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

It isn't remote-controlled (not in real time), and it doesn't use gasoline.



You were asleep when the latest series of probes went to the Moon?



Mars IS red. The dirt is red, period (well, really more of a butterscotch, but anyhow!) People first noticed Mars was red, and started commenting on it, about 4,000 years ago. Mars is described as red in the writings of ancient Greek and Persian astronomers. Even today, if you have decent naked-eye viewing conditions you can see that Mars has a reddish color.

How can you possibly be going on about being told what to believe when Mars is right there, in the sky, waiting for you to look up and see for yourself?



Hardly. Notice the big, funny-looking wheels? Notice the dozen-odd hazard cameras watching the road? Notice how slow it moves? Mars is rugged, and the nearest mechanic is millions of miles away.



You might want to read something on how the actual spacecraft is constructed. Or just look at the pretty pictures (most of the daily papers had them) -- that seems more your speed.



Now if you don't mind, this ex-paratrooper is going to deal with this strange bit of tangled nylon and cord that has been mysteriously following me about since my last jump. Wish someone would figure out a way that you could, you know, UNHOOK a parachute after landing....

I am an Aerospace Engineer, and I am dubious of NASA as well. They wanted to hire me about 10 years ago (called me out of the blue), but I told them where to go, mainly because I don't buy the moon landings, and think they are dishonest. Most people don't realize it, but almost ALL SCIENTISTS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN HIGH-PAID GOVT WELFARE RECIPIENTS. Did a scientist ever do anything for you personally? Would you actually pay one to do something for you? Probably not.

Things I question off the top of my head are:

1. Where is the evidence of this "space crane" technoglogy being tested on Earth? Or do they just make things in a NASA shop, knowing they do perfect work, 1st time, every time? Sorry, but I don't know of any engineers that are so genius that they could make a "space crane", and gamble several BILLION dollars on it, knowing it was 100% functional and fail-safe on a foreign planet without testing because they are such perfect and all-knowing engineers. I can't imagine this being done without long-term testing, bug-fixing, etc. I know how difficult it was just to engineer the "jet pack" for flying a man around for a few minutes, and it wasn't done without years and years of extensive testing and re-development.

2. Do you realize how much FUEL would be required to bring a falling object in a near vaccuum (Martian atmosphere) to a grinding halt, when it's velocity is 10's of 1000's of miles per hour? Do you realize how much FUEL it took to get the thing out of earth orbit and into space travel velocity? Well, it wouldn't take much less to wind back that energy to zero, parachute or not. Even if only 10% of the fuel to get the rocket going, that is still a significant amount of fuel, and from the artist's rendition of the crane I saw, I don't see 10% of the rocket fuel in that thing.

Think of parachutes used in land-speed setting records - they are very tiny, because if they try to slow something down quickly by exerting significant force, they would rip to shreds, regardless of what fancy materials they used. I haven't seen many photos or any videos, but a large parachute would mean very little resistance.

Forgetting the parachute for a moment (because of the lack of Martian atmosphere), think of the rockets required to lower a 3-ton supersized SUV down to earth from space (or to put one into space - almost the same amount of energy, forgetting air resistance). Don't think "airplane", because that is a completely different set of physics and elements. Only think "rocket", like your fireworks.

I don't buy into this at this time. I am not saying it is fake, because I don't have all the necessary data and information on the project, but any engineer that buys into this fully at this point, based on their actual knowledge, would be a complete moron. I also have questions concerning micro-meteorites, which literally flood space, and they would not burn up slamming into Mars, which attracts them and concentrates them from it's gravity. And no, I do not think we went to the moon with men, no way. The Russians sent a dog or something up there, and it came back fried, but I don't want to get into that here.

Nobody should take "insider's word" for it. Satellites and other objects we send into space are either a) in low earth orbit where they are sheltered and protected, or b) they perform for a short time (several days), or c) they have very heavy shields and carry no heavy fuel tanks. Outside of Earth, the environment is extremely hostile. People are overly impressed with silly electronic gadgets as their concept of technology, but real engineering is not so simple as developing the next Ipad, especially engineering things for beyond Earth orbit.

Also, I supposed Mars is too close for the Hubble to focus on it (chuckle) ...

"Marstards"


Yes...I will have Marstard on my wiener...

Yes...why would we possibly need scientists at something like, say, the CDC. Or investigating the health of watersheds. Or examining spill sites. Or...





Have you looked?

If you know anything about NASA, you know they are crazy for testing. As is anyone in man-rated aerospace engineering, of course.

Some things are of course difficult to completely test outside the environment they are designed for. At some point you have to put the boat in the water. Since Mars has a lower surface gravity, and much lower atmospheric pressure, you can't do an absolutely accurate landing test without, well, landing there.

But I'm willing to put money that NASA did pretty much everything up to that point. That's the way they work -- the way they have worked for decades, the way they are documented, extensively, as working.





Do YOU know how much fuel would be required?

If you really are an aerospace engineer, then you have heard of the ideal rocket equation. If your specialty got anywhere near space -- satellites or rocketry or whatever -- you should be able to understand the mission profile and quote the actual delta-v needed at each burn.

And, no. I haven't studied Curiosity's profile at all, but the basic idea for all Martian probes is aerobraking. As is done for, say, lunar missions returning to Earth. Aerobraking is passive and needs no fuel -- that's why you do as much as possible of your velocity change that way, and not with the rockets.

Plus this is an outward transfer; at apogee the spacecraft is barely moving relative to Mars and ready to drop back towards the Sun. My guess is the largest expenditure of fuel is going to be transfer to Mars orbit and circularization thereof.






They didn't buy a parachute off the shelf. They designed one for Martian conditions. Which means they designed for the largest practical resistance within the range of the material strengths. And tested it (as they did for previous rovers) in high-speed wind tunnels.




But there is an atmosphere. And your understanding is almost exactly backwards. To lift off Earth and get into orbit, you are trying to achieve two different energy-intensive things against two energy-sapping problems. You want to be above most of the atmosphere, and you want to be moving very swiftly in a direction perpendicular to that height gain. You have to fight to push through the atmosphere for the first part of the journey, and you have to fight against gravity for the whole thing.

This makes it MORE costly, not less, to take off. And worst yet -- at the point at which you are moving most slowly, and the atmosphere is densest, your spacecraft is at its heaviest.

IF you had a perfect parachute (aka a balloon), and came to rest at some arbitrary point above the Martian surface, the cost at that point is less than it would take to hover there (since you aren't, after all, hovering).

In practical terms, you are likely to have a faster than desired insertion velocity, and less time than you'd like spent in atmosphere using it to de-accelerate. Mars is a little tough to land with just passive modes. But this is far, far, from the situation of landing on, say, the Moon; where outside of exotic ideas like controlled lithobraking the only option is to burn fuel.





NOW you sound like an engineer. Most engineers won't tell you the color of their own socks unless they have subjected a swatch to spectrum analysis. And even then they'll hedge their answer.



Good thing, too, because you got it wrong. Out of the various Soviet missions using dogs, the most notable long-duration exposure to the VARB produced not just a healthy pair of dogs, but a healthy litter -- descendants of which are owned by families in Moscow and D.C.



You are correct in the one -- it is a hostile environment. Not as bad as, say, inside the human body, but it is a design challenge.

Otherwise caveat upon caveat. The satellites that operate within the VARB carry a heck of a lot of station-keeping fuel (because otherwise they'd describe an ellipse and that isn't so nice when you are trying to keep your cable channels focused on them). Station-keeping fuel is the first thing that runs out and the primary end of service condition. Followed by failure of the electronics -- they may be rad-hardened, but we're talking 5 years or more in the proton belt here.

And, no, the entire spacecraft isn't shielded. That would be silly.

I agree that people -- evidence this thread -- are too easily awed by what are basically marketing points; aka so many megapixels in a CCD, so many megahertz clock speed on a CPU, and so forth. The real engineering is dealing with the constraints of dependable performance in extreme conditions, of working with limited power, etc.

Whoever thinks this landing was a hoax, should definitely go streaking in public during rush hour.

This place is piled high with pseudo scientists babbling on about some bullshit NASA spewed on some website.
Face it, this shit is fake.
Nobody is falling for this bullshit NASA. Just give up.

Proof that the landing was fake or GTFO

yeah ,sure mate.
just keep sucking NASa's cock.

lol fuckwit.

Sorry pal, you cannot prove a negative in this manner.
You being a rocket scientist should know this.

Someone already showed a picture of the rover on a studio set. They showed that the picture was on a NASA web site, and then was quickly pulled.

Please stop buying into this bullshit.

lets all agree to disagree

Because

1. No one can prove NASA went there

and

2. No one can prove it was fake


btw I think it was fake, I just use common sense by looking at the pics. Mars surface isn't fully red btw and it has a blueish sky. This has been proven with colour correction on photos NASA have produced from Mars.

Don't believe the hype



[link to conspiracy2012.files.wordpress.com]

omgg
[link to www.landoverbaptist.net]


hope russkies to nuke you out of the (flat)map, cause according to 100th monkey theory you retard all earth

Dumb ass. I am an Aeronautical Engineer for over 25 years, and I have a BS in Chemistry also. I am also a Pvt/Com pilot and A&P mechanic - so don't try to BS me. This is supersonic nonsense without some extraordinary earth-based evidence. Anyone that bases "evidence/reality" on "insider propaganda" and "video/photos" is a MORON in this 911 day and age. You probably think 911 was done my Arabs with boxcutters. Fing moron. Hopefully, people are getting smarter than this.

> Yes...why would we possibly need scientists at something like, say, the CDC. Or investigating the health of watersheds. Or examining spill sites. Or...

Yes, why do we? CDC never did anything for me or most people. And if we have to investigate the health of watersheds, we already fucked up. 99% of "scientists" are worthless leaches off govt funds and programs.

> Have you looked?
If you know anything about NASA, you know they are crazy for testing. As is anyone in man-rated aerospace engineering, of course.

Fing moron. Do you think I would need to "look" to find evidence of a "space crane" ? Don't you think it would be the biggest news in the world? That we actually have a platform rocket system that can take us into space like an elevator? We don't need a Fing space shuttle if we have that! We can just send mechanics up to fix the Hubble on the rocket elevator, with some big "super" parachutes to let them glide back down to earth. The more I think about this, the more insane it gets.

> Do YOU know how much fuel would be required?

YES< I DO! It would be approximately:

Mass of Space Crane + Mass of Curiosity
DIVIDED BY
Mass of Loaded Rocket that leaves earth,
MULTIPLIED BY
Mass of Fuel in Loaded Rocket.

It would be a little less because Mars has about 2/3 the gravity of Earth (from memory, don't quote me), and a little more because Mars has no atmospheric friction, and a little less because of Earth's atmospheric friction, but MUCH MORE because of engineering safety factors (eg, I guess they would use at least 50% more fuel than required as a safety factor - better too much than too little ...). And that damn space crane sure doesn't look like it is holding anywhere near enough fuel to take 1 ton + Weight of Crane + Weight of Fuel (another ton or more?) from Mars into outer space (or vice versa, no real difference).

I don't care how they designed the stupid parachute. It's Fing nonsense. Whatever fuel it saved in slowing down the assembly in a near vaccuum, it wasted just to get to Mars. This whole thing sounds more and more like crap the more I think about it. Mars has about 1/2% of Earth's atmoshphere from what I read, and that is next to nothing. It is essentially a vaccuum, eg, what you get if you attach a vaccuum pump to a sealed vessel.

I don't care if I sound like an engineer or not. Bet me $1000, and I will send you my diplomas and ID and you can verify for yourself.

I LOVE HOW "MOONROCKS ARE THE SAME AS EARTHROCKS!" AND
I LOVE HOW "MARS LOOKS JUST LIKE THE MOJAVE DESERT!
HAZE AND ALL!" GEE!!! WONDER WHY ALL SPACE
EXPLORATIONS COME BACK WITH EVIDENCE OF EARTH???

DUH!

Fing morons. And my neighbors wonder why
I am a lone wolf, and try to investigate me
as the next terrorist or mass killer.

A fundamental problem with modern society is that
it has taken away the risks of stupidity,
and allowed idiots to multiply.

goldman sacks got away with it and so have NASA.

oh look at the fucking geeks clapping and cheering at some fucking disney movie.
it must be real.
hand over the 2.5 billion for grainy photos of the mojave desert. LMAO.

these fucking assholes are unreal.

Litmus tests are for people who can't do the work. You want to talk about Curiosity, talk about Curiosity. Don't drag in some unrelated conspiracy and claim that trumps any need for argument.




Yes, you would.

Have you actually looked at what the "space crane" did? Or are you just mouthing off?

It didn't lower from orbit. It didn't lower from the top of the atmosphere. ALL IT WAS, was a few dozen feet of cable between the lander and the rover. A lander that worked, otherwise, exactly like every other soft rocket lander since Surveyor.






Wow. You actually think the entire spacecraft landed?

Even ignoring the two stage Atlas/Centaur that was the original launch vehicle, the cruise stage alone (which did not land) is almost as heavy as the rover.

Perhaps you should go back and review the concept of "staging."

And then perhaps you can move into advanced concepts like specific impulse.




I'll totally admit to meandering myself, so I won't make fun of that. You don't seem able to define whether there is a significant atmosphere or not, and you seem extremely reluctant to try to put any actual numbers on it.

But you are again assuming that the space crane has to supply the entire delta-v from orbit to surface. All of it. You are hand-waving over aerobraking as if it didn't matter.

Without doing the numbers. Or even looking at the numbers. And this is ridiculous. Put it this way -- Mars has a heck of a lot more atmosphere at two miles up than the Earth does at 250 miles. But spacecraft in low Earth orbit experience sufficient friction it has brought down at least one expensive spacecraft (Skylab, that is).

So you can't just say "Third-order variable, we'll ignore it." You need to actually show that you've made an order-of-magnitude calculation to rule out that variable.

I use the term aerobraking intentionally, by the by. Because it was obvious to me, simply as an amateur who has paid attention to previous missions, that the parachute was not responsible for absorbing all of the orbital velocity. If you had spent even a second looking up basic facts about Curiosity, instead of pontificating from ignorance, you'd see why this was a good call.

what I don't understand is?

"most people believe one company, one theory, one idea, one set of stats, one truth"

what if NASA have been telling us BS from the start?

NASA to me is just a derivative of NAZI, anyone that knows the history of NASA knows how it started.

I was told there are always two sides to the story, not one?

NEWS ALERT: Man with 911 tatoo and AR-15 with 1000 round drum magazine shoots up Mars rover Curiosity replica in Mojave Desert! NASA loses over a billion dollars of equipment! FBI agents were on the scene in 20 seconds. Witnesses reported 5 masked men in black running from the scene. New York mayor makes plea to disarm USA, says "We must stop the damage guns are doing in our country!"

In other news: USA sends Syrian rebel freedom fighters guns and rockets and 25 million rounds of 40 caliber ammunition. New York mayor says "We must support freedom in Syria!"

Beam me up Scotty!

I too am skeptical of the parachute claim. Mars atmosphere isn't just thin, it is very, very thin at the altitude NASA says the chute "opens" to start deceleration.

"If NASA was awesome enough to deceive most of the world and get them to believe we had men walking on the moon, then they would be coming up with more awesome shit than dropping a friggen buggy on Mars 40 years later."

Actually, with all that Helium 3 hype that was going around a few years ago, you would think that an unmanned probe to better test the Moon's soil would have been a wiser investment than sending another probe to Mars.

BUT, since we already landed men on the Moon and brought them back, I would think that scientists around the world would clamor for a robot probe to bring back significant amounts of Moon soil for testing. And whatever the robot brings back from the Moon has to match the Moon rocks we already have, right?

(In general. I know not all rocks on the moon originated there.)

So did NASA paint itself into a corner all those years ago by faking the Moon rocks? Now they can't bring back anything from the Moon because the real stuff won't match what we already have "from there"?

"NASA to me is just a derivative of NAZI, anyone that knows the history of NASA knows how it started."

You know JPL, which supposedly stands for Jet Propulsion Lab, actually stands for Jack Parsons Lab.

Ole Jack was a brilliant scientist, and a confessed devil worshipper.

most were brilliant imo. This is why I am sceptical of NASA, they are involved in sooo much more than just supposed space travel. The tech they have and what they tell the public are two different things.

This to me is just a blatent hollywood movie though. Sorry to all the believers. I have no proof. But this, Now the supposed 911 memorial and metal that was used on the "curiosity" at the time of the olympics and the supposed conspiracy of aliens?

Even the name "curiosity" tells me that something is not right?

> Have you actually looked at what the "space crane" did? Or are you just mouthing off?
> It didn't lower from orbit. It didn't lower from the top of the atmosphere. ALL IT WAS, was a few dozen feet of cable between the lander and the rover. A lander that worked, otherwise, exactly like every other soft rocket lander since Surveyor.

No, I don't watch TV or videos, and I don't care about the Olympics or NASA. I only viewed some artist's renditions of things, and the "space crane" looked like a square module with rockets on 4 sides. I really don't care to study propaganda. But, assuming you know all about this, the parachute took the vehicle down from space (but then why is this called a "space crane?). So, let's calculate. We all know what a parachute looks like for a 200lb man on earth. And they land fairly hard, and must learn how to roll when they hit ground. So, for 1 ton, 2000lbs, we would need a parachute with 10x the area. And for 1/2% of earth atmospheric density, we would need a parachute approximately with 100x more area. So, in total, we would need a parachute about with about 1000x the surface area of the ones we see men use on earth, and this is not even accounting for the fact that this is traveling about 3.5km/s or about 2+ miles/sec = 120 miles/min = 8000 miles/hour.

OK - this makes so much sense. At 8000 mph, we open a parachute 1000x bigger than the ones we all know. Sorry, but none of this adds up. Apologies for my foul language, but if you care to help me make sense of this, why don't you explain the basics yourself since you seem like a NASA apologist.

To the NASA apologist I am arguing with:

I don't understand the substance of the rest of your post, but if you have intelligent facts for me to think about, I will think about them. In the meanwhile, another big red flag for me is:

Assuming Mars is at its closest to Earth, that is 55 million miles, which makes 5 minutes at the speed of light, 10 minutes round trip. I am very dubious about anyone at NASA being able to control critical landing manuevers with over a 10 minute delay between readings and instructions. All of this would have had to been done automatically, without any human input at all. I just don't buy it. I am very familiar with aircraft design and engineering, and we are just trying to make drones work at this time, with instantaneous communication between man and machine. And even so, Iranians hijacked one of them :) We can fly commercial airliners by autopilot, but we still use men to get them off the ground and land them. But you want me to believe that we can do all this fancy stuff 55 million miles away with no human guidance or input, and have all things work perfectly every time with every rover. I don't buy it. I don't think NASA's engineers are any better than those at Boeing.

Why don't you put forth some basic facts that easily show how it is all possible. I can't use any currect technology to show how it is possible. Nevermind the uselessness of it all. Until we can get men to live beyond the Van Allen radiation belts on a long term basis, space is just a waste of time and money, and a great scam for whoever is behind it.

[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.

For those that don't know, when you are beyond supersonic speed, the speed of sound (which varies based on air density), you are essentially in a LIQUID, not "air", not a "gas". So whatever parachute was used, it would be like being underwater at 100s of miles per hour, and then opening a parachute (largest ever built). I don't believe it.

I can't imagine any material being able to withstand that kind of stress. And certainly not a "fabric-like" material attached with tethers. Even Kevlar (bullet proof vests) is destroyed from bullets hitting a 1cm square areas at a few hundred miles per hour. I want evidence of this "largest ever built" parachute opening at supersonic speeds. Then I may be open to the possibility of this.

Something worthy of notice in the HP parachute photo is how the parachute and the vehicle assembly are perfectly vertical, as if they are all dropping straight down - how can this be unless it is almost touching down? It looks like a fairly high-altitude photo, taken from the assembly in orbit, so the vehicle assembly should be dragging the parachute with some horizontal velocity, the chute should be oriented diagonally from the vehicle assembly, but it all looks like a perfectly vertical drop.

The parachute doesn't look any bigger than one a man would use on Earth, assuming the vehicle assembly is like an SUV. I wonder why NASA doesn't release all the technical details such as what happened when, and how fast are things moving, and at what height are things happening, and why isn't their a constant video stream of the entire event? Why do we get everything piecemeal?

With a chute so small (not the 1000-2000x size that would allow the vehicle assembly to hit the surface as hard as a parachuting man on Earth), that thing would still be going almost 1000 miles per hour down to the surface, and I highly doubt the "space crane" (which evidently has nothing to do with space) had enough fuel and power to stop over 2000lbs traveling at almost 1000mph. I am not seeing anything that makes much engineering sense.

Good posts, Mr. Engineer!



This parachute nonsense is the weakest link in NASA's ridiculous BS story.

Mars escape velocity = 5.03 Km/sec = 3.12 miles/sec = 11,250 miles/hr
Earth escape velocity = 11.19 Km/sec = 6.95 miles/sec = 25,000 miles/hr

Mars day = 24.62 hrs Earth day = 24 hrs

Mars Atmospheric Pressure = 0.097 pounds/sq in
Earth atmospheric pressure = 1014 mb = 14.7 pounds/sq in

Mars atmospheric Density = 0.020 kg/m3 = 0.0012 pounds/cubic ft
Earth atmospheric density = 1.23 kg/m3 = 0.0768 pounds/cubic ft

So, Earth's atmospheric density is about 60x that of Mars.
That parachute is doing nothing for 2000lbs. The "space crane" would have to do the majority of work in slowing that thing down, and I am not seeing the fuel to do it. The volume of fuel would have to be at least the same size as the vehicle assembly, perhaps many times more, just as with a rocket.

And what kind of controls are guiding and managing it all? And where is that data? An engineer would think there would be a constant stream of data from all these automatic controls.

Probably the same place 3rd party evidence of the moon landings.