|
Re: Team Update #2
Dave likes to remind us every year at VCU that we're really solving problems that are very similar to the same problems NASA has to solve. I can't wait for this year's speech, but until then I think about the bumpers like this:
All of the little Mars rovers had airbags that deployed and overlapped the corners of the tetrahedron. The 'hard' bumpers may not have been allowed to overlap each other due to NASA's testing and requirements, but obviously all of the corners had to be covered by a bumper. There were probably other requirements that were derived from testing as well. If the bumper system failed in any way shape or form, the free fall from X number of miles out would have compromised the entire multi-million dollar mission.
We complain that there are very strict bumper rules, and each individual rule appears to contradict other rules when put into a certain perspective. However, the only perspective that matters is the big picture: the GDC wants less damage done to their fields, their field components, and teams' robots. Yes the rules limit the design a bit, and yes some of the requirements appear unclear when put into the myriad of perspectives. How is that any different from the real world of engineering?
|