วีดีโอ

In one of the videos they commented on they said they would take notes on making it dance after it detects something

I assume because they need translational dog as well

Also a future where humans just have a bunch of cute, unique robot homies running around seems pretty based and wholesome lol

I dont think humans were ever a real option for microgravity exploration

Its not designed to interact with humans they said it was for asteroid exploration And you failed to explain why the rest are true

You didn’t have to include the end bit ya know? Literally the same sentence as the one before it.

@ I only have one sentence. So it can’t be the same sentence as the one before.

We think so too :)

@@SpaceHopperRobotics 👍

Where’s the *hole?* hehehe…..

Neuralink

no cats were harmed in the making of our experiments :)

Not every couple of weeks 😬 more like a month or two because of increased funding..

It is built and trained for zero gravity. A planet has gravity. So, no, we will not

this is real zero g :)

thank you!

quite many actually :)

These guys are all smarter than Mark Rober

dude, i didn't compare the smartness of a person, and most of them would probably loves their work so it's fine. what i mean is one (or two) of them could be famous, become an inspiration of millions of kids, helping disabled people, and make their own company, because we love the company~ the company~ the company~ we love the company~ and the company loves us~

This IS a more efficient way to move in space

The robot is designed for controlled low gravity locomotion, such as on asteroids or moons. It uses its legs to jump to a new desired position. Since it has legs anyways and we want to minimize the size, weight and complexity of the system, we omit gyros and use the legs for attitude control.

@@alexanderspiridonov4353 I read the caption and I understand the purpose of the robot but what I’m saying is this is an inefficient way to go about solving the problem. The space station stuff I mentioned was hypothetical, but in terms of the quoted purpose: First off, you can’t tell me honestly as an engineer that size and weight are a limiting factor to implementing a CMG when 2u cubesats have similar systems. Our CMG was ~1u and <400 grams, with off the shelf solutions being 0.5u and 300g. Yeah, CMG’s are relatively complex (mechanically) but they’re also industry standard and well-known in the world of engineering for a reason. If a space agency is spending billions to explore an asteroid or moon, they’re going to pick that industry-standard time-proven solution every time and then some. Especially when it is an autonomous vehicle. This is a tough-learned lesson in the world of engineering but it’s simply the truth (yes I know your research is being sponsored by one). You’re correct about complexity rather than size & weight, but even then this solution introduces more complexity to the involved physics and physical attitude adjustments than are present with a CMG Second, in proper low-gravity environments this concept simply isn’t going to stay planted on the surface of the object without some sort of CMG or even thrusters for attitude control (which weigh more than a CMG)- the necessary kinematics will be too chaotic to quickly correct attitude and the robot will either fly away or crash into the surface. I’m sure you’ve done simulations on this. It’s a nice idea but in an autonomous operation regime it’s going to have problems that would be mitigated with a more traditional solution using a CMG, namely speed and predictability of attitude adjustment. Using flailing legs for attitude control is not ever going to be optimally-efficient for these reasons (power as well) and there’s a reason this hasn’t been done with asteroid sample collection, exploration of other planets, or exploration of our own moon. You still would need arms but like I said, this is an unnecessary hoop to jump through for no reason when a CMG would do a flat out better and more stabile job at attitude control for an autonomous robot on a low-g surface than using the arms- I think it would make the desired hopping much more controllable, fast, and efficient without a big trade-off in terms of weight. I’m not saying the hopping motion isn’t a great way to explore such a surface (I think it’s cool), all I’m saying is you should explore adding CMG’s to make executing that motion on the surface of an unpredictable asteroid or moon more predictable and stable; it’s not going to add too much weight or size. CMG’s weigh 1-5% the total weight of satellites, and come as small as 0.5u for cubesats off the shelf

Different technologies for different purposes.

@@party4keeps28 Not really how engineering works; you can’t boil down design decisions to a statement like that. It needs to be quantified, weighted, analyzed for failure modes, tested, and evaluated. Either way, that statement would prove the point that using different technology (arm movements) than industry standard (CMG) to adjust attitude in a (flying or in this case hopping) spacecraft is not apt

@@Laminar-Flow In relation to your first paragraph, that's EXACTLY what they're doing. If everyone had your mentality and stuck with the "industry standard," we'd never get anywhere.