Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mars NASA Space

Mars Is About To Have Its 'Wright Brothers Moment' (nytimes.com) 80

Posted by BeauHD from the Mars-missions dept.
As part of NASA's next mission to Mars, leaving Earth this summer, the space agency will attempt to do something that has never been done before: fly a helicopter through the rarefied atmosphere of Mars. The New York Times reports: If it works, the small helicopter, named Ingenuity, will open a new way for future robotic explorers to get a bird's-eye view of Mars and other worlds in the solar system. "This is very analogous to the Wright brothers moment, but on another planet," said MiMi Aung, the project manager of the Mars helicopter at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory over the past six years.

Flying on Mars is not a trivial endeavor. There is not much air there to push against to generate lift. At the surface of Mars, the atmosphere is just 1/100th as dense as Earth's. The lesser gravity -- one-third of what you feel here -- helps with getting airborne. But taking off from the surface of Mars is the equivalent of flying at an altitude of 100,000 feet on Earth. No terrestrial helicopter has ever flown that high, and that's more than twice the altitude that jetliners typically fly at. The copter will hitch a ride to the red planet with Perseverance, which is to be the fifth robotic rover NASA has sent there. The mission is scheduled to launch on July 20, one of three missions headed to Mars this year. At a news conference last week previewing the Perseverance mission, Jim Bridenstine, the NASA administrator, made a point to highlight Ingenuity. "I'll tell you, the thing that has me the most excited as an NASA administrator is getting ready to watch a helicopter fly on another world," he said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mars Is About To Have Its 'Wright Brothers Moment' More

Mars Is About To Have Its 'Wright Brothers Moment'

Comments Filter:

  • Sikorsky moment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CaptQuark ( 2706165 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @03:22AM (#60220824)
    My first thought was "This isn't a Wright Brothers moment. It should be a Sikorsky moment."

    My second thought was I wonder if they have registered the helicopter with the FAA? https://www.faa.gov/uas/gettin... [faa.gov]

    ---

    • "My first thought was "This isn't a Wright Brothers moment. It should be a Sikorsky moment."

      Exactly my thoughts, you beat me to it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      My second thought was I wonder if they have registered the helicopter with the FAA? https://www.faa.gov/uas/gettin... [faa.gov]

      I think Mars qualifies as definitely outside the FAA's jurisdiction.

      • There has been much discussion about the MINIMUM altitude where FAA has jurisdiction - it used to be "navigable airspace" above 500 feet or 400 feet. Now they regulate a toy three feet off the ground. A draft of the then-new UAS rule would have required that paper airplanes be registered with the FAA (it was adjusted before the final rule, though it's still silly about little toys). I've not seen a MAXIMUM altitude of FAA jurisdiction. Theoretically, when Mars is above the United States, it's within the

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
          Damn, do I need FAA certification for this yo-yo?

          • Only outdoors in Washington DC (Score:4, Interesting)

            by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @10:55AM (#60221776) Journal

            This sounds ridiculous, because it is, but:

            The FAA regulates "control line" flight, which is an object controlled by one or more attached strings, used outdoors. Your yo-yo appears to meet the definition. Control line is banned by the FAA in certain places. Currently Washington DC is the one area I know of.

            Normally control line refers to airplane-shaped objects, but the yo-yo probably fits the definition. Kites and balloons on strings are separately defined. Yeah the FAA regulates kites and party balloons.

            • it assumes the leaders of the free world already have jurisdiction on mars ? he who plants the flag owns it ? columbus style ... hmmm but this is great , i cant wait for the live footage but , i am a bit gaffled, i didnt know it took six months just to get to mars .. we are totally supremely and superbly doomed of ever getting out of the void cordon (belt) put around us when that god kicked us from the heavens ... no space elevator : no ship big enough to hold generations b/c even at light speed it takes ho

      • You'd think, but US behavior lately seems to indicate the universe is under US jurisdiction ;) you know.. claiming being able to prosecute international journalists etc.

    • Re:Sikorsky moment (Score:5, Insightful)

      by excelsior_gr ( 969383 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @08:38AM (#60221306)

      Given that this helicopter has a stacked counterrotating rotor configuration instead of the Sikorsky tail-rotor configuration, I would say that this is a rather an Asboth [wikipedia.org] moment. But Sikorsky was cool, too!

    • My second thought was I wonder if they have registered the helicopter with the FAA?

      Why would they? Last I heard Mars was somewhat outside the borders of the US...unless that has now changed and the reason for the drone is to spot all the undocumented aliens.

  • ... as the first Wright Brothers' flight.

    If they are lucky.

    From that perspective, calling it a Wright Brothers moment probably won't be that far off at all.

    In terms of what it means for the future? I'll hedge my bets on that similarity... at best, it might serve as an example of what not to do in the future.

  • Control system (Score:3)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @03:54AM (#60220870) Homepage

    Choppers are notoriously difficult to control which is why even now fly by wire and autopilot systems are still rare in them as computers just weren't up to the job. I wonder if the software from its automated control system will trickle down to the earth bound chopper world?

    • Wondering about this as well, since autopilot (stabilisation on all controls) has been demonstrated years ago on RC helicopters. What's left for the operator is to issue simple inputs (pitch, roll, yaw, altitude) and let go of the stick to hover in place. DJI sell an autopilot module [dji.com] that you can plug into your RC helo.

    • I'd imagine this is more like a quad-copter drone than a helicopter (indeed it's a dual rotor tail-less sort of affair) - that is, all the sensors are fed to a computer making constant adjustments to keep it straight and level or performing whatever manoeuvre it's doing at that moment.

      On a different note, this is incredibly cool. The prospect of flying an RC helicopter, entirely remotely *on another planet* is really cool. I do wish they'd stop tinting the ground red on Mars in the videos though.

    • "Choppers are notoriously difficult to control which is why even now fly by wire and autopilot systems are still rare in them as computers just weren't up to the job."

      Nope. RAH-66 Comanche is an example of a successful-but-cancelled (due to lack of interest) semi-automated singlecopter. And more recently I've seen fully automated crop spraying singlecopters. Computers are totally up to the job. R/C helis are now regularly made intelligent to stop you from trashing them.

      I don't know what the reason is that t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        I don't know what the reason is that there aren't more fly by wire helis but am Arduino can do that job. Literally.

        Dude, they're still selling $250,000 Cessna 172s with Lycoming engines designed in the 50's, you're wondering why no aviation company is implementing fly-by-wire?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Co-axial counter-rotating rotors provide a great amount of stability, making the helicopter easier to control. The down side is more susceptibility to wind and limited speed, but neither of those will be of too much concern on Mars as they will just wait for favourable conditions to fly.

    • Re:Control system (Score:5, Funny)

      by excelsior_gr ( 969383 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @08:46AM (#60221328)

      Not to mention that the lack of back suspension and the ridiculously tall handlebars make choppers amazingly uncomfortable.

      Oh, you mean those choppers! Nevermind.

  • A fixed wing plane should be easier to construct, easier to fly, use less energy to stay up, and have a longer range. Any idea why they chose a helicopter design?

    • Takeoff and landing for one -- no prospect of an airstrip.
      Also flight speed, I suspect. The chopper blades can move very fast to generate lift without the whole vehicle moving.

    • Re:Why not a fixed wing plane? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @08:43AM (#60221320) Journal
      There are designs for fixed-wing aircraft for Mars, too. See, for instance: https://www.ted.com/talks/joel_levine_why_we_need_to_go_back_to_mars [ted.com]

      The problem, as others have noted, is that it's kind of a one-shot deal: finding a suitably smooth landing site is nigh impossible, so your mission will probably end after one flight. Even if the airplane survived landing on a somewhat bumpy surface, the prospects of ever being able to lake off again are slim, since it is much harder to accelerate to take-off speed than it is to slow down from a landing speed.

      This helicopter is more of a demonstration mission, anyway. They want to know 1) whether it will work technologically and 2) if it does work, what useful information could they get from it. That would allow them to scale it up to a science mission. As the article noted: this is more like the Sojourner rover, a prelude to something like Spirit and Opportunity. It also will help the development of the freakin' nuclear-powered helicopter they plan to send to freakin' Titan!
    • I would assume this is more of a "see if we can do it" than anything. I'd also think some type of self inflating dirigible would provide a more stable and energy efficient platform. Fixed wing craft have similar issues to helicopters if you're using propellers, getting enough speed to generate lift in the thin atmosphere isn't easy, and using jets or other thrusters means dealing with fuel logistics.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
        Problem is the Martian atmosphere is so thin to begin with you won't get much buoyancy even using hydrogen/helium. I'd be surprised if it was enough to even lift the skin of your dirigible let alone a payload and engines.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shotgun ( 30919 )

      Easier to "fly". Practically IMPOSSIBLE to take off and land.

      The "airstrip" would be a length of relative flat ground, but from here there is no way of knowing what rocks or holes will be in the way. Taking off and landing is actually a very complex operation that must be negotiated in all three dimensions at once.

      Do I need to dodge obstacles in front of me?
      Am I going up/down at the correct rate?
      Are there any cross winds that I must compensate for?

      Doing all of that with Earth-Mars communication delay woul

  • If they're anything like me they'll crash it within five minutes trying to do something stupid.

  • Trivia: It's "Helico" + "pter" (wing) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by doug141 ( 863552 ) on Wednesday June 24, 2020 @08:22AM (#60221242)

    Not "heli" + "copter"!

  • It may well be the first time *anything* has flown on Mars under its own power. On Earth the Wright Brothers were imitating something that birds and insects do every day.

  • This question might sound glib but it is genuine.

    The article says this is hard and rotorcraft will never be good means of transport on Mars because the air is too thin. I am curious why this matters? You have less lift, but also correspondingly less drag. I understand blade speed is limited by buffeting and drag around the speed of sound. But can't you use a larger area blade (rotary wing) to scale up the lift/drag to what you need given the viscosity of the atmosphere?

    • I think the issue is the extent of the thin air. It's really thin, so scaling up just by blade area is hard.

      Based on the article, the blades are already large, but they had to work hard to find an extremely rigid material/design that minimized bouncing of the blades. In Earth's atmosphere the pressure actually reduces that bouncing naturally, but no such luck in Mars' atmosphere.

      Of course, you get lift in any atmosphere, the question is a) how much lift can you get for the biggest blades you can use, and b)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        The article says this is hard and rotorcraft will never be good means of transport on Mars because the air is too thin. I am curious why this matters?

        Power required.

        You have less lift, but also correspondingly less drag.

        True, but because the air is less dense, the propeller blades have to move faster to produce the same lift. Force is proportional to air density times velocity squared, so to get the same lift in 1/100 the air density, you need the blades to move 10 times faster.

        But required power is force times velocity. So, although the force is the same, the power goes up by ten.

        I understand blade speed is limited by buffeting and drag around the speed of sound. But can't you use a larger area blade (rotary wing) to scale up the lift/drag to what you need given the viscosity of the atmosphere?

        Yes, you could use a larger blade (the lift equation tells you that your choices were make it move faster, make the area bigge

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          Just make the atmosphere thicker. Crash a big watery asteroid into Mars. Nobody will miss it.

        • Thanks. For one thing I didn't realize the Mars atmosphere is only about 1% of Earth. 100x swept area therefore 10x radius. Yikes.
  • Does anybody know why, if they really want to fly, and the thin air makes it difficult, they don't just use a hot-air balloon for lift?

  • The project leader owns the moment.

  • I mean you can simulate the rarefied atmosphere, but the low gravity?

    • Adding buoyancy to the copter via a balloon rig. Problem solved.

  • Does anyone know why they chose to go with a single rotating shaft instead of a quad (or more) shaft/blade design? They generally seem very stable and controllable. Are the quadcopters heavier? I'm sure there's a good reason, just wondering what led them away from that possibility.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      Maybe the space it takes up? When both rotors are lined up, this design is very thin (see the picture of it attached to the rover).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jhon ( 241832 )

        I was thinking more 4x things that can fail. If one rotor fails on a quad -- the entire craft fails. If the rotor fails on a single, the entire craft fails. Why increase your chance of failure while also increasing mechanical complexity?

        • Having 4 separate motors with a fixed shaft and fixed rotors is arguably more reliable than having a swash plate with all the rollers and tiny linkages and rapidly oscillating while rotating blades. Plus, if you have more motors, redundancy can be built in, like with 8 motor craft. Ultimately it likely came down to similar weights but with the current design having a smaller/slimmer form factor.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shotgun ( 30919 )

            Actually, 4 motors are 1/4 as reliable as one. You have 4 times as many chances at a failure, and on a quad just one junks the whole thing.

            And the dual blade could be designed much simpler than you imply. Use the sun and ring gear of a rotary gear set to drive the blades, holding the planet gears stationary. (No. That is not an extended pun.) Instead of a gimbal arrangement, have one side of the craft slightly heavier, and a means to turn that heavier side in the direction of travel. That mechanism could

            • Modern electric motors have no brushes, no parts to wear out and do not experience large cyclical loads that cause fatigue failure and are equivalent to a single shaft with bearing. The control systems have no moving parts and are extremely reliable and compact. Look at the design above, look at the animation, it uses the swash plate design for control. It only uses the second blade to counter the rotation from the lower, it uses a standard helicopter arrangement for actual flight control, and while a m
  • It's easy, just use an old HDD platter with a propeller on it. 7200rpm should be enough for anybody! Seriously though even if this thing can get off the ground I'm guessing it will be limited to tiny batteries.
  • because that is manned flight. There were flying models before the Wright Bros.

  • If you want to test and fly a helico-pter at an equivalent of 100,000 feet, why not just release it from a weather balloon at that altitude here?

    Call me old and grumpy — this idea that we could somehow someday have all the technology, expertise and experience to explore other planets is misguided and a distraction (at best) or a lethal diversion from what really matters, looking after the one we are currently on. Do we really expect that another planet can support us, and will have a benign "ecosystem

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close