Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,588 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 142,293
Pageviews Today: 205,660Threads Today: 54Posts Today: 973
02:06 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

"Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"

 
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/10/2012 04:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Why is it NASA won't let people see the old Apollo modules? National Security? NO. It's because people would laugh at them. I don't buy any of the rover nonsense because we don't have sufficient braking devices to land gently on another planet. We can't dissipate that much energy.

Don't you think we would put parachutes in satellites if it was possible? To avoid space junk and possible death from falling debris? To examine the units at their end of life and learn things from them?

The programs are used for revenue and mass psychology, to make the population feel good about something as they slave away in jobs they mostly hate, if they have one at all. Bread & Circus for the unclean masses, keeping their heads up as they drown.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


I'm sure I saw something like a LEM at the Smithsonian. Wasn't it a real one?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19852008


There are no flown LM in museums. (Funny thing...they are either on the Moon, or burnt up in re-entry!)

If I am remembering correctly, Air and Space has an early boiler-plate that has been mocked up a little to look like flight configuration. Houston has a complete but unflown. There are more flown CMs around since those were generally recovered.


Heh. The poster you quote apparently forgot describing, himself, viewing one of the spacecraft he claims are hidden from view. Consistency much?
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/10/2012 05:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
OK, you have provided some useful information, no need for name-calling. I only did it in one post because you seemed to be making a hit & run attack on my credentials and the seriousness of my assertions.

You are right in saying I don't have all the facts, and you ought to question why we don't have all the facts. Why not make all of them public immediately on Twitter or on a dynamicly updating webpage? Why would NASA hold back on all the sensor measurements that the autopilot is using to perform it's functions?

I like all of your new data, especially the parachute data. So, the landing assembly is a total of almost 7500lbs! Almost 1000lbs is fuel, ok. Wow! So, we are talking about 2-3 full size SUV's now. I can now say that it would take a parachute 4000-8000x the surface area of a T10 to land that assembly at 7m/s (23ft/s) on Mars, from a stationary free-fall (no 13,000mph initial velocity!). Just to give people some idea of things.

As far as the unit wanting to gain speed as it tightens it's orbit, it is not simply a matter of gravitational acceleration (which is important), it is ADDITIONALLY a matter of angular momentum, L = Iw. I = inertia, w = angular velocity.

L will remain constant, but using I = mr2, since mass is constant, a reduction in the radius will cause I to decrease, and since L is constant, w must increase to compensate.

I must inform you that experience over the years counts for something. I worked for the FAA almost a decade, and we WOULD put parachutes in aircraft if it was possible, to prevent high-speed crashes into the earth, but it simply isn't possible - the engineering of such a feat is old old news. It would take parachutes occupying entire payload, and still wouldn't allow a gentle enough landing to save anything or anyone! And as I said, we would put them in satellites to recover them and learn about the wear and tear and failures, and to eliminate space debris which is a big cause for concern, and we wouldn't have relied on pilots or high-speed entry of the Space Shuttle if it was possible to use auto-pilot and parachutes. The heat on re-entry was the most dangerous aspect of the shuttles engineering, and would have been avoided if at all possible. BUT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE - across the board - no matter what aspect of aerospace you look at - whether aircraft, satellites, shuttles, ANYTHING - it is NOT POSSIBLE for humans to engineer planetary/asteroid/moon landings of heavy high-speed devices using parachutes - the idea is NOT NEW - it is decades old! And there has never been any realistic design for doing so, it's just a batshit crazy OLD idea that's been calculated 1000s of times by 1000s of people. They have been used on ultra-lights, displacing all other payload, but that's their limit.

> What would be much more difficult is seeding into your data new discoveries in exo-geology, which would then be discussed and analyzed and broken down by the top people in the field across the world, AND would remain consistent with anything discovered over all of the decades you intend to keep the hoax going -- against every observation from other probes, earth-bound telescopes, Martian meteorites, etc.

That is exactly what happens. What do you think we would do with all our physics graduates without bogus welfare projects? Give them food stamps? NO. We create nonsense for them to study, like "Earth rocks from the Moon!" So they can invent theories of how a big asteroid hit earth billions of years ago, and knocked a chunk of Earth into a perfect orbit with a perfect spin so that one side always faces the Earth! Look how much idiotic work that generated for decades!

I don't need to study all these things. I am over 50 years old and have worked in these areas for over 25 years - what are new ideas to you are old ideas to me. I already know they don't work because I am aware of all the work and effort that has been done on this type of thinking for decades. And obviously you are not. So, just keep providing data, that is fine with me. I am not afraid of data. I admit I don't have all the data, but I will trust what you provide, you seem to provide good data.

You also must explain how all the energy is dissipated. I am telling you this is an age old problem that has never been solved. If you have extraordinary claims that this problem has been solved, then you are the one that must provide the extraordinary evidence, not me.

Getting things to move 10,000+ mph in space is easy with enough fuel, going from 10,000+ mph to 0 without any fuel, or using a parachute - well, that's very laughable. And based on my knowledge and experience, knowing it has been worked on for decades, and knowing the physics involved, know it is a problem without any current solution.

As you stated yourself, the Apollo CM was completely destroyed by NASA or the govt, and for what reason? You don't question reality. THERE WAS A REASON. It is laughable to think that dropped into Earth with some silly parachutes. If it were possible, WE WOULD DO IT WITH SATELLITES. We do not like losing them all to total destruction and space debris!

If you have more essential data, I will be glad to review it, but I must work on other things for the next 12-24 hours. No need to fight, I am honest, and data & facts are not personal issues with me.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/10/2012 05:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
> The "engineer" is still ignoring the first phase of re-entry -- where the majority of the velocity was absorbed by the Martian atmosphere.

No, I don't ignore it, you ignore it. The MSM was conflicting on the data as I pointed out with links. There is no way the upper Martian atmosphere slowed the unit down from 13,000mph to 900mph as the HuffPost photo page stated. I don't need to comment on it, because it is just absurd. Just as absurd as opening a parachute wired to a 7500lb device at 900mph. I am not the one that must put forth the extraordinary evidence. NASA supporters have that job.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21258417
United States
08/10/2012 05:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Maybe not a hoax but why did they put it down in a f***

crator??
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/10/2012 05:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
> Maybe not a hoax but why did they put it down in a f*** crater?

Isn't the answer OBVIOUS? To keep the horizon limited. Keeps the fraud within a limited visual environment.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/10/2012 07:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
OK, you have provided some useful information, no need for name-calling. I only did it in one post because you seemed to be making a hit & run attack on my credentials and the seriousness of my assertions.

You are right in saying I don't have all the facts, and you ought to question why we don't have all the facts. Why not make all of them public immediately on Twitter or on a dynamicly updating webpage? Why would NASA hold back on all the sensor measurements that the autopilot is using to perform it's functions?

I like all of your new data, especially the parachute data. So, the landing assembly is a total of almost 7500lbs! Almost 1000lbs is fuel, ok. Wow! So, we are talking about 2-3 full size SUV's now. I can now say that it would take a parachute 4000-8000x the surface area of a T10 to land that assembly at 7m/s (23ft/s) on Mars, from a stationary free-fall (no 13,000mph initial velocity!). Just to give people some idea of things.

As far as the unit wanting to gain speed as it tightens it's orbit, it is not simply a matter of gravitational acceleration (which is important), it is ADDITIONALLY a matter of angular momentum, L = Iw. I = inertia, w = angular velocity.

L will remain constant, but using I = mr2, since mass is constant, a reduction in the radius will cause I to decrease, and since L is constant, w must increase to compensate.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


It's not a tetherball. The orbital vector is a vector, not a circular path. What you want is vector addition; the orbital velocity, plus acceleration due to gravity, minus the various factors that are de-accelerating it.

I am approximating here...during the first phase of re-entry it is, actually, an aerodyamic vehicle. But as that first approximation, any vector change is still vector addition. Which turns into heat.


I must inform you that experience over the years counts for something. I worked for the FAA almost a decade, and we WOULD put parachutes in aircraft if it was possible, to prevent high-speed crashes into the earth, but it simply isn't possible - the engineering of such a feat is old old news. It would take parachutes occupying entire payload, and still wouldn't allow a gentle enough landing to save anything or anyone!
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


I can believe it. Different engineering constraints. That's why we put parachutes on passengers (when we do). Simply put, parachutes are good at slowing -- not at stopping. An aircraft is just too fragile a thing to be dropping at parachute landing speeds. Besides...any failure catastrophic enough to prevent a glide-in is going to make a controlled parachute entry pretty near impossible as well. Especially since several of those catastrophic scenarios are "didn't see that mountain there!"

(Which is why, again, the rescue system for a high-performance aircraft involves getting pilot the heck away from the thing.)




And as I said, we would put them in satellites...
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


We do. For certain probes, that is. Design constraints again. Commercial satellites are spending every gram in staying on station and operational as long as is safe. Then they are de-orbited while there is sufficient control to ensure their safe destruction. A controlled re-entry is mass expensive. You'd have to sacrifice some of the primary mission in order to achieve it. So far nobody thinks it is worthwhile paying a hefty bonus to every commercial operator to cover that...plus controlled re-entry is more risky to people on the ground (a high-speed re-entry means breakup and burnup in the upper atmosphere. A controlled re-entry means you expect the spacecraft to enter airspace INTACT).


...to recover them and learn about the wear and tear and failures,
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Which was done, by the long-duration exposure experiment (among others). Again, not considered worth doing to every satellite.


and to eliminate space debris which is a big cause for concern, and we wouldn't have relied on pilots or high-speed entry of the Space Shuttle if it was possible to use auto-pilot and parachutes.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Last time I read up, re-entry of the Space Shuttle was by pushing a button. The pilot's job is the last few minutes, not the first. And you are still comparing apples with apples and thinking you have oranges. Because you still think a parachute alone was used for re-entry.

The heat on re-entry was the most dangerous aspect of the shuttles engineering, and would have been avoided if at all possible. BUT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE - across the board - no matter what aspect of aerospace you look at - whether aircraft, satellites, shuttles, ANYTHING - it is NOT POSSIBLE for humans to engineer planetary/asteroid/moon landings of heavy high-speed devices using parachutes - the idea is NOT NEW - it is decades old! And there has never been any realistic design for doing so, it's just a batshit crazy OLD idea that's been calculated 1000s of times by 1000s of people. They have been used on ultra-lights, displacing all other payload, but that's their limit.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


The only person claiming a parachute did the entire job is you. You are fighting with yourself here.

It actually is entirely possible to land a spacecraft without a parachute OR heat shield, and it has been done many times. It would be prohibitively expensive to do it that way on Earth, however. And Curiosity the Rover would have been the size of an iPod if they had to do it that way on Mars.



> What would be much more difficult is seeding into your data new discoveries in exo-geology, which would then be discussed and analyzed and broken down by the top people in the field across the world, AND would remain consistent with anything discovered over all of the decades you intend to keep the hoax going -- against every observation from other probes, earth-bound telescopes, Martian meteorites, etc.

That is exactly what happens. What do you think we would do with all our physics graduates without bogus welfare projects? Give them food stamps? NO. We create nonsense for them to study, like "Earth rocks from the Moon!" So they can invent theories of how a big asteroid hit earth billions of years ago, and knocked a chunk of Earth into a perfect orbit with a perfect spin so that one side always faces the Earth! Look how much idiotic work that generated for decades!
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


A better subject for another thread. So you disbelieve the space sciences sufficiently to feel justified in being grossly ignorant about them. Fine; that explains why you can't accept that Curiosity worked. Doesn't mean I have to follow you down that same rabbit hole.

I don't need to study all these things. I am over 50 years old and have worked in these areas for over 25 years - what are new ideas to you are old ideas to me. I already know they don't work because I am aware of all the work and effort that has been done on this type of thinking for decades. And obviously you are not.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Hah. You've not made an effort to explore what I may or may not know. You've hardly read a word I've written anyhow -- you are too busy posturing.

I would say "science moves on" but that's not necessary here. There is no new science on Curiousity. Explain how the rover was landed to an aerospace engineer in 1954 and they'd have questions -- deep, technical questions -- but they would be about details, not about the validity of the basic methods.

Konstantin wrote down the basic form of the ideal rocket equation at the turn of the century. That's before either of us was born. But, somehow, I seem to understand how to calculate a delta-v, and you shy from it.

(No...I'm not gonna try to spell "Tskikovsky" right at this time of day!)

And that is really my major quibble. Be wrong, that's cool. But be not even wrong, and that's pointless. It saddens me a lot to meet an engineer who thinks he has no more to learn. There are only two kinds of people who believe they know everything there is to know about a subject, and one of them is extremely rare. The other is, sadly, all too common.

So, just keep providing data, that is fine with me. I am not afraid of data. I admit I don't have all the data, but I will trust what you provide, you seem to provide good data.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


I'm not providing data. I'm passing on what I have found or believe, with appropriate caveats.

You wanna do the work, you do the proper research yourself. Anything else is make-believe.



You also must explain how all the energy is dissipated. I am telling you this is an age old problem that has never been solved. If you have extraordinary claims that this problem has been solved, then you are the one that must provide the extraordinary evidence, not me.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Funny, but the shuttle orbiter seems to have solved it. As do the Soyuz capsules. As did the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo projects. As did (and with any luck never will again, outside of testing) ICBMs -- for which the basic techniques and materials were first worked out.

Now, if you are willing to disbelieve in all of these re-entry vehicles, that's well and good. I'll know where you stand. I'd be interested in seeing how you can justify it in terms of physics, but then you've already shown willingness to throw out any science that might disagree with your preconceptions.


Getting things to move 10,000+ mph in space is easy with enough fuel, going from 10,000+ mph to 0 without any fuel, or using a parachute - well, that's very laughable. And based on my knowledge and experience, knowing it has been worked on for decades, and knowing the physics involved, know it is a problem without any current solution.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Well, if you postulate perfect vacuum and ignore Relativity, you can get to any arbitrary velocity given fuel and time. The trick, for rocketry as we know it, is finding the energy to carry the propellant that is generating the velocity. Which is why staging.

But again you are making up a claim. No-one is saying Curiosity went from orbital velocity to resting on the surface without expending any propellant mass. Nor is anyone saying that the entire journey was made by parachute.

As you stated yourself, the Apollo CM was completely destroyed by NASA or the govt, and for what reason? You don't question reality. THERE WAS A REASON. It is laughable to think that dropped into Earth with some silly parachutes. If it were possible, WE WOULD DO IT WITH SATELLITES. We do not like losing them all to total destruction and space debris!
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Aha. So you DON'T know how Apollo, Gemini, Soyuz...any of those craft landed. Yet you seem to understand how the Shuttle Orbiter did a similar (though much smaller) trick.

And, no, I didn't say it was destroyed. Let me amplify my original remark; when I last visited Smithsonian Air and Space, sometime in the late 80's, the Apollo 11 CM they have there struck me as being quite dirty, and having had several of the systems/panels/etc removed (and various other damage was visible). For all I know it has been extensively restored since then.

It is not destroyed. It is not the only CM on display. It is not the only part of the Apollo spacecraft on display in a museum.

Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 19507663
Netherlands
08/10/2012 10:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Some "engineer".

Tsiolkovsky, btw.

Maybe not a hoax but why did they put it down in a f*** crator??
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21258417

Geological variety. Lots of different layers exposed there.
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/11/2012 02:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
OK, this will be my last post on this. I didn't come here to waste time arguing nonsense. I came here to offer some knowledge for those that have the intelligence to learn something from it. Human nature is not perfect, it has some serious flaws. One of the major flaws has been scientifically studied and documented, and that is: Stupid people are generally too stupid to see how stupid they are, therefore, they typically try to represent themselves as being far more intelligent and talented and knowledgeable than they really are, and many in society fall for their nonsense. They deal with reality based on "impressions". Intelligent people, having the intelligence to see their own flaws and shortcomings, are too humble to care much about correcting the flaws and shortcomings in others, seeing much work in life based on the knowledge within themselves, as opposed to the false impressions we can create for others. This tends to create social dynamics where idiots rule in the public places, and those with the wealth and power, easily capitalize on this situation to move their own agendas forward. Some people claim humans are in need of a new Renaissance, and have many high brow schemes as to how this can be accomplished (like the LaRouche crowd), but they fail to understand that most don't care for their Nazi-like creations of a new futuristic ant-hill society. Others think there will be some new revolution where the poor unwashed masses will "overcome" and put the elites back where they belong, never realizing that their own prosperity in life and ability to sustain themselves is completely depenedent upon those elite that they complain about, nevermind the fact that they have nothing worthwhile to replace the designs of the elite other than their fanciful dreams of everyone being nice to each other and providing for each other, so long as they don't have to bother with the work of it. Mostly, people are just content to go thru the motions of whatever is required to get them thru the next day. I honesty believe there will be no peace or contentment on Earth until people re-learn the importance of self-sufficiency and INDEPENDENCE (freedom). So long as people breed themselves into urbanized dependence, there will be controllers, and controllees. Those with wealth, and those that beg. Those with sovereignty, and those that obey. Those that have, and those that have not. Independent landownership is as fair as things will ever get for humanity, but it can't be accomplished when the population is so great that only industrial systems can provide for them, while destroying all the resources someone needs to sustain themselves in a clean environment. Life will be endless bullshit for a long time to come - because not enough can realize that only an independent people (landowners) can live without control and manipulation, and within the abundance of nature, and with respect for all other life, engaging only voluntarily in society beyond their family/land, thus keeping great evils in check, and at the lowest levels, naturally. As long as we create more babies than we can personally provide for INDEPENDENTLY, there is no hope for people in this world. It is the root of all the garbage in every civilization everywhere: making babies to "dump into the system", neglecting personal responsibility for their lives. It forces those "elite" to make use of those "human resources" as best as they can (which results in their accumulation of greater powers), whether anyone likes it or not. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. So, I am not a finger pointer in all the conspiracies that make the world go round, because I think everyone should have their fingers pointing at their own inadequacies.

This hoax is SO EASY TO SEE if you have half a brain and a little common sense. There are no such thing as "air brakes" like you might see in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Things in motion stay in motion. Things tend to stop on Earth, because of friction, but when you are opertating in space and planetary bodies with no atmosphere, there is no friction. If you use energy to get something moving 13,000 miles per hour in space, you are going to need the same amount of energy to go from 13,000mph back to 0. So, whatever energy it required to get Curiosity moving, that energy is going to be needed to bring it to a stop. But Curiosity doesn't have that amount of energy on board. It would need somewhere near the same amount (less the amount of fuel and fuel assemblies required to move that burning fuel out of Earth's gravity) as was put into the rocket that got it to Mars! Curiosity has only 1000lbs of fuel - only 100 gallons! IT'S A FUCKING JOKE. It took WAY MORE than 100 gallons of fuel to get Curiosity 155,000,000 miles to Mars at 13,000mph!

This thread should end with that.

I am sure the video games kids play with today are more complex than anything needed for NASA to play with a stupid rover on "Mars" as they spend years doing a few stupid "experiments" ...

If you throw a rock up into the air, it is going to come down with the same amount of force that you put into the rock to get it up into the air. If you want the rock to hit the ground with 0 force, you are going to need some retro-rockets on the rock with enough fuel to provide the force that you put into throwing the rock.

If you use a rocket and an amount fuel to shoot the rock up into the air, you are going to need the same rocket and amount of fuel to make it land gently (a little less, because you don't need to worry about the weight of fuel you already spent going up).

Anyway ... to the person I was debating - it is clear you don't know much about physics, but you like to pretend that you do, and it is senseless to "argue" with someone that wants to pretend they have knowledge of physics when they don't. So, I will just summarize the essentials for anyone that cares to acquire some understanding of the basic physics that prove this is just another fraud from US, Inc.

--

The only things that differ in this mission between the energy required to get from Earth to 13,000mph in space, and from 13,000mph in space to the surface of Mars, is:

a) we don't need to worry about the mass of fuel and fuel assemblies required to get such fuel and fuel assemblies off Earth, eg, some fuel is required solely to lift fuel that will be burned.

b) although Earth has about 2x the gravity of Mars (and thus, 2x the escape velocity), Mars requires additional energy to land because of the increase in angular velocity as Curiosity decends from orbit, decreasing it's radius).
Yes, it is just like a tether-ball wrapping around a pole. If you disagree, go study physics, and stop trying to pretend you have.

--

The physics can get very complex if we get into too many details, but details are not where the fraud is found. I don't have time to dedicate myself to this topic, but for me, I use these simple, and fairly indisputable facts:

1. It takes about the same amount of energy to get from Earth to space, as it does to get from space to Mars. See above. Curiosity's 100 gallons of fuel IS NOT ENOUGH. Additionally, the "crane" using the fuel is only for near-ground-level operation. Compare to the Titan rocket used to get things going.

2) It would take a parachute 4000-8000x the size men use on Earth for Curiosity to decend to Mars' surface at 21ft/sec, in a free-fall starting from rest, never mind the fact that it is beginning at 13,000+ mph. Curiosity's parachute was not any bigger than what men use on Earth. IT'S A JOKE - THE PARACHUTE'S EFFECT WAS NEGLIGIBLE IN THE VACCUUM OF MARS ATMOSPHERE.

3) Mars' atmosphere is a vaccuum for all practical purposes, anywhere from 60x (at the surface) to 200x (upper atmosphere) less dense than Earth. There is NO WAY Curiosity "slowed down" from 13,000mph to 900mph in the upper atmosphere of Mars due to air friction. Due to the gravitational acceleration of Mars and the "tether-ball effect" increasing angular velocity, if anything, it's speed would INCREASE upon decending in the upper atmosphere. There is simply not enough atmosphere for friction to play any role in slowing down Curiosity compared to other forces.

CONCLUSION: There is NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING that could have been used to slow down Curiosity decending from an orbit at 13,000mph. All major forces want to speed it up! And there were no significant opposing forces (no atmospheric friction, small parachute in a vaccuum, 100 gallons of fuel for ground level operations).
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2045712
United Kingdom
08/11/2012 02:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Just had a quick flick through this so apologies if already mentioned but everyone here realises that Landover Baptist is a spoof site, yes?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17234620
United Kingdom
08/11/2012 02:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
"CONCLUSION: There is NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING that could have been used to slow down Curiosity decending from an orbit at 13,000mph. All major forces want to speed it up! And there were no significant opposing forces (no atmospheric friction, small parachute in a vaccuum, 100 gallons of fuel for ground level operations)."

Yep. It's fraud alright.

drevil
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/11/2012 02:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I don't have time to get into all the details of the stupid Gemini and other "re-entry" missions you mentioned. They were nonsense examples of high-altitude rockets utilizing retro-rockets or other techniques to come back down on a planet with a thick atmosphere, and had nothing to do with high-speed re-entries from outer space.

The only thing I may grant you along those lines are the missions to Venus, where the Soviets dropped something down that lasted for a few minutes, and that only worked:

a) because it was tiny and very light, and
b) because Venus has a very very dense atmosphere.
Anonimous Cowerd

User ID: 1248699
United States
08/11/2012 02:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
> Maybe not a hoax but why did they put it down in a f*** crater?

Isn't the answer OBVIOUS? To keep the horizon limited. Keeps the fraud within a limited visual environment.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


clappa
Apollo astronauts couldn't have passed through Van Allen's Belt. Van Allen wore suspenders.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21638859
Spain
08/11/2012 02:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
OK, this will be my last post on this. I didn't come here to waste time arguing nonsense. I came here to offer some knowledge for those that have the intelligence to learn something from it. Human nature is not perfect, it has some serious flaws. One of the major flaws has been scientifically studied and documented, and that is: Stupid people are generally too stupid to see how stupid they are, therefore, they typically try to represent themselves as being far more intelligent and talented and knowledgeable than they really are, and many in society fall for their nonsense. They deal with reality based on "impressions". Intelligent people, having the intelligence to see their own flaws and shortcomings, are too humble to care much about correcting the flaws and shortcomings in others, seeing much work in life based on the knowledge within themselves, as opposed to the false impressions we can create for others. This tends to create social dynamics where idiots rule in the public places, and those with the wealth and power, easily capitalize on this situation to move their own agendas forward. Some people claim humans are in need of a new Renaissance, and have many high brow schemes as to how this can be accomplished (like the LaRouche crowd), but they fail to understand that most don't care for their Nazi-like creations of a new futuristic ant-hill society. Others think there will be some new revolution where the poor unwashed masses will "overcome" and put the elites back where they belong, never realizing that their own prosperity in life and ability to sustain themselves is completely depenedent upon those elite that they complain about, nevermind the fact that they have nothing worthwhile to replace the designs of the elite other than their fanciful dreams of everyone being nice to each other and providing for each other, so long as they don't have to bother with the work of it. Mostly, people are just content to go thru the motions of whatever is required to get them thru the next day. I honesty believe there will be no peace or contentment on Earth until people re-learn the importance of self-sufficiency and INDEPENDENCE (freedom). So long as people breed themselves into urbanized dependence, there will be controllers, and controllees. Those with wealth, and those that beg. Those with sovereignty, and those that obey. Those that have, and those that have not. Independent landownership is as fair as things will ever get for humanity, but it can't be accomplished when the population is so great that only industrial systems can provide for them, while destroying all the resources someone needs to sustain themselves in a clean environment. Life will be endless bullshit for a long time to come - because not enough can realize that only an independent people (landowners) can live without control and manipulation, and within the abundance of nature, and with respect for all other life, engaging only voluntarily in society beyond their family/land, thus keeping great evils in check, and at the lowest levels, naturally. As long as we create more babies than we can personally provide for INDEPENDENTLY, there is no hope for people in this world. It is the root of all the garbage in every civilization everywhere: making babies to "dump into the system", neglecting personal responsibility for their lives. It forces those "elite" to make use of those "human resources" as best as they can (which results in their accumulation of greater powers), whether anyone likes it or not. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. So, I am not a finger pointer in all the conspiracies that make the world go round, because I think everyone should have their fingers pointing at their own inadequacies.

This hoax is SO EASY TO SEE if you have half a brain and a little common sense. There are no such thing as "air brakes" like you might see in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Things in motion stay in motion. Things tend to stop on Earth, because of friction, but when you are opertating in space and planetary bodies with no atmosphere, there is no friction. If you use energy to get something moving 13,000 miles per hour in space, you are going to need the same amount of energy to go from 13,000mph back to 0. So, whatever energy it required to get Curiosity moving, that energy is going to be needed to bring it to a stop. But Curiosity doesn't have that amount of energy on board. It would need somewhere near the same amount (less the amount of fuel and fuel assemblies required to move that burning fuel out of Earth's gravity) as was put into the rocket that got it to Mars! Curiosity has only 1000lbs of fuel - only 100 gallons! IT'S A FUCKING JOKE. It took WAY MORE than 100 gallons of fuel to get Curiosity 155,000,000 miles to Mars at 13,000mph!

This thread should end with that.

I am sure the video games kids play with today are more complex than anything needed for NASA to play with a stupid rover on "Mars" as they spend years doing a few stupid "experiments" ...

If you throw a rock up into the air, it is going to come down with the same amount of force that you put into the rock to get it up into the air. If you want the rock to hit the ground with 0 force, you are going to need some retro-rockets on the rock with enough fuel to provide the force that you put into throwing the rock.

If you use a rocket and an amount fuel to shoot the rock up into the air, you are going to need the same rocket and amount of fuel to make it land gently (a little less, because you don't need to worry about the weight of fuel you already spent going up).

Anyway ... to the person I was debating - it is clear you don't know much about physics, but you like to pretend that you do, and it is senseless to "argue" with someone that wants to pretend they have knowledge of physics when they don't. So, I will just summarize the essentials for anyone that cares to acquire some understanding of the basic physics that prove this is just another fraud from US, Inc.

--

The only things that differ in this mission between the energy required to get from Earth to 13,000mph in space, and from 13,000mph in space to the surface of Mars, is:

a) we don't need to worry about the mass of fuel and fuel assemblies required to get such fuel and fuel assemblies off Earth, eg, some fuel is required solely to lift fuel that will be burned.

b) although Earth has about 2x the gravity of Mars (and thus, 2x the escape velocity), Mars requires additional energy to land because of the increase in angular velocity as Curiosity decends from orbit, decreasing it's radius).
Yes, it is just like a tether-ball wrapping around a pole. If you disagree, go study physics, and stop trying to pretend you have.

--

The physics can get very complex if we get into too many details, but details are not where the fraud is found. I don't have time to dedicate myself to this topic, but for me, I use these simple, and fairly indisputable facts:

1. It takes about the same amount of energy to get from Earth to space, as it does to get from space to Mars. See above. Curiosity's 100 gallons of fuel IS NOT ENOUGH. Additionally, the "crane" using the fuel is only for near-ground-level operation. Compare to the Titan rocket used to get things going.

2) It would take a parachute 4000-8000x the size men use on Earth for Curiosity to decend to Mars' surface at 21ft/sec, in a free-fall starting from rest, never mind the fact that it is beginning at 13,000+ mph. Curiosity's parachute was not any bigger than what men use on Earth. IT'S A JOKE - THE PARACHUTE'S EFFECT WAS NEGLIGIBLE IN THE VACCUUM OF MARS ATMOSPHERE.

3) Mars' atmosphere is a vaccuum for all practical purposes, anywhere from 60x (at the surface) to 200x (upper atmosphere) less dense than Earth. There is NO WAY Curiosity "slowed down" from 13,000mph to 900mph in the upper atmosphere of Mars due to air friction. Due to the gravitational acceleration of Mars and the "tether-ball effect" increasing angular velocity, if anything, it's speed would INCREASE upon decending in the upper atmosphere. There is simply not enough atmosphere for friction to play any role in slowing down Curiosity compared to other forces.

CONCLUSION: There is NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING that could have been used to slow down Curiosity decending from an orbit at 13,000mph. All major forces want to speed it up! And there were no significant opposing forces (no atmospheric friction, small parachute in a vaccuum, 100 gallons of fuel for ground level operations).
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


So NASA has not landed a rover there?
Anonimous Cowerd

User ID: 1248699
United States
08/11/2012 02:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
bump
Apollo astronauts couldn't have passed through Van Allen's Belt. Van Allen wore suspenders.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/11/2012 03:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
This hoax is SO EASY TO SEE if you have half a brain and a little common sense. There are no such thing as "air brakes" like you might see in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Things in motion stay in motion. Things tend to stop on Earth, because of friction, but when you are opertating in space and planetary bodies with no atmosphere, there is no friction. If you use energy to get something moving 13,000 miles per hour in space, you are going to need the same amount of energy to go from 13,000mph back to 0. So, whatever energy it required to get Curiosity moving, that energy is going to be needed to bring it to a stop. But Curiosity doesn't have that amount of energy on board. It would need somewhere near the same amount (less the amount of fuel and fuel assemblies required to move that burning fuel out of Earth's gravity) as was put into the rocket that got it to Mars! Curiosity has only 1000lbs of fuel - only 100 gallons! IT'S A FUCKING JOKE. It took WAY MORE than 100 gallons of fuel to get Curiosity 155,000,000 miles to Mars at 13,000mph!
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


It was work following the seminal paper by Dunning and Kruger that began to explore how this lacuna between perception and ability grows. From my experience, the short form is; "It is probably more complicated than you think it is."

You are going on and on above about how most people (outside of yourself, of course), have failed to think about the energy requirements of a space mission.

You are so CERTAIN that you are on top, and everyone else is on the bottom, it doesn't occur to you to ask if there are people who thought about the energy requirements...then went further.

I have never, in a single post in this thread, hand-waved away the necessity for change of velocity in several places of the mission. Nor the scale of those changes. But I have done something you are not just unwilling, or unable, but apparently unconscious of even the possibility of doing; I have looked at the actual mechanisms and done orders of magnitude calculations on them.

You continue to go on and on about "not enough fuel" when the propellant mass is documented. I even told you what I believe is a good approximation of the ISP. This is a trivial calculation. It is done every day in classrooms and in actual space projects -- and is done as well by amateurs launching model rockets. The numbers work. They've been tested.

The fact that you don't know how to model a system has nothing to do with the fact that other people not only do know how, but are doing it all the time. You think they've failed to see the problem. They know you've failed to see the answer.

Don't believe me. Go on to any science-based board and read the conversations about planned and imagined space missions. And you will find people discussing, at length, the necessary delta-v, the mechanisms of generating that change in velocity, and doing it with numbers.



Incidentally, the Shuttle Orbiter did exactly as the Apollo craft did, and the Soyuz do today. Perhaps you should move entirely away from all these space missions you find suspect and merely look at the Soyuz capsule being used today to ferry people and supplies to and from the ISS.

From what I've seen of your "work" so far, you are going to have to assume the Soyuz is a hoax as well, and therefor the ISS (which, oddly enough, I caught a nice sighting of two days ago) is a hoax as well.

Because the Soyuz does something you either have never heard of, or flatly rejected as impossible without ever attempting to model if it actually was.


If you throw a rock up into the air, it is going to come down with the same amount of force that you put into the rock to get it up into the air. If you want the rock to hit the ground with 0 force, you are going to need some retro-rockets on the rock with enough fuel to provide the force that you put into throwing the rock.

If you use a rocket and an amount fuel to shoot the rock up into the air, you are going to need the same rocket and amount of fuel to make it land gently (a little less, because you don't need to worry about the weight of fuel you already spent going up).

Anyway ... to the person I was debating - it is clear you don't know much about physics, but you like to pretend that you do, and it is senseless to "argue" with someone that wants to pretend they have knowledge of physics when they don't. So, I will just summarize the essentials for anyone that cares to acquire some understanding of the basic physics that prove this is just another fraud from US, Inc.

 Quoting: Engineer 694654


It's clear you can't read.

I've been studying how spacecraft do these kinds of tricks for at least fifteen years. And that means accounting for everything -- all the mass, all the velocity, all the change of gravitational potential.


Oh, and you are making another beginner's mistake. In multiple places, but I chose to point it out here. No real rocket will ever require the same energy to land as it took to take off. Not even for a fifteen-foot hop off the surface. Because rocketry requires throwing mass, and when you expend propellant, the mass of the system goes down.

In the case of Curiosity, the difference is even more marked; the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle never went to Mars. What landed was a mere fraction of the mass of what took off. The velocity (ideally) would be the same, but since the mass is less, the energy is less.


(If you are interested, the three major delta-V requirements for a minimum-energy transfer are Earth surface to escape, Earth-distance solar orbit to Mars-distance solar orbit, and Mars "infinity" to Mars landing. All but the last have to be solved with propellant mass.)

The only things that differ in this mission between the energy required to get from Earth to 13,000mph in space, and from 13,000mph in space to the surface of Mars, is:

a) we don't need to worry about the mass of fuel and fuel assemblies required to get such fuel and fuel assemblies off Earth, eg, some fuel is required solely to lift fuel that will be burned.


b) although Earth has about 2x the gravity of Mars (and thus, 2x the escape velocity), Mars requires additional energy to land because of the increase in angular velocity as Curiosity decends from orbit, decreasing it's radius).
Yes, it is just like a tether-ball wrapping around a pole. If you disagree, go study physics, and stop trying to pretend you have.

 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Make up your mind. First you point out the reality; energy in is energy out. Get into a gravity well, get out of the gravity well, the energy is the same.

Now you are trying to make up new fantasy energy just to continue your previous belief.

Nope. You've never studied physics. You've not even studied mechanics. You couldn't get TORQUE right with that sort of sloppy thinking.

Hey, sorry for being blunt, but that's what engineering does. The final grade is assigned by the universe, and the universe doesn't grade on a curve. If you coddle a stupid bit of engineering, those mistakes will come back and cost money or even lives.






--

The physics can get very complex if we get into too many details, but details are not where the fraud is found. I don't have time to dedicate myself to this topic, but for me, I use these simple, and fairly indisputable facts:

1. It takes about the same amount of energy to get from Earth to space, as it does to get from space to Mars. See above. Curiosity's 100 gallons of fuel IS NOT ENOUGH. Additionally, the "crane" using the fuel is only for near-ground-level operation. Compare to the Titan rocket used to get things going.

2) It would take a parachute 4000-8000x the size men use on Earth for Curiosity to decend to Mars' surface at 21ft/sec, in a free-fall starting from rest, never mind the fact that it is beginning at 13,000+ mph. Curiosity's parachute was not any bigger than what men use on Earth. IT'S A JOKE - THE PARACHUTE'S EFFECT WAS NEGLIGIBLE IN THE VACCUUM OF MARS ATMOSPHERE.

3) Mars' atmosphere is a vaccuum for all practical purposes, anywhere from 60x (at the surface) to 200x (upper atmosphere) less dense than Earth. There is NO WAY Curiosity "slowed down" from 13,000mph to 900mph in the upper atmosphere of Mars due to air friction. Due to the gravitational acceleration of Mars and the "tether-ball effect" increasing angular velocity, if anything, it's speed would INCREASE upon decending in the upper atmosphere. There is simply not enough atmosphere for friction to play any role in slowing down Curiosity compared to other forces.

CONCLUSION: There is NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING that could have been used to slow down Curiosity decending from an orbit at 13,000mph. All major forces want to speed it up! And there were no significant opposing forces (no atmospheric friction, small parachute in a vaccuum, 100 gallons of fuel for ground level operations).
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


I showed the work. At the velocity domain in which the parachute operates, it is entirely capable of developing the required drag. Atmospheric pressure is linear, as is area (roughly!) but drag is per SQUARE of the velocity. And the Curiosity profile has a final parachute descent velocity over ten times what I experienced as a paratrooper.

I also showed you how to calculate the final phase.

The first phase is more difficult to model. We know it isn't impossible, however, because the same effect takes satellites down all the time. It can't be waved away as being too small to use.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17876186
United States
08/11/2012 03:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
this mars shit is the biggest load of complete bullshit that nasa and the government has come up with, since the shooting anyway, i know that american people in general are good, but this distraction: no, do not fall for there lies, this is big time bullshit.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21380624


This from a man that lives on an island and screws sheep.
cupofjoe
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 19507663
Netherlands
08/11/2012 05:32 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I think 'Engineer' deserves an Honorary IDW Award for the Most Verbose Display of Self-Delusion.
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
swampy

User ID: 21751020
Australia
08/11/2012 07:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
The media highlighting of slamming the sky crane, back shell, heat and shield in to the the a planet's surface, scaring it dark, seems to accepted but isn't there a responsibility for that as humans? As much as there it is documented, there's no plan to clean it up also. What's stopping the next mission from being a sophicitifacted future ground cluster grenade designed in disguise by the military?

As consumers, we should be getting faster rovers and high res video
Optimist
User ID: 694654
United States
08/11/2012 08:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Just because a baby spider can fly thru the air on a string of cobweb, that doesn't mean 7500lb Curiosity can land on Mars with 10 million strings of cobweb.

Some things just don't scale well.
Insane Membrane
User ID: 694654
United States
08/11/2012 08:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
One small step for man, one giant leap of imagination!
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 21743540
United States
08/11/2012 08:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I think 'Engineer' deserves an Honorary IDW Award for the Most Verbose Display of Self-Delusion.
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


Aw, he's not up to that level yet. He hasn't used any profanity and he hasn't used the J-word yet. He showed he could multiply and divide, and he even spelled most of his words correctly.

I'd be happy to see him at the BAUT (or whatever they call it now.) Not that he'd last long.
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 21743540
United States
08/11/2012 08:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
The media highlighting of slamming the sky crane, back shell, heat and shield in to the the a planet's surface, scaring it dark, seems to accepted but isn't there a responsibility for that as humans? As much as there it is documented, there's no plan to clean it up also. What's stopping the next mission from being a sophicitifacted future ground cluster grenade designed in disguise by the military?

As consumers, we should be getting faster rovers and high res video
 Quoting: swampy


"What the consumer wants" and "environmentally friendly" seem antithetical to me.
Parrot with speed dial

User ID: 18934186
Canada
08/11/2012 09:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
[link to heiwaco.tripod.com]

So...this all automated?
Its a frigging meteor.....there's hardly any atmosphere density taking off velocity.
Then the super drag chute kicks open,
One wonders how,...seeing that the disturbance flow stream off the heat shield would probably keep the chute compressed and then it would just twirl.
The critical window of time it needs to open would pass.
and how does this heat shield kick out...seeing that its got force against it.
I know they will say explosive whatever,....seems that the possibility of the heat shield kicking off would tumble this pod....
heck...there's how many separation sequences here where its all to damn easy via a dia/ or CGI spin cycle to convey ease/success.

If at any point of the meteors magical braking dance,...it tumbles,wobbles,is shifted in axis....all other separation sequences are then in jeopardy.
Does this thing have some mini super cray making millisec gyro adjust with thrusters?

Just how much fantasy are we expected to buy here?
How does NASA/JPL know the rocket thrusters fire in co-ordinated bursts or sequence?
that first bark of those engines could tumble the pod.

I'm just not seeing time in the descent phase which lends to control....420 sec's....every separation must be near flawless and create no wobble or tumble.
again....where's the atmosphere density to enable this velocity reduction?
its like the Pentalawn and the fact that the engine nacels have to hit the lawn in order for the offical story to disappear thru the first 20ft hole in the wall.
what...no engine nacel dig marks on the Pentalawn?
conclusion....no f'ng airliner hit the building.
The above dia ..the critical separation moments and time,
= non believable story.
neither heat shield nor chute can slow this thing for the feeble engines to give control for the cable nonsense landing.
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 10998365
United States
08/11/2012 09:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Just because a baby spider can fly thru the air on a string of cobweb, that doesn't mean 7500lb Curiosity can land on Mars with 10 million strings of cobweb.

Some things just don't scale well.
 Quoting: Optimist 694654


True enough. Not everything scales linearly. Take drag, for instance; the mechanical drag of an automobile on the road may scale linearly with speed, but (within a first approximation), the drag of air scales at the square of the velocity.

Square-cube gets you every time. Take a look for the great little lecture by J.B. Haldeman on "Being the Right Size." He lays out the basics of why giant insects are impossible, an elephant has tree-trunk legs and wrinkled skin, and why you can't kill an ant by dropping it.

Thing is, slowing something of the rough mass and velocity of the rover is done all the time. What the last Mars landing did is within a magnitude of what paratroops and drag racers do.

We're not talking the kind of scale change that change the game -- like being the spider you mentioned, who experiences air as a fluid, van der waals as a major force, gravity as a third-order force and surface tension as a deadly enemy.

And I shouldn't have to keep reminding of the actual role of the parachute. It slowed the spacecraft by a few hundred meters per second, and the final velocity when the parachute was separated was in excess of 200 MPH.

This isn't some spacecraft floating gently to the ground under a spread canopy. This is a hurtling spacecraft being slowed at 15G over a brief minute or two before the retro-rockets take over.
T Ceti H.C. Radnarg

User ID: 21734693
United States
08/11/2012 09:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Why didn't they send one of these fancy high def rovers to the moon?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11696035
the Venusian's, sons of god,who patrol the universe..they picky with whom and what gets off this rock..
How unfortunate for some rulers when men,women,and children continue to think... Keep repeating the lies loud enough and long enough and just maybe the people will start to believe the lies again and good luck with that...finding your energy open until mars becomes raging aries...
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 10998365
United States
08/11/2012 09:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
[link to heiwaco.tripod.com]

So...this all automated?
Its a frigging meteor.....there's hardly any atmosphere density taking off velocity.
Then the super drag chute kicks open,
One wonders how,...seeing that the disturbance flow stream off the heat shield would probably keep the chute compressed and then it would just twirl.
The critical window of time it needs to open would pass.
and how does this heat shield kick out...seeing that its got force against it.
I know they will say explosive whatever,....seems that the possibility of the heat shield kicking off would tumble this pod....
heck...there's how many separation sequences here where its all to damn easy via a dia/ or CGI spin cycle to convey ease/success.

If at any point of the meteors magical braking dance,...it tumbles,wobbles,is shifted in axis....all other separation sequences are then in jeopardy.
Does this thing have some mini super cray making millisec gyro adjust with thrusters?

Just how much fantasy are we expected to buy here?
How does NASA/JPL know the rocket thrusters fire in co-ordinated bursts or sequence?
that first bark of those engines could tumble the pod.

I'm just not seeing time in the descent phase which lends to control....420 sec's....every separation must be near flawless and create no wobble or tumble.
again....where's the atmosphere density to enable this velocity reduction?
its like the Pentalawn and the fact that the engine nacels have to hit the lawn in order for the offical story to disappear thru the first 20ft hole in the wall.
what...no engine nacel dig marks on the Pentalawn?
conclusion....no f'ng airliner hit the building.
The above dia ..the critical separation moments and time,
= non believable story.
neither heat shield nor chute can slow this thing for the feeble engines to give control for the cable nonsense landing.
 Quoting: Parrot with speed dial


We've been doing fly-by-wire for over a decade. The most modern fighter aircraft are dynamically unstable; they would literally tear themselves apart in the air if they weren't under real-time computer control.

But, oddly, you don't need that much speed. There is a hobby project called the Arducopter that runs from four to eight direct-drive rotors. ALL of the flight control is done by varying the speed of the rotors. The craft is autonomous, can fly multiple waypoints, stabilize itself in wind...I've seen one, in fact (flying indoors!) get whacked by the builder and it stabilized within under a second.

And that's on a CPU running at 16MHz! (and with a whopping 32K of program memory, too!)

Yes -- the Mars lander has a full RCS system (just as many other spacecraft have), and a few new wrinkles as well. It is just as capable of stabilizing itself following separation as an F18 is capable of flying straight after pulling free from a mid-air refueling.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 12:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
[link to www.pcprg.com]

This is by a professor at the school I got my Aeronatics degree. I would give my previous assessment on the topic a "B", because it is good enough to think about things off the top of my head. To raise it up to an "A" for accuracy, I would want to play with some parachute decent equations, and see what kind of numbers I come up with for various parachute drag coefficients, and air densities. I read a PDF at NASA, and see they have been studying parachute tests done a long time ago, and that much showed me that the materials used in a parachute have neglible effect on drag. If the holes in the knit are close enough to be "fabric", they don't change drag coefficients.

I don't know this professor, but maybe the school got a grant from NASA to study these things :) hehe. They didn't have a parachute research group when I studied there :)

Calculating the descent rate of a round paracutes

By Dr. Jean Potvin

Parks College Parachute Research Group

How to calculate the descent speed of a round parachute: For most of its trajectory, the descent speed (velocity or V) of a round parachute has a near-constant value which can be computed from:

V = sqrt(2W/(rho C S)

This formula is a consequence of the fact that during its descent, the parachute's own drag is balanced by the combined weight of the parachute and its load. The parameters appearing in the formula are as follows:

[edit]
CD = parachute drag coefficient
0.75 for a parachute without holes or slits
0.50 without holes or slits [my guess for now]

rho = air density near sea level
0.00237 sl/ft^3 (English units)
1.225 Kg/m^3 (Metric)

near 4000 ft or 1219 m above sea level
0.00211 sl/ft^3 (English units)
1.07 Kg/m^3 (Metric)

Weight of the parachute + load
pounds (English)
Newtons (Metric)

V = vertical descent velocity
ft/sec (English)
m/sec (Metric)

S = the total surface area of the fabric
used to build the parachute, plus the areas
of the holes and vents cut in the fabric if present.
square feet (English)
suare meters (Metric)

This definition is such that when vents are cut
in the fabric, the value of S remains the same
but the value of CD becomes smaller.

Nominal diameter versus constructed diameter:

Note that the parachute will be characterized by what
parachute engineers call nominal diameter (or D),
a number computed from this formula:

D = 2 * sqrt(S/pi)

Engineers also use the notion of constructed diameter, a number that is calculated from the measurement of the canopy's actual radius when holding it up by the apex. Here the radius is the distance between the apex and the canopy skirt (or "hem", where the suspension lines are attached). The constructed diameter is then twice the value of that radius. The values of the nominal diameter and the constructed diameter will be the same only when the parachute is built out of a flat circle of fabric.

Alternate designs

Most parachutes used in aerospace today are not based on flat circles but rather on shallow cones, bulged hemispheres or other non-flat surfaces. It turns out that these designs optimize the value of the drag coefficient CD for pretty much the same amount of fabric as that of flat canopies. But these parachutes are much more complicated to build and moreover the constructed diameter and the nominal diameter are not equal.
Parachute stability and venting

Usually parachutes will swing wildly because of the air spilling from alternating sides of the canopy. This swinging can be reduced by cutting a hole at the parachute's apex, or altogether eliminated by cutting a large number of holes all over the canopy. But remember that adding vents will increase the descent speed. In the case of apex venting, the area of the apex hole should be about 1 to 10 percent of the parachute's flat surface area, depending of the desired trade-off between a slower descent speed and improved stability. Remember, the larger the hole, the faster the descent speed, since the value of the drag coefficient CD will decrease in the process.

[clip]

I don't have time to play with this for now, but wouldn't it be interesting to see what kind of numbers come out of it :)

That would really show us if NASA had any possibility of anything other than a crash landing into oblivion in the use of a 50ft parachute to stop a 7500lb shooting star traveling 13,000mph into Mars non-existant atmoshere with a near-zero density :)

MAYBE I AM WRONG! WE WILL SEE SOON!

If I am wrong, I will be excited to think of
the possibilities of my new knowledge, and you
will be "ho-hum". And if I was correct in my
initial assessment, I will be excited again
because I basically proved 100% what a fraud
NASA is, and you will be too afraid to
acknowledge it. So, we will see soon
when I have time to play around :)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21771186
Australia
08/12/2012 12:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
OK, this will be my last post on this. I didn't come here to waste time arguing nonsense. I came here to offer some knowledge for those that have the intelligence to learn something from it. Human nature is not perfect, it has some serious flaws. One of the major flaws has been scientifically studied and documented, and that is: Stupid people are generally too stupid to see how stupid they are, therefore, they typically try to represent themselves as being far more intelligent and talented and knowledgeable than they really are, and many in society fall for their nonsense. They deal with reality based on "impressions". Intelligent people, having the intelligence to see their own flaws and shortcomings, are too humble to care much about correcting the flaws and shortcomings in others, seeing much work in life based on the knowledge within themselves, as opposed to the false impressions we can create for others. This tends to create social dynamics where idiots rule in the public places, and those with the wealth and power, easily capitalize on this situation to move their own agendas forward. Some people claim humans are in need of a new Renaissance, and have many high brow schemes as to how this can be accomplished (like the LaRouche crowd), but they fail to understand that most don't care for their Nazi-like creations of a new futuristic ant-hill society. Others think there will be some new revolution where the poor unwashed masses will "overcome" and put the elites back where they belong, never realizing that their own prosperity in life and ability to sustain themselves is completely depenedent upon those elite that they complain about, nevermind the fact that they have nothing worthwhile to replace the designs of the elite other than their fanciful dreams of everyone being nice to each other and providing for each other, so long as they don't have to bother with the work of it. Mostly, people are just content to go thru the motions of whatever is required to get them thru the next day. I honesty believe there will be no peace or contentment on Earth until people re-learn the importance of self-sufficiency and INDEPENDENCE (freedom). So long as people breed themselves into urbanized dependence, there will be controllers, and controllees. Those with wealth, and those that beg. Those with sovereignty, and those that obey. Those that have, and those that have not. Independent landownership is as fair as things will ever get for humanity, but it can't be accomplished when the population is so great that only industrial systems can provide for them, while destroying all the resources someone needs to sustain themselves in a clean environment. Life will be endless bullshit for a long time to come - because not enough can realize that only an independent people (landowners) can live without control and manipulation, and within the abundance of nature, and with respect for all other life, engaging only voluntarily in society beyond their family/land, thus keeping great evils in check, and at the lowest levels, naturally. As long as we create more babies than we can personally provide for INDEPENDENTLY, there is no hope for people in this world. It is the root of all the garbage in every civilization everywhere: making babies to "dump into the system", neglecting personal responsibility for their lives. It forces those "elite" to make use of those "human resources" as best as they can (which results in their accumulation of greater powers), whether anyone likes it or not. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. So, I am not a finger pointer in all the conspiracies that make the world go round, because I think everyone should have their fingers pointing at their own inadequacies.

This hoax is SO EASY TO SEE if you have half a brain and a little common sense. There are no such thing as "air brakes" like you might see in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Things in motion stay in motion. Things tend to stop on Earth, because of friction, but when you are opertating in space and planetary bodies with no atmosphere, there is no friction. If you use energy to get something moving 13,000 miles per hour in space, you are going to need the same amount of energy to go from 13,000mph back to 0. So, whatever energy it required to get Curiosity moving, that energy is going to be needed to bring it to a stop. But Curiosity doesn't have that amount of energy on board. It would need somewhere near the same amount (less the amount of fuel and fuel assemblies required to move that burning fuel out of Earth's gravity) as was put into the rocket that got it to Mars! Curiosity has only 1000lbs of fuel - only 100 gallons! IT'S A FUCKING JOKE. It took WAY MORE than 100 gallons of fuel to get Curiosity 155,000,000 miles to Mars at 13,000mph!

This thread should end with that.

I am sure the video games kids play with today are more complex than anything needed for NASA to play with a stupid rover on "Mars" as they spend years doing a few stupid "experiments" ...

If you throw a rock up into the air, it is going to come down with the same amount of force that you put into the rock to get it up into the air. If you want the rock to hit the ground with 0 force, you are going to need some retro-rockets on the rock with enough fuel to provide the force that you put into throwing the rock.

If you use a rocket and an amount fuel to shoot the rock up into the air, you are going to need the same rocket and amount of fuel to make it land gently (a little less, because you don't need to worry about the weight of fuel you already spent going up).

Anyway ... to the person I was debating - it is clear you don't know much about physics, but you like to pretend that you do, and it is senseless to "argue" with someone that wants to pretend they have knowledge of physics when they don't. So, I will just summarize the essentials for anyone that cares to acquire some understanding of the basic physics that prove this is just another fraud from US, Inc.

--

The only things that differ in this mission between the energy required to get from Earth to 13,000mph in space, and from 13,000mph in space to the surface of Mars, is:

a) we don't need to worry about the mass of fuel and fuel assemblies required to get such fuel and fuel assemblies off Earth, eg, some fuel is required solely to lift fuel that will be burned.

b) although Earth has about 2x the gravity of Mars (and thus, 2x the escape velocity), Mars requires additional energy to land because of the increase in angular velocity as Curiosity decends from orbit, decreasing it's radius).
Yes, it is just like a tether-ball wrapping around a pole. If you disagree, go study physics, and stop trying to pretend you have.

--

The physics can get very complex if we get into too many details, but details are not where the fraud is found. I don't have time to dedicate myself to this topic, but for me, I use these simple, and fairly indisputable facts:

1. It takes about the same amount of energy to get from Earth to space, as it does to get from space to Mars. See above. Curiosity's 100 gallons of fuel IS NOT ENOUGH. Additionally, the "crane" using the fuel is only for near-ground-level operation. Compare to the Titan rocket used to get things going.

2) It would take a parachute 4000-8000x the size men use on Earth for Curiosity to decend to Mars' surface at 21ft/sec, in a free-fall starting from rest, never mind the fact that it is beginning at 13,000+ mph. Curiosity's parachute was not any bigger than what men use on Earth. IT'S A JOKE - THE PARACHUTE'S EFFECT WAS NEGLIGIBLE IN THE VACCUUM OF MARS ATMOSPHERE.

3) Mars' atmosphere is a vaccuum for all practical purposes, anywhere from 60x (at the surface) to 200x (upper atmosphere) less dense than Earth. There is NO WAY Curiosity "slowed down" from 13,000mph to 900mph in the upper atmosphere of Mars due to air friction. Due to the gravitational acceleration of Mars and the "tether-ball effect" increasing angular velocity, if anything, it's speed would INCREASE upon decending in the upper atmosphere. There is simply not enough atmosphere for friction to play any role in slowing down Curiosity compared to other forces.

CONCLUSION: There is NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING that could have been used to slow down Curiosity decending from an orbit at 13,000mph. All major forces want to speed it up! And there were no significant opposing forces (no atmospheric friction, small parachute in a vaccuum, 100 gallons of fuel for ground level operations).
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Engineer 694654 you have cleary won hands down!!! those other stooges just talk about nothing, no number just rubbish well done mate..
pin please
User ID: 21771186
Australia
08/12/2012 01:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
this should be pinned engineer has put some very good info that cannot be rebutted. they tried but failed..

pin pin pin...bump
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/12/2012 01:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
[link to www.pcprg.com]

This is by a professor at the school I got my Aeronatics degree. I would give my previous assessment on the topic a "B", because it is good enough to think about things off the top of my head....
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Nicely found.

The above calculation solves for final velocity of the system, not thrust -- you can't use it to tell you anything about anything other than an equilibrium state. But since that state is sub-sonic, you can most definitely calculate it.

Just make sure to use the actual Martian atmospheric pressure, and the actual constructed diameter of the 50 meter LONG, vented, parachute.

The above won't tell you anything, of course, about the behavior of the drogue in the supersonic regime. But then, you still have this absurd idea that it is being deployed at orbital velocities and altitudes, so you'd get the wrong answer anyhow.

To calculate THAT part of the re-entry, you might want something like the linked document:

[link to docs.google.com (secure)]

News