It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Phoenix is an inside job

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Aninsidejob
 


aninsidejob -- Do I know you?...your posting style seems very familiar, especially this part of your post:

And yet it would have had to land on Mars automatically. It is an incredible enterprise, so incredible that only simpletons believe it is possible.


Anyway, do you have proof that ncghunter's videos are fake -- I'm talking about the videos showing the parachutes being tested very high in the Earth's atmosphere (where the atmosphere is very thin).

[edit on 9/16/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]


I was just thinking the same thing...it would appear that he has come back with a new username, but the same old far fetched ideas.

Welcome back BIG BRAIN....didn't miss you at all. Wonder why your last attempt at this was labeled a FARCE

Big Brains last attempt

[edit on 16-9-2008 by sensfan]




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Beat me too it guys
I had Big Brains nonsense open on another tab.

Big Brain is not banned, so is this a sock puppet?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   


In this test the parachute is quite normal, it is not larger than one would typically find being used on Earth.

Have they forgotten to take into account that on Mars the atmosphere is 135 times less dense than the Earth's one?

At first they feign to know that on Mars there is a very rarefied atmosphere, then they use a normal parachute to slow down Phoenix's high velocity.

Are they totally idiot? Yes, they are. Do you remember the fake Boeing that hit Pentagon without debris on the ground?

Idiot boasters only would act this way.

Details are very important if they want to deceive people.

If they had said that on Mars there is an atmosphere 2 times less dense than the Earth's one, the parachute would have had to be 2 times larger.

But those incredible liars have said 135 times.

It is so easy to fraud people. The greatest part of advertising proves that people is quite credulous.






[edit on 17-9-2008 by Aninsidejob]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob

Originally posted by jra
ngchunter has linked to videos that show the opposite of what you claim.


Those videos are fake animations.

Uh, proof??? I wasn't aware they had photo-perfect CG in 1969... lol. Bigbrain, is that you?


Haven't they tested Phoenix on the ground really?

No need to, identical parachute designs were tested at martian atmospheric densities at high altitude over the earth in the late 60s. Their handling characteristics are already well-understood so it leaves no need to retest the same designs. I already linked you to videos showing some of these tests, which were completely successful and clearly show heavy deceleration.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
I already linked you to videos showing some of these tests, which were completely successful and clearly show heavy deceleration.


Those videos prove nothing, no heavy deceleration. They are only heavily fake.

www.pbs.org...


Have the greatest liars lost their technology?




[edit on 17-9-2008 by Aninsidejob]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob

Originally posted by ngchunter
I already linked you to videos showing some of these tests, which were completely successful and clearly show heavy deceleration.


Those videos prove nothing, no heavy deceleration. They are only heavily fake.

You've been already been asked to provide proof by myself and others and have refused to answer it. I provided proof that parachutes work at martian atmospheric pressure, the least you could do is to provide proof that they don't, let alone proof that my videos were faked. Here's another one, at even higher altitude, 52.3km to be exact. Once again, it works.
lisar.larc.nasa.gov...

By the way, would you care to explain why computer simulations of the mission show the craft working just as described at martian atmospheric pressure, gravity, etc?

www.orbithangar.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
You've been already been asked to provide proof by myself and others and have refused to answer it.


I must not provide any proof, my reasonings don't need explanations.

If you used a normal parachute to land where the atmosphere is 135 times less dense than the Earth's one, you would be simply the worst idiot in the world.

These two poor men



are the most striking example of human beings' idiocy.

www.nasa.gov...

BARRY GOLDSTEIN SAID:
"But the bottom line is we have a lot of things going on in the span of the last 14 minutes before touchdown, we have 26 events, pyrotechnic events, separations and deployments that have to go right. And for all those things to happen autonomously in that quick period of time outside of our control, we can't react to those problems from Earth, obviously. There's a lot that has to go right in a short period of time, so it makes people nervous".


25 EVENTS WENT RIGHT, BUT ONE OF THEM, THE PARACHUTE, WENT WRONG, IT DID NOT OPEN, PHOENIX CRASHED AGAINST THE HARD MARTIAN SOIL.




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aninsidejob
 


So according to your "reasonings", there should also be not enough of an atmosphere to allow for the suspension of dust in a dust storm...yet Mars DOES have dust storms.

Fail.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob

Originally posted by ngchunter
You've been already been asked to provide proof by myself and others and have refused to answer it.


I must not provide any proof, my reasonings don't need explanations.


Accusations of fakery require proof, no matter who you are. The videos I provided are quite real and not surprisingly you have no way of proving your claims to the contrary. And kudos to soylent green, martian dust storms are indeed proof that mars' thin atmosphere can still generate wind and drag.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Martian dust storms are indeed proof that mars' thin atmosphere can still generate wind and drag.


Have you been there to see storms with your eyes?

Or have you seen storms in this video?

www.youtube.com...



From: STROBdotNET
Added: April 29, 2008

In this shot I created the dust storm and dust from landing using 3dsMax and Afterburn.




My god. How many credulous people there are in this poor world.

Thousands of people believe in this idiot:

gawker.com...




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob
Have you been there to see storms with your eyes?

I have seen martian dust storms that have at times covered the entire planet first hand with my eyes, yes. Amateur astronomers like myself spot them all the time. Here's a series of images showing the progression of a small dust storm taken with a telescope similar to mine:
spacsun.rice.edu...


Or have you seen storms in this video?

The ability to make CG dust does not prove a massive conspiracy involving every amateur astronomer who has seen or photographed martian dust storms.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
This post srtangley sounds like the return of BigHead or was the other poster named BigBrain I forget.

Anyhoo
Hey OP where is your proof?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Here's a series of images showing the progression of a small dust storm taken with a telescope similar to mine:
spacsun.rice.edu...


Only idiots cannot notice that the second and the third image are simply out of focus.

You must prove that a normal parachute can work in an atmosphere 135 times less dense than the Earth's one.

You must prove that Phoenix can land on its flames too.



Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 19-9-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob

Originally posted by ngchunter
Here's a series of images showing the progression of a small dust storm taken with a telescope similar to mine:
spacsun.rice.edu...


Only idiots cannot notice that the second and the third image are simply out of focus.

Acutally, the second and third image have poorer seeing, the focus is just fine. Seeing will vary over the course of days, as this image was taken over the course of days. Nonetheless, poorer seeing does not in any way explain the dust storm seen developing. Nor does it explain the dust clouds seen in these images:
media.skyandtelescope.com...


You must prove that a normal parachute can work in an atmosphere 135 times less dense than the Earth's one.

Already did in the videos above. You must prove those videos are fake or retract your claim.


You must prove that Phoenix can land on its flames too.

The engine is rigidly fixed to its structure, there is no reason it should have trouble "landing on its flames" since it lands on its THRUST, the flames are irrelevant. Other landers have no problem with this so neither should phoenix:
media.armadilloaerospace.com...



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aninsidejob
 


Once again you have demonstrated your ignorance of Physics. "Landing on flames???"

Reaction thrust works quite well in Space where there is no atmosphere to speak of. It works equally well on Mars. You do not need an atmosphere to "push against" in order for rocket thrust to work. Seriously, you need to do a bit of study. Physics is not all that hard.

Perhaps you have heard that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" Neutonian Physics. Just like the kick from a shotgun is not from the pellets pushing against the air, neither is the thrust from a rocket engine. Rocket engines are reaction engines. When fuel ignition occurs inside a rocket chamber, force is applied in every direction equally. Since there is an opening at one end where the flames shoot out, the backwards force escapes with no effect on the rocket. There is however an opposite force in the forward direction. This equal and opposite reaction is what makes a rocket move. It has nothing to do with the flames pushing against an atmosphere. it is about the force inside the engine pushing forward that produces thrust. Here is a diagram of a rocket combustion chamber with arrows indicating the thrust. Rocket Diagram When the shotgun fires, it is the blast of the powder charge pushing towards you and escaping away from you, that creates the kick. An equal and opposite reaction. A gun fired in outer space would still have kick even though there is no atmosphere to "push against."

As for you continued claim that a parachute would not work on a thin atmosphere, again, do a bit of study before making wild claims. The physics is quite simple. Mars has an atmosphere that is about 1% of that on Earth. At entry speeds of 13,000 miles per hour, or Mach 1.7, you would have the same parachute drag as if you were going 130 Mph on Earth. (Math. Divide by 100 to get 1%. It isn't that hard) At 130 Mph relative, a parachute would work quite well. There is even a picture of it taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Parachute deployment photo

If you have ever had your hand outside a car window as it went down the road, I am certain that you have felt the drag of the wind on your hand. You can feel this quite well at the slow speed of 40 Mph. At 130 Mph the drag is quite significant.

(fixed link code)



[edit on 19-9-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
The engine is rigidly fixed to its structure, there is no reason it should have trouble "landing on its flames" since it lands on its THRUST, the flames are irrelevant. Other landers have no problem with this so neither should phoenix:
media.armadilloaerospace.com...


en.wikipedia.org...


Armadillo is headed and has been largely funded by John Carmack, a developer of computer games including the Doom and Quake series.


Those videos are computer generated, this is the real technology of John Carmack:
www.youtube.com...

As you can notice, flames are computer generated.


Originally posted by Terapin
Once again you have demonstrated your ignorance of Physics. "Landing on flames???"


Your reasoning has nothing to do with my though.
No rocket can land on its flames because it tends to roll in all directions crashing against the hard ground.


Originally posted by Terapin
As for you continued claim that a parachute would not work on a thin atmosphere, again, do a bit of study before making wild claims. The physics is quite simple. Mars has an atmosphere that is about 1% of that on Earth. At entry speeds of 13,000 miles per hour, or Mach 1.7, you would have the same parachute drag as if you were going 130 Mph on Earth. (Math. Divide by 100 to get 1%. It isn't that hard) At 130 Mph relative, a parachute would work quite well.


You are wrong, you have not studied very much.

First of all 13,000 Mph = 17 Ma

"At 130 Mph relative, a parachute would work quite well".

No, dear friend, you are wrong. On the Earth air can slow down velocity of a parachute from 200 kmph to 10 kmph.

On Mars Phoenix runs at the velocity of 20,000 kmph.
Mars drag is 1/135

The parachute doesn't open but, if it opened, it could slow down Phoenix from 20,000 kmph to ...

Do the right calculation, dear friend.





posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob


Your reasoning has nothing to do with my though.
No rocket can land on its flames because it tends to roll in all directions crashing against the hard ground.

And you base this statement on what facts? Rockets do not land on flames. It is vectored thrust. A properly vectored reaction engine can be used for landing. Phoenix used pulsed descent rocket engines. Viking also used rockets for landing. There is a great deal of information available that demonstrates this and you can find it all over the internet with little difficulty. You may wish to look at the work on Rocket landing done by Aerojet. Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos and his company Blue Origin is working on a vertical take off and landing rocket. The Apollo Moon landings were done with reaction engines. Unless you are now going to claim that mankind has never been to the moon and that the Earth is flat!!!

As for the math.... By what reasoning do you claim that a parachute would not work at 130Mph relative? The math is correct if a bit rounded off for simplicity. The atmosphere of Mars is about 1% that of Earth, ( 0.7% is a bit more accurate but for the sake of simplicity I rounded up). Phoenix deployed the parachute at about 13,000 Mph,( some sources cite 12,000 Mph but I chose the higher speed). That calculates to a relative Earth speed of 130Mph.

The coefficient of friction is well understood. Designs always allow a safety factor. You may recall the Apollo 15 Earth splashdown where one of the three parachutes failed to deploy properly. It still managed to land safely. Satellites way out in the Earths Exosphere experience atmospheric drag. Parachutes take advantage of atmospheric friction and if a satellite at 300 miles above the Earth is effected by drag, then there is no reason why a parachute on Mars would not work at only 7.8 miles above the surface. Physics is a simple matter. Friction is derived from electromagnetic forces between atoms and electrons. There is a measurable atmosphere on Mars. Friction exists on Mars. Where friction exists, it can be made use of.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninsidejob
Those videos are computer generated, this is the real technology of John Carmack:
www.youtube.com...

As you can notice, flames are computer generated.

Actually, as you can notice, the flames are quite real and affect the area around them. John Carmack was a programmer before venturing into rocketry, not a CG artist. Blast off kicked up a significant amount of dirt and the ignition of the engine burned the takeoff platform. The flame shows no evidence of fakery whatsoever.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I'm shocked your harping on the parachute, Aninsidejob. After all, Phoenix "landed going backwards." And you know that can't be done. NASA's "biggest buffoons" have fooled us again, eh?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
A properly vectored reaction engine can be used for landing. Phoenix used pulsed descent rocket engines. Viking also used rockets for landing...
The Apollo Moon landings were done with reaction engines. Unless you are now going to claim that mankind has never been to the moon


Viking has never been to Mars and mankind has never been to the moon because NASA's boasters have not technology to go there and to land rockets on their flames going backwards.



About the parachute, you are wrong too.

If on Mars drag is 1/135, the parachute doesn't open.
We can suppose that it opens. Following your reasoning, if on the Earth the parachute could slow down velocity of Phoenix to 10 kmph, on Mars it could slow down velocity of Phoenix to 1,350 kmph (10 x 135).






top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join