Comprehensive coverage

NASA unveiled a spacecraft that will search for life on Mars

The space vehicle, which does not yet have a name, will be launched to Mars in about four years and is expected to reach the Red Planet in February 2021. It will be sent to areas where there was once water and will be equipped for the first time with microphones - so that we can hear voices from the neighboring planet

The Mars rover to be launched in 2020. Image: NASA
The Mars rover to be launched in 2020. Image: NASA

The American space agency (NASA) last weekend provided a glimpse into the plans surrounding its next Mars rover. The rover is expected to focus mainly on searching for evidence of signs of life on the Red Planet and preparing samples that can be sent to Earth in the future, when a planned mission arrives.

The launch of this vehicle, which still does not have an official name, is expected to be in the summer of 2020, so at this stage the agency is calling the vehicle "Mars Project 2020". The vehicle is expected to reach its destination in February 2021.


The vehicle's main task will be to "look for signs of life" and try to answer the question of whether we are alone or not, said one of the project's scientists, Kenneth Farley. Mars today is a very different planet than it was 3.5 billion years ago, when it was warmer and wetter and therefore more prone to sustaining life, so the new project will be based on the study of that period.

The vehicle will know on its own exactly when to pull out the parachute in which to land as accurately as possible on Mars. Also, the vehicle will know how to take pictures while landing on the surface, and compare the pictures with the map that will be inside it.

Farley added that the researchers narrowed down the landing areas to eight different options, with half of the places being areas where water once flowed, and "there is evidence of this in the rocks." Along with a very large amount of devices on the vehicle itself, including a laser, it will also have microphones, so that in the future it will be possible to hear what is heard on Mars.

"This will be a great opportunity for the public to hear the sounds of Mars for the first time, and it could also provide a lot of useful engineering information," said Mike Wallace, deputy head of the Mars 2020 project, in an official announcement.

169 תגובות

  1. There is no friction.

    Shells 1-11 will enter into a simple harmonic motion with the earth. What choice do they have? They will be yo-yos.

    Still, they will transfer momentum to the country and it will change its speed because of them.

    12-20 will advance it a little in the direction of their movement but will leave it back into space at the same speed at which they met it. If after that they meet with a compatible country, they will repeat the exercise. Even with 10 or a million matches.

    A neutrino can also penetrate a million suns without affecting them or being affected by them.

    If there is time and demand once, I can try to show why in my opinion this ghostly motion can explain many puzzling phenomena including postulate 2 in relations and non-locality in quantum entanglement. But this is alternative physics.

    Ruth straight?

  2. Israel
    Do you suppose there is friction? Otherwise, the shells will be in constant motion. And also a shell with zero initial velocity will go into constant motion.
    And if there is friction then even a shell at a speed higher than the escape velocity will transfer momentum.
    Awaiting your decision, Honorable Judge.

  3. Neither the age nor the exercise.

    Shells 1-11 will transfer upward momentum in direct proportion to their number.

    12-20 will not transfer any momentum because their speed is higher than the escape speed. They pass through the country like your ghosts and from a vector point of view they have not affected it (Chapter 1 in Sears - Zymanski: Vectors).

    Even slow or too fast neutrons do not affect the uranium 235 isotope. Only neutrons with the appropriate speed explode it, everything else is "transparent" as far as it is concerned.

  4. Israel
    I understand what you mean. I don't know where the shells come from. There is a mutual influence at any given time - even at a great distance. Where does the exercise start?

  5. Israel
    I don't think it has anything to do with what I said. On the face of it - I guess the slower shell will transfer more momentum.

  6. Miracles

    As strange as it sounds, it occurs in a similar way in nature.

    The following riddle can illustrate my point:

    You are drilling a tunnel between the poles in the Earth.

    20 shells arrive at the tunnel at one hour intervals. The mass of each shell is 100 kg.

    The speed of the first relative to Israel: 1 km/s.

    of the second: 2 km/s.

    of the third: 3
    Like this until the 20th shell whose speed is 20 km/h.


    Which of the shells will transfer the least momentum to Israel? Who is the most? Why?

  7. We, questions like the role of the boss in the cosmic system are a bit big for Israel.

  8. Israel
    Beautiful. And if we look at it this way, then we can see that Higgs bosons somehow affect space-time.
    The Higgs factor affects space-time by creating a change in its nature. From a flat and infinite space of time it becomes a curved and finite space.
    The Higgs field creates mass in space-time. Hence the Higgs field distorts space and creates time in it. Where does the Higgs field come from?
    Where does the energy or mass or matter for the Higgs field come from if law C is preserved in our universe?

  9. Israel
    It is more correct to say: there is no theoretical possibility that Newton's third law is not preserved in our universe. 🙂

  10. I think we've exhausted the topic, but just a last philosophical reflection before closing the matter.

    In my opinion, there is no theoretical possibility for the existence of a universe without the law of conservation of momentum.

    It sounds strange. The Standard Model predicted the existence of the Higgs boson and its properties before it was discovered at the Zern accelerator. Something opposes us when we try to tilt the rotating saw or push the car. So how can it be that there is no mechanism that causes inertia?

    Let's compare it to gravity. It is said that there was no gravitational mechanism - gravitons, warping of space, Lasage particles, zebras - then the Earth could be a meter away from Mars without any attraction between them.

    Strange, but definitely possible.

    But how could a universe exist without inertia? What will happen in an elastic collision between a rubber ball and the earth? By what ratio would the colliding masses recoil without the law of conservation of momentum?

    This means: the law of conservation of momentum is logically binding regardless of the mechanism.

    Ruth end?

  11. Miracles

    Can you describe a situation where you turn the saw and it does not oppose you? that you push mass and she doesn't oppose you? I have no problem describing it.

    The answer is of course the Higgs bosons that oppose you, but how they are synchronized with the stars, only history can explain.

  12. Israel
    You apply the power to the saw. The saw has a very high momentum... look at the saw from before, and think every point on the right side. Before the force is applied, the point moves forward. Roll to the right and add vertical speed. Now a point moves slightly upwards. On the left side, the corresponding point moves down. Both movements cause the front point to be coarsened, and the back point to be lowered. That is, the saw will rotate around the right-left axis.

    If there are two discs spinning in reverse, it all adds up to zero.

  13. Miracles

    OK, but what powers the saw? I can easily describe a case where I tilt the saw and no force will be applied to it.

    In fact, there is no problem canceling the force by applying a counter force. For example, two saws have a common axis that each rotates in opposite directions.

  14. Israel
    Let's assume the saw is horizontal and the axis of rotation is up. To simplify, let's assume the saw is a thin ring so that all the mass is the same radius. Divide the rings into small pieces of length dl. If you push the saw horizontally then you will see that the velocity vector of each part remains in the same plane.
    If you rotate the disc, let's say to the left (like turning an airplane to the left) you will see that a vertical component is created for each particle, part of the ring upwards and part downwards.

    I once had to do these calculations in the simulation of helicopter blades, using a method called blade elements. Consider that in certain helicopters (Yasor for example) each blade has the freedom to move up and down, forward and backward, rotate around the longitudinal axis, twist and curve.

  15. Please explain:

    I'm holding a fast spinning chainsaw in my hand.

    If I move forward, backward, up, down - no problem.

    I try to move the saw a little to the side of its axis of rotation - the saw turns me.


  16. indeed.

    And I don't understand where this enormous power of vacuum comes from - have you ever tried to move a rotating saw from its rotation line?

    What is there that is so opposed to changing the direction of traffic? Lasage particles?

  17. We are miracles

    There is no doubt that this does happen - that out of 10 discs rotating on the same axis at different speeds, only one of them is truly stationary and all the rest are truly rotating.

    This is still very strange in a universe that is supposedly homogeneous and isotropic. Why this one and not another?

    The only reason I can think of is the history since the bang.

  18. We are miracles

    There is no doubt that this does happen - that out of 10 discs rotating on the same axis at different speeds, only one of them is truly stationary and all the rest are truly rotating.

    This is still very strange in a universe that is supposedly homogeneous and isotropic. Why this one and not another?

    The only reason I can think of is the history since the bang.

  19. Israel
    Ok, but this is still meaningless - because there is no such universe, and it is also likely that such a universe is not possible.

  20. After all, space-time is not mass/energy. It is a virtual thing on which the other powers are measured. mass and energy. Without mass and energy, space-time cannot be described. Because nothing can be attributed to the field or the area.
    Space-time cannot warp by itself. There must be another factor moving from point A to point B in space in x time to affect space-time. At least that's my opinion and what logic tells me.
    In my opinion, the singular point did not expand by itself until the big bang. Rather, a kind of fertilization took place. "Fertilization" in the hands of another force.
    There can't be another factor in the universe where only two can tango.

  21. Miracles

    Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Universe, pages 72-71:

    At the beginning of the journey, Einstein thought that the theory of relativity fully embodies Mach's view... He became increasingly disillusioned with Mach's ideas and in the last years of his life he denied them.

    Contrary to what Mach predicted... General Relativity... states that even in a universe empty of anything else... there will be a centrifugal force.

  22. Miracles

    This is the only logical explanation I can think of, but it is not Einstein's explanation. According to him, even in a universe empty of matter, there will be a centrifugal force. Any rotation or acceleration is relative to space time.

    Why a homogeneous and isotropic time space has a preference for rotating systems is not clear to me, except for the explanation you gave: history.

    Newton, by the way, claimed that the rotation is relative to the boss..

  23. Israel
    Many years ago I had the chance to meet Edward Teller, and I asked him "Suppose I take two gyroscopes in distant spaceships and look at the angle between them, so will this angle remain constant?"
    His explanation, from what I remember, is that the star system provides a fixed frame of reference - because all matter is created from these stars. It is not that a planet suddenly appears in space without any physical connection to the other stars.
    Makes sense, does not it?

  24. Miracles, we

    How can it be arranged that the head rotates only when the stars also rotate if there is no connection between centrifugal force and the stars?

  25. Israel
    In any case, the question is only hypothetical. There is no way to disprove any idea on the subject. Choose the solution that seems right to you, and as long as you haven't come to a contradiction - live with it.

  26. Miracles

    Einstein enthusiastically adopted Mach's principle and built general relativity around it, but later retracted and claimed that rotation is not relative to masses in the universe but to space-time, and centrifugal force would be created even without masses in the universe.

  27. Direction means clockwise or counterclockwise. You will read this in the stars.

    And I say, although philosophically or logically it may not be proven - then there is probably some connection between the stars and centrifugal force.

    What I don't understand is why Einstein says no.

  28. Israel
    How will you know which way?
    If there is no device, you will still feel centrifugal force.
    Either way you'll see the stars spinning.

  29. We probably went to Brazil, for the Olympics.

    So yes, you can tell if you are really spinning or not, at what speed and in which direction by measuring the centrifugal force on the disc.

    But what if the device broke down? How can you know the above without any device?

  30. Israel
    This sentence is not strange... it is wrong. "Star Wars" confused me 🙂
    In the case of spaceships, everything happens in a straight line. You don't even need to contact to return to the meeting.

  31. True, but that's because of the speed of the plane relative to the air..

    What I don't understand is the sentence:

    "In space, everyone sees themselves standing, and it appears on their face that there is no G here - they just walk around the place. This can be done very quickly. The other one can't turn quickly because of its speed.
    Weird, isn't it?'

  32. Israel
    The lift to the plane is obtained from the air flow on the wings. If the pilot does not maintain a reasonable angle between the wings and the direction of flight, and a good speed, he will have to check the overlap of triangles.
    Airplanes with vector propulsion can reach high angles of attack for a short time - a Russian pilot named Pugshev invented a maneuver based on this idea.

  33. we

    Let's refine the question:

    You have an axis in space whose direction is parallel to the north-south axis of the earth.

    On the axis there are 10 transparent disks with stripes, each of which has a different rotation speed relative to the axis. On each disc there is a video camera that can film the other 9 and see the stripes on them.

    Of course, when we look at the video from each disc we will only see the others rotating in different directions and speeds.

    1. Is there a way to know just from the videos who is really turning, at what speed and in what direction?

    2. Is there another way to know this?

    Note that the same question also applies in any other axis direction.

    Also note that if the question is about linearly moving spaceships, the answer is always negative (except when compared to the background radiation).


    So what's the problem with air combat? Why can the spaceship turn in place and the plane can't?

  34. On the other hand, you can always connect cameras to them and see what came out.... 🙂 In your case, Israel is not only cameras, it is also lasers and oscilloscopes, whatever it is 🙂

  35. Israel
    I guess they are both right. If they measure the only force given in this case and that is the centripetal force, don't they? Or did I fly too far with the spaceship?

  36. You have two spaceships in relatively linear motion.

    Each of them claims: I rest and the other moves.

    Are they both right? Positive.

    You have two flying saucers, each seeing itself resting and the other spinning, and this is also what they claim: I am resting, you are spinning.

    Are they both right? we?

  37. Moral: Ptolemy was wrong. The earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. There is no principle of relativity here, it is possible to measure centrifugal force.

    And as a result: the spaceship circles the center of the circle, not the other way around.

  38. What would prevent a plane with a propulsion system like a spaceship from making a turn that is in place? After all, if the plane is not accelerating, then for him it is at rest like the spaceship, isn't it? Is it his fault that the air is moving?

  39. Israel
    The difference is not the air, but the steering method. An airplane must turn in a circle, and flight performance depends on the weighted airspeed. Regarding a spaceship - speed has no meaning in the context of changing the direction of the nose.

    Think about a flying saucer that flies towards a certain planet and the flight decides to change direction and fly to another planet. He will run an engine until he sees that he is flying in the direction of the desired star. Let's say he needs to turn 45 degrees. The G he will feel will be permanent, but for how long? It turns out that the engine start-up time now depends on its speed relative to the star system.

  40. But the plane moves relative to the air and the spaceship doesn't, that's the only difference, isn't it?

  41. Israel
    The difference is that a spacecraft does not need to turn to turn (I will explain…..). A classic airplane turns by applying a force perpendicular to the wings. The result is that the plane performs a circular route. The reason is that an airplane basically flies in the direction the nose is pointing.

    A spaceship can turn on the spot and its linear "velocity" has no meaning. In the case I described - the spacecraft will turn without changing the flight line. If the pilot starts chasing the second spacecraft then the acceleration will be longitudinal, after he has completed the turn. It's quite similar to the maneuver the space shuttles did to return to land.

    That is, the battle will be one-dimensional, as opposed to a plane battle which is two- or three-dimensional.

  42. In basketball with Yaldod, but I'm not sure I understood the question.

    There is no g in space? Do you mean gravity or the unit of acceleration? In my understanding, not only is there g, i.e. a multiple of the earth's pull in space, but also at any given moment you can measure how much g you are and in which direction, if you are turning and in which direction, and if you are accelerating and in which direction.

    The question as always is what accelerates and rotates relative to what and we are right when he mentions Newton's bucket in context.

  43. Israel
    I meant Galileo.
    Think about two airplanes doing a dogfight between them - according to the following rules:
    They fly in front of each other, each at the speed they choose
    The battle is horizontal
    The battle starts at the moment of the suit
    Victory - the one who puts a nose on the opponent first (think of a laser weapon that points along the nose).
    If you want to mix Mach - then supersonic speed is also allowed 🙂

    Regarding airplanes, it is clear that those who fly faster will feel more G.

    In space, everyone sees themselves standing, and it appears on their face that there is no G here - they just walk around the place. This can be done very quickly. The other one can't turn quickly because of its speed.
    Strange, is not it?

    I think I know how to explain what's going on. what are you saying?

  44. Galileo? Did you mean Mach?

    Circular motion is not relative, it is absolute.

    The only way an aircraft can move in a circle like you described is through centrifugal force. Gravity, wire, self-propelled. I assumed you meant self drive.

    But this is indeed a fundamental question that, as far as I know, still does not have an agreed answer: relative to what is the circular motion? Why does centrifugal force act on a certain rotating disc and not on another? Who here decides who moves around and who is at rest?

    Relative to the stars? So why did Einstein say no?

  45. On the go, iPhone.

    The spacecraft makes one revolution in 4 seconds.

    Its speed v.

    My sweetener yields: r equals 2v divided by pi.

    The radial acceleration is equal to v squared divided by r.

    You get: a is equal to pi times v divided by 2.

    Divide by 9.8, you will get g.

    It is possible to describe an uplift as a result of circulation (as you wrote), so by and large it is true.


  46. Israel
    Also the kinetic energy of the aircraft relative to the pilot is zero...
    But this raises a question: take a spaceship that is not accelerating. The pilot decides to pull the stick, creating a 90-degree yaw in a second. The spacecraft is now flying in a circle - the question is what is the radius of the circle? And to make it difficult - how much G will the pilot feel?

    In a pilot's course you learn that the lift on a wing can be understood as a combination of a rotating cylinder plus relative wind - what you describe is the same principle, right?

  47. The power increases only from the point of view of an observer on the ground (subjective reference point) who only looks at the plane (subjective system) and not at the exhaust gases.

    From the point of view of an observer who is on the plane itself and looks only at the plane, the plane is always harnessed and the power is always equal to 0.

    If the observer is heavy enough then the observer is simply the earth that harnesses the plane.

    In terms of pure physics, the power is always constant. The engine turns the potential energy in the fuel into the kinetic energy of an airplane and gases at a constant rate.

    But in terms of the engineering of the situations, for all practical needs the power increases as a function of the speed.

    What is interesting about fan wing for me is mainly that I already thought of the idea almost 40 years ago. We were on a deployment in Bir Lefhan and there was such a strong wind that we had to chain the Hercules to the tools so they wouldn't take off on their own.

    After some digging through the books, I came to the conclusion that a rotating cylinder with the lower half covered might provide lift in a simple way.

    A professor at the Hebrew University referred me to the aerodynamics department at the Technion, but they said it wouldn't work.

    I built several models, but they were not strong enough and fell apart. Two years ago I decided to build a stable model, but Gigol revealed that in the meantime we had already built something similar. This is the fan wing.

  48. Israel
    Surely there is a limit to power! Newton's laws still apply. At the beginning there is 0 momentum, so at the end the momentum will also be 0. At the beginning all the energy is in the fuel, and at the end all the energy will turn into kinetic energy and heat, which add up to the chemical energy in the fuel (approximately).
    Still - as long as fuel is burned at a uniform rate, the thrust is constant, therefore the power of the rocket engine increases with the speed. Don't forget two things: 1) the kinetic energy of the exhaust gases cannot be ignored (note that the velocity of the exhaust gases decreases at a certain point) and 2) at the end there is a limited mass of fuel in the rocket.

    This plane is interesting! Do you know the efficiency compared to existing drones? And what is the stability?

  49. The 707 also has some 13,000 hp.

    Why do you think there is no limit to the power of a rocket engine, that as we drive it its power will continue to increase without limit while the fuel consumption per unit of time remains constant?

    Elk fan..

    We will close the matter. Why aren't you enthusiastic about the plane I linked you with a rotating cylinder instead of a wing for lift using the Magnus effect?

  50. Israel
    The 747 has a propeller engine, and the power is what is supplied to the propeller.
    There are all kinds of journalists who calculate the power as thrust times the speed of the exhaust gases when the engine is harnessed. This is not a serious figure.

  51. For you, Mabinovsky:

    How much horsepower does a Boeing 747 have?
    The 747-200 has engines rated at 55,145 pounds of thrust. This equates to 87,325 hp.

  52. Israel
    The energy on earth. And what I said is, she doesn't understand what the doubt means in the context of drive

  53. Miracles, you son of Tamsah, you are the one talking about Sears-Zymansky, so what does heat or friction have to do with it?

    We are talking about pure physics. Otherwise you can also say that without friction the tires will spin on freelof, right?

    The whole idea is that in normal cars P=FdotV holds and in rocket propulsion it does not. Everything else is Kalam Padi.

    Here is a puzzle to clarify the principle:

    Where did the energy go?

    Little Tanai received a toy car from his father for his second birthday.

    The car has a spring, and when it is stretched and released, the car jumps on its way.

    Tanei and his father flew above the toy in the family spaceship, while the zatot fills the space with squeals of joy and happiness.
    Suddenly the serious man started and asked his father: See father, the mass of the car is 1 kg. Its maximum speed is 10 m/s. Therefore its kinetic energy is 50 joules. She got the kinetic energy from the potential energy in the stretched spring, so the potential energy in the spring is also 50 joules. Now, when the car is at rest, the spring is stretched, and the spaceship is moving away from the car at a speed of 10 m/s, the kinetic energy of the car relative to the ship is 50 joules and the potential energy of the spring is also 50 joules, for a total of 100 joules. However, after the spring is released and the car travels towards the ship, its velocity is now 0 relative to the ship and therefore its kinetic energy is also 0, and there is no more potential energy in the spring. Thus a precious 100 joules were lost (the potential energy of the spring + the kinetic energy of the car).

    Father, shout, move, where is my energy? I want my energy back!

    Could you, kind commenters, help Tanai find the missing energy?

  54. Israel
    Regarding your puzzle - if we take two cars with the same weight and the same fuel consumption per unit of time (power, in your language), without friction, but different engines - in principle the cars will not accelerate equally.

    In particular... the performance of the electric motor will only hurt the bevel gear.
    And what about heat?

  55. Miracles

    The "energy consumption rate" of a rocket engine is constant, I assume, if the combustion rate of the engine is constant. Who cares? What exactly can be done with this figure?

    A lot, for example solving the Shatanz car puzzle and any other physical problem.

    But I accept that thrust times velocity is a good definition of rocket engine power for practical engineering use.

  56. Israel
    The subject of the discussion is engineering, not physics.
    In engineering - the power of an engine is the product of the impulse times the speed, provided that the impulse has meaning. For example - in helicopter engines we talk about SHP, and in car engines we talk about BHP.

    The "energy consumption rate" of a rocket engine is constant, I assume, if the combustion rate of the engine is constant. Who cares? What exactly can be done with this figure?
    Your "power" has little to do with thrust, and in the case of engines with liquid fuel, variable nia and so on, it is even less interesting.
    I've never seen a jet/rocket engine manufacturer state what the engine's power is.

  57. The project will give us sounds from Mars and soil samples that will wait packaged for the next project. I am happy in my old age in the open air!

  58. Miracles

    once again:

    1. You don't accept that in terms of physics alone the power of a rocket engine is constant?

    2. You don't accept that if a plane is fixed to the ground - then still in terms of the plane's engine, the plane + ground is just a heavier plane?

    And this despite the fact that in the passage you quoted it says:

    If a jet aircraft is at full throttle but attached to a static test stand, then the jet engine produces no propulsive power

  59. Israel
    The thrust of a rocket is only approximately constant, regardless of the rate of fuel consumption. In the atmosphere, the thrust formula includes an additional component that is calculated by the pressure difference between the atmosphere and the combustion chamber multiplied by the area of ​​the nozzle. In a jet engine it is even more complex because of the pressure in the receiver. All this - and your "energy consumption" is constant...

    Maybe really tell Wiki that they are wrong?

  60. By the way, from your article:

    If the speed is zero, then the propulsive power is zero. If a jet aircraft is at full throttle but attached to a static test stand, then the jet engine produces no propulsive power, however thrust is still produced. Compare that to a piston engine.

    Note what they say: if the plane is fixed, then there is thrust but the power is 0.

    This is true in terms of the plane-earth system, but in terms of net physics, the power is the same as before, except that it is now directed to push the earth.

  61. Source why? What are you, a bird?

    Do you not accept that in terms of physics alone the power of a rocket engine is constant?

    Don't you accept that in a rocket engine with constant power, i.e. constant fuel consumption in any given period of time, the thrust is constant, and this is in contrast to a wheel drive where if the motor power is constant then the thrust decreases proportionally to the speed?


    Go to the IRS, they will withhold tax for you.

    What do you think about the development in the alternative lifting method that I showed you earlier:

    Note that the European Union participates in what is defined in the article as "the most original idea in aviation since the Wright brothers".

  62. Israel
    I asked for a source. It means a link that strengthens your claim. And to advance medicine:

    hrust to propulsive power[edit]
    A very common question is how to contrast the thrust rating of a jet engine with the power rating of a piston engine. Such comparison is difficult, as these quantities are not equivalent. A piston engine does not move the aircraft by itself (the propeller does that), so piston engines are usually rated by how much power they deliver to the propeller. Except for changes in temperature and air pressure, this quantity depends basically on the throttle setting.
    A jet engine has no propeller, so the propulsive power of a jet engine is determined from its thrust as follows. Power is the force (F) it takes to move something over some distance (d) divided by the time (t) it takes to move that distance:[4]
    {\displaystyle \mathbf {P} =\mathbf {F} {\frac {d}{t}}} {\mathbf {P}}={\mathbf {F}}{\frac {d}{t}}
    In the case of a rocket or a jet aircraft, the force is exactly the thrust (T) produced by the engine. If the rocket or aircraft is moving at about a constant speed, then distance divided by time is just speed, so power is thrust times speed:[5]
    {\displaystyle \mathbf {P} =\mathbf {T} {v}} {\mathbf {P}}={\mathbf {T}}{v}
    This formula looks very surprising, but it is correct: the propulsive power (or power available [6]) of a jet engine increases with its speed. If the speed is zero, then the propulsive power is zero. If a jet aircraft is at full throttle but attached to a static test stand, then the jet engine produces no propulsive power, however thrust is still produced. Compare that to a piston engine. The piston engine-propeller combination also has a propulsive power with exactly the same formula, and it will also be zero at zero speed -- but that is for the engine-propeller set. The engine alone will continue to produce its rated power at a constant rate, whether the aircraft is moving or not.
    Now, imagine the strong chain is broken, and the jet and the piston aircraft start to move. At low speeds:
    The piston engine will have constant 100% power, and the propeller's thrust will vary with speed
    The jet engine will have constant 100% thrust, and the engine's power will vary with speed

    Source -

  63. Nissim, Iguana's uncle.

    (Simply, that's what Kafir used to call his friend at Telenovela Ltd.).

    You can use whatever engineering terms you like, but in physics the power is what I said, and the power of a rocket engine is constant regardless of the speed of the plane or the rocket.

    You can also say - and many do say - that the distance between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is 5 hours. I say shut up, as always.

    But it will be very difficult for you when you try to solve a real problem like the Shatanz car puzzle.


  64. Israel
    You wrote "The above formula refers to the speed between the two repelled masses - attack, recoil, momentum, please fly - and not to the speed of an airplane or rocket relative to the earth"

    The term "provider" is an engineering tool used to compare machines. For example, in a car, power and torque are compared. In a jet engine, we talk about thrust, which is compared to drag and weight.

    No one (engineer) will talk about the power of a rocket engine in space. On the other hand, drive is crucial. The spacecraft at any given moment will accelerate according to the second law. A rocket/jet engine has a figure called TSFC, which tells how much fuel is burned per hour to get one thrust unit. In a given rocket engine it is fairly constant, and in jet engines it decreases as the speed increases.

  65. Nissim, brother of a duck.

    I argued and I still believe in the secrets of my heart that the sentence "A jet engine has a constant thrust, therefore the power increases with the speed" - is not true.

    But if this is what you were taught at the Technion, then who am I to disagree?

    I will try - just for the sake of speculation - to present you with a different scenario.

    What is said is "power is power multiplied by speed". Since in the case of a rocket engine thrust means power, it is easy to conclude that as the speed increases and the thrust is constant, then the power of the engine increases.

    But this is a misinterpretation of the P=FV formula. As strange as it sounds, the speed in a rocket engine is always constant, and therefore the power too.

    The above formula refers to the speed between the two repulsed masses - attack, recoil, momentum, take off - and not to the speed of an airplane or rocket relative to the earth.

    And the ejected masses in the case of a rocket engine are the engine to one side and the gases to the other. The speed between them remains constant the entire time the engine is operating, regardless of the speed of the plane or the rocket relative to the earth or the sun.

    This is different in the case of a wheel-driven car. Here the driven masses are the car and the land. The speed between them does increase over time, and since the engine power is almost constant, the thrust decreases accordingly and with it the acceleration. This is why the car accelerates a lot at low speed and not at high speed.

    And as you mentioned, the gases take up most of the fuel energy if viewed from the vantage point of an observer at rest relative to a rocket engine. This is because conservation of momentum is linear and energy is proportional to velocity squared.

    But in general, in a normal car the acceleration decreases over time and in a rocket car the acceleration remains constant.

    And so in the puzzle I brought, Susita will win despite her initial lag.

  66. Israel
    You are the one who said there is a problem with what I say... I personally know where the energy is.

  67. What is the problem with the law of conservation of energy in your tired pilot case? Do you want me to show you the exact location of each joule and joule?

  68. Israel
    I heard a very sad story. A pilot falls asleep in his spaceship, and accidentally leans on the spark plug of his braking engine. The engine burned all the fuel and then the pilot woke up. He saw that there was no fuel and that he was, of course, at "zero" speed.
    What happened to your law of conservation of energy????

  69. OK, their nephew, you want to believe that power increases over time and that there is some fundamental difference between space and Mars, back off.

    Just remember that when you say that in the tenth minute the power is ten times higher than the first, you get into a contradiction. Why do you think the rocket engine didn't work for two hours before and the first minute is actually the 121st minute? So the tenth minute is actually the 130th, so the power in it is greater than the 121st in a ratio of 130/121 and not 10/1, right?

    But I think I touched a sensitive nerve. Let me know if you are interested in the subject. It's not pure physics, it has practical engineering implications, for example the possibility of knowing which car will win in the example I gave.

  70. Israel
    You are the one who claimed that power is "energy consumption per unit of time". So according to your theory the power is constant.

    We are talking about engineering, specifically flying a craft in the Martian atmosphere. Neither rocket nor space!

  71. "Power increases linearly with speed. That is, in the tenth minute the engine power (the power that an engineer is interested in) is 10 times greater than in the first minute.'

    Woe. You are in the empty space in Tiz al Nabi.. all around is darkness.

    So in the tenth minute the power is 10 times greater? Why? Because of the speed? Speed ​​relative to what? desecrate? to the country? to mars?

    not listening Alek..

  72. Israel
    In your example most of the kinetic energy is in the exhaust gases. Do you need to explain why?

    1. Power increases linearly with speed. That is, in the tenth minute the engine power (the power that an engineer is interested in) is 10 times greater than in the first minute.

    2. Thank you very much for proofreading me...

    3. True - there is no direct relationship between fuel consumption and power. When launching a missile - at the first moment the missile is harnessed, at this time the power is zero. The increase in kinetic energy is also zero.

    I am waiting for the source…

  73. Israel, this is not rocket science...

    Apparently so, otherwise you wouldn't have gotten involved and complicated unnecessarily.

    "Please give me a source for your claim "the power of a rocket engine is constant".

    1. A rocket is in space.

    2. Her engine works continuously for 10 minutes.

    3. For the purpose of the calculation, the mass of the exhaust gases is much smaller than the mass of the rocket.

    Questions for you, listener:

    1. If the engine power is not constant during the 10-minute operation time - can you point to the one-minute interval in which the power is the greatest? In the first minute? the fifth? the tenth? a few times bigger?

    2. Where does the sentence come from: "Don't tell me that the energy consumption of an engine is equal to its power"? Did you mean energy consumption in a period of time?

    3. Do you claim that there is no connection between the fuel consumption of an engine in a period of time and the engine's power?

    Chalas philosoph. I gave you a riddle that will clarify the issue unequivocally. If you solve it, you will understand my point.

  74. Israel
    You have an ability that I admire not to listen :). Please give me a source for your claim "the power of a rocket engine is constant". Don't tell me that the energy consumption of an engine is equal to its power, I know some numbers.

    Just a piece of information for you - in practice, most of the kinetic energy created by a rocket engine - is actually in the exhaust gases! As the missile accelerates, more and more energy is transferred to the missile, and less and less to the exhaust gases.

    Israel, this is not rocket science...

  75. Their brother-in-law miracles.

    What you wrote is: "A jet engine has constant thrust, so the power increases with speed."

    In a rocket engine, both thrust and power are constant. The mass does not have to decrease rapidly due to the burning of the fuel, and the decrease in mass is not relevant to the calculations. Which are not close but completely accurate.

    The riddle is: how? If a rocket burned a certain amount of energy to reach a speed v, then if it burns the same amount again it will reach a speed of 2v.

    So she burned double the amount of energy and her kinetic energy increased 4 times? How?

    But you are on the right track.


  76. Israel
    1. I never said the vendor's units are different from what you say.
    2. If you want to be precise, mass is not a scalar either, but that is not relevant to the topic.
    3. A rocket engine manufacturer always states the thrust of their engine, never the power. The thrust is equal, the mass ejected per second times the ejection velocity. The engine has the same thrust at standstill and at Mach 20.

    There is, of course, no problem with energy conservation. Don't forget two things - the mass of a rocket decreases very quickly, and the exhaust gases also have kinetic energy.

    Check data for jet and rocket engines and note that they only talk about thrust. For engines with a propeller - talk about power.

  77. They didn't mislead you, I also wrote you the formula yesterday P=FV. But there is this issue of details..

    For example: both force and speed are vectors while power is a scalar.

    The formula is correct only under the condition that the cosine of the angle between the vectors is equal to 1, that is, the angle is equal to 0.

    Dot Product Elek. But the power units are as I wrote - energy/time. As the units of speed are distance/time and not power/power as can be deduced from the formula above..

    It still doesn't solve the problem I raised and certainly not the puzzle of the Shatanz cars.

    You can see this clearly if you think of a car with a rocket engine. According to the manufacturer, the engine has a certain power, right? Let's say 1000 horsepower.

    If we take your definition that "the power is power times the speed" it seems that since the impulse - that is, the power - that activates the engine is constant, then as the speed of the car increases, its engine power increases accordingly. agree?

    But if we don't have a fuel limit, it seems that very soon the speed of the car will be so high that its engine power will be several thousand times its maximum power.

    moreover. The car consumes the same amount of fuel in a given period of time, but its kinetic energy increases in proportion to speed - that is, to time - squared.

    So where is the law of conservation of energy?

    And who will win the Shatanz car competition?

  78. Miracles

    The doubt in physics is like I said: distribution of energy in time.

    The unit of power - watt - is defined as a unit of joule (energy) and second (time).

    But this leads to an interesting problem: if in a rocket engine constant power leads to constant thrust and therefore also constant acceleration, and if the kinetic energy of a body is proportional to the square of the body's speed - then what about the law of conservation of energy? If the speed of a rocket after 10 seconds is v, and after 20 seconds 2v, then the energy the spacecraft consumed from the engine after 20 seconds is twice as much as after 10, but its kinetic energy is 4 times.

    So how does it work out?

    And why simplify if you can complicate? Try to solve the following puzzle:

    Only recreational cars are accepted for the prestigious Shatanz car race, whose manufacturers must meet the following conditions:

    1. The car should consist of a chassis of an existing car and an engine of another car.

    2. The engine power of each car must be constant throughout the race. The meaning is that in any given period of time the car burns the same amount of fuel, or in the case of an electric car the voltage is multiplied by a constant amperage throughout the race.

    The race takes place on a straight salt track in Colorado that is 500 km long.

    3 cars reached the final stage of the race:

    Italy was represented by a Ferrari car with an electric engine and a bevel gear that turns all the engine's power into driving force without wasting energy.

    France was represented by a Formula 17 car with a 24-cylinder petrol engine made by Rolls-Royce and a Koni gearbox as mentioned above.

    Israel was represented by a Susita Kubia model 65 car with a fiberglass body whose rear was gnawed by a camel, and a rocket engine that is a scale model of the Apollo 11 engine.

    Because of the salt track and the high altitude of the Rocky Mountains, there is no form of friction during the race.

    The race has started and here are the initial data:

    When the Ferrari reached the 1 km line, its speed was measured at 200 km/h.

    When the formula reached the 1 km line, its speed was measured at 190 km/h.

    When Susita reached the 1 km line, her speed was measured at 80 km/h.

    Who won the race? who is the second Why?

    Hint: Pay attention to all the data.

  79. Israel
    The power of an engine is not how much energy enters the engine, but how much of the energy does work.
    In airplanes - we talk about the power of an engine with a propeller and the thrust of a jet or rocket engine.
    The thrust of a propeller decreases with speed (because the effective angle of attack is small), of a fixed rocket engine (depending on the mass per unit time emitted times the speed) and of a jet engine increases (because there is more oxygen for combustion).

    To illustrate that there is no connection to energy - in a Phantom engine, a full burner consumes 4 times the fuel of a dry engine but provides only 1.5 times the thrust. The law of conservation of energy obviously works, and the difference is that in a wet engine the exhaust gases are much hotter.

    This rocket engine is interesting - because in space the rocket will continue to accelerate without limit (leave relativity for now...)

  80. Nissim, his uncle.

    So that's not it.

    Power is the distribution of energy over time.

    A rocket engine burns the same amount of energy in any given period of time, therefore its power is constant.

    How does this work out with the law of conservation of energy and with p=fv?


    I'm on the road, consider this a puzzle. The solution is fascinating.

  81. Israel
    My brother, have we already forgotten Sears-Zamansky?

    I repeat - and tell me which sentence you disagree with:
    1. Work is the product of force times distance.
    2. The power is derived by the time of the work.
    3. Therefore, power is impulse multiplied by speed.
    4. The thrust of a rocket engine (and approximately also a jet engine) is the mass emitted per unit of time multiplied by the speed of that mass.
    5. Therefore, the thrust of a rocket engine is constant
    6. Therefore, the power of a rocket engine is directly proportional to the speed.

  82. Miracles

    Even a rocket engine has a constant power, and its thrust is still constant.

    In a car, on the other hand, the impulse decreases in direct proportion to the speed of the car.

  83. A.
    Note - the lift increases with the square of the speed, but the required power is directly proportional to the speed.

    Another interesting point: a jet engine has constant thrust, so power increases with speed. The propeller has constant power, so its thrust decreases with speed.

    I don't know how it is in a helicopter/drone, but I do know that hovering is very inefficient and it is better to move forward at a speed that is not too high.

  84. It was argued before that this is not a game of light and shadow, how far from reality... the rock is lit from the other side and appears as a dark silhouette almost devoid of any details, how easy it is to imagine that these rocks are something other than what they really are.

  85. Miracles
    One thing doesn't work for me. According to what you say about the power, planes should prefer to fly low with high air friction. And as far as I know it's not like that (to a certain extent)

  86. Reuven
    Who is the idiot who claims that there is no life in space and links it to the theory of relativity. I would suggest he go back to the litter box.

  87. It is useful to teach people what critical thinking is, when you look at the full picture in which an "engineering vehicle" appears, so to speak, you can see that this texture appears in many rocks in the same area that look as if they are made up of several plates adjacent to each other. There is also a large round rock there that actually looks unusual, but UFO and alien enthusiasts for some reason didn't like it.

    There is no doubt that these are rocks created by some geological process and not something created by aliens, certainly not an engineering vehicle.

    Here is a picture where I have marked additional rocks that resemble the "engineering vehicle", it turns out that if you really want to believe in something, the brain finds familiar formations everywhere:

  88. A.
    The lift of a hot air balloon is actually the weight difference between the balloon and the volume of air it displaced.
    Let's assume the balloon is empty, the best case. In this case, to get the same lift you need to increase the volume of the balloon 100 times. Therefore - the diameter will increase 4.5 times
    For hydrogen we will have to enlarge the balloon more - for the reason that the weight of the balloon depends on the volume of hydrogen inside it. The pressure is really low in our case (and therefore also the amount of hydrogen), and I guess increasing the radius by 5 times will do.

  89. A.
    The light wing lift depends on the product of the following factors:
    the density of the gas
    wing area
    Flight speed squared
    A coefficient that depends on the angle of attack - the angle between the wing chord and the wind.

    There are two types of drag. One type is calculated exactly like the lift, and is directly proportional to it. This is induced drag.
    The second type depends on speed and is called parasitic drag - and includes shape drag, friction drag and disturbance drag. I think in our case, the effect is not great.

    But - pay attention to something: power is the product of speed times work. If we doubled the speed, then even though we reached (let's say the same drag), we doubled the power!
    Energy is power multiplied by time.
    Therefore - if we double the speed we will need twice the energy for the same time.

  90. You can tell who the idiot is who claims that there is no life at all in space and also ties his theory to the theory of relativity. My nice poodle Y has more sense than him. The place of that glorified thinker is in the sandbox.

  91. Miracles
    Just to be sure I understood. If I increase the speed at low air pressure and stay with the same lift then I don't need significantly higher power?
    B. If the density is 100 times smaller and the gravity is 38% on Mars, then the area must be increased 38 times (which means 6 times the length if you keep the same shape) or the speed a little more than 6 times. And it's really not that bad, especially if you combine.
    A hot air balloon should increase the diameter only 3.4 times and if hydrogen is used then only a little more than 2 times.
    To tell the truth, I didn't really understand why a balloon also needs to increase if the pressure decreases (I'm sure of course that's true) because even inside the balloon the pressure (and the density decreases, in the balloon the pressure is equal to the pressure outside the balloon) I would appreciate it if you could explain to me.

  92. A.
    Actually Vicky is right... I really looked at the pressure, which was about 0.006 bar (in Hebrew it says 0.007-0.009……).
    The density ratio is really closer to 100.

    And in our context - lift depends, in principle, on the square of the speed multiplied by the density (pressure has no effect).
    The drag is directly proportional to the lift - that's why when we increase the speed 10 times, we will get the lift we need, and the drag will be equal to the drag that was on Earth.
    That is - the idea can certainly be practical.

  93. Haim (the new one),

    1. There is already a commenter here named Chaim who claims that there probably was (at least in the past) intelligent life on Mars, so you should choose a different name for yourself so that people don't get confused between you.

    2. How did you deduce from Einstein's theory that we are the only case of life in the universe? Or it was a joke and I didn't get it.

  94. Regarding the hot air balloon, Mars has an advantage because the hydrogen can be used safely because there is almost no oxygen on Mars. And hydrogen is 4 times lighter than helium if I'm not mistaken.
    According to my very rough calculation (taking into account gravity, using hydrogen instead of helium and assuming that the pressure is 200 times higher) the diameter of the balloon should only be 2.7
    Another question for miracles
    Does the lifting force of a wing depend only on the gas pressure or also on its specific weight?
    I guess the balloon must have an effect on weight too. Basically, the specific gravity is the only one that determines and it is affected by both the pressure and the material (and also the temperature, but it doesn't matter assuming there is no heating)

  95. Miracles
    For some reason Wikipedia claims that the pressure is higher on the surface than on Earth. That is, 100 times smaller, not 200 times. But Wikipedia is impossible to tell. Are you sure of your figure?
    You didn't answer my question if we say we take a propeller that creates x lift in the pressure of the earth, if we lower the pressure 100 times and connect the same motor to a relay that will make the propeller turn 10 times faster. The lift will probably not change, but will the engine work much harder? Because most of the engine's power is "trying" to overcome the drag of the air, and now the drag is equally reduced. Of course there is more friction with the shaft and it takes more energy to accelerate the propeller. But other than that am I completely wrong?

  96. Miracles
    Do you have a big mistake about the drone's calculation?
    You did not mention that a lifting force is needed that is almost a third less because the acceleration of free fall on Mars is only 3.7
    So the surface area should only be increased by 75 times the length or the speed by 9 times the length.

  97. The scientists are wasting their time and money on all kinds of delusions that there is life on Mars.
    I can save them a lot of money as follows:
    There is no life and there was no life on Mars. The theory I developed shows that there is no chance of life anywhere in the cosmos. I suggest that you carefully read Prof. Einstein's theory on space/time and draw one conclusion from it. There is no life in the cosmos and we are the only and exclusive case.

  98. By the way, in the same photo of the engineering vehicle (uhmm...) on its right side there appears another "engineering vehicle" (meaning another rock with a similar configuration of horizontal lines) interesting to which Haim did not refer even a single word...

  99. Miracles,

    I didn't even get to the worms... I know the story, but I only gave a few representative examples that show what things he bases his theories on.

    There is no doubt that many surprises are expected in the study of Mars, especially when humans begin to arrive there, as with any new territory that is reached, but certainly not surprises in the directions he is talking about of so-called intelligent life on Mars.

    By the way, what about the lecture, I understand that you didn't see it in the end, too bad I thought it would interest you.

  100. "I gave you photographs with detailed explanations and don't associate it with the Bible. You link or try to link things that have nothing to do with each other. This is a final response.

    In the link you gave me, there are articles about the Tower of Babel, about Elijah the prophet, about the book of Ezekiel, about the pyramids, a million things that have nothing to do with the photographs I asked you to see, why is it so complicated to give a link to what you are being asked to do?

  101. Haim,

    I'm sorry to say this, but your imagination works a lot of overtime, all I saw in the pictures on the site are completely normal formations of rocks and stones (millions of which exist on the planet) which in your eyes are an "engineering vehicle", a monolith or a doorway to an underground city of aliens... no less and no more.

    There is even no way to determine from the photograph whether these are formations that are a few centimeters, tens of meters or hundreds of meters in size, all up to your best imagination.

    I don't understand something, according to what is written on the website, you have no academic background in geology, no degree in the subject, how and based on what exactly do you make strange statements like:

    "On the face of it, there is no geological explanation for the formation of these special formations"?

    Doesn't that seem a bit arrogant to you? Did you try to consult with professionals such as geologists who do understand the field before jumping to such wild conclusions?

  102. rival
    I gave you photographs with detailed explanations and do not associate it with the Bible. You link or try to link things that have nothing to do with each other. This is a last comment.

  103. Haim,

    I see a lot of unrelated things there about aliens that are mentioned in the Torah and all kinds of planets that supposedly have life on them. Could you please give me specific links that show pictures of the type you were talking about?

  104. rival
    The photos I bring are mainly the photos of the ground from a distance of a few meters at most. made by off-road vehicles. I took them from the original NASA websites. I took the photos and enlarged those sections that piqued my interest. My tracking is daily. For some of the photographs I did a detailed analysis in the format of articles. You will find these articles on the Yakum Tarbut website in the Mysteries section. Another option on the left is a list of writers, enter my name Haim Mazar. Any form of entry will run. The entire list is because I have articles there on various topics. Other photographs can be found on the Facebook page of the association for UFOs and extraterrestrial life. I put these photos in the last few weeks. A link is attached here, the explanation is short.
    You can also enter through

  105. rival
    This field combines computer science with neuroscience. The subject is a computational model of the brain. You get a doctorate at the end, and the end is far away...

  106. "Not everything can be explained in terms of light and shadow games or photographic distortions. I've heard enough of these explanations.'

    It's a bit reminiscent of the claims regarding the photographs of demons and spirits.... And also mentions the claims regarding photographs of UFOs, and of the Loch Ness monster.

  107. Haim,

    Can you link to some of the pictures that make you think there will be surprises on Mars? By the way, are these pictures that have undergone image processing and retouching of any kind? Or original photos exactly as they came from the As is satellite?

  108. Miracles,

    Really, according to your responses, it often seems as if you are awake 24 hours a day, you also need to sleep occasionally, you know it is good for your health and can help a little with studies and work...

    What are you studying if I may ask? What certificate do you get at the end?

  109. Life
    I work at a start-up company, and study. As long as I'm awake I'm near a phone/computer.
    And sleep is over-rated...

  110. A.
    The figure of 200 is the visibility ratio, and therefore takes into account the components of the atmosphere. The problem with a hot air balloon is that it also needs to be enlarged 200 times...

    You are right about the fact that increasing speed and wing area can be combined. You also don't need to check on Mars - build a drone and raise it to a height of 35 km... (it's better to release it from a balloon at altitude).

    I'm not saying for a moment that the idea isn't practical. Precisely because of the large area of ​​the wings, it is possible to assemble large solar cells and fly longer.

    NASA takes the idea seriously:

  111. A.
    The figure of 200 is the visibility ratio, and therefore takes into account the components of the atmosphere. The problem with a hot air balloon is that it also needs to be enlarged 200 times...

    You are right about the fact that increasing speed and wing area can be combined. You also don't need to check on Mars - build a drone and raise it to a height of 35 km... (it's better to release it from a balloon at altitude).

    I'm not saying for a moment that the idea isn't practical. Precisely because of the large area of ​​the wings, it is possible to assemble large solar cells and fly longer.

    NASA takes the idea seriously:

  112. A.
    I understand from your words that you are not an engineer. The impression I got from what you wrote is that you have the head of an engineer. What I liked was your caution. Not one of the braggarts who think they know everything and better than others. I don't know what your profession is and how old you are. But if you have the strength, go study aerospace engineering. You won't regret it. This is the future.

  113. Miracles
    I noticed some complete nonsense in my last comment.
    First of all, I understand from what you said that the lift is in a quadratic relationship to the speed and the area is in a linear relationship? (200 times and 14 times)
    But the question is, how much more energy does it take, say, to spin 14 times faster than a propeller in 200 times thinner air?
    I guess it is less than 14 times. But other problems must have arisen such as greater friction inside the engine that is not related to the air. Or the need for a more massive and therefore heavier propeller. It will take 200 times more energy to start but I guess that is less significant.

  114. Miracles
    Are you sure the data you said makes the story completely impossible? I'm not saying it's completely simple, but if I understood correctly then you need either a 200 times larger area or a 14 times larger RPM. Can we say a 100 times larger area and a 7 times larger chassis? This hundred times the area means that if the propeller is the same shape then it is only 10 times longer. The whole story starts to sound a little more possible. Or am I talking complete nonsense?
    If you increase the RPM seven times, then the battery also runs out seven times faster, or is it not because the air resistance is now smaller?
    In short, is there no chance for any drone to take off on Mars.

  115. Miracles
    A balloon had already been used. The Russians "dropped" (I just don't have a better word) into the atmosphere of Venus, but there the conditions are completely different than on Mars
    Nissim asked me to you that this is not the case. You are in the USA. You give comments all the time. Your clock is different from the clock here. You don't sleep at all at night?

  116. Miracles
    I thought about this direction as well.
    I once saw a video about such a drone. It was a balloon with a diameter of a meter and around it was a kind of belt of propellers. The glider seemed to me to be slightly heavier than air and only required a little help from the propellers.
    But there are also many disadvantages. In addition to the fact that the vessel flew very slowly (less critical for Mars) it seemed very sensitive to winds due to the ratio between size and weight.
    If you're talking about a big balloon then obviously there aren't these problems but it's a completely different role. And he cannot closely examine the surface.
    By the way, it is not certain that there will even be a need for a larger balloon because although the air is thinner, it is mainly carbon dioxide which is heavier.

  117. A.
    The atmosphere on Mars is 200 times thinner than at sea level here. The lift is directly proportional to the density, so you will need 200 times greater wing area, or 14 times higher speed.

    Maybe a balloon-style aircraft is better?

  118. Life
    The panels will not be on the drone, they will drop to the ground and open and from that moment they will remain static. and will only be used as a charging and communication station. You don't need such a powerful energy source to charge a drone. And if there is no sun at the time the drone lands, it can wait connected to the charger until there is enough light.
    All this on the assumption that it is possible to build a drone that can hover on Mars.

  119. As far as I know there isn't much oxygen on Mars, what's more the amount of fuel is limited and what batteries can be charged from solar collectors. What's more, it's much easier to connect to electric charging than a fuel and oxygen pipe. There are drones today that are able to land for charging and connect to the charger autonomously.
    Do you know what the air pressure on Mars is relative to sea level pressure?
    It's really an interesting question whether a drone can fly on Mars. With an airplane I'm sure there is no problem because airplanes fly at high altitudes where the air pressure is low. But a plane can't do what a drone can do on Mars. It cannot land or approach an interesting point.
    I'm not an engineer. But if anyone here understands anything about aeronautics, I would love to hear if there is even a chance for a drone in the thin air to Mars. (Nissim, you should have knowledge in the field if I'm not mistaken?)

  120. A.
    The solar receptors you propose as a source of energy for these planes do not seem reasonable to me at the moment. More powerful power sources are required. There was someone who not long ago circled the earth in a plane whose wings are covered with solar receptors. But the wings were huge. I'm not sure what you're suggesting is financially correct today. The idea I propose is also very expensive. My impression is that comparing the development cost of the model I propose is cheaper. Your offer might be good in about 100 years when we're both gone. Most likely, breakthrough technologies will be developed that will enable developments that will lower the cost of development and production.

  121. A.
    Currently working on planes to Mars. Of course, these are not passenger planes, but tiny planes. There are some difficult aerodynamic problems here. Do not forget that the atmosphere of Mars is very thin and this must be taken into account when planning the length and width of the wings. Don't forget the energy problem. What is the amount of fuel that will be required for each flight? A sci-fi option that comes to my mind right now is to equip the lander with a large amount of fuel and this super small plane will have to return to the lander to descend, land and refuel. This is an extremely complicated thing that will take years to develop. If you are an aeronautical engineer in your profession, bring together several engineers and start developing it. All credit will be yours.

  122. Just an idea
    Add a drone that can fly autonomously (automatic must because of the time it takes to transmit commands)
    And will have the ability to return to the vehicle to recharge itself from the solar panels.
    Or an even more daring plan, to release several charging stations that will drop to the surface, open the receivers. And a number of drones will travel between them and the findings will be sent to Earth during loading.
    Of course it's not as simple as it sounds, all navigation will be without GPS for example. ..
    It will be possible to explore huge areas for the nation of vehicles that have traveled on Mars to date.
    What do you think?

  123. Miracles
    Be patient even if it takes a year, two years or maybe a little more. Just one request, don't take as a model the story of the famous face that turned out to be a block of rock. There are quite a few shots from zero distance, from the ground taken by the SUVs that raise questions. Not everything can be explained in terms of light and shadow games or photographic distortions. I have heard these explanations enough.

  124. Life
    I looked at a lot of pictures. They didn't convince me, and they didn't convince those that this is their profession.

  125. When humans start flying to Mars the research teams will also include biologists and archaeologists. From my examination of the subject and the thousands of photographs that I examined, quite a few surprises are expected.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.