MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

rick55 wrote: If you watch the video at the start of this thread, you'll see that the craft supposedly jetissoned the parachute at some point and switched on the 4 leg pod engines (which to my mind would have sent it careening end over end).
Do you mean - a bit like this?

...5...4...3...2...0 (sic!)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-BY6xH2WYw
NASA's Morpheus spacecraft explodes on test flight

10 August, 2012, 04:34 (today!)
The Project Morpheus vehicle has “experienced a hardware component failure” during a free-flight test and exploded after hitting the ground, NASA said in a statement.(...) Morpheus is a NASA-designed vertical test bed vehicle. It is aimed at demonstrating new green propellant propulsion systems, autonomous landing and hazard detection technology. According to NASA, it is large enough to carry 500 kilograms of cargo to the moon, such as a humanoid robot, a small rover, or a small laboratory to convert moon dust into oxygen.

http://www.rt.com/news/morpheus-test-flight-nasa-307/
Surely, these can't be the same leg pod engines used to land the Curiosity Rover on Mars, the other day? <_<

Btw, has NASA (who keeps losing/misplacing crucial historical documents - such as their original Moon Landing reels) also lost the drawings of their flawless LEM engines which smoothly landed 6 times (and lifted back up to the mothership) 12 astronauts on the moon, back in the early 70's?...

Dear rick55: I appreciate and applaud your wish to expose in easy, arithmetical terms the absurdities of NASA's tales. You may agree, however, that there are a great many ways (other than arithmetics) to achieve this - with even simpler arguments based on logic and common sense. The (techno-scientific) way you seem to pursue is laudable, but I fear most people's first objections thrown at you will be: "are you a rocket scientist? A space engineer? No? So what do you know?"

Having said that, I encourage anyone to pursue his/her own way of waking up the public to NASA's outrageous and ongoing hoaxes. There is no magical, "one-size-fits-all" teaching process to do so. Therefore, let's stay respectful of each other's best efforts to achieve this end.
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Unread post by Dcopymope »

simonshack wrote:
rick55 wrote: If you watch the video at the start of this thread, you'll see that the craft supposedly jetissoned the parachute at some point and switched on the 4 leg pod engines (which to my mind would have sent it careening end over end).
Do you mean - a bit like this?

...5...4...3...2...0 (sic!)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-BY6xH2WYw
NASA's Morpheus spacecraft explodes on test flight

10 August, 2012, 04:34 (today!)
The Project Morpheus vehicle has “experienced a hardware component failure” during a free-flight test and exploded after hitting the ground, NASA said in a statement.(...) Morpheus is a NASA-designed vertical test bed vehicle. It is aimed at demonstrating new green propellant propulsion systems, autonomous landing and hazard detection technology. According to NASA, it is large enough to carry 500 kilograms of cargo to the moon, such as a humanoid robot, a small rover, or a small laboratory to convert moon dust into oxygen.

http://www.rt.com/news/morpheus-test-flight-nasa-307/
Surely, these can't be the same leg pod engines used to land the Curiosity Rover on Mars, the other day?

Btw, has NASA (who keeps losing/misplacing crucial historical documents - such as their original Moon Landing reels) also lost the drawings of their flawless LEM engines which smoothly landed 6 times (and lifted back up to the mothership) 12 astronauts on the moon, back in the early 70's?
<_<
Here we have yet another simple example showing that the "science" of space travel is absolute bunk. We don't really need to get all deep into rocket science and numbers that people are trying to do here, because really, neither has NASA first of all, at any press conference, and these snake oil salesmen are supposed to be scientists.
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by Heiwa »

Being a ship (for maritime use) builder (naval architect) since 50 years (starting with wood, then always steel ships) I have noticed that there are no higher or university type education, training, courses, whatever, etc, for spaceship design, building, operations, etc, offered anywhere on our planet Earth to become a spaceship engineer. Reason evidently is that spaceships and their engineers do not work, are not needed and will never be used. Rockets can evidently be fired up into space, fire works, and place sputnicks in orbit around Earth 1958 or even around the Moon or even send simple space gadgets away from the Sun passing some planets but manned space ship? Sorry, forget it.
So who are all these JPL/NASA spaceship engineers fooling around on FOX, CNN, BBC, in their blue T-shirts, etc, explaining that one of their spaceships has just landed on Mars? I assume they are all just paid actors that couldn’t get into a Hollywood B-film or porno C-films so … it is space D-films.
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by Dcopymope »

Heiwa wrote:Being a ship (for maritime use) builder (naval architect) since 50 years (starting with wood, then always steel ships) I have noticed that there are no higher or university type education, training, courses, whatever, etc, for spaceship design, building, operations, etc, offered anywhere on our planet Earth to become a spaceship engineer. Reason evidently is that spaceships and their engineers do not work, are not needed and will never be used. Rockets can evidently be fired up into space, fire works, and place sputnicks in orbit around Earth 1958 or even around the Moon or even send simple space gadgets away from the Sun passing some planets but manned space ship? Sorry, forget it.
So who are all these JPL/NASA spaceship engineers fooling around on FOX, CNN, BBC, in their blue T-shirts, etc, explaining that one of their spaceships has just landed on Mars? I assume they are all just paid actors that couldn’t get into a Hollywood B-film or porno C-films so … it is space D-films.
Well, there you go, now we're getting somewhere. Rocket science doesn't automatically mean space travel, and apparently the universities know this since they don't have any courses for space engineering, another big red flag. The fundamental question we should now be asking is what school did these so called spaceship engineers get their degrees from, a field of study they evidently can't explain themselves from looking at the press conference, as well as any other interview we've ever seen of them. This is another key point we can use to debunk these clowns.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by simonshack »

*

And just to make sure that the "MORPHEUS" thingy really is an official, NASA project...

http://morpheuslander.jsc.nasa.gov/

First tests early this month - were apparently made with the MORPHEUS hanging from a crane! :lol: :rolleyes:

NASA keeps taking us for rides - but none of them anywhere near outer space.
Dmitry
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:20 pm

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by Dmitry »

Heiwa wrote:Being a ship (for maritime use) builder (naval architect) since 50 years (starting with wood, then always steel ships) I have noticed that there are no higher or university type education, training, courses, whatever, etc, for spaceship design, building, operations, etc, offered anywhere on our planet Earth to become a spaceship engineer.
Sorry Heiwa, but there is (or was) at least one such place: http://intstudy.mai.ru/schools-and-depa ... ngineering.

The students were trained there (at 801st dept.) exactly for spaceship design, building, operations, etc. I write it here because I knew some of them.

Sadly, these engineers became commercial software developers, sales managers, businessmen etc. and most of our space launches now fail.

But, again, there really was such training on planet Earth. And maybe it still exists.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by simonshack »

Dmitry wrote: Sadly, these engineers became commercial software developers, sales managers, businessmen etc. and most of our space launches now fail.
Surprise, surprise !

Software developers and sales managers. <_<

Thanks Dmitry, seems like it all adds up - even from the Russian perspective. The 'space race' has been a joint "capitalist/communist" hoax ever since Day One (Gagarin...or thereabouts...).

And, of course back then, the 'Most Popular' Debunking argument (on the part of the Moon Landing believers) was that "the USSR would have immediately exposed the US if it had been a hoax!" Clearly, if - as now seems to be the case - the US and the USSR were both in on it (the Space Race hoax scheme), it becomes self-evident what this was all about.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by simonshack »

*

So, to keep on topic - and to keep up the historical record of (these recent days of) NASA's 'activities':

This is an artist's impression of the NASA's Curiosity Rover landing on Mars (which it reportedly succesfully DID, a few days ago). Note the four rockets of this thing - that I will call the 'Mars Delivering Ship':

Image


A few days ago, NASA was also testing this single-rocketed "MORPHEUS" ship:

Image
http://morpheuslander.jsc.nasa.gov/

Just today (August 10, 2012), the reported "MORPHEUS" ground test went very very wrong:

Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-BY6xH2WYw

So yes: we are actually asked to believe that - during the same days that NASA landed safely on Mars with a four-rocketed 'Mars Delivering Ship', they were carrying out (disastrous) ground test runs of a single-rocketed "MORPHEUS" ship.

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? :rolleyes:
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

Re: Mars Curiosity - parachute

Unread post by rick55 »

Dear rick55: I appreciate and applaud your wish to expose in easy, arithmetical terms the absurdities of NASA's tales. You may agree, however, that there are a great many ways (other than arithmetics) to achieve this - with even simpler arguments based on logic and common sense. The (techno-scientific) way you seem to pursue is laudable, but I fear most people's first objections thrown at you will be: "are you a rocket scientist? A space engineer? No? So what do you know?"

Having said that, I encourage anyone to pursue his/her own way of waking up the public to NASA's outrageous and ongoing hoaxes. There is no magical, "one-size-fits-all" teaching process to do so. Therefore, let's stay respectful of each other's best efforts to achieve this end.
Simon... just for the record here, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. Universities teach math and science the same way in Canada and the U.S. Calculus is calculus. Physics is physics. We're all using the same textbooks in university/college. Common sense is absolutely and definitively not what we're going to use to prove a hoax since most people's common sense is telling them that NASA landed this craft on Mars. So common sense is the last thing you want to use here. Sense perception is notoriously unreliable. A minimum level of college numeric literary is going to be required here, otherwise we're going to end up swatting flies. I want to nail this and so we have to choose our most effective audience-- numerate college math/physics trained Americans. To suggest otherwise baffles me.

Identity issues such as being a piano player rather a rocket scientist do not matter in this hoax exposee-- either to MSM or to the audience we ought to prove this hoax to because the internet makes all referencing and source material and contacts easy. Only an entertaining writing style, numeracy and graphic illustrations count today when proving something right or wrong. I judge an article by how it reads first and foremost-- only checking the background of the writer later if I have to. "Most people" are not who we ought to be proving the hoax to. College/university educated numerate/literates who are able to have intelligent conversation are who we're concerned with... who have a feel for US/Canada culture. To steer this otherwise is too big a job right now.

In point of fact, there IS a teaching process that is universal. And it's well established in America in the university/college system. Education and media, like a lot of things, are cultural artifacts. Ignoring that component of the proof-of-hoax, is going to lead us into another 9/11 artificial reality where people continue to think we have landers on Mars. I cannot believe -- or allow myself to believe - that there is NOT a universal proof of a hoax in the case of the Mars lander, or for the the 9/11 psyop and the Apollo missions for that matter. For Apollo, for me, the universal proof is in the inability of the craft to disappate heat in the barbecue roll.

We could construct a universal proof right here in this forum. We would construct a type of Wikipedia cooperatively written article. In fact, for the one-size-fits-all PRO-mythical version of the "story", the CIA-funded Wikipedia just MIGHT be the place where the debunkers like us could start!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

If we here, including you, could use the specific references of the Wikipedia propaganda in the debunking, we'd accomplish something that would be, by its very definition, presentable to a CIA agent as proof that he or she is behaving in a treasonous manner by pretending we landed a craft on Mars. We ought to speak his or her language. The Wikipedia article is fitting material for college/university level people in the US and Canada and... it is culturally understood and popular enough for the purpose we would intend.

For example, on the matter of the parachute which first caught my attention, the WIKI-CIA-Pedia... says
The landing sequence alone required six vehicle configurations, 76 pyrotechnic devices, the largest supersonic parachute ever built, and more than 500,000 lines of code, in a final sequence that was dubbed "seven minutes of terror" by NASA.[58]
Fancy that! --we used "the LARGEST supersonic parachute ever built". Earlier Heiwa wrote

Heiwa
The force (Newton) acting on the parachute so it brakes is, e.g. quite big, so the chute may heat up and burn or simply rip apart. I suggest no such strong parachute exists and JPL can easily show that I am wrong by presenting the magic chute.


Culturally, Heiwa insists on using Newtons of force but the Wiki page uses pounds when describing the strength of the parachute here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MSL_parachute.jpg
In this image, two engineers are dwarfed by the parachute, which holds more air than a 280-square-meter (3,000-square-foot) house and is designed to survive loads in excess of 36,000 kilograms (80,000 pounds).
The chute was built by Pioneer Aerospace, South Windsor, Connecticut.
http://www.pioneeraero.com/

The Director of Engineering is Jerry Rowan.
[email protected]

The Wiki article doesn't say what the chute is made out of. I'll email Jerry Rowan and ask, and report back here.
Last edited by rick55 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Mars Curiosity - parachute

Unread post by simonshack »

rick55 wrote: I'll email Jerry Rowan and ask, and report back here.
That's excellent, rick55! Way to go. Let us know about Jerry Rowan's replies.

Now, rick - you may have misunderstood my stance a little. Let me repeat this phrase once again: " I encourage anyone to pursue his/her own way of waking up the public to NASA's outrageous and ongoing hoaxes."

Personally, I may have a more artistically-inclined life background - but I am not a totally 'un-technically'-minded person. I'm still waiting for qualified engineers' arguments/computations/confutations in defense of the Space Shuttle's"WONDERBOLT":

Please read about the Space Shuttle's WONDERBOLT :
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p2353976

You see, even my 12-year old nephew laughed heartily at that Wonderbolt - without any engineering background necessary. Of course, though, I would LOVE to see a scholarly, structural engineering report about that Wonderbolt - scientifically expounding how the 135 Space Shuttle launches (over the last 30 years) could not possibly have relied on that single bolt to securely fasten (the front end of) their 78.000kg (empty Shuttle weight) NASA Shuttles on that fuel tank.

But we can take that another time. I just wished you would read about the "Wonderbolt" - for future reference.


******************
I have moved rick55's interesting reply to this post of mine over to our Space Shuttle thread:
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p2373539 (simon)
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by nonhocapito »

More shots of the engineers actors cheering:

Image
From http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia ... ageID=4208

Image
"Steve Collins waits during the “Seven Minutes of Terror” as the rover approaches the surface of mars". From http://www.awaken.com/wp-content/upload ... 9_free.jpg

Note: if you look for "Steve Collins Mars Science laboratory" on Google, all you get is the above caption. Isn't this person's role or curriculum documented anywhere?

Image
Miguel San Martin, Chief Engineer, Guidance, Navigation, and Control at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, left, celebrates with Adam Steltzner. From http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/NASA ... to-3290309

Image
Mars Science Laboratory Entry, Descent and Landing Engineer Adam Steltzner reacts after the Curiosity rover successfully landed on Mars. From http://www.globalnational.com/photos/wi ... llery.html
"I was sort of studying sex, drugs and rock and roll in high school."
~ Adam Steltzner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Steltzner
"I started my career as a musician. I found physics and engineering by accident"
~ Adam Steltzner http://zipcodemars.jpl.nasa.gov/bio-con ... state_id=0
Adam Steltzner is what I call an artificial, simplified, hollywoodesque character. This is not reality, but what we get when people whose imagination is spent and depleted and moulded by the media have to invent realities for mass consumption.
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by Heiwa »

Source: http://www.futura-sciences.com/uploads/ ... 386971.jpg and http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/ ... ars_40302/
Image
Above is another fantastic suggestion how the Mars Science Laboratory spaceship landed on Mars.
Here the spaceship arrives at 5 900 m/s velocity (measured by a separate US Mars sputnik) at time 0 sec and doesn't brake at all! It is the very thin Mars atmosphere that manages to reduce the speed of the spaceship by friction (!!!) :lol: :lol: and when velocity is only 405 m/s the famous parachute is deployed at time 254 sec after entry and at 11 000 meter altitude. At time 364 sec after entry the parachute is no longer needed and there is a powered descent, bla, bla.
Note that speed was reduced from 5 900 to 405 m/s in only 254 seconds ... and only by friction between spaceship and the 125 000 meter thick Mars atmosphere. :rolleyes:
Of course the spaceship must have travelled 800 735 meters then in the Mars atmosphere.
You really wonder why the parachute then was used? To reduce speed further from 405 to 80 m/s during 110 seconds?? :P The Friction is much more effective! :P Anyway, the parachute was filmed (!!) by another US Mars sputnik ... to back up the hoax.
Regardless - temperature at Mars seems to be of the order -200°C and you wonder how the parachute cloth and strings withstood the cold. Something for rick55 to find out?
It seems the JPL/NASA SF writers lack imagination. :puke:
Last edited by Heiwa on Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:26 pm, edited 9 times in total.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by brianv »

Image

Why would they remove the Exif data? Why else!

Image

The EquityTel call-center reaches it's target for last month. Very pasty looking subjects left and right.

Some of the Exif

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1 (Macintosh)
Artist NASA/Bill Ingalls
rick55
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:15 pm

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by rick55 »

nonhocapito wrote: Note: if you look for "Steve Collins Mars Science laboratory" on Google, all you get is the above caption. Isn't this person's role or curriculum documented anywhere?
Google "steve collins" in quotes + nasa
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl= ... NnMtg_mAU0

MiniBio
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/ ... IELDNAMES=
What is your job on the Deep Impact project?

I'm an "attitude control" engineer. That means I'm responsible for keeping the spacecraft pointed in the right direction. I work with the gyros, the thrusters and star trackers and all the stuff that make the spacecraft turn. I also operate the thrusters whenever the navigation team decides they need to correct the trajectory.

I have a LOT of hobbies. I play soccer with a group of graduate students at Caltech. I study ballet. I act in local theater productions (I especially enjoy doing Shakespeare). I go to science fiction and storytelling conventions. I do comedy with a troupe and I play music in a rock band called Artichoke. And - I have two kids in high school! What spare time?

If you weren't working in space exploration now, what would you be doing?

It's hard to say what I would be up to. My father is an Emmy winning cinematographer and when I first got out of school, I worked in the motion picture business for several years.
Steve Collins as Jaques in Shakespeare’s “As You Like It” at Caltech in 2006, directed by Shirley Marneus.
http://hippynasaguy.tumblr.com/post/289 ... res-as-you
Image

HIPPY NASA GUY
http://hippynasaguy.tumblr.com/

He's alumni of USC Santa Cruz
http://news.ucsc.edu/2012/08/steve-collins.html
As Curiosity's attitude control subsystem engineer, Collins was inside the Spaceflight Operations Facility at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena during the landing. NASA's Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity is equipped with a nuclear-powered lab capable of vaporizing rocks, ingesting soil, and measuring habitability..... At UC Santa Cruz, Collins (Porter, '85) earned bachelor's degrees in both physics and theater arts. In addition to his work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which he joined in 1992, he has acted in local theater productions and plays the theremin in a rock band called Artichoke, known for its two-CD set of pop songs about scientists ("26 Scientists: Volume 1, Anning to Malthus; Volume 2, Newton to Zeno").

Homepage for Artichoke
http://artichoketheband.com/

We see Steve Collins referred to on the homepage.
Steve Collins (theremin), Anna Hollingsworth (accordion), and Chris Gonzalez (bass) are extremely busy with jobs and family and stuff.
I emailed the band to ask them if they would produce a piece for the occasion of the Mars landing using Steve Collin's thermin input...
Hi-- I'm a fan of the Mars Curiosity mission and wondered if your band would make a youtube/cd/video about that landing using a lot of Steve Collins' theramin. Thanks. I play piano and have many sythetic sounds but nothing quite like the theramin.
We'll see if I can't goad them into some interaction. That way, we might eventually be able to talk to Steve Collins and start asking him trick questions that expose the fakery more clearly.
brianv
Member
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax?

Unread post by brianv »

rick55 wrote:
nonhocapito wrote:
Steve Collins (theremin)
Of course the theremin is the "instrument" most heard in 50's sci-fi flicks and playable by a donkey! No offence to donkeys!
Post Reply