Quote:
Originally Posted by Moreau
It's sort of like NASA telling its contractors that the conditions of the moon and that they want a rover for it, but since they don't want any unfair advantages the contractors must not design their robots to use anything to overcome the limitations of a slippery surface. No paddle/fins on the wheels, no treads. In fact, they tell the designers that since they found these cool wheels in the warehouse, they must use the super slick wheels. I completely understand the intent of the challenge, but since the challenge charades as a simulation of reality it feels ever more artificial and grating. Abstract games, such as tossing enormous balls around, don't have this problem because they don't take themselves more seriously than as games.
|
The purpose of such a directive wouldn't be because of an unfair advantage. It's a fallback position. Of course you design your rover with appendages. But what if you get to the moon and your paddles/fins are damaged and don't work? Instead of declaring "mission over", you come up with solutions to work around or through such possibilities ahead of time. These backup scenarios would receive test time in the simulators just as the primary mission would.