Perseverance Rover Captures Awesome Video of Helicopter Flying on Mars (gizmodo.com) 65
NASA has now released the most detailed footage yet of Ingenuity in flight. Gizmodo reports: The two videos were taken during the rotorcraft's 13th flight, which took place on September 4. The 16-second flight saw Ingenuity travel nearly 700 feet horizontally, at an altitude of 26 feet. The Perseverance rover recorded the rotorcraft's maneuvers using its two-camera Mastcam-Z, from a distance of about 1,000 feet away.
"The value of Mastcam-Z really shines through with these video clips," Justin Maki, deputy principal investigator for the Mastcam-Z instrument at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, said in a NASA press release. "Even at 300 meters [984 feet] away, we get a magnificent closeup of takeoff and landing through Mastcam-Z's âright eye.' And while the helicopter is little more than a speck in the wide view taken through the 'left eye,' it gives viewers a good feel for the size of the environment that Ingenuity is exploring."
Recently, the scientists at NASA had to program Ingenuity to move a little faster, to compensate for the thinner atmosphere on Mars as the planet's seasons change. The helicopter's navigation system is automated and uses artificial intelligence to constantly measure and correct for environmental variables like wind speed and the level of the ground below it. "It's awesome to actually get to see this [automatic correction] occur," said Havard Grip, Ingenuity's chief pilot, in the same release. "It reinforces the accuracy of our modeling and our understanding of how to best operate Ingenuity."
"The value of Mastcam-Z really shines through with these video clips," Justin Maki, deputy principal investigator for the Mastcam-Z instrument at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, said in a NASA press release. "Even at 300 meters [984 feet] away, we get a magnificent closeup of takeoff and landing through Mastcam-Z's âright eye.' And while the helicopter is little more than a speck in the wide view taken through the 'left eye,' it gives viewers a good feel for the size of the environment that Ingenuity is exploring."
Recently, the scientists at NASA had to program Ingenuity to move a little faster, to compensate for the thinner atmosphere on Mars as the planet's seasons change. The helicopter's navigation system is automated and uses artificial intelligence to constantly measure and correct for environmental variables like wind speed and the level of the ground below it. "It's awesome to actually get to see this [automatic correction] occur," said Havard Grip, Ingenuity's chief pilot, in the same release. "It reinforces the accuracy of our modeling and our understanding of how to best operate Ingenuity."
Re: Awesome? (Score:2)
Re: Awesome? (Score:5, Informative)
Because the designers knew the density of the Martian atmosphere they were able to make the right design.
Re: Awesome? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Awesome? (Score:2)
Re: Awesome? (Score:3)
Re: Awesome? (Score:5, Informative)
NYT has a great article on how difficult this was to engineer:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: Awesome? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Just think about it, you only have a chance to get in elected office when able to raise substantial sums of money.
Hell, even if you want to run for dog catcher it helps when you have money to spend.
In the mean time I'm quite impressed with what NASA is doing (here and elsewhere).
Re: (Score:1)
Funny, but you don't say how it's nonsense. Perhaps the truth hurts so you just had to lash out? It's called critical reasoning for a reason. We can't fix society if we're busy pretending everything is fine when clearly it is not.
"Rand and Cohen believe that explains why people continue with self-destructive behaviors when logical reasoning would have alerted them of the dangers ahead." ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Also, notice how anything critical just gets modded down, clearly symptomatic of denial
Re: (Score:3)
Your rant about corruption is nonsense because precisely this program is actually delivering something interesting, valuable and cheap. Robotic exploration by NASA gets vastly underfunded and is vastly more important than the human crewed exploration because it delivers far more scientific information and is anyway is a pre-requisite for the latter. There's no way to have humans in space without first developing fully automated mining and fabrication since resources are far harder to get than here on eart
Re: (Score:1)
I completely disagree. Very little if anything that comes from NASA these days is interesting or in any way valuable and certainly not cheap. For gosh sakes, billions are starving, do you think they appreciate flying helicopters on Mars? We'd learn far more by going there with a real mission than we'll ever learn from a few very expensive sensors, obviously. Funny, we had humans in space long before robotics or automation, again, obviously.
Sure, it's new but novelty is going to solve humanity's problems, is
Re: (Score:2)
Recognizing the opposing argument that "the earth will be overused and that it is a dying planet", it seems important to seek remedies. The exploration of Mars is an important step toward finding a remedy. (IMHO)
Do these two arguments have a synthesis argument? I don't know but I recognize that human history has a constant of exploring, seeking new places and settling in new places. While there are still many places to e
Re: (Score:2)
the argument is that funding NASA is a misallocation of precious resources, the NASA is ineffective, misguided and off course. NASA's real objective is to increase NASA's budget and decrease NASA's relevance and they are well on their way.
All I see here is first world self-justification. Humans need a planet, it's stupid to let greedy selfish people wreck this one one a vain quest for self-aggrandizment.
Typical denial. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it my commnet was relevant, all this wasted money could and should be being used to fund education and poverty reduction and equality measures. This is just rich people exploiting poor people and it needs to stop. Sadly, people like you allow unethical practices to continue.
All I see here is selfishness, greed and denial.
Re:NASA's astronomical waste of money (Score:4, Insightful)
You want to talk about selfishness? Look at your own comment. Scientific research for its own sake makes all that other kind of stuff possible. But you want to be the decider. Well, get elected to a public office then.
Re: (Score:1)
CEO of NASA salary every year is $234,034 ~ https://www.comparably.com/com... [comparably.com]
so he's obviously a millionaire, pretty good pay, much better than most people, which would be okay if he was the only one but he's not, there's a whole gigantic organization. I bet the ratio of NASA people on the ground gets greater than the numbers in space each and every year. When are they going to actually have a permanent space station? I mean how about a roadmap that doesn't extend into the next century for gosh sakes. Turt
Re:NASA's astronomical waste of money (Score:5, Informative)
CEO of NASA salary every year is $234,034, so he's obviously a millionaire
Based on what? Jim Bridenstine was at NASA for 3 years. 3 X 234k is not one million dollars unless you are using some new math
much better than most people
But not compared to your average CEO. It seems you are failing to make that comparison.
I bet the ratio of NASA people on the ground gets greater than the numbers in space each and every year.
And you would lose that bet. [nasa.gov] NASA"s peak workforce in 1967: 36,000. Today: 17,000.
When are they going to actually have a permanent space station?
You do know that ISS has been in orbit for decades right?
Not against science, but I am against junk and vanity science. Humanity needs results and progess, pure science is fine, but so is applied science and if we're not around, there won't be any pure science, will there?
Pure science [nasa.gov] on the current Mars rover. My god man, it's like you know nothing and research nothing before you started your diatribe.
If only we had any real space construction and nascent space industries, or established any long term orbital habitats
Please present your detailed schematics to NASA on all your plans then.
Re: (Score:2)
ISS may be up there now, but it's not a permanent habitat as in people can't live in zero-g for extend periods without heath deteriorating. More trolling.
You get my point, you just don't like it and now you're trying to deny it. No wonder the planet is in the state it's in with apologists like you making excuses for an irresponsiblew and ineffective beaurocracy.
Re: (Score:3)
ISS may be up there now, but it's not a permanent habitat as in people can't live in zero-g for extend periods without heath deteriorating. More trolling.
Moving the goalposts are we? Something is not "permanent" because you made up new criteria. Got it.
You get my point, you just don't like it and now you're trying to deny it. No wonder the planet is in the state it's in with apologists like you making excuses for an irresponsiblew and ineffective beaurocracy.
I get that you demonstrated you know little about the history of spaceflight, science, or engineering and are desperately trying to cover that up. No wonder you didn't know that the Mars rover is packed with scientific instruments doing pure science.
Re: (Score:2)
just more abusive rhetoric, my point stands, NASA is corrupt, ineffective and this is all just a waste of tax dollars, no matter how much you trolls deny it
the truth hurts, just look at your over-reaction
Re: (Score:2)
just more abusive rhetoric, my point stands, NASA is corrupt, ineffective and this is all just a waste of tax dollars, no matter how much you trolls deny it
You said that there are no permanent space stations. Did you forget ISS exists? No, you simply want to change the word "permanent" because you posted a factually incorrect statement. Then you seem play the victim when pointed out your statement is not true.
the truth hurts, just look at your over-reaction
Bahahahaha. You posting about the "truth" is hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
ISS was never intended to be permenent nor is it a non-zero gravity habitat, which is what's really required. Obviously.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
We went to the moon without fancy probes, we could build a space station without anymore probes or research either. So, what's stopping us?
How about we build the first step, a real rotating space station, and we just get it done. Now that would be something. Tired of remote control toys.
Re: (Score:2)
We went to the moon without fancy probes
Well, that is a lie. [wikipedia.org] The US alone successfully sent 4 probes in 1966 alone. That does not include the USSR nor all the failed probes that year. Before Apollo 11, NASA successfully sent 17 probes to the moon.
we could build a space station without anymore probes or research either. So, what's stopping us?
So you have solved the problem of generating power on another world without using fossil fuels. You've designed the air/water filtration/reclamation systems that people will need on the moon then. You should present your plans to NASA then.
How about we build the first step, a real rotating space station, and we just get it done. Now that would be something. Tired of remote control toys.
So you also have the plans for this space station of yours then
Re: (Score:2)
yah, but then we went to the moon, I notice you left that part out.
https://www.space.com/orbital-... [space.com]
talk about trolling, what a bunch of jerks, people like you people who deserve the governance we're getting,shame on you for getting taken and going along with it
Re: (Score:2)
yah, but then we went to the moon, I notice you left that part out.
You said:" We went to the moon without fancy probes". That is a lie and you know it. Also did you read the page that since the last space flight, the US has sent many more probes. It is like people who know way more than you know that is it is cheaper and more practical to send a probe instead of person.
talk about trolling, what a bunch of jerks, people like you people who deserve the governance we're getting,shame on you for getting taken and going along with it,
Either you knew about the 17 probes before Apollo 11 and lied about it or you were ignorant but are desperately trying to cover up your lack of knowledge. Pick one.
Re: (Score:2)
Take your attempt to mischaracterize what i said and shove it, what a jerk you are, just saying. You obviously can't stand on the merits of your argument so you attack the charater of your opponent, typical abusive denial. This is why we're failing, so many people in denial, I guess it's a guilty consciences that keeps so many from accepting the ugly truth about what's going on. Hey, buddy, wake up and look around. the ship is sinking. Billions of people are suffering and you can't pull your head out of you
Re: (Score:2)
So you lied then. You knew that 17 probes were sent to the moon before the first manned landing before stated that they did not exist. This is who you are then?
. You obviously can't stand on the merits of your argument so you attack the charater of your opponent, typical abusive denial. This is why we're failing, so many people in denial,
Facts are fact buddy not matter how much you are whining about it. 17 probes. It takes like a second to verify.
I guess it's a guilty consciences that keeps so many from accepting the ugly truth about what's going on. Hey, buddy, wake up and look around. the ship is sinking. Billions of people are suffering and you can't pull your head out of your arse?
So it's not that you demonstrated you know little of the history of spaceflight. WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!! is your response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There you go again, railing against free speech, criticism, and now even fighting your fellow trolls, there's a certain rich irony in all this. Funny how people will argue ineffectively for ineffectiveness. Still waiting for one actual counter-point that isn't an ad-homien. Personally, I'm glad this 'discusssion' happened in public. By the way, thanks for so clearly demonstrating the lack of any factual rebuttal so effectively, oh and letting me get this all out there. Classic trolling by the way, right dow
Re: (Score:2)
There you go again, railing against free speech, criticism, and now even fighting your fellow trolls, there's a certain rich irony in all this.
Since when did I rail against free speech? Pointing out that you have posted lies is not railing against free speech. Posting facts which you clearly did not know is not "railing against free speech". It is ironic that your whine about free speech does not seem to understand what that means.
. Funny how people will argue ineffectively for ineffectiveness. Still waiting for one actual counter-point that isn't an ad-homien.
Facts which you were wrong or lied about: 1) No moon probes before manned flight. There were 17 easily verifiable US probes 2) Jim Bridenstine became a "millionaire" despite only earning less than $690K. 3) There haven'
Re: (Score:2)
People have a right to speak out and speak up without being put down. Your abusive comments speak for themselves and to your character. Indeed, you still haven't come up with one real counter-argument or a reasonable rebuttal. Furthermore,it's quite obvious you feel theatened by my critical observations. Clearly I've hit close to the mark in order to elict such an venomous response. The truth hurts the most.
Please, don't let me, or anything else, stop you. You go ahead and keep on with your futile a
Re: (Score:2)
People have a right to speak out and speak up without being put down.
Please cite the part of the Bill of Rights or Constitution where it says that. Free speech allows you to speak just as it allows me to point out facts which you were unquestionably wrong. We both have free speech, not just you.
Your abusive comments speak for themselves and to your character.
By "abusive" I called out specific statements of yours which are factually untrue. Calling them "abusive" is playing a victim.
Indeed, you still haven't come up with one real counter-argument or a reasonable rebuttal
By counter argument you mean pointing out your entire foundation of arguments is based on untrue statements?
. Furthermore,it's quite obvious you feel theatened by my critical observations.
By critical do you mean "untrue"?
Clearly I've hit close to the mark in order to elict such an venomous response. The truth hurts the most.
Bahahahahah. You a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the probes were niether fancy nor expensive, but hey nice attempt at trying to derail a serious discussion
my point remains, NASA is corrupt, self-serving and ineffective
Re: (Score:2)
the probes were niether fancy nor expensive, but hey nice attempt at trying to derail a serious discussion
Bahahahah. Moving the goal posts again, are we? How do you define "fancy" and "expensive"? Those probes were expensive and cutting edge for that time. Admit it, you didn't know anything about them before you posted your statement when it was easily researched.
my point remains, NASA is corrupt, self-serving and ineffective
No your point it to make up statements that are factually untrue and then get defensive when shown facts. You seem to be triggered by facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Another mischaracterization, and still not one counter-argument. So once again, I'll repeat my claimt, NASA is now just a self-serving, overly expensive and ineffective beaucracy. The USA by now could have, and should have a permanent rotating orbital space station and a nascent moonbase. Prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
So once again, I'll repeat my claimt, NASA is now just a self-serving, overly expensive and ineffective beaucracy. The USA by now could have, and should have a permanent rotating orbital space station and a nascent moonbase. Prove me wrong
Bhahahahah. Shifting the burden of proof, are we? You are just full logical fallacies, aren't you? Do you have any facts to present and I mean true facts not the easily debunked drivel you posted.
Re: (Score:2)
yup, still trolling and still not one counter-argument, not one reasonable response, just a typical guilty conscience striking out at banyone who dared to call out unethcial behavior and is now attacking those who called it out, the system is corrupt and the corrupt clearly resent those who point that out during public discourse
it's the opposition of abusive people that so points the way forward for the rests of us, thanks for showing me the way out
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Rogan - NASA Is a Part of a Corrupt System ~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pva3kUU7TS4
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By not one counter argument, I've destroyed your easily debunked statements, then yes. Pointing out that you posted things that are not true, it seems that triggers you in playing the victim. You still have answered whether you knew those things were not true when you posted them.
Also if you have not noticed I have agreed or disagreed with your statement of whether NASA is corrupt or not. Your victim mentality means everyone is against you even if all they do is to not point out your misrepresentations.
Re: (Score:2)
"Conyers says the space agency [NASA] lacks a chief financial officer as required by law, and its books are in such disarray that they cannot even be audited. ‘The lack of these most basic controls allows widespread contract mismanagement" ~ https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
Thanks again for letting me get this out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you can't even use logic properly as you've just perfectly demonstated, as well as demonstrating even more deep denial. This is so great watching you demonstrate perfectly exactly what I'm talking about. Please, keep it up. :)
During the moon lander blackout, Loverro contacted a Boeing executive, Jim Chilton, and explained concerns the space agency had about the company’s lander design. When Boeing submitted an updated bid, the NASA managers evaluating the proposals connected the dots and uncovere
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NASA is also developing the Lunar Gateway. This will use International Space Station (ISS) style modules to build a space station in lunar orbit. The ISS cost $150 billion. Lunar Gateway will clearly cost about $200 billion. The Lunar Gateway will NOT actually improve lunar exploration. It is a system designed to justify SLS. One budget waste used to justify another budget waste. ~ https://www.nextbigfuture.com/... [nextbigfuture.com]
Here's even more proof, and I see you still have nothing to show, but you sure have lots of st
Impressive lifespan (Score:5, Interesting)
"Awesome video" (Score:4, Informative)
"Perseverance Rover Captures Poor-Quality Video of Awesome Helicopter Flying on Mars"
FTFY. Even in the zoomed-in version it is difficult to identify the helicopter. Flying a helicopter on Mars can be considered "awesome", but not this video by itself.
The day to show us ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The day to show us ... (Score:2)
Re: The day to show us ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What fossils do you think a helicopter is going to find?
You don't see the value in a helicopter to scout rock formations before they program the rover to trek to those formations? Also as an engineering test of what vehicles are possible on Mars, you do not see the value?