The space travel hoaxes 1959-2014

Many people believe human beings can be sent up in space ... and return alive on Earth. Here is explained why it is not possible. All information about human space flights since 1959 is media fakery propaganda paid for by USA (NASA)


Home

About us

Services

Contact info

News

Order books


 

Summary: Human space travel to the Moon, around Earth or anywhere in outer space is not possible. The US/NASA Moon trips 1969-1972 were simple propaganda stunts created in Hollywood studios to entertain us, etc., like all NASA Mercury and Gemini trips just around the Earth a little earlier. 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 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. 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. It is all a hoax. 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. This Elon Musk clown, owner of the SpaceX company feeding the IFS 2014 (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 keeping some German pseudoastrophysicists busy November 2014


Warning for pseudo science

Have you heard about Trofim Lyssenko? He was the inventor of pseudo science around 1930! 

Many persons visiting my popular web pages about (i) Atomic bombs 1945-2014, (ii) Moon landings 1969-1972 (this one!), (iii) M/S Estonia incident 1994, (iv) destructions of WTC towers at NY 911 2001 and (v) re-entries from the Moon and/or the International Space Station, ISS, 2014, get very upset. They have learnt something else about these five events at school or college (cost US$ 60 000:-/year in USA) or university or from the media than what I present, so they evidently feel angry. Some hate me for disturbing their costly circles. But they should be happy. I am just a very friendly person trying to clear up confusion:

(i) Atomic bombs were and are just propaganda. There is no evidence that they worked 1945 or later. The atomic bomb was invented by an American Adam Lyssenko - a cousin of Trofim!

(ii) 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!

(iii) M/S Estonia never lost its visor but sank due to hull leakage. The Swedish government invented a fairy tale 1994 to hide the true facts, faked a scientific research program 2005-2008 to clarify matters and it is very serious. Why did it do it? Anyway, Börje Lyssenko assisted. A child of Trofim!

(iv) The WTC towers were never hit by planes 911 as no structure can collapse from top down. The show was invented by Clinton Lyssenko. US authorities and Tex W Lyssenko suggest that a structure can collapse from top down and that is serious too. It is very easy to fool people, e.g.

(v) that human beings can return to Earth by a fast re-entry after a visit to the Moon or to the International Space Station, ISS. It 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. Re-entry was invented by Buzz Lyssenko - see (ii) above.

Too many persons believe in old media and government lies of all kind, i.e. pseudo sciences taught at schools, expensive colleges and universities and get very upset, when they realize, by studying my info, how they have been fooled and then some hate … me. A German admirer of mine explains why here (in German)! Hate is a bad feeling. Better is to love me, even if I just want to be helpful free of charge.

When historical fiction becomes more truthful than historical fact, it makes you wonder who is directing the manipulations of the masses that then hate me. Who, apart from media, are promoting all these Lyssenkos of atomic bombs since 1942, human space travel since 1961, a Baltic ferry losing its visor 1994, NY skyscrapers disappearing in smoke 911 2001 and plenty humans easily dropping down on Earth from space - re-entry - without any difficulties since 1960's? What kind of human beings are creating this shit? And why? Answer! Money!


This very popular web page is written for people who can think for themselves and need some friendly back up! I, using my critical thinking, do not understand how any intelligent human being 2014 can believe in human space travel!

Manfred Lindinger of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, FAZ, thinks 31 May 2014 on the front page of FAZ that German astronaut Alexander Gerst of the European Space Agency, ESA, has 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 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. Americans apparently believe the nonsense.

Lindinger is just stupid and does not understand that manned spaceflights are not possible and that the ISS is just a 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 recruting European cosmo clowns or idiots since 2008, even if its web site still suggest that ESA hires astronuts 2014. 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 2014 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 re-entry on 10 November 2014 in a fake Soyuz capsule and, conveniently, landed close to the remote, ultrasecret Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazahkstan. 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 400 000 m altitude. The capsule has 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 a speed say 7 850 m/s. The Russian capsule magically did not burn up. It is protected by a magic heat shield that cannot burn. Some way or another - FRICTION - the capsule slowed down to <100 m/s speed in 8 minutes!! - it was 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 a honest heroes, what can I do? I just watch it and report it here.

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 its third succesful 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.


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 whereever, Hawaii, waiting to show up again. Ask Alexander about his sun tan! What a stupid job - cosmokraut!

Hawai space training house

Talking about Hawai there are eight astrohawaians 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 maneuver - accelerate, brake, change direction, etc. - in space. You cannot ever leave planet Earth with a space craft. 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.
 

0.1 Stepping into fire

Most people year 2014, 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 the ~120°C hot sunny Moon surface at six visits, some even bringing a little car along, while the other six had to watch from orbit around Moon.

The US cosmo nuts or asstro clowns on the Moon survived as their space suits and shoes (!) were airconditioned. They did not understand that their shoes would melt, when touching the Moon surface. You cannot step on a 120°C hot surface of any kind in vaccum 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 burn inside their space suits. And the car will be pretty hot to sit in.

What was shown on TV 1969-1972 was just clever propaganda - nobody ever visited the Moon then.

 

0.2 Driving a car in space

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!

Most people do not understand that you have to eject mass in the vacuum space in an absolute precise direction to change speed up or down and change course left/right/up/down of a space ship, while getting lighter and lighter, and that you cannot carry sufficient mass of fuel with you for any trip.

People believed in 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 2014. 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 goverment to manipulate its 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 1993-2004-2014 Hoax, Kicks & Fiasco. Three times 2005-2009 planet Earth kicked off Rosetta at a close fly-by but ESA didn't tell us

 

"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 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 rendez-vous ten 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! 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, we are told.

In order to 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.

At the right moment in Low Earth Orbit, LEO, the Rosetta must then be pushed out of the LEO around Earth and to get away from Earth's 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. To this speed you must then add the speed of planet Earth ~29.800 m/s relative the Sun. Thus:

If Rosetta has same direction as Earth, when leaving ahead of Earth and after separation from the rocket, Rosetta will have speed of ~40.800 m/s in orbit around the Sun and it will take Rosetta 0.73 years to fly-by Earth again; the faster Rosetta arriving from behind at the fly-by of Earth after 0.73 years.

If Rosetta has opposite direction as Earth, when leaving behind Earth and after separation from the rocket, Rosetta will have speed of ~18.800 m/s in orbit around the Sun and it will take Earth 1.59 years to fly-by Rosetta; the faster Earth arriving from behind at the fly-by of the Rosetta after 1.59 years.

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 a months to collide with the Sun. No orbit around the Sun will take place at all.

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

The 10+ years Rosetta fantasy trip was something like:

According ESA Rosetta was sent off from and ahead of Earth by a rocket 2/3 March 2004 and into an orbit around the Sun initially inwards of the Earth's orbit, say 5° or so, and after six months Rosetta, with much higher speed than Earth - probably of the order ~40.000 m/s, passed the Earth orbit well ahead of planet Earth and continued outside the Earth's orbit around the Sun for another six months, when it, after having strangely slowed down a lot (sic) one way or other, again passed the Earth's orbit ... and a year after start almost collided with planet Earth (making constant speed ~29.800 m/s all the time) 4 March 2005 - the magic first gravity assist fly-by/kick in 3-D space to speed off to planet Mars. It seems Earth and Rosetta was flying parallell in space for a week at similar 29.800 m/s speed and you wonder how Earth could have kicked Rosetta under these circumstances. Why doesn't Earth gravity sucks it in so it crashes?

Rosetta was anyway kicked outwards from the Sun into a new orbit around the Sun towards the circular orbit of Mars around the Sun - at unknown speed - and after one tour around the Sun Rosetta arrived ahead of planet Mars 27 February 2007 - Mars having speed 47.900 m/s - for a a second gravity assist kick outwards, away from the Sun but after a sharp turn in space Rosetta crossed the orbit of Mars behind the fast speeding Mars and arrived just ahead of Earth in its orbit, when another, the second Earth gravity assist fly-by/kick took place six months later 13 or 14 November 2007 - now inwards, toward the Sun but after a turn behind Earth passed the Earth orbit outwards bound from the Sun into a long, slow speed orbit that passed Earth 11 or 13 November 2009, i.e. two years later.

After five years and eight months later Rosetta was back close to Earth, where it started 3 March 2004 arriving at unknown speed. Of course Earth was in another postion relative the Sun but still in its normal orbit and in perfect position to kick Rosetta to the comet.

Now, 11 (or 13 November 2009, Rosetta was given a final third Earth gravity assist fly-by/kick 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 comet, where Rosetta arrived close to the comet May/November 2014, when braking/course changes were required. 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. 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 was four gravity assist fly-by/kicks 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 some way or another by planet Earth at a new velocity and in a new direction into new orbits around the Sun to enable the trip to the comet to continue.

You should really wonder about the first strange and the three following fly-bys (sic) and gravity assist kicks in 3-D into new orbits around the Sun. How can planets like Earth and Mars fly-by and kick away a light spacecraft like the Rosetta? Why doesn't Rosetta simply collide with the planets? 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!

Media should ask ESA about the exact details of these magic gravity assist kicks into new orbits around the Sun to get Rosetta away from Earth and to a rendez-vous with Mars, back to more rendez-vous with Earth twice and then off to the comet. The data must be stored somewhere for independent review.

I evidently know that a 2-D gravity assist kick is explained by Wikipedia but it is an old joke invented by a Russian and improved in the 1960's by the science fiction creators of NASA/JPL. Without it space travel is not possible, i.e. no money can be stolen from the tax payers without these kicks. Wikipedia didn't get it right earlier either. Maybe the atmosphere of the fast moving Earth plays tricks how to plot the speed and direction of the very small, fast moving spacecraft that cannot be seen with the naked eye or any telescope at the fly-by and the dates of the fly-bys? The moving planets and the moving spacecraft must first rendez-vous in space at exactly the right 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 gravity forces between the Sun, the moving planets and the spacecraft the spacecraft shall be kicked off ... in the right direction outwards or inwards and up/down at the right speed, which might take a couple of days. Kinetic energy is transferred from one body to the other. I evidently consider the whole thing an academic fraud. I believe all space travel (apart from satellites around Earth) since 1960's is a hoax. But gravity assist fly-by/kicks happened three times 2005-2009 at low altitude just above planet Earth and ESA didn't tell me, you, media, anyone to have a look. Strange! ESA also gives different dates for the last two fly-bys ... or they took time.

The Rosetta therefore, according to unknown, highly educated, upper class, well paid, arrogant, evidently criminal ESA astrophysicists, got out of its 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 rendez-vous with the comet. Arriving parallell 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 kick another round disc representing the spacecraft around the Sun 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?

When much later all new responsible, unknown, highly educated, upper class, well paid, arrogant, criminal ESA astrophysicists and similar persons and assholes 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. 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 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 metres per second. Four of the thrusters are used for delta-v burns, we are told, if you understand the ESA lingo? Delta-v! Fuel consumption of a thruster is not known but let's assume that the specific fuel consumption, SFC, is 0.24 kg/kNs. It means that the spacecraft could produce total 6.960 kNs to accelerate/brake/steer the spacecraft during the 10 years trip from Earth to the comet in space. It is not much. It is in fact very little.

As shown below the 1969 Apollo Lunar Module ascent stage - start mass 4 888 kg - needed 2 285 kg fuel to accelerate from 0 to 1.500 m/s speed (relative the Moon) and reach an altitude of 100 000 m in a low Moon gravity field.

To decelerate the similar Rosetta space craft from high speed say 29 800 m/s after getting away from Earth, to the speed 18 300 m/s (relative the Sun), when arriving at the comet in space using onboard thrusters/fuel would evidently require roughly about 242 times more fuel per kg spacecraft. Why?

The kinetic energy of one kilogram at 1 500 m/s speed is 1 125 kJ. The kinetic energy of one kilogram at 29 800 m/s speed is 440.020 kJ. And the kinetic energy of one kilogram at 18 300 m/s speed is 167.445 kJ. You must therefore use 272.575 kJ energy to slow down 1 kg the Rosetta spacecraft from 29 800 m/s to 18 300 m/s speed. Imagine if the start speed in space is 40.800 m/s! How to slow down? How to change direction?

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. 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 and there is no reason why the same rocket could not 11 or 13 November 2009, Rosetta have sent Rosetta at a certain 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 rendez-vous with the comet so far away is not clear. In a years 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 Rossetta flies by, etc, etc, bla, bla.

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 be that the Rosetta with its high start velocity 40 800 m/s relative Sun after having got away from planet Earth can be accelerated (should be slowed down) later by planets Earth or Mars approaching from behind at higher speeds but at a distance and then dragging along/accelerating Rosetta without causing a tragic crash, i.e, some way or another kinetic energy is transmitted to Rosetta without direct contact at close fly-bys, so it speeds up (or slows down). Pure fantasy.

Note e.g. that during the first year of the trip Rosetta and planet Earth orbited the Sun close to each other all the time, i.e. there was no fly-by or kick after one year, i.e. the Rosetta had similar speed relative the Sun as the Earth after getting away from Earth's gravity field but at a distance from Earth. 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 theater.

Typical ESA astrophysicist clown that believes space is flat - 2-D!

Evidently any planet gravity force will attract a space ship in its vicinity, so it will go faster and faster in direction of the center of the planet and change its course ... and crash at re-entry ... but kick it in the opposite direction with change of direction? Gaining speed and free kinetic energy transfer in space at fly-bys!? It cannot be done. But in this case the heavy planets with strong gravity forces are moving faster (or slower) than the little space ship of little mass so ... . Why bother?

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 2014 explain how a planet can kick away a spacecraft at increased speed in the right direction at a fly-by. Only job any lying astrophycisist 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!

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 theater. There is no Rosetta in space! It is all done in a film studio at 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 gravity assist kicks were required.

The comet orbits eliptically the Sun in 6.4 years. When the comet is closest to the Sun - between Earth and Mars - it heats up to -43°C by the Sun. When it is further away the temperature is much lower or -68°. Maybe today the temperature is a pleasant -60°C on the comet?

In May 2014, Rosetta’s thrusters began to brake (sic) the spacecraft for five months - it was going too fast! - how much is not known - so that it should exactly match comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s speed, location and orbital direction/flight, i.e. Rosetta can brake in space! But if it has fuel for it is not certain! The spacecraft is about 25 light minutes from Earth, i.e. it takes 25 minutes for a light signal to pass between Earth and the spacecraft.

Say that you run 8 thrusters in order to brake, i.e. apply a force F of 80 N on your space craft that has start mass m 3000 kg. It means that the spacecraft will brake/decelerate at rate 80/3000 = 0.0267 m/s². It is not a lot. After 3 hrs (10 800 s) of braking your speed change is only 288 m/s in the direction of braking and you have consumed about 12.5% of all fuel aboard and your mass m is about 2 800 kg. But what was your start speed from Earth? >29 800 m/s?

On arrival the now 10+ years old spacecraft Rosetta with plenty 15+ years old technology inside it 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, photoshopped, computer generated images, though. Made at Babelsberg, Potsdam, by clever Germans.

On 12 November 2014 Rosetta then sent it's 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 meter from a small comet only 4 000 meter 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 touch down 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. US/NASA however fake 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 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 2004-2014 described above, which is hilarious.

Stardust was a 300-kilogram robotic space probe (no humans aboard) launched by NASA on February 7, 1999. Its 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 maneuvers 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 its 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 traveled 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 traveled 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 Center 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 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 of at about 01.57 am.

The Stardust 255 kg space ship itself continued to ellipitically loop the Sun at reduced speed after the drop, while planet Earth continued at its 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 2014. NASA/JPL cannot explain how a 45 kg Sample Return capsule can be dropped down from a 255 kg space craft 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 pseudofiction 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 eitherwise 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.

 

 

0.5 US/USSR Space Hoax Cooperation 1974 

Another amazing example that USA and Sovietunion - 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.

 

 

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

Many persons today, 2014, 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 maneuver to get into Moon orbit at say 1 500 m/s speed and at 100.000 meters altitude (like Apollo 11), and then with with some complex sub-system land on the Moon (see right) after executing another, automatically or by remote control, extremely difficult brake and stop maneuver 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 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 maneuver, 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 videos of the landing just shows the flat Moon surface coming closer and closer from 90° above. 100% nonsens. 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.
  

 

 

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

Regarding the The People's Republic of China's Moon landing it was apparently remotely controlled 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.  

 

 

0.8 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.  

 

 

0.9 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. Spacecraft would still be launched from Earth with chemical rocket engines or be built and launched in space. A nuclear thermal propulsion system could potentially be over 100 times more powerful than chemical systems of comparable weight."

And what is Nuclear thermal propulsion? - It heats the mass of a fluid, usually liquid hydrogen at minus 240°C, in a high, say, plus 1 200°C temperature nuclear reactor (so it doesn't melt), so that the hydrogen mass is ejected at, say, 10 000 m/s velocity through a nozzle that creates thrust to accelerate the 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 ... 

 

 

0.10 1945 Atomic bomb hoax

... 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 2014 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?  

 

 

0.11 Physical reason 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 supertanker 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 supertanker 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.


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.

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 maneuver flying backwards in 3D while applying the brake force in 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?

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.

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. I do 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 Offce (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 maneuvers 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).


Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in speed of a space craft in space is a function of the mass ratio (space craft mass before and after firing the rocket engine) and the exhaust velocity of gases leaving the space ship rocket nozzle. It 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. Turn the rocket around in order to brake so it goes slower and slower while getting lighter and lighter you'll find that you soon run out of fuel and ... crash!

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.  

 

 

0.12 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 Center 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
below. 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 ... 2014!

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 center 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 center, plus the velocity of the Sun orbiting the Universe, i.e. use the center of Universe as fixed center, to the velocities given here but as I do not know the latter I just use the velocities given by NASA relative the center 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 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 enter into orbit around the Moon at the right altitude/velocity. 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.

 

 

0.13 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 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 top speed while going up may be >1.000 m/s. As there is no oxygen/air outside, the space ship, it must carry its own oxygen and mix it with the fuel to enable combustion. Quite complicated, actually. It has not 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.

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. No drinks are however served during flight and being weightless.

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

Flight? The space ship may rotate around itself in any directions at this stage. There is no system to keep it stable with people moving around inside. Then the vertical speed becomes zero - you are at your zenith - and the 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 stratsosphere. 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 vaccum due the Earth's gravity! Fasten your seat belts again! The outside air gets slowly thicker and thicker again. Back at 15
.000 m altitude your speed may be 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. 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 haven't studied my articles.

 

 

1.1 How much fuel (energy) is required to get to the Moon and back after having left Earth and how much did it cost?

The below presentation is compiled using info from the following internet sources of NASA about the Apollo 11 Moon/Earth 1969 trip:

(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 that has gone bankrupt).


[1] http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11MIssionReport_1971015566.pdf, summary report of the Apollo 11 trip approved by George M (or Wilhelm or Willy) Low, 1969. George M. Low, was according NASA dedicated to quality and excellence and a fantastic person that died at age 58 in 1984 in cancer. George M. Low's career and achievements spanned many fields: space science, aeronautics, technology, and education. In the space program, he provided management and direction for the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and advanced manned missions programs. NASA has named an award after George - George M. Low Award - NASA's Quality and Excellence Award. One thing is probably certain - I would never get that award. Poor Willy, got involved with the Apollo nonsense/hoax at his best years. Not funny ...

[2] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059A ,

[3] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1969-059C,

[4] http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo11.html and

[5] SATURN V LAUNCH VEHICLE FLIGHT EVALUATION REPORT-AS-.506 APOLLO 11 MISSION not signed by anybody and probably written by some free-lance science fiction writer 1969 and - no longer available after I made the link - server is unavailable:

"The NASA technical reports server will be unavailable for public access while the agency conducts a review of the site's content to ensure that it does not contain technical information that is subject to U.S. export control laws and regulations and that the appropriate reviews were performed. The site will return to service when the review is complete. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause."

The NASA info 1969 is evidently wrong, false or incomplete or under review 2013, e.g. masses of modules and fuel differ from source to source, fuel consumption for various events are unclear and the velocity to orbit the Moon, 3 000 m/s according NASA, cannot be correct and a good reason to doubt that a manned Moon/Earth space trip took place 1969, etc, etc.

This presentation is mainly about i) the energy used to change velocity up or down during the trip and ii) how much fuel is used for each change and iii) if it can be carried along.

To minimize fuel/energy consumption and maximize safety NASA used a three space crafts system. Three space crafts would be launched on one powerful rocket; the lightest, the Lunar Module, LM would land on the Moon and part of it take off again, while the two others, the Command Module, CM, and Service Module, SM, stayed in Moon orbit. On return the LM was dropped off in Moon orbit and before landning on Earth, the SM was also dropped off too. Only the CM would land on Earth. This method also brought, we were told, an added safety measure to the lunar mission; it provided the astronauts with a stopping point in Earth orbit as well as in Moon orbit. With more places to pause during a mission, there was more leeway to catch up on late maneuvers as well as a safe place to double check the mission profile, we were told, la, la, la. If any problems were detected, the crew could be brought home from Earth or Moon orbit much more easily (sic) than they could be from a lunar transit. But it was just propaganda. As shown below, even using the described method, there was no extra fuel available on the LM and SM to correct any mistakes.

The Apollo 11 1969 Moon trip, read hoax, went something like this:

Apollo 11 (right) was an about 43 802 kg three-part spacecraft: the about 5 557 kg Command Module (CM) in the middle with crew's quarters and flight control section; the about 23 244 kg (or 23 244 kg [2]) Service Module (SM) right with one P-22KS propulsion rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust and tanks with 7 127 kg (15.712 lb) fuel and 11 381 kg (25 091 lb) oxidizer, total 18 508 kg of propellant N2O4/Aerozine 50 (UDMH/N2H4) and spacecraft support systems. [1-8.11.1] When together, the two modules were called (CSM) Columbia. On top of the CSM was the Lunar Module (LM).

The about 15 102 kg (or 33 294 lb) Lunar Module, Eagle, fitted below the CSM at departure, carried 3 800 liters nitrogen tetroxide + 4 500 liters hydrazine fuel for 1 descent engine with 46.700 N thrust and 1 ascent engine with 15 700 N thrust. The dry mass of the ascent stage was 2 180 kg and it held 2 639 kg (or 2.353 kg) of propellant. The descent stage dry mass was 2 034 kg and 8 212 kg of propellant were onboard initially. Total fuel aboard the LM was thus 10 851 kg. LM and SM used same fuel.

Apollo 11 on way to the Moon; the lunar module (LM) was then connected to the top of of the command module (CM). At departure from Earth the lunar module (LM) was connected to the bottom of the service module (SM). After translunar injection the CSM was disconnected from the LM, rotated 180° and CM top re-connected to the LM.

The SM engine was obstructed by the lunar module (LM) fitted below it at departure. On the way to the Moon, the CSM was disconnected from the LM, rotated 180° and reconnected to the LM.

The LM would later take two asstronuts to the lunar surface, support them on the Moon, and return them to the CSM in lunar orbit.

Module and fuel masses are not certain. Numbers vary. I generally use masses given in [1].

Apollo 11 with three asstronuts aboard launched from Cape Kennedy on July 16, 09.32 local time, 1969 fitted on top of a hugh, 100 + meter tall three stages, Saturn V, rocket or fire works launch vehicle looking like something right. The original drawings and records how it all worked are coveniently lost! Three minutes later the launch escape three motors system on top the CM was jettisoned ... one way or another. Why it was fitted in the first place is not clear.

Here is a photo of the lift-off of the Apollo 11 modules on top of the powerful three stages Saturn V rocket. Doesn't it look impressive? What happened afterwards ... nobody really knows. It could just be an empty mock-up with no people at the top ... just to impress and fool any observer!

Three stages launch vehicle Saturn V with Apollo 11 Command, Service and Lunar landing modules on top. Note the amount of fuel and thrust of the rockets that were required to first put the Apollo 11 modules in orbit around Earth and then to send them off to the Moon. The last use of a Saturn V rocket was the 14 May 1973 launch of Skylab. All drawings what they looked like and records how they worked were then conveniently lost and some people wonder if they ever existed ... or if they were just one empty mock up with some jet engines at bottom and trick film! Then came another strange launch vehicle - the Shuttle - that could not land on Earth after visiting space!

1.2 Summary table of Moon trip

Table starts when the Apollo 11 Control, Service Modules, CSM, and Lunar Module, LM, fitted on the full of fuel Saturn V rockets third stage are already on the way at ~7 500 m/s velocity in Earth orbit put there by the Saturn V rocket's first and second stages (Event #1).

The total mass of Apollo 11 + third stage is then 135 699 or 338.692 kg. Nobody seems to know!

At that speed and altitude you go around Earth in about 90 minutes! If you go slower you will soon crash on Earth.

Then the third stage rocket is allegedly fired (Event #3) and the Apollo 11 modules are sent off at ~11 200 m/s velocity in direction Moon about 400 000 km away ... or where the Moon will be three days later. Plenty of fuel was used for getting off the Earth ...3 798 350 liters (or about 4 000 tons) ... but all carried in separate rocket stages.

Event #

Time

Location

Unit(s)

Velocity (m/s)

Total weight/mass incl. fuel (kg) of unit(s)

Unit kinetic energy change (MJ/kg)

Kintetic energy used to accelerate (+) or brake (-) (MJ)

Fuel used (kg) from previous event

1

7/16/69 13.32UT

Earth orbit

CSM+LM (still attached to S-IVB third stage)

~7 500

135 699 or

338.692 (!!)

+28.13 by rocket's first and second stages

-

N.A.

2

7/16/69 16.22 UT

On course for the Moon

CSM+LM (still attached to S-IVB third stage)

-

-

-

-

-.

3

7/16/69 17.37 UT

On course for the Moon

CSM+LM

~11 200

-

+34.59 by rocket's third stage

-

N.A.

4

7/17/69 noon

Mid-course Earth/Moon

CSM+LM

-

-

-

-

97

5

7/19/69 17.15.45 UT

End of trip to Moon & start braking to reduce speed!

CSM+LM

~2 400

m1 = 43 802

-56.96 by Earth gravity

-

-.

6

7/19/69 17.21.50 UT

Moon orbit (elliptic)

CSM+LM

~1 500

m2 = 32 676

-1.775 (braking by SM!)

-(2.88m1 - 1.125m2)

10 898

7

A little later

Moon orbit (circular)

CSM+LM

~1 500

?

.-

.-

.-

8

7/19/69 18.11.53 UT

Moon orbit

LM (separated from CSM)

~1 500

m3 = 15 279

.-

.-

.-

9

7/19/69 19.08 UT

Into decent orbit

LM

-

-

-

.

.

10

7/19/69 20.05 UT

Starting decent

LM

~1 500

m3 = 15 279

.-

.-

.-

11

7/19/69 20.17.40 UT

On the Moon

LM

0

m4 = 7 327

-1.125 (braking by LM

-

7 952

12

7/21/69 17.54.01 UT or 124 hrs 22 minutes after start

Lift off the Moon

LM

0

m5 = 4 888

some parts incl. the descent engine (1 000 kg!) of LM were left on the Moon

-.

-.

-.

13

7/21/69 21.34 UT or 128 hrs 02 minutes after start

Docking with CSM (LM later dumped from CSM)

LM

~1 500

m6 = 2 603

+1.125

-

2 285

14

7/22/69 04.52.42 UT

Moon orbit

CSM

~1 500

m7 = 16 829

0

.-

.-

15

7/22/69 04.55.12 UT

On straight course for the Earth

CSM

~2 400 m/s

(or ~3 038 m/s)

m8 = 12 153

+1.775 (acceleration by CSM P-22KS propulsion rocket engine)

~(2.88m8-1.125m7)

4 676

16

7/22 /69?

Mid-course correction

CSM

-

m8 =

?

.-

Not known!

17

7/24/69 16.21.13 UT

Arrival Earth atmosphere prior separation CM/SM

CSM

~11 200 m/s !!! It is fast!

m8 =

+60.34 (by Earth gravity - no fuel required)

.-

None!

18

7/24/69 16.21.14 UT or 194 hrs 55 minutes after start

Arrival Earth atmosphere after separation CM/SM

CM

~11 200 m/s

m9 = 5 486

0

-.

None!

19

At 195 hours, 13 minutes after start

Parachutes were deployed.

CM

100

 

m9 = 5 486

-62.72

-62.72 m8 or 349 GJ

None!

20

7/24/69 16.50.35 UT or 195 hrs 34 minutes (?) after start

CM splashed down! The CM space ship is now a boat!

0

-

-

-

-

 

1.3 Event # 1 - Into orbit around Earth - (Low Earth Orbit - LEO) - How much did it cost?

First rocket stage with steering fins and 1 311 100 liters liquid oxygen + 810 700 liters kerosene (total mass of fuel about 2 169 tons) for five F-1 engines with 6.672.000 N thrust each and second rocket stage with no fins - 1.000.000 liters liquid hydrogen (mass 709 tons) + 331 000 liters liquid oxygen (mass 468 tons) for five J-2 engines with 889 600 N thrust each were apparently used to get the Apollo 11 (CSM+LM) and the third rocket stage into Low Earth Orbit around planet Earth at 7 500 m/s speed.

The first stage burnt 2 121 800 liters fuel in 161 (or 150) seconds, 13 179 liters/second (or 12 705 liters/second or 12 885 kg/second according Wiki) fuel and brought the second and third stages + Apollo 11 to a height of 68 000 m and a speed of 2.755 m/s. Imagine burning about 2 169 000 kg of fuel in 161 seconds producing 33 360 kN thrust. It would appear that the rocket engine SFC was 0.404 kg/kN s. Quite good for a rocket engine in the atmosphere getting thinner the higher you get.

The second stage burnt 1 331 000 liters hydrogen/oxygen fuel in about 389 seconds - 3 422 liters/second producing the required force and visible exhaust to get the third stage + Apollo 11 into Low Earth Orbit, LEO, at speed 7 500 m/s and altitude about 400.000 m. Imagine burning about 1 177 tons of fuel in 389 seconds producing just 4 448 kN thrust. Then SFC was 0.68 kg/kN s. Sounds bad. According Wiki the weight or mass of the fuel was only 444 tons! Then SFC was 0.256 kg/kN s. Sounds better.

You should of course wonder what kind of fuel pumps, compressors or whatever - overpressurized fuel tanks? - could deliver such hugh amounts of fuel so fast to the five F-1 and five J-1 engines and the size of the fuel pipes and the velocity of the fuel inside the pipes.

As explained above the Apollo 11 space ship start mass itself was 43 802 kg. The fully loaded mass of the third stage (height 18.8 m, diameter 6.6 m) was 294 890 kg (empty mass 10 000 kg + 253 200 liters liquid hydrogen (mass 179 520 kg) + 92.350 liters liquid oxygen (mass 105 370 kg) as fuel) according Wikipedia. It would thus appear that total mass of CSM + LM + third stage with fuel should be an impressive 338.692 kg. Isn't it heavy?

Imagine putting 339 tons into LEO 1969! And using only 3 346 tons of fuel to do it. To put 1 kg of Apollo 11 + third stage in LEO you needed only about 10 kg fuel in 1969! Fantastic!


Total mass of CSM + LM + third stage with fuel was only 135 699 kg or about 136 tons according [5]. Confusing, isn't it? Everywhere you look the masses differ. A lot!

For comparison French space launch vehicle Ariane 5 has start weight 770 tons (most of it fuel of course) to put only 16 tons pay load in Low Earth Orbit, LEO, 2013. Assuming you need 564 GJ energy to put 16 tons in LEO (at 7 500 m/s speed , 400 000 m altitude + 10% friction during ascent) and that you use say 740.000 kg fuel for it, the Ariane 5 fuel consumption is 0.76 MJ/kg! Not bad! But still far away from the 8.13 MJ/kg used by the Apollo 11 CSM+LM to brake into Moon orbit 1969. Or to put 1 kg pay load in LEO Ariane 5 need 46.25 kg fuel! Not bad actually! But Saturn V/Apollo 11 was 4-5 times better. 1969! Why is France using such wasteful launch vehicles 2012?

To launch an Ariane 5 and put 16 tons in LEO costs average 150 000 000:- or 9 375/kg.

To put an empty 78 tons Shuttle (no payload) into LEO the launch vehicle should have start weight of abt. 3 750 tons or 3 607 500 kg of fuel! If the Shuttle shall carry 10 000 kg to the ISS you need another 462 500 kg fuel. At least! See photo right! What kind of NASA launch vehicle was used for the Shuttle and how much did it cost? It seem 100% SF fantasy/propaganda to me!

Above photo shows a small 78 tons NASA Shuttle with x tons payload (or is it a 5 tons empty mock-up?) being sent into space to reach the ISS by a very big 3 750+ tons NASA launch vehicle full of fuel. The 78+ tons Shuttle is connected to the 3 750+ tons launch vehicle via one little bolt that is removed when the Shuttle and launch vehicle separate.
Shouldn't the NASA launch vehicle be a little bigger than the little NASA Shuttle?
Anyway - never believe what you see on a photo type above. It is a FAKE!

It is always nice to compare old and new space vehicles carrying out maneuvers and the fuel consumed and costs incurred And the conclusions is clear! NASA fakes it. 44 years ago 1969 and today 2013. Only the French Ariane 5 is real! And very expensive.

Imagine if it cost NASA $ 10 000:- to put one kilogram into LEO. We dont' know if Apollo 11 had mass 339 or 136 tons but the cost should then have been of the order $ 3.39-1.36 billions. Not cheap! (Thus easier just to fake it). And the NASA hoax is just going on and on:
On September 14, 2011, NASA announced its design selection for the new launch system, declaring that it would take the agency's astronauts farther into space than ever before and provide the cornerstone for future US human space exploration efforts. Since the announcement, four versions of the launch vehicle have been revealed – Blocks 0, I, IA and II. Each configuration utilizes different core stages, boosters and upper stages, with some components deriving directly from Space Shuttle hardware and others being developed specifically for the SLS. Later versions will use five RS-25E engines with upgraded boosters and an 8.4-meter diameter upper stage with 3 J-2X engines. A 5-meter class fairing with a length of 10 m or greater is being considered for allowing heavy payloads for deep space missions. NASA had selected five rocket configurations for testing, described in three Low Earth Orbit classes; 70 metric tons, 95 metric tons, and 140 metric tons (picture right).

NASA's latest fantasy space ship putting 130 tons in LEO at little cost in 2017

 

1.4 Events # 2 and 3 - Out of orbit - trans-lunar injection - and en route to the Moon at 40.11° on your side

Two hours, 44 minutes and one-and-a-half Earth orbits after launch the third rocket stage with 253 200 liters liquid hydrogen + 92 350 liters liquid oxygen (total mass 284 890 kg) for 1 J-2 engine with 889 600 N thrust reignited for a burn of 349 seconds, placing Apollo 11 (CSM+LM) and itself en route to the Moon about 384 000 000 meters away, i.e. where the Moon will be after about 75 hours. The SFC of the J-2 engine was 0.918 kg/kN s. Why did NASA use such a wasteful engine? Or was three engines used?

990 liters H2 + 02 fuel per second (816 kg/s) was burnt becoming water to get out of low Earth orbit. At the end of the 349 seconds burn the space ship pilots could see the Moon at bearing 40.11° on the side!

The CSM+LM, mass 43 802 kg (or 96 567 lb) - velocity increased from 7 500 m/s to 11 200 m/s - events # 2 and 3 - and the course changed from orbital around Earth to 40.11° course relative to the Moon at that time. The empty third stage had mass 10 000 kg.

Say that you used 284 890 kg of fuel to accelerate 53 802 kg spaceship from 7 500 to 11 200 m/s requiring 1 861 GJ, then the fuel consumption was 0.65 MJ/kg.

15 minutes after translunar injection, TLI, CSM with three astronuts aboard carried out the following stunt: The CSM disconnected from the third stage and the Lunar Module, LM, stored there, rotated or flipped 180° and then connected to the top of the CM! Quite impressive! Imagine doing this at 11 200 m/s speed. See photo right! Of course you do it in empty space but while you do it the LM and CSM are not connected.

Masses used hereafter are from [1] page A11. Other NASA sources confusingly indicate other masses, info, etc.

The CSM+LM then separated from the empty of fuel third rocket stage and its 10 000 kg mass. The third rocket stage evidently also went on to the Moon ... and missed it by 1 825 miles and continued into Eternity [1 15.0].

0n July 17, a scheduled midcourse correction programmed for the flight took place. If it were up/down/left/right is not clear. The launch, i.e. the trans-lunar injection, had been so successful, we are told, that the other three scheduled course corrections were not needed. Event # 497 kg fuel was used. According [1] two corrections took place.

Photo of Service Module and Command Module, CSM, (fake of course) taken by somebody sitting on the Lunar Module, LM, fitted on top of Commande Module after release of LM and flipping CSM 180° and reconnection of LM to CSM!

During the lunar trip the external surface of the CSM/LM exposed perpendicular to the Sun was heated up to 120°C. Compare event #11 and the temperature on the Moon exposed to the Sun. Planet Earth surfaces perpendicular to the Sun should also be heated up to 120°C by the Sun unless protected by an atmosphere and subject to rotation.

During the lunar trip the velocity was reduced from 10 834.3 m/s at 2.15.13 hms to 790.7 m/s at 75.00.00 hms according Robert A. Braeunig (ignoring the gravity of the Moon, though). Then apparently the velocity increased again due to Moon gravity. The CSM/LM trajectory was not straight as planet Earth continued in its steady orbit applying its gravity force on the CSM/LM, while it was going to the Moon.

At 75 hours, 41 minutes, 39 seconds (75.41.39 hms) into the flight, i.e. 7 minutes, 45 seconds before the lunar orbit insertion burn, the velocity was 2.336 m/s and increasing due to getting closer to the Moon and the space ship mass was 43 550 kg.

Now it gets very interesting!

 

1.5 Events # 5 and 6 - Slowing down very suddenly to get into orbit around the Moon = lunar orbit insertion maneuver

At about 75 hours, 50 minutes into the flight when the space ship had total mass of 43 574 kg (or 96 062 lb) and radial speed ~2 400 m/s from Earth, a retrograde firing of the service module, SM, P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust for 357.5 seconds in exactly the right direction reduced the speed to 1 500 m/s at 2.52 m/s² deceleration and placed the spacecraft into an initial, elliptical-lunar orbit at about 115 000 m altitude. Events # 5 and 6. Ref. [1-Table 8.6-2] states other speeds. The Moon has radius 1 738 000 m. The lunar-orbit has thus radius 1 853 000 m. The lunar-orbit has circumference 11 643 000 m. There is no change in potential energy as you remain at 115.000 m altitude during lunar orbit insertion (forgetting it is a little elliptical). During the 357.5 seconds braking the Moon displaces 365 722 meters sideways.

You apparently need a big, powerful rocket engine of the SM, as it is only used to brake or accelerate in space to get in/out of Moon orbit, where you have little time to maneuver.

It thus took about 73 hours or 262 800 seconds to travel the distance R = 384 000 000 meters to the Moon = the radius R of the Moon orbit around Earth. Average velocity during that trip was ~1 460 m/s. During that time the target - the Moon - moved 262 800x1 023 = 268 844 400 meters in orbit around Earth, because the velocity of the Moon is 1 023 m/s. It means that at start of Moon travel the Moon was at bearing 40.11° on the side of Apollo 11 and near 0° or straight ahead on arrival to insert into lunar orbit at 115 000 m altitude.

Of course the bearing changed all the time, like the distance travelled and the local speed, during the 73 hrs passage, but if you got off to a correct start with the Moon at exactly 40.11° on your side and in the horizontal plane of Earth/moon, then no adjustments were required during the trip. It is not easy to navigate in 3-D space when the target - the Moon - is also moving, luckily at constant speed, ahead of you. Imagine starting at 11 200 m/s speed and then slow down to about 800 m/s due Earth gravity during 66 (or 75 - see Robert A. Braeunig above) hrs and then speed up again to ~2 400 m/s during 7 hours, when Moon gravity gets hold of you.

And after 262 800 seconds of variable speeds space travel a 357.5 seconds blast to produce 97 400 N thrust, burning 10 898 kg of fuel, brought you suddenly into Moon orbit. Amazing. Imagine burning almost 11 tons of fuel just to brake for 6 minutes and suddenly you are in Moon orbit! And do not forget that the Moon has its own orbital velocity of 1 023 m/s around the Earth, when you were coming in ahead and is pulling you to it. The Moon thus moved 365 722 meters sideways, while Apollo 11 travelled 697.125 meters while braking straight to get into Moon orbit at 115 000 meters altitude. 697 125 m brake distance is 5.99% of the total Moon orbit circumference 11 643 000 m. So you also turn 21.56° while braking and losing 10 898 kg mass. How was this space intercourse done? Apollo 11 braking from 2 400 m/s to 1 500 m/s speed and the Moon at ~1 023 m/s speed luckily didn't collide but the fast moving Apollo 11 magically attached itself to or slid into the orbit of the fast moving Moon. It seems quite easy to enter into orbit of a rather fast moving moon according NASA. Quite sexy, actually!

The Specific Fuel Consumption (kg/(kN*s), SFC, seems to be 10 898 /(97.4x357.5) = 0.313 kg/kN s but it is just a relationship between thrust and fuel burnt and not an indication of work done and energy required to get into orbit of a Moon moving at high - 1.023 - m/s speed.

Space ship mass after this wonderful brake maneuver was 32 676 kg (or 72 038 lb).

The spaceship kinetic energy before braking was 43574*2400²/2 = 125.5 GJ and after braking 32676*1500²/2 = 36.76 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 88.73 GJ. Self appointed space travel experts suggest that you cannot calculate the kinetic energy in space like I do, as the 'space' is moving at another velocity than the one relative Earth/Moon to be added or subtracted to the ones given but as the latter speed is not known to them, I keep it simple as indicated.

It seems we agree that fuel/energy, in this case 10 898 kg, was used to change the velocity of the space craft from something - 2.400 m/s - to the one orbiting the Moon - 1 500 m/s and that the space craft in the process became 10 898 kg lighter. But maybe I should add the speed of the Moon to the one of Apollo 11?

The amount of fuel on the CSM used for events # 5 and 6 was 10 898 kg that equals the change in space ship mass before/after braking. The 10 898 kg mass of fuel evidently disappeared in space as exhaust fumes.

As 10 898 kg fuel was used to produce 88.73 GJ energy to slow down the space ship, 1 kg of fuel produced 8.13 MJ brake energy, i.e. fuel consumption was 8.142 MJ/kg fuel. It would appear that the SFC is then 0.24 kg/kN s.


In order to do a correct braking - reducing speed - in universe of a space ship by retrograde firing of a rocket engine close to the moving Moon, the rocket engine outlet must evidently be positioned in the direction of flight during the 700 000 to 900 000 m braking trajectory ... thus the space ship flips 180° with pilots looking backwards ... not seeing the Moon at all through the space ship windows. The three brave space pilots flew backwards, when suddenly braking to insert into Moon orbit. At start of braking the 43.5 ton space ship velocity was 2 400 m/s. Then you applied the 12.7 ton rocket brake force (127.28 kN) to your 43.5 ton space craft and braking started. At end of braking, 357.5 seconds later space ship velocity was 1 500 m/s and you were in an elliptic Moon orbit after having spent 10.898 kg fuel at rate 30 kg/second. You probably were at same altitude 115 000 m during the maneuver, but who knows and cares? During this time the Moon moved 365 722 meter which you had to consider one way or another. If you had directed your rocket engine in the wrong direction, you would not have been in orbit around the Moon but going astray or crashed. Note that Apollo 11 has no fuel reserves or redundancy. One error and you are finsihed!

The conversation of the asstroholes during the 6 minutes lunar orbit insertion burn between 75 hrs 50 minutes and 75 hrs 56 minutes of the flight does not reveal anything dramatic ... except that they can see the Moon while braking backwards with the LM at the end of the space ship. How was it possible? Were the three (crazy?) assholes aboard piloting the space ship manually with compass/chart pushing the brake button or pedal in the process looking out through the window like on an airplane? How did they know what was up/down/right/left and the directions of velocity and the force. How was the steering done? Assisted by 1969 made computers and instruments? It is suggested that Moon gravity actually caused Apollo 11 to turn 21.56° while speed decreased and that the brake burn started behind the Moon with the pilots looking aft but then they were already in orbit. If the brake force was applied a little too much left or right or up or down, they could easily crash on the Moon or fly off into Universe. NASA seems 2013 unable to provide an answer. You would expect braking to take place ahead of the Moon and that you also had to slow down another 1 023 m/s speed - the speed of the Moon orbiting Earth - who knows? But:

"The steering of the docked (sic) spacecraft was exceptionally smooth, and the control of applied velocity change was extremely accurate, as evidenced by the fact that residuals were only 0.1 ft/sec in all axes." [1-4.6]

Amazingly, Apollo 11 managed to get into Moon orbit 1969 one way or another, we are told to believe, and a little later the LM undocked from the CSM and started its descent towards the Moon. The show (hoax) went on! 

According Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky the change in speed of a space craft in space is a function of the mass ratio (space craft mass before and after firing the rocket engine) and the exhaust velocity of gases leaving the space ship rocket nozzle but NASA will not tell us the latter (5 100 m/s?), so here I use the described method.

 

1.6 Events # 8-10 - Eagle undocking, descent and landing on the Moon (and how it was done)

On July 20 at 100 hours, 12 minutes into the flight, the LM Eagle, mass 15 279 kg (or 33 683 lb), undocked and a little later separated from CSM Columbia, mass about 16 623 kg (36 647 lb). Event # 8. Altitude was about 100 000 m.

"Particular care was exercised in the operation of both vehicles throughout the undocking and separation sequences to insure that the lunar module guidance computer maintained an accurate knowledge of position and velocity." [1-4.9]

The undocking took place in full sun light as per below figure from [1].

At 101 hours, 36 minutes, when the LM was behind the Moon in the cold -150°C shadow on its 13th orbit, the LM descent engine with 46 700 N thrust fired for 30 seconds to provide retrograde, i.e. braking thrust and to commence descent orbit insertion, changing to an orbit of 9 by 67 miles, on a trajectory that was virtually identical to that flown by Apollo 10. It means that the LM was getting lost altitude while initial velocity 1 500 m/s was decreasing. The idea was to land on the Moon sunny side where temperature was a hot 120°C also facing Earth.

So the CSM/LM orbited the Moon with circumference about 11 000 kms 13 times in about 26 hours - average speed thus 1 500 m/s. Relative the Moon of course. The Moon orbits the Earth at 1 023 m/s. Half the orbit time the CSM/LM was cooled down to -150°C in the shade, half the time heated up to +120°C in the sunny side. It was like putting a hot plate in a freezer 13 times. But there were no structural problems with the CSM/LM, e.g. cracking up due to thermal expansion and similar. NASA engineers had thought of everything so the hoax would not be upset by temperature changes.

Descent initiation was performed with the LM rocket engine firing for 756.3 seconds with 46.7 kN thrust. With an SFC of 0.24 kg/kN s then 8 476 kg of fuel was used.

After eight minutes, at 101 hours, 44 minutes, the LM was at "High gate" about 26.000 feet (7 925 meter) (or 7 500 ft - figure below) above the surface and about five miles (8 040 meter) from the landing site. The velocity parallell to the Moon ground is not known but now Mr Aldrin really had to slow down early to avoid crashing and killing Mr Armstrong. With original speed 1 500 m/s you would arrive at the landing site after <5 seconds! And you must change your attitude from parallell to perpendicular. And you need plenty vertical thrust just to keep staying above ground. The Moon gravity a = 1.6 m/s² really pulls you down.

Just prior to powered descent (actually braking all the time!) the LM crew managed the following important manual check on intertial platform (sic) drift at 1 500 m/s speed:

"Just prior to powered descent, the angle between the line of sight to the sun and a selected axis of the inertial platform was compared with the onboard computer prediction of that angle and this provided a check on inertial platform drift." [1-4.10.2]

Imagine that - manually checking the computer calculations using the Sun behind you at 1 500 m/s speed! On the shadow, dark side the asstronuts used stars for navigation. How to steer an LM with only one big rocket engine is described here! It looks as if it is impossible.

The LM descent engine continued to provide constant 46.7 kN (?? - probably reduced) braking thrust until about 102 hours, 45 minutes (???) into the mission when the LM Eagle, arrival mass 7 327 kg (16 153 lb) landed in the Sea of Tranquility at 0 degrees, 41 minutes, 15 seconds north latitude and 23 degrees, 26 minutes east longitude.

It seems total 7 952 kg fuel was used to land under very confusing circumstances.

You would expect that you could vary the 5 tons thrust to slow down or stop the descent from 1 500 m/s to say 20 m/s and change attitude from parallell to perpendicular - to have a look around - and then slowly descend the last 10 meters, but there is no indication that you could do it.

Imagine manually controlling a powerful rocket engine (thrust and direction) that can provide 5 tons (46.7 kN) thrust onto a 7.4 ton (7 327 kg) space ship in a low gravity 1.6 m/s² field. This Aldrin asstrohole was fantastically clever! An American HERO! Tilting the spaceship from parallell to perpendicular motion relative the Moon in the mean time.

Another, slightly better, description of the LM landing is NASA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TM X - 58040 March 1970 written a little later by the engineers that planned the whole thing starting already 1961. If it happened in reality is evidently another story. It sounds like science fiction to me. Here the landing is in two stages. First you brake and change the altitude from 100 000 meters (62~58 nautical miles) to 15 000 meters (50 000 feet). The LM speed then increases (!) to about 1 700 m/s (5 560 fps) at the lower 15 000 m altitude and then (Table 7) after 26 seconds there is full thrust (46.7 kN) in the exactly correct direction during 5 minutes and 58 seconds, when the speed is reduced to about 440 m/s (1 456 fps) at about 7 500 m (24 639 feet) altitude.

If the rocket engine was directed in the wrong way, you would evidently go off course now. With average speed 1 070 m/s during 358 seconds braking you travelled 383 060 m, but we do not know, if the course/direction was right. The pilots probably had no maps to follow and they were still high above ground and magnetic compasses do not work on the Moon. But the LM was on autopilot then, we are supposed to believe, and it knew exactly speed and course. The astro clowns were just looking out the window admiring the scenery flashing by at high speed and chatting with Houston ... as if they were on a slow airplane landing.

Then during 5 and a half minutes the rocket engine was throttled automatically (but we do not know how much and how - except it was automatic). After 2 minutes 2 seconds they were at High gate (what a stupid name!) - speed now only 150 m/s (506 fps), which is quite a lot, and altitude 2 300 m (7 515 feet) and another 1 minute 40 seconds at Low gate - speed 19 m/s (55-68 fps) and altitude 150 m (512 feet) - maybe now Aldrin starts to pilot manually - and after another 1 minute 48 seconds they landed.

Note the change in altitude from 2 300 to 150 m or 2 150 m during 100 seconds. The vertical drop speed was then 21.5 m/s, but a little later the rocket engine was directed straight down and you slowed down to <2 m/s vertical speed to land!

Maybe they travelled another 35 990 m to reach High Gate and another 8 500 m to reach Low Gate. Regardless, the LM landed virtually spot on the planned location or less than 5 000 m. A miracle!

We do not know the fuel used for the various maneuvers, just the total. To assist the pilot there were radars, autopilot, gyros, speed log, a computer, a compass, fuel gauges, all sorts of warning lights and other useful, 1960's models equipment to use and look at. The attitudes, times, the tilting of the LM differ in the two descriptions. How much thrust was required to keep the LM virtually hovering over the Moon is not known. It seems - (Table II) that 8 070 kg (17 934.6 lb) of fuel was available to carry out the braking and that almost all was used. There were no margins at all. The probability of failure and crash was 1! But with Keith Glennan, ex- studio manager of Paramount Pictures and the Samuel Goldwyn Studios and later NASA boss, it became 0. James E. Webb just ensured it. What a show!

However, the descent engine worked until the LM Eagle had landed. There is no evidence that the Moon surface was affected beneath the descent engine nozzle a little above ground producing unknown thrust ejecting exhaust at high speed creating, e.g. some disturbance. Event # 11. Maybe there was no dust on the Moon? However:

"The landing gear foot pads had penetrated the surface 2 to 5 centimeters and there was no discernible throwout from the foot pads". [1-11.2.1]

However, just walking on the Moon later produced deep footprints (right).

Does anybody believe the Mr Aldrin could pilot and land the LM as per above science fiction horror stories? An LM landing had never been practiced on Earth or anywhere! And the only means to maneuver the LM was manually using a powerful rocket engine with 46.7 kN thrust unless you believe the magic autopilot story. Evidently Mr Aldrin was lying about it and everything else later. But he was well paid and had no morals what so ever.

Actually all the 534+ astronuts or kosmocrauts of many countries claiming having been travelling in space between 1960 and 2014 are simple liars paid to keep up the hoax. We are living in a world of liars.


7 952 kg (of 8 212 kg) fuel carried in the LM descent stage was used for the 100 000 m descent and decrease in speed from 1 500 m/s to 0 m/s taking any time from 756.3 to 3 600 seconds while turning the LM 90°.

Source: page 135 of [1]

The LM kinetic energy before descent was 15279*1500²/2 = 17.19 GJ and after landing 0 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due braking was 17.19 GJ. The LM potential energy before decent was 15279*100000*1.63= 2.49 GJ (and 0 on the Moon Surface). Total energy change was 19.68 GJ.

As 7 952 kg fuel (17 227 lb of 18 184 lb available aboard [1]) was used to overcome 19.68 GJ energy, 1 kg of fuel produced 2.47 MJ brake energy; fuel consumption 2.47 MJ/kg. It seems the LM rocket engine used 3.3 times more fuel than the SM.

But the SFC was 7 952/(46.7 x 756.3) = 0.225 kg/kN s, if the engine was just fired 756.3 seconds. But the time is not certain or less fuel were used when throttling..

Again there were no margins or fuel reserves. Had Aldrin continued flying around and run out of fuel at 20 meters height he would have crashed from 20 meters height.

 

1.7 Event # 11 - On the Moon planting the flag. Brushing your teeth on the Moon

After landing asstronut Armstrong reported: "Houston, Tranquility Base here - the Eagle has landed."

In order to open the hatch and step down on the Moon, the Lunar Module had to be depressurized. The one bar air pressure inside the LM cabin had to be reduced to the no air vacuum on the Moon. The asstronuts had to dress in space suits with its own PLSS air supply, etc. Page 22 of [1] reports:

"Depressurization of the lunar module was one aspect of the mission that had never been completely performed on the ground. In the various altitude chamber tests of the spacecraft and the extravehicular mobility unit, a complete set of authentic conditions was never present. The depressurization of the lunar module through the bacteria filter took much longer than had been anticipated. The indicated cabin pressure did not go below 0.1 psi, and some concern was experienced in opening the forward hatch against this residual pressure. The hatch appeared to bend on initial opening, and small particles appeared to be blown out around the hatch when the seal was broken."

It seems depressurization worked. How repressurization, i.e. filling the LM with air, was done later is not clear.

Armstrong, in his space suit + PLSS, stepped into the 120°C hot lunar surface dust (when subject to perpendicular radiation of the Sun) at 02:56:15 UT on 21 July stating,

"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind".

Somebody took a photo of the boot trace in the dust later. His boots didn't melt in the 120°C hot Moon dust. Aldrin followed 19 minutes later. The astronauts deployed the flag and instruments, took photographs, and collected very hot - 120°C - lunar rock and soil and dust:

"Collecting the bulk sample required more time than anticipated because the modular equipment stowage assembly table was in deep shadow, and collecting samples in that areas was far less desirable than taking those in the sunlight. It was also desirable to take samples as far from the exhaust plume and propellant contamination as possible." [1-4.12.4]

Source: page 163 of [1]

or ... another version:

"Approximately 20 selected, but unphotographed, grab samples (about 6 kilograms ) were collected in the final minutes of the extravehicular activity. These specimens were collected out to a distance of 0 to 15 meters in the area south of the lunar module and near the east rim of the large double crater. ... During bulk sampling, rock fragments were collected primarily on the northeast rim of the large double crater southwest of the lunar module". [1-11.1.5]

Strangely enough the asstronuts didn't measure the temperature of the samples exposed to the Sun. Maybe they were too hot - 120°C? And you wonder what the temperature was inside the space suits? Evidently the temperature was less in shadow areas.

No gravity experiments were carried out, e.g. to drop a piece of rock from the LM platform down to ground, distance 3.61 meters, and film it. The drop would take exactly 2 seconds (compared with 0.86 seconds on Earth). But why drop it? Throw it upwards instead. It will really go far! It would have looked nice ... and is difficult to fake.

But they allegedly left an experiment on the lunar surface to prove that they had been there, which (2004) continues to work as well as it did the day it got there, 1969. The Apollo 11 lunar laser ranging reflector consists of 100 fused silica half cubes, called corner cubes, mounted in a 46-centimeter (18-inch) square aluminum panel. Each corner cube is 3.8 centimeters (1.5 inches) in diameter. Corner cubes reflect a beam of light directly back toward its point of origin. Anyone can send a laser signal to it on the Moon and the signal will bounce back - ergo - the cosmokrauts were on the Moon. However, in 1969 they forgot to tell anybody about it. Imagine that! A whole or half silica cube with a diameter that bounces light!

The astronuts traversed a total distance of about 250 meters. The visit ended at 5:11:13 UT when the brave men returned to the LM and closed the hatch and repressurized the LM, i.e. filled it with fresh air again. Inside the LM it was now also 120°C hot as the hatch had been open and many areas of the LM was subject to perpendicular sun shine. How the asstronuts filled the LM with cool, fresh air and got out of their space suits for a nap later are not clear ... except that they slept for 10 hours after the hard outside lunar labour in the sun. Then it was time to fly back to the CSM! But before that they brushed their teeth

"Oral-B becomes the first toothbrush to go to the moon. Oral-B brushes were on board the Apollo 11 mission, the first moon landing." Source

At later Moon visits the asstronuts took, apart from tooth brushes, a car along so they didn't need to walk. Then they had to depressurize and repressurize the LM every time between driving around on the Moon.

Evidently the car also heated up to 120°C in the sunshine when subject to perpendicular radiation. It was left behind and is still there today! What a joke!

 

1.8 Events # 12 and 13 - Departure and Lunar Module ascent stage lift-off from the Moon and docking LM/CSM

The LM ascent stage - mass 4 888 kg - lifted off straight up from the Moon at 17:54:01 UT on 21 July after 21 hours, 36 minutes on the lunar surface. The rocket engine suddenly applied 14.7 kN thrust, while burning about 4.5 kg fuel per second ejecting about 5 m3 exhaust at 1 400 or 4 000 m/s velocity for 508 seconds. Imagine a 1.5 ton force suddenly being applied to a 4.9 ton mass. That is the lift-off from the Moon. It seems 2 285 kg fuel (4 966 lb of total 5 328 lb aboard [1]) was used to produce 14.7 kN thrust during 508 seconds - SFC = 0.306 kg/kN s. Why not? We do not know how the LM found the CSM. Luckily the LM didn't ascend in the wrong direction but straight up, flipped 90°, where the CSM was flying by at 1 500 m/s at 100 000 m altitude ... and connected to the CSM at 1 500 m/s speed. Quite impressive.

There exists a film/TV broadcast but no real photos of the lift-off. No exhaust fumes are seen, they are apparently colorless or invisible, and the dust, loose soil and objects on the Moon surface remain untouched, when the exhaust mass is ejected at 1 400 or 4 000 m/s velocity close to ground from the rocket engine. The lift-off looks really strange and the film is probably of a model, made at Hollywood.

Nose to nose LM/CSM docking occurred on the CSM's 27th revolution at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission. The CSM had thus orbited the Moon 27 times and been cooled down to -150°C in the Moon shadow and heated up to 120°C on the Moon sunny side and had then flipped 180° to recieve the LM.

Source: http://www.alanbeangallery.com/eaglelaunch.jpg - Animation of LM ascent module Eagle lift-off

Armstrong and Aldrin returned to the CSM with Collins via the hatches in the tops. The LM mass was then 2 603 kg.

2 285 kg (of 2 639 kg) fuel carried in the LM was used for the 100 000 m ascent and increase in speed from 0 m/s to 1 500 m/s.

How much energy was required to get the 4.888/2 603 kg LM ascent unit into orbit again at 100 000 m altitude and 1 500 m/s velocity can be calculated and should be of the order 4-5 GJ

As 2 285 kg fuel was used to overcome 4-5 GJ energy, 1 kg of fuel produced 1.75- 2.2 MJ energy; fuel consumption 1.75-2.2 MJ/kg. It is quite close to the consumption 2.47 MJ/kg for the descent. But still much less efficient than the SM engine.

Total fuel used by the LM for descent and ascent was 10 237 kg according [1].

The LM was jettisoned into lunar orbit at 00:01:01 UT on 22 July and remained in lunar orbit, where it (and five others jettisoned later) should still be today as there is no friction stopping it.

 

1.9 Events # 14 and 15 - Speeding up to get out of orbit around the Moon to get home = trans-Earth injection

Trans-Earth injection of the CSM, mass now 16 829 kg (37 100 lb) began July 21 as the P-22KS rocket engine with 97 400 N thrust fired for two-and-a-half minutes (150 seconds), when Columbia was behind (?) the moon in its 59th hour of lunar orbit. The CSM had flipped back 180° with it's nose now aiming for Earth. The speed increased from 1 500 m/s to 2 400 m/s at average acceleration 6.00 m/s² (!) while the CSM displaced 292 500 m (or 2.51% of the lunar-orbit circumference 11 643 000 m) and placed the CSM into radial course straight back to Earth after a final turn of 9.04° out of the orbit.

Events # 14 and 15. Mass was then 12 153 kg (or 26 793 lb). 4 676 kg of fuel was burnt. The asstronots were now facing forward during the trans-Earth injection. Their conversation between 135 hrs 23 minutes and 135 hrs 27 minutes of the flight when they were subject to 6 m/s² acceleration was quite normal. The radial speed after trans-Earth injection was maybe 2 640 m/s. Everything is unclear. The Moon was at this time still orbiting around the Earth at 1 023 m/s speed, so one way or another the CSM had to reduce that tangential speed in Moon orbit to 0. It would appear they got away from behind or aft side the moon into the radial course towards Earth while the Moon continued its circular, orbital course around Earth. Who knows? Evidently the CSM had to reduce the orbital/circular speed orbiting Earth at Moon altitude to 0 and just get a radial speed away from Moon towards Earth. It is quite complicated to navigate in space when the islands or moons are moving all the time and frankly speaking I do not understand how it is done in detail.

The distance travelled during the 150 seconds trans-Earth injection - you have to get out of orbit around the Moon at exactly the right moment and into a straight radial course to Earth overcoming Moon gravity force - was only 292 500 meter (assuming Moon didn't move but during 150 seconds the Moon evidently displaced 153 450 meters). It looks like you only need an average force of ~57 000 N or 6 ton to do this maneuver, so maybe the rocket engine was not on full blast? Or you put on full blast 97.4 kN during 150 seconds and reached 3 038 m/s start speed (56.1 GJ kinetic energy) getting home? The home leg was apparently faster due to greater speed ... but then the arrival speed will also be greater.

The amount of fuel used on the CSM for acceleration events # 14 and 15 was 4 676 kg or 31 kg/s! Same actually when braking (events #5 and 6).

The amount of fuel on the CSM used for events # 5 and 6 was 10 898 kg that equals the change in space ship mass before/after braking. The 10 898 kg mass of fuel evidently disappeared in space as exhaust fumes.

Thus the CSM used totally 15 574 kg of fuel to get in and out of Moon orbit (36 296 lb out of 40 803 lb aboard [1]). The CSM rocket engine was used 531.9 seconds thus burning about 30 kg/s.

The CSM kinetic energy before trans-Earth injection was 16829*1500²/2 = 18.93 GJ and after trans-Earth injection 12153*2 640²/2 = 42.35 GJ, i.e. change in kinetic energy due trans-Earth injection was 23.42 GJ. As 4 676 kg fuel was used, 1 kg of fuel produced 5.00 MJ kinetic energy. The SFC was 4676/(97.4*150)=0.32 kg/kN s. Why not?

Using the Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky formula that change in speed of a space craft in space is a function of the mass ratio (space craft mass before and after firing the rocket engine) and the exhaust velocity of gases leaving the space ship rocket nozzle, which should be of the order 4 700 m/s, if full blast was applied (otherwise 2 800 m/s but NASA will not say which).

[1] has little to say about it:

"The trans Earth injection maneuver, the last service propulsion engine firing of the flight, was nominal". [1-4.17]

Following this nominal maneuver, the asstronuts (!) slept for about 10 hours. An 11.2 second firing of the control engines accomplished the only midcourse correction required on the return flight but not reported in [1]. Event # 16. The correction was made July 22 at about 150 hours, 30 minutes into the mission. Willy forgot to report it. During the return speed increased all the time due to Earth gravity.

The return trip took only 55 hours 20 minutes (or 199 200 seconds) so the average return speed to travel 384 000 000 meters was 1.928 m/s. It seems the asstronots wanted to get back quick. Of course the space ship had less mass on the return trip ... but Earth gravity didn't change for that, but maybe departure speed from Moon orbit was 3 038 m/s (and not 2 640 m/s). Just prior arrival Earth atmosphere the Service Module, mass about 6 667 kg was dumped and burnt up in the atmosphere and was never seen again.

 

1.10 Cosmic particles inside the CM

Cosmic particles were suspected inside the CM on the return trip (but not an the way to the Moon?): 

"The theory assumes that numerous heavy and high-energy cosmic particles penetrate the command module structure, causing heavy ionization inside the spacecraft. When liberated electrons recombine with ions, photons in the visible portion of the spectrum are emitted. If a sufficient number of photons are emitted, a dark-adapted observer could detect the photons as a small spot or a streak of light." [1-4.18]

The cosmic particles didn't disturb our asstronut heroes though.

 

1.11 Events # 17-19 - Re-entry - landing on Earth (or dropping into the Pacific) - how to do it?

Re-entry procedures were initiated July 24, 44 hours after leaving lunar orbit. The SM - event # 17 - was dumped from the CM which continued alone at speed about 11 200 m/s or 11 045 m/s (or about 36 200 ft/s [1]) and was re-oriented to a heat-shield-forward position (as seen right). 

 

1.12 Braking using a heat shield

The only means to brake the Apollo CM, mass 5 486 kg (12 095 lb), to low speed before parachute deployment was now the the drag force of the heat shield friction and module turbulence in the atmosphere around it.

How it worked nobody really knows in spite of numerous scientific papers about the problem! According basic calculations the heat shield and surroundings would heat up >70.000° C due friction and burn up or break up - like the Service Module!


How to stop a mass of 5 486 kg dropping on Earth all the way from Moon and still accelerated by the gravity force?

The vehicle encounters such severe heating that a significant part of the design and development effort is concerned with providing sufficient protection of the payload without using all payload capacity for doing this! 

Just dropping one kilogram from one meter height or altitude through Earth's atmosphere of air produces a big bang, when it impacts Earth at 4.43 m/s a fraction of a second later. Do not drop it on - your toes! NASA has not really been able to clarify how the heat shield friction or modulus turbulence braking causing drag really worked. Test runs were apparently done before, e.g. Apollo 4.

The resistance of a body moving in a gas like Earth's atmosphere depends on two parameters - the shape of the object and the area of the object. The resistance is then due to the pressures acting on it.

As seen right (from Etude de l'´ecoulement autour des capsules spatiales by Axelle Viré, 2005) the pressure is positive at the blunt forward end and negative behind the capsule and the pressures produce forces acting on it.

The shape causes drag, lift and turbulence and the area, both in front and aft, in contact with the air causes friction. Both are then functions of the velocity of the object and the density of the air and the strength of gravity.

In either case (drag) forces develop that are acting on the object and you must be certain that the object is structurally strong enough to absorb these forces. It is like an airplane landing. No big deal. But airplanes do not use heat shields and do not land at 11 200 m/s.

Pressure distribution around the Apollo CM

I have a feeling that the pressures acting on the Apollo CM (thin aluminium plates/stiffeners) during re-entry would crush or compress it, so it would be destroyed and all persons inside would be minced meat.

If you tilt the module as seen right, the pressures behind the module differ due to the turbulence and I have a feeling that the Apollo CM would start to rotate around itself, which is not good for anybody inside.

The lift, drag and gravity forces acting on the object/air also produce/absorb energy that becomes heat.

The heat shield front but also the structure behind is heated up due to friction and the main area used for braking - the heat shield for a spaceship entering a planet with an atmosphere - is getting very hot. NASA has 2012 not been able to explain how braking was actually done 1969 without the module being crushed, starting rotating around itself and simply catching fire and burning up.

As I said above:

Turbulence around an inclined Apollo CM

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 vertical 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 m altitude that he slowed down and could eject a parachute.

Imagine an Apollo module of 5 486 kg coming dropping into Earth's atmosphere with almost horizontal start direction/velocity 11.200 m/s at 100 000 meters altitude where the atmosphere is very, very thin producing very little friction and turbulence. It is suggested friction and turbulence will slow down the space ship but it only happens at much, much lower altitude <15 000 meters and then the vertical velocity of Apollo 11 has increased to >350 m/s and total velocity is still >11 205 m/s almost horizontal and there is little time to brake using friction because you will hit ground pretty soon. Of course it is suggested that the CM was strong enough to withstand the forces but was bouncing up again after a first entry against the this atmosphere and then, after a Keplerian phase whatever that is dropped down again at lower speed for a second entry but everything is unclear. As usual.

 

1.13 Event #19 - Final braking using a parachute

Parachute deployment occurred at 195 hours, 13 minutes, at low speed, say ~100 m/s. After a flight of 195 hours, 18 minutes, 35 seconds - about 36 minutes longer than planned - Apollo 11 splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, just 13 miles from the recovery ship USS Hornet with US president 'tricky Dick' Nixon aboard south of Hawaii. Event # 18. Conversation with tricky Dick later was nominal.

 

1.14 Event #20 - Splash down

Apollo 11 landed, we are told, at 13 degrees, 19 minutes north latitude and 169 degrees, nine minutes west longitude July 24, 1969. Or was it outside California? Nobody knows! All above is NASA SF fantasy and propaganda = lies! A heat shield reduces speed from 11 200 to 100 m/s in Earth's atmosphere in 18 minutes? Not possible. The re-entry hoax is further discussed below. But first ...

 

1.15 How to turn 180° in space, if you are close to the Moon

How to turn around 180° in space is confusingly described by NASA about the failed Apollo 13 mission. Then the service module, SM, was damaged. A fuel tank had exploded and 18 500 kg of fuel there could not be used. Tough luck. Apollo 13 CSM could apparently not be used to (1) slow down/brake the space ship with lunar module, LM, to get into Moon orbit (Events #5 and 6), (2) to accelerate the space ship without lunar module, LM, to get out of Moon orbit (after the Moon visit by the LM - Events #14 and 15) and back to Earth and (3) provide electricity to the command module, CM, all the time.

The unlucky asstronuts therefore boarded the lunar module as a 'life boat' and stayed there, while the space ship managed to turn around and get back into direction Earth with the LM still attached. One question was could the LM rocket descent engine with 46.7 kN thrust be used to get the 43 802 kg Apollo 13 back to Earth, e.g burn all the descent engine fuel and see what happens. First you evidently drop off the damaged 23 244 kg (or 23 244 kg [2]) service module (SM).

Then your spaceship CM+LM has mass about 20 500 kg. What is your velocity away from Earth? 1 000 m/s? Can the LM descent stage rocket engines 46.7 kN thrust stop the CM+LM and bring it into direction towards Earth forgetting the Moon? The LM descent stage carried 8 212 kg of fuel. The dry mass of the LM ascent stage was 2 180 kg and it held 2 639 kg (or 2 353 kg) of propellant but it could not be used.

Say that you use all 8 212 kg descent stage fuel and that it produces 1 MJ/kg energy, i.e. you have total 8.212 GJ energy to play with. The 20 500 kg spaceship at 1 000 m/s speed has 20 500x1000²/2 = 10.25 GJ kinetic start energy, so it seems you can hardly stop at all and get a push back towards Earth using the descent stage engine.

NASA therefore suggested that a free return trajectory was used.

A free return trajectory is apparently quite simple, if you happen to be by luck between Earth and Moon and very close to the Moon. Instead of braking to 0 m/s still under Earth gravity control and drop back to Earth by its gravity force that requires a lot of, maybe 10 GJ energy (see above) that you do not carry with you, you just steer your space ship - Apollo 13 - at the right speed to a fair (?) distance ahead of the Moon that moves at 1 023 m/s speed and then swing exactly 180° around the Moon using it's gravity force and then you get away from the Moon, while being under Earth gravity again, i.e. the Moon gravity does increase your velocity while also changes your direction 180°, blah, blah. One question is could the LM descent engine steer the 20 500 kg CM+LM space ship to the right position off the moving Moon. How much fuel was actually used for that maneuver, NASA cannot tell! Imagine your moving space ship - Apollo 13 - is suddenly attracted by moving Moon gravity that swings you around 180° and then Moon gravity stops and Earth gravity takes over again. Magic!

It is the famous problem to calculate the gravitational forces between three objects in space with different masses - Earth, Moon and Apollo 11 or 13 - and to see what happens. To solve it when the three objects are stationary is difficult, to solve it, when two objects - Moon and Apollo 11 or 13 - move relative each other and relative Earth (assumed fix), is impossible. When the Moon's gravity force on Apollo 11 is greater than the Earth's gravity force on Apollo 11, Apollo 11 evidently accelerated towards the Moon and may have crashed unless being steered or braking into orbit around the moving Moon orbiting Earth as originally planned applying a brake force (as outlined above Events #5 and 6). It may work ... if you have enough fuel.

For Apollo 13 it was another maneuver! It was suggested that the momentum of Apollo13 kept Apollo 13 moving away from the moving Moon and that the gravity force of the Moon just permitted Apollo 13 to swing around the moving Moon 180° - at variable speed - and that then, suddenly, Earth gravity force took over and pulled Apollo 13 straight back towards Earth (at increasing speed), while the Moon continued orbiting Earth at 1 023 m/s speed. What a performance. Sitting in the LM doing it! Sorry, I do not believe it was possible. It is a typical NASA SF invention!

Had the spaceship missed to use Moon gravity for a free swing, Apollo 13 would have continued out in space somewhere and stopped taking weeks to drop back on Earth.

Another alternative would thus have been to miss the Moon completely and allow Earth gravity to slow you down until velocity is 0 m/s, when you automatically drop back on Earth. But it may have taken a couple of weeks and you would starve to death in the meantime.

At arrival Earth the lunar (LM) module was dropped off to burn up in Earth's atmosphere we are told, while the Apollo 13 CM landed peacefully similar to Apollo 11 CM described below. I have a distinct feeling the whole Apollo 13 show was another SF fantasy. The incident of the exploding fuel tank and the miraculous free return trajectory was later investigated, by, i.a. Neil Armstrong , the first asstronuthole on the Moon and thus a real clown. 

 

1.16 Re-entry and skip re-entry

There are many different descriptions of re-entry or how space ships are supposed to brake before landing on Earth, e.g. a nonsensical Wiki attempt or this, even worse nonsense.

One proposal is that a skip entry trajectory was used (see right), i.e. that the space vehicle enters the very thin atmosphere at small angle at 130 000 meters altitude and slows down and then exists the atmosphere again (into a Keplerian phase!) while slowing down and then makes a 2nd entry at some lower speed, why and how it should be necessary?

The Apollo 11 command module (CM) was essentially a blunted cone with a spherical-segment base as per figure right below. On the homeward leg of the journey through space, immediately prior to reaching the entry interface (400.000 feet ~130 000 m), the spacecraft was oriented at a predicted aerodynamic trim attitude with the blunt base with heat shield forward, NASA told us.

"The Apollo-CM was designed using incorrect pitching moments determined through inaccurate real-gas modeling. The Apollo-CM's trim-angle angle of attack (sic) was higher than originally estimated, resulting in a narrower lunar return entry corridor",

NASA told us later. In spite of this Apollo 11 CM managed to get down in one piece.

The blunt design produces the drag necessary to efficiently dissipate the kinetic energy associated with entry velocitiy of the lunar return mission. Note that the CM had a little side window so that the asstronuts could see out. At entry into Earth atmosphere entry control (an amazing NASA document - 100% science fiction) was as follows (and had been tested full-scale before without pilots) all controlled by a robot or computer:

"… After the CM separated from the SM and prior to reaching the entry interface at 130.000 m altitude and an entry velocity of 11 200 m/s (or 36 545 ft/sec), the spacecraft was oriented in pitch with its stability axis along the AGC-estimated relative wind-velocity vector with a bank-angle attitude of 0°, or lift up …. The spacecraft attitude was then maintained by aerodynamic lift forces and moments. Control of the rotational rates was retained in the rate damping mode. The roll rate gyro was coupled to the yaw electronics to give coordinated roll control about the velocity vector rather than about the spacecraft body X-axis. At the entry interface, the initial roll program of the INITIAL ENTRY phase was in command …"

Apollo CM with side window. Heat shield was fitted on rounded right spherical side

It sounds easy, doesn't it? The asstronuts did nothing - just watched out through the window - while the computer and some roll and yaw gyros managed to keep the CM on track while braking. Aerodynamic forces at 130 000 m altitude?

 

1.17 Braking before splash down on Earth ... is very important!

The deceleration and splash down on Earth is quite strange. The CM with mass m9 or 5 557 (or 5 960) kg (the SM has just been dropped off) arrives into the Earth atmosphere (event #18) at 7/24/69 16.21.14 UT with 11 034 m/s entry speed (same speed you need to go to the Moon in the first place!) due to strong Earth gravity during 2 or 3 days or 90% of the distance from Moon and all potential energy (distance from Earth) is transformed into kinetic energy and velocity 11 034 m/s. Then only the drag force brakes the module for 560 seconds, when, after 9 minutes from entry, the parachutes were deployed at low speed and the CM splashes down 29 minutes and 21 seconds after entry (7/24/69 16.50.35 UT) in the Pacific just outside California or Hawaii or somewhere.

The CM down-up-down trajectory in the atmosphere was maybe something like shown right (the Apollo 4 test run).

Typical entry trajectory (Apollo 4)

Note that the CM dips into the atmosphere at 400 000 feet (~120.000 m) altitude with 11 200 m/s velocity at ~2 400 nautical miles (4 440 km) from final destination - initial entry phase - and then gains height again (?) during an upcontrol or Keplerian phase before final entry phase ending with a drop straight down very quickly from 120.000 feet (36 000 m) altitude and create a splash down. Parachutes are deployed at the last moment. How the velocity is reduced, how the 'trim angle' is adjusted, how rotations of the module around itself is prevented and how the lift force is modified during the various initial/upcontrol/final entry phases are not clear at all. The figures seem to be the NASA's usually confusing, contradictory, fantasy ones. There are plenty of those, e.g.:

Typical re-entry
According http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/26day9-reentry.htm the CM lost contact with Houston at 195:03:06 hrs (after start) when speed was 10 970 m/s and re-established contact at 195:12:31 hrs, i.e. 565 seconds later, when the chutes were up and speed was nominal <30 m/s. It would appear that the CM travelled about 3 107 500 meters in that time, while decelerating at 19.36 m/s². Splash down was at 195:18:18 hrs. The CM dropped down just in front of the reception team. Magic!

On Earth the atmosphere is quite complex with its various layers:

The troposphere begins at the surface and extends to between 9 km at the poles and 17 km at the equator, with some variation due to weather. The troposphere is mostly heated by transfer of energy from the surface, so on average the lowest part of the troposphere is warmest and temperature decreases with altitude. The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere. The stratosphere extends from the tropopause to about 50 km. Temperature increases with altitude due to increased absorption of ultraviolet radiation by the ozone layer, which restricts turbulence and mixing. The stratopause is the boundary between stratosphere and the mesosphere.


The mesosphere extends from the stratopause to 85 km. It is the layer where most meteors burn up upon entering the very thin low pressure atmosphere and lack of mass/atoms. Temperature decreases with altitude in the mesosphere. Above the mesosphere is the iono- or thermospehere extending 400-600 km above Earth where air/atoms are very rare and vacuum space starts, etc.

It is thus suggested by NASA [ ref [1] table 7-VII] that during 540 seconds CM speed was reduced from 11 200 m/s to 100 m/s only due to turbulence and friction drag (sic) in the Earth's very thin upper atmosphere ... and then parachutes were opened ... as seen right (Apollo 4).

With mean speed 5 565 m/s during this down-up-down braking (!) the CM travelled 3.005.000 m or 3 005 km down-up-down through Earth atmosphere, which is only 130 km deep, before splashdown in the Pacific outside California or Hawaii. Mean values of various parameters are very useful to get a feel of what is supposed to have happened.

(Apollo 4 (figure right) - in a test run - apparently slowed down from 11 200 (or 10 777) to 100 m/s in 710 seconds at average 15.6 m/s² deceleration or little slower than Apollo 11, i.e. brake trajectory distance was 4 440 km): 

The Apollo-4 (AS-501) command module which reentered the Earth's atmosphere at a velocity of 10.77 km/s (atmosphere relative speed at 121.9 km altitude) experienced a peak total heat flux (??) of 497 W/cm². 

The mean deceleration of Apollo 11 (velocity change divided by time elapsed) during travel through Earth atmosphere was 10 931/540 = 20.25 m/s² or 2.06g and the mean drag force due friction acting on the 5 557 kg CM was 112.53 kN or about 11.5 ton.


It is evidently not possible. You have to first, like the fantasy Shuttle or the ISS return modules (see below) be in orbit around the Earth or braking for it (using fuel) and then slowly decelerate/brake again using force for several days to stop at all without burning to Hell like a meteorite ... or the SM due to friction. Basic. It doesn't matter what angle you enter the atmosphere. Friction heat will burn you into smoke and gas like all meteors and meteorites dropping down on Earth.

Typical re-entry (Apollo 4)

The unit kinetic energy (J/kg) at 11 031 m/s is 60.84 MJ/kg! It is a lot! It - the energy of one kilogram moving at 11 031 m/s - is sufficient to raise temperature of 1 kg concrete (C = 880 J/kg°C) 69 138°C.

Actually anything entering Earth atmosphere at ~11 000 m/s immediately burns up and becomes gas, smoke ... nothing but atoms unless the forces acting on the object breaks it into small pieces ... that burn up. Except an Apollo 11 Command Module with three asstronots + a little heat shield wanting to have a shower or swim in the ocean, chat with president Nixon and tell the world about it at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx0Yx8vlrY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BI_ZehPOMwl . It looks as if they are not telling the truth.

But God must have assisted or as Lt. Comdr. John A. Piirto, USN Chaplain concluded:

"Let us pray. Lord, God, our Heavenly Father. Our minds are staggered and our spirit exalted with the magnitude and precision of this entire Apollo 11 mission. We have spent the past week in communal anxiety and hope as our astronauts sped through the glories and dangers of the heavens. As we try to understand and analyze the scope of this achievement for human life, our reason is overwhelmed with abounding gratitude and joy, even as we realize the increasing challenges of the future. This magnificent event illustrates anew what man can accomplish when purpose is firm and intent corporate. A man on the Moon was promised in this decade. And, though some were unconvinced, the reality is with us this morning, in the persons of astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins. We applaud their splendid exploits and we pour out our thanksgiving for their safe return to us, to their families, to all mankind. From our inmost beings, we sing humble, yet exuberant praise. May the great effort and commitment seen in this project, Apollo, inspire our lives to move similarly in other areas of need. May we the people by our enthusiasm and devotion and insight move to new landings in brotherhood, human concern, and mutual respect. May our country, afire with inventive leadership and backed by a committed followership, blaze new trails into all areas of human cares. See our enthusiasm and bless our joy with dedicated purpose for the many needs at hand. Link us in friendship with peoples throughout the world as we strive together to better the human condition. Grant us peace, beginning in our own hearts, and a mind attuned with good will toward our neighbor. All this we pray as our thanksgiving rings out to Thee. In the name of our Lord, amen."

Hallelujah!

Asstronots eating fake breakfast in Skylab before re-entry

What a stupid show! And people believe it! There were total six Apollo CM re-entries and later three Skylab (left) re-entries using Apollo CMs. All fake of course.

 

1.18 Conclusions about the Apollo 11 Moon visit

From a simple fuel (energy) analysis point of view it seems the Apollo 11 modules, SM, CM and LM, could never stop at the Moon in the first place and therefore could never return. It is a strong indication that the whole NASA Apollo program was a hoax by stupid science fiction writers paid by NASA ... to impress people 1969. Maybe only an empty CM was launched into Earth orbit (event #1) by a Saturn rocket at 7.500 m/s velocity and then the empty CM was orbiting Earth say 93-98 times, while the false Moon trip was broadcasted live on TV. The false CM then burnt up at re-entry. The real CM was simply dropped from an airplane at low altitude and never was in space at all ... .


Footage and sound from Moon of LM and asstronots stepping down into 120°C hot Moon soil, planting flag and fooling around were just a Hollywood 911 style propaganda movie broadcasted to confuse people. It is very easy to fake photos and voices for similar events.

The Apollo 11 CM displayed at a Washington, DC, museum, never orbited the Moon. Imagine that! It was never orbiting the Moon at all. Everything, incl. LM + flag on the Moon and SM (with CM) orbiting above, was just theater props or never existed. Imagine how easy it is to fool people with some films!

Reason why human Moon (or future Mars) travel is not possible as per the NASA Apollo fairy tale is that, with given heavy, great mass m (kg) of various modules and inefficient rocket engines, sufficient rocket fuel to enter/brake into Moon orbit (event #6), to get/accelerate out of Moon orbit (event #15) and to brake in Earth's atmosphere before splash down (event #19) on Earth cannot be carried along.

Actually only way to go to Moon and back is using very light weight robots and modules and to chose a long, slow velocity path through space using Sun's gravity, so that arrival speeds and energy requirements are minimum to reduce fuel consumption for braking and accelerating. Very complicated, though.

Lying asstronut dr Buzz - source

Prove me wrong and earn 1 000 000:-. Only fools believe human space travel is possible at all ... and there are many such persons, incl. PhDs of all kind, science doctors and rocket scientists all paid for by the military, etc, etc. But the hoax show must go on. The ISS and the Shuttle for example! Read on:

 

2.1 Comparison with getting down to Earth from the ISS 2011 with the Shuttle

The International Space Station, ISS, is, we are told, in a low Earth elliptical orbit that varies from 320 000 m to 400 000 m above the Earth's surface. The speed needed to achieve a stable low Earth orbit is about 7 800 m/s, but reduces with (higher) altitude. The Shuttle below allegedly visited the ISS 25 times before being phased out 2011 and sent to the California Science Center museum as an exhibition piece of a heap of scrap:

How to get away from the ISS down to Earth alive since the US Shuttle flights were cancelled 2011 is not really clear.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry

It is very simple for a space ship to return to Earth - just dip into the atmosphere and push the brake!

The brake? It is the pedal in the middle!

The Shuttle had ascended on an increasingly horizontal flight path under power from its main engines and external rockets and upon reaching 7 800 m/s necessary for low Earth orbit, the main engines were shut down. The Shuttle could then dock with the ISS.


The above Shuttle has done it 25 times, we are told! To return to Earth the Shuttle must evidently slow down a lot after undocking. Or speed up?

 

2.2 How Capt. Mark Kelly (video is a fake) landed the last Shuttle on Earth

The Shuttle return flights, in the old days, were something as follows as NASA can provide very little how the Shuttle returns and lands on Earth: Another source is http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-shuttle.htm/printable.

To slow the heavy Shuttle (69 000 - 78 000 kg depending on fuel aboard) down from its extreme orbit tangential speed, 7 800 m/s, (same as the ISS) we are told the Shuttle flipped around and actually flow backwards (sic) for a period of time - say 25 minutes, while braking to 200-300 m/s speed.

The two Orbital Maneuvering engines (OMs) thrust the Shuttle out of orbit and toward Earth. The two OMS can provide 52 800 N brake force (we are told) and if applied to an average mass Shuttle 73 500 kg, the deceleration will be 52 800/73 500 = 0.71 m/s². That is too little to stop the heavy Shuttle and we do not know the fuel consumption.

Compare with events #5 and 6 above. There you only reduce the speed of a 43 574 kg Apollo 11 space ship from 2 400 m/s to 1 500 m/s and you need 10 898 kg of fuel for it. It appears that the Shuttle rocket engines are (1) too weak to slow down the 78 000 kg Shuttle and (2) there is not fuel enough aboard the Shuttle to provide the thrust. I estimate you need 200-300 tons of fuel to slow down the Shuttle and that is evidently not possible. It explains the hazy NASA explanations of Shuttle re-entry in links above. So let's assume the OMs are 100% ineffective.

Source: http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/188586_10150116474323710_309913_n.jpg

Above (fake) photo is of US Air Force captain Mark Kelly floating in space of the ISS (or in an airplane against a green screen!) just prior to return to Earth in the last Shuttle. It is very simple to return to Earth from the ISS! Jump into the Shuttle, speed away from the ISS and then step on the brakes all the way down. But easier to trick film it at Hollywood. Then remember to kiss your wife Gaby Giffords on her head on arrival; the head that was hit by a bullet earlier. How to play guitar in the ISS swimmingpool = here!

Due to loss of potential energy and ineffective brake rockets the Shuttle total speed may now increase to about 9 000 m/s at an altitude of 130 000 m. Reason being things drop faster the longer they drop due gravity. The vertical speed is of the order 1 800 m/s and increasing and you would expect the Shuttle to crash in 60 seconds. The horizontal/tangential speed is of the order 8 800 m/s.

However, during reentry and landing, the Shuttle then was not powered by engines or gravity, NASA announces. Instead, it flow like a high-tech glider, relying first on its steering jets and then its aero surfaces, i.e. the small wings with flaps at back edges to control the airflow around it. Note that no Apollo 11 type heat shield is used. 

NASA must have done model tests in a wind tunnel or full scale tests to establish wind forces acting on the high-tech Shuttle glider, as no wind tunnel exists that provides 9 000 m/s winds ... of different densities and very low pressures.

Source

Earth's diameter at the Equator is 12 756.1 km and the ISS is orbiting only 350-400 km above Earth so the above figure is pure propaganda. You cannot overshot when returning from the ISS as you are always too close to Earth from start. You can only undershoot and crash or burn up ... as there is no re-entry corridor! You will actually always burn up. Why does US Federal Aviation Authority produce above garbage? To confuse?

So how could NASA know the forces and resulting movements of the Shuttle before sending it up into space? Will we ever know? Google just produces rubbish info:

Roughly half an hour (25 minutes) after the de-orbit burn, the 78.000 kg Shuttle began to encounter the effects of the atmosphere. Called entry interface, this point usually was at an altitude of about 130 000 m, and more than 8.000.000 m from landing at the Shuttle Landing Facility. 

It was time to fasten seat belts!

Average velocity during 30 minutes landing was about 4.500 m/s - so starting velocity was, as said above, 9.000 m/s (or 32 400 km/h or 20 120 mph) and final velocity 0 m/s, during 1 800 s. Average deceleration during 1 800 s landing is 5 m/s² or 0.51 g … only due to friction and airflow turbulence control with the small wing flaps.

The potential energy of the Shuttle at 130 000 m altitude is say 78 000 x 130 000 x 8 = 81.1 GJ (or 1.04 MJ/kg) and the kinetic energy of the Shuttle at 9 000 m/s velocity is 78000 x 9000²/2 = 3 159 GJ (or 40.5 MJ/kg), i.e. the latter dominates. 


Average external force acting on the 78 ton Shuttle while braking during 1 800 seconds is 390 000 N or about 39.7 ton, i.e. friction and wing flaps turbulence produce that force, ~50% of the Shuttle's own weight! Realistically that force would rip apart the Shuttle. Or at least brake the windows in the cockpit.

 

2.3 Maneuvering of the Shuttle for re-entry

Early in reentry, the Shuttle's orientation was controlled by the aft steering jets, the two OMs, part of the reaction control (?) system. When it is moving at about 9 000 m/s, the Shuttle starts hitting air molecules in the atmosphere and builds up heat from friction, approximately 1 650°C, according some source. If 40.5 MJ/KG energy would be applied to concrete, it would heat up 46 000°C, though! The Shuttle is covered with ceramic insulating materials designed to protect it from this heat. The materials include reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) on the wing surfaces and underside, high-temperature (sic) black surface insulation tiles on the upper forward fuselage and around the windows, white Nomex blankets on the upper payload bay doors, portions of the upper wing and mid/aft fuselage and low-temperature (sic) white surface tiles on the remaining areas. These materials are designed to absorb large quantities of heat without increasing their temperature very much, we are told. In other words, they have a high heat capacity (Source). It is of course very well! Nobody wants to burn up at re-entry.

How the high- and low-temperature tiles manage to reduce the speed of the Shuttle is; however, not clear. And why they are not simply ripped off the surface, they are attached to. We do not know how they were attached. Glue? Cement? What we know is that the whole Shuttle was a joke!

During re-entry, the aft steering jets help to keep the Shuttle at its 40 degree attitude, we are told, i.e. the Shuttle has now flipped over with nose forward. The hot ionized gases of the atmosphere that surround the Shuttle prevent radio communication with the ground for about 12 minutes (i.e., ionization blackout).

After this phase of the re-entry is successful, the Shuttle finally encounters the main air of the atmosphere and is able to fly like an airplane. The velocity is reduced as per figure right during the 5 000 km landing trajectory.

Source

Then, therefore, the Shuttle flies less like a spacecraft and more like an aircraft, we shall believe. Its aero surfaces - the wing flaps and rudder - gradually become active as air pressure builds. As those surfaces become usable, the steering jets turn off automatically. But how do you really brake? According to Wikipeculiar a Shuttle must at a re-entry speed of 7.800 m/s approach the atmosphere from space at an angle between 5.5° and 6.9° tangential to the entry point. Above 6.9° the friction will be excessive and the Shuttle will burn up or crash. Below 5.5° the Shuttle will bounce off and expulsion (sic) back into space will occur and you have to try again. According other sources the Shuttle flies backwards into the atmpsphere and the steering/brake jet engines reduce speed to say 300 m/s, when you flip around 180° and dip into the atmosphere. The whole Shuttle thing is evidently a backwards/forwards joke. Nobody seems to know how to land!

 

2.4 Wing flaps and rudder movements decelerate the Shuttle

Above NASA "long (1 second) exposure" photo (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/573233main_image_2014_946-710.jpg) shows the space shuttle Atlantis, appearing like a bean sprout against clouds and city lights, on its way home braking through the atmosphere, as outlined above and below. It was allegedly long exposured taken by the Expedition 28 crew of the International Space Station. Airglow over Earth can be seen in the background if you have sharp eyes. I can just see clouds. The photo does not look real in my view, i.e. it is another NASA fake.

One of my ex NASA PR-agents Daggerstab wonders "Ever heard of "long exposure", Björkman?" He is another stupid NASA SF writer trying to make ends meet in Arizona! Try to make a long exposure of Earth below photo from a space vehicle at 7 800 m/s speed? Thanks for the PR!

Zakalwe is another Apollohoax fool, ex NASA, believing that taking 6 hrs exposure photos from Earth through a, probably stabilized, telescope (if the photo is real) is same as clicking one second faked photos from a non-existing ISS. Back to subject. Any high speed, 7 800 m/s, ISS photographer must come back on Earth and stop at 0 m/s and show his photos ... how is it done?

To use up excess energy whilst braking from 9 000 m/s to below 300 m/s velocity, for which Apollo 11 needed a heat shield, the Shuttle performed a series of four steep banks, rolling over as much as 80 degrees to one side or the other, to slow down, NASA suggests. The series of banks gives the Shuttle's track toward landing an appearance similar to an elongated letter "S." How that produce brake force is not clear.

Here are three (100% fake) videos, 1, 2 ,3 of what happens inside the dark Shuttle cockpit at re-entries. It seems they fly forwards while looking out through the windows that don't melt due to friction or is pushed in due to high external pressure, etc. The cockpit is probably a simple mock-up fixed on the ground in a NASA studio as part of the cheap hoax. 

The last US pilot allegedly doing these remarkable, impossible maneuvers 2011 was US super hero Capt. Mark Kelly, whose wife US Congress woman Gaby Giffords had been shot in the head some time earlier at a Tucson, AZ, supermarket. Crazy world, to say the least, isn't it? Actually the pilot Mark Kelly did nothing at this stage but watched the show strapped in his seat with 0.51g acting on him. The Shuttle was on auto-pilot. If the pilot was not strapped, he would fly through the windows in front of him. See Mark Kelly at the ISS in a fake video prior re-entry!

As the Shuttle sliced through the atmosphere faster than the speed of sound (say 340 m/s), the sonic boom -- really, two distinct claps less than a second apart -- could be heard across parts of Florida, depending on the flight path, we are told. 

Yes, we could, according NASA, both see (at least from above if you were on the ISS!) and hear (a double sonic boom!!) when a space ship was re-entering Earth atmosphere from space, e.g. a shuttle from the ISS:

 "Although it is possible to view a spacecraft reentry with the unaided eye, it is not possible to see the Shuttle reentry if the reentry flight path is in broad daylight since the plasma trail created as the Shuttle passes through the atmosphere is not bright enough to contrast with the sky. Naked eye viewing of the reentry itself is best when the observer's site has very clear skies, and the observer is in complete darkness or very close to local sunrise or sunset if you know precisely where to look. 

Even if you know you cannot see the Shuttle reentry due to lighting or cloud problems, it is possible to hear the double sonic boom from the Shuttle if it is not too far away. It takes sounds about 1100 feet/sec (300 m/s) to propagate to the ground; thus if the Shuttle is 200,000 feet (60 000 m) away from you at its closest distance during reentry along your line of sight, it would nominally take around 96 seconds for the sound to reach your ears AFTER the shuttle passed that point. For the human ear to detect the boom(s) you should be far away from noises, especially traffic noise."

OK, a plasma trail, whatever it is, can maybe not be seen - what is it?, and of course, that clouds, rain and fog will make seeing difficult is obvious. But hearing?

As noise cannot propagate in vacuum and propagates extremely slow in a thin atmosphere, e.g. 1 000 times slower than a landing space ship itself at 130 000 m altitude, how can a sonic boom or two claps (?) from a shuttle propagate from space to ground?

A sonic boom only occurs when a jet plane, close to ground, accelerates and pushes air waves ahead of it that cannot escape and then the air produces a sonic boom, when the plane accelerates beyond the local speed of sound.

Typical sonic boom overpressure of a space Shuttle is only 1.25 pounds at speed of Mach 1.5, i.e. abt. 450 m/s at 18 000 m (60,000 feet) altitude at landing approach, NASA tells us. You wonder of course what the overpressure was at 9 000 m/s speed? Wouldn't it tear the Shuttle apart? Or at least break the front window?

No! The Shuttle's original velocity of 9 000 m/s then eased, we are happy to be told, below the speed of sound (340 m/s at sea level and 20°C) about 25 statute miles (40 000 m) from the runway. As the Shuttle nears the Shuttle Landing Facility, SLF, the commander, i.e. the pilot, e.g. super hero Kelly, finally takes manual control, piloting the vehicle to touchdown on one of two ends of the SLF. 

The above apparently applies to the Shuttle getting back in one piece from the ISS to Earth using very advanced, impossible (?) braking maneuvers using friction and air turbulence, believe it or not. It seems very complicated compared with Apollo 11's heat shield ... and equally impossible. Maybe the Shuttle was just launched from an airplane at 10 000 meter altitude, made a short supersonic flight to produce a sonic boom and then landed on the SLF with cameras recording the show 30 minutes later? It never went to the ISS. Somebody should ask Capt. Kelly (retired) about it.

 

2.5 Christer Fuglesang

Christer Fuglsang is a Swedish asstronut that has participated in two Space Shuttle missions 2006 and 2008 and done five spacewalks, and is the first person outside of the United States or Russian space programs to participate in more than three spacewalks. Christer is today a professor at The Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden. I have evidently asked asstronot Christer to explain how he managed to re-enter and land on Earth with the Shuttle after the visits in space and to collect 1M winning my Challenge. Evidently Christer has not been able to collect. It would appear that Christer has never been in space. Christer is just a bad actor. And a very stupid engineer. Christer proves my point - moon travel does not work, BUT, there is plenty money to collect from stupid tax payers, when you suggest otherwise. Stupid taxpayers love cheating.

 

2.6 The US Space Shuttle

I believe the US Space Shuttle is a 100% hoax. The vehicle shown landing below is just an empty mock-up or model of a Shuttle weighing say 5 tons that has been dropped off from an air plane. The landing gear seems suitable just for that. That the Shuttle has been up in space and performed a re-entry heating up the bottom (and the landing gear) is not possible.

Shuttle Atlantis May 2009 landing hoax

 

 

3.1 Latest re-entry news 2013

Nowadays you allegedly fly to the ISS and back (re-entry!) using a Russian Soyuz space capsule. How it manages to get down on Earth undamaged is not clear:

"There are 3 different types of descent profiles (sic) for the Soyuz. The normal type of landing is a controlled descent, where the automation software constantly orients the descent vehicle (i.e. the Soyuz space capsule) by its flat lower part to the Earth, ensuring lift due to the incidental airflow, and also inflicting minimum overloads on the crew up to 4 gravities. If for whatever reason the automation fails (as has happened in the TMA series to date with Soyuz TMA-1, TMA-10 and TMA-11) a backup program prompts the capsule to enter on a shorter and more severe ballistic trajectory. The capsule is rotated around its axis to mimimize the g-forces on the crew (it would otherwise fall like a stone and possibly kill them), though they still experience up to 8.5 g’s."

 It sound easy Automatic or using a back-up! Another Soyuz re-entry description is:

... the Soyuz has an unusual sequence of events prior to re-entry. The spacecraft is turned engine-forward and the main engine is fired for de-orbiting fully 180° ahead of its planned landing site. This requires the least propellant for re-entry, the spacecraft traveling on an elliptical Hohmann orbit to a point where it will be low enough in the atmosphere to re-enter.

Early Soyuz spacecraft would then have the service and orbital modules detach simultaneously. As they are connected by tubing and electrical cables to the descent module, this would aid in their separation and avoid having the descent module alter its orientation. Later Soyuz spacecraft detach the orbital module before firing the main engine, which saves even more propellant, enabling the descent module to return more payload. In no case can the orbital module remain in orbit as an addition to a space station, for the hatch enabling it to function as an airlock is part of the descent module.

Re-entry firing is done on the "dawn" side of the Earth, so that the spacecraft can be seen by recovery helicopters as it descends in the evening twilight, illuminated by the sun when it is above the shadow of the Earth.  

Hohmann transfer orbits work to bring a spacecraft from a higher orbit into a lower one

According NASA the propulsion compartment of a Soyuz space capsule:

... contains the system that is used to perform any maneuvers while in orbit, including rendezvous and docking with the Space Station and the deorbit burns necessary to return to Earth. The propellants are nitrogen tetroxide and unsymmetric-dimethylhydrazine. The main propulsion system and the smaller reaction control system, used for attitude changes while in space, share the same propellant tanks.

How much fuel is carried and how much fuel is used to de-orbit are not clear anywhere (of course)!

A Soyuz space capsule return from the ISS takes only 3 hours 23 minutes, we are told. For a small body orbiting another, very much larger body (such as a satellite orbiting the earth), the total energy of the orbiting body, i.e. the Soyuz capsule, is the sum of its kinetic energy and potential energy. The Soyuz capsule may have a mass of 3.000 kg and an initial speed of 7.500 m/s at 400.000 m altitude and probably 7.850 m/s at 121.920 m altitude (the total energy remains same in spite of the de-orbit burn) ... i.e. orbital speed increases at lower altitude, when you re-enter.

When Apollo 11 re-entered from the Moon in 1969 it went straight into the atmosphere at 11 400 m/s speed, then up again and then down again and landed. The Soyuz space capsule apparently takes it easier using its rocket engine to de-orbit Hohmann style during three hours 15 minutes and get down to a lower altitude ... but then is goes into the atmosphere at say 7.850 m/s speed and 8 minutes later parachutes are deployed.

The Soyuz spacecraft is thus released from the ISS at a suitable time and 3 hours 15 minutes later, after a de-orbit burn ,it reaches atmosphere Entry Interface at 121 920 m altitude and probably 7 850 m/s velocity and Russian re-entry starts. Only 8 minutes later parachutes are deployed, probably at <100 m/s velocity and 15 minutes later the space craft lands. But how is it done?

The deceleration during re-entry and parachute deployment is 7.750/480 = 16.15 m/s² and with average velocity 3 975 m/s during 480 s, the trajectory during re-entry is 1 908 000 m. You should of course wonder what kind of Russian heat shield can perform such a deceleration without burning up?

Soyuz space capsule re-entry and landning - easy as a pie!

Neither NASA nor the Russian space agency will inform how the braking - the reduction of speed - in atmosphere takes place and what type of heat shield is used! 

A 1974 description of US and Soviet re-entries is found here. The Soviets then re-entered like a bullet and nobody knows how it stopped. The US therefore preferred a blunt shape with a heat shield with an ablative coating for re-entry. How it works is still 2014 or 40 years later not known.

The private US SpaceX space ship Dragon has done the same, impossible, thing starting October 28, 2012, when the Dragon capsule dropped into the Pacific just outside Los Angeles. Its PICA-X heat shield is private property, i.e. no details are available. I evidently assume the SpaceX Dragon was dropped into the Pacific from a plane having taken off from a nearby airport ... Hollywood style ... and never visited the ISS .

PICA stands for Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator. Like all the other ablative heat shields, PICA-X is salvageable rather than truly reusable, SpaceX tells us. The improved and easier to manufacture version called PICA-X was developed by SpaceX in 2006-2010 for the Dragon space capsule.

The first re-entry test of a PICA-X heat shield was on the Dragon C1 mission on 8 December 2010. The PICA-X heat shield was designed, developed and fully qualified by a small team of only a dozen engineers and technicians in less than four years. PICA-X is ten times less expensive to manufacture than the NASA PICA heat shield material. Imagine that - 10 times less expensive to manufacture! But does it really work? There is no evidence available anywhere.

So what idiots are up there at the ISS using heat shields getting down that have not been tested, you should ask? 

Answer is probably nobody. The whole thing is a stupid joke, i.e. a hoax, mainly paid for by US tax payers with the Russians chipping in some kopeks or rubels. It is interesting to note that the same asskosmonites are now going back up there to the ISS ... to keep the number of people in the know to a minimum.

 

3.2 The X-37B unmanned space ship landing October 2014

In October 2014 the US Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office informed that they had - top secret - sent another Shuttle like space ship into space 2 years earlier orbiting Earth - like the ISF - and that it had just made a succesful re-entry and landed. If you have read until here, you understand it is just another US 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. Doesn't cost much. But not funny. Just stupid.

 

4.1 NASA is again fooling the world 5-6 August 2012 - Did friction or a parachute decelerate the Mars Science Laboratory spaceship in the very thin Mars atmosphere?

The Mars Science Laboratory, MSL, space craft is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory and the landing on Mars (?) at http://www.bis-space.com/2012/08/03/642 ... pdate-no-4.

The Mars Science Laboratory, MSL, spacecraft had an entry-descent-landing (EDL) system (2 401 kg + 390 kg of propellant) and an 899 kg (1,980 lb) mobile rover with an integrated instrument package, total weight 3 690 kg. It had been dispatched from Earth at great velocity months earlier direction Mars. During trip to Mars the start velocity was slowed down by Sun gravity. The MSL apparently was approaching planet Mars at velocity about 6 000 m/s due to Mars gravity working on it for some time prior arrival and no braking was taking place, so the kinetic energy involved was 66.42 GJ (which is quite a lot - 18 450 kWh) at entry Mars atmosphere.

On 5-6 August 2012 the Mars Science Laboratory (watch the stupid video) space ship allegedly landed on Mars according NASA/JPL (watch the stupid reportage). The below figure (based on info from links above) of the parabolic descent is evidently not to scale. The spacecraft enters the Mars atmosphere at a very small angle of inclination and then travels over 1 200 kilometers in the Mars atmosphere before reaching the Touchdown area:

Also at http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/interactives/edlcuriosity/indexV2-2.html

The thin Mars atmosphere between 125 000 and 11 000 meters decelerated the MSL by friction from 6 000 m/s to 450 m/s during 255 seconds. With average speed 3 225 m/s the friction only brake distance was 822 375 meters. A parachute was reportedly deployed to start braking the space craft at 11 000 meter altitude ... at speed 450 m/s. The parachute ride lasted 165 seconds. You really wonder what magic parachute can do that! The parachute, allegedly built by Pioneer Aerospace, South Windsor, Connecticut, had 80 suspension lines, measured more than 50 meters in length, and opened to a diameter of nearly 17 meters. It is the largest disk-gap-band parachute ever built. If it really worked in the thin Mars atmosphere is not proven anywhere. Mars' atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's and I have doubts that a parachute will work there.

 

4.2 7 minutes of terror

The space craft rover landed 420 seconds later at virtually 0 m/s speed. Imagine that! The MSL space craft landed 4 times quicker on Mars than Apollo 11 on Earth 43 years earlier. There is progress. JPL called it seven minutes of terror. You wonder why? It was all automatic.

The Mars atmosphere is pretty thin and light; atmospheric pressure on the Mars ground is only 10 hPa compared with a pressure of 1 000 hPa on Earth. In spite of this, we are told the parachute worked. The last 20 seconds rockets assisted the braking. Mars gravity is also much weaker than Earth gravity.

The entry velocity was 6 000 m/s. How NASA knows the velocity of its space crafts is not explained anywhere (but it was by another sputnik orbiting Mars). Time from Entry into Mars atmosphere until Touchdown at Ground Zero was then 420 seconds.

The average speed in Mars atmosphere was thus 3 225 m/s during 255 seconds and 225 m/s during 165 seconds. It means that the MSL space craft travelled 822 375 meter in the Mars atmosphere without parachute and 37 125 meter hanging in a parachute.

The vertical travel down was only 125 000 meter through the Mars atmosphere. 114 000 meter took 255 seconds or average 447 m/s. The last 11 000 meter took 165 seconds or average 67 m/s.

The angle of entry into the thin top Mars atmosphere must have been something like 5.67°or close to horizontal.

Imagine if the entry into the atmosphere at 125 000 meter altitude had been deployed 15 seconds too late and that braking had started 15 seconds late. What would be the result? Right - the space craft would have landed 90 kilometers away from the planned Touchdown position in the 150 kilometers diameter Gale crater! Only 90 kilometers. It might have hit the side of the 5 000 meters high mountains around the Gale crater then.

Imagine if the parachute was less effective than expected (as it had never been tested in a thin atmosphere) and the average vertical velocity was 20% greater or 80 m/s during decent. What would be the result? Right - the space craft would touch ground after 137 seconds at high absolute velocity. The space craft would probably crash.

On the other hand imagine, if the average vertical decent speed was 20% less, you would stop high above ground and drop down vertically below the parachutes at the end. No rockets would be required at all!

NASA/JPL cannot use average velocities to predict the location of Touchdown. They must use an algorithm that calculates absolute positions and velocities in 3-D all the time, while the spaceship is decelerated by the parachute ... and adjust if something goes wrong!

Let's face it. There is no way that a parachute of any kind can be used to stop a space craft with 3 690 kg mass and 6 000 m/s entry velocity after a 860 kilometer ride through thin Mars atmosphere at a given, pre-planned spot on Mars. It only happens in SF fairy tales. Prove me wrong and earn 1M!

As above was not possible, JPL has published another scenario:

Sources: http://www.futura-sciences.com/uploads/RTEmagicP_curiosity_detailDescente_mex_nasa_txdam31215_386971.jpg and http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/t/astronautique/d/curiosity-la-nasa-et-lesa-preparent-larrivee-du-robot-sur-mars_40302/

Above is another fantastic suggestion how the Mars Science Laboratory spaceship landed on Mars during seven minutes (and 12 seconds) of terror.

Time of Event Occurrence at Mars (PDT) http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/edl20120809.html

[10:10:45.7 PM] Atmospheric Entry

[10:15:04.9 PM] Parachute Deploy (259.2 seconds later! at 11 000 meters altitude)

[10:15:24.6 PM] Heat Shield Separation (seen from the Rover - http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14661 + clicking)

[10:17:38.6 PM] Rover Separation (from Descent Stage) (2 minutes 14 seconds later)

[10:17:57.3 PM] Touchdown (18.7 seconds later) (Scrap around the Curiosity Rover - http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14661 + clicking)

Time Event Occurrence Received on Earth (PDT) i.e. 13 minutes and 48.5 seconds later:

[10:24:33.8 PM] Atmospheric Entry

[10:28:53.0 PM] Parachute Deploy

[10:29:12.7 PM] Heat Shield Separation

[10:31:26.7 PM] Rover Separation (from Descent Stage)

[10:31:45.4 PM] Touchdown

 

4.3 Let Mars atmosphere slow down the spaceship!

Here the MSL spaceship arrives into Mars carbon dioxide atmosphere at altitude 125 000 m at 5 900 m/s velocity at time 0 sec and doesn't brake at all and no parachute is deployed! JPL has no idea at what angle the spaceship must arrive at ... and how to adjust it. If the angle is 90°, the spaceship will hit ground after only 25 seconds or so or burn up before and that is not funny. No, the space ship must arrive at a small angle, ~5°, and decelerate due friction, while Mars gravity pulls it down to ground. It is the very thin Mars atmosphere that manages to reduce the speed of the spaceship by friction (!) and when velocity is only 405 m/s 259.2 (or 454?) seconds later, the famous parachute is deployed at only 11 000 meter altitude.

In a later, fantastic, fantasy document (http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/41629/1/10-1775.pdf) by Messrs. Adam D. Steltzner , P. Dan Burkhart, Allen Chen, Keith A. Comeaux, Carl S. Guernsey, Devin M. Kipp, Leila V. Lorenzoni, Gavin F. Mendeck*, Richard W. Powell**, Tommaso P. Rivellini, A. Miguel San Martin, Steven W. Sell, Ravi Prakash and David W. Way** of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, tel 818-393-6708, Ravi.Prakash@jpl.nasa.gov , (*NASA Johnson Space Flight Center, Houston, TX, **NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA) we are told that "The entry configuration is shown in Figure 3a, along with approximate directions of lift, drag, gravity, and velocity vectors. The spacecraft retains this configuration until the parachute descent phase, shown in Figure 3b". Figure 3a is right.


The speed is reduced from 5 900 to 405 m/s in only 259.2 seconds ... and only by friction and turbulence between spaceship's Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) heat shield and the 125 000 meter or 125 km deep but very light Mars carbon dioxide atmosphere.

Of course the spaceship must have travelled a 817 128 meters trajectory or 817 km (and descending 114 km) then through the Mars atmosphere ... like a bullet ... during that time ... all predicted by the spaceship board computer and at JPL control center 14 light minutes away.

Note that the MSL space ship stops much much quicker than Apollo 11, 1969, due friction in spite of Mars' atmosphere being much, much thinner than Earth's.

Isn't it strange? There are four basic physical models of a gas that are important to aeronautical engineers who design heat shields ... but none can be used to explain the MSL deceleration entering Mars' mostly carbon dioxide atmosphere.

Or from the JPL press kit pp 28.

"During EDL, more than nine-tenths of the deceleration before landing results from friction with the Mars atmosphere before the parachute opens. Peak heating occurs about 75 seconds after atmospheric entry, when the temperature at the external surface of the heat shield will reach about 3,800 degrees Fahrenheit (about 2,100 degrees Celsius). Peak deceleration occurs about 10 seconds later. Deceleration could reach 15 g, but a peak in the range of 10 g to 11 g is more likely."

The unit kinetic energy transformed into heat in 259.2 seconds is 17.32 MJ/kg and if the space ship's heat shield is of concrete with C = 880 J/kg °K, its temperature will rise by 19.685°K. JPL thinks it only heats up 2 100°C. Evidently it will burn up and disappear long before that or the brake forces rip apart the heat shield. But on film above it drops off undamaged at 10:29:12.7 PM or 13 minutes and 48.5 seconds earlier on Mars. Just behind the heat shield is the Rover! JPL suggests it is unaffected by the heat and forces of the heat shield.

Mean values of various parameters are as already stated above very useful to get a feel of what is supposed to have happened.

The mean deceleration during travel through Mars atmosphere until parachute deployment was 5 495/259.2 = 21.20 m/s² (every second the speed was reduced 21.20 m/s!) or 2.16 g and the mean drag force acting on the 3 690 kg MSL spaceship due friction was 78 227 N or about 8.0 ton (on Earth). Note that friction in the Mars atmosphere is much bigger than on Earth, when Apollo 11 came dropping down. Magic, isn't it? The Mars atmosphere is thinner than Earth's but applies more friction.


Such strong braking force due friction and turbulence in thin Mars atmosphere is not possible and a clear evidence of a hoax. Because you should really wonder why the parachute then was used on Mars? To reduce speed further from 405 to 80 m/s during 110 seconds? Mars atmosphere friction would do it much faster - actually in (405-80)/21.2 = 15.3 seconds just going the extra time and distance through the atmosphere! But the spaceship has burnt up long before. JPL thinks the parachute can only decelerate the spacecraft to 200 mph or ~80 m/s and then rockets are needed. So this happens:

 

4.4 The parachute ride

#1. The parachute was allegedly deployed at 11 000 m altitude 254 (or 259.2) seconds after entry into Mars atmosphere. Space craft velocity was then 405 m/s (or 450?) at an unknown angle of inclination. There is no means to control the parachute. The spaceship just hangs on to it. It is filmed by a US sputnik that happens to pass (sic) in orbit around Mars.

#2. The heat shield was dropped off automatically at 8 000 m altitude 278 seconds after entry into Mars atmosphere, i.e. 24 seconds after parachute was deployed. The Rover is now exposed. Velocity was then 125 m/s. Average speed during these 24 seconds (events #1 and #2) was 265 m/s, average deceleration was 11.67 m/s² and total distance travelled 6 360 m. Vertical drop was about 3 000 m. Average vertical velocity was 3 000/24 = 125 m/s. Average inclination was about 28°. The 50 kg parachute was apparently subject to 43 000 N shock load after event #1 lasting 24 seconds.

#3. Back shell separation and end of parachute travel took place at 1 600 m altitude 364 seconds after entry into Mars atmosphere, i.e. 86 seconds after heat shield was dropped off. Velocity was then 80 m/s. Average speed during these 86 seconds (events #2 and #3) was 102.5 m/s, average deceleration was 0.52 m/s² and total distance travelled 8 815 m. Vertical drop was about 6 400 m. Average vertical velocity was 6 400/86 = 74 m/s. Average inclination was about 47°.

#1-#3 are just JPL science fiction fantasies.

 

4.5 The Sky Crane

The last stage of the Rover trip to Mars was via a Sky Crane designed by a certain Marc Rober of Team-X. No details are really available about the magic Sky Crane from JPL management and NASA because they are secret at the request of the Missile Defense Agency (sic) of the US Department of Defense, who has "a substantial interest" in the NASA records.

 

4.6 Another simple analysis of the alleged NASA/JPL Mars Rover landing

Below figure shows planet Mars with radius r = 3 386 km and its atmosphere with depth a = 125 km (not to scale or proportion). The Mars Science Lab spaceship was said to arrive at top of the Mars atmosphere at 5 900 m/s velocity and, if the approach angle is15.34°, the Mars horizon is d = 929 km straight away, because the Mars ground is curved (like Earth!). Can the MSL space ship stop and land within that distance on the curved Mars?

With average speed 2 950 m/s during landing it takes 929 000/2950 = 315 seconds (6 minutes, 15 seconds) to displace 929 km on a straight line, but during that time Mars gravity will pull the MSL towards ground and you will apparently land or touch ground earlier following a curved trajectory.

The course will follow something like the green line, and the approach angle then was much less than 15.34°. It would appear safe to approach Mars at an intermediate approach angle - the red line - and decelerate slower in the Mars atmosphere - like Apollo 11 - but then you will land far beyond the horizon and no other NASA/JPL satellite orbiting Mars can follow the show from above as happened with the MSL landing.

The MSL speed was reduced from 5 900 to 405 m/s in only 259.2 seconds in the Mars atmosphere due friction/turbulence we are told by JPL and then the green trajectory seems to have been used. The total distance passed should be of the order 817 km. Then most of the trajectory is in the very, very thin Mars atmosphere top layer that cannot possible reduce the speed of the MSL space ship. NASA/JPL staff suggest they, or the computers, can predict and calculate the curved trajectory from entry into the Mars atmosphere at 125 000 m altitude and landing on ground after 7 minutes of terror, i.e. by choosing the position of entry at 125 000 m altitude they can pinpoint the landing area ~800 000 m away, but there is no evidence for this suggestion.

Compare the Apollo 11 re-entry by NASA 1969 that during 1 761 seconds Apollo 11 Control Module speed was reduced from 11 200 m/s to 50 m/s only due to turbulence and friction (sic) in the Earth's atmosphere ... and then parachutes were opened. Apollo was decelerating for almost 10 000 km or 1/4 of Earth circumference ... and we know it was a hoax. The MSL stopped much, much faster in much, much thinner atmosphere, according to NASA/JPL. But it is fantasy. It is impossible to land on any planet using the NASA/JPL method.

I would therefore conclude that the NASA/JPL story of the MSL landing is a hoax - like the Apollo 11 one 43 years earlier - and that the responsible NASA/JPL people involved are simple crooks stealing money from the US tax payers (assisted by various other US agencies). I always invite the public to prove me wrong and earn 1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm .

 

4.7 Instrumentation

More nonsense about the MSL can be found in:  

MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY ENTRY, DESCENT, AND LANDING TRAJECTORY AND ATMOSPHERE RECONSTRUCTION (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130010087_2013009619.pdf) by Christopher D. Karlgaard, Prasad Kutty, Mark Schoenenberger and Jeremy Shidner

THE MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY (MSL) ENTRY, DESCENT AND LANDING INSTRUMENTATION (MEDLI): HARDWARE PERFORMANCE AND DATA RECONSTRUCTION (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130009743_2013009194.pdf) by lan Little, Deepak Bose, Chris Karlgaard, Michelle Munk, Chris Kuhl, Mark Schoenenberger, Chuck Antill, Ron Verhappen, and Prasad Kutty and Todd White 

Initial Assessment of Mars Science Laboratory Heatshield Instrumentation and Flight Data (http://www.ssdl.gatech.edu/papers/conferencePapers/AIAA-2013-0908.pdf) by Deepak Bose, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA, Todd White, ERC, Inc., Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA, Jose A. Santos, Sierra Lobo, Inc., Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA, Jay Feldman, ERC, Inc., Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA, Milad Mahzari, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA and Michael Olson¹ and Bernie Laub², NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA

It seems some fantastic sensors are fitted in the PICA heat shield to assist the fantasy landing. The sensors do not melt!

Camera used! (http://www.msss.com/all_projects/msl-mardi.php) It didn't melt either!

 

 

 

4.8 MSL Summary

Atmospheric friction deceleration on Mars was average 21.20 m/s² and could apparently reduce speed to 405 m/s according NASA/JPL, when a parachute was required, which initially decelerated the spaceship at 11.67 m/s² to 125 m/s velocity, later becoming average only 0.52 m/s² deceleration and only 80 m/s final velocity at 1 600 m altitude but still too much to land according JPL.

At 1 600 m altitude apparently the parachute was suddenly no longer effective as speed was too high and rockets had to be used to bring velocity to 0 while flying around a little to avoid getting entangled in the parachute and for show - all automatically while the Rover filmed the decent into the Gale crater and added some video game instruments for JPL to enjoy 14 minutes later.

 

4.9 Common sense overlooked ... as usual

It would evidently have been much better to use a little bigger parachute that decelerates the spaceship a little faster, so that absolute velocity had been say only 20 m/s in lieu of 80 m/s at 1 600 m altitude, so that, with final deceleration, say 0.125 m/s², you land at 0 speed 160 seconds later ... with the parachute. Or something like it. No need for rockets (!) that just complicate things. A well designed parachute should have done the job alone! But, sorry - the show must go on! Rockets add to the drama - that never took place.

It seems the JPL/NASA SF writers lack imagination. They make believe that the very fast MSL spaceship managed to decelerate from 5 900 to 80 m/s velocity in 6 minutes 4 seconds first by very thin Mars atmosphere friction and a heat shield, never tested in any wind tunnel lab or anywhere, and then by a big parachute that had never been tested in so thin atmosphere and that it can be predicted and controlled by 500 000 lines of software and a board computer! JPL/NASA failed to realize that they had to brake to 20 m/s in lieu of 80 m/s because then the parachute would also finish the job.

Sorry, it is physically impossible to stop a spaceship with speed 5 900 m/s as suggested. As impossible as a weak top of a tower crushes the stronger bottom by gravity.

The Mars spaceship + equipment burn up in the atmosphere after already 100-120 seconds due to friction regardless of entry angle. No heat shield can prevent it. So all footage of the MSL landing above and celebrations at JPL/Pasadena control center by clowns in blue T-shirts are just Hollywood propaganda ... as usual. And all pictures of Mars crater surface ... and old lake? ... sent later are fake, fake, fake. And the faking cannot stop! US tax payers pay. Soon there will be more fake pictures of Mars. I look forward to them. They will no doubt show traces of some sort of life on Mars 3 billion years ago. God also created life on Mars! Jesus! And towers that crushed themselves from top. What a joke! But US of A trust in God. Why not? If a country wants to waste its money, go ahead.

 

4.10 The latest NASA hoax October 2014 - Orion and its re-entry

The JPL clowns at Pasadena/California has produced a new space ship Orion. It will fly much higher in space than the International Fake Station for a quick trip - purpose unknown - and then return to Earth at 8.900 m/s (20.000 mph) velocity at 120.000 m (75 miles) altitude for a quick re-entry - like the Soyuz capsule - and splash down in the Pacific like Apollo 11+. But Kelly Smith of NASA is just a low paid Hollywood actor I am happy to reveal - if he exists at all? He looks like a computer animation or robot. Great fun though!

 

5. Summary of three US and one Russian space ship re-entries:

Space ship

Apollo 11 CM

Shuttle

Soyuz capsule 2012

MSL

and their particulars

Re-entry mass (kg)

5 557

78 000

3 000 (assumed)

3 690

m

Re-entry speed (m/s)

11 200

9 000

7 850

5 900

v1

Entering planet

Earth

Earth

Earth

Mars

x

Unit kinetic energy (MJ/kg)

63

41

30.8

17

(v1)²/2

Total kinetic energy (GJ) to absorb braking

349

3 159

93

64

m(v1)²/2

Unit temperature rise with C = 880 J/kg°C (concrete) (°C)

71 273

46 023

34 500

19 778

(v1)²/1760

Entry altitude (m)

400 000

130 000

121 920

125 000

x

Speed parachute deploy (m/s)

100

150

<100

405

v2

Altitude parachute deploy (m)

21 000

0

10 000 (assumed)

11 000

x

Time in seconds between atmosphere entry/parachute deploy (s)

1 080 (540 according other sources)

~1 800

480

259.2

t

Average kinetic energy loss due friction/turbulence every second (MJ/s)

322.7

1 755

~190

247

m((v1)²-( v2)²)/2t

Distance travelled in re-entry (m)

6 291 000

8 100 000

1 908 000

817 128

t(v1+ v2)/2

Mean deceleration in re-entry (m/s²)

10.3

5.0

16.15

21.2

(v1- v2)/t

Mean brake force in re-entry due friction/turbulence (N)

57 114

390 000

~48 000

78 228

m(v1- v2)/t

Gravity at planet ground, g (m/s²)

9.82

9.82

9.82

3.71

x

Planet atmosphere density at ground (kg/m3)

1.20

1.20

1.20

0.02

x

Planet atmosphere pressure at ground (hPa)

1 000

1 000

1 000

6-10

x

Heat shield diameter (m)

3.9

N.A.

?

4.5

xx

Heat shield mass (kg)

848

N.A.

?

? (secret ?)

SA

The Shuttle is the heaviest space ship - 78 000 kg - managing a re-entry. Apollo 11 had the highest re-entry speed - 11 200 m/s and therefore most kinetic energy (MJ) per mass (kg) - 62.72, but the Shuttle's total kinetic energy to transform into friction heat is the biggest - 3 159 (GJ). Those energies would increase the temperature of any space ship and the surroundings >19 000°C due friction and turbulence! Manned Apollo 11 and Shuttle do a re-entry in about 30 minutes with a mean deceleration of 0.64-0.51g and distances travelled in atmosphere are very long 8 000 - 10 000 km (1/4 of the Earth's circumference), while the unmanned MSL does a total re-entry at Mars in 'seven minutes of terror' at mean deceleration 2.15g and travelling only 817 km, which is quite long too.

Apollo 11 and MSL use a heat shield to absorb the kinetic energy as friction of the order 200-250 MJ/s or less (depending on the turbulence), while Shuttle is doing acrobatic flying causing turbulence to absorb 1 755 MJ/s energy. Little footage exists from the cockpit of a Shuttle during manual (!) re-entry maneuvering (how can you film with deceleration 0.5g during 30 minutes with all crew strapped to their seats and the pilot trying to fly the Shuttle?). Existing footage seems a joke.

The Shuttle was subject to a mean brake force (due friction and turbulence) of 390 000 N during re-entry or more than 10 times Apollo 11. The MSL mean brake force at Mars was 78 228 N or more than double Apollo 11 and you wonder how it is possible in the thin Mars atmosphere. Can a heat shield produce such big brake forces? It seems NASA/JPL cannot provide any scientific evidence for it.

The Mars' atmosphere is 100 times less dense than Earth's with a ground pressure 60 times lower, but Mars' atmosphere seems to be able to slow down re-entry for MSL twice quicker than for Apollo 11. NASA/JPL cannot provide any scientific evidence for it.

I have a distinct feeling that all types of known US space ship re-entry to any planet are hoaxes. The US space ships would just burn up or break up like a meteorite. Prove me wrong and earn 1 000 000:-. Actually the whole human space travel program promoted by USA/NASA 1959-2014 is a simple hoax. Only question is how long it will last!

Recommended video1

Recommended video2

Back to Heiwa Co start page