Proof that 2 and only 2 methods for landing on Mars and astro bodies

Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars
probe lander could have occurred by only 2 methods of landing and no
other new engineering method can ever land humans or human equipment
on astro bodies.

Method 1 is the retrorocket and this makes sense in that rockets get
the spacecraft there and to fire them backwards slows down the craft
to make a safe landing

Method 2 is the parachute or the airbag, whichever way one considers
it because the parachute is an airbag or vice versa the airbag is a
modified parachute.

Proof: in the proof we seek the lightest weight material to slowdown a
spacecraft and a parachute made of fabric is the lightest possible
considering the area covered to gain air resistance to slowdown. In
the proof, I would show that all other engineered devises are merely a
modified parachute or modified airbag. And so my consideration of a
helicopter devise is turned into the idea that a helicopter for
landing purposes is a "generalized parachute" only multi-times
heavier.

Often in proving things so formally, whether in mathematics or physics
or engineering, that the proof really gives no big outside
ramifications or implications. The proof seems to satisfy the initial
concern as to whether some 3rd method existed. But seeing that all
other methods are just "generalized or modified parachutes" it seems
as though the proof stops and ends. But not so. Because if this formal
proof can be fully proved seems to me that it gives off vastly
important implications and ramifications. To mention one is that
liquid fuel of oxygen and hydrogen and jet fuel are maximum fuels in
spacecraft travel because fissile fuel of uranium cannot be configured
to power a spacecraft for launch or retrorockets to slow down. Another
implication is that some astro bodies do not have air for parachutes
to work and for them it appears as though retrorockets are the only
solution for landing.

I am too tired tonight to write out more on a proof.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
om...
Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars
probe lander could have occurred by only 2 methods of landing and no
other new engineering method can ever land humans or human equipment
on astro bodies.

Method 1 is the retrorocket and this makes sense in that rockets get
the spacecraft there and to fire them backwards slows down the craft
to make a safe landing

Method 2 is the parachute or the airbag, whichever way one considers
it because the parachute is an airbag or vice versa the airbag is a
modified parachute.

Proof: in the proof we seek the lightest weight material to slowdown a
spacecraft and a parachute made of fabric is the lightest possible
considering the area covered to gain air resistance to slowdown. In
the proof, I would show that all other engineered devises are merely a
modified parachute or modified airbag. And so my consideration of a
helicopter devise is turned into the idea that a helicopter for
landing purposes is a "generalized parachute" only multi-times
heavier.

Often in proving things so formally, whether in mathematics or physics
or engineering, that the proof really gives no big outside
ramifications or implications. The proof seems to satisfy the initial
concern as to whether some 3rd method existed. But seeing that all
other methods are just "generalized or modified parachutes" it seems
as though the proof stops and ends. But not so. Because if this formal
proof can be fully proved seems to me that it gives off vastly
important implications and ramifications. To mention one is that
liquid fuel of oxygen and hydrogen and jet fuel are maximum fuels in
spacecraft travel because fissile fuel of uranium cannot be configured
to power a spacecraft for launch or retrorockets to slow down. Another
implication is that some astro bodies do not have air for parachutes
to work and for them it appears as though retrorockets are the only
solution for landing.

Theres several ways to do it but all has looked at
, and I bet theres concepts been considered
by Nasa that you and I both haven't thought of
but all have been placed on the back burner and
the method used was considered the best options
given limitation imposted..

I suggested using a 1950's vintage Good Year
Inflate - A - Plane concept modified with a
longer wing span and electric drive, Solar array
for the wings tops..... This Plane can be packed in
a smaller area than the Sprit payload package so
the launch, in flight, entry capsule/w heat shield
could be the same hardware that off the shelf in
that several sets of systems were made for the
rover launches ...

Build an autonomous Rover type system and have that
same system do flight control and communications...

The idea is you enter as we do now deploy droog shutes
and main shutes drop heat shield and drop the Plane
on a teather as we do with the Bag system....

Inflate the plane and release at altitude.... Run a patterned
flight taking photos... That allows time for ground to
receive the data and send a tight landing target. Land
and detach the rover from the craft and do a land examination.











I am too tired tonight to write out more on a proof.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On 6 Jan 2004 01:33:25 -0800, (Archimedes
Plutonium) wrote:

Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars


I have proof that have won several kook awards, Ludwig.
http://www.lart.com/auk/whiners.html









--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Shake it like a polaroid picture."
- Andre 3000 of Outkast

"Paul R. Mays" wrote in message ...
(snip)

Theres several ways to do it but all has looked at
, and I bet theres concepts been considered
by Nasa that you and I both haven't thought of
but all have been placed on the back burner and
the method used was considered the best options
given limitation imposted..

I suggested using a 1950's vintage Good Year
Inflate - A - Plane concept modified with a
longer wing span and electric drive, Solar array
for the wings tops..... This Plane can be packed in
a smaller area than the Sprit payload package so
the launch, in flight, entry capsule/w heat shield
could be the same hardware that off the shelf in
that several sets of systems were made for the
rover launches ...

Build an autonomous Rover type system and have that
same system do flight control and communications...

The idea is you enter as we do now deploy droog shutes
and main shutes drop heat shield and drop the Plane
on a teather as we do with the Bag system....

Inflate the plane and release at altitude.... Run a patterned
flight taking photos... That allows time for ground to
receive the data and send a tight landing target. Land
and detach the rover from the craft and do a land examination.

But that is exactly what the proof is warning us in that any other
scheme to land a probe on Mars is no good. That the best scheme is (1)
retrorockets (2)parachute & airbag or combinations of 1 and 2. There
are no other engineering schemes that can outbest 1 and 2 because they
are the lightest weight for getting the job done. Your inflate-a-plane
is a generalization of the parachute only yours weighs way too much.

You see, the beauty of the proof is that it causes people who are
prone to wasting time in thinking that there is some other scheme of
engineering that is better than the retrorocket+parachute. Those are
the best two methods and any divergence is a waste of time, money,
energy

The proof also implies that uranium or fissile fuels will never be an
engineering accomplishment to land humans or equipement onto astro
bodies-- liquid fuels seem to be the maximal optimum in correspondence
with retrorockets.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Archimedes Plutonium" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
om...
"Paul R. Mays" wrote in message
...
(snip)

... undo snip:

Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars
probe lander could have occurred by only 2 methods of landing and no
other new engineering method can ever land humans or human equipment
on astro bodies

You see, the beauty of the proof is that it causes people who are
prone to wasting time in thinking that there is some other scheme of
engineering that is better than the retrorocket+parachute. Those are
the best two methods and any divergence is a waste of time, money,
energy

Proof: in the proof we seek the lightest weight material to slowdown a
spacecraft and a parachute made of fabric is the lightest possible
considering the area covered to gain air resistance to slowdown. In
the proof, I would show that all other engineered devises are merely a
modified parachute or modified airbag. And so my consideration of a

Be carefully with such statements. What you do is saying there is no device
TODAY that does not fit into the category parachute or modified airbag
therefore there will be never one. This is a wrong conclusion.
It's like saying We dont know of anything better therefore there will be
never something better.
You would have to proof first that this two methodes are in fact the only
one existing and working, but this is not possible because you conlude form
todays knowlede and foget that we dont know everything.
The "never" conclusion is a very dangers thing. Midn teh past: Famous
sientists where wrong with there "never" conclusion and I assure you that
some will follow.
Doing such statements kills inventions. I agree with you that for today your
statement fits because everything else doesnt make much sense, but that
doesnt mean there are no other ways.


What is the lightest material to slow down a spacecraft? The use of no
material! At least not on the Spacecraft.

I could imagine that you send one spacecraft conventional with parachute or
whatever.
This Spacecraft carries solarpannels for collecting sun-energie on mars say
over a timeperiode of a year or more. Now you can send another spacecraft
with no material and you can slow it down with the energie you collected on
mars. How this couls look like I let it open to think for you. It is not
impossible, but very difficult for todays possibility. Nevertheless its a
possibility that disarms your proof.

Another methode I could think off is to pack antimaterie on the spacecraft
that much that it equals out the matter and it stays neutral to the mars or
wherever you like to go to. Not a good solution for today and maybe it will
never be. But it's another solution and disarms your "proof".

We could also use another force to compensate the gravity. A Magnet or
charge would do the job . You would have to deposit this on the planet and
on the spacecraft. Again this will not work for the first spacecraft.

And if we step a little into since fiction we could shild the gravity field
once we understand the nature of gravity. (This implies that Einstein is
wrong in seeing Gravity as space deformation only. He also made such a
danger "never" statement that I would put into question. But he's work is
genius nevertheless)

Anyway all I want to say is:
Be carefully with such statements. What you do is killing breakthrough
invention by telling somethign else will "never" work.
When you stop thinking about something you gave up the real chance.

Lombo 243

On 6 Jan 2004 01:33:25 -0800, (Archimedes
Plutonium) wrote:

Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars
probe lander could have occurred by only 2 methods of landing and no
other new engineering method can ever land humans or human equipment
on astro bodies.

Method 1 is the retrorocket and this makes sense in that rockets get
the spacecraft there and to fire them backwards slows down the craft
to make a safe landing

Method 2 is the parachute or the airbag, whichever way one considers
it because the parachute is an airbag or vice versa the airbag is a
modified parachute.


Does an ablative heat shield come under your umbrella [1] definition
of "parachute'?

How can you consider an air bag to be a parachute? Air bags are impact
absorbers, and parachutes are atmospheric drag devices. Just try
jumping out of an airplane with an airbag, or crashing a car with a
parachute popping out of the dash to protect you.


John

[1] pun!

John Larkin wrote:


Does an ablative heat shield come under your umbrella [1] definition
of "parachute'?

No. But a heat shield is not sufficient to produce a soft landing. A
parachute is necessary.

In the 1975 Viking Mission, Viking had retrorockets so it made a soft
landing that way. Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently powerful
rockets to launch a really large and capabable probe with retrofire
capability, which is why NASA is dicking around with heat shields and
parachutes.

If NASA had a decent rocket, we would not have this problem. Right now
the only capable launcher for interplanetary mission we have is the
delta rocket.

How can you consider an air bag to be a parachute? Air bags are impact
absorbers, and parachutes are atmospheric drag devices. Just try
jumping out of an airplane with an airbag, or crashing a car with a
parachute popping out of the dash to protect you.

Airbags by themselves are no good. Without heatshields and parachutes
the airbags would burst on impact and the package would be destroyed.
Until we get some decent propulsion our missions will be lightweight.

Bob Kolker

John Larkin wrote in message . ..
On 6 Jan 2004 01:33:25 -0800, (Archimedes
Plutonium) wrote:

Tonight I believe I have the outline of a proof that the recent Mars
probe lander could have occurred by only 2 methods of landing and no
other new engineering method can ever land humans or human equipment
on astro bodies.

Method 1 is the retrorocket and this makes sense in that rockets get
the spacecraft there and to fire them backwards slows down the craft
to make a safe landing

Method 2 is the parachute or the airbag, whichever way one considers
it because the parachute is an airbag or vice versa the airbag is a
modified parachute.


Does an ablative heat shield come under your umbrella [1] definition
of "parachute'?

Well, a retrorocket is really an ablative heat shield, so why bother
with heat shields when retrorockets do the same thing-- slow the
vehicle down.


How can you consider an air bag to be a parachute? Air bags are impact

Well an airbag is really a "enclosed parachute".

The other way around, a parachute is an opened airbag. Even though one
is involved with air resistance and air drag and the other is involved
with EM forces of contact with surfaces.

absorbers, and parachutes are atmospheric drag devices. Just try
jumping out of an airplane with an airbag, or crashing a car with a
parachute popping out of the dash to protect you.


John

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

In the 1975 Viking Mission, Viking had retrorockets so it made a soft landing that way.

Actually, the Viking landers used parachutes until not far above the surface
(1.5 kilometer altitude), where their aeroshell opened and released the
landers to descend the last bit of altitude under their small descent engines.
This was also the method used for landing by the ill-fated Mars Polar Lander.

Unfortunately we do not have sufficiently powerful rockets to launch a really large and capabable probe with retrofire capability, which is why NASA is dicking around with heat shields and parachutes.
If NASA had a decent rocket, we would not have this problem. Right now the only capable launcher for interplanetary mission we have is the delta rocket.

Well, actually, we *do* have such powerful rockets available (Titan IV, Atlas
5, ect.), but they are expensive, which drives the cost up for such a mission.
The Delta is somewhat less expensive but still allows a considerable payload
to achieve escape velocity. In fact, the newer versions of the Delta now
undergoing testing will allow even heavier payloads to be sent to Mars. Clear
skies to you.

--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

On 7 Jan 2004 13:18:01 -0800, (Archimedes
Plutonium) wrote:


Does an ablative heat shield come under your umbrella [1] definition
of "parachute'?

Well, a retrorocket is really an ablative heat shield,

Why am I getting the feeling that this conversation makes no sense at
all?

John