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: 18
35
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 01:36 PM

Hi I edited the message, its a lot longer now, might want to maybe check again. point is: aerodynamics stop working at one point when there is no material to spin- You must go to rocket based propulsion if theres no atmosphere at that point.

Can you now apply Newton's Third Law to a helicopter's rotor blades in an atmosphere, and to a rocket engine in a vacuum? Can you explain why you need an atmosphere for your helicopter but apparently dont see the need for material(pressure) to interact with, for your rocket engine?

Does Newton's Third Law somehow not apply to rocket engines?

So in you misguided peoples train of thought, on Earth, atmospheric pressure is not restricting the flow of a rocket's exhaust? You are saying that within Earth's atmosphere, a rocket's exhaust does not push against air molecules, creating motion in the opposite direction?

edit on 29-10-2019 by Apollo5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:03 PM

it flies, i mean rockets

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:05 PM

Can you give me a number when there are not enough gas molecules in one M3 for a helicopter to fly.

If 13g is enough for a 1.7kg vehicle to fly, what about 1g. Then only 170g vehicle flies? What if the 1g gas is all in one 10x10x10cm area in top of the squaremeter, how does it then create lift?

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:36 PM

What have you missed that it depends on rotor speed and design.

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 08:40 PM

If 750g test chopper can fly in 9mbar (like nasa claims), it should also be able to fly:
7.5kg at 90mbar.
75kg at 900mbar.

But obviously it will not.

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 08:49 PM

God you need to learn aerodynamics. Using that logic since the U-2 can fly at 70,000 feet every plane can.

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 09:09 PM

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth

If 750g test chopper can fly in 9mbar (like nasa claims), it should also be able to fly:
7.5kg at 90mbar.
75kg at 900mbar.

But obviously it will not.

Based on what actual equations?
edit on 29-10-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 09:35 PM

Found this interesting

High altitude rotors at sea level
inspirepilots.com...-146239

High altitude 1360x prop question FINALLY answered...
inspirepilots.com...-135194

6 Drones That Can Reach High Altitude 2019

www.droneguru.net...

The Inspire 2 is rated for an astounding 16500 feet above sea level. In order to reach that height and operate in such thin air, you do however need the special high-altitude props. This means you can use this drone to film in locations with thin air without worrying that your baby will fall out of the sky.

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 10:16 PM

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth

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.

Is it now. Only a void. So wise you all are to have known all that by looking at screen some math's on a chalk board and a whole slew of theoretical observation's.

If your asking what a theoretical observation. Well! Its an observation, only in theory.

Dude, I like your gusto to go to space, you got space cadet material written all over you, just a dash of smarts, and whole bucketloads of not smarts, because you would have to be pretty stupid, to be shipped in a can to outer space like spam, thrown in the air.

What goes up, must come down. Put a can of spam in the microwave, see what happens.

And that's still more then I can say about the pointdexters at NASA.

But your or NASA aren't going anywhere anytime soon, if ever. Mars may be farther off then you like to think or envision. Nobody is going to space or Mars any time soon. I would not hold your breath on that one happening or being just right around the corner.

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 10:29 PM

That pretty cool, that guy in Siberia got his pretty high, for what looks to be just an off the counterdrone maybe a bit modified drone, but at 33,000 feet its nothing to sneeze at.

But there putting laws into place all over to were you cant fly higher then a certain feet, because you will just end up fined, or worse soon there will be a tax on it, or you will have to pay royalties to NASA or who knows what other wacky retard #.

To tell the truth, I am surprised people haven't just modified there drones or put together one with a bit more umpt to get a bit higher if they cared to that is. But I think they will lose visuals and signal, on there go pro or remotes at a certain height, not to mention everything will just freeze over.

And well, you may have to move to Siberia so you wont be sued over it. But there are plenty of places around were you can do it without anybody bothering you.

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 12:37 AM

lift is equal to density if rotor is same and rpm and gravity.

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 12:43 AM

Also:
www.dailymail.co.uk... net.html

In this news. This former employee says she saw people walk on mars.

What is interesting is:

'Then I saw two men in space suits - not the bulky suits we normally used, but they looked protective. They came over the horizon walking to the Viking Explorer.'

That would be inline with my findings. Mars has thick atmosphere (100-300mbar), you dont need a big bulky space suit. There were humans already back in 1970s living on Mars.

This is the secret space side of nasa which probably under 10000 people know about.

I read somewhere (well it was a 4chan comment year ago by some anonymous dude) who said that why does Florida have so many people with secret clearances. He said it has to do with space and nasa.
edit on 30-10-2019 by SpaceBoyOnEarth because: (no reason given)

Theres also this Mars Curiosity picture:

Could be, well, UAV. Not too big so it wont be seen on possible satellites of non american origin. This picture probably exists as color one and this was jsut released as black and white.
Then theres this:

Looks like the roof of a marc vehicle. They have large 70cm/27 inch wheels. Could be 6 wheels in total. Quite soft. Likely forward 2 wheels are in their own axis and they move left to right and wheels too. Then the rest 4 wheels will not move.

Uav is stored on the roof which also has a solar cell. Can cary 6 people. Has reserve gas tanks and a compesser and a larger gas tank. Water tank and communication device.

Also likely (might not be implemented yet) somekinda camouflage net which also acts against martian winds or enemy satellites.

Heres a picture:

edit on 30-10-2019 by SpaceBoyOnEarth because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 03:36 AM

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth

lift is equal to density if rotor is same and rpm and gravity.

Ok? Then how is the NASA Mars helicoptered rotors the same as anything preceding it?

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 04:48 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth

lift is equal to density if rotor is same and rpm and gravity.

Ok? Then how is the NASA Mars helicoptered rotors the same as anything preceding it?

I did a reverse calculation. Nasa didnt expect that someone would do it.

Chopper could lift itself at a stripped weight of 750g in 9mbar chamber (supposedly 9, more like 100-300, my view).

Then it should lift 7.5kg at 90 mbar. 75kg at 900 mbar.
But it aint doing it. Obviously.
edit on 30-10-2019 by SpaceBoyOnEarth because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 06:09 AM

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth

lift is equal to density if rotor is same and rpm and gravity.

Ok? Then how is the NASA Mars helicoptered rotors the same as anything preceding it?

I did a reverse calculation. Nasa didnt expect that someone would do it.

Chopper could lift itself at a stripped weight of 750g in 9mbar chamber (supposedly 9, more like 100-300, my view).

Then it should lift 7.5kg at 90 mbar. 75kg at 900 mbar.
But it aint doing it. Obviously.

You cannot do that. The equations concerning aerodynamics are not linear. They use exponential and logarithmic functions.

For example, you cannot keep doubling rotor speed to double lift. It’s not a linear function. And has diminishing return.

And the composition of the Martian atmosphere is different than Earth’s.

Now cite what equations you used.
edit on 30-10-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 06:24 AM

Helicopter Flight Physics

www.intechopen.com...

Vertical climb

Considering the helicopter in climb, one can see that the flow enters the stream tube far upstream of the rotor and then passes through the rotor itself, finally passing away from the rotor forming the wake ( Figure 6 ). When the helicopter leaves the hovering condition and moves in a vertical direction, the flow remains symmetrical about the thrust force line, which is normal to the rotor disk. The flow becomes very complex in a medium descent rate condition, but in climb, the mathematical approach is close to that used in the hover conditions.

The air enters the stream tube with velocity Vc and then acquires an additional velocity vi as it passes through the helicopter rotor disk, and finally, it forms the wake with a velocity Vc  + vi . Applying the principles of conservation for mass, momentum, and energy like in the hover we get:

ṁ =ρA(VC+vi);T=ṁ w;w=2vi
m
̇
=
ρA
V
C
+
v
i
;
T
=
m
̇
w
;
w
=
2
v
i
E17
Therefore, T=ṁ w=ρA(VC+vi)⋅2vi
T
=
m
̇
w
=
ρA
V
C
+
v
i

2
v
i
and dividing by 2ρA it follows that

T2ρA=(VC+vi)vi=VC⋅vi+v2i
T
2
ρA
=
V
C
+
v
i
v
i
=
V
C

v
i
+
v
i
2
E18
The left part of the above equation represents the square of induced velocity in hover, v2h
v
h
2
, and replacing it, we get

v2h=VC⋅vi+v2ior(vivh)2+VCvh⋅(vivh)−1=0
v
h
2
=
V
C

v
i
+
v
i
2

or

(
v
i
v
h
)
2
+
V
C
v
h

(
v
i
v
h
)

1
=
0
E19
The ratio vi /vh must always be positive in the climb, so the valid solution is

vivh=−12VCvh+14(VCvh)2+1‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾√
v
i
v
h
=

1
2
V
C
v
h
+
1
4
V
C
v
h
2
+
1
E20
The power consumed is given by the product of the thrust and the total velocity through the rotor disk, that is

P=T(Vc+vi)=T⋅VC+T⋅vi=Pclimb+Pi
P
=
T
V
c
+
v
i
=
T

V
C
+
T

v
i
=
P
c
lim
b
+
P
i

edit on 30-10-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:51 AM

Here's the thing:

1: She's lying.
2. It's the Daily Mail

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 01:12 PM

Sorry its the truth. (My opinion)

I had a remoteviewing session yesterday. I saw humans on Mars. Entering a pyramid kind structure but taller an narrover. This was like in todays terms. Probably few years ago, max 15.

Guess what else i saw. We come from Mars. Dont know when. We mixed with other human like creatures on earth when we landed here. We were servant race on Mars to giant kind of beings. They did not come with us to earth. I think they engineered us. We were like their children and they were out parents.

They probably stayed and died on Mars after doing one experiment too much and it screwed the hole planet (electric arcs from core and atmosphere blew to a thousand pieces). They likely knew they screwed up (knew it was their end and they deserved it) but we were sent away and came to earth. Some "martian" humans might have been here already before when Mars blew up (like an outpost).

We tried to imitate our homeplanet and way of life on earth, by becoming giants(well these kings) ourself. Thats why we built pyramids and obelisks and had people serve us. Some of these structures might have actually been built by these giants, or their fellow race in an earlier time, but we humans are mainly from Mars.

Atleast I in my humble opinion, represent more those. my internal clock is always trying to go to 24.5-25 hours and earths 24h is just not enough. My dna is 50% from caucasus area and i believe our genes have more original martian dna than most other humans on the planet so i seem to remember stuff.

We didnt come from monkeys is for sure.

Yea do i have evidence? Well if i had a time machine and could take a videocamera with me then maybe.

This sounds crazy i know, but what can i do, this is what i saw.
edit on 30-10-2019 by SpaceBoyOnEarth because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 01:25 PM

Sounds crazy?
On that we can agree.
More like certifiable, though.
Welcome to Earth.
Are you just visiting?

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 01:25 PM

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Sorry its the truth. (My opinion)

And nope, it's not.

...snip...

We didnt come from monkeys is for sure.

Apparently evolutionary theory is also not a strong point of yours.

Yea do i have evidence? Well if i had a time machine and could take a videocamera with me then maybe.

This sounds crazy i know, but what can i do, this is what i saw.

No, it sounds like you're making **** up for the lulz.
edit on 30/10/2019 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

35