Well ever seen a Jaguar with four wheels insted of legs

@@rambo8863 machines doesn't have blood flow that fixes its parts, so they need to be replaceable 👍

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ebCHqtikrZ7LkXU.html

aaoa

Note I cant work and gavatey is different on Mars or on a noer planet so it will bounce and it will sezz because the sand

ah yes they had photos of a prototype in a lava tube in Japan IIRC. But I don't think there was a video?

This is a bot.

there is a sexbot here

ok

4 motors become 12 with a much smaller solar panel footprint. An Axel can hold more weight than the leg with less effort. Not to mention that the motors on the legs have to constantly resist gravity so there's no turning off. For locking joints you would have to include some sort a gear ratio that would also make motors work harder. There's definite advantages but I think for more niche situations. like in addition to a rover that can detach for short periods to investigate areas too dangerous for the rover.

his big brother with 8 legs arrives and removes broken leg and donates one of his then returns to the mother ship to get fixed to be able to return to his sister

@@cornbreadcuban5456 Any gearing that helps the legs not move without power would also help the motor work less. A gear system that is hard to backdrive is one that amplifies torque by sacrificing speed. Generally speaking it is easier to use a geared motor than it is to use a direct drive and so unless designed otherwise most electric drive legged robots are not back drivable under their own weight and stay in the current position when powered off. It's actually not accurate that increased motor count increases failure rate in some linear fashion. It simply means that when you reach the far side of the failure bathtub curve you expect immediate failure rather than having a chance at continued operation.

one issue with legs is a large amount of energy is wasted repositioning the legs for the next step where a wheel is 100% turning energy into motion all the time

@@yorinov2001 in an ideal scenario both legs and wheels have equal efficiency, Level ground that does not deform under pressure, wheels and legs that don't deform, perfect recapture of inertial energy ect. So the only reason one system is more or less efficient is because of the stuff the is unequally imperfect, between them. Each motion forward and backward on a leg is the same efficiency but every up and down motion wastes some energy to friction and motor inefficiency. The same is true for every bounce of the suspension on a tire or the deformation of the rubber in the wheels. In general on hard flat terrain wheels are more efficient but on everything else legs generally are more efficient. This is because terrain deformation dominates energy losses and legs deform terrain less and have no rolling friction to deal with.

This is quite possible, but then the rover will become even more complicated, it will be a wheeled rover + walking = even more possible points of failure. An even bigger plus is that the rover can roll itself over after a fall, which may not be so easy to do if the wheels are bolted to the legs. Such a hybrid will also be heavier than a walking rover. Yes, it will consume less energy while riding, but more while walking. There are also problems with the suspension, which is difficult to implement on such a hybrid. In general, the idea of ​​such a hybrid is not new, and it has some sense, but also its drawbacks.

@@Alexandr_Lee I personally see this idea as more promising than just a walking rover. I don't see any significant problems in putting the overturned rover back on the wheels, as well as problems with the suspension.

@@Top_KZfaq_Music I say we send the walking rover a car. The walking rover can study things close in rugget tearain, whaile the car can carry stuff and drive long distance on semi smooth ground

I think one advantage legged rover could have not mentioned by the video is that you could give the legs some kind of suction or gripping mechanism to handle even more extreme terrain. Like climbing vertically up and down a cliff.

Probably could.

I am sure they could. but sometimes depending on the mission having both options might add too much weight and complexity. Having wheels, legs or both each have drawbacks and advantages. I am sure the best of these options or even other movement options (flight for instance on planets with atmosphere) depending on the mission and terrain features will dictate what is chosen.

Just put wheels on long legs.

Mission 2 would have a wheeled rover IIRC

This is a bot.

Ps reply to anything.

No the CG stays the same. Yes the other legs now must support the weight to the apparent weight they feel changes as well as the torque being applied the system. Yes extension of the leg away from the body changes CG but not because its off the ground but because the mass is on a longer lever arm. Lifting a leg and extending it can move the CG far enough that it leaves the stability triangle.

True

Boston dynamics doesn't lift 2 legs at a time because its more stable. They do it because its faster. By smoothly having a weight shift that flows into the next you get continues motion of the legs and larger possible steps. A robot that moves slower and more methodically will always be capable of more stability given the same level of technology. Your claim would be no diffrent than saying that a human who is jogging across rocky terrain is less likely to slip and fall then one that tests each step before shifting their weight onto that foot slowly. The real reason boston dynamics is more stable is they have faster more capable control systems that can react quickly. A robot like this generally can't move its limbs very fast and so cannot respond to disruptions in stability that are unexpected quickly enough to catch itself The analogy for a human is an old vs a young human. A young human can move fast or slow and is more stable while slow. An old human can't move fast and for the sake of analogy has the same stability while slow. Both are perturbed from a stable state the young human flails their arms and catches themselves while the old human can't respond quickly and falls. Your initial comparison is like saying the slow methodical movement of the old human is why they fell while the fast jogging of the young human kept them upright. In reality the young human just has better reaction times and can move their limbs quickly enough to catch themselves and would be more stable if they had been moving slow like the old human was.

This is a bot.

I'm sure they thought of that

@@curiodyssey3867 True. It might make the instruments onboard have to be more complicated than necessary for that.

or they found some other issue that im not smart enough to think of 😂

Having redundant solar panels adds weight and complexity. Looks like the legs articulate only so much too. Sometimes just being able to flip back over is easier, cheaper and less complex and over all better.

This is a bot.

Could be blender or 3d studio max, two i can think off of the top of my head.