That's what I thought too. But they've been designing this for years; so it might have started before drones got as popular as they are.
I mean, drones are just a new name for hobby aircraft. People typically associate drones with quad-copters, but people were flying tiny helicopters next to their small replica remote aircraft for decades.
I realize the FAA has official designations for what is a drone (and a lot of older hobby aircrafts may now technically be drones), but it's a word that's really come about because the field is now more accessible/affordable.
With the minor notation that hobby aircraft are permitted in some national parks, while drones are prohibited in all. The Parks Service operates a number of model aircraft airports in some national parks.
(I'm not moaning about the perceived inequity with the "drones;" just pointing out a curiosity. I've hated drones ever since they started ruining my ability to peacefully enjoy nature.)
>it's a word that's really come about because the field is now more accessible/affordable
I think it's a word that comes about because the marketers know that douchebags will respond to pretending that they're part of some secret military high-tech spy ops program, and not flying a Chinese plastic quadcopter.
"Model aircraft" is for nerds. "Drone" is for monster truck owners and wannabes.
To me what makes a drone a drone is the control system algorithm that keeps the aircraft stable. I thought "model aircraft " had to be operated by a sufficiently skilled operator to keep it from crashing. Whereas "drones " automate this skill and present a very simple, dummed down interface such as "go left, turn around, descend" etc
If only self-leveling was more common in drones. None of the drones I own have self-leveling, nor have any owned by other pilots that I know.
There are a multitude of ways to pilot quadcopters, combining the 4 different transmitter modes (Mode 1, Mode 2, Mode 3, Mode 4) with the different control modes (Acro, Rate, Horizon, etc). The lack of standardization can be maddening for beginners - it's like learning Git, Github, and DVCS, while learning to code.
I'll give an upvote for this. Not the most polite way of putting it, but I appreciate keeping it real.
It's a UAV if you want to get back into the subject matter we're discussing though. I do wonder how well it'll do in the Martian atmosphere, especially if it gets caught charging in a sandstorm.
Right, of course you got that. I just wanted to point out that we need to manage our expectations of such a headline due to the current state of technology. There is no way an earth-size helicopter is making it to Mars with current rocket capabilities. The thing is the size of a softball and requires those 1.1m rotors. A human carrying copter would be pointless it seems. They will probably use rocket powered hoppers or something along those lines
Sounds weird, because we're used to media spam. But "drone" wrt. flying machines basically has 3 popular meanings - RC multicopters, any RC aircraft, and those big RC aircrafts with surveillance cameras and Hellfire missiles. Back because multicopter mania caused all RC aircraft to be rebranded as "drones", we used to call them by category - RC plane, RC helicopter, etc. So personally, I'm totally fine with NASA using the word "helicopter" - though I expect the name that's even more cool than "drone" - an UAV.
I mean, drones are just a new name for hobby aircraft. People typically associate drones with quad-copters, but people were flying tiny helicopters next to their small replica remote aircraft for decades.
I realize the FAA has official designations for what is a drone (and a lot of older hobby aircrafts may now technically be drones), but it's a word that's really come about because the field is now more accessible/affordable.