Mars Correct Basic Report Sections 15.6.1 to 15.6.3

HOME PAGE Web Site Contents Mars Report Contents Mars Report Abstract CV for Dr. David Roffman Diplomas PhD Thesis PhD Thesis Powerpoint Mars PowerPoint MSL Weather Reports Base on Mars? Seasonal Pressure Altitude Calculations Seismic Activity on Mars? Perserverance Weather Data MSL Years 5-6 Winter MSL Year 5 FALL MSL Year 5 Summer MSL Year 5 Spring MSL Years 4-5 Winter MSL Year 4 FALL MSL Year 4 Summer Weather MSL Year 4 Spring Weather MSL Yr 3-4 Winter Weather MSL Fall Yr 3 Weather MSL Yr. 3 Summer Weather MSL Yr. 3 Spring Weather Martian plume March 25 2017 MSL Ultraviolet 3 YEARS OF MSL UV Desai, EDL, Parachutes & ExoMars Mars winter vs. summer temps Helo to Mars Sea at Utopia Planitia, Mars Tree Stump at MSL? Spherical life on Mars? Mars Report Abstract, 1-1.2 Mars Report Sec.2-2.1 Report 2.2-2.4 Report 2.5-2.5.2 Report 2.5.3-2.7 Report 3-4 Report 4.1-4.1.2 Report 5 to 6 Report  7-7.2.1 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10 Report 11 Global Dust Storm Report 12 Report  13-13.2 Report 13.3-13.5 Report 13.6 Report 14-15 Report 15.1 Report 15.2-15.3 Report 15.4-15.6.2 Report - Report Report 16-16.1 Report 17-20 Report References Rebuttal of REMS Report Running water on Mars MSL Year 0 Weather MSL Yr 2 Winter-Spring Weather MSL Yr 2 Summer Weather MSL Yr 2 Fall Weather MSL Yr 2-3 Winter Weather Adiabatics MSL Hi Temps MSL Low Temps Organic Chem found by MSL Oxygen in Mars Air MSL Day length & Temp Warm winter ground temps 155-Mile High Mars Plume Radiation Diurnal Air Temp Variation Mars Temps Fahrenheit Beagle found JPL/NASA Pressure Mistakes Enter MarsCorrect Sol 370, 1160 & 1161 Histories Mars-Radio-Show JPL Fudges Pressure Curves MSL Temp. ∆ Mast to Ground High & Low Pressures Normalized Mars soil 2% water Moving rock Mars MAVEN MSL Relative Humidity Claim Ashima Concedes Original MSL Weather Record Old MSL Weather Record MSL Summer Weather Pressure Estimate REMS Wind MSL Pressures REMS Reports Curiosity Geology CERN-2013-pics Daylight Math MSL Errors P1 MSL Errors P2 MSL-Chute-Flap MSL daylight Ashima Sols 15 to 111 Ashima Sol 112 to 226 Ashima Sol 227 on New Ashima Sols 270+ MSL Summer to Sol 316 Updated Secrets of Mars Weather Forecast Wind Booms MSL Credibility MSL Temp. Swings MSL Temperatures Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) VL2 - MSL Ls Comparson Ashima MIT Mars GCM Dust Storm Nonsense Mars Slideshow Moving Sand & Martian Wind 3 DEC12 Press Conf. MSL Press Conf. 15NOV2012 Sol Numbering MSL Pressure Graph to Ls 218.8 MSL Sky Color Mars Sky Color DATA DEBATE! Zubrin's Letter Phoenix Vaisala Vaisala Pressure Sensors Phoenix &MSL Flawed MSL REMS Viking pressure sensors failed MSL landing site Mars Landings Phobos Grunt Martian Air Supersaturation Mars & CH4 Mars and MSL Time Viking Pressure Audit Links Mars Society 2008 Quant Finance Frontiers Home Front. Preface Frontiers Ch. 1 Frontiers Ch. 2 Antimatter Lightning Frontiers Ch. 3 Frontiers Ch. 4 Frontiers Ch. 5 Frontiers Ch. 6 Frontiers Ch. 7 Frontiers Ch. 8 Frontiers Ch. 9 Frontiers Ch 10 Frontiers Ch 11 Frontiers Ch 12 Frontiers Ch 13 Frontiers Ch 14 Frontiers Ch 15 Frontiers Ch 16 Frontiers Ch 17 Frontiers Ch 18 Frontiers Ch 19 Frontiers Ch 20 Frontiers Ch 21 Frontiers Ch 22 World Tour Spring-Break -13 Other Travels Asteroid Impact? ExoMars data Unit Issues Viking Pressures Tavis CADs Landing Long Scale Heights LS of Max/Min Pressures Tavis Report Tavis Failures Lander Altitude Martian Trees? Code Experiment Gedanken Report Mars Nuke? Martian Flares Mach Numbers MOLA (altitude) Original Mars Report Mariner 9 & Pressure Mars  Temps MSL Time MPF Pressure Blog Debates Spring Pendulum Plasma Model Reporting Errors Orbital Parameters Anderson Localization P. 1 Anderson Localization P. 2 Moving rock old Navigating Mars Mars Report Section Links Mars Report Figure Link Gillespie Lake rock outcrop MSL Sol 200 Anomaly Sol 1300&1301 Anomalies Gilbert Levin & Labeled Release Brine on Mars Ceres Lights Yr 1 Table 1 Missing data Mitchell Report Old Mars Report All MPF Temps ExoMars fails Did Spirit find past life? MSL ground temps go haywire OPACITY AT MSL Luminescence on Mars Dust Storms & Microorganisms 2018 Global Dust Storm Links to Sections of the Basic Report

Temperature sensor failures, personnel, and questions about pressure sensor range & sensitivity. Updated 3/21/2021.

15.6.1 Failure of the Temperature Sensor.

        The right question is likely not about why the ground temperature sensor began to fail in March, 2017. Rather, it’s why NASA, or the REMS Team working for them, are allowing us now to see that there is something radically wrong with the sensor. The answer is likely very simple. Few people in the world care enough about Martian weather to inspire NASA to care.  However, those that do are in many cases middle-level NASA workers who know something’s wrong, but are afraid to say something because it might cost them their job. I live in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Most of my neighbors who are not yet retired largely meet this description.

        As I wrote earlier, Boom 1 that carried the ground temperature sensor was damaged on landing in 2012.  It took about 9 months before the REMS Team began to publish any ground temperatures at all in their daily weather reports.  Then 9 months’ worth of ground temperature data suddenly appeared, along with a statement by Guy Webster that only the wind sensor on the boom was destroyed (we got him to remove all wind data). In July, 2013 NASA decided to revise a lot of air temperatures way down, dropping many from above freezing to well below it - see Table 20 in Section 15 of this report.

       Perhaps the most important thing for our readers to understand is that not all NASA data published by NASA is from NASA alone. In an astonishing twist of fate, much of it in part actually originated here. How is that possible? Look at our records for MSL Sol 1605 (Ls 314, February 10, 2017). See Figure 83 and Annex V of this report. The REMS Team originally published a pressure of 815 Pa, but the preceding day the pressure was 850 Pa. A drop of 35 Pa was not reasonable from one sol to the next. Typically the change in pressure is under 10 Pa. So we predicted that NASA would alter it, and they did indeed back up to 847 Pa. When this happens we don’t just put it on our weather spreadsheets. We document the prediction and NASA changes by publishing before and after print-screen showing what NASA did.

       For Sol 1605 (February 10, 2017) we also successfully predicted that NASA would alter its temperature data.  At first they published a low air temperature of -54° C.    We noted that the previous sol (1604) had an air temperature low of -77    ° C.     Such large changes from one sol to another have not survived in the past (that is, before about March 20, 2017). Sure enough, NASA altered the air temperature low for Sol 1605 to -73 ° C. Likewise, the initial ground temperatures for Sol 1605 were +10 ° C for a high and -61° C for a low. For Sol 1604 they were +15° C and -77° C.  That was too much of a change, so NASA made the predicted change and claimed Sol 1605 ground temperatures were really +14 and -78° C. This cat and mouse game went on for five years, and we have documented it all.   NASA seems to have had one agenda only – keep the data on a believable curve, and hope that nobody with access to the purse strings figures out what they have been doing.  However, for some reason, this pattern was altered around Sol 1642 (March 20, 2017).  The question is, why?

15.6.2 Personnel Issues.

        The inventor of the pressure sensor, Henrik Kahanpää of the Finnish Meteorological Institute and of the REMS Team is a frequent visitor of our three websites. So are other REMS Team members. Given the loss of the ExoMars 2016, likely due to bad weather data from NASA, we suspect that major (European) Mars weather personnel have had enough of pressure to confirm suspicions of foul play.

Figure 83 - After we posted the three images on the left someone at the REMS Team or at JPL altered the Sol 1605 report to what is shown on the right. It is quite apparent that before March, 2017 reports that vary too much from the preceding day or previous Martian year at the same Ls do not survive long at the REMS site at

15.6.3 Mixed messages about the range and sensitivity of pressure sensors sent to Mars.

       It has on been our position that NASA has understated Martian pressure by two orders of magnitude. On Figure 57 we made a case for a pressure at areoid of about 511 mbar (vs. the accepted pressure of 6.1mbar),  at Mars Pathfinder of ~719 mbar, at MSL ~768 mbar, at the Valles Marineris 835 mbar and in the Hellas Basis about 1,054 mbar (more than average pressure of 1,013.25 mbar at sea level on Earth). While mbar are the pressure units that we most prefer, others in the scientific community use pascals (Pa) or hectopascals (hPa). We have often noted mistakes in publication where hPa are confused with Pa and vice versa. The difference between these units is two orders of magnitude (i.e., two decimal places).

       The problem first came to our attention when we found that the REMS Team originally published pressures ranging from 737 to 747 hPa between August 30, 2012 and September 5, 2017. On September 2, 2012 we called Guy Webster, the PR man at JPL, and told him that if these pressures were correct, he needed to parade out the President of the United States to announce the greatest discovery in astronomy – that Mars has air pressure like than on Earth. On September 5, 2012 REMS said the pressure was 747 hPa (i.e., 747 mbar). The next day they published a pressure of 747 Pa (i.e. 7.47 mbar). This was captured by print-screen on Figure 17A. Soon after that they changed all the high pressures, rolling them back from hPa to Pa. Was this a simple accident?

       We have worked since 2009 with Viking 1 and 2 data taken from "Mars Meteorology Data; Viking Lander." Mars Meteorology Data; Viking Lander. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2015. This is found at On July 12, 2017 we received an e-mail from an engineer by the name of Nathan Mariels, CEO at Global Electric Technology. In it he wrote:

Pa is not equal to hPa. From Viking logs: "Pressure mb = millibars, 1 mb = 100 hPa, where hPa = hecta Pascals" This is incorrect.    1 mb = 1 hPa = 100 Pa.

        The above error was repeated on every data set for Viking 1 and 2. A sample is captured by print-screen on Figure 84.

       Nathan found similar errors on MSL data that he examined. He also found different pressure ranges for landers than what we found, although we noted on Figures 10A and 10B that three of four sensors ordered by NASA from Tavis were rated for maximum pressures under 25 mbar, one of them – Tavis Dash Number 1 was rated at 15 PSIA which converts to 1,034 mbar. Pathfinder pressure problems were discussed earlier in Section 12 of this report. The Vikings and Pathfinder all used Tavis pressure transducers which are discussed in great detail in Annex G of this report ( Nathan found similar errors on MSL data that he examined. He also found different pressure ranges for landers than what we found, although we noted on Figures 10A and 10B that three of four sensors ordered by NASA from Tavis were rated for maximum pressures under 25 mbar, one of them – Tavis Dash Number 1 was rated at 15 PSIA which converts to 1,034 mbar. Pathfinder pressure problems were discussed earlier in Section 12 of this report. The Vikings and Pathfinder all used Tavis pressure transducers which are discussed in great detail in Annex G of this report ( After Vaisala, FMI and NASA read our critiques of the much lighter sensor used on Phoenix and MSL, for Insight NASA chose to go back to the same Tavis transducer that was used on Pathfinder – one with a dual range – likely on each transducer - leaving open the possibility of a cover-up of monkey business/disinformation for pressures.

       While it seems hard to believe that a mere copying over of wrong units from one page to another caused serious problems, that’s what might have happened with all of the Viking 1 and 2 data at     

      The problem with accepting the accident explanation for the Vikings is that it still leaves us with an order in 1976 by Dr. James Fletcher to manually alter the color of the Martian sky on all JPL monitors, and it leaves us with 36 years of altered sky color until we were finally permitted to see blue sky at Gale Crater, Mars in 2012.

Figure 84 – Viking 1 and Viking 2 error in unit conversion.


      Now, let’s look at another problem brought to my attention by Nathan – an inconsistency with respect to the pressure range and sensitivity on MSL. In particular, let’s look at the Abstract put out by the Finnish Meteorological Institute, which created the pressure sensors on Phoenix and MSL. 

       First let's examine a statement that backs the 1150 Pa figure: In Section 11 of the REMS Calibration Plan (Document No, CAB-REMS-PLN-002, Issue 002, it states: 

      REMS shall measure the Ambient Pressure in the range of 1 to 1150Pa with a resolution of 0.5 Pa and accuracy of 10 Pa BOL (Beginning of Life) and 20 Pa EOL (End of Life). Requirement 012 (PLD-20), REMS shall measure the Ambient Pressure at a minimum sampling rate of 1 Hz for at least 5 minutes each hour continuously over the mission.

       But, in their Abstract to the American Geophysical Union for the Fall 2012 meeting the FMI states:

       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.

       Note: 1025 hPa = 1,025 mbar. So, while it was supposedly optimized for 4 to 12 (not 11.5 mbar – meaning that the problem is not one of a sliding decimal place), it was still capable of measuring up to 1,025 mbar. Again, average pressure on Earth at sea level is 1,013.25 mbar. This is, to borrow a phrase from the Wizard of Oz, a horse of a different color. For the record, we have preserved the FMI abstract showing the 1,025 mbar capacity with the print-screen on Figure 86. As for the temperature range, at MSL there were no reports of low temperatures as warm as -45°C that were not changed to much colder temperatures. For example, there was an air temperature low of -46°C reported by the REMS Team for Sol 880 on January 27, 2014, but they altered it after we highlighted it on our REMS data spreadsheets at and in particular the print-screen record seen below as Figure 85. Note: As was shown on Table 15b earlier, during the Global Dust Storm of 2018 the warmest low for air temperature was -58°C on Sol 2103, and the warmest low for ground temperature was -56°C on Sol 2085.

Figure 85 – The REMS Team would not permit low temperatures warmer than -50°C.


Figure 86 – Print-screen (recorded on July 23, 2017) of the FMI Abstract entitled Pressure and Humidity Measurements at the MSL Landing Site Supported by Modeling of the Atmospheric Conditions.

       In contrast to what they submitted to the American Geophysical Union in 2012, the standard REMS position on the range of their MSL pressure sensor is shown on Figure 87.


Figure 87 - The Vaisala Pressure sensor and its range as depicted by

        On July 24, 2017 we found that the REMS Team again altered the maximum pressure to 1400 Pa (14 mbar). See Figure 88. After they raised the maximum pressure from 1150 to 1400 Pa, they published a maximum pressure of 1,294 Pa for Sol 1784 on August 13, 2017. On the previous sol (1783) the presure published was only 879 Pa. Yet even with the newer (likely false) upper pressure range of 1,400 Pa, when we challenged it with our colored spreadsheet and print-screen (, the REMS Team dropped the 1,294 Pa for that sol to 883 Pa.

Figure 88 – REMS puts out a new maximum pressure for MSL. This time it’s 1400 Pa (14 mbar). Here they also claim a relative accuracy (repeatability in the time scale of hours) of less than 2 PA and a resolution of 0.2 Pa. On Figure 71 the resolution was 0.5 Pa.