3 ms·

Rather than working on the perfect landing I think a good enough landing would be sufficient (crash and get back into ready to jump posture). Mostly so that the

by kriro 10y ago

Rather than working on the perfect landing I think a good enough landing would be sufficient (crash and get back into ready to jump posture). Mostly so that the scenario of back to back jumps can be tested (which would also be interesting for stress testing). I'd love to watch the wall jump over and over until the robot breaks/stops for example. Edit: I see something similar is mentioned in future research. Cool :)

Animats 10y ago
Rather than working on the perfect landing I think a good enough landing would be sufficient (crash and get back into ready to jump posture). That's been done a few times. The first time was a mobile land mine developed at Sandia. It was a ball with a fuel-powered piston for jumping. After each jump, it used an interior weight to get itself positioned and aimed for the next jump. The plan was to drop a bunch of these from aircraft into enemy territory. When one of them detected a good target, like a convoy, all the mines nearby would converge on the target and blow it up.[1] There's also this small fence-jumping, tracked robot from 2009.[2] Landing is uncontrolled, but it can survive crash landings and run upside down, so that doesn't matter too much. [1] http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN10-20-00/hop_story.html http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN10-20-00/hop_story.html [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjANAebfs6Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjANAebfs6Q