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.