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

I did some easy calculations and these arent even very specific because the margin is already so big its all a lie (on nasas side).
Someone can calculate specific ones but this shows how it just cant be.

The nasa helicopter says it can fly about 1.5 minutes (i wrote 15 minutes in my first message but it was wrong). According to the white paper it will use only 10wh for the flight leaving the rest (battery total capacity 42wh) for reserve.

This gives us a simple calculation to show us the road. The whitepaper has its own calculation but we cant trust it so we must make our own.

1.7 kilograms for 1.5 minutes using 10Wh. That means the chopper has about 450w energy consumption during the 90 seconds. If it flew only one minute the engine would be 600watts, if it could fly 2 minutes with 10wh, engine would be 300watts. Because its 90 seconds its 450 watts. Engine uses probably 85-95& of the power and servos and other electronics use the rest.

Still lets stick to 450watts. Thats 0.6 horse powers for 1.7kg. 450 watts = 0.6 horse powers.

Thats 0.35 horsepowers per kilogram. And it is enough power to move this 1.7kg craft in 6mbar air pressure. Now this ridiculous thing should fly to Mount Everest on earth if we either give it 0.92 horsepowers or a weight of 640 grams (due to earths gravity vs mars). So what is Nasa waiting. Dump the instruments, get a bigger engine, fly it with an airplane to 10km and let it start from there and go to 20km at least.

Well ofcourse its not gonna work. And talking about airplanes, lets take a Boeing 777-200. Smallest of Boeing 777,s but it still has 2 of the most powerful jet engines that exist (GE 90). Each engine is 110000 HP so its 220000 horse powers total.

Empty weight of 777-200 is 135000KG
Max fuel capacity: 117000 litres. (100000kg)
Lets be nice to Nasa and give it 15000 litres of fuel, we could give only 10000 but lets give 15000. that is 12000kg since kerosene is 0.8x the weight. Litre is 0.8kg.

This gives us a plane which is about 150000kg in weight. Has a total maximum horsepowers of 220000.
Thats 1.46 horsepowers per kilogram.
Its more than Nasas helicopter.

But no why what is this, Boeing must have a typo on their webpage. It says maximum altitude is 13.1km. What is this this cant be true. Give us at least 20km which is a generous 45 mbar pressure, since Nasas chopper is flying, with 4 times less "power to weight" in a pressure which exists somewhere 30-35km.

A jet engine grabs air, its not a rocket, its just more efficient than a rotor. But its still based on grabbing air so rotors and jet engines are similar in that theres no rocket engine there which burns fuel and it gives thrust.

A math geek could also take SR71, calculate its 2xJ58 engines and take its weight and calculate a thrust to weight ratio or power to weight ratio, and then compare it to the nasa chopper. We dont need to use the nasa choppers blades aerodynamic properties since no 3d model of them exists and we dont know how much air it moves, but we can use the electric engine as a source. Its 450 watts. Just calculate its power output, then its weight. Compare it to SR71.

Also why did SR71 only reach an altitude of 26km which is about 22mbar. And why is the sky dark at that height. Since it also has very likely a higher power to weight ratio, it should have been able to grab more air molecules than the nasa choppers will and go even higher. Remember, lighter weight, higher material/air/(its nitrogen and o2 on earth) grabbing property, the better it is.
Well truth is its dark there because the gravity keeps material clumped near the surface and it wont go to those heights. No material at those heights aka 25km and over, no oxygen and nitrogen molecules to scatter light beams coming from the sun, thats why its dark there.

Or take a F15. It has a better thrust to weight ratio than this nasa chopper. But even it cant fly at 6mbar.

6mbar is you see only 0.6% of material in the air compared to 100% (earth) and you simply cant fly there. Its like going to a swimming pool with only 0.6% of the water there, instead of the normal 100%, but the 0.6% is in mist form so volume is same as if it was in liquid form. Well try swimming there you cant, not enough atoms to grab on.

Not dense enough. Just like Nasas theory of Mars's 6mbar atmosphere. Not dense enough. Its not even leaking because nothing to leak, its just an empty theory.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

I did some easy calculations

And they are incorrect.

Have a look at the paper I linked.

a reply to: Phage

the Mars Helicopter can only communicate to or becommanded from Earth via radio link.

This is the backup coms, it can communicate from the chopper to Earth which would be the Deep Space Network. This is mostly just a backup (like the chopper blows too far away or the main coms are blocked) because it is low bandwidth they really don't want to use it unless they have to.

It also has the coms to the host spacecraft of up to 1000 meters. The host spacecraft will relay data to and from Earth through an orbiter. This is faster and the main system they will want to use. I don't think they plan on going more than a 1000 meters from the host spacecraft.

The link is designed to relay data at over-the-air rates of 20 kbps or 250 kbps over distances ofup to 1000 m

a reply to: LookingAtMars

it can communicate from the chopper to Earth which would be the Deep Space Network.

That doesn't seem to be the case. It doesn't seem to be capable to transmit at those frequencies. Does it?
deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov...

Not to mention the power requirements.

a reply to: Phage

I bet it will be just like the rovers and other landers, spotty and sometimes it takes a few passes. They can't send and receive much. But NASA has had a lot of practice at making a little bit of data do a lot.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

It looks to me like the flyer will talk to the rover, the "basestation." Mostly.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

If you see a number that you don't like, you don't just get to dismiss it and decide to use another one that fits your prejudices better.

The operating altitude of the Boeing is correct.

You have decided in advance that NASA is lying and are desperately forcing the evidence to fit.

a reply to: Phage

All spacecraft since Viking have had that com. It is using a "COTS802.15.4(Zig-Bee) standard 900 MHzchipset, SiFlex 02, originally manufactured by LS Research." It does not show the specs.

The coms between the chopper and host craft are what you are on about it seems.

Each radio emits approximately0.75 W power at 900 MHz with the board consuming up to 3 W supply power when transmitting and approximately0.15 W while receiving. The link is designed to relay data at over-the-air rates of 20 kbps or 250 kbps over distances ofup to 1000 m

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Yes. Twp radios, transmitting 0.75 watts at 900 MHz. 900 MHz is not in any band used by the DSN. It does not seem that the flyer uses the DSN, or is there a secret channel?


The Voyagers transmit 25 watts, using a band that the DSN uses.

a reply to: Phage

You sure the 900 MHzchipset is talking about the frequencies here and not processor speed? "COTS802.15.4(Zig-Bee) standard 900 MHzchipset, SiFlex 02, originally manufactured by LS Research."

I know it is broadcast frequencies here.

Each radio emits approximately0.75 W power at 900 MHz with the board consuming up to 3 W supply power when transmitting and approximately0.15 W while receiving. The link is designed to relay data at over-the-air rates of 20 kbps or 250 kbps over distances ofup to 1000 m

These are two different com systems.

ETA - lol, I searched "COTS802.15.4(Zig-Bee) standard 900 MHzchipset, SiFlex 02" on DDG and the top page was this thread already. In large bold type Nasa lies about Mars atmosphere.Helicopter to fly in Mars" 0 ...







Text

a reply to: LookingAtMars

These are two different com systems.

Two radios. Each transmits at 900 MHz with a range of 1000 meters.

Right?

Each radio emits approximately0.75 W power at 900 MHz

Walkie talkies.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

thurst to weight ratio - is only a part of an aircrafts preformance envelope - and has its biggest impact on top speed

you utterly ignore lift factor - which has a far greater impact on max altitude

a reply to: Phage

The third is the "COTS802.15.4(Zig-Bee) standard 900 MHzchipset, SiFlex 02", coms between chopper and Earth.

ETA-

Telecommunication SystemOnce separated from the host spacecraft (lander or rover), the Mars Helicopter can only communicate to or becommanded from Earth via radio link. This link is implemented using a COTS802.15.4(Zig-Bee) standard 900 MHzchipset, SiFlex 02, originally manufactured by LS Research.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Yes. That is the chipset which handles data transfers (my very old computer's chipset is 3 GHz). A chipset is not a radio transmitter.

Where is the secret radio which uses DSN bands?

a reply to: Phage

Yes. That is the chipset which handles data transfers. A chipset is not a radio transmitter.

That is what I just told you.

You don't know the specs for the COTS802.15.4(Zig-Bee) standard 900 MHzchipset, SiFlex 02. It is the secret radio.


ETA- Or the whitepaper has a misprint? It says it has coms with Earth and I bet it does.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Zigbee is an IEEE 802.15.4-based specification for a suite of high-level communication protocols used to create personal area networks with small, low-power digital radios, such as for home automation, medical device data collection, and other low-power low-bandwidth needs, designed for small scale projects which need wireless connection. Hence, Zigbee is a low-power, low data rate, and close proximity (i.e., personal area) wireless ad hoc network.

en.wikipedia.org...

A hardwired data transfer protocol.

ETA- Or the whitepaper has a misprint? It says it has coms with Earth and I bet it does

The whitepaper says radio link, not direct comms.

Ignore this if I missed it but is there any evidence showing they are really getting more efficiency than normal out of the batteries?

To the op, thank you for the topic, and teamwork makes the dream work, no one is an island 👌🏼 I would think that the energy stated to large rotors will at least make the craft bounce short distances and that is what NASA seems to want to accomplish. It’s not like NASA said they are going to have a drone following the aliens for the entire duration of their IRL show episodes.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

You really have no understanding of aerodynamics. Aircraft are designed to operate under specific conditions. The 777 is designed to fly passengers. The most efficient altitude to do that is in the 40,000 foot range. Much higher than that, and you have to either design a special cabin or put everyone in space suits in case of pressure loss in the cabin.

The F-15 is designed to intercept other aircraft. Those aircraft are going to be flying in the same altitude range as passenger aircraft. You don't design a fighter to go to 100,000 feet when it's going to be intercepting aircraft much lower.

The SR-71 operated exactly where it needed to for its mission.

originally posted by: Bicent

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: Bicent
Meh considering, we really don’t understand how a helicopter can fly, who knows.

At least that is what I was taught. Was never excited about the helicopter ride I took in a Blackhawk once, knowing I was flying in a machine we did not really understand how it was doing it.

I would imagine the blades will have to go faster maybe I dunno to fly.

I think when you say "we" don't understand you actually mean you don't understand.

I don’t want to sound like a dick and I left myself open for that shot. But please in your best explanation tell us HOW it flies and WHY. The WHY is important. Not BECAUSE but WHY.

I’ll wait.

Others have explained this for you.

originally posted by: tonycodes
Ignore this if I missed it but is there any evidence showing they are really getting more efficiency than normal out of the batteries?

Did someone say they were getting more efficiency than normal out of the batteries?

What I heard them say about the batteries is those types of batteries didn't exist 25 years ago, nor did some of the "smart phone level" technology lightweight circuitry, so they couldn't have made a Mars helicopter 25 years ago with the batteries and other technologies that were available 25 years ago. The old technologies had too much weight.