NASA regains contact with mini-helicopter on Mars

FLIR Chameleon3 connected via USB to a Intel Atom Linux SBC running ffmpeg to encode the video.

See EDLCAM in https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-020-00765-9

I have led efforts building Chinook style tandem rotors with 2 sets of blades from a size like the Trex 800, powered by a 2 stroke engine, as well as 40kg max takeoff quad-planes with both electric quadrotor and 2 stroke engine (for forward motion).

But because I was the main lead and pushing the pace so fast, I wished I did it with a more rigorous aero-engineering to it. I started both projects with barely any experience developing aircraft.

Thinking about your question, here are my 2 cents:

The biggest thing I stugged with is how the vibrations and the accompanying harmonics on the sytem as the rotors spin up and down. I could see it on the logs as the rotors spin through certain Hz, there's would spikes in virbational ampiltudes at predictable frequencies. As the blades get bigger the forces (probably) goes up. Sometimes, these frequecies (especially the lower ones) are at the range where its very hard to find the right materials to damp it out of the control and sensing electronics. Ingenuity probably deals with a virbration range that well into the hundreds/thousand of Hz and I do remember that renge is not a difficult range to damp out, vis a vis the low tens of hertz.

Also, the harmonics is related to ground resonance. I had built my tandem with "skids" that are rigidly attached to the rest of the frame. When the system made contact with the ground on just one skid, that one skid becomes a pivot, the vibration has no where to go and I witnessed first hand, first time, what ground resonance can do to mechanical systems. I can never forget seeing M4 through to M8 hex holt beads being sheared clean off after the resonance event. Only later did I find out that in full scale systems, they have dampeners between the main body and the skids of the aircraft. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IIC-oBzLYhQ ;

Staying in flight is not as hard. But getting the ssytem to land and spin down proerly was big pain without understanding ground resonance and its effect on mechanical design. When I saw the little puny legs of Ingenuity, this experience of mine came into mind and I was glad they had legs like to damp out vibrations as it came down to land.

Then there is the relation between the mechanical vibration regimes of the system, the polilng rates of the foundational flight sensors and the freqency of the main flight stability and movement control loop itself.

With bigger systems, the cables (for signal and power) could run longer too (becoming long long antennas), which means you can run into problems with noise of various origins. If I'd do it again, something like CAN bus would probably be something I look at seriously. Bigger systems also draws more power, and that can have an impact on how much management is needed for noise. Bigger power draw usually also means heavy power store & delivery system, which affects CG management, when then means you can't move things around to management noise. At some point, I felt like I was doing dancing a multi-factorial show.

I wished I could be clearer. Perhaps someone more qualified can chime in.

I always feel like NASA has mastered the basic "under promise, over deliver" philosophy that keeps the lights on and the next missions funded. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at who they get to tap dance in front of the congressional committee or how they schmooze the decadal people to rise above the rest.

I don’t think you should be apologetic about the small scale of your contribution: the animating principle of open source is that the aggregation of small contributions like yours can create outcomes that rival those of even the wealthiest organizations in the world.