Confirmed success.

First powered, controlled flight of an aircraft on another planet.

Even a sort of "video" from Perseverance showing it hovering in the air!

Maybe its just me, I sorta find it hard to get excited about a drone helicopter on Mars.

You're talking about the first powered, controlled, flight on another world.. carrying a piece of the first machine to ever do it here. The engineering challenges involved in making this happen ha e been...immense, and it only became physically possibly recently.

Not just important from a milestone standpoint, it also mean that aerial exploration is possible, and from this little pathfinder, we will develop larger craft capable of covering more territory per flight and recharge cycle than has been explored since the first landing in total.

It may be just a drone, but it's a big deal..

aTmAg said:

---

Maybe its just me, I sorta find it hard to get excited about a drone helicopter on Mars.

---

You're not alone. I think they chose a sort of silly way to do it too, as the helicopter isn't real efficient in that thin air. A blimp/balloon would make a lot more sense but risk being blown away I guess.

The nerdery of it is nice though, and it's good to see further exploration/technological development. I'm just not 'thrilled' with this little stunt, really. Nice to beat China to it, as well.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

You're talking about the first powered, controlled, flight on another world.. carrying a piece of the first machine to ever do it here. The engineering challenges involved in making this happen ha e been...immense, and it only became physically possibly recently.

Not just important from a milestone standpoint, it also mean that aerial exploration is possible, and from this little pathfinder, we will develop larger craft capable of covering more territory per flight and recharge cycle than has been explored since the first landing in total.

It may be just a drone, but it's a big deal..

---

Why would it be a question if aerial exploration was possible? We know the air density and gravity of Mars. I think getting perseverance there and landing is a much more difficult task than the helicopter. We've understood aerodynamics for a long time now. Just look at the F-35. It's over budget and late, but not because of the airframe, but because mission systems software on board. First flight was 15 years ago and performed exactly like simulations predicted. Hell, when they started doing carrier trials, they not only were able to basically hit the exact cable they wanted every time, they had to ask the pilot to aim for another cable, because the hook was hitting the exact same spot over and over again and doing damage to the surface. We've got air figured out.

What is the range of that helicopter anyway?

It's a huge deal IMHO. One of the things NASA has done well is robotic exploration and successive iteration on designs. It wasn't that long ago that little pathfinder landed. It was never intended as a long distance rover but mostly proof of concept on lander design. And they quickly abandoned the airbag concept as an unwieldy solution in favor of the now established skycrane.

This is a proof of concept. How long can they keep it charged? How well does the autonomous software work? Telemetry, equipment, it's all proof of concept.

I think bigger thing to see with Ingenuity is the process development. There are challenges that are present when trying to remotely control a drone from another planet that aren't really seen as challenges flying a drone off Amazon. Now that we've done it once, there are lessons learned and process improvements that can be applied for the next, hopefully bigger attempt. I believe I saw that they're looking at sending an aerial drone to Titan, but I don't have the article off hand.

Yes that one looks like it will be quite a bit larger/more challenging.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasas-dragonfly-will-fly-around-titan-looking-for-origins-signs-of-life

This one? Is not great. Like I said...pathfinder.

There is no replacement for practical testing. Boeing said the same thing about launching spacecraft, they already new how to program and fly one etc.... and had they not done the unmanned test, they very likely would have killed a crew.

There is a huge difference between theory, and launching an aircraft to another PLANET, especially one we've barely explored, then getting it through the atmosphere, landing it, deploying it, and flying it. Launch that thing into space and returning it to THIS planet would be complicated! Comparing this to the f35 is comparing apples to shrimp...

Ag_of_08 said:

---

You're talking about the first powered, controlled, flight on another world.. carrying a piece of the first machine to ever do it here. The engineering challenges involved in making this happen ha e been...immense, and it only became physically possibly recently.

Not just important from a milestone standpoint, it also mean that aerial exploration is possible, and from this little pathfinder, we will develop larger craft capable of covering more territory per flight and recharge cycle than has been explored since the first landing in total.

It may be just a drone, but it's a big deal..

---

It's pretty cool, but it's also pretty easy to test in a vacuum chamber here on earth.

Right...because vacuum chambers alter gravity, simulate atmospheric and weather patterns, a trip for months through deep space after a rocket launch, and orbital re-entry and landing, plus communicating on another planet.....

Like I said, ask Boeing about "we'll simulate it and it will work".

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Right...because vacuum chambers alter gravity, simulate atmospheric and weather patterns, a trip for months through deep space after a rocket launch, and orbital re-entry and landing, plus communicating on another planet.....

Like I said, ask Boeing about "we'll simulate it and it will work".

---

To compensate for the force of gravity in a test you just change the mass of the object. Then you can test the lift and behavior of the aerodynamic mechanism in the vacuum. Shock, vibration and temperature testing can all be done on Earth. Testing is needed, yeah we can't totally replicate another planet perfectly, but we can do enough to have high confidence it will work on the design planet.

Thinking of heading to the cape for the launch Thursday morning. Should make for some really cool pictures being so close to sunrise.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

This one? Is not great. Like I said...pathfinder.

There is no replacement for practical testing. Boeing said the same thing about launching spacecraft, they already new how to program and fly one etc.... and had they not done the unmanned test, they very likely would have killed a crew.

There is a huge difference between theory, and launching an aircraft to another PLANET, especially one we've barely explored, then getting it through the atmosphere, landing it, deploying it, and flying it. Launch that thing into space and returning it to THIS planet would be complicated! Comparing this to the f35 is comparing apples to shrimp...

---

Yeah, the F-35 flight controls was undoubtedly much harder than a drone on mars.

bmks270 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Right...because vacuum chambers alter gravity, simulate atmospheric and weather patterns, a trip for months through deep space after a rocket launch, and orbital re-entry and landing, plus communicating on another planet.....

Like I said, ask Boeing about "we'll simulate it and it will work".

---

To compensate for the force of gravity in a test you just change the mass of the object. Then you can test the lift and behavior of the aerodynamic mechanism in the vacuum. Shock, vibration and temperature testing can all be done on Earth. Testing is needed, yeah we can't totally replicate another planet perfectly, but we can do enough to have high confidence it will work on the design planet.

---

And yet with all the amazing testing available the mole digging temp probe on InSight doesn't function at all.

In that same line, Hubble didn't work as designed. They forgot to take into account good old gravity in the mirror design. Galileo's high gain antenna didn't open.
Skylab's solar arrays didn't open. There are tons of examples of things that didn't come off as expected.

They have tested the crap out of the Webb Telescope. I still wonder if it will work. That expansion process is complicated and they get one shot at it.

Speaking of one shot at it, Mars Sojoyner? And is anyone else actually landing a thing on Mars? NASA landed a rover the size of a car and deployed and freaking autonomous drone.

It's harder than it looks and There is no substitute for the real thing.

bmks270 said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Right...because vacuum chambers alter gravity, simulate atmospheric and weather patterns, a trip for months through deep space after a rocket launch, and orbital re-entry and landing, plus communicating on another planet.....

Like I said, ask Boeing about "we'll simulate it and it will work".

---

To compensate for the force of gravity in a test you just change the mass of the object. Then you can test the lift and behavior of the aerodynamic mechanism in the vacuum. Shock, vibration and temperature testing can all be done on Earth. Testing is needed, yeah we can't totally replicate another planet perfectly, but we can do enough to have high confidence it will work on the design planet.

---

They did simulate flight on Mars like you suggested. The bolded part is an assumption that was just tested again. It's always good to verify that your simulations are accurate, and they just did that.

It may seem silly, but it's absolutely a big deal. The first powered flight on another planet? Come on.

And static fire for SN15 pushed back to Wednesday at the earliest.

Really hoping it launches Thursday, I have to be in San Antonio Friday afternoon and I'm driving...

gomerschlep said:

---

It may seem silly, but it's absolutely a big deal. The first powered flight on another planet? Come on.

---

I'm curious about the reasoning that chose a helicopter over a fixed wing, glider-like craft.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

It may seem silly, but it's absolutely a big deal. The first powered flight on another planet? Come on.

---

I'm curious about the reasoning that chose a helicopter over a fixed wing, glider-like craft.

---

I think that would be easier to get carried away by sudden winds. Also much easier to vertically take off in a drone as opposed to something that needs a little runway.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

It may seem silly, but it's absolutely a big deal. The first powered flight on another planet? Come on.

---

I'm curious about the reasoning that chose a helicopter over a fixed wing, glider-like craft.

---

There's also issues with line-of-sight coms, interference, ground quality for a runway, and many other issues. Fixed wing drones are a lot more challenging on earth than quad copters. Control is also proportional to speed.

Pretty cool.



Starship NET right now is Friday, as they still have to do the static fire (though Tim is showing it is possible tomorrow still). I'd be surprised if they launch on the same day as doing the crewed launch in Florida. They had integration issues with one of the new raptors that had to go back and get fixed. I think static fire is coming today or tomorrow.

Interesting discussion '08 might be interested in relative to F9/FH and dragon etc. for crew launches for lunar landings vs. SLS.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53087.60

Due to the extremely thin atmosphere, I believe winds aren't much of a factor. I seem to recall when the movie 'The Martian' was released, the author admitted that the 300mph winds in the opening scene would be equivalent to about a 3mph breeze here on Earth. He said he had to suspend physics in his story to add drama.

As an aside, Amazon and Viasat seem to have beclowned themselves fighting SpaceX at the FCC (and in the press);

The recent 'encounter' between Starlink and OneWeb satellites just got more interesting.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-oneweb-false-near-miss-claim/

Basically, the two companies had a conference call where they discussed the physical coordination of the satellites which was successful and there was never a risk of collision.

SpaceX also states that OneWeb explicitly requested SpaceX to turn off their autonomous collision avoidance system. Additionally, the document states that even if there had not been any maneuver conducted, the satellites would have not collided.

In the rest of the document, SpaceX trashes OneWeb.

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=6212177

From the FCC doc mentioned above:

Quote:

---

SpaceX presented the attached fact sheet with an accurate chronology of events that demonstrates the coordination was successful and there was never a risk of a collision.

Despite recent reports to the contrary, the parties made clear that there was no "close call" or "near miss." SpaceX and OneWeb agreed that they had conducted a successful coordination, resulting in a positive outcome. The probability of collision never exceeded the threshold for a maneuver, and the satellites would not have collided even if no maneuver had been conducted. As further detailed in the attached fact sheet, and despite OneWeb's previous public claims, SpaceX's autonomous collision avoidance system was and remains fully functional at all times. SpaceX only turned off the capability at OneWeb's explicit request after OneWeb decided to conduct a maneuver.

---

Quote:

---

OneWeb 's misleading public statements coincide with OneWeb's intensified efforts to prevent SpaceX from completing a safety upgrade to its system. For instance, immediately after the first inaccurate quotes came out in media accounts, OneWeb met with Commission staff and Commissioners demanding unilateral conditions placed on SpaceX's operations. Ironically, the conditions demanded by OneWeb would make it more difficult to successfully coordinate operations going forward, demonstrating more of a concern with limiting competitors than with a genuine concern for space safety.

---

Crew 2 moved to Friday

Static fire for SN15 possible from 5-7pm today. Earlier window cancelled.

That one has now been cancelled as well.

It's looking like SN15 won't be launching until next week at the earliest.

Perseverance is just showing off now. Set its little helicopter off, now it's making oxygen.

https://www.space.com/perseverance-rover-makes-mars-oxygen-moxie

This morning's dragon launch in ~8 minutes is about an hour before dawn so depending on cloud cover, the contrail may be illuminated by the sun and glow once they get high enough.

Nominal orbital insertion, first stage recovery.


So.... private company, re-used space craft and first stage booster... hey blue origin, you have any more fireworks you wanna launch? I think Boeing might need a hand ;-).

Awesome image of second stage separation with Earth and Sun