ABSTRACT: We present evidence that NASA is seriously understating Martian air pressure. Our 6 year study critiques 1,328 Sols (2 full Martian years) of highly problematic MSL Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REM) weather data, and offers an in depth audit of over 8,311 hourly Viking 1 and 2 weather reports. We discuss analysis of technical papers, NASA documents, and personal interviews of transducer designers. We troubleshoot pressures based on radio occultation/spectroscopy, and the small pressure ranges that could be measured by Viking (18 mbar), Pathfinder and Phoenix (12 mbar), and MSL (11.5 mbar). For MSL there was a mean pressure of 11.49 mbar measured on its Sol 370. When we made an issue of it with JPL, it was revised to 8.65 mbar. The REMS Team then published pressures of 11.77 mbar (for Sol 1,160) and 12 mbar (for Sol 1,161). Again we made an issue of it again it, and they revised the figures to 8.98 and 8.97 mbar respectively. When they asserted a pressure 1154Pa for Sol 1301, we challenged it and they revised it to 752 Pa. In fact we demonstrate that JPL/REMS weather data was frequently revised after they studied critiques in working versions of this report and on our websites at http://marscorrect.com and http://davidaroffman.com.
Vikings and MSL showed consistent timing of daily pressure spikes. We link this to how gas pressure in a sealed container would vary with Absolute temperature, to heating by radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), and to dust clots at air access tubes and dust filters. Pathfinder, Phoenix and MSL wind measurement failures are disclosed. Phoenix and MSL pressure transducer design problems are highlighted with respect to confusion about dust filter location, and lack of information about nearby heat sources due to International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR). NASA could not replicate dust devils at 10 mbar. Rapidly filled MER Spirit tracks required wind speeds of 80 mph at the assumed low pressures. These winds were never recorded on Mars. Nor could NASA explain drifting Barchan sand dunes. Based on the above and dust devils on Arsia Mons to altitudes of 17 km above areoid (Martian equivalent of sea level), spiral storms with 10 km eye-walls above Arsia Mons, dust storm opacity, snow at Phoenix, excessive aero braking, liquid water running on the surface in numerous locations at Recurring Slope Lineae (RSL) and stratus clouds 13 km above areoid, we argue for an average pressure at areoid of ~511 mbar rather than the accepted 6.1 mbar. This pressure grows to 1,050 mbar in the Hellas Basin.
The question that began a 6+ year study: How can Martian dust devils shown above at Gusev Crater form if pressure is under 10 millibars (average pressure on Earth is 1,013.25 millibars)? The film clip covers 12 minutes 17 seconds of what was seen at Mars Exploration Rover Spirit on its 543rd day on Mars (July 13, 2005).
PURPOSE OF MARSCORRECT RESEARCH
The August, 2012 landing of MSL Curiosity on Mars was brilliant. See it here. However, our research group named Mars Correct exists to prove that the U.S. Government espouses deeply flawed versions of Martian meteorology. While the greatest errors are with air pressure, NASA has published incorrect wind information, wrong temperatures, flawed relativity humidity reports, and incorrect ultraviolet radiation levels and even wrong sunrise and sunset times. We can say this because after NASA read our proofs, it removed all wind reports, adapted our day length calculations, and removed much of the rest of their mistaken data from their web sites. However, their fundamental error remains their claim that the average pressure on Mars is 6.1 millibars, which is close to a vacuum. The weather that we see occurring, even the blue color of the Martian sky that they would not let us see for 36 years, are all impossible with such a low pressure. We believe that the absurdly low pressure that they advance is proof of a political and/or religious agenda and cover-up that requires maintenance of the status quo. However, this site doesn’t delve into the full nature of that charge, although one article explores it a bit and it is briefly discussed in the Afterword of our Basic Report. Rather, this web site’s focus is just with proving the NASA weather data wrong. Our May 16, 2016 report is found at this link: MARS CORRECT: CRITIQUE OF ALL NASA MARS WEATHER DATA. The April 17, 2016 PowerPoint summary of the Report may be found at Mars Correct? Mars is wet.