Normally, I post a topic like this on the “Against the Mainstream” thread. This is because virtually everything I do is highly speculative. This time, I believe there is a serious threat to the Huygen mission, and I am looking for as much feedback as possible from scientists with more knowledge than myself of solar mechanics.
I have concluded the same failure mode that lead to the demise of Beagle, and indirectly two other Mars probes is inherent in the orbital mechanics of the Huygens probe scheduled to separate from Cassini December 26, 2004. There may be a work-around for this probable failure, but if and only if mission scientists are appraised of the potential problem in a timely and convincing manner as soon as possible.
This past Summer, the Beagle expedition ended as another of a long line of Mars failures when the probe failed to respond after entering the Martian atmosphere. In the final report the investigators were unable to identify a root cause for the mission failure, but what they could identify was an anomalous atmospheric condition that created an extremely low pressure in the atmosphere of Mars during Beagles decent. The evidence of this is a measured depression 200 miles above the Martian surface.
What is most curious about this finding is that the successful landings of both Spirit and Opportunity still experienced flight anomalies that are consistent with the Beagle scenario: In both missions the parachutes deployed late, indicating either a calibration error in the sensors on both missions, or that the density of the atmosphere of Mars at the deployment altitude was less than predicted. Both of the Viking probes, which successfully landed in the 1970’s also experienced late deployment of braking parachute deployment, and they both used much more hydrazine fuel than anticipated. These failures are not coincidental, nor are they systemic: pressure actuated event technology has been highly developed and very reliable since World War II.
I believe these anomalies occurred because of an intrinsic pressure differential in the Martian atmosphere, not an anomalous event. I will further demonstrate the root cause of the failure of Polar Orbiter, the Global Surveyor and at least four other Martian missions is the same, and that Huygens will almost certainly fail unless new physical considerations are included in the descent profile.
I will present evidence of a need to modify our theory of gravity adding a second term or derivative that weakens the inertial potential with increasing distance. This creates no observable traits in nearly circular orbits, such as our own. At the same time, it explains how orbits become so nearly circular. I will show an amazing trait discovered when this modification is applied across the solar system when this hypothesis is applied to solar mechanics. I will also present ancillary evidence that demonstrate this relationship is not purely coincidental. Finally, I will indicate how this thesis can be collaborated in the current data stream from the Cassini mission, in a timely manner so the necessary corrections, if possible, can be made in the Huygens probe before it is launched.
Cassini-Huygen is a joint NASA-European Space Agency mission to study Saturn and the moons of Saturn. In July of this year, Cassini was successfully placed in orbit about Saturn’s moon Titan. On December 26th, the Huygen probe is scheduled to be jettisoned from Cassini and make a soft landing on Titan. Other than a design deficiency that slows communication between Cassini and Huygen, this mission has been highly successful to date, revealing two previously unknown moons and unprecedented images of Saturn’s rings. The Titan probe is intended to reveal the secrets of a curious world that appears strikingly similar to our own, but that is made primarily from the lightest materials in our crust: Water, methane, sulfur, silica, with a combined density of only 1.88 g/cc, one third of that of our iron-cored planet (5.51g/cc)
Pioneer 10 and 11 anomaly
An obvious if unlikely candidate the Pioneer 10 and 11 acceleration anomaly is a second order derivative of the ‘G constant’. To investigate this possibility, I made some assumptions about the moons and planets in the solar system: I assumed the densest of the moons in the gas-giant systems, and all of the non-gas giant planets actually all have near the same density.Originally Posted by ”Number 391 (Story #1), September 15, 1998 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein”
Then I fit a log/log curve to this equation, and calculated what the density of each system would be if they were in the Earth's orbit. This is assuming “G” is indeed variable, diminishing with increasing distance from the Sun. When I plug in the estimated density of each orb, look what happens:
Effect of a G force that varies as kln(k2d’)/ln(r^2)
Orb / Current Density / Density (in Earth frame of reference)
Mercury / 5.4 / 4.49
Venus / 5.24 / 4.47
Earth / 5.5 / 5.5 ( Earth Moon Ave=4.47)
Mars / 3.933 / 4.47
Jupiter / 1.326 / 2.11
Metis / 2.8 / 4.47
Thebe / 3.55 / 5.67
Europa / 3.02 / 4.81
Ganymede / 1.94 / 3.91
Callisto / 1.86 / 2.97
Leda / 2.7 / 4.31
Himilia / 2.8 / 4.47
Lysithia / 3.1 / 4.49
Elara / 3.3 / 5.27
Anaka / 2.7 / 4.31
Carme / 2.8 / 4.47
Sinope / 3.1 / 4.95
P2x / 3.3 / 5.27
P3x / 2.7 / 4.31
P4x / 2.8 / 4.47
Pasipha / 2.9 / 4.63
P5x / 3.1 / 4.95
Amalthea / 1.8 / 2.87
P6x / 2.1 / 3.35
Io / 3.55 / 5.67
Andrastea / 4.5 / 10.59
P7x / 3.7 / 8.7
Saturn / 0.568 / 1.34
Prometheus / 0.70 / 1.65
Pandora / 0.70 / 1.65
Epimetheus / 0.70 / 1.65
Janus / 0.67 / 1.58
Mimas / 1.17 / 2.75
Phoebe / 1.60 / 3.76
Hyperion / 1.40 / 3.29
Encleladus / 1.24 / 2.92
Tethys / 1.21 / 2.85
Dione / 1.43 / 3.36
Rhea / 1.33 / 3.13
Titan / 1.88 / 4.42
Uranus / 1.27 / 3.78
Miranda / 1.20 / 3.58
Ariel / 1.56 / 4.65
Umbriel / 1.52 / 4.53
Titania / 1.70 / 5.07
Oberon / 1.64 / 4.89
Neptune / 1.638 / 5.76
Naiad / 1.2 / 4.22
Thalasse / 1.3 / 4.57
Despina / 1.2 / 4.47
Galatea / 1.3 / 4.47
Larissa / 1.3 / 4.84
Proteus / 1.3 / 4.47
Pluto / 1.75 / 4.47
Look how often the value 4.47 is repeated: Ten times, and twenty-seven orbs, fifty percent of the solar moons and planets have a density within 10% of 4.47 gm/cm^2. Mercury, Venus, Mars, 14 of Jupiter’s moons, eight of Uranus’s moons, five of Neptune’s moons and Pluto,
If gravity has a second order function, if I exclude the gas giants, 70% of the solar system has the same density.
Just as surprising is that when this equation is used, the difference in the G acceleration value (~-1.6 * 10^-8 cm/s^2) is very close to the acceleration observed in the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes (-0.84 * 10^8 cm/s^2).
Is this possible? I developed the theoretical roots for making these assumptions through cosmological observations, but it is much easier to look closely at more local events: We have based our estimates of the density of the planets upon observed accelerations of the Pioneer, Viking, and other probes near these planets. If 'G' varies in the second order, the apparent mass of an object decreases with increasing distance from the Sun.
If these approximations are close to the real values, the correct density of Mars is ~14% greater than our current estimate, based upon a constant 'G' value. Now look at the history:
Mars navigators have been consistently plagued with late flight corrections due to slight accelerations toward the sun. We have measured the thickness and total density of the Martian atmosphere, but if the planet is more dense that we have calculated using a constant 'G', the distribution of the gas in the Martin atmosphere is skewed towards the planet and therefore, the gas is thinner at high altitude than predicted by a Gaussian distribution based upon a lighter planet.
In Missions to Mars where accelerometers have been used to time the parachute release, including Viking I & 2, Endeavor and Spirit, the parachutes have released at much lower altitudes than expected. Flight engineers, observing the decent of Spirit, forced an earlier deployment of the parachutes on Opportunity.
The Missions to Mars that have relied upon air braking have required many more maneuvers than planned to dissipate energy. Seven attempts to land on Mars have failed.
Martian soil and Martian magma, from every site and known Martian meteorites, contain more than twice the iron content normally found in earth soil and magna. The predicted value for the 'Moment of inertia' for Mars, based upon geological features and planetary wobble are at odds with each other.
All of these observations are consistent with Mars having a greater density than predicted by Newtonian orbital mechanics.
There is also an indication Saturn may be heavier than Newtonian predictions. Cassini has measured the Saturn rotational period (day), and found it to be six minutes longer than the Saturn orbital period length measured by Voyagers I & II. This would be consistent with a greater acceleration of the Voyager’s during their closest approach, underestimating the orbital enhancement to the velocity of the craft relative to the period of rotation.
If these predictions are correct, the actual density of Titan is ~ 4.42g/cc, more than twice the current theoretical value (1.88g/cc)
The radar and ranging data we are receiving at this very moment should be yielding curious variance from predictions. If this hypothesis is true, mission planners may be miss-interpreting this data. They may be questioning the calibration of the radar systems or data reduction software. A miss-reading of this data will lead to a fatal episode for the Huygen Titan lander.
I know these predictions, and theoretical reasoning behind them are obscure. But take a few steps backwards and ask yourself: How could the moons and the outer planets be so light, and contain the molecular bonding necessary to hold them together? How can they have features that appear to be volcanoes, and lava flows, and not be volcanic? How can the planet Neptune, and the moons of Neptune, look so much like inner planets and have an average density of much less than the Earth's crust?
The radar and orbital data of Cassini should reveal evidence of the type of variations I have described. As I said, I have developed this concept as an explanation for cosmic events: The patterned rings and the cosmic ray power functions of supernova, the orbits of stars near the edges of galaxies and the Tully-Fisher relationship. I have only recently turned my attention to the solar system, and there may be factual evidence that gravity cannot vary in a second order.
Any posts that shed light on this, pro or con, are cordially solicited.