Simulating dust kick-up would be easier than constructing a "low gravity" room.
It isn't too hard to simulate low gravity, all you need to do is move a large aircraft in the appropriate parabolic pattern. My understanding is that this is already how NASA trains astronauts for zero-g environments, and how weightlessness is done in space movies. Adjusting the path to match Mars gravity should not be difficult.
True, but you cannot test a small helicopter inside an aircraft, can you?
Link to the underlying press release [0] which has slightly more info than the BBC article. There is a bit more background about the project at [1], with some key points being: "The helicopter uses counter-rotating coaxial rotors about 1.1 m in diameter. Its payload will be a high resolution downward-looking camera for navigation, landing, and science surveying of the terrain, and a communication system to relay data…
"The helicopter uses counter-rotating coaxial rotors about 1.1 m in diameter..." Not to be little it but, in short, a drone. I presume the rocket scientists are jealous ;)
The funny thing is that you could almost classify most space missions as drones (or probes).
So if it falls on its side, something that has a probably a 50% chance of happening, can it get back up? I always thought that for exploring another planet, you shouldn't really use something with wheels or wings. Something different like small "jumping robots" would make a lot more sense in a place where you have literally the ability to do 0-hardware maintenance. Instead of a single expensive flying robot, why not…
Tiny works great for agility demos, but I doubt that there would be much agility left once you add any amount of meaningful payload. A battery that lasts longer than a demo video take, sufficiently powered uplink (no convenient wifi or low-power cellular where they are going) and all those sensors for in-situ geological experiments. Because without that, all that jumping around would not get you any data that could not be acquired much easier and with more precision using a simple overhead laser scan. Oh, and much of Mars may not be paved, that little "jump drive" surely needs a reliable surface to push back against.
So if it falls on its side, something that has a probably a 50% chance of happening, can it get back up? I always thought that for exploring another planet, you shouldn't really use something with wheels or wings. Something different like small "jumping robots" would make a lot more sense in a place where you have literally the ability to do 0-hardware maintenance. Instead of a single expensive flying robot, why not…
Where do you get 50% from? It's got landing legs, and will be placed right-side-up to start with by the Mars 2020 rover.
All it takes is to land on the side on one rock and it's over. I would say the chance is more like 98% over the span of a few years.
Link to the underlying press release [0] which has slightly more info than the BBC article. There is a bit more background about the project at [1], with some key points being: "The helicopter uses counter-rotating coaxial rotors about 1.1 m in diameter. Its payload will be a high resolution downward-looking camera for navigation, landing, and science surveying of the terrain, and a communication system to relay data…
If anyone has AIAA paper access (or a workaround ;), they published a ton of details on their guidance, control, and avionics designs at the beginning of this year:
Can't NASA test this in an artificial atmosphere low-pressure low-gravity room? Obviously there will be real-world concerns that are hard to simulate like slight damage from spacecraft landing and dust spun up when the copter takes off, but the article makes it sound like the low density is the big thing they're worried about.
Wait, could they use earth GPS and it would just be very innacurate?
GPS requires a bunch of satellites to be in orbit first, and we haven't sent them to Mars yet.
We need a bunch here on Earth so we can get a fix in a reasonable time. But all the robots on Mars move extremely slowly and infrequently. i.e. it would be fine if the bot had to wait 12+ hours for a fix, they'd probably be waiting that long regularly anyways. And it probably doesn't need to be more accurate than 0.1-1 km either.
So could we deploy, say, the first three satellites that use a modified version of GPS at first that allows you to get a very slow, inaccurate fix, but a fix nonetheless?
Link to the underlying press release [0] which has slightly more info than the BBC article. There is a bit more background about the project at [1], with some key points being: "The helicopter uses counter-rotating coaxial rotors about 1.1 m in diameter. Its payload will be a high resolution downward-looking camera for navigation, landing, and science surveying of the terrain, and a communication system to relay data…
"The helicopter uses counter-rotating coaxial rotors about 1.1 m in diameter..." Not to be little it but, in short, a drone. I presume the rocket scientists are jealous ;)
NASA has been using drones since 1950, it's everyone else that's jelly.
Link to the underlying press release [0] which has slightly more info than the BBC article. There is a bit more background about the project at [1], with some key points being: "The helicopter uses counter-rotating coaxial rotors about 1.1 m in diameter. Its payload will be a high resolution downward-looking camera for navigation, landing, and science surveying of the terrain, and a communication system to relay data…