Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,275 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 593,163
Pageviews Today: 756,530Threads Today: 144Posts Today: 2,645
07:35 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 09:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I am taking a quick break too - but I saw your comment on Terminal Velocity - that is easily caclulated using the same drag equation I used in examples. I am just making a quick post because I wanted to calculate that, and remember thinking I could do it with that equation ...
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/12/2012 10:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
My gripes with NASA:

1. I was, and am, DISGUSTED by the behavior of the Apollo astronauts. These people made a living and acquired their fame and fortunes off the back of hard working people that had their money stolen from them (taxes), and they are servants of the public, not overlords, and they had/have a duty to the public to return their service with honesty and gratitude, not hiding from questions and punching in the face anyone that questions their missions. If they could not live with integrity, they should have quit and left whatever they were involved in - but when everyone is dependent on the system for their life, that becomes increasingly impossible, thus, increasing corruption and evil from those that hold power over the "human resources".

2. I am disillusioned by the destruction of evidence and lack of accountability from the Apollo missions. All that equipment was property of the PUBLIC, and not within NASA's or the govt's discretion to destroy for future generations to study and investigate. If they were honest public servants, they would have be MORE THAN HAPPY to display all of their great engineering for study and review.

3. I do not wish to see the future of humanity become a Borg-like structure and share some of the futuristic fears of Ted Kazcynski. I am a strong believer in the necessity of freedom for the human spirit, whether that freedom is to be part of things, or not be part of anything, freedom to live and die according to one's own personal responsibility or irresponsibility within the abundant provisions of nature, and a fierce opponent of hierarchial power structures and "gangs" that believe they have authority to steal and plunder with irresponsible abandon under the guise of "authority" and technological "progress". Nobody has any natural authority over anyone else, nobody was born with inherent authority to steal or police the lives of anyone else or tell anyone else how to live. Nobody would have a problem with NASA if they did their work off donations from people that want to see them do their work, people only have a problem with their labor(money) being stolen from them, especially for things they don't believe in. Individuals are real, "groups" and "gangs" and "governments" are fictions, they have no natural rights, they are tools, instruments, not sovereigns.

I hope future generations make a drastic change in course with respect for the sovereignty and freedom of the human spirit. If reincarnation exists for the perfection of souls, I sure don't want to return as an automaton in a polluted Earth with 10+ billion, a completely dependent human that exists soley to perform a function for an artificial system in return for life-support. Regardless of any technology that may come of such a world, it is completely unfit for human life and spiritual development, and I wouldn't want any part of it.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 19507663
Netherlands
08/12/2012 11:07 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
My gripes with NASA:

1. I was, and am, DISGUSTED by the behavior of the Apollo astronauts
 Quoting: Engineer 694654

Not wanting to talk about Apollo all the time and not wanting to be stalked by nutcases is perfectly normal behaviour.
These people spend their careers risking their lives for the common good, what the fuck have you done, whine on the internet?

2. I am disillusioned by the destruction of evidence and lack of accountability
 Quoting: Engineer 694654

What destruction of evidence, what lack of accountability?
For an 'engineer' you're bloody gullible believing any old hoaxie contortion of the facts.

3. I do not wish ...
 Quoting: Engineer 694654

Political diatribe.
Proof your claims first, than you can pontificate about what it means.

There's an ongoing Apollo thread, take it 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.
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 10998365
United States
08/12/2012 11:29 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))
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Gah! (Shudder).

At least astrophysics had the sense to go metric.

(But then, they are saddled with the stellar magnitude scale, which makes other physicists weep).
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 10998365
United States
08/12/2012 11:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I am taking a quick break too - but I saw your comment on Terminal Velocity - that is easily caclulated using the same drag equation I used in examples. I am just making a quick post because I wanted to calculate that, and remember thinking I could do it with that equation ...
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


More to the point -- unless I misread in the time I had for a quick glance, it ONLY returns terminal. You can't break out velocity over elapsed time easily. Which means it only works if you assume a fall long enough to achieve terminal velocity. (Or to SLOW to that same velocity -- the point at which gravitational acceleration is matched by the opposing force from the parachute).
nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 10998365
United States
08/12/2012 11:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"

My gripes with NASA:

1. I was, and am, DISGUSTED by the behavior of the Apollo astronauts. These people made a living and acquired their fame and fortunes off the back of hard working people that had their money stolen from them (taxes), and they are servants of the public, not overlords, and they had/have a duty to the public to return their service with honesty and gratitude, not hiding from questions and punching in the face anyone that questions their missions. If they could not live with integrity, they should have quit and left whatever they were involved in - but when everyone is dependent on the system for their life, that becomes increasingly impossible, thus, increasing corruption and evil from those that hold power over the "human resources".

I really don't know where you get this crap from, except maybe some very select reading (aka in hoaxie websites).

Look at the career of Doctor Aldrin -- sure he made some bucks in private industry, but he was also a tireless promoter of the space program. Many of the astronauts have been active public speakers, giving of their time and energy for decades after the Apollo Program had ended. Even one like Neil -- by nature shy and reclusive -- paid his dues in reaching out to the public, in trying to get people interested in the sciences and in space exploration in particular.

Hiding from questions? My ass! Punching out questioners? Not exactly. Punching out an abusive stalker who had lied repeatedly, asked NO questions (but made plenty of insults), and followed an old man into a private building where he proceeded to push him up against a wall and threaten him both verbally and physically in front of his family. And this was only one of several encounters with this stalker over the years.


2. I am disillusioned by the destruction of evidence and lack of accountability from the Apollo missions. All that equipment was property of the PUBLIC, and not within NASA's or the govt's discretion to destroy for future generations to study and investigate. If they were honest public servants, they would have be MORE THAN HAPPY to display all of their great engineering for study and review.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


You are a moron.

The majority of the surviving Apollo Program material is in museums and accessible to the public. What...do you think that something that is a public trust, say Yellowstone, or Monticello, should be left on a street corner for whatever member of the public cares to shit on it or carry it away? Public trust means seeing it is properly cared for, and that the largest possible number of people have access to it.

And it is there. If you think it isn't, you haven't bothered looking.

And, oh yeah -- great scads of the documentation is also easily located and quite free to download (or can be requested from various archives for a nominal copying fee).



3. I do not wish to see the future of humanity become a Borg-like structure and share some of the futuristic fears of Ted Kazcynski. I am a strong believer in the necessity of freedom for the human spirit, whether that freedom is to be part of things, or not be part of anything, freedom to live and die according to one's own personal responsibility or irresponsibility within the abundant provisions of nature, and a fierce opponent of hierarchial power structures and "gangs" that believe they have authority to steal and plunder with irresponsible abandon under the guise of "authority" and technological "progress". Nobody has any natural authority over anyone else, nobody was born with inherent authority to steal or police the lives of anyone else or tell anyone else how to live. Nobody would have a problem with NASA if they did their work off donations from people that want to see them do their work, people only have a problem with their labor(money) being stolen from them, especially for things they don't believe in. Individuals are real, "groups" and "gangs" and "governments" are fictions, they have no natural rights, they are tools, instruments, not sovereigns.

I hope future generations make a drastic change in course with respect for the sovereignty and freedom of the human spirit. If reincarnation exists for the perfection of souls, I sure don't want to return as an automaton in a polluted Earth with 10+ billion, a completely dependent human that exists soley to perform a function for an artificial system in return for life-support. Regardless of any technology that may come of such a world, it is completely unfit for human life and spiritual development, and I wouldn't want any part of it.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


It is one of the basic problems of civilization, that. It is always possible for a significant number of people to want something that is bad for others, bad for the majority, or even bad for themselves.

I mentioned Yellowstone before. It has a use fee and you must make reservations. Since it is after all part of the public trust, shouldn't it simply be open for everyone at all times regardless of what they intend to do?

But then, after some campers have made their sites filthy, blocked the access roads, and chopped down historic trees for their campfires, the park is no longer a place that other people can use. None of us like the idea of some vested authority, but without someone appointed to make sure all can gain SOME access, a small number will take ALL the access and the majority will have nothing.

Yes, a majority of Americans are either uninterested in space exploration. Of those that are, the majority would be satisfied with really cool videos -- they neither understand nor care about planetary science. Should we support this shallow, short-sighted self-interest? Should we give them what they want instead of what they need -- aka a satellite system that provides tornado warnings and global communications, planetary sciences that warn us of possible dangers to all of us (from meteor impacts to climate change), and the unpredicted, unforsee-able benefits that come from basic research?

Neither answer is good. But I'm willing to compromise more in the direction of a cooperative system in which a small number of people are entrusted (on a probationary basis) with decisions the majority may not always be either well-informed or even in agreement with.

If we didn't have NASA, we wouldn't have a lot of that basic research. Industry doesn't pay forward in that way. The spin-off industries would not have spun off. Especially today -- no public company no matter how far-sighted in intent can afford to look further than end-of-quarter profits.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 06:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
At this time, I can't read & comment on previous posts (no time, late on Sunday night), I just want to post some data while it is in my head. I did make an error in transcribing the Mars Atmospheric Density Model, thinking "e" was scientific notation, but I believe it is "e" the mathematical constant, eg, 2.718 ... For my purposes, e(x) is 2.718^x ...

OK, this is giving me big red flags: NASA has sent no less than 3 probes to Mars to measure atmospheric density, they have this data. But where is it? I can't find it, can anyone else find it? This is the most critical set of data anyone can have, and at the low densities on Mars, even small errors have a significant impact on velocities - a little less density, and we are truly dealing with a real vaccuum where Curiosity is not possible, a little more, and NASA can make untrue claims. If we look at:

[link to www.google.com]

we can see that everybody is saying the atmospheric density of Mars is LESS THAN 1% of EARTH. But if we use the model that NASA provides to the public, we get densities far above 1% ... We can also see that many universities and aerospace organizations have been attempting to figure out the densities at various altitudes right up until the "last minute" - which seems a little risky, because they know it is highly variable at all places all of the time, yet very crucial to any kind of successful outcome. And it is not a linear model.

Anyway, let's see what their public mathematical model produces, from the link previously provided:

First, we know:

0.00237 slugs/ft^3 (Earth, @ sea-level)
0.0000237 slugs/ft^3 (Mars, @ datum, if 1% of Earth's)

Now:

@1ft

14.62*e(-.00003*1)/(1149*((-25.68-.000548*1)+459.7))
.000029

OOPS! That is quite a bit MORE THAN 1%,
eg, .0000237! Why is that?

@1000ft

14.62*e(-.00003*1000)/(1149*((-25.68-.000548*1000)+459.7))
.000028

@5000ft

14.62*e(-.00003*5000)/(1149*((-25.68-.000548*5000)+459.7))
.000025

@10,000ft

14.62*e(-.00003*10000)/(1149*((-25.68-.000548*10000)+459.7))

.000021

@ 25,000ft

14.62*e(-.00003*25000)/(1149*((-25.68-.000548*25000)+459.7))

.000014

@25,000ft (need to switch models at this altitude)

14.62*e(-.00003*25000)/(1149*((-10.34-.001217*25000)+459.7))

.000014

@30,000ft

14.62*e(-.00003*30000)/(1149*((-10.34-.001217*30000)+459.7))

.000012

@50,000ft

14.62*e(-.00003*50000)/(1149*((-10.34-.001217*50000)+459.7))

.000007

@50,000ft (using low altitude model)

14.62*e(-.00003*50000)/(1149*((-25.68-.000548*50000)+459.7))

.000006

OOPS! That's much less than the "high-altitude" model,
why are they giving us a "high-altitude" model that
ADDS EXTRA AIR DENSITY? Why is that? The density
should fall off more rapidly, like light from a bulb,
heat from a heating source, a radio transmission
from an antenna, like gravity, or air pressure out of
a gun, wouldn't you think? Any ideas?

@100,000ft

14.62*e(-.00003*100000)/(1149*((-10.34-.001217*100000)+459.7)​)
.000001

GRRR! Need more decimal places! I will make 10.

@100,000ft

14.62*e(-.00003*100000)/(1149*((-10.34-.001217*100000)+459.7)​)
.0000019333

@200,000ft

14.62*e(-.00003*200000)/(1149*((-10.34-.001217*200000)+459.7)​)
.0000001531

@300,000ft
14.62*e(-.00003*300000)/(1149*((-10.34-.001217*300000)+459.7)​)
.0000000186

@350,000ft
14.62*e(-.00003*350000)/(1149*((-10.34-.001217*350000)+459.7)​)
.0000000149

@375,000ft
14.62*e(-.00003*375000)/(1149*((-10.34-.001217*375000)+459.7)​)
-.0000000235

OOPS! Negative air density at only 71 miles altitude.
OK, so, I guess that is the end of the line for this model.

CONCLUSION: NASA has sent no less than 3 space probes to measure the air density of the Martian atmosphere. Additionally, other institutions and organizations have done much work to make these measurements by other means, and to correct them as much as possible, considering the fluctuating nature of the Martian atmospheric density, and the critical nature of such data. Atmospheric density at various altitudes is probably the most critical set of data one would need for a mission like this, and yet, it is nowhere to be readily found. NASA has put forth a mathematical "model" to describe this data, but the model adds more density to the atmosphere, even in contradiction to the words of NASA's own scientists when interviewed. If anything, NASA would want a model that leans toward more pessimistic values, to ensure greater engineering success, but their model does the opposite, and actually adds density to the atmosphere, not only at low altitudes, but at high altitudes as well. This is not a frivolous misrepresentation, because with such a low air density, fudging the numbers makes a large difference between plausible success, and certain failure.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 06:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

If the atmosphere had a uniform density, it would terminate abruptly at an altitude of 8.50 km (27,900 ft). It actually
decreases exponentially with altitude, dropping by half
every 5.6 km (18,000 ft) or by a factor of 1/e every 7.64 km
(25,100 ft), the average scale height of the atmosphere
below 70 km (43 mi; 230,000 ft)
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 06:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
If NASA is only going to hand us liar-cheater data for atmospheric density on Mars, there isn't much that can be done to verify any claims of (plausible) success. This is why they cannot be trusted. Is the Martian atmospheric density a matter of national security or something? Nonsense.

Martian rover video game. I hate putting effort into things only to run into BS/NONSENSE, but that is my experience with govt. Spend money to find ways to spend more money and tax more things to hire more cronies.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9872711
United Kingdom
08/13/2012 06:58 AM
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


Jesus Christ...what the fuck was that?

Please tell me every was in on the joke?

That was a joke, right?
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 07:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
IF NASA WON'T RELEASE VALID DATA OF MARS' ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY AT VARIOUS ALTITUDES - F-EM! THEY ARE JUST SCAMMERS! THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE! I lean toward "they won't release it"

because:

1) if they do release it, and it is true data, it will be shown that Curiosity is a SCAM, a VIDEO GAME for "SCIENTISTS".

2) if they do release it, and it is false, a 3rd party will uncover their fraud someday when they send probes to Mars.

PROVE ME WRONG - FIND THIS DATA!!!

Yes, I am pissed! Always the same old story!
I wasted many hours on this garbage, hoping I
would find some amazing truth, but no ...
JUST MORE BS/NONSENSE FROM US, INC.

IT'S OUR MONEY, IT'S OUR DATA!
WE PAID FOR IT ALL!
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 08:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Curiosity = WE ARE CURIOUS TO SEE HOW STUPID YOU ARE!
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 10:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
What a few hours of needed sleep will do ...

Let's see how the bogus Mars atmospheric "model" stacks up to the 1% figure:

@ 1% Earth density
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*26^2))
= 393.6629039055 ft/s

@ "NASA model" density
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000029*.75*3.1416*26^2))
= 355.8766635654 ft/s

So, "NASA model" takes off 40 ft/s.

To the best of my memory, NASA claims 220 mph
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21789839
Portugal
08/13/2012 10:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Thread titles like this make me wish that you could buy "EVER" word's stocks
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 11:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Let's see what the "NASA Atmospheric Model" (NAM) does to the speed of things:

@ .67% of Earth ("less than 1%"):
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.0000159*.75*3.1416*26^2))
= 480.6184193229 ft/s (328 mph)

@ 1% of Earth:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.0000237*.75*3.1416*26^2))
= 393.6629039055 ft/s (268 mph)

@ NAM model:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000029*.75*3.1416*26^2))
= 355.8766635654 ft/s (243 mph)

NAM takes away 40 ft/s from the speed. About 10%.
And the error can easily become much greater at
higher altitudes. No way to know without the data.

"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."

220 mph = 322.67 ft/s

Using NAM (assuming free-fall from rest),
at 1.1 mi, 5808 ft, we have air density of:

14.62*e(-.00003*5808)/(1149*((-25.68-.000548*5808)+459.7))
= .000025 slugs/ft^3 (greater than 1% of Earth @ sea-level).

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*.75*3.1416*26^2))
= 383.2908968626 ft/s (261 mph)

But NASA claims 220 mph, EVEN LOWER than from "free-fall",
So, either air density or Cd (drag coefficient) is wrong.
What kind of drag coefficient would make that work out
to 220 mph, assuming NAM is correct:

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*1.05*3.1416*26^2))
323.9399322821 ft/s (221 mph)

What kind of thing has a Cd of 1.05?

Cube, face-on = 1.10
Disk, face-on = 1.10

OK, so, NASA is telling us that Cd for the
Curiosity assembly is 1.05 instead of .75,
so how does that change all the velocity
equations?

@ .67% of Earth ("less than 1%"):
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.0000159*1.05*3.1416*26^2))
= 480.6184193229 ft/s (328 mph)
=> 406.1963147613 ft/s (277 mph)

@ 1% of Earth:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.0000237*1.05*3.1416*26^2))
= 393.6629039055 ft/s (268 mph)
=> 332.7057930503 ft/s (227 mph)

@ NAM model:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000029*1.05*3.1416*26^2))
= 355.8766635654 ft/s (243 mph)
=> 300.7707078120 ft/s (205 mph)

This is highly unlikely for a parachute with
a hole in it - consider this: NASA wants the
herd to think that their parachute has the same
drag as a Cube or Disk with the flat side facing
into the airstream ... OK - we all smoke crack,
so we will believe it.

It's just gets too crazy to work on this problem.
I am being forced to utilize CRAZY-FACTS in
calculations. I am being tossed into the
realm of "Make Believe Land", and nothing
I do is of any real consequence, all my
calculations will be a joke if I use
NASA's data.

And remember, I am assuming a free-fall from REST,
I am not even taking into account the fact that this
thing is starting many many many times faster than a
bullet out of a high-power long-range sniper rifle.

WHAT PROOF OF THEIR BS DO YOU WANT?

I wish I could work intelligently on this,
with REAL data, not bogus "models".
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 11:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
So, what if I am making an error because this is not in free-fall, and it is still decelerating, and therefore the speed is faster than free-fall?

No, this is the opposite of things.

Using NAM model at 1.1 miles altitude:

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*.75*3.1416*26^2))
383.2908968626 (261 mph)

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*1.05*3.1416*26^2))
323.9399322821 ft/s (221 mph)

There would have to be even MORE drag to allow for a faster-than-free-fall velocity while maintaining all other parameters, and it's a little difficult to get more drag than a flat solid plate.

Circular cylinder, side-on => Cd = .75
Circular cylinder, end-on => Cd = 1.0

For example, if the unit is decending at 220 mph
at 1.1 miles in altitude BECAUSE OF it's intial
high velocity, but would be going much slower in
a free-fall from rest, then the velocity result in
the equations would have to be even slower than
220 mph, which means either density or Cd would
have to be even greater. And NASA is already
exaggerating those figures into Make-Believe-Land.

Beam me up Mr. Rogers ...
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 12:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Well, I guess a parachute can have a Cd up to 1.4-1.5, if it is a bowl shape ... hmmm.

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*.75*3.1416*26^2))
383.2908968626 (261 mph)

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*1.05*3.1416*26^2))
323.9399322821 ft/s (221 mph)

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*1.4*3.1416*26^2))
280.5402106565 (191 mph)

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
271.0275923386 (185 mph)

So then the extra 35mph (220 - 185)
is due to the high initial velocity.

Well, I don't have parachute specs either.
hmmm. Maybe I am just frustrated with the
lack of specifications and data - and maybe
in the future it will be released.

The problem with a parachute with a 1.5 Cd
is that it doesn't sound like the right choice
for a parachute rated for Mach 2.2.

Although, I must admit, things start to make
some sense if the NAM and 1.5 Cd for the
parachute is correct.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 12:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
"When the entry phase was complete and the capsule slowed to Mach 1.7 or 578 m/s (1,900 ft/s) and at about 10 km (6.2 mi), the supersonic parachute deployed, as was done by previous landers such as Viking, Mars Pathfinder and the Mars Exploration Rovers. The parachute has 80 suspension lines, is over 50 m (160 ft) long, and is about 16 m (52 ft) in diameter. Capable of being deployed at Mach 2.2, the parachute can generate up to 289 kN (65,000 lbf) of drag force in the Martian atmosphere."

Hmmm. I am wondering why this made me so upset, and maybe it is because I am not comfortable being spoon-fed beyond-imaginable figures that I am forced to believe without evidence, and that NASA doesn't put critical information out to make it easy for people to believe them. After looking at some images of the parachute, it is clearly bowl shaped, and looks like a 1.5 Cd parachute. The hole seems very small.

It's difficult to imagine these things. 80 cables - 65,000lbs of drag - hmmm ... 812lbs per cable - not too bad, but the shocks of it snapping open and other shocks due to turbulence - where the cables attach to the chute - well, I guess it is possible - it doesn't sound beyond the realm of possibilities any more than a bullet-proof vest.

I guess I stop today thinking maybe it is possible, but I am still interested to see if the upper Martian atmosphere is dense enough to slow down the Curiosity assembly from 13,000 mph to 1,300 mph (when the parachute was deployed).
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/13/2012 01:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
IF NASA WON'T RELEASE VALID DATA OF MARS' ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY AT VARIOUS ALTITUDES - F-EM! THEY ARE JUST SCAMMERS! THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE! I lean toward "they won't release it"

because:

1) if they do release it, and it is true data, it will be shown that Curiosity is a SCAM, a VIDEO GAME for "SCIENTISTS".

2) if they do release it, and it is false, a 3rd party will uncover their fraud someday when they send probes to Mars.

PROVE ME WRONG - FIND THIS DATA!!!

Yes, I am pissed! Always the same old story!
I wasted many hours on this garbage, hoping I
would find some amazing truth, but no ...
JUST MORE BS/NONSENSE FROM US, INC.

IT'S OUR MONEY, IT'S OUR DATA!
WE PAID FOR IT ALL!
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Try "The Structure of the Upper Atmosphere of Mars: In Situ Accelerometer Measurements from Mars Global Surveyor" -- G. M. Keating et al, Science 13 March 1998

Free to read online, describes measured profiles of upper atmosphere taken during multiple passes of the spacecraft.


Or "Structure of the Atmosphere of Mars in Summer at Mid-Latitudes" -- Seiff and Kirk, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 82, NO. 28.

This one gives atmosphere temperature and pressure as experienced by the two Viking landers from 120 km to ground.



Or "Structure of the Mars upper atmosphere - MGS aerobraking data and model interpretation"
Bougher, S W | Keating, G M
The Fifth International Conference on Mars, Pasadena, CA

And tell me if you find a free copy of this one!
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/13/2012 01:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
So, what if I am making an error because this is not in free-fall, and it is still decelerating, and therefore the speed is faster than free-fall?

No, this is the opposite of things.

Using NAM model at 1.1 miles altitude:

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*.75*3.1416*26^2))
383.2908968626 (261 mph)

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*1.05*3.1416*26^2))
323.9399322821 ft/s (221 mph)

There would have to be even MORE drag to allow for a faster-than-free-fall velocity while maintaining all other parameters, and it's a little difficult to get more drag than a flat solid plate.

Circular cylinder, side-on => Cd = .75
Circular cylinder, end-on => Cd = 1.0

For example, if the unit is decending at 220 mph
at 1.1 miles in altitude BECAUSE OF it's intial
high velocity, but would be going much slower in
a free-fall from rest, then the velocity result in
the equations would have to be even slower than
220 mph, which means either density or Cd would
have to be even greater. And NASA is already
exaggerating those figures into Make-Believe-Land.

Beam me up Mr. Rogers ...
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


It enters from ORBIT, not from rest.

The angle of entry is whatever they chose. It isn't constrained to be a vertical entry.

PLUS, the spacecraft is aerodynamic -- it can dynamically change the angle of attack using the lifting body of the aeroshell itself.

All of this is described in any introductory article about the landing.
bvndy

User ID: 20644442
United States
08/13/2012 02:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
NASA has one misson, to provide cover for the
Airforce's massive space program, including MOL'S
(manned orbiting labs-weapons platforms), advanced
space shuttles, etc
You can ignore the consequences of
your actions, but you cannot ignore
the RESULTS of the consequences of your actions

Ayn Rand
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/13/2012 02:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Using NAM model at 1.1 miles altitude:

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*.75*3.1416*26^2))
383.2908968626 (261 mph)

sqrt(2*7500*.39/(.000025*1.05*3.1416*26^2))
323.9399322821 ft/s (221 mph)


 Quoting: Engineer 694654


PLEASE start labeling your variables. You'd flunk out of class with these, and for the same reason I am asking; to be able to check your assumptions without staring at a page of magic numbers.

As far as I can tell without reverse-solving each of your unlabeled variables, you are ignoring a full third of what your Aeronautics prof taught you about parachutes; aka you are plugging in the wrong diameter for the actual Curiosity chute.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/13/2012 03:37 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.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Actually, Venera 7 (the first one to survive soft landing) looked like a tank. Venera 9 (the first one to return a photograph) weighed over 2,000 kg. The vehicles in the series from 7-12 weighed as much as 5 TONS each.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 09:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
See: [link to www.braeunig.us]
to understand Cd and how it relates to
super/sub sonic speeds for various shapes.

For a round nose projectile, such as the
it looks like the range is about:

Subsonic: Cd = 0.2
Supersonic: Cd = 0.6 (maybe .65 @ Mach 1.5 or so)

The Curiosity protective shell looks more flat than a round nose projectile and probably has a Cd MUCH higher as supersonic speeds, dropping very quickly at subsonic speeds, more similar to the cylinder and sphere than a round nose projectile. But we don't have that data to my knowledge.

Unfortunately, my communication with Earth is about the same speed as Curiosity, 32kbps, so I am not so informed with graphical data as most, and no video data at all.

I see many physics types trying to calculate everything with math and energy formulas, but :) That's not really possible. Physicists create formulas like computer programs that model relationships we see in nature, so we can put numbers into them, and get other numbers out of them. But especially in Aeronautics, physics has it's limits - there are some things in this world that become too mind-bogglingly complex with fluids - fluids have too many variables, they change too quickly, in all directions, with a different set of physics for every change and direction. Playing with air/water isn't exactly like playing with billiard balls and beams of iron. NASA would not be able to do much at all without extensive real-world testing and real-world measurements, refining things in the real-world to get the results they are looking for.

That is why we use wind-tunnels to find coefficients of drag, it's just too complex for physics. Anyway, I will try to think of some way to approach a sanity check for high-altitude deceleration due to friction. It would be helpful if anyone has data on the "shell" or "pod" that is carrying the Curiosity assembly, also the height when it was released, it's velocity, etc. Gotta go for now, maybe a few days.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 10:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
> Actually, Venera 7 (the first one to survive soft landing) looked like a tank. Venera 9 (the first one to return a photograph) weighed over 2,000 kg. The vehicles in the series from 7-12 weighed as much as 5 TONS each.

Why? Stupid Russians :) They build everything like a tank :) Let me check that :)

I am reading about them now - that always interested me more than Mars :) We can pretty much see all of the Mars desert from a satellite, but Venus - that's a real mystery. Lots of energy there too! Lots of chemistry! I think we'd be better off learning how to live underground in Venus :)

I do enjoy your interest in this topic, I don't know anyone else with an interest in aeronautics/physics/space. I pretty much lost interest in it a long time ago. I am pessimistic about the future of humanity :)
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 10:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
"They included a transfer and relay bus that had engines to brake into Venus orbit (Venera 9 and 10, 15 and 16) ..."

Anyway, as I said, Venus has a very dense atmopshere. It's almost like landing in an ocean (of sulfuric acid to the best of my memory :) But there is a place in the atmosphere where people could live quite comfortably, if they had the energy to remain aloft. I don't remember the details, but there is a "sweet spot" where the air is 60degF and lots of oxygen - I think - don't quote me on that - just very old vague memories.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 10:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Rusians :) ROTFLMAO :) They should have learned to use CLEAR lens caps :)

The Venera 9 lander operated for at least 53 minutes and took pictures with one of two cameras; the other lens cap did not release.

The Venera 10 lander operated for at least 65 minutes and took pictures with one of two cameras; the other lens cap did not release.

The Venera 11 lander operated for at least 95 minutes but neither camera's lens cap released.

The Venera 12 lander operated for at least 110 minutes but neither camera's lens cap released.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 10:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
ROTFLMAO!!!

Venera 13 and 14 were the only landers on which all cameras worked properly; although unfortunately, the titanium lens cap on Venera 14 landed precisely on the area which was targeted by the soil compression probe.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 10:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Venera 1 and Venera 2 were intended as fly-by probes to fly past Venus *without entering orbit*. Telemetry on the probe failed seven days after launch. It is believed to have passed within 100,000 km of Venus and *entered heliocentric orbit*.

Venera 2 launched on November 12, 1965, but also suffered a telemetry failure after leaving Earth orbit.

THIS IS SO FUNNY - typical of the "commies" :)
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 10:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
TOO FUNNY TO BE TRUE!

The first Soviet attempt at a flyby probe to Venus was launched on 4 February 1961, but failed to leave Earth orbit. In keeping with the (then) Soviet policy of not announcing details on failed missions, the launch was announced under the name "Heavy Satellite".

The Venera 7 probe was the first one designed to survive Venus surface conditions and to make a soft landing. Massively overbuilt to ensure survival, it had few experiments on board ...

Venera 7's parachute failed shortly before landing, fortunately very close to the surface. It impacted at 17 metres per second (56 ft/s) and toppled over, but survived. Due to the resultant antenna misalignment, the radio signal was very weak, but was detected (with temperature telemetry) for 23 more minutes before its batteries expired ...

News