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 where you also can download the reports. Interesting reading. One President of the U.S. encouraged the CIA to use torture to find out how terrorists are brainwashed and another President of the U.S. ordered the terrorist to be murdered!


The space travel hoaxes 1959-2015 - introduction

Many people believe human beings can be sent up in space ... and return alive on Earth. In this article I explain why that silly idea is impossible. All information about human space flights since 1959 is media fakery propaganda paid for by USA (NASA). When fatal accidents occur in space, nobody dies. Gravity assist kicks in space are also not possible


Home

About us

Services

Contact info

News

Order books


 
Warning! (25 April 2014)

Media and other readers of my web pages about atomic bombs 1945, Moon trips 1969, Estonia incident 1994 and 911 tower collapses 2001 are warned. As you probably suffer from cognitive dissonance, you cannot handle them without getting mentally disturbed with serious consequences.

My proven facts are simple and correct news. Atomic bombs do not work. Human beings cannot travel to the Moon. Estonia didn't lose its bow visor and skyscrapers do not collapse from top down. All statements to the contrary are propaganda lies or theories of conspiracy assisted by media.

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 the truth?

Media are kindly requested to get psychological assistance to get rid of its cognitive dissonance. Cure yourselves!

Summary:

1. This website explains how human space travel to the Moon, around Earth or anywhere in outer space is not possible but that rockets actually work in vacuum. I hope you will learn something new studying my info.

2. The US/NASA foolish Moon trips 1969-1972 were simple propaganda mischievous tricks created in Hollywood studios to entertain us using useless US navy/air force pilots as actors, etc., like all NASA Mercury and Gemini trips just around the Earth a little earlier.

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

4. All heat shields protecting space crafts (capsules, shuttles, etc) and InterContinental Ballistic Missiles, ICBMs, at re-entries are useless.

5. Therefore only cosmo clowns 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.

6. Imagine if the US public finally learns it? That it has been fooled for more than 50 years by NASA & Co ... and the European Space Agency ... and the media.

7. This Elon Musk clown, owner of the SpaceX company feeding the IFS 2015 (and making a few expensive electric cars that catch fire) is just another US government approved fraud of US taxpayers' money in the long line privately taking over after NASA supported by many poor physicists and rocket engineers that cannot find real jobs. Apart from this Virgin Galactic one hour in space joke. It cannot ever return. Or this Rosetta hoax incl. gravity assist kicks keeping some German/Swiss pseudo astrophysicists busy September/November 1993-2014. They found water in space 2014! The 5 December 2014 NASA Orion spacecraft is also not real. Like the Messenger and Stardust space ships.

Warning for pseudo science

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

No Moon landings ever took place 1969 and later because humans cannot travel in space. It was just a clever and funny US/Hollywood show put together by Buzz Lyssenko. A nephew of Trofim!

That human beings return to Earth by a fast re-entry after a visit to the Moon or to the International Space Station, ISS, is not possible. There is no way to reduce speed of the return vehicle, so the ISS and Moon travel are just stupid hoaxes to confuse. The re-entry heat shield was invented by Buzz Lyssenko.


I write for people who can think for themselves and need some friendly back up! I try to be simple and funny also. I, being a sceptic using my critical thinking, do actually understand that intelligent human beings 2015 can believe in human space travel 1961, 1969 or 2069! They are simply brain washed.

If you ask Google "is space travel possible for humans", Google will direct you to 100's of sites suggesting human space travel is possible ... and this as only site explaining it is not possible.

If you ask Google "why space travel is not possible for humans", this site is #1 with a few other sites only suggesting various difficulties. There are very few sites, like this one, demonstrating that human space travel is not possible for simple physical reasons. Reason is that most people are brain washed to believe in human space travel.

The US National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 rules:

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

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.

Human space travel is not possible and this fact apparently affects US national security. That's why the fact has been withheld and you have to read about it here. You should now ask why have you been told that human space travel is possible?

Wasn't the Shuttle sending 100's of people up to the International Space Station in the past many, many times?

No, it is all fake!

But didn't the space shuttle Challenger disaster occur on January 28, 1986, when the NASA Space Shuttle orbiter Challenger (OV-099) (mission STS-51-L) broke apart 73 seconds into the flight, leading to the deaths of its seven crew members?

No, only an empty mock-up of a shuttle driven by external rockets was sent up to impress awed onlookers and it blow up. What a fuck-up. But NASA could handle it! They re-cycled the dead astronuts as brothers and sisters of the dead or similar. National security, you know!

The good news are therefore that at least six of the seven are still alive - only 30 years older:

Source

Human space travel and sending space crafts to comets, etc, etc are just old, silly jokes by stupid people. The smiling idiots above are part of the show. Read more about it below:

Manfred Lindinger 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, ESA, 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 is according Elon equipped with, apart from a useless PICAX heat shield at the bottom, hidden rocket engines that slow down the capsule at re-entry. The fuel tanks are also hidden. At low speeds 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. Brain washed Americans apparently believe the nonsense and pay Elon billions to keep the illusion going. Elon invests the money to make electric cars.

Lindinger is just a typical representative of the 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 NASA sending up an empty silver balloon 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. ESA has therefore stopped recruiting European cosmo clowns or idiots since 2008, even if its web site still suggests that ESA 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 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 meteorites burn up) at an almost horizontal speed say 7 850 m/s.

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, ESA, science fiction show!

But the boring ESA show must go on ... and on! Next in the long line to participate in the dull ESA fraud December 2014 is 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 ESA. But as media presents them as honest heroes, what can I do? I just watch it and report it here.

Sweden or Rymdstyrelsen, i.e. the Swedish National Space Board is part of the hoax! The Swedish superstar Christer Fuglesang 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.

In October 2014 the US Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office - not run by NASA but by space magician Randall G. Walden - informed that they had - top secret - sent another Shuttle like space ship - the X-37B unmanned space ship - 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 space ship on Earth.

X-37B

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 ESA 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.

If you have read the above, I hope you will read the rest below. Hopefully you will then realize that no 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.

 

You can only send 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.

But didn't NASA 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 space craft 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. Total volume of AVCOAT is less than one cubic meter that would evaporate or burn off quite easily. 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, NASA 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 friction 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. 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 NASA 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)" <brandi.k.dean@nasa.gov> of NASA about a log of the 5 December 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 NASA 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 NASA 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 NASA. 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 NASA web pages linked* to above are really poor and the only evidences of any trip are fake footage and cartoons of poor quality!

Maggie Lieu is a model for the Mars One 2015 hoax

Here is left the latest European space hoax 2015!

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.

This article about latest and old space travel hoaxes is split up into 3 parts and many sub-sections for easy references and will take some time to study. Hope you will enjoy it.

Part 0 (this one - 14 sub-sections)) is about some famous space ventures with plenty gravity kicks - all hoaxes. Part 1 (17 sub-sections) is about the Apollo 11 hoax - it never took place except in Hollywood and Parts 2-5 (20 sub-sections) are about the space Shuttle and the International Fake (Space) Station, a recent trip to Mars, re-entries, etc. All hoaxes. It seems most space trips are false. Only satellites orbiting planet Earth seem to work.

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

0.2 Driving a car in space - why rockets work in vacuum

0.3 The ESA Rosetta space trip - a Cosmic Billiard Ball 1993-2004-2015 Hoax, Kicks & Fiasco. Three times 2005-2009 planet Earth gravity assist kicked off Rosetta at a close fly-by but ESA didn't tell us ... while gravity assist kicks are not possible

0.3.1 Gravity assist kicks are not possible (1)

0.3.2 Gravity assist kicks are not possible (2)

0.3.3 Little fuel used for 14 years to reach the comet

0.3.4 The ESA con game goes on and on 2015

0.4 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

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

0.6 US/USSR Space Hoax Cooperation 1974

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

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

0.9 Europe is also participating in the hoax

0.10 How can we travel faster in space

0.11 1945 Atomic bomb hoaxes

0.12 Physical reasons why human space travel is impossible

0.13 So how is it possible that NASA fakes their activities?

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

 

 

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

Most people year 2015, 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. NASA top brass was very happy. It is easy to fool the world!

The US cosmo nuts or asstro clowns 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 NASA space air-conditioned space gloves were also magic. The material of the thin covering + aircon system of the glove fingers are still, 2015, 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.

 

0.2 Driving a car in space - why rockets work in vacuum

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 at all, as there is nothing to push against.

Most people do not understand that you have to eject at high speed mass (as rocket engine exhaust gas!) in the vacuum space in an absolute precise direction to change space craft speed up or down or change course left/right/up/down in the opposite direction, while the space ship is getting lighter and lighter in the process (mass is reduced), and that you cannot carry sufficient mass of fuel with you for any trip with humans aboard.

When the rocket engine is ejecting exhaust gas in vacuum, the space craft and the exhaust are evidently connected with each other in vacuum space. You could say that the space craft pushes against the plume of exhaust that it leaves behind in the vacuum space. 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 orbit around Earth. But the satellites cannot ever brake by themselves. If they for any reason drop back to Earth, they all burn up in the atmosphere.

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 2015. 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 neighbourhoods. 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 start with a recent, German example November 2014:

Source: http://www.alanbeangallery.com/eaglelaunch.jpg -

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

 

 

0.3 The ESA Rosetta space trip - a Cosmic Billiard Ball 1993-2004-2015 Hoax, Kicks & Fiasco. Three times 2005-2009 planet Earth gravity assist kicked off Rosetta at a close fly-by but ESA didn't tell us ... while 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?"

Roe77 

In November 1993, the International Rosetta Mission was approved by unknown criminals as a Cornerstone Mission in European Space Agency, ESA's Horizons 2000 Science Programme. At that time more than 21 years ago it was evidently believed by most people, brain washed by 30+ years of propaganda that space travel or similar was possible and easy as a pie and plenty, not very serious people were ready to steal the money provided. The objective was simply to one day early 2000 send the 3 000 kg Rosetta spacecraft into space to 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 to conclude that ESA's Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain does not admit that the whole Rosetta mission incl. four gravity assist kicks are a hoax made up by his staff - like many other missions of ESA - stealing millions of Euros from European tax payers. European mainstream media is sadly part of the fraud. Media's space expert journalists happily publish all ESA 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.

If you try to contact ESA at media@esa.int or by telephone, France, +33 1 53 69 76 54 for an explanation of, e.g. gravity assist kicks and other nominal processes at ESA, you will not get any answers.

ESA Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain - what a clown! 11 February 2015 he said ESA had done a "re-entry" with the ESA 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 ESA 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.

At the right moment in Earth Orbit the Rosetta must then (a) be pushed out of the orbit around Earth and (b) to 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. 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 Eart you must then add the speed of planet Earth ~29.800 m/s relative 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.

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 from Earth's strong gravity field, you need external assistance for at least a week or more.

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 influenc of Earth gravity according Robert A. Braeunig. To get away from Earth all together you need a much bigger start speed. Celestial mechanics and dynamics are quite complex ... and it is easy to fool people with them.

 

0.3.1 Gravity assist kicks are not possible (1)

Media should study and report this stupid explanation of the magic gravity assist kick: Say that Rosetta, mass 3 000 kg, after having been launched backwards (in reality Rosetta was launched forwards) from Earth by an Ariane rocket arrives after a certain time with heading 180° at constant velocity v 18 800 m/s straight (sic) ahead towards the planet Earth moving in the opposite direction, 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.

The planet Earth is speeding around in the opposite direction in orbit around the Sun, heading 0°, at constant speed U 28.900 m/s. 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 76 600 m/s constant speed (average speed is 47.700 m/s after turning 90°) at 125 m/s² and, after only 461.03 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 Earth has moved 13.323.767 m in its orbit around the Sun. 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 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. 922.06 seconds and the acceleration will be half. And Earth will move 266.475.34 m in orbit around Sun while doing the kick. Do you follow?


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

On the other hand, if you do the magic gravity assist kick very, very fast at radius only 7 000 m around a small, very solid, high density, pure gold (?), body in space, the acceleration will be of the order 125 000 m/s² and I can assure you that the spacecraft will be ripped apart by it. Thus, when doing gravity assist kicks in space avoid small, high density turning points.

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 space ship 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 was gravity assist kicks with the Moon, Earth and Mars planned in the 1990's? What forces are acting on space craft 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 space craft - 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 the space craft so it crashes? What are the forces involved?

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 space craft, 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 space craft - will increase when approaching the planet.

A small space craft 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 space craft approaches a big planet gravity accelerates it and when the space craft 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 become 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 ESA Rosetta team (and NASA, 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 meteorite. 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 ~28.900 m/s of the Rosetta relative the Sun evidently remains unchanged.

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

 

According ESA Rosetta was sent off from and ahead of planet Earth by a rocket 2/3 March 2004 at a speed of ~40.000 m/s and into an elliptical orbit around the Sun initially inwards of the Earth's orbit, say heading 5° or so, and after a month or so Rosetta (blue track in figure right), with much higher speed than Earth, passed the Earth orbit well ahead of planet Earth and continued outside the Earth's circular orbit around the Sun, when it, after having completed an elliptical orbit, again reached the Earth's orbit exactly a year after start - Earth was then be back in the orbit, where it launched Rosetta a year earlier. During the trip with average speed 40 000 m/s there were some adjustments according ESA:

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 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. 0.02 m/s greater. 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 approached Earth from behind at a speed of ~40.000 m/s and almost collided with planet Earth making constant speed ~28.900 m/s in circular orbit all the time 4 March 2005. According ESA:

The first Earth swing-by (sic) will take place on 4 March 2005 at around 22h10 UT, when the spacecraft will be 1900 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 - 11 000 m/s - than Earth - and then, at a certain altitude - 1.200.000 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, ESA told us! Amateur astronomers were encouraged to look for Rosetta! What a show!

That the kick - sudden acceleration - didn't rip Rosetta apart is ... magic. ESA asked amateur astronomers to film the little Rosetta spacecraft at 1.200.000 m altitude passing and turning 95° around Earth.

Let's repeat. Rosetta is in orbit around the Sun at speed ~40 000 m/s. Earth is also in orbit around the Sun but at speed ~28.900 m/s. Rosetta approches 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 1 900 000 or 1 200 000 m on the inside relative the Sun, even if Earth pulls Rosetta straight towards it for several days before the close encounter. Planet Earth has radius 6.371.000 m, so there will really be a close ecounter. But no collision, we are told. Just a kick ... away from the Sun!! Say that Rosetta turns 95° ahead of Earth at radius say 8 000 000 m due to the magic kick. The distance of the turn is thus about 13.300.000 m. If Rosetta has speed say 50 000 m/s, the turn takes 266 seconds. If the speed is only 13 300 m/s, the turn takes 1.000 seconds. I really wonder how long the kick took and what was the speed of Rosetta after having left Earth in a new orbit heading for Mars. If Rosetta had been a little above or below the Sun/Earth plane, I assume Rosetta would have been kicked down or up from that plane and spin off in empty space. And what about the Sun and its gravity force?

The 4 March 2005 swing-by is further described here. Not much info!

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

According Wikipedia the show was simple:

March 4 — The first planned flyby of Earth was executed successfully. ESA 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 (speed about 40 000 m/s) was 4 March 2005 according ESA approaching planet Earth (speed 28 900 m/s) from behind in almost parallel trajectories around the Sun and kicked outwards from the Sun by planet Earth at increased speed - magic - into a new, elliptical orbit around the Sun 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?

Rosetta first Earth swing-by on 4 March 2005


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 encountered at unknown but reduced speed planet Mars 27 or 25 February 2007. Mars has a constant speed 47
.900 m/s in almost circular orbit around the Sun and is thus much faster than Rosetta apparently arriving at only ~38 000 m/s after the first Earth swing-by/kick and then being slowed down by the Sun until arrival Mars. Mars is thus arriving at Rosetta from behind at the encounter.

Preparation activities for the Mars swing-by was according to this ESA 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. ESA will provide more details.

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

OS

Occultation Start

Rosetta behind Mars as seen from Earth

CA

Closest Approach

At ~250 km above surface

ES

Eclipse Start

Rosetta enters Mars shadow

OE

Occultation End

Rosetta observable from Earth again

EE

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 ESA:

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 ESA tells us about this amaeing event. We don't really know the directions 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 - ESA). 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 arrives from behind at higher speed and kicks Rosetta

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

According ESA:

... 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 ESA) but who cares? All ESA 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 - ESA) ... 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 ~44 000 m/s, and heading.

According ESA:

... 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 - ESA) .

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 ESA:

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 - ESA).

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, elliptical orbit around the Sun towards the elliptical orbit around the Sun of the 67P comet. Exact details are evidently not available from the confusing ESA 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! A 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.

On 9/11 2014 the comet was photographed for the first time. 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.

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

If you don't do it, the Rosetta will miss the target. Say that the distance to the comet is 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. Navigation in 3-D space is easy - just get your direction absolutely correct from the start. Evidently the gravity of the Sun will slow you down, when getting further away from the Sun, but the speed will increase again when getting closer.

Why the rocket could not have sent Rosetta 11 or 13 November 2009 directly to the comet is an astrophysichysterical mystery that ESA 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 elliptical orbits 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 fly-bys (sic) and gravity assist kicks in 3-D into new elliptical orbits 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.

 

0.3.2 Gravity assist kicks are not possible (2)

Media should ask ESA at media@esa.int 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 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 (sic) 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 elliptical orbit 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 ESA 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 maneuver. 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 maneuver 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 NASA/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 ESA and NASA get away with gravity assist kick nonsense for more than 50 years. All gravity can assist is a collision.

 

0.3.3 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 ESA 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 ESA. 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 ESA didn't tell me, you, media, anyone to have a look. Strange! No - Rosetta was too small to be seen! ESA 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 ESA astrophysicists (you wonder how ESA 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 ESA 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.

 

0.3.4 The ESA con game goes on and on 2015

When much later all new responsible, unknown, highly educated, upper class, well paid, arrogant, criminal ESA 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 is 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 ESA 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 space ship 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 ESA clowns state that

"Unfortunately, no existing rocket, not even the powerful European-built Ariane-5, has the capability to send such a large (sic) 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 orbit. The Rosetta was only 3 tons and could probably be sent off in the right direction at the right speed without being kicked round. No little spacecraft like the Rosetta can carry enough fuel itself to get away from fast speeding Earth and from an orbit around the Sun to a slow comet elliptically orbiting the Sun (at variable speed). But 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 ESA 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 (sic) velocity from gravitational 'kicks' provided by close fly-bys of Mars (2007) and Earth (2005, 2007 and 2009)."

Sounds scientific? Or astrophysical? Actually astrohysterically. According to the criminal ESA 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 at any time in its orbit and know its variable speed. Why ESA 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 finally arrives at the same position with the same speed of the slow moving comet 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 orbits 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 orbits were elliptical, the Earth orbit circular, and how Earth could fly-by or kick Rosetta after exactly one year, appears impossible. The ESA 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.

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

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

Evidently any planet (e.g. Earth or Mars) gravity force will attract a little space ship 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 space ship of little mass so ... . Why bother? It is fantasy, after all.

It seems, therefore, according the ESA/NASA/JPL nonsense, that Rosetta managed to be kicked away from Earth/Mars into 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 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 NASA, ESA 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 ESA people employed November 2014, when everything is ... nominal. Most of the present ESA people were babies, when the hoax project started 1993, but have learnt the NASA/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 ESA 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 minus 43°C by the Sun. When it is further away the temperature is much lower or minus 68°. 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, 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 only 4 000 meters big and shall send a sond Philae to it - better send it in the right direction! According ESA Philae missed the target by 10 meters, hit a rock and turned over at touchdown and rolled away 1.000 meters on the comet 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 ESA to fake comet soil. Better abandon the effort.

But Rosetta has already September 2014 been able to analyze the water (sic) 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 Kathryn 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 ESA just fakes the signals of the instrument ... all done on planet Earth ... to fool her. And Bern University does not list any Prof Altwegg!

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

 

 

 

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

Stardust was a 300-kilogram robotic space probe (no humans aboard) launched by NASA 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 (sic) 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 space ship itself continued the voyage with more loops around the Sun.

 [1] Jan. 15, 2006 (Bloomberg) -- A NASA 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 (sic) journey aboard the agency's Stardust spacecraft. Stardust was launched Feb. 9, 1999 (sic), 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, NASA'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 NASA). 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 (sic), 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 space ship 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 space ship 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 space ship 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 space ship 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 space ship - only the Sample Return capsule! Luckily the Stardust space ship 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. NASA/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 NASA 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. NASA 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 NASA/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 space ship (Stardust), to another much bigger space ship (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.

NASA/JPL and its staff are just making up fairy tales since 1960, which I explain below. Reason - Stardust was a typical NASA/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 NASA/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 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 NASA/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.

 

 

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

The NASA MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft, or short Messenger space craft 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 space crafts 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 (sic) 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 NASA 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 NASA 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. 

 

 

0.6 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 space ship Apollo 18 and USSR space ship 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 space ship 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 NASA 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

  

 

0.7 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 space ship 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 NASA 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/ NASA suggesting otherwise) because you need, apart from a comfortable space ship 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 space ship 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 NASA is just building a new space ship Orion that will easily re-enter and land on Earth! But it is just propaganda.

3. Any human in a space ship will immediately be fried to death due to heat radiation from the Sun and cosmic radiation. To insulate the space ship against radiation will make it too heavy. A space ship 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/NASA faked Moon trips six times in the 1960's and 1970's to impress ... and manipulate ... friends and foes.
  

 

 

0.8 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 NASA/Houston style by these men (and no women) on below funny photo:

Source: http://p4.img.cctvpic.com/20131214/images/1387029964536_1387029964536_r.jpg (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 space ship 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.  

 

 

0.9 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 space ship. I explain why below ... and how you are fooled. Back to dear USA!

 "NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime, NASA 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.  

 

 

0.10 How can we travel faster in space

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

It is a crazy NASA website! NASA 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 space craft 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 mass of the rocket in space to enormous speed. It seems NASA has not developed the matter further. If you ask NASA why, 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.

Surprised?

Sorry, you are a victim of the NASA 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 ... 

 

 

0.11 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.

NASA (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 NASA 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 NASA hoax! There are plenty web pages 2015 supporting the NASA hoax that started around 1961. They are compiled by the children and grandchildren of the NASA 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?  

 

 

0.12 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 space ship 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 space ship with 30 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 space ship, 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 space ship. But then the space ship 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.


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. Space ships operate in 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 NASA faked it!

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

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. 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, which produces a force applied to the remaining mass of the space ship 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 NASA.


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 space ship 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!

Tsiolkovsky works fine when accelerating. 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!

According NASA [1] you need 10 898 kg rocket fuel to slow down a 32 676 kg space ship (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 NASA available to produce the 127 kN thrust consuming 88.73 GJ energy to slow down the space ship; 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 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 space ship 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 NASA 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 space ship 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.


NASA and Dr. David R. Williams of the NASA Solar System Exploration Data Services Office or Solar System Exploration Division Services Office (sic), 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 nasa links/photos were not working due to some shutdown in USA, i.e. NASA 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 NASA! 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 space ship 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 NASA Space shuttle re-entries and the recent NASA 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.  

 

 

0.13 So how is it possible that NASA fakes their activities?

The person to ask is Terrence W. Wilcutt, NASA'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 NASA activities through the development, implementation, and oversight of Agencywide safety, reliability, maintainability, and quality assurance (SRM&QA) policies and procedures.

"Wilcutt joined NASA 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 NASA’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 NASA 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
Part2. It is not possible.

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

Comments are always welcome at anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr . 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 space ship 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% NASA 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!

The spaceship velocities used here are absolute to the centre of Earth thus assumed fixed. The planet Earth evidently orbits around the Sun at other velocity. Space travel experts suggest that I should add the velocity of the Earth orbiting the Sun, i.e. use the Sun as fixed centre, plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe, i.e. use the centre of Universe as fixed centre, to the velocities given here but as I do not know the latter I just use the velocities given by NASA relative the centre of Earth ... to calculate the kinetic energies involved.

Just to get a feel of the situation.

It seems Moon travel is pretty easy as the Moon orbits the Earth almost circularly while the Earth orbits the Sun circularly. If you depart from Earth orbit at exactly the right time and speed on a slightly curved (Sun influence) but generally straight radial course to arrive at the front edge Moon a few days later, you can visually see the Moon ahead of you a little to the side or up/down all the time when getting closer - Earth gravity slows you down most of the time and Sun gravity may affect your course - but if you navigate correctly you will after 95% of the trip feel the Moon gravity attracting you and your space ship - velocity increases again - and your concern is then not to crash on the Moon but to drop into orbit around the Moon at the exact right altitude/velocity/time. Remember that the Moon has a velocity of 1.023 m/s in orbit around Earth, which you must consider. Of course the Sun radiation will heat up your space ship to >120°C during the trip, so increase the aircon inside not to get fried or boiled inside.

If you miss the Moon, there is no way back because you cannot possibly turn around in space due to lack of fuel.

 

 

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

A private company offers human space travel at a cost of US$ 200.000:- per person. 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

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 space ship is simply catapulted upwards in the empty space by the rocket thrust. Inside is normal air at 1 bar pressure.

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

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 space ship 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 space ship 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 meteorites burn up and then into the stratosphere.

Nobody knows what part of the space ship 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. 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 brain washed by silly propaganda and haven't studied my articles.

 

Go to Part 1 - the Apollo 11 hoax

 

Back to Heiwa Co start page