It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

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

page: 15
35
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 09:07 AM

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth

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.

Your numbers are way off. One kiloton of TNT equals 1,162,222,222 WH so 10 10-megaton bombs equals 116,222,222 megawatt*hours, or the equivalent of your 10000 MW reactor operating continuously for 14.4 years

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 09:12 AM

So if you believe that this helicopter cant fly in 0.6% Earth's pressure, then why do you even believe they are flying rockets through the vacuum of space in the first place?

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 11:58 AM

originally posted by: Barcs

The atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than Earth's

LMAO. Another thread bites the dust.

Can you explain how that link makes the point of this thread bite the dust?

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 12:07 PM
So can someone explain why a helicopter needs ambient pressure to create lift, and performs less effective at low pressures, while a rocket can create thrust in a vacuum? Does Newton's Third Law not apply to both, or not in the same way to both? Can someone explain the difference?

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 12:19 PM

Because the rocket isn't thrusting against a vacuum. Newton's laws apply perfectly.

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 12:26 PM

You didnt answer the question. Why did you respond?

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 12:35 PM

Please apply Newtons third law to a helicopter's rotor blades and ambient pressure, and then apply it to a rocket engine in a vacuum. Please explain in detail what force is applied to what body, by what body, in both cases. Thank you.

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 12:51 PM

Try studying LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS before posting any more nonsense

braeunig.us...

A thorough understanding of thermodynamics is not a necessary requirement for the study of rocketry. As long as the temperature, molecular weight, of specific heat ratio of the exhaust products is known, the rocket equations can be solved. It is, however, often useful to be able to derive these quantities for one's self. In this article we provide an overview of the chemical thermodynamics applicable to rocket propulsion. It is assumed the reader has at least an elementary understanding of thermodynamics, as it is not our intent to fully explain the fundamentals.

Here is in simpler for, probably more your speed

courses.lumenlearning.com...

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 01:16 PM

Please don't think you're doing anything original or clever here.

Please explain why Newton doesn't apply to a rocket in a vacuum.
edit on 27/10/2019 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 01:55 PM

Posting nonsense? I was asking a question.

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 01:56 PM

So you cannot answer my question. Why did you respond?

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 02:24 PM

You really should learn aerodynamics. Aircraft are designed specifically for certain missions and areas. A 777 has almost 100,000 pounds of thrust per engine, and can't get over about 45,000 feet. A helicopter on earth is designed to operate at lower altitudes, and aren't designed to operate at 100,000 feet. The Mars scout on the other hand, WAS specifically designed to work in those conditions.

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 02:27 PM

edit on 10/27/2019 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 02:35 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 02:40 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 02:42 PM

edit on 10/27/2019 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 02:45 PM

edit on 10/27/2019 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 02:57 PM

edit on 10/27/2019 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 03:31 PM

im no nasa fan boy.....but come on man if you can use the atmosphere as an aerobrake than there is enough to fly a small super light drone. did you see the speed the HUGE optimized blades were spinning at?

edit on 27-10-2019 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 04:10 PM

To point out how transparent your gambit is, and to call your bluff by asking you to prove a point. You seem keen for other people to provide you with answers, why are you so reluctant to provide any yourself?

A helicopter blade is not a rocket engine.

A rocket engine does not thrust against air.

There are plenty of instructional learning materials available to you out there, you could use them to demonstrate why Newton's laws of motion don't apply to a rocket in a vacuum.

new topics

top topics

35