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

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hi I edited the message, its a lot longer now, might want to maybe check again. point is: aerodynamics stop working at one point when there is no material to spin- You must go to rocket based propulsion if theres no atmosphere at that point.

No one is answering me mathematically. Do you all work for nasa and is this coverup or something. Btw Zaphod, thanks for answering so many times. At least you try to convince me that im wrong.

I did get an D-F always at math so im not good at that. Altough the teachers were idiots so I didnt even want to get a good grade.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Which is completely irrelevant when talking about Mars. There is atmosphere to generate lift.

According to your reasoning all thread aerodynamics is one size fits all. If the Mars scout can fly, then according to your reasoning every helicopter ever built can fly up to 100,000 feet. It doesn't work that way, and that's been explained to you over and over again.

The Mars scout can't fly on earth because it's designed to fly under very specific conditions. The gravity and atmosphere at sea level are all wrong for it to be able to fly.

You're not getting a mathematical answer because the math is incredibly complex and far beyond high school math.

a reply to: Zaphod58

But blades dont work like that. If they can generate lift in 9mbar / 13g Co2 per m3, it with same kind of blade, should generate almost 10x more lift at 90 mbar.

Reason why? Because theres simply more 10x more Co2 molecules in the 90mbar so theres 10x more stuff floating. And when it rotates, they go in the blade and it goes up.

Sounds simple cause it is.

Also, blades in a coax have pitch angle. like all helicopters basically all helicopters. They spin at X amount of RPM and pitch control of blade either creates lift or takes it away.

The blades are therefore, in the pictures, they look like special blades, thick and long and so on, but really they create 0 lift at 0 pitch. You can pitch normal hobby copters too and they would look like nasa chopper, but they would never fly to over 10km like t hey should if nasa can do it.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

But they do work like that. The rotors are designed to be as efficient as possible at the equivalent of 100,000 feet. That means they're fairly inefficient at sea level. Look at aircraft wings and see how different wings are designed for different things. A rotor is basically a wing that generates lift by spinning.

Those rotors are designed to lift approximately 1.8 pounds. The four pounds the probe weighs on earth is too heavy for them to generate the required lift.

And once again you're back to "if X can do it on Mars, then Y can do it on earth". Aerodynamics is not one size fits all, no matter how much you try to make it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thats something I refuse to believe because I know this for myself to not be possible.

A rotor is a solid object which moves through gas in a rotational fashion (liquid if it is a propeller) and the rotor size and how its designed has a direct relationship to what happens in the gas it spins in.

There are no such things as specifically created rotors for X height. Impossible. At X height you have X amount of gas molecules based on pressure. A lighter rotor and vehicle can move higher because its weight is lower and gravity does not pull it down as much. So it can go higher even in a less dense atmosphere, it can generate lift even when there are less gas molecules per M3.

Because thats what pressure is, nothing else. It is gas molecules per m3.

A U2 plane is designed for high altitude but it can take up easily on its own from ground level.

If nasa plane can lift 750 grams in this test chamber of 9mbar/17G M3, according to my math, it can lift: 83.3 kilograms. On earth. Why? Because: “Lift is proportional to the density of the air and approximately proportional
to the square of the flow speed.”
en.wikipedia.org...(force)

But it cant. Nasa got caught in a lie, sloppy math, I expect this helicopter to not ship to Mars now or they will tell it failed on the first flight, even though it will fly there then (secretly).

Theres the hugest coverup of earth going on, bigger than jfk, wtc or anything, this is the real happening.

I think there are aliens among our government and they are all keeping public on a stupid level for some weird reason. Huge coverup going on. Even presidents dont know about this. Im even getting the shakes while typing this.


But I always knew this was the truth on some level. This is all a lie they show us on TV.
Something is going on.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Why? Because: “Lift is proportional to the density of the air and approximately proportional
to the square of the flow speed.”

You cut the quote short. There is more to it than that.



Your source:

Lift also depends on the size of the wing, being generally proportional to the wing's area projected in the lift direction. In calculations it is convenient to quantify lift in terms of a lift coefficient based on these factors.

The lift force depends on the shape of the airfoil, especially the amount of camber (curvature such that the upper surface is more convex than the lower surface, as illustrated at right). Increasing the camber generally increases lift.

And yes, wings are purpose designed.

The low density of the Martian atmosphere and the relatively small Mars Helicopter rotor result in very low chord-based Reynolds number flows, 𝑅𝑒#=𝑂(103−104). At low Reynolds numbers,flat and cambered plates can outperform conventional airfoils,making them of interest for the Mars Helicopter rotor.

rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

Yes yes yes but see? Rpm and wing size are kept same. And weight. If you only make atmosphere denser, theres more atoms getting grabbed in the rotors so it goes higher.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

If you only make atmosphere denser, theres more atoms getting grabbed in the rotors so it goes higher.

How do you make the atmosphere denser?

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Planes can fly in denser air because they're designed to. But if you look closer you'll see that at lower altitude they're far less efficient than at their designed cruising altitude. No matter what you believe this isn't something that you can shoehorn into x vs y.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The U2 was famously treacherous to fly at altitude.

When the littler airplane got up to altitude, the margin between the climb speed and the critical Mach number and stall became very, very minor, and we were looking at plus or minus two-and-a-half knots at one particular point in the climb between the climb schedule and critical Mach and stall speed so that’s very very small. When we got the bigger airplanes, we got up to plus or minus seven-and-a-half knots of margin.

www.airspacemag.com...

It could do it, barely. A very tight corner of the envelope.

a reply to: Phage

It's treacherous to fly at any altitude. It doesn't have hydraulics so it really needs to be manhandled.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

If you only make atmosphere denser, theres more atoms getting grabbed in the rotors so it goes higher.

How do you make the atmosphere denser?

a reply to: Zaphod58
That fine line between climbing and stalling does not mix well with "manhandling." In the account I linked the pilot said that, for that reason, they relied on autopilot. Don't want to have to scratch your nose or sneeze.


It flew at 70,000 feet. Not easily, not well.

a reply to: Phage

Good luck with both with that suit on. IIRC the controls need somewhere around 75 pounds of pressure to move them. After a 12+ hour flight that's the last thing you want to deal with. I saw a couple pilots get out and take their helmet off and they just looked completely drained. And that was on a fairly short flight from either Okinawa or California to Hickam.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So, autopilot unless absolutely necessary.

I don't supposed they'd be doing much cranking and banking anyway. Spinning a U2 would be bad.

So lets imagine im wrong for a second, can you diagnoze am i: bad in math. wild imagintion. sadly mentally ill due to harsh childhood, or something other? I want a good explanation incase men in black come behind my door .

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Dyscalculia. Learning disability. Like dyslexia only with math.

That's the ticket.

Numbers seem to make sense, but don't.

a reply to: Phage

Ok thanks ill write that up.

But if they come behind my door I know I was right so hm. Lets see what happens

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

But if they come behind my door

They won't.