Camera specs quoted from Balaram et al. Mars Helicopter Technology Demonstrator. 2018 AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference.
The helicopter battery shown in Fig. 12 consists of 6 Sony SE US1865o VTC4 Li-ion cells with a nameplate capacity of 2 Ah. ...The continuous tested power load capability of this batterry is 480 W with a peak power capability of 510 W. Battery voltage is in the range of 15–25.2 V and the total mass of the 6 cells is 273 g. A de-rated end-of-life battery capacity of 35.75 Wh is available for use. Of this capacity, 10.73 Wh (30%) is kept as reserve, night-time survival energy usage is estimated at 21 Wh for typical operation in the northern latitudes in thespring season, and approximatley 10 Wh is available for flight. Assuming that 20% of the power is at the peak load of510 W and 80% is at a continuous load of 360 W, approximately 90 sec of flight is possible. These energy projectionsrepresent conservative worst-case end-of-mision battery performance at 0 C initial temperature. More moderate powerloads will extend the flight time.The solar panel is made from Inverted Metamorphic (IMM4J) cells from SolAero Technologies. The cells areoptimized for the Mars solar spectrum and occupy a rectangular area with 680 cm2 of substrate (544 cm2 active cellarea) in a region centered and immediately above the co-axial rotors. This region minimally interferes with the flowthrough the rotor.
On Planetary Protection it says:All components of the helicopter must satisfy Contamination Control requirements i.e. they need to be selected toprevent out-gassing in the vacuum of space producing products that could contaminate other spacecraft elements. Inaddition all elements must also meet Planetary Protection requirements i.e. they need to incorporate treatments andhandling procedures to prevent bio-contamination of instruments and sites with Earth organisms.
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/14/2018 03:20 pmYou guys really ought to actually talk to some of the people working on Mars 2020. There's something that you're missing: the Mars 2020 team and operations are pretty much separate from the helicopter team. They're different groups, different objectives, and very different priorities. Mars 2020 is all about the science, and it's very high priority science. They view the helicopter as a sideshow tech development that is not part of their mission. And they're right. And most Mars scientists share that view.I can understand disapproval if helicopter comes at cost of science payload but its not as far as I know. If helicopter is a failure then all they've lost is a few days if that from mission. With a few days ofsuccessful flights it could save rover weeks in travel time.
You guys really ought to actually talk to some of the people working on Mars 2020. There's something that you're missing: the Mars 2020 team and operations are pretty much separate from the helicopter team. They're different groups, different objectives, and very different priorities. Mars 2020 is all about the science, and it's very high priority science. They view the helicopter as a sideshow tech development that is not part of their mission. And they're right. And most Mars scientists share that view.
Of course the heli comes at some payload cost, as it is mass that needs to be moved with the lander, that could have been allocated to something else.
any additional needed control and comms systems, etc?
Quote from: Pete on 05/31/2018 07:20 pmOf course the heli comes at some payload cost, as it is mass that needs to be moved with the lander, that could have been allocated to something else.could have <> would have. Payload comes in discrete chunks and is subject to cost, power and data constraints. In most cases, you can't just dial in an extra kilogram and get extra science. On top of that, the primary payload is selected well before the final masses are known.Quoteany additional needed control and comms systems, etc?It is virtually certain the helicopter will use data volume (and associated power) that would otherwise be used for something else. OTOH, plenty of data gets spent on things that aren't strictly required for the primary science mission.
Quote from: hop on 05/31/2018 08:28 pmQuote from: Pete on 05/31/2018 07:20 pmOf course the heli comes at some payload cost, as it is mass that needs to be moved with the lander, that could have been allocated to something else.could have <> would have. Payload comes in discrete chunks and is subject to cost, power and data constraints. In most cases, you can't just dial in an extra kilogram and get extra science. On top of that, the primary payload is selected well before the final masses are known.Quoteany additional needed control and comms systems, etc?It is virtually certain the helicopter will use data volume (and associated power) that would otherwise be used for something else. OTOH, plenty of data gets spent on things that aren't strictly required for the primary science mission.However the higher resolution imagery and higher view point has been shown in tests to have benefits in terms of planning and additional data, saving time so the net gain outweighs the cost.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 06/01/2018 12:38 amQuote from: hop on 05/31/2018 08:28 pmQuote from: Pete on 05/31/2018 07:20 pmOf course the heli comes at some payload cost, as it is mass that needs to be moved with the lander, that could have been allocated to something else.could have <> would have. Payload comes in discrete chunks and is subject to cost, power and data constraints. In most cases, you can't just dial in an extra kilogram and get extra science. On top of that, the primary payload is selected well before the final masses are known.Quoteany additional needed control and comms systems, etc?It is virtually certain the helicopter will use data volume (and associated power) that would otherwise be used for something else. OTOH, plenty of data gets spent on things that aren't strictly required for the primary science mission.However the higher resolution imagery and higher view point has been shown in tests to have benefits in terms of planning and additional data, saving time so the net gain outweighs the cost.Those most intimately involved and who knew most precisely exactly what the costs and potential benefits were, were pretty unanimously opposed to the helicopter being included because in their view it detracted from the main mission for this rover. My impression of that position was that they viewed the costs as direct and the benefits as only potentially delivered on future missions. Given the mission plan for the helicopter, that's not too surprising as it isn't planned to operate in conjunction with the rover on this mission.
Quote from: deruch on 06/01/2018 12:57 amQuote from: Dalhousie on 06/01/2018 12:38 amQuote from: hop on 05/31/2018 08:28 pmQuote from: Pete on 05/31/2018 07:20 pmOf course the heli comes at some payload cost, as it is mass that needs to be moved with the lander, that could have been allocated to something else.could have <> would have. Payload comes in discrete chunks and is subject to cost, power and data constraints. In most cases, you can't just dial in an extra kilogram and get extra science. On top of that, the primary payload is selected well before the final masses are known.Quoteany additional needed control and comms systems, etc?It is virtually certain the helicopter will use data volume (and associated power) that would otherwise be used for something else. OTOH, plenty of data gets spent on things that aren't strictly required for the primary science mission.However the higher resolution imagery and higher view point has been shown in tests to have benefits in terms of planning and additional data, saving time so the net gain outweighs the cost.Those most intimately involved and who knew most precisely exactly what the costs and potential benefits were, were pretty unanimously opposed to the helicopter being included because in their view it detracted from the main mission for this rover. My impression of that position was that they viewed the costs as direct and the benefits as only potentially delivered on future missions. Given the mission plan for the helicopter, that's not too surprising as it isn't planned to operate in conjunction with the rover on this mission. And your evidence for this statement is?
Quote from: deruch on 06/01/2018 12:57 amThose most intimately involved and who knew most precisely exactly what the costs and potential benefits were, were pretty unanimously opposed to the helicopter being included because in their view it detracted from the main mission for this rover. My impression of that position was that they viewed the costs as direct and the benefits as only potentially delivered on future missions. Given the mission plan for the helicopter, that's not too surprising as it isn't planned to operate in conjunction with the rover on this mission. And your evidence for this statement is?
Those most intimately involved and who knew most precisely exactly what the costs and potential benefits were, were pretty unanimously opposed to the helicopter being included because in their view it detracted from the main mission for this rover. My impression of that position was that they viewed the costs as direct and the benefits as only potentially delivered on future missions. Given the mission plan for the helicopter, that's not too surprising as it isn't planned to operate in conjunction with the rover on this mission.
...Ken Farley, the project scientist for Mars 2020, said ... “The Mars 2020 project has done everything that is necessary to accommodate that helicopter,” he said.If added, the helicopter would operate for only about 30 days early in the rover’s mission, Farley said. It is intended to primarily be a technology demonstration to show how such a vehicle could be a scout for future rovers or carry out additional science.If NASA did decide to add the helicopter, it would be only after determining that its inclusion would not significantly increase the overall risk of the mission. “Everybody agrees it will not put the mission at risk,” he said. “All the decisions that are being made have to honor that.”That doesn’t mean, though, that the project supports adding the helicopter even if it doesn’t increase the mission’s risk. “I am not an advocate for the helicopter, and I don’t believe the Mars 2020 project has been an advocate for the helicopter,” he said. That opposition is based on the belief that the helicopter will be a distraction, taking away from the rover’s primary science work, at least for a short time."This comes right out of science time,” Farley said. “I have personally been opposed to it because we are working very hard for efficiencies and spending 30 days working on a technology demonstration does not further those goals directly from the science point of view.”...
-The helicopter will, however, require time to operate it. That time cuts into the science mission time. There are some people who were very opposed to it because of that. Mars 2020 is a very ambitious mission with a lot to accomplish, so cutting into science time is a risk to the mission objectives.
However the higher resolution imagery and higher view point has been shown in tests to have benefits in terms of planning and additional data, saving time so the net gain outweighs the cost.
Oh brother...I don't understand why you guys don't get it: this is a tech demonstrator. It is a SMALL tech demonstrator on a BIG mission. The people who are working on the $2.4 billion rover are looking at this thing like a fly that is buzzing around their head while they are trying to drive their car. Of course they don't think it is useful or valuable because it just gets in the way of their--pardon me while I emphasize this point a little stronger--TWO POINT FOUR BILLION DOLLAR MISSION.This thread is exhibiting one of the classic weaknesses of all space enthusiast groups: you think that the thing that you personally think is cool is what is important, and is what the people operating space programs think is important. The industry, NASA, science, are all working on their own set of rules, not your definition of cool and important.
You have only provided evidence that some people did not like it. You have presented zero evidence that this opposition was universal across the team. You have presented zero evidence that this opposition continues.
You have ignored the evidence that there are documented operational advantages to the scout.
And yet NASA serves the public.
. I they will struggle to get all the samples collected in time and it is understandable that they don't want any additional tasks on top of what they already have.