Talk:Ingenuity (helicopter)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lead expansion ideas/request (from a reader)[edit]

It seems beyond doubt that the most significant aspect of Ingenuity was its surprising longevity, and the lead of the article does a good job of explaining that aspect. There are other aspects that are not as clear:

  1. What did we learn as a result of the three "extra" years of service? When it's all said and done, what was the scientific benefit of the extra mission time? Was it just more time to demonstrate or test technological capabilities? Was Ingenuity able to meaningfully assist the rest of the Perseverance mission so that the overall mission was more fruitful? Did Ingenuity make any significant discoveries? Did we learn stuff about flying on Mars that lets us build better helicopters for next time (and if so, what)?
  2. Do we know why it lasted for so much longer than anticipated -- was it just that NASA scientists really low-balled the estimate, or did we discover some unexpected or better-than-expected conditions on Mars (something about its atmosphere?) that led to this extraordinary longevity? Or do scientists not know the reason, are they stumped?
  3. It began at Octavia E. Butler Landing, where did it end up? What is its final resting location? The article says it flew 10 miles total, but I assume its final location is less than 10 miles from its starting location -- how far from Octavia Butler Landing is it, or is it still at Octavia Butler Landing? Or has that not been made public?

I don't know enough to answer these questions, and the body answers some of it, but I'd suggest/request to editors familiar with the source material that the lead would be improved by addressing these points. Thanks! Levivich (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathise with your request, I too would love to know the answers to your questions. I make efforts to extract any kind of meaningful comment from NASA or JPL but find none. The blogs are not maintained competently and even the flight logs disagree with each other. The flight log discrepancies I asked NASA about, but I was fobbed off with irrelevant answers. My feeling is that Ingenuity is now an embarrassment to NASA. The main project always had reservations about having a helicopter along and now they feel it's just a distraction. It is not up to Wiki to do the research, so I guess we just wait until NASA takes the trouble to say something about it. An ignominious end to a fabulous project. Apparently, it is retired, so we can expect some analysis now?? Ex nihil (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An embarrassment? Why do think that? In browsing through Twitter feeds, I've seen tremendous feelings of connection and, yes, affection, by many people for the copter, as if it were a sentient being. It's true that the rover and copter missions were mostly separate, and I got the feeling between the lines that rover ops were not too keen to help copter ops. It would be interesting someday if an enterprising reporter covered, or uncovered, tension or conflict, if that's what it was, between the two teams. DonFB (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DonFB, you are absolutely right about public interest, it went off the scale; perhaps even more public interest than in Perseverance 'though I have no data on that. I am talking about NASA's treatment of Ingenuity. The public enthusiasm was never reflected by NASA, their blogs were minimally maintained, the flight descriptions were woeful, the data was grudgingly supplied, questions sent to NASA by me concerning discrepancies in the logs were not addressed and I was genuinely concerned that the Perseverence op would terminate Ingenuity long before it came to its natural end. One day the story will be told but I rather suspect that the Perseverance op was relieved that Ingenuity finally died,and I doubt the Ingenuity story will be told until Perseverance is put to bed one day. Ex nihil (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ex nihil 1st and 2nd part is described in https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/now-that-weve-flown-on-mars-what-comes-next-in-aerial-planetary-exploration/ and https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/before-ingenuity-ever-landed-on-mars-scientists-almost-managed-to-kill-it/?utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=twitter&utm_brand=ars&utm_medium=social . We have a tool to roughly measure the distance (showing in next edit). —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 04:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ex nihil so as you need in 3rd on https://perseverancerover.spatialstudieslab.org/?page=page_0&views=view_47%2Cview_58 it says Ingenuity "displaced" 7.35 km to its current location. —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 04:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023), some of that will no doubt find its way into the article in due course. It's actually Levivich asking those questions but I hadn't seen those articles before, so all good. The NASA tracker is the location one we have used and seems to go further than the one listed. Ex nihil (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Ex nihil I tagged the wrong person. —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 11:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer a question below as to what must be lead image in infobox of our ginny. First mars pic that is upscaled or disastrous fate one? —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 11:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the sources that answer my questions! (Unfortunately I do not know the answer to your question.) Levivich (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First powered, controlled extraterrestrial flight by any aircraft[edit]

What kind of claim is that? Humans have powered many controlled aircraft into outer space before. This wasn’t the first at all. The sources actually specifically state on another world/planet.Tvx1 00:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balloons and rockets have previously flown in the atmosphere of other planets. Balloons could not be considered truly controlled, however, and rockets are not aircraft, which are vehicles that depend on the atmosphere for lift and thus the ability to fly. NASA had something to say about the matter, as seen here:
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasas-ingenuity-mars-helicopter-succeeds-in-historic-first-flight/ DonFB (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what point you are trying to make here. My point is that this was not the first powered, controlled flight of an aircraft in outer space (which = extraterrestrial). Tvx1 08:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By definition an AIRcraft only flies in an atmosphere. Ingenuity the helicopter made the first controlled flight of an aircraft on another planet. It did not "fly" in space at all, unless we count its transport from Earth to Mars inside the vehicle that contained the Perseverance rover. But that should not be considered "flight" by an aircraft in any conventional sense. Lots of rockets have flown in space, some being controlled to change their trajectory, but rockets are not aircraft. The "Skycrane" vehicles that lowered rovers to Mars, and other vehicles that descended on retrorockets to extraterrestrial bodies like Mars and the Moon are, by definition, rocket-propelled, not "aircraft" that depend on the atmosphere for lift to enable flight. The issue seems to be inaccurate use of the word aircraft in the context of space flight. DonFB (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

I've added the category Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2024 to the article. Should the equivalent template ({{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2024}}) be added, and the article added to the template? Raising for discussion as the first extra-terrestrial aircraft involved in an accident - rockets such as Apollo 13 not being counted as "aircraft". Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I feel that lumping off-planet accidents/incidents with terrestrial ones is not quite proper. Of course, it might be quite a while before the off planet number becomes appreciable, but when it does, a separate category would seem appropriate. I will admit that "Extraterrestrial Aviation Accidents and Incidents in (year)" does not exactly roll off the tongue, but, hopefully, most Wikipedia users are silent readers. DonFB (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be added if an article exists about the accident itself. Since there is presently no page then the damage to the rotary blade(s) is flight specific damage with no injuries. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using "days" rather than "sols" when the context is Earthbound?[edit]

There is one instance of the 3 overall uses of "sols" (the other 2 references Mars related actions) where it is used in the context of actions taking place prior to the mission, here on Earth (specifically, extending the testing phase for "30 sols"). I can absolutely understand the use of "sols" to reference the timespan of a day on a body other than Earth, but on Earth wouldn't it be more simplistic (simplicity not being a bad thing) and to the point to just use the common "days?" If the article is to be accessible to the layman wouldn't it be preferable to use common terminology where appropriate? We all know what a day here on Earth is, after all. Jersey John (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as long as the ambiguity of the word "day" isn't there. It should be clear whether we're referring to an Earth day or a Mars day. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have promoted "Opposition" to a top-level section since at least half of what it talks about happened after the helicopter was deployed on Mars so it's not really part of Development. I think it's best to leave the "30 sols" as is since these are Martian days. If we change it to "30 days" then some people will assume these are Earth days. GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow what the issue is here. If the citation refers to days back here on earth, its 'days' If it refers to days on Mars, it's 'sols'. The two are different time periods. I'd hate to have to see a conversion of 'days' to 'sols'. Having trawled through all the 'sols' and 'days' the only confusion seems to be in the technology demonstration 30days/sols, but the sol one is a quote and unchangeable and looking at the cites, I can only conclude that the use of 30 'days' is just loose use of language and the extension was in fact for 30 'sols'; a product of PR maybe .Perhaps somebody who knows. Ex nihil (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically suggesting replacing "sols" with "days" in the one and only instance where it is referring to something here on Earth. I was not suggesting a blanket change across all instances. Jersey John (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh! Actually, I think that sols was intended. The demo and operational phases were planned in sols, not days on earth because sols were the relevant time period for planning any Ingenuity operations. Ex nihil (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2024[edit]

change ... Originally intended to make five flights, the rotorcraft greatly exceeded expectations and made a total of 72 flights over a period of about 3 years until all four rotors recieved sustained damage in January 2024 forced an end to the mission. ... to: Originally intended to make five flights, the rotorcraft greatly exceeded expectations by making a total of 72 flights over a period of about 3 years. However, in January 2024, sustained damage to all four rotors forced an end to the mission. Blippo (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done More or less - the paragraph is completely different at this point, so I'm closing this edit request as moot. PianoDan (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons discussion somehow related to this article[edit]

Please see Commons:Village pump#Curly apostrophe and COM:FR#FR6. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

Currently the date format is mixed. The article uses
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2021}}
but this is an American article... I propose changing it to
{{Use mdy dates|date=February 2024}}
Any issues?
Quebec99 (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an American article, so I guess OK if we have to. It's not so confusing to the rest of the world provided the month is always spelled out. Ex nihil (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image winner?[edit]

@Ex nihil @DonFB @Randy Kyrn what is a lead image winner for this page. Sol 46 one which we have or https://twitter.com/stim3on/status/1761715831472291996 that is redefined version of https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/LRF_1072_0762099726_099EBY_N0501618SCAM02072_0010I9J that shows the ultimate fate of Ingenuity? Please tell. —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 04:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if 2nd image doesnt lie in infobox where it should lie? —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 04:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better reference https://www.flickr.com/photos/semeion/53550840381/ (later found its already uploaded at File:Ingenuity_SuperCam_Sol_1072_(53550840381).jpg). —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 04:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense, and Dragonfly mission[edit]

I believe the article should be changed to past tense ("was designed", rather than is); is there precedent for that with retired Mars missions? eg. Spirit and Opportunity? Also, the follow up missions section, it might be good to include Dragonfly (spacecraft) - sure, it's not a Mars helicopter, but Ingenuity could be argued to have demonstrated technological maturity for other worlds too. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valinor redirect[edit]

I was just scrolling thru the page and i clicked the valinor station thing and it redirected me to a page about something in “The Hobbit”. Can someone fix that? AdmiralDoorKnob (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is linked correctly as is, although I changed it to Valinor Hills from Valinor Hills Station, which doesn't exist. You have some good reading to look forward to in The Lord of the Rings. Enjoy! Ex nihil (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I deleted the link in the Infobox where I assume you saw it because it is linked under End of Mission and explained there. Leaving it in the Infobox without explanation is going to cause confusion, as it has already. Ex nihil (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of communications[edit]

The article states that Ingenuity is no longer able to communicate with Earth, although it was able to send a farewell message. The article should also explain why that's true, and how it was able to send that last message. JDZeff (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article explains the situation in the subsection "End of mission" in the section "Operational history". Is there another part of the article where you see a contradiction? DonFB (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I'm not talking about why it can't fly, but why it's ceased communications. Is it a matter of not getting enough power anymore or what? JDZeff (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood. But maybe that part of the article does not make it clear enough. Earlier, the article explains that communications from copter to Earth must be relayed through Perseverance rover. When rover drives away from now-immobile copter, the radio link between them is too weak, and the copter cannot talk to it. By design, copter never had sufficient power to communicate directly with Earth, or any satellite in Mars orbit that could be a relay. So, even though it still has power and will continue taking pix and monitoring its components (solar panel, battery, etc, I believe) that data will remain in its memory and will not be retrieved unless/until another mission (a human crew most likely) can download its info, either on Mars, or by taking it back to Earth. Feel free to suggest or make an edit that you think will clarify any uncertainty. One thing that might not be clear enough is that mission rules for the Perseverance rover dictated that it not compromise its goals in any way simply to help the copter. So that means the rover will continue its mission, driving farther from copter, with no intention of coming back simply to collect and relay additional photographs and other data from the copter. DonFB (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DonFB, all comms are relayed via Perseverance, and Perseverance is getting out of range. However, the last comment from NASA I read was that Ingenuity remains comms capable, is still recording data, and will remain as a static monitoring device. I suspect that, when Perseverance goes out of range (and Ingenuity has been further away in the past) there is no reason that Perseverance may not get closer again while pursuing its own agenda - those Valinor Hills look interesting. So, we may be hearing from Ingenuity again. Maybe. When I am not editing on a mobile phone, I'll try to find the cite. Ex nihil (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add another clarification: the "farewell" message from copter was sent through Perseverance rover while the two were still close enough to talk. But now, because rover is driving away, copter will be silent, though powered and functioning, except for....flight. Again, JDZeff, if you think any of this info needs to be added somewhere in the article, have a go. DonFB (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I will need time to think this over but when I am satisfied that I have a good way to add that to the article, I will. JDZeff (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ingenuity_(helicopter)&oldid=1221527042"