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

a reply to: Phage

It's called engineering.

Something a few seem to have missed. Something called the Reynolds number. It sort of has to do with the viscosity of air in relation to the object. It's one reason bumblebees can fly. This is real aerodynamics, not like the math presented in the OP.

Is that what you call it. The viscosity of the air on Mars eh?

So phage guy, is the air on Mars more or less viscose then on earth?

Well then. See you all on Mars. Could be a quote people say not to soon from now.

A rotorcraft engineered for Mars will fly quite well, on Mars. You cannot compare a tiny helicopter to a man sized helicopter. I used to make little tiny gliders out of rolling papers. It's all about the Reynolds.

What are you talking about. That thing was never meant to fly. But then again just depends on your definition of what flying is. Its going to be more like jumping really high for about 20 seconds here and there, from place to place. More like a tick on the back of a dog then flying.

And even your paper airplane wont be making it one foot on Mars. Or at least according to all the data NASA put up on Mars.

I'm not going to read that Reynolds link. I try not to spend to much time online, and there are more interesting threads out there then this. Also hate maths, its a extremely bad language in defining the reality of an object, much less an object in motion, as there are more variables then the numbers involved.

For instance, what if this little rotary hopper, stays 2 minutes to long in one spot, then the CO2 atmosphere cools by a degree, freezing its little rotary blades in literally an instant? Who knows maybe it got to close to a hill on mars, or stayed to long in one spot, and well, take your pick, a dust storm which technically should not be that big a deal, could fling it across who knows were.

How you going know when and were to move it, at what times. Most especially when the time lag between Earth and Mars is pretty much a death sentence, even for a robot? Can you really count on projected models?

Etc, etc, etc.

If I take the 20 minute to read through all that, and find out that its all just more theoretical science taken as fact.

It would just be really depressing. Or not.

But, hey. Send the little fellow to Mars, strap a go pro cam to it. I am all for it. At the very least. It would be, entertaining to watch, instead of all these projected model crap everybody always flings up.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

But I think they do want to return to the rover. Don't they?

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

So phage guy, is the air on Mars more or less viscose then on earth?

That's a meaningless question in regard to the Reynolds number.

The smaller the object, the lower the Reynolds number. For a bumblebee air is far more viscous than it is for a 747. If a bumblebee were the size of a 747, it could not fly.

And that's probably a good thing.

I have a lot of replies.

Replies coming.

Lets start with this. People dont seem to understand that atmospheric pressure = material density. No material, nothing to chew through. You cant calculate thrust of the rotors if there is no material to thrust. 6mbar is 169 times less material for any thrust compared to earths 1000 . It doesnt matter if mars had 1/10th of earths gravity, it would go no where if there is 6mbar.

Heres a picture. May it tell a thosand words.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

It's all about the Reynolds number.
A man sized airplane or rotorcraft on Mars will be a problem.

Correction Phage. A man sized airplane or rotorcraft, going by NASAs projected number and atmosphere of Mars. Would not be a problem. It would be impossible. You know, if they don't all die from lack of oxygen, a nitrogen drop in pressure freezing them all, and a thousand other such details, and all long before any of them even take off.

But were not even there.

Were at can a mini copper work for one minute or so, and keep going by solar charging its batter, in that atmosphere. and how long can it go before it breaks. That is...If the maths is right...and that is...If the maths is even relevant, and poeple arent just projecting...and that is... what is the actual relevant in that whole non equation....and that is how factual is any of it?

So no. Even though did not read that whole reynolds numbers thing you linked. I can safely say, that its not going to be all about the reynolds numbers.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It did just fine during testing in the chamber.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LookingAtMars

You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

But I think they do want to return to the rover. Don't they?

I don't think it has to return to the rover. The only reason I can think of is to transmit data and from reading the white paper it looks like it has it's own coms.

Once separated from the host spacecraft (lander or rover), the Mars Helicopter can only communicate to or becommanded from Earth via radio link

A one-way data transmission mode is used to recover data from the helicopter in real time during its brief sorties.When landed, a secure two-way mode is used. Due to protocol overhead and channel management, a maximum returnthroughput in flight of 200 kbps is expected while two-way throughputs as low as 10 kbps are supported if required bymarginal, landed circumstances.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

I can safely say, that its not going to be all about the reynolds numbers.

As far as the OP goes, it is.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

The only reason I can think of is to transmit data and from reading the white paper it looks like it has it's own coms.

Comms to what? The DSN? I doubt it.
To the Mars orbiter, maybe, but the power requirements seem high.

I haven't looked too deep but I think it has to talk to the rover which will then upload to the orbiter. That means it has to land pretty nearby.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Hi mr Nasa engineer. If you were 35 years at nasa you must know you are under the direct control of the Pentagon and you tell what you can or its 20 years in a supermax for breaking the NDA.

We cant trust a word any government worker says unless its under somekinda senate grand jury hearing with promised immunity for anything you say and i can bet you a rare golden eagle silver dollar from 1500 century no ones going so far. Oh yea i dont have that kinda coin but, not like anyone would need it cause it aint happening.

This is a ridiculous reply from Nasa when asked by the helicopter:



Also did you just release secret information in your post? I say thank you if you did because you said:
" That’s why most Mars airplanes tend to look more like a U-2 than a C-172."

But there are no mars airplanes, Except they were planning them in the 1970s. Like this:

It says:
www.wired.com...

"The 300-kilogram airplane would arrive at Mars folded in an lozenge-shaped Viking-type aeroshell. After aeroshell parachute
deployment and heat shield separation, it would spread its wings to their full 21-meter span and detach from the parachute and aeroshell in mid-air. Normally, the plane would cruise one kilometer above the martian surface, though it would be capable of flying as high as 7.5 kilometers. The 4.5-meter-diameter propeller at the front of its 6.35-meter-long fuselage would pull it through the thin (less than 1% of Earth atmosphere density) martian atmosphere at a speed of between 216 and 324 kilometers per hour."

My comment: The propeller would need to be 100 meters not 4.5m if the pressure would be 6mbar and weigh as much as a 4.5 one. Its wired magazines comment the "Mars has less than 1% atmosphere". This airplane gives us a rough estimate on the real mbar level of Mars since this planes details were so badly hidden by nasa.


A typical cessna propeller is 1.2M. Cmon give me a break. 4.5M would be enough? In an atmosphere 169 times less dense? Hehe? 3.5 times smaller propeller will take in that difference? Even counting in the gravity difference, it would still need to move 60 times more to get the 60 times material through the propeller to move. And as some have pointed, at those speeds the propeller would be breaking the speed of sound all the time. So no its a no go.

Nasa has been for years doing more and more in secret, less and less in open. They clearly dumped this airplane from public view and scrutiny because people would have understood already back then that "wait, if 4.5 propeller is all you need, why dont we make that on Earth and fly to 35 km, just for a test."



Now lets read one thing again from this wired magazine.

NASA SAYS: 7KM ALTITUDE for the airplane.

What Mbar is it there? 1mbar? It must be if surface level is 6. But, if surface is 100-300mbar which is more likely, then it could fly at 7km.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

It's all about the Reynolds number.

a reply to: Phage

It is fully self contained.

That should mean no return to the rover.

After deployment, the fullyself-contained helicopter

a reply to: LookingAtMars

That should mean no return to the rover.

A link would be nice, because that quote does not say that.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Mars planes have been built and tested for decades.

Here some pics, click on some and read the links.

mars airplane

I don't trust NASA one bit and you are going a little overboard here it seems.

It was a rare treat to have 1947boomer give us a Mars post and because of your reply he may never do it again.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

It's all about the Reynolds number.

No it aint.

Nasa was planning in the 1970s of making a plane which could fly in Mars at" capable of flying as high as 7.5 kilometers"

Heres a picture what those pressures are on earth.



At 7.5km you are already at one third of surface level pressures.

If on Mars you are at 6mbar on surface, and this Nasa planned plane could fly at 7.5km, what is it there? 2mbar? Nothing flies there. Nothing. Nothing flies at 6 either.

Only logical conclusion to quote Spock is the ones when you rule out the ones which are illogical.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

No it aint.

Yes, it is.

Heres a picture what those pressures are on earth.

Reynolds number, not pressure.

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 small rotorcraft engineered for Mars will fly quite well, on Mars.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LookingAtMars

That should mean no return to the rover.

A link would be nice, because that quote does not say that.

There is a link to the white paper in the OP. It does not mention having to return to the rover.

F. Telecommunication SystemOnce separated from the host spacecraft (lander or rover), the Mars Helicopter can only communicate to or becommanded from Earth via radio link. This link is implemented using a COTS802.15.4(Zig-Bee) standard 900 MHzchipset, SiFlex 02, originally manufactured by LS Research. Two identical SiFlex parts are used, one of which is anintegral part of a base station mounted on the host spacecraft, the other being included in the helicopter electronics.These radios are mounted on identical, custom PC boards which provide mechanical support, power, heat distribution,and other necessary infrastructure. The boards on each side of the link are connected to their respective custom antennas.The helicopter antenna is a loaded quarter wave monopole positioned near the center of the solar panel (which alsoserves as ground plane) at the top of the entire helicopter assembly and is fed through a miniature coaxial cable routedthrough the mast to the electronics below. The radio is configured and exchanges data with the helicopter and basestation system computers via UART.One challenge in using off-the-shelf assemblies for electronics systems to be used on Mars is the low temperaturesexpected on the surface. At night, the antenna and cable assemblies will see temperatures as low as−140C. Electronicsassemblies on both base station and helicopter will be kept “warm” (not below−15C) by heaters as required. Anotherchallenge is antenna placement and accommodation on the larger host spacecraft. Each radio emits approximately0.75 W power at 900 MHz with the board consuming up to 3 W supply power when transmitting and approximately0.15 W while receiving. The link is designed to relay data at over-the-air rates of 20 kbps or 250 kbps over distances ofup to 1000 m.A one-way data transmission mode is used to recover data from the helicopter in real time during its brief sorties.When landed, a secure two-way mode is used. Due to protocol overhead and channel management, a maximum returnthroughput in flight of 200 kbps is expected while tw

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Well if mr nasa boomer really loves science then he will come back.
Because I think this conspiracy has gone longer than anyone knows. Normal people are cattle in the elites view (i dont mean mr boomer but the higher ups etc) and they dont want us knowing anything.


a reply to: Phage

Unless its all a lie and a psyop. Nasa already has mars bases. I remember in the 1998 reading a science magazine, it said man on mars by 2020. Now its 2040. They are pushing it further because they want to build their bases there secretly and keeping the cattle fighting in left and right battles here. Even Trump has probably no idea whats really happening. Just a Tv reality house seller larping a president for a few years. People are kept in the dark. This is just a hoax. Theres secret bases. If I can imagine them, someone else has already too.

I tried to find where this whole 6mbar thing came and it was the soviet lander called "mars 3". It landed in december 1971 on Mars
and worked for only 14 seconds and it supposedly reported a pressure of 6mbar. After this the next landers were Viking 1 and 2 in
1975.
On page 62 here: history.nasa.gov...
It says: "In 14.5 seconds, the signal disappeared. The same thing happened with the second telephotometer. Why did two telephotometers working in independent bands simultaneously fail within a hundredth of a second? We could not find an answer to this question."

This report also says that Mars was thought to have a pressure of 0.1-0.3 ATM. Meaning 10-30% of earth. Meaning 100-300 mbar. Page 9:
"Earth Based observations showed that near the Martian surface, the pressuire was about 0.1-0.3 atmosphere, and at noon, the temperature near the equator was about 25 degrees Celsius.

Now lets jump to Viking landers. Viking lander weight: 1190 kg at launch
600kg at landing." At 6 km (3.7 mi) altitude, traveling at about 250 meters per second (820 feet per second), the 16 m diameter lander parachutes
deployed. Seven seconds later the aeroshell was jettisoned, and 8 seconds after that the three lander legs were extended. In 45
seconds the parachute had slowed the lander to 60 meters per second (200 feet per second)."

So at 6 kilometer altitude it supposedly opens parachute and supposedly starts slowing down so that it soon is going much slower. How
is this possible if Mars is only 6mbar at surface, which equals 35km on earth. At 6km, mars must have a total vacuum or like I mentioned, maybe 2mbar. Its like parachuting to the moon. What reynolds number matters there if you have no molecules to grab into your parachute. You spoon water from an empty glass.

This viking lander would never work in 6mbar unless the original reports of 0.1-0.3 ATM, 100-300 mbar pressure predictions at Mars were right.

So Mars has really a pressure of 100-300MBAR. 300mbar is about same as earth in the sense that a falling object can due to lower
gravity, grab less material in the parachute but still come down almost the same. 100mbar could maybe still do it too (it would equal
to almost 300mbar on earth).but there will need to be thrusters, like viking lander actually had.

6mbar = it just crashes.


So there we have it. Mars has atmosphere of 100-300Mbar. It means theres 15-50 times more material in the atmosphere than Nasa claims
there is. It means a CO2 to oxygen machine has 15-50 times more material to go through to make oxygen (for astronaus for example,
like the ones there already. Hey, if they lie about pressure, they probably lie about people on Mars too!).

Also, why would soviets report 6mbar if its a lie? Well because the whole cold war itself was fake. In USSR and Usa, they showed
every week news photos of nukes going off and duck and cover drills. People were scared in the east and the west of an imminent
nuclear holocaust if you did not do what the politicians said. It was all a scam. Soviet leadership were also highly intertwined with
rich western elites/banks/industrial people and it was all a hoax. After Putin came to power in Russia, west started to hate him because he was not
controlled by them like the previous ones. Half of whole russias gas and oil fields/pipelines (Yukos) were about to be sold to Usa
but he stopped it (khodorokovsky case). So this soviet space administration could have been in a secret pact with Nasa to not tell the truth of the atmosphere to the world? Why, well China was still a developing country and so was India. It was so they wouldnt get the idea and join the space race and Usa could get a head start which is militarily tactically a sound idea.


Also highly suspicious that two circuit boards cut off immediately after landing in the Mars 3 lander. Quote from the PDF : "Why did two telephotometers working in independent bands simultaneouslt fail within a hundredth of a second?". Yes very suspicious and how did they gather all this scientific data in the 14 seconds and then send it? How can ancient 70s devices conduct all these atmospherical tests in 14 seconds, and send it all in 14 seconds before it goes black? It lands, all devices suddenly power up, conduct tests, packet the data in digital form and send it, all in 14 seconds and then it goes broke. Those devices were sending like bits in a second maybe 100, not even kilobits, all a scam it cant have sent basically nothing in 14 seconds. There must have been check up tests and other tests built into it to start first when it lands but according to official story, it started to send immediately all atmospheric data like temperature, pressure and so on in 14 seconds and then it broke. No it cant be like this, no way. Back in 1970 there was no internet so no conspiracy theor, factists could study it but its quite clear the people were screwd by the gubbament(s) already back then.

It was cut off by a second chip set controlled by the real soviet space controllers. They were probably behind a mirror in the control room taking control of the real mission. They controlled the device on another frequency if nothing else. The useful idiots with beards, eyeglasses, starwars shirts and hawaii shirts were left wondering "oh we lost contact" when the real team took control of it. Oh wait Ussr didnt have those hawaii bearded nintendo nasa scientists, NASA does. Do people get this point? If this could have happened 50 years ago in Ussr, it can happen now in Usa or elsewhere. The bearded nintendo "scientists" who run nasa, probably dont run anything. Someone else....does, underground somewhere laughing at the world how everyone is an idiot.

This is the only explanation. The lander worked probably for a month at least. They released the data later, and made it look like it
all came in the 14 seconds. Who knows what else the soviets/nasa got.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Each radio emits approximately 0.75 W power at 900 MHz

The DSN operates at frequencies of above 2,000 Mhz and 0.75 watts ain't going to be much good trying to talk to Earth anyway. The Mars orbiter transmits on the X band (7145 - 7190 Mhz) with 100 watts. The flyer won't really be able to talk to Earth.

It looks to me like the flyer has to talk to the rover. And at 900 MHz, I think that's line of sight. I think the idea is for it to return to the rover, mentioned or not. Though it may be able to upload to the orbiter when it passes over.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

At 6km, mars must have a total vacuum or like I mentioned, maybe 2mbar.

First mistake. You are confusing pressure with density.