INGENUITY Rotor Copter on Mars

[Alex Baxter]

I’m very positive, Why I can’t question anything? It would be super easy to convince me. Just publish specs of the craft, motors, battery, solar panel efficiency, heating element details, telemetry data etc. and lets talk science.

Let people learn, admire and analyze what they already have accomplished, but not 12 hours long video of propaganda clapping and some totally unscientific comments.

Then lets call people asking for tech spec or any questions: conspiracy theorists. I hope some will see the bigotry of the situation. You are asking me to do what flatearthers asking eveyone to do, believe them, because there is no data supporting what they claim.

Are you asking me to belie in science or test the science? As I said I only believe in God, and always test science. Why would I need to “belive” NASA if the data is there, or is it not?

As a matter of interest, do you believe that man walked on the moon, or are you just a Luddite?

 

[Maviac]

As a matter of interest, do you believe that man walked on the moon, or are you just a Luddite?

Personally, I don't care if he's a Luddite or whatever his opinions are on cotton mills. His comments disparaging the project based on the fact that there are Asian and black females involved is enough to convince me his comments are worth ignoring.

 

[011111110]

What NASA is doing is asking us to believe them. and I’m saying this: Why I Don't "Believe" in "Science" - The Bulwark

Those kids are not rocket scientists, they are computer geeks, data modelers, 3D artists etc. It is very easy to check them. Most of them worked one way or the other on some 3D game designs, one guy worked for Disney. Most of the team from DSN are artists, alsmot all of them, they actually call themselves artists on their twitter/Facebook profiles. They do not call themselves rocket scientists...

If you look at NASA library overwhelming majority of media is “visual representation/artist concept” 3D renderings of the Mars, landing etc. I’m not saying they didn’t do what they claim, I’m just saying why should we believe in science if we could be testing it.

I have spend hours digging through their documents, and it is all conceptual conflicting research, different papers have different values, thats why I'm curious about the specs.

First they have asked few Universities to develop proof of concept of Mars helicopter, they received few papers back (all of them saying this might or might not fly) and picked one, I have that research in PDF, it is all “theoretical model” at that point.

NASA took that paper and send it to few more universities and said: Here is our Mars Helicopter, please scale it up from this design, again they have received back the theoretical scaled up models for future missions. Guys from India showed phantom props as example of efficient desing, I have their research too.

NASA research documents that can be found online are conflicting and that’s is why I’m skeptical.

Here is an example:
Mars Helicopter has 0.04 m2 solar panel 21.9W/m2 and 12Ah 6 cell Li-ion battery. 350W is expanded during 90s flight. According to NASA, Mars gets only 50% of sun exposure in comparison to Earth. (NASA says panel drops 0.3% efficiency daily due to dust) I’m super curious how this solar panel will charge onboard battery to be able to survive super cold -90C -130F Martian nights. The math doesn’t add up.
On average Mars is -58F that means battery has to be kept warm 24/7 to much higher temp. If the battery is 400g that would be about 7W per hour just to keep it warm. Not to mention they targeted 15 years service time with one flight a day, that’s bonkers, no Li-ion battery can take that, but researc hpaper talks about it.

“How would you prove your belief in a scientific test in the same way you feel necessary when there are photos & video and analysis done by highly educated and experienced professionals - real observable data?”

There is no analysys, by having tech spec of each component, one can calculate if what they show, makes sense. Call it double checking . And if they would show us telemetry data it would be even more realistic and easier to check.

If we have all the tech details we can calculate a lot.

I can just tell you, we will never get it because this stuff is most likely fake, there is no prop that can do what they say it can, do due low Reynolds Number on Mars.

If you want to call me conspiracy theorist for asking for data, joke is on you.

You and I seem to be in the minority here, but I agree with your skepticism. I haven't followed the Ingenuity project that closely, so I have no opinion on whether it's real or fake, but the lack of real data leaves questions that could easily be answered if they released it - which does lead to wondering why they don't release it.

It's as if they're being deliberately vague - probably to avoid the kinds of problems they had recently when the Orion spacecraft showed unequivocally that they couldn't build a heat shield with 21st century technology that could withstand direct reentry from lunar distance; yet all the data from the Apollo missions shows them doing exactly that, with 1969 technology. They released all the data then, thinking no one would be able to verify it, but now we can - and it clearly was fabricated. I don't know whether we really went to the moon or not, but I do know that the data they released at the time was either fake or just plain wrong, for whatever reason. Maybe they learned from that experience and are keeping it vague to avoid a repeat of that experience.

Anyway, people like us get called conspiracy theorists (and much worse) all the time, but really all we're doing is asking questions that people don't know the answers to. People don't like that, and they get defensive about it for some reason. Don't sweat it.

 

[rehkram]

It's as if they're being deliberately vague - probably to avoid the kinds of problems they had recently when the Orion spacecraft showed unequivocally that they couldn't build a heat shield with 21st century technology that could withstand direct reentry from lunar distance; yet all the data from the Apollo missions shows them doing exactly that, with 1969 technology.

For those of us who missed that story, can you provide a link? I did a search but nothing I've found so far seems relevant to your assertion.

Also, what does 'direct reentry from lunar distance' actually mean? I find it a very puzzling concept, given the unlimited permutations of reentry trajectories and velocity that can be flown. How does 'lunar distance' have anything to do with reentry? Asking for a friend.

 

[011111110]

For those of us who missed that story, can you provide a link? I did a search but nothing I've found so far seems relevant to your assertion.

Also, what does 'direct reentry from lunar distance' actually mean? I find it a very puzzling concept, given the unlimited permutations of reentry trajectories and velocity that can be flown. How does 'lunar distance' have anything to do with reentry? Asking for a friend.

Start here. There's more, but that's the first one I could find quickly.

Direct reentry from lunar distance means exactly what it says - direct reentry from lunar distance, as opposed to a "skip" reentry, where you enter the earth's atmosphere, then turn upward and exit out of the atmosphere again to bleed off speed, then reenter a second (and sometimes third) time. All data from the Apollo missions indicates they came straight in.

And there are not infinite permutations of reentry trajectories and velocities. Orbital physics is a very exact science. To oversimplify it, returning from the moon is essentially "falling" from a height 250,000 miles back toward earth, and accelerating at 32 ft/sec^2. Reentry velocity from that distance is a very precise (at least in astrophycsical terms) 36,500 ft/sec. There is no negotiating that, it's dictated by physics. Same with the reentry angle. A few degrees off in either direction and the physics doesn't work out well for coming back alive.

Anyway, all the data from the Apollo missions indicates they did a direct reentry, but the Orion designers discovered quickly (and rather spectacularly, from a pyrotechnics standpoint) that they couldn't build a heat shield that could withstand reentry at even 30,000 ft/sec, nevermind 36,500. And that's with today's technology and advanced materials. How did they do it with 1969 technology and materials? So the Orion spacecraft executed a skip reentry on its first (and only) deep space flight. Shortly after the Apollo discrepancy was pointed out, the Orion project was scrapped. Coincidence? Maybe. But It's another interesting data point.

 

[SkyeHigh]

Start here. There's more, but that's the first one I could find quickly.

Direct reentry from lunar distance means exactly what it says - direct reentry from lunar distance, as opposed to a "skip" reentry, where you enter the earth's atmosphere, then turn upward and exit out of the atmosphere again to bleed off speed, then reenter a second (and sometimes third) time. All data from the Apollo missions indicates they came straight in.

And there are not infinite permutations of reentry trajectories and velocities. Orbital physics is a very exact science. To oversimplify it, returning from the moon is essentially "falling" from a height 250,000 miles back toward earth, and accelerating at 32 ft/sec^2. Reentry velocity from that distance is a very precise (at least in astrophycsical terms) 36,500 ft/sec. There is no negotiating that, it's dictated by physics. Same with the reentry angle. A few degrees off in either direction and the physics doesn't work out well for coming back alive.

Anyway, all the data from the Apollo missions indicates they did a direct reentry, but the Orion designers discovered quickly (and rather spectacularly, from a pyrotechnics standpoint) that they couldn't build a heat shield that could withstand reentry at even 30,000 ft/sec, nevermind 36,500. And that's with today's technology and advanced materials. How did they do it with 1969 technology and materials? So the Orion spacecraft executed a skip reentry on its first (and only) deep space flight. Shortly after the Apollo discrepancy was pointed out, the Orion project was scrapped. Coincidence? Maybe. But It's another interesting data point.

What absolute rubbish. The whole point of a skip reentry is to enable more accurate, targeted landing closer to land and reducing the number of recovery vehicles spread over a much larger area as was required for the Apollo programme.

In the late ‘60s early ‘70s we didn’t have the computing power or the more highly controlled dynamics required for a safe skip reentry. This form of reentry not only reduces the deceleration forces to 4G but allows reentry from almost any part of the globe and still splashdown on target. And maybe I should mention less stress on the airframe, which allows some reuse of the command module for further flights.

All this was planned from the start and not a result of any failure.

 

[Maviac]

What absolute rubbish. The whole point of a skip reentry is to enable more accurate, targeted landing closer to land and reducing the number of recovery vehicles spread over a much larger area as was required for the Apollo programme.

In the late ‘60s early ‘70s we didn’t have the computing power or the more highly controlled dynamics required for a safe skip reentry. This form of reentry not only reduces the deceleration forces to 4G but allows reentry from almost any part of the globe and still splashdown on target. And maybe I should mention less stress on the airframe, which allows some reuse of the command module for further flights.

All this was planned from the start and not a result of any failure.

I have a feeling this thread might be about to be closed. But I sure wish my grandfather, an engineer on the Apollo and Viking programs, were here to give some thoughts.

 

[011111110]

What absolute rubbish. The whole point of a skip reentry is to enable more accurate, targeted landing closer to land and reducing the number of recovery vehicles spread over a much larger area as was required for the Apollo programme.

In the late ‘60s early ‘70s we didn’t have the computing power or the more highly controlled dynamics required for a safe skip reentry. This form of reentry not only reduces the deceleration forces to 4G but allows reentry from almost any part of the globe and still splashdown on target. And maybe I should mention less stress on the airframe, which allows some reuse of the command module for further flights.

All this was planned from the start and not a result of any failure.

I don't think you were paying attention.

The point isn't that the Apollo missions reentered directly as a result of some sort of failure. The point is that the Apollo missions *claim* to have done a direct reentry (and the released data shows it as such), but the Orion mission proved it was impossible for them to have done that. The technology and materials to build a heat shield for that kind of reentry did not (and still do not) exist.

 

[SkyeHigh]

I don't think you were paying attention.

The point isn't that the Apollo missions reentered directly as a result of some sort of failure. The point is that the Apollo missions *claim* to have done a direct reentry (and the released data shows it as such), but the Orion mission proved it was impossible for them to have done that. The technology and materials to build a heat shield for that kind of reentry did not (and still do not) exist.

Ignore now active.

 

[rehkram]

Start here. There's more, but that's the first one I could find quickly.

Way to cement your credibility as 'definitely not a conspiracy theorist', posting a link to a site that specializes in conspiracy theories!

Ignored.

 

[Maviac]

Way to cement your credibility as 'definitely not a conspiracy theorist', posting a link to a site that specializes in conspiracy theories!

Ignored.

This has turned into a classic “give them enough rope” scenario. I’m fine with skepticism, even pseudoscience skepticism (since it is easily disproven). It was the racism that bothered me. These are not people I want to associate with and I hope no one else wants to either.

 

[rehkram]

Exactly. Not to mention the misogyny on display in post #61

 

[011111110]

Way to cement your credibility as 'definitely not a conspiracy theorist', posting a link to a site that specializes in conspiracy theories!

Ignored.

You are free to define "conspiracy theory" any way you wish. Sorry if you're offended or feel threatened by it, but the data is there. Go to the NASA site and download it for yourself. The engineering records from Orion are there too.

You don't have to *like* the facts, but they are what they are.

I don't know if we went to the moon or not. I hope we did. But some of us like to ask questions when things don't add up. Others are offended by that, for some reason, but I do wonder why it's not okay to even ask the questions.

 

[spudster]

.... Sorry if you're offended or feel threatened by it, but the data is there.,,,,

How do you know the any of the data is real? Only if it is something you want to believe?

If you want data I am sure some could be made up that looks real enough to convince the doubters. Oh ya, the doubters will never be convinced no matter what data is shown or they will be completely scammed with made up data just because it confirms what they want to believe.

Just the facts ma'am!

 

[Thomas B]

Since the thread is now simply an argument...
—-> closed.