Curiosity Rover Parachute size Proves NASA Lies

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Take a look at info released by NASA here: en.wikipedia.org...
IA16813-MarsCuriosityRover-ParachuteFlapsInWind-20120812to20130113.gif

Quote: "The Mars Science Laboratory parachute is the largest ever used for a Mars landing. When fully open during descent through the atmosphere, it had a diameter of 51 feet . A gap between the white and orange-hued sections prevented the chute from being torn during descent. You can see a duplicate of the parachute inflated during testing at PIA11994 and see the opened parachute during the actual descent of the Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft at PIA15978."

It is easy to tell that there is no way a parachute of 51 feet diameter ties in with NASA's claim that the atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars is 1/100th that of Earth, because it would have the braking ability of a parachute of 0.51 feet diameter on earth - just over six inches.However, given that gravity on Mars is only a third of that on Earth, we'd have to triple that figure - on Mars objects fall at 3m/s^2. So it would be like having an 18 inch diameter parachute on Earth at the edge of space, where the density of our atmosphere is similar to what NASA claims for the surface of Mars.

To have a parachute that worked on Mars as a 51 feet diameter parachute would on Earth, therefore, would take a parachute that was 5100/3 feet in diameter, 1700 feet (about a third of a mile, or half a kilometre).

The only conclusion therefore, given that the parachute DID have a significant braking effect is that the atmosphere on Mars is very close to that of earth in terms of the atmospheric pressure:density, and that NASA is lying.

To bring another piece of logic into play, the highest wind speeds recorded (Viking landers) on Mars have been 50mph. With air pressure of 0.01 of that on earth, that's the equivalent of a wind speed of half of one mph on Earth - not enough to make a parachute lying on the ground flap... and even given Mars' lower gravity of less than a third of that on Earth, not enough to lift a piece of dust off the ground. On Earth dust storm speeds are at least 25mph. Even with smaller particulate size of dust on Mars (if that is true), and the lower gravity, if we make the concession that a dust storm on Mars could start with an Earth equivalent wind speed of 10mph, that would still need winds of 1000mph on Mars to be the equivalent.
On Mars, if you were standing in a 1000mph wind, because of the low pressure of the atmosphere, it would feel like you were standing in a mild breeze.

Whilst weather on Mars plays a part, as it does on Earth, on atmospheric pressure, the variation according to the seasons etc is negligible according to NASA, a maximum of 50%, which still makes the Martian maximum air pressure 0.015 of Earth's...

According to what NASA says here: quest.nasa.gov...
"The average air pressure on Earth is 29.92 inches of mercury (or 1,013 millibars). This is more than 100 times Mars' average of 0.224 inches of mercury (7.5 millibars)."

My conclusion, taking all of the above into account, and NASA's unwillingness to discuss anomalies on Mars, and their recent desperate efforts to discourage any commercial manned flights to Mars is that they have a lot to hide. What's going on with Mars?




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher26
 


interesting theory
Please explain this video then...



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I knew it was too early for that Doobie....excellent thread...I Think...i'll Star and Flag it just in case..


+10 more 
posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I think you have made a mistake.
It is the cross-sectional area not the diameter that is relevant.
51 feet diameter parachute has a cross sectional area of 2042.8 square feet
2042.8/100 = 20.43 square feet which then converts to a diameter of 5.1 feet.
Then if you multiply 20.43 square feet x 3 = 61.29 square feet which then converts to 8.8 feet diameter equivalent on earth
edit on 17-7-2013 by BullwinkleKicksButt because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   


Curiosity was set down on the Martian surface using a new high-accuracy entry, descent, and landing (EDL) system that was part of the MSL spacecraft descent stage. The novel EDL system placed Curiosity within a 20 by 7 km (12 by 4.3 mi) landing ellipse,[95] in contrast to the 150 by 20 km (93 by 12 mi) landing ellipse of the landing systems used by the Mars Exploration Rovers.[126]

en.wikipedia.org...

In addition to the use of aerobreaking and a much larger parachute, curiosity also had some help from the MSL decent stage thrusters, which made the decent possible.

The EDL system was based on a Viking-derived aeroshell structure and propulsion system for a precision guided entry and soft landing, in contrasts with the airbag landings that were used by the mid-1990s by the Mars Pathfinder and MER missions.
edit on 17-7-2013 by Samuelis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spacespider
reply to post by Watcher26
 


interesting theory
Please explain this video then...


This does what to explain or counter the theory offered that the Martian atmosphere is thicker than has been reported?
edit on 17-7-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I think that of all the liars in the world......

N.A.S.A would not make an error. (If they decided to spend billions of dollars eating biscuits and coming up with lies)

They are clever sausages over there.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Not
About to
Say
Anything



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher26
 



First of all, as 'bullwinklekicksbutt' pointed out in his post above, you need to consider total volume of the parachute -- not just the diameter. A chute has 3 dimensions; you cannot directly correlate the diameter of the chute on Mars compared to on Earth just by dividing by 100 -- you need to correlate them using the volume of the chute.

Secondly, the parachute was not designed to slow Curiosity down enough for a soft landing. It was still falling at 170 mph when the parachute was cut from the rover (although that is still quite a bit slower than the 1,500 mph it was falling before the chute was deployed).


edit on 7/17/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
I think you have made a mistake.
It is the cross-sectional area not the diameter that is relevant.
51 feet diameter parachute has a cross sectional area of 2042.8 square feet
2042.8/100 = 20.43 square feet which then converts to a diameter of 5.1 feet.
Then if you multiply 20.43 square feet x 3 = 61.29 square feet which then converts to 8.8 feet diameter equivalent on earth
edit on 17-7-2013 by BullwinkleKicksButt because: (no reason given)


Good point. I've never been great at math. But nevertheless the two ton (on Earth) Curiosity rover would have dropped like a stone.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher26

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
I think you have made a mistake.
It is the cross-sectional area not the diameter that is relevant.
51 feet diameter parachute has a cross sectional area of 2042.8 square feet
2042.8/100 = 20.43 square feet which then converts to a diameter of 5.1 feet.
Then if you multiply 20.43 square feet x 3 = 61.29 square feet which then converts to 8.8 feet diameter equivalent on earth
edit on 17-7-2013 by BullwinkleKicksButt because: (no reason given)


Good point. I've never been great at math. But nevertheless the two ton (on Earth) Curiosity rover would have dropped like a stone.


Yeah, but it didn't need to be "floating" down, either, considering that it had thrusters that would slow it down after the chute was cut from it. The chute was cut away 1 mile above the surface; Curiosity had no chute at all for the final one mile of descent.

Like I said in my post above, the parachute was designed to slow it down to 170 mph -- not slow it down all the way to a soft landing.

edit on 7/17/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher26

Originally posted by BullwinkleKicksButt
I think you have made a mistake.
It is the cross-sectional area not the diameter that is relevant.
51 feet diameter parachute has a cross sectional area of 2042.8 square feet
2042.8/100 = 20.43 square feet which then converts to a diameter of 5.1 feet.
Then if you multiply 20.43 square feet x 3 = 61.29 square feet which then converts to 8.8 feet diameter equivalent on earth
edit on 17-7-2013 by BullwinkleKicksButt because: (no reason given)


Good point. I've never been great at math. But nevertheless the two ton (on Earth) Curiosity rover would have dropped like a stone.


No problem
Regardless of the rover, I don't trust that NASA is open and transparent on every subject to the public either.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Hmph!
I am personally unconvinced that curiosity is even on Mars. Get the right kind of light filters, and the Mojave, Utah, or Nevada deserts look like what they tell us that Mars looks like.

When it comes down to it, The only data we have is what 'they' give us.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spacespider
reply to post by Watcher26
 


interesting theory
Please explain this video then...


I think it proves my point - the atmosphere was clearly thick enough to slow the Rover + the hefty landing crane down...



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
You all do realize that Wikipedia is editable by anyone?
Do not be surprised if the information doesn't match.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Did you account for the fact that Mars has 62% less gravity than Earth?

edit on 17-7-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Yeah, but it didn't need to be "floating" down, either, considering that it had thrusters that would slow it down after the chute was cut from it. The chute was cut away 1 mile above the surface; Curiosity had no chute at all for the final one mile of descent.

Like I said in my post above, the parachute was designed to slow it down to 170 mph -- not slow it down all the way to a soft landing.


My point is that the parachute would have needed to be far larger (humongously huge) to slow it down to 170mph from entry speed. It would've had to be many times bigger. And since you've proved you can do the math, you should be able to work out exactly what size it would have needed to be, given what NASA says is the almost complete lack of atmosphere (0.01% of the density of our atmosphere).



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
Did you account for the fact that Mars has 62% less gravity than Earth?


Yes, instead of things falling with an acceleration of 9.8 metres/sec sqrd, they fall with an acceleration of 3 metres/sec sqrd. However in an atmosphere of 0.01% of ours on Earth, there'd be no terminal velocity, because there's not enough atmosphere to provide sufficient drag. Things would just keep accelerating...

In case anyone is wondering what effect that would have, discounting the negligible atmospheric drag, in the first second of free falling on Mars, something would fall 3.7 metres; in the second second of falling, it would fall 7.4 metres, in the third second of falling, it'd fall 11.1 metres - note that this is faster than something would fall in the first second of falling on earth. From then on, it's accelerating towards Mars like a rocket - literally! This is the same rate of change of velocity that a Saturn V rocket experiences after blasting off from Earth.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I thought the mars atmosphere was more in the region of 1% of earths, a tiny fraction of a percent doesn't sound right?

Not that im saying you are wrong but, where did you get your mars figures?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
I thought the mars atmosphere was more in the region of 1% of earths, a tiny fraction of a percent doesn't sound right?

Not that im saying you are wrong but, where did you get your mars figures?


Sorry, you are right. I meant 0.01, which is 100th, according to NASA. not 0.01%...





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join