Posted on 03/02/2004 7:42:33 PM PST by NormsRevenge
They need more intelligence, and more redundancy.
Each robot needs to be bright enough to be "trusted" not to walk off a cliff or into a rockpile from which it can't walk out, or into a sandpit, and so forth. They need to be tested here -- sufficiently, so that they can be trusted.
Then, they need redundancy. Instead of sending one rocket, with one robot, and everyone crossing their fingers and sweating like a pig in rut for the next year or so until it lands -- or crashes, or goes black -- they should "mirv" the rockets.
Send several rockets, each with several orbiter/lander modules, with each module having several landers.
Each module should have one "special" lander -- a nuclear power station, which will be pre-positioned along the planned research trail. The robots will, with their photocell power and storage batteries, have enough reserve to make it from one "filling station" to the one beyond the next, so that they won't be stranded if one of the stations fails. Redundancy, again.
The power stations will also raise a (relatively) tall mast, for use as LAN relay/repeater/extenders, and, for relaying comms to/from the satellite network.
After the clusters landers have deployed, have the orbiters set up a "GPS"-like system in their Mars orbits.
Then, network the landers via wireless LAN.
Let them "decide" on how to handle "assignments" via their onboard intelligence, tracking their individual positions on the planet, deciding which one(s) will handle which task(s), and then handling uplink/downlink comms via the network, i.e., whichever unit has the best signal path sends the most data, with the others in reserve, handing off as necessary (as towers become blocked by hills, etc.; they will also be capable of direct uplink/downlink with the satellites, in cases where they are blocked from line of sight comms with all local towers.)
The robots would be built for different purposes, with plenty of overlap, so that the failure of any one (or more than one) would not kill that part of the mission.
They could probably economize by launching a single rocket, with more orbiter/lander module "kits" onboard, but this would be a false economy if it fails on launch.
This plan would increase the chances of survival, and, optimize the mission ROI upon arrival.
Spending $450 million to send ONE R/C car is absurd. The additional expense of doing it as I suggest above would be incremental, but the ROI would be multiplied.
Well, that's how I would do it if I was running the show.
But, I'm not running the show. I'm merely financing it.
Socialized space sucks.
There is a place for those who can not just plan the projects but can build the hardware and program it. The beauty of robots is that they can or should be cheap. A person could build one in his garage including all the software. Once there is hardware it should not be impossible to hitch a ride. Net cost to the developer: all the free time he has but not much money.
If I do it right, it'll be a prototype (ideally) as well as a working incubator for keeping our own barnyard clucking. If I don't do it right, I'll never hear the end of it. :)
I've looked at the prices for "dumb" incubators, and I figure I can build a "smart" incubator for a fraction of those prices.
Robotic eggs would be kewl!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.