Explanation: The multicolor, stereo imaging Mastcam-Z on the Perseverance rover zoomed in to captured this 3D close-up (get out your red/blue glasses) of the Mars Ingenuity helicopter on mission sol 45, April 5. That's only a few sols before the technology demonstrating Ingenuity will attempt to fly in the thin martian atmosphere, making the first powered flight on another planet. The historic test flight is planned for no earlier than Sunday, April 11. Casting its shadow on the martian surface, Ingenuity is standing alone on four landing legs next to the rover's wheel tracks. The experimental helicopter's solar panel, charging batteries that keep it warm through the cold martian nights and power its flight, sits above its two 1.2 meter (4 foot) long counter-rotating blades.
King_Nothing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:22 pm
I still think the sky crane (decent stage) was the "first powered flight on another planet"
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=fly wrote:
<<fly (v.1) "to soar through air; move through the air with wings," Old English fleogan "to fly, take flight, rise into the air" (class II strong verb; past tense fleag, past participle flogen), from Proto-Germanic *fleugan "to fly" (source also of Old Saxon fliogan, Old Frisian fliaga, Middle Dutch vlieghen, Dutch vliegen, Old High German fliogan, German fliegen, Old Norse flügja).>>
"first powered aircraft flight on another planet"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft wrote:
<<An aircraft is a vehicle that is able to fly by gaining support from the air. It counters the force of gravity by using either static lift or by using the dynamic lift of an airfoil, or in a few cases the downward thrust from jet engines. Common examples of aircraft include airplanes, helicopters, airships (including blimps), gliders, paramotors and hot air balloons.>>
King_Nothing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:22 pm
I still think the sky crane (decent stage) was the "first powered flight on another planet" but, I can't wait to see how this thing does!!
I think most people recognize a fundamental difference between a controlled descent and active flight. That is, they recognize that the two are really operating in completely different domains.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
I think most people would consider controlled decent to a hover, lowering the rover, disengaging and then, controlled flight away from landing site to the crash site, "controlled flight". They know (knew) where they were going to crash it and controlled (flew) the sky crane to that point. And, at least for the curiosity, they had considerably more fuel left over after the maneuver and could have landed it. If you've ever tried to hover anything such as an RC drone, it takes a lot of practice (control) to do.
King_Nothing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:09 pm
I think most people would consider controlled decent to a hover, lowering the rover, disengaging and then, controlled flight away from landing site to the crash site, "controlled flight". They know (knew) where they were going to crash it and controlled (flew) the sky crane to that point. And, at least for the curiosity, they had considerably more fuel left over after the maneuver and could have landed it. If you've ever tried to hover anything such as an RC drone, it takes a lot of practice (control) to do.
Of course, there's a lot of semantics involved. But no, I don't think most people would put these in the same category, nor even consider controlled descent to constitute "flight". (There's no question about the "control" aspect of it.)
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
The controlled decent was only part of it. They controlled the decent to a controlled hoverr and then, while in controlled hover, preformed an operation (lowering the rover and disengaging it). After disengagement, they directed the the sky crane to rise up to a safe height and then, transition to forward flight in a predetermined direction (that part was not random) away from the rover. They crashed it for expediency, not because they couldn't control the landing.
Are you saying that because there are no "flight surfaces" (wings or rotor blade) this isn't controlled flight?
King_Nothing wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:04 pm
The controlled decent was only part of it. They controlled the decent to a controlled hoverr and then, while in controlled hover, preformed an operation (lowering the rover and disengaging it). After disengagement, they directed the the sky crane to rise up to a safe height and then, transition to forward flight in a predetermined direction (that part was not random) away from the rover. They crashed it for expediency, not because they couldn't control the landing.
Are you saying that because there are no "flight surfaces" (wings or rotor blade) this isn't controlled flight?
Again, the issue isn't about control (although hovering is trivial, particularly on Mars). It's about flight. And yes, for the most part I'd not characterize non-aerodynamic motion as "flight".
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
I wonder if it will be possible, on some future mars helicopter, to integrate the solar panels into the rotor blades? The solar cells would have to be light enough, but if they are, the entire large surface area of the rotors could be utilized, and the extra solar cell panel could be eliminated. I'm sure the engineers have already considered such a thing and found it to be impractical with the current state of technology.
-- "To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}
johnnydeep wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:48 pm
I wonder if it will be possible, on some future mars helicopter, to integrate the solar panels into the rotor blades? The solar cells would have to be light enough, but if they are, the entire large surface area of the rotors could be utilized, and the extra solar cell panel could be eliminated. I'm sure the engineers have already considered such a thing and found it to be impractical with the current state of technology.
I doubt it's an option with silicon solar cells. But efficient polymer PV material is getting close to practicality, and I can imagine that opening up some interesting possibilities.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
johnnydeep wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:48 pm
I wonder if it will be possible, on some future mars helicopter, to integrate the solar panels into the rotor blades? The solar cells would have to be light enough, but if they are, the entire large surface area of the rotors could be utilized, and the extra solar cell panel could be eliminated. I'm sure the engineers have already considered such a thing and found it to be impractical with the current state of technology.
I doubt it's an option with silicon solar cells. But efficient polymer PV material is getting close to practicality, and I can imagine that opening up some interesting possibilities.
Centrifugal force = [2π x 40/s]2/[9.81 m/s2] = 6,440 g per radial meter
johnnydeep wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:48 pm
I wonder if it will be possible, on some future mars helicopter, to integrate the solar panels into the rotor blades? The solar cells would have to be light enough, but if they are, the entire large surface area of the rotors could be utilized, and the extra solar cell panel could be eliminated. I'm sure the engineers have already considered such a thing and found it to be impractical with the current state of technology.
I doubt it's an option with silicon solar cells. But efficient polymer PV material is getting close to practicality, and I can imagine that opening up some interesting possibilities.
Centrifugal force = [2π x 40/s]2/[9.81 m/s2] = 6,440 g per radial meter
Which is why a polymer film that is incorporated into the carbon fiber/epoxy blade structure is entirely feasible. The tension forces involved are well below the material strength. (It's also why bonded silicon cells are probably not feasible.)
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
"The historic test flight is planned for no earlier than Sunday, April 11."
Hopefully it would be neat if they make the first flight on 12 April, because that is the 60th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's first flight into outer space. Just saying because that would be easier for future school children to remember the dates of first flight off planet Earth, and 60 years later the first flight on another planet.
De58te wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:32 pm
"The historic test flight is planned for no earlier than Sunday, April 11."
Hopefully it would be neat if they make the first flight on 12 April, because that is the 60th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's first flight into outer space. Just saying because that would be easier for future school children to remember the dates of first flight off planet Earth, and 60 years later the first flight on another planet.
Nice!
(As an aside, I wonder how many years it's been on Mars. Oh ... 687 (Earth) days / Martian year ... so 31.8 years.)
DL MARTIN wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:01 pm
Question: Did Neil Armstrong fly the Eagle to a safe landing?
Neil Armstrong didn't fly the Eagle to a safe landing as an eagle would do.
(Semantics can be kind of a drag.)
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=fly wrote:
<<fly (v.1) "to soar through air; move through the air with wings," Old English fleogan "to fly, take flight, rise into the air" (class II strong verb; past tense fleag, past participle flogen), from Proto-Germanic *fleugan "to fly" (source also of Old Saxon fliogan, Old Frisian fliaga, Middle Dutch vlieghen, Dutch vliegen, Old High German fliogan, German fliegen, Old Norse flügja).>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera_4 wrote:
<<Venera 4 (Венера-4) was a 1967 Soviet probe comprised an entry probe, designed to enter the Venus atmosphere and parachute to the surface, and a carrier/flyby spacecraft, which carried the entry probe to Venus and served as a communications relay for the entry probe.
Venera 4 was the first successful probe to perform in-place analysis of the environment of another planet. Venera 4 provided the first chemical analysis of the Venusian atmosphere, showing it to be primarily carbon dioxide with a few percents of nitrogen and below one percent of oxygen and water vapors. While entering the atmosphere it became the first spacecraft to survive entry into another planet's atmosphere. The station detected a weak magnetic field and no radiation field. The outer atmospheric layer contained very little hydrogen and no atomic oxygen. The probe sent the first direct measurements proving that Venus was extremely hot, that its atmosphere was far denser than expected, and that it had lost most of its water long ago.>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight wrote:
<<Flight or flying is the process by which an object moves through a space without contacting any planetary surface, either within an atmosphere (i.e. air flight or aviation) or through the vacuum of outer space (i.e. spaceflight). This can be achieved by generating aerodynamic lift associated with gliding or propulsive thrust, aerostatically using buoyancy, or by ballistic movement.>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_planetary_flybys wrote:
<<A planetary flyby is the act of sending a space probe past a planet or a dwarf planet close enough to record scientific data. The first flyby of another planet with a functioning spacecraft took place on December 14, 1962, when Mariner 2 zoomed by the planet Venus.>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Cooper wrote:
<<Leroy Gordon "Gordo" Cooper Jr. (March 6, 1927 – October 4, 2004) was launched into space on May 15, 1963, aboard the Faith 7 spacecraft, for what turned out to be the last of the Project Mercury missions. The clock and then the gyroscopes failed, but the radio, which was connected directly to the battery, remained working. Like all Mercury flights, MA-9 was designed for fully automatic control, a controversial engineering decision which reduced the role of an astronaut to that of a passenger, and prompted Chuck Yeager to describe Mercury astronauts as "Spam in a can". "This flight would put an end to all that nonsense," Cooper later wrote. "My electronics were shot and a pilot had the stick."
Turning to his understanding of star patterns, Cooper took manual control of the tiny capsule and successfully estimated the correct pitch for re-entry into the atmosphere. Cooper drew lines on the capsule window to help him check his orientation before firing the re-entry rockets. "So I used my wrist watch for time," he later recalled, "my eyeballs out the window for attitude. Then I fired my retrorockets at the right time and landed right by the carrier.">>
3D Ingenuity
