits  not just for Martian
exploration. You will coincendentally  have many subtasks mastered
which  are  needed  for roving  around  unhappy nuclear power  plants,
buildings on fire, and chemical  waste dumps like Hanford, to name but
a few terrestrial scenarios (and large markets).

Marcos Salganicoff
GRASP LAB
UPENN
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: How to Explore Mars
Date: 8 Jan 93 03:41:03 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

So, my subject line got you to read at least this far :-]

There has been some discussion about the tradeoffs between using one
large robot and many small robots for planetary exploration.  Has the
Erebus experiment changed the opinion of anyone here?  I don't want to
restrict attention to the specific results; for example, I don't think
we learned anything new about fault tolerance.  Rather, I'm hoping for
new thoughts engendered by considering the experiment in general.  In
my mind, for example, the experiment supports large robots for such
use since a fairly standard large robot design could be fairly easily
modified to conceivably navigate the volcano, and it seems less likely
that the same would hold for small robots.  Any other thoughts?

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: lavoie@bombardier.ireq-robot (Eric Lavoie)
Subject: Re: Where to get LEGO gears?
Reply-To: lavoie@bombardier.ireq-robot
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:54:03 GMT

In article 18037@news.media.mit.edu, fredm@media.mit.edu (Fred G Martin) writes:

> For everyone's info:  the USA number for LEGO Dacta (the educational
> division of LEGO that sells LEGO Technic direct) is (800) 527-8339.
> I'm sorry but I don't have a normal phone number for international
> access, but their mailing address is:  555 Taylor Road, P.O. Box 1600;
> Enfield, CT 06083-1600.
> 
> 	- Fred



Does anybody have the phone number (an 800 line if possible) for LEGO Dacta in Canada or maybe worlwide.

Thanks in advance


---
Eric Lavoie				elavoie@ireq-robot.hydro.qc.ca
Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec	elavoie@ireq-robot.uucp
Varennes, QC, Canada   J3X 1S1
+1 514 652-8011
From: cb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Chris Beasley)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Greg Kulosa RSVP
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:12:39 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Greg, are you getting my Email?
RSVP!

cb1p@andrew.cmu.edu
redzone!beez@sunpitt.east.sun.com
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: hesse@fzi.de
Subject: Walking Machine in Volcano ?
Reply-To: hesse@fzi.de
Organization: FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik, Karlsruhe, Germany
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:53:27 GMT

Hi,

I have heard one week ago, that a 8-legged walking machine goes in a volcano  
crater to investigate the lava sea.
Have someone further informations or references about this walking machine ?
All comments are welcomed

Bye
	Jan

___________________________________________________________________
Durch Kritik wird unserem Urteil der Masstab zugeteilt, wodurch
Wissen von Scheinwissen mit Sicherheit unterschieden werden kann. 
 			 			 (Emanuel Kant)
___________________________________________________________________
Jan Hesse                                       
Tel:   +49-721-9654-311    Forschungszentrum Informatik FZI
Fax:   +49-721-9654-309	   Dept. Tech. Expert Systems and Robotics
email: hesse@fzi.de	   Haid-und-Neu-Strasse 10-14
			   D-7500 Karlsruhe West-GERMANY
___________________________________________________________________
From: benedict@chaos.utexas.edu (Thomas Benedict)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: Mini Board traffic
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:53:20 GMT
Organization: Center for Nonlinear Dynamics, University of Texas at Austin
In-reply-to: nsharma@sharm.uucp's message of 6 Jan 93 04:24:36 GMT

Add enough pennies, you'll have a dollar.  Here are my $0.02:

I agree wholeheartedly with Fred et al.  I thought that serious
robotics projects were well out of my reach.  It was only after
cruising this newsgroup for a while and picking up on the 6.270 class
(and ftp'ing lots of stuff off of cher.media.mit.edu), and then
grabbing all the stuff on the miniboard, that I really started getting
into doing robotics.  Had I not seen the postings on the miniboard, I
might never have gotten this interested.

And for the purists who argue that this is a group for true robotic
experimentation, that's what I like about the 6.270 board and the
miniboard:  They're NOT canned, pre-fab off-the-shelf commercial
products.  They're designed for experimentation and a small
pocketbook.

I've been spreading the gospel here, and several other people have
gotten interested in building robots as a result.  Had the miniboard
discussion been stifled, I might never have become interested, and
neither would the others I've told about the miniboard and the 6.270
board.  I don't want to stifle it now.

Tom Benedict
benedict@chaos.ph.utexas.edu
Center for Nonlinear Dynamics
University of Texas at Austin
From: bhw@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Barbara H. Webb)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
Date: 9 Jan 93 13:23:01 GMT
Reply-To: bhw@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Barbara H. Webb)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland

In article <HAGERMAN.93Jan7224103@rx7.ece.cmu.edu> hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman) writes:
>There has been some discussion about the tradeoffs between using one
>large robot and many small robots for planetary exploration.  Has the
>Erebus experiment changed the opinion of anyone here? 

Well, I wouldn't say it changed my opinion, but I thought it sort of
showed an advantage of many small robots: if one bit of machinery fails
it will only stop one robot, not the whole project. I also couldn't help
thinking that small robots might have been easier to get to the crater
in the first place. But obviously in the absence of a sucessful
deployment of a robot herd for a comparable task (as yet) there's no 
proof that it's the better way to go.

BW
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: wli@cs.sfu.ca (William Li)
Subject: Re: sensorsystems for underwater
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 08:29:59 GMT

In article <8a2ywB2w165w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> baden@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (baden de bari) writes:
>edorff@iw.uni-hannover.de (Thilo Erdmannsdorff) writes:
>
>> 
>> In connection with a study about "Remotely Operated Underwater Vehicles" 
>> 		 Thilo
>
> 
>                I was at SFU (Simon Fraser University) in BC two years 
>ago, and I saw them working with ALVIN-like autonomous underwater 
>vehicles.  I'm not sure in who to contact, however, I know they are doing 
>the work there.
>                You may want to check them out.
> 
>        >>Baden<<
>


The principal investigator is Dr. John Bird (bird@ensc.sfu.ca).  His
research interests include the areas of sonar imaging and autonomous underwater
vehicles, among others.

William Li
From: roma@pe.chalmers.se (Robert Maglica)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: TCP calibration
Date: 5 Jan 93 11:35:46 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

HI Guys,
Does anyone of you know if there is a tool that will
help me with the calibration and/or confirmation of
a robot TCP.


/Robert Maglica, roma@pe.chalmers.se
Xref: sparky comp.robotics:2838 comp.theory.self-org-sys:138 sci.cognitive:977
From: heitkoet@keule.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Joerg Heitkoetter)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics,comp.theory.self-org-sys,sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Use of Genetic Algorithms to evolve robot behavior?
Date: 10 Jan 1993 15:43:13 GMT
Organization: CS Department, Dortmund University, Germany
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: keule.informatik.uni-dortmund.de

In article <C0K8zq.54A@world.std.com>, lains@world.std.com (Layne L
Ainsworth) writes:
|> Pointers to papers or discussion of the feasibility of such a project
|> would both be welcome. I would think this could be a job for the
|> much-heralded and -scorned MiniBoard. Wire up all the connections to
|> various sensors/actuators and let the herd discover uses for them.
See the SAB-90 conference proceedings:

@Proceedings{SAB91,
  editor =       "Jean-Arcady Meyer and Stewart W.~Wilson",
  title =        "From Animals to Animats. Proceedings of the 1st
                 International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive
                 Behavior",
  booktitle =    "From Animals to Animats. Proceedings of the 1st
                 International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive
                 Behavior",
  publisher =    "MIT Press",
  address =      "Cambridge, MA",
  year =         "1991",
  volume =       "",
  note =         "",
  ISBN =         "0-262-63138-5",
  signature =    "joke",
  keywords =     "artificial life / adaptive behavior",
  attr =         "toRead",
}

Hope that helps.

	-joke

--
Joerg Heitkoetter
Systems Analysis Group
University of Dortmund, Europe
(joke@ls11.informatik.uni-dortmund.de).
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: davidr@davidr.mentorg.com (David Ransier)
Subject: Re: Mini Board traffic
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 17:23:26 GMT
Organization: mentor
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

Enough sitting by quietly! It's time to add my two cents.

I agree whole heartedly with Fred.  I'm very new to robotics.  In fact, I haven't
really started yet.  I've been technically intertested for many years but felt 
the experimental kits were either too expensive or too mucha toy.  I'm hoping
my purchase of the miniboard kit will get me started with a real project.

I wouldn't know about it at all if it wasn't for the "noise" on the net.

There seems to be very little real robot-industry info sharing going on 
here. So it makes good sense to use some of this bandwidth for promoting
and encouraging the hobby/industry.

** Start sermon, with flames on low **

And don't be so hard on people who are trying to do you a favor.  The one thing 
that bothers me most about Usenet is how people take advantage of "freedom of 
speech" and seem so eager to flame with the slightest provocation.  It's OK
to bitch when, but don't be destructive.

** End sermon, let the all-expected flames begin **

-- 

+++++++++++++
David Ransier  davidr@mentorg.com              These comments are my own. I paid for them. I own them.
               (503) 685-1528  Fax: 685-7704   They're not my employers, and you can't have them.
+++++++++++++
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: fcf@n1gva (F. C. Floberg)
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
Organization: Evil Weather Machines LTD
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 13:15:39 GMT

hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman) writes:
: So, my subject line got you to read at least this far :-]
: 
: There has been some discussion about the tradeoffs between using one
: large robot and many small robots for planetary exploration.  Has the
: Erebus experiment changed the opinion of anyone here?
: I'm hoping for
: new thoughts engendered by considering the experiment in general.

I've heard at least one argument for small robots in planetary explor-
ation, i.e. their small size making them easier to transport to the
planets surface, the 'redundant systems' effect of numerous small
machines, and the ability to cover more ground in a given time span.

The argument for large robots is that they can be more sophisticated,
and can traverse more difficult terrain than their smaller counterparts.

I wonder about 'blending' the two philosiphies... Imagine that you had
one large, agile, and reasonably intelligent robot, and say, six or so
smaller less sophisticated ones all linked together via some sort of
network (on a radio link maybe?). The smaller robots could act as remote
sencory input devices, or data collection drones, that are directed by
the larger one. The larger one ("Mother") would collect the data per-
ceived by the drones periodically, and transmit what was relivant back
to Earth. When a drone encountered an obstacle (such as a cavern), it
would inform the mother of the problem, and the mother would decide
whether to 'stay the cource' or not. If so, she would collect up her
drones (as a marsupial would) and attempt to negotiate the obstacle
herself. After the obsticle had been navigated, she would release
her drones to continue their work.

			. . . .

Of course, this is only a very broad idea I'm presenting, as I'm
just a guy that likes to dream at his keyboard :-)

: 
: - John
: --
: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu

Fred

-- 
Fred Floberg - N1GVA at Evil Weather Machines LTD.
email: ...!uunet!hsi!a3bee2!n1gva!fcf
From: rsdoyle@swift.cs.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Flight control references sought
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:53:54 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Trinity College Dublin


Could anyone recommend a book on the subject of sensor based flight
control. Any pointers towards papers in this area would also be
appreciated (if possible sensor based helicopter control).


Thank you

Rory Doyle


Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: kilian@cray.com (Alan Kilian)
Subject: Miniboard CPU order status
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:44:14 CST

Short and sweet:

Monday:    I called Future to check our shipment. They said they would call back
Tuesday:   No call
Wednesday: I call and they say we slipped until February. I piss and moan,
           stamp my feet and cry like a baby. I talk to the Big Cheese and he 
           says he will se what he can do.
Thursday:  Parts are on the way!!! Somehow, they got Motorola to ship an
           emergency order of processors to us. (Yeah, right.) Even though 
           Future can't get any. (And I do have a bridge for sale. Really)

It only takes a minute to test a processor in the new rig so I can test all 
of them in 2 hours. They will go out the day I get them. I'll let you know.

             -Alan "I can see the light at the end of the tunnel" Kilian
-- 
 -Alan Kilian           kilian@cray.com 612.683.5499 (Work) 612.721.3990 (Home)
  "Our friend Dirac has his own philosophy. It is:"
  "There is no God and Dirac is His prophet" - Some Physicist
Newsgroups: comp.robotics,comp.theory.self-org-sys,sci.cognitive
From: lains@world.std.com (Layne L Ainsworth)
Subject: Use of Genetic Algorithms to evolve robot behavior?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:21:25 GMT

(A third attempt to post this article)
(Somebody mail me if I am posting this a million times, 'cause I sure
 don't see it in these groups)

Has anyone tried to do this: 

"Herds" of cheap (really cheap), reprogrammable robots, each loaded
with one set of the test "chromosome" population of a Genetic
Algorithm system. They could be evaluated to optimize indivdual
performance, or "hive" well-being.  Each "generation" would be the
same robots, with a new generation of "chromosomes" on board.

Pointers to papers or discussion of the feasibility of such a project
would both be welcome. I would think this could be a job for the
much-heralded and -scorned MiniBoard. Wire up all the connections to
various sensors/actuators and let the herd discover uses for them.

My dream, of course, is a bunch of robots that (who?) could
continuously clean my house. :-)

Thanks.

-Layne



-- 
  Layne Ainsworth | lains@world.std.com <or> ...!{xylogics,uunet}!world!lains
	  The truth can't hurt you; it's just like the dark.
From: wlim@gdstech.GRUMMAN.COM (Willie Lim)
Subject: Re: A gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, a pack of wolves...
Organization: Grumman Corporation, Bethpage, New York, USA.
	<piggy.726714034@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:58:22 GMT

			   a GANG of robots
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: fcf@n1gva (F. C. Floberg)
Subject: Re: My robot project.
Organization: Evil Weather Machines LTD
Distribution: comp.robotics
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:45:40 GMT

ac94691@dunix.drake.edu (The Dark Kitty) writes:
[quoting me about remote control suggestion/question]
: 
: Ah!!!  I'm glad you asked because I forgot to mention it!  Yes, you
: are absolutely correct.  The onboard computer will be a mother board
: from an Apple compatible computer but the actual high level brains
: will be a currently unused Mac 512.  The data link will be via modified
: (you'll LOVE this) Mr Microphone equivalents that I acquired at close
: out prices from Radio (Shack) Rip Off Store for $3.00 a piece!  The

Ahhh! Radio Shack, the technology store! (don't tell the sales guy what
you're gonna do with the MR. Micphone, or they'll crank the price up! :)

: modems will probably just be 300 baud modem chips from any major 
: silicon distributor like Jameco etc.  This may ruin my dream of building
: a no-cost robot but top price will be around $20 when I'm done if I
: really go extravagant!  =-)

True, but when you consider the value of the "anti-accidently-run-over-
neibhors-cat" feature that RC will give you, it seems worth the investment.

I'll be interested to hear about developements on the software. (Dunno 'bout
anyone else.)
: 
: Anthony
:
Fred
 
-- 
Fred Floberg - N1GVA at Evil Weather Machines LTD.
email: ...!uunet!hsi!a3bee2!n1gva!fcf
From: petesk@microsoft.com (Pete Skelly)
Subject: Re: How to send robots to Erebus, Mars ?
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:52:39 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Keywords: Erebus, microrovers, Dante

In article <58554@dime.cs.umass.edu> connolly@pooh.cs.umass.edu wrote:
> Two more cents: The debate over "microvers" (whatever they are) and
> "not microvers" seems to miss the mark here, in my opinion.
> 
> In article <C0nwnE.1w2.1@cs.cmu.edu> lalit+@CS.CMU.EDU (Lalitesh Katragadda) writes:
> >   The primary purpose of Dante was not to build a Robot but to fulfill
> >   a mission that was till now not possible (see below).
> 
> If data collection on Erebus is the objective, then Dante's primary
> purpose was not achieved, right?  The conclusion is "well, we learned
> something", which is nothing to sneeze at, but it again begs the
> question: why couldn't you do all this on a suitable environment in
> Pittsburgh?

In a nutshell....

Flashy projects make for good PR, and therefore, big grants...
(alright, maybe a bit cynical, but politics play a big part in projects
such as this)
From: laws@ai.sri.com (Kenneth I. Laws)
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Re: A gaggle of geese, a pride of lions, a pack of wolves...
Date: 11 Jan 93 04:57:17 GMT
	<piggy.726714034@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
Organization: Computists International
In-reply-to: piggy@hilbert.cc.utas.edu.au's message of 11 Jan 93 01:00:34 GMT

Well, ninja robots come in armies and turtles come in herds.
Could we be more specific about what _kind_ of robots?

Maybe a flock of floor scrubbers?  Or a threat of security guards?

					-- Ken

--

Dr. Kenneth I. Laws; (415) 493-7390; laws@ai.sri.com.
Ask about my AI/IS/CS newsletter, The Computists' Communique.
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
From: paulos@venezia.berkeley.edu (Eric Paulos)
Subject: Re: How to Explore Mars
Reply-To: paulos@venezia.berkeley.edu (Eric Paulos)
Organization: Robotics Laboratory UC Berkeley
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:52:02 GMT

My previous post was inexplicable truncated.  Here's the whole post.

I believe that many small robots is the only viable method to explore planets
because it allows redundance as a feasible option.  The risks involved in a
single large robot are far to great to take considering the numerous
variables involved in planetary exploration.  As an example NASA used TWO
voyagers and TWO martian landers in the mid-seventies.  Numerous, small,
simple robots should be the approach.  Again computer architects have
made the move from CISC to RISC.  Now it's time for robotics to do the same!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Eric Paulos                    Robotics Laboratory
 paulos@robotics.berkeley.edu   University of California, Berkeley
 (510) 642-3248			Berkeley, CA 94720
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.robotics
Subject: Miniboard Applications and Ideas?
From: bushbo@hiramb.hiram.edu
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:05:42 -0500
Organization: Hiram College
Nntp-Posting-User: bushbo

Hello!

  I was wondering if anyone has designed any applications for their
miniboards or wrote any neat programs in C for the board. I just completed
the initial design and did some testing for my door opener-it has a keypad
on the outside of the door and a large actuator inside, with the miniboard
controlling it. I thought it would be a good start for me, since i have never
actually done any embedded programming, now on to the world of robotics and
to the miniboard. Thanks

 -Brian
-- 

brian o. bush
IN%"bushbo@hiramb.bitnet"

   /
   \ yber                       

Newsgroups: comp.robotics