MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

*
A sad gathering of hypnotized young people. :(


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4aklaE6kJk

I always wondered what being "hip" really meant. So I went to the Urban Dictionary:

HIP :
"The state of being in-the-know, including, but not limited to, being stylish or fashionable."

"Informed, up to date, fashionable, contemporary, relevant. Being modern in dress, attitude and interests. From "hepi," meaning "well-informed" from the West African language of Wolof."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hip
So I hereby humbly propose a "hip" antonym / neologism: "hyp". :P
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Heiwa »

Approach
Source: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/timeline/approach/

To ensure a successful entry, descent, and landing, engineers began intensive preparations during the approach phase, 45 days before the spacecraft entered the Martian atmosphere. It lasted until the spacecraft entered the Martian atmosphere, which extends 3522.2 kilometers (2,113 miles) as measured from the center of the red planet.

Note that NASA measures the Martian Atmosphere from the center of the planet and not its surface! :blink:

The approach looks like: Image

Note that NASA doesn't mention the space crafts velocity on arrival! It is 5 000 m/s!

Entry, Descent, and Landing
Source: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/timeline/edl/

The entry, descent, and landing (EDL) phase began when the spacecraft reached the Martian atmosphere, about 125 kilometers (about 78 miles) above the surface, and ended with the rover safe and sound on the surface of Mars at 10:32 p.m. PDT on Aug. 5, 2012 (1:32 a.m. EDT on Aug 6, 2012).

Entry, descent, and landing for the Mars Science Laboratory mission included a combination of technologies inherited from past NASA Mars missions, as well as exciting new technologies. Instead of the familiar airbag landing of the past Mars missions, Mars Science Laboratory used a guided entry and a sky crane touchdown system to land the hyper-capable, massive rover.

The sheer size of the Mars Science Laboratory rover (900 kilograms or over 2,000 pounds) precluded it from taking advantage of an airbag-assisted landing. Instead, the Mars Science Laboratory used the sky crane touchdown system, which is capable of delivering a much larger rover onto the surface.


Note that the atmosphere is only 125 kilometers above the surface and is getting thicker as you get closer to surface. If you need 1 050 kilometers to stop you have to get in at an angle, etc. Better not to mention it! :P
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

Re: Mars Curiosity - parachute

Unread post by rick55 »

rick55 wrote:George Noori had Hoagland on C2C the night of the landing along with a few other guests. I only heard part of the show as I fell to sleep but I recall something about the speed at which the Curiosity landing craft would release its parachute. That was said to be above the speed of sound by one of the guests. I guess that's about 700 mph. That seems a bit fast to consider a parachute, doesn't it?
I posted this question about the parachute and speed of the lander and later, Haiwa posted something relevent but in response to SmokingGun's questions about engine power at the end. They're related but the parachute is an independent component. Heiwa wrote....
Mars atmosphere is pretty thin so parachutes will hardly brake anything coming flying in at 5 000 m/s, so what you need is a rocket engine that can apply an opposite force that stops the mass m (kg) coming dropping down, e.g. if the mass is 1 kg of thing being dropped at 5 000 m/s, the rocket engine must apply 12.5 MJ (megajoule) energy to stop it (and the engine itself).
This dismisses the parachute too quickly since NASA/JPL depended on the parachute as the first braking effort and thus the first one we should look at to discredit the highly renowned CalTech and all of their students, professors, administration, alumni, and related participants in this apparent hoax-- which in itself is astonishing beyond belief. Heiwa's second post about this was very much closer to where we have to go. He wrote
atmospheric pressure on the Mars ground is only 6 hPa compared with a pressure of 1000 hPa on Earth. In spite of this, we are told the parachutes worked
He also says the the initial velocity is 5,000 m/s but I've read on the NASA site somewhere that it was actually 5,900 m/s which is closer to 6,000 m/s if we're going to use round numbers. This is enough of a difference to check. Heiwa goes on to point to the average speed during descent but I don't understand why that's relevent... the deceleration is relevent. Can we brake the momentum of the craft in time to get to where the retrorockets are fired?...which is a separate component of the problem.

Heiwa points to NASA measuring the height of the atmosphere from the center of the planet which is, as he implies, useless and absurd. We want to know the depth of the atmosphere from the solid ground where, presumably, the lander would crash if it didn't slow down sufficiently. He quotes JPL's page where we see it is considered to begin 125 km above the surface. This should be trivial rocket science arithmetic and, in fact, model rocket enthusiasts are able to do the neccessary formula and numbers. The problem I see is that I'm not personally familiar enough with numbers and formulas to verify that they work and neither are most of the public. So the calculation of the parachute drag on the craft will have to be explained to novices as we go along.

The quote, for example, that starts with 5,000 m/s which is actually closer to 6,000 m/s is, in fact, 6 kilometers per second. This is important so the novice can imagine the units as comparable. IF the atmosphere above the ground starts at 125 km, and the craft is travelling at 6 km/s, it's fairly easy for a lay person to see that he has to stop in 125/6 km//km/s or about 21 seconds. That assumes you're dropping straight down, however. Still, it's useful to visualize this much.

Presumably, the 13,000 mph is about 6 km/s
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl= ... 7brbcpNveE

The "deceleration" would have to include, then, the initial v(i)=6 km/s and the v(f)=0 with elapsed time in seconds as 7X60x= 420s. Here is the formula for acceleration and deceleration....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_f ... celeration

v(f) - v(i) / t = -6/420 m/s/s = about -0.14 m/s/s
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl= ... tJ5mUqNQLs

But what does that translate to in terms of something we can intuitively understand as lay novices? I think it was on Noori's show with Hoagland that nite that the deceleration was equivalent to a car going 60 mph stopping in a fraction of a second. Googling the google calculator we get 1 mph = 0.44704 meters per second so 60 mph = 26.8224 meters per second or 60 mph = 0.0268224 kilometers per second.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=6 ... per+second

Using the same deceleration formula,

v(f)-v(i) /t = 0 - .0268 m/s / 420 s (the 7 minutes of terror) = -6.38628571 × 10-5 m/s/s.

That figure, -.000063 m/s2 is way off compared to -0.14 m/s2 as a decelertation figure. So Noori's guess was wrong. Instead what if we stopped a car at -0.14 m/s2. What would that be like for a car going 60 mph? I'll do this later if someone else doesn't.

The momentum and weight values looked at by Heiwa earlier are relevent here too but not just yet-- until we visualize the actual velocities involved. I don't want to complicate it too much at a time. We want to embarrass JPL/CalTech students, staff and others publicly and shame them into admitting a hoax. To do that, the explanations here have to be sellable to the public at large in a way that teaches novices and lay people how rocket science works, by the numbers. Any grade 5 level arithmetic book graduate should be able to follow the calculations...any intelligent 12 year old, in other words. The future of the world depends on these kids grasping the hoax by the numbers.

Am I treading the correct path for this audience here or not? We want to discredit JPL right? And we want to do it "logically" so we can brag about it and tell everyone we know... and make it easy for intelligent lay people to follow. We want to shame the professionals and hoaxers out of perpetrating such hoaxes. Obama says he wants American kids to compete with others on the international scence... welll this seems like a good situation to start with. Maybe we could generate a buzz in the nation's grade schools asking high school students to prove that the Curiosity actually could land on Mars. Somehow, the hoax must be exposed to the light of day!
Fedge
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 10:09 pm

Unread post by Fedge »

Judging by the delays for the pictures of the landscape in 8Mpix colour, i guess they are preparing a good batch of them. :p
Cant wait to see some arizona lizards under a rock xD
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Heiwa »

I always keep it simple.
If the start velocity before braking is 6 000 m/s and the end velocity is 0 m/s, the average speed while braking is 3 000 m/s and if the braking takes 420 seconds, the brake distance is 3000 x 420 = 1 260 000 m or 1 260 kilometers. Imagine braking so long. And only needing some rockets the last minute to adjust things.
It seems parachutes were used to brake for most of the time and the question is what kind of parachutes can stop 3 000 kilograms at 6 000 m/s. What kind of material is used? How big is the parachute? Who made it? What was the weight of it. Where was it tested? In Earth air with a known density? How do you test a parachute that shall be used in an atmosphere where the density is much, much less ... and offer less resistance? Etc, etc. Simplest is to ask JPL who made the parachute. :rolleyes:

I only know about parachutes used on Earth, e.g. you want to drop something from a plane, a person 100 kgs, a box 300 kg. Horizontal velocity before braking is small - max 100 m/s and vertical drop distance short, say 1 000 m, and with average, vertical drop speed 50 m/s the drop takes 20 seconds.

Imagine now Mars - starting velocity 6 000 m/s and total brake distance 1 260 000 meters (average velocity 3 000 m/s), while the vertical drop distance while braking is only 125 000 meters (the thickness of the Mars atmosphere) and thus average vertical drop velocity 300 m/s to end at 0 m/s, while the horizontal displacement was 1 253 000 meters using Pythagoras - to keep it simple.
Imagine if the average vertical drop velocity was 600 m/s for any reason - then you would crash after only 210 seconds - at about 3 000 m/s speed. Imagine that! The JPL people would not celebrate it. :( :wacko:
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

Unread post by rick55 »

Heiwa wrote:I always keep it simple.
If the start velocity before braking is 6 000 m/s and the end velocity is 0 m/s, the average speed while braking is 3 000 m/s
No. If a car is going 60 mph, before braking, toward a tree 1 mile away, its not going to hit the tree at its average speed of 30 mph which is what you're calling average speed. To argue the case for a Mars landing hoax this way isn't going to cut it because average speed doesn't apply here. The entire concept you begin with shifts the mind into a fallacy... a wrong mental picture.

There will be no choice here but to help JPL students *dupes-- to think in terms of deceleration. Can a car going 60 mph stop in time if it's aimed at a tree a mile away? Can the spacecraft coming in at 6000 m/s or 13,000 mph stop in 7 minutes or 420 seconds? A convincing argument for duped JPL and need-to-know CalTech people will include a deceleration graph, not an average speed graph.

Example of a deceleration graph, with x=distance, y=velocity
http://cnx.org/content/m13836/latest/Viper.png

Here is a relatively useless image of an average velocity graph
http://images.tutorvista.com/content/ki ... -graph.gif

You yourself may be convinced by using an average speed concept that the the spacecraft would have crashed, but what I'm asking of this forum is that we construct a "sellable" argument that will put JPL to shame. Sellable means that you have to create concepts that work easily for lay people. In the deceleration graph, the reader can "see" the initial velocity on the y-axis and the final velocity as well as the distance travelled. The curved line obviously and intuitively represents something slowing down more and more and more until it stops. The line can be seen to "increasingly slow down".

Are you interested in proving this hoax to this forum only or are you interested in proving it to students at large, especially CalTech'ers? I'm interested in the latter. I want to thoroughly shame and embarrass them into giving up on the hoax.
http://cnx.org/content/m13836/latest/Viper.png
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

Unread post by rick55 »

I only know about parachutes used on Earth, e.g. you want to drop something from a plane, a person 100 kgs, a box 300 kg. Horizontal velocity before braking is small - max 100 m/s and vertical drop distance short, say 1 000 m, and with average, vertical drop speed 50 m/s the drop takes 20 seconds.


You can't leave an object or person dropping to the ground at an average vertical drop speed of 50 m/s and walk away from this.
Imagine now Mars - starting velocity 6 000 m/s and total brake distance 1 260 000 meters (average velocity 3 000 m/s), while the vertical drop distance while braking is only 125 000 meters (the thickness of the Mars atmosphere) and thus average vertical drop velocity 300 m/s to end at 0 m/s, while the horizontal displacement was 1 253 000 meters using Pythagoras - to keep it simple.
Imagine if the average vertical drop velocity was 600 m/s for any reason - then you would crash after only 210 seconds - at about 3 000 m/s speed. Imagine that! The JPL people would not celebrate it. :( :wacko:
I'm not following-- Why are you saying that the avg vertical drop velocity is 600 m/s "for any reason"? We need to start with the numbers NASA gave us in their reports-- the 7 minutes of terror, the height of the atmosphere (78 miles?), the initial speed, 13,000 mph or 6000 m/s. The deceleration I got above was -0.014 m/s2 (on average-- although the deceleration rate changed over time too). Is that correct? I now think that that's incorrect. Here's a website that describes how to do a deceleration calculation.
http://www.ehow.com/how_6081657_calcula ... ation.html
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Heiwa »

rick55 wrote:Can the spacecraft coming in at 6000 m/s or 13,000 mph stop in 7 minutes or 420 seconds? A convincing argument for duped JPL and need-to-know CalTech people will include a deceleration graph, not an average speed graph.
The average velocity during the 420 seconds parachute braking of the space craft is evidently just used to calculate the total brake distance and nothing else. The braking starts high above ground - at the edge of the atmosphere 125 000 meters above ground according JPL - and the aboslute velocity is 6 000 m/s, but its vertical velocity component (a vector) is much less and is 0 when the space craft hits ground.

It would appear that the average vertical velocity during braking is 125 000/420 = 297.62 m/s. If you think it is not pls advise! :)

And if the deceleration or velocity change is linear during the braking down to 0, the vertical velocity (vector) of the space craft at start of braking entering atmosphere at 6 000 m/s must be twice the average vertical velocity (vector) or 595.24 m/s. Thus the space ship entered the atmosphere at an angle of about 5.67°, i.e. almost horizontally. I hope you agree? OK, Mars surface is a sphere but it doesn't change things much.

Anyway - question is what company produced the magic parachute that works at 6 000 m/s velocity in the very thin Mars atmosphere getting slightly denser further down and how big and strong it was and how it was tested here on Earth, and how you could establish that it will virtually stop the big mass carried after 420 seconds ... just a little (some 100 meters?) above Mars ground letting the rockets carry out final, vertical stop.
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

Unread post by rick55 »

And if the deceleration or velocity change is linear during the braking down to 0, the vertical velocity (vector) of the space craft at start of braking entering atmosphere at 6 000 m/s must be twice the average vertical velocity (vector) or 595.24 m/s. Thus the space ship entered the atmosphere at an angle of about 5.67°, i.e. almost horizontally. I hope you agree? OK, Mars surface is a sphere but it doesn't change things much.
Well, this won't sell-- I know that much. You're not showing how you got 5.67 degrees. And it seems to me that the idea of velocity in 3D is more complicated than I thought. Every expression of velocity in "rocket science" has to include 2 numbers in one matrix-- the horizontal and vertical. Just the idea that you start with a 13,000 mph velocity is inadequate-- because what is that with respect to? -- the surface as you head straight in-- or the surface as in orbit? Complicating matters is the lack of intuitive feel for various units.

Initial velocity would be expressed as [height=78 mi, hv=13000mph, vv=0mph]. As we hit the atmosphere, we could see an expression of the situation as [h=60 mi, hv=8000mph, vv=1000mph]-- I'm just guessing for example's sake. Finally, [h=20mi, hv=200 mph, vv=100mph] and [h=.1mi, hv=0, vv=10mph]. I would imagine a spreadsheet can be set up with the relevent hypothetical data so we get an entire set of results that can then run graphically on a chart or even a video game simulator with the numbers showing like they have in real video games. Heres an example...

http://www.apolloarchive.com/lander.html

The original fallacy might be the statement that the vehicle was travelling at 13,000 mph. That's meaningless by itself in 3d space... that's the original fallacy. This is the way NASA gets away with hoaxes. Ugh. This is why I didn't go into rocket science.
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Unread post by Dcopymope »

rick55 wrote:
And if the deceleration or velocity change is linear during the braking down to 0, the vertical velocity (vector) of the space craft at start of braking entering atmosphere at 6 000 m/s must be twice the average vertical velocity (vector) or 595.24 m/s. Thus the space ship entered the atmosphere at an angle of about 5.67°, i.e. almost horizontally. I hope you agree? OK, Mars surface is a sphere but it doesn't change things much.
Well, this won't sell-- I know that much. You're not showing how you got 5.67 degrees. And it seems to me that the idea of velocity in 3D is more complicated than I thought. Every expression of velocity in "rocket science" has to include 2 numbers in one matrix-- the horizontal and vertical. Just the idea that you start with a 13,000 mph velocity is inadequate-- because what is that with respect to? -- the surface as you head straight in-- or the surface as in orbit? Complicating matters is the lack of intuitive feel for various units.

Initial velocity would be expressed as [height=78 mi, hv=13000mph, vv=0mph]. As we hit the atmosphere, we could see an expression of the situation as [h=60 mi, hv=8000mph, vv=1000mph]-- I'm just guessing for example's sake. Finally, [h=20mi, hv=200 mph, vv=100mph] and [h=.1mi, hv=0, vv=10mph]. I would imagine a spreadsheet can be set up with the relevent hypothetical data so we get an entire set of results that can then run graphically on a chart or even a video game simulator with the numbers showing like they have in real video games. Heres an example...

http://www.apolloarchive.com/lander.html


The original fallacy might be the statement that the vehicle was travelling at 13,000 mph. That's meaningless by itself in 3d space... that's the original fallacy. This is the way NASA gets away with hoaxes. Ugh. This is why I didn't go into rocket science.
What exactly do you mean by "real video games"? Are you talking about the video games astronauts use or something you can buy yourself?
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

Unread post by rick55 »

What exactly do you mean by "real video games"? Are you talking about the video games astronauts use or something you can buy yourself?
Presumably something we can get our hands on that plays like a professionally made game. Maybe we could contract with x-box to make a Mars lander using as much of the NASA data as is available. Sooner or later, millions of kids will realize that they cannot land the Curiosity without crashing or running out of fuel.
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Heiwa »

rick55 wrote:
And if the deceleration or velocity change is linear during the braking down to 0, the vertical velocity (vector) of the space craft at start of braking entering atmosphere at 6 000 m/s must be twice the average vertical velocity (vector) or 595.24 m/s. Thus the space ship entered the atmosphere at an angle of about 5.67°, i.e. almost horizontally. I hope you agree? OK, Mars surface is a sphere but it doesn't change things much.
Well, this won't sell-- I know that much. You're not showing how you got 5.67 degrees. And it seems to me that the idea of velocity in 3D is more complicated than I thought. Every expression of velocity in "rocket science" has to include 2 numbers in one matrix-- the horizontal and vertical. Just the idea that you start with a 13,000 mph velocity is inadequate-- because what is that with respect to? -- the surface as you head straight in-- or the surface as in orbit? Complicating matters is the lack of intuitive feel for various units.

Initial velocity would be expressed as [height=78 mi, hv=13000mph, vv=0mph]. As we hit the atmosphere, we could see an expression of the situation as [h=60 mi, hv=8000mph, vv=1000mph]-- I'm just guessing for example's sake. Finally, [h=20mi, hv=200 mph, vv=100mph] and [h=.1mi, hv=0, vv=10mph]. I would imagine a spreadsheet can be set up with the relevent hypothetical data so we get an entire set of results that can then run graphically on a chart or even a video game simulator with the numbers showing like they have in real video games. Heres an example...

http://www.apolloarchive.com/lander.html

The original fallacy might be the statement that the vehicle was travelling at 13,000 mph. That's meaningless by itself in 3d space... that's the original fallacy. This is the way NASA gets away with hoaxes. Ugh. This is why I didn't go into rocket science.
No, if the absolut velocity v is 6 000 meter/second and its vertical (90°) component is 595.24 meter/second, the angle of the absolut velocity is 5.67°. And use units like meter, second and kilogram and Joule (and Newton) because they are all related. mph and lb confuses.
Thus if the vehichle have a mass of 3 000 kg, a velocity 6 000 m/s and is 125 000 meter above Mars ground where gravity acceleration is say 3 m/s² its kinetic energy is mv²/2 or 3000x6000x6000/2= 54 GJ and potential energy mgh (with reference to Mars surface) 3000x125000x3=1,125 GJ.
As you see total energy is then 55,125 GJ of which 98% is kinetic energy. 55,125 GJ corresponds to 15 312,5 kWh. You know what a kWh is? Look at your electricty bill! :rolleyes:
When braking with parachutes during say 420 seconds to 0 speed at 0 distance above ground all that energy, 55,125GJ or 15 312,5 kWh must be transformed into heat by the parachutes and question is how JPL manages it. The force (Newton) acting on the parachute so it brakes is, e.g. quite big, so the chute may heat up and burn or simply rip apart. I suggest no such strong parachute exists and JPL can easily show that I am wrong by presenting the magic chute. :P
Normal earth parachutes handle much less energy when used. A 100 kg man jumping from a ballon at 1000 meters height (g=9.8 m/s) and start velocity 0 has only 982 000 J energy, which a parachute easily handles. But how does a parachute handles 56 000 times more energy?
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

Unread post by rick55 »

I've run out of available time to address this issue for now but will leave the readers of this forum with the following thoughts, in response to Heiwa.

Heiwa:
No, if the absolut velocity v is 6 000 meter/second and its vertical (90°) component is 595.24 meter/second, the angle of the absolut velocity is 5.67°. And use units like meter, second and kilogram and Joule (and Newton) because they are all related. mph and lb confuses.

Rick55:
Heiwa, I tried to find your self-introduction and could not. It appears however that you're Norweigian. This explains our talking at cross purposes. I'm not only interested in a proof that the landing is fake, but rather in making the truth obvious, entertaining and palatable for American young people and students so as to embarass JPL/NASA. The style of your writing is not entertaining despite the smilies-- which are grammatically unacceptable. The lack of diagram drawing ability here on the net is another problem. And finally, your use of metric units is not going to work if NASA itself is not using metric in their media output. It's clear to me that you're only interested in proving the landing is a hoax to yourself and to me. I want to go further than that.

As far as your explanation goes, you haven't shown me how you get the vertical component of 595 m/s and the angle of 5.67 degrees. Where did you derive that? I asked you earlier and you basically ignored the request. NASA merely states that the initial v is 13,000 mph. (6000 m/s). I don't know where you're getting your vertical component.

Heiwa
Thus if the vehichle have a mass of 3 000 kg, a velocity 6 000 m/s and is 125 000 meter above Mars ground where gravity acceleration is say 3 m/s² its kinetic energy is mv²/2 or 3000x6000x6000/2= 54 GJ and potential energy mgh (with reference to Mars surface) 3000x125000x3=1,125 GJ.
Rick:
Where did you find the mass? And the 125,000 meter height should be stated along with the 78 mile height figure that is quoted by NASA--- for a NASA or student audience because that's the way the media here quote it. There is nothing wrong with stating the case in both units. It's much more convincing to a wider audience that way. I'm trying to prove the landing false AND trying to construct a "marketable" way to get it across-- which means that we have to be entertaining and explanatory along the way. When we tell a reader that the g=3 m/s2, we could also compare it to the Earth's at 9.8 and the moon's at whatever it is. Your "energy proof" I think is good but needs to be fleshed out for a wider audience. You always revert to the energy calculation OVER the velocity one however. So I'll just construct the argument on my own over the next few months by myself. You're not trying to meet MY requirements but rather insisting we look at the energy argument. And apparently nobody else is interested in an immediate proof of a hoax as I am.

Heiwa
As you see total energy is then 55,125 GJ of which 98% is kinetic energy. 55,125 GJ corresponds to 15 312,5 kWh. You know what a kWh is? Look at your electricty bill! :rolleyes:
When braking with parachutes during say 420 seconds to 0 speed at 0 distance above ground all that energy, 55,125GJ or 15 312,5 kWh must be transformed into heat by the parachutes and question is how JPL manages it.
Rick55:
Right there, your argument unravels because the parachutes were not out for the 7 minutes of terror (your 420 seconds). If you watch the video at the start of this thread, you'll see that the craft supposedly jetissoned the parachute at some point and switched on the 4 leg pod engines (which to my mind would have sent it careening end over end). Now you have a terrific problem to prove a hoax because you're going to have to do energy calculations for the potential energy of the rocket fuel in the leg pods. Your energy calculations are probably useful but they're too much too soon. There are simpler and more entertaining ways to prove this landing is a hoax than your energy calculations. Thanks for trying anyway.

Heiwa
The force (Newton) acting on the parachute so it brakes is, e.g. quite big, so the chute may heat up and burn or simply rip apart. I suggest no such strong parachute exists and JPL can easily show that I am wrong by presenting the magic chute. :P
Normal earth parachutes handle much less energy when used. A 100 kg man jumping from a ballon at 1000 meters height (g=9.8 m/s) and start velocity 0 has only 982 000 J energy, which a parachute easily handles. But how does a parachute handles 56 000 times more energy?
Rick55:
This argument is not going to convince anyone of a hoax because the Mars atmosphere is said to be something like 100X less dense. I think trying to prove a hoax from the parachute energy perspective will come into play later on in the proof but you're introducing it with absolutely no reference to the density of the gasses on Mars. You seem to be a bit flippant for my tastes-- i.e. you're not taking this proof seriously. I see you've posted more than a lot of other visitors to this forum and so I'll study some of your other entries over the coming few months. With the invasion of double agents here, I would say that the ineffectiveness of your attempted proof of a hoax on this lander is at least consistent with that. By offering technical considerations that seem to prove a hoax, in this case, the energy calculations, an itinerant reader might just accept that and go home. This thread is the only one in CluesForum right now dealing with the lander and it's not even titled the way it should be. So I'll take MY marbles and go home for now, and construct my own argument. I thought I'd be able to get a bit more assistance here-- but apparently not, at least for now.

On the specific matter of the parachute, and the heat- that makes intuitive sense even if the atmosphere is 100x less dense, simply because the stated speed of the parachute upon release was over 500 mph... it's called the supersonic parachute. To construct a convincing argument, you should try to use common reference words that que up the mind of the reader who has been inundated with propaganda so that we can reverse that propaganda. Would the supersonic parachute burn up? I would think so. However for the period of time it was actually used in the descent, this may be easily counter-able by a NASA technician.

Anyone interested in a "popular science" level proof of a hoax to be written in a way that is entertaining, and with diagrams, can email me at [email protected]. I'll be gone from this forum now for awhile until I do my own work on this matter in my spare time. Heiwa's angle won't cut it and nobody else is interested. Thanks anyway Heiwa. (Don't go into the teaching profession.)
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Heiwa »

rick55 wrote: It appears however that you're Norweigian. This explains our talking at cross purposes.
Where did you find the mass?
Anyone interested in a "popular science" level proof of a hoax to be written in a way that is entertaining, and with diagrams, can email me at [email protected]. I'll be gone from this forum now for awhile until I do my own work on this matter in my spare time. Heiwa's angle won't cut it and nobody else is interested. Thanks anyway Heiwa. (Don't go into the teaching profession.)
Me Norwegian? :lol: Re mass (3670 kg) and other info, see the JPL/NASA webpages. I, e.g. wonder how they measure velocity in space? Sun seems to brake anything trying to get away from it, i.e. velocity changes all the time (unless you are in orbit around the Sun).
I have prepared this illustration of the Mars Science Laboratory, MSL, landing:
Image
Source: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/JPLlab.jpg
It is evidently not to scale! The vertical displacement (the decent) is 125 000 m, but the horizontal one is 1 253 754 m or 10 times greater, i.e. the 'decent' is mainly sideways.
If the 'decent' e.g. starts 10 seconds too late; it would appear that you end up 60 000 meter further away ... and maybe fly into a Mars mountain there? Or if the vertical decent velocity is 10% greater for any reason, you'll apparently hit ground at great speed = crash. To avoid the latter, you could aim a little higher when flying in to brake so you stop high above ground, i.e. the last bit is vertical hanging in the parachutes ... but then maybe you will miss Ground Zero or what they call the Touchdown area?
I still wonder how you steer the MSL with a parachute attached at 6 000 m/s. :rolleyes: Do you pull strings? :P JPL says it is all automatic = some microprocessor, software but what pulls the strings? :blink: Any ideas?
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Unread post by Dcopymope »

rick55 wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "real video games"? Are you talking about the video games astronauts use or something you can buy yourself?
Presumably something we can get our hands on that plays like a professionally made game. Maybe we could contract with x-box to make a Mars lander using as much of the NASA data as is available. Sooner or later, millions of kids will realize that they cannot land the Curiosity without crashing or running out of fuel.
If we are to contract with a company to make a true 110% space simulator millions of people would soon realize that space travel in itself is impossible or at best suicidal because of the voluminous amounts of radiation, floating objects that if you hit (its inevitable that you will get hit) would rip your ship apart because of the high speeds, and of course cold welding, where you have a 100% chance of getting chewed by the vacuum of space itself. In all likely hood, they wouldn't get anywhere near Mars or any other planet anyway, turning the very idea of space travel into nothing more than the imaginations of science fiction writers. As for the chances of any Rover landing on Mars, its easily debunked by elementary logic.

If the gravity is different on Mars from that of Earth then a rover you build on Earth will not function the same way on Mars. Its the exact same issue that was brought up before in a document that was posted here about the issue of cold-welding, that whatever you test on Earth is not proof positive that it would work in a different environment not of Earth, making the tests theoretical at best and unreliable. Gravity is resistance as you have shown, change the gravity and you would have to change the gear ratio as well. You will need someone on Mars to change it to work properly in Mar's gravity. This alone makes every rover mission any space agency has ever done a complete hoax.

Look at the phony press conference below and you'll see how much disrespect they have for us. They couldn't tell us how the Rover even got there, what processes were used and by what means. No real science was discussed, no technical terminology, just a whole lot of talk about absolutely nothing at all, just sheer bull shit with paid off reporters asking completely irrelevant questions. It was like some scripted reality TV show they rehearsed well in advance.

NASA's press conference on the Curiosity Rover:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVzfDZlEwaU
Post Reply