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

OK, you have provided some useful information, no need for name-calling. I only did it in one post because you seemed to be making a hit & run attack on my credentials and the seriousness of my assertions.

You are right in saying I don't have all the facts, and you ought to question why we don't have all the facts. Why not make all of them public immediately on Twitter or on a dynamicly updating webpage? Why would NASA hold back on all the sensor measurements that the autopilot is using to perform it's functions?

I like all of your new data, especially the parachute data. So, the landing assembly is a total of almost 7500lbs! Almost 1000lbs is fuel, ok. Wow! So, we are talking about 2-3 full size SUV's now. I can now say that it would take a parachute 4000-8000x the surface area of a T10 to land that assembly at 7m/s (23ft/s) on Mars, from a stationary free-fall (no 13,000mph initial velocity!). Just to give people some idea of things.

As far as the unit wanting to gain speed as it tightens it's orbit, it is not simply a matter of gravitational acceleration (which is important), it is ADDITIONALLY a matter of angular momentum, L = Iw. I = inertia, w = angular velocity.

L will remain constant, but using I = mr2, since mass is constant, a reduction in the radius will cause I to decrease, and since L is constant, w must increase to compensate.

I must inform you that experience over the years counts for something. I worked for the FAA almost a decade, and we WOULD put parachutes in aircraft if it was possible, to prevent high-speed crashes into the earth, but it simply isn't possible - the engineering of such a feat is old old news. It would take parachutes occupying entire payload, and still wouldn't allow a gentle enough landing to save anything or anyone! And as I said, we would put them in satellites to recover them and learn about the wear and tear and failures, and to eliminate space debris which is a big cause for concern, and we wouldn't have relied on pilots or high-speed entry of the Space Shuttle if it was possible to use auto-pilot and parachutes. The heat on re-entry was the most dangerous aspect of the shuttles engineering, and would have been avoided if at all possible. BUT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE - across the board - no matter what aspect of aerospace you look at - whether aircraft, satellites, shuttles, ANYTHING - it is NOT POSSIBLE for humans to engineer planetary/asteroid/moon landings of heavy high-speed devices using parachutes - the idea is NOT NEW - it is decades old! And there has never been any realistic design for doing so, it's just a batshit crazy OLD idea that's been calculated 1000s of times by 1000s of people. They have been used on ultra-lights, displacing all other payload, but that's their limit.

> What would be much more difficult is seeding into your data new discoveries in exo-geology, which would then be discussed and analyzed and broken down by the top people in the field across the world, AND would remain consistent with anything discovered over all of the decades you intend to keep the hoax going -- against every observation from other probes, earth-bound telescopes, Martian meteorites, etc.

That is exactly what happens. What do you think we would do with all our physics graduates without bogus welfare projects? Give them food stamps? NO. We create nonsense for them to study, like "Earth rocks from the Moon!" So they can invent theories of how a big asteroid hit earth billions of years ago, and knocked a chunk of Earth into a perfect orbit with a perfect spin so that one side always faces the Earth! Look how much idiotic work that generated for decades!

I don't need to study all these things. I am over 50 years old and have worked in these areas for over 25 years - what are new ideas to you are old ideas to me. I already know they don't work because I am aware of all the work and effort that has been done on this type of thinking for decades. And obviously you are not. So, just keep providing data, that is fine with me. I am not afraid of data. I admit I don't have all the data, but I will trust what you provide, you seem to provide good data.

You also must explain how all the energy is dissipated. I am telling you this is an age old problem that has never been solved. If you have extraordinary claims that this problem has been solved, then you are the one that must provide the extraordinary evidence, not me.

Getting things to move 10,000+ mph in space is easy with enough fuel, going from 10,000+ mph to 0 without any fuel, or using a parachute - well, that's very laughable. And based on my knowledge and experience, knowing it has been worked on for decades, and knowing the physics involved, know it is a problem without any current solution.

As you stated yourself, the Apollo CM was completely destroyed by NASA or the govt, and for what reason? You don't question reality. THERE WAS A REASON. It is laughable to think that dropped into Earth with some silly parachutes. If it were possible, WE WOULD DO IT WITH SATELLITES. We do not like losing them all to total destruction and space debris!

If you have more essential data, I will be glad to review it, but I must work on other things for the next 12-24 hours. No need to fight, I am honest, and data & facts are not personal issues with me.

I am an Aerospace Engineer, and I am dubious of NASA as well.

all the spendature trillion dollars fund, and seriously people are doubting nasas ability in sending a automounose devise out there. i think 21st century thinking is seriously dumbing the people down so accepting there gadgets. the truth ain't networking, gadgets.

OK, I will admit some surprise with this parachute formula. I did read of supersonic parachute tests, it seems that some have been developed that can withstand that shock - though they all got rips/tears in the tests, they remained usable. That was a little mind-boggling to me - I'd like to see one of those parachutes sometime! It's very difficult to imagine a parachute withstanding that kind of stress. And I did study various drag coefficients of various objects and various parachutes, and have some idea of those. Generally, .75 is a good number, .33 for very porous material, and up to .8 or so at the high end for some NASA tests, and 1.5 for a flat solid plate. It doesn't make too much difference just to get a ballpark idea.

The basic equation I used is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if the man was 200lbs even on Mars?

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, now for the Curiosity ...

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

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

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

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

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

How many miles per hour is that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientists require independent reproducibility.

Historians require independent corroboration.

Lawyers require sworn testimony under cross-examination.

NASA has provided none of these.

how fast a person be moving

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

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

Please disregard a calculation I posted using a very low air density number I posted 2 posts ago, where I used the ratio of air pressures to make a calculation for air density (showing a velocity of 500mph or so). It was Saturday night before bed, and I really shouldn't have done that, though it is probably valid a few 1000 feet in altitude.

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

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

From:

[link to www.google.com]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevermind that last post, I think I found the "model", and I also have the corrections to the model.

My gripes with NASA:

1. I was, and am, DISGUSTED by the behavior of the Apollo astronauts

2. I am disillusioned by the destruction of evidence and lack of accountability

3. I do not wish ...

[link to www.grc.nasa.gov]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am taking a quick break too - but I saw your comment on Terminal Velocity - that is easily caclulated using the same drag equation I used in examples. I am just making a quick post because I wanted to calculate that, and remember thinking I could do it with that equation ...

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

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

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