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.
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by Heiwa »

Millibars? On Mars! 4 km below ground? What are they? Nice places? With drinks served? Smoking, dancing allowed? Gals? High sound? Pressures! In hPa please! Then we can talk biz. :)
Fred54
Banned
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:23 am

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by Fred54 »

Here is why
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellas_Planitia
Take your pick of pressures I didn't make the graph or it would be in PSI :lol:
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by simonshack »

*

I find it pretty funny that we are discussing this purported NASA "Curiosity" mission without even having established if outer space travel is at all possible. How do man-made rockets manage to exit unscathed from our atmosphere - whereas pretty much ALL of the flying meteorites impacting our atmosphere burn up into dust completely - when entering it?

Oh yeah, I know: you'll tell me it's all a matter of "controlled speed and angles of incidence"... Duh! :rolleyes:
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by Dcopymope »

simonshack wrote:*

I find it pretty funny that we are discussing this purported NASA "Curiosity" mission without even having established if outer space travel is at all possible. How do man-made rockets manage to exit unscathed from our atmosphere - whereas pretty much ALL of the flying meteorites impacting our atmosphere burn up into dust completely - when entering it?

Oh yeah, I know: you'll tell me it's all a matter of "controlled speed and angles of incidence"... Duh! :rolleyes:
In other words, what type of material could possibly resist the intense heat of any atmosphere that could keep the vehicle as well as anything inside it from being deep fried extra crispy? This whole discussion should have started off with giving a satisfactory answer to this question first, since it is our atmosphere that is the first obstacle any purported space vehicle would have to pass through in the first place.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by lux »

Well, what the wiki says about escape velocity:
Misconception
Escape velocity is sometimes misunderstood to be the speed a powered vehicle, such as a rocket, must reach to leave orbit and travel through outer space. The quoted escape velocity is commonly the escape velocity at a planet's surface, but it actually decreases with altitude. It is the speed above which an object will depart on a ballistic trajectory, i.e. in free-fall, and never fall back to the surface nor assume a closed orbit. Such an object is said to "escape" the gravity of the planet.

A vehicle with a propulsion system can continue to gain energy and travel away from the planet, in any direction, at a speed lower than escape velocity so long as it is under propulsion. If the vehicle's speed is below its current escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, the vehicle will assume a closed orbit or fall back to the surface. If its speed is at or above the escape velocity and the propulsion is removed, it has enough kinetic energy to "escape" and will neither orbit nor fall back to the surface.
So, I guess a rocket going up doesn't have to go that fast as long as it is under propulsion.

But, how those rockets manage to keep burning their engines all the way (50 miles?) into space is what seems unbelievable to me.

If you look at the flames pouring out below and look at the size of the fuel compartment in the rocket it looks like it would only burn for a minute or two at most.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-LudR2pQyU
Fred54
Banned
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:23 am

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by Fred54 »

simonshack wrote:*

I find it pretty funny that we are discussing this purported NASA "Curiosity" mission without even having established if outer space travel is at all possible. How do man-made rockets manage to exit unscathed from our atmosphere - whereas pretty much ALL of the flying meteorites impacting our atmosphere burn up into dust completely - when entering it?

Oh yeah, I know: you'll tell me it's all a matter of "controlled speed and angles of incidence"... Duh! :rolleyes:
Simon
I joined your forum very recently and when I first posted on this thread no one had added anything in 5 days but I still tried because I wanted to pick up where Rick and others had left off. After I did the energy calculations for myself in units I am comfortable with that was my eureka moment. When I first calculated KE and found it to be 1.5 trillion ft-lbs I thought for sure I had made a mistake so I checked it twice and found it was correct. So armed with that, I realized that the most apparent achiles heal of the whole hoax is the first part of the landing even though it does get progressively pathetic as it continues. All the calculations I will ever do on this subject I will never post unless I am absolutely sure they are accurate and I can show anyone yes this is how I arrived at this conclusion. I fully realize you have some major detractors and I will never knowingly give them ammunition to discredit your effort here. I am doing everything I can think of to continue to poke holes in the story, I will just proceed methodically, cautiously and hopefully write in a way that anyone can understand yet still deliver a scientific principal.
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by Heiwa »

Fred54 wrote:Here is why
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellas_Planitia
Take your pick of pressures I didn't make the graph or it would be in PSI :lol:
And the bottom of it looks like:
Image
It is suggested ice is hidden below the dirt. :lol:
Fred54
Banned
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:23 am

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by Fred54 »

I didn't make the graph and I didn't t(f)ake the picture all I am trying to do is find ammunition we can use to our advantage. You wanted to know why the graph went below the surface of mars I gave you an answer to the best of my knowledge is all.
rusty
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by rusty »

Fred54 wrote:Here is the martian atmosphere profile.
Image
When Heiwa always says it is very thin I always think he is being too generous in his description.
If I compare this pressure diagram with the pressure/density diagram on earth, I must conclude, that the density at ground level is only ~0.0001 kg(m^3), at 125km altitude it's about 10^-10 (0.0000000001). If this really is the case, it amounts to barely more than nothing. Deceleration by atmospheric friction is practically nonexistent in this case. Even if I raise the cw to 1 and use a flat angle of 0 at 125km altitude, the speed at ground level is even higher than the entry speed due to gravity (using my calculations). Needless to say that it's also completely ridiculous to use a parachute.

So if these are indeed the correct "official" figures (whoever made them up) about the martian atmosphere, the descent of the MSL is a proven impossibility. NASA can't have it both ways. The minimum required density at ground level would have to be at least something like 0.04 to even get close to 500 m/s under optimum circumstances.

I think it's reasonable to tackle the issues from many sides to poke as many holes in the official story as possible. I agree that space travel is probably a virtual impossibility for many reasons, but even if it was not, you could not land the MSL on mars the way they claim they did.
Fred54
Banned
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:23 am

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by Fred54 »

I should have posted the profile like this. Sorry I am still learning I have never been on a forum before.

http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mgs/p ... 82318.html

Image

The figure below shows a profile of the pressure of the martian atmosphere as a function of altitude. The pressure is in units of millibars and the altitude is specified in units of kilometers above a standard Martian reference surface ("sea level"). The pressure is shown on a logarithmic scale because atmospheric pressure typically decreases approximately exponentially with height. If the change in pressure in the martian atmosphere were exactly exponential, then the profile in the figure would be a straight line.
The atmospheric pressure on Mars is very low compared to Earth. Near sea level on Earth the typical pressure is approximately 1000 millibars. The figure shows that the pressure near the surface at the time and place of the measurement was 8.7 millibars, and this at a point which is a few kilometers below the martian sea level! At the martian sea level, the pressure was estimated be just over 6 millibars. At an altitude of 40 kilometers, the martian atmospheric pressure was approximately 0.1 millibars.

The pressure on Mars is very low compared to Earth for two reasons. First, the martian pressure is low because the density of the martian atmosphere is significantly less than Earth's atmosphere. Second, the martian pressure is low because the surface gravity on Mars is only 38% of that on Earth. Pressure is exerted by the weight of an atmospheric column, and the weight decreases if either the density in the column or the gravitational force decreases.

In addition to changing with weather fronts, the atmospheric pressures on Mars change somewhat with daily atmospheric tides and to a considerable degree with the seasons. The error analysis is still underway, but it is believed that the uncertainty (one standard deviation) in the estimated pressure near the surface is approximately 0.01 millibars.
Last updated: April 21, 1998
Joe Twicken / Dave Hinson
rusty
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by rusty »

Well, how do we derive a density profile from this pressure profile? Could we simply state that the air density at ground level = 0.006 * 3.8 * (earth density = 1.2) = ~ 0.027 kg/m^3 ? And then apply factor 0.1 for each 20 km altitude? My error last time was confusing hPa with Pa, so I got it wrong by factor 100...so this sounds plausible.

If I'd go with these figures for my simulation, starting with 5000m/s at 125km altitude and angle 0 the MSL would hit the ground after approx. 300s with ~1000 m/s and at an angle of ~13 degrees, having traveled ~1400 km horizontally. But, as I said, if you increase the density further to something like 0.04 or 0.05 you'd get close to subsonic speed at an altitude where you'd still be able to deploy a chute.

rusty
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by Heiwa »

@Fred54

Thanks for the interesting link to :
http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mgs/p ... 82318.html

and the figure below that shows a profile of the temperature of the Martian atmosphere as a function of altitude at 25.3N latitude. The temperature is in Celsius degrees and the altitude is specified in units of kilometers above a standard Martian reference surface ("sea level" :lol: ). Sea level? On Mars? :P The profile was retrieved using the radio occultation technique by the Mars Global Surveyor Radio Science Team. :blink:

Image

What is radio occultation? :unsure: Answer:
Radio occultation is a remote sensing technique used for measuring the physical properties of a planetary atmosphere. It relies on the detection of a change in a radio signal as it passes through the planet's atmosphere i.e. as it is occulted by the atmosphere. When electromagnetic radiation passes through the atmosphere it is refracted. The magnitude of the refraction depends on the gradient of refractivity normal to the path, which in turn depends on the gradients of density and the water vapor. The effect is most pronounced when the radiation traverses a long atmospheric limb path. At radio frequencies the amount of bending cannot be measured directly, instead the bending can be calculated using the Doppler shift of the signal given the geometry of the emitter and receiver. The amount of bending can be related to the refractive index by using an Abel transform on the formula relating bending angle to refractivity. In the case of the neutral atmosphere (below the ionosphere) information on the atmosphere's temperature, pressure and water vapor can be derived, hence radio occultation data has applications in meteorology.
Clear and easy, to say the least. Note about the water vapour!

And what is the Mars Global Surveyor Radio Science Investigation Team? :unsure: Answer:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experime ... 96-062A-04
The Radio Science Investigations on Mars Global Surveyor have two distinct objectives. The first is to map the planet's gravitational field and the second is to measure the atmospheric pressure and temperature in the polar regions.
The radio occultation experiment operates when the Mars Global Surveyor is disappearing behind Mars or reappearing as seen from Earth. At this time, the radio waves transmitted from the spacecraft pass through the Martian atmosphere on their way to Earth. The atmosphere effects the signal, and measuring these effects allows properties of the atmosphere to be studied. Because of the polar orbit of the spacecraft, these measurements can only be made near the poles.
Note - only near the poles. :)

However – the profile above is not from the pole – rather very close to the Martian equator. Strange, isn't it? And is there water vapor in the Mars carbon dioxide atmosphere?

Can we trust this nova link and its info? That the shown profile of Martian atmosphere temperature is true and was ever recorded? :rolleyes: Or that of the pressure?
What do you think?
Fred54
Banned
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:23 am

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by Fred54 »

@Heiwa
Can we trust this? I have no idea my friend. But it does show that the martian atmosphere is damn near a vacuum for all intents and purposes. Now the sea level reference is just using an average surface datum plane on mars similar to what we use on earth IE sea level= a large flat smooth plane. It does not infer that there is a large sea present. Did they actually measure this? Once again I have no idea I cannot prove or disprove this aspect, but the data they posted is totally valuable to us in the sense if we use their data on such matters, which I have endeavored to use in everything I have done to date, it becomes a veritable stroll through the park to show the scenario they have presented us with is total bullshit.

I have kind of been a little lazy but I was very busy for the last few weeks and to tired to sit and look at the second phase of my plan which would be to examine the atmosphere and what it would actually take to dissipate the energy required to slow the lander down. I drug out my old college fluid mechanics textbook and started to read though and review things I have not thought about since I took the course in 1975. When I became an engineer I found that there are TABLES FOR EVERYTHING you don't have to start from scratch every time all you have to do is have a basic requirement then you look on the data sheet for the equipment you are going to purchase and pick the correct size. You understand what I mean. But this scene is start from scratch and calculate. :blink: I found the correct formula and what I/we need to do is to calculate the stagnation pressure, that will give us force acting upon an area etc etc. The problem is I am not sure if the equation would be adequate for super supersonic compressible fluid gas flows. Even if I assume an average velocity and solve for an average gas density I am not sure the formula will be valid in this application, and I promised Simon I would never give help to his detractors. The bottom line is I have never attempted to solve a fluids problem of this kind before but I am still not giving up on it yet. I will copy my fluids book page and make a photobucket account and post it for you to take a look at

@ rusty
rusty wrote:Well, how do we derive a density profile from this pressure profile? rusty
You use boyles ideal gas law PV=nRT
You look on my data page http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 6#p2375006
You look up the atomic weights for each gas and their percentage by volume (the left over % you "SWAG") and you calculate the mass for one mole of gas at MSTP(mars standard temperature & pressure) and bingo
Fred54
Banned
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:23 am

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by Fred54 »

Notice the units in the example problem :lol:

Image
rusty
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

Unread post by rusty »

Fred54 wrote:
rusty wrote:Well, how do we derive a density profile from this pressure profile? rusty
You use boyles ideal gas law PV=nRT
You look on my data page http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 6#p2375006
You look up the atomic weights for each gas and their percentage by volume (the left over % you "SWAG") and you calculate the mass for one mole of gas at MSTP(mars standard temperature & pressure) and bingo
Thanks Fred, that sounds feasible. I'll see if I can give it a shot.

Anyway, I'm working on a user friendly extended version of my simulation app that could be used by everyone. It allows for simulating planets of arbitrary size, mass and atmosphere with an object of a given mass, size, position and speed vector. What it does is simply calculate the trajectory of the object based on initial speed, planet gravity and atmospheric friction in discrete (configurable) steps. So it's also useful for simulating satellite orbits, escape velocities and such. All in 2D.

BTW...yesterday I laughed very hard when I watched this video about how the "Spirit" rover allegedly got to Mars:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCIzZHpFtY

How much crap can you feed the sheeple until they stop believing? Ahhh...I remember that song..."don't stop believin'...hold on to the feelin'...".

rusty
Post Reply