This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
NASA's descriptions of the flights are often not enlightening. The monotonous 'repositioning of helicopter' is meaningless because it is tautological; "We moved Ingenuity because we moved it". Perhaps the next time all we have is 'repositioning of helicopter' we leave it blank, because it is the equivalent of saying we don't actually know what it did this flight anyway. Sometimes one can find a useful description, I have been doing that, and it is worth looking for but not easy on NASA's incoherent but full of gems website. Ex nihil (talk)17:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NASA descriptions are getting rather rote. I'd prefer not to leave a Summary completely blank; your edits show how we can make them more useful. DonFB (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NASA's location map shows that flight 63 has taken place, I suspect that it hasn't, the Flight Log says 62, which is probably true. The Flight Preview page is never updated to flight done. I'm getting the impression that NASA no longer wants to promote Ingenuity and gave the job of updating the website to a temporary intern who is actually out of the loop and has other duties. We have been using the same, few, sites to piece the story together, I have looked for something else more convincing but can't help wondering if we are missing something. Ex nihil (talk)12:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that Space.com, among the popular media, regularly has fairly decent updates, though it too can have gaps. In the past, some editors have used information from space-related forums, to which members of the public contribute. Some of those contributors seem well-informed, but such forums don't qualify as reliable sources. I think now that the excitement of the early days has worn off, we'll probably continue to be somewhat limited in qualified sources that we can use. And that likely means we may not be able to update as rapidly as we would like. But then again, There Is No Deadline. DonFB (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The flight log of Nasa states flight 65,66 happend on sol 960 and 961. But the timestamp on the raw images claim 961 and 962. Flight 67 is consistent with sol 990 Schrauber5 (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should only publish data if it is confirmed either in an official NASA source or a reliable secondary source. We could deduce a certain flight happened on a certain date/Sol and clock time based on the raw images, but if the official picture caption does not show a flight number, then we should not publish something not shown in the source. It might just happen that the time of a flight is not (or never) confirmed by a reliable source. If we don't have confirmation, then that's what the article should tell readers. DonFB (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The airfield names are provided by NASA themselves in the Flight Log, so I guess we dont' have to worry about what happens after Omega. The pictures rarely have any correlation with any actual flight, they are as they say, just pictures of the month. Misleading, but frankly, the whole NASA online handling of Ingenuity is remarkably sloppy. The confirmation of any flight by Wiki is only through the two NASA citations in the Flight Totals section, so no worries there either except that I have noted that the Flight Log, which comes out first conflicts slightly with the heli.waypoints one, dont know what to make of that one. A puzzle to come is that the flight 70 preview says it will be travelleing 400m west, but airfield is the same. Do we deduce from that another dogleg excursion? Ex nihil (talk)13:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
