MARS & the Curiosity Rover - NASA's latest hoax

[lux]

I've been checking the official JPL Youtube site and the comments section there is wide open. I've been scanning those comments and nobody has suggested the mission is fake yet. I wonder if it's ripening to the point where someone could go in there and suggest what we've been talking about here in a smooth manner. I thought about doing it myself but will think on my approach for a few days since I use my real name linked back to my real youtube account of my real self playing real piano. I want to be sure I'm going to get some traction and maintain a respectable, yet challenging position, if I go in there.

You may find that any such posts magically vanish.

[rick55]

I've been checking the official JPL Youtube site and the comments section there is wide open. I've been scanning those comments and nobody has suggested the mission is fake yet. I wonder if it's ripening to the point where someone could go in there and suggest what we've been talking about here in a smooth manner. I thought about doing it myself but will think on my approach for a few days since I use my real name linked back to my real youtube account of my real self playing real piano. I want to be sure I'm going to get some traction and maintain a respectable, yet challenging position, if I go in there.

You may find that any such posts magically vanish.

Well, I'm very curious as to how the Curiosity JPL Youtube comments section will handle me. I just posted my message this way...

QUESTION FOR JPL Engineer
Can you point me to a deceleration graph over the 7 minutes of terror from the 13,000 mph re-entry speed through to the parachute release and landing? Thanks very much.
RickPotvin54 1 second ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zervvVw2 ... el&list=UL

I'll watch to see how long my question remains up-- it's been 10 minutes so far with no answer but no deletion either. If the Curiosity is a currently running hoax, I would expect all questions to be monitered constantly on JPL's official website. They might check my links back to my Youtube channel, then my homepage... and then find me here. So I'm afraid we might be surveyed by them soon.

Watch for an response not by any named person but by "JPL News" which has occasionally responded to posts on other videos. The continued praising of JPL/NASA by what appear to be foul mouthed or otherwise mindless shills goes on and on of course. Even bad language isn't flagged or deleted. For an official government sponsored website, it's a bit astonishing and disconcerting. You'd think they would appoint an editor there full time.

Update... 5 hours later I have 5 thumbs up whereas all other posts don't have any thumbs up votes since then... so the question has attracted some attention.

UPDATE 14 hours later.... My post has 5 thumbs up. If you get more thumbs up than anyone, your post shoots to the top of the comments section just under the video. The highest ratings were for mathteacher1729 at 47 and the next highest was by PixelCortex at 19. Since these are pinned, I reposted my QUESTION FOR JPL ENGINEER as a response to mathteacher1729. It appeared instantly, pinned under the mathteacher's comment for high visibility. A few minutes later, I checked back and the entire mathteacher comment had disappeared along with my piggy-backed sub-post! The highest comment became PixelCortex at 19. So... someone IS watching!!

UPDATE 18 hours later... My post has 9 thumbs up and has placed 2nd in the TOP POSTS section just under the video!! Out of 392 comments, placing second behind a comment with an expletive is pretty good. I thought they had knocked me out but apparently someone put me back in.

Top Comments
Been following MSL like a hawk, but this vid makes me all teary eye'd every time.
FUCK YEAH HUMANS!!!
PixelCortex 2 days ago 19 thumbs up

QUESTION FOR JPL Engineer
Can you point me to a deceleration graph over the 7 minutes of terror from the 13,000 mph re-entry speed through to the parachute release and landing? Thanks very much.
RickPotvin54 18 hours ago 9 thumbs up

see all
All Comments (392)

UPDATE 23 hours later. My comment has 11 thumbs up and is at the TOP of the "top comments" section just under the video. I don't understand how the 19 thumbs up video got voted down with its expletive but its not there and mine is.

[lux]

They've supposedly put rovers on Mars before yet the hype this time seems much greater than before.

I suspect a major psy-op is on the way with this "mission."

[simonshack]

*
We can haz amazing pictures of ze landing site!

The Daily Mail's photo caption:

"Mapped landing: This amazing image from the HiRise camera shows the Curiosity lander on Mars along with the components of its landing system"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ebris.html

"To the right, approximately 4,900 feet (1,500 meters) away, lies the heat shield, which protected the rover from 3,800-degree-Fahrenheit (about 2,100 degrees Celsius) temperatures encountered during its fiery descent. On the lower left, about 2,020 feet (615 meters) away, are the parachute and back shell."

The parachute - fortunately, didn't land on top of the rover - but a safe 615 meters away!
And those NASA experts have some pretty sharp eyes. For anyone to be able to make out exactly what these specks of pixels are - is nothing short of superhuman! But of course, NASA/JPL will tell you that all those scattered parts emit unmistakable signals of their respective locations on the MARS surface.



About the supposed "HiRise camera" ... http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/releases/msl-descent.php



THE "PICASSO SELF-PORTRAIT":


Caption: " This NASA image shows a Picasso-like self portrait of NASA's Curiosity rover taken by its Navigation cameras, located on the now-upright mast."

[illusion42]

I've been checking the official JPL Youtube site and the comments section there is wide open. I've been scanning those comments and nobody has suggested the mission is fake yet. I wonder if it's ripening to the point where someone could go in there and suggest what we've been talking about here in a smooth manner. I thought about doing it myself but will think on my approach for a few days since I use my real name linked back to my real youtube account of my real self playing real piano. I want to be sure I'm going to get some traction and maintain a respectable, yet challenging position, if I go in there.

You may find that any such posts magically vanish.

Well, I'm very curious as to how the Curiosity JPL Youtube comments section will handle me. I just posted my message this way...

QUESTION FOR JPL Engineer
Can you point me to a deceleration graph over the 7 minutes of terror from the 13,000 mph re-entry speed through to the parachute release and landing? Thanks very much.
RickPotvin54 1 second ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zervvVw2 ... el&list=UL

I'll watch to see how long my question remains up-- it's been 10 minutes so far with no answer but no deletion either. If the Curiosity is a currently running hoax, I would expect all questions to be monitered constantly on JPL's official website. They might check my links back to my Youtube channel, then my homepage... and then find me here. So I'm afraid we might be surveyed by them soon.

Watch for an response not by any named person but by "JPL News" which has occasionally responded to posts on other videos. The continued praising of JPL/NASA by what appear to be foul mouthed or otherwise mindless shills goes on and on of course. Even bad language isn't flagged or deleted. For an official government sponsored website, it's a bit astonishing and disconcerting. You'd think they would appoint an editor there full time.

Update... 5 hours later I have 5 thumbs up whereas all other posts don't have any thumbs up votes since then... so the question has attracted some attention.

UPDATE 14 hours later.... My post has 5 thumbs up. If you get more thumbs up than anyone, your post shoots to the top of the comments section just under the video. The highest ratings were for mathteacher1729 at 47 and the next highest was by PixelCortex at 19. Since these are pinned, I reposted my QUESTION FOR JPL ENGINEER as a response to mathteacher1729. It appeared instantly, pinned under the mathteacher's comment for high visibility. A few minutes later, I checked back and the entire mathteacher comment had disappeared along with my piggy-backed sub-post! The highest comment became PixelCortex at 19. So... someone IS watching!!

UPDATE 18 hours later... My post has 9 thumbs up and has placed 2nd in the TOP POSTS section just under the video!! Out of 392 comments, placing second behind a comment with an expletive is pretty good. I thought they had knocked me out but apparently someone put me back in.

Top Comments
Been following MSL like a hawk, but this vid makes me all teary eye'd every time.
FUCK YEAH HUMANS!!!
PixelCortex 2 days ago 19 thumbs up

QUESTION FOR JPL Engineer
Can you point me to a deceleration graph over the 7 minutes of terror from the 13,000 mph re-entry speed through to the parachute release and landing? Thanks very much.
RickPotvin54 18 hours ago 9 thumbs up

see all
All Comments (392)

Rick55, this is the only deceleration graph of the Curiosity rover descent I was able to find searching the internet. What do you think?

[rick55]

Re: the Chart above for deceleration

That's a nice chart-- you're right to offer that. I saw it earlier and then forgot about it.

Looking at it closer now, the data points are not as tight as I think I want. For example, between atmospheric entry at time=0 to the next data point, over 4 minutes pass and we've decelerated from 13,200 mph to 900 mph. That represents a constant deceleration of a fantastical 44 miles/second/second. An elementary 4 minute video on calculating acceleration or decleration might be of interest to you and others here. It represents the mindset we need to engage to talk to NASA engineers at a basic high school level or beginning college level. The graph seems to be at about a junior high level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk_o7FKB ... re=related

Notice on your graph where NASA's label says "peak deceleration"? That's key. Notice that they did NOT install a "velocity" with that label. I wonder why not? That would be a very interesting data point. And note that they did not express the "peak deceleration" as a particular magnitude with its units either.

The deceleration at parachute deployment obviously continues but again, there is no magnitude expressed for that point either. So we have a lot of missing data with the general idea expressed. You're graph is in the right direction but I want the numbers on a full graph.

Here's an example of graph that a high school student can generate in calculus class for the velocity and acceleration of a car... just to give you an idea of the type of chart I want.
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/03348.png

Here's a 16 video lecture at a high school calculus level that will refresh our memories for the type of excerise landing a craft on Mars would involve. You certainly won't grasp it if you've never had high school calculus because it moves too fast. If you have, however, you'll have a fun time with it trying to follow it as I did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCh1ij17VTY

Once you have the lingo down again through the video, you'll understand where I'm at and what I'm asking the JPL engineers for. Those engineers might be the people behind the Abbot and Costello Go To Mars movie... where Abbot and Costello make a wrong turn and end up on Venus. Here's a 1 min trailer for that movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27MQZ75rWTY

Here's the full 1 1/2 hour movie
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v17320571zard ... ars+-+1953

[fbenario]

Why are y'all taking that chart seriously, and 'trying to figure it out', or 'trying to make it make sense'? If your posts were tongue-in-cheek, I'm not sure you communicated that very clearly.

[rick55]

Why are y'all taking that chart seriously, and 'trying to figure it out', or 'trying to make it make sense'? If your posts were tongue-in-cheek, I'm not sure you communicated that very clearly.

The posts I made are not tongue in cheek. They are stepping stones to prove a hoax... and all it takes is high school math.

[Dcopymope]

Re: the Chart above for deceleration

That's a nice chart-- you're right to offer that. I saw it earlier and then forgot about it.

Looking at it closer now, the data points are not as tight as I think I want. For example, between atmospheric entry at time=0 to the next data point, over 4 minutes pass and we've decelerated from 13,200 mph to 900 mph. That represents a constant deceleration of a fantastical 44 miles/second/second. An elementary 4 minute video on calculating acceleration or decleration might be of interest to you and others here. It represents the mindset we need to engage to talk to NASA engineers at a basic high school level or beginning college level. The graph seems to be at about a junior high level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk_o7FKB ... re=related

Notice on your graph where NASA's label says "peak deceleration"? That's key. Notice that they did NOT install a "velocity" with that label. I wonder why not? That would be a very interesting data point. And note that they did not express the "peak deceleration" as a particular magnitude with its units either.

The deceleration at parachute deployment obviously continues but again, there is no magnitude expressed for that point either. So we have a lot of missing data with the general idea expressed. You're graph is in the right direction but I want the numbers on a full graph.

Here's an example of graph that a high school student can generate in calculus class for the velocity and acceleration of a car... just to give you an idea of the type of chart I want.
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/03348.png

It is my simplistic understanding of all this from looking at all of your previous posts that these calculations are all done within the alleged parameters of the Martian atmosphere. If this is the case, then the only way this will get anywhere is by asking NASA or whoever was involved in the design of this tin can to give us the supposed velocity and magnitude of the object at peak deceleration within the supposed parameters of the Martian atmosphere itself.

[rick55]

It is my simplistic understanding of all this from looking at all of your previous posts that these calculations are all done within the alleged parameters of the Martian atmosphere. If this is the case, then the only way this will get anywhere is by asking NASA or whoever was involved in the design of this tin can to give us the supposed velocity and magnitude of the object at peak deceleration within the supposed parameters of the Martian atmosphere itself.

True. Here's something on Mars atmospheric density to start.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/atmosmre.html

Here's a review of previous Mars missions, one of which had a descent accelerometer on board...
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/ds2/mission/events.html

If the missions are fake, they're sure making up a lot of numbers and devices that can be checked out further. I recommend that debunkers like us learn some of their key science fiction concepts like "descent accelerometer"...

Shortly before entering Mars' atmosphere, the probes will turn on a descent accelerometer which will sample "G" forces 20 times a second until impact. This single piece of information can allow scientists to develop profiles of many meteorological factors in Mars' atmosphere including density, temperature and pressure at various altitudes.

On doing a google search for "descent accelerometer", we find only NASA and JPL using the term. It's not used by any other corporate entity or government, on first glance. That's suspicious.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl= ... a3bT_WEVPo

Here is a demo of an accelerometer that looks legit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospj_fgysRY

Here is a 3 minute demo of a health application of an acceleromter, of all things. It shows how sensitive it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scpBPxWWK2Q

NASA claims to have developed their knowledge of the very density of Mars atmosphere from previous missions' accelerometer readings while they descended. The way to test this, of course, is to try doing that on Earth's atmosphere, or find a case where it's been demonstrated.

I've started a dialog with JPL engineers on the JPL Youtube site where my question is ranked as the most favorite post, pinned at the top of the comments list just under the video "where were you when Curiosity landed?"-- a major promo/propaganda piece.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zervvVw2dnU&feature=plcp

[Heiwa]

For example, between atmospheric entry at time=0 to the next data point, over 4 minutes pass and we've decelerated from 13,200 mph to 900 mph. That represents a constant deceleration of a fantastical 44 miles/second/second.

Hm, to decelerate (13,200-900)=12,300 mph in 4 minutes or 240 seconds correspond to a deceleration of 12,300/240=51.25 mph/second and if 1 mph corresponds 1609/3600=0.4469 m/s the deceleration is of the order 22.9 m/s² which is very big. The early JPL/NASA projects failed because they mixed up metric and US units.

[illusion42]

For example, between atmospheric entry at time=0 to the next data point, over 4 minutes pass and we've decelerated from 13,200 mph to 900 mph. That represents a constant deceleration of a fantastical 44 miles/second/second.

Hm, to decelerate (13,200-900)=12,300 mph in 4 minutes or 240 seconds correspond to a deceleration of 12,300/240=51.25 mph/second and if 1 mph corresponds 1609/3600=0.4469 m/s the deceleration is of the order 22.9 m/s² which is very big. The early JPL/NASA projects failed because they mixed up metric and US units.

Actually, a deceleration in the order of 22.9 m/s² is not that much especially due to Mars' thin atmosphere and weak gravity.

Lets take an example on Earth first:

During a normal deployment, a skydiver will generally experience a few seconds of intense deceleration, in the realm of 3 to 4 G, while the parachute slows the descent from 120 mph (190 km/h) to approximately 18 mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachutin ... deployment

G = acceleration due to gravity

G is about 9.8 m/s² for Earth so 3 G is around 29.4 m/s² deceleration.

On Mars G is supposed to be 3.711 m/s².

So really the Curiosity rover parachute deceleration of 22.9 m/s² (or 6.17 G) is what would be theoretically expected.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/resear ... chute.html


Now its very easy to just put some numbers out there as fact and "mission data" after a theoretical calculation.

In order to prove this Mars Curiosity mission a hoax we shouldn't really be dealing with the numbers and data because NASA would sure to have double checked it to perfection as any faulty data would have been spotted sooner or later by any Scientist/Engineer or anyone who still remembers some of their high school physics/maths.

Now does NASA seriously expect us to believe they successfully landed the Curiosity Rover after travelling some 100 million km with a communication delay of around 14 minutes, after their disastrous test on the Morpheus Rover on August 9th 2012?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Morpheus


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


5...4...3...2...0...? What happened to 1?

[rick55]

For example, between atmospheric entry at time=0 to the next data point, over 4 minutes pass and we've decelerated from 13,200 mph to 900 mph. That represents a constant deceleration of a fantastical 44 miles/second/second.

Hm, to decelerate (13,200-900)=12,300 mph in 4 minutes or 240 seconds correspond to a deceleration of 12,300/240=51.25 mph/second and if 1 mph corresponds 1609/3600=0.4469 m/s the deceleration is of the order 22.9 m/s² which is very big. The early JPL/NASA projects failed because they mixed up metric and US units.

Actually, a deceleration in the order of 22.9 m/s² is not that much especially due to Mars' thin atmosphere and weak gravity.

Given the thin atmosphere, where is the friction to provide the brakes-- before the parachute deployment? (It's said to be 100X thinner-- but where did they even get that? From deceleromater data from a previous (hoaxed) Mars lander?)

The braking power should be directly proportional to the density of the atmosphere and inversely proportional with the G value. Less atmosphere would mean less braking power but less G would mean more braking power. But does lower G make up for the lower atmospheric density in braking power?

Well, the G is only 1/3 of Earth's but the atmosphere is 1/100 that of Earth's. Braking power is 1/100th that of Earth's due to atmosphere and, conversely 3X better due to 1/3 G. It looks like lower G does NOT make up for lower atmosphere density. The deceleration of 44 miles/s/s or 29 m/s/s does not appear possible. I'll set aside the parachute component for the moment. The deceleration in Earth's atmosphere without a parachute is the comparison we should make I think-- first.

Illusion42

Now its very easy to just put some numbers out there as fact and "mission data" after a theoretical calculation.

In order to prove this Mars Curiosity mission a hoax we shouldn't really be dealing with the numbers and data because NASA would sure to have double checked it to perfection as any faulty data would have been spotted sooner or later by any Scientist/Engineer or anyone who still remembers some of their high school physics/maths.

That's the very point-- that high school physics is all you'll need to prove a hoax... at least that's what I'm contending at this point. And so dealing with the numbers and data is precisely how to expose this. The situation is precisely the opposite of what you just said! They can "double check" all they want but there's only one universe and one set of rules. Faulty data is going to consitute "proof".

I'll consider Earth's G and atmosphere along with some of the incoming manned vehicles over the years like Gemini, Apollo and the Shuttle, to see if they make sense... again before parachute deployment which is a separate problem. Communications is a whole other problem I'm not looking at, myself yet, either.

[brianv]

Why are y'all taking that chart seriously, and 'trying to figure it out', or 'trying to make it make sense'? If your posts were tongue-in-cheek, I'm not sure you communicated that very clearly.

Yes, my impression of this "chart" is that, it's an artists impression.

More like a "Picasso" than a "Botticelli". There are several such filters in Gimp, the image above looks like the "Cubist" filter.

[Heiwa]

Actually, a deceleration in the order of 22.9 m/s² is not that much especially due to Mars' thin atmosphere and weak gravity.

In order for a space ship with mass 3 690 kg landing on Mars to be decelerated at average 22.9 m/s² by friction during four minutes an average force of 84 501 N must be applied on the space ship all the time during the deceleration. Evidently the deceleration was 0 m/s² before entry Mars (actually the space ship was accelerating due Mars gravity prior entry into Mars atmosphere) and again 0 m/s² at the end of braking so maximum, actual decelerating was mayby double ... 45 m/s²
The fricion force is probably, among many parameters like area, density of atmosphere, etc, also a function of the velocity during decelaration, i.e. it is greater at big velocity and smaller at low velocity. Do you think NASA/JPL can provide info about the actual force at any time while decelerating?
Friction produces heat that warms up the brake, in this case the space ship itself, and NASA/JPL suggest that only a heat shield at the front of space ship heats up 1600°C. I think the heat would warm up the heat shield to >19 000°C. What do you think?
Just behind the heat shield is the famous Mars rover car that, allegedly, is now driving around on Mars. It has a thermometer that measures temperature on Mars. What temperature do you think it recorded during the landingJ Do you think any mechanical design like a space rover survives 45 m/s² deceleration and say 2000° C warming up?