Microflyers on Mars

Birds of Fire writes: "This article on Yahoo reports on work in Australia to develop tiny aircraft for Mars exploration. "Aircraft weighing as little as a chocolate bar could one day be darting over the surface of Mars with the agility of dragonflies and the eyes of bees."

Comments

Visible Mars Project

[cybrpnk]

Aircraft as small as a chocolate bar will one day fly on Mars?

C'mon

[Anonymous Coward]

We've seen lots of articles about robots that "may" (perhaps, someday, possibly...) help us explore Mars. It's fun and all, but let's see some FOLLOW-THROUGH. NASA seems great at hatching all sorts of neat ideas, but it doesn't seem capable of committing anything to them (is that the ISS's fault?).

Why can't we experiment, and send several of these cool robot (insect-like ones, fliers, rolling-balls, rovers, etc.) to Mars the Moon or whereever and see how they really work out? Otherwise isn't this lack of follow-through just so much wanking?

Re:C'mon

[-douggy]

[quote]the Moon [/quote]

They wont fly on the moon. No air..... Seriuoslt there is loads of new tech these days that would be cheap (for nasa) to send anywhere. I am sure some neat science can be done as well

Questions?

[4of12]

1. Have they got a good lead on solving the power to weight ratio problem?
2. Getting the total energy /weight ratio high enough so the flyer has reasonable range (think hummingbirds)?
3. Cost per unit?

Cost is not so important, since we're willing to spend quite a bit to get these things to Mars, but even so, if the cost could be brought done enough there might be terrestrial applications for little drones loaded up with various sensors.

GPS Navigation?

[Perdo]

NASA has it's hand in the Department of Defence's cookie jar again. Since Mars does not have a constelation of GPS sattellites (yet), this project is exclusivly for miniature terestrial surveilance.

Another step towards the inevitable - terraforming

[akiaki007]

This is similar to another article that I read about these flyers that NASA is working on that look like insects, but a lot lighter and smaller, and not as capable. I think this one is much better. It can go farther, and won't be wisked away by a 10mph wind.

Eventually I would think that they are going to plan a full terraform team and such, and these can be used to map everything. Hmm, now I just gotta figure out how I can get on that team.

Pictures.....

[jsimon12]

Sorta old news, but here is a page with pics and such for BioMorphic MicroFlyers for Mars exploration.

NASA and Biomorphic Systems.....

[jsimon12]

Here, this is a much better link with information on the entire system in which the microflyers would be used and how they would communicate. Evidently the microflyers are a portion of the proposed mission, other little robots and such would join in for a land/air/etc/etc type team.

Flying on Mars is very, very difficult.

[Marsh Jedi]

Mars has about 1/10th the amount of air earth does. That means you have to travel at multiples of whatever your takeoff speed is on earth to generate enough lift.

So let's say your drone's stall speed is 20mph on earth? Try 200 mph on Mars. Suddenly your 12 inch model plane needs a several hundred foot runway, at the very least.

Okay now, so let's talk about turning--remember you need 200 mph of speed minimum to stay in the air.

You only get one-tenth of the air over your control surfaces, meaning one-tenth the maneuverability.

Finally, landing must be done at 200 mph for something that only needs 20mph on earth.

Tailhook, anyone?

Re:Flying on Mars is very, very difficult.

[Bloater]

Not necesserily. You could just flap your wings ten times as fast :)

Re:Flying on Mars is very, very difficult.

[global_diffusion]

Mars does have a much weaker gravitational field. I would guess that it would make it easier to stay up once you were up. I don't know anything about aerodynamics, but I'd think the gravitational constant would figure in somewhere, making the ratio Mars/Earth Speed Needed smaller.

Re:Flying on Mars is very, very difficult.

[Anonymous Coward]

>You only get one-tenth of the air over your >control surfaces, meaning one-tenth the >
>maneuverability.

But by your argument you're already up to speed.
That would mean getting the same amount of air over the control surfaces per unit time. So one could do a 180 in the same amount of time, but the radius of the arc would be much larger.

Re:Flying on Mars is very, very difficult.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, lift is proportional to density * velocity^2. So if the density is 1/10, you only need 3.2 times the speed.

Actually, the martian atmosphere is 1/60th as dense as Earths. Also, mars has about 1/3 the gravity of earth, so you only need 1/3 as much lift.

Put these all together and you need to fly about 4.5x as fast.

Since drag is also proportional to density*velocity^2, drag is 1/3. At 4.5x the speed, you need about 1.5x the power to fly on earth. Not a big difference. The good news is that you get places a lot faster.

.

Re:Flying on Mars is very, very difficult.

[Eccles]

Mars has about 1/10th the amount of air earth does. That means you have to travel at multiples of whatever your takeoff speed is on earth to generate enough lift.

Couldn't you "fly" by expelling particles (like a rocket or an ion engine) rather than wing surfaces? In that case, the weaker Martian gravity would make it easier than earth.

RTFA!

[pythorlh]

The article does not say that these things use GPS, it says that there is no GPS on Mars, so we need new techniques.

Flying on Mars - in silico

[maddan]

For anyone who's really interested, X-Plane have a Mars scenario and planes that will fly on Mars (this is a sim, in case anyone hasn't got it yet), and a report on how it's done.