When we heard that NASA wants to send a helicopter to Mars in 2020, the first thought was that unless (as we allege) NASA is ready to admit that they have misled the public about the real air pressure, this is an ill-conceived idea. However, as the video clip below shows, JPL claims to have test flown the tethered helicopter in 25-foot space simulator in Pasadena. Before delving into the science involved, let's take a look at a Torah Codes matrix in the issue. On Figure 1 the axis term is MARS HELICOPTER. There are two synonyms for TO LAUNCH at the same absolute skip. The Year 5080 on the Hebrew calendar, which includes 2020 is at skip +2. FEASIBLE is at one skip less than MARS HELICOPTER, but it shares a letter mem with it. In MARS HELICOPTER the word for Mars is a 3-letter transliteration of the English, but the Matrix also includes a 5-letter Hebrew word for MARS. The smaller (36-letter, grey background) matrix with MARS HELICOPTER, FEASIBLE, and TO LAUNCH is more significant than the full matrix. It was found against odds of about 12,881 to 1 and it addressed the main question - is such a helicopter feasible (in what is supposed to be an atmosphere with a density less than 1% of that found on Earth)?

NASA Ames Test of Martian Pressures and Dust Devils 

An effort was made at the Ames facility to simulate Martian dust devils at a pressure of 10 mbar.  NASA (2005 article)¹states that, “The high-pressure air draws thin air through the tunnel like a vacuum cleaner sucks air. Scientists also compare this process to a person sucking water through a straw. The resulting simulated Mars wind moves at about 230 feet per second (70 m/s).”  Actual recorded dust devil wind speeds seen on Mars by Pathfinder and Phoenix were about 6 m/s.²⁴ Seventy m/s is 252 kilometers per hour, nearly the strength of a category 5 hurricane.  NASA Ames was unable to replicate a dust devil with a fan spinning at the 10 mbar pressure level. They state that “the simulated (10 mbar) Martian atmosphere in the wind tunnel is so tenuous that a fan would have to spin at too high a speed to blow thin wind through the test section.” As such, it becomes harder to accept that dust devils can occur in such low pressures. The problem becomes more severe when we see Martian dust devils operating at even lower speeds, or on Arsia Mons where pressure is supposed to be ~1 mbar.

Is it fair to compare fan blades that could not lift dust at Ames with blades on a helicopter that must lift a helicopter at similar low pressures? First let's look at the issue of particle size with respect to dust devils on Mars. The following is taken from Section 1.7 of our Report, Mars Correct: Critique of All NASA Mars Weather.

1.1.7 Dust Particle Size – The Problem of Martian Dust <2 Microns and Wind Speeds

Balme and Greeley³ also state, “The Martian atmosphere is thinner than Earth’s… so much higher wind speeds are required to pick up sand or dust on Mars.  Wind tunnel studies have shown that, like Earth, particles with diameter 80-100 μm (fine sand) are the easiest to move, having the lowest static threshold friction velocity, and that larger and smaller particles require stronger winds to entrain them into the flow.  However, much of Mars’ atmospheric dust load is very small, and the boundary layer wind speeds required to entrain such fine material are in excess of those measured at the surface (Magalhaes et al., 1999).⁴ Nevertheless, fine dust is somehow being injected into the atmosphere to support… haze and … local… and global… dust storms.”

The problem of dust particle size is more serious than indicated above.  Optimum particle size for direct lifting by the wind (with the lowest threshold velocity) is around 90 μm. This requires a wind at 5 meters altitude to be around 30-40 m/s. For smaller particles like the 1 μm size dust typically suspended in the air over Mars, the threshold velocity is extremely high, requiring enormous wind speeds (>500 m/s) at 5 m altitude which would never occur.  It is thus argued that saltation must be crucial to the lifting of very small particles into the air (Read and Lewis, 2004, 190).⁵

Saltation occurs when large particles are briefly lifted into air by surface winds, and then soon fall out by sedimentation.²¹ On impact with the surface, they may dislodge smaller particles and lift them into the air.  Read and Lewis indicate that the velocity that fine sand (~ 100 μm) would have on impact is only about 50 to 80 cm per second (1.8 to 2.88 kph).⁵

       Everywhere we look the weather plainly seen on Mars does not match what would be expected with an average pressure of 6.1 mbar/hPa at areoid (the Martian equivalent of sea level). No wonder Ames could not replicate dust devils if they used the correct particle size, expected pressure, and typical or even the most extreme winds seen on Mars.

       Dust particles are held together by static attractions. When the particles are as small as those on Mars, they may be hard to pull apart, especially if we accept the standard air pressure published by NASA (which we do not). There is no need to overcome this force to fly a small helicopter.

THE MARS HELICOPTER AND FLIGHT IN SUCH THIN AIR. When we first heard about this project we were tempted to dismiss it as likely impossible in the air density that NASA claims is true. We actually think that air density and pressure are about two orders of magnitude than what they tell us. It's not just because Ames couldn't replicate dust devils at 10 mbar, but because 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. There are dust devils on Arsia Mons to altitudes of 17 km above areoid, spiral storms with 10 km eye-walls above Arsia Mons and similar storms above Olympus Mons (over 21 km high). Other reasons include extreme dust storm opacity, snow at Phoenix and elsewhere that descends 1 to 2 km in only 5 or 10 minutes, excessive aero braking, liquid water running on the surface in numerous locations at Recurring Slope Lineae (RSL) and stratus clouds 13 km above areoid.  For these reasons we argue for an average pressure at areoid of ~511 mbar rather than the accepted 6.1 mbar.  But, for the moment, let's suppose that we're wrong. Returning to the Balaram article. They wrote:

The mass of this first prototype was approximately 0.75 kg allowing free-flight under Earth gravity conditions. For the Mars Technology demonstrator EDM at approximately 1.7 kg, free-flight is not possible without the lower gravity of Mars partially compensating for its thinner atmosphere by requiring less lift to fly a vehicle than would be required on Earth.

       What the above statement tells us is that the truth about the ability to fly in low pressures here is not a matter of intuition. It's a matter of math, but unless the Mars Helicopter fails to lift off due to pressure even lower than NASA advertises, it's irrelevant.  The helicopter can certainly fly at the pressures we envision.

       One matter that is disturbing centers around the three potential landing sites for the 2020 mission.  We have already been to Columbia Hills (Gusev Crater) which is home to the Spirit Rover. While the Mars Helicopter is not considered to be mission critical, we would rather see a landing spot in a much lower area, one associated with running water (at the recurring slope lineae - RSL) and one where there is clearly enough air density to allow for flight of the helicopter even if NASA is right about air pressure - someplace like the Hellas Crater or in the Valles Marinaris.

 

GAMES NASA PLAYS WITH PRESSURES RECORDED AND PRESSURE SENSOR RANGE. Here we will start by asserting would should be ludicrous, but what we can prove to be true. Not all Martian air pressures published by NASA come from Mars, or are the product of NASA efforts. Many of them come from Roffman webs sites. We do not hack into NASA, we just challenge what their REMS (Rover Environmental Monitoring Station) Team in Spain publishes about the weather. We put up a print screen of their claims, and then sit back to watch them react to it and alter it as we predicted they would. Then we publish the print screen (often with accompanying humor/sarcasm) showing what they did. We also track their changes and update our Report, Mars Correct: Critique of All NASA Mars Weather Data to continuously show all such pressure changes. Table 1 below has a record of all such pressure changes made by NASA after their paid us a visit. This Table does not imply that we agree with the final pressures they give. We think they are all pure nonsense. What the Table really documents is that the Roffman Team is able to predict political changes based not on science, but on the need to deceive the public in a consistent manner.

Table 1 shows some (not all) of how JPL/REMS altered off the curve data for August and September 2012 and August 2013 and on through at least May 31, 2018, after we either brought the deviations up to JPL Public Relations Director Guy Webster, or published them on our davidaroffman.com and marscorrect.com websites. Figure 4 below illustrates how the March 25, 2018 pressure shown on Table 1 was handled with print screens and humor on Roffman websites.

        How serious does NASA take Roffman efforts? NASA Ames visited our sites about 2,000 times in the last three years. I maintain records of almost all their visits, though I generally don't show the last two or three digits of the IP addresses they use only because I don't want to get the likely mid-level fans we have there get fired. It's rather like how I feel about the FBI. Most FBI agents are heroes, but as President Trump constantly reminds us, the people at the top of the FBI have, for several years now, been corrupt. Everything published by NASA about Martian pressure has long been corrupted.

       Evidently NASA knows something about the true history of Mars that they prefer to keep from the public.  They are trying to figure out how to handle the issue as is perhaps evident in Figure 5 recently published by JPL. It summarizes the upcoming NASA Mars Rover mission set to launch in 2020. Figure 5 advertises that the mission will look at wind speed and direction, temperature and humidity, and the amount and size of dust particles on Mars. Figure 5 makes no mention of pressure. Without pressure/air density, their wind speed and humidity data will likely be meaningless, again.

       The true air pressure on Mars, coupled with the motivation for hiding it, are likely among the greatest secrets held by our Government. However, I have evidence that there are other governments who know the true figure too. I believe there is an international Establishment with a vested interest in keeping the truth from the general public, but not necessarily from each other. For example, despite all the public posturing by the Democratic and Republican parties about who is tougher on Russia, the reality is that Americans, as of 2018, reach the International Space Station via Russian rockets launched from Kazakhstan. Further, American military satellites often launch from here in Cape Canaveral with the use of Russian RD-180 rocket engines.

         As written above, Figure 5 makes no mention of pressure. Without pressure/air density, their wind speed and humidity data will likely be meaningless, again.  It is possible that JPL will see this article and follow their Standard Operating Procedure - revise the wording or delete it. Although the first page of this link, as of May 31, 2018, showed nothing about pressure, the ability to measure pressure up to 1,150 Pa (11.5 mbar) is mentioned later in the article where it states:

Located inside the rover body and connected to the external atmosphere via a tube, a pressure sensor (PS) collects pressure measurements. The tube exits the rover body through a small opening with protection against dust deposition. Its measurement range goes from 1 to 1150 Pa with an end-of-life accuracy of 20 Pa (calibration tests give values around 3 Pa) and a resolution of 0.5 Pa. As this component is in contact with the atmosphere, a HEPA filter is placed on the tube inlet to avoid contaminating the Martian environment.

       This figure is exactly the same as the original figure given out by the REMS Team for MSL. As Table 1 shows above, the 1,150 Pa pressure was exceeded several times on REMS reports, but every single time they exceeded it, and we pointed it, they revised it down. NASA did more than revise the pressures down. It also revised the highest pressure that could be measured by the Vaisala pressure transducer. We document this fully (with print screens) in Section 14.6.3 (Mixed messages about the range and sensitivity of pressure sensors sent to Mars) of our Mars Correct report.

       Nathan Mariels first brought the following contradiction to our attention: First let's look at a statement that backs the 1150 Pa figure: In Section 11 of the REMS Calibration Plan (Document No, CAB-REMS-PLN-002, Issue 002, it states: 

REMS shall measure the Ambient Pressure in the range of 1 to 1150 Pa with a resolution of 0.5 Pa and accuracy of 10 Pa BOL and 20 Pa EOL. Requirement 012 (PLD-20), REMS shall measure the Ambient Pressure at a minimum sampling rate of 1 Hz for at least 5 minutes each hour continuously over the mission.

       But, in their Abstract to the American Geophysical Union for the Fall 2012 meeting the FMI states:

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.

       Note: 1025 hPa = 1,025 mbar. So, while it was supposedly optimized for 4 to 12 (not 11.5 mbar – meaning that the problem is not one of a sliding decimal place), it was still capable of measuring up to 1,025 mbar. Again, average pressure on Earth at sea level is 1,013.25 mbar. This is, to borrow a phrase from the Wizard of Oz, a horse of a different color.

       To handle pressures over 1,150 Pa, REMS also published a figure of 1,400 Pa. Specifically, in 2017 they wrote that:

"The pressure sensor measures atmospheric pressures in the range of 0 -1400 Pa with beginning of life accuracy circa 3 Pa. Its relative accuracy (repeatability in the time scale of hours) is less than 2 Pa and resolution max. 0.2 Pa."

       Mariels also pointed out a 2 order of magnitude pressure unit conversion error for Viking 1 and 2 pressures. The Global Electric Technology CEO wrote:

Pa is not equal to hPa. From Viking logs: "Pressure mb = millibars, 1 mb = 100 hPa, where hPa = hecta Pascals" This is incorrect.    1 mb = 1 hPa = 100 Pa. The above error was repeated on every data set for Viking 1 and 2.

SUMMARY

       My first hunch was to check the formula for helicopter lift. For the record it's Lift = C_L ½ρV²S where C_L is the lift coefficient which reaches its maximum value at the critical angle of attack (stall angle of attack), and the dynamic pressure is ½ρV². The collective angle can range from -4.5 deg to 17.5 deg and the cyclic angle has a range of ±10 deg. Within the ½ρV² term is ρ which is the air density. This particular figure is at the center of our 8+ year fight with NASA. The Balaram article offers an air density on Mars as 0.0175kg/m³, but does not include the exact landing altitude below aeroid for this figure, and there are as of June 1, 2018 still three possible landing sites.  Air density is required to calculate air pressure. V is the true air speed. In helicopter terms this is rotor rpm (2,800 revolutions per minute). Note that V is squared. S represents the surface area of the airfoil.

       I see that as I write this article on May 31, 2018 at 15:56 Pacific Time NASA Ames was reading the working draft. I would appreciate it if they would publish something with the exact, C_L and surface area of the air foils, however, again, NASA-given pressures (and related air density) cannot be taken seriously when some of them are mere responses to critiques coming from my home. By the way, the IP addresses used by Ames (they always use the collocated Google at Mountain View, CA when accessing our articles) on May 31, 2018 at 15:56 Pacific Time start with the most common 66. number, but finish with .122 and .124. While NASA Ames IPs often reverse into DoD, these numbers reversed into Panjin, China and Rizhao, China. Early on June 1 there was a similar visit with a number ending in .120 that backed into Qinhuangdao, China. Ames, please check to make sure that you are not being hacked into.

       When it comes to Martian air pressure NASA errors are not the exception. They are the rule. As the European Space Agency had learned, if they follow NASA on this issue (as they did with the ExoMars 2016 Schiaparelli lander), it costs them a billion dollar lander. If they follow what we write, as they did when they raised the orbit of the ExoMars 2016 orbiter (citing "excessive Mars' atmospheric density"): they can save a mission. One final warning - the problematic Vaisala pressure sensor used on Mars Phoenix and MSL is apparently in line for further use on ESA's ExoMars 2020 and the NASA 2020 mission to Mars. This, we believe, will likely be a fatal mistake. We have reason to believe that the problems associated with the sensor may extend to some of the personnel associated with them. I have seen the U.S. House of Representatives (IP 137.18.102.5) visit our articles within the last week (5/30/2018). I strongly recommend that they thoroughly investigate all the data we have backing corrupted Mars weather data. The efforts made to keep the truth about Mars from being known is not, I believe, merely a Curiosity. Rather, the motivation behind these efforts is likely to expose everything that's wrong with the Deep State. As our President insists, it's time to drain the swamp.

REFERENCES

¹Dunbar, Brian. "NASA Simulates Small Martian 'Dust Devils' and Wind in Vacuum Tower." NASA. NASA, 03 Mar. 2005. Web. 10 Feb. 2015. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/exploringtheuniverse/vaccumchamber.html

²Ellehoj, M.D., Gunnlaugsson H.P., Taylor  P.A.,Gheynani, B.T ., Whiteway, J., Lemmon , M.T., Bean,  K.M., Tamppari, L.K., Drube1, L., Von Holstein-Rathlou, C., Madsen, M.B., Fisher ,D, & Smith, P. (2009). Dust Devils and Vortices at the Phoenix landing site on Mars.  40^th Planetary and Lunar Conference. Retrieved from http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/1558.pdf

³ Balme, M., Greeley R. (2006), Dust devils on Earth and Mars, Review Geophysics., 44, RG3003,doi:10.1029/2005RG000188. 

⁴ Magalhaes, J.A., Schofield, J.T., & Seiff, A. (1999). 

         Results of the Mars Pathfinder atmospheric structure investigation, J. Physics. Res., 104, 8943-8955

http://gaspra.la.asu.edu/dustdevil/proceed/Balme_and_Greeley_DD_ms.pdf

⁵ Read, P. L., & Lewis, S. R. (2004). The Martian Climate Revisited, Atmosphere and Environment of a Desert Planet, Chichester, UK: Praxis.

⁶ Bagnold, R. A. (1954). The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes. London, Methuen.