3 ms·

Not more than about 5-10% (at least at state of the art). Computers are the biggest argument, but again that's off-loadable to the rover. Again, if anyone said

Not more than about 5-10% (at least at state of the art). Computers are the biggest argument, but again that's off-loadable to the rover. Again, if anyone said 10 years ago that a helicopter on Mars was not realistic, then they didn't know what they were talking about (it's funny how people who style themselves skeptics will learn like 5 facts about some place and then crown themselves an expert). I explored a similar but more advanced concept professionally about ~5 years ago.

ncmncm 5y ago
0.9^4 = 0.66 34% better, in aviation, may easily make the difference between practical and not. In the case of Ingenuity, it appears to have made the difference between a need for custom SotA vs. COTS kit. What computing could usefully be offloaded to the rover is very limited. Compressing video, maybe, and that just for power budget. I think Ingenuity has >10x MIPS than Perseverence.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  More like .95^3=86%, at worst. There really hasn’t been that much change in motor performance and even battery is small (5%) as the chemistry Ingenuity used already existed. Solar has changed maybe 3%, at most. Reduce Ingenuity’s flight time by 10%, and it would still be practical.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    You have clearly not kept up on battery technology. "Lithium" does not suffice to define battery cell tech. You clearly have not kept up on CPU design. ISAs are the same, but implementations have been through 3 generations. You clearly have not kept up on motor performance. Nothing theoretical has changed, but COTS motors are much better executed than could be had 10 years ago. You clearly have not kept up on solar performance. While absolute efficiency has not increased much, weight has. Furthermore, and of greater moment here, dust-repellent coatings have improved. The aggregate improvement is much better than 34%.

ncmncm 5y ago

0.9^4 = 0.66 34% better, in aviation, may easily make the difference between practical and not. In the case of Ingenuity, it appears to have made the difference between a need for custom SotA vs. COTS kit. What computing could usefully be offloaded to the rover is very limited. Compressing video, maybe, and that just for power budget. I think Ingenuity has >10x MIPS than Perseverence.

Robotbeat 5y ago
More like .95^3=86%, at worst. There really hasn’t been that much change in motor performance and even battery is small (5%) as the chemistry Ingenuity used already existed. Solar has changed maybe 3%, at most. Reduce Ingenuity’s flight time by 10%, and it would still be practical.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  You have clearly not kept up on battery technology. "Lithium" does not suffice to define battery cell tech. You clearly have not kept up on CPU design. ISAs are the same, but implementations have been through 3 generations. You clearly have not kept up on motor performance. Nothing theoretical has changed, but COTS motors are much better executed than could be had 10 years ago. You clearly have not kept up on solar performance. While absolute efficiency has not increased much, weight has. Furthermore, and of greater moment here, dust-repellent coatings have improved. The aggregate improvement is much better than 34%.