NASA Successfully Flies Small Helicopter On Mars (bbc.com) 49
NASA's first attempt to fly its "Ingenuity" helicopter on Mars was a success, marking what the space agency says is the first powered, controlled flight by an aircraft on another world. The BBC reports: The space agency is promising more adventurous flights in the days ahead. Ingenuity will be commanded to fly higher and further as engineers seek to test the limits of the technology. The rotorcraft was carried to Mars in the belly of Nasa's Perseverance Rover, which touched down in Jezero Crater on the Red Planet in February.
The demonstration saw the Mars-copter rise to just over 3m, hover, swivel 96 degrees, hover some more, and then set down. In all, it managed almost 40 seconds of flight, from take-off to landing. Getting airborne on the Red Planet is not easy. The atmosphere is very thin, just 1% of the density here at Earth. This gives the blades on a rotorcraft very little to bite into to gain lift. There's help from the lower gravity at Mars, but still -- it takes a lot of work to get up off the ground. Ingenuity was therefore made extremely light and given the power (a peak power of 350 watts) to turn those blades extremely fast - at over 2,500 revolutions per minute for this particular flight. Control was autonomous. The distance to Mars - currently just under 300 million km -- means radio signals take minutes to traverse the intervening space. Flying by joystick is simply out of the question.
Ingenuity has two cameras onboard. A black-and-white camera that points down to the ground, which is used for navigation, and a high-resolution colour camera that looks out to the horizon. Sample navigation images sent back to Earth revealed the helicopter's shadow on the floor of the crater as it came back in to land. Satellites will send home more pictures of the flight over the next day. There was only sufficient bandwidth in the orbiters' first overflight to return a short snatch of video from Perseverance, which was watching and snapping away from a distance of 65m. Longer sequences should become available in due course.
The demonstration saw the Mars-copter rise to just over 3m, hover, swivel 96 degrees, hover some more, and then set down. In all, it managed almost 40 seconds of flight, from take-off to landing. Getting airborne on the Red Planet is not easy. The atmosphere is very thin, just 1% of the density here at Earth. This gives the blades on a rotorcraft very little to bite into to gain lift. There's help from the lower gravity at Mars, but still -- it takes a lot of work to get up off the ground. Ingenuity was therefore made extremely light and given the power (a peak power of 350 watts) to turn those blades extremely fast - at over 2,500 revolutions per minute for this particular flight. Control was autonomous. The distance to Mars - currently just under 300 million km -- means radio signals take minutes to traverse the intervening space. Flying by joystick is simply out of the question.
Ingenuity has two cameras onboard. A black-and-white camera that points down to the ground, which is used for navigation, and a high-resolution colour camera that looks out to the horizon. Sample navigation images sent back to Earth revealed the helicopter's shadow on the floor of the crater as it came back in to land. Satellites will send home more pictures of the flight over the next day. There was only sufficient bandwidth in the orbiters' first overflight to return a short snatch of video from Perseverance, which was watching and snapping away from a distance of 65m. Longer sequences should become available in due course.
What about skyhooks? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've had a problem with the "first powered flight" thing.
I'd argue that the Curiosity and Perseverance skyhooks were powered controlled flight.
Also, what about Apollo? And the Russian sample return Luna missions?
What I'd go with is the first powered and controlled flight FROM THE SURFACE of another world.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I'd go with first powered and controlled ATMOSPHERIC flight FROM THE SURFACE of an other world.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd go with the result of an experiment gone wrong, finding yourself on Another World where you are forced to fight for your survival.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. When aeronautics engineers talk about powered flight, they are talking about some propeller and/or blade configuration that can achieve lift. You don't really need to do that with a rocket, any aerodynamic design is more designed to allow passage through atmosphere (though obviously, reducing resistance means less fuel as well). Conceivably, a big enough rocket with a big enough capacity to withstand thermal heating and enough thrusters to keep it stable while in atmosphere could be shaped like a b
Re:What about skyhooks? (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's not just "first powered flight." It is, and I quote, "First powered, controlled flight by an aircraft on another world."
Aircraft. Implying air, and flight using said air as the reaction mass instead of rockets. Rockets and aircraft are two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Who busted you bud? People can be so cruel to you poor autistic types. Need a hug?
Really Just First on Mars (Score:2)
"First powered, controlled flight by an aircraft on another world."
Technically it is the first powered, controlled flight by an aircraft on Mars. It seems highly unlikely that we are the only species in the entire universe to have developed powered flight. So claiming it is the first on "another world" seems very unlikely to be true even if we do not yet have the evidence to show that.
Re: (Score:2)
But until we know otherwise, the record still stands. At the point when we know differently, we'll also have to resolve more thorny issues, such as our arrogant declaration of "Miss Universe" winners.
Re: (Score:2)
But until we know otherwise, the record still stands.
Not really because it makes you sound like a little kid saying that something is the "best in the whole universe" while only having a vague knowledge of only a tiny corner of the universe. Records claimed in total ignorance of the competition are not records. This is why we have the Guinness Book of _World_ Records not "universe" or "galactic" records. By your argument, we should start referring to the blue whale as the largest creature in the Universe which is as silly as it sounds.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I think usually when they speak of "powered flight" they usually are talking about some sort of conventional winged craft; helicopter, airplane or jet aircraft. I suppose maybe rocket planes fit in there somewhere, but I think they pretty much fit more squarely in the general term of rockets. In other words, you're using "air" (however that's constituted on any planet) as the medium, and some sort of propeller or turbine engine to achieve lift via use of displacement. Rocket engines pretty much function pur
Re: (Score:2)
"I'd argue that the Curiosity and Perseverance skyhooks were powered controlled flight."
Usually 'flying' means not hanging from a rope.
Re: (Score:2)
But the craft that lowered Curiosity was in controlled flight .. albeit rocket powered. Also some of the asteroid and lunar sample return missions .. not to mention the Lunar lander the astronauts used.
Re: (Score:3)
They are talking about aerodynamic flight using wings. All previous flight away from Earth has been rocket ascent and descent, or slowing os descent by heat shield and parachute. Helicopter rotors are considered rotating wings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What about skyhooks? (Score:2)
Well does rocket powered ascent from another world count? Thatâ(TM)s been done (lunar sample return, lunar lander, asteroid Bennu sample return etc.)
I think you mean surface ascent on another world that relied on aerodynamics.
They've done it again!?!?!? (Score:2, Funny)
Damn I must have missed something between now and when they first did it this morning https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how the earlier article has that weird “update” thingy
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind that initial transmissions are usually like this. There's likely a lot more signal than that, but it has to be transmitted from the surface to Mars orbit and from there to Earth, and what NASA is looking for initially is confirmation that it actually got into the air. Doubtless better video will be coming. It's like why the first images from any landing are always grainy and B&W, as any of us in the computer world know, a greyscale image or a video made up of only a few frames gets transmit
Re: (Score:1)
I realize that, but conspiracists either don't know or don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they're not going to accept the full video either. I see little reason to try to please idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it is fake, only that it looks that way initially, and some will get the wrong impression.
I think you're misunderstanding the psychology of a 'serious' conspiracy theorist.
They will not get the wrong impression they already have the wrong impression, they will then twist any evidence they encounter to support their 'theory'.
Blocky images: "They're not real, rotor craft don't move like that."
Smooth seamless video: "That's clearly fake. Everyone knows you can't get video like that from Mars."
Much like the impossibility of trying to make something idiot-proof, it's not possible to produce something
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying it is fake, only that it looks that way initially, and some will get the wrong impression.
I think you're misunderstanding the psychology of a 'serious' conspiracy theorist.
They will not get the wrong impression they already have the wrong impression, they will then twist any evidence they encounter to support their 'theory'.
Blocky images: "They're not real, rotor craft don't move like that."
Smooth seamless video: "That's clearly fake. Everyone knows you can't get video like that from Mars.".
Exactly. The sadly messed up mental processes of the conspiracy minded pick and choose whatever fits their skewed reality and it's perceptions.
For a thought process that chooses the hypothesis first (we haven't landed on Mars), then picks and chooses only the evidence that supports their reversed thought process, even trying to debunk it simply strengthens their resolve: "Why are these people arguing with me - this only proves that I'm Right! I'm hot on the path of truth, so they are getting desperate!"
Bandwidth (Score:5, Interesting)
The current issue with the exploration is bandwidth. This is not to minimize their achievement. 2 mbit from the orbit of Mars is no small feat:
https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/miss... [nasa.gov].
However that is one of the satellites, and the average is much lower.
That means the scientists need to download the "thumbnail" images (or the summary video in this case), and select items for later download.
So if any future grants are possible, we should invest more in the "deep space" communication network, which will be ever more important if we want to actually land people on Mars.
Re: (Score:3)
> So if any future grants are possible, we should invest more in the "deep space" communication network, which will be ever more important if we want to actually land people on Mars.
And you'll have to put redundant links in a decent-sized orbit around the Sun so that when Mars is opposite the Sun from us, we can bounce signals around it reliably.
Re: (Score:1)
Bandwidth...of a ship. (Score:2)
Buy more ships. [youtu.be]
Twitter video is fux0red .. (Score:3)
Here's a very short, looped gif from NASA's website of the copter hovering over the Martian landscape:
Ingenuity hovering in the distance [nasa.gov]
Re: Twitter video is fux0red .. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
https://slashdot.org/~RegistrationIsDumb83 vouchsafed:
Thank you. It blows my mind to live in a time where I can look at video from another planet
Mine, too. I only wish it had happened 20 years ago!
And you're entirely welcome ...
On the first try, you were expecting... (Score:2)
what ? Airwolf ? What is wrong with you people ?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this helps a little. [youtube.com] Actually, the start syncs up pretty good. Not great, but...
From the grave... (Score:2)
Ernest Borgnine applauds your effort. Well done.
Re: (Score:2)
what ? Airwolf ? What is wrong with you people ?
Well since it is from Earth, I would have expected Blue Thunder. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the Wright Brothers to offworld flight (Score:2)
From the Wright Brothers [si.edu] to off-world flight in 118 years.
Mind-blowing.
When do we encounter the first extraterrestrial? A huge fish-like creature swimming in Europa's vast ocean? [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Drilling into Europa's ocean will require a lot of novel tech, we couldn't even get to those aliens if they were that far inside Earth. My bet is on discovering microbes a few meters below the surface of Mars.
Where is the direct link? People want the video (Score:2)
I haven't logged into Slashdot in years. When this sort of big news happens, I just want to see the outcome. If I'm excited by it, THEN I'll look into the back stories and reports on it.
Too soon (Score:1)