Carl Denk windstream.net> writes: >=20 > I'll still ask the same question. That's a high flying aircraft, and yes= =20 > it has high resolution cameras, but I would think the small highly=20 > maneuverable aircraft and land based robots with cameras could go inside= =20 > and get close-up and behind obstacles photos and remote sensor readings.= =20 > We have seen many amateur efforts in this area with great results, and=20 > at relatively little money. >=20 > Though, I also wonder, would the higher radiation levels affect=20 > performance? I see a scenario, the robot gets radioactive, and is=20 > sacrificed at the end of it's mission by abandoning inside. >=20 There is not (or should not be) a problem sacrificing a robot at the emd of= the mission. I think the primary reasons for lack of obotics at Fukushima are:= 1) not enough time to get robots to the place, 2) too high radioactivity for a= ny complex electronics to work. =20 The second reason was why radio-operated bots had limited use in Chernobyl.= =20 IIRC, they had to use simple wire-directly-to motor remote control to get t= o the most places. But even then, to get to the reactor itself they used people, something like run for 15-20 s in heavy protective suit, dump a bucket of concrete, run back, and congratulations, you just got life's worth of radia= tion. Sergey Dryga http://beaglerobotics.com --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .