APOD: Ingenuity: First Flight over Mars (2021 Apr 20)

[johnnydeep]

What I would give to see the Wright brother's faces after their first powered flight when telling them that a swatch of the their Whopper material would ride along the first powered flight on Mars... then leave during the developing, excessive laughter.

I had similar thoughts. Such a range in just over a century. That little helicopter would have bordered on miraculous to the Wrights just flying on Earth, let alone on Mars. (And today, they're toys you can pick up for less than most people earn in a day's work.)

Where will our technology be in another 120 years?

Yeah, I've wondered the same thing. I tend believe amazing strides in medical technology and robotics (AI) will stand out. To me, we're now in the golden years of space science / exploration and cosmology. I wish I could be around for CNB (Cosmic Neutrino Background) detection and breaking the CMB barrier.

A side story: Just yesterday I chatted with a friend about how close we are to COTS Dick Tracy watches.

Uh, Apple Watch?

Not as amazing as the Ingenuity flight on Mars, but before Star Trek, I remember distinctly trying to understand the engineering and invention required to put a Zenith CRT TV with tubes, 10's of thousands of volts, and magnetic coil speakers on a person's wrist - with a little battery to power the whole thing. I couldn't fathom how, just not possible! When I got a "really small" transistor radio (made in Japan ), I realized that was a start, but still, how could such a watch be possible?? Now I'm expecting to see a kid's working Dick Tracy TV Watch any day.

[johnnydeep]

The engineers that put this together are awesome.

I noticed what I think is a video aliasing effect of the two rotors seemingly synchronized to the shutter, makes it look like each blade is stationary on either the left or right.

Here's phase #2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zJsXJBs_ks

That's some amazingly adept flying! Probably be quite a few years before we see that on Mars!

[alter-ego]

I had similar thoughts. Such a range in just over a century. That little helicopter would have bordered on miraculous to the Wrights just flying on Earth, let alone on Mars. (And today, they're toys you can pick up for less than most people earn in a day's work.)

Where will our technology be in another 120 years?

Yeah, I've wondered the same thing. I tend believe amazing strides in medical technology and robotics (AI) will stand out. To me, we're now in the golden years of space science / exploration and cosmology. I wish I could be around for CNB (Cosmic Neutrino Background) detection and breaking the CMB barrier.

A side story: Just yesterday I chatted with a friend about how close we are to COTS Dick Tracy watches.

Uh, Apple Watch?
 

Not as amazing as the Ingenuity flight on Mars, but before Star Trek, I remember distinctly trying to understand the engineering and invention required to put a Zenith CRT TV with tubes, 10's of thousands of volts, and magnetic coil speakers on a person's wrist - with a little battery to power the whole thing. I couldn't fathom how, just not possible! When I got a "really small" transistor radio (made in Japan ), I realized that was a start, but still, how could such a watch be possible?? Now I'm expecting to see a kid's working Dick Tracy TV Watch any day.

You're essentially right! (Albeit with an asterisk ) Still too big to pack into the watch itself. I can't believe I missed it's introduction, but hey, we've been talking about how technology is developing so rapidly! I didn't miss it by much though.

It's the Wristcam, not the watch per se. You mount the watch into the band. First release was this early year, but started in 2017 as a crowdfunding campaign. The Wristcam is compatible all Apple Watches to date. Facetime video chat, record videos (30-min video battery life), Bluetooth sync to iPhone, 8GB memory to transfer images and video. Impressive!
 

[johnnydeep]

Yeah, I've wondered the same thing. I tend believe amazing strides in medical technology and robotics (AI) will stand out. To me, we're now in the golden years of space science / exploration and cosmology. I wish I could be around for CNB (Cosmic Neutrino Background) detection and breaking the CMB barrier.

A side story: Just yesterday I chatted with a friend about how close we are to COTS Dick Tracy watches.

Uh, Apple Watch?
 

Not as amazing as the Ingenuity flight on Mars, but before Star Trek, I remember distinctly trying to understand the engineering and invention required to put a Zenith CRT TV with tubes, 10's of thousands of volts, and magnetic coil speakers on a person's wrist - with a little battery to power the whole thing. I couldn't fathom how, just not possible! When I got a "really small" transistor radio (made in Japan ), I realized that was a start, but still, how could such a watch be possible?? Now I'm expecting to see a kid's working Dick Tracy TV Watch any day.

You're essentially right! (Albeit with an asterisk ) Still too big to pack into the watch itself. I can't believe I missed it's introduction, but hey, we've been talking about how technology is developing so rapidly! I didn't miss it by much though.

It's the Wristcam, not the watch per se. You mount the watch into the band. First release was this early year, but started in 2017 as a crowdfunding campaign. The Wristcam is compatible all Apple Watches to date. Facetime video chat, record videos (30-min video battery life), Bluetooth sync to iPhone, 8GB memory to transfer images and video. Impressive!
 
Wristcam.jpgWrist Radio 1947.jpg

Ah, you were referring mostly to the camera/video capability of the Dick Tracy watch. True, the Apple Watch doesn't include a camera. Perhaps after a few more years of tiny camera evolution it will. But in the meantime, that Wristcam watch band accessory does indeed look neat. I also missed the fact that it even existed! It does seem to be a well-designed device. So, thanks for pointing it out.

[Chris Peterson]

Ah, you were referring mostly to the camera/video capability of the Dick Tracy watch. True, the Apple Watch doesn't include a camera. Perhaps after a few more years of tiny camera evolution it will. But in the meantime, that Wristcam watch band accessory does indeed look neat. I also missed the fact that it even existed! It does seem to be a well-designed device. So, thanks for pointing it out.

No technological advances are required. We've been able to put a display and a camera together in something you could wear on your wrist for a number of years now. It's just about marketing and the market, not technology.

[Chris Peterson]

What I would give to see the Wright brother's faces after their first powered flight when telling them that a swatch of the their Whopper material would ride along the first powered flight on Mars... then leave during the developing, excessive laughter.

I had similar thoughts. Such a range in just over a century. That little helicopter would have bordered on miraculous to the Wrights just flying on Earth, let alone on Mars. (And today, they're toys you can pick up for less than most people earn in a day's work.)

Where will our technology be in another 120 years?

Yeah, I've wondered the same thing. I tend believe amazing strides in medical technology and robotics (AI) will stand out. To me, we're now in the golden years of space science / exploration and cosmology. I wish I could be around for CNB (Cosmic Neutrino Background) detection and breaking the CMB barrier.

A side story: Just yesterday I chatted with a friend about how close we are to COTS Dick Tracy watches. Not as amazing as the Ingenuity flight on Mars, but before Star Trek, I remember distinctly trying to understand the engineering and invention required to put a Zenith CRT TV with tubes, 10's of thousands of volts, and magnetic coil speakers on a person's wrist - with a little battery to power the whole thing. I couldn't fathom how, just not possible! When I got a "really small" transistor radio (made in Japan :)), I realized that was a start, but still, how could such a watch be possible?? Now I'm expecting to see a kid's working Dick Tracy TV Watch any day.

I remember seeing tiny flat-screen CRTs back in the 1980s. The electron gun was below the display area, and the beam deflected at 90°. Clever. Something like that could have gone into a watch. CCDs were around, too, so a camera was possible. The two big limitations at the time would have been the absence of a communication channel (like ubiquitous WiFi or cellular data) and the massive power consumption such devices would have required. You could have the device on your wrist (although rather bulky, I'm sure), but you'd probably need to power it with a battery carried in a small pack on your back!

[johnnydeep]

Ah, you were referring mostly to the camera/video capability of the Dick Tracy watch. True, the Apple Watch doesn't include a camera. Perhaps after a few more years of tiny camera evolution it will. But in the meantime, that Wristcam watch band accessory does indeed look neat. I also missed the fact that it even existed! It does seem to be a well-designed device. So, thanks for pointing it out.

No technological advances are required. We've been able to put a display and a camera together in something you could wear on your wrist for a number of years now. It's just about marketing and the market, not technology.

Hmm, yes, clearly a video camera is small enough to fit in the Wristcam right now, plus there are already great tiny video-capable cameras in the smallest smartphones. So, I have to wonder why Apple isn't doing it yet. If, say, a camera could be unobtrusively incorporated into the Apple Watch now, say, "under" the display, I'm sure they would be doing it. But even with a small non-rotating "camera bump" on the case that allows only front (wearer) facing selfies and videos I think it would be a great selling point. I have hope! There are oodles of cheap "smart" watches with cameras on Amazon now, but none are loudly advertising video. Even this spec-monster Android smart watch with a 12mp camera (that they specifically say is video capable in passing) doesn't proclaim a useful user video feature: https://www.kospet.com/products/kospet- ... z_pid=1826

[Chris Peterson]

Ah, you were referring mostly to the camera/video capability of the Dick Tracy watch. True, the Apple Watch doesn't include a camera. Perhaps after a few more years of tiny camera evolution it will. But in the meantime, that Wristcam watch band accessory does indeed look neat. I also missed the fact that it even existed! It does seem to be a well-designed device. So, thanks for pointing it out.

No technological advances are required. We've been able to put a display and a camera together in something you could wear on your wrist for a number of years now. It's just about marketing and the market, not technology.

Hmm, yes, clearly a video camera is small enough to fit in the Wristcam right now, plus there are already great tiny video-capable cameras in the smallest smartphones. So, I have to wonder why Apple isn't doing it yet. If, say, a camera could be unobtrusively incorporated into the Apple Watch now, say, "under" the display, I'm sure they would be doing it. But even with a small non-rotating "camera bump" on the case that allows only front (wearer) facing selfies and videos I think it would be a great selling point. I have hope! There are oodles of cheap "smart" watches with cameras on Amazon now, but none are loudly advertising video. Even this spec-monster Android smart watch with a 12mp camera (that they specifically say is video capable in passing) doesn't proclaim a useful user video feature: https://www.kospet.com/products/kospet- ... z_pid=1826

I imagine the only reason that none of the companies making smart watches have put cameras in them yet is because they've decided the market doesn't justify it. Most smart watches are really phone accessories, not standalone items. I imagine most people would prefer to video chat using their phone, with its superior speed, display, and format.

[MarkBour]

About nine seconds into the flight, I noticed that the legs rotated 90 degrees clockwise (as viewed from above). It seemed pretty precise, so I imagine that was a deliberate test. There was also a slight drift to the left, which looked less deliberate. I haven't seen any discussion of either motion in the press coverage; does anyone here know any details about them?

The quarter turn was indeed a planned maneuver. The drift was due to wind, but was deemed "acceptable". Both were mentioned in the NASA briefing I saw. I'll let neufer post a link

EDIT: ok, the turn is mentioned starting about 28 minutes into the full 90 minute briefing: https://youtu.be/JM_2hmdRnfQ?t=1688. I couldn't quickly find the mention of the drift.

EDIT 2: ok, here's the wind drift mentioned about 22:35 minutes in: https://youtu.be/JM_2hmdRnfQ?t=1355

Nice observations, and thanks for the link for vastly more detail from the briefing!

When I first watched the very limited images on the news, I wondered about the landing. It seemed a little odd, almost suspicious, to me that the copter landed so perfectly where it was at take off. Upon closer inspection of the better before and after images, though, it did move slightly. Thanks to your links and watching the briefing, I now get it that Ingenuity was using its camera to watch the ground and actively correcting its position, evidently using fine control to counteract the wind drift. That's already really cool, something it will show off in subsequent flights.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Later, Perseverance will move on. But given how long-lived many NASA craft are, after completion of the primary mission, I wonder if over the next months, Perseverance will keep moving to a new location, only to have Ingenuity show up the next day.

[johnnydeep]

So, about the apparent still frame selfie shot of Ingenuity's shadow on the ground. Both the first flight and the recent second flight feature a selfie shot from the air of Ingenuity's shadow on the ground. In both cases, the rotors appear stationary. Is the shutter speed really fast enough to freeze the fast-rotating blades, or is there something else going on? A comment on a YouTube video claimed that because the shadow is 2D, it doesn't blur, and in fact, it's easy to see flying insect wing and hummingbird wing shadows with the wings frozen. I can't believe that but would welcome being completely wrong.

[illexsquid]

About nine seconds into the flight, I noticed that the legs rotated 90 degrees clockwise (as viewed from above). It seemed pretty precise, so I imagine that was a deliberate test. There was also a slight drift to the left, which looked less deliberate. I haven't seen any discussion of either motion in the press coverage; does anyone here know any details about them?

The quarter turn was indeed a planned maneuver. The drift was due to wind, but was deemed "acceptable". Both were mentioned in the NASA briefing I saw. I'll let neufer post a link

EDIT: ok, the turn is mentioned starting about 28 minutes into the full 90 minute briefing: https://youtu.be/JM_2hmdRnfQ?t=1688. I couldn't quickly find the mention of the drift.

EDIT 2: ok, here's the wind drift mentioned about 22:35 minutes in: https://youtu.be/JM_2hmdRnfQ?t=1355

Thanks for tracking them down for me! Although the whole briefing is worth a watch.

[neufer]

So, about the apparent still frame selfie shot of Ingenuity's shadow on the ground. Both the first flight and the recent second flight feature a selfie shot from the air of Ingenuity's shadow on the ground. In both cases, the rotors appear stationary. Is the shutter speed really fast enough to freeze the fast-rotating blades, or is there something else going on? A comment on a YouTube video claimed that because the shadow is 2D, it doesn't blur, and in fact, it's easy to see flying insect wing and hummingbird wing shadows with the wings frozen. I can't believe that but would welcome being completely wrong.

The blade ends (moving at 15,000 cm/s) will blur only 1 centimeter at a 1⁄16000 s shutter speed.

---

The following list provides an overview of common photographic uses for standard shutter speeds.

• ​1⁄16000 s and less: The fastest speed available in APS-H or APS-C format DSLR cameras (as of 2012). (Canon EOS 1D, Nikon D1, Nikon 1 J2, D1X, and D1H)
  
  ​1⁄12000 s: The fastest speed available in any 35 mm film SLR camera. (Minolta Maxxum 9xi, Maxxum 9 [de]
  
  ​1⁄8000 s: The fastest speed available in production SLR cameras (as of 2013), also the fastest speed available in any full-frame DSLR or SLT camera (as of 2013). Used to take sharp photographs of very fast subjects, such as birds or planes, under good lighting conditions, with an ISO speed of 1,000 or more and a large-aperture lens.
  
  ​1⁄4000 s: The fastest speed available in consumer SLR cameras (as of 2009); also the fastest speed available in any leaf shutter camera (such as the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1) (as of 2013). Used to take sharp photographs of fast subjects, such as athletes or vehicles, under good lighting conditions and with an ISO setting of up to 800.
  
  ​1⁄2000 s and ​1⁄1000 s: Used to take sharp photographs of moderately fast subjects under normal lighting conditions.
  
  ​1⁄500 s and ​1⁄250 s: Used to take sharp photographs of people in motion in everyday situations. ​1⁄250 s is the fastest speed useful for panning; it also allows for a smaller aperture (up to f/11) in motion shots, and hence for a greater depth of field.

[johnnydeep]

So, about the apparent still frame selfie shot of Ingenuity's shadow on the ground. Both the first flight and the recent second flight feature a selfie shot from the air of Ingenuity's shadow on the ground. In both cases, the rotors appear stationary. Is the shutter speed really fast enough to freeze the fast-rotating blades, or is there something else going on? A comment on a YouTube video claimed that because the shadow is 2D, it doesn't blur, and in fact, it's easy to see flying insect wing and hummingbird wing shadows with the wings frozen. I can't believe that but would welcome being completely wrong.

The blade ends (moving at 15,000 cm/s) will blur only 1 centimeter at a 1⁄16000 s shutter speed.

---

The following list provides an overview of common photographic uses for standard shutter speeds.

• ​1⁄16000 s and less: The fastest speed available in APS-H or APS-C format DSLR cameras (as of 2012). (Canon EOS 1D, Nikon D1, Nikon 1 J2, D1X, and D1H)
  
  ​1⁄12000 s: The fastest speed available in any 35 mm film SLR camera. (Minolta Maxxum 9xi, Maxxum 9 [de]
  
  ​1⁄8000 s: The fastest speed available in production SLR cameras (as of 2013), also the fastest speed available in any full-frame DSLR or SLT camera (as of 2013). Used to take sharp photographs of very fast subjects, such as birds or planes, under good lighting conditions, with an ISO speed of 1,000 or more and a large-aperture lens.
  
  ​1⁄4000 s: The fastest speed available in consumer SLR cameras (as of 2009); also the fastest speed available in any leaf shutter camera (such as the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1) (as of 2013). Used to take sharp photographs of fast subjects, such as athletes or vehicles, under good lighting conditions and with an ISO setting of up to 800.
  
  ​1⁄2000 s and ​1⁄1000 s: Used to take sharp photographs of moderately fast subjects under normal lighting conditions.
  
  ​1⁄500 s and ​1⁄250 s: Used to take sharp photographs of people in motion in everyday situations. ​1⁄250 s is the fastest speed useful for panning; it also allows for a smaller aperture (up to f/11) in motion shots, and hence for a greater depth of field.

So what's the shutter speed of Ingenuity's downward pointing navigation camera? I haven't been able to find the spec. Those still pics of the rotor blades don't look very blurred at all, though it's hard to tell how much of that is due to the lack of resolution.

[SpaceNut425]

Why wasn't the recording of the sound of Ingenuity flying released?
They've got a microphone on the rover, use it!

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

I was wondering this too. Just guessing, but it was very far away from the rover, and sound doesn't carry all that well in the thin atmosphere. On the other hand, sound is useful engineering data, and I have to think it was pretty loud. I wish they'd had some sound too!

• Sound included

Had you done to the trouble of overlaying the NASA video with the M*A*S*H soundtrack, I'd have been incredibly impressed. The "MASH"up would probably be surreal.