(Just curious why durability wasnt like 0. on the project RFP given that its a really far away deployment arena...
(Also, to raise money, we should do Battle Bots on Mars. There should be a Twitch Rover (recall that thing from a while back about how many users fought over input into how it was driving...)
You have to have limits or in the limit you just end up with "whose nuclear bomb goes off closer to the starting whistle" or some equivalent.
Now, even if you are interested in watching that and the precise mechanics of how to shave those last few nanoseconds off the explosion interest you, it's still a problem for "engagement" that the ruleset converges to one solution.
Battlebots has had several similar issues over the years and a common discussion on its fan sites is whether or not the most recent rule set (whatever it may be at the time) is also converging on a single solution as the only viable option.
Real car racing has an even bigger problem with this, in that the racing leagues simultaneously want to project an image of technological innovation and how all the teams are brilliant geniuses advancing the field of motor sports, while at the same time having to deal with how boring it is when one team ends up winning a hugely disproportionate amount of the time if you really did just leave it down to technical acumen and the vagueries of who started with an engine design this year that happened to have more optimization room than the other engines. They dress it up in a lot of rules and throw a lot of smokescreen up but to a pretty significant degree they basically just find some reason to throw weight penalties on to whoever is winning too much.
Maybe we should put not just one, but several limits, denominated in joules (or kilotons), splitting the competition into "weight classes" in terms of maximum energy transfer. So e.g. flyweight class could end up being a competition between smart subsonic bullets, while the middleweight class may see a nuclear bomb facing off against pumped x-ray laser.
Raises an interesting question of who's laws apply on the Moon in such a case. no country has a unique ownership in the Moon due to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, but that just means no country owns the Moon. In the case of a camera crew back on Earth, or even on the Moon, would any union contracts apply?
i think i got one: the winner is chosen by 'style', instead of simply strongest bot
while competing, camera drones and internal POV cams stream to audiences, who can 'feedback' to the robot
i don't want to go down the 'microtransaction' route, but maybe there's a way teams could leverage that to bide their style during less tense moments, before pumping it up when the time is right
You literally just described "Space Influencer Bots"... what a weird fetish you have.
--
EDIt:
Flippancy aside:
Having battle teams that can deploy micro bots/bpts to mars and have to fund raise here on earth to have them Musk'd to mars( like "uber'd" but "Musk'd")
and a player has control over a bot - but what if the satellites heading to mars could fight?
Or coporate sponsers seeded stationary orbitals around mars and the bots could be deployed and driven by Humans on earth 0 and so you would have the so-and-so sponsored here and battle it out on mars.
It would be wonderful if we can have actual IRL space batteles - but everything is on a micro-scale - we have little mothership factories which are off limits, but they manufacture micro bots that can be flown FPS by Earthlings.
But supply chains are open game (but its Laser Tag (you dont destroy the enemy - you knock them out and they have to be rescued.
[Scene: A mock-up of the Mars rover control room, with screens showing live feeds from the rover's cameras. Two scientists, Dr. Smith and Dr. Johnson, are seated at a desk, facing the audience.]
Dr. Smith: Good evening, folks. Tonight, we've got a bit of news from our Martian friend.
Dr. Johnson: That's right, Dr. Smith. It seems our rover encountered a little hiccup.
Dr. Smith: Just a wee one. The rotor snapped off.
Dr. Johnson: The rotor?
Dr. Smith: Yes, the rotor. It's now orbiting Mars on its own.
Dr. Johnson: How did that happen?
Dr. Smith: Well, it seems the rover stumbled upon a Martian pothole.
Dr. Johnson: Potholes on Mars?
Dr. Smith: Indeed, very Martian-esque potholes. Anyway, one of these craters snagged the rotor, and snap! Off it went.
Dr. Johnson: So, what's the plan now?
Dr. Smith: Well, first, we panic.
Dr. Johnson: Panic?
Dr. Smith: Yes, it's customary in these situations. Adds a touch of drama.
[Both scientists start faux-panicking, flailing their arms and looking alarmed.]
Dr. Johnson: Alright, panic mode complete. Now what?
Dr. Smith: Now, we get creative. We've got some of the brightest minds back at mission control.
Dr. Johnson: But they're light-years away!
Dr. Smith: True, but they're also light-years ahead when it comes to problem-solving.
Dr. Johnson: So, we sit tight and wait for a solution?
Dr. Smith: Bingo. In the meantime, we can enjoy the Martian views on these screens.
[They both turn to observe the screens showing the Martian landscape.]
Dr. Johnson: You know, even with a snapped-off rotor, Mars still has its charm.
Dr. Smith: Absolutely, Dr. Johnson. It's moments like these that remind us why we explore the great unknown.
[They share a nod of agreement as they continue to monitor the screens, signaling the end of the skit.]
Considering how low their stated expectations were for Ingenuity, I think it was more than durable enough. It's a huge bummer that it's grounded, but it was also a fantastic resounding success.
Also, 0. was "get it to fly", and that required a pretty wild rotation speed, which probably limited their ability to make it much more durable.
Remember that people were skeptical that they could pull off flight at all, and they set the bar for success at 5 flights but delivered 72 before it crashed!
The linked story about how it narrowly got there is well worth reading:
Haven't we proven we can do "durability" and "crawl", with Curiosity, Spirit, and Opportunity lasting several years longer than planned? Ingenuity was only supposed to last 30 days, but far exceeded that, even if the rotor did snap off.
(Just curious why durability wasnt like 0. on the project RFP given that its a really far away deployment arena...
(Also, to raise money, we should do Battle Bots on Mars. There should be a Twitch Rover (recall that thing from a while back about how many users fought over input into how it was driving...)
EDIt:
0. Make durable.
1. Make it Fly.
2. Make it crawl, when 0=[1] and 1=[0].
reply