The Mars dis-information thread (Update: NASA caught lying about ground pressure - Page 2)

True.

Mars has blue athmosphere, simmilar to Earth, not red as NASA teach us.

But we already know that entire Official Space Program is a lie.

And is that a cyclone in the upper left corner?

omg really?
So many times people say why cant they look at Mars with Hubble.

This was not taken by Hubble Space Telescope

Mars is being re Terraformed.. to harbor LIFE once again.

[link to www.mars10psi.com]

At sea level, Earth has an atmospheric pressure of 14.7 PSI (pounds per square inch). This atmosphere allows life as we know it to exist on our planet.


Before the Viking spacecraft landed on Mars in 1976, it was thought that the atmospheric pressure of Mars was somewhere between 0.4 PSI and 4.4 PSI. When the Viking spacecraft landed, the pressure sensor appeared to indicate that the atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars was 0.09 PSI.


There was a software error in the conversion of pressure sensor data, where Pa and hPa were not considered as different units, although they differ by a factor of 100. This implies that Mars has an atmospheric pressure of 9 PSI. This has rather large implications for our understanding of physics, and may be an explanation why most spacecraft attempting to land on Mars fail, and the ones that do land are many miles from the intended landing location.


Units errors have caused the loss of several spacecraft, including one to Mars.

"root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft was the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software file"
- Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board Phase I Report November 10, 1999

The question I asked myself a few years ago (and, individually, 492 other people since then), and still can not find another answer is:


The sky is not black when viewed from Mars rovers.

At 100,000 feet on Earth, the pressure is similar to the currently accepted pressure on Mars, and the sky is black.

If the diffuse light on Mars is from the dust, what is holding up the dust? (Most likely not turtles.)


...

Comments are appreciated. If you have additional supporting information, or if you think that any data, or even the entire concept, is wrong, please let me know. -Nathan [email protected] Phone: (354196 times 14407)


This website is mars10psi.com because I had thought the atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars was 10 PSI before I found the units error. I now think it is likely 9 PSI.


Religion and politics should have nothing to do with a math error.

I do not believe in the flat Earth. See turtle joke above.

[link to www.thenakedscientists.com (secure)]

We all know that the real color of the sky on Mars is a very pale blue, not pink or red as the liars say. Anyone who has fixed the colors of a NASA Mars pic has seen it. When you correct the colors so the sundial on the rovers is the correct color the sky turns blue. Easy to see.

But what I want to know is why does it have color at all? If you go on Earth to the altitude where air pressure equals Mars air pressure there is no color to the sky. It is black. At a far lower altitude than would equal Mars pressure the sky is black. There should be no color. Yet there it is. Pale blue. I know it is caused by Rayleigh scattering. And that makes skies blue even in a CO2 atmosphere. But how is there enough "air" there to cause any scattering?

And wind forms. How can such thin air cause sand dunes and wind erosion? How can it even hold dust aloft? We have no weather at 100,000ft, which is Mars equivalent air pressure. How can it even hold a cloud? Or make snow?

Are we being lied to about more than the color of the sky? Is it really much thicker than we are being told? Is it all just another method to keep the conspiracy nuts at bay? What's the deal?

Published on Jan 1, 2007

Credit: NASA /// Taking advantage of Mars's closest approach to Earth in eight years, astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have taken the space-based observatory's sharpest views yet of the Red Planet. The telescope's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 snapped these images between April 27 and May 6, when Mars was 54 million miles (87 million kilometers) from Earth. From this distance the telescope could see Martian features as small as 12 miles (19 kilometers) wide.

No it didn't, you stupid fucking idiot! The Hubble telescope can't focus on some thing as close as Mars.
It's like trying to use binoculars to see a virus.

Published on Jan 1, 2007

Credit: NASA /// Taking advantage of Mars's closest approach to Earth in eight years, astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have taken the space-based observatory's sharpest views yet of the Red Planet. The telescope's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 snapped these images between April 27 and May 6, when Mars was 54 million miles (87 million kilometers) from Earth. From this distance the telescope could see Martian features as small as 12 miles (19 kilometers) wide.

Looking at Mars thru the Hubble (designed to see light years away) would be like you trying to focus on something a 1/4 inch from your eye ball. It just ain't happening, you stupid fucking idiot!
Grow a Brian, you retard!

Notice how it moves wobbles In frame Hubble does not,notice the quick sound of keyboard tapping at end ..

Try again ...

Dude ...it's just a telescope in space. It works no differently!

[link to astronomy.stackexchange.com (secure)]

Question:

What detail can Hubble see on Mars?

Can a Hubble-like telescope observe significantly greater detail than displayed in the article below? If so, what might reasonably be resolved? Large cities? Individual buildings?

Answer:

Forget about magnification. People who know telescopes don't think in terms of magnification. What matters is the angular resolution, or the resolving power: the angular size of the smallest details that you could see in an instrument.

Rule of thumb: the resolving power of a telescope with a diameter of 10 cm is 1 arcsecond when using visible light. The numbers are inversely proportional. A 20 cm telescope resolves details 0.5 arcsec in size. A 1 meter telescope resolves 0.1 arcsec.

Hubble has an aperture (diameter) of 2.4 m, so its resolving power is 0.04 arcsec.

The minimum distance between Earth and Mars is about 55 million km and it only happens very rarely. The maximum distance is 400 mil km. The "average" distance is 225 mil km (but actual distance varies all the time).

Let's apply the tangent of 0.04 arcsec at 55 mil km:

[link to www.wolframalpha.com (secure)]

It's 10 km. It would only be able to see the major geographic features.

To see buildings (down to the scale of 10 m), it would need a 1000x increase in resolution. That means an aperture of 2.4 km. None of the classic telescope designs can provide that. It would have to be some kind of interferometric design - a large, flat field where several mirrors are placed several km apart and are coupled optically to function as a single huge mirror (well, sort of - this is more of an intuitive explanation).

Now show the moon through Hubble.