The Magic Human Space Travel Tricks 1959-2016

People think that spacecrafts with humans aboard can be sent into orbits around Earth and then, from there, blast off into space at high speeds, stop and visit the Moon and Mars and then, blast off again and return to Earth ... and stop. They don't understand that they are tricked by the US Nationax Aeronautix and Xpace Administratiox, NAXA, that fakes everything concerning space since the 1960's using pseudoscience.

No humans have ever been in space, because you cannot (a) calculate and execute your trajectories and (b) re-enter and land on Earth or other planets after a trip in space. The latest NAXA hoax is the OSIRIS-REx! It is really stupid!


About us


Contact info


Order books


Personne n'est allé sur la Lune

Welcome! This is the most popular Heiwa Co web page on the Internet!

Human space travel!

People believe that humans (like you and me!) can travel in space!

Sorry! All information about humans flying in space since April 1961 is false!

It started >55 years ago.

Just to make things clear from the beginning.

I do not believe that all the matter and energy of the UNIVERSE was created by a BIG BANG gravitational singularity 13-14 billions of years ago or whatever. And I don't believe the UNIVERSE is full of Black Holes today that will collide and suck up again all the matter and energy of the UNIVERSE, so it will finish to exist ... and start all over again. I consider any scientist suggesting anything like it as a religious, stupid, crazy idiot.

I explain more below. Just read on! It is funny and interesting. The same BIG BANG fools suggest we humans can fly in space.

Human space travel was impossible in the past and is impossible in the future. It is just a funny invention by lying astrophysicists and astronuts! Tell your friends about it. So we can laugh about it. Media will not report it. They just report propaganda! Politically correct shit!

My web page/report about human and other, interplanetary or even interstellar, space travel tricks, jokes and projects, incl. the US Nationax Aeronautix and Xpace Administratiox, NAXA, billion dollars ones - Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, International Space Station, etc, etc, will take time to study. Hope you will enjoy it. It is not a conspiracy of mine. It is just fun.

All information since the 1960's that humans can fly in space is pseudoscience and propaganda invented or made up by Russian and American astrophysicists, cosmoclowns and astronots on Earth, i.e. a practice which does not adhere to the scientific method. There is no evidence of anything!

Most ordinary people are then brain washed by media and Hollywood to believe that human space travel is possible and has taken place, i.e. that humans can take off from our planet Earth in a spacecraft that first orbits Earth, then accelerates out of the orbit, arrives at and brakes, lands and stops on the Moon 1969 or planet Mars 2025 or (right) regularly docks with the International (fake) Space Station orbiting Earth since many years and takes off again and returns to Earth.

Most people simply do not understand that only one-way launches of un-manned satellites into orbits around Earth are possible. There is no possibility to send away such satellites further into space away from Earth orbits to, e.g. Moon, planets (Mars, etc) or comets and to stop and land there and to blast off again and return. The extra force to get started out of Earth orbit must be applied at (1) the right time, (2) location in orbit, (3) direction in orbit, (4) duration, (5) amplitude and so on, which cannot be done. No rocket can do it.

You are going too fast in orbit to start with and as soon as the force is not applied any longer, Earth and Sun gravity forces will pull you back and change your direction and speed.

Fake astronuts orbiting planet Earth every 90 minutes at 7 000 m/s speed building the fake Internationall Space Station - half ot the time in darkness. The picture is fake. Planet Earth orbits the Sun in a year at 30 000 m/s speed, while rotating 360° every day. It is not easy to pinpoint your location at a given time as your speeds are so great

Another reason is the so called NAXA/EXA astrophysicists and astronuts claiming they know how to do it and having done it. Look at them! Clowns! Actors. Well paid to lie! But not very funny ones, in my opinion. One even teaches Human Spaceflight, SD2905, at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden!

People lying about human space travel are paid €9.000:-/month for life. It is explained further down in this long article.

The reasons why humans cannot travel in space are simple. The spacecrafts cannot get away from orbit around Earth and later stop and land on the Moon or Mars (or a comet!) or even dock with another spacecraft at high speed in any orbit! Basic! And they cannot return, re-enter, and land on Earth later. They are going too fast. Gravity force is too strong. No means to re-enter and land! And a human being cannot be locked up for many years inside a spacecraft or habitat doing a boring return trip to Mars. And then there is the cosmic radiation! Nasty stuff!

But as Russian, American and European space travel experts lie since the 1960's that humans can easily fly in space and schools, universities, academies of sciences and media transmit this message all the time, it is difficult to accept that you have been fooled and taken to the cleaners.

Plenty magic tricks Houdini style and jokes are used. Clever inventions. Dangerous things! Lives are often at stake when human space flights are done! Not a true word though. Lies all of it. Stupid science fiction. No one has died doing these magic trips!

Start reading my A B C D E below why human space trips are impossible! It is easy reading. Easy to understand. Then tell your friends about it.

Or why not start with the latest NAXA September 2016 hoax? OSIRIS-REx! Haven't you heard about it. It is a 100% joke!

OSIRIS-REx spacecraft - LOL!

The Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) un-manned spacecraft (left) is just now (not) travelling to a near-Earth asteroid, called Bennu (formerly 1999 RQ36), to bring at least a 2.1 ounce sample back to Earth for study.

The mission will (not) help scientists investigate how planets formed and how life began, as well as (not) improve our understanding of asteroids that could impact Earth, we are told!

Imagine that! Asteroids impacting Earth!!!

OSIRIS-REx was (not) launched Sept. 8, 2016, at 7:05 p.m. EDT. The spacecraft will (not) reach its asteroid target in 2018 and return a sample to Earth (!!) in 2023. It is just the latest NAXA space joke! Not very funny actually. I wonder what twerps make it up.

Gravity Assist Kick

After about one year orbiting the sun, OSIRIS-REx will September 22 2017 make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet, where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with asteroid Bennu. Flybys or gravity assist kicks are always part of any space hoax! See C. below about this impossible hoax. 

Some criminal clowns - all on Earth - of this stupid joke are:

1. Dwayne Brown, NAXA Office of Communications, tel 202-358-1726,

2. Laurie Cantillo, NAXA Office of Communications, tel 202-358-1077,

3. Nancy N. Jones, NAXA Office of Communications, tel 301-286-0039,

4. Erin Morton, Office of the Principal Investigator, University of Arizona, tel 520-269-2493,

5. Gary Napier, Lockheed Martin Communications, tel 303-971-4012,

6. George Diller, NAXA's Kennedy Space Center Office of Public Affairs, tel 321-861-7643,

7. Shannon Ridinger, NAXA's Marshall Space Flight Center, tel 256-544-3774,

They will tell you their inventions and fantasies about the OSIRIS-REx videos and concept imagery .

Call them and tell me (or media) what they say ... or lie.

Can really a NAXA spacecraft encounter a fast moving heavenly body in space (?), grab a little sample of it (??) and then return to Earth and deposit the sample at a desert in Utah???

Of course not. I explain why below. Enjoy it. ROTFL! It is so funny. If you know the German language, study some questions - 38 Fragen - about it.


A - Rocket science, Fundamentals of spaceflight and Human (!) spaceflight are taught at university ... even if it is pseudoscience

Rocket science, fundamentals of spaceflight and human (!) space flights are not really taught (sic) at university, e.g. the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. It seems on the other hand the courses just copy/paste official 1950's pseudoscience:

SD2816 Rocket Science - teacher Dan Borglund,, tel. +4670 346 42 41 - noone replies when you try

In this basic course - on a conceptual level - you do not really learn how to plan a geocentric or interplanetary (!) space mission, including the determination of suitable trajectories, the number of stages required, and the approximate energy and mass budget. You learn how to fake it.

At present, October 2016, this useless course is not scheduled to be offered. It was a joke from the beginning. However ...

SD2900 Fundamentals of Spaceflight - teacher Gunnar Tibert,, tel. +4673 765 22 22 - you can leave a message but nobody calls back

This is another basic course where you do not learn

(1) to apply fundamental principles in order to explain the governing dynamics of spaceflight, with emphasis on rocket dynamics and basic orbital mechanics,

(2) to derive, relate and develop mathematical models of spaceflight, with emphasis on launcher trajectories, two-body orbital mechanics, relative orbital motion and low-thrust (LOL) orbit transfer, and

(3) to plan a geocentric space mission on a conceptual level, including elements such as determination of suitable trajectories, the number of stages required, and the approximate energy and mass budget. 

Do not try to plan a real space mission, because you'll always run out of fuel/energy and/or get too heavy.

After passing exams of above nonsense you can attend:

SD2905 Human spaceflight - teacher Christer Fuglesang,, tel. +468 790 64 65 - nobody replies here.

The aim of this Masters course by an adjunct (warning - he is just an actor!) professor in Space Physics is to give the participants a good (sic) understanding of most aspects of human (!) spaceflight but not if it is possible at all. The students can choose assignments or problems that deepen different aspects of the course content incl. research examples, future scenarios, and so further. The teacher (ROTFL) alleges he has himself (!) done several space trips in Earth orbit, space walks and re-entries and you'll only pass your exams, if you agree with him in all respects.

On completion of the three courses - they are free of charge and jokes (just look at the teachers!) - the students are therefore not able to plan and calculate any trajectories, forces applied and fuel required for simple human trips to and from the Moon and Mars and how to re-enter and land on Earth at the end (and to win €1M). Reason is that the courses shall only prepare the students to trumpet, e.g. American, European incl. Russian or Swedish space agencies propaganda and pseudoscience. Imagine what nonsense can be taught at university! Therefore the information below is not taught at any university:


B - Trajectories of space travel legs cannot be predicted in a Universe full of Black Holes and quasars - the Juno mission to Jupiter hoax (1)

A trajectory is the path followed by a projectile flying or an object moving under the action of given forces. An orbit is the complex path followed by one heavenly body, e.g. a planet, a moon or an artificial satellite around another planet or Sun without any power used. If the orbit is circular, the local orbital tangential velocity (m/s), the change of direction (°/s) and the gravity (inwards) and centrifugal (outwards) forces (N) are constant and in balance. If the orbit is elliptical, which is the normal case, the orbital, tangential speed, change of direction and gravity/centrifugal forces are variable and greater, when the distance between the bodies is smaller, but they are always in balance. The position/tangential speed/change of direction of a body in orbit can be determined. Planet Earth orbits the Sun since billions of years without any assistance at about 29 800 m/s velocity and 360°/year change of direction. But you cannot stop Earth orbiting the Sun. Space travel is simply to move from one orbit to another orbit and to/from these orbits down to the heavenly bodies being orbited, it is said. Question remains if it can be done. I pay €1M to you, if you can, going to the Moon and Mars! It sounds simple.

Say that you only want to go to the L2 point 1.500.000 kms away from Earth (and 151.500.000 kms from the Sun) and orbit the Sun there. You are in a 90 minutes Earth orbit to start with that in turn orbits the Sun. When your tangential, orbital velocity is straight away from the Sun (it happens only once every Earth orbit), you apply a force to catapult your spacecraft 1.500.000 kms further, straight away from the Sun (not up or down). No more, no less. And there, after a month of travel - your radial speed away from the Sun is reduced all the time - your radial motion away from the Sun and Earth shall become zero, where the combined gravity force of Earth and Sun is in balance with the centrifugal force acting on your spacecraft in orbit around the Sun 151.500.000 kms away. You shall only continue orbit the Sun, so you must also adjust the orbital velocity a little, as you are further way from Earth. With skill you have moved from orbiting Earth to orbiting the Sun! You only have to apply the right force at the right time at the right location and direction. The trajectory of the trip to L2 starts in Earth orbit and ends at L2 (the arrival point in space in orbit Sun). Same applies going to the L1 point 1.500.000 kms away from Earth (and 148.500.000 kms from the Sun) and orbit the Sun there, i.e. in the opposite direction going to L2. But once in orbit around the Sun ... at L1 or L2 ... you remain there. No way to fly back and land on Earth.

It is much more difficult to fly to, e.g. the Moon nearby. Then you must apply a force that catapults you to where the Moon will be a couple of days later to attract your spacecraft to it by its gravity. Then you must apply a second force (using your engine) to avoid crashing on the Moon and a third force to get into Moon orbit. Space travel between moving heavenly bodies is much more difficult than going to the L1 and L2 points in space.

It is important to know what gravity is and isn't. There are two definitions of gravity.

According Newton gravity is a force that somehow acts instantaneously between objects in space and time with mass, causing them to attract one another. The bigger the mass, the bigger is the force. Gravity force is also a variable function of the distance between the two objects. The greater the distance, the smaller the force. Space and time are separate absolute entities and all objects (with mass) in them are affected by gravity forces. I am a firm believer of gravity as a force. It affects human space travel between heavenly bodies and makes it impossible ... because the heavenly bodies are moving in orbits all the time. You can move from one orbit to another but never arrive to the second orbit, when the heavenly body there happens to pass.

According Einstein gravity is a field - the product of bodies moving through curved space time. Space and time are relative entities, interwoven into a "fabric" called spacetime. One result is that light, i.e. photons without mass travelling at the speed of light, is affected by this gravitational field, when passing, e.g. the Sun or the Earth. It has been verified studying the light of stars during eclipses from Earth and stars from a NASA satellite orbiting Earth. The light from the stars changes direction (is bent), when passing the Sun and the Earth, we are told. Why not? I haven't seen it, though. It does not really affect artificial, man-made objects slowly moving in space.

Black Hole

Another hypothesis is that an object with infinite mass (and density) in space time - a Black Hole - will attract - by gravity? - light with no mass, so it cannot escape at all. The photons without mass flying around in space are sucked up by the Black Hole (left) and disappear forever. Black Holes or singularities were discovered by cosmologist Stephen Hawking many years ago after looking too deep into glass of whisky, I assume! Such an asshole (?) in 3D cosmos or space is the result of a star collapsing into itself by gravity, when all hydrogene atoms of the star fuse into helium ones that fuse into or become other particles releasing energy/heat. After a while all remaining particles are just a non-dimensional point of energy (!) or singularity in space without length, breadth and height but with indefinite density (!) or no density (energy has no density), unless they all disappeared into the fourth dimensions, according Stephen.

Stephen is suffering from ALS since 1963, a disease that killed my friend E in six months 2001/2. Imagine what cosmologists can invent! At this point - Black Hole - releases radiation/particles and after a further while it is gone - pouff - for ever. Or maybe a new UNIVERSE is created!

It is very easy to spot a Black Hole in space. Just look out for a quasar! A quasar is a compact region surrounding a supermassive Black Hole in space and emitting enormous amounts of electromagnetic energy, as mass from the core of a surrounding galaxy, under the influence of the Black Hole's gravity, falls onto its accretion disc.

You follow? Mass falls onto its accretion disc!

I do not believe in quasars either. They are another invention of astrophysicists to keep them busy.

The old UNIVERSE, that we are told people fly around in today, was created a long time ago out of the first gravitional singularity ever heard of.

A quasar in space dropping mass into a Black Hole!

Gravitional singularity in action

The UNIVERSE was created out of a Black Hole in reverse!

"All matter and energy of the entire visible UNIVERSE was contained in an unimaginably hot, dense point - gravitational singularity - a billionth the size of a nuclear particle."

Its temperature was 1032 ° kelvin. A second later the Lepton epoch started and the temperature was only 109 ° kelvin. In one second the temperature of the expanding UNIVERSE had sunk 1021 ° kelvin! Someone had thrown a bucket of water on it to cool it down?

I do not believe in Black Holes with infinite masses or energies in space surrounded by quasars, or e.g. that two Black Holes with quasars collided 1.3 billion years ago and formed a new Black Hole that deformed the spacetime producing gravitational waves that were detected and seen 14 September 2015, by two Laser Interferometer Gravitational Observatories at US states of Louisiana and Washington, when passing through Earth on that day ... 1.3 billion years later:

"The staggering strength of the merger gave rise to a new black hole and created a gravitational field so strong that it distorted spacetime in waves that spread throughout space with a power about 50 times stronger than that of all the shining stars and galaxies in the observable universe. Such events are, incredibly, thought to be common in space, but this collision was the first of its kind ever detected and its waves the first ever seen."

Two Black Holes in space without quasars prior collision becoming one Black Hole distorting spacetime!

What a joke! Black Hole collisions, common in space - once a month - and waves discovered in the gravitational field are just
pseudoscience in my opinion. Anyway, I didn't notice anything 14 September 2015. Of course the change was smaller than one ten-thousandth the diameter of a proton and my eyes cannot see such amazing things.

Just to make things clear:

I do not believe that all the matter and energy of the UNIVERSE was created by a BIG BANG gravitational singularity 13-14 billions of years ago or whatever. And I don't believe the UNIVERSE is full of Black Holes today that will collide and suck up again all the matter and energy of the UNIVERSE, so it will finish to exist ... and start all over again. I consider any scientist suggesting anything like it as a religious, stupid, crazy idiot.

In this article gravity is a force.

It is fairly easy to put an artifical spacecraft in orbit around Earth. I can do it. I particularily like the GPS satellite blocks put in 24 hours orbits around Earth at quite high altitudes. These satellite blocks then appear like the Sun and individual GPS satellites rise and set each day seen from Earth and can thus be used - with an accurate clock and sextant or just a mobile phone - to automatically establish your position on Earth in case of a mobile phone. The old way with a sextant takes longer but the principle is the same.

It is not so easy to put an artificial spacecraft in orbit around the Sun or Moon starting from Earth unless you go to the L1/2 points. If you have too little speed leaving Earth vertically straight up like an ICBM, you will soon drop straight back on Earth due to the Earth gravity force (like an ICBM) and go faster and faster and be vaporized at re-entry. No orbit! If you manage to get away from Earth gravity force to be caught by Sun or Moon gravity force but have too little speed to orbit the Sun or the Moon, you will first go slower and slower and then be pulled into the Sun or Moon at increased speed by Sun or Moon gravity forces and crash. No orbit! And if you have too much speed or go in the wrong direction, you will speed off into the Milky way or Universe and be lost forever. No orbit! In all cases you cannot stop and get away from the unknown trajectory you are in. You are going too fast or too slow or in the wrong direction and have no fuel to carry you home and ... you don't know, where you are. Satellite orbits are always one-way. You apply a force (by firing a rocket) and enter an orbit at the right speed, altitude and direction ... and you'll be there forever. You cannot return and land on Earth. There are no means to brake! You have no fuel for it. If you enter or leave orbit at the wrong, slow or high speed or too low altitude, you will sooner or later crash somewhere or disappear in the universe.

Travel in 3D space is not a pleasant 2D cruise at sea, where you navigate by looking at the Sun, Moon, stars relative the Earth horizon and your clock ... or GPS ... and charts.

An optimistic (impossible) space trip to Mars. You depart from Earth at greater speed than Earth orbital speed say 41 000 m/s (and unknown direction) to arrive at planet Mars at much reduced speed say 24 000 m/s ... for an MOI. The picture with the banana shaped trajctory is a joke

A spacecraft with humans aboard travelling between, e.g. Earth and Mars (left - according JPL), is not orbital, as the trajectory takes place at variable distances, velocities and changes of direction from moving/orbiting heavenly bodies Earth and Mars and Sun all the time ... an n(four)-body problem ... that cannot be solved. The gravity forces acting on the spacecraft in the trajectory vary all the time and speed and direction also vary all the time accordingly, so the 3D trajectory and the spacecraft position in it cannot be scientifically established. Earth orbits the Sun in 365 days at 29.800 m/s speed, while Mars orbits the Sun in 687 days at 24.000 m/s speed.

To suggest that a NAXA spacecraft leaves Earth 1 December 2013, at say 41 000 m/s speed and arrives at Mars 24 September 2014, i.e. ~298 days later at 24 000 m/s speed is not possible.

In that time the spacecraft must also displace 0.52 AU radially away from Earth and the Sun to ... encounter Mars ... which orbits Sun at much slower speed. Orbit insert ... Mars?? What nonsense is it? Orbit insert? Is it to brake or slow down not to miss the target completely? The spacecraft trajectory left is nonsense!

But it is what is taught at universities! According Newton, as soon as you depart from Earth and stop your rocket engine, Earth gravity force attracts you and slows you down and pulls you back and as soon as you arrive in the vicinity of Mars (if you manage to get there!), Mars gravity force attracts you, spacecraft velocity increases, and pulls it towards Mars ... and you crash! But you cannot calculate your trajectory Earth/Mars to start with. Search Internet about this simple problem - trajectory Earth/Mars - and ... you find nothing. Absolutely nothing. Only some simple cases in 2D increasing the distance from the Sun moving from one planetary orbit to another planetary orbit in same plane but not arriving at a moving planet in the other orbit, which has nothing to do with real spacecraft travel. To apply force on the spacecraft using a rocket engine consuming fuel to proceed towards the moving target, e.g. the Mars, must be done at the correct location and time in space but ... you do not know, where you and Mars are. You will simply miss Mars ... and fly away in the Universe. Bye, bye Earth.

Elon M has other ideas September 2016! Elon's 100 persons spacecraft takes only 80-150 days to fly to Mars and it will just brake and land on arrival like the Belgian reporter Tintin 1953 on the Moon. Fuel for return to Earth will be manufactured locally. Elon lives in a fantasy world paid for by ... NAXA! I cannot understand how media can take Elon serious. When Elon speaks publicly he brings on 50 persons to cheer him in the audience. Same persons stops other people to ask serious questions.

But he is not alone: The EXA spacecraft Rosetta departed from planet Earth 3/4 March 2005 to arrive - hole in one - at planet Mars 25/7 February 2007 - for a gravity assisted kick (see C. below) on its way to comet 67P! It took so long because Rosetta orbited the Sun (!) in the meantime. I describe it in 1.19.1 below. It is just another fantasy that never happened. You cannot fly around in orbits in space as suggested. Typical EXA! Rosetta finally crashed on the comet 67P on 30 September 2016 to finish the fantasy trip. The only scientific finding of the whole (fake) Rosetta trip is that comets are not 70-80% frozen water but 70-80% solid minerals of different types. Imagine what the EXA astrophysicists can invent! And we European taxpayers pay for it.

Returning from space and landing on Earth is another obstacle. Example: Apollo 11 (see sketch below in D) returned from the Moon to the Earth 1969 during a couple of days with three humans aboard. Earth gravity pulled the spacecraft Apollo 11 with them faster and faster most of the time vertically towards the centre of Earth! They must arrive at a the re-entry interface location B in the upper Earth atmosphere at the exact location/altitude (say 120 000 m) at the exact time, speed and direction (almost horizontally!) to start their (impossible) re-entry to arrive at a location/altitude (say 5 000 m) to deploy parachutes nine or ten minutes later. As you cannot calculate your trajectory prior arriving and after leaving the re-entry interface location B, the whole venture is ... a typical NAXA hoax! Every return trip from the International Fake Space Station is also fake for the same reason! I explain more below! I also offer €1M to anybody showing I am wrong since many years. There is no winner ever.

Another example of fake trajectory is the NAXA Juno satellite launched August 5, 2011. It was proposed that it cruised around in deep space until it returned to Earth (!) October 2013 for a fantasy gravity assisted kick (sling shot - see C below) to proceed to planet Jupiter. The Juno spacecraft then arrived at planet Jupiter July 4, 2016, and, after a 35 minutes long brake burn (!), started to orbit Jupiter looking for water. What a joke! Media thought it was fantastic! You can be sure that the whole $1.1 billion Juno mission is another, typical NAXA hoax. There is no way you can travel around in space from Earth to Jupiter and then into orbit around Jupiter as suggested by NAXA. There is no way to establish the trajectory.


C - Gravity assisted kicks are pseudoscience fantasies - the Juno mission to Jupiter hoax (2)

The European Xpace Agency, EXA, gravity assisted kicks business is another hoax explained further below but I will expand a little with it already here. It is so funny. And typical. EXA just copy/paste NAXA.

Media and all space agencies tell us that, according anonymous astrophysicians, artificial spacecrafts can manoeuvre between planets in space assisted by gravity assisted kicks to save time and fuel. It means that a spacecraft in its trajectory encounters (!) a fast moving planet in its orbit around Sun and is magically kicked away from it to another fast moving planet in another orbit around Sun in a new trajectory with another direction and at nominally increased speed/change of direction using no fuel, thrust or rocket engine aboard. MAGIC!

A funny definition is:

In orbital mechanics (sic - dynamics) and aerospace engineering, a gravitational slingshot, gravity assist/kick maneuver, or swing-by is the use of the relative movement (e.g in. orbit around the Sun) and gravity of a planet or other astronomical object (?) to alter the path and speed of a spacecraft, typically in order to save propellant, time, and expense. Gravity assistance can be used to accelerate a spacecraft, that is, to increase or decrease its speed and/or redirect its path.

How the fast spacecraft in its trajectory manage to encounter the fast moving planet in orbit around Sun in the first place is not really clear, as you cannot calculate the trajectory of a moving spacecraft in one direction to coincide with the orbit of a planet in another direction ... when the two objects are there ready to collide.

Another crazy definition is:

A gravity assist/kick around (sic) a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity (relative to the Sun) by entering and leaving the gravitational field (sic) of a planet. The spacecraft's speed increases as it approaches the planet and decreases while escaping its gravitational pull (which is approximately the same).

This is a really stupid definition: 

A spacecraft arrives within the sphere of influence of a body with a so-called hyperbolic excess velocity equal to the vector sum of its incoming velocity and the planet's velocity. In the planet's frame of reference, the direction of the spacecraft's velocity changes, but not its magnitude. In the spacecraft's frame of reference, the net result of this trade-off of momentum is a small change in the planet's velocity and a very large delta-v for the spacecraft ... bla, bla.

How a fast spacecraft in its uncertain trajectory can approach a fast planet in a regular orbit around Sun is not clear. Or how long it takes. What are the trajectories and how do you calculate them? Why doesn't the spacecraft just crash on the planet ... or miss?

The following is really fantasy:

"An extreme form of the maneuver would be to approach a planet head-on at a speed v while the planet is moving directly toward us at a speed U (both speeds defined relative to the "fixed" Solar frame). If we aim just right, we can loop around behind the planet in an extremely eccentric hyperbolic orbit, making a virtual 180-degree turn, as illustrated left."

Planet Earth has tangential velocity U = 30 000 m/s in circular orbit around the Sun. It means Earth moves 30.000 m left every second in the little sketch left. At the same time it turns 360° in a year!

The spacecraft has tangential velocity v = 10 000 m/s in the opposite head-on direction (also in orbit around Sun?). It means the spacecraft moves 10 000 m every second in the opposite direction, i.e. top right in the sketch left.

According to the NAXA/EXA experts of gravity assisted kicks

"The net effect is almost as if we "bounced" off the front of the planet. From the planet's perspective we approached at the speed U+v, and therefore we will also recede at the speed U+v relative to the planet, but the planet is still moving at (virtually) the speed U, so we will be moving at speed 2U+v. This is just like a very small billiard ball bouncing off a very large one (moving at great speed)."

If anything collides with something else head-on both objects are damaged but here it is a near miss and the spacecraft manages to stop the opposite speed v = 10 000 m/s, while it is turning 180° around a round, globe shaped Earth, when they meet in space and then the spacecraft speeds or is kicked off with speed ~70 000 m/s in the same direction of Earth, i.e. bottom left in the little sketch above.

Wrap an ice cold, frozen towel around your head and read above and think about it again!

Do you believe that the spacecraft first slows down to 0 m/s speed in opposite direction right and then speeds up while turning 180° around Earth to 70 000 m/s in the direction left apparently still in orbit around the Sun but at more than double speed of Earth. Or does the spacecraft just turn 180° at average speed 40 000 m/s? What is happening? An extremely eccentric hyperbolic orbit trajectory is performed?

And how long does the spacecraft 180° high speed turn take that increases velocity 7 times. Nanoseconds?

It must go very, very fast as Earth is going at 30 000 m/s in one direction left and the spacecraft is going 10 000 m/s in the other, opposite direction right, prior to the kick. And why a 180° turn? Why not 90°? Or 0° (a CRASH!). And is the eccentric hyperbolic turn in the same 2D (Sun/Earth/spacecraft) plane. Isn't space 3D?

I have evidently asked the EXA how it is possible.

An interesting not so fast situation is, when planet Earth with tangential U = 30 000 m/s is still in regular orbit in the left direction around the Sun, and the spacecraft v = 40 000 m/s, i.e. the spacecraft sneaks up from behind in the same left direction as the planet ... and is originally 10.000 m/s faster in same direction left. After the kick the spacecraft should have speed only 20.000 m/s (10.000 m/s slower than Earth) then going forwards in the elliptic orbit around the Sun.

It seems that, if you arrive from ahead (right) you are kicked forward (left) at increased speed, but, if you are arrive or sneak up from the back (left), you are still kicked forwards (still left!) ... at half speed. Earth will continue in its orbit ahead of the spacecraft!

Because this didn't happen to the EXA Rosetta spacecraft on 4 March 2005 sneaking up from behind on Earth. It was kicked sideways in a new trajectory (impossible to define) at increased speed by planet Earth towards planet Mars in its orbit around the Sun. I explain the hoax in part 1.19 below. Orbital astrodynamics are magic. Completely useless fantasies. Media should report it. It is a scoop!

EXA has not replied! Reason is that the EXA is part of an old conspiracy to steal money from EU tax payers and to fool us, assisted by media, that space travel is very easy and that human space travel incl. gravity assisted kicks are possible. However human space travel incl. gravity assisted kicks is impossible for many reasons explained above and below.

The gravity assisted kick nonsense was probably invented by some NAXA science fiction writers in the 1950's not knowing much and is now taught at US universities as astrophysics. It is comical. Every time I meet astrophysicists, I ask about gravity assisted kicks. They cannot explain them!

A recent gravity assisted kick (sling shot) took place October 2013 outside planet Earth by the NAXA Juno satellite. Nobody saw it, of course and media didn't report it! The Juno spacecraft then arrived at planet Jupiter July 4, 2016, and after a 35 minutes long brake burn started to orbit the planet looking for water. What a joke! Media thought it was fantastic! The satellite was launched August 5, 2011, but as gravity assisted kicks are impossible, you can be sure that the whole $1.1 billion mission is another, typical NAXA hoax. 


D - Re-entries on Earth after a trip in space are impossible

A re-entry is done by a spacecraft returning to Earth from space at high speed that manages to slow down and land in 10 to 30 minutes. The velocity at beginning of a re-entry at top of atmosphere (altitude 120 000 meters) - the re-entry interface - differs considerably depending on where the space craft comes from. It is suggested that a manned spacecraft arrives with speed >21 000 m/s, when coming from planet Mars, >11.000 m/s, when coming from the Moon or only about 8 000 m/s, when coming from Earth Parking Orbit, EPO. Reason for different re-entry velocities is that Earth gravity has accelerated the spacecrafts during different times; weeks for a spacecraft coming from Mars, days for a spacecraft coming from the Moon and hours for a spacecraft trying to descend from a space station in EPO. You must arrive at the starting point of a re-entry at the right time! If you arrive 10 seconds too early or late, you miss the end point - the landing zone - by 80.000 - 210.000 meters! What the change of direction (°/s) is better forgotten.

Assuming that it is possible to steer the spacecraft to arrive at Earth at the correct location, at the right moment, at the right direction at the upper atmosphere in 3D space (it isn't), it is suggested that suddenly a big brake force (!) develops out of nowhere up in the sky which slows down the spacecraft to land in front of a welcome committee with a brass band. It is suggested that this big brake force is due only to contact between the spacecraft and air or atmosphere but it is nonsense.

It cannot happen in reality!

Only brain washed people believe it!

The first re-entry in history after a trip to the Moon was Apollo 8 on December 27, 1968. Apollo 8 was a small spacecraft capsule/command module without toilet. At 139h15m after start (and no visits to the toilet) Apollo 8 was 94 800 kms from Entry Interface 6h30m away. Speed was only 2 650 m/s. 37 minutes later Apollo 8 was 88 900 kms from Entry Interface with speed 2 740 m/s. During the next 6 hrs velocity increased all the time, e.g. 63 minutes later at140h55m - 78 300 kms from Entry Interface - speed 2 926 m/s, 124 minutes later at 142h59m - 56 340 kms from Entry Interface - speed 3 443 m/s, 37 minutes later at 143h36m - 49 000 kms from Entry Interface - speed 3 680 m/s, 37 minutes later at 144h13m - 41 255 kms from Entry Interface - speed 3 993 m/s, 25 minutes later at 144h38m - 35 188 kms from Entry Interface - speed 4 276 m/s, 31 minutes later at 145h09m - 28 254 kms from Entry Interface - speed 4 712 m/s, 23 minutes later at 145h32m - 21 531 kms from Entry Interface - speed 5 265 m/s, 13 minutes later (1 hr 1 m to Entry Interface) at 145h45m - 17 800 kms from Entry Interface - speed 5 588 m/s, 27 minutes later at 146h12m - 9 167 kms from Entry Interface - speed 7 103 m/s. At 146h31m the Service module was dumped (it burnt up in the atmosphere). Command module continued alone at increased speed. Reason why velocity increased and direction turned down to Earth was that Earth gravity accelerated Apollo 8 straight down all the time!

Re-entry Interface at 120 000 m altitude was apparently reached at 146h46m - speed was then 11 040 m/s! Maybe they were above Tokyo at that time? With that speed straight down Apollo 8 would have hit the Ginza after 11 seconds. It didn't happen. Apollo 8 flew off towards Palmyra island in a remote area of the Pacific Ocean (where nobody could watch)!

What happened then, i.e. the real re-entry trajectory from Entry Interface to splash down is not really known. There was a break in communication but at 146h54m - drogue chutes were out at 7 000 m altitude (we are told) (speed estimate 200 m/s?), at 146h55m - chutes were deployed and at 147h00m - splash down - December 27, 1968 at 15.51.42 UTC, pos 8°8'N 165°1' W. Hole in one! Just in front of awaiting navy ships and a brass band playing! The Apollo 8 crew could finally go to the toilet.

How Apollo 8 managed to slow down from 11 040 m/s speed to 0 in 14 minutes has never really been explained. Everyone was so happy that it just happened, so nobody ever asked ... how? Actually no re-entry took place. It was just a Hollywood show! Or a hoax! Willy Low was so happy! Americans believed anything 1968! The US Space Program was a success! Even if it was 100% fake!

If e.g. Apollo 11 with mass 5 500 kg would start its re-entry as shown right with a speed of about 11 000 m/s, when arriving in and dipping into the upper, very thin atmosphere at say 120.000 meters altitude - the re-entry interface - with a certain direction relative ground (probably smaller than shown) and, if you intend to slow down at a constant 18.0 m/s² deceleration during about 10 minutes, you must apart from the brake force in the opposite direction of travel also counter the 9.8 m/s² vertical downwards pull of Earth gravity. It would appear that the constant, total force suddenly applied to re-enter and land must be of the order 130.900 N (that corresponds to 23.8 m/s²) during 10 minutes and you should of course wonder where it comes from. That force will also change your direction!

Can a force of 130.900 N (or 13 tons) just suddenly appear out of nowhere up in the sky at 120 000 m altitude? It is suggested that this brake force consists of aerodynamic drag and lift but there is no air at 120.000 m altitude to provide any drag and lift.

Regardless, drag/lift forces are functions of spacecraft shape and flow, velocity and air density, which are changing all the time, i.e. the forces are not constant and so it is impossible to predict the brake trajectory of the re-entry from when the variable drag/lift forces are applied. You have not got a clue, where you will end up! It means that you will start to spin and burn up.

Furthermore it is suggested (already 1966) that a future spacecraft arriving from Mars at 21 000 m/s speed will bounce (LOL) on the top of the atmosphere, skip out and do a second re-entry (terminal control) a little later, i.e. the brake force lifts the spacecraft back into space again at first contact with the atmosphere:

But how do you control and determine such a high speed, skipout re-entry? Can you do it braking or speeding up with a rocket engine?

In order just to prepare a re-entry from EPO you must ensure that you arrive on time at the location to start re-entry at the exact speed/direction. If you are too early or too late to start your re-entry, you must slow down or speed up before to arrive in order not to make a mess of the rest.

It is not easy. It is in fact very difficult. The only way to slow down is to fire your rocket engine. Apollo 11 didn't have any but the Shuttle had:

To adjust re-entry speed at around 8 000 m/s velocity only from EPO costs plenty fuel. Say that your Shuttle arrives at 8.050 m/s speed with kinetic energy 32.401.250 J/kg, but that it should arrive at 7 950 m/s speed and kinetic energy 31.601.250 J/kg to succeed the complete re-entry. The difference in kinetic energy is then 800 000 J/kg.

Have you got the fuel to adjust the speed 100 m/s? The answer is simple.

Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in vacuum space (no influence of gravity of adjacent planet Earth) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the spaceship rocket nozzle.

Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)

Example - here we want to slow down a 78.000 kg (m0) Shuttle (with fuel) entering the atmosphere backwards at a almost horizontal speed of 8.050 m/s (no influence of gravity) to 7.950 m/s to ensure arriving at the re-entry location. The fuel aboard is ejected at a velocity ve of say 4.000 m/s. Delta-v is 100 m/s!

Then ln(m0/m1) = 0.025 and m0/m1 is about 1.025315!

It means that you need ~2.5% of the spacecraft mass or 2 000 kg of fuel just to slow down 100 m/s or 1.25% of the speed!

If your rocket engine is an old one with ve only 2.800 m/s, then ln(m0/m1) = 0.035 and m0/m1 is about 1.03636!

It means that you need ~3.6% of the spacecraft mass or 2 800 kg of fuel just to slow down 100 m/s!

And you have to fire the rocket engine in exactly the right direction! Otherwise you brake out of course! And will miss the target.

Let's face it. You cannot do it. You cannot carry the fuel required! You cannot aim the brake force in the right direction.

How Apollo 11 without any rocket engine aboard managed to arrive at the re-entry start point in the upper atmosphere at the right time/speed/direction in 1969 is a mystery. Or not! It was all fantasy!

All re-entries since 1961 are hoaxes! You are going too fast and do not know your speeds, positions and directions at any moment and cannot adjust anything, as you do not have the means to do it.

The re-entry was an integral part of the 1957-1991 US/USSR fake 'space race', i.e. simple propaganda. The Russians just said it was dead easy and the Americans agreed. But it was and is impossible.

Today 2016 it should be patently obvious to any intelligent person that the 'space race' was since day one in the 1950's - and still to this day - nothing but a silly TV 'reality show' and, undoubtedly, a very effective one. It was a brilliant idea on the part of the US (Hollywood?) scriptwriters to have the 'evil Russian communists' being cast as the first 'conquerors of space' and the Russians played along. All Russian cosmonauts were and are actors - like the American ones! None was in space!

Retired, fake, US astronaut Mark Kelly and wife that was shot through the head. Just lousy actors, IMHO

US astronaut/actor Mark Kelly (left) has according media done several re-entries with the 75+ tons Shuttle returning from EPO in space flying upside down and backwards at 8 000 m/s speed first braking with the rocket engines, then flipping 180° forwards to glide down, bla bla bla.

As re-entries are impossible, it would appear that Mr. Kelly is part of the NAXA hoax. He is not alone.

Mr. Kelly is married to Ms. Gabrielle Gifford, a former Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, who had the misfortune to be shot through her head on 8 January 2011 at a Tucson, Arizona, supermarket ... according media. Or she shot herself while playing with a gun at home? She is fond of guns. She also looks like an actress.

She survived the incident having her brains blown apart and could five months later attend the departure of her husband on his fourth and last fake trip into space.

Mark retired from the human space travel hoax 1 October 2011. Gabrielle has also retired from the brains blown apart show. And then they lived happily (?) retired on Earth forever. But the show must go on! Here you can meet some other space clowns.


E - Elon Musk/SpaceX - the rocket landing hoaxes 2016

 Elon Musk is planning unmanned SpaceX mission to Mars by 2018 and manned trips a little later, say 2024! "Almost everything Musk does ends up being funded by the government, from his cars to his ambitious battery factor and Space X itself." 

Elon Musk/SpaceX sends, in front of large audiences, up a Falcon 9 rocket in space, where it disappears behind the clouds (as seen on TV). e.g. the July 18, 2016 SpaceX-9/CRS-9 Launch and Landing Attempt. After a few minutes the 24 tons rocket comes back again from space and lands on Earth after a boost-back burn, an entry-burn and a final landing-burn. If you need 50+ tons fuel for these magic burns (at right locations, times, durations and directions) and 140+ tons extra fuel to get the 50+ tons fuel up into space, you should wonder why not use a much smaller rocket and much less fuel to carry a 5 tons pay load into space? Why carry 190 tons extra fuel into space to land the 24 tons rocket in order to just launch a 5 tons satellite.

All is fake - the Falcon 9 rocket, the launch, the Dragon capsule, the separation, the Falcon 9 rocket landing, the Dragon 9 docking with the fake ISS (and the later un-docking and landing of the capsule). The whole show is pre-recorded CGI. Cheap actors explain the technicalities. What a stupid joke.

The first stage rocket has nine engines, we are told, which are recovered afterwards! However, it seems that a rocket with only three engines could do the same job ... without being recovered.

When the rocket has disappeared in the sky Elon Musk/Space X can invent anything about it, e.g. it delivered some satellites in space or docked with the ISS, while the first stage of the rocket returned and landed again on Earth ... as seen on TV and by large, cheering, noisy audiences. Hollywood will produce the footage of it or Elon does it in-house ... prior to the show. Elon Musk's SpaceX has already (November 2015) won a $2.6bn contract with NAXA to send humans and supplies more than 40 times to the fake International Space Station, IFS, so the latter show was just to confirm the earlier one.

More about the SpaceX hoaxes below. You cannot do a re-entry from the IFS. You cannot calculate the trajectory! But it is very easy to produce fake footage of it to fool the public.

One other recent SpaceX hoax was 8 April 2016 when SpaceX on behalf of NAXA launched a ridiculous, fake Bigelow Expandable Activity Module into space, so it could be connected to the fake International Space Station, while the used rocket was recovered intact on a fake barge at sea! It was one of the first successful, fake rocket recoveries on a barge in history by SpaceX!

All 100% fake of course! Imagine a fake helicopter filming the fake rocket landing live on fake TV in the middle of a fake nowhere at sea. The video is pre-recorded, 100% CGI with a sudden close up of a two seconds touch down on the deck added and funny smoke pasted in to cover the hitches. The barge is rolling and pitching in the waves but the rocket remains steady and vertical! I get sea sick just watching. The barge later arrives in port where the public can admire the rocket (a stage property!) ... from a distance.

It looks like that 2016 Bigelow Aerospace is also joining the fake and boring NAXA/SpaceX space magic show! Media do not really report the fake rubbish any longer.

SpaceX recovers its first stage nine engines booster rocket something as shown below (there are many - impossible - variations) after having separated from the second stage:

The first stage after separation flies almost horizontally at 130 000 m altitude and 1 480 m/s speed.

The boost back burn lasts about 30 seconds at that altitude and reduces horizontal velocity from about 1 480 to 330 m/s. Then vertical velocity increases again due to gravity free fall.

Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in vacuum space (no influence of gravity of adjacent planet Earth) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the spaceship rocket nozzle.

Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)

Example - here we want to slow down a Falcon 9 first stage booster rocket (with fuel) before entering the atmosphere backwards at a almost horizontal speed of 1.480 m/s (no influence of gravity) to 330 m/s to ensure arriving at the re-entry location. The fuel aboard is ejected at a velocity ve of say 4.000 m/s. Delta-v is then 1.150 m/s!

Then ln(m0/m1) = 0.2875 and m0/m1 is about 1.333!

If the total mass before the boost back burn was, say, 75 tons the mass afterwards was 56 tons and 19 tons fuel was used for the horizontal boost back burn.

The entry burn also last about 30 seconds between 50 000 and 25 000 m altitude and reduces velocity from 1 300 to 360 m/s followed by a second free fall ... but at constant speed (sic)!

How much fuel was used for the entry burn? Now some hypersonic flaps come into action but gravity is pulling the rocket down so the fuel consumed must be at least another 19 tons. The mass of the rocket before the landing burn is then 37 tons.

The landing burn also last about 30 seconds and starts at about 5 400 m altitude and reduces velocity from 360 to 0 m/s, when the booster touches down on the barge.

Say that you need another 14 tons of fuel for it. Then the mass of the empty of fuel first stage is 23 tons, which is about what Elon reports. It would appear that you need about 52 tons of fuel to stop the first stage rocket and land on the barge.

But that 52 tons of fuel must be carried into space by the first stage rocket in the first place, which really reduces pay load. Question is then how much extra fuel is required for that? Is it about 140 tons?

Say that a Falcon 9 rocket has total mass about 460 tons, most of it fuel, of course, at launch. Say that the second stage with fuel and 5 tons payload has mass 50 tons, thus 45 tons of fuel is needed to go into orbit. The payload stays in orbit and the second stage burns up at re-entry.

It means that the first stage with fuel and nine engines has mass 410 tons. If the first stage mass without fuel is 23 tons and you need 52 tons of fuel for re-entry/landing as estimated above, you use 335 tons of fuel - and nine (!) engines - to accelerate and lift 125 tons of first/second stages with fuel/payload to 130 000 m altitude and >1.480 m/s upward speed. It is pretty good. But 41.6% of the total fuel burnt or 140 tons is used to bring the 52 tons of fuel into space required for landing the first stage again.

So 192 tons of 335 tons fuel used by the first stage to get going - or >57% - is used just to recover the first stage. It doesn't sound right.

A half as big first stage - with only four engines - could easily have brought the 50 tons second stage + payload into orbit.

Why send a twice as big rocket - a Falcon 9 with nine engines - into space just to recover the first stage, when a rocket with only four engines could do the basic job to put the 5 tons payload into orbit?

Why carry/burn 140 tons of extra fuel to recover the double size first stage, when a smaller rocket can do it using half the fuel?

It is very easy to demonstrate that Elon Musk and SpaceX faked their four booster rocket landings 2016 - the CRS 8, the Jason 3, the SES-9 and the Jcsat 14 to gain notoriety! Every time there was a separation and continued forward/upward motion of the booster and a flip to enable a 30 seconds almost horizontal three engines boost back burn (to stop horizontal displacement of the booster at high altitude), a free fall drop, a 30 seconds almost vertical three engine entry burn (to reduce speed by about 1 000 m/s), another free fall drop (at constant speed (?) - air drag/friction!) and then, finally, a 30 seconds one engine landing burn, when vertical velocity was reduced from 360 m/s faster than sound speed to 0 in 30 seconds for a soft touch down - brake distance 5 400 meters! Imagine that - going faster than sound and stop in 30 seconds, i.e. applying a force 12 N/kg for exactly 30 seconds, and stop exactly on the deck. Impossible! The trajectory cannot be predicted and to steer by autopilot requires soft- and hardware that are not available. An object flying faster than the sound cannot stop in 30 seconds by applying a force - in the exact direction for the exact duration - to it. The 5 400 meters trajectory cannot be established. Something looking like a rocket is later shown on a barge in port. But it is just a stage property to impress the general public and create the magic illusion that SpaceX is fantastic.

Elon Musk is also owner of the fake Tesla electric auto comedy financed by fake NAXA. The cars are sold by mail order and if you later have a complaint, Elon himself will twitter that it is bogus! Elon says he has July 2016 325 000 orders of his new Model 3. It costs $35 000:- and can be ordered against a down payment of $1000:- today. But delivery is not until 2018 ... or ever. Tesla will also build trucks and minibuses. All dreams and fantasies.

The Tesla company is therefore also joining the nuclear bomb and power plant scare hoax! Elon's latest trick is to suggest that French, perfectly safe, nuclear power plants on the Rhine are closed down and replaced by his fake car or battery factories. French top politicians support him. The French are afraid of radiation. Better close everything peacefully safe nuclear, while promoting the a-bomb! It is really STUPID! Why can't media report correctly? Elon is a fraud!

How long will it last? I wonder/write/update this 9 September 2016. Media is not interested. They support the Elon/Tesla hoax! What can I do?

I just laugh about it.


If you find anything wrong with my A B C D E above please tell me at !

Below follows my original report available since 2010 and updated all the time thanks to comments by the readers:



Media and readers of my web pages about atomic bombs 1945, moon trips 1969, M/S Estonia ferry incident 1994 and 911 tower top down terrorist collapses 2001 are warned. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance and cannot handle my information without getting mentally disturbed with serious consequences.

My proven facts are simple and correct and good news. A-bombs do not work. Humans cannot travel to the Moon (as explained below). M/S Estonia didn't lose her bow visor. Skyscrapers do not collapse from top down. All information to the contrary is pseudoscience, propaganda lies or fantasies promoted by media and taught at universities. And if you do not agree with the official lies, you will not be allowed at the university boat race* and other silly events, etc. Your position in society is at risk.

If you suffer from cognitive dissonance, you no doubt find my info disturbing and get upset, angry, anxious or worried. What to believe and write? Old lies or truth?

Media incl. newspaper chief editors are kindly requested to get psychological assistance to get rid of their cognitive dissonance. Why not cure yourself? And publish the result as a scoop.

*Safety at sea is my business

Summary of this article

1. This website logically and factually explains why human space travel in orbits around Earth, in trajectories to the Moon or Mars or anywhere in space and back is not possible, even if rockets actually work in vacuum. There is no way to return on Earth and do a safe re-entry and land. You are always flying too fast and cannot find the exact location where to re-enter in the upper atmosphere and land 10 minutes later.

2. 2015 NAXA has awarded SpaceX a $2.6B contract to send humans into space. In December 2015 SpaceX produced a show how to recover rockets sent up into space in order to save money sending humans into space. It was as magic as any humans ever in space. 

3. The Yuri X Gagarin around the Earth 1961 space orbit trip that started the hoax and the US/NAXA foolish Moon trips 1969-1972 were simple fantasy and propaganda lies. The latter tricks were created in Hollywood studios to entertain us with useless US navy/air force pilots as actors, etc. All NAXA Mercury and Gemini trips around the Earth a little earlier were similar hoaxes.

4. Reason is simple; it is not possible to get away from planet Earth, land on and take off from the Moon (or Mars) and later make a safe re-entry and land on Earth again using a thin plate capsule - you are too heavy to start with and going too fast later and you will simply burn up as you cannot brake or reduce speed in the strong gravity field pulling you back to Earth. Same applies to any Shuttle or Soyuz or SpaceX Dragon capsule, if you visit the International Fake/Space Station.

5. All heat shields protecting spacecrafts (capsules, shuttles, etc) and InterContinental Ballistic Missiles, ICBMs, at re-entries are useless. They just melt.

6. Therefore only >500 cosmo clowns (or rather paid cosmo prostitutes) have flown to the Moon or around Earth in space or visited the International Fake Station, IFS, orbiting Earth every 90 minutes. Astronots dying on their way to the IFS are still alive on Earth.

7. Imagine when the US and European public finally find out that they have been fooled for more than 50 years by NAXA & Co ... and the European Spax Agency, EXA,... and media. Media will not do it. Media will continue hiding the truth.

8. The Virgin GalactiX one hour in space is also a joke. It cannot ever return. Or this EXA RosettaX hoax incl. gravity assist kicks keeping some German/Swiss pseudo astrophysicists busy September/November 1993-2014. They found water at a comet in space 2014! The 5 December 2014 NAXA OrioX spacecraft is also not real. Like the MessengeX and Stardust spaceships. Or the strawberries on the Moon. Or the latest, November 2015, Blue OrigiX rocket trip to 93 500 m altitude. All is fantasy fakery!

9. The only serious space exploration company is little Arianespace, of which I am a share holder, so do not really believe me until you have studied my web page. We only send spacecrafts one way up. They can never return.

Warning 2 for pseudoscience

Have you heard about Trofim X Lyssenko? You should. He was the inventor of pseudoscience around 1930! Stalin loved him. Pseudoscience is used to present a lie as truth in a scientific manner. It is however just silly propaganda!

No Gagarin ever flew in space. It was just communist propaganda 1961.

No Moon landings ever took place 1969 and later because humans cannot travel in vacuum space. It was just a clever and funny US/Hollywood show put together by Dr. Buzz Lyssenko. A nephew of Trofim! Neil Armstrong willingly played the role as first man on the Moon until he died. A pure product of Lyssenko.

That human beings return to Earth by a fast re-entry starting at a location B in Earth upper atmosphere after a visit to the Moon or to the International Fake Station, IFS, is not possible either. There is no way to find the location and to reduce speed of the return vehicle, so the IFS is just another stupid hoax to confuse. The re-entry heat shield was invented by Buzz Lyssenko.

All launches of >500 humans into space and their re-entries from space in various capsules and Shuttles 1961-2016 are fake! None ever took place! It was and is just a silly show to entertain us.

Like all the great religions of the past, The Nutwork presents a choice to us all: believe our stories or live in doubt. While their stories seem rather silly to us, they give feelings of security and purpose to others. These stories are the gospel of the religion of normality, if you will. You cannot be normal if you don't believe in this gospel. You cannot function in society like your friends and family if you don't believe in this gospel. You can't just stop believing in the gospel of normality, because doing so would mean you have to find different answers to all the questions the gospel answered before. The gospel covers a massive emptiness in people. I can understand why people refuse to question it.

The RideNeverEnds



Part 1 (this one with 34 chapters) is about 33 various new and old space staged events - the last is from December 2015 - with impossible trajectories, re-entries and gravity kicks - all inventions that evidently never took place. Only the 34th chapter is about me making money in space.

Part 2 (17 chapters) is about the 1969 Apollo 11 NAXA hoax with two clowns on the Moon - it took place in Hollywood, Nevada and the Pacific. No one was in space then or later.

Parts 3-6 (21 chapters) are about the NAXA space Shuttle, the International Fake (Space) Station, a recent trip to Mars, re-entries, etc. All silly hoaxes.

It seems all human space trips are false. Only satellites orbiting planet Earth seem to work. I pay since September 2012 anyone €1.000.000:- that can describe a manned space trip but no one has managed my Challenge.

As most human space travel since 1962 has been organized and done by NAXA costing US tax payers billions of dollars, it seems NAXA has committed the biggest fraud in US federal history ... which is still going on. It would really be nice if anyone could stop this criminal deception once and for all. The fraud has a face; an ex Shuttle pilot:

Maj. Gen. Charles X. Bolden, Jr., (USMC-Ret.), right, was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the 12th Administrator of the Nationax Aeronautix and Xpace Administratiox. He began his duties as head of the administration on July 17, 2009. As Administrator, X. Bolden leads a nationwide NAXA team to advance the missions and goals of the US space program ... incl. all hoaxes and frauds described below. Therefore his staff carry firearms:

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 - SECURITY

Sec. 304. (e) The Administrator may direct such of the officers and employees of the Administration as he deems necessary in the public interest to carry firearms while in the conduct of their official duties.

Bolden travelled to orbit four times aboard the fake space Shuttle between 1986 and 1994, commanding two of the missions and piloting two others - all four 100% hoaxes!

Imagine that the POTUS Obama nominated this clown to pursue the Nationax Aeronautix and Xpace Administratiox' hoaxes. What a clown. But he is 2016 70 years old and must be replaced by another clown. It should not be difficult to find a replacement. You just have to lie about humans in space!

Note that the Wikipedia biography of Bolden does not include any verified references or sources. Bolden is probably just an actor.

NAXA Administrator Charles X. Bolden, Jr. -

 "NAXA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime" April 5, 2013 ... "but maybe we go to an asteroid or planet Mars"!

"We (at NAXA) think we're on the right trajectory to get humans to Mars in the 2030's" April 2016 

Credits: NAXA/Bill Ingalls

Part 1

1.1 Purpose of human space travel

1.2 Return, re-entry and recovery of rocket/spacecrafts are not possible

1.3 Elon Musk and the amazing Falcon 9 first stage recovery 21 December 2015 - with hypersonic grid fins - and the 17 January 2016 failure of same thing

1.4 US National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

1.5 NAXA's strawberries on the Moon plans

1.6 Never A Straight Answer

1.7 Impossible re-entry

1.8 Juri Gagarin re-entry

1.9 John Glenn re-entry

1.10 Space shuttles Challenger and Colombia disasters - all fake

1.11 Manfred Lindinger, Alexander Gerst, Samantha Christoforetti and Andreas Mogensen

1.12 Swedish National Space Board

1.13 US X-37B

1.14 Orion

1.15 Mars One

1.16 New Horizons

1.17 Stepping into fire - and fool the world. It is easy

1.18 Driving a car in space - why rockets work in vacuum (or attached to an exhaust gas cloud)

1.19 The EXA Rosetta space trip - a Cosmic Billiard Balls 1993-2004-2015 Hoax, Kicks & Fiasco. Three times 2005-2009 planet Earth gravity assist kicked off Rosetta at a close fly-by but ... gravity assist kicks are not possible

1.19.1 Gravity assist kicks are not possible (1)

1.19.2 Gravity assist kicks are not possible (2)

1.19.3 Little fuel used for 14 years to reach the comet

1.19.4 The EXA con game goes on and on 2016

1.19.5 Water, deriterium and oxygen on the comet

1.20 The Stardust robotic space trip hoax: departure from Earth 1999, round trip in space incl. a gravity assist kick and re-entry and landing on Earth 2006 of a 45 kg Sample Return Capsule

1.21 The Messenger six gravity kicks 2005-2009 - used to indoctrinate young US pupils

1.22 US/USSR Space Hoax Cooperation 1974

1.23 What amount of fuel is used to travel in space?

1.24 China's People Republic's faked Moon landing 2013/4

1.25 Europe is also participating in the hoax

1.26 How can we travel faster in space

1.27 1945 Atomic bomb hoaxes

1.28 Physical reasons why human space travel is impossible

1.29 So how is it possible that NAXA fakes their activities?

1.30 The Virgin Galactic human space/sail travel hoax - sailing in space!

1.31 Blue Origin sub-orbital space travel

1.32 Flying combustion chambers

1.33 Deep Space Climate Observatory, the solar eclipse that never took place and LISA Pathfinder

1.34 Arianespace - any mass, to any orbit, anytime


If you find anything wrong among the long list of above 33 jokes, please tell me at and I will correct it. 


1.1 Purpose of human space travel

I write for people who can think for themselves and need some friendly back up! I try also to be simple and funny. I am a sceptic using clear, critical thinking. My normal business is safety at sea. It is not good. So I got interested in safety of human space travel. It is non-existing! Human space travel is a joke! I do actually understand that intelligent beings 2016 can believe in human space travel 1961, 1969 or 2069! They are simply brainwashed with false information. I was too for many years.

If you ask Google "is space travel possible for humans", Google will direct you to 31.300.000 sites in 0,49 seconds suggesting human space travel is possible ... without any evidence ... and this as only site explaining it is not possible.

If you ask Google "how does gravity affect a spaceship going from the Moon to Earth", Google will direct you to only 699.000 sites in 0.43 seconds suggesting that gravity may affect your spaceship but not how and why or how to plan a trip back to Earth. Going from the Moon to Earth was done several times 1969-1972 but Google cannot inform how it was simulated, calculated, planned and finally executed. Reason? It is not possible! Earth gravity force is much too strong and pulls you straight towards ground. There is no possibility to aim tangentially for the top of the atmosphere, then brake and finally land safely ... on Earth, Mars or any planet, when coming from space.

If you ask Google "what is purpose of human space travel?" you get 5.340.000 sites to look at in 0,41 seconds and #1 is: "Human space exploration helps to address fundamental questions about our place in the Universe and the history of our solar system".

What the fundamental questions are, nobody knows, and why humans in space - and not on Earth - can provide the answers is unclear. It sounds religious and as Mark Twain said: "religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool".

If you ask Google "why space travel is not possible for humans", this site is #1 of 42.000.000 with a few other sites only suggesting various difficulties.

Google finally got it right. But media will not report it.

There are thus some sites, like this one, demonstrating that human space travel is not possible for simple physical reasons. I am not alone. But, as I say, media will not report it.

To confuse the issues one of the latest US silly space hoaxes is that there is water on planet Mars. It was announced Monday 28 September 2015 and you probably heard about it from media. There is no evidence that there is water on Mars! Media just copy/paste nonsense by 'experts'.

Here is an ancient lake on Mars according NAXA:

What a stupid joke! There is no way any spacecraft with a camera can enter and land on planet Mars and take photos. I explain why below. And media have never been there.

A week later it was ice on Pluto! It is another NAXA joke. Do you find it funny? Media don't. Media report it. But media have never been to Pluto!

And 7 June 2015 it was the 'news' that the European Space Agency, EXA, is planning a village on the Moon, construction of which could start as early as 2024. Back side of moon, not visible from earth, would provide best conditions according to EXA new chief Jan Woerner apparently because it cannot be seen from Earth and is 50% of the time in the shadows of night so strawberries cannot grow there! Jan Woerner doesn't know that travel to the Moon is impossible and is therefore today in charge of the EXA Rosetta hoax described below. 


1.2 Return, re-entry and recovery of rocket/spacecrafts are not possible

Since the beginning of sending (inexpensive) rockets with (expensive) payloads into space, i.e. 1940's, there is a dream that the spacecraft shall return, land and be recovered after having deposed the payload/satellite in, e.g. orbit around Earth or the centre of a town (a-bomb) or on the Moon (Apollo). But it is an impossible dream.

The spacecraft has always too big speed and momentum to deliver the payload, so it cannot carry the extra fuel/energy to stop in flight and return empty to where it started and to land again.

The U.S. Space Shuttle was said to be able to reach, dock with and visit the International Space Station, ISS, in orbit around Earth at ~7 500 m/s speed and then land and be recovered but it was and is a ... hoax. 135 times between 1981 and 2011!

All fake! There is no way that one spacecraft can dock with another spacecraft in orbit around Earth. Re-entry and landing are likewise impossible.

The Shuttle was going much too fast in low orbit around Earth and would burn up at re-entry, where you are supposed to start braking at, say 120 000 m altitude in the upper, almost vacuum atmosphere. But there is no possibility to brake up there! It is almost vacuum. Earth gravity just pulls you straight down and ... you crash.

NAXA got carried away and suggested that the ISS was flying around the Sun and that the Shuttle could also fly there and anywhere. Pictures were produced and media published the fakery to impress the people.

Fake photo of US Shuttle and Space Station in front of the Sun. You find 1000's of such fake photos on the Internet ... and people get brainwashed by them - I saw it?!?!?

reusable rocket systems have failed or were amateur dreams from the start. However, there are, of course, still 2016 people believing it is possible. Let's therefore start this article with one such Teflon clown - Elon Musk. Elon, if he exists or is just a paid, cheap actor fooling around, is very busy in his photo shopped office and workshops but his rocket returns and recoveries are hoaxes.


1.3 Elon Musk and the amazing Falcon 9 first stage first recovery 21 December 2015 - with hypersonic grid fins - and the second 17 January 2016 failure of same thing

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket can carry 4.85 tons to GTO at cost $61.2 M, we are told by certain Elon Musk, owner of the company. I do not believe it. The rocket has two stages. It I can believe. The nine Merlin rocket engines (all produced in-house by SpaceX) of the first stage can provide almost 700 tons thrust that carries, in less than three minutes, the Falcon 9 to about 80.000 m altitude at 1.700 m/s hypersonic speed, where the second single (MVac) engine stage takes over bringing the pay load into orbit at e.g., 640.000 m altitude and 7.000 - 8 000 m/s speed.

The second stage then either remains in orbit or (how, why?) drops down to Earth and is destroyed at re-entry. In the past also the first stage dropped down to Earth and was destroyed at the crash. After less than three minutes of use! What a waste!! Nine expensive Merlin rocket engines used only three minutes each and then ... scrap.

By June 2015, SpaceX was producing Merlin engines at the rate of four Merlin 1D engines per week, with a total production capacity in the factory of a maximum of five per week. You wonder where all these, >200 new engines/year are used.

SpaceX suggests that their latest rockets engines are 30% more effective than previous versions - why not? The exhaust gas velocity is 30% higher than before ... one way or other. The competition must watch. But do not worry! SpaceX lies about most of its projects and products. You should of course wonder why you build four engines per week when in the end you intend to recover most of the engines. Enjoy the latest, really stupid SpaceX hoax: 

The Falcon 9 first stage is today designed to survive atmospheric re-entry and to be recovered for re-use, handling both the rigors of the 150 seconds ascent portion of the mission (if any?) and the loads of the 435 seconds recovery or return portion, we are told. This was apparently done for the first time in history a pitch dark night 21/22 December 2015 above Florida, USA, as part of the SpaceX ORBCOMM-2 launch.

SpaceX girl - part of the show

The cute lady left tells you more. Click on the link below her and watch the show or click on and drill down to video SpaceX/ORBCOMM and click on it. Same show. All pre-recorded nonsense + plenty CGI - Computer Generated Images.

At a certain time during the evening 21 December the Falcon 9 rocket thus took off from some launch pad into the dark Florida sky with plenty people looking on TV screens inside some control centre somewhere. It was 22 December in Europe. After one minute and five seconds the rocket (or whatever?) had speed ~340 m/s at ~8 000 m altitude and you would expect a loud sonic boom to be heard by anyone around but ... no sonic boom was heard. SpaceX forgot to put it into the show. The about $20M value first (empty) stage finally - only 585 seconds after start - apparently returned and landed at 0 m/s speed at some area close to the original launch pad and can be re-used.

This article will show that the recovery of the rocket first stage was a magic trick:

Say that a complete Falcon 9 rocket has mass about 460 tons, most of it fuel, of course. Say that the second stage with fuel and payload has mass 50 tons, most of it fuel, too. It means that the first stage with fuel has mass 410 tons.

Say that the empty first stage - 9 rocket engines, 2 big fuel tanks, pumps, control equipment - to be recovered - height 44 meters - has mass 25 tons, the first stage fuel mass is then only 385 tons.

The Falcon 9 first stage has apparently two fuel/propellant tanks - one for liquid oxygen (LOX) and one for rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) propellants. Each tank has diameter about 3.5 m and height ~20 m, i.e. volume ~190 m3. The tank walls are made from an aluminum (sic - alumnium?) lithium alloy, according SpaceX.

Falcon 9 landing leg

Propellants are fed from the tanks to engines combustion chambers via single-shaft, dual-impeller turbo pumps operating on a gas generator cycle. Don't ask me how it works. It is all Elon's fantasies.

The Falcon 9 first stage has also four 12 meters long landing legs at the bottom that will be deployed via hydraulic pistons just before vertical landing. Each leg weighs about 750 kg.

It then apparently takes about 150 seconds to burn most fuel of the first stage of a Falcon 9 and to deliver the 50 tons seconds stage incl. payload into space from 80 000 m altitude and far away from the launch pad. Say that 345 tons of fuel was burnt by the nine engines in 150 seconds. Say 40 tons of fuel was saved for the recovery return stunt.

Each of the nine rocket engines burnt 256 kg/s fuel and provided 77 tons thrust during a couple of minutes, we should believe. Pretty good. The first stage then continued upwards to almost 200.000 m altitude during 135 seconds due to its own momentum after separation from the second stage.

Say that the Falcon 9 had mass 470 000 kg at departure from ground and mass 130 000 kg at about 80.000 m altitude at 1.700 m/s hypersonic speed. 345 000 kg of fuel or energy was used. The total potential and kinetic energy is then about 430.000;000;000 J(oule).

Each of 9 engines has, one way or another, forgetting the mass of the fuel consumed, produced 341.000.000 J/s energy to get the rocket to 80.000 m altitude at high speed. It would thus appear that 1 kg of fuel can produce at least 1.244.000 J energy, when used in a SpaceX Merlin engine. Just to get a feeling for things to come, i.e. fuel/energy consumed to carry out the Boost Back burns and land!

Only 150 seconds after lift-off from ground and 45 seconds after having penetrated the wall of sound with a sonic boom for the first time (that nobody noticed) the 25 tons first stage with some, say 40 tons, fuel still aboard, after separation at about 80 000 m altitude from the second stage and total speed 1 700 m/s, started its return to Earth. The second stage continued upwards to >600
.000 m altitude at increased speed ~7 000 m/s.

The rocket first stage to be recovered - during the 135 seconds ascent - was flipped over 180° at supersonic speed using cold gas jets and was then adjusted - horizontally - so it could be slowed down - horizontally - by firing three rocket engines in exactly the right locations, times and directions ( horizontally towards land) in space - Boost Back burns.

How the cold gas jets could control the 44 meters long, 25 tons when empty heavy first stage horizontally in space with 40-50 tons extra liquid propellants sloshing around in the two fuel tanks is a mystery for me as a naval architect.

If the fuel was at the bottom of the tank flying nose forward, it was at the top of the tank flying nose aft, i.e. it sloshed from bottom to top and the CoG of the 24 tons lightweight rocket must have shifted considerably during the flip. This was happening at very high velocity.

IMO it is impossible to apply a boost back thrust with three engines as the fuel has shifted from bottom to top of the tanks and cannot be pumped to the engines.

It is also a very big, free weight moving forward/aft in the two tanks affecting the centre of gravity of the rocket. If the first stage tips forward and the fuel flows forward the turbo pump will suck ... gas, the rocket engines' thrust, if any, will be applied in the wrong direction, etc.

The rocket is thus not stable while in horizontal position so you cannot stop the horizontal advance by firing a rocket engine horizontally. The only stable position is with the rocket aiming upwards with all fuel in the bottoms of the tanks.

The rocket was still ascending upwards and - horizontally - into space until it, one way or another, arrived to a location at 200.000 m altitude at 0 m/s subsonic speed - probably far away from the launch pad. See sketch - not to scale - right. There more burns were fired to bring back the rocket first stage over the launch area unless it wasn't already having speed in that direction.

Say that the "horizontal" velocity after separation was of the order 1.000 m/s and that the mass was 50 tons. It means that the "horizontal" kinetic energy was J. As shown above 1 kg of fuel can produce at least 1.224.000 J energy. It means that you need 20.4 tons of fuel just to stop the "horizontal" momentum going out to sea. Then you have to accelerate horizontally backwards to land and brake again horizontally above the landing zone requiring more fuel. I would conclude the Boost Back burns are not possible due to lack of fuel!

Say that this (impossible) part of the first stage recovery took 135 seconds and that the distance covered was about 150
.000 m. The average speed was then 1111.1 m/s. Imagine that!

The empty first stage trip up to 200 000 m altitude thus took 135 seconds firing a couple of (impossible) Boost Back burns with three engines to bring it back over land, assisted by gravity for the vertical portion, and to position it above the Landing Zone, so the vertical return down must have taken 300 seconds.

Now the first stage started to drop by gravity down 200.000 m into the atmosphere and onto the launch pad or Landing zone 1 below. That drop took 300 seconds. It corresponds to an average vertical speed of 666.7 m/s. Soon it was speeding faster than sound again but ... no boom was heard. OK! It was high up in space. The rocket was again flipped - 90° this time - with engines facing down ready to fire and slow down the drop. All remaining fuel was back at the bottoms of the tanks.

There are of course other trajectories of the backwards somersault proposed on the Internet - e.g. right - after I proposed my simple analysis above.

Here the separation takes place only 20.000 m downrange from the launch pad at 70.000 m altitude and the first stage in then ejected up to only 180.000 m altitude about 90.000 m downrange (at 05.25 LT), i.e. closer to land than I assumed with less speed away from land. There are only two Boost Back burns in horizontal positions a little earlier pushing the first stage backwards at 150.000 (03.51 LT - it stops the horizontal speed 800 m/s away from the launch site) and 170.000 m altitude (04.39 LT - it brings the rocket horizontally back to the launch site in the right direction at 340 m/s speed). The first stage then drops vertically down free fall. The Entry burn is at 50.000 m altitude (08.02 LT) and the Landing burns at <10.000 m altitude (08.40 LT). In my opinion the alternative trajectory is as unlikely as the one proposed by me. Nothing can fly like it!

If anything freefalls from 180 000 m altitude, ignoring air friction, it will reach 50.000 m altitude at 1 598 m/s hypersonic speed after 163 seconds (or only 157 seconds in the alternative trajectory - it goes faster than gravity can accelerate it!!). Imagine that. It will hit ground after another 30 seconds.

The potential/kinetic energy of the rocket is then > J and you need >33 tons of fuel/energy to stop it ... which you do not have! There is no way you can stop a 25 tons mass with that velocity with some Entry or Landings burns providing 77 tons thrust. You will crash!

Elon's rocket landed however with 0 or 2 m/s speed after 220 seconds flight down to Earth at average speed >800 m/s.

SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage alternative return/recovery trajectory. The first stage has downward speed ~1 600 m/s at 50 000 m altitude

There was an Entry burn and a Landing burn to slow down the rocket first stage (see below) but how Elon's experts stopped the flight is not clear.

Hypersonic grid fins steered the rocket, we are told. You can see them sticking out at the top of the rocket after alleged landing above and left.

Braking, steering and positioning of the rocket in 3D-space was done fully automatic by computers, we are also told:

Falcon 9's first stage is equipped with hypersonic grid fins which manipulate the direction of the first stage's lift during reentry. The fins are placed in an X-wing configuration and are stowed on ascent and deployed during reentry. While the fins are relatively small - they measure just 4 feet by 5 feet - they can roll, pitch, and yaw the 14-story first stage up to 20 degrees in order to target a precision landing.

Less than 10 minutes from start the 25 tons first stage had landed again after dropping down 200.000 m - above from a TV screen. Note the landing legs and that 30% of the lower part of the rocket has become black - soot from the exhaust?

Falcon 9 hypersonic grid fins - that work in vacuum - before flight, recovery and landing

Seagoing ships (my speciality) are steered by a vertical rudder fin (with no grids or holes) aft in the water which can yaw (or turn) the ship in the right direction port or starboard. Here we are told that a space travelling rocket dropping vertically down on Earth due to gravity can be steered in 3D space by hypersonic grid fins ... in virtual vacuum. The grids are diagonal! I would preferred square grids. By rotating a deployed grid fin a downwards (braking) and a sideways (steering) force are applied to the rocket that tilts sideways.

Of course there is very very little air above 50.000 m altitude so you wonder how you can steer or tilt anything up there with ... hypersonic grid fins.

Personally I think the whole rocket incl. fins look fake. Especially after use.

The amazing upwards and backwards somersault hypersonic/subsonic/0 speed loop and landing in total darkness took totally only 435 seconds after separation. The invited viewers at the control station cheered ... what was seen on some TV screens. That is show biz!

Elon's Falcon 9 after return/landing - is it the same rocket that was sent up in the clouds?

The total distance of the trajectory of the 435 seconds loop after separation was maybe of the order say 435 000 m, so average speed during the complete trajectory was about supersonic 1.000 m/s or more than twice the speed of sound. The initial, total, upwards and away from target, speed at 80.000 m altitude was 1 700 m/s, the speed was 0 m/s at 200.000 m and 0 m altitudes, etc.

Imagine how many sonic booms (four!) all these speed up/down changes would have produced.

That nobody noticed.

Personally I cannot understand how an object (Falcon 9 first stage!) flying away in direction at hypersonic speed away from the landing zone can be stopped in flight going in that direction at 200 000 m altitude and then be brought back above the original launch location while dropping down, increase speed to hypersonic speed again ... twice ... and then land at 0 speed down on ground again.

In my opinion it is impossible. But media just report the nonsense, as if it happened in the real world.

You evidently need fuel to create thrust to change direction of and slow down a rocket - always in the right directions.

The questions are therefore how much fuel was used for the various Boost Back, Entry and Landing burns, how was the thrust applied in the right directions at the right times and right location in the trajectory and how was the mass of the first stage reduced from say 65 to 40 tons during the backwards 435 seconds somersault and drop, when fuel was consumed?

SpaceX has not provided any answers except that all was nominal. Media should ask real questions and not report nonsense. But how do you apply thrust in the right direction at >1.000 m/s speed? Is the rocket really stable?

Falcon 9 hypersonic grid flaps before use - were they ever used?

If you have only 40 tons of fuel for recovery trajectory burns of the first stage, you could fire your rocket engines during total 156 seconds. The fuel consumption is 256 kg/s.

Maybe you need to fire two engines and apply 154 tons thrust during the initial Boost Back burns to re-direct the first stage back to zero speed at 200 000 m altitude. The vertical speed component is reduced to 0 by gravity after separation - no fuel is needed for it - but the horizontal speed component must be stopped by rocket thrust and then you need more fuel to accelerate towards land again and it may use up total 120 seconds of fuel or 20 tons.

Then one engine at the Entry burn applies 77 tons of thrust to slow down the first stage dropping down at hypersonic vertical speed again onto the launch pad - it may use up another 64 seconds of fuel or 8 tons - and finally one engine and 77 tons of thrust during the Landing burn to stop the first stage again at hypersonic vertical speed just before touch-down on the launch pad - using up the last 30 seconds of fuel available - 4 tons.

If anything goes wrong, e.g. firing a rocket engine in the wrong direction or at the wrong time or at the wrong location, you will crash and the first stage becomes scrap and cannot be re-used.

Falcon 9 hypersonic grid fins - produce plenty turbulence at launching

Say that the empty 44 meters long, first stage with its valuable 9 engines, two big fuel tanks and some fuel pumps + control equipment but no fuel has mass 25 tons. Dropping such a mass from 200.000 m altitude releases plenty potential energy ... and you need fuel to produce thrust to stop it ... unless you use hypersonic grid fins - an Elon/SpaceX invention - that can slow down rockets in free fall in vacuum.

Any mass dropped from 200 000 m altitude with start speed 0 m/s experince first a sonic boom at 340 m/s speed and reaches about 127 seconds later vertical hypersonic speed about 1 100 m/s, when passing 130.000 m altitude.

This is all due to Earth's strong gravity and the fact that the potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy and increases the velocity! You must also consider that there is no (or very, very thin) air at such high altitudes braking the dropping mass.

With speed increasing further, the first stage will hit ground after less than 120 seconds or burn up in the mesosphere like a meteor unless serious braking takes place. Parachutes cannot be used at such high altitudes - there is no air there. But according SpaceX hypersonic grid fins do the job - or at least steer it towards the Landing Zone!

Applying 77 tons thrust during 64 seconds - the Entry burn - at 130 000 m (or 50.000 m) altitude will hardly slow down the dropping rocket at entry - to subsonic speed. But as soon as you stop firing the rocket, downward speed increases again to a hypersonic one. Gravity is a very strong force.

Any mass dropped from 130 000 m altitude with vertical start speed 0 has hypersonic speed about 1 100 m/s, when passing 60.000 m altitude about 127 seconds later due to Earth's strong gravity and the fact that the potential energy is still transformed into kinetic energy and increases velocity!

Dropping 70 000 m in Earth's gravity field increases your speed 1 100 m/s. It is hypersonic.

During the amazing salto and braking the total mass is reduced from 65 to 25 tons, as fuel is consumed and the centre of gravity is shifted from about half height towards the bottom/engine end. The hypersonic grid fins' steering forces are applied at the top. The arrangement looks unstable in my opinion. Has it been tested in model or full scale? I have of course seen SpaceX videos of their rockets slowly landing ... always at very slow speed.

Say however that you, one way or another, arrive at 16 500 m altitude at 1 100 m/s hypersonic, vertical downwards speed (more than three times the speed of sound!) and that applying 77 tons thrust during the last 30 seconds - the Landing burn - of the return trip burning 8 000 kg of fuel/energy will slow your 25 tons first stage down to 0 m/s speed (or 2 m/s?).

Then the 25 tons first stage (no fuel left) will stop just on the ground. The deceleration is of the order 37 m/s² or almost 4g.

The thrust to brake the rocket must be applied exactly in the right direction, altitude and time. If not the rocket will flip over and ... the brake force is applied sideways ... resulting in a crash. Ma

Less than 10 minutes from start the first stage - mass 50 tons! - had landed again after dropping down 200 000 m - but what we saw - the last 30 seconds Landing burn - didn't look real. There is no smoke until the rocket exhaust hits ground ... when there is smoke. The landing legs seem to have been deployed

The first stage then had mass 25 000 kg (forgetting the mass of the fuel) at 16.500 m altitude and 1.100 m/s hypersonic speed. The total potential and kinetic energy is then about J.

Above we learnt that 1 kg of fuel can produce at least 1.224.000 J energy (to get the rocket off the ground), so 8 000 kg should produce 9.792.000.000 J energy.

But to stop the first stage just to land it seems you need at least three times more fuel/energy! Not 8 tons but 24 tons of fuel!

Simple calculations like these ones show that above return trip trajectory is not possible and that you cannot carry the fuel with you to do any rocket burns and land again. You need more fuel ... and that you cannot carry with you - you will get too heavy and cannot carry any pay load ... and the whole thing will take much longer time.

You cannot simply drop 25 tons from 200 000 or 180
.000 m altitude and expect that rocket thrusts applied at hypersonic speed - in exactly the right directions - by, e.g. super efficient Merlin rocket engines, can stop it.

It seems the SpaceX staff and Elon Musk have not understood it. So they invent fairy tales + hypersonic grid fins + landing on ground at 0 m/s speed in the middle of the night ... behind a screen.

It happens that seagoing ships (my speciality) lose stability due to internal forces (bad loading) or external forces (bad weather) and the loss takes time and may result in capsize or sinking, when loose masses are shifting places.

This 44 meters long, 25 tons heavy when empty SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket first stage does not appear stable in flight with all that fuel - 40 tons - sloshing around in almost empty tanks during the return and recovery. So when the Boost Back burns took place Elon could not be certain that they were done in the right direction (horizontally back towards land). Thus easier to fake it with a magician's trick - behind a screen.

Haven't we seen it before? NAXA did it already in the 1960's (Apollo) and 1980's (Shuttle). OK, the Apollo used parachutes and dropped into the Pacific and the Shuttle landed like a glider. Both were simply dropped off at low altitude from airplanes a little earlier. Here we saw a new invention by Elon and SpaceX - a vertical landing - on a TV screen. Personally I think the rocket was on the ground all the time ... hidden behind another screen. A cheap, magician's trick. With smoke added.

Having followed the SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage recovery hypersonic grid fins hypersonic up/down show live on TV with young employees watching TV screens and cheering in the background, I consider the whole SpaceX/NAXA thing a silly, standard NAXA type hoax. It never took place in reality. It was a standard staged event using pre-recorded footage! All employees involved were cheap actors just speaking from scripts. The people cheering in the background were also just paid actors. It was not even Florida. It was California. But fun in a way. Doesn't hurt anybody (except US tax payers pockets).

But didn't we see something land in the dark night of Florida 585 seconds after the Falcon 9 rocket (or whatever) was launched on the show? Yes, we could see a slow fireball descending during about 30 seconds (or less). That was all. I assume it was something dropped from a little plane above the Landing zone to impress any viewers. All amateur videos posted on the Internet taken from far away just show the same darkness and a slow moving fireball (the exhaust flame?). It didn't arrive at >3 times the speed of sound, though.


Five weeks earlier Kathy Lueders, manager of NAXA's (fake!) Commercial Crew Program, said in a statement after Elon Musk's SpaceX had (November 2015) won a $2.6bn contract with NAXA to send humans and supplies to the fake, non-existing International Space/Fake Station, IFS:

"It's really exciting to see SpaceX (and Boeing) with hardware in flow for their first crew rotation missions. It is important to have at least two healthy and robust capabilities from U.S. companies to deliver crew and critical scientific experiments from American soil to the space station throughout its lifespan."

SpaceX is just another excited loser of my Challenge but winner in the NAXA criminal human space travel hoax that started 1959 - 56 years ago.

But did SpaceX place the ORBCOMM satellites in orbit, while faking the first stage recovery stunt? Who cares? Arianespace does it much better, i.e. launch satellites in space with a low cost single engine first stage (assisted by solid fuel boosters) and a second stage like SpaceX.

On 17 January 2016 SpaceX was in hoax action again - the Jason-3 mission - with another attempt to save the the first stage. Now the girl presenting the show was a blond Southern California type (an actress from Hollywood?). In order to save fuel the first stage was supposed to land on an un-manned barge somewhere in the Pacific Ocean below the trajectory (to the South Pole), so only one Burst Back burn in horizontal position was required to bring the first stage horizontal velocity to zero after it had flipped 180° and positioned itself horizontally in the correct direction (towards the North Pole) with 30-40 tons of fuel sloshing around in the tanks. This apparently took place and a little later the first stage was seen (on video) coming down at low vertical speed but not straight on the rolling barge. A fire extinguishing nozzle on the barge was automatically spraying sea water sideways (?) for some reason, while the rocket engine was producing the final Landing burn scorching the deck plate, and the rocket first stage attempted landing.

One 12 meters long, 750 kg heavy support leg (of four) - they are at the last moment pushed out by some hydraulic pistons one of which was broken? - however failed and the rocket tipped over and was suddenly horizontal on the barge deck hitting the deck side, where first it produced white smoke at the bottom end and a fraction of a second later it exploded producing a fireball, etc, etc, so nothing more could be seen. It seems the rocket remained on the barge. Catching fire, smoke, explosions and fireballs are standard tricks of video fakery, so I believe the whole thing, i.e. the landing, was fake ... again. I would have thought that the 44 meters high first stage would bounce off the barge diving into the sea before catching fire and exploding but then the visible magic effects - fire, smoke, explosion, ball of fire - would not have been there.

1, 2: Jason 3 rocket landing not vertically on pitching/rolling barge

3: Landing leg fails

4: Rocket falls on pitching/rolling barge towards the side. Note the black bottom - soot? - of the rocket and the clean top and the sharp boundary between! Magic!

5: Rocket side hitting barge deck - white smoke all around

6: Rocket suddenly exploding in a ball of fire

Why are these stupid video shows - with technical failures - done? Answer: Just to impress the Americans believing anything shown on TV. They believe SpaceX is top of the pops - failures happen - but in the end all will be OK, Elon is a genius, etc. It is just a variation of all NAXA hoaxes. The above video was pre-recorded trick film.



1.4 US National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

The US National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 rules:


Sec. 303. Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under the Act shall be made available for public inspection, except (A) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, and (B) information classified to protect the national security: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall authorize the withholding of information by the Administrator from the duly authorized committees of the Congress.

It means that any details how SpaceX did its magic 21 December 2015 show are secret. I obviously know SpaceX faked it. SpaceX could never have performed the return flight and landing as indicated in the show. Luckily it is not illegal to inform that US human space travel is fake as it does not affect US national security.


1.5 NAXA's strawberries on the Moon plans

But let's start with the fantastic NAXA's strawberries on the Moon plans 2015. It seems that (according Jeff Hanley, NAXA's Constellation program manager 2009/10 until the project was abandoned) ...

... NAXA's current rockets and space shuttles aren't capable of surpassing low-Earth orbit (LEO) to reach the Moon with the amount of gear required for a manned expedition. ...

... The amount of rocket energy it takes to accelerate those kinds of payloads away from Earth doesn't exist anymore, ... It exited in the Apollo era with the Saturn V. Since that time this nation has retired that capability.

Hm, NAXA/Jeff admits that US rockets are too weak today and cannot send humans to the Moon any longer? Or Mars! But that Saturn V could do it 1969! Can we believe it?

Hanley has before 2010 received numerous awards from NAXA for his service including the NAXA Outstanding Performance Award, the NAXA Quality Increase Award, the NAXA Sustained Superior Performance Award, the NAXA Performance Award, the NAXA Silver Snoopy Award, the NAXA Exceptional Service Medal and the NAXA Exceptional Achievement Medal.

After the above frank announcement 2009 Jeff has made a fantastic career at NAXA Johnson Space Center, doing some jobs elsewhere simultaneously. He was Associate Director for Strategic Capabilities, 5/2010 - 9/2011, Director, Human Exploration Development Support, 10/2011 - 8/2013, Deputy Project Manager for Verification, James Webb Space Telescope Project, NAXA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8/2010 - 9/2013, Director, EVA (space walks!!) Management Office, 8/2013 - 2/2015 and is today Principal Director, Human Exploration and Space Flight, The Aerospace Corporation, 3/2015 - today, Houston, Texas.

I assume Jeff is therefore handling the very important NAXA strawberry project today as NAXA has retired the capability to put humans in space. He is obviously a typical NAXA con artist just doing his parts of the show inventing new silly projects as required. Maybe he doesn't even exist?

NAXA or the US government (GWB, Obama or their wives?) has therefore announced plans to grow plants, e.g. strawberries on the moon by 2015 instead in a project designed to further humanity's chances of successfully colonising space. If (!) successful, the Lunar Plant Growth Habitat team will make history by seeding life from Earth on another celestial body for the first time, paving the way for humans to set up more permanent habitation. Unless the project is cancelled of course. When will the strawberries be launched - It looks dark! For more information about the future of human space exploration at NAXA visit: And info about future NAXA missions - Another funny link! There are no future missions or launches! But

"If we send plants and they thrive, then we probably can,"

says NAXA. If, Probably!

Here US astronut Dr. Buzz Aldrin was planning strawberry fields on a sunny day on the Moon already 1969 (or wasn't it in a Hollywood studio in Nevada?):

"Thriving plants are needed for life support (food, air, water) for colonists. And plants provide psychological comfort, as the popularity of the greenhouses in Antarctica and on the Space Station show ...

Points of Contact: Dr Chris McKay, Arwen Davé, Bob Bowman ...

Opportunity: The first Moon Express lander late 2015. "

says NAXA. Psychological comfort! Dr. Buzz is an alcoholic today using the old, good, stuff - Moonshine. Not available on the Moon, though!

"Everyone (sic) dreams about what living on some distant celestial body would be like. The human race has only ever stepped foot on our Moon, though, and it's not a habitable environment. However, NAXA is looking to change that, starting with growing plants on the lunar surface, ...

Obviously, the plants can’t be embedded into the lunar surface then left alone, so NAXA is constructing a small, lightweight (a little over two pounds), self-sustaining habitat for the vegetation. The habitat will be delivered to the moon via the Moon Express ("We are dreamers" - a NAXA front company!), a lunar lander that’s part of the Google Lunar X Prize, a competition to create a robotic spacecraft that can fly to and land on the moon."

says NAXA! Everyone dreams!

These are evidently just dreams by drunken clowns, i.e. NAXA, Buzz and Jeff. Strawberries on the Moon! There are 14 days sunlight on the Moon and 120°C temperature in the sun followed by 14 days of darkness (no sunlight) and -120°C temperature at any Moon location. Why is that? The Moon rotates around itself and around planet Earth in 27.322 days so a Moon day is long and hot like a Moon night is cold ... and long. NAXA missed it. The climate on the Moon is no good for strawberries. Or salad!

But NAXA gets $ billions to promote the nonsense. US taxpayers are not very bright, believe anything and pay.


1.6 Never A Straight Answer

If you wonder what NAXA stands for the answer is: Never A Straight Answer or Not A Serious Agency or Naughty Adults Swigging Alcohol. Try yourself with all NAXA employees mentioned above and below.

Every NAXA Apollo mission was evidently carefully rehearsed and filmed at the US Atomic Energy Commission's, later US Department of Energy's, Nevada National Security Site. There they had everything needed for producing propaganda. It is today run by the National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec). It is also where all US a-bombs propaganda was produced starting 1950 until today! To produce staged events - planting strawberries on the Moon or exploding fake a-bombs - you need professional assistance at highly protected locations, where intruders are shot at sight.

This web page is however about past human space travel and humans on Earth just stealing money from their governments to keep up the silly illusions and myths about space travel of all kind (and water on Mars and strawberries on the Moon). Dr. Buzz Aldrin and his friend first man on the Moon Neal Armstrong were just stealing money from US tax payers. It was funny.

Human space travel is not possible but this fact apparently affects US national security and is classified. You should wonder why? Why should it be secret that humans cannot travel in space, e.g. fly to the Moon or the IFS (the International Fake Spacestation)?

One reason is that you cannot carry the fuel with you to carry out and then execute the very complicated manoeuvres out of Earth's gravity field and into, e.g. the Moon's gravity field and land and then start and return out of the Moon's gravity field and back into Earth's strong gravity field. Each manoeuvre involves applying an exact force at the right time, direction, duration and amplitude to change the momentum and direction of the spaceship, so it will arrive at the next waypoint and for that fuel is required. No mistakes are permitted because to correct a mistake more fuel is required ... which you do not have anyway.


1.7 Impossible re-entry

Another reason is what happens at re-entry, i.e. when a spaceship with humans aboard tries to return to Earth from space, e.g. the IFS.

Re-entry is said to begin in the thermosphere at about 130.000 m altitude, where there is very little air. A mysterious, strong force develops out of nowhere and slows down the spacecraft

At 80.000 m altitude, the air density is about 0.00001846 kg/m3. The few air molecules affect the spaceship a lot; heat it up and deform it!

At sea level the density of air is 66.000 times bigger or 1.225 kg/m3, but it is only 0.4135 kg/m3 at 10.000 m altitude and only 0.001027 kg/m3 at 50.000 m altitude.

99% of all molecules of the atmosphere are located below 50.000 m altitude.

All solid meteors dropping into the atmosphere from space are vaporized before passing 50.000 m altitude in the mesosphere and only bits and pieces of them may reach ground.

This also happens to any non-solid, light structure spaceship or old satellite trying re-entry (with or without heat shields and magic ceramic tiles attached to it). The structure is heated and buckles easily and is ripped apart ... and burns up.

Imagine that only 1% of the molecules, atoms or other particles high up of the Earth thermo- and mesosphere manages to destroy all meteors trying to crash on Earth.

A spaceship is not a meteor. It must first find and arrive exactly at a location B at 130 000 m altitude in the thermosphere at the right time, speed and direction (while the Earth rotates - your arrival speed is >20-30 Mach) and second plunge into atmosphere to slow down and third travel >3.000.000 m in the right direction during 10 minutes, while slowing down to drop down - hole in one - in front of a pick-up team.

It is physically and practically impossible. NAXA lamely suggests it is 100% computer controlled.

The collision contacts between the molecules in the very thin air and the spaceship at high altitudes produce both heat warming the spaceship, so it finally catches fire, and pressure that over stresses and destroys the metal structure of the spaceship. It is not good for the humans aboard! It is suggested that heat shields and ceramic tiles may prevent it, but it is just propaganda.

Heat and pressure are just concentration of real molecules or atoms or particles that happen to be in the way of the fast speeding spaceship.

One thing the molecules or atoms or particles in the thin air cannot do at a re-entry is to slow down the spaceship with or without heat shields and tiles in an orderly fashion - compared to landing an airplane at <1 000 m altitude and slow speed. Why is that?


In hypersonic flights, the directional velocity of the fluid particles is much larger than the fluctuation velocities of the molecules of the flow. Thus, the flow kinetic energy before the bow shock is much larger than the internal thermodynamic energy of fluid particles. In atmospheric re-entry conditions, i.e. high altitudes and hypersonic speeds three physical phenomena affect the aerothermodynamic state of the flow in the shock layer:

Viscous interactions:

The viscous interactions between the viscous boundary layer and the inviscid (no-friction) unaffected flow-field are caused by the large amount of kinetic energy in the boundary layer. These viscous interactions affect the thickness of boundary layer, which in hypersonic speeds can be so thick that it practically merges with the shock wave, forming a merged shock layer, and, thus affecting the non-viscous part of the flow (outside of the boundary layer).

Low density flow:

At the atmospheric re-entry altitudes the flows density is so low that the distance between particles is too big to approximate the gas as a continuum. Thus, implementation of the kinetic theory is required to describe the fluid state.

High-temperature flow:

Kinetic energy of the high speed flow is dissipated by the influence of friction within the boundary layer. The loss of kinetic energy through the shock is transformed into internal thermodynamic energy and creates a peak of temperature behind the shock. This viscous dissipation results in temperatures high enough to excite the vibrational energy of the atmospheric molecules and cause dissociation, and even ionization within the gas, both in the boundary and the shock layer. Thus, the shock and boundary layers of hypersonic flows are chemically reacting. Etc, etc. 

Re-entry of spaceships happens in a low density hypersonic flow, where typical re-entry velocities are about Mach 30+, i.e. the spaceship moves through the very thin thermo- and mesosphere at very high altitudes 30 times faster than that information can be spread. It creates shock waves. The actual position and behaviour of the shock waves, especially the angle they create towards the flow direction depends highly on the geometry of the spaceship. At the collision shocks between the spaceship and the few molecules in the atmosphere you have very large temperature jumps/spikes. There are vibrational excitation, chemical reactions and non-equilibrium flow in the inviscid shock layer and basically no friction. Model tests in low density almost vacuum flow and at great velocities are impossible to do. It is all very confusing = no real scientist can explain it = only NAXA pseudoscientists will invent something for Hollywood to spin on.

NAXA believes that the resistance, drag or brake force is a function of velocity square, air density, the drag coefficient Cd (a function of the shape and also of the Mach number) and the area of the spaceship but it applies only at much, 30-40 times lower velocities and much, 1 000 - 10 000 times, higher air densities at very low altitudes.

Earth's gravity force also ensures that the spaceship, regardless of re-entry direction, just goes faster and faster vertically down at high altitude. It is suggested by various 'experts' that a lift force develops depending on the re-entry angle of the spacecraft, so it may bounce up leaving the thin atmosphere again. It does not happen to meteors though. Lift forces only develop at <20.000 m altitude.

The kinetic energy - half mass times velocity square - via collision contacts in the thermo- and mesosphere is then converted into thermal energy - heat - that leads to the creation of plasma, i.e. very high temperature that vaporizes the meteors. Via the Stefan-Boltzmann law it is possible to calculate the temperature that the spacecraft will be subject to, so it would be destroyed like a meteor before 50.000 m altitude. Maybe only some really solid bits and pieces will survive and drop down on Earth?

No, it is only possible to send spaceships or satellites one way up and out into orbits around Earth or Sun. They cannot ever return. Re-entry is not possible.

This fact and many others have been withheld and you have to read about them here. You should then ask: Why have you been told that human space travel is possible?

Because it is propaganda! Or a joke!

Wikipedia suggests re-entry is possible:

Various advanced technologies have been developed to enable atmospheric reentry and flight at extreme velocities.

The Wikipedia article is 100% non-sense and forgets the Gagarin faked re-entry described below and that you have to find this location B at 130 000 m altitude in the thermosphere to start any re-entry.


1.8 Juri Gagarin re-entry!

The first human making a re-entry after a space trip was Soviet citizen Juri Gagarin 12 April 1961, i.e. 55 years ago. It was not a simple, test straight up into space using a rocket, straight down back again to Earth trip using gravity and parachutes. No, no! Njet, Njet!

His space trip was an around the Earth in less than two hours trip, i.e., an about 40 000 km long straight trajectory about 65° ENE from Baikonur cosmodrome in Kasakhstan SSR according the Soviet propaganda at the time ending almost where it started.

Trajectory of fake Gagarin space trip

Gagarin's Vostok spaceship (a 2.1 m diameter hollow accommodation steel globe + a brake rocket module attached to it) was (6.07 Local Time, LT) accelerated in 10 minutes to about 7 500 m/s speed at 350.000 m altitude by some external fireworks and flow then ENE (6.17 LT) straight over Siberia, Kamtjatka, down over Pacific Ocean to the tip of Antarctica and up over South Atlantic and Africa heading home. Yes, it is a straight course all the time.

Over Angola and about 8 000 km from home the brake rocket fired for 42 seconds (7.25 LT) and the Vostok spaceship started descending from about 350 000 m altitude, while total - horizontal/vertical - speed increased.

Only 10 minutes later at about 4 000 km from home above Egypt the accommodation globe separated from the rocket module and both units hit, like meteors, the atmosphere at 130 000 m altitude at about 8 500 m/s total speed (7.35 LT) and now only air friction (!) would stop the trip = re-entry.

The vertical speed downwards could have been about 400 m/s and with that speed Gagarin would have hit ground after only 250 seconds or four minutes ... ignoring gravity. Gravity will of course speed you up! The air is much too thin at 10.000 - 130.000 m altitude to slow any spaceship down as described earlier above. The collision contacts with molecules will on the other hand heat you up until you catch fire, break up and are vaporized. Like all meteors dropping through the atmosphere every day.

Air friction alone however - according to soviet communist propaganda - managed to slow down Gagarin’s little steel, cannon ball shaped globe (mass about 2 000 kg) in about 1 000 seconds according Soviet info, i.e. braking was at little less than 1 g, before hitting ground.

Imagine that – air friction braking for 15+ minutes, while flying almost horizontally 4 000 km without any wings and dropping only 90.000 m (or 90 km!) ... in a little steel ball. The average vertical speed downwards was only 90 m/s.

If you drop anything, e.g. a 2 000 kg steel ball, from 90 000 m altitude with zero vertical start velocity, it will hit ground below at 1.328 m/s vertical speed (due to gravity g 9.82 m/s²) after only 135 seconds ignoring the atmosphere friction. If you consider atmosphere friction influence, it will hit ground after say 270 seconds or four or five minutes ... or less. But Gagarin flow - without wings 15-16 minutes - in his hollow steel globe!

Gagarin didn't report a steady 1 g brake force during 1 000 seconds but reported an 8 g sudden, much stronger brake force during much shorter time somewhere in the atmosphere. It was the first human re-entry in history. 100% fake! The Vostok globe didn't burn up, didn't start to spin, etc. It flew steady like a canon ball at Mach 20+ speed. It was magic! Reportedly it had been tested once before with a dummy inside or with another person crashing in China.

At 7 000 m altitude and unknown speed, Gagarin was ejected out of his globe (7.55 LT) (the hatch opened outwards) and Gagarin deployed his parachute. Gagarin landed 8.05 LT – 280 km west off Baikonur. Either the initial straight trajectory was a little - 0.007° - too much left at start or they forgot the rotation of the Earth during the trip or the wind at 100 000 m altitude over Middle East pushed it westwards?

The empty accommodation globe with its parachutes deployed a little later reportedly landed nearby and bounced on the frozen ground. Where the rocket module ended up, nobody knows. Or it burnt up? Only witnesses of the historic landing were two schoolgirls late for school and a lonely kolschos farm worker inspecting his frozen land. Spring had not yet arrived.

It is a nice piece of Soviet 1960’s communist propaganda. Clearly the trip never took place. The re-entry was not possible. Gagarin was just the first kosmos clown!

Reason for the 1961 kosmos show was simply that Sovietunion was (1) falling apart after the death of Stalin 1953, (2) the communist comrades lacked faith and (3) the attempt by the people in power to keep it. The absolute easiest way to improve morale was to create a HERO! A SOVIET HERO! A HERO OF THE SOVIETUNION! Gagarin!

I assume Gagarin + globe was ejected from an airplane Apollo 11 (part 1 of this article) style, even if it was not necessary either with only three witnesses on the ground. But maybe Gagarin wanted to do at least a parachute jump? The whole thing took little less than two hours from start to finish. Soviet (government controlled) media made a big thing of it. Gagarin became a Hero of the Sovietunion, got a car, big flat, access to shops with foreign goods, etc, etc! The Cold War space race really started. And the poor people of the Sovietunion had 1961 something new to believe in until the whole thing collapsed 1991.

The Americans evidently played the game and acted that they were horrified and JFK decided to send fake humans into space too.

The Americans didn't call the bluff of the communists!

It would have been easy to pull the pants of the commies 1961 and say they were lying. Or that it was a joke!


1.9 John Glenn re-entry!

But no. NAXA/JFK presented its own Earth orbit show. John Glenn! What a joke!

On February 20, 1962, Glenn flew the Friendship 7 mission and became the first American to orbit the Earth, arrive at location B in the upper atmosphere (easy to find!) at great speed, plunge into the atmosphere and then drop down in front of a waiting ship. It never happened, of course, and the Commies didn't object like they never called the US a-bomb hoax 1945. It is 70 years old now!

The Americans incl. JFK knew it was easy to bluff the American public. Just ask Hollywood to assist. They produced the a-bomb footage!

The Americans had some problems though, e.g. that the re-entries of all Apollo Moon trips had to be fake. Anyway the latter trips never took place either except in a Hollywood studio, the Nevada desert and the Pacific.

Maybe you are American and believe in the US space Shuttle (part 2 of this article)? Wasn't it sending totally 100's of people, mostly Americans, up to the International Space Station in the past many, many times?

No, it is all fake too! The re-entry of a Shuttle is not possible! Like the Gagarin or Glenn trips. Like all Russian Soyuz capsules' re-entries down from the ISS, now when the Shuttle is scrapped!


1.10 Space shuttles Challenger and Colombia disasters - all fake

But haven't 100's of Soviet cosmonauts and American astronauts been sent up into space orbiting Earth and going to the Moon (Americans only) 1961-1991?

No, they were mostly military personnel just following orders from above pretending they had been in space or whatever. Basic propaganda. In the military you follow orders ... or get shot. They were all paid to lie!

But didn't the space shuttle Challenger disaster occur on January 28, 1986, when the NAXA Space Shuttle Challenger (OV-099) (mission STS-51-L) broke apart 73 seconds into the flight, seen live on TV leading to the sad deaths of its seven American crew members many of them civilians?

Yes, to improve to space show civilians (sic) were required and in America they were recruited by NAXA via ordinary model/photo/advertising agencies. Plenty people were of course willing to dress up in space protective clothing or space suits being photographed and then to become space workers/tourists, etc, etc, blah, blah, being paid for the nonsense. Media would promote them as heroes and they just had to nod and agree to having been up in space doing something. I always wonder how much they were paid.

Regarding the space shuttle Challenger January 28, 1986 only an empty light weight mock-up of a Shuttle driven by external rockets was sent up without anybody aboard to impress awed onlookers and it blow up (picture left below) by mistake, in my opinion. What a fuck-up. It should have disappeared behind some clouds and then ... exploded out of sight.

But NAXA could handle it! They arranged the funerals and re-cycled the un-dead (!) American astronuts as brothers and sisters of the dead or similar. National security, you know!

One of the un-dead American astronuts, Mr. Richard Scobee, got carried away 25 years later and produced a logo for his advertising agency (left) below:

What a cow! Shit from the sky! But Richard was just a low paid part of a big show.

The good news, I am therfore glad to inform, is that at least six of the seven Americans incl. the cow in the tree Scobee (bottom line middle) are still alive 2016 - only 30 years older. Below you can see them:


Human space travel into LEO and to the Moon and sending unmanned spacecrafts to comets, etc, etc are therefore just 50+ years old, silly jokes by stupid people. The smiling American idiots incl. Scobee above and their family relatives are part of the show that can be reached at .

But what about space Shuttle Columbia, STS-107, that was launched from Kennedy Space Center in Florida on January 16, 2003. Didn't it disintegrate over Texas and Louisiana as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere, killing all seven crew members, on February 1, 2003?

No, the space Shuttle Columbia disaster was also 100% fake. And the only reason to end the US space Shuttle nonsense with civilians flying away. Imagine the amount of work done to invent that last disaster to end a fantasy space program that has cost billions. The NAXA space travel staff is really sick. And criminal. And not fun at all.

The fake, human space travel industry incl. fake space accidents is however, unfortunately, quite big today. Now NAXA and the Russians send other civilians to their International Space (Fake) Station. Read more about it below or join 1 000's of space nuts discussing various matters at, which is a mix of real spacecraft - small unmanned satellites in LEO - and fantasy projects to the Moon, planet Mars and comets, etc.


1.11 Manfred Lindinger, Alexander Gerst, Samantha Christoforetti and Andreas Mogensen

Manfred Lindinger, a journalist of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, FAZ, thought 31 May 2014 on the front page of FAZ that German astronaut Alexander Gerst of the European Space Agency, EXA, had just flown up to the International Space Station, ISS, from the remote Russian Baikonur Cosmodrome in the desert steppe of Kazakhstan, about 200 kilometres (124 mi) east of the Aral Sea. All manned Russian spaceflights are launched from Baikonur. If they are real is never confirmed.

Elon Musk with his SpaceX' Dragon re-entry capsule - that does not work. The Dragon capsule used by NAXA, EXA and the Russians is according Elon equipped with, apart from a useless PICAX heat shield at the bottom, hidden rocket engines that slow down or speed up the capsule at re-entry. The fuel tanks are also hidden. The capsule has been sent up to the International fake Space Station before and berthed there - a very difficult manoeuvre at 400 000 m altitude and > 7 500 m/s speed. To return to Earth astronuts climb aboard the capsule one way or other and fire the capsule rocket engines to reach lower altitude at increased speed. Then the capsule enters the atmosphere at 100 000 m altitude at > 7 500 m/s speed and start to plasma brake. At low speeds ~100 m/s parachutes are deployed. They are hidden in the top of the capsule. The capsule is 100% computer controlled so people inside do not have to do anything but watch. Brainwashed Americans apparently believe the nonsense and pay Elon billions to keep the illusion going. Elon invests the money to make electric cars. As all human in space projects are similarily fake and staged events, I assume that Elon Musk is 100% fake himself. The man and capsule are jokes!

Lindinger is just a typical representative of the German Lügenpresse (media that lie) and does not understand that manned spaceflights are not possible, that all past human space flights are fake and that the ISS is just a totally fake International Fake Station, IFS! You can see it at regular intervals passing high up (~350 000 m) at high speed (~7 500 m/s) just before sun set, but it is just a big empty satellite - a silver balloon with diameter say 200 meter. Watch this video! Imagine NAXA sending up an empty silver balloon as a satellite in space to fool people!

It is impossible to get down, doing a re-entry, from the IFS or space alive using any Dragon or Soyuz capsule. EXA has therefore stopped recruiting European cosmo clowns or idiots since 2008, even if its web site still suggests that EXA hires astronuts 2015. The training consisted of learning to lie, to act, to swim (many videos of people floating in space are made in a swimming pool) and to promote the lies of US Moon travel 1969-1972. Imagine a European agency 2015 promoting US (and Russian) lies and fake re-entry capsules. What a stupid joke. It is not funny any longer. Anyway, Alexander Gerst (right) did a fake Yuri Gagarin re-entry on 10 November 2014 in a fake Soyuz capsule and, conveniently, landed close to the remote, ultra secret Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan - like Yuri Gagarin 12 April 1961. FAZ should ask Alexander Gerst how it was done (faked!) and report on the front page. 

Apparently Alexander Gerst stepped into the fake Soyuz capsule at 350 000 m altitude and at 7 500 m/s speed. The capsule has tangential velocity 7 500 m/s in orbit around Earth - like the IFS, we are told.

Then a fake rocket was fired, so that the capsule lowered altitude ... and the speed was increased. Rocket engine and fuel consumption are not clear - where was the fake fuel stored in the capsule? And the fake rocket engine? At 122.000 m altitude the capsule entered the very thin upper atmosphere (where meteors burn up) at an almost horizontal speed say 7 850 m/s.

Alexander Gerst - German astrokraut actor that never was in space

Alexander and Samantha dropped down in a Soyuz capsule!


The Russian capsule magically did not start to (a) rotate due to imbalance making mince meat of the passengers or (b) to burn up in the thick atmosphere. It is protected by a magic heat shield that cannot burn. Some way or another the capsule slowed down in a stable position by friction and turbulence to <100 m/s speed in 8 minutes! - steering and balance control were all done automatically by a fake computer - when parachutes were deployed. A little later Alexander Gerst had landed. Which media reported. But it never happened in reality. It was a typical European Space Agency, EXA, science fiction show! But the boring EXA show must go on ... and on! Next in the long line to participate in the dull EXA fraud December 2014 was the Italian prostitute Samantha Cristoforetti and then, 2015 a Danish male will prostitute himself as a cosmoclown - Andreas Mogensen. I really feel sorry for these persons selling themselves, bodies and souls, to be used by the perverse EXA. But as media presents them as honest heroes, what can I do? I just watch it and report it here.

Mogensen was sent into space 2 September 2015 - as part of the EXA space hoax with Jan Woerner assisting

Samantha's re-entry 11 June 2015 can be seen here. After several technical difficulties we see livestream a single parachute with a capsule attached dropping from the sky with Russian helicopters flying around in all directions. Then the capsule hits ground, there is smoke and a black capsule (no heat shield?) on the ground (no helicopters around) + open parachute hatch and after one hour show, three people crawl out from the top of the capsule, etc, etc. There is no evidence that the capsule + content was ever in space or passed over Egypt a little earlier at 100.000 m altitude and 7.500 m/s speed making a 10 minutes re-entry. What a stupid show.


1.12 Swedish National Space Board

Sweden or Rymdstyrelsen, i.e. the Swedish National Space Board is part of the hoax! The Swedish superstar Christer FuglEXAng has visited space several times and then made successful re-entries, we are told.

A clown at Rymdstyrelsen has also told me that he and colleagues had even been invited to see Christer take off from Florida in a US Shuttle - at 10 kilometres distance - and later - seen from a distance - land with another Shuttle on Earth somewhere = evidence that it took place. These Swedish fools do not understand that it is just a show! Or they do, but shut up to collect wages and pension benefits, etc.


1.13 US X-37B

Below is more nonsense - the US X-37B space shuttle!

US latest X-37B space shuttle - note the impressive wings and nose wheel

In October 2014 the US Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office - not run by NAXA but by space magician Randall G. Walden - informed that they had - top secret - sent another Shuttle like spaceship (above) - the X-37B unmanned spaceship - into space many years earlier orbiting Earth - like the IFS - and that it had just made a third successful re-entry (animation right) without heat shield and landed. It will soon be sent into orbit again! It is apparently another US hoax based on another 50 years old hoax. Evidently no X-37B ever was in space! It is just a fake video of a rocket taking off and a mock up of the spaceship on Earth.


Doesn't cost much. But not funny. Just stupid. Invented by not very clever science fiction writers. You should ask Alexander Gerst, if he saw the
X-37B when he was up there ... on the EXA resort at Sochi or wherever, Hawaii, waiting to show up again. Ask Alexander about his sun tan! What a stupid job - cosmokraut!

Hawaii space training house

Talking about Hawaii there are eight astrohawaiians training for space travel/living there. I have recommended them to study this web page, when they are locked into the bubble left before taking off to Mars. They were let out 13 June 2015 and greeted as heroes!

If you have read the above, I hope you will read the rest below. Hopefully you will then realize that no human space travel of any kind is possible. You cannot carry the fuel/energy with you to manoeuvre - accelerate, brake, change direction, etc. - in space. You cannot ever leave planet Earth with a spacecraft. Or re-enter! You can only send small satellites one way into space - mostly orbiting Earth.

Of course plenty people have another opinion, generally in order to get rich on Earth, but you can easily ignore them. Just laugh at them. And particularly at this Elon Musk clown selling expensive electric cars ... or rather giving them away for free ... to promote his human space travel frauds. I am amazed that FBI, Interpol, media, etc., have not understood it.


1.14 Orion

But didn't NAXA launch a light weight 8.5 ton Orion* (right) spacecraft/capsule into space 5 December 2014 and it splashed down* in the Pacific Ocean, about 600 miles south of San Diego, CA, after two orbits around Earth and a fantasy re-entry the same day? What kind of heat shield protection did it have?

Orion re-entry - air friction/turbulence only slows down the spacecraft from 8 900 to 100 m/s speed in 10 minutes, while heat shield temperature increases >2 600°C

The Orion has an about five meters diameter rounded heat shield of thin titanium plate on which 25-50 mm high fiberglass honeycomb matrixes are fitted. An epoxy novolac resin with special additives - AVCOAT - is then injected into each honeycomb space to provide a Thermal Protection System, TPS. Total volume of AVCOAT is less than one cubic meter that would evaporate or burn off quite easily. It looks (2010) something like (,%20Evgeny_219_PDF_revised.pdf ):

At re-entry the speed of the spacecraft/heat shield is assumed to remain constant about 7 600 m/s for 200 seconds, when the altitude is reduced from 120 000 to 65 000 m (vertical speed 275 m/s). The translational temperature (!) is only 2.950° K at the surface (but >13 000° K a little above the surface causing a plasma trail) but only 280° K at the bottom of the 25-50 mm deep AVCOAT heat shield, i.e. the spacecraft is safe. After another 300 seconds in more dense atmosphere the speed is 0 m/s (g 25 m/s²) and the spacecraft can land. The writers of this nonsense are two students and a professor paid by NAXA.

The development of the heat shield started already 2006:

"We don't know what the final (advanced heat shield) material will be until the testing and analysis is complete," said George Sarver, manager of Ames' Orion/ Ares Support Project. According to Sarver, NAXA must complete the advanced heat shield development work by 2009 in order to be ready for Orion's first flight that possibly could be in 2012, but no later than 2014.

How this flimsy 'shield' can absorb the >2 600°C heat generated at re-entry without melting, catching fire and burning up is a mystery. The 'shield' can easily be laboratory tested on Earth to simulate its function at 8 900 m/s speed in thin air. It melts and catches fire! It appears that Apollo 11 had a similar heat shield tested already 1969. And all US ICBMs carrying nuclear bombs to destroy Russia! It is as useless as the PICAX heat shield of Elon Musk.

Re-entries are impossible regardless of heat shields. The Orion is just another magic trick of NAXA to keep the re-entry illusion alive. The rocket is a model and the capsule is dropped from a plane. No magic at all! Just a cheap trick invented in the 1960's. I have asked Mr Brandi K. Dean (JSC-AD931)" <> of NAXA about a log of the 5 December 2014 Orion flight with speed (m/s), course (°) (horizontally), position (lat/long on Earth below), altitude (m) - say every 5 or 10 minutes - from start to splashdown to include in this web page, but Mr Dean has replied:

We can't provide that information because it would reveal information that ULA considers proprietary for the Delta V.

It is clear that NAXA cannot provide any evidence that the Orion ever flew anywhere in space above Earth. Orion can only carry four persons to the Moon we are told but lacks fuel to land on and depart from the Moon. According NAXA Orion will soon fly to planet Mars, though! The Orion spacecraft and its first flight test will help make it possible.

The Journey to Mars is humanity's Next Giant Leap into our solar system according NAXA. You wonder what brainwashed twirps write and believe such nonsense? The heavy weight 78 ton Shuttle was a more impressive hoax. It too never visited space. The NAXA web pages linked* to above are really poor and the only evidences of any trip are fake footage and cartoons of poor quality!

Below is the latest European space hoax 2015!

Maggie Lieu is a model for the Mars One 2015 hoax

1.15 Mars One

A Dutch one! Mars One is a not-for-profit foundation that will establish a permanent human settlement on Mars.

Human settlement on Mars is possible today with existing technologies. Mars One's mission plan integrates components that are well tested and readily available from industry leaders worldwide.

"The first footprint on Mars and lives of the crew thereon will captivate and inspire generations; it is this public interest that will help finance this human mission to Mars."

Plenty people believe this silly nonsense.


1.16 New Horizons

The latest one is - New Horizons - that allegedly arrived planet (or whatever?) Pluto 14 July 2015.

New Horizons is another NAXA fantasy spaceship, mass only 478 kg, which was sent away from planet Earth 19 January 2006 to planet Pluto by a very strong rocket. In order to resist gravity from Sun, the spaceship was given a very high departure velocity out of the Earth orbit and away from the Sun - unknown but probably of the order >45.000 m/s - so it passed the Moon orbit after only nine hours - heading for the orbit of the planet Jupiter orbit, where it closely encountered/passed Jupiter on 28 January 2007 … at another unknown speed. Quite good actually (and a complete hoax). Jupiter orbits the Sun and you just fly by and are kicked by it.

Jupiter is the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest planet in the Solar System. It is a giant planet with a mass one-thousandth that of the Sun, but is two and a half times that of all the other planets in the Solar System combined. Its enormous gravity force would clearly attract New Horizon so it crashes.

But no! Passing Jupiter spaceship New Horizons was given a magic gravity assisted kick (see below) instead - details unknown - to proceed to the orbit of planet Pluto with arrival/encounter date 14 July 2015. The astro-clown steering spacecraft New Horizons is Alan Stern, a failed NAXA astronut. He believes planet Pluto has atmosphere, four seasons, average temperature -230°C, five moons, etc. and that his spaceship New Horizons will show it all.

When New Horizons passes Pluto, it will drop off, Spacedust style (see below), the ash of Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto 1930 and died 1997. Actually Alan Stern does not steer New Horizons. It is steered automatically by a GPS systems using 3 000 stars for directions.

Pluto has an average speed of only 4 670 m/s in a rather elliptical orbit around the Sun far away. The arrival speed of New Horizon is not known. Alan suggests >50 000 m/s! The Sun must have slowed it down a lot for at least 8 years. One thing is certain. It has no fuel to brake a lot. What a joke! Only superstitious Americans believe the nonsense. Assisted by media of course.


1.17 Stepping into fire - and fool the world. It is easy

Most people year 2016, unfortunately, still believe 18 US astronauts or cosmo clowns visited the Moon at six different occasions 1969-1972 and that 12 of them actually landed on the ~120°C hot sunny Moon ground at six visits, some even bringing a little car along, while the other six had to watch from orbit around Moon. Luckily nobody ever stepped on the Moon. It was all done at Hollywood. Had they landed in the shadow, the ground would have been -100°C freezing cold!

Here are three first US cosmo Moon clowns 1969 lying about the trip. I agree with "icarusinbound" on January 13th, 2015, 7:05 pm that they look unhappy at the press conference. Until then all was just fun. But from then they had to live with their lies. Of course it was all a US copy/paste of similar Soviet Juri Gagarin propaganda. Media evidently didn't ask any real questions. And later they and many others had to believe the lies as truth and had to adapt accordingly the rest of their lives. NAXA top brass was very happy. It is easy to fool the world!

The US cosmonuts or asstroclowns on the Moon survived as their space suits, gloves and shoes (!) were air-conditioned. They did not understand that their shoes would melt, when touching the Moon surface. You cannot step on a +120°C hot ground of any kind in vacuum without heating up your protective gear and getting burnt yourself. Nothing will burn on the Moon as there is no atmosphere there. But asstronuts will boil inside their space suits. And the open car will be pretty hot to sit in. The NAXA space air-conditioned space gloves were also magic. The material of the thin covering + aircon system of the glove fingers are still, 2016, secret. Anyway, the asstronuts had no problems to handle cameras and click on their buttons and push the handles with their magic gloves on.

What was shown on TV 1969-1972 was just clever and silly propaganda - nobody ever visited the Moon then. Plenty of brainwashed US military personnel participated in the Apollo propaganda show - by order from above, of course. Great fun. The USSR knew it was all show too. They were part of the show. And afterwards anybody questioning it was treated as an idiot.


1.18 Driving a car in space - why rockets work in vacuum (or attached to an exhaust gas cloud)

Most people believe travelling in space to the Moon or to the IFS is like driving a car on Earth. Turn the wheel and you turn. Push the accelerator and you go faster. And the brake is the pedal in the middle. All this floating in vacuum space! Some people on the other hand believe that rocket engines do not work at all in vacuum, as there is nothing to push against.

A rocket is just a simple combustion chamber with fuel and other bits and pieces attached. The combustion chamber is generally nozzle shaped and always open at one end. The fuel combusts in the combustion chamber and is ejected through the opening as a hot gas, while the combustion chamber itself with its bits and pieces - the rocket - is pushed in the other direction. It works anywhere; in any fluid medium and vacuum. It is Newton's 3rd law, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

When a rocket exerts a force F on the hot exhaust gas being ejected from its combustion chamber - an action - the rocket itself is subject to a force - F, i.e. a force of the same strength but in the opposite direction - a reaction.

If the fuel is solid, it is located and combusted in the combustion chamber itself. If the fuel is liquid, it is delivered from a tank to the combustion chamber, where it is combusted. Many people believe rockets are very complicated but, as just shown, they are very simple; just a combustion chamber + fuel + attachements.

Most people do not understand that you have to eject mass, rocket engine exhaust gas, at high speed in the vacuum space in an absolute precise direction - it provides a thrust or force - to change spaceship speed up or down or change course left/right/up/down/in the opposite direction, while the spaceship is getting lighter and lighter in the process (mass is reduced as fuel is consumed), and that you cannot carry sufficient mass of fuel with you for any trip with humans aboard. Any change in speed and direction requires application of a force in the exact direction, which requires fuel!

When the rocket engine or rather its combustion chamber is ejecting exhaust gas (mass) in vacuum, the spacecraft and the exhaust are evidently connected with each other in vacuum space. You could say that the spacecraft pushes against the plume of exhaust that it leaves behind. When you stop the rocket engine, it is the end of the exhaust cloud. The rocket will continue at constant speed in space leaving the exhaust behind in the vacuum space as pollution. That is how satellites are put in space at high speed, e.g. in one way orbit around Earth. But the satellites cannot ever brake by themselves. For that you require a force in the opposite direction, which requires fuel that they cannot carry. If they for any reason drop back to Earth, they all burn up in the atmosphere.

Imagine a spaceship in vacuum space (no influence of planets or suns) with total mass m0 10 000 kg of which 5 000 kg is fuel. All fuel is ejected as exhaust gas (mass 5 000 kg) at exhaust velocity ve 2 500 m/s velocity (relative the rocket) from the nozzle at the aft end of the spaceship. Spaceship mass becomes m1 5 000 kg, while the spaceship attains speed (delta-v) 1 733 m/s according Tsiolkovsky*.

*Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in vacuum space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the spaceship rocket nozzle.

Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)

Example - you want to change speed of the 10 000 kg (m0) Spaceship. You have 5 000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve 2 500 m/s. m1 = 5 000 kg. ln(2) = 0.6931 . Delta-v = 1 733 m/s.

Assume that this takes 100 seconds.

The Spaceship then travels 86.643 m in one direction leaving a big cloud of exhaust gas (total mass 5 000 kg) extending 336.643 m behind with variable speeds.

Before start the momentum (mass times velocity) of the spaceship with fuel is 0. After accelerating the spaceship the momentum of the empty spaceship is 8,665 Mkgm and the momentum of the exhaust gas is -8,665 Mkgm. The total momentum remains 0.

Imagine the same spaceship having speed 1 733 m/s (it has been given this speed by another rocket). It has a momentum of 17.33 Mkgm. The spaceship is now braking for 100 seconds burning 5 000 kg of fuel.

The exhaust is now ejected from the nozzle in the direction of braking and after 100 seconds the speed (delta v) is 0.

The exhaust gas cloud extends 336.643 m as before, but the spaceship has travelled 86.643 m into this exhaust cloud. The total momentum of spaceship and exhaust remains 17.33 Mkgm.

Any spaceship will sooner or later run out of fuel unless you find a way to fill up in space.

People believed in human space travel in the 1960/70s because they were manipulated to believe it by TV, false films, media fakery, propaganda of worst kind, UFOs, manipulated photos, fake scientific reports and testimonies, scientific fiction conferences, national space agencies of all kinds, etc, etc. It was easy to fool people then. They believed anything shown on TV and told by the US (and Soviet) government and some lying physicists. Same applies today 2016. Or as Paul C. Roberts says (about two other recent events in the USA):

"I never cease to be amazed by the gullibility of Americans, who know nothing about either event, but who confidently dismiss the factual evidence provided by experts and historians on the basis of their naive belief that "the government wouldn't lie about such important events" or "someone would have talked." What good would it do if someone talked when the gullible won't believe hard evidence?"

The picture right is a good example how to fool people. Apollo 11 taking off from the Moon! People think it happened because somebody made a picture. Like UFOs. Plenty Americans say they have seen UFOs flying around, landing and taking off again without any noise in their neighbourhood. They forgot to alert the neighbours though. But later they told anybody around. A big UFO landed just in front of me. And took off again.

It is fun to fool people, e.g. April 1. And it is not wrong to fool people, unless you tell them a little later, that you fooled them, so you could have a laugh about it. If you don't, you manipulate, i.e. cleverly influence people using unfair methods like Adolf Hitler 1920-1945 terrorizing the Germans and killing plenty people. It is thus very easy for any government to manipulate the people.

Let's continue with a recent, German example November 2014:

Source: -

Fantasy painting of LM ascent module Eagle lift-off with two persons inside like fire works



1.19 The EXA Rosetta space trip - a Cosmic Billiard Balls 1993-2004-2016 Hoax, Kicks & Fiasco. Three times 2005-2009 planet Earth gravity assist kicked off Rosetta at a close fly-by but ... gravity assist kicks are not possible


"The Rosetta spacecraft allegedly landed a probe on a comet. The whole thing doesn't even deserve to be called a hoax, as it is simply a silly joke with the gullible public. The 'lie factory' has just become even more daring. Why is the world letting them get away with so many lies?"



In November 1993, the International Rosetta Mission was approved by unknown criminals as a Cornerstone Mission in European Xpace Agency, EXA's Horizons 2000 Science Programme. At that time more than 22 years ago it was believed by many people, brainwashed by 30+ years of propaganda that space travel or similar (xpace) was possible and easy as a pie and plenty, not very serious people were ready to steal the money provided. The objective was one day early 2000 to send the 3 000 kg Rosetta spacecraft into space for a rendezvous fourteen years later with comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko that elliptically orbits planet Sun every 6.4 years at an average speed much less than planet Earth. Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko was discovered 9/11 1969, BTW. A popular date! It is sad that EXA's Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain never admitted that the whole Rosetta mission incl. four gravity assist kicks is a hoax made up by his staff - like many other missions of EXA - stealing millions of Euros from European tax payers. European mainstream media are also part of the fraud. Media's space expert journalists happily publish all EXA lies. Reason? It is politically correct to do so. You cannot possibly suggest the whole thing is an old hoax started in the 1950's by the USA/USSR during the cold war. It is quite easy to fake the complete project!

If you try to contact EXA at or by telephone, France, +33 1 53 69 76 54 for an explanation of, e.g. gravity assist kicks and other nominal processes at EXA, you will never get any answers.

EXA Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain - what a clown! 11 February 2015 he said EXA had done a "re-entry" with the EXA space plane IXV. What a hoax!

Earth orbits annually the Sun almost circularly with a high speed of ~29 800 m/s. Imagine that! You the reader of my web page are flying around the Sun at 29.800 m/s speed. Did you know it? The small comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko orbits the Sun elliptically between planets Mars and Saturn at a smaller average speed, we are told. When closest to the Sun, the speed is 38 000 m/s. Far away close to Saturn the speed is smaller.

In order to send a spacecraft to a comet EXA must first put the Rosetta spacecraft into orbit around planet Earth like a satellite with an orbital speed of say 7 500 m/s using a rocket - the Ariane 5.

At the right moment in Earth orbit the Rosetta must then (a) be pushed out of the orbit around Earth, (b) get away from Earth's strong gravity field with another or same rocket and for that you need temporarily a speed of at least 11 000 m/s relative planet Earth for quite some time until the influence of Earth's strong gravity field is no longer effective and (c) get into orbit around the Sun. If you stop too early, Earth gravity will slow you down until the speed relative Earth is zero ... and you drop back to Earth. You can also be initially kicked away at say 20 000 m/s speed so that the speed is 11 000 m/s, when free from Earth gravity.

To this speed free from Earth you must then add the speed of planet Earth ~29.800 m/s in orbit around the Sun. Thus:

If Rosetta has same direction as Earth, heading 0°, when leaving ahead of Earth and after separation from the rocket and getting away from Earth's strong gravity field, Rosetta will have speed of ~40.800 m/s in elliptical orbit around the Sun and it will take Rosetta a certain time to fly-by Earth again; the faster Rosetta arriving from behind at the fly-by of Earth and a first gravity assist kick. Something like it is suggested to have happened with the Rosetta after one year from leaving planet Earth as explained below.

Jan Woerner is new EXA Director since 1 July 2015 - he is today in charge of the Rosetta hoax stealing money from European tax payers! What a clown - 7 June 2015 he announced the building of a village on the Moon 2024! And April 2016 he explained how to do it!

You should really wonder why EXA is run by people talking nonsense all the time

If Rosetta has opposite direction, heading 180°, as Earth, when leaving behind Earth and after separation from the rocket and getting away from Earth's strong gravity field, Rosetta will have speed of ~18.800 m/s in elliptical orbit around the Sun and it will take Earth another time to fly-by Rosetta; the faster Earth arriving ahead at the fly-by (collision) of the Rosetta. All speeds are relative the Sun and in orbits around the Sun.

Note that Rosetta has only limited rocket power. To maintain speed, while getting away from Earth's strong gravity field, you need external assistance for at least several weeks.

If you depart from Earth orbit at only 10 834.3 m/s velocity at a certain time, the speed will be only 790.7 m/s after about 72 hours due to influence of Earth gravity according Robert A. Braeunig and zero after a week. After that Rosetta would drop back and crash. To get away from Earth all together you need a much bigger start speed. Celestial dynamics are quite complex ... and it is easy to fool people with them.


1.19.1 Gravity assist kicks/slingshots/flybys are not possible (1)

Media should study and report this impossible explanation of the magic gravity assist kick, i.e. that a spacecraft can turn 180° around a planet moving in the opposite direction and at the same time increase its velocity:

Say that Rosetta, mass 3 000 kg, after having been launched backwards (in reality Rosetta was launched forwards) from Earth by an Ariane rocket in orbit around the Sun arrives after a certain time with heading 180° at constant velocity v 18 800 m/s straight (!) ahead towards the planet Earth moving in the opposite direction in orbit around the Sun at speed 29.800 m/s with mass 6 x 1024 kg, but offset 629.000 m above the surface not to crash straight into Earth (or the Moon). Planet Earth has radius 6.371.000 m. This is a simple 3 bodies problem. Two bodies, Earth and a spacecraft, Rosetta, in orbit aroun a third body, the Sun, meet and the smaller object is kicked away!

Rosetta, instead of crashing into planet Earth subject to Earth gravity, is subject of a gravity assist kick at 629.000 m altitude above Earth/7.000.000 m radius, we are told to believe:

the Rosetta turns magically 180° around planet Earth at 621.900 m altitude/7.000.000 m radius, while accelerating from 18 800 to 78 400 m/s constant speed (average speed is 48.600 m/s after turning 90°) at about 125 m/s² and, after about 460 seconds, speeds off at 76.600 m/s speed (v + 2U) in the opposite (!) direction, heading 0°, i.e. same direction of Earth.

During this time itself Earth has moved about 13.700.000 m in its orbit around the Sun ... in the opposite direction! So the gravity assist kick takes place around a planet that is moving quite a bit in the mean time. Orbital space dynamics are funny, magic things!

You can of course take it easier and approach Earth offset 7.629.000 m above Earth surface. Your turning radius is then 14.000.000 m around centre of Earth and the 180° turn will take double time, i.e. 922 seconds and the acceleration will be half. And Earth will move 27.000.000 m in orbit around Sun in the opposite direction while doing the kick. Do you follow?

How can you turn around something that is moving in the opposite direction?

The European Xpace Agency, EXA, says it is possible and shows a ridiculous video about it:  

EXA's comet-chasing Rosetta mission launched in 2004 and is using slingshot manoeuvres to reach its destination, Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, in 2014. It has received gravitational 'kicks' from close flybys of Mars (2007) and Earth (2005, 2007 and 2009). Rosetta has also made close flybys of two asteroids. 

A spacecraft - Rosetta - approaches Earth head on and instead of crashing turns 180° around Earth and speeds off in the opposite direction at >4 times increased speed.

Thus Rosetta slows down to zero speed and then accelerates to >4 times increased speed in the opposite direction. And how long does it take? A second? But in one second Earth has moved away 29 800 m.

During the kick U is slightly reduced as Rosetta steals some kinetic energy from planet Earth, while being kicked around 180°!

What a joke! You should wonder if the European Xpace Agency is serious. Actually EXA is a criminal organization stealing money from European tax payers.

You can, as an alternative, send your spacecraft, like Apollo 13, away from Earth to meet the Earth Moon head on (chose a date when the Moon is ahead of Earth in the orbit around Sun) for the first, 180° gravity assist kick and direction change back to Earth - speed increases! The second kick is with Earth (do not land!!!) almost head on at full speed around the Sun with a second 180° direction change back to the Moon will really get you going. After a few 180° kicks between Moon/Earth your spaceship has reached a very great speed using no fuel and you kick yourself away to, e.g. a comet 67P by adjusting your last encounter a little, e.g. above the South Pacific. Gravity assist kicks provide free energy, you know! But maybe the high g-forces applied at every kick at the rather big space bodies will rip the spacecraft apart?

So how were gravity assist kicks with the Moon, Earth and Mars planned in the 1990's? What forces are acting on spacecraft when subject to a kick? Here is one example by some well paid, science fiction propaganda writers at the time:

"A major problem in designing gravity-assisted trajectories comes from the fact that there are no analytic solutions to the n-body problem."

 Correct. How n moving bodies in space affect each other by gravity forces cannot be calculated and predicted. And another:

"Another problem when designing gravity-assist manoeuvres is that the analyst is trying to hit a moving target (e.g. the Moon). Because a gravity assist is so sensitive to the arrival conditions, especially for Double Lunar Swingbys , DLSs, even slight deviations from the nominal can have drastic effects on the resultant trajectory."

It doesn't sound comfortable. Sensitive to the arrival conditions! Double Lunar Swingbys were popular 20 years ago! Never seen in reality, though. And:

"It was mentioned earlier that targeting a gravity assist is essentially an attempt to hit a moving target. More accurately, it is a process of properly missing the moving target- hitting the body would severely shorten most missions! To "properly miss" a target, the spacecraft must pass on the proper side of the assisting body, at the right distance."

How can a fast moving, low mass body - a spacecraft like Rosetta - miss another very fast moving, big mass object - a moon or planet - at exactly the right time in space at the right distance and the right speeds? And will a kick really take place? Is it possible? And how long will the kick last? Why does not the planet's gravity just attract the spacecraft so it crashes? What are the forces involved? And what is the influence that the bigger object is moving quite a distance during the "kick"?

Gravity force is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates that the gravitational/pull force of two bodies of mass, e.g. a planet and a spacecraft, is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is applied to the centres of gravity of the two bodies. If the law applies to bodies moving at high speed close to each other is not certain, but let's assume so.

As we also know that any force will also accelerate the body it is applied to, the velocity and direction of the small body - the spacecraft - will increase when approaching the planet.

A small spacecraft cannot have a constant speed v in one direction before meeting a planet with constant speed U in the opposite direction and then, after the kick, have another constant speed v + 2U afterwards in the opposite direction.

When a small spacecraft approaches a big planet gravity accelerates it and when the spacecraft tries to leave the planet, the planet gravity will try to slow it down or pull it back. But do not take my word for it. It is more complicated than that.

When a gravity assist kick allegedly takes place the masses remain constant but the distance changes all the time as the masses are moving. It means that the gravity force varies considerably during the kick but is maximum, when the distance is minimum. According my reasoning the distance always becomes zero at any attempt of a gravity assist kick. It means that there is no kick but a collision! A gravity assist collision!

Rosetta spacecraft with solar panels

Only members of a foolish sect believe that a kick is possible without collision. To join the EXA Rosetta team (and NAXA, etc) you must be a member of that sect - the worshippers of gravity assist kicks. You can never send an object from Earth that later can meet Earth (or the Moon) head on or any direction, because Earth gravity will affect the smaller object, which will be diverted towards the centre of Earth (or Moon) - like a meteor. It seems also a gravity assist 180° kick takes place at very high accelerations, 125 m/s², if done at ~630 km altitude, which would rip the Rosetta spacecraft and solar panels apart. In reality the Rosetta would crash on Earth trying anything like it. A 180° kick is impossible! Same applies to any ° kick!

If Rosetta has 90° perpendicular course towards the Sun, when leaving Earth, Rosetta will have speed of ~11
.000 m/s and increasing towards the Sun (and ~29.800 m/s tangential speed relative the Sun) after separation from the rocket and it will take Rosetta less than 160 days to collide with the Sun 149.597,870,700 meters away. No orbit around the Sun will take place at all.

If Rosetta has 90° perpendicular course away from the Sun, when leaving and after separation from the rocket, Rosetta will have speed of ~11.000 m/s away from the Sun and slowing down and Rosetta will disappear into space. No orbit around the Sun and no fly-by of Earth will take place. The tangential speed ~29.800 m/s of the Rosetta relative the Sun evidently remains unchanged.

The EXA 10+ years Rosetta fantasy trip to comet 67P was something like:


According EXA Rosetta was sent off from and ahead of planet Earth by an Ariane 5 rocket 2/3 March 2004 at a speed of ~40.000 m/s and into an elliptical orbit around the Sun (blue track in figure right) initially inside the Earth's orbit and with much higher speed than Earth (black track in figure right). Rosetta then passed outside the Earth's circular orbit well ahead of planet Earth and continued outside the Earth's circular orbit around the Sun, when it, after having completed about 3/4 orbit, again passed inside the Earth's orbit. Exactly a year after start - Earth was then back in the orbit, where it launched Rosetta a year earlier, the Rosetta was approaching Earth from behind. The "kick" could be done! During the trip with average speed 40 000 m/s there were some adjustments according EXA:

10 May 2004: ... a change in velocity (Delta-v) of only 152.8 m/s, achieved through a continuous burn of the four on-board axial thrusters for a duration of about 3.5 hours. Imagine that!

16 May 2004: .. short burn for a Delta-v of 4.989 m/s. Three decimals! You have to be accurate! Imagine two corrections only 2 or 3 months after start when you have hardly started to turn in elliptic orbit.

25 Nov 2004: ... small trajectory correction manoeuvre (planned) of about 0.09 m/s was executed. It is small!

Rosetta's first elliptical orbit around the Sun (ignoring trajectory corrections!) ending in the first gravity assist kick to Mars

9 Dec 2004: ... a new trajectory correction manoeuvre of about 0.11 m/s was executed, i.e. 0.02 m/s greater than the previous one. Will make a big change to your speed 40 000 m/s!

Rosetta managed to stay in the same plane as Earth's orbit around the Sun and didn't spin off up or down.

Rosetta now 4 March 2005 approached Earth in orbit around Sun from behind at a speed of ~40.000 m/s and almost collided with planet Earth making constant speed ~29.800 m/s in circular orbit all the time. According EXA:

The first Earth swing-by will take place on 4 March 2005 at around 22h10 UT, when the spacecraft will be 1954 km from the surface. Rosetta will approach from the direction away (??) from the Sun and have its closest approach on the illuminated side (???) of the Earth. As the spacecraft approaches, it will seem (???) to fly to the west and will disappear on the dayside (????) of the Earth.

Crystal clear? Now the magic, first gravity assist swing-fly-by/kick in 3-D space to speed Rosetta off to planet Mars took place with Rosetta coming up behind Earth - Rosetta was much faster - >10 000 m/s - than Earth - and then, at a certain altitude - 1.954.000 m - above the illuminated side of Earth, i.e. the side facing the Sun and during a certain time - the Rosetta was kicked away outwards from the Sun and towards Mars ... without hitting Earth in between.

Billions of humans on Earth could watch the show, EXA told us! Amateur astronomers were encouraged to look for Rosetta! Ohotos were taken! What a show!

That the kick - sudden acceleration - didn't rip Rosetta apart is ... magic. EXA asked amateur astronomers to film the little Rosetta spacecraft at 1.954.000 m altitude passing and turning 95° around Earth.

Let's repeat (see also figure right/below). Rosetta is in elliptical orbit around the Sun at speed ~40 800 m/s, when close to Earth (less when far away). Earth is in circular orbit around the Sun but at speed ~29.800 m/s. Rosetta approaches Earth from behind and at a far away but certain distance Earth gravity starts to attract Rosetta, that is accelerating, i.e. going faster being pulled by Earth ahead. The direction of Rosetta is to miss Earth by 1 954 000 m on the inside relative the Sun, even if Earth pulls Rosetta straight towards its centre of gravity for several days before the close encounter. Planet Earth has radius 6.371.000 m, so there will really be a close encounter.

But no collision, we are told. Just a kick ... away from the Earth and Sun and into a new trajectory towards planet Mars in orbit around the Sun!

The 4 March 2005 Earth swing-by (picture right) is further described here. Not much info! The picture is misleading. There is no sharp >90° turn! Rosetta is just pushed sideways/right while passing Earth. Note that according EXA the SUN is shining head on at the swing-by and not from 90° at the side as in my picture above.

Of course no amateur astronomers on the illuminated side of Earth could even find the small Rosetta travelling at an initial speed of ~11.000 m/s or more relative Earth ... above the illuminated side of Earth and making an about 95° (?!?) turn doubling (?) the speed. But pictures were taken.

According Wikipedia the show was simple:

March 4 — The first planned flyby of Earth was executed successfully. EXA asks amateur astronomers that took pictures of the spacecraft to submit them. Also, tests with the Moon as target standing in for a comet or asteroid, produced pictures and other data as expected (???)

Rosetta first Earth swing-by on 4 March 2005

Rosetta (speed about 40 800 m/s) was 4 March 2005 according EXA approaching planet Earth (speed 29 800 m/s) from behind in orbits around the Sun and kicked outwards from the Sun by planet Earth at increased speed - magic - into a new, trajectory towards and crossing the circular orbit of planet Mars around the Sun - at unknown, new initial speed. But what forces were acting on Rosetta making these changes of speed and direction possible March 4, 2005? Gravity alone? This is a 5-bodies problem. Earth, Moon, Rosetta, Mars and the Sun.

I have 15 November 2015 asked EXA Director General Jan Woerner to explain how any EXA gravity kick takes place! The reply will be published here. No reply by 17 March 2016 though!

Another description of the Rosetta kick is shown right. Planet Earth has radius 6 371 000 m. Assume that average turning radius for Rosetta was 8.500 000 m during the kick.

Earth has orbital speed about 29 800 m/s and Rosetta has speed about 40.800 m/s in orbit around the Sun, when approaching from behind. The relative speed difference is ~11 000 m/s (like Apollo 11 landing on Earth 1969 LOL).

It is suggested that Earth gravity will increase that speed difference - Earth pulls Rosetta towards it before the approach and before the kick and then direction changes and the velocity increases away from Earth being left behind.

Assume the average speed during the kick course was 14 000 m/s. Turning around Earth (moving at 29 800 m/s speed) would then take about 24 minutes. After that Rosetta is speeding away towards Mars with say 17 000 m/s speed relative Earth according EXA. The orbital speed is evidently much higher even if I doubt it very much!

Because - according my calculations Rosetta should simply had followed the crash course and been destroyed in Earth's atmosphere when attempting a fly by. The figure right (assuming Earth fixed) illustrates that a gravity assisted kick as proposed by EXA is a simple hoax.

During the 1430 seconds kick Earth and Rosetta also move 41
.470.000 m in orbit around the Sun, i.e. your departure location is pretty long.

If Rosetta was in an ellptic orbit around the Sun following Earth before the kick, after the kick the Rosetta trajectory is still elliptic but turned 95° to intercept the orbit of Mars. However, Rosetta will never encounter Mars in its orbit (for a second kick). Easy to show with n-body calculations.

After one tour around the Sun and Space manoeuvres on 29 September 2006 and 13 November 2006 and a Trajectory Control manoeuvre on 9 February 2007 Rosetta in its new trajectory encountered at unknown but increased speed planet Mars 27 or 25 February 2007.

Mars has a constant speed of only 24.077 m/s in almost circular orbit around the Sun and is thus much slower than Rosetta apparently arriving at ~38 000 m/s after the first Earth swing-by/kick and then being slowed down by the Sun until arrival Mars. Rosetta is thus arriving Mars at from behind at the encounter.

Preparation activities for the Mars swing-by was according to this EXA plan:

DoY 031 (i.e. 25 days before swing-by) - Configuration of the IMP (Inertial Measurement Package, consisting of 3 gyros and 3 accelerometers to measure the spacecraft's attitude). DoY 039 - Trajectory correction manoeuvre. DoY 046 - Spacecraft pre-configuration for Mars swing-by. EXA will provide more details.

Now a second gravity assist kick again outwards and with further increased speed at only 250.000 m altitude, away from the Sun took place:


Occultation Start

Rosetta behind Mars as seen from Earth


Closest Approach

At ~250 km above surface


Eclipse Start

Rosetta enters Mars shadow


Occultation End

Rosetta observable from Earth again


Eclipse End

Rosetta exits Mars shadow

This view of Mars's northern hemisphere shows the ground trace of Rosetta during the swing-by on 25 February 2007

According EXA:

The time of closest approach is at approximately 01:54 UT, when Rosetta is only 250 km above the Martian surface and travelling at a speed of over 36 000 km/h (10.000 m/s) relative to Mars. The swing-by takes Rosetta over Mars's northern hemisphere, with the point of closest approach of a surface position of 298.2° E and 43.5° N.

This is what EXA tells us about this amazing event. We don't really know the directions of the trajectory of Rosetta relative the Sun before/after the kick over the northern part and how it maintained the position in the plane of Earth/Mars orbits around the Sun.

Rosetta could easily have been kicked up or down and lost in space or crashed. But no.

An artist's impression of Rosetta at the closest approach to Mars during the second gravity assist kick that took place on 25 (?) February 2007, at a distance of 250 km from the surface of the 'Red Planet' (source - EXA). Rosetta had a speed of 10 000 m/s relative Mars and would have crashed after 25 seconds if directed downwards by Mars gravity. Here Rosetta is flying in space and Mars is approached from behind at slower speed and kicks Rosetta

After a sharp turn in space Rosetta with further increased speed apparently crossed the orbit of Mars ahead of the bigger and slower speeding Mars and arrived just behind Earth in its orbit six months later 13 or 14 November 2007.

According EXA:

... Rosetta successfully went through the second Earth Swing-by manoeuvre that boosted the spacecraft towards a new and bigger orbit around the Sun. ... the closest approach that was on the 13 November at 20:57:23 UTC when Rosetta flew at an altitude of ca. 5300 km over the South Pacific.

Thus the second Earth gravity assist swing-fly-by/kick took place at 5.295.000 m altitude over the South Pacific (which nobody could see) - now inwards, toward the Sun and into another elliptical orbit at further increased speed but after a turn behind Earth passed the Earth orbit outwards bound from the Sun into a long, slow speed, elliptical orbit to arrive at Earth 11 or 13 November 2009, i.e. two years later.

The photo right allegedly taken 13 November 2007 appears to be from <400 km altitude (and not 6 250 km altitude a stated by EXA) but who cares? All EXA photos/info are fake!

Rosetta's navigation camera (NAVCAM) took this shot of Earth right after Rosetta's closest approach to our planet. The picture was taken at 22:56 CET on 13 November 2007, as Rosetta's second Earth gravity assist kick was concluded, while the spacecraft was flying at a height of about 6 250 km from the surface (source - EXA) ... over the South Pacific!

On DoY 317 at 20:57:22.964 UTC Rosetta flew at an altitude of 5294.852 km over the surface of the Earth for a 2nd swing-by.

After five years and eight months in space Rosetta was 11 (or 13) November 2009 back close to Earth, where it had started 3 March 2004, arriving at unknown altitude, speed, say now ~44 000 m/s, and heading.

According EXA:

... the mission's fourth and final gravity assist that will boost Rosetta's orbit to place the spacecraft on a trajectory to its final destination: comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Closest approach to Earth is expected to occur at around 07:45:40 UTC, with Rosetta passing at an altitude of about 2.481 km.

The navigation campaign leading up to the swingby is proceeding nominally.

Rosetta's last visit to Earth 13 November 2009 finally being kicked off to the comet 67P. Picture shows clouds in an anticyclone over the South Pacific imaged with the orange filter of the narrow-angle camera. This image is shown in a logarithmic scale to bring out details in the varying light intensity. As a result the scene looks roughly the same as it would appear to the unaided human eye (source - EXA) .

The camera is 2 481 000 m away from Earth!

Rosetta's velocity relative to the Earth before swing-by was 13 300 m/s. What it was afterwards is not known.

Of course Earth with constant speed 28 900 m/s was in another position relative the Sun but still in a normal, circular orbit and in perfect position (what chance!) to kick Rosetta to the comet. Very little fuel was used to adjust the speed and direction of the Rosetta for five years and eight months to participate in four
gravity assist kicks.

According EXA:

On 13 November at 07:45:40 UTC Rosetta flew past the Earth for its last swing-by manoeuvre, which was conducted as planned and with the expected results. ...

The navigation has been extremely precise and the spacecraft is now on the final leg of its journey towards comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

 OSIRIS wide-angle camera image of cloud structures over the South Pacific. Taken three minutes before the image above on 13 November 2009 at 06:45 CET (when Rosetta was finally kicked away to comet 67P), this image is shown in a logarithmic scale to bring out details in the varying light intensity. As a result the scene looks roughly the same as it would appear to the unaided human eye (source - EXA).

The camera is 2 481 000 m away from Earth! But over the South Pacific, which is a very popular location for gravity assist kicks

So, 11 (or 13) November 2009, Rosetta was given a final third Earth
gravity assist swing-fly-by/kick manoeuvre outwards from the Sun at unknown, new speed into a new trajectory towards the elliptical orbit around the Sun of the 67P comet. Exact details are evidently not available from the confusing EXA Rosetta Status Reports (that just suggest everything was going fine, blah, blah).

You get the feeling that the 'status reports' were written by outside science fiction writers, e.g. JPL (and later adjusted! Dates and altitudes differ or have been changed with time and there are no direction or speed changes given) to cover up the whole thing.

But one thing is certain! An EXA gravity assist kick or swing-fly-by manoeuvre must be done over the South Pacific on Earth and the northern part of Mars.

Almost five years later Rosetta arrived close to the comet 67P May/November 2014, when braking/course changes were required, we are told. We are 600 million kilometers from Earth!

The comet consists normally of frozen materia when far away from the Sun. When close the Sun the comet materia melts and becomes a gas cloud that is frozen again when far away from the Sun again. The big gas cloud is lit up by the Sun and the comet is easily visible when close to the Sun. How the frozen comet core is found is not known. Rosetta has no means to find it in space!

However, on 9/11 2014 the frozen comet was photographed for the first time by Rosetta. It looked like the old Egyptian island of Philae in the Nile - what a coincidence. The island is today submerged, though. The camera apparently cost $100 million.

Earth's orbit around the Sun is inclined 7.1550° relative to the Sun's equator in 3-D space. The comet's orbit around the Sun is inclined 7.0405° relative to the Sun's equator in 3-D space. It means that you must kick the Rosetta 0.1145° out of the plane of Earth's orbit to get into the plane of the comet's orbit.

If you don't do it, the Rosetta will miss the target. Say that the distance to the comet was 600.000.000.000 meter. If you are 0.0001° off course at the kick, you will end up 1.047.198 meter off the target; above it, below it, beside it, at arrival.

When Rosetta 11 (or 13) November 2009 was gravity assist kicked away from Earth, Comet 67P was apparently far ahead in its elliptical orbit around the Sun between Mars and Saturn. 5 years later Rosetta and 67P were flying side by side at same speed/orbit

Navigation in 3-D space between different objects orbiting the Sun is not easy - it is not just get your direction absolutely correct from the start. You must also ensure that the moving target is in place, when you arrive Evidently the gravity of the Sun will slow you dow all the time in your trajectory towards the comet.

Why the Ariane 5 rocket could not have sent Rosetta 11 or 13 November 2009 in a trajectory direct to the comet is an astrophysichysterical mystery that EXA will not clarify. Why were four gravity assist fly-by/kicks each increasing/reducing the speed of Rosetta during five and a half years required to finally start towards the comet? If you ask this question, probability is high that you are accused of being an unintelligent conspiracy theorist suggesting the whole thing never took place.

So the Rosetta spacecraft flew by planet Earth three times - 3rd March 2005, 13 or 14 November 2007 and 11 or 13 November 2009 - and was at each time kicked away at increased speed some way or another by planet Earth at a new velocity and in a new direction into new trajectories around the Sun to enable the trip to the comet 67P to continue. Rosetta was never kicked up or down out of the plane of Earth/Mars orbits around the Sun.

You should really wonder about the first strange and the three following even more strang fly-bys and gravity assist kicks in 3-D into new trajectories around the Sun.

How can planets like Earth and Mars fly-by and kick away a light, small spacecraft like the Rosetta?

Why doesn't Rosetta simply collide with the planets? Aha, Rosetta always arrives at the correct altitude, speed and direction and the close encounter only takes 20-30 or ?? seconds; after that the big planet and the small spacecraft are too far away from another again. Every day about 100 tons of meteoroids - fragments of dust and gravel and sometimes even big rocks - enter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up! No meteoroids are ever kicked away from Earth! They are all attracted by Earth gravity towards the centre of Earth ... and burn up in the atmosphere.


1.19.2 Gravity assist kicks are not possible (2)

Media should ask EXA at or by telephone, France, +33 1 53 69 76 54, about the exact details of these four magic gravity assist kicks into new orbits around the Sun to first get Rosetta away from Earth and to a rendezvous with Mars, back to two more rendezvous with Earth (why not the Moon?) and then off to the frozen comet 67P.

The data must be stored somewhere for independent review. The details are (a) corrections (if any) of Rosetta prior encounters, (b) straight (?) headings (°)/constant (!) velocities (m/s) of Rosetta before/after kicks, (c) altitudes (m) of kicks above the planet, (d) time(s)/dates of kicks and (e) details of the next trajectory around the Sun to enable the next kick or final encounter with the comet. Corrections (if any) are required to arrive exactly, so you are gravity assist kicked off to the next (moving) planet or comet and that you do not go off target up/down/left/right/too slow/too fast. Remember you are in 3D space and that the next, moving target is far away somewhere. Media should also ask why the heading and velocity of the smaller object is not changed ahead of encounter according Newton, so it will aim towards the centre of planet at increased speed... and, e.g. burn up in the atmosphere or spin off into space.

The 'status reports' of EXA are evidently not detailed enough to prove anything.

I evidently know that a high speed, 2-D gravity assist kick is also explained by Wikipedia:

A gravity assist around a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity (relative to the Sun) by entering and leaving the gravitational field of a planet. The spacecraft's speed increases as it approaches the planet and decreases while escaping its gravitational pull (which is approximately the same). Because the planet orbits the sun, the spacecraft is affected by this motion during the manoeuvre. To increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet (taking a small amount of the planet's orbital energy); to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against the movement of the planet. The sum of the kinetic energies of both bodies remains constant (see elastic collision). A slingshot manoeuvre can therefore be used to change the spaceship's trajectory and speed relative to the Sun.

It is just another old, stupid joke/con game invented by a Russian and improved in the 1960's by the science fiction creators of NAXA/JPL:

In a gravity-assist trajectory, angular momentum is transferred from the orbiting planet to a spacecraft approaching from behind the planet in its progress about the sun.

Without it space travel is not possible, i.e. no money can be stolen from the tax payers without these kicks. It is amazing how EXA and NAXA get away with gravity assist kick nonsense for more than 50 years. All gravity can assist is a collision/crash.


1.19.3 Little fuel used for 14 years to reach the comet

Wikipedia didn't get it right earlier either:

The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy increase during Earth-flybys of spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-Band and X-Band Doppler and ranging telemetry. Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted velocity increase of up to 13 mm/s during flybys

What a joke! Maybe the atmospheric drag at 303.000 m altitude of the fast moving Earth plays tricks how to plot the speed, straight (?) direction and altitude of the very small, fast moving spacecraft ahead of the encounter that cannot be seen with the naked eye or any telescope at the fly-by and the dates of the fly-bys? The moving big mass planets and the moving small mass spacecraft must first rendezvous in space at exactly the right altitude, times, directions, speed differences and positions relative the Sun and it cannot be done unless you know exactly where they are. And then - magically - just by strong gravity forces between the Sun, the moving planet and the spacecraft the spacecraft shall be kicked off at accelerations of order 100 m/s² ... into a new elliptical orbit around the Sun in the exact right direction outwards or inwards and not up/down at the right departure speed, which might take a 20-30 seconds or maybe minutes or hours. Kinetic energy is invisibly transferred from one body to the other. Note that the Rosetta didn't use much fuel at all to correct speed, direction and altitude for four perfect encounters/kicks during five years and eight months. Few small outside adjustments of the Rosetta by EXA were necessary! All just went without any major outside interference! Nominally! Sounds like magic.

I evidently consider the whole thing an academic fraud and a con game by EXA. The Rosetta spaceship does not exist! A gravity assist kick is not possible neither in theory nor in practice, because the heading of the small object will always be diverted towards the centre of the planet ahead of the encounter by the kick planet's gravity. The fact is that the opposite - the kick - is just a matter of belief by a sect of criminal astrophysicists. It is not a big deal for me. I just feel sorry for them having to lie and cheat for a living.

I have concluded that all space travels (apart from satellites around Earth) since 1960's are hoaxes. Gravity assist fly-by/kicks happened three times 2005-2009 for the Rosetta at low altitude just above planet Earth and EXA didn't tell me, you, media, anyone to have a look. Strange! No - Rosetta was too small to be seen! EXA also gives different dates for the last two fly-bys ... or they took time. Or they never took place at all. Probably the last option. The Rosetta does not exist! It is an illusion.

The Rosetta however, according to unknown, highly educated, upper class, well paid, arrogant, evidently criminal EXA astrophysicists (you wonder how EXA finds these clowns) and supported by gullible media, got out of the almost circular first orbit around the Sun - the first fly-by - and, after a couple of 360° elliptical orbits around the Sun including three more 'kicks' from Mars and Earth, slowly closing and enter into the different elliptical orbit of the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko comet, which enabled a rendezvous with the comet. Arriving parallel with the comet the Rosetta shall then first radially orbit slowly around the comet itself and finally put a sond - the Philae - on the comet.

The EXA 2-D presentation of the trip is ridiculous. Flat round discs representing the planets moving around the Sun disc gravity assist kick another round disc representing the Rosetta around the Sun (no bodily contacts - just invisible transfers of kinetic energy) until it arrives at the comet disc moving around the Sun in a another plane relative the Sun. Is space flat? 2-D? How do you ensure that the spacecraft isn't kicked up or down into 3-D? Note that no kick is a 180° course change, multiple speed increase: no, the sudden kicks are sideways at much smaller angles and the speed increases/times are not known but the sudden accelerations are high. At each kick the new direction and speed must be exact. If not, Rosetta will not arrive at a fast moving planet for the next kick. The Rosetta velocity at each kick can only be increased. Rosetta goes faster and faster. Therefore Rosetta can never arrive at a slow moving comet like 67P in space. Personally I suggest Rosetta would be ripped apart by the first kick, if it were possible to kick, but it is not. Rosetta would have crashed on Earth, if attempting to be kicked.


1.19.4 The EXA con game goes on and on 2016

When much later all new responsible, unknown, highly educated, upper class, well paid, arrogant, criminal EXA astrophysicists and similar persons and assholes, not forgetting media journalists, getting involved in these fantasies realized that the whole project was not possible, they were easy to convince to participate in the hoax and fool the tax payers. Money, money, careers, fraud, what a music! Media evidently will not report the criminal hoax because then media upset the thieves. It is mainly an American/Soviet invention started in the early 1960's. And media are part of it.

Rosetta has an expensive propulsion system, though! Imagine that! The Rosetta spacecraft main propulsion consists of 24 bipropellant 10 N thrusters. One thruster can apply 10 Newton thrust or force in a fixed direction. It is assumed - everything is unclear of course - that eight thrusters can push the spacecraft forward and eight thrusters can brake the spacecraft in the opposite direction. Two thrusters can push the spacecraft upwards and two thrusters downwards. And two thrusters can push the spacecraft left and two right. More than half of the spacecraft mass was fuel. The 3.000 kg spacecraft carried at departure 1.670 kg of propellant composed of monomethylhydrazine fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide oxidiser providing a maximum Delta-v of 2.300 m/s for the whole trip. Four of the thrusters are used for Delta-v burns, we are told, if you understand the EXA lingo.

Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the spaceship rocket nozzle.

Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)

Example - you want to change speed of the 3.000 kg (m0) Rosetta. You have only 1.670 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve. m1 = 1.330 kg. With an Delta-v = 2 300 m/s, it would appear the Rosetta ve is 2.827 m/s. Why not?

It means that you can only, totally, slow down or speed up Rosetta 2 300 m/s during the complete trip. After having, e.g. changed speed 100 m/s 23 times, you have run out of fuel.

It is therefore clear that the Rosetta could never slow down to the comet's speed using its own thusters/fuel. So how was it done?

The EXA clowns state that

"Unfortunately, no existing rocket, not even the powerful European-built Ariane-5, has the capability to send such a large (!) spacecraft directly to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko."

If the statement is 100% correct is not clear. An Ariane 5 rocket can put 10 tons in LEO and can apparently send away a 3 000 kg spacecraft at >10 000 m/s speed away from Earth gravity. The Rosetta could probably have been sent off in the right direction at the right speed without being kicked round. But no little spacecraft like the Rosetta can carry enough fuel itself to get away from fast speeding Earth and into a trajectory around the Sun to a slow comet elliptically orbiting the Sun (at variable speed). Rosetta was apparently sent off Earth 3 March 2004 by a big rocket into orbit around the Sun at a certain speed (very high) and there is no reason why the same rocket could not 11 or 13 November 2009, Rosetta have sent Rosetta at a certain, higher speed directly towards the elliptical orbit around the Sun of the comet.

However, as shown above, the same EXA clowns invented a magic, fantasy, circus trick - the 3-D gravity assist kick - to get to the comet:

"Instead, Rosetta will bounce around the inner Solar System like a 'cosmic billiard ball', circling the Sun almost four times during its ten-year trek to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Along this roundabout route, Rosetta will enter the asteroid belt twice and gain (!) velocity from gravitational 'kicks' provided by close fly-bys of Mars (2007) and Earth (2005, 2007 and 2009)."

Sounds scientific? Or astrophysical? Actually astrohysterical. According to the criminal EXA clowns or more realistically their usual, external science fiction writers you do not need fuel/energy/rocket engines to increase (or reduce) velocity or change direction for space travel. Apart from change in direction you gain velocity (kinetic energy!) from gravitational 'kicks' free of charge provided by close fly-bys of planet Earth that has average speed 29 800 m/s and planet Mars that has average speed 47.900 m/s in space, i.e. much faster than Rosetta ... but slower than the comet.

Evidently the velocity varies in an elliptical orbit - faster closer to the Sun and slower away from the Sun. Theoretically you should be able to position the comet's frozen core at any time in its orbit and know its variable speed. Why EXA has chosen to rendezvous with the comet so far away is not clear. In a year's time or so the comet will be much closer to Earth. Maybe the explanation is that the planets Earth and Mars must be exactly in their right positions at the same speed, when Rosetta flies by as Rosetta can only brake totally 2 300 m/s, etc, etc, bla, bla. You just have fuel to slow down/speed up 2 300 m/s. After that you are dead.

The difficulty is however to ensure that Rosetta in its trajectory away from the Sun finally arrives at the same position with the same speed and direction of the slow moving comet in its orbit around the Sun, wherever it is after four perfect 3-D gravity assist kicks.

The idea seems to have been that the Rosetta with a high start velocity ~40.000 m/s relative Sun after having got away from planet Earth can be accelerated up or down and sent off in new trajectories by planets Earth and Mars approaching at a distance/altitude without causing a tragic crash, i.e, some way or another kinetic energy was transmitted to Rosetta without direct contact at close fly-bys, so it speeds up (or slows down) in new orbits. Pure fantasy.

Note e.g. that during the first year of the trip Rosetta and planet Earth orbited the Sun all the time. The Rosetta orbit was elliptical, the Earth orbit circular, and how Earth could fly-by or kick Rosetta after exactly one year, appears impossible. The EXA staff has plenty to explain. If planet Earth for any reason came too close to Rosetta again, it would simply have swallowed Rosetta. End of trip. Rosetta would have crashed on Earth.

Typical EXA astrophysicist clown, Dr Matt Taylor, that believes space is flat - 2-D! Matt is really a joke(r)

The EXA staff that invented the Rosetta hoax 1993 (actually a NAXA/JPL copy/paste) have died from too many 'kicks' and their children (right) never learnt anything at school except cheating and playing theatre.

Evidently any planet (e.g. Earth or Mars) gravity force will attract a little spaceship in the vicinity, so it will go faster and faster in direction of the centre of the planet and change course ... and crash at re-entry ... but kick it in the opposite (or same?) direction with change of direction? Gaining speed and free kinetic energy transfer in space at fly-bys!? It cannot be done in reality. The objects are going too fast, the critical encounter takes to short time. The navigation between and of the moving objects is too complicated. In this case the heavy planets with strong gravity forces are moving slower - Earth (or faster - Mars) than the very small but fast little spaceship of little mass so ... . Why bother? It is fantasy, after all.

It seems, therefore, according the EXA/NAXA/JPL nonsense, that Rosetta managed to be kicked away from Earth/Mars to the comet orbit in exactly the right direction with correct speed assisted by media but that Rosetta was in the end apparently going too fast (!!!) and in the wrong direction and had to brake not to bypass the comet! Astrophysics is magic. Some sorts of astrophysics are taught at many universities but nobody there can 2015 explain how a planet can kick away a spacecraft at increased speed in the right direction at a swing-fly-by of short duration. Only job any lying astrophysicist can get is with NAXA, EXA or JPL or similar. Braking from, e.g., speed 29.800 m/s to 18.300 m/s (all relative the Sun) requires plenty fuel! Actually 5 times more than Rosetta carried!

And has the Rosetta a rocket engine and fuel, so it can eject mass and brake? Evidently not! The 24 10N thrusters are much too weak to stop anything and you do not have enough fuel aboard anyway. The whole thing is a 21 years old fantasy with old equipment but with plenty young fresh, stupid EXA people employed November 2014, when everything is ... nominal. Most of the present EXA people were babies, when the hoax project started 1993, but have learnt the NAXA/JPL movie lingo. Nominal! Haven't we heard it before? It is all theatre. There is no Rosetta in space! It is all done in a film studio at Babelsberg, Potsdam.

However, according EXA backed up by media the Rosetta spacecraft that took off March 2004 from planet Earth with destination comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko arrived there November 2014 or at a close distance of X meter, we are told to believe.

The Rosetta then had velocity ~18.300 m/s relative the Sun at X meter distance from the comet, exactly same velocity as the comet, we are told. Rosetta had after 10 years managed to get into identical elliptical orbit as the comet around the Sun just X meter apart. X may be ~10 000/50 000 meter. Only four fantasy, magic gravity assist kicks were required and no fuel was used to adjust speeds and directions for them.

The comet orbits elliptically the Sun in 6.4 years. When the comet is closest to the Sun - between Earth and Mars - it heats up to by the Sun and the core becomes a visible gas cloud. When it is further away the temperature is much lower. Maybe today the temperature is a pleasant minus 55°C on the comet?

7 May 2014, Rosetta’s thrusters began to brake the spacecraft for five months - it was going 772.9 m/s too fast compared with the comet, we are told.

At 6 August the speed of Rosetta exactly matched comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s speed, location and orbital direction/flight at X meters distance apart.

About 600 kg of fuel was used for braking, i.e. reducing speed 772.9 m/s. Why not?

On arrival the now 10+ years old spacecraft Rosetta with plenty 15+ years old technology inside it then first managed to fly around or orbit the comet at X meter distance at a radial speed of say 10 or 20 m/s (relative the comet) and film it from all directions with a high resolution camera! You should really wonder how it was done. Can 24 thrusters and associated steering system accomplish such a feat in empty space 25 light minutes away? Was it all done by a pre-programmed computer? And all the time the camera was focused on the comet's surface. Unbelievable! All footage looks like stupid, photo shopped, computer generated images, though. Made at Babelsberg, Potsdam, by clever Germans.

On 12 November 2014 Rosetta then sent a 100 kg sond, probe or capsule - Philae - to descend X meter on the comet - right - i.e. Rosetta applied a force on Philae in exactly the right direction in space, so it moved towards the comet and Philae applied an identical force on Rosetta, so it moved away from the comet. After seven hours Philae touched down on the comet PK67, we are told!

At touch-down Philae hit a rock, turned over and rolled away - Fiasco!
If the force had been applied a little in the wrong direction, Philae would have missed the comet all together. Imagine that! Your spacecraft Rosetta is X or 20 000 meters from a small comet PK67 only 4 100 meters big and shall send a sond Philae to it - better send it in the right direction! According EXA Philae missed the target by 10 meters, hit a rock and turned over at touchdown and rolled away 1.000 meters on the comet into a shady area where it ran out of energy and will never be able to analyze the soil of the comet, etc. Fiasco. But let's face it. It was a joke from the beginning. Paid for by European tax payers. Too difficult for EXA to fake comet soil. Better abandon the effort.

Here are two fake, photoshopped EXA photos of the comet 67P:


Comet PK67 is not rotating around itself, because we were told that the Philae sond got permanently stuck in shades, when it landed November 2014 and immediately ran out of electricity. The Sun or the spotlight at Babelsberg film studios illuminating PK67 must therefore be changing location between the shots. June 2015 EXA announced that PK67 is in fact rotating around itself every 12 hours and that Philae had started to work again after six months ... in the shades. Magic!


0.19.5 Water, deuterium and oxygene on the comet

Rosetta itself has already September 2014 been able to analyze the water (!) on and around 67P! According Science magazine Rosetta has an instrument that can detect the amount of Hydrogen isotope Deuterium, D, in the water vapour in cold space surrounding 67P from a distance of 30 000 meters! According to Prof/Dr Kathrin Altwegg of Bern University, Switzerland, analyzing the signals, it is established that the 67P water contains more than three times more D than water on our planet Earth. Altwegg has not understood that EXA just fakes the signals of the instrument ... all done on planet Earth ... to fool her. Kathrin can be contacted at at Bern University.

October 2015 Altwegg has also told media that she has found 3.8% oxygene gas 02 in the atmosphere gas surrounding the comet. Maybe the origin of the oxygene is from ice/water on the comet according Olivier Mousis (astrophysical laboratory, Marseille).

As of September/November 2014, 67P's nucleus had an apparent magnitude of roughly 20, with the Rosetta having arrived (!!) just beside it. 67P next comes to perihelion on 13 August 2015, i.e. P67 is then closest to the Sun between Mars' and Earth's orbits at maximum speed with Rosetta still beside it. From December 2014 until September 2015, P67 has an elongation less than 45 degrees from the Sun. On 10 February 2015, P67 came to solar conjunction, when it appeared 5 degrees from the Sun at 3.3 AU (490.000,000 km) from Earth. Solar conjunction occured when comet P67 was on the opposite side of the Sun from the Earth. P67 crossed the celestial equator on 5 May 2015 and started to become best seen from the Northern Hemisphere. Even right after perihelion, when it is in the constellation of Gemini, it might only brighten to apparent magnitude 11, and will require a telescope to be seen.

Little Rosetta beside P67 cannot be seen. It is not there at all! You see, you cannot fly from one elliptical orbit (Rosettas's) around the Sun to another elliptical orbit around the Sun (PK67's) and definitely not enable Rossetta to encounter a comet, P67, in its elliptical orbit and travel beside it at same speed. EXA simply fakes it and fools Altwegg and Mousis. Sad!

US/NAXA also fakes impossible feats - collecting comet dust with another spacecraft being kicked around. Read on! 


1.20 The Stardust robotic space trip hoax: departure from Earth 1999, round trip in space incl. a gravity assist kick and re-entry and landing on Earth 2006 of a 45 kg Sample Return Capsule

The NAXA/JPL Stardust robotic space trip 1999-2006 is another funny example how NAXA/JPL fooled us 30 years after the Apollo Moon trips! It is almost as funny as the EXA Rosetta space trip 2004-2015 described above, which is hilarious.

Stardust was a 300-kilogram robotic space probe (no humans aboard) launched by NAXA on February 7, 1999. The primary mission was to collect dust samples from the coma of comet Wild-2, as well as samples of cosmic dust, and return these to Earth for analysis. The Stardust spacecraft was three-axis stabilized with eight 4.41-N hydrazine monopropellant thrusters, and eight 1-N thrusters to maintain attitude control; necessary minor propulsion manoeuvres were performed by these thrusters as well. The spacecraft was launched with 80 kg (!) of propellant. Information for spacecraft positioning was provided by a star camera using FSW to determine attitude (stellar compass), an inertial measurement unit, and two sun sensors.

Imagine doing a seven years trip in space with only 80 kg of fuel to adjust speed up/down to reach various places. Not possible!

The trip started 6 February 1999 and the spacecraft was sent into the first elliptic, small (red) elliptic orbital loop around the Sun and came back 23 months later close to Earth 15 January 2001, when it was given a gravity assist kick (!) for two more, slightly bigger, slower (green, blue) orbital loops, so it could return 60 months later close to Earth 15 January 2006 and drop off a Sample Return Capsule. Evidently any gravity assist kick in space is a nominal joke.

It was the first sample return mission of its kind. En route to Comet Wild-2, the craft also flew by and studied the asteroid 5535 Annefrank, we are told. The primary mission was successfully completed on January 15, 2006, when the Sample Return capsule returned to Earth.[1] The spaceship itself continued the voyage with more loops around the Sun.

 [1] Jan. 15, 2006 (Bloomberg) -- A NAXA capsule carrying pieces of a comet landed safely at a U.S. Air Force testing range in the Utah desert this morning after a two-year journey aboard the agency's Stardust spacecraft. Stardust was launched Feb. 9, 1999, and travelled about 2.12 billion miles to the comet Wild-2, arriving on Jan. 2, 2004. It came within 149 miles of the comet that day, collecting a sample of the particles that surround its nucleus in a 32-inch-wide, 101-pound container. The Lockheed Martin Corp.-built spacecraft then travelled 752 million miles back to Earth, dropping the capsule at about 1:57 a.m. New York time this morning, NAXA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL, in Pasadena, California, said in a statement. The capsule landed at the Air Force's Utah Test and Training Range near Dugway at about 5:10 a.m. 

Stardust thus passed Earth (for the third time) on January 15, 2006:

"It ejected its return capsule, which re-entered the atmosphere at a speed greater than that of any previous manmade object, before landing in the desert at the Utah Test and Training Range, 80 miles (128 km) west of Salt Lake City",

(we are told by NAXA). The Sample Return Capsule was then sent to a facility at the Johnson Space centre in Houston, Texas for storage and analysis.

Summary of the Stardust trip:

Start: 6, 7 or 9 February (!), 1999, from Earth to Wild-2 comet.

Arrival Wild-2: 2 January, 2004 (after a two and 1/4 loops journey)

Distance: 2.12 billion miles during about 43 000 hrs.

Average speed: about 50 000 mph or 22 000 m/s (the speed is higher close to Earth and slower, when far away from Earth)

Comet Wild-2 is a strange comet:

For most of its 4.5 billion-year lifetime, Wild 2 probably had a more distant and circular orbit. In September 1974, it passed within one million kilometers of the planet Jupiter, whose strong gravitational pull perturbed the comet's orbit and brought it into the inner Solar System. Its orbital period changed from 43 years to about 6 years, and its perihelion is now about 1.59 astronomical units.

45 kg, 0.81 m diameter Sample Return Capsule with no steering equipment of any kind but with a heat shield at bottom and parachutes at top (that nobody knows how they were activated)

Return Earth: 15 January, 2006

Distance: 752 million miles during about 17 000 hrs.

Average speed: about 44 000 mph or 20 000 m/s (the speed is again higher close to Earth and slower when far away from Earth due to the elliptical loop)

It appears that the Stardust spaceship made three elliptical loops (one small (red) and two (green, blue) a little wider) around the Sun starting 6, 7 or 9 February 1999 and collected interstellar dust March-May 2000 (loop 1) and July-December 2002 (loop 2) and passed comet Wild-2 2 January 2004 (loop 3) collecting more particles in the tail of the comet. Stardust then returned then 15 January, 2006, for a meeting with planet Earth.

Planet Earth was in the meantime orbiting the Sun seven times at a constant speed of about 30 000 m/s. After two orbits by Earth and one loop of Stardust, they were together for a first gravity assist acceleration meeting 15 January 2001 and after another two loops of Stardust and five orbits of Earth, the two bodies were very close together again. The Stardust spaceship may have accelerated to 25 000 m/s speed, when it encountered Earth the second time after the third loop, i.e. planet Earth and the spaceship were travelling side by side at almost the same speed at the close encounter the night 15 January, 2006. Perfect to throw the 45 kg Stardust Sample Return capsule overboard. The Earth was in fact much faster in its smaller orbit and was thus coming from behind of Stardust and then passing ahead of Stardust at the second encounter. Collecting stardust is quite complicated but paid for by US tax payers that are happy to chip in.

Then Stardust one way or another dropped off or throw away the 101 lb (45 kg) Sample Return capsule into Earth's atmosphere at an unknown altitude at about 01.57 am. Imagine that. The 45 kg Sample Return capsule was dropped off at about 01.57 am.

The Stardust 255 kg spaceship itself continued to elliptically loop the Sun at reduced speed after the drop, while planet Earth continued at constant orbital higher speed. The Earth gravity force strangely did not affect the spaceship - only the Sample Return capsule! Luckily the Stardust spaceship didn't collide with the Moon orbiting planet Earth.

The Sample Return capsule with start speed 25 000 m/s therefore miraculously dropped down and landed intact at about 5.10 am at Dugway, Utah. How it - the 3 hrs re-entry (see below about re-entry) was done remains a complete mystery 2015. NAXA/JPL cannot explain how a 45 kg Sample Return capsule can be dropped down from a 255 kg spacecraft with a speed of say 25 000 m/s on a planet Earth moving at 30 000 m/s speed in space sneaking up from behind (apart from rotating around itself) during three hours and land anywhere intact at zero speed on Earth. The capsule should simply have started to accelerate due to Earth gravity force and to rotate around itself and then be burnt up when entering the atmosphere like a comet ... or crashed. However:

Stardust's "sample return canister," was reported to be in excellent condition when it landed in Utah, on January 15, 2006. A NAXA team analyzed the particle capture cells and removed individual grains of comet and interstellar dust, then sent them to about 150 scientists around the globe. NAXA is collaborating with The Planetary Society who will run a project called "Stardust@Home", using volunteers to help locate particles on the Stardust Interstellar Dust Collector (SIDC).

Here NAXA/JPL had a golden opportunity to explain how they managed the extremely complicated transfer, i.e. to throw, in the middle of the night, a little capsule from one moving, very small spaceship (Stardust), to another much bigger spaceship (planet Earth) moving at a higher speed in space, so the capsule, with no remote means to steer and control, dropped only assisted by Earth's gravity force and atmosphere - hole in one - on a remote military base in Utah.

NAXA/JPL and its staff are just making up fairy tales since 1960, which I explain below. Reason - Stardust was a typical NAXA/JPL science pseudo fiction fairy tale just to keep the expensive staff occupied. The Stardust Sample Return capsule was probably just dropped from a plane passing Dugway that night and never was in space at all. Typical NAXA/JPL. Or just dropped off from a truck for some soldiers to find? Anyway, the Sample Return capsule was found in a military area where public had no access and was not invited to watch. It would either wise have been a great night show! Maybe the capsule was never there at all?

And what about the dust analyzed by 150 scientists around the globe by The Planetary Society?:

As of 2006 the composition of the dust has contained a wide range of organic compounds, including two that contain biologically usable nitrogen. Indigenous aliphatic hydrocarbons were found with longer chain lengths than those observed in the diffuse interstellar medium. No hydrous silicates or carbonate minerals were detected, which suggests a lack of aqueous processing of Wild 2 dust. Very few pure carbon (CHON) particles were found in the samples returned. A substantial amount of crystalline silicates such as olivine, anorthite and diopside were found, materials only formed at high temperature, etc, etc.

Does anyone believe this nonsense of what was not found? Actually it is just an invention of The Planetary Society - empowering the world's citizens to advance space science and exploration - that is simply another American hoax run by the NAXA/JPL/Hollywood crowd. 

On 15 August 2014 almost 70* scientists (LOL) produced the following:

Seven particles captured by the Stardust Interstellar Dust Collector and returned to Earth for laboratory analysis have features consistent with an origin in the contemporary interstellar dust stream. More than 50 spacecraft debris particles were also identified. The interstellar dust candidates are readily distinguished from debris impacts on the basis of elemental composition and/or impact trajectory. The seven candidate interstellar particles are diverse in elemental composition, crystal structure, and size. The presence of crystalline grains and multiple iron-bearing phases, including sulfide, in some particles indicates that individual interstellar particles diverge from any one representative model of interstellar dust inferred from astronomical observations and theory.

 You wonder who invented a representative model of a contemporary interstellar dust stream and its origin.

* None of the 70 scientists having examined the alleged "star dust" exists or are just paid infiltrators to confuse you! Their names are just invented by the web master of the Science page to impress you or silly friends of the web master creating the "star dust" hoax.  


1.21 The Messenger six gravity kicks 2005-2009 - used to indoctrinate young US pupils

The NAXA MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft, or short Messenger spacecraft was August 2004 launched and sent away on its seven years voyage to planet Mercury, thus a couple of months after Rosetta (see above) was launched. Both spacecrafts are hoaxes.

August 2005, after one orbit around the Sun, there was a first fake Earth flyby/gravity kick, we are told, and Messenger was sent off to the planet Venus around the Sun arriving October 2006 for a first fake Venus flyby/gravity kick ... to Venus.

June 2007 there was a second fake Venus flyby/gravity kick but this time going to planet Mercury.

January 2008 there was a first fake Mercury flyby/gravity kick followed by a second fake Mercury flyby/gravity kick October 2008 and a third fake Mercury flyby/gravity kick September 2009.

Between the totally six fake gravity kicks the Messenger orbited the Sun once for a following precise encounter for another kick. Finally, after more orbits around the Sun March 2011 the Messenger arrived at Mercury and started orbiting (!) the planet itself - no kick! - until April 2015, when it suddenly crashed on the planet.

There are 16 persons in a core team handling this 11 years old, six gravity kicks hoax. Meet them here.

The Messenger education program has produced 255 858 fake pictures which are being used to indoctrinate US pupils, students and teachers about the NAXA science fiction fantasies during 10 years, e.g. that there is ice on Mercury.

If you wonder, why US citizens believe in human space travel and ice on Mercury, etc, the reason is intense indoctrination at schools and universities and by media. Some media people ordered to report on, e.g. Messenger, that then visit this web page to learn something, get very upset. They are ordered to report something and find that it is all a hoax but, when they complain to their bosses, they are told just to report the lies that NAXA produces and ignore the Björkman nonsense. Some media people then get sick ... and some of them hate me. Their lives are destroyed, I am told. But most media people just do what they are told. They have accepted the fact to publish lies. It is a tough job.  


1.22 US/USSR Space Hoax Cooperation 1974 

Another amazing example that USA and Soviet union - today Russia - were faking space travel and re-entries together already 1974, when the Cold War was quite hot, is the meeting in space of US spaceship Apollo 18 and USSR spaceship Soyuz 19 July 17, 1975. Both were launched July 15, 1975 and the meeting in space took place two days later at about 7 500 m/s velocity at around 229 km altitude.

The Apollo 18/Sojuz 19 Docking Module was attached to the Apollo 18 Service Module rocket engine end (like the Lunar Module) at lift off and had to be transferred to the Command Module top by flipping the spaceship 180° - see below how it was done!

The meeting in space apparently took place in a Docking Module attached to the Apollo 18 Command Module (see above):

"The Docking Module was designed jointly by the United States and Soviet Union, and built in the United States. Its purpose was to enable a docking between the dissimilar Soyuz spacecraft and the U.S. Apollo. It was a three meter long cylinder 1.5 meters in diameter, and in addition to serving as a docking device, also served as an airlock module between the different atmospheres of the two ships (the U.S. ship with 100% oxygen at 260 millimeters of mercury; the Soyuz with a mixed oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere at 520 mm HG--lowered from its usual 760 mm Hg for this mission)." 

In what atmosphere the US astroclowns and the USSR kosmokrauts actually met is unclear. Note mercury, HG and Hg are the same stuff that NAXA writes to impress.

Soyuz 19 then made a re-entry and landed July 21, 1975, in USSR while Apollo 18 made a re-entry and splashed down July 24, 1975 500 km west of Hawaii.

Apollo 18 spent 217 hours, 30 minutes in space and orbited Earth 136 times, while Soyuz 19 was only 143 hours, 31 minutes in space and completed 96 orbits. We are told. Of course it was all 100% propaganda - all fake. Filmed in a swimming pool with normal air in the Docking Module all the time. Otherwise the Docking Module should still be flying around up in space!

The manuscript of the hoax was written by Edward Clinton Ezell and Linda Neuman Ezell.

But the US/USSR military space propaganda show where everything was fake was older than that: 

On October 4, 1957, officials from the United States and the Soviet Union met at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., as part of an international effort to cooperate in some areas of space exploration. The Americans, led by chief delegate Richard Porter, relentlessly pushed their Russian counterparts for information about their satellite program. When, they asked, would there be an official launch date for any such space vehicles? But no matter how many times (and how aggressively) the Americans asked-"almost to the point of embarrassment," one document says - the Soviets refused to answer.

Source Newsweek 2014/09/26  


1.23 What amount of fuel is used to travel in space?

Many persons today, 2015, are curious about the mass or amount of fuel you need just to fly to the Moon ... and back using 1960's or today's spaceship technology and how much it costs and arrive at this popular web page visited by 1 000's of people. Or just how much fuel you need to get into LEO - Low Earth Orbit. If you ask Google or any search engine, it will direct you to plenty of nonsensical sites and web pages apparently supported by NAXA providing confusing info. Why is that?

The answers are simple.

1. It is not possible to fly to the Moon and back (in spite of Wikipedia/ NAXA suggesting otherwise) because you need, apart from a comfortable spaceship with a very advanced steering system, a big mass of fuel/energy to do it using the best, strongest, very strong rocket engines available by the military very secret industry, but you cannot carry the mass of all the fuel with you, because you get too heavy.

2. You can get into LEO but you cannot even land on Earth again! The spaceship brake system - a heat shield (LOL) for capsules or stunt flying backwards by invented US Shuttle pilots - does not work in the atmosphere. Earth gravity is much too strong and your speed is much too high. You or your mass including capsule or Shuttle will just go faster and faster whatever you try. No way you can brake at re-entry. Your mass and ass will burn up! Of course October 2014 NAXA is just building a new spaceship Orion that will easily re-enter and land on Earth! But it is just propaganda.

3. Any human in a spaceship will immediately be fried to death due to heat radiation from the Sun and cosmic radiation. To insulate the spaceship against radiation will make it too heavy. A spaceship travelling between Earth and Moon is exposed 24/24 and 7/7 to the Sun, as if you were at the Equator of planet Earth but without any filtering, damping, turbulent atmosphere. Same applies to satellites and space stations orbiting Earth high above the atmosphere. They all heat up to ~120°C, when exposed to the Sun. Electronics may work then, humans not!

4. The cost to fly to the Moon is evidently prohibitive. Better fake it and pocket the money yourself.

5. You can probably create sending a small, unmanned spaceship to orbit the Moon after executing, automatically or by remote control, a very complex brake manoeuvre to get into Moon orbit at say 1 500 m/s speed and at 100.000 meters altitude (like Apollo 11), and then with some complex sub-system land on the Moon (see right) after executing another, automatically or by remote control, extremely difficult brake and stop manoeuvre to get out of Moon orbit and get down and stop on the surface of the Moon at zero speed, but I assume not even the People's Republic of China can manage it December 2013. The start rocket looks like a model. And the Moon Lander unit (right) weight, single (!) rocket engine for steering and braking, fuel, control systems data, times of manoeuvres, etc. are unknown and you wonder, if it has been tested on planet Earth.

Chinese soft Moon landing 2013. The camera, facing down attached beside the rocket engine, just records that Moon (?) gets closer without any changes of perspective, etc.

It looks like stupid science fiction. The video of the landing just shows the flat Moon surface coming closer and closer from 90° above. 100% nonsense. Those are the reasons why USA/NAXA faked Moon trips six times in the 1960's and 1970's to impress ... and manipulate ... friends and foes.


1.24 China's People Republic's faked Moon landing 2013/4

Regarding the People's Republic of China's Moon landing it was apparently remotely controlled NAXA/Houston style by these men (and no women) on below funny photo:

Source: (if it works)

Imagine watching a funny square computer screen in a bulky box makes you control a Moon landing. No key boards. Only a telephone to talk into and some paper manuals to look into. The photographer in the middle of the photo must have been impressed.

Actually the photo above is 100% fake just to make the impression that plenty Chinese male scientists are involved with the China spaceship Moon landing. But it is just a hoax. Created by China Chollywood. Square TV screens. LOL!

From fake video of the 'Yutu' Moon landing

After reading this the Chinese Moon car 'Yutu' (left) ran out of fuel 28 January 2014 and all the clowns above had to close shop and go home.   


1.25 Europe is also participating in the hoax

Europe is also working hard in space!

There are, they say, about 100 billion stars (suns) just in our own galaxy the Milky Way, where our Sun is 1 of them stars, and 1% of the others will soon be recorded by our space telescope Gaia!

"Gaia is an ambitious mission to chart a three-dimensional map of our Galaxy, the Milky Way, in the process revealing the composition, formation and evolution of the Galaxy. Gaia will provide unprecedented positional and radial velocity measurements with the accuracies needed to produce a stereoscopic and kinematic census of about one billion stars in our Galaxy and throughout the Local Group. This amounts to about 1 per cent of the Galactic stellar population."

Most of these Milky Way stars are just <100 000 light years away from us. Do not ask me what the Local Group is. Then there are millions of other galaxies with plenty other stars further away in the Universe. And it seems new galaxies are popping up all the time.

But no human can never ever visit any of them with a spaceship. I explain why below ... and how you are fooled. Back to dear USA!

 "NAXA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime, NAXA chief clown Charles Bolden said" April 5, 2013, is simple joke. You cannot go there at all. You have never been there. But the show must go on.   


1.26 How can we travel faster in space

Charles Bolden seems also to have forgotten the 2006 NAXA web site about getting more powerful rocket engines/brakes.

We all know that any rocket engine is very simple. The mass of the fuel mix is just ignited at the bottom of a nozzle and burns and becomes an expanding gas mass. The expanding gas mass in the nozzle, is then ejected out of the open end of the nozzle, as it has nowhere else to expand, and applies a thrust in the other direction of the nozzle. It works anywhere as long as the mass of the gas can escape out of the nozzle. It evidently works best in vacuum outside the nozzle. As the mass escapes out of the nozzle the rocket becomes lighter with less mass.

It is a crazy NAXA website! NAXA official Dr. Robert M. Starr and editor Sharon Bowers stated July 10, 2006 the following:

"Nuclear thermal propulsion allows a spacecraft to travel faster by providing a more efficient, and light weight system. We would not use nuclear propulsion systems until the spacecraft was far from Earth. The spacecraft would still be launched from Earth with chemical rocket engines or be built and launched in space. A nuclear thermal propulsion system could potentially be over 100 times more powerful than chemical systems of comparable weight."

And what is Nuclear thermal propulsion? - It heats the mass of a fluid, usually liquid hydrogen at minus 240°C, in a high, say, plus 1 200°C temperature nuclear reactor (so it doesn't melt), so that the hydrogen mass is ejected at, say, 10 000 m/s velocity through a nozzle that creates thrust to accelerate the remaining mass of the rocket in space to enormous speed. It seems NAXA has not developed the matter further. All rockets work exactly like that.

If you ask NAXA what is new, they will not reply. Reason is that you need the same amount of fuel or mass to brake and to accelerate, but you need to carry the fuel or mass to brake with you, when you accelerate, and then ... you get too heavy. And as soon as you get close to any planet or moon, the local gravity will accelerate your mass too and attract your mass, so you will go faster and faster ... and you'll crash.

Anybody planning a Moon or Mars trip should study my article.

You cannot even just go to the Moon (or Mars) and land (forgetting about the return) because you need too much fuel/mass just to brake when landing on the Moon (or Mars) and you cannot get this fuel/mass with you off the Earth apart from other safety risks like being fried alive or bombarded by cosmic particles during the trip.


Sorry, you are a victim of the NAXA fraud that started around 1961 backed up by media (newspapers, radio, TV, Hollywood) and US flying saucers and UFO observers, etc. And the USSR, of course, that started the fake space race a little earlier. The Russians and the USA had already agreed around 1953 to keep their ...  


1.27 1945 Atomic bomb hoaxes

... alive, and the next step was just to fake a joint, hoax space race. The Russians would never suggest that the US Apollo moon trips were fake so USA could be impressed by Russian male and female and dog fake cosmonauts orbiting Earth in the 1950's and 60's.

NAXA (and the Russians) evidently knew they needed 10 times more fuel/energy or 100 times more efficient rocket engines to go to the Moon and as they and US military experts could not produce it ... they faked it (to impress the USSR experts that were laughing all the time).

Same with the Shuttle 1981-2012 or all transports from the ISS! Same with the Mars Science Laboratory that recently found Life on Mars! You cannot land on Mars. Or get there!

All of it is fake.

Imagine the amount of money NAXA has stolen from US tax payers since 1961 to keep the Moon and other hoaxes going with false propaganda. Imagine all the physicists, PhD's and rocket engineers being paid to create and support the NAXA hoax! There are plenty web pages 2015 supporting the NAXA hoax that started around 1961. They are compiled by the children and grandchildren of the NAXA clowns that started the hoax and were well paid doing it. It is a family business. Why do serious work, when you are better paid faking it at JPL?   


1.28 Physical reasons why human space travel is impossible

Listen to what experts summarize:

"A significant factor contributing to the difficulty (of space travel) is the energy (read mass) which must be supplied to obtain a reasonable travel time. A lower bound for the required energy is the kinetic energy K = ½ mv², where m is the final mass. If deceleration on arrival is desired and cannot be achieved by any means other than the (rocket) engines of the ship, then the required energy (read mass) at least doubles, because the energy (read mass) needed to halt the ship equals the energy (read mass) needed to accelerate it to travel speed." Etc, etc.

It means, e.g. that a spaceship with mass m = 10 000 kg arriving at speed v = 10 000 m/s wanting to stop (0 m/s speed) must use 500 GJ energy to brake because the kinetic energy K (unit Joule or J) is m 10 000 (kg) times v 10 000 (m/s) times v 10 000 m/s divided by 2 or K = ½mv².

I am actually a tanker man having operated oil tankers for many years at sea. A super tanker with weight 300.000.000 kg doing 15 knots (7.5 m/s) at sea has kinetic energy only 8.4375 GJ. The spaceship with 30 000 times smaller mass but much faster needs almost 60 times more energy than a super tanker at sea on Earth to stop. Imagine that! A modern supertanker maybe uses 60.000 kg/day fuel just to sail at sea overcoming resistance. It will stop by itself in say 30 minutes due to resistance, if the engine is shut off. If you reverse the engine - crash stop - you may stop in 15 minutes. In space there is no resistance. You must stop by using your rocket engine applying (brake) force in the opposite direction of travel.

Assume it takes time t = 1 000 seconds to stop the spaceship, the deceleration a while braking is a = 10 m/s² or about 1 g. As the average speed during 1 000 seconds is 5.000 m/s, the total brake distance is 5 000 000 meters (or 5 000 kilometers). The brake force F applied to mass m during 1 000 seconds is 100 000 Newton (because F (Newton) = m a (kg m/s²)).

Question is how much fuel corresponds to 500 GJ that produces a brake force of 100 000 Newton during 1 000 seconds. If 1 kg of rocket fuel can produce 10 MJ rocket brake/deceleration energy, you need 50 000 kg fuel to stop a 10 000 kg spaceship. But then the spaceship has mass 60 000 kg before braking starts and you need more fuel to stop m because the extra mass of fuel (that is used to produce the brake force) must also be stopped. It is not easy to stop in space - you need time, space and ... energy!

Evidently you can take it easier. Assume it takes time t = 10 000 seconds to stop or 10 times longer than assumed above. The deceleration a while braking is then a = 1 m/s² or about 0.1 g. As the average speed during 10 000 seconds is still 5.000 m/s, the total brake distance is 50 000 000 meters (or 50 000 kilometers) or 10 times longer than before. But there is plenty space in space. The brake force F applied to mass m during 10 000 seconds is 10 000 Newton (because F (Newton) = m a (kg m/s²)) and the energy required is still 500 GJ. Physics or space dynamics is simple as long as you use metric units (and not American ones). Question remains though:

How much rocket fuel is required to produce a (brake) thrust force of 10 000 Newton or 10 kN during 10 000 seconds to stop a rocket in space?

Thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) or sometimes simply specific fuel consumption, SFC, is an engineering term that is used to describe the fuel efficiency of an engine design with respect to thrust output. TSFC may also be thought of as fuel consumption (grams/second) per unit of thrust (kilonewtons, or kN). It is thus thrust-specific, meaning that the fuel consumption is divided by the thrust.

TSFC or SFC for thrust engines (e.g. turbojets, turbofans, ramjets, rocket engines, etc.) is the mass of fuel needed to provide the net thrust for a given period e.g. g/(kN s) (grams of fuel per kilonewton-second). Mass of fuel is used rather than volume (gallons or litres) for the fuel measure since it is independent of temperature.

Say that the SFC of the rocket engine is 0.309 kg/(kN s) like the famous NK-33 Russian rocket engine from the 1960's. Then you need 30 900 kg fuel! But then your mass is 40 900 kg before braking.

But why not use xenon and electricity as propellant? NAXA has this crazy NEXT idea: 

NEXT consumed 860 kg of xenon propellant. A conventional rocket would require 10,000 kg of propellant to provide the same amount of total momentum. By providing low, constant thrust over long periods of time, electric propulsion engines such as NEXT can accelerate spacecraft using less than a tenth of the propellant of a chemical rocket. ...

NEXT is part of a class of solar electric propulsion (SEP) engines. How does it work? "SEP uses electricity, generated by solar panels, to power an electric thruster to propel spacecraft," says Michael Patterson, principal investigator. "Because it reduces the amount of propellant needed for a given mission, it greatly reduces the weight of the vehicle."

It seems that the xenon ions are accelerated to 40.000 m/s speed inlieu of normal rocket exhaust gases that are expelled at 4;000 m/s. Therefore the momentum or thrust is ten times higher. But regardless - sooner of later you run out of fuel. You should wonder what monkeys at NAXA inventing such nonsense.

My agency Heiwa Co and I are mainly interested in peaceful, maritime transportation safety and fuel consumed at sea and, therefore, also in space travel. Difference is not big! How to travel in space safely? You need fuel to reach your destination. And let's face it - Apollo 11 finally ended up in water subject to maritime rules and regulations - my specialty. My ships operate in the wavy interface water/air on Earth that offers resistance and limits velocity all the time and make some people sea sick. Spaceships operate in vacuum space that offers no resistance until you enter a planet's atmosphere. Only gravity forces of the Sun, planets and moons affect vehicles in space apart from the force of the rocket engine to brake and speed up.

The mass of the fuel used by the rocket engines during the first manned Apollo 11 Moon visit July 1969 is of great interest, as you must bring along all fuel from start to accomplish all parts of the trip after getting launched or trans-lunar injected to the Moon from planet Earth by external rockets. The NAXA faked it!

You cannot fill up under way as there are nowhere in space you can add mass (fuel) to your spaceship! Solar panels can be used to charge batteries but electricity cannot be used to brake your spaceship.

You need fuel (energy) to eject mass to brake or reduce speed and to accelerate or increase velocity in space.

Rocket engine function to accelerate and brake in space is very simple. See also 0.18 above and 0.31 below.

The fuel combusts in the rocket combustion chamber and is ejected through the opening as a hot gas, while the combustion chamber itself with its bits and pieces - the rocket - is pushed in the other direction. It works anywhere; in any fluid medium and vacuum. It is Newton's 3rd law, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

When a rocket exerts a force F on the hot exhaust gas being ejected from its combustion chamber - an action - the rocket itself is subject to a force - F, i.e. a force of the same strength but in the opposite direction - a reaction.

Or, the mass of liquid fuel burns in the rocket engine combustion chamber and becomes hot gas at great volume. That mass is ejected at high velocity in one direction through a rocket engine nozzle and lost - the action - which produces a reaction force applied to the remaining mass of the spaceship with the engine/nozzle in the other direction that changes the speed as required.

You have to carry the mass of all the fuel with you from start.

It is only possible to put a satellite in empty space at great velocity using a rocket, e.g. to orbit Earth. But you can never stop and recuperate it. It will always burn up on return to Earth. Just ask very young Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos president Denis Lyskov about it. Roscosmos is pretty good at launching satellites but has never managed to get one back on Earth. Lyskov has a hard time at Roscosmos. Many fake comsokrauts wanted his well paid job to promote the Russian space hoax propaganda. Same situation at NAXA.

Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the spaceship rocket nozzle.

Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)

Example - you want to slow down a 78.000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of 9.000 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8.000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2.800 m/s. m1 = 70.000 kg.

You find that Delta-v is only 303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket engines is not very effective. You are too heavy! And Earth gravity pulls you down all the time (not considered by Tsiolkovsky).

Tsiolkovsky works fine when accelerating in vacuum space. It is simple fire works! The rocket goes faster and faster, while it gets lighter and lighter burning fuel that escapes as hot gas out of the rocket engine nozzle behind the rocket. Flip the rocket around in order to brake so it goes slower and slower into its own exhaust, while getting lighter and lighter, you'll find that you soon run out of fuel and ... crash or get lost in space!

According NAXA [1] you need 10 898 kg rocket fuel to slow down a 32 676 kg spaceship (Apollo 11) from 2 400 m/s to 1 500 m/s speed during 357.5 seconds to get into lunar orbit of a Moon that orbits Earth at >1 000 m/s speed. These 10.898 kg fuel was according NAXA available to produce the 127 kN thrust consuming 88.73 GJ energy to slow down the spaceship; 1 kg of rocket fuel thus produced 8.14 MJ brake energy, i.e. fuel consumption to produce energy for braking was 8.14 MJ/kg fuel . It corresponds to an SFC of 0.24 kg/kN s.

Using Tsiolkovsky (and ignoring Moon gravity) with mo = 43 802 kg, m1 = 32 676 kg and Delta-v = 900 m/s, we get ve 3 071 m/s.

It sounds possible. One problem though is that the P-22KS rocket engine could only provide 97.4 kN thrust. And I do not believe it is technically, humanly and physically possible for the spaceship pilots/cosmokrauts to carry out the braking manoeuvre flying backwards in 3D into its own exhaust, while applying the brake force in exactly the right direction. I explain more below.

The light weight 7 327 kg Apollo Lunar Module Eagle reportedly, [1] again, used 7 952 kg of fuel to descend from orbit around Moon at 1 500 m/s speed and to land ... at 0 m/s speed. We do not really know how long time it took but if it took only 756.3 seconds the SFC was 0.225 kg/kN s. Why not?

Using Tsiolkovsky (forgetting Moon gravity) with mo = 15 279 kg, m1 = 7 327 kg and Delta-v = 1.500 m/s, we get ve 2.041 m/s. Low because we forget Moon gravity.

And the 2 603 kg Lunar Module needed 2 285 kg fuel to get back into orbit at 1 500 m/s speed and to dock with the Apollo 11 service module orbiting above at 1 500 m/s speed too. Sounds good, too! I look into it in my presentation below. The time it took is not known. It seems NAXA faked it 1969.

Using Tsiolkovsky (forgetting Moon gravity again) with mo = 4 888 kg, m1 = 2 603 kg and Delta-v = 1.500 m/s, we get ve 2.381 m/s. A little higher because we ignore gravity.

Finally [1] Apollo 11 used 4 676 kg rocket fuel to accelerate the 12 153 kg Apollo 11 from 1 500 m/s to 2 400 m/s or more speed during 150 seconds to get out of lunar orbit towards Earth. It also sounds too good to be true.

Using Tsiolkovsky (forgetting Moon gravity again) with mo = 16 829 kg, m1 = 12 153 kg and Delta-v = 900 m/s, we get ve 2.764 m/s.

I do however not believe it is possible. Remember that the Moon orbits Earth at >1 000 m/s speed. Imagine if you accelerated too early or late and in the wrong direction and ended up at Venus! It is not easy to pilot a spaceship in 3D-space as training and test flying with rocket modules on Earth is ... not available.

You have to start and stop at exact the right times with the rocket aiming in the absolute right direction in 3D. If you go off in the wrong direction, i.e. you fuck up and waste fuel, you have a problem.

NAXA and Dr. David R. Williams of the NAXA Solar System Exploration Data Services Office or Solar System Exploration Division Services Office (!), are not willing to tell neither how much fuel was actually needed and carried by the Apollo 11 Service and Lunar modules and times used to fire the various rockets to produce the kinetic energy required to produce forces in the exact right direction! to get into orbit around Moon with the Lunar Module, visit the Moon and then get out of orbit around Moon direction Earth and to brake upon arrival Earth again, nor how and where to store it during the trip! Info is available in very confusing reports, but if it can be trusted is not certain. 1969 model rocket engines seem to be very efficient. Too efficient! It seems Dr. David R. Williams is employed to keep the hoax running.

Reason is that too much fuel was required that could be carried and the pilot manoeuvres were impossible to carry out ... and that everything was just a hoax 1969. That people believed. It was easy to fool people 1969. Since the 1940's the public had been told that Flying Saucers, UFOs, were regularly visiting Earth and that the USA could easily do space flying too. No rocket engineers would disagree. They are generally military where everything is secret. But ...

This article explains in detail the energy, i.e. fuel, required by (1) the Apollo command/service modules to get into and out of Moon orbit from Earth and (2) the Lunar module to land on Moon and get back into orbit around Moon again. Fuel consumption is given as MJ/kg, i.e. how much effective kinetic energy 1 kg of rocket fuel produces during the various speed changes, when fuel is consumed. Another fuel consumption figure, kg/s, when the SM rocket engine was fired seems to have been constant 30-31 kg/s, like the Specific Fuel Consumption, SFC, around 0.24 kg/kN s.

There are no margins anywhere. Or redundancy. It was and is all Hollywood nonsense.

(16 October 2013 or even before all below NAXA links/photos were not working due to some shutdown in USA, i.e. NAXA cannot pay $4 /month to the ISP to keep them running! It is serious if you cannot pay $4/month! It seems I am right about NAXA! It is just propaganda).

The article also analyses the Apollo re-entry to Earth. No fuel at all was used to decelerate the Apollo 11 descent on Earth. Only friction and turbulence were used ... which is simply impossible. The Apollo command module should have burnt up at re-entry. Recently a mad person with mass 90 kg + 40 kg gear jumped from just 38 000 meters altitude with start velocity 0 m/s. After a minute his velocity was >350 m/s due gravity alone because of little friction and turbulence and it was only due to atmosphere getting denser at <15 000 meters altitude that he slowed down and could eject a parachute. Imagine an Apollo module of >5 000 kg coming dropping into Earth's atmosphere with almost horizontal start direction/velocity 11 200 m/s at 100.000 meters altitude. It is suggested friction and turbulence at that altitude will slow down the spaceship but it only happens at <15.000 meters altitude and then the vertical velocity of Apollo 11 has increased to >350 m/s and total velocity is still >11.205 m/s and there is little time to brake using friction. Try then to brake using friction!

US Space Shuttle pilots say it is easy but applying the same principles to the many NAXA Space shuttle re-entries and the recent NAXA Mars Science Laboratory landing on Mars you find they are other hoaxes. A good way to start is using Formal Safety Assessment methods, which are standard in the marine world.   


1.29 So how is it possible that NAXA fakes their activities?

The person to ask is Terrence W. Wilcutt, NAXA's Chief of Safety and Mission Assurance. Terrence heads the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) that assures the safety and enhances the success of all NAXA activities through the development, implementation, and oversight of Agencywide safety, reliability, maintainability, and quality assurance (SRM&QA) policies and procedures.

"Wilcutt joined NAXA in 1990 as an astronaut candidate and was accepted into the corps in 1991. He logged more than 1,007 hours in space as the pilot on two shuttle missions, STS-68 in 1994 and STS-79 in 1996, and commander of two others, STS-89 in 1998 and STS-106 in 2000. His technical assignments as an astronaut included work on space shuttle main engine and external tank issues; supporting shuttle launches and landings as a member of the astronaut support personnel team at NAXA’s Kennedy Space centre in Florida; and technical issues for the Astronaut Office Operations Development Branch at Johnson."

Terrence W. Wilcutt

If you try to contact Terrence, you will probably not get through. It would appear Terrence W. Wilcutt is part of the NAXA hoax ... and does not exist. Imaging having been 1 007 hrs in space and done four Shuttle re-entries, flying backwards from the Mir station (twice) and ISS (once) like Mark Kelly that I describe in
Part 3. It is not possible.

Enjoy reading the end of the article and the links (if they work)!

Comments are always welcome at . And if you get hold of Terrence, pls tell me!

If you think I am crazy, I recommend that you emigrate to planet Mars with Terrence and make a fortune there. The spaceship is ready! But can you really trust the Mars space travel agent Elon Musk selling the tickets? Elon is performing SpaceX re-entries today apart from selling Tesla S cars that get hot and burn up. Elon Musk/SpaceX tests and films its latest rocket in beautiful nowhere and it returns to nowhere. It is 100% computer generated images. But stupid people believe it ... 2015!

Is anybody really up there in the ISS being re-entered by SpaceX? The ISS is 99% NAXA that created the Apollo 11 hoax paid for by US tax payers. I have a feeling the hoax is just going on.

Prove me wrong! Show that you are clever and earn € 1M!


1.30 The Virgin Galactic human space/sail travel hoax - sailing in space!

A private company offers human space travel at a cost of US$ 250.000:- per persont to be paid as an up front deposit. It will only last a few minutes though. The company says it has already sold >400 tickets! Or 800! The idea is that the space/sail ship SS2 (right) with six passengers - fasten your seat belts! - and two pilots with electricity aboard by batteries is carried by an airplane to 15.000 m altitude (it takes 30 minutes), where it is released at say 100 m/s speed. A rocket engine is then fired for 70 seconds and the total start weight abt 9.000 kg SS2 space/sail ship speeds straight up into the cold, empty thermosphere or space at 115.000 m altitude in a few minutes ... if all goes well.

The rocket engine is simple pyrotechnics, i.e. fireworks with say 4.000 kg solid fuel burning. It is rumoured that it can be regulated, i.e. stopped/started again but nobody knows why it should be necessary. It should just burn for 70 seconds

Photoshopped picture of a space/sail ship SS2 - it looks like a model made by a 12 years old boy

The top speed while going up may be >1.000 m/s. Very simple actually but it has not yet been tested full scale! Wing rudders and flaps evidently do not work due to lack of air outside - the spaceship is simply catapulted upwards in the empty space by the rocket thrust. Inside is normal air at 1 bar pressure.

After a few minutes a parabolic "flight" takes place at lower horizontal speed - say 300 m/s at 115.000 m altitude - you are weightless in space and can release your seat belts. That's all! No drinks are however served during flight and being weightless.

Flight? The spaceship may rotate around itself in any directions at this stage. There is no system to keep it stable with 600 kg of passengers and crew moving around inside.

Then the vertical speed becomes zero - you are at your zenith - and the 5.000 kg spaceship starts to drop or glide down to Earth by itself free fall due to gravity at increasing speed - re-entry!! - first into the mesosphere, where meteors burn up and then into the stratosphere.

Nobody knows what part of the spaceship will face forward at this moment. And you go, drop or sail at faster and faster speed in the almost vacuum due the Earth's gravity! Fasten your seat belts again! The outside air gets slowly thicker and thicker again. The pilots are now supposed to activate some wing flaps to slow down the speed but nobody knows what is up/down/right/left at this moment.

Back at 15.000 m altitude your speed may be only 1.400 m/s and here the pilots are supposed to take over and steer the SS2 sail plane. How they manage to reduce speed and brake during the re-entry with this strange supersonic space/sail ship to say 50 m/s to land is not clear.

It is suggested that the flaps at the end of the wings inside the vertical stabilizers are raised at 1.400 m/s speed to produce a brake force. The sail plane appears however to be unstable at high speeds in space and cannot ever stop! It will always wobble or rotate around itself and crash or break up. There is evidently no engine available for landing. You can only glide as a sailplane and for that you need outside air! SS2 has apparently only been tested at very low speeds of 100 m/s in thick air at a few 1.000's meters altitude. I have a feeling the future space travellers have lost their money.

On 31 October 2014 the SS2 space/sail ship didn't crash though! It - or a mock-up of it - broke apart on its way up on a test flight, when the brake was activated at low speed ~350 m/s. What a strange high flying joke. Ultimately, the NTSB concluded that

"the probable cause of this accident was [Virgin Galactic contractor] Scaled Composites' failure to consider and protect against the possibility that a single human error could result in a catastrophic hazard to the SpaceShipTwo vehicle. This failure set the stage for the copilot's premature unlocking of the feather system as a result of time pressure and vibration and loads that he had not recently experienced, which led to un-commanded feather extension and the subsequent aerodynamic overload and in-flight breakup of the vehicle." 

Owner of Virgin Galactic presenting new model of spacecraft 2016. It looks as unsafe as the previous one

It is worse than the Shuttle also using its wing flaps to brake ... a complete impossible lie.

That stupid people believe in! Like Michael Rundle of The Huffington Post 4 November 2014.

But plenty people believe in human space travel (and much other nonsense) because they are brainwashed by silly propaganda and haven't studied my articles.

So in February 2016 the owner of Virgin Galactic was back ... with a new design of the spacecraft (left)!

It will soon bring tourists into space. Plenty paid actors were invited to applaud the show.

Haven't we seen it before.


1.31 Blue Origin sub-orbital space travel

Blue Origin is a private spaceflight company founded by CEO Jeff Bezos to develop commercial rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2000, but came to public attention in 2003 when it began buying land in Texas for its testing grounds. So far it has only done sub-orbital flights with its New Shephard rocket just into the lower thermosphere.

The New Shephard rocket system is reportedly a fully reusable vertical takeoff, vertical landing (VTVL) space vehicle. The system consists of a pressurized capsule atop a rocket with tanks and engine. The combined vehicles launch vertically, accelerating for approximately two and a half minutes, before the engine cuts off. The maximum speed is about Mach 3 (or 1.020 m/s. The capsule then separates from the booster to coast quietly into space up to 93 500 meters altitude in the lower thermosphere. After a few minutes of free fall, the booster rocket performs an autonomously controlled rocket-powered vertical landing, while the capsule lands softly under parachutes, both ready to be used again.

The New Shephard rocket system has apparently been tested a couple of times latest
November 2015. Only animations and low quality videos exist. How the capsule separates from the rocket and is thrown away upwards into space leaving the rocket behind is not really clear.

Anything being dropped from 90 000 m altitude in the almost vacuum there will have reached velocity >870 m/s, when entering the stratosphere at 50 000 m altitude after about 92 seconds or 'a few minutes' of 40 000 m gravity free fall. The velocity is still increasing but will be slowed down due to the atmosphere getting thicker below 50 000 m altitude.

If the velocity of the capsule is say 1 000 m/s at 20 000 m altitude in the stratosphere, it will evidently hit ground and crash in less than 20 seconds and there is no time to deploy any parachutes. And to deploy parachutes higher up will not really help, as there is very little air there in the stratosphere. A re-entry from space using heat shields and parachutes is impossible under any circumstances - see 1.7 above. Imagine that it is so hard to understand.

Same applies to the booster/rocket unit that also drops free-fall say >60 000 m for 'a few minutes'. It will also attain a speed of ~1.000 m/s and it is unlikely to be stopped by its own rocket engine. It will also crash. It seems that Blue Origin is another hoax ... maybe to impress US tax authorities?


1.32 Flying combustion chambers

Any rocket is just a simple combustion chamber with fuel and other bits and pieces attached. The combustion chamber is generally nozzle shaped and always open. The fuel combusts in the combustion chamber and is ejected through the opening as a hot gas, while the combustion chamber itself with its bits and pieces is pushed in the other direction. It works anywhere; in any fluid medium and vacuum as already said in 1.18 above. It is Newton's 3rd law, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

When a rocket exerts a force F on the hot exhaust gas being ejected from its combustion chamber - an action - the rocket itself is subject to a force - F, i.e. a force of the same strength but in the opposite direction - a reaction.

If the fuel is solid, it is located and combusted in the combustion chamber itself. If the fuel is liquid, it is delivered from a tank to the combustion chamber, where it is combusted. Many people believe rockets are very complicated but, as just shown, they are very simple; just a combustion chamber + attachements.

One problem is the fuel. You cannot fill up in flight. You have to carry all fuel with you from start. Another problem is how to eject the hos gas in the right direction in vacuum space (in the atmosphere you can steer the combustion chamber with fins attached) to reach any target in order not to fly away in the wrong direction and get lost in space.

Combustion chambers are not really suited for humans to be attached to in space. I explain why in Part 2.



1.33 Deep Space Climate Observatory, the solar eclipse that never took place and LISA Pathfinder

Another recent US space hoax is the Deep Space Climate Observatory NAXA DSCOVR satellite.

It is supposed to orbit the Sun without humans aboard and parallell with planet Earth at a constant distance 91.960.000 miles from the Sun and 1.000.000 miles from Earth taking pictures of the Sun, Earth and the Moon, which is orbiting between 225.622 and 252.088 miles (average 238,857 miles from Earth) - see picture right. The DSCOVR was sent away from planet Earth straight towards the Sun January 2015.

To do that it had to accelerate to >11.000 m/s speed to overcome Earth's gravity (according to Newton).

Then it stopped, after braking for three months, in its magic position between Earth and Sun, we are told, where Earth's and Sun's gravity (forces) are equal. First problem was to find the location to stop and second problem was that DSCOVR lacked fuel/rocket thrust to stop its radial speed completely and reduce the tangential speed (Earth tangential or orbital speed around the Sun is about 30 000 m/s) to stay exactly in location during the one year orbit around the Sun. The latter it is normally not possible! At that orbital speed you go too slow and will spirale inwards to the Sun. If you go faster (according to Kepler), to keep the distance to the Sun constant, you will soon be far away from Earth.

Reason is that orbital velocity is higher the closer you orbit the Sun. Otherwise you do not orbit.

But there is a loophole, we are told. If the spacecraft is placed between Sun and Earth, the Earth's gravity pulls it in the opposite direction and cancels some of the pull of the Sun. With a weaker pull towards the Sun, the spacecraft then needs less speed to maintain its orbit. The problem is just to find and 'place' the spacecraft in the right position, which I doubt NAXA could.

Earth's gravity acceleration (m/s²) is reduced as a function of the altitude or distance from Earth. If the gravity acceleration is 9.8 m/s on Earth, it is only about 0.00016 m/s² or about 64 000 times smaller at 1.600.000 kilometers (1.000.000 miles) from Earth. Thus Sun or Earth gravity force is extremely small, where DSCOVR is lurking. 

DSCOVR is according NAXA (but not Kepler) since always lined up with Sun/itself/planet Earth due to these small gravity forces of Sun and Earth keeping it in place and it can watch the sunny side of planet Earth all the time from a constant distance while it orbits the Sun in one year. On the other side of Earth there is night! Luckily planet Earth rotates around itself in 24 hrs so people can sleep.

I cannot understand how anyone can take NAXA seriously 2015. NAXA invents anything since >50 years; humans on the Moon, strawberries on the Moon, a new base on the Moon, ice on Pluto, a location in space where a satellite DSCOVR is kept fixed by microscopic gravity forces of the Sun and planet Earth, etc, etc.

Between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT (4 hrs 55 min) on 16 July 2015 (the 197th day of the year 2015), when Earth rotates 73,75°, this happened according NAXA - see picture right - a solar eclipse seen from DSCOVR in space:

The Moon (!) in the ecliptic passed in conjunction in front of the Sun seen from the sunny side of Earth (from left to right seen from the Sun).

There wasn't a solar eclipse on Earth that day according NAXA!

The orbit of the Moon is inclined about 5° to the ecliptic and the Sun is always very near the ecliptic, so eclipses only occur when the Moon passes the ecliptic or nearby. Because of the inclination of the Moon's orbit, eclipses thus do not occur at every conjunction and opposition of the Sun and Moon, but only when the Moon is near an ascending or descending node and at the same time it is at conjunction or opposition. It takes the Moon 27.322 days to orbit planet Earth and about four hours to pass in front of it seen from DSCOVR, if in the ecliptic.

Fake NAXA photo of planet Earth with 'gray' (!) full (lit up by the Sun) Moon in the ecliptic passing in conjunction in front of Earth taken by satellite DSCOVR on 16 July 2015

But, as already stated, there was no eclipse of any kind seen over the Pacific 16 July 2015, though! Why is that? Well the Moon was not there! So how could DSCOVR film the Moon passing Earth?

The video is simple Computer Generated Images, CGI, made at Hollywood! The clouds and typhoon (outside Mexico!) on the rotating Earth, 73,75° in 4 hrs 55 minutes, do not move, while the full but gray Moon moves across the moving Earth, etc, etc. It is a typical NAXA stunt to continue getting money from US tax payers since at least 1960! Media do not react of course.

Same 28 September 2015 (the 271st day of the year 2015 or 74 days later (!)) with the famous Moon eclipse - the full Moon now in opposition in the ecliptic was hidden behind and in the shadow of the Earth - and to show it at Click on HOME and chose a date, e.g. 16 July and 28 September 2015. But there are no pictures available!?!?

It seems that DSCOVR could not film it, i.e. the full Moon lit up by the Sun disappearing behind the dark, not seen, night side of Earth with USA/Atlantic/Europe from right and reappering again on the left side four hours later while DSCOVR were watching sunny Indian Ocean, Australia and the South Pacific. It would have been a great opportunity to show DSCOVR exists (but probably too complex for the clowns at NAXA?) or DSCOVR had slipped away from its position.

But I asked NAXA about it anyway. I didn't expect an answer but on 23 October 2015 I received the following:


The DSCOVR lunar transit images were taken in a special, high cadence manual mode of the DSCOVR spacecraft. So those images do not lend themselves to be included in our automated Earth image database. By popular demand, we will bring the eclipse images to the EPIC web page as a "Gallery" tab early next week.

Thank you for your interest in the DSCOVR mission.

Dr. Adam Szabo, NAXA DSCOVR Project Scientist, Chief of Heliospheric Physics Laboratory, Code 672, NAXA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, Building 21, Room 159A, Phone: (301) 286-5726, Fax: (301) 286-7194,

So early week - 26 or 27 October 2015 - we were supposed to see the eclipses at the EPIC web page! I checked myself and found nothing. So 31 October I asked Bobby Parker - - responsible for the web page about the missing pictures. No reply! Google has never heard about an "EPIC web page "Gallery" tab".

Anyway; the next solar eclipses are 8/9 March (not seen!) and 1 September 2016 and the next lunar exclipses are 23 March and 16/17 September 2016. Maybe NAXA can fake it better then!

The Deep Space Climate Observatory NAXA DSCOVR satellite is not alone in space at the famous location L1 between Earth and the Sun. 

The EXA LISA Pathfinder spacecraft is also there! It + a propulsion module took off from Earth 3 December 2015 and went into orbit around Earth. Over the next two weeks, the spacecraft itself increased the orbit's highest point in six critical burns using the propulsion module. The final burn propelled the spacecraft towards its operational location, orbiting around a stable virtual point in space called L1, some 1.5 million kilometres from Earth towards the Sun (right). LISA Pathfinder reached the L1 location mid-February 2016 but didn't collide with the Deep Space Climate Observatory.

LISA Pathfinder shall measure gravity waves in space! Deep Space Climate Observatory has not sent any pictures of LISA Pathfinder arriving.

I assume that both spacecrafts do not exist and that both are hoaxes.



1.34 Arianespace - any mass, to any orbit, anytime

Arianespace is a small French company with only 330 employees and with slogan "Any mass, to any orbit, anytime". The little company belongs to the Airbus Safran Launchers company with unknown number of employees that in turn belongs to very big Airbus NV, of which I am a happy (but small) shareholder. So in a way I can send any mass to any orbit anytime, if I call my company. But it is not really true! No! I cannot send human mass of any kind into orbit because it cannot ever return alive, land and stop on Earth and tell me about it.

Arianespace guarantees access to space transportation services and solutions for any type of satellite, commercial as well as institutional, into any orbit. Over the past 35 years, the company has lifted more than 500 satellites into orbit with its three launchers: Ariane, Soyuz and Vega. However Arianespace has never lifted any human mass into space and cannot do it. If it can do it ... and bring the human mass back to Earth, it will win my €1 million Challenge. Human mass is today only sent into space by the Russians. It is all fake! Arianespace apparently sent Rosetta into orbits around the Sun >10 years ago - according media - but it is an evident 'gravity kicks' hoax. The Ariane 5 rocket was much too weak to put Rosetta in very high speed orbit around the Sun. If it is good PR for Arianespace is another question.

The CEO of little Arianespace today is M. Stéphane Israël that gives interviews in, e.g. Le Figaro! M. Israël is very polite. He has seen videos of world leaders of space exploration and competitors (!) like Elon Musk SpaceX and Jeff Bezos Blue Origin where their rocket launchers magically return and lands again ... to be reused ... but he does not really believe in it. It is a pity he doesn't say so. Same with the US NAXA Shuttle ... it was a reusable rocket spacecraft serving the space stations orbiting Earth but is no longer in use ... if it ever were. Why doesn't M. Israël say so? I doubt M. Israël believes in the Shuttle.

Reason is that he is French and polite and just carries on making money for Airbus NV and me forgetting all the nonsense of other, criminal space exploration companies of all kind stealing money from tax payers.

Reason is very simple. It is easy to to put any (little) mass into any orbit (normally around planet Earth) any time. You just use a rocket for it, e.g. an Ariane. But when the mass is in orbit at high speed and altitude (plenty kinetic and potential energy is then associated with the mass), it cannot anytime be stopped, so it can land on Earth again. There is no way to remove the energy. And that is why human space travel is impossible and why noone will ever win my Challenge.



Go to Part 2 - the Apollo 11 hoax


Back to Heiwa Co start page

The 911-report and the CIA Torture report written by members of the U.S. Congress can be read free of charge on the net. I review the reports here. Interesting reading. One POTUS encouraged 2001 the CIA to use torture to find out how terrorists are brainwashed to terrorize (CIA failed!) and another POTUS ordered 2011 the top terrorist to be murdered, so we would never know what really happened.

In 1969 a third POTUS watched a faked re-entry and splash-down!