It’s not about the math it’s about the engineering, NASA did the maths and a 40m diameter evacuated airship can carry a substantial payload on Mars, we however have no real clue on how to build it from an engineering perspective.
If you would’ve asked people 10 years ago about flying helicopters on Mars plenty of them would say it’s not possible not because the math doesn’t work out, but because of what requirements the math spits out.
I can do the math for a helicopter for galactic hydrogen, it doesn’t mean engineering can make one. However a vacuum airship on Mars is very much possible, it’s just a heck of an engineering challenge but if you want to get to large payloads not to mention any substantial flight time it’s by far more realistic than a helicopter.
Fine, engineering it is. And 10 years ago, regardless of what random people on the Internet would've said, we still had the technology to do a Mars helicopter (although the optical navigation has improved and become more lightweight, that could've been offloaded to the rover). It has been studied for decades and we've had good enough solar, batteries, and motors 10 years ago.
A zeppelin could in principle work on Mars, but it'll be worse than a helicopter, all things being equal. Weather balloons can work fine at those air pressures, but they don't control their position.
Batteries are better now than 10 years ago. Motors are better than 10 years ago. Solar is better than 10 years ago. Computers are better than 10 years ago. Each is not a huge amount better, but the improvements multiply out.
Not more than about 5-10% (at least at state of the art). Computers are the biggest argument, but again that's off-loadable to the rover. Again, if anyone said 10 years ago that a helicopter on Mars was not realistic, then they didn't know what they were talking about (it's funny how people who style themselves skeptics will learn like 5 facts about some place and then crown themselves an expert). I explored a similar but more advanced concept professionally about ~5 years ago.
34% better, in aviation, may easily make the difference between practical and not. In the case of Ingenuity, it appears to have made the difference between a need for custom SotA vs. COTS kit.
What computing could usefully be offloaded to the rover is very limited. Compressing video, maybe, and that just for power budget. I think Ingenuity has >10x MIPS than Perseverence.
More like .95^3=86%, at worst. There really hasn’t been that much change in motor performance and even battery is small (5%) as the chemistry Ingenuity used already existed. Solar has changed maybe 3%, at most.
Reduce Ingenuity’s flight time by 10%, and it would still be practical.
You have clearly not kept up on battery technology. "Lithium" does not suffice to define battery cell tech.
You clearly have not kept up on CPU design. ISAs are the same, but implementations have been through 3 generations.
You clearly have not kept up on motor performance. Nothing theoretical has changed, but COTS motors are much better executed than could be had 10 years ago.
You clearly have not kept up on solar performance. While absolute efficiency has not increased much, weight has. Furthermore, and of greater moment here, dust-repellent coatings have improved.
The aggregate improvement is much better than 34%.
If you would’ve asked people 10 years ago about flying helicopters on Mars plenty of them would say it’s not possible not because the math doesn’t work out, but because of what requirements the math spits out.
I can do the math for a helicopter for galactic hydrogen, it doesn’t mean engineering can make one. However a vacuum airship on Mars is very much possible, it’s just a heck of an engineering challenge but if you want to get to large payloads not to mention any substantial flight time it’s by far more realistic than a helicopter.