5 ms·

NASA might put a drone on Mars

38 points by yawz 12y ago

bhhaskin 12y ago
I hate how drone has become synonyms with UAV. All UAVs are drones, not all drones are UAVs.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Is it important in this context? I understand that the other possible meaning is an unmanned vehicle controlled remotely by a human, and since speed of light delay makes that impossible on Mars, only the one possibility remains for this particular use.
  - alex_duf 12y ago
    It does matter because otherwise the title should be "Nasa might put another drone on mars" Rovers are drones as well.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I hadn't thought about the ground vehicle potential. Is that meaning in current use? Edit: I just saw the sibling comment that mentions SpaceX's drone ship. I guess that answers that.
- jccooper 12y ago
  I thought it was the other way around. (A "drone" is--or was, I guess, since it can be anything now, even a barge--an unmanned aircraft used for target practice, so all drones are UAVs.) Guess that goes to show how confused the terminology is. Guess we'll just have to deal with the word meaning nothing, like "cloud". It did have a particular meaning, but then the term got extended to other military UAVs when they started using them for other missions, due, I guess, to lack of a better term. ("UAV" is a mouthful.) And then to autonomous quadcopters as a civilian version of a UAV. And now, apparently, to any small helicopter thing or any autonomous robot vehicle. Soon, it'll probably mean any robot. However, I guess the SpaceX "autonomous spaceport drone ship" is a bit more accurate to the original meaning than usual. It's mission in life does seem to be target practice.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I thought "cloud" had a pretty well defined meaning, either as a fluffy moist thing in the sky, or a short way to say "I have no idea how this internet service actually works."
- baddox 12y ago
  Assuming we're ignoring obviously separate definitions, like bees and sounds, all drones are UAVs. The word "drone" in the aviation context means "an aircraft without a pilot on board." A few dictionaries throw in "autonomous" as a criterion, but I'm not sure where that comes from, since "drone" referred to remote controlled aircraft at least as far back as 1946. Also note that the "drones" that became infamous in the American military were largely not autonomous, but rather were remotely piloted (most American UAVs can loiter autonomously, but as far as I know attack missions are always remotely controlled). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=drone http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=drone
  - vacri 12y ago
    A drone in robotics does not have to fly, it just means that primary direction comes from elsewhere, whether or not the drone itself has any smarts. As alex_duf mentions below, the rovers currently on Mars are drones. 'Drone' has had this meaning long before Parrot and Predator drones existed (which seem to be the things that popularised that meaning).
    - baddox 12y ago
      I agree. I believe "drone" in this context was first used for aircraft (target drones), but it has been further extended to any vehicle in robotics.
pj_mukh 12y ago
I love this idea, I hope it comes to fruition and the science becomes public. I don't quite understand the NASA project approval plan though. AFAIK, the similar NASA Ares project was shelved? :( http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/ http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/
ggreer 12y ago
An aircraft on Mars would be quite an engineering feat. The average atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars is 600 pascals, which corresponds to an altitude of 35km on Earth. Since that's all carbon dioxide, oxygen-consuming jets aren't usable. The only propulsion options are battery-powered fans/propellers and rockets. And even with huge wings, any aircraft would have to be going at hundreds of meters per second to generate lift. Looking at altitude records[1], I see NASA's Helios UAV got up to 30km. Pressure at that altitude is only twice that of Mars, so a battery-powered Mars aircraft seems barely doable with current technology. Edit: I was curious about higher altitudes on Mars, so I looked that up as well. Pressure at the top of Olympus Mons is only 30 pascals. That corresponds to 60km altitude on Earth. Good luck getting anything to fly up there. It's effectively a low-grade vacuum. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Helios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Helios
acadien 12y ago
I wonder if this is meant to replace the ARES project which seems to have gone nowhere. http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/ http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/ I'm not familiar with the details of either project or why a drone might be advantageous over a plane, although they have different applications. The ARES project has been around for a while though so its a mystery to me why it hasn't been implemented yet (the answer must be $$$).
trhway 12y ago
why not solar-powered blimp/airship? What NASA proposes here - land vehicle with separable drone - looks more like future combat systems for Earth :)
IvyMike 12y ago
Back in 2000, Austin Meyer simulated Mars in X-Plane, his physics-based sim. (Nitpickers corner: some people don't like it, but it's good enough for this kind of a thing) His summary is kind of over-the-top but interesting nonetheless: http://www.x-plane.com/adventures/mars.html http://www.x-plane.com/adventures/mars.html TL;DR: Flying on Mars is tough. He used a JATO to take off at 600 mph, a plane similar to a U-2, and an arresting hook to stop.

38 points by yawz 12y ago

bhhaskin 12y ago

I hate how drone has become synonyms with UAV. All UAVs are drones, not all drones are UAVs.

mikeash 12y ago
Is it important in this context? I understand that the other possible meaning is an unmanned vehicle controlled remotely by a human, and since speed of light delay makes that impossible on Mars, only the one possibility remains for this particular use.
- alex_duf 12y ago
  It does matter because otherwise the title should be "Nasa might put another drone on mars" Rovers are drones as well.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I hadn't thought about the ground vehicle potential. Is that meaning in current use? Edit: I just saw the sibling comment that mentions SpaceX's drone ship. I guess that answers that.
jccooper 12y ago
I thought it was the other way around. (A "drone" is--or was, I guess, since it can be anything now, even a barge--an unmanned aircraft used for target practice, so all drones are UAVs.) Guess that goes to show how confused the terminology is. Guess we'll just have to deal with the word meaning nothing, like "cloud". It did have a particular meaning, but then the term got extended to other military UAVs when they started using them for other missions, due, I guess, to lack of a better term. ("UAV" is a mouthful.) And then to autonomous quadcopters as a civilian version of a UAV. And now, apparently, to any small helicopter thing or any autonomous robot vehicle. Soon, it'll probably mean any robot. However, I guess the SpaceX "autonomous spaceport drone ship" is a bit more accurate to the original meaning than usual. It's mission in life does seem to be target practice.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I thought "cloud" had a pretty well defined meaning, either as a fluffy moist thing in the sky, or a short way to say "I have no idea how this internet service actually works."
baddox 12y ago
Assuming we're ignoring obviously separate definitions, like bees and sounds, all drones are UAVs. The word "drone" in the aviation context means "an aircraft without a pilot on board." A few dictionaries throw in "autonomous" as a criterion, but I'm not sure where that comes from, since "drone" referred to remote controlled aircraft at least as far back as 1946. Also note that the "drones" that became infamous in the American military were largely not autonomous, but rather were remotely piloted (most American UAVs can loiter autonomously, but as far as I know attack missions are always remotely controlled). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=drone http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=drone
- vacri 12y ago
  A drone in robotics does not have to fly, it just means that primary direction comes from elsewhere, whether or not the drone itself has any smarts. As alex_duf mentions below, the rovers currently on Mars are drones. 'Drone' has had this meaning long before Parrot and Predator drones existed (which seem to be the things that popularised that meaning).
  - baddox 12y ago
    I agree. I believe "drone" in this context was first used for aircraft (target drones), but it has been further extended to any vehicle in robotics.

pj_mukh 12y ago

I love this idea, I hope it comes to fruition and the science becomes public. I don't quite understand the NASA project approval plan though. AFAIK, the similar NASA Ares project was shelved? :( http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/ http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/

ggreer 12y ago

An aircraft on Mars would be quite an engineering feat. The average atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars is 600 pascals, which corresponds to an altitude of 35km on Earth. Since that's all carbon dioxide, oxygen-consuming jets aren't usable. The only propulsion options are battery-powered fans/propellers and rockets. And even with huge wings, any aircraft would have to be going at hundreds of meters per second to generate lift. Looking at altitude records[1], I see NASA's Helios UAV got up to 30km. Pressure at that altitude is only twice that of Mars, so a battery-powered Mars aircraft seems barely doable with current technology. Edit: I was curious about higher altitudes on Mars, so I looked that up as well. Pressure at the top of Olympus Mons is only 30 pascals. That corresponds to 60km altitude on Earth. Good luck getting anything to fly up there. It's effectively a low-grade vacuum. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Helios http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Helios

acadien 12y ago

I wonder if this is meant to replace the ARES project which seems to have gone nowhere. http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/ http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/ I'm not familiar with the details of either project or why a drone might be advantageous over a plane, although they have different applications. The ARES project has been around for a while though so its a mystery to me why it hasn't been implemented yet (the answer must be $$$).

trhway 12y ago

why not solar-powered blimp/airship? What NASA proposes here - land vehicle with separable drone - looks more like future combat systems for Earth :)

IvyMike 12y ago

Back in 2000, Austin Meyer simulated Mars in X-Plane, his physics-based sim. (Nitpickers corner: some people don't like it, but it's good enough for this kind of a thing) His summary is kind of over-the-top but interesting nonetheless: http://www.x-plane.com/adventures/mars.html http://www.x-plane.com/adventures/mars.html TL;DR: Flying on Mars is tough. He used a JATO to take off at 600 mph, a plane similar to a U-2, and an arresting hook to stop.