Jump to content

Talk:Ingenuity (helicopter)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Increase in mass ?

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)

I read that there are (were) 2 options: Deploy the drone and keep them separate till the end, or construct a docking bay/grapple on the bottom of the rover and recharge it and deploy it whenever it is required. That second option does require more hardware and mass. It seems the rover team does not want that complication, being the drone is only a technology demonstrator. Specifically, the rover team does not want that "distraction" when they start the science, so my guess is that they will chose to deploy it very soon after landing and test it simultaneously while the rover is static and undergoing its [long] commissioning phase. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential sources of information

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)

Requested move 9 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


JPL Mars Helicopter Scout → Mars Helicopter – The latest NASA or JPL source I can find which refers to the "Mars Helicopter Scout" name is a June 2014 lecture.[1] Since January 2015,[2] NASA and JPL have exclusively referred to this spacecraft as the "Mars Helicopter".[3][4][5][6][7][8] Note also that the spacecraft's brand and identity bear the "Mars Helicopter" name as well.[9]

References

  1. ^ "Rotorcrafts for Mars Exploration: Mars Helicopter Scout" – Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 19 June 2014
  2. ^ "Crazy Engineering: Mars Helicopter" – Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 23 January 2015
  3. ^ "Mars Helicopter to Fly on NASA's Next Red Planet Rover Mission" – National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 12 May 2018 – "The Mars Helicopter, a small, autonomous rotorcraft, will travel with the agency’s Mars 2020 rover mission..."
  4. ^ "10 Things: Mars Helicopter" – National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 25 June 2018 – "This Mars Helicopter will demonstrate the first controlled, powered, sustained flight on another world."
  5. ^ "NASA's Mars Helicopter Completes Flight Tests" – Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 28 March 2019 – "Members of the NASA Mars Helicopter team inspect the flight model..."
  6. ^ "NASA's Mars Helicopter Testing Enters Final Phase" – Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 6 June 2019 – "NASA's Mars Helicopter flight demonstration project has passed a number of key tests with flying colors."
  7. ^ "NASA's Mars Helicopter Attached to Mars 2020 Rover" – Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 28 August 2019 – "Engineers attached NASA's Mars Helicopter [...] to the belly of the Mars 2020 rover today..."
  8. ^ "NASA's Mars 2020 Rover Goes Coast-to-Coast to Prep for Launch" – National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 13 February 2020 – "The mission's cruise stage and Mars Helicopter will make the trip to Kennedy later this week.
  9. ^ "Mars Helicopter | Official JPL Store" – Jet Propulsion Laboratory
– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changing title name

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)

@Nomnom121: It's helpful if you include a source with comments like this so others don't have to spend time searching for sources. I'll see what I can find later, but perhaps someone else will add it first. I can do the move if needed. - BilCat (talk) 15:49, 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)

Thanks! The title will have to be disambiguated, as Ingenuity already has a primary topic. One option Is Ingenuity (spacecraft), though technically it isn't a spacecraft, as it only travels on one to Mars. (That would be like calling a Humvee an aircraft because it's transported on a C-17.) Mars Helicopter Ingenuity would be another option. - BilCat (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, @BilCat:! I wasn't sure whether to include that or not. Mars Helicopter Ingenuity should work.--Nomnom121 (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 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)

I think Ingenuity (helicopter) is more accurate and fits better with existing conventions for interplanetary vehicles (see Perseverance (rover), Curiosity (rover), Opportunity (rover), Spirit (rover), Rosalind Franklin (rover), etc; but of course this is the first helicopter so there's not complete precedence). Based on the above linked article and the official website its name seems to be just "Ingenuity" not "Mars Helicopter Ingenuity" so I think using the latter for the article title is technically incorrect. Thoughts? --Yarnalgo talk 17:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

  • Support Ingenuity (rotorcraft), but Questions about Dragonfly (rotorcraft) - Per nom on Ingenuity. As for Dragonfly, it's unclear to me from reading its article whether it's also a lander, not just a rotorcraft. That probably needs more discussion with WP:Spaceflight project members, who tend to do things quite differently than WP:Aviation, which is where most of my Wiki-experience is. The 2 articles have a Spacecraft infobox, after all. - BilCat (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@BilCat: Ingenuity lands as well, so by very literal definition it is also a lander. I believe the point is ultimately illustrate that both these vehicles can conduct scientific investigations from flight. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 20:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Huh?? I'm not sure if you're trying to funny, or if you missed my point entirely. Or both. - BilCat (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: But not explicitly "Mars Helicopter Ingenuity", which seems to be a synthesised title for disambiguation more than an actual, official name for the vehicle. My common name concerns dealt with this specific name, not "Mars Helicopter" or "Ingenuity" separately. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Then it should be Ingenuity (Mars helicopter) and not (rotorcraft) which isn't a commonly used descriptor of Ingenuity. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
"(rotorcraft)" is a valid disambiguator, but "(Mars helicopter)" is not. - ~ BilCat (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Then the present name, left as is, continues to cover the topic and all of the common and official names. Even the JPL logo calls this 'Mars Helicopter'. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, but the logo does not call it 'Mars Helicopter Ingenuity'. There is no source that I've seen that uses that phrase exactly. It is either called the 'Mars Helicopter', 'Ingenuity', or sometimes 'the Mars Helicopter, Ingenuity', but I have not ever seen it officially referred to as 'Mars Helicopter Ingenuity'. --Yarnalgo talk 18:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
That does look like an official NASA page ("NASA Explores"), but I think a single social media post on an offshoot NASA Facebook page is not really a strong source (it's possible that the person that made that post isn't involved in the project and doesn't know themselves what it should be called). For what it's worth here is one post on the main NASA Facebook page and one post on the official Perseverance rover Facebook page that both use the "Mars Helicopter" and "Ingenuity" names separately but not put together. All that said, we're definitely splitting hairs here. "Mars Helicopter Ingenuity" captures both names that are used in official capacities, and the fact that it is used somewhere by an official NASA outlet is kind of enough for me. I would be okay with moving to one of the suggested names ("Ingenuity (rotorcraft)", "Ingenuity (Mars helicopter)", or "Ingenuity (helicopter)"), but I also am okay with leaving the name as it is for now, at least until we sort of see how NASA moves forward with the branding for the mission through the launch this summer and beyond. I think I am neutral now on this move, and we can always revisit it later if NASA's branding becomes more clear one way or the other. --Yarnalgo talk 20:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Dragonfly (spacecraft) → Dragonfly (rotorcraft)
Ingenuity appears intended to be a permanent, primary designation and not just an informal nickname that would coexist with a formal name like "Mars Helicopter Scout". As the proper name for the helicopter was only announced recently, we have to accept there will continue to be legacy and ongoing technical references to the thing by its previous descriptor. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't require us to wait until a new name surpasses 50% cumulative use vs. its predecessor, especially when the old name was a generic descriptor intended to be eventually supplanted by a more public-friendly proper name. However, "rotorcraft" seems like an unnecessarily arcane disambiguator --- it clearly meets the definition of a helicopter (vs a gyrodyne or some other categorization) and the fact that the longstanding mission description was "Mars helicopter" adds to the appropriateness of that term.
In contrast, don't support the Dragonfly rename. The whole assemblage that travels from Earth to Titan and gravity assists around planets and aerobrakes and so on is called Dragonfly, which makes it a spacecraft first in my book. Ingenuity's situation is not analogous, in that it's a dormant lump of cargo without any agency of its own during the spaceflight phase, and it only really becomes a thing once it is called upon to do helicopter things. The Tom (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inconsistent Units in Dimensions

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)

Deployment

please add slot for deployment date as given by this site

[1]

chinakpradhan (talk) 1:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no parameter for "deployment date" in the infobox, and that can't be added from this page. Please quit trying to add it. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ businessinsider.in. "Deploy Date". businessinsider.in. Retrieved 28 January 2021. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help) Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.

Mission type and duration

@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)

@Yarnalgo: The lead paragraph makes note of the 30-day lifespan of Ingenuity in the third sentence, so I think that's adequate enough. Once the Mars 2020 mission gets up and running, we're gonna see a lot of conflation between the mission timelines of both Perseverance and Ingenuity, so I think it's best to keep mission and spacecraft as separate as possible to avoid a messy spread of information; this'll ultimately include documenting the activities of Ingenuity in Mars 2020 (or a future Timeline of Mars 2020 article if one is ever created), and thus why such info is not detailed in this article's infobox, especially if the cells are labelled as "Mission duration". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Yarnalgo: The Flight History section of the infobox currently contains the dates for the Mars 2020 mission, not for the Mars Helicopter Ingenuity. I concur that the information in this section should specifically reflect the helicopter. Plain Text (talk)
I agree and think this information is important to include in the infobox so that when readers come to this page it is immediately clear that the helicopter is a much shorter tech demo mission and isn't meant to accompany the rover through its entire mission. @PhilipTerryGraham: are you okay if I add the mission type (Technology demonstrator) and duration (30 days) back? --Yarnalgo talk 02:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Help Welcome - "Timeline of Mars 2020"

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)

Semi-protection

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)

Comment I just request semi-protection. Hopefully the admin respond Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Deployment date mismatch

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)

I have updated this to "about 60 days" from the January 2021 press release. But it also says "in the first few months", and that the first flight will be ten days after deployment. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirect from "Mars helicopter"

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)

Requested move 20 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead image

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)

First powered flight?

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)

Maybe adding "fully controlled" would help? The Sky Cranes crash landed where as this will be the first fully controlled flight, take off to landing. --Yarnalgo talk 00:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
But they did have control to land the vehicles and to crash far from them. But adding the landing or something about a "full cycle flight"--BugWarp (talk) 01:51, 5 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)

Adding that this is the first takeoff also might help. Hms1103 (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I took a stab at fixing it based on this discussion so it now says, "It is the first aircraft on Mars and is intended to make the first powered and fully controlled atmospheric flight, from takeoff to landing, on any planet beyond Earth." --Yarnalgo talk 16:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Mars attack?

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?

 Done, thanks, good find. We come in peace. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

please add deployment date

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)

Good idea. When it is deployed may be a good time to add it, but yes, should be added. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
{{Infobox individual space vehicle}} does not have deployment_date or deployed_from fields. Sojourner (rover) uses a different infobox template ({{Infobox spaceflight}}) that has those fields. If you want to update an article's infobox with new fields you need to go to the template page and read the documentation to see if those fields exists. You can add those fields to the {{Infobox individual space vehicle}} template if you'd like, but for now I added the deployment date in the "status" field. --Yarnalgo talk 17:15, 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)

Number of Sols

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)

Mkouklis(2), I agree, this information should be included as it is relevant to the article. Do you have the information that you wish to be included? Jurisdicta (talk) 14:54, 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

Should the infobox image change to the flying phase once NASA release the "beauty shot"?

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.

Text question

What does, “The sudden increase in the graph indicates the flight period.“ mean? Needs clarification. Kessler (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, brevity. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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)

Can we please remove the "on earth" portion of the Wright brothers statement.

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)

 Done - at least for now - added => "... [the Wright Brothers' airplane] is well-considered humanity's first fully documented and supported controlled powered flight on Earth." - *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce the edit of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
You might just take that first flight phrasing out all together. If someone actually doesn't know who the wright brothers are they can click the link. Gjxj (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Flights table

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)

Previsional flights are listed in w:fr:Ingenuity (hélicoptère)#Mise en œuvre, actual flight in w:it:Mars Helicopter Scout#Missione. --79.55.104.9 (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
A sort of that table done in section "List of flights". Maybe could be useful adding a coloumn with wind speed range for each test and with addictional goals of the test (for instance taking pictures or whatelse)? --82.52.25.126 (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Second flight video

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)

Yes- thought the same thing before u/l the current video file - seems this is the best available at the moment afaik - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:06, 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)

Wright Brothers

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 Wright brothers was only the first to perform a powered flight. Otto Lilienthal was the first person to make well-documented, repeated, successful flights with gliders.--HDP (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This small helicopter is the first to perform a powered flight on another planet, hence the attention and connection that NASA has given to the 1903 Wright flights in relationship to it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Ingenuity flight was really the first flight on a another planet. A balloon does not fly, it sail! Why do people say ballooning and not balloon flying? There is a physical and a historical reason. The physical one says that everything heavier than air flies (airplanes, helicopters) and everything lighter drives (balloons, airships). Additionally, lift also plays a role. Airplanes have to generate dynamic air motion to get the heavy weight into the air.Balloons rise only by the warm air or gas generated. In the history of ballooning, the first balloon pioneers spoke of floating away into the sea of air. Thus, the comparison to shipping presented itself. Ships sail through the sea of water, and balloons sail through the sea of air. --HDP (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

List of flights

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)

RTE Camera

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)

Third flight

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)

The reference should be given. Which video? Does this video have a clock in it or a frames/s value? As long as Nasa/JPL publishes 80s I would not say here: my own measurement is 62s so thats the correct value. We also should not measure the airspeed from the video. --Schrauber5 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
In this Nasa Video the flight has only 52s: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kNx9hcrUpww — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrauber5 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 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)

I got a confirmation the video is stitched together with a still in the middle. The time the still is shown was shortened.Schrauber5 (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Meters (feet) or feet (meters)

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)

Since it's an American mission it seems 'feet' would fit. Same with dates (U.S. style 'April 19, 2021' instead of '19 April, 2021'). But I've never checked for either consistency across all U.S. space mission pages or if a guideline exists, so will watch this discussion with interest (edit: and have left a note about this discussion at the Spaceflight WikiProject). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Spaceflight articles usually have date month year and metric units first. See e.g. all other active US missions at Mars: Curiosity (rover), InSight and Perseverance (rover). This article has mixture of both in both cases. --mfb (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The metric seems correct, reading from the NASA article (NASA#Use of the metric system)​. But the opposite for the dating style, at least for NASA and the first three American missions I just looked at, Voyager 1, Apollo 11, Project Mercury are in 'month, day, year' American form. I would think Apollo 11 would set or affirm the styling. That's why I asked about consistency and guidelines for dating on American articles, and from the looks of it American style should be followed for American missions. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
These are very old articles that probably have some "use MDY" from 15 years ago (explicitly or implicitly by the use). --mfb (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
MOS:DATE says both forms are acceptable. Since February 20, 1961 and July 20, 1969 are iconic in the U.S., and not 2 February 1961 etc., American dating for American missions may be site consistent. Will call in SMcCandlish who knows what there is to know about MOS. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed it, using space conventions (metric system as the measurement unit, and mm/dd/yyyy dates because this is the US). K1401986Talk with me 01:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

date of 6th flight being May 23 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)

Many Reliable Sources report the 6th flight was May 22 (or "Saturday"). Wikipedia summarizes information from such sources. Wikipedia does not use conclusions or calculations by its editors/contributors as a source for its content. That is known as Original Research, and is against the rules of this site. In the post just above, user Schrauber5 does not provide any actual reliable source, but rather, uses murky calculations to arrive at a conclusion. Schrauber5 says: "The link given above shows that the flight happened at May 23." That is not what the linked content says. It says the image was "acquired" on May 23, which is not the same as the flight date, given that delays are standard between the time of flights and the eventual downlink to Earth of the acquired images and data. The following NASA source unequivocally states in two different captions: "NASA’s Ingenuity Mars helicopter during its sixth flight on May 22", and: "This sequence of images – taken on May 22, 2021, by the navigation camera aboard NASA’s Ingenuity Mars Helicopter – depicts the last 29 seconds of the rotorcraft’s sixth flight":
Secondary sources stating "May 22" or "Saturday":
I previously added this reference (still in the article body):
and this source in my Edit Summary:
Please, let's conform to the information provided by reliable sources as shown above. DonFB (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I would have expected the the revert is done after having consensus at the discussion. If adding is considered "murky" that we cannot convert to UTC since it's original research. I had contact with the PR department earlier. I will ask NASA to give the correct date. AFAIS all the above publication are without time zone, so they do not contradict my calculation.--Schrauber5 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about not seeking consensus, but the facts are overwhelmingly clear, as stated in both NASA and secondary sources, as I've shown above. Personal contact with a PR department, or any other source, is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Information in articles on this site can only come from published sources, not from personal contacts. You said you "will ask NASA" for the date. NASA has given the date, as I show above, citing their article: https://mars.nasa.gov/technology/helicopter/status/305/surviving-an-in-flight-anomaly-what-happened-on-ingenuitys-sixth-flight/. Even if you believe the sources do not contradict your calculation, your calculation cannot override fundamental policy on this site. As you seem to be a rather new user, you might not be familiar with some of the rules on the site. I sincerely encourage you to carefully read Reliable Sources and Original Research. DonFB (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
A date without a time zone can not be transferred into a date at UTC. --Schrauber5 (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources, including NASA itself, have stated the date without qualifications. Please, also read Verifiability. DonFB (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I will not change the site here but follow the strict "no adding" policy. Please feel free to change all the other flight dates too that are all created by original research/adding. --Schrauber5 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe all the other dates are correct and based upon reliable sources, per this site's basic policy. If you think any dates are incorrect, due to not using reliable sources, please bring them to the community's attention. DonFB (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
No I think they are correct but most of them were converted by adding 4 hours to EDT of the source.

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:

  • Any doubts that 12:35 Sol 91 is the correct time of the flight / picture? That 'acquired' is the date, that the picture was taken could be checked by comparison with other pictures were the time was given, including a time zone.
  • Can we agree that something can happen at two dates depending on the time zone?
  • that having the dates in one (UTC) time zone is helpful.
  • that a shift to one time zone by adding the time difference is not original research?
  • Question to DonFB: do you think the flight happened on 22. UTC? For me it's very nearby that that date was given in JPL Local time: PDT.

--Schrauber5 (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No controversy about the date exists in reliable sources. If you find a source that supports your personal views, calculations and theories, you might be able to add such information to the article, in brief form, in accordance with Due Weight. Without any such supporting sources, your personal views on the matter cannot justify a change to the article, in accordance with the site's Content Policies, which I again urge you to read carefully. Many controversies exist about the content of Wikipedia articles. The topic of this date is not one of them, and continuing to argue over it is only a waste of time. I have added unequivocal references for the date in multiple places in the article, and have shown nearly another ten reliable sources for the date in Talk. I know you are a new editor, but you should spend your time here more productively. I have removed the Citation Needed tag that you added. DonFB (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I raised a request for a third opinion WP:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Please refrain from giving me advice how to spend my time. --Schrauber5 (talk) 11:09, 3 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)

I agree. We shouldn't state UTC when we don't know it to be true (and suspect it to be false). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:26, 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)

Those both look great! For future activities, I think we can trust that a reliable source will show up in due time with an easily-tweaked Earth time. I'm going to remove the footnote about UTC, our readers can trust us on simple timezone conversions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree that reliable sourcing almost certainly "will show up in due time" with verifiable information about these flight dates/times/etc. I made essentially that point in an Edit Summary. My concern about rushing to print with unverifiable information--even if correct--remains. I believe the Wikipedia Verifiability policy means what it says: readers must be able to see where our information comes from. That never happened, before reliable sources were identified, regarding a date and a time that were subjects of debate and an edit war in which Schrauber5 and I participated. A well-known Wikipedia essay reminds us there is no deadline to make an edit, which I'll elaborate by saying we are not compelled to prematurely add information which is not verifiable. I also agree that "our readers can trust us on simple timezone conversions", a statement that applies-—and I think is intended to apply—to Terrestrial times, but not, as far as I can tell, to converting Martian times to UTC. So, my standard, which is informed by Wikipedia policy, remains unchanged. Information must be verifiable, and it's not, it can be challenged and removed until it is found in a reliable published source. DonFB (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Modify table; duplicated text

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)

List of flights
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
  • Takeoff up to a height of 3.0 m (10 ft)
  • Hovering
  • Rotating clockwise in place (yaw from 0 to +90°)
  • Land
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
  • Start horizontal motion with max airspeed 0.5 m/s after takeoff up to a height of 4.9 m (16 ft)
  • Stop horizontal motion
  • Take snapshots using horizon facing colour camera
  • Rotating counterclockwise in place (yaw from +90° to 0° to -90° to -180°, in 3 steps)
  • Land in same place of takeoff after moving
  • Counterbalance lateral wind pull

References

  1. ^ "Mars helicopter's first flight could happen on Monday". CNN. 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)
  2. ^ "We're Getting Ready for Ingenuity's Second Flight". 21 April 2021.{{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)

I'm working on what I hope will be a better revision of the table, so each flight is on a single row, like it is now, only the "Objectives" cell ("Summary") will be wider to allow a more horizontal view of the text. I agree that "planned" flights should be removed from table; can be shown as text below. I would like to keep the "success" cells, just so reader gets immediate info on result. See below: DonFB (talk) 08:54, 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

}

Flight 7

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" ?

Yes, absolutely OR: "interpretation...." DonFB (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Others might need no "interpretation" but just see this. Schrauber5 (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

They might "just see" something, but it's still their opinion. No editor's opinion about any historical/scientific/biographical/etc event is admissable in a Wikipedia article. Articles on this website summarize information from reliable published sources. An editor's interpretation of shadows--or more generally, an editor's photo interpretation--is just his opinion. He might even be correct. But his opinion is not verifiable in a published source--until a reliable source actually does publish a photo interpretation--which might or might not agree with the editor's opinion. Reliable sources might have published information previously about similar events. An editor cannot use that information to draw a conclusion and publish it in an article about a different event. If no published information exists to interpret a particular event, a Wikipedia article cannot publish an interpretation of that event. Editors might debate whether a particular reliably sourced event or phenomenon should be included in an article, but an editor's opinion about an event or phenomenon is inadmissable in any Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not publish the thoughts, conclusions or interpretations of its editors in its articles. That's the meaning of the three cornerstone content policies, Verifiability, Neutral point of view and No Original Research. DonFB (talk) 06:21, 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)

I disagree, a selection of images illustrates the article Schrauber5
There is a category at commons with far more images. (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

My suggestions

  • rename "Flight series" to "Images by Ingenuity"
  • remove first image in "Flight series": duplicate to first entry of "Videos"
  • shift "Ingenuity landing of fifth flight on Airfield B (7 May 2021)" to "Videos"
  • I'd like to add
    Mars Perseverance NLF 0117 0677327883 255ECM N0041250NCAM00500 01 295J
pro: shows position of helicopter with rover and it's track, from the south
con: there is already a picture after flight #7, rover is only very small (an the left, pixel 240,92)

Any comments?Schrauber5 (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Partial successes?

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)

flight 9

@ 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)

date of first attempt of flight 7

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)

Rover positions

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:

  • sol 107: 77.45015,18.439878
  • sol 120: 77.450795,18.43724
  • sol 133: 77.44545,18.428085

Schrauber5 (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

time conversion

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)

Result: success in the List of flights

I deleted all entries 'Result: success' from the 'Summary' column of the 'List of flights'. Reasons:

  1. Keeping such record (and even a separate column, you remember) could have a certain reason before May 7, 2021, when everybody waited with bated breath for the outcome of every of five flights, comparing them to elements of the 'compulsory program', promulgated in the 'Landing press kit'. But after NASA declared the success of the whole demo, backdatingly repeating this estimate for each flight looks redundant.
  2. In the operatoinal demo phase flights become a sort of routine. Looks symptomatic, that JPL stopped using its blog at NASA to notify about flights, and twitter became the only source of stingy reports. Thus, arbitrarily declaring 'success' for each of routine flights looks like going beyond the authority of the editor. From May, 2021 onward each flight is doomed to be 'success(ful)' until the last when Ingenuity shall inevitably break in future.
  3. Separating out the estimate of flight #6 as 'partially successful', as specifiaclly inadmissible. (a) The official flight log at NASA shows, that all the targets, including the length of the route, were successfully reached. The source linked to the arbitrary statement 'Mostly successful' does not have such words.

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)

a litte more south than southsoutheast

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)

Principally, you are right — maximum for SSE is 163.125°. I know that it is written SbE, but presently en-wiki lacks the official source of abbreviations from the British/U.S. Navy for these Points of the compass.

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)

OK Cherurbino (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

'Flight zone activities' image in the 'Area of test flights' set

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:

  1. https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/0000
  2. https://mars.nasa.gov/news/0000
  3. https://mars.nasa.gov/technology/helicopter/status/000

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

  • https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8906

was automatically extended to

  • https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8906/nasas-mars-helicopter-survives-first-cold-martian-night-on-its-own/

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)

mars.nasa.gov/resources
News at mars.nasa.gov
Status Updates at the JPL blog

Best regards, Cherurbino (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Status reports from NASA

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)

Flight 10

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.)

This was reverted, I have readded this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

Drone

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)

generate lift

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)

Your statement is not clear. How is electric power involved? Text already explains higher blade velocity: "Mars' atmosphere requires blade rotation speeds of 2,400 rpm for Ingenuity to stay aloft, about five times what is needed on Earth." DonFB (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Electric power via a motor is used to generate the lift. Schrauber5 (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But your main point remains unclear and seems to contradict what many sources state: thin atmosphere at the surface of Mars makes it harder to generate lift there (whether by electric or combustion) than at the surface on Earth. DonFB (talk) 05:01, 1 August 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 have just added the word "adequate" to the text, so it now reads: "Because the atmosphere of Mars—made mostly of carbon dioxide—is only about 1⁄100 as dense as that of Earth at surface level, it is much harder for an aircraft to generate adequate lift...." My reading of the text clearly denotes the meaning of: "much harder than it would be on Earth". We may have a semantic quibble. "Harder" in this usage means: "greater mechanical advantage is required (than on Earth) by the use of more speed and bigger blades." You're free to suggest different phrasing. (A few minutes earlier, I also added some text that says bigger blades are needed). DonFB (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Flight experience table

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)

Hi @Chinakpradhan:. I just want to say your contributions here have been very much appreciated and you've done a lot of good work on this article, but it can be very hard to understand what you're saying sometimes since your English skills are lacking. As this is the English Wikipedia, the ability to read and write English well is a requirement. Your writing can be very hard to read, and this post is an example of that. It contains many mistakes, poor grammar, and very little punctuation, making it close to incomprehensible. Again, I really appreciate your contributions to this page, but I'd encourage you to consider contributing to the Ingenuity page in your native language where you will likely be able to contribute more effectively. If you'd like to keep contributing to this English language article, then I'd encourage you to work on your English writing skills and put more effort into writing posts like this clearly and comprehensibly. It's hard to take your opinions seriously if we cannot understand what you are trying to say. --Yarnalgo talk 17:34, 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)

It must like for "preparing the rover for solar conjunction in mid October" rather than saying "until the end of August, when Mars will move behind the Sun". Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

  • Oppose: Much as I love Ingenuity the helicopter, I think we should not make its name the primary target for this word. I'll use the OP's own words for support: 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)
  • Oppose per DonFB. I might be persuaded if there were evidence shown that the helicopter meets the criteria in WP:PTOPIC. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Long-term significance wins. All spacecraft with similar names follow that approach. Curiosity (rover), Perseverance (rover), Spirit (rover), Opportunity (rover), Sojourner (rover), ... only InSight has no brackets because of its capitalization. --mfb (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree with all my colleagues and collaborators in our common work on this article: „Ingenuity”'s fame is fleeting and transient, no matter how much we would like to think otherwise. First of all one should take care of preserving the richness of the language measured by the abundance of synonyms used in everyday life. «Ingenuity» is a truly notable lexeme akin «engineer» (cf. «creativity» ↔ «creator»). Astoundingly the article „Creativity” does not mention «ingenuity» as a synonym in its preamble. It's strange, but the primordial concept of «ingenuity» does not have a separate article (only disambig). Meanwile the books like The Ingenuity Gap, Marketing Ingenuity & Invention, Men of Ingenuity: from Beneath the Orange Tower etc. could give much material to justify the existence of such an article, alongside with 'creativity'. Alas, English is not my first language, so when sources upon helicopter run dry, I wish somebody to demonstrate his skills in writing a new article about «ingenuity» in its original meaning. Cherurbino (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mission is likely to be extended after August

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)

Exact Horizontal Distance Values for Flight

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)

This link could be useful for you for the theoretical issues. And this direct link may release you from the nesessity to visit 'Where is the rover' for the json data. — Cherurbino (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that is really useful! That certainly saves me a lot of time spent manually downloading the datasets. (I was pretty excited to use this new method to update the graph, but it turns out that they haven’t updated the data since the last time I made the graph - oh well, from now on it’ll be very quick/simple for me to update the graph once they update their data). AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Creation of a page Timeline of Ingenuity

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)

  • Oppose I don't think the article is especially long. It does grow a little when a new flight happens and we add an entry to the table of flights. There has been some duplication of information, which I've tried to reduce. The Introduction section is probably too long, and some of its information, which is repeated in the article Body, could be removed. Otherwise, I think splitting this article, just for the purpose of making a Timeline, does not seem like an improvement. DonFB (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DonFB. Much of the perceived length comes in the footnotes and references, which don't count as text. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Age in sols

Yesterday I discovered that the date "November 21, 2021" returns 269

  • 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)

Unmannedspaceflight.com

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)

Re: with people who an editor claims are NASA "specialists" — that's not me who claims. After reading this message (a type of ban warning from one of 'moderators' of this site) received after the attempt to express contra-arguments in a 'free' discussion with one of those 'sacred cows' whom he calls 'senior JPL specialists', you may understand that sometimes my criticism about this 'establishment' may be even stronger than yours )).
I never "collected" the information from that source. I mean I never quoted anybody directly with the url reference to that source (typeOf: "Mr.X said…"). I only invoked people from there to publish quotations and/or links to the duly published documents for the possible future usage. Moreover: some of my posts there are a sort of complaints addressed to NASA and published in a hope that somebody from NASA present there shall read these complaints and take some action.
You would be correct if 'between the lines' of my last application to the 'senior' and maybe 'non-senior' specialists of NASA/JPL-Caltech you may read my deep dissatisfaction with NASA's attitude to the public information. There were and still are serious - as I poiltcorrectly call them - "misprints" on the official NASA's sites. Take for example the purely 'reliable' Flight Log and read in the header 'NASA Mars Helicopter Tech Demo' - half a year passed but nobody changed the title. In these cases; in the cases of misguiding images and their descriptions on NASA's site(s) the public sites like the one we are speaking about are the only channel where questions and clarifications requests from the non-NASA people may be heard. Hope for you correct understanding of my personal role in this complicated communications' issue. — Cherurbino (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: 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 — I have never recommended and shall never recommend this site as a reliable source. However, linking to the images/articles from the books published by established experts is not a fault. I don't remember who was mocking about the 'Solar System Cartographer' self-positioning… I regret that this mocker did not make one click further to know that S.S.C. is a real person with at least 8 publications in Solar system cartography whose maps are of really unique value. This is one of examples of "a particular identifiable person" on that site. Cherurbino (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Airfield I or J??

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)

It's very strange, because next is "I" (India), not "J" (Juliette). I must query — Cherurbino (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I asked NASA/JPL's specialists, follow their replies. — Cherurbino (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Re: referring to posting on the site that "I asked NASA/JPL's specialists", is highly misleading: — since you confirm that There may be NASA/JPL "specialists" contributing to that site, it's not "misleading". My queries there are addressed only to them. Moreover, yesyerday I explicitly warned those who are not NASA specialists that I shall not discuss the issue with them (see the link above). — Cherurbino (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Flight descriptions

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)

Artuby Ridge in Jezero martian crater
The Raised Ridges lay 150-200 meters south from Artuby
Unfortunately you are mistaken in your assumptions about the source for Artuby ridge. What seems you "apparently" is only your personal assumption in this case, because the USF is not the only source. I regret that you do not follow all the NASA's resources abourt Mars 2020. Let me remind that the toponym Artuby was introduced by NASA-JPL as long ago as on July 21, 2021 (see here), and on September 9, 2021 NASA displayed the map where the geoareographical scope of this geographical unit is clearly displayed. Thus I do not consider linking the explanation of the route to the official published maps to be any kind of the 'Original research'. It's very good that you follow Phil Stooke's publications at USF but beleive me, it is not the only source of my information upon the mission. I check with NASA/JPL several times a day; all the sources I know here and try to bring here everything as soon, as it's published at the NASAs site.
You maybe know that this article at en-wiki is not the one I support with the information, which I regularly enhance not only with textds and pictures, but with text display innovations as well. Unfortunately I physically can't do everything here; I cannot bring here all the maps hoping that my colleagues here check with the new uploads at Commons and choose from there what is most necessary for this article.
The second map, also from NASA and not from UMSF, clearly displays the didderence between the Artuby Ridge and the Raised Ridges. One should never mix them, because they are two different geological structures - that was the reason I wrote the hidden comment "Look at the maps". The 3-rd map, "Where is the rover / helicopter" at NASA's site which shows the actual route of helicopter is assumed by default.
I hope that you return the Artuby-based description of the last two flights, because it's not the original research. You may also take the map from here to the article, if necessary. The source for "Artuby" is provided and I see no objections for returning my description which is not "Original Research" and not UNSF-related. Thanks in advance. Cherurbino (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm also not sure what of my mentions of "misprints" at NASA's sites you mean, but the closest example is the heading of the Flight log (top left corner) which still misinforms that "Mars Helicopter Tech Demo" still continues. — Cherurbino (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I have not seen, and you did not cite, an official NASA/JPL map, or some other reliable source, which shows the helicopter flight path in relation to labeled Artuby Ridge. I think it amounts to original research to combine information from multiple maps (geographic features & flight path) to describe specific new information which is not previously published that way in a single reliable source. You mentioned explicitly that "misprints" exist in NASA sources: "There were and still are serious - as I poiltcorrectly call them - "misprints" on the official NASA's sites." Your big complaint seems to be that the Ingenuity mission website is still titled "Tech Demo". I regard that as correct: the flight mission from the start was designed and always intended to be a demo. In any case, I think the nomenclature issue is trivial and not worth discussion.
Our focus should be on data and sourcing that are unmistakable and unambiguous. Even if contributors at an online forum have a detail that might not yet be in official or reliable media sources (eg: Space.com), we need not rush it to publication, especially if the sourcing is less than compliant with Wikipedia rules, such as USF. You said: "Unfortunately I physically can't do everything here". That's fine; you're not required or expected to "do everything here". You've made a lot of good contributions to the article, but I think in your zeal to do more than you might realistically be able to do, you have sometimes been skirting the rules about sourcing and verifiability. Furthermore, because you appear to have a standing complaint about NASA, it seems you may be tempted to add material before it is clearly specified in reliable sources, because you think NASA is not adequately fulfilling its responsibility to inform the public. All I can say about that is: strictly follow the rules of Wikipedia. Don't be in a rush to add information if it's not plainly and unambiguously available from a reliable source. Remember, a very apt and well-known essay tells us: "There is no deadline". DonFB (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Actual datarate?

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)

Improve table

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)

@DonFB: Thank you very much to have discovered my hidden comment above the table with the flight characteristics and for your very fast reaction to find a solution and your two proposals. Sorry not to have posted my comment sooner here directly on this talk page, but I was busy and I decided to be fast and too leave at least a trace of my idea directly in the page were was the problem. I prefer your second proposal because for each flight the name of the parameters are repeated and it makes the flight section self-supporting, for instance for translating the information in another language after each flight is reported. I also try to maintain the page in the French language, but I have a large delay, among others, because the copy and paste operation of information and data for each new flight in this huge table is very difficult. A second advantage of the second proposal is that it is more readable. Indeed, when a table becomes too long and extent on several screens or printed pages, at a moment the reader does not remember the name of the columns headings and can get totally lost. In fact, small- to medium-size tables are more convenient when they offer a synthetic overview. In the text editor Word, there is a function in the table row properties to repeat the columns headings at the top of the table on each printed page. An alternative would be to have a vertical cursor (vertical lift bar on the right of the table) in the table itself, so that the columns headings can always remain properly displayed at the top of the screen. I ignore if such a feature is already implemented in Wikipedia. I have never seen it previously. This huge table really pushed the system to its ultimate limits, and so it is a very good example of what one has to absolutely avoid. So, we have here a chance to learn a lot from this poor display experience. To summarize, I prefer your second proposal. However, its main disadvantage is that the comparison between the data of the different flights is more difficult to do. So, how to benefit from the best of the two way of presenting the flight data? Maybe your second proposal accompanied by a minimalist and compact overview table with only the numerical data values (i.e., only flight number, date, duration, distance, max altitude, ground speed, without any columns with long text describing the route and the summary). But if we duplicate the data, their exist the risk of errors and discrepancies between the two sources and then how to identify the good one. So, a centralization of the data is preferable. If you go to the page in the French language, you will see that I made a new section for each flight. For each flight, I wrote a new text from zero as summary and the presentation of the data is not properly structured. Your second proposal has the advantage to present the data in a structured way. Again, thank you very much for your initiative and your fast reaction. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and taking note of the issue. DonFB (talk)

LATEST Tweak below: DonFB (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

None of proposed. Table must contain mostly figures and mimimum text. All lengthy bla-bla comments must be moved from the last column of the table to the new chapter of the article preceding the table or just after it. 95.29.44.214 (talk) 03:51, 11 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 / 18.44486; 77.45102[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 / 18.44486; 77.45102[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 / 18.44486; 77.45102[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 / 18.44486; 77.45102[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 / 18.44486; 77.45102[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

  1. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference roadmaps was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Witze, Alexandra (2021). "Lift off! First flight on Mars launches new way to explore worlds". Nature. 592 (7856): 668–669. Bibcode:2021Natur.592..668W. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00909-z. PMID 33875875. S2CID 233308286. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
  4. ^ "Mars helicopter's first flight could happen on Monday". CNN. Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
  5. ^ a b c d Status 294.
  6. ^ "Mars helicopter's first flight could happen on Monday". CNN. Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
  7. ^ "Mars helicopter's first flight could happen on Monday". CNN. Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
  8. ^ "Mars helicopter's first flight could happen on Monday". CNN. Ingenuity could fly four days after the first flight, then three days after the second flight and so on.
Which style do editors prefer: full table (upper example) or structured paragraphs (lower example)? I would like to replace the existing table, which is not reader-friendly. DonFB (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

asking for a improvemnent in mars map

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)

I personally prefer the original joint image because it demonstrates how the two are moving in tandem. It is also possible to publish additional images of the two separate from each other. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Chinakpradhan: Thank you for your question. I think the image itself is probably not too congestioned. What is difficult is to read the small size letters of the indications written on the map, especially if the contrast of colors with the background is insufficient. The advantage of having the two tracks superimposed is to be able to compare them. What could be improved is the color (better contrast) and the size (larger font) of the text indicating the present location of Perseverance and Ingenuity. The blue colored text is difficult to read. Shinkolobwe (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thank you Shinkolobwe, by the way i personally think blue is not the correct colour here. earlier i used green colour. i didnt got any colour scheme to do that other than blue till now. any suggesstions of what should i use as a colour here instead of blue. currently working on it for changes between flight 18 and 19. i will send a prepublished version after changing to confirm it for publishing Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover Traverse Path And Ingenuity Helicopter Flight Path.png Shinkolobwe sorted the problem. thing was that the earlier version was jpg and nasa produces png screenshot and i used to convert png to jpg after conversion that may be the reason why it was a detoriated one anyway i uploaded a png one with more contrast and bigger letters Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Again Trouble

@Shinkolobwe, DonFB, Randy Kyrn, Yarnalgo, Huntster, Sepidnoor, and Schrauber5:, guys what has again happened NASA has skipped airfield O gone directly from N to PChinakpradhan (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)

flight 26 length

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)

The map does make flight 26 look much shorter than flight 25, even though the Log shows 26 to be a little over half the length of 25 (360m vs 708m). I don't see a figure of 186-187m, unless you're guesstimating it by eyeballing the map. Best thing for now, I think, is to use the explicitly published Flight Log data. DonFB (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
If you really don't know other distance measurement tools for maps, than eyeballing, let me draw your eyeballs to the left botton corner of the NASA's map. Hope you know what the words Map Scale above the b/w line mean, and how to measure pixels. You shall get the same estimate of 186÷187.
If your eyeballs are too exhausted to measure pixels here's the direct way to pure mathematics. Upload this file using the 'Helicopter Waypoints' from the left menu of the map (opened with the 'hamburger' button). Values like "Easting": 4353346.094, "Northing": 1093714.79 are the metric coordinates for each arrival point. Take this pair from the last two lines, and trivial Pythagorean theorem shall return the exact value of 186.67.
Since the Flight log 'already explicitly publishes 360 m there's nothing to wait from this source. Sorry, but your comment did not help to resolve the obviuos discrepancy.11:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.192.48 (talk)
When I look at the map, it seems like the Flight 26 flightpath has been removed. However, in the future, instead having to go through the process of either eyeballing or calculating via latitute/longitude values, you can actually get the exact lengths that the map uses here: [4]
Since Flight 26 has been removed, I'll use Flight 25 as an example - if you scroll to the very bottom of the source, you can see this line:
{"type":"Feature","properties":{"Flight":25,"Sol":403,"Length_m":708.433},"geometry":{"type":"LineString","coordinates":[[77.442472,18.450772],[77.4306,18.454775]]}}
"Length_m" is the length in meters of Flight 25. These numbers are more precise than the flight log's values - sometimes the flight log can actually deviate considerable because they rounded to a 'nice' number. (see the conversation on my talk page where this was discussed in detail). This is much easier to check than manual calculations, eyeballing, or pixel counting, so its a real time saver!
AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
After reading over your response to DonFB, it seems like you may already know of this file. It's from the same place as the 'Helicopter Waypoints' file - it's the 'Helicopter Flight Path' file. This file is probably more useful to you for the purposes of distance calculation, since it contains raw distances instead of lat/longs. AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
For sure, I know about both of them. And I never use lat/longs. You could have noticed "Easting": 4353346.094, "Northing": 1093714.79 in my previous message - these are the metric coordinates which you call 'raw'. Both types are used in 'Waypoints' and 'Flight Path'. And both return the same 186.67 distance calculated with the Pythagorean theorem. 92.100.192.48 (talk) 16:28, 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)

Photo overload

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)

I agree. According to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries, "Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." I feel as if the images in the current gallery often classify as "similar or repetitive images", especially many in the "Images by Ingenuity" section. Additionally, the flight videos in the "Ingenuity's Imagery" section are too similar (personally I like them, but do not feel as if they objectively fit the criteria for inclusion, and removing videos would probably go a long way in helping loading times).
While typing this out, I notice that the "Images by Ingenuity" gallery section and "Ingenuity's Imagery" text section have very similar names. I would go so far as to argue that the "Images by Ingenuity" gallery be removed, with the best images there being made inline in "Ingenuity's Imagery" - perhaps that is extreme, though. I do not feel as if the "Maps of flights" section "aids the reader's understanding of the subject", either - however this is potentially fixable, some of those images could be made inline with a new section talking about them. We also do not need so many photos of Ingenuity in the "Images by Perseverance" section.
In terms of creating a limit, I think that's a good idea. I wouldn't argue for a hard cap, but rather a per-mission-stage limit. Ingenuity has arguably undergone 4 stages currently: pre-deployment, tech demo, operations demo during first science campaign, and now the operations demo during the second science campaign. We don't have to impose a limit on the current stage, but once a stage is done then we go through and pick the images that turned out to be most informative and indicative of the stage.
AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Generally, it seems to me, we don't needed the b&w animation for every, or almost every flight. A few representative and noteworthy examples should suffice, such as 1st flight, flight 6 which almost crashed, and one or two others at most. Same with all the "test flights"; one or two is all that's needed I think. The color video of flight 13 is worthwhile and could be retained. I also agree the many "maps" are not especially helpful; they seem to have been added simply because they were available. Perhaps three (or less) can be retained to give readers an idea of the territory. The many images by Perseverance and by Ingenuity could be cut down to maybe two or three each, at most. As you said, integrating some of the photos into relevant text is a good idea. Other editors, comments? DonFB (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
i told about making a new page on list of ingenuity flights @AlliterativeAnchovies and @DonFB when we make the page the b/w animations will go there and all images like flighjt plan. then this page will be image free so make that page. Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with DonFB. The b/w animations are necessary for each flight (where they are available). While for somebody they may mean nothing, another readers may, and really use them for their specific judgments in various fields of investigation. Apart from the visual difference of martian soil, they help to catch the gradual degradation of optics, accumulation of blobs. They help to understand that the flight is not straighforward as a bullet shot; these animations show the tilts of the fuselage... The idea of moving some of animations from the article seems to be unsuffficiently grounded.
Instead, if somebody wants to improve the article, rearrange the flight-related material. Move the verbose descriptions from the table to the subchapters, illustrate them with existing animations. All the attempts to combine the flight log with the bla-bla result with the growing table size and no place to put the illustrations, than the gallery. 95.27.41.192 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I was referring to the totality of the photos, not exclusively to the b&w animations. I agree with your comment about the usefulness of the various animations for scientific analysis. However, I don't think an encyclopedia article on this site necessarily should attempt to serve the needs of academic experts who can perform such sophisticated analysis. I perceive our readership as the general public, most of whom would not be able or interested in performing such an analysis. The experts who can do that work are more likely to use imagery and data from recognized scientific, academic and government sources, rather than Wikipedia. You recommend moving the verbose Summary entries to "the subchapters", but I don't understand what you mean by "subchapters". DonFB (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
ADD: You might be interested in work being done now at Draft:List of flights undertaken by the Ingenuity Helicopter on Mars to split the Flight List into its own article, with some amount of photo illustration. DonFB (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@DonFB just i am saying that i got a ginny colour image in processed version where skycrane is visible so i have uploaded it on this main page near the backshell and parachute. Chinakpradhan (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok thanks, but I revised the description and format. It's not from a reliable source, just a private student on Twitter who speculated the picture shows skycrane debris. Maybe he's right, but he's not a legitimate source for Wikipedia, so please avoid using sources like that, just use official NASA, JPL or secondary sources like mainstream media. DonFB (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok nasa didn't intended that so wouldn't say we got by chance Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Record count of flights per month in April

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)

Explain edit; split section?

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)

List must be the list of numeric data like the Flight Log at the NASA JPL. Move the wordy explanations for each flight to the new section of the article. 92.100.192.48 (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC).
The wordy explanations are what make the list of flights consume a lot of space. If we separated numeric data from summaries, the summaries would still take up a lot of space in the article. Also, I think keeping the summaries in the main article and splitting the numerics into a separate List Article would be quite inconvenient for readers who want to be able to see both types of information in one place. Another possibility is to make the flight list collapsed by default, so the reader is not overwhelmed by it when perusing the article. If they want to see it, a single click would expand it. DonFB (talk) 07:34, 24 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)

Yes, I think if we move the list, we should move everything together as now seen in this article: all numerics and every "summary", and add a link to the List Article from this main article. DonFB (talk) 12:02, 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)

@DonFB, @Schrauber5 and @AlliterativeAnchovies i made a rough draft page for the flights of ginny at Draft:List of flights undertaken by the Ingenuity Helicopter on Mars consisting of some common and mostly removable elements from this page that were added due to the flights conducted by ingenuity. come there to contribute and tell when its complete so that the elements to be removed here on main page can be removed and a lidst of ingenuity flights can be published. i see the load of this page getting shorter if we make that page moreover theirs only a small chance then to have this page being a continous sufferer of Recentism. Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I made a big edit to the Draft. My idea is that the standalone List article shows just the list of flights, and maybe we could put in a small thumbnail picture for each flight with a link to that photo's file page. In my edit summary, I said "many refs" would need completion, but it looks like nearly all are ok. DonFB (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
i understand your point but we need a small lead for this reason Wikipedia:Short description and we need flight total box so added @DonFB the flight table and total are interdependent Chinakpradhan (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Continuing conversation at: Draft talk:List of flights undertaken by the Ingenuity Helicopter on Mars. DonFB (talk) 08:07, 5 May 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)

Names of inventors and engineers

Would be great knowing the name of the inventors 108.225.198.40 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

broken inclinometer

@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)

Edited existing text on 6/14. DonFB (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
ya so i deleted it. BTW @DonFB is there a template by which we can posts words on a single page and its displayed on more than 1 page, like excerpt where for eg. i update the list of samples cached on mars sample return page and its changes are reflected on Timeline of Mars 2020 without a edit needed on that page. i mean i dont like coming and updating the flight totals in info box of this page with each flight i want a template where if i update the flight total elements on the List of Ingenuity flights and Ingenuity (helicopter) infobox is automatically updated. Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
i wasnt updating at all locations. i forgot to update the line in lead to "As of June 11, 2022, it has made 29 successful flights.", thats why i need it Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The technique of "transclusion" can be used to duplicate text from one article to another. Personally, I am opposed to using the technique in articles, because it can limit the ability to easily edit a given article and can also cause problems with references. The technique is tricky and cannot be fully Previewed; it is necessary to publish the text and then look to see if it worked correctly. You can study the instructions for the technique here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Transclusion#Standard_section_transclusion_(Special_source_document_markup_not_needed!)
This main article uses transclusion several times, for example, in this section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings#Type_certification_and_return_to_service (if you click Edit for this section, you will see only the Transclusion code, not the actual text.)
You can navigate to the subarticles to see how the technique is implemented at the source, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_certification (click Edit and look for the words "section begin"
But, personally, I recommend against it. DonFB (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
ok then need manual editing only Chinakpradhan (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead image in infobox

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)

I support the earlier picture, which is an actual photograph of Ingenuity on the Mars surface. The artist conception, now in the lead position, might have been appropriate before the spacecraft arrived and flew on Mars. But it is not appropriate now and should be removed and replaced with the real photo. DonFB (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Black text in dark mode

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)

Fixing "History of Development" Images Section

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)

There are already too many pictures in the article, and this makes it hard to read. I tried to reduce the numbers of photos, but was reverted. Currently the article is bloated with unnecessary images that makes it hard to distinguish what is important and what these images should illustrate. Besides, there are 18 images in the body and 48 in the gallery, not mentioning these additional 4 inserted by an IP editor. Please read WP:Gallery: "Wikipedia is not an image repository." Artem.G (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd say the layout is quite accessible and easy to parse on my desktop screen. Are you using a mobile device? Perhaps it's harder to view on a small screen? Anyway, the images complement the adjacent paragraph describing the development team. Perhaps removing one of the latter two images would help?
To be honest, the whole article needs a structural rewrite. It feels bloated, but I think that's mostly a result of the haphazard organization. I'm working on fixing this as we speak. 66.215.160.37 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I use both mobile and laptop, and yes, it is bloated. I don't think that the photo of a large group of people, or of several people looking into a screen, or of several people working adds something useful to that article. And the huge gallery should be removed, there is a commons for that. And I completely agree that the article needs a rewrite, it's good that you are working on it! Artem.G (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Pinging several editors who might have something to add (who edited the page before): DonFB, Ex nihil, SpaceHist65. Artem.G (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree, portions of the article need serious copyediting. Also support reducing the number of photos. DonFB (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I've completely reorganized the article, rewritten some areas, removed several images, and cut several paragraphs of unsalvageable text. From Artem's recent edits, it looks like that still wasn't enough to mollify him. He must have a vendetta against the Ingenuity development team section lol Sivarticus (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
whatever. Check any article about a spacecraft, and find where there is a photo of a 50+ people there. How is it useful? The article has dozens of images in text and in this giant gallery, but you want even more. Fine, I don't care, let it be a garbage bin, full of irrelevant photos. Artem.G (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Major changes and image removal

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)

I added back the deleted gallery. CodemWiki (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Contact w/ Ingenuity lost

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)

on the way down from the 72nd flight per[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Template

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)

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

Lead expansion ideas/request (from a reader)

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

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

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

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

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

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

First powered, controlled extraterrestrial flight by any aircraft

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2024

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

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

Wikimedia Commons discussion somehow related to this article

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

Date format

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

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

Infobox image winner?

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

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

Loss of communications

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

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

Past tense, and Dragonfly mission

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

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

Valinor redirect

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

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


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).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ingenuity_(helicopter)/Archive_1&oldid=1239788739"