...I did a Ctrl-F for "mass" too, and nothing.
A kilogram of steel on earth is still a kilogram of steel on mars.
Stating the weight of something in pounds and kg is only more confusing if you don't think either are valid units.
It wasn't my idea to measure weight that way.
There's no such thing as "Earth mass" and "Mars mass", they're the same. Calling this helicopter a 1.5 pound Mars weight helicopter seems confusing.
It's huge part of why Newtons were used in SI instead of gram-force in CGS.
Still persists in thrust calculations, especially as metric ton-force, due to ease of calculating TWR and related.
If you assume that the writer considered kg to only mean mass you can infer that they were talking about earth weight in lbs.
But I don't think one can reasonably assume that, when they wrote weight and didn't specify where, when Mars weight would be more relevant.
If someone isn't being clear and precise, then you can't resolve meaning by assuming clarity and precision. Interpretation doesn't govern reality.
This is reminding me very strongly of the perennial discussions of undefined behavior handling by compilers.
Regarding compilers, resolving this would be like checking that a size_t result (guaranteed to be unsigned) was greater than zero.
Sure, it's nice when writers make clear their basic assumptions if they expect their readers to have little knowledge of the subject. We're in the unique position of expecting a writer to have little knowledge, expecting them to be self-aware of that, and expecting them to recognize there's a potential distinction to be drawn between Earth weight, Mars weight, and mass.