Nasa lies about Mars atmosphere.Helicopter to fly in Mars" 0.6Percent of earths atmosphere"

originally posted by: roadgravel
The atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than Earth's

LMAO. Another thread bites the dust.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Grimpachi

You've made exactly my point: massively expensive to construct, long time to impact, pointless.

The only point made is that there are no secret moon or Mars bases right now.

In the future we will colonize space and such weapons will be a huge threat. When we do colonize space there will be refineries set up out there.
Mass producing a kinetic weapon with the destructive potential of a nuke will be as easy as making an I beam.

You seem to be hung up on the time it would take for the round to make the journey. You can't move cities. Whoever controls space controls the world. You also implied such rounds would be knocked down. Do you realize how hard it will be to track something like that and to knock it off course would take some type of direct hit?

When we finally do start colonizing space unless there is a way to secure it then any maniac with a fast ship could make 9/11 look like nothing. In space there is no such thing as an unarmed ship.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Grimpachi

You've made exactly my point: massively expensive to construct, long time to impact, pointless.

The only point made is that there are no secret moon or Mars bases right now.

And I completely agree. It is utterly ridiculous to think that they can have been achieved without discovery, and the OP's contribution to that 'debate' is merely serving to prove how stupid and ill-informed the so called proofs are.

In the future we will colonize space and such weapons will be a huge threat. When we do colonize space there will be refineries set up out there.
Mass producing a kinetic weapon with the destructive potential of a nuke will be as easy as making an I beam.

That's all supposition based on what might eventually be possible if research bears out theory, which may or not be the case, and if people are prepared to put money into it, which at the moment seems not to be the case apart form a couple of millionaire playboys. Had the conjecture and theory borne of the original space race been put into practice we would all be in hover cars and using jetpacks to get around.

You seem to be hung up on the time it would take for the round to make the journey. You can't move cities. Whoever controls space controls the world. You also implied such rounds would be knocked down. Do you realize how hard it will be to track something like that and to knock it off course would take some type of direct hit?

'Hung up' is one term for it, understanding of the practicalities is a different interpretation. Tracking something like that and intercepting it is just ballistics and math - we spot asteroids passing by us all the time. If we have the technological capability to launch an object at Earth at high speed we also have the technological capability to launch something to intercept it.

When we finally do start colonizing space unless there is a way to secure it then any maniac with a fast ship could make 9/11 look like nothing. In space there is no such thing as an unarmed ship.

We aren't actually arguing different things, you are just slightly more optimistic about our capabilities. There is nothing wrong with the theory that a weapon could be launched from the moon at Earth. My point is that in practice it would be physically and financially impractical with really really marginal gains from the massive outlay involved and a dubious actual benefit at the outcome. You don't need a space weapon to achieve mass destruction, it's pretty simple and much cheaper to do it from the ground.

a reply to: Barcs

According to you not science. Your article relies on nasa numbers. Those numbers which have now been proven to be impossible.

10g of Co2 / m3 can in no way of form create enough lift for a 1.7kg craft even if you take into consideration mars 2.6 times less gravity.

Someone tried to bring up radiation as a proof of something and I hadnt even looked at that angle and as you see few posts back, even radiation data proves Mars has much denser atmosphere and also a magnetic field because it couldn't block so much radiation if it was 0 magnetic field wit 0.6% atmosphere. Ofcourse curiosity numbers are probably a lie and something they want to tell us but you cant have one or the other.

You cant have a 0.6% dense atmosphere from earths with no magnetic fields and have such a big radiation reduction. They likely put this radiation number out on purpose. to make it look like its possible to live on Mars but not fun. Reality must be that the actual radiation on Mars is lower than told and not so dangerous.

There could be giant alien rats running around too, who knows.


You could also restart its magnetic core or make a satellite based magnetic protective system. You could also import oxygen if it lacks enough to make it like on earth. altough getting so much nitrogen there might be a problem. I would increase oxygen content in atmosphere so portable oxygen densener breathing systems would be handy for use. Also then you could import farming as you would have more oxygen. You could also create huge greenhouses too.

You will need to think out of the box or you will stay inside the box for this to work.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

There's a big difference between thinking outside the box and not having a clue what you're talking about.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well I think youll see. This will all happen in the future. Mars will have a stronger magnetic field. Its atmosphere will have more o2 or megadomecities will have it. Denser atmosphere in general will protect it against meteorites to a degree so even if theres no oxygen, domecities would be safer to live in.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

There are lots of large rocks on the Moon. Not sure about stopping them all.

Was down to twelve rocks but decided was safer to run out of
ammunition than to look as if we were running out. So I awarded seven to
Indian coastal cities, picking new targets— and Stu inquired sweetly if
Agra had been evacuated. If not, please tell us at once. (But heaved no
rock at it . )

Egypt was told to clear shipping out of Suez Canal-bluff; was
hoarding last five rocks.

Then waited.



Impact at Lahaina Roads, that target in Hawaii. Looked good at high
mag; Mike could be proud of Junior.

archive.org...

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

And when it doesn't, then it'll just be "in the future" and "they're covering it up still".

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well currently its probably not an objective of the elite to terraform Mars but im sure they will build plans for it to be executed on a later date.

You see, planet is gravity, add mixture of material there which will gasify as an atmosphere, thats it then basically.
Venus has no magnetic field but there is a pressure of 95000mbar.

Theres more to an atmosphere than just a magnetic field and gases and gravity (than can be easily understood, thats why no one knows how to do anything, well at least seems so)

I think something happened to Mars and its atmosphere leaked. Or it was so old it couldn't be saved anymore. Who knows if humans lived there and hopped on earth once

Also, Elon Musks idea of nuking Mars polar caps to release co2 as gas to get any gas is a stupid and energy inefficient way.

One kiloton has energy of 277777 WH
Lets imagine they drop 10 x 10 megaton nukes. It would be:
1 tnt nuke is = 4.184 gigajoules
4.184 gigajoules is 1162222 Wh (277777WH per gigajoule)

1 megaton is = 1000 kilotons. So
1 megaton = 277777000WH
10 megatons = 2777770000 WH
So 10 megatons nuke would be: 2.77 megawh.

10x 10 would be 27.7 megawatt hours.

Instead of dropping 10 nukes and having most energy just being deflected everywhere instead of melting the co2 ice,( because Musk wants any atmosphere he can get and he wants a thicker co2 atmosphere so hes proposing nukes) you go to Mars, install a:

Nuclear power plant.

A typical American nuclear power plant has the output of 1000-1500 MW

So in one day it producec: 24000MW.
So one 1000MW nuclear power plant will in one day of operation, same as 8664 x 10 megaton nukes.

So Elon Musk is doing this nuke mars only for publicity, there wouldn't be enough energy for it in anyway even if you lob all nukes from earth into Mars (and get them there somehow).

You could install nuclear rectors in the polar caps, I found these small 10MW reactors in a Patent:

Already 50 years ago you had compact 10 Mw reactors. 'thats a patent for a nuclear tunnel boring machine which no one has ever seen except the secret workers in these secret programs which officially dont exist except in conspiracy theories and old patents) . They would prodce in one day what 10x10 megaton nukeblasts would be. And look what the text says: "similar to those developed for space nuclear and propulsion purposes". So they might have had space ships already in the 1970s flying with nuclear power. Maybe all those rumours of huge motherships on orbit werent a joke.


They fit in a truck. You could parachute drop it to the poles with a crew. They could make a reactor so that the heat would go to a large 100x50 foot radiator and it would melt everything.

It would be quite much of energy to melt even a small portion of the ice and the idea behind that is that it would create an atmosphere which would start to insulate the heat on the planet so it wont escape to space. Now thats a tough cookie. Sunlight heats planet. Clouds would block it. But if the planet would be warmer, they could block heat from escaping. Theres probably some middleground where the best levels are for how much clouds or thick atmosphere is good.

Also even a small melting (artificial one) of the co2 could create weather patterns, if you would melt the H2o (water) lakes which I believe are everywhere, it would help too. There might be a large 500km sea of water on Mars. It only looks like a sand dune now. Melt that and you might start to have weather formations (meaning gas mixes and heat is spread). You could get the planet back up and running somehow.

Well possibilities are endless. With a large enough uranium core you could heat the whole planet. And if fusion reactors truly are created one day, you could lob those in to the mantle and have them float there and keep it heated. Ofcourse the energy this would create is talked in so big numbers that we would need a lot of zeroes. I think it would better to use that energy to haul comes with oxygen and dump them on Mars and just make the atmosphere thicker. Then have certain habitable zones heated.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

But wait, if the atmosphere is already much thicker than claimed, how did it "leak" and why would it need terraforming?

You do understand that a patent doesn't mean anything, right? All you need is an idea to get one. That doesn't mean there are rock boring machines running around everywhere. It just means someone came up with an idea for one.

Nuclear power in space has been a thing for years. RTGs are common in probes and satellites, and a few fission reactors were tested. There was even the design for Project Orion, which would have used nuclear power for propulsion. They would have detonated nuclear bombs behind the ship, propelling it forward.

Contrary to what many people think, not all ideas get built.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well there is denser atmosphere than 0.6%.

But because Mars has been thicker, it seems the only weather left on Mars now is the occasional sand storm. And co2 freezing to ground and going back up from time to time.

If we are to believe there was a thicker and more complex atmosphere in the past, it would mean there was weather patterns too. Clouds, more geothermal heat and other things. As those gases do not mix unless there is movement on a global scale. So there was more movement in the past. Then movement stopped.

I think these patents are the tip of the sword. Just behind this is area which I think is secret patents which cant be released. There you have even more weird stuff.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Of course there are secret patents. That still doesn't mean that they were built.

Mars has been shown to have had a thicker atmosphere in the past. That doesn't mean it still is.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

If mars had a thicker atmosphere, than there would Not be the extreme temperature drop from day to night.

And what mechanism is there to keep an atmosphere around mars. You fantasy fails at the most basic levels.

I always did say we should take up all the tumbleweeds blowing in this thread and elsewhere.

And ship them to Mars. There more habitated towards an environment like that anyways. Or at the least they can adapt more then any meat popsicle ever could there.

Hell if SpaceBoyOnEarth wants to got to space, ship him there to, once we got the technology that is.

But first before that can happen, maybe there should be a test or something for all these would be extra planetary space explorers, you know drop them off in the Shara for a moth, with a pencil, a knife, some shelter necessities, water and everything else needed.

Oh and a calculator so he can calculate and formulate a way out of there. Then come back in a month, and see the utopia they have built.

I know, not really funny. Or at the least, not as funny as the rest of this thread.

a reply to: neutronflux

Sometimes you have to believe what you see yourself.


There can be a thick atmosphere and still have big temperature drops up and down.

The pressure can easily be 100-300mbar instead of the claimed 6mb and still have this kind of temperature drops.

If there was a weather system which would keep currents and other flows around the planet, there would be a constant flow of warmer weather from the sunside to the shade side even at night. This could keep temperature differences lower.

Well what are those temperature differences on Mars now. One curiosity temperature reading said it was +2C at day, -75 at night (air temperature. Well thats a difference of 77 degrees. I read it can be upto 20C on Mars sometimes and poles are -120C at winter.

Well I read and went to check temperatures from one actual town (randomly checked one, named tazirbu) in Saraha, its easily +30c on day, +10 at day. Im sure theres towns on Earth with a larger temperature difference per day and night but this is an example.
Well Saraha is like Mars, sand and rock (water likely underneath). Samekinda heat retention on ground. So on earth you have easily 20-25C degree differences at night and day. On Mars you can have 70 degree differences.

If earth was a sand dune planet, we would have larger temperature differences than currently.
So Mars without weather flow and only sand at its surface absorbing the sunlight, this explains the huge differences at temperature drops.

It is actually not so much the gas content in one squaremeter of martian air which keeps it cool or warm, it is is there a working weather system with clouds because they prevent heat from escaping to space. They also block incoming heat but they work as a stabilizer to prevent these huge differences.

Lets go by the official account of 6mbar. What if it was 12 mbar. Would the difference be radically smaller in the difference between day and night? If it was 24mbar, 4 times more Co2 atoms in m3, what about then? According to official story this 0.6% is only thing keeping the heat which Mars has, there. If we higher the atmosphere and believe 0.6% is enough for mean temperature of -60C, 1.2% or 6% shoud then have made it probably to a hawaii kind of warmth, but hardly. No, I think Mars temperatures are just correct for a 100-300mbar atmosphere with no clouds or a weather system and that distance from earth and low volcanic activity.

Also, we must remember earth is 150 million kilometers from the sun.
Mars is 228million kilometers from the sun.
There are those equations for radiaton (which I havent bothered to learn but probably arent hard, something to do with square root) and temperature increase or decrease is not linear to the distance because it spreads all around and not in a tight beams, but you can see, Mars is 1.5 times further than earth so it cant even get so much heat as wanted.

Also, mars surface is mainly sand and rocks. It likely works as a heatshield on the surface and heat doesn't absorb very deep compared if there were water like Earth has (70% of surface is water).

Mars average temperature is said to be: about -60C
Earth is: About 14-15C

75C difference at day and night.

Also what is an object in space which is closer to sun, well the moon.
Moon at day: 127 degrees Celsius).
Moon Night: -173c

300 degree difference. Well ofcourse theres that kinda difference since other side direct radiation, otherside is direct cold void of space.
Thats much. 70 difference on mars which is farther away isnt so much. Someone would say: ofcourse its not so big difference, its further! Yes but its quite warm, upto 20C sometimes. So why is it so warm.


But yea, atmosphere here or there, theres an interesting news:
www.sciencealert.com...

" 20-km-wide (12-mile-wide) lake of liquid water underneath solid ice at the Martian South Pole."

If I would build a long term base on Mars, I would go here.

Drill through the dry ice. Build compounds. Reinforce with steel or some light weight whatever, (ofcourse if you put a mining operation on mars you can mine all the iron you can if you can find it). Insulate. Have only pipes for air ventilation

You could maybe even swim on Mars lakes.

Seems like mars core or its geothermal activities are partially cold but parts still warm. Like if you are melting chocolate and some parts are melted and some are still stiff. Thats mars under the surface.


TLDR:

biggest proof for larger pressure is the lightness on Mars.
at 0.6%, theres 11G of Co2 per M3. On earth we have air (mix of gases) which is 1.225KG m3.

No way at 0.6%/11g, there so much light scattering. 0% would be total darkness in the sky like moon.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird



Well I was in scouts for about 6-7 years since I turned 8 and I have slept in tents in forest at age of 9 with about -15C. You were woken at night and had to keep the tent warm by burning wood in a stove thing and there were about 15 people in the tent total, there was always 2 people at once who had to stay up. I even once wanted to go moose hunting in a scout trip when I was 11. I even made a spear, gathered 3-4 dudes with me (youngest was 9) and we were supposed to go to the wetlands (bog) to hunt for a moose but the scout leaders took my spear away and cancelled our trip.
My ego was hurt and the younger ones didnt follow me anymore after that since I had lost face.

But yea I could go to Mars, but I would if I could have a say, would go on a trip which comes back one day

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth
A trip to mars, there and back in one day.

Yup, sounds like you have been spoiled indeed. I would say drop all you would be space cadets in the Shara for one day.

But that to may have a 100% fatality rate as well.

Oh well brah! May have to wait a long time till your trip to Mars. Judging by your maths and misconceptions, and the way things are progressing, it would be a really really really really really really really really really really really really long time.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Not in one day, but one day. Meaning, one say in the future.

It is only calculated in millions of kilometers not longer. It is basically a void, just go fast enough.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

So? You really got no proof.

It’s ok.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Nasa made a conscious decision to have the photos look orange.

Yes, to make it look like teh planet Mars.

a reply to: 1947boomer

One final point: it is often argued that since the highest a helicopter on Earth can fly is about 40,000 ft (with no payload) how could one possibly fly in the thin air of Mars (which is equivalent to about 100,000 ft on Earth)? The answer is that a Mars helicopter only has to fly at the 100,000 ft equivalent altitude (plus or minus a little) but in order for an Earth helicopter to fly at 100,000 ft, it has to first climb up to that altitude from sea level. That means its rotor has to be able to deliver an amount of lift that’s greater than the weight of the vehicle at every condition between zero and 100,000 ft. It is perfectly possible to design a helicopter that could fly on Earth at 100,000 ft (if anyone needed one) but it is not clear that a rotor that could do that could also climb up to that altitude. On Mars, it doesn’t have to climb to that density altitude—it is delivered there by a spacecraft.

If a helicopter is able to carry its own weight and hover at 100,000 ft, then it is also able to climb to that altitude since it would produce more lift at altitudes below that.