Home Page of Dr. David A. Roffman (PhD, Physics)

Welcome to DavidARoffman.com. This site documents 9 years of research about Martian meteorology that I have conducted in conjunction with my father, Barry S. Roffman (Lieutenant, U.S. Coast Guard-Retired). It also summarizes what I have been able to learn about Breakthrough Propulsion Physics, and it explores some of the physics projects that I wrote about while earning my B.S. in space physics at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Daytona Beach, Florida) and my Master’s and PhD in physics with a specialization in Computational Condensed Matter Theory at the University of Florida. If you have questions about any of our research please contact us at Davidaroffman@gmail.com or MarsCorrect@Gmail.com.

EXTENSIVE ROFFMAN INTERVIEW ABOUT MARS IN ENGLISH AND ITALIAN: My father and I were interviewed about Mars for 3 hours 42 minutes on September 3, 2017. The interview was conducted via Skype by Marco de Marco in Amsterdam, and simultaneously translated into Italian. You can view it at this link.

The Table of Contents for this site is here.

MAIN DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING OUR POSITION THAT ALL NASA MARS WEATHER DATA IS FLAWED:

JULY 5, 2018: BASIC REPORT for MARS CORRECT – CRITIQUE OF ALL NASA MARS WEATHER DATA

ABSTRACT: We present evidence that NASA is seriously understating Martian air pressure. Our 9-year study critiques 2,097 Sols (nearly 6 terrestrial years, 3.13 Martian years) of highly problematic MSL Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REMS) 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 previously accepted small pressure ranges that could be measured by Viking 1 and 2 (18 mbar), Pathfinder and Phoenix (12 mbar), and MSL (11.5 mbar - altered to 14 mbar in 2017). For MSL there were several pressures published at or slightly above the initial advertised upper range of the pressure sensor. Indeed, from August 30 to September 5, 2012 pressures initially published were from 737 mbar to 747 mbar – two orders of magnitude high – only to be retracted. We challenged them all and NASA revised them down, however 8 years into this audit it has come to our attention that of two pressure sensors ordered by NASA for Mars Pathfinder, one of them (Tavis Dash No. 1) could in fact measure up to 1,034 mbar. Further, for the MSL according to an Abstract to the American Geophysical Union for the Fall 2012 meeting, The Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) states of their MSL (and Phoenix) Vaisala transducers, “The pressure device measurement range is 0 – 1025 hPa in temperature range of -45°C – 55°C, but its calibration is optimized for the Martian pressure range of 4 – 12 hPa..” So while we originally thought that of the five landers on Mars that had meteorological suites, none of them could measure Earth-like pressures, in fact, assuming that the higher pressure sensor Pathfinder Tavis Dash 1 (0-15 PSIA/1,034 mbar) was sent rather than Tavis Dash 2 (0-0.174 PSIA/12 mbar), three landers were actually equipped to get the job done, but the public was largely kept in the dark about it. All 19 low uv values were removed when we asked about them, although they eventually restored 12 of them. REMS always-sunny opacity reports were contradicted by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter photos. Why REMS Team data was so wrong is a matter of speculation beyond the basic thrust of this report, but we demonstrate that their weather data was regularly 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 which we link 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 failed. Phoenix and MSL pressure transducer design problems included confusion about dust filter location, and lack of information about nearby heat sources due to International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR). NASA Ames 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 and similar storms above Olympus Mons (over 21 km high), dust storm opacity, snow at Phoenix and elsewhere that descends 1 to 2 km in only 5 or 10 minutes, excessive aero braking, liquid water running on the surface in numerous locations at Recurring Slope Lineae (RSL) and stratus clouds 13 km above areoid, 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.

JULY 16, 2018: PowerPoint version of our Basic Report is found at Mars Correct? Mars is Wet!

 

NASA / JPL-Caltech / Texas A&M

This movie clip above shows several dust devils moving across Gusev Crater on Mars.

BREAKTHROUGH PROPULSION PHYSICS      

       Those with an interest in breakthrough propulsion physics should see my notes on the textbook, Frontiers in Propulsion Science (Edited by Marc G. Millis and Eric M. Davis; published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.). The book, hereafter referred to only as The Textbook, provides information for engineering physics as it relates to spaceship propulsion. It was last updated in 2012. Originally I posted questions (highlighted in red) to pursue at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University where I earned a B.S. in space physics. However, it only took me 5 semesters to earn my B.S., and much of that time was spent researching the density of the Martian atmosphere. This means that some of the questions remain to be addressed even though I now have my PhD in physics with a specialization in Computational Condensed Matter Theory.

       My notes are broken up into sections that match the chapters of The Textbook, with links to the chapter notes in Table 2 below. Comments, corrections, updates to my notes and questions by the AIAA textbook authors or other knowledgeable authorities are most welcome and will be published in the appropriate sections unless they are of a private or potentially classified nature.