That’s a great question. I would guess that part of the answer is that the cost is a massive differentiator for them.
If costs were higher, competitors would probably not launch on SpaceX rockets. They were also not a “safe” choice until recently. They’ve also been able to capture the market and put enormous pressure on their competitors. I’m certain there are other reasons.
I’d love to hear an actual business person weigh in on this.
Without knowing more about the market, I suspect that - other than at SpaceX - commercial customers don't pay list price.
It's pretty well known nobody pays anywhere close to list price for airplanes from Boeing and Airbus. I've heard discounts as much as 40-50% for planes but the actual numbers are pretty closely guarded. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if this were happening in the launch business.
I'm probably not an "actual business person" though, for whatever definition you're using :)
One issue might be rotor span. Ingenuity has pretty big rotors to counter the thin atmosphere (about 4 feet top-to-tip).
On earth rotor sizes are limited by the speed at the wing-tip. Once you make the rotor too long the tips start approaching supersonic speeds, giving you all kinds of weird mach effects. To make matters worse, the speed of sound is about 30% lower on Mars compared to near earth's surface.
Interesting note about this: the speed of sound on Mars is only ~70% of that on Earth, due to less atmospheric density. Might change your Mach numbers!
The speed of sound in an ideal (calorically perfect) gas is given by
a = sqrt( gamma * R * T )
where gamma is the ratio of specific heats (thermodynamic property of a gas, which may vary with temperature), R is the individual gas constant, and T the temperature of the fluid. All of these are going to be different on Mars versus on Earth:
Earth:
R = R_atm = 287 J / (kg * K)
gamma = 1.44
T = 293 K (taking room temperature as an average temperature)
Mars:
R = R_CO2 = 188 J / (kg * K)
gamma = 1.37
T = 210 K (from a quick google, about -60 deg C)
If the Martian and Earth atmospheres were at the same temperature, then the speed of sound on Mars would be 80% that of the speed of sound on Earth. Given the temperature difference, the speeds of sound are
a_mars = 232 m/s
a_earth = 347 m/s
So yes, much of the difference is due to the composition: the Martian atmosphere has a higher atomic weight, which leads to a lower individual gas constant, and decreases the speed of sound. However, a substantial amount of the difference is simply due to the different temperatures on the surfaces of the two planets.
In short: 30kg heli, 5kg payloads. Other designs by collaborators are closer to 20kg. It's probably possible to transport a few of these on the existing lander technology, which would be awesome.
The scholar.google.com keywords you want are "Mars Science Helicopter" and a good touchpoint author is T. Tzanetos or S. Withrow-Maser
Ames and JPL were still collaborating on this when I worked there.
I know these are much larger - I’m just really curious about the dynamics of scaling up rotorcraft & why it is problematic. ie - do rotor physics become impracticality large or fast at some point for materials science, or is it purely a space problem for rocket launches.
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.
In a thin atmosphere, lifting a heavier payload needs bigger rotors or increased RPM, which increases power demands and structural stress. The challenge is to keep the vehicle light enough to fly while also making it sturdy enough to carry the payload and survive environments.
For sure, that’s another way to decompose “bigger rotors”. It would probably be appropriate to dive into a conversation about Ingenuity’s design goals, requirements, and the trades performed to end up with what they got.
This is what I'm thinking too. A number of posts above talked about physical limits based on speed of sound and rotor length. Cool, so add two rotors, or four.
Ok - this makes sense to me. Also taken into account the context that anything going to space needs to be light at this point in time. Hopefully we don’t have that restriction forever :)
The same line of reasoning could be used to justify creationism.
Human culture is an incredibly complex system that can create shared behaviors without any central coordination. While I’m not in agreement (or disagreement) with the parent, it’s certainly plausible without the coordination you’re implying.
Are you implying that’s a conspiracy theory? Big pharma has a history of abusing the edge cases and dismissing those is one of the major causes of “conspiracy theories”.
I haven’t been to China, but have traveled quite a bit in Asia. In my experience, you can do most anything for money anywhere. It just takes less money in places with a lower GDP per capita (not accounting for cultural or religious practices).
Yeah some development servers that didn't actually send the mail anywhere but did give usable error messages for example would be amazing.
To avoid it being used as an attack vector they could be tied to special app registrations that had to be registered with the mail development system in advance.
Responses to this talk about how the ecosystem and hardware is great. I wonder if it would be so good if they were more squeezed to chase profits?
I’m usually skeptical of companies with this many users because of the potential to mine and sell data. I’m glad Apple hasn’t had to focus on that to stay profitable to the extent others have.
Oh yeah - my comment was more about magma spewing out if the chamber grew. I’m really curious about the mechanics of that process.
To me, it seems like the magma would could enough/create enough friction in a small borehole to prevent catastrophic failure. However, that’s just a feeling & I’d love to read more about this.
Is this statement just a feeling, or is this coming from a source?
I would bet that lots of very smart people have looked at the problem and thought it was viable if they’re moving forward. Also, the people in Iceland are very adept at geothermal (but maybe not this type).
It comes from having researched the GeoThermal market to determine whether the last software company I worked for should enter that market. The answer was a resounding NO.
To be clear. Geothermal is great in some places and circumstances. It will never be a big enough world-wide market in the foreseeable future to move the needle much in proportion of total energy produced.
If costs were higher, competitors would probably not launch on SpaceX rockets. They were also not a “safe” choice until recently. They’ve also been able to capture the market and put enormous pressure on their competitors. I’m certain there are other reasons.
I’d love to hear an actual business person weigh in on this.