this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
221 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

59086 readers
3563 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kitten_Mittens@lemmy.world 166 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

Considering it was just meant to be a proof of concept and only fly once or twice I would say that 71 flights, a max altitude of 78 ft(24 m), and 10.6 miles or 17 kilometers of travel, not to mention all of the footage from its on board cameras, makes Ingenuity an astounding success.

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 51 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Especially considering the use of off-the-shelf Snapdragon 801.

There's some nice discussion about Ingenuity here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26177619

...This processor will have not flips on Mars, possibly up to every few minutes. Their solution is to hold two copies of memory and double check operations as much as possible, and if any difference is detected they simply reboot. Ingenuity will start to fall out of the sky, but it can go through a full reboot and come back online in a few hundred milliseconds to continue flying.
-jhurliman

[–] httpjames@sh.itjust.works 50 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Reboot mid flight is a funny solution

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 27 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Imagine telling an airline pilot to just reboot the whole plane if something goes wrong.

[–] Rhaedas@kbin.social 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

During a flight is a bit much, but some aircraft have a reboot between flights as a standard procedure to fix glitches that would happen if the plane was left on for the entire time.

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Rhaedas@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

Nothing that high level. Different systems are running independently, some may be redundant to each other in case one fails. But run something long enough especially in extreme conditions and things can drift from the baselines. If a power off and on regularly prevents that it's a lot easier than trying to chase down gremlins that could be different each time they pop up for different reasons.

Even NASA I believe has done such resets from Apollo through the unmanned probes from time to time. Mentioning Windows, the newest versions don't really do this baseline reset if you just shut them down, even if you disable the hibernate/sleep modes, while a restart does.

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago

"Tower, we have some problems"
"Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

[–] Dettweiler42@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

You'd be surprised. We only do that on the ground, though.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago

NASA's rovers have been kicking ass for the last few decades. Truly a testament to how great their engineering teams are

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 28 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Definitely exceeded my expectations.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I think it exceeded everyone's expectations. I know I'm pretty astounded. I didn't realize it had been three years!

[–] Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 9 months ago

Based on how the rovers have over-performed on not that surprised (once we knew it could fly), but still very excited and impressed.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I was amazed it could fly at all in the thin atmosphere of Mars.

[–] Toine@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I believe they took this into account when they designed the thing.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

Absolutely, but until you fly a heli on Mars you don't know 100% if it will work.

[–] kuro24811@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This isn’t the first time they lost contact so it may not be a huge issue in the end.

It's almost definitely because it doesn't have Line Of Sight to establish the connection.

Sort of like how cheap fpv drones will lose video when you fly into another room because the thin drywall blocks the signal enough and the signal can't bounce off other objects in the right way.

So I'm going with "once the rover catches up like last time it'll be fine"

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I never had contact with it so they are still one up on me.

[–] profdc9@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

You've got to point your dish at Mars first, otherwise you can't hear it.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Perhaps the brilliant bunch of folks at JPL will sort this out.

[–] Morphit@feddit.uk 13 points 9 months ago

Yeah they were out of contact for 63 days when it flew ahead of perseverance last year: https://phys.org/news/2023-06-ingenuity-mars-helicopter-home.html

The article doesn't seem to suggest that they've given up on it.

[–] andrewth09@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago