This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is the increase in mass from 2016 to 2018 due to a design change, or also including any required additions to the rest of the 2020 rover ? - Rod57 ( talk) 09:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEY4ThEwd9c Video title: "J. Bob Balaram - Mars Helicopter - 21st Annual International Mars Society Convention". Duration 25 minutes. Open4D ( talk) 16:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move ( non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs ( talk) 12:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Hey everybody, NASA just renamed the helicopter to Ingenuity. Can somebody change the name, add paragraph about it, etc.?
-- Nomnom121 ( talk) 15:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how to reply without an account but: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7650 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.129.198 ( talk)
Done FWIW - changed article name to Mars Helicopter Ingenuity as suggested - should be ok - please comment if otherwise of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Unfortunately, there are too many proposed options and too few !voters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
– Building upon concerns raised by BilCat that the disambiguator "spacecraft" may not be appropriate for vehicles that do not operate in space, and by Yarnalgo that "Mars Helicopter Ingenuity" is not an appropriate name as it is not used in any official capacity. I want to add to this by saying that "Mars Helicopter Ingenuity" is also not seemingly used in any commonly recognisable capacity either, and that the disambiguator "rotorcraft" may be more appropriate than "helicopter", as it adequately describes all rotor-propelled aircraft without denoting a specific type of rotorcraft; Dragonfly, for example, isn't referred to as a helicopter while Ingenuity is commonly referred to as such. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 02:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad ( talk) 10:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The dimensions for the chassis and overall height are given in cementers, but the rotor diameter is given in feet. Should the rotor diameter value be swapped with the value in brackets, 1.2m?
2001:569:7D2D:3200:C42F:FC72:4AF5:534A ( talk) 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
please add slot for deployment date as given by this site
chinakpradhan ( talk) 1:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help) This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
public domain.
@ PhilipTerryGraham:, I saw you removed the mission type and duration from the infobox because "such info can be found in the {{Infobox spaceflight}} of Mars 2020", but the info that was in these two fields is not in the Mars 2020 infobox because they are specific to the helicopter's mission and not the overarching Mars 2020 mission. The helicopter is a technology demonstrator whose mission is planned to last for 30 days. This is pretty different from the overall mission and duration of Mars 2020, which is definitely not a tech demo (it reuses most of its tech from the last rover) and is meant to last for at least a year. The helicopter is kind of an offshoot from the main mission so I think it's important to have that information here. What do you think? -- Yarnalgo talk 01:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The newly created " Timeline of Mars 2020", related to the " Mars 2020" page, and which would include events related to the " Perseverance rover" and " Ingenuity helicopter" pages, may need help in updating and related - the newly created page structure is based on the earlier " Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory" page, which includes events related to the " Curiosity rover" - Thanks - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I think most people are well aware that the pages for Mars 2020, Perseverance (rover), and Ingenuity (helicopter) are under a concerted vandalism attack by an entity that is jumping IPs to post dick pics to the top of the pages. I believe admin have just applied semi-protection Mars 2020 and Perseverance (rover), so I'm wondering if this article receives it as well. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 21:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The summary says that it'll be deployed in 30 days, but in Design the article says "...and should be deployed to the surface between 60 and 90 Martian days (sols) after the landing, or between 19 April and 19 May 2021..."
Which is correct? I don't have enough time to check it out right now, but I will in 10-12 hours if someone doesn't get to it first. Knotimpressed ( talk) 05:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that Mars Helicopter redirects to Mars aircraft instead of here, shouldn't there be a hatnote at that article directing to this one? Also shouldn't the redirect have a lower case 'h'? GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 23:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Mars Helicopter Ingenuity → Ingenuity (helicopter) – To follow conventions like Perseverance (rover) for a named vehicle. See previous move discussions @ #Requested move 2 May 2020 ( Ingenuity (rotorcraft)) and @ #Requested move 9 March 2020 ( Mars Helicopter). UserTwoSix ( talk) 22:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Seriously? That's the best we can do? A dark shadow of something? BilCat ( talk) 06:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I've replaced the dark shadow of something with a photo that shows what it actually looks like. BilCat ( talk) 18:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it correct to call Ingenuity's first flight as "the first powered atmospheric flight on a planet beyond Earth" when the Sky Crane on Curiosity and Mars 2020 has already achieved this, twice?-- BugWarp ( talk) 20:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
It is first powered flight but not first controlled flight other controlled flight is made by vega balloons on venus but this is first flight on mars and galilean atmosphere probe though the Jupiter one was crushed by Jupiter's atmosphere. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Skycranes, aero shells, backshells had uncontrolled flight so we must write first controlled, powered flight on any bodies or mars Chinakpradhan ( talk) 03:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking this should be removed: "If Ingenuity works as expected, NASA could build on its design to extend the aerial bombardment component of future Mars missions.[18]" Is it an April Fools joke?
please change the layout of infobox and add a deployment date on this page otherwise think of Ingenuity deployed and we have no place to write in infobox when it was deployed from rover, one of the key dates on the mission. this must be done as we do similar things in infobox in case of docking and undocking of spacecraft. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
please do this. its important for Ingenuity, all my tries are in vain Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
even i just saw mention of deployment in infobox of sojourner rover Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
no adding {{ Infobox spaceflight}} removes many articles in {{ Infobox individual space vehicle}} Chinakpradhan ( talk) 02:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
shown in this page like height so better not use that or fix this page to allow that feild to be included. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Just append the facts to the unbulleted list (see my edit Maiden flight —19apr...) --: GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 ⍨talk 12:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Should the infobox include the mars days in paren. after date earth time ie.
Maiden flight — 19 April 2021(39 Sols)? --:
GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴
⍨talk 12:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
ÑÑÑ I changed "frist" to "first". I trust this will be less controversial than my other activities on Wikipedia. Thanks. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ
The convention as I saw it that the image would describe the subject "in action'? Aeroplane in Wikipedia, to my knowledge, always has infobox image flying. Curiosity and Perseverance both have infobox image with a semblance of being in action. And even Soyuz MS article, it's a spacecraft docking, in space. Fulfilling its role. So I reckon maybe Ingenuity image should be too.
What does, “The sudden increase in the graph indicates the flight period.“ mean? Needs clarification. Kessler ( talk) 02:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Till it was on land the graph gave zero reading. The increase shows it is flying Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It is altimeter graph zero reading means mean Martian level Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Even the disturbance in graph after increase before decrease means the effect of Martian winds on the chopper Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the first evidence the team got that Ingenuity has successfully flown on mars Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This is thus important source of height at which it is flying and taking pictures Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I really do not wish to be banned from wikipedia for trying to improve accuracy of information. I realized too late that my two edits should have been a single edit and apologize for that.
If you really must leave "on earth" in place then can we rephrase it to reflect they are "commonly believed to be the first in powered flight on earth"? Gustave Whitehead is a local legend and it is known around here in Connecticut that he was indeed the first to powered flight. Though he lacked photographic evidence, there are eyewitnesses, numerous newspaper articles, and someone has even built + flown a replica craft to prove the number 21 craft was flight capable. There are local museums that also recognize him as being first.
I can provide more information but if you follow the links on these pages you will see this is a real issue. There are also recorded news broadcasts from recent times that can be found on youtube which support Whiteheads flight.
https://www.fairfieldhistory.org/library-collections/gustave-whitehead/
http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/news-reports-1901-2-flights/
Even if you disagree, I hope you can acknowledge this is contested information and we should do our best to write statements that are as accurate as possible. Many people still state that Edison invented the lightbulb when it was really Humphrey Davy.
32.211.211.39 ( talk) 04:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Tomorrow flight might be the first of several controlled flights. Shell us do a flights table to list them? -- 79.55.104.9 ( talk) 15:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Isn't there a better video of the second flight available? I'm starting to think there was a problem with the transmission. Gjxj ( talk) 17:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
there is one (that i cant seem to find) that includes the whole flight takeoff to landing..but its missing a lot of frames making it all jumpy. I was looking to see the thing translate, which is claimed but not evident in the video. Gjxj ( talk) 00:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of what the state of Connecticut thinks, the Wright Brothers are widely accepted as being the first to fly on earth. See for example recent coverage of this helicopter. [1]. -- Calidum 03:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The first table listing the flights already performed by Ingenuity lacks of readability: there are too many columns filled with unreadable vertical cells. How to improve this too long table with the columns headings quickly disappearing from the screen when scrolling down ? Suggestion: To merge the two redundant columns dealing with "Flight route" and "Flight objectives" and to abandon the last column with "Outcome". The background of the first column could be advantageously colored in green. Hoping the red color will never be used, it would probably only affect the last row. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 23:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
What is a RTE Camera (mentioned the "Capabilities tested" of the second flight)? -- Schrauber5 ( talk) 08:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
It is wrong it must be horizon facing colour terrain camera Chinakpradhan ( talk) 04:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Did the third flight took 80 seconds, I think it took 62.8 seconds according to third flight video Chinakpradhan ( talk) 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Reference for 17 feet hight is not given. The planned hight was 5m and since it's closed loop control and has no independent second sensor and no reported hight overshoot I guess the the 17 ft may just be a conversion error.-- Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I said on this video Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JPL-20210425_Perseverance_Rover%27s_Mastcam-Z_Captures_Ingenuity%27s_Third_Flight.webm Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
It boggles my mind more than a little to think that NASA is using feet as the primary unit for a space mission, but you really can't tell about anything concerning America these days.
What I see in this article is that main sections are all meters (feet), and that the recently added operational and flight records are all feet (meters).
Somehow I think the entire article should be consistently rendered as meters (feet). — MaxEnt 03:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
K1401986
Talk with me 01:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)See also date at https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/HNM_0091_0675019235_723ECM_N0060001HELI04636_0000A0J Schrauber5 ( talk) 21:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Changed back to May 23 All flights are started via wakeup at 12:30 local Mars time. If there is no command the helicopter will go back to sleep until next day. (explained in video). The flight happens then in the following minutes. The 6th flight was scheduled at and after 12:30 (local time) sol 91. That is about 23.5.21 5:20, UTC but in Califonia at 22.5.21. The report of Håvard Grip mentioned the photo to be taken at May 22 but without saying at with time and which time zone. The link given above shows that the flight happened at May 23 (again without time zone) but 12:35 Sol 91. I calculated the UTC time 5:20 by adding 22 sols to the flight at sol 69. user Schrauber5 ( talk) 14:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
At K1401986: Your calculation was wrong: There is not fixed shift between Earth time and Mars time but its shifted every day by additionally 39 minutes, 35s see Sol_(day_on_Mars) -- Schrauber5 ( talk) 06:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Back to the facts and let's assume good faith. I try to find consensus:
-- Schrauber5 ( talk) 10:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
If adding 22 Sol is to murky maybe subtraction of 3 Sol is understandable: [2] reads: "May 26, 2021 (Sol 94) at the local mean solar time of 11:55:45" and Sol 91 should be 3 days earlier. Schrauber5 ( talk) 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I found a tool to convert Mars time to Earth time: http://interimm.org/mars-clock/en/index.html Sol 0 is day 18062 of that clock (landing day, 18 Feb 2021 20:55 GMT). All dates and time from the Operational history table give 6:52 as local time (so ingenuitys local Mars time is about 5:40 behind that's tool meridian). All given Sol fit except that of the 6th flight. You have to fill in 23 May 2020 05:20 GMT to get to day 18153 (=91+landing day 18062) and 6:52 at Mars time Schrauber5 ( talk) 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Ingenuity (helicopter) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
We should use 22 May. WP:OR does allow for "routine calculations" as an exception, including basic arithmetic. The process of getting to 23 May, however, is not routine, involving contention over whether a photo is "acquired" when it is taken or when it is sent from Mars or received on Earth. This contrasts with, for example, our treatment of flight 5. The space.com source gives a flight time in EDT, enabling routine calculation to get the UTC time and date. Schrauber5, if you can't find sources that similarly describe an Earth time for the flight or are precise and unambiguous about the Mars time, your main remedy if you choose to keep pursing this is to seek to build consensus with other editors that the result of your calculation is "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 20:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC) |
(tl:dr: use May 22, but maybe weaken the statement) It's never the same day everywhere in the world. At the time of the flight the local time in the US was May 22. NASA and all the other sources DonFB provided are US-based, so naturally they will use time in the US and many others just copy the date because it doesn't come with a time that would allow conversion. Wikipedia is not a US encyclopedia and the flight didn't happen on Earth, so there is no local time zone to consider in the article. In spaceflight articles we generally use UTC. You can find articles for the flight being May 23, too, if you look in different time zones: from South Africa, from India. But... I don't find a reliable source quoting the actual time of the flight, so using May 23 based on these articles wouldn't be better than May 22. I think we should use May 22 for now, and hope that Schrauber5's contact makes NASA publish the time of the flight in a citable place. The table header says (UTC) but the date is not UTC. Maybe we can use "~May 22, 2021" or something else to indicate the uncertainty? -- mfb ( talk) 21:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
At https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/#raw-images , with filter set "Mars Helicopter Tech Demo Cameras: Navigation Camera", Date 2021-5-23 gives 106 pictures of the flight all acquired at May 23, Sol 91 local time from 12:35:03 to 12:35:42 (landed), so that are 106 references stating May 23. The progress in fractions of the second makes it clear that "acquired" means the time taken and not received or transmitted. The table in the wiki article has UTC in the heading, so the time (and date if necessary) should be shifted to UTC. -- Schrauber5 ( talk) 22:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Flight time was : Sol 91 Local 12:35, May 23, 2021 05:20 UTC, May 23, 2021 01:20 EDT (-4), May 22, 2021 22:20 PDT (-7) so even for the US east coast it was May 23. Schrauber5 ( talk) 23:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Flight 5 was at Sol 76 Local mean solar time 12:34 [1] equivalent to May 7, 2021 at 19:26 UTC [2]. Fraction of the Earth day is ((19+26/60)/24=0.8097 Sixth fight was at Sol 91 Local time 12:34 [3] (91-76)=15 Sols later. One Sol is 24:39:35.24 The time difference in Earth days is (15*(24+(39+35.24/60)/60)/24=15.4124 Day fraction of flight 5 added: 15.4124+0.8097=16.2221. For the sixth flight he day of the month May is (7+16)=23. The hours are .2221*24=5.329. Minutes are .329*60=20
[1] https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/HNM_0076_0673687499_997ECM_N0050001HELI01352_0000LUJ [2] https://www.space.com/mars-helicopter-ingenuity-fifth-flight-new-airfield [3] https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/HNM_0076_0673687525_076ECM_N0050001HELI02108_0000LUJ Schrauber5 ( talk) 20:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I see a good solution. Lets remove "UTC" from the header of the table and add "(UTC)" to all dates which are known as in UTC. Artpoz5 ( talk) 13:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Currently the 22.(UTC) is at 3 places in the article. With flight 7 two of them will dissapear. As a intermediate step your suggestion would be helpful. At least there would be no wrong information any more. Schrauber5 ( talk) 13:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
So finally, NASA, JPL were up to now to not able publish the date in a earth time zone, but space.com reacted. Hopefully settled now. Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The "Operational history" section essentially duplicates the list of flights in: 1) a series of text paragraphs, and, 2) a table. I think we do not need both elements. I propose the section consist only of the table, with, if deemed desirable, an introductory text paragraph giving information that is not part of the table. I also include here a sample of how the table can be shown in a horizontal format. I think it's easier to read because it avoids the long vertical format of the cells labeled "Flight Objectives/Events", which I find harder to read than normal text, and which occupy a lot of vertical space on the page. We are free to revise the text in those cells to be more descriptive, possibly by converting the text to complete sentences, perhaps "importing" some of the text (with appropriate references) from the paragraphs. If this idea is supported, I'll volunteer to do the full table conversion (by which I mean the basic formatting changes, not text revision, to which we all contribute). Comments? DonFB ( talk) 02:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Flight N° | Date [a] | Duration (seconds) |
Peak altitude | Total distance moved [b] | Flight route | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
April 19, 2021 at 07:34 (UTC)
|
39.1
|
3 m (9.8 ft)
|
0 m (0 ft)
|
Vertical takeoff, stationary hover, land | Success |
Flight Objectives/Events | ||||||
* Start the Technology Demonstration Phase
| ||||||
Flight N° | Date [c] | Duration (seconds) |
Peak altitude | Total distance moved [d] | Flight route | Outcome |
2
|
April 22, 2021 at 09:33 (UTC)
|
51.9
|
5 m (16 ft)
|
4.3 m (14 ft)
|
Hover, shift Westwards, hover, return, hover, land [1] [2] | Success |
Flight Objectives/Events | ||||||
* Start the Technology Demonstration Phase
|
References
Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
I agree that theese two sections are duplicates and that merging that into one table would be helpful. Mutter5 ( talk) 08:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe 'flatening' the flight objectives could be helpful? The list in a table give two meanings to the vertical axis. Mainly now it's given as a sequence (so it fits into time being the vertical axis) but partly not (counterbalance, sound recording). But in total I support the idea. Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Planned flights (8ff) should be removed from the table but put in the text below. Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
As a follow up also the right column could be removed, since every flight will be a success beside the last one. Schrauber5 ( talk) 04:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Flight No. | Date (UTC) | Duration (sec) | Max Altitude | Distance | Route | Summary | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
April 19, 2021, 07:34
|
39.1
|
3 m (9.8 ft)
|
0 m (0 ft)
|
Vertical takeoff, stationary hover, land | A longer piece of text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. | Success |
}
Comparison of images Mars_Perseverance_HNM_0107_0676439539_049ECM_N0070001HELI02052_0000A0J.png (flight 7) and Mars_Perseverance_HNM_0091_0675019226_501ECM_N0060001HELI04358_0000LUJ.png (flight 6) suggests that the peak altitude was rather 10 m than 3 m. (Size of shadow of Ingenuity is equal.) P ev ( talk) 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, in flight 6 ,7 the shadow size in the image is the same (~32 px in the 640*480 picture). So the height should be the same. Since there was no reference given for 3 m being the height of flight 7 I removed that from the table. Thank's for the hint. Hopefully there will be soon a more detailed report than the tweet that will include the height. Schrauber5 ( talk) 04:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@ DonFB: would you regard "Shadow is the same, so height is the same" as WP:OR, "interpretation of primary source material" ?
Others might need no "interpretation" but just see this. Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that Ingenuity (helicopter)#Gallery should be move to Commons, not put in this article. Nghiemtrongdai VN ( talk) 11:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
My suggestions
Any comments? Schrauber5 ( talk) 19:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I have read that there were some less-than-total successes. I will leave it to others to give a good description. One problem which prevented a couple of take-offs at first. There was a temporary fix, but then was given a good fix in flight 8. Then there was the famous glitch in flight 6. To avoid that happening again, color pictures were avoided on flights 7 and 8. TomS TDotO ( talk) 18:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Schrauber5: how do you know about max. altitude 5 m? This information is not in your quoted source. P ev ( talk) 08:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Your are right. Thanks. I'll removed it. Schrauber5 ( talk) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe mixed it up with 5 m/s. Probably they will fly at 10 m to have no problem with the "oscillations of a few meters in the altitude control" Schrauber5 ( talk) 16:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Source reads Sol 105, 4 of June. That doesnt fit in any time zone. Sol 105 12:34 is 6th of June in UTC, EDT, PDT and CEST. I reported that to NASA. Schrauber5 ( talk) 17:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
At the map site there is also a possibility to download the positions of ingenuity:
There is also a wikipedia map link for Mars. {{coord|18.4447|N|77.4508|E|globe:Mars}} So I will enhance the current meaningless Airfield B,C,D,E.. with the coordinates Schrauber5 ( talk) 06:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Chinakpradhan: what's the source of the Sol 133 position shown on the Mars_2020_Perseverance_Rover_Traverse_Path_And_Ingenuity_Helicopter_Flight_Path.jpg?
Update_ airfields D,E,F are available as download:
Schrauber5 ( talk) 12:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I created templates to convert Mars sol and time to Earth time and backwards. See User:Schrauber5/testMarstime2 Schrauber5 ( talk) 13:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I deleted all entries 'Result: success' from the 'Summary' column of the 'List of flights'. Reasons:
In broader sence. If the word 'anomaly' needs emotions in the terms of 'success', it's better to accentuate the success of JPL which constructed the device capable to overcome 'emergencies' and 'anomalies' inevitable for each test event. It was a real success for the future of space aeronautics to encounter such 'anomalies' on the first steps. Cherurbino ( talk) 12:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
In the table the direction of flight 8 is given as southsoutheast (157.5°). I would consider the actual 165° close enough to 180° to call it south. And also remove the angle. That can be seen on the image or calculated from the coordinates Schrauber5 ( talk) 19:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
We need somebody who may bring a reliable British/American source to have a proof for SbE. Cherurbino ( talk) 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer to give the direction only in the direction of the 8 point compass rose (then being south) instead of the 32 point or, if it's really important with a degree value. Schrauber5 ( talk) 07:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Image PIA24496-Mars-IngenuityHelicopter-FlightZoneActivities-20210323.jpg entitled 'Flight zone activities' is taken from the pre-flight papers. It displays only the principles of testing, but has no relation to the actual landscape of the Wright Brothers field; it's an artists' imagination.
To keep closer to the idea of the 'Area of test flights' set of photos I would dare to propose a replacement - the deployment scheme from the 'Ingenuity Landing Press Kit' as of January 2021 where the present Van Zyl Overlook is named 'Twitchers' Point'. Cherurbino ( talk) 05:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Verifying the 'cite web' templates and searching for duplicates is a headache. However the visual control here may be improved for at least three groups of links pointing to NASA's domain:
Here …/0000/… stands for the unique ordinal index assigned to every new page opened at the site page.
Let's see what happens after you click, par exemple, this link (https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8906). Watch the address line of your browser. You see, that the short url
was automatically extended to
where all the dash-separated text added after the numeric index is a mere duplicate of the page title NASA’s Mars Helicopter Survives First Cold Martian Night on Its Own. It is not necessary for the correct navigation to the desired page! So, each time you fill the 'url=' parameter in the '{{cite web' you may cut off this descriptive, unnecessary tail. It saves hundreds of bytes, and it saves your eyes each time you open the edit window for working with references.
This is a 'library' of Ingenuity-related links from 'mars.nasa.gov' where cutting off the descriptive tails after the numeric index works. Sorting these links by indices restores the chronological order of articles and in some cases may help you to find typos in the 'date=' parameter.
My approach may be arguable. You may follow other approaches in filling another template parameters ('publisher=…; work=…; ref=…') and use another date syntax: treat this set of links only as the raw material which may help you to organize bibliography in your articles. Cherurbino ( talk) 06:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Best regards, Cherurbino ( talk) 06:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino I think the idea is sound to add a list of status reports in its own section within references. The issue causing the ref breakage is that you need to add {{ sfnref}} around the ref parameters. I have done so these edits. I also moved the statuses to the References section. - Aussie Article Writer ( talk) 19:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The cited source (<ref name=Teddyridg/></ref>) shows a total of 10 waypoints (takeoff and landing included). Hence there are 8 waypoints BETWEEN takeoff and landing. (You may count the points in the image.)
The space.com article claims the complete flight has only 95m (which is way too short compared with the map) Schrauber5 ( talk) 06:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Isn’t Ingenuity a drone, not a helicopter?
Yes, in the sense that is unmanned. But it's not remote controlled, doesn't have 4 separate rotors. According to the wikipedia definition ("lift by horizontally-spinning rotors") normal drones and Ingenuity are helicopters. Schrauber5 ( talk) 18:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The article claims its "much harder for to generate lift". This is not true regarding the eletrical power which in in the same order of magnitude as for an earth drone. I'd like to be more specific eg "requires larger blades and higher velocity to generate lift". The 27km helicopter example is missleading since the problem is more that all the helicopter are designed for normal pressure (and have a combustion engine) and not that it wouldn be technical impossible or extremly difficult. Schrauber5 ( talk) 09:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Electric power via a motor is used to generate the lift. Schrauber5 ( talk) 15:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
But e.g. no-one would write "it's much harder to generate thrust for an aeroplane propeller than for a ship's screw", just adapt speed and size of blades and adapt material from brass to wood. Same here: just adapt blade size and speed and change to carbon fiber blade. Im asking if "much harder" is justified in terms of difficult to realize with available technology. For travel in air compared to water a different principle had to be used (lift instead of buoyancy) but for mars helicopter the challenge seen more with cooling and control than with generating lift. Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of flight experience table as we got a framework https://mars.nasa.gov/technology/helicopter/status/321/better-by-the-dozen-ingenuity-takes-on-flight-12/ before 12 flight and little calculation can be done in Wikipedia by resources gathered from subsequent flight and why worry about too much calculation, when the solar conjuction is nearing that is the end of ingenuity life. And calculation shows it does have too many route calculation, just basic calculation. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
BTW which this page tells it is in August when it this site says it to be in October https://mars.nasa.gov/all-about-mars/night-sky/solar-conjunction/ Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok I will keep these things in mind, the next time I bring changes to this or any site on Wikipedia Chinakpradhan ( talk) 09:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
And please tell me once that, is this text written on this page in operational history section, "The Ingenuity team plans to fly the helicopter every two to three weeks until the end of August, when Mars will move behind the Sun" right? I said earlier in this discussion via a nasa link which says that the martian solar conjunction is in October, not in August, then why this page tell ingenuity's surface operations will end in the fall of August. I think if solar conjunction is the reason, then it will end surface operations in October. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 09:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW closure. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 20:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
– Primary topic; while Creativity is likely to have greater long term significance and usage, its dominance is not so great that it compels Ingenuity to be a disambiguation page. The other options for primary topic are too trivial to consider, with them receiving at most a few hundred views per month and minimal coverage in various other works. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I prefer to keep it. Most people are not interessed in the Mars mission. If you would ask random person about "ingenuity", I doubt that the helicopter be the most prominent answer. Especially in 2 or 5 years, when the helicopter is ancient history. Schrauber5 ( talk) 04:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Creativity is likely to have greater long term significance and usage. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think Wikipedia's other needs far outweigh this proposal and the time this discussion will consume. DonFB ( talk) 05:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Reason for a guaranteed mission extension after august: Given the helicopter stays in sleep or safe mode for more than two weeks between two successive flights, it may overcome the the blackout period. Moreover, the rover even becomes immobile or stationary during this period, meaning it will not move so farther that the connection link between the rover and helicopter Since, the operations demo phase showed that leaving just a need for communication exchange between Ingenuity and its team, through the rover, once every two weeks, meaning requiring minimal use of rover, the mission can be extended after the conjunction. The reason being that the rover is provided with new images after every flight, so that it can plan its scouting locations by the images. In such scenarios the helicopter enjoy the support of the rover, thereby may have a indefinite mission extension that will not end till its systems will cease to work.this citation also says that possible mission extension after ops demo phase
This is why i wrote, "If it stays alive after the mars solar conjunction and then, if perseverance rover shows continued interest in this helicopter, it might get a much longer mission extension." Chinakpradhan ( talk) 17:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, in a conversation on my talk page I realized that NASA’s flight log numbers for horizontal distance might not always be exactly correct (not extreme differences though, differences like 266 on flight log vs 270.46 on the Where is Perseverance dataset for flight 4, or 625 vs 631.79 for flight 9). I’ll call the Where is Perseverance dataset “WiP”; you can access it by following instructions here. I have two theories as to why this discrepancy happens;
1) Flight log is rounded, and WiP is not.
2) Flight log is horizontal distance, and WiP includes vertical
Warning: this paragraph involves math, you can skip it if you want, main takeaway is that theory 2 is unlikely.] However flight 9 had an altitude of 10 meters whereas the discrepancy is only ~7 meters so I think the latter is unlikely (In theory it is possible, using pythagoras we could see that the minimum total distance to get 10 high and 625 along would be if the flight path were a triangle with a peak right in the middle, which would have total length 2*sqrt(312.5^2+10^2) ~ 625.3 - depending on how quickly the helicopter ascends, you could get a total distance of 631.79. However in practice I think Ingenuity follows a more rectangular flight path, i.e. it rises first, then travels horizontally, then lowers? Not 100% sure though, but if that is the case then the total distance would have to be 645, which is too large for theory 2 to be possible.)
No more math now :) ] In case theory 1 is correct, this means that the numbers currently listed on the wikipedia page are inaccurate! (WiP has higher precision so that is why it is not the inaccurate one) Of course, the current values are also official NASA-reported numbers, so I think it would probably be fine to leave them as is. Just thought you guys might want to be aware of this minor discrepancy. AlliterativeAnchovies ( talk) 06:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Just realized I should probably clarify that the WiP dataset is also NASA-provided, so the discrepancy I’m pointing out is between two NASA sources. AlliterativeAnchovies ( talk) 06:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I can't tolerate this long article. Can we split it into the current page and a timeline page or export sections to timeline of Mars 2020 page. I have seen this is page is shortened many a times but shortening isn't a solution. Please voice you opinion here if we need to make a timeline page or not. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok Chinakpradhan ( talk) 06:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday I discovered that the date "November 21, 2021" returns 269
instead of actual 268 in NASA's catalog storage and official photo descriptions. I informed Drbogdan (he is the author of this template) about this issue and we have already started the discussion on the talk page of the template. I have alredady written there my personal assesment of this problem and proposed some solutions and improvements to this template.
I invite everybody interested in this problem to write your opinions, asessments and proposals on that template discussion page. Also carefully check the output of this template in the preview mode and use manual input in all the cases when the returned value may be other than you expected. — Cherurbino ( talk) 13:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The site (unmannedspaceflight.com) linked in the above section, "Airfield I or J??", but not visibly identified in the comment's text, does not quality as an acceptable reference for Wikipedia content. The site is an internet forum, many of whose contributors are anonymous. To say, when referring to posting on the site that "I asked NASA/JPL's specialists", is highly misleading. There may be NASA/JPL "specialists" contributing to that site, but the site is NOT an official government space agency site and should not be referred to as if it is. The site itself does boast in a welcome message: "UMSF is highly respected by the professional space science community." At the bottom of site pages, however there is this disclaimer: "Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society." Thus, the information, opinions, data, etc. are not the curated findings of the site itself. The site therefore cannot be considered a Reliable source that meets Wikipedia's requirement for Verifiability of content. Please do not use this site in article references or recommend that editors regard this site as a Reliable Source.
The Reliable Source guideline ( WP:RSSELF) says: "self-published sources are largely not acceptable". It further says: "posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media". The Guideline explains that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". That wording refers to posts by a particular identifiable person ("an established expert"). On Unmannedspaceflight.com, some contributors are anonymous and some appear to use real names. But the qualifications of named persons and their employment or association with reliable and authoritative sources (like NASA) are not made clear. Even if some of the information on Unmannedspaceflight.com is correct, the site cannot be considered a valid source for Wikipedia, because the information is not curated and fact-checked by an institutional editorial staff.
Another point: Gathering information for Wikipedia by directly communicating with people who an editor claims are NASA "specialists" constitutes Original Research, which is unacceptable under fundamental rules of this website. DonFB ( talk) 02:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
What is flight 16 landing spot stats and sequnce tell it's Airfield I but flight log says Airfield J. Please confirm this anyone. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 17:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I made several changes to the information for flights 15 and 16 based on clearly identified NASA/JPL sources. "Artuby Ridge", which I deleted from the descriptions, is not mentioned in any of the JPL Status Reports for the helicopter. Its inclusion in the text was essentially Original Research, using uncited information, apparently from the Unmannedspaceflight.com web forum, or from some other uncited map. Let's stick to clearly identified reliable sources. Phil Stooke is knowledgeable, but he is not contributing information about the mission on his own website, which might be deemed reliable. He is one of various contributors to the Unmanned forum, including a number who are anonymous. That forum is included in External Links for people who are interested.
I'm not sure I understand your complaint about "misprints" on NASA sites, but if mistakes exist, then clearly identified and reliable sources will be needed to make corrections, not uncited changes made by Wikipedia editors. DonFB ( talk) 07:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The article mentions both the 250 kbit/s and 20kbit/s figures, does anyone know more about what's basically the main bottleneck for this mission?
I suspect 20kbit/s might be more accurate because quote: "The radio link is built upon the low-power Zigbee communication protocols, implemented via 914 MHz SiFlex 02 chipsets mounted in both the rover and helicopter.", and then mentions the 250 kbit/s figure; but if you go to the Zigbee article, it says "The raw, over-the-air data rate is 250 kbit/s per channel in the 2.4 GHz band, 40 kbit/s per channel in the 915 MHz band, and 20 kbit/s in the 868 MHz band. The actual data throughput will be less than the maximum specified bit rate due to the packet overhead and processing delays.", so a lower datarate seems more plausible since this radio link works on the 914Mhz frequency.
It may also be interesting to get some info from the mission operators themselves, since after the flight 17 loss of telemetry incident they mentioned to have lowered the datarate even further. -- 82.59.45.60 ( talk) 11:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the hidden comment by user Shinkolobwe, who said [3]: "The last narrow column (Summary) of this huge elongated table is very difficult to read and would deserve a dedicated section with explanations given in a normal text." Below, I offer a suggestion for incorporating the "Summary" text within the existing table. (The displayed table data is just for illustration; it's not all correct; has some duplication, made-up, and misplaced info.) My suggested table structure shows double horizontal lines to separate each flight entry; that's just my kludgy technique; I invite improvements from more experienced table-makers, and suggestions/comments on whether this structure is a workable idea. DonFB ( talk) 03:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: My example shows the column headings reproduced for each flight, which makes editing trickier. That's not actually necessary. But "Summary" (which is not an actual heading, but just a bold-face text entry) could still be shown for each flight. DonFB ( talk) 03:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
MORE: Ok, I'm getting a little obsessed with this. Added an entry to show it without reproducing column headings (but "Summary" is still shown). Also, added prefix numbers for Summary to help reader navigation. Comments/ideas invited. DonFB ( talk) 04:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
LATEST Tweak below: DonFB ( talk) 06:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Flight | Date (UTC) | Duration (sec) | Max Altitude | Horizontal Distance | Max Groundspeed | Route |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technology Demonstration Phase | ||||||
#1 | April 19, 2021 at 07:34 (Sol 58) |
39.1 | 3 m (9.8 ft) | 0 m (0 ft) | 0 m/s (0 mph) | Vertical takeoff, hover, land at Wright Brothers Field (JZRO) 18°26′41″N 77°27′04″E / 18.44486°N 77.45102°E [1] |
The first powered flight by any aircraft on another planet. While hovering, it rotated in place 96 degrees in a planned maneuver. Flight data was received at 11:30 UTC. [2] [3] | ||||||
#2 | April 19, 2021 at 07:34 (Sol 58) |
57.3 | 5 m (16 ft) | 63 m (207 ft) | 1 m/s (2.2 mph) | Hover, shift westward 2 m (6.6 ft), hover, return, hover, land
[4]
[5]
18°26′41″N 77°27′04″E / 18.44486°N 77.45102°E
[1]
|
This flight takes the helicopter out of the South Séítah basin, across the dividing ridge, and up onto the main plateau. The precise landing target for Flight 19 is near the landing site of Flight 8. Images taken during Flight 9 by the rotorcraft’s high-resolution Return-To-Earth (RTE) camera were used to select a safe landing zone. It is another in a series of flights returning Ingenuity to Wright Brothers Field. This slower approach was taken due to the lack of large landing sites in this portion of Séítah and lower atmospheric density in the summer months which requires higher rotor speeds and power draw from the motors. The final act of the flight is to turn nearly 180 degrees to flip the RTE camera to a forward-facing orientation for future flights toward the river delta. | ||||||
#3 | April 19, 2021 at 07:34 (Sol 58) |
57.3 | 5 m (16 ft) | 63 m (207 ft) | 1 m/s (2.2 mph) | Hover, shift westward 2 m (6.6 ft), hover, return, hover, land [6] [5] 18°26′41″N 77°27′04″E / 18.44486°N 77.45102°E [1] |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." |
ANOTHER PRESENTATION (data not all real):
DonFB ( talk) 09:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Flight #1 |
Date (UTC) April 19, 2021 (Sol 58) |
Duration (sec) 30 |
Max Altitude 12 m (39 ft) |
Horizontal Distance 3 m (9.8 ft) |
Max Groundspeed 1 m/s (2.2 mph) |
Route: Hover, shift westward 2 m (6.6 ft), hover, return, hover, land [7] [5] 18°26′41″N 77°27′04″E / 18.44486°N 77.45102°E [1] |
Summary: The first powered flight by any aircraft on another planet. While hovering, it rotated in place 96 degrees in a planned maneuver. Flight data was received at 11:30 UTC.[2][3] |
|
Flight #2 |
Date (UTC) April 19, 2021 (Sol 58) |
Duration (sec) 75 |
Max Altitude 10 m (33 ft) |
Horizontal Distance 123 m (404 ft) |
Max Groundspeed 1.5 m/s (3.4 mph) |
Route: Hover, shift westward 2 m (6.6 ft), hover, return, hover, land [8] [5] 18°26′41″N 77°27′04″E / 18.44486°N 77.45102°E [1] |
Summary: This flight takes the helicopter out of the South Séítah basin, across the dividing ridge, and up onto the main plateau. The precise landing target for Flight 19 is near the landing site of Flight 8. Images taken during Flight 9 by the rotorcraft’s high-resolution Return-To-Earth (RTE) camera were used to select a safe landing zone. It is another in a series of flights returning Ingenuity to Wright Brothers Field. This slower approach was taken due to the lack of large landing sites in this portion of Séítah and lower atmospheric density in the summer months which requires higher rotor speeds and power draw from the motors. The final act of the flight is to turn nearly 180 degrees to flip the RTE camera to a forward-facing orientation for future flights toward the river delta. |
References
roadmaps
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).:0
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
Better to create a page list of ingenuity flights like Russian wiki transpose this section there. Write about each flight separately and just being out the stats table in this page as excerpt. Link that page here and anyone who likes to know about flight summary will read in article list of ingenuity flights, DonFBand Shinkolobwe. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 20:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
DonFB, Shinkolobwe, Cherurbino, Yarnalgo and Huntster
(published image directly to show details) In starting as we all know that nobody had ever thought ingenuity will survive 19 flights. i had a inital target personally of 10 flights. what may be our assumptions must be kept aside.
after a year is it conjusting image. asking so as to know whether i should split this image into a image for perseverance map and one for ingenuity. i am hating original for congestion and separate ones for containing lesser details. so can't determine.
so please give your nod as to what should be the right thing done in this case. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Shinkolobwe, DonFB, Randy Kyrn, Yarnalgo, Huntster, Sepidnoor, and Schrauber5:, guys what has again happened NASA has skipped airfield O gone directly from N to P Chinakpradhan ( talk) 03:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Is is a problem. Earlier they skipped airfield I also in naming Here's the earlier discussion called Airfield I or J?? Chinakpradhan ( talk) 04:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The map and helicopters' waypoints at mars.nasa.gov show a twice shorter route of circa 186-187 m against 360 m in the flight log. Was it a roundup trip? The NASAJPL twitter sheds no light upon that. 92.100.192.48 ( talk) 05:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Each figure may be true and may be false depending upon whether the flight was a roundup trip or not. 92.100.192.48 ( talk) 11:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Bro see the flight and my flight note I said it took a turn by the edl parachute and backshell so it's somewhat like flight 6 or precisely flight 10 and even 27 flight is similar so you see it shorter since this is not direct distance between R and S. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 08:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
But ya nasa is boggling the json value I saw 708.43 for 25 now it's 708.91 maybe and same first it told flight 26 Length as 360.16 now its ~391. Its just googly NASA people who are uploading the values hah Chinakpradhan ( talk) 09:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A thought I've had for a while: the article is overloaded with photos. I've noticed on my phone that the article can barely be loaded. Perhaps not a loading problem on desktop or tablet devices (or phones newer than mine), but an issue to consider. In terms of readability, I think it's not the best practice. No doubt, more photos will be added if we don't try to create a limit. Comments invited on whether editors agree about overloading and if so, which photos, or photo groups, need to be reduced. DonFB ( talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok nasa didn't intended that so wouldn't say we got by chance Chinakpradhan ( talk) 02:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Somebody may note in the article instead of me that in April 2022 Ingenuity improved its own flight cadency record - five sorties (24th through 28th) against four flights in April 2021 (1st through 4th). - anonym 95.27.41.24 ( talk) 13:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Useless trivia making sorties depend on mood of rover and keeping pace for radio link not Ginny Chinakpradhan ( talk) 03:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I garbled my Edit Summary on Special:Diff/1081886894. I wanted to say:
Status 373 ("Balancing the Risks...") describes "waking Ingenuity at this time without flying" -- "at this time" refers to 9:30 LMST. So, Flight #24 was not a "test" of 9:30 LMST; the test was already done when they woke it without flying to see if it would have enough battery charge at that time of morning. But I think this is all a little too much detail for the Summary text.
ON ANOTHER SUBJECT:
We should think about possibly splitting the "List of flights" section into its own article. The list has become quite long, and will keep growing as long as the helicopter can keep flying. Its length may make the article too unwieldy. Comments? DonFB ( talk) 08:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Support it Chinakpradhan ( talk) 02:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
We must Follow the ru:Список полётов Ingenuity where a separate page is made (not their table format) and also put the flight experience table on this page there Don FB Chinakpradhan ( talk) 04:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Ya good Chinakpradhan ( talk) 09:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@ DonFB won't it be better if we move the whole flight List to other page not a single line on this page?? And link that page here like the page List of Starlink launches Chinakpradhan ( talk) 09:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
So should we proceeds?? Just a joke telling you, "by the time we decid maybe it is on track for 28th flight". Chinakpradhan ( talk) 15:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A spin-off list article, "List of flights by Ingenuity helicopter on Mars", is ready for publication. It would help prevent this article from becoming too unwieldy. When published separately, the list would be removed from this article, and a direct link to the standalone List would be put in an appropriate location in this article, most likely at the head of the "Operational history" section. If there are any objections, please comment. The Draft has already been submitted and was declined by a reviewer. I'm confident it would now be approved. DonFB ( talk) 05:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Would be great knowing the name of the inventors 108.225.198.40 ( talk) 12:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@ DonFB can you write something on broken inclinometer from [5]. it will not be used again and the first ingenuity hardware to recieve fault Chinakpradhan ( talk) 16:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
What should be the lead image of this page, a flying artist's conception or a real in-terrain image where ingenuity is at its drop site in wright brother's field (only clear image of ingenuity showing its details, others are earthly images not good as lead). Any thoughts please drop them out here?? @ DonFb, @ BilCat, @ FOX 52, @ Shinkolobwe, @ Cherurbino, @ Yarnalgo and @ Huntster may assist if they want?? Chinakpradhan ( talk) 03:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Can someone fix this? Specifically in design table, rotor speed etc. I only use dark mode on everything that supports it. I looked at the code but don't know enough to fix it. Autumn Wind ( talk) 23:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Edits by User:Artem.G on April 20th removed the helpful and informative images in "History of Development". These images provide users with context and understanding of the development team and leadership. Furthermore, the change caused the development timeline image to become unreadably small and useless. Attempts on May 5th to fix this section and restore the lost content, were reverted. Any thoughts by the editor community on this change? 66.215.160.37 ( talk) 15:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an image repository."Artem.G ( talk) 16:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Can someone else check the drastic edits and cuts by CactiStaccingCrane. The image cuts alone should be concerning and likely hurt the page. This editor and I have had our go-arounds, and I'd prefer not to be the one reverting here, but be aware that he has an odd tendency to totally and vastly rewrite articles (in most cases not helpfully, in some, parts are good but not the overall changes) citing boldness. Way too bold for the damage he has done elsewhere, at least how I've experienced his edits, so in this case I'd prefer if someone else took a look and compared what was changed and the overall state of the article now. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems that contact with ingenuity has been lost. I added a little to the article, but there's a lot of work still to be done. Also, there's not a lot of information about it rn. Qoiuoiuoiu ( talk ) 19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is the increase in mass from 2016 to 2018 due to a design change, or also including any required additions to the rest of the 2020 rover ? - Rod57 ( talk) 09:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEY4ThEwd9c Video title: "J. Bob Balaram - Mars Helicopter - 21st Annual International Mars Society Convention". Duration 25 minutes. Open4D ( talk) 16:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus to move ( non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs ( talk) 12:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
References
Hey everybody, NASA just renamed the helicopter to Ingenuity. Can somebody change the name, add paragraph about it, etc.?
-- Nomnom121 ( talk) 15:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how to reply without an account but: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7650 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.129.198 ( talk)
Done FWIW - changed article name to Mars Helicopter Ingenuity as suggested - should be ok - please comment if otherwise of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Unfortunately, there are too many proposed options and too few !voters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
– Building upon concerns raised by BilCat that the disambiguator "spacecraft" may not be appropriate for vehicles that do not operate in space, and by Yarnalgo that "Mars Helicopter Ingenuity" is not an appropriate name as it is not used in any official capacity. I want to add to this by saying that "Mars Helicopter Ingenuity" is also not seemingly used in any commonly recognisable capacity either, and that the disambiguator "rotorcraft" may be more appropriate than "helicopter", as it adequately describes all rotor-propelled aircraft without denoting a specific type of rotorcraft; Dragonfly, for example, isn't referred to as a helicopter while Ingenuity is commonly referred to as such. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 02:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad ( talk) 10:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The dimensions for the chassis and overall height are given in cementers, but the rotor diameter is given in feet. Should the rotor diameter value be swapped with the value in brackets, 1.2m?
2001:569:7D2D:3200:C42F:FC72:4AF5:534A ( talk) 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
please add slot for deployment date as given by this site
chinakpradhan ( talk) 1:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help) This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
public domain.
@ PhilipTerryGraham:, I saw you removed the mission type and duration from the infobox because "such info can be found in the {{Infobox spaceflight}} of Mars 2020", but the info that was in these two fields is not in the Mars 2020 infobox because they are specific to the helicopter's mission and not the overarching Mars 2020 mission. The helicopter is a technology demonstrator whose mission is planned to last for 30 days. This is pretty different from the overall mission and duration of Mars 2020, which is definitely not a tech demo (it reuses most of its tech from the last rover) and is meant to last for at least a year. The helicopter is kind of an offshoot from the main mission so I think it's important to have that information here. What do you think? -- Yarnalgo talk 01:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The newly created " Timeline of Mars 2020", related to the " Mars 2020" page, and which would include events related to the " Perseverance rover" and " Ingenuity helicopter" pages, may need help in updating and related - the newly created page structure is based on the earlier " Timeline of Mars Science Laboratory" page, which includes events related to the " Curiosity rover" - Thanks - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I think most people are well aware that the pages for Mars 2020, Perseverance (rover), and Ingenuity (helicopter) are under a concerted vandalism attack by an entity that is jumping IPs to post dick pics to the top of the pages. I believe admin have just applied semi-protection Mars 2020 and Perseverance (rover), so I'm wondering if this article receives it as well. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 21:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The summary says that it'll be deployed in 30 days, but in Design the article says "...and should be deployed to the surface between 60 and 90 Martian days (sols) after the landing, or between 19 April and 19 May 2021..."
Which is correct? I don't have enough time to check it out right now, but I will in 10-12 hours if someone doesn't get to it first. Knotimpressed ( talk) 05:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that Mars Helicopter redirects to Mars aircraft instead of here, shouldn't there be a hatnote at that article directing to this one? Also shouldn't the redirect have a lower case 'h'? GA-RT-22 ( talk) 13:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 23:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Mars Helicopter Ingenuity → Ingenuity (helicopter) – To follow conventions like Perseverance (rover) for a named vehicle. See previous move discussions @ #Requested move 2 May 2020 ( Ingenuity (rotorcraft)) and @ #Requested move 9 March 2020 ( Mars Helicopter). UserTwoSix ( talk) 22:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Seriously? That's the best we can do? A dark shadow of something? BilCat ( talk) 06:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I've replaced the dark shadow of something with a photo that shows what it actually looks like. BilCat ( talk) 18:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it correct to call Ingenuity's first flight as "the first powered atmospheric flight on a planet beyond Earth" when the Sky Crane on Curiosity and Mars 2020 has already achieved this, twice?-- BugWarp ( talk) 20:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
It is first powered flight but not first controlled flight other controlled flight is made by vega balloons on venus but this is first flight on mars and galilean atmosphere probe though the Jupiter one was crushed by Jupiter's atmosphere. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Skycranes, aero shells, backshells had uncontrolled flight so we must write first controlled, powered flight on any bodies or mars Chinakpradhan ( talk) 03:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking this should be removed: "If Ingenuity works as expected, NASA could build on its design to extend the aerial bombardment component of future Mars missions.[18]" Is it an April Fools joke?
please change the layout of infobox and add a deployment date on this page otherwise think of Ingenuity deployed and we have no place to write in infobox when it was deployed from rover, one of the key dates on the mission. this must be done as we do similar things in infobox in case of docking and undocking of spacecraft. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
please do this. its important for Ingenuity, all my tries are in vain Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
even i just saw mention of deployment in infobox of sojourner rover Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
no adding {{ Infobox spaceflight}} removes many articles in {{ Infobox individual space vehicle}} Chinakpradhan ( talk) 02:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
shown in this page like height so better not use that or fix this page to allow that feild to be included. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Just append the facts to the unbulleted list (see my edit Maiden flight —19apr...) --: GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 ⍨talk 12:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Should the infobox include the mars days in paren. after date earth time ie.
Maiden flight — 19 April 2021(39 Sols)? --:
GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴
⍨talk 12:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
ÑÑÑ I changed "frist" to "first". I trust this will be less controversial than my other activities on Wikipedia. Thanks. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ
The convention as I saw it that the image would describe the subject "in action'? Aeroplane in Wikipedia, to my knowledge, always has infobox image flying. Curiosity and Perseverance both have infobox image with a semblance of being in action. And even Soyuz MS article, it's a spacecraft docking, in space. Fulfilling its role. So I reckon maybe Ingenuity image should be too.
What does, “The sudden increase in the graph indicates the flight period.“ mean? Needs clarification. Kessler ( talk) 02:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Till it was on land the graph gave zero reading. The increase shows it is flying Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It is altimeter graph zero reading means mean Martian level Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Even the disturbance in graph after increase before decrease means the effect of Martian winds on the chopper Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This is the first evidence the team got that Ingenuity has successfully flown on mars Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This is thus important source of height at which it is flying and taking pictures Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I really do not wish to be banned from wikipedia for trying to improve accuracy of information. I realized too late that my two edits should have been a single edit and apologize for that.
If you really must leave "on earth" in place then can we rephrase it to reflect they are "commonly believed to be the first in powered flight on earth"? Gustave Whitehead is a local legend and it is known around here in Connecticut that he was indeed the first to powered flight. Though he lacked photographic evidence, there are eyewitnesses, numerous newspaper articles, and someone has even built + flown a replica craft to prove the number 21 craft was flight capable. There are local museums that also recognize him as being first.
I can provide more information but if you follow the links on these pages you will see this is a real issue. There are also recorded news broadcasts from recent times that can be found on youtube which support Whiteheads flight.
https://www.fairfieldhistory.org/library-collections/gustave-whitehead/
http://www.gustave-whitehead.com/history/news-reports-1901-2-flights/
Even if you disagree, I hope you can acknowledge this is contested information and we should do our best to write statements that are as accurate as possible. Many people still state that Edison invented the lightbulb when it was really Humphrey Davy.
32.211.211.39 ( talk) 04:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Tomorrow flight might be the first of several controlled flights. Shell us do a flights table to list them? -- 79.55.104.9 ( talk) 15:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Isn't there a better video of the second flight available? I'm starting to think there was a problem with the transmission. Gjxj ( talk) 17:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
there is one (that i cant seem to find) that includes the whole flight takeoff to landing..but its missing a lot of frames making it all jumpy. I was looking to see the thing translate, which is claimed but not evident in the video. Gjxj ( talk) 00:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of what the state of Connecticut thinks, the Wright Brothers are widely accepted as being the first to fly on earth. See for example recent coverage of this helicopter. [1]. -- Calidum 03:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The first table listing the flights already performed by Ingenuity lacks of readability: there are too many columns filled with unreadable vertical cells. How to improve this too long table with the columns headings quickly disappearing from the screen when scrolling down ? Suggestion: To merge the two redundant columns dealing with "Flight route" and "Flight objectives" and to abandon the last column with "Outcome". The background of the first column could be advantageously colored in green. Hoping the red color will never be used, it would probably only affect the last row. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 23:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
What is a RTE Camera (mentioned the "Capabilities tested" of the second flight)? -- Schrauber5 ( talk) 08:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
It is wrong it must be horizon facing colour terrain camera Chinakpradhan ( talk) 04:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Did the third flight took 80 seconds, I think it took 62.8 seconds according to third flight video Chinakpradhan ( talk) 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Reference for 17 feet hight is not given. The planned hight was 5m and since it's closed loop control and has no independent second sensor and no reported hight overshoot I guess the the 17 ft may just be a conversion error.-- Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I said on this video Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JPL-20210425_Perseverance_Rover%27s_Mastcam-Z_Captures_Ingenuity%27s_Third_Flight.webm Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
It boggles my mind more than a little to think that NASA is using feet as the primary unit for a space mission, but you really can't tell about anything concerning America these days.
What I see in this article is that main sections are all meters (feet), and that the recently added operational and flight records are all feet (meters).
Somehow I think the entire article should be consistently rendered as meters (feet). — MaxEnt 03:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
K1401986
Talk with me 01:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)See also date at https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/HNM_0091_0675019235_723ECM_N0060001HELI04636_0000A0J Schrauber5 ( talk) 21:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Changed back to May 23 All flights are started via wakeup at 12:30 local Mars time. If there is no command the helicopter will go back to sleep until next day. (explained in video). The flight happens then in the following minutes. The 6th flight was scheduled at and after 12:30 (local time) sol 91. That is about 23.5.21 5:20, UTC but in Califonia at 22.5.21. The report of Håvard Grip mentioned the photo to be taken at May 22 but without saying at with time and which time zone. The link given above shows that the flight happened at May 23 (again without time zone) but 12:35 Sol 91. I calculated the UTC time 5:20 by adding 22 sols to the flight at sol 69. user Schrauber5 ( talk) 14:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
At K1401986: Your calculation was wrong: There is not fixed shift between Earth time and Mars time but its shifted every day by additionally 39 minutes, 35s see Sol_(day_on_Mars) -- Schrauber5 ( talk) 06:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Back to the facts and let's assume good faith. I try to find consensus:
-- Schrauber5 ( talk) 10:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
If adding 22 Sol is to murky maybe subtraction of 3 Sol is understandable: [2] reads: "May 26, 2021 (Sol 94) at the local mean solar time of 11:55:45" and Sol 91 should be 3 days earlier. Schrauber5 ( talk) 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I found a tool to convert Mars time to Earth time: http://interimm.org/mars-clock/en/index.html Sol 0 is day 18062 of that clock (landing day, 18 Feb 2021 20:55 GMT). All dates and time from the Operational history table give 6:52 as local time (so ingenuitys local Mars time is about 5:40 behind that's tool meridian). All given Sol fit except that of the 6th flight. You have to fill in 23 May 2020 05:20 GMT to get to day 18153 (=91+landing day 18062) and 6:52 at Mars time Schrauber5 ( talk) 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Ingenuity (helicopter) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
We should use 22 May. WP:OR does allow for "routine calculations" as an exception, including basic arithmetic. The process of getting to 23 May, however, is not routine, involving contention over whether a photo is "acquired" when it is taken or when it is sent from Mars or received on Earth. This contrasts with, for example, our treatment of flight 5. The space.com source gives a flight time in EDT, enabling routine calculation to get the UTC time and date. Schrauber5, if you can't find sources that similarly describe an Earth time for the flight or are precise and unambiguous about the Mars time, your main remedy if you choose to keep pursing this is to seek to build consensus with other editors that the result of your calculation is "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 20:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC) |
(tl:dr: use May 22, but maybe weaken the statement) It's never the same day everywhere in the world. At the time of the flight the local time in the US was May 22. NASA and all the other sources DonFB provided are US-based, so naturally they will use time in the US and many others just copy the date because it doesn't come with a time that would allow conversion. Wikipedia is not a US encyclopedia and the flight didn't happen on Earth, so there is no local time zone to consider in the article. In spaceflight articles we generally use UTC. You can find articles for the flight being May 23, too, if you look in different time zones: from South Africa, from India. But... I don't find a reliable source quoting the actual time of the flight, so using May 23 based on these articles wouldn't be better than May 22. I think we should use May 22 for now, and hope that Schrauber5's contact makes NASA publish the time of the flight in a citable place. The table header says (UTC) but the date is not UTC. Maybe we can use "~May 22, 2021" or something else to indicate the uncertainty? -- mfb ( talk) 21:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
At https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/#raw-images , with filter set "Mars Helicopter Tech Demo Cameras: Navigation Camera", Date 2021-5-23 gives 106 pictures of the flight all acquired at May 23, Sol 91 local time from 12:35:03 to 12:35:42 (landed), so that are 106 references stating May 23. The progress in fractions of the second makes it clear that "acquired" means the time taken and not received or transmitted. The table in the wiki article has UTC in the heading, so the time (and date if necessary) should be shifted to UTC. -- Schrauber5 ( talk) 22:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Flight time was : Sol 91 Local 12:35, May 23, 2021 05:20 UTC, May 23, 2021 01:20 EDT (-4), May 22, 2021 22:20 PDT (-7) so even for the US east coast it was May 23. Schrauber5 ( talk) 23:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Flight 5 was at Sol 76 Local mean solar time 12:34 [1] equivalent to May 7, 2021 at 19:26 UTC [2]. Fraction of the Earth day is ((19+26/60)/24=0.8097 Sixth fight was at Sol 91 Local time 12:34 [3] (91-76)=15 Sols later. One Sol is 24:39:35.24 The time difference in Earth days is (15*(24+(39+35.24/60)/60)/24=15.4124 Day fraction of flight 5 added: 15.4124+0.8097=16.2221. For the sixth flight he day of the month May is (7+16)=23. The hours are .2221*24=5.329. Minutes are .329*60=20
[1] https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/HNM_0076_0673687499_997ECM_N0050001HELI01352_0000LUJ [2] https://www.space.com/mars-helicopter-ingenuity-fifth-flight-new-airfield [3] https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/raw-images/HNM_0076_0673687525_076ECM_N0050001HELI02108_0000LUJ Schrauber5 ( talk) 20:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I see a good solution. Lets remove "UTC" from the header of the table and add "(UTC)" to all dates which are known as in UTC. Artpoz5 ( talk) 13:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Currently the 22.(UTC) is at 3 places in the article. With flight 7 two of them will dissapear. As a intermediate step your suggestion would be helpful. At least there would be no wrong information any more. Schrauber5 ( talk) 13:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
So finally, NASA, JPL were up to now to not able publish the date in a earth time zone, but space.com reacted. Hopefully settled now. Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The "Operational history" section essentially duplicates the list of flights in: 1) a series of text paragraphs, and, 2) a table. I think we do not need both elements. I propose the section consist only of the table, with, if deemed desirable, an introductory text paragraph giving information that is not part of the table. I also include here a sample of how the table can be shown in a horizontal format. I think it's easier to read because it avoids the long vertical format of the cells labeled "Flight Objectives/Events", which I find harder to read than normal text, and which occupy a lot of vertical space on the page. We are free to revise the text in those cells to be more descriptive, possibly by converting the text to complete sentences, perhaps "importing" some of the text (with appropriate references) from the paragraphs. If this idea is supported, I'll volunteer to do the full table conversion (by which I mean the basic formatting changes, not text revision, to which we all contribute). Comments? DonFB ( talk) 02:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Flight N° | Date [a] | Duration (seconds) |
Peak altitude | Total distance moved [b] | Flight route | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
April 19, 2021 at 07:34 (UTC)
|
39.1
|
3 m (9.8 ft)
|
0 m (0 ft)
|
Vertical takeoff, stationary hover, land | Success |
Flight Objectives/Events | ||||||
* Start the Technology Demonstration Phase
| ||||||
Flight N° | Date [c] | Duration (seconds) |
Peak altitude | Total distance moved [d] | Flight route | Outcome |
2
|
April 22, 2021 at 09:33 (UTC)
|
51.9
|
5 m (16 ft)
|
4.3 m (14 ft)
|
Hover, shift Westwards, hover, return, hover, land [1] [2] | Success |
Flight Objectives/Events | ||||||
* Start the Technology Demonstration Phase
|
References
Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
I agree that theese two sections are duplicates and that merging that into one table would be helpful. Mutter5 ( talk) 08:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe 'flatening' the flight objectives could be helpful? The list in a table give two meanings to the vertical axis. Mainly now it's given as a sequence (so it fits into time being the vertical axis) but partly not (counterbalance, sound recording). But in total I support the idea. Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Planned flights (8ff) should be removed from the table but put in the text below. Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
As a follow up also the right column could be removed, since every flight will be a success beside the last one. Schrauber5 ( talk) 04:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Flight No. | Date (UTC) | Duration (sec) | Max Altitude | Distance | Route | Summary | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
April 19, 2021, 07:34
|
39.1
|
3 m (9.8 ft)
|
0 m (0 ft)
|
Vertical takeoff, stationary hover, land | A longer piece of text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. | Success |
}
Comparison of images Mars_Perseverance_HNM_0107_0676439539_049ECM_N0070001HELI02052_0000A0J.png (flight 7) and Mars_Perseverance_HNM_0091_0675019226_501ECM_N0060001HELI04358_0000LUJ.png (flight 6) suggests that the peak altitude was rather 10 m than 3 m. (Size of shadow of Ingenuity is equal.) P ev ( talk) 20:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, in flight 6 ,7 the shadow size in the image is the same (~32 px in the 640*480 picture). So the height should be the same. Since there was no reference given for 3 m being the height of flight 7 I removed that from the table. Thank's for the hint. Hopefully there will be soon a more detailed report than the tweet that will include the height. Schrauber5 ( talk) 04:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@ DonFB: would you regard "Shadow is the same, so height is the same" as WP:OR, "interpretation of primary source material" ?
Others might need no "interpretation" but just see this. Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that Ingenuity (helicopter)#Gallery should be move to Commons, not put in this article. Nghiemtrongdai VN ( talk) 11:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
My suggestions
Any comments? Schrauber5 ( talk) 19:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I have read that there were some less-than-total successes. I will leave it to others to give a good description. One problem which prevented a couple of take-offs at first. There was a temporary fix, but then was given a good fix in flight 8. Then there was the famous glitch in flight 6. To avoid that happening again, color pictures were avoided on flights 7 and 8. TomS TDotO ( talk) 18:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Schrauber5: how do you know about max. altitude 5 m? This information is not in your quoted source. P ev ( talk) 08:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Your are right. Thanks. I'll removed it. Schrauber5 ( talk) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe mixed it up with 5 m/s. Probably they will fly at 10 m to have no problem with the "oscillations of a few meters in the altitude control" Schrauber5 ( talk) 16:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Source reads Sol 105, 4 of June. That doesnt fit in any time zone. Sol 105 12:34 is 6th of June in UTC, EDT, PDT and CEST. I reported that to NASA. Schrauber5 ( talk) 17:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
At the map site there is also a possibility to download the positions of ingenuity:
There is also a wikipedia map link for Mars. {{coord|18.4447|N|77.4508|E|globe:Mars}} So I will enhance the current meaningless Airfield B,C,D,E.. with the coordinates Schrauber5 ( talk) 06:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Chinakpradhan: what's the source of the Sol 133 position shown on the Mars_2020_Perseverance_Rover_Traverse_Path_And_Ingenuity_Helicopter_Flight_Path.jpg?
Update_ airfields D,E,F are available as download:
Schrauber5 ( talk) 12:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I created templates to convert Mars sol and time to Earth time and backwards. See User:Schrauber5/testMarstime2 Schrauber5 ( talk) 13:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I deleted all entries 'Result: success' from the 'Summary' column of the 'List of flights'. Reasons:
In broader sence. If the word 'anomaly' needs emotions in the terms of 'success', it's better to accentuate the success of JPL which constructed the device capable to overcome 'emergencies' and 'anomalies' inevitable for each test event. It was a real success for the future of space aeronautics to encounter such 'anomalies' on the first steps. Cherurbino ( talk) 12:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
In the table the direction of flight 8 is given as southsoutheast (157.5°). I would consider the actual 165° close enough to 180° to call it south. And also remove the angle. That can be seen on the image or calculated from the coordinates Schrauber5 ( talk) 19:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
We need somebody who may bring a reliable British/American source to have a proof for SbE. Cherurbino ( talk) 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer to give the direction only in the direction of the 8 point compass rose (then being south) instead of the 32 point or, if it's really important with a degree value. Schrauber5 ( talk) 07:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Image PIA24496-Mars-IngenuityHelicopter-FlightZoneActivities-20210323.jpg entitled 'Flight zone activities' is taken from the pre-flight papers. It displays only the principles of testing, but has no relation to the actual landscape of the Wright Brothers field; it's an artists' imagination.
To keep closer to the idea of the 'Area of test flights' set of photos I would dare to propose a replacement - the deployment scheme from the 'Ingenuity Landing Press Kit' as of January 2021 where the present Van Zyl Overlook is named 'Twitchers' Point'. Cherurbino ( talk) 05:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Verifying the 'cite web' templates and searching for duplicates is a headache. However the visual control here may be improved for at least three groups of links pointing to NASA's domain:
Here …/0000/… stands for the unique ordinal index assigned to every new page opened at the site page.
Let's see what happens after you click, par exemple, this link (https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8906). Watch the address line of your browser. You see, that the short url
was automatically extended to
where all the dash-separated text added after the numeric index is a mere duplicate of the page title NASA’s Mars Helicopter Survives First Cold Martian Night on Its Own. It is not necessary for the correct navigation to the desired page! So, each time you fill the 'url=' parameter in the '{{cite web' you may cut off this descriptive, unnecessary tail. It saves hundreds of bytes, and it saves your eyes each time you open the edit window for working with references.
This is a 'library' of Ingenuity-related links from 'mars.nasa.gov' where cutting off the descriptive tails after the numeric index works. Sorting these links by indices restores the chronological order of articles and in some cases may help you to find typos in the 'date=' parameter.
My approach may be arguable. You may follow other approaches in filling another template parameters ('publisher=…; work=…; ref=…') and use another date syntax: treat this set of links only as the raw material which may help you to organize bibliography in your articles. Cherurbino ( talk) 06:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Best regards, Cherurbino ( talk) 06:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Cherurbino I think the idea is sound to add a list of status reports in its own section within references. The issue causing the ref breakage is that you need to add {{ sfnref}} around the ref parameters. I have done so these edits. I also moved the statuses to the References section. - Aussie Article Writer ( talk) 19:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The cited source (<ref name=Teddyridg/></ref>) shows a total of 10 waypoints (takeoff and landing included). Hence there are 8 waypoints BETWEEN takeoff and landing. (You may count the points in the image.)
The space.com article claims the complete flight has only 95m (which is way too short compared with the map) Schrauber5 ( talk) 06:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Isn’t Ingenuity a drone, not a helicopter?
Yes, in the sense that is unmanned. But it's not remote controlled, doesn't have 4 separate rotors. According to the wikipedia definition ("lift by horizontally-spinning rotors") normal drones and Ingenuity are helicopters. Schrauber5 ( talk) 18:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
The article claims its "much harder for to generate lift". This is not true regarding the eletrical power which in in the same order of magnitude as for an earth drone. I'd like to be more specific eg "requires larger blades and higher velocity to generate lift". The 27km helicopter example is missleading since the problem is more that all the helicopter are designed for normal pressure (and have a combustion engine) and not that it wouldn be technical impossible or extremly difficult. Schrauber5 ( talk) 09:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Electric power via a motor is used to generate the lift. Schrauber5 ( talk) 15:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
But e.g. no-one would write "it's much harder to generate thrust for an aeroplane propeller than for a ship's screw", just adapt speed and size of blades and adapt material from brass to wood. Same here: just adapt blade size and speed and change to carbon fiber blade. Im asking if "much harder" is justified in terms of difficult to realize with available technology. For travel in air compared to water a different principle had to be used (lift instead of buoyancy) but for mars helicopter the challenge seen more with cooling and control than with generating lift. Schrauber5 ( talk) 05:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I oppose the removal of flight experience table as we got a framework https://mars.nasa.gov/technology/helicopter/status/321/better-by-the-dozen-ingenuity-takes-on-flight-12/ before 12 flight and little calculation can be done in Wikipedia by resources gathered from subsequent flight and why worry about too much calculation, when the solar conjuction is nearing that is the end of ingenuity life. And calculation shows it does have too many route calculation, just basic calculation. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
BTW which this page tells it is in August when it this site says it to be in October https://mars.nasa.gov/all-about-mars/night-sky/solar-conjunction/ Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok I will keep these things in mind, the next time I bring changes to this or any site on Wikipedia Chinakpradhan ( talk) 09:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
And please tell me once that, is this text written on this page in operational history section, "The Ingenuity team plans to fly the helicopter every two to three weeks until the end of August, when Mars will move behind the Sun" right? I said earlier in this discussion via a nasa link which says that the martian solar conjunction is in October, not in August, then why this page tell ingenuity's surface operations will end in the fall of August. I think if solar conjunction is the reason, then it will end surface operations in October. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 09:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:SNOW closure. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 20:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
– Primary topic; while Creativity is likely to have greater long term significance and usage, its dominance is not so great that it compels Ingenuity to be a disambiguation page. The other options for primary topic are too trivial to consider, with them receiving at most a few hundred views per month and minimal coverage in various other works. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I prefer to keep it. Most people are not interessed in the Mars mission. If you would ask random person about "ingenuity", I doubt that the helicopter be the most prominent answer. Especially in 2 or 5 years, when the helicopter is ancient history. Schrauber5 ( talk) 04:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Creativity is likely to have greater long term significance and usage. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think Wikipedia's other needs far outweigh this proposal and the time this discussion will consume. DonFB ( talk) 05:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Reason for a guaranteed mission extension after august: Given the helicopter stays in sleep or safe mode for more than two weeks between two successive flights, it may overcome the the blackout period. Moreover, the rover even becomes immobile or stationary during this period, meaning it will not move so farther that the connection link between the rover and helicopter Since, the operations demo phase showed that leaving just a need for communication exchange between Ingenuity and its team, through the rover, once every two weeks, meaning requiring minimal use of rover, the mission can be extended after the conjunction. The reason being that the rover is provided with new images after every flight, so that it can plan its scouting locations by the images. In such scenarios the helicopter enjoy the support of the rover, thereby may have a indefinite mission extension that will not end till its systems will cease to work.this citation also says that possible mission extension after ops demo phase
This is why i wrote, "If it stays alive after the mars solar conjunction and then, if perseverance rover shows continued interest in this helicopter, it might get a much longer mission extension." Chinakpradhan ( talk) 17:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, in a conversation on my talk page I realized that NASA’s flight log numbers for horizontal distance might not always be exactly correct (not extreme differences though, differences like 266 on flight log vs 270.46 on the Where is Perseverance dataset for flight 4, or 625 vs 631.79 for flight 9). I’ll call the Where is Perseverance dataset “WiP”; you can access it by following instructions here. I have two theories as to why this discrepancy happens;
1) Flight log is rounded, and WiP is not.
2) Flight log is horizontal distance, and WiP includes vertical
Warning: this paragraph involves math, you can skip it if you want, main takeaway is that theory 2 is unlikely.] However flight 9 had an altitude of 10 meters whereas the discrepancy is only ~7 meters so I think the latter is unlikely (In theory it is possible, using pythagoras we could see that the minimum total distance to get 10 high and 625 along would be if the flight path were a triangle with a peak right in the middle, which would have total length 2*sqrt(312.5^2+10^2) ~ 625.3 - depending on how quickly the helicopter ascends, you could get a total distance of 631.79. However in practice I think Ingenuity follows a more rectangular flight path, i.e. it rises first, then travels horizontally, then lowers? Not 100% sure though, but if that is the case then the total distance would have to be 645, which is too large for theory 2 to be possible.)
No more math now :) ] In case theory 1 is correct, this means that the numbers currently listed on the wikipedia page are inaccurate! (WiP has higher precision so that is why it is not the inaccurate one) Of course, the current values are also official NASA-reported numbers, so I think it would probably be fine to leave them as is. Just thought you guys might want to be aware of this minor discrepancy. AlliterativeAnchovies ( talk) 06:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Just realized I should probably clarify that the WiP dataset is also NASA-provided, so the discrepancy I’m pointing out is between two NASA sources. AlliterativeAnchovies ( talk) 06:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I can't tolerate this long article. Can we split it into the current page and a timeline page or export sections to timeline of Mars 2020 page. I have seen this is page is shortened many a times but shortening isn't a solution. Please voice you opinion here if we need to make a timeline page or not. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 05:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok Chinakpradhan ( talk) 06:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday I discovered that the date "November 21, 2021" returns 269
instead of actual 268 in NASA's catalog storage and official photo descriptions. I informed Drbogdan (he is the author of this template) about this issue and we have already started the discussion on the talk page of the template. I have alredady written there my personal assesment of this problem and proposed some solutions and improvements to this template.
I invite everybody interested in this problem to write your opinions, asessments and proposals on that template discussion page. Also carefully check the output of this template in the preview mode and use manual input in all the cases when the returned value may be other than you expected. — Cherurbino ( talk) 13:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The site (unmannedspaceflight.com) linked in the above section, "Airfield I or J??", but not visibly identified in the comment's text, does not quality as an acceptable reference for Wikipedia content. The site is an internet forum, many of whose contributors are anonymous. To say, when referring to posting on the site that "I asked NASA/JPL's specialists", is highly misleading. There may be NASA/JPL "specialists" contributing to that site, but the site is NOT an official government space agency site and should not be referred to as if it is. The site itself does boast in a welcome message: "UMSF is highly respected by the professional space science community." At the bottom of site pages, however there is this disclaimer: "Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society." Thus, the information, opinions, data, etc. are not the curated findings of the site itself. The site therefore cannot be considered a Reliable source that meets Wikipedia's requirement for Verifiability of content. Please do not use this site in article references or recommend that editors regard this site as a Reliable Source.
The Reliable Source guideline ( WP:RSSELF) says: "self-published sources are largely not acceptable". It further says: "posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media". The Guideline explains that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". That wording refers to posts by a particular identifiable person ("an established expert"). On Unmannedspaceflight.com, some contributors are anonymous and some appear to use real names. But the qualifications of named persons and their employment or association with reliable and authoritative sources (like NASA) are not made clear. Even if some of the information on Unmannedspaceflight.com is correct, the site cannot be considered a valid source for Wikipedia, because the information is not curated and fact-checked by an institutional editorial staff.
Another point: Gathering information for Wikipedia by directly communicating with people who an editor claims are NASA "specialists" constitutes Original Research, which is unacceptable under fundamental rules of this website. DonFB ( talk) 02:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
What is flight 16 landing spot stats and sequnce tell it's Airfield I but flight log says Airfield J. Please confirm this anyone. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 17:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I made several changes to the information for flights 15 and 16 based on clearly identified NASA/JPL sources. "Artuby Ridge", which I deleted from the descriptions, is not mentioned in any of the JPL Status Reports for the helicopter. Its inclusion in the text was essentially Original Research, using uncited information, apparently from the Unmannedspaceflight.com web forum, or from some other uncited map. Let's stick to clearly identified reliable sources. Phil Stooke is knowledgeable, but he is not contributing information about the mission on his own website, which might be deemed reliable. He is one of various contributors to the Unmanned forum, including a number who are anonymous. That forum is included in External Links for people who are interested.
I'm not sure I understand your complaint about "misprints" on NASA sites, but if mistakes exist, then clearly identified and reliable sources will be needed to make corrections, not uncited changes made by Wikipedia editors. DonFB ( talk) 07:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The article mentions both the 250 kbit/s and 20kbit/s figures, does anyone know more about what's basically the main bottleneck for this mission?
I suspect 20kbit/s might be more accurate because quote: "The radio link is built upon the low-power Zigbee communication protocols, implemented via 914 MHz SiFlex 02 chipsets mounted in both the rover and helicopter.", and then mentions the 250 kbit/s figure; but if you go to the Zigbee article, it says "The raw, over-the-air data rate is 250 kbit/s per channel in the 2.4 GHz band, 40 kbit/s per channel in the 915 MHz band, and 20 kbit/s in the 868 MHz band. The actual data throughput will be less than the maximum specified bit rate due to the packet overhead and processing delays.", so a lower datarate seems more plausible since this radio link works on the 914Mhz frequency.
It may also be interesting to get some info from the mission operators themselves, since after the flight 17 loss of telemetry incident they mentioned to have lowered the datarate even further. -- 82.59.45.60 ( talk) 11:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the hidden comment by user Shinkolobwe, who said [3]: "The last narrow column (Summary) of this huge elongated table is very difficult to read and would deserve a dedicated section with explanations given in a normal text." Below, I offer a suggestion for incorporating the "Summary" text within the existing table. (The displayed table data is just for illustration; it's not all correct; has some duplication, made-up, and misplaced info.) My suggested table structure shows double horizontal lines to separate each flight entry; that's just my kludgy technique; I invite improvements from more experienced table-makers, and suggestions/comments on whether this structure is a workable idea. DonFB ( talk) 03:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: My example shows the column headings reproduced for each flight, which makes editing trickier. That's not actually necessary. But "Summary" (which is not an actual heading, but just a bold-face text entry) could still be shown for each flight. DonFB ( talk) 03:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
MORE: Ok, I'm getting a little obsessed with this. Added an entry to show it without reproducing column headings (but "Summary" is still shown). Also, added prefix numbers for Summary to help reader navigation. Comments/ideas invited. DonFB ( talk) 04:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
LATEST Tweak below: DonFB ( talk) 06:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Flight | Date (UTC) | Duration (sec) | Max Altitude | Horizontal Distance | Max Groundspeed | Route |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technology Demonstration Phase | ||||||
#1 | April 19, 2021 at 07:34 (Sol 58) |
39.1 | 3 m (9.8 ft) | 0 m (0 ft) | 0 m/s (0 mph) | Vertical takeoff, hover, land at Wright Brothers Field (JZRO) 18°26′41″N 77°27′04″E / 18.44486°N 77.45102°E [1] |
The first powered flight by any aircraft on another planet. While hovering, it rotated in place 96 degrees in a planned maneuver. Flight data was received at 11:30 UTC. [2] [3] | ||||||
#2 | April 19, 2021 at 07:34 (Sol 58) |
57.3 | 5 m (16 ft) | 63 m (207 ft) | 1 m/s (2.2 mph) | Hover, shift westward 2 m (6.6 ft), hover, return, hover, land
[4]
[5]
18°26′41″N 77°27′04″E / 18.44486°N 77.45102°E
[1]
|
This flight takes the helicopter out of the South Séítah basin, across the dividing ridge, and up onto the main plateau. The precise landing target for Flight 19 is near the landing site of Flight 8. Images taken during Flight 9 by the rotorcraft’s high-resolution Return-To-Earth (RTE) camera were used to select a safe landing zone. It is another in a series of flights returning Ingenuity to Wright Brothers Field. This slower approach was taken due to the lack of large landing sites in this portion of Séítah and lower atmospheric density in the summer months which requires higher rotor speeds and power draw from the motors. The final act of the flight is to turn nearly 180 degrees to flip the RTE camera to a forward-facing orientation for future flights toward the river delta. | ||||||
#3 | April 19, 2021 at 07:34 (Sol 58) |
57.3 | 5 m (16 ft) | 63 m (207 ft) | 1 m/s (2.2 mph) | Hover, shift westward 2 m (6.6 ft), hover, return, hover, land [6] [5] 18°26′41″N 77°27′04″E / 18.44486°N 77.45102°E [1] |
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." |
ANOTHER PRESENTATION (data not all real):
DonFB ( talk) 09:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Flight #1 |
Date (UTC) April 19, 2021 (Sol 58) |
Duration (sec) 30 |
Max Altitude 12 m (39 ft) |
Horizontal Distance 3 m (9.8 ft) |
Max Groundspeed 1 m/s (2.2 mph) |
Route: Hover, shift westward 2 m (6.6 ft), hover, return, hover, land [7] [5] 18°26′41″N 77°27′04″E / 18.44486°N 77.45102°E [1] |
Summary: The first powered flight by any aircraft on another planet. While hovering, it rotated in place 96 degrees in a planned maneuver. Flight data was received at 11:30 UTC.[2][3] |
|
Flight #2 |
Date (UTC) April 19, 2021 (Sol 58) |
Duration (sec) 75 |
Max Altitude 10 m (33 ft) |
Horizontal Distance 123 m (404 ft) |
Max Groundspeed 1.5 m/s (3.4 mph) |
Route: Hover, shift westward 2 m (6.6 ft), hover, return, hover, land [8] [5] 18°26′41″N 77°27′04″E / 18.44486°N 77.45102°E [1] |
Summary: This flight takes the helicopter out of the South Séítah basin, across the dividing ridge, and up onto the main plateau. The precise landing target for Flight 19 is near the landing site of Flight 8. Images taken during Flight 9 by the rotorcraft’s high-resolution Return-To-Earth (RTE) camera were used to select a safe landing zone. It is another in a series of flights returning Ingenuity to Wright Brothers Field. This slower approach was taken due to the lack of large landing sites in this portion of Séítah and lower atmospheric density in the summer months which requires higher rotor speeds and power draw from the motors. The final act of the flight is to turn nearly 180 degrees to flip the RTE camera to a forward-facing orientation for future flights toward the river delta. |
References
roadmaps
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).:0
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
Better to create a page list of ingenuity flights like Russian wiki transpose this section there. Write about each flight separately and just being out the stats table in this page as excerpt. Link that page here and anyone who likes to know about flight summary will read in article list of ingenuity flights, DonFBand Shinkolobwe. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 20:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
DonFB, Shinkolobwe, Cherurbino, Yarnalgo and Huntster
(published image directly to show details) In starting as we all know that nobody had ever thought ingenuity will survive 19 flights. i had a inital target personally of 10 flights. what may be our assumptions must be kept aside.
after a year is it conjusting image. asking so as to know whether i should split this image into a image for perseverance map and one for ingenuity. i am hating original for congestion and separate ones for containing lesser details. so can't determine.
so please give your nod as to what should be the right thing done in this case. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 13:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Shinkolobwe, DonFB, Randy Kyrn, Yarnalgo, Huntster, Sepidnoor, and Schrauber5:, guys what has again happened NASA has skipped airfield O gone directly from N to P Chinakpradhan ( talk) 03:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Is is a problem. Earlier they skipped airfield I also in naming Here's the earlier discussion called Airfield I or J?? Chinakpradhan ( talk) 04:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
The map and helicopters' waypoints at mars.nasa.gov show a twice shorter route of circa 186-187 m against 360 m in the flight log. Was it a roundup trip? The NASAJPL twitter sheds no light upon that. 92.100.192.48 ( talk) 05:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Each figure may be true and may be false depending upon whether the flight was a roundup trip or not. 92.100.192.48 ( talk) 11:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Bro see the flight and my flight note I said it took a turn by the edl parachute and backshell so it's somewhat like flight 6 or precisely flight 10 and even 27 flight is similar so you see it shorter since this is not direct distance between R and S. Chinakpradhan ( talk) 08:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
But ya nasa is boggling the json value I saw 708.43 for 25 now it's 708.91 maybe and same first it told flight 26 Length as 360.16 now its ~391. Its just googly NASA people who are uploading the values hah Chinakpradhan ( talk) 09:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A thought I've had for a while: the article is overloaded with photos. I've noticed on my phone that the article can barely be loaded. Perhaps not a loading problem on desktop or tablet devices (or phones newer than mine), but an issue to consider. In terms of readability, I think it's not the best practice. No doubt, more photos will be added if we don't try to create a limit. Comments invited on whether editors agree about overloading and if so, which photos, or photo groups, need to be reduced. DonFB ( talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok nasa didn't intended that so wouldn't say we got by chance Chinakpradhan ( talk) 02:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Somebody may note in the article instead of me that in April 2022 Ingenuity improved its own flight cadency record - five sorties (24th through 28th) against four flights in April 2021 (1st through 4th). - anonym 95.27.41.24 ( talk) 13:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Useless trivia making sorties depend on mood of rover and keeping pace for radio link not Ginny Chinakpradhan ( talk) 03:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I garbled my Edit Summary on Special:Diff/1081886894. I wanted to say:
Status 373 ("Balancing the Risks...") describes "waking Ingenuity at this time without flying" -- "at this time" refers to 9:30 LMST. So, Flight #24 was not a "test" of 9:30 LMST; the test was already done when they woke it without flying to see if it would have enough battery charge at that time of morning. But I think this is all a little too much detail for the Summary text.
ON ANOTHER SUBJECT:
We should think about possibly splitting the "List of flights" section into its own article. The list has become quite long, and will keep growing as long as the helicopter can keep flying. Its length may make the article too unwieldy. Comments? DonFB ( talk) 08:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Support it Chinakpradhan ( talk) 02:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
We must Follow the ru:Список полётов Ingenuity where a separate page is made (not their table format) and also put the flight experience table on this page there Don FB Chinakpradhan ( talk) 04:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Ya good Chinakpradhan ( talk) 09:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@ DonFB won't it be better if we move the whole flight List to other page not a single line on this page?? And link that page here like the page List of Starlink launches Chinakpradhan ( talk) 09:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
So should we proceeds?? Just a joke telling you, "by the time we decid maybe it is on track for 28th flight". Chinakpradhan ( talk) 15:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A spin-off list article, "List of flights by Ingenuity helicopter on Mars", is ready for publication. It would help prevent this article from becoming too unwieldy. When published separately, the list would be removed from this article, and a direct link to the standalone List would be put in an appropriate location in this article, most likely at the head of the "Operational history" section. If there are any objections, please comment. The Draft has already been submitted and was declined by a reviewer. I'm confident it would now be approved. DonFB ( talk) 05:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Would be great knowing the name of the inventors 108.225.198.40 ( talk) 12:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@ DonFB can you write something on broken inclinometer from [5]. it will not be used again and the first ingenuity hardware to recieve fault Chinakpradhan ( talk) 16:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
What should be the lead image of this page, a flying artist's conception or a real in-terrain image where ingenuity is at its drop site in wright brother's field (only clear image of ingenuity showing its details, others are earthly images not good as lead). Any thoughts please drop them out here?? @ DonFb, @ BilCat, @ FOX 52, @ Shinkolobwe, @ Cherurbino, @ Yarnalgo and @ Huntster may assist if they want?? Chinakpradhan ( talk) 03:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Can someone fix this? Specifically in design table, rotor speed etc. I only use dark mode on everything that supports it. I looked at the code but don't know enough to fix it. Autumn Wind ( talk) 23:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Edits by User:Artem.G on April 20th removed the helpful and informative images in "History of Development". These images provide users with context and understanding of the development team and leadership. Furthermore, the change caused the development timeline image to become unreadably small and useless. Attempts on May 5th to fix this section and restore the lost content, were reverted. Any thoughts by the editor community on this change? 66.215.160.37 ( talk) 15:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not an image repository."Artem.G ( talk) 16:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Can someone else check the drastic edits and cuts by CactiStaccingCrane. The image cuts alone should be concerning and likely hurt the page. This editor and I have had our go-arounds, and I'd prefer not to be the one reverting here, but be aware that he has an odd tendency to totally and vastly rewrite articles (in most cases not helpfully, in some, parts are good but not the overall changes) citing boldness. Way too bold for the damage he has done elsewhere, at least how I've experienced his edits, so in this case I'd prefer if someone else took a look and compared what was changed and the overall state of the article now. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems that contact with ingenuity has been lost. I added a little to the article, but there's a lot of work still to be done. Also, there's not a lot of information about it rn. Qoiuoiuoiu ( talk ) 19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).