Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,757 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 979,894
Pageviews Today: 1,487,382Threads Today: 420Posts Today: 9,329
01:04 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/12/2012 01:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Engineer 694654 you have cleary won hands down!!! those other stooges just talk about nothing, no number just rubbish well done mate..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21771186


No numbers?

Read my posts. "Engineer" put down some numbers (which at least allows one to numerically define his assumptions). I put down CALCULATIONS -- I showed how I derived my numbers.

"Engineer" hasn't replied to that. Or used the information I showed him to in any calculation of his own. He merely jumps from the assumption to an assumed answer.

He might as well just say "42!" Because without showing how he derived it, it is just a number -- not a finding.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21771186
Australia
08/12/2012 04:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
where are the test on the shute and sky crane info you assume?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21739448
United States
08/12/2012 04:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I think really the shadowy military industrial complex darpa thingy is so advanced they have teleporters that can put you right on mars surface and they just fuck with us about using rockets and parachutes. Instead they just teleport the rover there.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 05:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
OK, I will admit some surprise with this parachute formula. I did read of supersonic parachute tests, it seems that some have been developed that can withstand that shock - though they all got rips/tears in the tests, they remained usable. That was a little mind-boggling to me - I'd like to see one of those parachutes sometime! It's very difficult to imagine a parachute withstanding that kind of stress. And I did study various drag coefficients of various objects and various parachutes, and have some idea of those. Generally, .75 is a good number, .33 for very porous material, and up to .8 or so at the high end for some NASA tests, and 1.5 for a flat solid plate. It doesn't make too much difference just to get a ballpark idea.

The basic equation I used is:

V = sqrt(2*W/(.00237*.75*3.1416*17.5^2))

This would be for a T10 parachute used by
the military to jump out of cargo planes.
W = weight in pounds, V = velocity in ft/s.

0.00237 is air density in slugs/ft^3 at sea level.
.75 is the drag coefficient.
Pi x radius ^ 2 = circular area.

T10 parachute has a nominal diameter of 35ft,
thus, 17.5ft radius.

So, I played around with that just to make sure
the formula is working correctly, because I am
not watching the units by punching numbers into
a calculator.

So, for 200lb man on Earth getting dropped out of
an airplane from a few thousand feet, we would have:

sqrt(2*200/(.00237*.75*3.1416*17.5^2)
= 15.3 ft/s

So, now Mars. How fast will a man on Mars drop from
a plane at a few thousand feet? I will just figure
1% air density first, and say the man is now
100lbs on Mars, though Mars gravity is .38 of Earth
and not 1/2 = .50

sqrt(2*100/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*17.5^2))
= 108.3 ft/s

So, this was very surprising to me. It's not as
proportional to air density as I would have thought.
1% of the air density only increases the velocity 7x?
Gosh, that is a little difficult to imagine!
Chemically, or molecularly, I can't see this.
1% of the molecules and only 7x increase in
free-fall speed?

What if the man was 200lbs even on Mars?

sqrt(2*200/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*17.5^2))
= 153.3 ft/s

Double the weight, but only 50% faster ... Hmmm.

OK, I can favor NASA more than before because of this.
If I am doing this calculation correctly. Neither weight
nor extremely low air density is having much of an effect!

What if the parachute it 25ft wide, instead of 35?

sqrt(2*100/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*12.5^2))
= 151.7

Damn, cut the surface area in half, and
again, only 50% faster ... Hmmm. So, surface
area is directly inversely proportional.
50% less surface area = 50% faster velocity.

OK, now for the Curiosity ...

7500lbs - is that on Earth, or Mars?
Assuming that is Earth weight ...
50ft diameter parachute ...
I will remove the "2" in "2 x Weight"
to account for Mars gravity of 1/2 Earth.

sqrt(7500/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*25^2))
= 464.572209 ft/s.

Hmmm. Let's use more realistic air density
from my previous post:

Mars Atmospheric Pressure = 0.097 pounds/sq in
Earth atmospheric pressure = 14.7 pounds/sq in

sqrt(7500/(.000015*.75*3.1416*25^2))
= 594.088525 ft/s

How many miles per hour is that?

405mph ... Still below terminal velocity on Mars
(about 585 mph or so ...)

Hmmm. OK, I can lean a little more toward NASA now,
but still, Curiosity, even if dropped from a plane
at a few thousand feet, is coming down to the Mars
surface at 100's of miles/hour, 100's of feet/sec.

I *really* want to know how the Curiosity unit
slowed down in the upper atmosphere from 13,000mph
to 900mph ... and I guess I can use the same equation
to make some guess-timates so long as I use an
appropriate drag coefficient, and so long as
I can find date on the density at different
altitudes on Mars.

But that will have to wait for another day!
I am not sure I buy all of this yet!

I can't imagine those other 2 preceeding rovers
crashed into Mars at 500+ mph, and saved themselves
with "air bags" ... But I hope I made things clear
enough for people to follow and play around with
their own numbers.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 19507663
Netherlands
08/12/2012 05:57 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Don't forget that re-entry vehicles are blunt lifting bodies.

Found a video from 2005.


[link to www.youtube.com]
book

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 08/12/2012 06:00 AM
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
08/12/2012 05:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Before I go to bed:

I wanted to see how big of a parachute would be required for Curiosity to land on Mars as hard as a man on Earth using a T10 parachute (approx 16 ft/s) ...

sqrt(7500/(.000015*.75*3.1416*1000^2))
= 14.852213 ft/s

SO ... even though my previous thinking was that decreasing air density would be much more proportional to increasing velocity, it still turns out that Curiosity would need a parachute 2000ft wide (almost half a mile wide) to land at 15 ft/s! Just to keep things in perspective!

(about 10 miles per hour) ...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21786409
United States
08/12/2012 07:55 AM
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.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654

Cirrus SR20 contains an emergency chute. WMU student deployed one when a aircraft hit a goose on departure. It returned with both student and instructor unharmed
Skeptic the First

User ID: 21309323
United States
08/12/2012 08:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I am an Aerospace Engineer, and I am dubious of NASA as well.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654

Excellent. I suspected that there were such. I myself am an engineer, though not in the aerospace field.

Your points about the difficulty of a soft landing on another celestial body without extensive testing are well taken. All the riskier would be:
- Human celebrities aboard, as Apollo 11 claims
- 1969 technology, as Apollo 11 claims
- A safe return to earth on the first try, as Apollo 11 claims.

Scientists require independent reproducibility.

Historians require independent corroboration.

Lawyers require sworn testimony under cross-examination.

NASA has provided none of these.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21786409
United States
08/12/2012 08:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"

took WAY MORE than 100 gallons of fuel to get Curiosity 155,000,000 miles to Mars at 13,000mph!

How do you derive that distance, recheck your data sourcing
NASA is Raciss
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 09:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I'z ain't seein no brutha's & sista's doin da lead scientist jobs at NASA - wuzzup wit dat? I no dey b discriminatin!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21787522
United Kingdom
08/12/2012 09:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
all the spendature trillion dollars fund, and seriously people are doubting nasas ability in sending a automounose devise out there. i think 21st century thinking is seriously dumbing the people down so accepting there gadgets. the truth ain't networking, gadgets.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21789492
United Kingdom
08/12/2012 09:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
all the spendature trillion dollars fund, and seriously people are doubting nasas ability in sending a automounose devise out there. i think 21st century thinking is seriously dumbing the people down so accepting there gadgets. the truth ain't networking, gadgets.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21787522


Quite.

drevil
Dutchguy

User ID: 1259147
Netherlands
08/12/2012 10:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I like your name choice OP, we should hook-up sometime, :P
"If History is thought with oppression, war and genocide, then how else would the future be?"

"How can one learn positive if one only gets preached negative!."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1154720
United States
08/12/2012 10:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA........the whole space program is a hoax....if you believe otherwise you deserve the rest of the crap that is coming. I don't know for the life of me how TPTB can actually think they are fooling the world with their Hollywood moon and mars fake movie sets.....unfrickening believeable!!!!! Give it up already guys!!!!!!
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/12/2012 11:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
OK, I will admit some surprise with this parachute formula. I did read of supersonic parachute tests, it seems that some have been developed that can withstand that shock - though they all got rips/tears in the tests, they remained usable. That was a little mind-boggling to me - I'd like to see one of those parachutes sometime! It's very difficult to imagine a parachute withstanding that kind of stress. And I did study various drag coefficients of various objects and various parachutes, and have some idea of those. Generally, .75 is a good number, .33 for very porous material, and up to .8 or so at the high end for some NASA tests, and 1.5 for a flat solid plate. It doesn't make too much difference just to get a ballpark idea.

The basic equation I used is:

V = sqrt(2*W/(.00237*.75*3.1416*17.5^2))

This would be for a T10 parachute used by
the military to jump out of cargo planes.
W = weight in pounds, V = velocity in ft/s.

0.00237 is air density in slugs/ft^3 at sea level.
.75 is the drag coefficient.
Pi x radius ^ 2 = circular area.

T10 parachute has a nominal diameter of 35ft,
thus, 17.5ft radius.

So, I played around with that just to make sure
the formula is working correctly, because I am
not watching the units by punching numbers into
a calculator.

So, for 200lb man on Earth getting dropped out of
an airplane from a few thousand feet, we would have:

sqrt(2*200/(.00237*.75*3.1416*17.5^2)
= 15.3 ft/s
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Nice!

Always smart to test the method before you apply it to an unknown. I salute you.


So, now Mars. How fast will a man on Mars drop from
a plane at a few thousand feet? I will just figure
1% air density first, and say the man is now
100lbs on Mars, though Mars gravity is .38 of Earth
and not 1/2 = .50

sqrt(2*100/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*17.5^2))
= 108.3 ft/s

So, this was very surprising to me. It's not as
proportional to air density as I would have thought.
1% of the air density only increases the velocity 7x?
Gosh, that is a little difficult to imagine!
Chemically, or molecularly, I can't see this.
1% of the molecules and only 7x increase in
free-fall speed?

What if the man was 200lbs even on Mars?

sqrt(2*200/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*17.5^2))
= 153.3 ft/s

Double the weight, but only 50% faster ... Hmmm.

OK, I can favor NASA more than before because of this.
If I am doing this calculation correctly. Neither weight
nor extremely low air density is having much of an effect!

What if the parachute it 25ft wide, instead of 35?

sqrt(2*100/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*12.5^2))
= 151.7

Damn, cut the surface area in half, and
again, only 50% faster ... Hmmm. So, surface
area is directly inversely proportional.
50% less surface area = 50% faster velocity.

OK, now for the Curiosity ...

7500lbs - is that on Earth, or Mars?
Assuming that is Earth weight ...
50ft diameter parachute ...
I will remove the "2" in "2 x Weight"
to account for Mars gravity of 1/2 Earth.

sqrt(7500/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*25^2))
= 464.572209 ft/s.

Hmmm. Let's use more realistic air density
from my previous post:

Mars Atmospheric Pressure = 0.097 pounds/sq in
Earth atmospheric pressure = 14.7 pounds/sq in

sqrt(7500/(.000015*.75*3.1416*25^2))
= 594.088525 ft/s

How many miles per hour is that?

405mph ... Still below terminal velocity on Mars
(about 585 mph or so ...)
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Heh. You got closer than I did -- within a factor of 2-3, looks like (I was off by a factor of nearly 10 in the other direction -- but then I wasn't using the appropriate calculation).

Since you appear to be using the T10 diameter, and as well the T10 constructed diameter (the Curiosity 'chute is proportionally much deeper than the T10), and you are showing that the change in velocity is roughly the square of the surface area, it looks like you get very close to the actual velocity described by NASA -- 100 m/s.

Neither of us used the correct mass for the spacecraft, of course...it is a bit too complicated with all the parts flying off, and I don't have a handy source with the individual masses for things like the aeroshell.

But I'd say we are in agreement that the back of the envelop says the parachute phase is plausible.


Hmmm. OK, I can lean a little more toward NASA now,
but still, Curiosity, even if dropped from a plane
at a few thousand feet, is coming down to the Mars
surface at 100's of miles/hour, 100's of feet/sec.

I *really* want to know how the Curiosity unit
slowed down in the upper atmosphere from 13,000mph
to 900mph ... and I guess I can use the same equation
to make some guess-timates so long as I use an
appropriate drag coefficient, and so long as
I can find date on the density at different
altitudes on Mars.

But that will have to wait for another day!
I am not sure I buy all of this yet!
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Check the link I provided earlier. It got a bit garbled, but should be close enough to let you pull up a Google Book explaining some of the math used to calculate aerobraking with a heat shield.

You can even use the Shuttle Orbiter as a sanity check. (Assuming you don't want to accept the reality of Soyuz landers).


I can't imagine those other 2 preceeding rovers
crashed into Mars at 500+ mph, and saved themselves
with "air bags" ... But I hope I made things clear
enough for people to follow and play around with
their own numbers.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Yup. That's the fun part!
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/12/2012 11:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I am an Aerospace Engineer, and I am dubious of NASA as well.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654

Excellent. I suspected that there were such. I myself am an engineer, though not in the aerospace field.

Your points about the difficulty of a soft landing on another celestial body without extensive testing are well taken. All the riskier would be:
- Human celebrities aboard, as Apollo 11 claims
- 1969 technology, as Apollo 11 claims
- A safe return to earth on the first try, as Apollo 11 claims.

Scientists require independent reproducibility.

Historians require independent corroboration.

Lawyers require sworn testimony under cross-examination.

NASA has provided none of these.
 Quoting: Skeptic the First


None of those are true.

The Apollo astronauts were celebrities because they were Apollo astronauts. It wasn't as if they sent up Elvis.

1969 -- yes, that is true. The same 1969 that produced the 747 and the Concorde. And had the ICBM. And had already completed Gemini, Mercury, as well as Surveyor, Ranger...

The only part of Apollo 11 that was "first" was physically touching the Moon. Every other step had been performed in previous missions, from LM separation, ascent engine burn, CSM hookup, and CM re-entry.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21795410
United States
08/12/2012 11:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Five pages of redundancy due to the OP being a Landover Baptist Church Virgin !!!
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/12/2012 11:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Oh, I got to throw in for the other tech heads...

That parachute formula looks to me an awful lot like a neighbor to the SIMPLIFIED terminal velocity calculation I ran into a few years ago when trying to figure out how fast a person be moving if they fell from the top of the Tokyo Tower (long story).

Which is to say -- it's the ballpark one. The "better" formula used calculus.



Plus worth mentioning that this is not working with the physics itself; it is a rule-of-thumb approximation for roughly human-sized objects moving at a few tens of meters per second. The formula as given doesn't show where the edge of the envelop is where it returns good results.

My gut feeling is that air in a parachute is strongly influenced by turbulent flow, and that's GOTTA be pressure dependent. So air in a parachute on Mars is not going to show quite the same mathematical relationships. (On the other hand, it is only 1/50th of the surface pressure on Earth, so it still behaves like an atmosphere. Not like the Moon here, or LEO, when air pressure ceases to be a meaningful term and molecular models are more appropriate).



But good to see someone is actually doing the math, and even (eventually!) looking up the right starting numbers.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21795410
United States
08/12/2012 12:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
how fast a person be moving
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


wtf
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/12/2012 12:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
how fast a person be moving
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183



 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21795410


Heh. My mind outraces the computer sometimes...it skips a word and I don't even notice.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2045525
Netherlands
08/12/2012 12:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Americans are weird. They are capable of putting a car on the Moon yet at the same time they have people who claim:

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

[link to www.landoverbaptist.net]
 Quoting: Dutch Girl


I`m always very careful about making blanket statements like 'Americans are weird' based on one Americans opinion. Would the following video depict your average Dutchman?


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21340856


Kid sings horrible, most people in Holland can't sing so
yes it's the average dutch singing qualities.
Parrot with speed dial

User ID: 18934186
Canada
08/12/2012 12:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I can't imagine those other 2 preceeding rovers
crashed into Mars at 500+ mph, and saved themselves
with "air bags" ... But I hope I made things clear
enough for people to follow and play around with
their own numbers.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Here's a coment excerpt from clue's forum
by Dmitry on August 12th, 2012, 3:29 pm

Again: for a non-constant deceleration you just can't take the "average" ((initial + final) / 2) velocity, multiply it by the time and obtain the correct total braking distance.

To calculate it, you need another value of the velocity: average by time. But this is the same thing as to calculate the braking distance (by solving the Cauchy problem for a non-linear equation).

Most of those 254 s (having supposed that Curiosity is real) the velocity might be remarkably lower than the mean arithmetic of initial and final values -- because of a huge drag force at initial stage. To estimate it, you need real numbers about the martian atmosphere density at 100 km and the aerodynamic quality (C_x, C_y) of the spacecraft.

************************************************************

The gatekeepers appearing on this forum and others use the tactic of making you prove the numbers in order to force them to admit the official story [gee where have we heard this before : ) ]...is wrong.

NASA/JPL went with the blistering insertion ...parachute deploy [note this is to make you focus on the closure....which is the barking thrusters ...very much like the CGI alien craft over LA in the Movie - Battle : Los Angeles/hint hint : )]

7 minutes of Terror is some form of Orwell 1984 template/fake war on terror....the Elite show their intention and boast continually via MSM/MK ULTRA.
This is exactly what Curiosity mission is....world wide
MK ULTRA...Imperial conditioning....with Gatekeeper agents serving their masters by controlling talking points.

Simple common sense says the story they [NASA/JPL] are selling is BS,....and the Time* interval they used to shock us with is the smoking gun its complete nonsense...
like aviation fuel/carbon based fire brings buildings down at near freefall speed.
returning to key points:
They can CGI this....The system does False Flag for the socio trauma needed in MK ULTRA conditioning.
Run the lie and make it outrageous...the more the better,
like Bin Ladens fake death.
Mars Atmosphere density,....the insertion speed and Time are the evidence its complete nonsense...
the sell is the visual CGI with the sheeple slowed to focus by the parachute and burster rockets to convey control for the crypto socio sexual climax of the cable landing.
Most people are too dumbed down to consider the insertion speed/Time and lack of Atmosphere density.
They are moved in thought to image after image of control and then success...with NASA/JPL actors cheering like super bowl touchdown.
I used the excerpt from clue's forum to link viewers here to other sites working this NASA/JPL lie.
here...they will find 50 pages of evidence of how NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 02:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Please disregard a calculation I posted using a very low air density number I posted 2 posts ago, where I used the ratio of air pressures to make a calculation for air density (showing a velocity of 500mph or so). It was Saturday night before bed, and I really shouldn't have done that, though it is probably valid a few 1000 feet in altitude.

Anyway, after getting up Sunday morning, I spent some time looking for "air density" or "atmospheric density" numbers for Mars, especially ones at various altitudes, and guess what? I can't find any. There is a somewhat peculiar lack of information on the Internet regarding that data, and I did read some PDF's that showed NASA's modeling to be way off on those numbers, yet they are so critical to everything.

I would imagine the density varies wildly, depending on the amount of dust in the atmosphere - so, I would think they would have been measuring that ... On the one hand, dust is good to slow things down, on the other hand, they probably don't want too much turbulence and dust.

--

From:

[link to www.google.com]

Following the parachute braking, at about 1.8 km (1.1 mi) altitude, still travelling at about 100 m/s (220 mph), the
rover and descent stage dropped out of the aeroshell.

The descent stage is a platform above the rover with eight variable thrust monopropellant hydrazine rocket thrusters on arms extending around this platform to slow the descent. Each rocket thruster, called a Mars Lander Engine, produces 400 N (90 lbf) to 3,100 N (700 lbf) of thrust and were derived from those used on the Viking landers.

--

220 mph? Ummm - if any NASA geeks can help find data on atmospheric/air density at various altitudes on Mars, that would be a great find - along with the altitude and speed when Curiosity detached from orbit.

I only have a little time in the morning and before bed to play around with this stuff, but I am curious just to see if this kind of mission is within the realm of possibility. I still question 13,000mph to 220mph in 7 minutes from this little parachute and air friction.

The only data I can find is mostly "hearsay" using a figure of 1% of Earth's air density. But, even so, even at ground level (Mars datum), and from a position at rest, in free-fall, NASA's figures are ultra-optimistic.

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*26^2))
= 394.518332 ft/s = 270 mph
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 21803507
United States
08/12/2012 03:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Please disregard a calculation I posted using a very low air density number I posted 2 posts ago, where I used the ratio of air pressures to make a calculation for air density (showing a velocity of 500mph or so). It was Saturday night before bed, and I really shouldn't have done that, though it is probably valid a few 1000 feet in altitude.

Anyway, after getting up Sunday morning, I spent some time looking for "air density" or "atmospheric density" numbers for Mars, especially ones at various altitudes, and guess what? I can't find any. There is a somewhat peculiar lack of information on the Internet regarding that data, and I did read some PDF's that showed NASA's modeling to be way off on those numbers, yet they are so critical to everything.

 Quoting: Engineer 694654


I sympathize. I spent a while a year or two ago trying to find detailed atmospheric profiles for Mars. I eventually found enough for what I was trying to solve.

I didn't do a Google Scholar search, however, which might have turned up numbers a little faster.

My memory is that smaller planets end up with a shallower gradient. But that could be wrong -- it's been a while since I read Oberg!

I would imagine the density varies wildly, depending on the amount of dust in the atmosphere - so, I would think they would have been measuring that ... On the one hand, dust is good to slow things down, on the other hand, they probably don't want too much turbulence and dust.

 Quoting: Engineer 694654


My feeling is opposite. Although the Earth does experience local density/pressure fluctuations, I think you can model the Martian atmosphere in much the same way. For various reasons storms will be more spectacular, therefor the range will be larger, but it still behaves like an atmosphere; not like random turbulence.

--
From:

[link to www.google.com]

Following the parachute braking, at about 1.8 km (1.1 mi) altitude, still travelling at about 100 m/s (220 mph), the
rover and descent stage dropped out of the aeroshell.

The descent stage is a platform above the rover with eight variable thrust monopropellant hydrazine rocket thrusters on arms extending around this platform to slow the descent. Each rocket thruster, called a Mars Lander Engine, produces 400 N (90 lbf) to 3,100 N (700 lbf) of thrust and were derived from those used on the Viking landers.

 Quoting: Engineer 694654


I quoted the same in a post several pages ago. I didn't bother to detail the configuration or thrust of the MLE octal, tho. Just the mass and typical ISP of the propellant, and the mass of the system when those thrusters were first used.

--
220 mph? Ummm - if any NASA geeks can help find data on atmospheric/air density at various altitudes on Mars, that would be a great find - along with the altitude and speed when Curiosity detached from orbit.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


My understanding is that the final stage took place VERY close to the surface -- as low as a single kilometer! But I haven't looked it up so don't quote me on it!

I only have a little time in the morning and before bed to play around with this stuff, but I am curious just to see if this kind of mission is within the realm of possibility. I still question 13,000mph to 220mph in 7 minutes from this little parachute and air friction.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


I'm posting from work as well. I'm looking to log about 22 hours over the weekend. I'm a bit tired too!

The only data I can find is mostly "hearsay" using a figure of 1% of Earth's air density. But, even so, even at ground level (Mars datum), and from a position at rest, in free-fall, NASA's figures are ultra-optimistic.

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*26^2))
= 394.518332 ft/s = 270 mph
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Duty calls. I'll get back to this on my next break!
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 03:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Nevermind that last post, I think I found the "model", and I also have the corrections to the model.
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 10998365
United States
08/12/2012 07:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Nevermind that last post, I think I found the "model", and I also have the corrections to the model.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Cool. The kind of detail I've been seeing on aerobraking suggest that there aren't many rule-of-thumb approximations; either computationally intensive simulation, or largely empiric.

Very likely the pioneering work (with ICBMs) was empiric, but given the expense of a Mars lander, those had to have been extensively modeled -- probably more than once, with different models. Fortunately we had Viking and others to verify the model against.



Okay... I'm thinking as I go here, and that isn't a good way to be concise or straight-forward. I only have a short break here anyhow.

But here it is; given that you can enter atmosphere at any arbitrary angle, (and given that Mars is not extensively cratered) what gets discussed is NOT how much velocity you can effectively kill in atmosphere. You can kill practically all of it -- if you don't mind killing your spacecraft in the process. Below a certain size (roughly the size of a house) a meteor will be slowed to about the speed that it might have if dropped from an airplane.

What gets discussed in detail, then, is how thick you need the heat shield, how you design for controlled ablation, how steep a re-entry angle you can afford.

So if you are looking for a quick-and-ready "Here's the limit for delta-V" you aren't likely to find it. You'll find terminal if you are lucky, and practical entry velocities (aka, too steep and you overload the heat shield thermally and the space craft mechanically).
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 08:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
[link to cultureofchemistry.fieldofscience.com]

Last week the US government announced that it believes it has successfully breached the fuel tank on a dead satellite, effectively destroying the toxic fuel stored on board: 1000 pounds of hydrazine. Hydrazine is a simple nitrogen compound, two NH[2] groups joined by a NN single bond. How does such a simple compound power a rocket?

Hydrazine is a solid in the satellite's tanks, and once thawed can be catalytically and rapidly decomposed. Almost any metal will do, though iridium is the usual choice. The reactions produce lots of very hot gases, which you can direct through a thruster:

3 N[2]H[4] -> 4 NH[3] + N[2]
N[2]H[4] -> N[2] + 2 H[2]
NH[3] + N[2]H[4] -> 3 N[2] + 8 H[2]

A little thermochemistry can quickly tell you just how much energy you might produce from 1000 pounds of hydrazine. The overall reaction is:

5 N[2]H[4] -> 5 N[2] + 10 H[2]

which releases 50,000 Joules of energy per mole of hydrazine. A mole of hydrazine e weighs about 32 grams, so you get enough energy to make a cold cup of coffee hot from just over an ounce of hydrazine (do NOT try this at home!). If all the hydrazine in that satellite went up at once, it would release about 8 billion Joules (enough to keep the average US citizen in energy for more than a week).
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 08:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
To the other Engineer, welcome :) I am taking an hour in the morning and evening, as time permits, to attempt to provide some sanity checks on the major area of impossibility, which in my opinion, is the lack of opposing forces that could slow down the Curiosity assembly from orbit to the surface of Mars. Personally, I welcome any insights. I am trying to stick to simple things that may help the public understand the environment and the conditions (as well as myself), so they are not so abstract.

On another note, as I studied NASA's and other educational institution's of higher learning PDF's regarding Mars' atmosphere, it is very clear that it is VERY dynamic, fluctuating greatly all the time in all places, and most of what is known has only been learned in the last 10 years. It is also NOT linear. For example, 100s of km up, the atmosphere actually gets much thicker than at lower altitudes. The more I learn, the more of an engineering nightmare it seems to be, especially considering it was all done in less than 10 years, from concept to landing. If it is all true, it is an amazing feat, if otherwise useless :)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 09:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
[link to cs.astrium.eads.net]

Hydrazine Reaction Control System

The Reaction Control System was derived from the Ariane 5 Attitude and Orbital Control System, also designed, developed and produced at EADS Astrium Lampoldshausen. The System comprised seven CHT 400 N hydrazine thrusters and two 58 litre BT/01 bladder tanks pressurised with nitrogen. The thrusters are positioned so that three provide control in pitch, two in roll and two in yaw. From its maximum height of 830 km, ARD commenced Earth re-entry at an altitude of 120 km and a velocity of around 27,000 km/h. Using the 400 N steering control, ARD achieved a precision landing within the 5 km target range, entering the Pacific Ocean beneath parachutes. Such accuracy is equivalent to scoring a goal from a distance of 25 km. The buoyant ARD was later recovered by a French Naval vessel guided by Sarsat radio beacon.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 09:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
[link to www.grc.nasa.gov]

Note: there was a previous post made on Saturday night that was not my post, but was made by someone at a BBQ I was having for my neighbors. Probably drunk.

Anyway, this is the NASA Mars Atmosphere Model, and it is not very accurate, but probably good enough to play with. You can find PDF's that show how inaccurate it is - 10-15% on average, much more or less depending on various conditions, which are fluctuate greatly as I stated earlier.

p = density (slugs/cuft)
P = pressure (lbs/sqft)
T = temperature (F)
h = altitude (ft)

p = P/(1149*(T+459.7))

For h > 22960, T = -10.34 - .001217 * h
P = 14.62 ^ (-.00003 * h)
Thus, p = (14.62^(-.00003*h))/(1149*((-10.34-.001217*h)+459.7))

For h < 22960, T = -25.68 - .000548 * h
P = 14.62 ^ (-.00003 * h)
Thus, p = (14.62^(-.00003*h))/(1149*((-25.68-.000548*h)+459.7))

News