Jump to content

Talk:Ingenuity (helicopter)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlliterativeAnchovies (talk | contribs) at 10:02, 29 April 2022 (→‎Photo overload: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Explain edit; split section?

I garbled my Edit Summary on Special:Diff/1081886894. I wanted to say:

Status 373 ("Balancing the Risks...") describes "waking Ingenuity at this time without flying" -- "at this time" refers to 9:30 LMST. So, Flight #24 was not a "test" of 9:30 LMST; the test was already done when they woke it without flying to see if it would have enough battery charge at that time of morning. But I think this is all a little too much detail for the Summary text.

ON ANOTHER SUBJECT:

We should think about possibly splitting the "List of flights" section into its own article. The list has become quite long, and will keep growing as long as the helicopter can keep flying. Its length may make the article too unwieldy. Comments? DonFB (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support it Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We must Follow the ru:Список полётов Ingenuity where a separate page is made (not their table format) and also put the flight experience table on this page there Don FB Chinakpradhan (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List must be the list of numeric data like the Flight Log at the NASA JPL. Move the wordy explanations for each flight to the new section of the article. 92.100.192.48 (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
The wordy explanations are what make the list of flights consume a lot of space. If we separated numeric data from summaries, the summaries would still take up a lot of space in the article. Also, I think keeping the summaries in the main article and splitting the numerics into a separate List Article would be quite inconvenient for readers who want to be able to see both types of information in one place. Another possibility is to make the flight list collapsed by default, so the reader is not overwhelmed by it when perusing the article. If they want to see it, a single click would expand it. DonFB (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ya good Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DonFB won't it be better if we move the whole flight List to other page not a single line on this page?? And link that page here like the page List of Starlink launches Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think if we move the list, we should move everything together as now seen in this article: all numerics and every "summary", and add a link to the List Article from this main article. DonFB (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So should we proceeds?? Just a joke telling you, "by the time we decid maybe it is on track for 28th flight". Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

flight 26 length

The map and helicopters' waypoints at mars.nasa.gov show a twice shorter route of circa 186-187 m against 360 m in the flight log. Was it a roundup trip? The NASAJPL twitter sheds no light upon that. 92.100.192.48 (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map does make flight 26 look much shorter than flight 25, even though the Log shows 26 to be a little over half the length of 25 (360m vs 708m). I don't see a figure of 186-187m, unless you're guesstimating it by eyeballing the map. Best thing for now, I think, is to use the explicitly published Flight Log data. DonFB (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you really don't know other distance measurement tools for maps, than eyeballing, let me draw your eyeballs to the left botton corner of the NASA's map. Hope you know what the words Map Scale above the b/w line mean, and how to measure pixels. You shall get the same estimate of 186÷187.
If your eyeballs are too exhausted to measure pixels here's the direct way to pure mathematics. Upload this file using the 'Helicopter Waypoints' from the left menu of the map (opened with the 'hamburger' button). Values like "Easting": 4353346.094, "Northing": 1093714.79 are the metric coordinates for each arrival point. Take this pair from the last two lines, and trivial Pythagorean theorem shall return the exact value of 186.67.
Since the Flight log 'already explicitly publishes 360 m there's nothing to wait from this source. Sorry, but your comment did not help to resolve the obviuos discrepancy.11:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.192.48 (talk)
When I look at the map, it seems like the Flight 26 flightpath has been removed. However, in the future, instead having to go through the process of either eyeballing or calculating via latitute/longitude values, you can actually get the exact lengths that the map uses here: [1]
Since Flight 26 has been removed, I'll use Flight 25 as an example - if you scroll to the very bottom of the source, you can see this line:
{"type":"Feature","properties":{"Flight":25,"Sol":403,"Length_m":708.433},"geometry":{"type":"LineString","coordinates":[[77.442472,18.450772],[77.4306,18.454775]]}}
"Length_m" is the length in meters of Flight 25. These numbers are more precise than the flight log's values - sometimes the flight log can actually deviate considerable because they rounded to a 'nice' number. (see the conversation on my talk page where this was discussed in detail). This is much easier to check than manual calculations, eyeballing, or pixel counting, so its a real time saver!
AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After reading over your response to DonFB, it seems like you may already know of this file. It's from the same place as the 'Helicopter Waypoints' file - it's the 'Helicopter Flight Path' file. This file is probably more useful to you for the purposes of distance calculation, since it contains raw distances instead of lat/longs. AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I know about both of them. And I never use lat/longs. You could have noticed "Easting": 4353346.094, "Northing": 1093714.79 in my previous message - these are the metric coordinates which you call 'raw'. Both types are used in 'Waypoints' and 'Flight Path'. And both return the same 186.67 distance calculated with the Pythagorean theorem. 92.100.192.48 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Each figure may be true and may be false depending upon whether the flight was a roundup trip or not. 92.100.192.48 (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bro see the flight and my flight note I said it took a turn by the edl parachute and backshell so it's somewhat like flight 6 or precisely flight 10 and even 27 flight is similar so you see it shorter since this is not direct distance between R and S.Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But ya nasa is boggling the json value I saw 708.43 for 25 now it's 708.91 maybe and same first it told flight 26 Length as 360.16 now its ~391. Its just googly NASA people who are uploading the values hah Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo overload

A thought I've had for a while: the article is overloaded with photos. I've noticed on my phone that the article can barely be loaded. Perhaps not a loading problem on desktop or tablet devices (or phones newer than mine), but an issue to consider. In terms of readability, I think it's not the best practice. No doubt, more photos will be added if we don't try to create a limit. Comments invited on whether editors agree about overloading and if so, which photos, or photo groups, need to be reduced. DonFB (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. According to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries, "Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." I feel as if the images in the current gallery often classify as "similar or repetitive images", especially many in the "Images by Ingenuity" section. Additionally, the flight videos in the "Ingenuity's Imagery" section are too similar (personally I like them, but do not feel as if they objectively fit the criteria for inclusion, and removing videos would probably go a long way in helping loading times).
While typing this out, I notice that the "Images by Ingenuity" gallery section and "Ingenuity's Imagery" text section have very similar names. I would go so far as to argue that the "Images by Ingenuity" gallery be removed, with the best images there being made inline in "Ingenuity's Imagery" - perhaps that is extreme, though. I do not feel as if the "Maps of flights" section "aids the reader's understanding of the subject", either - however this is potentially fixable, some of those images could be made inline with a new section talking about them. We also do not need so many photos of Ingenuity in the "Images by Perseverance" section.
In terms of creating a limit, I think that's a good idea. I wouldn't argue for a hard cap, but rather a per-mission-stage limit. Ingenuity has arguably undergone 4 stages currently: pre-deployment, tech demo, operations demo during first science campaign, and now the operations demo during the second science campaign. We don't have to impose a limit on the current stage, but once a stage is done then we go through and pick the images that turned out to be most informative and indicative of the stage.
AlliterativeAnchovies (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ingenuity_(helicopter)&oldid=1085249487"