Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Curiosity Rover Parachute size Proves NASA Lies

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Eyes rolling.

I find it amazing that there are so many who think the U.S. has this long term agency such as NASA, which only exists to make things up about space exploration. It receives billions in funding, but it's only real mission is completely meaningless.

Even more amazing, like the 9/11 crowd, common laymen seem to be much more educated in every single area than the scientists and engineers who designed the thing to begin with.




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Eyes rolling.

I find it amazing that there are so many who think the U.S. has this long term agency such as NASA, which only exists to make things up about space exploration. It receives billions in funding, but it's only real mission is completely meaningless.

Even more amazing, like the 9/11 crowd, common laymen seem to be much more educated in every single area than the scientists and engineers who designed the thing to begin with.


Sorry, you mean common laymen see a conspiracy theory on the net, assume it just MUST be right (can't trust anyone in a suit, right?) and think they know better than scientists and engineers? It's called not knowing what you are talking about but shouting that you are right.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Eyes rolling.

I find it amazing that there are so many who think the U.S. has this long term agency such as NASA, which only exists to make things up about space exploration.


What, are you saying you believe the government version of things? Since when have they told the truth about anything?

But get back to the facts and argue from the facts... If you are amazed that I question the official story, tell me why I'm wrong rather than using the fallacious argument that I should not question what I am told by people with big bucks at their disposal...



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher26
 


YOU have no understanding of the atmosphere on Mars how do these develop then.

Watch this gif.



Just as well you don't design the parachutes for NASA then
edit on 17-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher26
 





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?


What you may consider an anomaly, NASA and it's geologist know what they are, and they call them rocks.

You do understand the difficulty of a manned mission to mars don't you?

What are they supposed to be hiding?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Watcher26
 


YOU have no understanding of the atmosphere on Mars how do these develop then.

Watch this gif.



Just as well you don't design the parachutes for NASA then
edit on 17-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Again, a personal attack rather than explaining why I'm wrong. I have a good understanding of the atmosphere on Mars. I understand there's a high level of CO2, according to NASA, but you have not made any argument that defeats mine about the atmospheric pressure on Mars...



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher26

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Watcher26
 


YOU have no understanding of the atmosphere on Mars how do these ...


And I should add that it is you who do not understand... And maybe you've not read the thread - for dust storms to develop on a Mars that has an atmosphere that is 1/00 th of the density of that on Earth, the winds would have to be 100 times faster than on Earth.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher26
 


Yes, I know, CO2 is heavier than oxygen, but if the heaviness was a factor, it'd affect the atmospheric density, and either NASAis lying, or it is what they have often said, one hundredth of the density on Earth...



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher26

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Watcher26
 


YOU have no understanding of the atmosphere on Mars how do these develop then.

Watch this gif.



Just as well you don't design the parachutes for NASA then
edit on 17-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


Again, a personal attack rather than explaining why I'm wrong. I have a good understanding of the atmosphere on Mars. I understand there's a high level of CO2, according to NASA, but you have not made any argument that defeats mine about the atmospheric pressure on Mars...


YOU made a claim that the atmosphere is not thick enough to generate the force required to lift dust up so explain the dust devil gif!!!

It's THAT SIMPLE !!



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher26
 





I understand there's a high level of CO2, according to NASA, but you have not made any argument that defeats mine about the atmospheric pressure on Mars...


So let me get this straight... you start a thread claiming NASA lies then in the same thread you believe them about the CO2...

How does that work?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Also trying to figure out where in the world you get things like "desperate efforts to discourage any commercial manned flights to Mars."

Honestly, I'd sit here and discourage it right now, too, as it is nothing but a suicide mission with currently available technology. But where you get them making recent desperate efforts to discourage it is beyond me.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Watcher26
 





I understand there's a high level of CO2, according to NASA, but you have not made any argument that defeats mine about the atmospheric pressure on Mars...


So let me get this straight... you start a thread claiming NASA lies then in the same thread you believe them about the CO2...

How does that work?



Not saying I believe them, just saying what NASA says.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher26
 





Not saying I believe them, just saying what NASA says


Yet, you believe them enough to quote them.

Just a quick question for you...

Other than the parachute you say NASA lied about what else are they lying about?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter
Also trying to figure out where in the world you get things like "desperate efforts to discourage any commercial manned flights to Mars."

Honestly, I'd sit here and discourage it right now, too, as it is nothing but a suicide mission with currently available technology. But where you get them making recent desperate efforts to discourage it is beyond me.


NASA has recently said that radiation levels would prohibit a visit to Mars. They said that just after the announcement of possible manned fights by commercial companies. It's too much of a coincidence for me - why didn't they say long ago that sending people to Mars would be a radioacitive impossibility? Unless, of course, they were wearing the 'special' NASA suits that could protect people (in the Apollo program) from space and Van Allen radiation... Who can't see through their crap? Those of average IQ! By definition, the majority of the population!



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Watcher26
 





Not saying I believe them, just saying what NASA says


Yet, you believe them enough to quote them.

Just a quick question for you...

Other than the parachute you say NASA lied about what else are they lying about?

I'm not saying they lied about the parachute size - but about the atmospheric pressure on Mars. What else are they lying about? 'What a tangled web you weave, when first you practice to deceive...'



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher26

Originally posted by flyswatter
Also trying to figure out where in the world you get things like "desperate efforts to discourage any commercial manned flights to Mars."

Honestly, I'd sit here and discourage it right now, too, as it is nothing but a suicide mission with currently available technology. But where you get them making recent desperate efforts to discourage it is beyond me.


NASA has recently said that radiation levels would prohibit a visit to Mars. They said that just after the announcement of possible manned fights by commercial companies. It's too much of a coincidence for me - why didn't they say long ago that sending people to Mars would be a radioacitive impossibility? Unless, of course, they were wearing the 'special' NASA suits that could protect people (in the Apollo program) from space and Van Allen radiation... Who can't see through their crap? Those of average IQ! By definition, the majority of the population!


Yes because of you warped logic a trip to the Moon takes the same time as a trip to MARS, Van Allen himself it was possible to travel through the belts your lack of knowledge of these subjects shines like a beacon, these subjects have been discussed many many times on here.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
For the respect of the site of 'Deny Ignorance' ... and to derail the bickering before it gets out of hand;

Oh knowledgeable ones, please lets discuss facts;

What is the claimed atmospheric pressure on Mars?
What is the claimed gravity of Mars?
What is the claimed wind speeds, sustained, average, and max on Mars?

What affects do these facts have on a falling object?


Using mathematics, show the minimum necessary atmospheric pressure needed to show the speed decrease in the distant observed for this event; also, if this does not match the observed data we have, please define the minimum area the parachute would need to give observed results with the stated atmospheric pressure of the planet.


Side quest;
How much atmospheric pressure and/or wind speed would it take to create the 'dirt devil' displayed in the gif given previously in the thread.


Please be respectful and constructive in this and any thread. Being snarky, sarcastic, demeaning, dismissive, or disrespectful does you, the site, nor anyone else, any good at all.

Thank you for your cooperation.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


but wouldn't they travel through the 'keyhole' at one of the poles and do their best to avoid as much radiation as possible, just as the Apollo missions did? Nothing to do with overall time to travel to Mars, but time to maneuver through/around the radiation; with the added benefit that they only need to keep accelerating because their target is much, much further away?

although this is only the smallest of complications on a trip that has a ton of logistical nightmares.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher26
NASA has recently said that radiation levels would prohibit a visit to Mars.


Care to show the exact quote NASA made?


why didn't they say long ago that sending people to Mars would be a radioacitive impossibility?


When have they claimed that?



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher26
NASA's unwillingness to discuss anomalies on Mars


Exactly what anomalies are NASA unwilling to discuss?





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join