Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,191 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 91,602
Pageviews Today: 152,861Threads Today: 36Posts Today: 1,036
01:15 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
08/13/2012 10:41 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.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Yup. Sanity check is all that's really appropriate here; formula may not be completely applicable in the specific domain, modeling is complex (and can also be incomplete), and if you are assuming malfeasance you have already determined not to accept empiricism (at least, not from the usual suspects).

One simplification that may help; according to NASA the parachute deploys at supersonic speed. So it is a pretty good assumption that the entire performance of the heat shield is in the supersonic regime.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/13/2012 10:44 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.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


I suspect clear titanium (c.f. your earlier comment) may not have been available at the time.


I'm guessing here about the constraints, but I wonder if industrial diamond would work?
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 10:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Venus would be the PERFECT planet to terraform. It is loaded with CO2 (96.5%), super-dense atmosphere (equal to 1000m below the ocean) and could be turned into an oxygen rich atmosphere. We need to send some GM algae there and maybe some GM cactus and coconut trees, and get that planet turned into a new world ASAP :)
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/13/2012 11:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Venus would be the PERFECT planet to terraform. It is loaded with CO2 (96.5%), super-dense atmosphere (equal to 1000m below the ocean) and could be turned into an oxygen rich atmosphere. We need to send some GM algae there and maybe some GM cactus and coconut trees, and get that planet turned into a new world ASAP :)
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Hrm. According to Oberg et al, the biggest difficulty is the heat. Planets don't cool fast. If all you did was make the atmosphere transparent, passive radiation would take thousands of years. More active measures are still on the order of several hundreds of years.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/13/2012 11:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
We should be using Nukes to knock ice moons out of Saturn orbits and send them crashing into Venus. That would be exciting, if we are not content to live on Earth in a sustainable fashion.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/14/2012 01:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I learned how they did it - not how they landed on Mars, but I learned how they created atmospheric density models to fool everyone :) NASA is LIAR CHEATER FRAUD HOAXER - 99%. I am almost 100% certain now that Curiosity is a new video game for the myopic geeks at NASA to play with. It will take time for me to present things in a way that may be understood, but basically, this is what learned this morning, and it's supported by actual data:

It seems that the near-ground-level air is much colder than the general temperature gradient of the rest of the atmosphere. And this makes sense. Mars cycles in a 24 hour day like Earth, and as we all know, the air heats up faster than the ground in the morning. Since Mars has no real atmosphere (it is the smallest planet with the lowest gravity), it's easy to imagine how frigid it gets at night without the Sun, without any atmosphere to hold in any heat on the night side. Basically, the surface of Mars comes into the day colder than a SOB! And that frigid temperature probably goes well below the surface, much the same as Permafrost. So, the surface stays much much colder than the lower atmosphere during the day.

This has the effect of keeping near-ground-level air MUCH colder than the rest of the air, which means MUCH MORE DENSE, and this is what NASA uses for "atmospheric density" - they don't want to show the public what the temperature/density gradient/profile of the atmosphere is, because then everyone would see what a bunch of LIARS CHEATERS FRAUDS & HOAXERS they are. If you search REAL HARD, you will find that they give out ***1 number***, for ground (datum) air density only - but this is a GROSS MISCHARACTERIZATION of the general atmospheric density.

I only spent a hour this morning finding and verifying this "theory", but after running some numbers, I am in awe of this fraud - JUST ASK YOURSELF WHY NASA IS NOT PROVIDING THIS DATA AFTER 3+ PROBES WERE SENT DOWN THE ATMOSPHERE TO MEASURE IT!!! KEEP ASKING YOURSELF THAT!!!

Because there is a VERY GOOD REASON!

And this is why we have statements like this:

[link to www.nasa.gov]

NES Chat With NASA Scientist Dr. Joel S. Levine 01.21.11 Joel Levine and
ARES model in NASA Langley wind tunnel Joel S. Levine, Research Scientist
NASA Explorer Schools invites you to join a live chat on Jan. 21 from 2 - 3
p.m. EST to ask Dr. Joel S. Levine, Chief Scientist of the ARES Mars
Airplane Mission questions about the the development of a robotic,
rocket-powered airplane that will fly through the atmosphere of Mars to
search for evidence of life by looking for trace gases of biogenic origin.
Levine has a bachelor's degree in physics, Brooklyn College, City
University of New York; master's in meteorology, New York University;
master's in aeronomy and planetary atmospheres, University of Michigan; and
doctorate in atmospheric science, University of Michigan. His hometown is
Brooklyn, N.Y., and hobbies include photography and foreign travel.

Peterson_Warren(Q) What is the atmospheric density of Mars compared to
Earth?

Joel_Levine(A) On the surface of Mars, the atmospheric density is less than
1 percent of the density of Earth's atmosphere.

Why is this EXPERT on the atmosphere answering "less than 1%" ??? Why isn't he stating a solid number? "Less than 1%" could mean .1% or .5% or .9% or anything! THINK PEOPLE, THINK!

Why is this person saying things like:

[link to forum.nasaspaceflight.com]

Quote from: jpaulb1 on 08/06/2012 08:59 AM

C) What is the atmospheric density profile through altitude?

general rule of thumb for me is that Mars atmosphere is about 1000
times less dense than on Earth. So a 200 km/h wind is about a 1000 times
less strong, so feels like a 0.2 km/h wind. However, 200 km/h dust
particles can still be very abrasive. pressure is greater at the bottom of
a crater (up to 4 times greater I believe, depending on crater depth), so
winds would be 250 times less strong than on Earth, at most.

REMEMBER, AS I PRESENTED, NASA's MARS ATMOSPHERIC MODEL gives us figures for atmospheric density FAR ABOVE "1% OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY" - CONTRADICTING THEIR OWN EXPERT ON ATMOSPHERES! It may take a few days, because I am very busy with other work! If I don't return, either I died, got arrested, or GLP is giving me the crazy notice & IP block and won't let me return.

STAY TUNED!
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/14/2012 01:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I learned how they did it - not how they landed on Mars, but I learned how they created atmospheric density models to fool everyone :) NASA is LIAR CHEATER FRAUD HOAXER ...
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Let me boil the block of text down to the actual work shown.

You HAVEN'T studied any profile of the Martian atmosphere.

You HAVEN'T used any formula, done any math.

You DON'T have any experience at atmospheric studies or planetology -- you made a few uneducated guesses you wish to pass off as reasoned findings.

You DID search until you found INTERVIEWS, and other off-the-cuff talks -- studiously ignoring any actual scientific papers of course, and shooting directly for sources that did NOT give numbers and that you could twist into apparent contradictions.



This is what I see. You started your first post with the assumption that Curiosity was a fake. You attempted to convince other people with some bogus aeronautics about the parachute until you got spanked on the actual deployment time and framing velocities. So then you went frantically Googling around for official-looking calculations. Unfortunately for you, these turned up numbers that were within the ballpark.

So you started hunting for something else. And by focusing only on general audience stuff like interviews and talks, you managed to come up with what appeared to be contradictions.

You haven't changed, doc.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/14/2012 02:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Nope! You are wrong on every count! Sorry! But if you are getting upset, I am sure I am on the right trail :) Don't be too testy :) Enjoy your homeopathic chemtrails!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 7190830
United States
08/14/2012 02:20 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


That is a humor site meant for entertainment purposes...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21393953


im glad you mentioned that. i dared to link off the main thread, and ended up reading how the reverand(sp) was buying pedobear panties for an underage church-goer. about came back here and started raging lol
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/14/2012 02:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Nope! You are wrong on every count! Sorry! But if you are getting upset, I am sure I am on the right trail :) Don't be too testy :) Enjoy your homeopathic chemtrails!
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Sheya, right.

When a teacher marks you with a C-, does that mean they are "upset?" Does it meant that you must be on to something?

Or does it just mean that you did pathetic work?


P.S. -- why the crying about the sea-level atmospheric pressure? The peak activity of the heat shield took place somewhere between 20 and 60 miles up. This is an entirely different domain, not directly derivable from surface conditions.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1364318
United States
08/15/2012 01:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
With resources currently available to us, we will have the abilty to see millions of planets, up close. Your job is to build the foundation to allow it to happen. You must first block the force of or find an effective counter to Gravity.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/15/2012 01:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
My wife kept me up all night, she thinks that MiB will come kill me for
posting this ... what a crazy woman ... she was hitting on me, throwing things
at me, calling me a murderer, threatening me with divorce, etc. She was
saying things like "Don't you remember that the govt killed the Kennedy's and
all the children at Waco, and Ruby Ridge ..." and then she kept going on and
on ... "Don't you remember OK City and the building that exploded outwards,
and then when they executed McVeigh, he left the execution chamber with his
eyes open? I DON'T TRUST THEM!" and then her favorite ... "And what about
911? You're a pilot and aircraft mechanic, you're an engineer and chemist,
you know Arabs with boxcutters didn't vaporize 7 WTC buildings with 2 airplanes!
I DON'T TRUST THEM!" and on and on.

I was like, "Honey, when other countries do bad things, it's BAD, when the USA
does bad things, it's GOOD! Don't you understand?" I don't know what's wrong
with women, they don't think logically. She's a little crazy from being born
in Russia during the 60s. She thinks there is KGB listening in on everyone
everywhere, watching them, recording them, even controlling Google results.
Anyway, who believes anything on GLP? Only crazy people ...

In Russia, Punk bands must conceal their identity for fear of Putin.

[link to www.mookychick.co.uk]

Now, back to Mars atmospheric science class ...
We will be doing a sanity check on NASA's Mars Atmospheric Model (MAM),
assuming they have a Mach 2.2 largest strongest ever Cd=1.5 parachute,
we will use the following 2 functions:
=====
V = sqrt(2*W*.39/(rho*C*S)) [link to www.pcprg.com]

Where:

V = velocity in ft/s
W = weight in lbs (lbf, 7500 for Curiosity, crane, shell, chute, etc)
rho = density in slugs/ft^3
C = Cd, drag coefficient (1.5 = closed bowl, maximum drag for a parachute)
S = Pi*radius^2 (circular area)
.39 = Mars gravitational coefficient for weight/lbs/lbf
=====
p = P/(1149*(T+459.7)) [link to www.grc.nasa.gov]

Where:

p = density (slugs/ft^3)
P = pressure (lbs/ft^2)
T = temperature (F)
h = altitude (ft)
e(x) = 2.718^x

For h > 23000ft, T = -10.34-.001217*h, P = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)
Thus, p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
For h < 23000ft, T = -25.68-.000548*h, P = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)
Thus, p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
=====
"Curiosity, landed on Mars at 4.5degS, 137.4degE ..."

The great breakthrough that can help us understand the Martian atmosphere at
the precise latitude and longitude of Curiosity will be the "atmospheric
temperature-pressure profiles derived from MGS radio occultation data. Raw
samples of DSN receiver output were corrected for observing conditions and
converted to bending angle as a function of impact parameter. These results
were then inverted to refractive index as a function of radius via an Abel
transform. Number density was obtained from refractive index using a
conversion formula appropriate to the composition of the atmosphere, which is
known from Viking measurements (T. Owen, The Composition and Early History of
the Atmosphere of Mars, in MARS, edited by H.H. Kieffer, B.M. Jakosky, C.W.
Snyder, and M.S. Matthews, pp. 818-834, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1992).
Pressure and temperature profiles were derived by assuming hydrostatic balance
and using the ideal gas law. See Tyler et al. (J. Geophys Res., 97,
7759-7779, 1992) for more details."

Learn more about this technique here:

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

There are 6 profiles between:

-10 <= Occultation Latitude (deg N [-90:90]) <= 0
135 <= Occultation Longitude (deg E [0:360]) <= 140

[link to nova.stanford.edu]
[link to nova.stanford.edu]
[link to nova.stanford.edu]
[link to nova.stanford.edu]
[link to nova.stanford.edu]
[link to nova.stanford.edu]

Beginning with the 1st profile, let's run some numbers on the data points:

0km 0ft 0mi
558 Pascals, 210K (tail, near ground level, 1st occult rays over surface)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0092570473005256 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000179616307620 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00001796*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
319.7645722932716036 ft/s (219 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000293168700058 slugs/ft^3
===> 250.2658133401806092 ft/s (171 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 78%

1km 3821ft 0.62mi
515 Pascals, 213K (lower base of 1st right curve)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.00842335693836 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000163440049717 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00001634*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
335.2412762383326155 ft/s (229 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000262684669397 slugs/ft^3
===> 264.3951443524513430 ft/s (180 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 79%

2.5km 8202ft 1.55mi
460 Pascals, 214K (apex of 1st right curve)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0073258212734036 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000142144349564 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00001421*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
359.4897172474408100 ft/s (245 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000231620017364 slugs/ft^3
===> 281.5880587918518474 ft/s (192 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 78%

5km 16405ft 3.11mi
360 Pascals, 209K (upper base of 1st right curve)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0060008641244339 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000116435945671 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00001164*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
397.1979709312374504 ft/s (271 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000183007828679 slugs/ft^3
===> 316.7801546902788141 ft/s (216 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 80%

6.6km 21654ft 4.10mi
315 Pascals, 208K (lower base of 1st left curve)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0052760001286339 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000102371267138 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00001024*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
423.4806130291738699 ft/s (289 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000157409325225 slugs/ft^3
===> 341.5711228586648806 ft/s (233 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 81%

14km 45934ft 8.70mi
150 Pascals, 185K (apex of 1st left curve)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0028247310856007 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000054808812264 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00000548*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
578.8862474177008473 ft/s (395 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000081519616237 slugs/ft^3
===> 474.6841242539109913 ft/s (324 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 82%

21km 68901ft 13.05mi
75 Pascals, 190K (apex of 2nd right curve)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0013751980285161 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000026683237549 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00000267*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
829.3309643308344772 ft/s (566 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000044058666489 slugs/ft^3
===> 645.3037912825506590 ft/s (440 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 78%

29km 95149ft 18.02mi
33 Pascals, 173K (apex of 2nd left curve)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.00066454656175692 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000012894327509 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00000129*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
1193.1324465691741162 ft/s (814 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000021966862652 slugs/ft^3
===> 913.6338273923790968 ft/s (623 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 77%

32km 104992ft 19.88mi
24 Pascals, 177K (apex of 3rd right curve)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.00047238440753548 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000009165767474 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00000092*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
1412.8289902449441582 ft/s (964 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000016959323709 slugs/ft^3
===> 1039.3433716767933854 ft/s (709 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 74%

39km 127959ft 24.23mi
10 Pascals, 155K (head, uppermost atmospheric measurement)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.00022476354874672 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000004361131298 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00000044*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
2042.9473445926690856 ft/s (1393 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000009325336814 slugs/ft^3
===> 1405.2126059714600201 ft/s (958 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 69%

CONCLUSION: REAL-world data generated by MGS radio occultation data
demonstrates that NASA has intentionally provided the public with a Mars
Atmospheric Model that creates terminal velocities that range from 78-80% of
real-world terminal velocities at lower altitudes (< 23000ft), to 2/3's (and
decreasing) of real-world terminal velocities at higher altitudes (> 23000ft).
NASA's terminal velocities that are 66% of real-world terminal velocities are
extremely significant errors (requiring almost DOUBLE the braking distance) in
the engineering of a decent on Mars, similar to the difference between driving
60mph vs. 90mph. The difference in braking to a full stop is exponentially
increased with such increases in real-world velocities. This is based on 1 of
6 sets of data that were taken from approximately the same latitude and
longitude as the Mars Curiosity rover landing site. Further analysis of the
other 5 sets will be forthcoming as time permits. For now, consider the
following Table on vehicle braking (coefficient of friction is about .75,
similar to a T10 parachute):

Col 1 = mph
Col 2 = ft/sec
Col 3 = Total Stopping Distance

10 15 27
15 22 44
20 29 63
25 36 85
30 44 109
35 51 136
40 59 164
45 66 196
50 73 229
55 81 265
60 88 304
65 95 345
70 103 388
75 110 433
80 117 481
85 125 532
90 132 584
T-Man

User ID: 1285189
Netherlands
08/15/2012 01:57 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Ha ha!! this link is like EXTREMEGodLikeProductions.com

[link to www.landoverbaptist.net]

5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3875776


man look at their thread

Informative World Map

[link to www.landoverbaptist.net]
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/15/2012 03:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
..You're a pilot and aircraft mechanic, you're an engineer and chemist...

 Quoting: Engineer 694654


How's the rock band coming along?
Dr. AstroModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 4211721
United States
08/15/2012 03:21 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Ha ha!! this link is like EXTREMEGodLikeProductions.com

[link to www.landoverbaptist.net]

5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3875776


man look at their thread

Informative World Map

[link to www.landoverbaptist.net]
 Quoting: T-Man


[link to en.wikipedia.org]
astrobanner2
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/15/2012 03:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
V = velocity in ft/s
W = weight in lbs (lbf, 7500 for Curiosity, crane, shell, chute, etc)
rho = density in slugs/ft^3
C = Cd, drag coefficient (1.5 = closed bowl, maximum drag for a parachute)
S = Pi*radius^2 (circular area)
.39 = Mars gravitational coefficient for weight/lbs/lbf
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


If I might quote from your source:

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.


 Quoting: parkes


A quibble, I know, but I'm not seeing clearly where you include this in your calculation. And the MLS chute is long...50 meters long. That isn't a negligible factor.





And, I'm sorry, but you are still using simplified formula; rules of thumb and approximations. For all the length of your posts, it is no more than a back-of-an-envelope sketch written out longhand. That your numbers end up agreeing with NASA's to within a power of two even when you use the most pessimistic assumptions possible should really, really tell you something.
RedDawnPost

User ID: 15731848
United States
08/15/2012 03:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Wow! This is really what makes legitimate evidence look bad or not looked at, at all. It makes the search for truth and the exposing of conspiracies look ridiculous.

This link is to a forum and the OP had no real evidence (and there is way better evidence out there) and just shows pictures and doesn't really explain what's going on in the picture.

Reading some of the comments was disheartening as well.

Last Edited by RedDawnPost on 08/15/2012 03:42 PM
"To harm another, is to harm ones self." ~Socrates

"Love your brother like your soul, guard him like the pupil of your eye."


Alternative News:
[link to www.reddawnpost.com]
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/15/2012 04:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Critical Events:

When the entry phase was complete and the capsule slowed to Mach 1.7 or 578 m/s (1900 ft/s, 1296 mph) and at about 10 km (6.21 mi), the supersonic parachute deployed ...

Following the parachute braking, at about 1.8 km (1.12 mi) altitude, still travelling at about 100 m/s (323 ft/s, 220 mph), the rover and descent stage dropped out of the aeroshell ...

10km 32810ft 6.21mi => 1.8km 5906ft 1.12mi

Stated velocity loss: 1296mph - 220 mph = 1076 mph
Terminal velcty loss: 337 mph - 233 mph = 104 mph
MAM Term velcty loss: 273 mph - 186 mph = 87 mph

Is it possible for Curiosity to lose 1076 mph in 8.2km (5.1mi) from a parachute that only loses 100mph in terminal velocity in the same distance? Doesn't seem correct. This drop in height would be worthy of other types of energy calculations. We know the approximate loss of PE & KE, and little is being lost to heat and other energy transfers. Most all of the loss of PE & KE would be due to parachute drag - it would be interesting to see how those numbers add up.

In dry air at 20 DEGC (68 DEGF), the speed of sound is 343.2 metres per second (1,126 ft/s). This is 1,236 kilometres per hour (768 mph), or about one kilometer in three seconds or approximately one mile in five seconds.

??? The speed of sound at 10km in the Martian atmosphere would be much higher than at sea-level on Earth. Yet NASA is claiming Mach 1.7 at 1296 mph? That means Mach 1 is 762 mph, which is the same as at sea-level on Earth. This makes no sense at all, unless it has to do with the low temperature (most critical aspect of Mach speed).

10km 32736ft 6.21mi
220 Pascals, 198K (parachute deployment)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0038709277839713 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000075108372362 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00001024*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
494.4968653387839626 ft/s (337 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000114534909489 slugs/ft^3
===> 400.4799408070996589 ft/s (273 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 81%

1.8km 5906ft 1.12mi
500 Pascals, 214K (apex of 1st right curve)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0081398014148928 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000157938166182 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00001579*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
341.0298911403493384 ft/s (233 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000248109082379 slugs/ft^3
===> 272.0634050757205234 ft/s (186 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 80%
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/15/2012 04:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Nomuse, I do play guitar, since I was 6, but I am not in a band. I used to play in a band about 15 years ago. Want some of my mp3's?

You are wrong about the parachute stuff. Cd=1.5 is the maximum - nothing is higher than that - I am favoring NASA with all my numbers. 50m just means that the Curiosity assembly is not interfering too much with the parachute drag. Cd=1.5 is probably too high. But it favors more drag, which is in NASA's favor. You can find out what Cd is according to NASA by using NASA's numbers in the drag equation, and solving for Cd.

I am not using "rules of thumb" and "approximations" and "simplified formulas" - I don't know what your point is if you criticize without improving anything. If you think I made an error, demonstrate it.

I am just trying to get a feel for the physical dynamics. and give others a feel for it as well. Mars is a different world, and imagination is not useful without numbers.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/15/2012 05:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Nomuse, actually, you are correct that I am a little sloppy, because I don't have much time for this - for example, the parachute is only being deployed from 10km->1.8km, but I wasted time doing calculations far above 10km; then again, it is not totally wasted, because it provides a feel for the atmosphere, and may be useful for doing calculations with the shell that things are in before the parachute opens, but I am not comfortable working with supersonic regions unless they are lengthy and stable, otherwise things get innaccurate.

There are big changes in everything moving in and out of supersonic regions, and I want to avoid those regions.

I just want to work within the parachute region for now, because I have very good data for that. I want to eventually find out the true rate of deceleration and true decent velocities, and/or energies, based on initial values that seem reasonable. But I must play with numbers first to get a feel for what is reasonable, or at least, functional with apparent value and validity. I already have shown that NASA's MAM doesn't jive well AT ALL when compared to actual real-world xray measurements of the atmosphere. And this is critical, because the atmosphere is such that "a little one way" and things become possible, and "a little the other way" and things become very much impossible. It's a very fine line.

None of this has anything to do with my daily ordinary work. I don't know what got me into this - maybe just an interest in finding out what is true or not true. Either way, I am happy to find out if this is plausible or not. I haven't done math or physics in a long time - so part of my motivation is just putting a little grease into my math joints.


At least I have learned that a parachute does have a significant effect on Mars, despite my initial thinking, and despite "internet blab" - most people just SAY STUFF, but at least I have DEMONSTRATED STUFF.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/15/2012 06:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Critical Events:

When the entry phase was complete and the capsule slowed to Mach 1.7 or 578 m/s (1900 ft/s, 1296 mph) and at about 10 km (6.21 mi), the supersonic parachute deployed ...

Following the parachute braking, at about 1.8 km (1.12 mi) altitude, still travelling at about 100 m/s (323 ft/s, 220 mph), the rover and descent stage dropped out of the aeroshell ...
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Am I ever going to get an apology and retraction for your nonsense about the parachute deploying at the top of the atmosphere, at orbital velocity?

Or do you just not do that, doc?

Part of intellectual honesty is fessing up when you are wrong. I'd like to see some of that from you.



10km 32810ft 6.21mi => 1.8km 5906ft 1.12mi

Stated velocity loss: 1296mph - 220 mph = 1076 mph
Terminal velcty loss: 337 mph - 233 mph = 104 mph
MAM Term velcty loss: 273 mph - 186 mph = 87 mph

Is it possible for Curiosity to lose 1076 mph in 8.2km (5.1mi) from a parachute that only loses 100mph in terminal velocity in the same distance? Doesn't seem correct. This drop in height would be worthy of other types of energy calculations. We know the approximate loss of PE & KE, and little is being lost to heat and other energy transfers. Most all of the loss of PE & KE would be due to parachute drag - it would be interesting to see how those numbers add up.

 Quoting: Engineer 694654


What is the re-entry ANGLE here? You do know basic trig, right?

Incidentally, "loses n in terminal velocity/distance" is just balderash. Terminal velocity IS terminal velocity; it is the point at which forces are balanced. You may have meant velocity change, but even then, you seem to be using a calculation to show FINAL velocity as if it could be applied to calculate change in velocity over time. And that's not even close to being right.

You are right in your parenthetical; if you insist on trying to find the largest potential delta-V, you have to calculate the acceleration. Properly, you should do it moment-by-moment. The next best approximation is using calculus to sum the changing acceleration (aka drag) over different parts of the descent through atmosphere and over the different velocities.



In dry air at 20 DEGC (68 DEGF), the speed of sound is 343.2 metres per second (1,126 ft/s). This is 1,236 kilometres per hour (768 mph), or about one kilometer in three seconds or approximately one mile in five seconds.

??? The speed of sound at 10km in the Martian atmosphere would be much higher than at sea-level on Earth. Yet NASA is claiming Mach 1.7 at 1296 mph? That means Mach 1 is 762 mph, which is the same as at sea-level on Earth. This makes no sense at all, unless it has to do with the low temperature (most critical aspect of Mach speed).

 Quoting: Engineer 694654


I got stuck on this, too, and curse the PAO that thought that giving a MACH number was useful or even meaningful.

Don't do it. Either find an actual velocity (preferably in cgs unless you are a glutton for stupid units) or find some other starting point.

10km 32736ft 6.21mi
220 Pascals, 198K (parachute deployment)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0038709277839713 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000075108372362 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00001024*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
494.4968653387839626 ft/s (337 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000114534909489 slugs/ft^3
===> 400.4799408070996589 ft/s (273 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 81%

1.8km 5906ft 1.12mi
500 Pascals, 214K (apex of 1st right curve)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0081398014148928 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000157938166182 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7500*.39/(0.00001579*1.5*3.1416*26^2))
341.0298911403493384 ft/s (233 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000248109082379 slugs/ft^3
===> 272.0634050757205234 ft/s (186 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / REAL terminal velocity: 80%
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


And yet, you still end up within a power of 2.

Except that I am no longer sanguine about your calculation. There are simply too many unchecked assumptions to make it accurate to within more than a couple magnitudes. I suspect strongly that chance alone is bringing you to within the ballpark.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/15/2012 06:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Nomuse, I do play guitar, since I was 6, but I am not in a band. I used to play in a band about 15 years ago. Want some of my mp3's?

You are wrong about the parachute stuff. Cd=1.5 is the maximum - nothing is higher than that - I am favoring NASA with all my numbers. 50m just means that the Curiosity assembly is not interfering too much with the parachute drag. Cd=1.5 is probably too high. But it favors more drag, which is in NASA's favor. You can find out what Cd is according to NASA by using NASA's numbers in the drag equation, and solving for Cd.

I am not using "rules of thumb" and "approximations" and "simplified formulas" - I don't know what your point is if you criticize without improving anything. If you think I made an error, demonstrate it.

I am just trying to get a feel for the physical dynamics. and give others a feel for it as well. Mars is a different world, and imagination is not useful without numbers.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Can't agree more! Who was it who said, you don't really know a thing (in science) until you can describe it mathematically? Sounds like a Lord Kelvin thing.


I'm on a very busy schedule now myself, unfortunately, otherwise I would be digging into these numbers a lot deeper. I took the time to read the entire Mars Science Laboratory press release, as well as several pages into the papers I linked (such as the attempt to profile the Martian Atmosphere via Viking measurements.) But I don't have time for more.

I do admit to being a lot more intrigued by the chemical make-up and dynamics of the Martian atmosphere, and if I read more I'd likely be wandering off in that direction instead. I really don't have the math for serious engineering; I can do basic statics and dynamics and some materials stuff, but then it falls apart.

I also agree whole-hearted with the concept of playing with the numbers and trying to get a feel of the problem. Except; this is not a neutral space to be playing in the sandpit, and I do not think you come to it from a neutral standpoint. Every time you make an honest mistake that seems to show a disagreement with NASA's figures, you are in effect using your greater skill to mislead other people less experienced with the process and the literature into a place where they mis-use, mistrust, and inevitably downgrade science.

You help, in short, in growing a generation that is pray to people (like the politicians currently maneuvering their way towards the next American presidency) who use fake science and lies about science in order to push products or policies that simply can not work.

And I do not think all your mistakes are honest. Each time you find something that seems to disagree with NASA, your response is not "Hmm...that's interesting" but instead "FAT BASTARDS ARE LYING TO US ALL!!!!!"
Herman The Kid

User ID: 17951882
United States
08/15/2012 06:56 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Ha ha!! this link is like EXTREMEGodLikeProductions.com

[link to www.landoverbaptist.net]

5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3875776


man look at their thread

Informative World Map

[link to www.landoverbaptist.net]
 Quoting: T-Man


[link to en.wikipedia.org]
 Quoting: Dr. Astro


I could immediately tell (It was the onion of right wing "christianity"). I am a born again Christian but I lost it when I saw, the world map and "Autism-the new 'gay'."
You m-m-m-muh-make me HAAA-PEEE.

Psalm 34:14 - Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.

Romans 5:8 - But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/15/2012 07:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Nomuse, I TOLD YOU MANY TIMES, when I came to GLP on this topic, I knew NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, I even thought the "space crane" lowered the Curiosity from space using retro-rockets!!! I said many wrong things at first. I have no problem admitting error. I also made an error in my above post transcribing a formula next to a calculation, but I did the calculation correctly anyway. I don't have time to do all things perfect here. I am not Godlike :)

But I am someone that takes on many things in life, and I never watch TV or socialize much. Especially as you get older, time seems to go so fast, and there never seems to be enough time for anything. Yes, I will apoligize for thinking the parachute was deployed in the thermosphere or wherever - I was 100% ignorant when I visited this thread.

I saw you were knowledgeable, and so I looked forward to your facts. I don't know about the re-entry angle - I saw a photo of Curiousity dropping with the chute, and it looked vertical. If you know about the angle, tell me. I don't know why you want to fight with me instead of help me. I wish I knew if you were a boy or girl and about how old you are and what your basic background is. You seem strange in an interesting way :)

And NO, losses in terminal velocity is NOT balderdash, it is giving me an idea of how thin the air is at various altitudes, and how much more resistance the air is providing! Gosh!

I don't know what is up with this "delta-v" stuff - I am not interested in any delta-v. I already have NASA velocities for chute deployment and release, and that is all I care about for now. But I don't trust NASA numbers, because I see that they are MANIPULATING CRITICAL DATA BY GREAT AMOUNTS - 50% OR MORE!!! *AND* HIDING THE MOST CRITICAL DATA - which doesn't seem to phase you at all!

IF YOU LOOK AT ANYTHING I DID, YOU WILL SEE THAT NASA IS FAKING THE AIR DENSITY BY 50% OR MORE!!! (off the top of my head) I don't see why that is not setting off alarm bells in your head!!!

I don't want to use Calculus - nobody will be able to follow it, and I don't see a genuine need for it yet. It is also a little difficult and messy to write that type of math with plain text.

I don't know what you mean "ending up with a power of 2".
AND STOP TELLING ME I AM ASSUMING THINGS! I ASSUMED NOTHING, EXCEPT MAX Cd! A magnitude is a power of 10. I am not off with anything. I hope you will try to be more accurate. If you force me to waste much time addressing nonsense, I simply won't have time to respond at all.

Chemistry is fine with me. I like chemistry. It was my hobby when I was in my early teens, then the f-ing govt made it illegal to sell chemistry sets and chemicals and things.

YOU ARE RIGHT! EVERYBODY IN GOVT IS A LIAR! If you don't know that yet, you have much to learn. All courts lie and cheat and defraud. Almost everyone in Congress is a convicted FELON. We have a president we know nothing about. We have massive criminal networks involved in drugs, slave trade, weapons trade, prison industries, etc, all connected to the CIA and Federal Reserve, etc. Wall Street lives off money laundering from illegal operations - AND EVERYBODY IS A LIAR - I am the only honest person I ever met! If I say something wrong, it is accidental or careless, not with intention to deceive.

I don't know why you are in love with garbage, when you seem to be ahead of most people in terms of knowledge. My impression is that you learn a lot of things on your own, things that none of your peers would ever learn. But I don't like to assume things.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20278339
United States
08/15/2012 08:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
ps. i am from Russia - so do not tell me how a population cannot be mind-controlled with propaganda! and USA worse than 1960 Russia! but they think they are so great. USA is nothing but blind fools, have such trust in their great 'leaders' ... i will tell you - you are not so great - USA is biggest group of fools on earth. no other country is so brainwashed as USA.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 694654


In the USA, it's easy to fool most of the people all the time. Most people get all their info from the MSM. Everything we are taught in public schools must be approved by the government textbook police. We are brainwashed from birth. Some people wake up on their own. I woke up the hard way after working in defense for 25 years and was the victim of blatant corruption.

P.S. I've been to Russia. Lived with a Russian girlfriend and her 16 y.o. son for a while. They are not quite as dumb as we are. Almost as dumb, but not quite as dumb. They know an authoritarian government when they see one. Most Americans just can't see the forest for the trees. The sad thing is that it has completely destroyed this country as we thought it was. But it didn't happen yesterday, or 10 years ago. Its demise started in 1776. The founding fathers warned us. Eisenhower warned us. JFK warned us. Fucking J. Edgar Hoover even warned us. Other notable people also warned us. But these warnings are not taught in school. Only in the past 1.5 decades do we have the internet to investigate these things. Unfortunately, because Americans are so brainwashed, you only have to say two words to shut down their minds... "CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!" The other thing you can't say is "I read it on the internet." They automatically lump in scientific bullshit they get from the the MSM with UFOs at Area 51 and haunted houses and simply smirk. Yet, lots of people believe every word of bullshit they read in the Bible. I'd like to pull my hair out if I had any.
[link to www.tentmaker.org]
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/16/2012 02:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Yes, that is true. And nobody will love me for saying this, but we don't have any need for more people in this country/world. I think we are entering an age where we are going to create more problems than we can solve comfortably, and most of our energy is going to be used deciding how to support more people and fix more messes. We will become our own biggest problem.

When I was a boy in the early 1960s, most of the land and waters were clean and enjoyable around the USA. Now, they are all toxic. A man working at a gas-station in 1970 could buy a house and support his wife and kids, now it takes 2 working people to live minimally on average. In the 1920s depression, there was already so many people (100million) that ALL deer went extinct in the USA east of the Mississippi as people hunted them for food. They had to be repopulated from deer in other countries.

The purpose of technology is to eliminate people/work, so we can enjoy a better life with more free time, and as we do that, we keep adding more people to the country/world exponentially and never realize the benefits that technology was supposed to provide. In the 1950s/60s, the propaganda was telling us we would live like the Jetsons, and everything would be done with machines, so humans could just enjoy life ...

And now we say "get a job" - but there are no jobs and there are no lands we can live on that we can't be taxed off of, so we are forced to serve the system. And a few have billions, and the rest are on food stamps. I proposed putting a tattoo-dot on the big toe of a woman each time she has a baby, and after a dot on each big toe, on the 3rd baby, tubes tied. 3 is enough for any parents that truly care for children! And stop immigration 100%, there is no reason for endless immigration.

Without population growth, housing would almost be free. With free-energy for each home, there is no need to pay for it, and it is coming very soon. With free housing and free energy, there is not much need to work for a system, except for some basic things like soap, toothbrushes, etc. But that kind of life is being destroyed by creating endless troubles with endless population growth. I can't put my finger on it, but I have a feeling there is something "Christian" or religious behind it.

If we used our brains, we could make a nice, free, comfortable, and enjoyable life for people in this country/world, but we are not using our brains. We are moving ahead like stupid pigs - leadership is very poor. I will die in a decade or so, so I won't have to live with what comes next, but I strongly encourage young people to step up to the challenge of destroying the systems we have now, and rebuilding a new way of life. It's necessary, and there is no other way.

We are placing all of our bets on "technology", but if it is a losing bet, there will be nothing left for humanity, we are way past the point were nature could provide, we are living solely because of technology. If some solar or other event destroyed our electrical grids and electronics, most people would die. Almost all. It's dangerous to put all of your eggs in one basket.

We cannot continue the baby-boomer way into the future without creating hell on earth. NASA won't save us by giving us other planets to live on. That is BS/nonsense.

The source of all wealth comes from mining/farming, and when those resources are being fully exploited, increasing populations only make increasing poverty. You can't keep dividing up what you pull out of the earth endlessly, and people need to care about future generations, and not only themselves.

We come into this world, then we leave it in a very short time. We should be leaving things better for each generation. But nobody is caring about that.

It shouldn't be a matter of "overpopulation", but a matter of "optimal population". All measurements in nature fall into a Bell Curve, and I think we are on the downward slide.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/16/2012 03:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Yes, that is true. And nobody will love me for saying this, but we don't have any need for more people in this country/world. I think we are entering an age where we are going to create more problems than we can solve comfortably, and most of our energy is going to be used deciding how to support more people and fix more messes. We will become our own biggest problem.

When I was a boy in the early 1960s, most of the land and waters were clean and enjoyable around the USA. Now, they are all toxic. A man working at a gas-station in 1970 could buy a house and support his wife and kids, now it takes 2 working people to live minimally on average. In the 1920s depression, there was already so many people (100million) that ALL deer went extinct in the USA east of the Mississippi as people hunted them for food. They had to be repopulated from deer in other countries.

The purpose of technology is to eliminate people/work, so we can enjoy a better life with more free time, and as we do that, we keep adding more people to the country/world exponentially and never realize the benefits that technology was supposed to provide. In the 1950s/60s, the propaganda was telling us we would live like the Jetsons, and everything would be done with machines, so humans could just enjoy life ...

And now we say "get a job" - but there are no jobs and there are no lands we can live on that we can't be taxed off of, so we are forced to serve the system. And a few have billions, and the rest are on food stamps. I proposed putting a tattoo-dot on the big toe of a woman each time she has a baby, and after a dot on each big toe, on the 3rd baby, tubes tied. 3 is enough for any parents that truly care for children! And stop immigration 100%, there is no reason for endless immigration.

Without population growth, housing would almost be free. With free-energy for each home, there is no need to pay for it, and it is coming very soon. With free housing and free energy, there is not much need to work for a system, except for some basic things like soap, toothbrushes, etc. But that kind of life is being destroyed by creating endless troubles with endless population growth. I can't put my finger on it, but I have a feeling there is something "Christian" or religious behind it.

If we used our brains, we could make a nice, free, comfortable, and enjoyable life for people in this country/world, but we are not using our brains. We are moving ahead like stupid pigs - leadership is very poor. I will die in a decade or so, so I won't have to live with what comes next, but I strongly encourage young people to step up to the challenge of destroying the systems we have now, and rebuilding a new way of life. It's necessary, and there is no other way.

We are placing all of our bets on "technology", but if it is a losing bet, there will be nothing left for humanity, we are way past the point were nature could provide, we are living solely because of technology. If some solar or other event destroyed our electrical grids and electronics, most people would die. Almost all. It's dangerous to put all of your eggs in one basket.

We cannot continue the baby-boomer way into the future without creating hell on earth. NASA won't save us by giving us other planets to live on. That is BS/nonsense.

The source of all wealth comes from mining/farming, and when those resources are being fully exploited, increasing populations only make increasing poverty. You can't keep dividing up what you pull out of the earth endlessly, and people need to care about future generations, and not only themselves.

We come into this world, then we leave it in a very short time. We should be leaving things better for each generation. But nobody is caring about that.

It shouldn't be a matter of "overpopulation", but a matter of "optimal population". All measurements in nature fall into a Bell Curve, and I think we are on the downward slide.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


And yet you see the need for less government.

Clean air and water, decent wages and living conditions, reliable products -- all of these are beset by the tragedy of the commons. In all of these cases, each INDIVIDUAL in a place to do something about it can stand only to lose by acting. So no-one does. The company that doesn't pollute, or that offers child care, is the company that is undercut by those that are willing to pollute and to take everything they can from their workers. They lose market share, they lose customers (who go to the lower prices), they get sued by stockholders and crushed by competitors.

So no-one can afford to be the one to take the first step. And, yet, with no-one doing it, everyone suffers; even the ruthless cutthroat "competitive" company suffers from a polluted environment and a customer base that can no longer afford their products (because none of them have a decent job anymore).

Government regulation is the worst of all possible solutions -- excepting the one; the lack of a solution.



And as far as the Malthusian nightmare; I don't say you are wrong. We have already exceeded the worst expectations of Malthus himself: because of technology. Which puts us in a very awkward position. There is no way to get off the tiger right now. The population we have is not sustainable with anything less than the technological infrastructure we are currently using.

There is no way to retreat to appropriate technology and sustainable development unless you somehow get rid of a large chunk of the population -- and drastically re-organize the rest. And there is no good way to get there from here. Even a handy plague wouldn't clear the decks in the right way; to get from the current teetering situation to a stable one passes through far too many unstable interim steps.

I am not hopeful. I also do not know whether it is an ultimate optimism or the most dismal pessimism to say that we still do not face an existential crisis. We will almost certainly face famine and war unimagined over the next decades -- but people will still survive. In hunger, in sadness, in anger and in pain, through new diseases and new climates and new geographies. And I don't know whether to call that survival a good thing or not.

I am not young, but I expect to be living through some of these changes myself. It is not a pleasant thought.
not amused
User ID: 22059172
Australia
08/16/2012 06:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Nomuse, I do play guitar, since I was 6, but I am not in a band. I used to play in a band about 15 years ago. Want some of my mp3's?

You are wrong about the parachute stuff. Cd=1.5 is the maximum - nothing is higher than that - I am favoring NASA with all my numbers. 50m just means that the Curiosity assembly is not interfering too much with the parachute drag. Cd=1.5 is probably too high. But it favors more drag, which is in NASA's favor. You can find out what Cd is according to NASA by using NASA's numbers in the drag equation, and solving for Cd.

I am not using "rules of thumb" and "approximations" and "simplified formulas" - I don't know what your point is if you criticize without improving anything. If you think I made an error, demonstrate it.

I am just trying to get a feel for the physical dynamics. and give others a feel for it as well. Mars is a different world, and imagination is not useful without numbers.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


Yes nomuse improve - demonstrate. if you are for real..
thx eng for you imput.
i hope they dont knock you off or ban you...cheers
nasa lies
User ID: 22059172
Australia
08/16/2012 07:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I really don't have the math for serious engineering; I can do basic statics and dynamics and some materials stuff, but then it falls apart.

then keep quite then and bragging for nasa lies///
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/16/2012 10:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
No morning post today! Due to popular demand, I am starting all over with 100% documented figures from NASA with sources, and hopefully, expert Cd opinion from parachute mfg's on the Cd of Curiosity's parachute. I was wrong in thinking 1.5 is maximum - so, please be patient, I want expert opinion on that number from people that really know.

Have a nice day everyone!

I don't want Nomuse to continue to insult my math! :)

News