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

a reply to: penroc3

Have you missed my every message.

I have said: this drone will fly.
But only because the atmosphere is thicker than told.
Thats why the parachutes works when you land.

They dont want people to see the atmosphere is this thick. Laws of physics are bent in nasas claims and they dont want people to understand.

This is why they (gubbament) advocate people take useless schools and degrees which end up 100k in debt, while studying gender studies, and end up jobless with an unhappy life, blaming the other end of the political spectrum of which they themself vote, so that TPTB can do what they want without people noticing.

This chopper will fly.
Because atmosphere is thicker.
Nasa thinks people are dumb and wont notice.
Nasa lives in a bubble, and they project psychologically this "everyone is dumb w can lie to them" to a point its lowering their own Iq and now they got caught. Because clearly people arent so dumbp.

Almost any 15 year old can build that rc coax chopper if they wanted to and are into rc choppers.
25-30% of users in any large RC hobby forum, can build this chopper.

Same parts can be found offshelf which nass uses.
-Sony battery,
-light frame,
-blades can be ordered from same place Dji phantomgets its blades,
-a gyroscope and autopilot chip.

A well balanced coax litetally will not crash easily anyway.
They even sell autohover gyroscope chips for large rc choppers which are not coax and require constant input. Google flymentor 3d.

If average rc hobbyists would use white labcoats and facemasks while building a rc chopper, everyone would think, woah what geniuses! But because only nasa does it, they get the credit.


Nasa has not explained technically why this chopper is so special. They only give this propaganda and hope people will go away.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

yeah but the air isnt thicker than what the masses think

pictures of mars over the years dont really change that much as far as erosion from sand and wind because there isnt the power behind the wind as it is super thin.

the rovers have been hit by super fast winds but yet they dont tip over or get buried in dust, why do you think that is?


that being said i believe we are and have been on mars

Why would it flip around, its not Saturn or Jupiter which have crazy winds.

30m/s wind on earth is about 40kg material on you per second (because air weighs 1.2kg m3) minus, because m3 side which is 1m, you might be 40cm wide, so you get 40% for the lower portion of your body (up to 1m height) and if your 175cm then its 75cm height, 40cm width for the upper body. So the 30m/s ends up being maybe 15kg -20 kg of weight pushing you.

If mars is 100-300 mbar which I think, theres no reason to flip a rover . Its the speed stuff flies vs object it hits, if its enough to flip flip it over or not. At 10000 mbar pressure, a 30m/s wind would be mich thicker and less would do same damage.

Theres different kind of weather. If earth was -270 we would have no movement, but the warmer you are, more stuff gasifies. On sunshide we have water evaporate from oceans, on shade side it cools. I starts to move weather and wind masses, we also have moon pulling these up and down so we have this weather and Mars not.

Mars weather is combination of the best it can do with the heat it has, the stuff available to be gasified, the orbit it has around sun which moves a little (sometimes farther sometimes closer) and mars also has 2 small moons so they might even affect a little by pulling gas up and down.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

yeah but the air isnt thicker than what the masses think

pictures of mars over the years dont really change that much as far as erosion from sand and wind because there isnt the power behind the wind as it is super thin.

the rovers have been hit by super fast winds but yet they dont tip over or get buried in dust, why do you think that is?


that being said i believe we are and have been on mars

You say you think we have been on Mars.
Do you mean actual humans. Because if you think that, i actually think that too and we think the same .

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Are you that dense that you have missed all the posts explaining how helicopter will function in a Mars environment ??

Try rereading the posts from 1947boomer and Zaphod58 who have gone into detail how it will function

Points extremely lightweight structure

Mars gravity - 38% of earth

large rotor diameter

twin coaxial rotor design where each rotor creates lift

high rotor RPM

The helicopter will only make short hops, not long sustained flights

As said try rereading earlier posts before post more idiotic nonsense ……….

Much less gravity. Plus kinetic energy formula is Ek= 1/2mv2. So the speed of the propeller is more important than the mass of the atmosphere. increase the velocity and the lift increases at a squared rate.

But yes they could always be less than truthful about the atmosphere for whatever reason.

a reply to: firerescue



No no and no.

A rotor is like a screw, it screws itself up through the material there is. There is not enough material for the nasa scout chopper to work if there is 6mbar. It should weigh 25 grams instead of 1700g and have same rpm to lift itself up for itself to work.

a reply to: Doctor Smith
Lift does not increase at a squared rate when you increase its velocty if the material you fly in is made less dense. Specifically if it is 169 times less dense like they claim on Mars. Gas is such a material that its density properties are tied directly to pressure and temperature.

You truly are making this hard. I guess I have to draw a new picture.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

It's nothing like a screw. Each rotor blade is an airfoil and acts like a wing. You change the angle of the rotor to go up, forward, etc.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well it is like a screw. Except larger and screws through thinner material. A screw attatched to an engine can screw through cork. Make the cork dense enough, it will not rotate. Make it too porous/less dense and screw will have nothing to keep on to. Have a too weak engine it will not move. Have a too big and heavy, it will not move up since gravity pulls it.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

No, no it isn't. It isn't anything like a screw. Each blade is like an aircraft wing. It generates lift by moving through the air. The faster it moves, the more lift it generates. In thinner air it has to move faster to generate lift, so the Mars scout will be moving much faster than a helicopter rotor on earth.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Before I show you my newest picture, a large hobby helicopter like trex 550 spins about 2200 rpm and has blade width of about 1.2M. Weight about 2kg

The Mars 2800Rpm is nothing special at 1.7kg weight. You would actually need about that for it to even fly on earth.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

And? Yet again you prove nothing. Just because you found an RC helicopter with similar stats doesn't prove that Mars has a thicker atmosphere. The T-REX flies continuously, as long as the battery is charged, and can perform aerobatic maneuvers. The Mars scout can lift off, travel less than half a mile, and land again.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No but it proves this nasa thing is nothing special like people have been made to think by nasas fancy words.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

No, it still doesn't. The rotor has to spin faster to lift a lighter weight a short distance. If the scout was its equivalent earth weight it couldn't fly.

a reply to: Zaphod58


What im trying to explain to people with these posts is that one m3 has only about little over 10g of Co2 molecules. Im saying there is not enough molecules per M3 for this chopper to fly, even after the lighter gravity is taken into consideration. Only logical conclusion is that the atmosphere is considerable higher than told.
There actually are those mathematical equations for blade, rpm, and air perssure and so on to create thrust + gravity. Im not at the level of being bothered with this to go to that stage but some math fan should be able to calculate it. Is a little over 10 grams of material in one M3 enough for blades to fly with.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

It really helps if you have the slightest understanding of aerodynamics. You keep making these claims without having even a basic understanding or desire to learn what you're talking about.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

That t-rex 500 chopper has a ton more thrust than required. It only has a single prop and that prop is shorter. That chopper has 21kg of thrust, or a thrust ratio of over 10:1. That thing would almost fly on mars.

The NASA blades are ~20% longer and there are twice as many of them. The NASA "drone" is 15% lighter and the prop is spinning 8-10% faster.

originally posted by: SpaceUniverse

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: roadgravel
The atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than Earth's

LMAO. Another thread bites the dust.

Can you explain how that link makes the point of this thread bite the dust?

Because he was wrong on the .06% claim which he built the argument around. Pretty easy, he was off by double and assumed that Nasa wouldn't take the thinner atmosphere into account for this specialized "helicopter." All in all it's pure silliness just like all other science denying Nasa hating threads.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This has nothing to do with aerodynamics.

In a vacuum, which is 0 grams of anything in M3, you cant fly anything.
It is marvelous that the 13 grams of Co2 molecules in one M3 is enough for a craft to generate any lift on Mars. Its actualy in my view impossible. This nasa helicopter can in my view be max 25 grams for it to fly. And have the same lift capability of this 1.7kg version.

a reply to: Dfairlite
You seem to be only taking into consideration a gravity conversion.

If 1kg can fly on earth, then it can weigh 2.63kg on Mars to also fly.

Yes. If the atmosphere is as thick. If there are about 150 times less molecules in M3, how can it fly there. Does it not matter even a bit?


a reply to: Barcs

How. Mars is according to official studies 6-9mbar. That space magazine says the same.
Im saying its a lie nothing this size can fly in that kind of almost vacuum.

How is this not even at a little level linear:


You people must now think out of the box and think the possibility that the Nasa vacuum test was a lie for the following example to work:
You cant accept their claim, the stripped down 750g version (of the chopper) flew in the supposed vacuum chamber. Forget that for a second.


Lets go by the following theoretical test:

Earth gravity and 1000mbar and 1kg machine creates X amount of lift.
A "test planet" with a gravity (38% of 100% earths) and a pressure of 380 mbar (which is also 38% of earths), and a 1kgs machine creates X amount of lift.

And X is the same. That would make sense. Even at some level if not totally linear.
Since pressure is 2.6 times smaller, the craft would need to create 2.6 times more lift. But I cant. But, because gravity is reduced also 2.6 times, it actually manages to get to air even with a smaller lift.
notice: mars has 38% gravity of earths so test planet is mars with a higher atmosphere.

How can Nasas thing fly at 6-9mbar, (11-13 grams of Co2 in m3).


It means, Nasa chopper should be able to lift: 30 times its weight on Earth.

But it cant even lift itself on earth.

See what im getting at? Theres worlds largest conspiracy at play at Nasa and its so big no one can even fathom its size.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

It has everything to do with aerodynamics. It doesn't matter if you can't fly in a vacuum, because Mars isn't a vacuum. The atmosphere is thick enough to generate lift, in the exact same way you generate lift on earth.