8 ms·

Link to the underlying press release [0] which has slightly more info than the BBC article. There is a bit more background about the project at [1], with some k

Link to the underlying press release [0] which has slightly more info than the BBC article. There is a bit more background about the project at [1], with some key points being: "The helicopter uses counter-rotating coaxial rotors about 1.1 m in diameter. Its payload will be a high resolution downward-looking camera for navigation, landing, and science surveying of the terrain, and a communication system to relay data to the 2020 Mars rover. The inconsistent Mars magnetic field precludes the use of a compass for navigation, so it would require a solar tracker camera integrated to JPL's visual inertial navigation system. Some additional inputs might include gyros, visual odometry, tilt sensors, altimeter, and hazard detectors. It would use solar panels to recharge its batteries." [0] https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/mars-helicopter-to-fly-on-nasa-s-next-red-planet-rover-mission https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/mars-helicopter-to-fly-on... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Mars_Helicopter_Scout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Mars_Helicopter_Scout

chiefalchemist 9y ago
"The helicopter uses counter-rotating coaxial rotors about 1.1 m in diameter..." Not to be little it but, in short, a drone. I presume the rocket scientists are jealous ;)
- sgc 9y ago
  Of course. It's by definition until we get someone to Mars.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    I hear ya. But at 1.1m lifting an adult human might be a struggle.
    - sgc 9y ago
      Right, of course you got that. I just wanted to point out that we need to manage our expectations of such a headline due to the current state of technology. There is no way an earth-size helicopter is making it to Mars with current rocket capabilities. The thing is the size of a softball and requires those 1.1m rotors. A human carrying copter would be pointless it seems. They will probably use rocket powered hoppers or something along those lines
- zitterbewegung 9y ago
  The funny thing is that you could almost classify most space missions as drones (or probes).
  - dullgiulio 9y ago
    They are usually called rovers, unless they actually fly. I cannot name any single atmospheric flight on another planet, only controlled plunges.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - KineticLensman 9y ago
      The Vega-1 and Vega-2 balloons operated for more than 46 hours in the atmosphere of Venus as part of the Soviet Venera programme [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_program
      - roywiggins 9y ago
        Everyone forgets about that program, and it was incredible stuff.
- Retric 9y ago
  NASA has been using drones since 1950, it's everyone else that's jelly. PS: Unmanned Rockets are Drones that shoot fire.
- anoncoward111 9y ago
  I too found the terminology a bit weird. When I think "helicopter", i think "gigantic rotor blade with a cockpit fit for a human". When i think "quadcopter", I think of something smaller than what NASA has proposed.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Sounds weird, because we're used to media spam. But "drone" wrt. flying machines basically has 3 popular meanings - RC multicopters, any RC aircraft, and those big RC aircrafts with surveillance cameras and Hellfire missiles. Back because multicopter mania caused all RC aircraft to be rebranded as "drones", we used to call them by category - RC plane, RC helicopter, etc. So personally, I'm totally fine with NASA using the word "helicopter" - though I expect the name that's even more cool than "drone" - an UAV.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  That's what I thought too. But they've been designing this for years; so it might have started before drones got as popular as they are. I mean, drones are just a new name for hobby aircraft. People typically associate drones with quad-copters, but people were flying tiny helicopters next to their small replica remote aircraft for decades. I realize the FAA has official designations for what is a drone (and a lot of older hobby aircrafts may now technically be drones), but it's a word that's really come about because the field is now more accessible/affordable.
  - reaperducer 9y ago
    > drones are just a new name for hobby aircraft With the minor notation that hobby aircraft are permitted in some national parks, while drones are prohibited in all. The Parks Service operates a number of model aircraft airports in some national parks. (I'm not moaning about the perceived inequity with the "drones;" just pointing out a curiosity. I've hated drones ever since they started ruining my ability to peacefully enjoy nature.) >it's a word that's really come about because the field is now more accessible/affordable I think it's a word that comes about because the marketers know that douchebags will respond to pretending that they're part of some secret military high-tech spy ops program, and not flying a Chinese plastic quadcopter. "Model aircraft" is for nerds. "Drone" is for monster truck owners and wannabes.
    - salawat 9y ago
      I'll give an upvote for this. Not the most polite way of putting it, but I appreciate keeping it real. It's a UAV if you want to get back into the subject matter we're discussing though. I do wonder how well it'll do in the Martian atmosphere, especially if it gets caught charging in a sandstorm.
    - mikec3010 9y ago
      To me what makes a drone a drone is the control system algorithm that keeps the aircraft stable. I thought "model aircraft " had to be operated by a sufficiently skilled operator to keep it from crashing. Whereas "drones " automate this skill and present a very simple, dummed down interface such as "go left, turn around, descend" etc
jon-wood 9y ago
It says a lot to how routine using satellite navigation aids has become that my first question was why they’re not using GPS.
- maxmcd 9y ago
  Wait, could they use earth GPS and it would just be very innacurate?
  - YaxelPerez 9y ago
    GPS requires a bunch of satellites to be in orbit first, and we haven't sent them to Mars yet.
    - maxmcd 9y ago
      I meant using the known location of existing earth GPS satellites
      - YaxelPerez 9y ago
        Mars is 140 million miles away from earth on average. Even if you could detect signals from GPS satellites on earth they would all be at a single point in the sky. However, that does bring up an interesting idea. Maybe rovers could navigate using the position of the stars? It doesn't require you to launch 4+ GPS satellites into martian orbit.
        gambiting 9y ago
        I don't see why not - automatic celestial nagivation systems are already a thing on earth, you basically have a system that uses a camera to look at the sky and it gives you an accurate position - most military planes use it as backup in case GPS ever goes down.
        ithkuil 9y ago
kersny 9y ago
If anyone has AIAA paper access (or a workaround ;), they published a ton of details on their guidance, control, and avionics designs at the beginning of this year: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2018-0023 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2018-0023 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-1849 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-1849
- inamberclad 9y ago
  check ntrs?
everdev 9y ago
Sounds a lot like a drone
pasbesoin 9y ago
It would have to be pretty dust/debris resistant, but could the helicopter -- or a simplified version of it -- be used to clear a lander's solar panels of dust? I recall with previous landers, how solar charging performance would degrade, then pick up after what was surmised to have been a wind storm event.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  A dusting brush would likely be more mass- and energy-efficient.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

"The helicopter uses counter-rotating coaxial rotors about 1.1 m in diameter..." Not to be little it but, in short, a drone. I presume the rocket scientists are jealous ;)

sgc 9y ago
Of course. It's by definition until we get someone to Mars.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  I hear ya. But at 1.1m lifting an adult human might be a struggle.
  - sgc 9y ago
    Right, of course you got that. I just wanted to point out that we need to manage our expectations of such a headline due to the current state of technology. There is no way an earth-size helicopter is making it to Mars with current rocket capabilities. The thing is the size of a softball and requires those 1.1m rotors. A human carrying copter would be pointless it seems. They will probably use rocket powered hoppers or something along those lines
zitterbewegung 9y ago
The funny thing is that you could almost classify most space missions as drones (or probes).
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  They are usually called rovers, unless they actually fly. I cannot name any single atmospheric flight on another planet, only controlled plunges.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - KineticLensman 9y ago
    The Vega-1 and Vega-2 balloons operated for more than 46 hours in the atmosphere of Venus as part of the Soviet Venera programme [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_program
    - roywiggins 9y ago
      Everyone forgets about that program, and it was incredible stuff.
Retric 9y ago
NASA has been using drones since 1950, it's everyone else that's jelly. PS: Unmanned Rockets are Drones that shoot fire.
anoncoward111 9y ago
I too found the terminology a bit weird. When I think "helicopter", i think "gigantic rotor blade with a cockpit fit for a human". When i think "quadcopter", I think of something smaller than what NASA has proposed.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Sounds weird, because we're used to media spam. But "drone" wrt. flying machines basically has 3 popular meanings - RC multicopters, any RC aircraft, and those big RC aircrafts with surveillance cameras and Hellfire missiles. Back because multicopter mania caused all RC aircraft to be rebranded as "drones", we used to call them by category - RC plane, RC helicopter, etc. So personally, I'm totally fine with NASA using the word "helicopter" - though I expect the name that's even more cool than "drone" - an UAV.
djsumdog 9y ago
That's what I thought too. But they've been designing this for years; so it might have started before drones got as popular as they are. I mean, drones are just a new name for hobby aircraft. People typically associate drones with quad-copters, but people were flying tiny helicopters next to their small replica remote aircraft for decades. I realize the FAA has official designations for what is a drone (and a lot of older hobby aircrafts may now technically be drones), but it's a word that's really come about because the field is now more accessible/affordable.
- reaperducer 9y ago
  > drones are just a new name for hobby aircraft With the minor notation that hobby aircraft are permitted in some national parks, while drones are prohibited in all. The Parks Service operates a number of model aircraft airports in some national parks. (I'm not moaning about the perceived inequity with the "drones;" just pointing out a curiosity. I've hated drones ever since they started ruining my ability to peacefully enjoy nature.) >it's a word that's really come about because the field is now more accessible/affordable I think it's a word that comes about because the marketers know that douchebags will respond to pretending that they're part of some secret military high-tech spy ops program, and not flying a Chinese plastic quadcopter. "Model aircraft" is for nerds. "Drone" is for monster truck owners and wannabes.
  - salawat 9y ago
    I'll give an upvote for this. Not the most polite way of putting it, but I appreciate keeping it real. It's a UAV if you want to get back into the subject matter we're discussing though. I do wonder how well it'll do in the Martian atmosphere, especially if it gets caught charging in a sandstorm.
  - mikec3010 9y ago
    To me what makes a drone a drone is the control system algorithm that keeps the aircraft stable. I thought "model aircraft " had to be operated by a sufficiently skilled operator to keep it from crashing. Whereas "drones " automate this skill and present a very simple, dummed down interface such as "go left, turn around, descend" etc

jon-wood 9y ago

It says a lot to how routine using satellite navigation aids has become that my first question was why they’re not using GPS.

maxmcd 9y ago
Wait, could they use earth GPS and it would just be very innacurate?
- YaxelPerez 9y ago
  GPS requires a bunch of satellites to be in orbit first, and we haven't sent them to Mars yet.
  - maxmcd 9y ago
    I meant using the known location of existing earth GPS satellites
    - YaxelPerez 9y ago
      Mars is 140 million miles away from earth on average. Even if you could detect signals from GPS satellites on earth they would all be at a single point in the sky. However, that does bring up an interesting idea. Maybe rovers could navigate using the position of the stars? It doesn't require you to launch 4+ GPS satellites into martian orbit.
      - gambiting 9y ago
        I don't see why not - automatic celestial nagivation systems are already a thing on earth, you basically have a system that uses a camera to look at the sky and it gives you an accurate position - most military planes use it as backup in case GPS ever goes down.
        ithkuil 9y ago

kersny 9y ago

If anyone has AIAA paper access (or a workaround ;), they published a ton of details on their guidance, control, and avionics designs at the beginning of this year: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2018-0023 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2018-0023 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-1849 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-1849

inamberclad 9y ago
check ntrs?

everdev 9y ago

Sounds a lot like a drone

pasbesoin 9y ago

It would have to be pretty dust/debris resistant, but could the helicopter -- or a simplified version of it -- be used to clear a lander's solar panels of dust? I recall with previous landers, how solar charging performance would degrade, then pick up after what was surmised to have been a wind storm event.

dredmorbius 9y ago
A dusting brush would likely be more mass- and energy-efficient.