NASA’s 161-second helicopter tour of Martian terrain
On Friday NASA released footage of the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter flying further and faster than ever before.
The film recorded during Ingenuity’s 25th flight on April 8 when it flew 704 meters at up to 5.5 meters per second.
In the sped-up footage shown below, the vehicle climbs to 10 meters, heads southwest, accelerates to max speed in under three seconds, and flies over Martian sand ripples and rock fields before landing on relatively flat terrain.
The navigation camera turns off when the rotorcraft is within a meter of landing to keep dust off its navigation system.
The flights are designed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which sends commands to the Perseverance Mars rover, which in turn relays them to Ingenuity. Ingenuity uses onboard sensors to provide real-time data to its own navigation processor and main flight computer, which then allow it to react in real time.
On April 19, 2021, Ingenuity became the first aircraft ever to make a powered, controlled flight on another planet. It now has 28 flights under its belt, meaning it has completed three flights since the April 8 footage was recorded, but as it takes longer for videos to come back from Mars than images or other data, one can understand the delay in making the information public. The Jezero crater in which Ingenuity landed in 2021 is some 314 million miles (505 million kilometers) away.
Perseverance can achieve transmission rates of up to 2Mb/s to its overhead orbiters, which then relay that data back to Earth at between 500Kb/s to around 3Mb/s, depending on the relative position between Mars and Earth.
NASA has been busy this month re-establishing connection between Perseverance and Ingenuity.
The two spacecraft lost communication over May 3-5 due to dust covering the helicopter’s solar panels, which prevented the batteries from charging. The field-programmable gate array (FPGA) that manages Ingenuity’s operational state then powered down, as did its heaters. When it came back online, its clocks had reset – which is not good for a number of reasons, one being that the FPGA manages the heaters that protect the electronics from frigid Martian night temperatures.
NASA heeded a warning regarding future performance:
One radio communications session does not mean Ingenuity is out of the woods. The increased (light-reducing) dust in the air means charging the helicopter’s batteries to a level that will allow important components (like the clock and heaters) to remain energized throughout the night presents a significant challenge.
JPL’s Ingenuity team lead, Teddy Tzanetos, penned a status update on Friday promising that Ingenuity’s 29th flight may occur in the next few sols or Martian days, “assuming winter recommissioning activities complete nominally.”
Tzanetos also detailed how remarkable it is for this helicopter to not only still be running, but to provide humans with that 161.3 seconds of footage.
“After hundreds of sols and dozens of flights beyond the five flights originally planned, the solar-powered helicopter is in uncharted terrain. We are now operating far outside our original design limits,” said Tzanetos.
See more here: theregister.com
Header image: The Independant
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Mark Tapley
| #
Another NASA money laundering program.. They expect people to believe they can deliver a helicopter to Mars and then fly it remotely in practically zero atmosphere. Below is comment from marine engineer Anders Bjorkman:
Only planets like Earth and Mars orbit the Sun at different speeds. When something departs Earth in space it always orbits Earth that orbits the Sun! Nothing else!
The spacecraft thus departed from Earth at a certain escape speed and direction orbiting Earth to arrive, where planet Mars will be in its orbit, when you arrive in the vicinity at low speed later, we are told. But how?
The shortest trajectory Earth/Mars straight away from the Sun is not possible! Don’t ask me why! No, it must be a 7 times longer and a banana shaped trajectory with TCMs! Trajectory Correction Maneuvers at speeds that nobody can calculate or inform us about! And this trajectory is always an orbit around moving Earth! Never around the Sun! You have to know what an orbit is!
So far the bullshit is good. Getting away from Earth in any direction is easy … but not from Earth gravity! You need gravity to orbit anything. You also need the right escape velocity, direction and location, etc, I am told, to get off the ground and not drop back. Listen to this nonsense:
“In physics, specifically, celestial mechanics, escape velocity is, (we are confusingly told,) the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape (?) from the gravitational influence of a massive body, i.e. planet Earth, in order to achieve an infinite distance from it. …
Or, escape velocity is actually a speed (not a velocity) because it does not specify a direction: no matter what the direction of travel is, the object can escape the gravitational field (provided its path does not intersect the planet). …” Bla, bla, bla.
Imgagine the nonsense!!!!!
A non-propelled object evidently cannot move anywhere, i.e. all object/spacecrafts need a rocket engine to change speed and fuel is needed for it. It also means that the mass of a propelled spacecraft is changing, when the rocket engine is used and fuel mass is expelled. Anyway, we are just going to Mars!
We are going to Mars!
The planet Earth gravitational field varies with altitude and only one thing is certain: trying to escape from Earth gravity will always slow you down in any direction in space to zero speed … when you drop back and return to and crash on Earth. Remember Apollo 1! That spacecraft slowed down most of the way to the Moon from >11 000 m/s to <900 m/s after a couple of days. Imagine that! It should also happen going to Mars. Coming back from the Moon and dropping down on Earth is same. You just go faster and faster. No way to stop!
There are too many variables to consider to plan a trip in space, so, in my opinion, safe space travel is not possible. Any object/spacecraft leaving Earth will always be subject to Earth gravity … until it is lost.
But say that you take off anyway to Mars! Up and away! The show can start!
The Mars Show has started!
Planet Earth’s speed in orbit around Sun is 29 780 m/s. When you start from Earth you have to get off the ground and away from Earth orbiting the Sun. Say that you speed up 10 220 m/s! Then your speed relative the Sun toward Mars is suddenly 40 000 m/s, which is not bad. But your target planet Mars is still far away in its slow orbit high above you.
Planet Mars’ speed in orbit around Sun is only 24 000 m/s. It means you have to reduce speed in space during the trip between planets Earth and Mars – after leaving Earth – to arrive at Mars at 0 relative speed? Don’t worry! Earth gravity slows you down all the time leaving Earth. Problem is to do this in the right trajectory between Earth and Mars. How?
The basis for space navigation relative planet Earth and slow speed planets far away is, I am told, inertial guidance using the inertia of (A) three spinning gyroscopes irrespective of any external forces and without any reference to the Sun and stars and (B) three accelerometers. Precise measurements are made of changes in velocity (acceleration) in all directions and the data is stored in a computer to determine the location in the trajectory at any time. As backup optical sightings/GPS of three stars is used to determine location. Very complicated. I am told since >50 years, I cannot understand it. If I ask, I am told I am an idiot.
The described system is of course oversimplified because I am stupid and the real system used on any spacecraft today is much more complex and powerful for me to understand. Details are unfortunately top secret! Without an accurate system of space navigation any trip with a spacecraft isn’t feasible! The trip is then preprogrammed and any deviations corrected one way or other. Imagine that nonsense!
The Trip to Mars takes >200 Days!
Your speed and direction during the long, >200+ days, trip in orbit (around Earth) then changes all the time but, luckily, you know, all the time, where you are, when you slow down, not to miss the target = Mars! Just ask any any spacecraft pilot how the speed relative Sun is reduced during the long trip! The pilots hasn’t got a clue! Compare Apollo 11! After a few days your speed has dropped from >11 000m/s to <900 m/s. You don’t get to Mars that way.
Let’s repeat! Say you depart planer Earth at a slow 40 000 m/s speed relative Sun (10 220 m/s relative Earth) and want to arrive at planet Mars after a certain time at same speed as Mars. Mars orbits Sun at slow 24 000 m/s but luckily Earth gravity slows you down until … Mars gravity starts to accelerate you. What do you do?
Anyway, you need much more start speed than 40 000 m/s relative Sun to get past the Moon. And there are no rockets with power to do so. It is one reason that no space trips have ever been done outside LEO!
On arrival Mars it’s gravity will pull you towards it and your speed increases in an modified orbit around two, mowing celestial bodies. How to enter or land on or orbit around Mars is then another matter, better forgotten. You cannot do it. Unless you are a clown like Einstein! You have no means aboard your spacecraft to do anything. If you miss Mars on arrival, you will of course continue in your original orbit and return to Earth due to its gravity!
NASA looks after you during the >200 days Trip!
But don’t worry. NASA looks after you! Here is a NASA clown believing in Mars. He is worse than Elon Musk.
You can see planet Mars from Earth (it is lit up by the Sun and looks like a star) at departure, but you have to aim towards its future location in the Solar System at your arrival. Not easy to calculate the trajectory and arrival time, as your start/departure speed is reduced and direction in orbit varies all the time due to gravity!
So all people on Earth – pseudo-astroscientists – behind the trips are simple criminals fooling the stupid people/Arabs paying for the trips. It has gone on for >60 years assisted by media space journalists:
Three unmanned trips to Mars 2020+
The Emirates Mars Mission is an Arab exploration mission to planet Mars. It launched the Hope (al Amal in Arabic) spacecraft on 17 July 2020 from a rocket base in Japan after delays due to local rain.
The retarded mission is regarded as an investment (LOL) in the United Arab Emirate’s economy and human capital. Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum & Co. don’t understand that he & they are fooled by Emirati, Japanese, American and the global Mars science community (LOL) criminals to pay for fantasies. It happens. But they should first learn what an orbit is!
The expected travel time of the Emirati Hope spacecraft is about 200 days on its journey of 60 million kilometers, we are told. Upon arrival at Mars, it will change course (how?) and start an orbit around the planet at unknown altitudes (how?) and speeds. It will study the atmosphere of Mars for two years. Its instruments will help build “holistic models” of the Martian atmosphere. What bullshit! The data is then expected to provide additional data on the escape of the atmosphere to outer space.
The Hope spacecraft carries three scientific instruments to study the Martian atmosphere, which include a digital camera for high resolution colored images, an infrared spectrometer that will examine the temperature profile, ice, water vapors in the atmosphere, and an ultraviolet spectrometer that will study the upper atmosphere and traces of oxygen and hydrogen further out into space. Imagine all that nonsense.
How the spacecraft Hope can reach, slow down on arrival, start orbiting the planet and study the atmosphere are not known and better not asked for.
Arabs are not allowed to land on planet Mars!
Anyway spacecraft Hope arrived and started orbiting Mars on 9 February 2021 I am told. Don’t ask me how it changed orbits and slowed down to orbit Mars at low altitude and constant speed. The 550 kg spacecraft has 6×120 N thrusters for speed control, actually braking, 8×5 N RCS thrusters for directions control and 800 kg of fuel.
On the other hand the Emirates have just started their first nuclear power plant (Korean design/not my EDF/Vinci alternative – it was too expensive) to provide 25% of the electricity required (5.600 MW). It is a very good decision. And more is coming when the (French/Chinese) EDF plant (2.000 MW) comes on line … but it is solar panels. And I look forward to the EDF nuclear power plant in Saudi Arabia. 18 000 MW … to be on line 2040! I am a great fan of peaceful nuclear power. Back to space!
China is going to Mars. It took 202 days
Tianwen-1 is a mission by China to send a spacecraft, which consists of an orbiter, a lander and a rover, to Mars. It is pure propaganda! Bullshit!
The mission was launched on 23 July 2020 with a Long March 5 heavy lift rocket. The objectives were to search for evidence of both current (today) and past (4.000 million years ago) life, and to assess the planet’s weather and environment.
The Chinese Mars spacecraft is developed by the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), and managed by the National Space Science Centre (NSSC) in Beijing. The lander portion of the spacecraft will use a parachute, retrorockets and an airbag in order to achieve landing on the Martian surface. If the landing is successful, the lander would then release a rover, right. Said rover is powered by solar panels and is expected to probe the Martian surface with radar and to perform chemical analyses on the soil; it would also look for biomolecules and biosignatures. It is very important, you know! How the spacecraft Tianwen-1 can, reach, slow down on arrival planet Mars, start orbiting the planet and looking for life and land are not known. Nor is known how the lander can stop orbiting and descend to ground and land to unload the rover.
Chinese rover in red Mars desert 2021. Admire the cameras up on the pole
The Chinese says that they have already landed rovers on the Moon twice before but not found any life there. Sounds like communist propaganda to me.
Anyway Tianwen-1 arrived and started orbiting Mars on 10 February 2021, I am told. It was 202 days after departure! Don’t ask me how it changed orbits and slowed down to orbit Mars at low altitude and constant speed. The 3415 kg spacecraft has only one 7000 N thruster for speed control, actually braking, unknown RCS thrusters for directions control and 1585 kg of fuel. The lander part will later de-orbit and land on Mars using a parachute and dispose the 240 kg rover, that will drive around in the sand. Sounds 100% Chinese bullshit to me!
Mars 2020 is a US Mars Perseverance rover mission by NASA’s Mars Exploration Program that includes the Perseverance rover with a planned launch on 30 July 2020 at 11:50 UTC, and touch down in Jezero crater on Mars on 18 February 2021 at 20:56 UTC. Imagine that! 205 days to go to Mars! I have been told it has happened.
This fake Mars trip thus took about 205 days.
205 Days to go to Mars!
It will investigate an astrobiologically relevant ancient environment on Mars and investigate its surface geological processes and history, including the assessment of its past habitability, the possibility of past life long time ago on Mars, and the potential for preservation of biosignatures within accessible geological materials. It will cache sample containers along its route for a potential future Mars sample-return mission. Imagine that nonsense! NASA was inviting the public to take part in virtual activities and events ahead of the launch of the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover, which was targeted for 7:50 a.m. EDT Thursday, July 30, on a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.
This is the Perseverance six wheels rover already driving around in a red, sandy planet Mars desert 2021. No life in sight!
Of course such a rocket has not enough fuel/power to reach planet Mars. It can hardly reach the Moon. It will just disappear in the Earth sky … and arrive …. bla, bla. People believe this nonsense, because they believe media Fake News!!
Again how the American spacecraft will arrive, stop on arrival Mars, land in a crater and look for life are not known. If anybody knows, please tell me and I will publish it here. Mainstream media will 2021 only publish fantastic (fake) news about life and weather on Mars.
It touched down in Jezero crater on Mars on 18 February 2021 at 20:56 UTC we are told. Hole in one. But 100% Fake News as usual.
Soon fake pictures arrived of the sandy surface of Mars, in this case the bottom of an ancient lake on Mars full of 3 billion years old crystalized hydrated compounds. Right! Today all water has evaporated we are told. Bla, bla, bla!
But only a month later there was a peer reviewed paper published about “Long-term drying of Mars by sequestration of ocean-scale volumes of water in the crust” by young graduate students E. L. Scheller, B. L. Ehlmann, Renyu Hu, and D. J. Adams misdirected by their professor Y. L. Yung:
Photo of Mars crystalized hydrated sand and stones 18 February 2021
Geological evidence shows that ancient Mars had large volumes of liquid water. Models of past hydrogen escape to space, calibrated with observations of the current escape rate, cannot explain the present-day D/H isotope ratio.(???) We simulate volcanic degassing, atmospheric escape, and crustal hydration (???) on Mars, incorporating observational constraints from spacecraft, rovers and meteorites. We find ancient water volumes equivalent to a 100- to 1500-meter global layer are simultaneously compatible with the geological evidence, loss rate estimates, and D/H measurements. In our model, the volume of water participating in the hydrological cycle decreased by 40 to 95% over the Noachian period (~3.7 to 4.1 billion years ago), reaching present-day values by ~3.0 billion years ago. Between 30 and 99% of Martian water was sequestered by crustal (?) hydration, demonstrating that irreversible chemical weathering can increase the aridity of terrestrial planets.
Bla, bla, bla! What a joke! The water is still there on Mars but trapped in the crust! And what is the crust?
Mars’ crust is a thin shell on the outside of Mars, accounting for less than 1% of Mars’ volume. It is the top component of the lithosphere, a division of Mars’ layers that includes the crust and the upper part of the Mars’ mantle. The lithosphere is broken into tectonic Mars’ plates whose motion allows heat to escape from the interior of Mars into space. No evidence of anything!
Watching Mars for a 1 000 years nobody has seen any tectonic plates on Mars full of water!
And the water??? It was just clay! NASA cannot see the difference between water and clay. More about Mars water! Or was it some sort of ice? Let’s look at the poles!
Mars north pole with “white ice’ ??
© 2021 – Lunar and Planetary Institute
Mars south pole with less “white ice’ ??
© 2021 – Lunar and Planetary Institute
One question remains.
What shall the asstronuts going to Mars sking at the poles do in their spacecrafts during the 200+ days trip through the Solar System?
And what does M. Franck Montmessin, the top French expert of the matter has to say about it? Nothing! He only studies the non-existing clouds in the sky of the non-existing atmosphere of Mars above the tectonic plates on the shell. Quel connerie!
No space craft has ever landed on Mars’ tectonic plates, mantle or a meteorite with a rover. The paper is a good example how young, foolish, pseudo-scientists quickly invent anything about space, incl. liquid (!) water on Mars >3 billion years ago!
The temperature on Mars is today a cold -60°C but maybe it was warmer some billion years ago due to an atmosphere that has also disappeared. Anyway, soon Tesla car sales person Lone Skum will arrange tourist trips to Mars and its mantle. A one way trip takes only 200+ days!
Reply
Peter Connett
| #
Your comment was better than the article.
Just for clarification /s/ Tell me again how fast we are moving? Bc I’m. On earth right now. Looking out my kitchen Window and… wait.
does this have anything to do with gravity? Just trying to follow the science.
Space… the final front…
Reply
lloyd
| #
Methinks you need your meds adjusted. NASA money laundering? Really?
Reply
Howdy
| #
I didn’t read most of It.
“You need gravity to orbit anything.”
No you don’t Mark. It can be done by other methods that allow attitude change and thrust. Wastefull over time, but doable.
From Space.com: “Mars’ atmosphere is over 100 times thinner than Earth’s”
So generate over 100 times the thrust required on Earth. Mars atmosphere is thinner, so drag will be less of a problem, and consequently, power consumption and drive assembly bulk will be less. Chicken feed.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
You wrote: ““You need gravity to orbit anything.” No you don’t Mark. It can be done by other methods that allow attitude change.” When you wrote “attitude change” you are implying that there is a GRAVITY factor.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
A gyro changing speed will cause a reaction in opposition to the original motion Jerry. No gravity required.
Reply
Howdy
| #
I see now I posted, my comment could be self defeating to a point, as in the extra thrust generation will still cause more drag, but it stays.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
The NASA mission to Mars (Devon Island) has the same credibility as the fake virus, global warming and nuclear weapons. None. The orbits, which they can’t do either are just a small part of the problem. They can’t put men on the moon much less Mars. The only thing the Zionist syndicate that runs all of these fake programs is good at are lies and deception. And stealing wealth from the real producers and handing it to their criminal friends.
Reply
lloyd
| #
Ah yes. ZIONIST CONSPIRACY! Please seek some professional help.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Lloyd:
I need no help. I’m not the one sucking the Abraham Foxman’s dick 24/7.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mark,
You live in east Texas. When the fake Columbia space shuttle disintegrated, debris was scattered from the Texas panhandle to Arkansas and Louisiana. There were thousands of people in your area that had to have witnessed it. Were you there at that time, or have you ever searched for someone who had experience with this fraud?
Herb
Reply
Nick from Newtown
| #
So close Howdy, but you missed it.
Mars atmosphere pressure is .088psi, which means its less than 1% of earths atmosphere. Whether you’re an airplane wing, a propellor, or a helicopter, its a simple equation, you need atmospheric pressure to generate lift. With Mars atmoshere basically being a vacuum, a spinning propeller CANNOT GENERATE LIFT IN A VACUUM !!! You’re watching made for tv felony grand theft. Bread n circuses for the goi while they rob you blind.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Sorry nick, but you missed It. I refer to density, not pressure, which everywhere I’ve looked says over 100 times thinner. Oh, and btw, i found Mars has winds, and suspended dust because of it. How’s that work in a vacuum…
I’ll take from all the websites visited and collate an empirical result for myself rather than some agenda driven individual who uses the word ‘goi’ so people know you are really not worth the time, and even thinks they know who I am.
“You’re watching made for tv felony grand theft. Bread n circuses for the goi while they rob you blind.”
You don’t have a clue what’s really happening, do you nick… Eh?
I shall not reply to you again.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Nick,
The Earth’s atmosphere is 0.1% as dense as water (at sea level and declining fast with altitude) so at one time people were sure there was no way a propeller could move anything through the atmosphere.
Helicopters work by pushing more mass of molecules downwards than the mass of the helicopter. Their use at high altitudes is limited by this. They can make helicopters that can fly higher by enlarging the rotors to push more air down but in so doing they will have to increase the size of the engine, use more fuel, and the total mass the craft that it must lift. It can be done but it will never be able to do anything useful at the higher altitude. It is like the first prototype of the supersonic B-1 bomber with the swing wing design, they could make it go supersonic but it couldn’t carry any bombs.
They can make a helicopter that can fly on Mars by increasing the area of the rotors, eliminating all unnecessary mass (like fuel, pilots, etc.) but its range and altitude will be limited and the only thing it can do is take pictures.
They do use parachutes to slow the descent of the objects they send to Mars and they use the same atmosphere as the helicopter.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you for the explanation.
These people seem to get a sense of satisfaction from what they write, whether it’s death of the masses or derogatory name calling. It’s as if they are wishing it will happen like some sort of self-serving prophesy, just so they can claim credit if it does. Such misplaced trust, such infantile behaviour. I guess they will learn the hard way.
It also appears that the fact an aircraft can fly inverted without the lift provided by the wing shape is alien to them.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
We all have to have a basis to operate from. If every statement NASA made were patently false they would lose all credibility and even the stupid goyim would demand congress cut their funding. There has to be some truth to what they claim. All lies and subterfuge are based on an element of at least perceived truth. The same thing is evident in all fake programs, be it the phony climate change (weather does change) or the fake virus (people get sick for some reason). I believe it was a mistake for NASA to admit that there is essentially no atmospheric pressure on Mars.
Here’s the thing about it. If the Zionist syndicate can come out the day before the staged 9/11 and report that they had lost track of 2.3 TRILLION dollars in defense appropriations (how is that remotely possible) and then get away with not only that but bring down 3 massive structures with standard demolition the next day, they are confident they can (and do) get away with anything.
The brazen attitude of these global criminals is astonishing as can easily be seen in the fake virus medical control scam, the fake election and the absurdly asinine “capitol riot.” My point is that they can now admit the most ridiculous things and the majority of the public still believes it.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“We all have to have a basis to operate from. If every statement NASA made were patently false they would lose all credibility”
Mark, NASA is not patently false and you have no actual solid proof otherwise.
You have never claimed any middle ground before, ever, as I stated above, but will now when It can ‘rescue’ you.
Saying they can be trusted on Mars atmosphere but nothing else is clutching at straws and you are claiming no basis at all.
Mark Tapley
| #
Howdy, I am not claiming any middle ground but only giving actual verifiable examples of how the criminal network operates. That has always been the case. There always has to be some perception of truth for a lie to work. Even if this perceived truth has to be manufactured as with a Peal Harbor, 9/11, war in Ukraine, climate change or a fake virus. this should be self evident and not even an issue for debate and I will discuss it no more.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Even if this perceived truth has to be manufactured as with a Peal Harbor, 9/11, war in Ukraine, climate change or a fake virus. this should be self evident and not even an issue for debate and I will discuss it no more.”
We weren’t even discussing the invalid stuff you claimed above. You brought this rubbish into it as you allways do. Nobody cares about it on Mars topic.
I see you went to Jerry’s comment to ‘discuss’ It, or should I say force it on him, even though you claim it’s finished.
So, are you done with the whole discussion, or just the fakery bs?
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
There is a limit to what can be done. The higher altitude a helicopter has flown is 40,820 ft. At this altitude the air is still much more dense than on Mars. There has to be enough atmosphere to generate lift and that does not exist on Mars. The pictures I have seen of the fake Mars helicopter look identical to a standard machine. Another indication it is fake. A helicopter for use in very low atmosphere would have to greatly increase the angle of attack to generate enough lift, like a plane deploying flaps on short take offs and landings. Here again it is only because there is sufficient atmosphere in the first place that this works or else it would only stall out. That is only one problem as the article I posted yesterday by Anders Bjorkman details many other impossibilities of going from earth to Mars. It is however not difficult for NASA technicians to go to their base on Devon Island (except for mosquitos) and fly their remote helicopter on the fake Martian landscape burning up as many tax dollars as needed.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mark,
When a person says “It can’t be done” what they are admitting is that they can’t do it and when they say it is a statement of their limitations not of others.
The amount of resistance to something spinning is the friction of the medium it is in. Your contention that the atmosphere on Mars could not allow a helicopter to fly because the resistance caused by that atmosphere would cause it to slow and lose lift (stall) is oxymoronic.
Herb
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Herb, you are just using scientific jargon to evade the issue. Propeller driven aircraft will not fly in an atmosphere 0.1 % of what is on Earth. Or what is essentially a vacuum.
Howdy
| #
“At this altitude the air is still much more dense than on Mars.”
Just a thought Mark. How do you know that, if you never personally went there and measured It yourself?
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy;
People have claimed to the top of Mt. Everest carrying gear at 30,000 ft with no oxygen tank. So it stands to reason that at ten thousand more feet there would still be much more air density than the almost zero pressure on Mars.
Howdy
| #
“almost zero pressure on Mars”
You didn’t answer the question Mark. Where does your information come from to support your claim above?
I am not interested in pressure, nor have I been in the entire thread.
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
Air pressure (density) is the defining element. NASA admits that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is one tenth of 1% of that on earth. It should be self evident to anyone that a propeller driven aircraft will do nothing in this environment. If you have ever watched the old piston engine helicopters take off on a hot humid day like often occurs on the Gulf of Mexico, you will see that the had to barely lift off the ground (to still get the ground effect) and then make a run forward before lifting up in order to generate enough lift. This is at sea level. Now if you still think helicopters can fly on Mars you should line up for the Money Pox injection.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mark,
Air pressure is a measurement of weight per unit area. Density is number of units per volume. A liter of liquid water will have greater weight per unit than a liter of methyl alcohol even though the number of molecules will be close to the same in both containers.
A mole of helium and a mole of CO2 will both have a volume of 22.4 liters at STP but the CO2 will weigh 11 times that of the helium.
Herb
Howdy
| #
“NASA admits that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is one tenth of 1% of that on earth”
You claim repeatedly that NASA is all fake and fraud. That all the claimed space operations were either CGI, or done on Devon Island. You can’t pick and choose, either NASA is fake, or it’s genuine, so why are you now taking a NASA originated statement that you have repeatedly scoffed at the means It was acquired by being impossible, to support your argument when you allready stated It is fake?
This applies to all those who made the same claim as you about Mars density/pressure/thinness, whatever. You all use a NASA generated figure while claiming NASA are fake. Kind of blows your whole argument wide open don’t you think?
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
This is a science issue, not science fiction. An aircraft has to have sufficient atmospheric density to fly, just like a bat, a bird, an insect or the giant flying reptiles that could not fly in the earth’s current air density. Nor can anything using wings, or propellers generate enough lift to fly in essentially zero atmosphere. That is the science of it. Not oxymoronic, just Common sense.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi mark,
At 230,000 feet, where the atmosphere is nonexistent, the friction from these few gas molecules was great enough to melt the wing of the Columbia shuttle.
I don’t think with your knowledge of science that you are able to distinguish between science and science fiction and act as a judge of what is real.
Herb
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Herb, the shuttle flights are just more NASA fakery, like the fake Apollo nonsense that anyone can see through and Aldrin even finally admitted, as is the fake space station evident from the need for the criminals at NASA to post obviously fake videos. I will link article below. Meteorites normally burn up entering the atmosphere at high velocity but a propeller driven aircraft no matter where it is, must have sufficient atmospheric density to generate lift. Many aircraft have stalled out even at sea level because they got into a situation where they failed to generate enough lift. This situation would be automatic and axiomatic where there is essentially zero atmosphere. If you throw a fish up on the bank, it cannot swim because the air (fluid) is too thin. If you put a propeller driven aircraft in a vacuum it is the same thing:
http://mileswmathis.com/shut.pdf
Reply
Nick from Newtown
| #
If anyone can show a battery operated helicopter-like device of similar size n weight, lifting its own battery for at least 10 mins (it allegedly flew 7 football fields), in .1 atmospheric pressure (near absolute vacuum), then ill believe it. But in the real world of engineering (not propagandized tv) per mathmatical equations that build flying aircraft its impossible as nasa alledges.
And Howdy, thx for exposing yourself. Obvious your job is to troll, misinform n misdirect.
Reply
Heretic Jones
| #
Ooh, scenic mars! And by mars I mean Devon Island.
Also, highly effective Hasbara trolling by bots like Lloyd. And by highly effective I mean hilariously ineffective.
Reply
Nick from Newtown
| #
If propellers can generate lift or thrust in a vacuum, then why dont they use propellers on the alleged space station to scoot around? Or use propellers to fly the space shuttle around in space? Or propellers on satellites? Or how come here on earth a propeller aircraft can only fly so high before it drops out of the sky? Derrrrr !!!
Nasa in hebrew means “to deceive”.
Just search “how high can a propeller plane fly” and study the facts yourself.
“With current technology, the limit is around 100.000 ft (30 km), as proven by Pathfinder and especially Helios. I doubt that much more is possible with really useable aircraft.” (Fyi low orbit is 2000km).
“Going to orbit in a propeller driven device is completely illusory. There is not enough matter to push against at higher altitudes, and the theoretical propeller diameter would be measured in Kilometers (or miles, if you prefer that unit). The structural mass would be prohibitive. Also, propeller thrust is inversely proportional to flight speed, and there is no way to accelerate with a propeller to escape velocity.”
“Second, the airplane’s wings may fail to produce a sufficient amount of lift to maintain its current and excessive altitude. Air helps to create lift as it goes over the airplane’s wings. The air is less dense at high altitudes, so the wings will produce less lift.”
Sorry Howdy, the fluoride aint workin here. goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi goi
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
It is amazing that someone who didn’t know how objects form orbits considers himself to be an expert in space science and all other scientific fields.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Herb, it is no surprise that someone who believes that composite aircraft can fly through steel and concrete buildings and that ass tronouts went to the moon in 1969 would also believe that helicopters can fly in a vacuum. But what can be expected from a layabout who has subsisted off of the tax payers his entire career, expounding on issues that have no application in the real world.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Commeters,
How is it that none of you have not referred to the 35sec which is the focus of the article. I have watched several reruns studying what I consider to be particles of dirt flying around. And from the beginning I saw this tiny dark image in the upper lefthand portion of the image moving about. I watched the video several times to convince myself that.in the last few frames of the video this tiny dark image becomes an airplane.
And all the words of the commenters’ arguments and the article’s text isn’t going to change what can be seen.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
I see nothing in the upper left Jerry. The corners have debris and there is an object in the top right corner that may be the tip of the glass cleaning mechanism. While it appears to be plane-tail shaped, it obviously isn’t a plane. The only other thing is the crafts’ shadow.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
It is easier to see to what I am referring at the video’s beginning. There are plainly visible large gray images which at the first few seconds move around and then at about 5 seconds quickly shrink in size and continue to flit about like a mosquito until the last second in what I can plainly see as two airplane superimposed on each other with two different orientations.
A possible key factor of the two orientations is I read: “In the sped-up footage shown below)”. While I have no idea what one might see in a single frame of this sped-up footage, I conclude that the video is not an actual time footage and this causes the two images with different orientations of each video frame.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I think what you are referring to is the helicopter’s shadow.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
Sorry Jerry, I see nothing approaching what you describe other than the shadow. The grey blobs appear to be out of focus dust particles which increase over the flight time.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and Howdy,
I have been studying the shadows in the two images and I agree with both of you. And disagree with Mark that everything is Hollywood. The very fine dust colors the sky by scattering the solar radiation.
This is a good conversation and I need to ponder more.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
I suppose Jerry that you also believe the NASA story that they delivered a helicopter from Earth all the way to another planet in an entirely different orbit pattern and speed and then remotely flew it in an atmosphere 0.1of 1% of Earth’s atmosphere. Yeah Jerry, that thing ought to jump off the ground.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Nick,
The reason they don’t use propellers in space (other than there in fewer than 1/10^6 molecules than at sea level) is because as the propellers spun in one direction the satellite would spin in the opposite direction.
You and others hold the opinion that if something is hard to do, it is impossible to do and therefore since you can’t find a solution nobody else can either.
Herb
Reply
Shinlee Shagowitz
| #
Herb,
Have you ever seen the videos where a fan operates in a near vacuum (in a sealed glass box with most of the air pressure pumped out) and it is placed by a hanging feather and the feather does not move?
You know, the whole action / reaction theory? Hmmmmmmm? Maybe you’ve heard about it?
So, in “space” which I will for this discussion at least, pretend exists, how does a rocket of any sort propel itself? Do you even think bro? Or do you just clap for fish like a trained seal with your equally obtuse pal, Howdy?
Your drivel is tiresome to say the least.
Reply
MattH
| #
The rocket ejects a mass of burned fuel to produce a force. The force produced is proportional to the amount the mass of the combustion products (the exhaust) was accelerated. This follows from F=ma (Force = mass x acceleration)
So, the more you accelerate the exhaust, the more force is applied to the rocket.
Imagine you are floating in space. If you take off a shoe and throw it away from you really fast, you will move in the opposite direction from your shoe. You can even do this without going into space if you are standing on a very low friction surface like ice.
(pasted and copied from some dude who is not an abusive idiot)
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Commenters and Readers,
“The most obvious is most difficult to SEE”. (JLK)
When I look at the shadow of the header image I cannot see any evidence that the helicopter has a tail rotor to keep the ‘lifting’ rotor from spinning the entire helicopter.
Can anybody point out what I am missing???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry.
It has two lift rotors, one in front one in back, that spin in opposite directions, like a Chinook or Jolly Green Giant.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Correction: The two counter-rotating rotors are both on the center axis, like the toy helicopters..
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Give us a link where we can see “the toy helicopters” to which you refer.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Ros
| #
Hi Jerry,
I don’t have a link. I bought the toys for a friend’s kids so they could fly it around in the house. Try looking up toy helicopters.
Herb
Howdy
| #
Howdy Herb and Jerry,
Some links for you Jerry:
Model:
https://sloughrc.com/media/catalog/product/cache/f49deac2188971f11e9036660b9251da/a/-/a-u811w.jpg
Short video of the real thing:
https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-contra-rotating-propeller-work
Contra props on a winged aircraft:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PQF5kAYFhNo/maxresdefault.jpg
Technical:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/contra-rotating-propeller
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
Too many parts to create two opposite rotations from an engine rotating only in one direction.
I doubt that the picture of a double set of props is to increase the surface area of the props and both set are rotating in the same direction.
I am a firm believer in being practical.
Have a good day, Jerry
Howdy
| #
Hi Jerry,
Why too many parts? It does away with the the tail rotor and the associated gearboxes/transmission shaft for one.
One engine? The Mars helicopter uses battery power, thus twin motors can be used for rotor speed to effect rotational control and allow turning on axis.
The largest propeller aircraft in the world uses contra rotating propellers, and that wouldn’t happen if it was excessive complexity. Even the Spitfire got them.
Check this out, which shows simple inline gears to achieve it:
https://www.enginehistory.org/members/Convention/2012/Presentations/Fey/Contra-Rotating01.pdf
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “They do use parachutes to slow the descent of the objects they send to Mars and they use the same atmosphere as the helicopter.”
I assume that you read this somewhere. Now I either remember or imagine that I read somewhere that in landing the helicopter the rotor is stoped about a meter, or so, to allow the helicopter to drop from this distance to the surface. This was to reduce the amount of dust which might cover the solar panels which charge the battery. Which NASA tells us is now a problem.
Except, this reasoning ignores that one meter which the helicopter needs to be lifted when it takes off.
I do not not know what is real beside the fact that NASA now admits that dust on the solar panels is now a problem. Which is strong evidence that the helicopter on the surface of Mars is probably real.
For, why would anyone admit to such stupidity???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I am guessing that the solar panels for charging are not on the helicopter but on a landing/launch pad. When lifting off dust would be raised that would settle on the panels. When returning the prop wash would blow most of the dust off then by shutting off the power and autorotating in for a landing less dust would be kicked up.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Are you ignoring the fact that NASA wrote that dust on the solar panels is a problem?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rosr
| #
Hi Jerry,
No Jerry. You need more power (stronger wind more dust) to lift of than you need for landing (less wind for braking) so dust would build up.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,,
We, you and I, have just demonstrated the importance of SCIENTIFIC Dialogue.
How??? You and they might ask.
Because of our recent DIALOGUE I finally saw the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum is the Inertia of rotational. And I finally remembered that I had recently reviewed the phenomenon of resonance by describing how first graders in the past learned to pump a long swing so one could look over the high bar from which the swing hung. For after achieving this maximum having work, we, they and I, could maintain this maximum swing by a small, properly timed, effort.
So I finally saw the the helicopter sitting on the surface with its 4 legs would not rotate as the horizontal propellor was brought up to ‘speed’ (angular momentum) until it only took a little more effort to lift the legs off the surface and keep it off the ground as it slowly flew horizontally. And I saw that the mass of the battery was important for it provided a good deal of the inertia which resisted the rotation of the entire helicopter. Obviously, I believe the helicopter had a limited range as the rotation of the propeller slowed to that of the entire helicopter.
Herb, What do you think about this story?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
The helicopter could not work with one rotor Jerry. The body would react in the opposite direction.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Anatomy_of_the_Mars_Helicopter.png
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
Thank you for correcting my suggestion the the helicopter would rotate in the same direction as the propellor.
My point about the limited range is, as the helicopter with its battery begins to rotate at a greater rate, energy (angular momentum) is being transferred from propellor to the angular momentum of the helicopter rotating the opposite direction. Which transfer of angular momentum must slow the rotation of the propeller unless the energy of the battery fights to maintain the angular momentum of the propellor.
And I am familiar with the fact that as the voltage of the battery decreases that rate of the electric motor decreases. And yes, details are critically important and should never be overlooked.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
The body doesn’t rotate at all Jerry, or stable images could not be captured.
The motors are using a regulated supply and feedback loop. Nothing else is acceptable
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I think that you don’t know much about helicopters. In an old fashion variable pitch rotor helicopter the two or more blades have different angles (pitch) as they rotates. If they did not have this the blade moving in the same direction as the helicopter’s motion would have greater speed and lift than the blade moving in the opposite direction of the helicopter. This would result in the helicopter flipping over as it moved. With a single rotor helicopter a tail rotor is needed to counter the opposite force from the blade rotation. If this rear rotor is damaged the helicopter will go into an uncontrollable spin and crash unless the pilot has enough forward motion to have the wind resistance stopping the spin. In this case the helicopter must try to land with forward velocity, like an airplane,
When the main engine fails to provide power to the lift rotor the pilot will change the pitch on the rotor so it spins freely providing no lift. As the aircraft falls the wind causes the rotor to spin faster and when it gets close to the ground the pilot increases the pitch converting that speed into lift allowing for a soft landing. (The rotor acts as a parachute). Helicopter pilots practice this procedure all the time.
A helicopter pilot uses two foot pedals to control the speed and pitch of the rear rotor, A lever with a rotating hand grip for one arm that controls the pitch (lever) and speed (hand throttle) of the main rotor and a joy stick (with trigger for firing guns or missiles) for the other arm to control the tilt of the helicopter causing it to move in different directions. The speed and pitch of both rotors are individually controlled and must be coordinated. I know of a pilot who was landing when a deer ran out onto the landing pad. He increased the pitch of the rotor without increasing the power causing it to crash.
When there are two rotors rotating in opposite direction their angular momentum cancels out removing the need for a rotor to counteract the tendency of the craft to spin.
Buy yourself one of the toy remote control helicopters (Cost about $40.0) and learn how to fly it. Maybe then you’ll understand how it works.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,,
Maybe you have studied this article (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/6-things-to-know-about-nasas-ingenuity-mars-helicopter). I obviously should have and will. I plainly see the double rotator to which you referred. And I see the solar panel is at the top above the two rotors and have already read that the entire unit weighs 4 lbs. What do you suspect the the toy remote control helicopters (Cost about $40.0 weighs? Is it battery powered?
After I read and ponder the 6-things to know I will get back to you.
I have to ask: Why didn’t any commenters, or even the article’s author, refer this link to PSI Readers. I know I was stupid to not to google about it as I just simply did.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
Hi Jerry,
You’ve been given links to the helicopter layout allready, and explained some by Herb and myself.
I’ve noticed too, it just works better sometimes when one finds it in a way that is most receptive to the reader themself.
Good find.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Commenters,
I know that while I was a graduate chemistry student in the 1960’s there was a chemistry professor at Penn State University who was complaining loudly about the huge cost of BIG SCIENCE like this helicopter research to fly this helicopter on Mars. His point was that this money would be better spent on solving smaller PRACTICAL problems with very small budgets.
I have tried to find the name of this professor by a google search without any success. I can find the names of chemistry faculties of other universities but nothing about Penn State historical chemistry faculties.
I now read about ‘cold temperature’ research related to this Mars’ helicopter project. At Cornell University (1969-1972) I was involved in the measurement of the magnetic properties of certain matter down to pumped helium temperatures (below 1 Kelvin). And because I could not see the “PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS of my research I turned down another post-doctoral position at USC to begin teaching physical science at public school district whose average class size was about 25.
And while I do not know how much government money is being spent on solving the world’s health problems, I suspect it far less than the money being spent on NASA’s Mars’ projects over their history.
I admit it is now interesting what I have just read about the Mars’ helicopter project, but I really doubt we have learned anything more than was known before the launch of the rocket which carried the helicopter, etc., to Mars. All we have learned is its batteries cannot be recharged sufficiently.
And I consider that the problem may not be dust on the solar cells. For I see the possibility is that these cells, which I see at the top of the helicopter can never be pointed directly at the sun of high noon at the whatever latitude of Mars is. For it seems the temperature is always very cold because the intensity of solar radiation is less than that at the earth and there are no water clouds like there are on the earth. And we know about the extreme range of the lunar surface temperature oscillation which only cooled via emitting radiation continually without the scattering influence of clouds.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply