Curiosity Rover Parachute size Proves NASA Lies

The whole thing is fake and is so far removed from the truth it's laughable. There will always be those that blindly believe what their governments say. The atmospheric pressure argument is very valid and they leave obvious mistakes like that lying around to gauge how much of the population are smart enough to realise it's a lie. The truth is that the US government has been sending people to Mars since the 1970's via teleportation technology. The atmosphere on Mars is breathable and it has it's own native population. Research Andrew Bassiago and Brett Stillings and Project Pegasus. Even if you scoff at my remarks you owe it to yourself to investigate these people. I would say the Mars lander is a smokescreen to oppose the plausibility of the above. Did anyone see the press conference NASA gave about Curiosity? The so called scientists leading it didn't know anything and honestly came across as bad actors and definitely were not aerospace technology engineers. They make it very obvious that they're lying to see how stupid people are and how much they can get away with.

a reply to: yhin999

It never fails to entertain, how people come on here to show how "stupid" NASA is and are covering up everything.....yet are so smart to have things like secret bases on Mars.

Then drop names like Andrew Basiago (which you misspelled by the way).

Apparently, people seem to think that you can't know what a planet's atmosphere consists of, unless you go there. Apparently, they've never heard of Spectroscopy and how anyone with the right equipment can observe Mars from ground based telescopes (that do not belong to NASA or any other space agency), and can see what it's atmosphere is made up of (and it is not breathable by humans).

a reply to: yhin999

You bumped a year-old thread, which was based on a complete misconception, in order to drop that little golden nugget of truthiness? I know you're new here, but seriously?

I just couldn't let this one go,
OP,
Your logic has one huge flaw, air resistance increases with the square of the velocity , so the faster your intial velocity the more initial resistance. I would bet that the velocity and altitude at which the chute was cut corresponds to the point at which a chute of that size vcomes ineffective. And, the size of that chute was dictated by the volume and weight constraints imposed by the rovers design.
Parachute calcs from a model rocketry site.

Problem Statement

How do you determine the right size for your parachute? We can apply an equation from the Rocket Equations Page to figure out the parachute needed for your rocket and how fast your rocket will be going during descent.

The rocket, under its parachute, will speed up toward the ground until the drag force on the chute is equal to the weight of the rocket. So to figure this problem out, we need to find equations for drag force and for the rocket's weight and set them to be equal.

We will try to find the diameter of parachute that brings the rocket down slowly enough that the rocket doesn't break when it hits the ground. How fast is that? It depends on how well you built your rocket, of course, along with where it lands - concrete will hurt more than field grass. If you simply drop your rocket from two feet high, it will hit the ground at a little over 7 mph, or approximately 3 m/s. We'd like to keep the speed to about that.

Solving the Problem

We will use the drag force, or "wind resistance force" equation, which is

FD = ½ r Cd A v2

Where
FD is the drag force
r (Greek letter "rho") is the density of air = 1.22 kg/m3
Cd is the drag coefficient
A is the area of the chute
v is the velocity through the air

Meanwhile, the weight of the rocket, otherwise known as the force of gravity (FG), is computed to be

FG = m g

Where
m is the mass of the rocket
g is the acceleration of gravity = 9.81 m/s2

Let's find when they're equal:

FG = FD
m g = ½ r Cd A v2

...and solving for chute area...

A = (2 m g) / (r Cd v2)

Now the chute area, in terms of the chute diameter, is A = p D2 / 4, so the chute diameter is

D = sqrt(4 A / p).

The Answer

Combining the two equations above for A & D leads us to the final form of the chute equation as we will use it:

D = sqrt( (8 m g) / (p r Cd v2) )

Where

D is the chute diameter in meters
m is the rocket mass in kilograms
g is the acceleration of gravity = 9.8 m/s2
p is 3.14159265359
r is the density of air = 1.22 kg/m3
Cd is the drag coefficient of the chute, which is 0.75 for a parasheet (flat sheet used for a parachute, like Estes rockets), or 1.5 for a parachute (true dome-shaped chute).
v is the speed we want at impact with the ground (3 m/s or less)
Some Examples

Model Rocket

Let's size a parachute for an Estes Big Bertha.

m = 62.3 g = 0.0623 kg (from the Estes catalog)
Cd = 0.75 (since this is a parasheet)
the rest of the variables are as above, so...
D = sqrt( (8 m g) / (p r Cd v2) ) = sqrt( (8*0.0623*9.81) / (3.14*1.22*0.75*32) ) = 0.435 m

...which is equal to 17 inches. This explains why the Big Bertha comes with an 18 inch chute.

High-Power Rocket

We'll size a parachute for my LOC V2, which weighs in at 8 pounds even, or 3.6 kg.

m = 3.6 kg due to all the extra stuff I've added
Cd = 1.5 because the rocket uses a true domed parachute
v = 5 m/s I'm increasing v because this rocket's going pretty high and I don't want it to take forever to come down. This is the equivalent to a four-foot drop (ouch).
D = sqrt( (8 m g) / (p r Cd v2) ) = sqrt( (8*3.6*9.81) / (3.14*1.22*1.5*52) ) = 1.4 m

...which is a 4 foot 8 inch parachute. Pretty big. In reality I'm using a RocketMan R7C, which is about that size.

Finding Descent Velocity

Note that we can easily find the descent velocity, given the chute diameter, by simply rearranging the above equation to get

v = sqrt( (8 m g) / (p r Cd D2) )

Here are some research papers that investigate and report on how MSL Curiosity would enter, descend and land on Mars.

Some truly fabulous thinking that proved the value of mathematics and lateral thinking.

"ATMOSPHERE ASSESSMENT FOR MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY ENTRY, DESCENT AND LANDING OPERATIONS"
Alicia D. Cianciolo, Bruce Cantor, Jeff Barnes,‡ Daniel Tyler Jr., Scot Rafkin, Allen Chen, David Kass, Michael Mischna, and Ashwin R. Vasavada

Source: ntrs.nasa.gov...

Abstract:

On August 6, 2012, the Mars Science Laboratory rover, Curiosity, successfully landed on the surface of Mars. The Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL) sequence was designed using atmospheric conditions estimated from mesoscale numerical models. The models, developed by two independent organizations (Oregon State University and the Southwest Research Institute), were validated against observations at Mars from three prior years. In the weeks and days before entry, the MSL "Council of Atmospheres" (CoA), a group of atmospheric scientists and modelers, instrument experts and EDL simulation engineers, evaluated the latest Mars data from orbiting assets including the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's Mars Color Imager (MARCI) and Mars Climate Sounder (MCS), as well as Mars Odyssey's Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS). The observations were compared to the mesoscale models developed for EDL performance simulation to determine if a spacecraft parameter update was necessary prior to entry. This paper summarizes the daily atmosphere observations and comparison to the performance simulation atmosphere models. Options to modify the atmosphere model in the simulation to compensate for atmosphere effects are also presented. Finally, a summary of the CoA decisions and recommendations to the MSL project in the days leading up to EDL is provided.

Source: ntrs.nasa.gov...

"MSL DSENDS EDL ANALYSIS AND OPERATIONS"
P. Daniel Burkhart and Jordi Casoliva

Source: issfd.org...

The most recent planetary science mission to Mars is the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) with the Curiosity rover, which launched November 26, 2011 and landed successfully at Gale Crater on August 6, 2012. This rover was the first use at Mars of a complete closed-loop Guidance,
Navigation, and Control (GN&C) system, including guided entry with a lifting body (via center of gravity offset) to greatly reduce targeting errors during the Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) phase. Hypersonic entry guidance enables the entry body to fly out the remnant delivery error from the final Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM) as well as other sources, resulting in less than a 25km20km landing error relative to the Gale Crater landing target.

The latter paper discusses the parachute model:

MSL used a supersonic Disk-Gap-Band (DGB) parachute during its EDL sequence. Thus far, every robotic mission to Mars has used heritage from the deceleration technologies developed during the Viking era in the 1960s. The MSL DGB parachute had a 33% larger diameter than the
Viking parachute due to the heavier weight of the MSL spacecraft during EDL.

MSL Curiosity EDL models involved huge calculations due to the huge number of parameters that needed to be constantly measured and calculated to ensure a successful EDL:

The high-fidelity EDL simulation has over 30;000 parameters that must be specified for proper operation. A large subset of these parameters, over 90% of the total, were either managed by an EDL configuration control spreadsheet or were parameters that were compiled into the software.

I could go on and on presenting data related to the landing of Curiosity but I will refrain from doing so. Suffice to say, some brilliant minds spent years of their lives dedicated to ensuring a safe and stable EDL of the rover.

Me not going to double guess them.

I'm allowed to bump a year old thread aren't I? People are allowed to form their own opinions about NASA. I was just suggesting people who are interested might want to look into the information supplied by Andrew Basiago (I apollogize sir for the misspelling ) as it is so detailed and intelligent it is very hard to think it's a hoax and if what he says it is true it would make Curiosity redundant. The US government and media lie about absolutely everything to keep people limited to a narrow bandwidth of reality. Isn't this site called " Above Top Secret"? Not Status Quo?

a reply to: yhin999

Andrew Basiago claims to have teleported to Mars and time-travelled a million years into the past and you say "it is very hard to think it's a hoax"?

And yet you think that the scientists who are exploring the real Mars, with a real rover that is sending back hundreds of real images every day are lying?

I think you need to switch your brain on occasionally.

I've never heard Andrew Basiago claim he has travelled a million years into the past. And there is no need to attack me personally and call me stupid. I'm just discussing the topic at hand, I don't call you stupid for believing in NASA's lies. Perhaps it is you who needs to switch their brain on.

originally posted by: yhin999
I've never heard Andrew Basiago claim he has travelled a million years into the past. And there is no need to attack me personally and call me stupid. I'm just discussing the topic at hand, I don't call you stupid for believing in NASA's lies. Perhaps it is you who needs to switch their brain on.

Review all his interviews on Coast To Coast AM.

He claimed to have done just that (traveled 1 million years into the past).

He also claimed to have been present at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and of course that he went into the future to 2045.

originally posted by: yhin999
I don't call you stupid for believing in NASA's lies.

Exactly which lies are you on about?