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.
Dmitry
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:20 pm

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

Unread post by Dmitry »

simonshack wrote: Thanks Dmitry, seems like it all adds up - even from the Russian perspective. The 'space race' has been a joint "capitalist/communist" hoax ever since Day One (Gagarin...or thereabouts...).
Simon,

I would be very grateful if you would consider it possible to clarify your point a little bit. This is just to better understand your posts; I promise not to argue.

1. Why do you name Gagarin, not "Sputnik-1" in context of Day One?

2. In your opinion, does Inmarsat work at all? If yes, how is it possible? (SW radio, other options are welcome).

3. Same question for GPS (not AGPS).

4. Are "satellite photos" available on Google Maps and similar services in fact not satellite (CGI or taken from aircraft/balloon etc.)?

5. Are space tourists (Mark Shuttleworth for instance) fake persons/hired actors/secret agents?

Thank you very much for five short and clear answers.
reichstag fireman
Member
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am

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

Unread post by reichstag fireman »

May I give you my take?

1. //
2. nope Inmarsat does not use "geostationary satellite communication" (since the technology only exists in science fiction). All "satellite-based" communications rely on ionospheric radio wave propagation, a.k.a. "sky wave".
3. ditto for GPS.
4. "satellite imagery" comes from photographs taken by high altitude conventional aircraft, augmented by ground-based or near-earth technologies, e.g. weather radar for measurement of cloud density and precipitation.
5. Yup. That's why no one should be running Ubuntu Linux. Just look at his background. He's a tool and not a very nice one :o
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 »

Dmitry wrote: Thank you very much for short and clear answers.
Dear Dmitry,

Firstly, let me say that - although I have been catching up in later years - I don't consider myself an all-round, consummate expert in space-exploration-related matters. For instance, I woke up to the Moon Hoax (that is, to ALL moon landings being utterly fake) at an embarrasingly late stage of my life. I guess the only special expertise I may claim to have at this moment concerns the Space Shuttle and the ISS. As you may know, I have dedicated most of my research time to more recent media fakery issues - such as 9/11 and so forth.

1: I named Yuri Gagarin (in the context of Day One) just because I thought most people will relate to that "first man to journey into outer space, when his Vostok spacecraft completed an orbit of the Earth on 12 April 1961". Of course, the Sputnik (Oct 4, 1957) preceded that, so thanks for reminding me about it. Here's what Wickedpedia has to say about the Sputnik:
Sputnik 1 was the first artificial earth satellite. The Soviet Union launched it into an elliptical low Earth orbit on 4 October 1957. The surprise success precipitated the American Sputnik crisis, began the Space Age and triggered the Space Race, a part of the larger Cold War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik
2: To be perfectly honest, I have not looked much into Inmarsat at all - as of this day. I probably will!
(But you may wish to check out Cluesforum's satellite musings).

3: GPS is also a subject of interest to me - but I tend to stay silent about things I know too little about.

4: That may well be. But let's keep digging. It's not like we can pretend to know exactly what they are - at this time.

5: Millionaire Ubuntu 'sponsor' Mark Shuttleworth is a curious entity in itself - which deserves to be properly investigated. He apparently became a millionaire by selling "Thawte"(run out of his parent's garage) to Verisign in 1999, for $575 million - "enabling him to become the second space tourist and to found the Ubuntu project". He now claims to have created a $10million Ubuntu Foundation which, apparently, has "remained dormant ever since 2008".
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

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

Unread post by rick55 »

JPL was mentioned on C2C last night with George Noori in the context of a haunted bridge, of all the crazy nutty things.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/08/10
According to Lennon, Jack Parsons, founder of Jet Propulsion Laboratories and a Crowley disciple, conducted rituals at Devil's Gate with Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard to summon an entity called Babylon. They may have punched a hole into another dimensions as several mysterious disappearances have occurred there since that time, he noted.
Ron Hubbard? Entities? Forum participants here, trying to look at the Mars mission as a hoax, may not think that this history has anything to do with the hoax itself but I would beg to differ. The origin of JPL is, itself, mired in this type of strange angle. Given the size of the hoax being perpetrated here, I would say that we should take this origin into account since the hoax consists of, arguably, mind control and brainwashing through TV pictures, photoshop and paid or blackmailed actors. In effect, we could be dealing with what could simply be called "evil" on an unimaginable scale.

Simon pointed to the failure of the Morpheus lander earlier in this thread, and Noori features it as a headline today....
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/n ... er-crashes

I did not realize, when Simon pointed to it, that it was just this past week that that failure occurred. Stunningly, that failure occurred basically only a few days after the purported successful robotic landing of Curiosity, yet neither the AP article I read in yesterday's paper, nor Noori's article notes the irony-- that has risen now to a paradox-- that being-- how is it possible that one lander can fail so spectacularly, and another succeed spectacularly? I'll look for an article that acknowledges this paradox.. this contradiction.

Here are the Google results simply for morpheus and curiosity today...
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl= ... 5Rd8q1YCTg


Here's a typical article, this one from Slate. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense ... deos_.html
Morpheus is being built to run on cleaner fuels than most of NASA’s spacecraft and could someday carry a robot like Robonaut to the lunar surface.
So Morpheus is the newer lander... and runs different fuel. That would explain the crash, I guess. But what did the test of the Curiosity look like? Amazingly, JPL has a Youtube channel with lots of video we haven't looked at yet, here in Simon's forum...

http://www.youtube.com/user/JPLnews?feature=watch

From that site, we see this posted video of a "drop test" for the lander... again from a crane. The sequence strikes me as bizarre, you'll see why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YasCQRAW ... r_embedded

Earlier in this thread, I said that I'd like to see an x-box video game that programs in all the parameters of the Curiosity so that we could prove to young people that you simply cannot land this thing on the planet given the situation as NASA defines it. As it turns out, I found a video on the JPL site that introduces such a video game. One of daughters of an Apollo astro"not" demonstrates the Curiosity video game lander. I had a hard time keeping my eyes on the game however... and preferred to watch something else.. you'll see what I mean when you watch this 4 min video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wnECM1a ... ature=plcp

From this point, I reshuffled my priorities, becoming more interested in Danielle Roosa...

Danielle's parameters could very well be 34-26-34, although precise measurements are not yet available.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SkgdkfRwAgM/0.jpg

Here she is posing in the NASA parking lot...
https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/23 ... /image.jpg

Enough about Roosa's grandaughter-- let's review her grandfather's realistic-looking fake mission to the moon in 1971... since deception seems to be a family affair... here's a 10 min video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1NGXL3wc0M

It's interesting to note that you just saw a 4 legged lander touch down on the moon... the last quote of the rate of descent was 3 feet per second... which strikes me as a hard landing. The liftoff seems badly done since the quick ascent would probably exert such g-force that they wouldn't be able to talk so casually. The needed electrical power to transmit colour photos over 240,000 miles always struck me as a problem too. What power, in watts, would be needed to actually transmit full color pictures like that over that distance?

At 4:50, we see a problem with the latch. They had problem latching which reminds me of the connection bolt on the shuttle that Simon pointed to earlier in this thread. At 7 min into the video, they reprogram the computer to override an abort. You can see a lot of gum chewing and cigarette smoking in his hoax-movie-- signs of the era. If we view it with Simon Shack's awareness of fake-video, it's instructive.

At 10 min we see the landing of the 4 legged lander-- in 1971-- yet just a few days ago, the morpheus lander crashed. Presumably, we mastered this 40 years ago, and can't yet demonstrate it. The Curiosity's landing was said to be perfect, but the only demos on the JPL site are with cranes.

At 13:15 we're told there is a small nuclear generator to power the science array. Is there such a thing? Can there be a nuclear generator that small? The google results indicate these are powered by plutonium. Here's a brief history of plutonium powered devices in space...
http://stardate.org/radio/program/martian-nuke

In the meantime, nuclear powered devices in space seem to be only a future consideration, recently as in this article...
http://news.yahoo.com/suitcase-size-nuc ... 00915.html

Satellites are said to be powered by plutonium generators, in this case up to 15 watts.
A satellite is powered by a small nuclear generator that put... More ...
http://www.chegg.com/.../satellite-powe ... puts-15-w- matter-converted-energy-10-year-life-s-q2740006 - Cached
A satellite is powered by a small nuclear generator that puts out 15 W. How much matter is converted into energy over the 10 year life span of the generator?

Enough about Roosa-- and the Apollo review. Let's relate what we've just seen to the power systems that use plutonium to see if it makes sense. Here's a 2 min video about MMRTG, the Multi-Mission Radioiostope Thermo-Electric Generator that is pointed to by the narrator as having been used on the Apollo missions. It is said the generator produces 100 watts to continuously charge the batteries. If this is a hoax, what degree of evil is required to create such an elaborate and intricate scientific sounding hoax? Is the plutonium oxide a hoax, for example?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JOPW8aAcgE

Idaho National Lab apparently was the center for development for the radioisotope power system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbCbqpTKXt8

INL's homepage.
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server ... unity/home

INL seems to be under DOE and is operated by something called Batelle Energy Alliance. Kelly Lively (lively?)... was in charge of the 65 scientist team who created the Curiosity battery.
A team of about 65 scientists and technicians spent six years developing, building and testing the power source. Six years of weekends at work, Christmas breaks away from family and pizzas delivered to the site will soon pay off, said Kelly Lively, who supervised the project as manger of the Radio Isotopes Power Systems Department.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/08/0 ... qus_thread

Here's a local news channel in Idaho where Kelly Lively is interviewed along with other technicians.
http://www.kpvi.com/mostpopular/story/I ... N4jNQ.cspx

Kelly doesn't bafflegab us with any technical mumbo jumbo as I would have expected but instead tells us that going to college in Idaho, she never expected her career would lead her to this point. Really. And here I thought highly advanced careers required forethought and planning. Fancy that! Kelly just somehow ended up here! She lucked out!
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server ... ther_7.jpg

For the Curiosity to be a hoax, wouldn't these people have to be in on it--- or would they be dupes of the hoax who only work with an isolate part of the hoax-- the legit part having to do with the radioisotope battery? These power specialists, for example, might not know how parachutes work or care about the neccessary braking speed.
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server ... =DA_584674

Here's her LinkedIn page.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id ... _name_link

Here's a guided tour of the INL power systems facility where the directors narrates the creation of the battery for curiosity. See if you can detect anything that doesn't make sense.
http://www.inl.gov/marsrover/radioisoto ... stem.shtml

Here's the 7 minutes of terror JPL video again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9 ... ature=plcp

Earlier, we looked at deceleration required but going from 12,000 mph (6000 m/s) to 0 in 7 minutes is something we can look at simply in terms of the speed by itself, in this case reverse speed. How speedy was the braking? I thought about this in terms of the speed of light, since I had heard on Noori from Hoagland that it was like stopping a car going 60 in a split second. In the case of Curiosity, it went from 12000mph or 12,000/60 = 200 miles/minute / 60 = 3.3 miles per second. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second and so 3.3/186,000 is about 2% of the speed of light.

Here is JPL's cartoon landing of the craft.. virtually admitting it's impossible by doing nothing but a cartoon... as if being lighthearted about it covers for their lack of a real demonstration of powered landing of a craft prototype on earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syA7ml64 ... ature=plcp

This next short cartoon says you need skill and hard work to land on Mars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-X8acD_ ... ature=plcp

Cartoon explains how to get to Mars. 1 min. JPL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nAhag_i ... ature=plcp


Captain Kirk in short 4 min. video on Curiosity landing. He should know, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bck1XwxNiyo

Captain Kirk on why we take risks... why had Apollo and went to Mars and could equally apply to the hoax of Curiosity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ErkeFA-QWk

Trek New Generation's Wesley Crusher tries his hand at explaining the descent of the Curiosity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... p_L9E&NR=1

Captain Krik and Wesley, both famous actors, read the same script. Why?

Here we see MRO cameras recorded Curiosity's descent...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJOY7nB1 ... el&list=UL

I suppose this might be construed as proof that the Curiosity was actually there. They've been putting this imaging sequence together since March. The female technician, Sarah Milkovich, in this conference seems really nervous but tells us what we can see "without saturation", including the cables of the parachute. Her voice is quivering yet she manages to deliver the punch line where everyone laughs... "this is the coolest one" she says. That was the cue for laughter.

Her bio is here...(scroll down about a dozen bio's)...
http://madscientist.org.uk/bios.html

Ken Edgett, in conference, actually breaks down and begins to cry...
http://www.globalnews.ca/nasa+rover+sen ... story.html
His main responsibilities during 1998–2006 centered on targeting and review of the more than 240,000 images acquired by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC). Now he is involved in selecting targets for the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) Context Camera (CTX) and he is the Principal Investigator for the 2011 Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) investigation.
[/quote]
http://www.planetary.org/connect/our-ex ... dgett.html

Was Ken Edgett laughing uncontrollably over his hoax, or crying for some reason? Was he embarrassed about having to perpetrate fraud, under some sort of Illuminist threat? Here is an article that shows that Ken's first photo from the Curiosity is overlaid on a computer simulated surface of Mars.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/07 ... um=twitter

How would the compositors of the fake background konw what the background looks like? Did they just make it up? How do we know that Ken's photo isn't a squared off area of a simulation? It certainly doesn't look any different other than the colour. Why is it sand coloured? Ken seemed to have trouble in his conference, just like the Apollo 11 astronauts had trouble in their conference when they got back from the fake moon trip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo6 ... ults_video

Observers of this video have called is psychotic. There are obvious signs of distress among these astronauts and I'm wondering if the psychology of Ken Edgett in his interview above on that local news report. Note that they cut that news report off-- which disappointed me. Here is facial expression of a liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCTU1eLT ... re=related
Dmitry
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:20 pm

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

Unread post by Dmitry »

Heiwa wrote: Note that speed was reduced from 5 900 to 405 m/s in only 254 seconds ... and only by friction between spaceship and the 125 000 meter thick Mars atmosphere. :rolleyes:
Of course the spaceship must have travelled 800 735 meters then in the Mars atmosphere.
Of what course, Heiwa? Do you mean the deceleration must be strictly linear? But this is not the case for aerodynamics.
Heiwa wrote:
You really wonder why the parachute then was used? To reduce speed further from 405 to 80 m/s during 110 seconds?? :P The Friction is much more effective!
In fact, the air friction "effectiveness" *dramatically* depends on the velocity. Consider the simplest formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28ph ... h_velocity). The force depends on 3 factors:
* the density (of the air);
* the surface (of the object);
* the *square* of the velocity.

During the landing, the density grows, but remains limited. For small velocities, the drag become too small for soft landing. But one can increase it by adding some surface. This is right what parachutes are for. On any planet with any atmosphere.

Yes, Heiwa, maybe the Martian atmosphere is too thin and too weak. But the concrete parameters you cite don't prove anything, even with smilies. The need for a parachute at some late point of landing is not at all a non-sense but a common practice.

To prove the fact of the fraud, one need to solve some differential equations.
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

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

Unread post by rick55 »

To prove the fact of the fraud, one need to solve some differential equations.
Yesterday, I would have agreed, but today I'm thinking about the overall stopping speed based on the speed of light, rather than any particular decleration curve. By my numbers above, the craft stopped at 2% of the speed of light, or as Hoagland said, equivalent to stopping a car going 60 mph in a fraction of a second. We can all imagine, if this is at all helpful, a car stopping that fast as it hits a tree, assuming the tree remains stationary. I'm not sure the following represents a fallacy but it's a car hitting a wall at 60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFjPfewYxWc

It seems to me that by this simplistic way of looking at things, the Curiosity, by definition, crashed because it's physically impossible to stop an object going 60 mph smoothly in the span of the paint surface of a concrete wall. Similarly, it's impossible to stop a 13,000 mph car within a 78 mile high atmosphere. This assumes the 13,000 mph component is vertical... which I realize isn't the case. How do we determine the vertical component of velocity then?
Dmitry
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:20 pm

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

Unread post by Dmitry »

rick55 wrote:
To prove the fact of the fraud, one need to solve some differential equations.
Yesterday, I would have agreed, but today I'm thinking about the overall stopping speed based on the speed of light, rather than any particular decleration curve. By my numbers above, the craft stopped at 2% of the speed of light, or as Hoagland said, equivalent to stopping a car going 60 mph in a fraction of a second. We can all imagine, if this is at all helpful, a car stopping that fast as it hits a tree, assuming the tree remains stationary. I'm not sure the following represents a fallacy but it's a car hitting a wall at 60
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFjPfewYxWc

It seems to me that by this simplistic way of looking at things, the Curiosity, by definition, crashed because it's physically impossible to stop an object going 60 mph smoothly in the span of the paint surface of a concrete wall. Similarly, it's impossible to stop a 13,000 mph car within a 78 mile high atmosphere. This assumes the 13,000 mph component is vertical... which I realize isn't the case. How do we determine the vertical component of velocity then?
The starting vertical component can be derived based on total velocity and the angle.

In fact, the angle varies, so we can't do much with only a calculator. This angle may become even negative: some returning space crafts are said to pop off the (Earth's) atmosphere having entered there and slowed down a little.

The most probable scenario for a body entered in atmosphere from space is to be not crashed but burnt. Even for rocks.

So, I repeat, we must look not at resulting numbers, but at equations and its input.
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

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

Unread post by rick55 »

So yes: we are actually asked to believe that - during the same days that NASA landed safely on Mars with a four-rocketed 'Mars Delivering Ship', they were carrying out (disastrous) ground test runs of a single-rocketed "MORPHEUS" ship.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? :rolleyes:
I look at that paradox and the explanation is that the newer craft is using a new type of fuel. That combined with a part failure explains the crash. The Curiosity is a time-tested craft using old fuel and is the older more reliable version. Still, I haven't been able to find test flights of Curiosity without a crane. I've even scoured the JPL site itself for such a test with no luck.
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

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

Unread post by icarusinbound »

Note this....stunningly-clear picture of the aptly-name Curiosity.

Image
source [url]http://cuyastro.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/curiosity-on-chute.jpg
[/img]

So the parallax view-angle is such as to show both the parachute canopy and the apparent payload.

This would indicate an extremely-low orbital trajectory, which in turn would reduce the time-over-target.

Although the parachute canopy top is washed-out with brightness, there's a strong suggestion that there's no apex vent or dragster/drogue holes, and there's no indication at all of panel seams. Odd.

And the skirt looks like a stuffed-crust pizza: never seen that before.

Did someone have a quoted specfication for the 'chute diameter? It looks rather small. My gut feeling is that by proportion it's just over four times the diameter of the Curiousity clamshell. Does that tie-in with the Official Narrative?
Sisterlover
Member
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:49 pm

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

Unread post by Sisterlover »

Pardon me if I've missed this information somewhere else in the post... I thought it would take days/weeks/months(?) to send images back to earth. Isn't Mars something like 150 million miles away? Any ideas on how long it actually takes to send high-res images that far?

Thanks!
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

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

Unread post by brianv »

Sisterlover wrote:Pardon me if I've missed this information somewhere else in the post... I thought it would take days/weeks/months(?) to send images back to earth. Isn't Mars something like 150 million miles away? Any ideas on how long it actually takes to send high-res images that far?

Thanks!

Hey, what are you talking about? They have the latest 286 with 2 mb ram and a transmiiter the size of New York! :rolleyes:
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

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

Unread post by rick55 »

The most probable scenario for a body entered in atmosphere from space is to be not crashed but burnt. Even for rocks.

So, I repeat, we must look not at resulting numbers, but at equations and its input.
But there's no way it could have stopped, regardless of the calculations, right? Even a vertical component of 600 mph (600/60=100) miles per minute which is close to Heiwa's vertical initial velocity earlier in this thread requires stopping within 7 min... so deceleration seems intuitively to be roughly 100 miles/min each minute for 7 minutes, on average. And that's just on the vertical.

I find it tricky to imagine deceleration so I would suggest imagining ACcelerating by 100 miles/min for 7 minutes. Imagine the horsepower energy required for that! A car that accelerates to 100 miles/min in the first minute is possible to imagine. The same energy expended to do that would have to be exerted in braking power to slow down at that rate.

Am I right or wrong here? I'm trying to think in terms of the gross figures-- start and stop, elapsed time--- only rather than go the route of calculating angles of entry, and differential equations. It seems to me that those are not even worth talking about given the GROSS starting numbers we have been given.

You simply cannot stop an object going 13,000 mph in 7 min/60 min = 0.116 hours, regardless of the angle and regardless of your equations. The burn up you refer to would be indistinguable from a crash-- it would amount to a "crash and burn/explosion". It would have burned up before crashing as you say, but that's just semantics at this point. What NASA is claiming is simply not possible. Maybe this will be our primary proof that it didn't occur.
The 7 minutes of Terror (bad choice of words -- !!)... were in fact the 7 minutes of "Let's Pretend". The reason they call it terror is because they all knew they would be on TV and recorded for all time. They're referring to their own stage fright in this hoax... this charade.

If the craft had had retrorockets that slowed it's approach to Mars several days or weeeks ago-- to a near-geostationary approach orbit, and then slipped in to the atmosphere at a relative ground speed of, say, Mach1, with relevent angles, and from there used a parachute at half of that, it might have been more believable. I don't think they would have had to invent the 7 minutes of terror. They could have pretended that a Mars landing was strictly routine by now, kept it boring and more believable. The cameras should have started transmitting once the chutes opened. There should have been audio so we could hear the retrorockets fire.

I just do not see how an object travelling 13,000 mph with respect to Mars at any angle, under any circumstance can come to a full stop in .116 hours. (the famous 7 min). Those are the key gross figures to consider. Those are the parameters consistent with a crash/burn/explosion. The angles and equations don't matter with numbers this far out of line. As a thought experiment, imagine a craft travelling 10X that speed at 100,000 mph and stop it in some way in one-tenth of an hour... or better yet a million miles an hour and stopping in a fraction of an hour. At what point does it become easy to see that its not possible? ...that there is no possible glide path or re-entry scenario? At what point does "impossible" become intuitively obvious?
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

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

Unread post by icarusinbound »

Sisterlover wrote: Any ideas on how long it actually takes to send
Going by the Official Story, that would be 150,000,000 miles divided by 186,000 miles-per-second, divided by 60 to give minutes....so just 13-and-a-half minutes. For the first pixel to be sent over that distance, then received here. Officially.
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

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

Unread post by rick55 »

UStream has a live NASA conference right now--
http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv
icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

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

Unread post by icarusinbound »

See http://zipcodemars.jpl.nasa.gov/bio-con ... ountry.cfm

This is the roll-call summary from which our JPL sample scientist is listed.

At the bottom of the page is a

Code: Select all

Last Updated: 11 Aug 2012
This morning, around 0530GMT, the global 'Last Updated' was an apparent default value of 1 Jan 1970 . The page hasn't been refreshed yet on my smart-phone (I'm looking at the original date right now) so I am certain this is the case. Comments?

Also: the "Zip Code Mars: Individual Contribution Submission" page is here: http://zipcodemars.jpl.nasa.gov/bioentr ... info01.cfm. Strange- so anyone who defines themselves as having contributed to the scientific understanding of spaceflight to Mars can self-nominate....intriguing.
Post Reply