Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,213 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,281,976
Pageviews Today: 1,615,196Threads Today: 255Posts Today: 5,539
11:47 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/16/2012 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I did write Pioneer Aerospace to ask them for specs, specifically Cd, on the parachute they made for Curiosity, and I asked a parachute mfgr as well. We will see - I don't know if they will reply or not. Today, I lean a little more in NASA's favor, because I have read 100s of documents with data that led up to the engineering and design of Curiosity. I am the type that feels a little "ill" when I see the "happy photos" of everyone at NASA kissing & hugging - I hate those kind of work environments ...

Anyway, here we go ... I don't want to repeat this stuff, so hopefully this will suffice for further work.

Part 0 / 6
==========
Today, we clear up poor data with NASA references,
to settle worries about poor data giving poor results.
Hopefully, our input data will be as good as it gets now.
==========
[link to marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov]

Cruise Stage: (Fueled) 539 kg (1,188 lbs)
Configuration for travel between Earth & Mars.

Entry/Descent/Landing: (Aeroshell/fueled descent stage) 2,401 kg (5,293 lbs)
Configuration for entry into the Martian atmosphere.
Includes the aeroshell and a "sky crane" lander structure.

Rover: 899 kg (1,982 lbs)
A wheeled vehicle with science instruments
for discoveries on the Martian surface.

EDL + ROVER = 7275 lbs

The spacecraft design for the Mars Science Laboratory mission is based largely
on the successful twin Viking landers sent to Mars in the 1970s. The rover
design is based on the Mars Exploration Rovers, which landed on Mars in early
2004. The system for entry, descent, and landing is entirely new. How much
does the spacecraft weigh? The Mars Science Laboratory mission had a total
launch mass, including the rockets that lifted it away from Earth, of about
531,000 kilograms (1.17 million pounds). The total mass of the spacecraft is
3,893 kilograms (8,463 pounds).
==========
[link to quest.nasa.gov]

Atmospheric Density

Earth: 1.2256 kg/m3 = .002378
Mars: 0.0155 kg/m3 = .000030075 (.00003)
MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*0)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*0+459.7)) = .000029317

[link to nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov]

Surface gravity (m/s^2) 3.71 9.80 0.379 (.38)

Apology from me to NASA, I am not sure if they heard me or not,
but now I am finding data for atmospheric density being released:

[link to ntrs.nasa.gov]
[link to www26.us.archive.org]

Search: aeroshell drag coefficient ... for that number if interested.
==========
Back to Mars atmospheric science class ...
We are doing a sanity check on NASA's Mars Atmospheric Model (MAM),
assuming they have a Mach 2.2 largest-strongest-ever parachute,
we will use the following 2 functions:
=====
V = sqrt(2*W*.38/(rho*C*S)) [link to www.pcprg.com]

Where:

V = velocity in ft/s
W = weight in lbs
rho = density in slugs/ft^3
C = Cd, drag coefficient = 2.2-2.5 ( MY OPINION ) see;
Cd=2.2 => [link to www.fruitychutes.com]
[link to fruitychutes.com]
[link to cdn.theatlantic.com]
S = Pi*radius^2 (circular area, radius = 25.5ft)
.38 = Mars gravitational coefficient for weight/lbs/lbf
=====
NASA's Mars Atmospheric Model, MAM:

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))
=====
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/16/2012 01:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Based on your experience, can you tell me what Cd the Mars Curiosity Parachute was? 1.5? 2.2? I would like an "expert" opinion on that value for a report - I won't mention your business, unless you state that it is OK. You can see images of the parachute at the link below. I hope you will give me your best guess so my report can be informative (it's for aeronatical techies), Thank you!
--
Hi! The chute looks like it is basically elliptical or spherical which should have a Cd of about 1.5 (assuming projected frontal area). But there also seems to be a skirt around the bottom that that probably affects it some as well. But if I have to guess I'll say 1.5. I do not think it's 2.2!

THANK YOU! If anyone ever needs a Parachute, I hope the buy one from Fruity Chutes, I am not saying they answered this, but I will say that from personal experience, they have A++ customer service and make some great parachutes! Their Iris Parachute is Cd=2.2!
Engineer
User ID: 694654
United States
08/18/2012 07:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
It would be worth testing all 6 ROAD (Radio Occultation) profiles for the
region, because they are all at different times, days, seasons, and years, and
Mars' air density varies greatly. The "extra accuracy" didn't make any
difference. Terminal velocity is calculated to give an idea of how thick the
atmosphere is. On earth, a falling man travels at 120mph if he is spread out,
and 180mph if he is diving. I think Indy cars travel around 300mph, or did at
one time. Commerical airliners fly around 500mph, and if you ever saw a jet
break the speed of sound, that is about 770mph. If anyone calculates the
speed of sound at 10km on Mars, that would be VERY interesting. It would be an
amazing coincidence if it was the sawe as Earth, as NASA seems to indicate. I
feel confident that Cd=1.5 for the parachute, which is based exclusively upon
shape. The additional "skirt" on the parachute is a band to strengthen the
edges at supersonic speeds, so they don't tear (my guess, anyway). No reply
from Pioneer Aeronautics on the Cd. 1 Pascal is the pressure you would feel
on your hand from a $1 Federal Reserve Note. There is no way to do a simple
calculation and decide all things, especially with a lack of all necessary
data. The only way to make validity determinations is to analyze sections of
the descent, where enough quantities are known, and optionally compare
calculations to other known sets of data.

I change REAL to ROAD for Radio Occultation Atmospheric Density ...

From:

[link to ntrs.nasa.gov]

This book contains air density data for Mars Pathfinder (10-140km)
and has some data from other missions at aerobraking altitudes as well.
Pathfinder landed at 20degN Latitude, not too far from the equator.

4.1 Model Variations with Latitude, Season, Height, and Time of Day

Because of its small mass, the atmosphere of Mars has low heat capacity and
little physical inertia. Therefore, it responds dramatically to changes in
heat input (such as diurnal and seasonal changes in solar radiation) and
mechanical forcing (such as winds flowing over strong topographic relief).
This fact is illustrated by Figure 4.1, which shows seasonal and latitudinal
variations of daily average atmospheric density at 100-km altitude. This
*** figure shows seasonal variation by almost a factor of 30 between southern
*** winter solstice (Ls = 90 °) and southern summer solstice (Ls = 270 °) in
the south polar region at this altitude. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate
temperature versus height and latitude at Ls = 270 °, with tau = 0.3 and
moderate solar activity, at 3 AM and 3 PM local solar time, respectively.
Near-surface temperatures at 3 AM show strong inversion. Near-surface
temperature inversions between about 30° and 60° N latitude are also evident
at 3 PM. Sharp north-south temperature gradients are seen from the surface to
about 40-km altitude near the north polar cap edge (about 60 ° N). Strong
diurnal changes in temperature (differences between 3 PM and 3 AM values) are
seen in northern latitudes above about 150 km and in southern latitudes near
the surface. [Note: this is polar regions. Curiosity is near the equator.]

[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*7275*.38/(0.00001796*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
316.9632233108531512 ft/s (215 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 / ROAD terminal velocity: 80%

Mars-GRAM: 0.01911 kg/m^3 = 0.0000370795084782 slugs/ft^3
===> 220.5932291450725189 (150 mph) /ROAD=70% /MAM=88%

.5km 1637ft 0.31mi
520 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 0.0085051371028101 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000165026846317 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7275*.38/(0.00001650*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
330.6892436120434564 ft/s (226 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000279697105221 slugs/ft^3
===> 253.9895260602075750 ft/s (173 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 77%

Mars-GRAM: 0.01672 kg/m^3 = 0.0000324421445188 slugs/ft^3
===> 235.8422546806174476 (161 mph) /ROAD=71% /MAM=93%

2.5km 8184ft 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 0.0074886173017014 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000145303112887 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7275*.38/(0.00001421*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
356.3403497412825749 ft/s (243 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000231739804071 slugs/ft^3
===> 279.0609214871119487 ft/s (190 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 78%

Mars-GRAM: 0.01672 kg/m^3 = 0.0000324421445188 slugs/ft^3
===> 235.8422546806174476 (161 mph) /ROAD=66% /MAM=85%

5km 16420ft 3.11mi
350 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 0.0058341734543108 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000113201613847 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7275*.38/(0.00001132*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
399.2443946927842958 ft/s (272 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000182929031495 slugs/ft^3
===> 314.0907800583140532 ft/s (214 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 79%

PATHFINDER: ~ 0.01 kg/m^3 = 0.0000194031964825 slugs/ft^3
===> 304.9728483242942131 (208 mph) /ROAD=76% /MAM=97%

6.6km 21648ft 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*7275*.38/(0.00001024*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
419.7706429850403073 ft/s (286 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000157436435239 slugs/ft^3
===> 338.5787340815677531 ft/s (231 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 81%

PATHFINDER: ~ 0.01 kg/m^3 = 0.0000194031964825 slugs/ft^3
===> 304.9728483242942131 (208 mph) /ROAD=73% /MAM=90%

14.4km 47256ft 8.95mi
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*7275*.38/(0.00000548*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
573.8148213103323692 ft/s (391 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000078671513176 slugs/ft^3
===> 478.8226376692667800 ft/s (327 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 84%

PATHFINDER: ~ 0.006 kg/m^3 = 0.0000116419178895 slugs/ft^3
===> 393.7182542018106710 (267 mph) /ROAD=68% /MAM=82%

21km 68904ft 13.05mi
71 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 0.0013018541336619 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000025260131547 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7275*.38/(0.00000253*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
844.5041348292683319 ft/s (576 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000044055141448 slugs/ft^3
===> 627.3495323732470528 ft/s (428 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 74%

PATHFINDER: ~ 0.005 kg/m^3 = 0.0000097015982412 slugs/ft^3
===> 431.2967382557697100 ft/s (294 mph) /ROAD=51% /MAM=69%

29km 95146ft 18.02mi
31 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 0.00062427101255953 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000012112853115 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7275*.38/(0.00000121*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
1221.1509614110263487 ft/s (833 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000021968599302 slugs/ft^3
===> 905.6297912531867894 ft/s (618 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 74%

PATHFINDER: ~ 0.001 kg/m^3 = 0.0000019403196482 slugs/ft^3
===> 964.4088252138351500 ft/s (658 mph) /ROAD=79% /MAM=106%

31km 101693ft 19.26mi
25 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 0.00049206709118279 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000009547674452 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7275*.38/(0.00000095*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
1378.1618961392550548 ft/s (940 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000018492779589 slugs/ft^3
===> 987.5888468746275203 ft/s (674 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 72%

PATHFINDER: ~ 0.0009 kg/m^3 = 0.0000017462876834 slugs/ft^3
===> 1015.4136951077454449 ft/s (693 mph) /ROAD=74% /MAM=103%

39km 127934ft 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*7275*.38/(0.00000044*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
2025.0497756910701175 ft/s (1381 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000009331366566 slugs/ft^3
===> 1392.9020148525371134 ft/s (949 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 69%

PATHFINDER: ~ 0.0005 kg/m^3 = 0.0000009701598241 slugs/ft^3
===> 1363.8800402897093768 ft/s (930 mph) /ROAD=67%% /MAM=98%



10km 32789ft 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*7275*.38/(0.00001024*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
419.7706429850403073 ft/s (286 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-10.34-.001217*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000116203143694 slugs/ft^3
===> 394.0569366336433095 ft/s (269 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 94%

PATHFINDER: ~ 0.009 kg/m^3 = 0.0000174628768343 slugs/ft^3
===> 321.4696084046117166 ft/s (219 mph) /ROAD=77% /MAM=81%

1.8km 5914ft 1.12mi
480 Pascals, 214K (parachute release)
Using the Ideal Gas Law, and a Specific Gas Constant of 287.04 J/kg-K,
we get an atmospheric density of 0.0078142093582971 kg/m^3
and using 1 slug/ft^3 = 515.379 kg/m^3
we have: 0.0000151620639535 slugs/ft^3
Thus, terminal velocity for Curiosity assembly:
sqrt(2*7275*.38/(0.00001579*1.5*3.1416*25.5^2))
338.0422439107991520 ft/s (231 mph)

MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*h)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*h+459.7))
===> 0.0000247354698469 slugs/ft^3
===> 270.0612000890134694 ft/s (184 mph)
NASA terminal velocity / ROAD terminal velocity: 80%

Mars-GRAM: 0.01672 kg/m^3 = 0.0000324421445188 slugs/ft^3
===> 235.8422546806174476 (161 mph) /ROAD=70% /MAM=88%



CONCLUSION: Even air at 1% the density of earth (more or less) has significant
effects on drag. The atmosphere on Mars varies greatly from season to season
(up to 30x at the poles, but Earth changes a lot at the poles also), and from
day to night. It seems that NASA has opened up their vaults, and if you look
hard, you can find a lot of data from previous Mars missions. The propulsion
used for landing is of the type commonly used for satellites, and has a long
history (hydrazine), and requires no oxygen. If a parachute only 51ft wide
could slow down 7275lbs (2765lbs on Mars) to 220mph at 1.8km, it is highly
likely that hydrazine jets and 100gal/1000lbs of fuel could have done the
rest of the work in landing softly. I don't know if I will do more work on
this due to time constraints. If others are interested, go for it :)
Recommended: What is the speed of sound on Mars at 10km?
Could it be the same as Earth, as NASA claims?

Given the amount of data from previous probes, and enough modeling and
real-world testing, I would guess that NASA very likely completed this mission
as stated. And if so, it is a true marvel of engineering, especially
considering they did it in about 8 years, from concept to landing. Pathfinder
air-density data correlated well with the Mars Atmospheric Model, but the
Radio Occultation data was far astray from both, showing a much less dense
atmosphere than other data. It would be interesting to do calculations on the
other 5 of 6 sets at the Curiosity lat/long. It is also unknown why NASA's
atmospheric scientist stated the air was LESS than 1% the density of Earths,
because all data from NASA shows it to be 2% or so. It is also unknown why
some state it is 1/1000 of Earth's air density. If that was true, then this
mission would not have been possible as described. It was a risky mission,
because of the vast changes in the air density on Mars, and the amount of dust
in the atmosphere. But possibly, they orbited, waiting for a good window of
opportunity.

The minor changes to equation variables between this set and the last set made
little or no difference to the overall outcome generally, eg, 7500lbs ->
7275lbs, .39 for gravity to .38, and 26 to 25.5 for parachute radius. It
would be interesting to run the other 5 of 6 sets of ROAD data in the vacinity
of the landing, but I am very busy with other things, and I am feeling a
little burned out on this. I firmly believe Apollo was a major hoax, and
curse the 1-2 dozen astronauts that were all too introverted, shy, and feeble
to share their amazing experience with the public who gave them everything
they had in life, but you know, they just wanted their privacy. F-EM! They
disgust me. Despite that, I do think we are on Mars with Curiosity, despite
violently opposing that idea a few days ago, when I first heard of it.

Why are we on Mars? I have NO IDEA. It's a near-absolute zero wasteland, and
the gravity would destroy your bones and muscle, and it is far far away, and
would require everything from Earth for building and life support. Sewage and
waste would freeze, and hang around for millions of years. There's nothing to
do on Mars, no place to go, and you would need a pressurized suit to go
outside, and you would die fairly quickly if it ripped. The Venutian
atmosphere @ 50km is habitable RIGHT NOW with CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, and has none
of the downsides of Mars. Personally, I do not think man can leave Earth :) I
think there are many things we do not know about that tie men to Earth, and I
hate people that think it is OK to just gobble up and destroy Earth, thinking
they can find another planet to consume later.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 694654
United States
08/18/2012 07:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Sorry, I stated Mars' Atmosphere was about 2% of Earth, but I meant 1.2 (to 1.3) percent.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21531349
United States
08/18/2012 07:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Timeline like "moon landing" which was fabricated during Vietnam war
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/18/2012 01:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Sorry, I stated Mars' Atmosphere was about 2% of Earth, but I meant 1.2 (to 1.3) percent.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 694654


Depends on when and where. It is quite dynamic. The CO2, for instance, freezes out over the winter; in even a small telescope you can see the polar ice caps grow and shrink. And all that mass has to come from SOMEWHERE.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/18/2012 01:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Ah. I see that was mentioned already upthread.

Fascinates me how dynamic the atmosphere is, also in re the chemical composition, and even the molecular composition; the Martian atmosphere is too thin to sequester ozone at the upper margins of the atmosphere; hard UV penetrates much closer to the surface and wreaks havoc on the molecular makeup of the atmospheric gases.

The thermal profile is also fascinating; has even more of a re-curve than Earth's.

All of this stuff, for me, underlines just how changeable and potentially unstable our own fragile envelop is. A slightly starting mass, tectonic activity, biotic activity, solar constant, and this planet could look like another Mars -- or another Venus.

It behooves us to understand what happens to planets over time because we risk having a probe sent by some other intelligence, a million years from, scraping away at the barren surface of the third planet of our sun and trying to determine if it had ever held life...
hard to remember
User ID: 22222354
Australia
08/19/2012 04:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
its hard remember who you were writting for eng. the whole mission is a fake you dont need to do so many number crunching. just common sence. I cannot get fair mobile phone coverage on earth. come on to get ever thruster to work and to get slow down to 0 come on with a parashute, as i think you said they landed in a crator to fake it... fake fake fake..all government are built on lying to the people.like building 7 it came down because of those pesky fire yer right. do some fomulas and sqare rooting of thats, dont waist your time nasa is faking it!!! and stop pretending you are talking to nomuse you and he are the same guy pretending to be against each other. then youll begin to agree with each other and kiss. it wont work the para shute is a fake...
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/19/2012 01:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
its hard remember who you were writting for eng. the whole mission is a fake you dont need to do so many number crunching. just common sence. I cannot get fair mobile phone coverage on earth. come on to get ever thruster to work and to get slow down to 0 come on with a parashute, as i think you said they landed in a crator to fake it... fake fake fake..all government are built on lying to the people.like building 7 it came down because of those pesky fire yer right. do some fomulas and sqare rooting of thats, dont waist your time nasa is faking it!!! and stop pretending you are talking to nomuse you and he are the same guy pretending to be against each other. then youll begin to agree with each other and kiss. it wont work the para shute is a fake...
 Quoting: hard to remember 22222354


Err, what?

What do your unrealistic, advertising-driven expectations for a piece of consumer technology have to do with anything?

Did the fact that a plastic coat hanger (that you bought at 8/$1.75 at the local super-save store) break mean that the Brooklyn Bridge might fall down at any moment?

The cell phone is an optimized bit of engineering designed to provide the largest subscriber area possible with just good enough service so the customers will keep paying for it. It is designed specifically to be as cheap as possible, and to perform only as well as they need to in order to keep their customers from switching. It is an extremely low-powered, statistically modeled, NETWORK -- as in, no phone could POSSIBLY talk to another phone by itself; the thing only works as part of a much larger system.

But I guess you don't understand or use technology -- because then you might have used a spell-check on your post!
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
08/19/2012 01:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I have to add in defense of the cell phone;

The consumer desire -- which has become expectation because the marketing people are willing to play to it -- is for a device which is extremely portable, works everywhere, has a bright screen you can read in daylight, remembers your numbers for you, plays music when you aren't on the phone, or games, or checks email, and will any day now deliver real-time TV as well. And it would be too much of a hassle to be plugging it in all the time so it has to do all this for days on a single small battery.

It is only just possible because of the dense batteries and extremely low-power electronics we are doing now, as well as the leaps in efficiency in display technology. On the transmission side -- potentially the most power-hungry aspect of the whole thing -- digital error correction and applied psycho-acoustics makes it possible to provide the illusion that you are getting as good a connection as a simple wire.

A whole host of difficult engineering is behind it, plus a host of near-invisible compromises. In a way, given the demanded performance parameters, the miracle is that it delivers most of the time.
Pianoman

User ID: 13563628
United States
08/22/2012 11:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
engineer
CONCLUSION: Even air at 1% the density of earth (more or less) has significant
effects on drag. The atmosphere on Mars varies greatly from season to season
(up to 30x at the poles, but Earth changes a lot at the poles also), and from
day to night. It seems that NASA has opened up their vaults, and if you look
hard, you can find a lot of data from previous Mars missions.

I've read through all your posts here more or less. This conclusion is not consistent in tone or quality with your earlier vociferous objection to the idea that a 2 ton craft can decelerate from 13,000 mph to 900 mph in the first 4 minutes of the 7 minutes of terror before the parachute deployment-- even if the martian atmosphere was 2% rather than 1% as dense as earths-- and even if there is dust in the atmosphere and even if the polar density is 30X that. I thought your differences with your wife were somewhat funny in a dark way- but now I think maybe she might have been right. Still, if a bit of college level physics can expose this hoax, I think NASA's little science fiction video game is going to read game over pretty soon. This latest Curiosity mission is just plain silly as you pointed out in your earlier posts as they related to my special interest which was the intitial decleration. Thanks for all that work-- even if "they" are making you back off now-- which is what seems to be occurring here.
Pianoman

User ID: 13563628
United States
08/22/2012 11:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
engineer
CONCLUSION: Even air at 1% the density of earth (more or less) has significant
effects on drag. The atmosphere on Mars varies greatly from season to season
(up to 30x at the poles, but Earth changes a lot at the poles also), and from
day to night. It seems that NASA has opened up their vaults, and if you look
hard, you can find a lot of data from previous Mars missions.
 Quoting: Pianoman
UNQUOTE

Pianoman.
I've read through all your posts here more or less. This conclusion is not consistent in tone or quality with your earlier vociferous objection to the idea that a 2 ton craft can decelerate from 13,000 mph to 900 mph in the first 4 minutes of the 7 minutes of terror before the parachute deployment-- even if the martian atmosphere was 2% rather than 1% as dense as earths-- and even if there is dust in the atmosphere and even if the polar density is 30X that. I thought your differences with your wife were somewhat funny in a dark way- but now I think maybe she might have been right. Still, if a bit of college level physics can expose this hoax, I think NASA's little science fiction video game is going to read game over pretty soon. This latest Curiosity mission is just plain silly as you pointed out in your earlier posts as they related to my special interest which was the intitial decleration. Thanks for all that work-- even if "they" are making you back off now-- which is what seems to be occurring here.
Dr. AstroModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 21217730
United States
08/22/2012 11:18 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
engineer
even if "they" are making you back off now-- which is what seems to be occurring here.
 Quoting: Pianoman

Oh for fuck's sakes!
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 10920814
United States
08/22/2012 11:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
I did write Pioneer Aerospace to ask them for specs, specifically Cd, on the parachute they made for Curiosity, and I asked a parachute mfgr as well. We will see - I don't know if they will reply or not. Today, I lean a little more in NASA's favor, because I have read 100s of documents with data that led up to the engineering and design of Curiosity. I am the type that feels a little "ill" when I see the "happy photos" of everyone at NASA kissing & hugging - I hate those kind of work environments ...

Anyway, here we go ... I don't want to repeat this stuff, so hopefully this will suffice for further work.

Part 0 / 6
==========
Today, we clear up poor data with NASA references,
to settle worries about poor data giving poor results.
Hopefully, our input data will be as good as it gets now.
==========
[link to marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov]

Cruise Stage: (Fueled) 539 kg (1,188 lbs)
Configuration for travel between Earth & Mars.

Entry/Descent/Landing: (Aeroshell/fueled descent stage) 2,401 kg (5,293 lbs)
Configuration for entry into the Martian atmosphere.
Includes the aeroshell and a "sky crane" lander structure.

Rover: 899 kg (1,982 lbs)
A wheeled vehicle with science instruments
for discoveries on the Martian surface.

EDL + ROVER = 7275 lbs

The spacecraft design for the Mars Science Laboratory mission is based largely
on the successful twin Viking landers sent to Mars in the 1970s. The rover
design is based on the Mars Exploration Rovers, which landed on Mars in early
2004. The system for entry, descent, and landing is entirely new. How much
does the spacecraft weigh? The Mars Science Laboratory mission had a total
launch mass, including the rockets that lifted it away from Earth, of about
531,000 kilograms (1.17 million pounds). The total mass of the spacecraft is
3,893 kilograms (8,463 pounds).
==========
[link to quest.nasa.gov]

Atmospheric Density

Earth: 1.2256 kg/m3 = .002378
Mars: 0.0155 kg/m3 = .000030075 (.00003)
MAM: p = 14.62*e(-.00003*0)/(1149*(-25.68-.000548*0+459.7)) = .000029317

[link to nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov]

Surface gravity (m/s^2) 3.71 9.80 0.379 (.38)

Apology from me to NASA, I am not sure if they heard me or not,
but now I am finding data for atmospheric density being released:

[link to ntrs.nasa.gov]
[link to www26.us.archive.org]

Search: aeroshell drag coefficient ... for that number if interested.
==========
Back to Mars atmospheric science class ...
We are doing a sanity check on NASA's Mars Atmospheric Model (MAM),
assuming they have a Mach 2.2 largest-strongest-ever parachute,
we will use the following 2 functions:
=====
V = sqrt(2*W*.38/(rho*C*S)) [link to www.pcprg.com]

Where:

V = velocity in ft/s
W = weight in lbs
rho = density in slugs/ft^3
C = Cd, drag coefficient = 2.2-2.5 ( MY OPINION ) see;
Cd=2.2 => [link to www.fruitychutes.com]
[link to fruitychutes.com]
[link to cdn.theatlantic.com]
S = Pi*radius^2 (circular area, radius = 25.5ft)
.38 = Mars gravitational coefficient for weight/lbs/lbf
=====
NASA's Mars Atmospheric Model, MAM:

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))
=====
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


you making the Big mistake the one that gets the so-called "smart" ones. You see they did build it and spend the money, Just it never left the planet and it cost about 80 percent less than the 2.5 billion if you dont go to mars for real :) Its a scam man
Khunopie
User ID: 22452032
Thailand
08/23/2012 04:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
[link to www.toplistsonline.com]

First the Curiosity spacecraft entered the atmosphere using a heat shield. This slowed the craft somewhat, but not nearly enough to make the landing. Next, a supersonic parachute--the largest ever built--was used to slow the craft further. For its final stage, Curiosity used a revolutionary jet-propelled "space crane" to lower it gently to the surface.


--

Sorry, don't buy it. Supersonice parachute AND the LARGEST EVER BUILT? I want some evidence of a parachute like that. Got some??? A parachute that can withstand several supersonic shock waves? (one for each multiple of the speed of sound)

I am sure NASA would HAVE TO TEST such a parachute - any articles or videos of this testing? I'd love to see it.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654

Don't Nasa engineers have really super HP calculators to do all this hard figuring so they don't have to test? LOL
Dr. AstroModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 21217730
United States
08/23/2012 08:43 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
[link to www.toplistsonline.com]

First the Curiosity spacecraft entered the atmosphere using a heat shield. This slowed the craft somewhat, but not nearly enough to make the landing. Next, a supersonic parachute--the largest ever built--was used to slow the craft further. For its final stage, Curiosity used a revolutionary jet-propelled "space crane" to lower it gently to the surface.


--

Sorry, don't buy it. Supersonice parachute AND the LARGEST EVER BUILT? I want some evidence of a parachute like that. Got some??? A parachute that can withstand several supersonic shock waves? (one for each multiple of the speed of sound)

I am sure NASA would HAVE TO TEST such a parachute - any articles or videos of this testing? I'd love to see it.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654

Don't Nasa engineers have really super HP calculators to do all this hard figuring so they don't have to test? LOL
 Quoting: Khunopie 22452032




astrobanner2
pianoman
User ID: 13563628
United States
08/25/2012 03:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
engineer
even if "they" are making you back off now-- which is what seems to be occurring here.
 Quoting: Pianoman

Oh for fuck's sakes!
 Quoting: Dr. Astro


That's your argument? An expletive? You'll note that Engineer has not been back since making his conclusion-- which was nowhere near as substantiated as his case against the lander. You simply deny that there is a "lie or die" policy in place... which is fine. I can understand the need to be complicit in covering a policy like that up. Anyone who followed Engineer's case, through this forum from the beginning, however, can detect the instant incongruous change in Engineer's style and sheer volume... not to mention his disappearance. So, Dr. Astro... woof woof.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22679120
Thailand
08/28/2012 08:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22758503
Brazil
08/28/2012 10:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
what's the pressure of Mars?
[link to arkcode.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22758593
08/28/2012 10:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
Click on next, one at a time
[link to arkcode.com]
be be
User ID: 2429514
Australia
08/29/2012 06:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
engineer
even if "they" are making you back off now-- which is what seems to be occurring here.
 Quoting: Pianoman

Oh for fuck's sakes!
 Quoting: Dr. Astro


That's your argument? An expletive? You'll note that Engineer has not been back since making his conclusion-- which was nowhere near as substantiated as his case against the lander. You simply deny that there is a "lie or die" policy in place... which is fine. I can understand the need to be complicit in covering a policy like that up. Anyone who followed Engineer's case, through this forum from the beginning, however, can detect the instant incongruous change in Engineer's style and sheer volume... not to mention his disappearance. So, Dr. Astro... woof woof.
 Quoting: pianoman 13563628


Very well put conclution piano man thats whats this sites about shill site. may the real engeneer step forward or is he banned for stalking.
Dr. AstroModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 21217730
United States
08/29/2012 08:38 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
engineer
even if "they" are making you back off now-- which is what seems to be occurring here.
 Quoting: Pianoman

Oh for fuck's sakes!
 Quoting: Dr. Astro


That's your argument? An expletive? You'll note that Engineer has not been back since making his conclusion-- which was nowhere near as substantiated as his case against the lander. You simply deny that there is a "lie or die" policy in place... which is fine. I can understand the need to be complicit in covering a policy like that up. Anyone who followed Engineer's case, through this forum from the beginning, however, can detect the instant incongruous change in Engineer's style and sheer volume... not to mention his disappearance. So, Dr. Astro... woof woof.
 Quoting: pianoman 13563628


Very well put conclution piano man thats whats this sites about shill site. may the real engeneer step forward or is he banned for stalking.
 Quoting: be be 2429514


You're both paranoid and need help if you seriously think he was threatened rather than realized the truth.
astrobanner2
dog owner
User ID: 23155817
Australia
09/04/2012 03:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
...

. sakes!
 Quoting: Dr. Astro


That's your argument? An expletive? You'll note that Engineer has not been back since making his conclusion-- which was nowhere near as substantiated as his case against the lander. You simply deny that there is a "lie or die" policy in place... which is fine. I can understand the need to be complicit in covering a policy like that up. Anyone who followed Engineer's case, through this forum from the beginning, however, can detect the instant incongruous change in Engineer's style and sheer volume... not to mention his disappearance. So, Dr. Astro... woof woof.
 Quoting: pianoman 13563628


Very well put conclution piano man thats whats this sites about shill site. may the real engeneer step forward or is he banned for stalking.
 Quoting: be be 2429514

be a good dog and sit in the corner. Why has engeneer being banned!!hiding
You're both paranoid and need help if you seriously think he was threatened rather than realized the truth.
 Quoting: Dr. Astro
SmartGuy
User ID: 21024925
United States
09/07/2012 08:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
To: the aerospace engineer with a chemistry degree and a little dick.

You are a jackass.
-150
User ID: 25067705
Russian Federation
10/06/2012 11:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
That's a genuinely impressive awensr.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25943547
United Kingdom
10/20/2012 09:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
To: the aerospace engineer with a chemistry degree and a little dick.

You are a jackass.
 Quoting: SmartGuy 21024925


shill
James2053
User ID: 19955095
United States
11/30/2012 01:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "Curiosity Mars "landing" BIGGEST HOAX EVER!!!"
You would hear "it is 10 seconds since the vehicle module was released from orbit, the onboard computers are now reporting a speed of XXX based on XXX measuring devices, laser sensors are reporting a height of XXX, atmospheric pressure from the XXX device is detecting XXX, temperature sensors are reporting XXX ... it is now 1 minute ...." and so on. But they are afraid people will catch them with the fraud, so they will never do that.
 Quoting: Engineer 694654


The Engineer has logically thought this through, like a Bobby Fischer would if he hadn't cared so much about chess. I became a true believer of NASA fraud (specifically landers, not probes nor orbiters), when I easily digital signal processed many NASA archive hi-res images of the Apollo missions where the camera captured the Sun's image.

What they though was all white and wash-out had a tiny bandwidth of real data at the "whitest" frequencies. Just remove the clipped or bloomed values and stretch that tiny piece across the full bandwith and voila, a military type search beam complete with rim, 3 pronged tripod and central area housing & bulb. Compare with an earth-based image of the same thing and the signatures are identical.

So astronomers & scientists can detect traces of magnesium in a star thousands of trillions of miles away but can't see that those Apollo sun images are spot lights? Well, they can't without losing their grant.

I like the way this Engineer thinks. I wish all engineers had to take a little reality test on Apollo or Mars Curiosity technology before acceptance into a firm. If they didn't ask questions here like the Engineer or had some serious doubt, then they are out.

News