4 ms·

Why not send a drone plane together with the Curiosity? It sounds more efficient doing exploration from sky than land. I get that the weather could be a problem

Why not send a drone plane together with the Curiosity? It sounds more efficient doing exploration from sky than land. I get that the weather could be a problem. Anyway, just food for thought.

ortusdux 13y ago
Not enough atmosphere to generate lift. Same reason we can't fly satellites into orbit.
- artmageddon 13y ago
  Silly question, but why is it that we can't fly a satellite into the orbit of Mars? What is it about the space 300 miles up from Earth that differs from Mars? (unless we also want to discuss geosynchronous orbit) Edit: I should have written "launch" a satellite into Orbit from Earth to Mars
  - quux 13y ago
    Actually we currently have 3 satellites orbiting Mars: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artificial_satellites_orbiting_Mars http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artificial_satellite...
  - 1wheel 13y ago
    "Same reason we can't fly satellites into orbit [of Earth]"
  - el_zorro 13y ago
    Orbit isn't about going up - it's about going sideways so fast that the planet curves away just as fast as you fall towards it. While you can use the atmosphere to lift yourself up to a certain extent, it doesn't help you achieve orbit. The 100km boundary for space on Earth isn't picked as just a clean number - it's the altitude at which a plane would have to fly at orbital speeds to generate the required lift, and if you're going orbital speeds you don't need lift. I know this doesn't exactly answer your question, but it might help to frame it better.
    - artmageddon 13y ago
      I probably should have phrased it better, actually. I understand the concept that the satellites are falling along a path in orbit that causes them to "miss" the planet as you describe. I misunderstood the parent's phrasing use of flying, which implies the presence of an atmosphere, as opposed to just "putting" a satellite into Mars orbit(by way of launching a rocket with the desired payload or whatever).
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- cygwin98 13y ago
  The pressure on the surface of Mars (0.6 kilopascals or 0.087 psi) is about one tenth of the pressure at the height of 20KM from surface of Earth (Armstrong limit 6.25 kilopascals or 0.906 psi). Of course, the structure of the "Martian" plane has to be designed accordingly. But definitely not impossible though.
- eudox 13y ago
  Why not a drone dirigible?
  - fideloper 13y ago
    My hypothesis: The minimum atmosphere likely makes it hard for anything to fly close to the surface. Most of our drones/flying machines (winged or rotored) depend on there being relatively thick air to "push" off of.
el_zorro 13y ago
A drone plane has been considered, although the technical feasibility isn't really there. Mars has less than 1% of the atmospheric pressure that Earth does, so a drone would have to fly very fast to get to proper lift. This comes at a high energy cost, which would be hard to provide in a lightweight package. Additionally, the plane would have to land at night and do so autonomously. Even if all of this was achieved (and it is by no means impossible), the drone wouldn't really provide more data than the satellites in orbit already do. Aerial survey is pretty much taken care of, what is needed are actual samples of minerals on the ground. However, if people were able to go to Mars, some sort of drone would be ideal for real-time surveys and control. The explorers would be able to recharge the drone at will so power isn't too much of an issue. There are ideas floating around that talk about a drone that kind of acts like a grasshopper: it takes in Martian atmosphere, and uses it to 'jump' around the surface. It then lands and takes samples, and recharges its energy for the next hop.
- amelim 13y ago
  I believe that most UAV designs for extra-terrestrial missions are designed around the use of airships rather than more traditional airplane or quadrotor designs. An example of initial research in the area is the Titan Aerobot [1] [1] https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/research/facilities/aerobot/ https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/research/facilitie...
  - el_zorro 13y ago
    You are very right - I forgot to mention those. They tend to be a lot more feasible than fixed-wing aircraft, and their ability to land and take samples makes them even more useful.
  - jeorgun 13y ago
    Much though I love the idea of extraterrestrial airships, wouldn't an airship be even less effective than heavier-than-air machines in an incredibly thin atmosphere like Mars'?
    - 13y ago
kyork 13y ago
They had a mission to do so, but it was cancelled. http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/ http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/ The video of the drop test is pretty neat.
pantalaimon 13y ago
You will enjoy this what-if http://what-if.xkcd.com/30/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/30/
- cygwin98 13y ago
  Thanks. A surprisingly fun read. It does get me interested in Venus, which is like a twin of Earth except the hellish atmosphere.

Why not send a drone plane together with the Curiosity? It sounds more efficient doing exploration from sky than land. I get that the weather could be a problem. Anyway, just food for thought.

ortusdux 13y ago

Not enough atmosphere to generate lift. Same reason we can't fly satellites into orbit.

artmageddon 13y ago
Silly question, but why is it that we can't fly a satellite into the orbit of Mars? What is it about the space 300 miles up from Earth that differs from Mars? (unless we also want to discuss geosynchronous orbit) Edit: I should have written "launch" a satellite into Orbit from Earth to Mars
- quux 13y ago
  Actually we currently have 3 satellites orbiting Mars: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artificial_satellites_orbiting_Mars http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artificial_satellite...
- 1wheel 13y ago
  "Same reason we can't fly satellites into orbit [of Earth]"
- el_zorro 13y ago
  Orbit isn't about going up - it's about going sideways so fast that the planet curves away just as fast as you fall towards it. While you can use the atmosphere to lift yourself up to a certain extent, it doesn't help you achieve orbit. The 100km boundary for space on Earth isn't picked as just a clean number - it's the altitude at which a plane would have to fly at orbital speeds to generate the required lift, and if you're going orbital speeds you don't need lift. I know this doesn't exactly answer your question, but it might help to frame it better.
  - artmageddon 13y ago
    I probably should have phrased it better, actually. I understand the concept that the satellites are falling along a path in orbit that causes them to "miss" the planet as you describe. I misunderstood the parent's phrasing use of flying, which implies the presence of an atmosphere, as opposed to just "putting" a satellite into Mars orbit(by way of launching a rocket with the desired payload or whatever).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
cygwin98 13y ago
The pressure on the surface of Mars (0.6 kilopascals or 0.087 psi) is about one tenth of the pressure at the height of 20KM from surface of Earth (Armstrong limit 6.25 kilopascals or 0.906 psi). Of course, the structure of the "Martian" plane has to be designed accordingly. But definitely not impossible though.
eudox 13y ago
Why not a drone dirigible?
- fideloper 13y ago
  My hypothesis: The minimum atmosphere likely makes it hard for anything to fly close to the surface. Most of our drones/flying machines (winged or rotored) depend on there being relatively thick air to "push" off of.

el_zorro 13y ago

A drone plane has been considered, although the technical feasibility isn't really there. Mars has less than 1% of the atmospheric pressure that Earth does, so a drone would have to fly very fast to get to proper lift. This comes at a high energy cost, which would be hard to provide in a lightweight package. Additionally, the plane would have to land at night and do so autonomously. Even if all of this was achieved (and it is by no means impossible), the drone wouldn't really provide more data than the satellites in orbit already do. Aerial survey is pretty much taken care of, what is needed are actual samples of minerals on the ground. However, if people were able to go to Mars, some sort of drone would be ideal for real-time surveys and control. The explorers would be able to recharge the drone at will so power isn't too much of an issue. There are ideas floating around that talk about a drone that kind of acts like a grasshopper: it takes in Martian atmosphere, and uses it to 'jump' around the surface. It then lands and takes samples, and recharges its energy for the next hop.

amelim 13y ago
I believe that most UAV designs for extra-terrestrial missions are designed around the use of airships rather than more traditional airplane or quadrotor designs. An example of initial research in the area is the Titan Aerobot [1] [1] https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/research/facilities/aerobot/ https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/research/facilitie...
- el_zorro 13y ago
  You are very right - I forgot to mention those. They tend to be a lot more feasible than fixed-wing aircraft, and their ability to land and take samples makes them even more useful.
- jeorgun 13y ago
  Much though I love the idea of extraterrestrial airships, wouldn't an airship be even less effective than heavier-than-air machines in an incredibly thin atmosphere like Mars'?
  - 13y ago

kyork 13y ago

They had a mission to do so, but it was cancelled. http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/ http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/ The video of the drop test is pretty neat.

pantalaimon 13y ago

You will enjoy this what-if http://what-if.xkcd.com/30/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/30/

cygwin98 13y ago
Thanks. A surprisingly fun read. It does get me interested in Venus, which is like a twin of Earth except the hellish atmosphere.