The Magic Human Space Travel Hoaxes 1959-2017

33 various new and old space staged events with and without humans aboard


 
Warning!

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

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

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

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

*Safety at sea is my business

Summary of this article

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning 2 for pseudoscience

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

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

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

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

All launches of >500 humans into space and their re-entries from space in various capsules and Shuttles 1961-2017 are fake! None ever took place! It was and is just a silly show to entertain us.


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

The RideNeverEnds

oo0oo

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 - SECURITY

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

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

Imagine that the POTUS Obama nominated this clown to pursue the Nationax Aeronautix and Xpace Administratiox' hoaxes. What a clown. But he is 2017 71 years old and must be replaced by another clown. It should not be difficult to find a replacement. You just have to lie about humans in space!

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

NAXA Administrator Charles X. Bolden, Jr. -

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

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

Credits: NAXA/Bill Ingalls

Part 1

1.1 Purpose of human space travel

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

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

1.4 US National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

1.5 NAXA's strawberries on the Moon plans

1.6 Never A Straight Answer

1.7 Impossible re-entry

1.8 Juri Gagarin re-entry

1.9 John Glenn re-entry

1.10 Space shuttles Challenger and Colombia disasters - all fake

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

1.12 Swedish National Space Board

Next page!

1.13 US X-37B

1.14 Orion

1.15 Mars One

1.16 New Horizons

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

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

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

1.19.1 Gravity assist kicks are not possible (1)

1.19.2 Gravity assist kicks are not possible (2)

1.19.3 Little fuel used for 14 years to reach the comet

1.19.4 The EXA con game goes on and on 2017

1.19.5 Water, deriterium and oxygen on the comet

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

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

1.22 US/USSR Space Hoax Cooperation 1974

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

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

1.25 Europe is also participating in the hoax

1.26 How can we travel faster in space

1.27 1945 Atomic bomb hoaxes

1.28 Physical reasons why human space travel is impossible

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

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

1.31 Blue Origin sub-orbital space travel

1.32 Flying combustion chambers

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

1.34 Arianespace - any mass, to any orbit, anytime

 

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

 

1.1 Purpose of human space travel

I write for people who can think for themselves and need some friendly back up! I try also to be simple and funny. I am a sceptic using clear, critical thinking. My normal business is safety at sea. It is not good. So I got interested in safety of human space travel. It is non-existing! Human space travel is a joke! I do actually understand that intelligent beings 2017 can believe in human space travel 1961, 1969 or 2069! They are simply brainwashed with false information. I was too for many years.

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


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

If you ask Google "what is purpose of human space travel?" you get 5.340.000 sites to look at in 0,41 seconds and #1 is:

"Human space exploration helps to address fundamental questions about our place in the Universe and the history of our solar system".

What the fundamental questions are, nobody knows, and why humans in space - and not on Earth - can provide the answers is unclear. It sounds religious and as Mark Twain said:

"religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool".

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

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

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

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

Here is an ancient lake on Mars according NAXA:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All
reusable rocket systems have failed or were amateur dreams from the start. However, there are, of course, still 2017 people believing it is possible. Let's therefore start this article with one such Teflon clown - Elon Musk. Elon, if he exists or is just a paid, cheap actor fooling around, is very busy in his photo shopped office and workshops but his rocket returns and recoveries are hoaxes.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

SpaceX girl - part of the show

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

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

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

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

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


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

Falcon 9 landing leg

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Say that the "horizontal" velocity after separation was of the order 1.000 m/s and that the mass was 50 tons. It means that the "horizontal" kinetic energy was 25.000.000.000 J. As shown above 1 kg of fuel can produce at least 1.224.000 J energy. It means that you need 20.4 tons of fuel just to stop the "horizontal" momentum going out to sea. Then you have to accelerate horizontally backwards to land and brake again horizontally above the landing zone requiring more fuel. I would conclude the Boost Back burns are not possible due to lack of fuel!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The potential/kinetic energy of the rocket is then >45.000.000.000 J and you need >33 tons of fuel/energy to stop it ... which you do not have! There is no way you can stop a 25 tons mass with that velocity with some Entry or Landings burns providing 77 tons thrust. You will crash!

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

SpaceX Falcon 9 first stage ascent and return/descent/recovery trajectory. The first stage goes to ~70 000 m altitude under own nine engines power (where it separates from the second stage at T 2.25) and is then catapulted up into space at 180 000 m altitude at T 5.25. A rocket engine is fired to push it back towards the start point. Then it drops down - free fall! It has downward speed ~1 600 m/s at 50 000 m altitude. Then a rocket engine fires a landing burn ... the rocket stops ... where it started! Magic
Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That nobody noticed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you need to fire two engines and apply 154 tons thrust during the initial Boost Back burns to re-direct the first stage back to zero speed at 180 000 m altitude. The vertical speed component is reduced to 0 by gravity after separation - no fuel is needed for it - but the horizontal speed component must be stopped by rocket thrust and then you need more fuel to accelerate towards land again and it may use up total 120 seconds of fuel or 20 tons.

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

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

Falcon 9 hypersonic grid fins - produce plenty turbulence at launching

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

Any mass dropped from 180 000 m altitude with start speed 0 m/s experince first a sonic boom at 340 m/s speed and reaches about 127 seconds later vertical hypersonic speed about 1 100 m/s, when passing 130.000 m altitude.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first stage then had mass 25 000 kg (forgetting the mass of the fuel) at 16.500 m altitude and 1.100 m/s hypersonic speed. The total potential and kinetic energy is then about 19.150.000.000 J.

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3: Landing leg fails

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

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

6: Rocket suddenly exploding in a ball of fire

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

 

 

1.4 US National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

The US National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 rules:

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

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

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

 

1.5 NAXA's strawberries on the Moon plans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

says NAXA. If, Probably!

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

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

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

Opportunity: The first Moon Express lander late 2015. "

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

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

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

says NAXA! Everyone dreams!

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

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

 

1.6 Never A Straight Answer

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

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

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

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

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

 

1.7 Impossible re-entry

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen: (From NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF THE APOLLO 4 RE-ENTRY TRAJECTORY - Ermioni Papadopoulou)

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

Viscous interactions:

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

Low density flow:

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

High-temperature flow:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it is propaganda! Or a joke!

Wikipedia suggests re-entry is possible:

Various advanced technologies have been developed to enable atmospheric re-entry and flight at extreme velocities.

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

 

1.8 Juri Gagarin re-entry!

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

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

Trajectory of fake Gagarin space trip

Gagarin's Vostok spaceship (a 2.1 m diameter hollow accommodation steel globe + a brake rocket module attached to it) was (6.07 Local Time, LT) accelerated in 10 minutes to about 7 500 m/s speed at 350.000 m altitude by some external fireworks and flow then ENE (6.17 LT) straight over Siberia, Kamtjatka, down over Pacific Ocean to the tip of Antarctica and up over South Atlantic and Africa heading home. Yes, it is a straight course all the time. He spent 33 minutes (06.37 - 07.10) in a very cold, short night with little time to sleep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would have been easy to pull the pants of the commies 1961 and say they were lying. Or that it was a joke! But maybe an Executive order had already been given to fake it?

 

1.9 John Glenn re-entry!

NAXA/JFK therefore presented its own Earth orbit show. John Glenn! What a joke!

On February 20, 1962, Glenn flew the Friendship 7 mission and became the first American to orbit the Earth, arrive at location B in the upper atmosphere (easy to find!) at great speed, plunge into the atmosphere and then drop down in front of a waiting ship. It never happened, of course, and the Commies didn't object like they never called the US a-bomb hoax 1945. It is 71 years old now!

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

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

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

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

 

1.10 Space shuttles Challenger and Colombia disasters - all fake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Source

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander Gerst - German astrokraut actor that never was in space

Alexander and Samantha dropped down in a Soyuz capsule!

 

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

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

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

 

1.12 Swedish National Space Board

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

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

Read on!