CONTENTS 3A: Roffman Mars Research - Pure Science, No Codes
From strict audits of Mars landers weather data to Torah Codes, nothing backs the official views about Martian weather or history. (8/25/2017)
AUGUST 25, 2017: The European Space Agency has begun to accept our argument that Mars has air pressure not too different than Earth's. Question - Will they sue NASA over disinformation that largely resulted in the loss of ESA's Mars lander (Schiaparelli) in October, 2016? Read our Report to see what we have to prove that NASA has held back the truth about Mars.
Here's the new Abstract:
ABSTRACT: We present evidence that NASA is seriously understating Martian air pressure. Our 8-year study critiques 1,794 Sols (over 2.8 Martian years) of highly problematic MSL Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REM) weather data, and offers an in depth audit of over 8,311 hourly Viking 1 and 2 weather reports. We discuss analysis of technical papers, NASA documents, and personal interviews of transducer designers. We troubleshoot pressures based on radio occultation/spectroscopy, and the previously accepted small pressure ranges that could be measured by Viking 1 and 2 (18 mbar), Pathfinder and Phoenix (12 mbar), and MSL (11.5 mbar). For MSL there were several pressures published at or slightly above the advertised upper range of the pressure sensor (sols 370, 1,160, 1,161, and 1301) as well as the period between August 30 and September 5, 2012 when pressures initially published were from 737 mbar to 747 mbar – two orders of magnitude high – only to be retracted. We challenged them all and NASA revised them down, however 8 years into this audit it has come to our attention that of two pressure sensors ordered by NASA for Mars Pathfinder, one of them (Tavis Dash No. 1) could in fact measure up to 1,034 mbar; and for the MSL according to an Abstract to the American Geophysical Union for the Fall 2012 meeting , The Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) states of their MSL (and Phoenix) Vaisala transducers, “The pressure device measurement range is 0 - 1025 hPa in temperature range of -45°C - 55°C, but its calibration is optimized for the Martian pressure range of 4 - 12 hPa..” So while we originally thought that of the five landers on Mars that had meteorological suites, none of them could measure Earth-like pressures, in fact, assuming that the higher pressure sensor Pathfinder Tavis Davis 1 (0-15 PSIA/1,034 mbar) was sent rather than Tavis Dash 1 (0-0.174 PSIA/12 mbar), three landers were actually equipped to get the job done, but the public was pretty much kept in the dark about it. Why they have done so is currently a matter of speculation that is beyond the basic thrust of this report, but we demonstrate that REMS weather data was regularly revised after they studied critiques in working versions of this report and on our websites at http://marscorrect.com and http://davidaroffman.com.
As for weather anomalies that support our contentions we note that Vikings and MSL showed consistent timing of daily pressure spikes. We link this to how gas pressure in a sealed container would vary with Absolute temperature, to heating by radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), and to dust clots at air access tubes and dust filters. Pathfinder, Phoenix and MSL wind measurement failures are disclosed. Phoenix and MSL pressure transducer design problems are highlighted with respect to confusion about dust filter location, and lack of information about nearby heat sources due to International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR). NASA could not replicate dust devils at 10 mbar. Rapidly filled MER Spirit tracks required wind speeds of 80 mph at the assumed low pressures. These winds were never recorded on Mars. Nor could NASA explain drifting Barchan sand dunes. Based on the above and dust devils on Arsia Mons to altitudes of 17 km above areoid (Martian equivalent of sea level), spiral storms with 10 km eye-walls above Arsia Mons, dust storm opacity, snow at Phoenix, excessive aero braking, liquid water running on the surface in numerous locations at Recurring Slope Lineae (RSL) and stratus clouds 13 km above areoid, we argue for an average pressure at areoid of ~511 mbar rather than the accepted 6.1 mbar. This pressure grows to 1,050 mbar in the Hellas Basin.
PowerPoint Summary of HIGHER THAN ADVERTISED MARTIAN AIR PRESSURE - Part 1 by David A. Roffman. Posted September 9, 2012.
PowerPoint Summary of HIGHER THAN ADVERTISED MARTIAN AIR PRESSURE - PART 2 (Annexes and Supporting Data). Posted August 18, 2011.
|PowerPoint Summary of HIGHER THAN ADVERTISED MARTIAN AIR PRESSURE - Part 3. Posted January 17, 2013.|
Abstract for Higher Than Advertised Martian Air Pressure
Part 2 – Audit of Viking Pressure Data
Barry S. Roffman (Lieutenant, USCG, Ret)
After a cursory review of the Viking Project Data it became apparent that an extensive audit was imperative. The Viking Project Data did not seem to explain weather phenomena (spiral clouds over Arsia Mons, dust devils, etc.) clearly seen on Mars. A general discussion of the problems is offered in the Basic Report by David Roffman. The data audit results are presented in seven Annexes. The Viking Project data divides every Martian day into 25 time-bins (hours), each ~59 minutes long. Annex A (Viking 1 sols 1 to 350) and Annex B (Viking 2 sols 156 to 361) emphasize how pressures change during morning time-bins that correspond to 0630 to 0830. A simple formula, Pressure predicted = (6.51 mbar*255.77 K)/Temperature K measured, was often correct for 0730. Annex C examines how often the pressure sensor did not work (stuck or no pressures) between Viking 2 sols 639 and 799. Annex D examines the percent differences between hourly predictions and reported pressures for Viking 1 from sols 1 to 350. Annex E focuses on predictions and reported pressures for the 0.3 (0730) and .34 (0830) time-bins. Annex F maps out the best and worst prediction times each day, clearly proving the influence of the RTG heaters on hourly pressure reports. Annex G shows what went wrong in the transducer selection and testing process. These Annexes provide hard evidence that the Tavis pressure transducers used for the Vikings (and Pathfinder) likely jammed with dust during the landing process. The meaning of this is that it is doubtful that they ever measured ambient pressure conditions of Mars. There is evidence that all subsequent attempts to measure pressure were colored by the reported Viking results. Problems with Phoenix pressures based on a Vaisala transducer are discussed in the Basic Report. Annex I discusses the the first six months of pressure results in from the MSL with a focus on serious and redundant problems in record keeping by those entrusted with informing the public of what MSL was seeing with respect to Martian weather.
Mars Correct Basic Report Section 1
Abstract, Introduction, and Martian Dust Devils
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 2 to 2.1
Overview of Instrumentation Problems
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 2.2 to 2.4
Mars Pathfinder (MPF) and Phoenix Pressure Issues.
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 2.5 to 2.6
MSL Pressure Sensor Pegs Out at Sol 370, and the Viking Dust filter
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 2.6 to 2.7
Viking Pressure Reports & Digitization, Consistent Daily Pressure Spikes, MSL Weather Reporting Fiasco
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 3 to 4.1
Caves & Spiral storms on Arsia Mons; Snow, Water Ice & Carbon Dioxide; Ls of Minimum Pressure
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 5 to 6
Radio Occultation and Spectroscopy
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 7 to 7.2.1
Martian Wind Problems, Anemometers/Telltales, & Sand Movements
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 8 to 9
Downrange Landings; Dust Opacity and Pressure
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 10 to 11
Excessive Deceleration During Aerobraking Operations
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 12 to 12.3
Potential Pressure on Mars, Methane, and Sky Color
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 13 to 14
Relative Humidity and Temperature Measurement Concerns
Mars Correct Basic Report Section 14.1
Ground temperature problems
Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 14.1 to 18
Conclusions, Recommendations, Acknowledgements, and Afterword – What difference could all this possibly make?
Mars Correct Basic Report References
Mars Correct: Critique Of All NASA Mars Weather Data, With Emphasis On Pressure: Annexes (With Links) And Appendices
Mars Correct: Critique Of All Nasa Mars Weather Data, With Emphasis On Pressure: Links To Figures In The Basic Report
Overview of data in the Annexes
VIKING 1 MORNING PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE CHANGES and Mars Time-Bin Clock.
ANNEX AAppendix 1
VL-1 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 to .34 time-bins. Sols 1-116.
A-3 to A-22
VL-1 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 134-199.
VL-1 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 200-219.
A-35 to A-38
VL-1 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 220-304
A-39 to A-50
VL-1 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 305-334
A-51 to A-55
VL-1 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 335-350
A-56 to A-59
VIKING 2 MORNING PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE CHANGES
B-1 to B-39
VL-2 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 156-175
B-2 to B-5
VL-2 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 176-199.
B-6 to B-10
VL-2 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 201-260.
B-11 to B-20
VL-2 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 261-290.
B-21 to B-26
VL-2 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 291-305.
B-27 to B-30
VL-2 pressures of .26 to .3 time-bins & .3 and .34 time-bins. Sols 306-361
B-31 to B-39
VIKING 2 STUCK PRESSURE GAUGE
C-1 to C-54
PERCENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEASURED PRESSURES ON VIKING AND GAY-LUSSAC/ AMONTON’S LAW-BASED PREDICTIONS
D-1 to D-171
Viking 1 Sols 1 to 199
D-3 to D-94
Viking 1 Sols 200 to 350
D-95 to D-171
Measured vs. Predicted Pressure Percent Differences for Viking-1 Time-bins 0.3 and 0.34http://marscorrect.com/ANNEX%20E%209%20September%202013.pdf
E-1 to E-14
Percent Difference Experimental Summary
F-1 to F-18
Percent Difference Flow Chart for Viking 1 Sols 1 to 116 & 200 to 350
F-5 to F-16
Histogram with temperatures at successful predictions per time-bins
F-17 to F-18
Tavis Transducer Specifications and Test Results
G-1 to G-13
Calibration Effort for the Mars Pathfinder Tavis Pressure Transducer and IMP Windsock Experiment
H-1 to H-43
Pressures Reported by the Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REMS).
I-1 to I-28
Print Screen Record of Original REMS Team and Ashima Research MSL Weather Reports
I-12 to I-28
Concessions by Ashima Research and How to Correctly Calculate Daylight Hours for MSLhttp://marscorrect.com/ANNEX%20J%20%209%20September%202013.pdf
J- 1to J-19
|ANNEX K |
Original REMS Team and Ashima research Weather Reports from Sol 15 to 299.
Variation of Daylight Due to Change of Latitude and Solar Longitude
L-1 to L-10
One Year of MSL Weather Reports
M-1 to M-
Revised REMS TEAM Mars Weather Reports
New report is improved, incorporates our corrections, but still has many flaws. Tables 1 & 2 summarize the new REMS data. Flaws will be discussed in conjunction with them. The major table here shows the history of 682 sols of weather at MSL with emphasis on major changes (likely political in nature).
MSL Year 2 Weather data
This section summarizes weather reported for MSL in its second Martian Year starting at it Sol 670. Table 1 also allows for a comparison of pressure for the same LS (solar longitude) as reported in the two years.
October 10, 2012: Discussion of how data from the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) and earlier Mars landers has been mishandled: A look the Ashima/MIT Mars general circulation model and the misrepresentation of Martian air pressure.
|The last REMS Team report for the weather on Mars at Gale Crater.|
Mars Science Lab Weather Problems (9/3/2012)
Sky color on mars as seen by MSL (8/12/2012)
SEPTEMBER 3, 2012: $2.5 billion worth of childish mistakes by Mars Science Lab "experts."
Prasun Desai and Mars probes landing long. This discusses problems before the Mars Science Laboratory used a more controlled landing system to touch down with 1.5 miles of the targeted site.