Wonder if the new "silent propeller" ring configuration shapes will be more durable. I recall the early Radio Shack toy helis had guard rings on their propellers, it helped immensely but they still were delicate and easy to kill.
A helicopter on the moon would have an even harder time working.
(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].
has there ever been a sci-fi movie about 'No-limits barred" competitions on uninhabitable worlds?
like go ahead, make a nuclear-powered doomsday bot and fight them on this rock, no one is there anyway
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.
I'd definitely watch the heck out of it.
"Smart camera drones" ha ha. you seen the unions around the entertainment industry?
M O O N that spealls Moounion
2069: first union on the Moon.
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
that might optimize for cute but tough bunny bots that do a Paul Rubens in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" death scene every time they're hit.
--
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.
i just figure with all those light-years in between here and the next world, we're gonna need _some_ kind of entertainment to occupy all that time
> deploy micro bots/bots to mars and have to fund raise here on earth
makes me think of a Cosmic-scale everyone-participates version of Risk
if my bots meet Musk-teams bots on Mars, every fight will be televised in 3D/16k@120Hz
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.
we just have to teach AI 'fun' :D
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.]
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.
The linked story about how it narrowly got there is well worth reading:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/before-ingenuity-ever-...
0=[3+] 1=[1] 2=[2]