INGENUITY Rotor Copter on Mars

[PaulDoneDrone]

And you still think all this is fake despite a successful landing on Mars, Ingenuity deployed and set to fly on Sunday?

Now even more than before. Yeah I have trust issues Especially after NASA gave Elon contract on developing Moon rover...

NASA have design Mars rover themselves, but now Elon will make them Moon rover...

Does anyone know if the telemetry data is public?

Also I'm still waiting for HD footage from that flight, which we all were promised, the few seconds frames time-lapse doesn't do it for me, I would love to see full HD footage from entire flight.

I guess they have cut out start and landing to god forbid spark any discussion about dust/particle movement during landing/start. They have quite fast link, I hoped after few days we will finally get some HD footage.

This entire event is a bit too much of a propaganda looking, Asian girl manager, constantly showing thumbs up, black girl commenting/narrating almost like what a convenient and politically well-constructed setup should look like

Accepting what they show is all on believe system, same as with religion. I would rather believe in second and analyze and test the first. Science should never be based on believe of any sort.

 

[PaulDoneDrone]

I think that anyone who doubted it did not do the research that was available... as soon as I saw the testing in a huge vacuum chamber (to 1% earth atmosphere) and with a lift cable to simulate the 40% less gravity I had full confidence. As with all new electronics I had faith in the overall design, but always worry about the software and programing to be autonomous.

I have spent quite a lot of time on anything I could find, but didn't find anything "scientific "besides prop shape research from eastern Europe. All that research was all based on fluid dynamics and in the nutshell said: Here it is theory, but we have no clue if it will work in CO2 atmosphere. Those papers are very interesting as they even show design of the chamber shape where they could test the props, it was interesting how they had to design that few times due to some interference by the platform built right in the middle.

I have seen videos you mentioned, but they were not even close to scientific experiments, sketchy at best. None of those video's shows full experiment with telemetry.
eg. Craft spins up, crashes and literally 5 sec later someone comes in and check the craft.
Also nobody explained how they have solved the problem with -80F average temperature and battery maintenance/warmup. at night -130F. Considering Mars gets 50% of sun what we would get on earth, that little panel is not charging anything.

Check the spec sheet of mars helicopter:

https://mars.nasa.gov/files/mars2020/MarsHelicopterIngenuity_FactSheet.pdf

Mavic Mini 2 has more detailed spec page from mars helicopter.

People can believe anything they want, but if we can't check the actual data or get actual specs, NASA becomes religion.

 

[icecoldgin]

BREAKING NEWS: NASA Ingenuity Team cited by Martian FAA for flying BVLOS. The citation stated that the drone cannot be flown from Earth which is way way way way beyond visual line of sight."

?

 

[SkyeHigh]

Now even more than before. Yeah I have trust issues Especially after NASA gave Elon contract on developing Moon rover...

NASA have design Mars rover themselves, but now Elon will make them Moon rover...

Does anyone know if the telemetry data is public?

Also I'm still waiting for HD footage from that flight, which we all were promised, the few seconds frames time-lapse doesn't do it for me, I would love to see full HD footage from entire flight.

I guess they have cut out start and landing to god forbid spark any discussion about dust/particle movement during landing/start. They have quite fast link, I hoped after few days we will finally get some HD footage.

This entire event is a bit too much of a propaganda looking, Asian girl manager, constantly showing thumbs up, black girl commenting/narrating almost like what a convenient and politically well-constructed setup should look like

Accepting what they show is all on believe system, same as with religion. I would rather believe in second and analyze and test the first. Science should never be based on believe of any sort.

Mmm. I guess there’s no convincing you. May be it’s all make believe for the conspiracy theorists and Flat Earth believers. Such negativity.

And absolutely nothing wrong with a female project manager regardless of her ethnic background.

 

[PaulDoneDrone]

Mmm. I guess there’s no convincing you. May be it’s all make believe for the conspiracy theorists and Flat Earth believers. Such negativity.

And absolutely nothing wrong with a female project manager regardless of her ethnic background.

I’m very positive, Why I can’t question anything? It would be super easy to convince me. Just publish specs of the craft, motors, battery, solar panel efficiency, heating element details, telemetry data etc. and lets talk science.

Let people learn, admire and analyze what they already have accomplished, but not 12 hours long video of propaganda clapping and some totally unscientific comments.

Then lets call people asking for tech spec or any questions: conspiracy theorists. I hope some will see the bigotry of the situation. You are asking me to do what flatearthers asking eveyone to do, believe them, because there is no data supporting what they claim.

Are you asking me to belie in science or test the science? As I said I only believe in God, and always test science. Why would I need to “belive” NASA if the data is there, or is it not?

 

[spudster]

 

[PaulDoneDrone]

Cool "High Res" video in 720p... and we complain about MM1 2.7k video. I'm not going to comment on dust etc. maybe Marsian sand doesn't kicks up like our sand does.

Looks like 25s flight, but their brief telemetry chart shows close to 50s...

Also Altimeter chart indicated hoover just above the ground for more than 50s...

NASA please share the .dat file or log or whatever you have up there. It would be cool to see prop speed, voltage, amps etc. just regular drone stuff.

 

[rehkram]

Don't feed the trolls folks! ?

 

[Maviac]

Don't feed the trolls folks! ?

Come on, seems like healthy skepticism. I mean, it’s not like it was designed by rocket scien…. Oooooohhh, riiiiight. Never mind.

 

[rehkram]

When we watched Neil Armstrong step outside in '69 we were all clamoring for the specs of the LEM & his suit, obviously. NASA were clearly shirking their responsibilities for not immediately publishing that stuff.

I mean, how else could we possibly be expected to believe that it happened on the moon, rather than on a Hollywood back lot? /s

And here we are, in 2021. Sheesh!

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SkyeHigh]

I’m very positive, Why I can’t question anything? It would be super easy to convince me. Just publish specs of the craft, motors, battery, solar panel efficiency, heating element details, telemetry data etc. and lets talk science.

Let people learn, admire and analyze what they already have accomplished, but not 12 hours long video of propaganda clapping and some totally unscientific comments.

Then lets call people asking for tech spec or any questions: conspiracy theorists. I hope some will see the bigotry of the situation. You are asking me to do what flatearthers asking eveyone to do, believe them, because there is no data supporting what they claim.

Are you asking me to belie in science or test the science? As I said I only believe in God, and always test science. Why would I need to “belive” NASA if the data is there, or is it not?

I’m not asking you to believe in anything. It’s entirely up to you what you believe whether it’s proven facts or not proven until you have personally analysed it. You want to ‘test science’ whatever that means, go ahead.

I’m not questioning your faith in any way, nor would I ever, but I’m curious: you say you believe in God. Do you have proof such an entity exists or is it just blind faith? How would you prove your belief in a scientific test in the same way you feel necessary when there are photos & video and analysis done by highly educated and experienced professionals - real observable data?

Again, I’m not calling yours or anyone’s faith into question.

 

[spudster]

I’m not asking you to believe in anything.....

I was going to ask the same thing but really didn't want to go there.

 

[CactusJackSlade]

I have spent quite a lot of time on anything I could find, but didn't find anything "scientific "besides prop shape research from eastern Europe. All that research was all based on fluid dynamics and in the nutshell said: Here it is theory, but we have no clue if it will work in CO2 atmosphere. Those papers are very interesting as they even show design of the chamber shape where they could test the props, it was interesting how they had to design that few times due to some interference by the platform built right in the middle.

I have seen videos you mentioned, but they were not even close to scientific experiments, sketchy at best. None of those video's shows full experiment with telemetry.
eg. Craft spins up, crashes and literally 5 sec later someone comes in and check the craft.
Also nobody explained how they have solved the problem with -80F average temperature and battery maintenance/warmup. at night -130F. Considering Mars gets 50% of sun what we would get on earth, that little panel is not charging anything.

Check the spec sheet of mars helicopter:

https://mars.nasa.gov/files/mars2020/MarsHelicopterIngenuity_FactSheet.pdf

Mavic Mini 2 has more detailed spec page from mars helicopter.

People can believe anything they want, but if we can't check the actual data or get actual specs, NASA becomes religion.

Did you see this particular video? Here are successful demonstration flights in 1% atmosphere with a tether/cable reducing it's weight to correspond with Mars gravity. I'm not sure what is not scientific about or sketchy that.

Also you asked about the batteries being kept warm, if you read the available information the reason for such short flights is because most of the energy captured by the small solar panel goes into keeping the necessary parts warm (including the batteries) during the cold Martian nights. I also saw a video about how they were able accomplish this, quite interesting.

"Considering Mars gets 50% of sun what we would get on earth, that little panel is not charging anything." Well, solar is still effective even at 490+ million miles from the sun and this record belongs to the Juno spacecraft which went to Jupiter in 2011, which was solar powered. The fact IS that such a small solar panel on the Mars 'copter is why it has such short flight times and they plan the flights before sunset, at peak charge, before the temperature starts to plummet.

As far as spec's/performance goes, I'm sure more and more will be available as interest increases, especially since the successful first flight on Mars.

There really IS a lot more info out there, if you look. Bottom line, it flew and the experiments done here on Earth made that possible.

 

[PaulDoneDrone]

I’m not asking you to believe in anything. It’s entirely up to you what you believe whether it’s proven facts or not proven until you have personally analysed it. You want to ‘test science’ whatever that means, go ahead.

I’m not questioning your faith in any way, nor would I ever, but I’m curious: you say you believe in God. Do you have proof such an entity exists or is it just blind faith? How would you prove your belief in a scientific test in the same way you feel necessary when there are photos & video and analysis done by highly educated and experienced professionals - real observable data?

Again, I’m not calling yours or anyone’s faith into question.

What NASA is doing is asking us to believe them. and I’m saying this: Why I Don't "Believe" in "Science" - The Bulwark

Those kids are not rocket scientists, they are computer geeks, data modelers, 3D artists etc. It is very easy to check them. Most of them worked one way or the other on some 3D game designs, one guy worked for Disney. Most of the team from DSN are artists, alsmot all of them, they actually call themselves artists on their twitter/Facebook profiles. They do not call themselves rocket scientists...

If you look at NASA library overwhelming majority of media is “visual representation/artist concept” 3D renderings of the Mars, landing etc. I’m not saying they didn’t do what they claim, I’m just saying why should we believe in science if we could be testing it.

I have spend hours digging through their documents, and it is all conceptual conflicting research, different papers have different values, thats why I'm curious about the specs.

First they have asked few Universities to develop proof of concept of Mars helicopter, they received few papers back (all of them saying this might or might not fly) and picked one, I have that research in PDF, it is all “theoretical model” at that point.

NASA took that paper and send it to few more universities and said: Here is our Mars Helicopter, please scale it up from this design, again they have received back the theoretical scaled up models for future missions. Guys from India showed phantom props as example of efficient desing, I have their research too.

NASA research documents that can be found online are conflicting and that’s is why I’m skeptical.

Here is an example:
Mars Helicopter has 0.04 m2 solar panel 21.9W/m2 and 12Ah 6 cell Li-ion battery. 350W is expanded during 90s flight. According to NASA, Mars gets only 50% of sun exposure in comparison to Earth. (NASA says panel drops 0.3% efficiency daily due to dust) I’m super curious how this solar panel will charge onboard battery to be able to survive super cold -90C -130F Martian nights. The math doesn’t add up.
On average Mars is -58F that means battery has to be kept warm 24/7 to much higher temp. If the battery is 400g that would be about 7W per hour just to keep it warm. Not to mention they targeted 15 years service time with one flight a day, that’s bonkers, no Li-ion battery can take that, but researc hpaper talks about it.

“How would you prove your belief in a scientific test in the same way you feel necessary when there are photos & video and analysis done by highly educated and experienced professionals - real observable data?”

There is no analysys, by having tech spec of each component, one can calculate if what they show, makes sense. Call it double checking . And if they would show us telemetry data it would be even more realistic and easier to check.

If we have all the tech details we can calculate a lot.

I can just tell you, we will never get it because this stuff is most likely fake, there is no prop that can do what they say it can, do due low Reynolds Number on Mars.

If you want to call me conspiracy theorist for asking for data, joke is on you.

 

[PaulDoneDrone]

Did you see this particular video? Here are successful demonstration flights in 1% atmosphere with a tether/cable reducing it's weight to correspond with Mars gravity. I'm not sure what is not scientific about or sketchy that.

Also you asked about the batteries being kept warm, if you read the available information the reason for such short flights is because most of the energy captured by the small solar panel goes into keeping the necessary parts warm (including the batteries) during the cold Martian nights. I also saw a video about how they were able accomplish this, quite interesting.

"Considering Mars gets 50% of sun what we would get on earth, that little panel is not charging anything." Well, solar is still effective even at 490+ million miles from the sun and this record belongs to the Juno spacecraft which went to Jupiter in 2011, which was solar powered. The fact IS that such a small solar panel on the Mars 'copter is why it has such short flight times and they plan the flights before sunset, at peak charge, before the temperature starts to plummet.

As far as spec's/performance goes, I'm sure more and more will be available as interest increases, especially since the successful first flight on Mars.

There really IS a lot more info out there, if you look. Bottom line, it flew and the experiments done here on Earth made that possible.

I would love to see exact preasure in that chamber, does the preasure drift? Also how many Ah was used for that flight, what was the battery drain graph. How heavy was AC, RPMs, battery temp, drain, motor Amps, heating lelement power. air temperature, I would love to see prop data trust power torque etc.
That video only shows AC hovers.

 

[SkyeHigh]

What NASA is doing is asking us to believe them. and I’m saying this: Why I Don't "Believe" in "Science" - The Bulwark

Those kids are not rocket scientists, they are computer geeks, data modelers, 3D artists etc. It is very easy to check them. Most of them worked one way or the other on some 3D game designs, one guy worked for Disney. Most of the team from DSN are artists, alsmot all of them, they actually call themselves artists on their twitter/Facebook profiles. They do not call themselves rocket scientists...

If you look at NASA library overwhelming majority of media is “visual representation/artist concept” 3D renderings of the Mars, landing etc. I’m not saying they didn’t do what they claim, I’m just saying why should we believe in science if we could be testing it.

I have spend hours digging through their documents, and it is all conceptual conflicting research, different papers have different values, thats why I'm curious about the specs.

First they have asked few Universities to develop proof of concept of Mars helicopter, they received few papers back (all of them saying this might or might not fly) and picked one, I have that research in PDF, it is all “theoretical model” at that point.

NASA took that paper and send it to few more universities and said: Here is our Mars Helicopter, please scale it up from this design, again they have received back the theoretical scaled up models for future missions. Guys from India showed phantom props as example of efficient desing, I have their research too.

NASA research documents that can be found online are conflicting and that’s is why I’m skeptical.

Here is an example:
Mars Helicopter has 0.04 m2 solar panel 21.9W/m2 and 12Ah 6 cell Li-ion battery. 350W is expanded during 90s flight. According to NASA, Mars gets only 50% of sun exposure in comparison to Earth. (NASA says panel drops 0.3% efficiency daily due to dust) I’m super curious how this solar panel will charge onboard battery to be able to survive super cold -90C -130F Martian nights. The math doesn’t add up.
On average Mars is -58F that means battery has to be kept warm 24/7 to much higher temp. If the battery is 400g that would be about 7W per hour just to keep it warm. Not to mention they targeted 15 years service time with one flight a day, that’s bonkers, no Li-ion battery can take that, but researc hpaper talks about it.

“How would you prove your belief in a scientific test in the same way you feel necessary when there are photos & video and analysis done by highly educated and experienced professionals - real observable data?”

There is no analysys, by having tech spec of each component, one can calculate if what they show, makes sense. Call it double checking . And if they would show us telemetry data it would be even more realistic and easier to check.

If we have all the tech details we can calculate a lot.

I can just tell you, we will never get it because this stuff is most likely fake, there is no prop that can do what they say it can, do due low Reynolds Number on Mars.

If you want to call me conspiracy theorist for asking for data, joke is on you.

I think it’s quite sad that anyone would discredit not only this amazing achievement but the hundreds of highly educated and experienced scientists and engineers that made this achievement possible.

A recent best selling book by Yuval Noah Harari titled, Sapiens a Brief History of Humankind, is an insightful look into the beliefs and myths of our species and where science has changed everything we (believed) we understood to accurate, observable and provable fact. Something some people still clearly have trouble accepting.

That said, we live in a mostly democratic world where people are free to believe in what they choose no matter how misguided that might be.

 

[CactusJackSlade]

I would love to see exact preasure in that chamber, does the preasure drift? Also how many Ah was used for that flight, what was the battery drain graph. How heavy was AC, RPMs, battery temp, drain, motor Amps, heating lelement power. air temperature, I would love to see prop data trust power torque etc.
That video only shows AC hovers.

Here is some info on the vacuum chamber... and it says it can recreate the conditions in space, so I'm guessing that they can achieve almost 100% vacuum. An interesting observation on that video: Check out the sheet on the wall in the testing chamber - even in flight the sheet is not moving much.

One thing I did not think about was simulating those low temperatures, check out page 30, looks like not only did they test the flyability, but cycled the temp up and down just like simulated sol's on Mars.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/638559main_ChamberB-User_Test_Planning_Guide.pdf

If I can find that bit about the heating of the batteries and solar panel on there I will post that up too.

 

[rehkram]

Assuming that PDD is not just another ruskii internet bot, I think his/her/its 'how does this apply to hobbyists flying a drone on planet earth' fixation is warping his/her/its ideation of what NASA's perspectives and objectives should be.

They (NASA) have repeatedly emphasized that Ingenuity is just one of many science experiments on board and ranks lower than other, more costly, mission science projects conducted on the planet.

Now that we, and NASA, know it (flight) can be done, the only questions are around the improvements that they can make for a version 2.0, and how the priorities for the next mission will reflect that.

That was the whole point of this relatively low budget exercise, so mission accomplished. Additional data gained from future Ingenuity lift-offs to add to what we learned from the first flight will be icing on the cake.

 

[teeroy]

If you want to call me conspiracy theorist for asking for data, joke is on you.

Your disbelief in the achievements of the space program is due to skepticism of the offered data, yet you believe in God that has even less (some will say zero) scientific data of His existence. Doesn't that seem a little ironic?

 

[Alex Baxter]

Your disbelief in the achievements of the space program is due to skepticism of the offered data, yet you believe in God that has even less (some will say zero) scientific data of His existence. Doesn't that seem a little ironic?

In the 19th century there was a pseudo scientist that 'proved' that trains coming into Bath (England) through IK Brunel's tunnel would be crushed by air pressure. seems there are still plenty of pseudo scientists clutching at things to 'prove' they are right, and still plenty of gullible folk prepared to ignore the facts. Ingenuity flew, why disbelieve it, they should, as they say in Northern Ireland 'catch themselves on'...