I know this guy from his videos over the years on hiking topics, like how to safely purify water with the minimum fuel and how to pack calorie efficient food.
His videos are incredibly well researched, very in-depth, and absolutely zero fluff. Very much feels like his cycle is to get intrigued by a topic, spend a year deep diving into everything that's published, extrapolate what he can from there, then summarize it in a 1 hr video.
I had the privilege of working with Don back at JPL at the time he invented the rocker bogey. (I wrote the software for the first prototype with a computer on board.) Not only was he brilliant, he was also a really nice guy. I didn't appreciate at the time how rare that combination of traits is among humans.
To my astonishment, it turns out Don doesn't have a Wikipedia page (though the rocker bogie suspension does).
He really deserves a page, in the engineering world this is as notable as it gets. The number of skills casually on display here. Just wow.
Thanks for pointing out the rocker-bogie Wikipedia page. There's a true dearth of info about them. Do you happen to know if there's any kinematic analyses of these suspensions available? I used to do stress analysis in the aerospace industry and I've been interested in that sort of analysis since the 1997 Sojourner rover.
I'm not sure what you mean by kinematic analysis, but the video mentions several analytical analyses of his suspension and how he came up with it. They did some computer simulations to optimize how it would deal with various obstacles. Really cool and clever.
I wasn't sure what word to use. That suspension has lots of pin joints and linkages, which are usually the subject of kinematics, 3-bar linkages, mechanisms, etc etc.
I realize that the stiffness of the rockers and links will make a difference in how forces are distributed, because that suspension is clearly not statically determinant, but the main factor in the design has to be the proportions of the links and beams. I can't find anything about that, so I asked.
> I realize that the stiffness of the rockers and links will make a difference in how forces are distributed, because that suspension is clearly not statically determinant
I think it's (mostly) the terrain geometry (plus gravity) that constrains the system, not joint or bar stiffness. This makes them feasible to analyze with the tools of theory of mechanisms I believe.
Also a really noteworthy insight I think he had was that when there is some kind of non-planar geometry arrangement of the wheels, that tends to create additional (perpendicular to surface) force on the wheels, effectively increasing the coefficient of friction. Think how a child may be able to climb a door frame by pressing hard enough on the sides.
> Do you happen to know if there's any kinematic analyses of these suspensions available?
Sorry, I have no idea. I never actually worked on the mechanics, just the software.
[deleted]
Personal attacks will get you banned here, so please don't post those.
Apologies feel free to delete the comment — I can’t
Appreciated! and sure, no problem, since the only reply was a moderation one, we can treat it as a non-thread.
(I'll also reassign these two posts to a random user ID, so there's no link to your main account.)
This guy has incredible videos on hiking gear, examining common claims scientifically and rationally. He never gave any hints as to his professional background, so as not to taint his arguments with appeals to authority. It makes perfect sense that he grew up in this environment, doing engineering work for NASA as a kid!
This is really Youtube at its best.
Deep dive into a niche topic, expert led, compelling storytelling, and professional production.
Not sure how/if something this could have been created / shared 20+ years ago.
If you are an engineer and you haven't watched this video please do yourself a favor and do so. I watch very little TV or YouTube, but I ended up taking off the afternoon after this video unexpectedly drew me in. It was impossible to not finish it - so if you do start watching it make sure you have two hours to spare. This is easily the best and most enjoyable thing that I've watched in the last several years!
Most of my comments on hacker news are to point out something incorrect or mischaracterized. All I can come up with here is that this is a brilliant and heartfelt and entertaining documentary. Thanks to OP for posting.
Is this the same guy who developed the Spyderench?
Best not read the comments until you've watched at least the first four minutes of the video.
Seconded, and maybe worth expanding why: there’s a very heartening reveal within the first few minutes that would be spoiled by reading the comments (which, surprisingly for YouTube, are all very positive about it.)
Apparently the first Mars Rover operated on only 5 watts of power. A common bathroom nightlight draws ~7 watts.
> A common bathroom nightlight draws ~7 watts.
Philips "60W" equivalent (806 lm) LED lamps are 3.8 watts.
Not surprised of such article.
It's not the first time something important is built in a garage:
for example, the Apollo 11 lander; a lot of people were thinking it was made from aluminum folio and cardboard in a garage, but actually it was kapton folio and professional-grade cardboard.
What an incredible mind. I wonder how many more people out there there are that have made huge contributions to humanity and very few know their name.
Is it true that a walking system only to operate its legs and limbs would still consume more power than a rocker bogie — with all the innovations in battery tech?
Ofc Yes.
On Mars would any other mobility system today achieve better performance for it's purportedly stated(neigh most ridiculous stated but to be fair difficult engineering) goals i.e. colonization? Also no.
I am surprised after watching this that there is so much of the Boston dynamic stuff man/dog walking out there, given that mobility is so well accomplished. Do you need — to invest — an anthropomorphized man to scale walls and be stable after getting kicked around?? I know one thing here on earth all large scale semi(think agro machines) and almost fully(delivery bots) autonomous look nothing like anthropomorphics or canines.
Maybe I have the dunning Kruger effect, because I am not a robotics engineer, but why is building an anthropomorphic _mobility_ platform so important to solve _pragmatic_ problems?
I’d say a lack of imagination.
Lose mobility for a few weeks or months, like breaking both legs (or just try wheelchair access) and see how much of even the paved first world is inaccessible.
Nevermind less refined places like well-maintained hiking trails.
And you can forget about actual trail-blazing.
Then appreciate just how flexible and robust animal and human mobility really is!
The usual reasoning is that 2 legged robots will be able to use the same affordances that two legges humans do.
Building a robot and building a robot to operate on Mars are eye-wateringly different challenges.
To answer my own last question I would also think probably not that important.
a bicycle is more efficient than walking, it's not hard to see why - moving a mass up and down is wasted energy
> why is building an anthropomorphic _mobility_ platform so important to solve _pragmatic_ problems
because something rolling along isn't as visually impressive as a complex system to walk, and these companies require hype
I worked with Lee Sword (also RIP) for a while; he was on the mechanical team for Sojourner. Interesting guy.
This kind of mechanism is fascinating. I built a four-wheeled version and even that is beautifully smooth when one wheel goes over a bump because the chasis maintains an average orientation based on the positions of all the wheels. The video shows an 8-wheeled one but it still only has two rows of wheels. I've wondered how to generalize it to an arbitrarily sized grid of wheels so a vehicle would be like a flexible mat that conforms to the ground. I couldn't work that out but I'm no Don Bickler. FEA software has a feature called "RBE3" which models an even more general case of any number of "wheels" and they can also move in any direction while still keeping the orientation of the "chassis" (dependent node) rigidly determined by their average displacements. The "R" stands for rigid because every part is rigid or completely free - no springs! There seems to be nothing like it in machines or nature but it's a beuatifully elegent and seemingly natural mechanism - if it was possible to build.
"There are no shortcuts to expertise".
What a fantastic post this.
As Marx put it: "there is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.
Cool!
I just popped in to add that NASA employee Charles White, a scientist involved with the Mars Rover project, also helped make a Burning Man Mars Rover Car (back before Playa Burning Man was completely and utterly torched twice over by Military Industrial Complex Vacationers and Billionaires) and you can hear an interview with him here on Charles White's yt channel: https://youtu.be/BKGROOedAgI (
Mars Rover Art Car interview with Ray Cirino and Charles White )
Charles White is a pretty good guy in my opinion, we play the same video game (EvE: Online) Where Charles White is a very, very well known community member who is known as "The Space Pope". He officiates weddings at our Iceland Fanfest gathering and also runs a Suicide Prevention Outreach group in EvE: Online, as well as teaching leadership skills.
I know this guy from his videos over the years on hiking topics, like how to safely purify water with the minimum fuel and how to pack calorie efficient food.
His videos are incredibly well researched, very in-depth, and absolutely zero fluff. Very much feels like his cycle is to get intrigued by a topic, spend a year deep diving into everything that's published, extrapolate what he can from there, then summarize it in a 1 hr video.
I had the privilege of working with Don back at JPL at the time he invented the rocker bogey. (I wrote the software for the first prototype with a computer on board.) Not only was he brilliant, he was also a really nice guy. I didn't appreciate at the time how rare that combination of traits is among humans.
To my astonishment, it turns out Don doesn't have a Wikipedia page (though the rocker bogie suspension does).
He really deserves a page, in the engineering world this is as notable as it gets. The number of skills casually on display here. Just wow.
Thanks for pointing out the rocker-bogie Wikipedia page. There's a true dearth of info about them. Do you happen to know if there's any kinematic analyses of these suspensions available? I used to do stress analysis in the aerospace industry and I've been interested in that sort of analysis since the 1997 Sojourner rover.
I'm not sure what you mean by kinematic analysis, but the video mentions several analytical analyses of his suspension and how he came up with it. They did some computer simulations to optimize how it would deal with various obstacles. Really cool and clever.
I wasn't sure what word to use. That suspension has lots of pin joints and linkages, which are usually the subject of kinematics, 3-bar linkages, mechanisms, etc etc.
I realize that the stiffness of the rockers and links will make a difference in how forces are distributed, because that suspension is clearly not statically determinant, but the main factor in the design has to be the proportions of the links and beams. I can't find anything about that, so I asked.
> I realize that the stiffness of the rockers and links will make a difference in how forces are distributed, because that suspension is clearly not statically determinant
I think it's (mostly) the terrain geometry (plus gravity) that constrains the system, not joint or bar stiffness. This makes them feasible to analyze with the tools of theory of mechanisms I believe.
Also a really noteworthy insight I think he had was that when there is some kind of non-planar geometry arrangement of the wheels, that tends to create additional (perpendicular to surface) force on the wheels, effectively increasing the coefficient of friction. Think how a child may be able to climb a door frame by pressing hard enough on the sides.
> Do you happen to know if there's any kinematic analyses of these suspensions available?
Sorry, I have no idea. I never actually worked on the mechanics, just the software.
Personal attacks will get you banned here, so please don't post those.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Apologies feel free to delete the comment — I can’t
Appreciated! and sure, no problem, since the only reply was a moderation one, we can treat it as a non-thread.
(I'll also reassign these two posts to a random user ID, so there's no link to your main account.)
This guy has incredible videos on hiking gear, examining common claims scientifically and rationally. He never gave any hints as to his professional background, so as not to taint his arguments with appeals to authority. It makes perfect sense that he grew up in this environment, doing engineering work for NASA as a kid!
This is really Youtube at its best.
Deep dive into a niche topic, expert led, compelling storytelling, and professional production.
Not sure how/if something this could have been created / shared 20+ years ago.
If you are an engineer and you haven't watched this video please do yourself a favor and do so. I watch very little TV or YouTube, but I ended up taking off the afternoon after this video unexpectedly drew me in. It was impossible to not finish it - so if you do start watching it make sure you have two hours to spare. This is easily the best and most enjoyable thing that I've watched in the last several years!
Most of my comments on hacker news are to point out something incorrect or mischaracterized. All I can come up with here is that this is a brilliant and heartfelt and entertaining documentary. Thanks to OP for posting.
Is this the same guy who developed the Spyderench?
https://spy-derco.com/catalog/details/T01/SpydeRench-trade-/...
https://multitool.org/blog/spyderco-usa-spyderench
Best not read the comments until you've watched at least the first four minutes of the video.
Seconded, and maybe worth expanding why: there’s a very heartening reveal within the first few minutes that would be spoiled by reading the comments (which, surprisingly for YouTube, are all very positive about it.)
Apparently the first Mars Rover operated on only 5 watts of power. A common bathroom nightlight draws ~7 watts.
> A common bathroom nightlight draws ~7 watts.
Philips "60W" equivalent (806 lm) LED lamps are 3.8 watts.
Not surprised of such article.
It's not the first time something important is built in a garage:
for example, the Apollo 11 lander; a lot of people were thinking it was made from aluminum folio and cardboard in a garage, but actually it was kapton folio and professional-grade cardboard.
What an incredible mind. I wonder how many more people out there there are that have made huge contributions to humanity and very few know their name.
Is it true that a walking system only to operate its legs and limbs would still consume more power than a rocker bogie — with all the innovations in battery tech?
Ofc Yes.
On Mars would any other mobility system today achieve better performance for it's purportedly stated(neigh most ridiculous stated but to be fair difficult engineering) goals i.e. colonization? Also no.
I am surprised after watching this that there is so much of the Boston dynamic stuff man/dog walking out there, given that mobility is so well accomplished. Do you need — to invest — an anthropomorphized man to scale walls and be stable after getting kicked around?? I know one thing here on earth all large scale semi(think agro machines) and almost fully(delivery bots) autonomous look nothing like anthropomorphics or canines.
Maybe I have the dunning Kruger effect, because I am not a robotics engineer, but why is building an anthropomorphic _mobility_ platform so important to solve _pragmatic_ problems?
I’d say a lack of imagination.
Lose mobility for a few weeks or months, like breaking both legs (or just try wheelchair access) and see how much of even the paved first world is inaccessible.
Nevermind less refined places like well-maintained hiking trails.
And you can forget about actual trail-blazing.
Then appreciate just how flexible and robust animal and human mobility really is!
The usual reasoning is that 2 legged robots will be able to use the same affordances that two legges humans do.
Building a robot and building a robot to operate on Mars are eye-wateringly different challenges.
To answer my own last question I would also think probably not that important.
a bicycle is more efficient than walking, it's not hard to see why - moving a mass up and down is wasted energy
> why is building an anthropomorphic _mobility_ platform so important to solve _pragmatic_ problems
because something rolling along isn't as visually impressive as a complex system to walk, and these companies require hype
I worked with Lee Sword (also RIP) for a while; he was on the mechanical team for Sojourner. Interesting guy.
This kind of mechanism is fascinating. I built a four-wheeled version and even that is beautifully smooth when one wheel goes over a bump because the chasis maintains an average orientation based on the positions of all the wheels. The video shows an 8-wheeled one but it still only has two rows of wheels. I've wondered how to generalize it to an arbitrarily sized grid of wheels so a vehicle would be like a flexible mat that conforms to the ground. I couldn't work that out but I'm no Don Bickler. FEA software has a feature called "RBE3" which models an even more general case of any number of "wheels" and they can also move in any direction while still keeping the orientation of the "chassis" (dependent node) rigidly determined by their average displacements. The "R" stands for rigid because every part is rigid or completely free - no springs! There seems to be nothing like it in machines or nature but it's a beuatifully elegent and seemingly natural mechanism - if it was possible to build.
"There are no shortcuts to expertise".
What a fantastic post this.
As Marx put it: "there is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.
Cool!
I just popped in to add that NASA employee Charles White, a scientist involved with the Mars Rover project, also helped make a Burning Man Mars Rover Car (back before Playa Burning Man was completely and utterly torched twice over by Military Industrial Complex Vacationers and Billionaires) and you can hear an interview with him here on Charles White's yt channel: https://youtu.be/BKGROOedAgI ( Mars Rover Art Car interview with Ray Cirino and Charles White )
Charles White is a pretty good guy in my opinion, we play the same video game (EvE: Online) Where Charles White is a very, very well known community member who is known as "The Space Pope". He officiates weddings at our Iceland Fanfest gathering and also runs a Suicide Prevention Outreach group in EvE: Online, as well as teaching leadership skills.
Here's Charles White giving a presentation as an Official NASA employee about Space and our solar system at EvE Fanfest 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atm6Y_JYPEU
Heres a interview about EvE: Online with the Space Pope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWuj7LfyN4U
anyhow sorry to hijack this about EvE: Online but we have lots of cool people like Scott Manley playing, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huZlA0eg12U
Wow, this turned out to be an amazing documentary!