If you ask Google
"Why is that human beings cannot go into space?",
you will get 11.700.000
results in 0.49 seconds but not find this website giving the
answer. Reason seems to be that Google has been
ordered to confuse matters promoting NASA and its
nonsense. There are also plenty'space
scientists'and'astronomers'
that say that it is easy for humans to fly in space,
so that they later can employ themselves at NASA to
lie about and invent things about space and human space
explorations.
*
The National
Aeronautics and Space
Administration
(NASA) is an independent agency of the executive
branch of the United States federal government. The main
purpose of it is to invent pure lies about US space programs
and aeronautics and aerospace research, some of which are
described below:
Part
1 split on two
pages - this is the second page) is about 34 new and
old space staged events - the last is from April 2017
- with impossible trajectories,
re-entries and gravitykicks - all inventions that evidently never took
place.
Part
2 (17
great chapters) is about the 1969 Apollo 11NASA hoax with two clowns on the Moon - it took place
in Hollywood, Nevada and the Pacific. No American hero was
in space then or later.
Parts
3-6 (21
quite funny chapters) are about the NASA space
Shuttle, the International Fake (Space)
Station, a recent trip to Mars,
re-entries, etc. All silly hoaxes.
It seems all
human space trips since 1961 are
fake. Media just did a PPP - Paste/Publish/Propaganda
1961!
Only satellites
orbiting planet Earth works, even if plenty
people think they too are fake/invented. I pay since
September 2012 anyone
€1.000.000:-
that can describe a manned space trip but no one has
managed my Challenge.
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 ESA 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
1.20
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
1.35
Arianespace - any mass, to any orbit around Earth,
anytime ... it is all that can be done
1.13US
X-37B
Below is more nonsense -
the US X-37B
space shuttle!
US
latest X-37B space shuttle - note the impressive
wings and nose wheel
In October 2014
the US Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office
- not run by NASA but by space magician
Randall
G. Walden
- informed that they had -
top
secret -
sent another Shuttle like spaceship (above) -
the
X-37B unmanned
spaceship
- into space many years earlier orbiting
Earth - like the IFS - and that it had just
made a third successful re-entry (animation
right) without heat shield and landed. It was May
2015 sent into orbit again! It is apparently
another US hoax based on another
50 years old
hoax.
Evidently no X-37B
ever was in space! It is just a fake video of a
rocket taking off and a mock up of the spaceship on
Earth. March
2017
it is still up there!
Doesn't cost much. But
not funny. Just stupid. Invented by not very clever science
fiction writers. You should ask Alexander Gerst, if he saw
the X-37B
when he was up there ... on the ESA resort at Sochi
or wherever, Hawaii, waiting to show up again. Ask Alexander
about his sun tan! What a stupid job -
cosmokraut!
Hawaii
space training house
Talking about
Hawaii
there are eight astrohawaiians
training for space travel/living there. I have
recommended them to study this web page, when they
are locked into the bubble left before taking off
to Mars. They were let out 13 June 2015 and
greeted as heroes!
If you have read
the above, I hope you will read the rest below.
Hopefully you will then realize that no human
space travel of any kind is possible. You
cannot carry the fuel/energy with you to manoeuvre
- accelerate, brake, change direction, etc. - in
space. You cannot ever leave planet Earth
with a spacecraft. Or re-enter! You can only send
small satellites one way into space - mostly
orbiting Earth.
Of course plenty
people have another opinion, generally in order to
get rich on Earth, but you can easily ignore
them. Just laugh at them. And particularly at this
Elon
Musk
clown selling expensive electric cars ... or rather
giving them away for free ... to promote his human
space travel frauds. I am amazed that FBI,
Interpol, media, etc., have not understood
it.
*
1.14 Orion -
2014, 2019 and 2022
But didn't
NASA launch a light weight 8.5
tonOrion*
(right) spacecraft/capsule into space 5 December
2014 and it splashed
down*
in the Pacific Ocean, about 600 miles south of San
Diego, CA, after two orbits around Earth and
a fantasy re-entrythe same day?
What kind of
heat shield protection did it have?
Orion
re-entry - air friction/turbulence only slows down
the spacecraft from 8 900 to 100 m/s speed in
10 minutes, while heat shield temperature increases
>2 600C
The
Orion has an about five meters diameter
rounded
heat shieldof
thin titanium plate on which 25-50 mm high
fiberglass honeycomb matrixes are fitted. An epoxy
novolac
resin with special additives - AVCOAT
- is then injected into each honeycomb space to
provide a Thermal Protection System, TPS. Total
volume of AVCOAT is less than one cubic meter that
would evaporate or burn off quite
easily.It
looks (2010) something
like
(http://www2.aero.psu.edu/RGD_2010/PaperSubmission_Full_Uploads/Titov,%20Evgeny_219_PDF_revised.pdf):
At
re-entry the speed of the spacecraft/heat shield is
assumed to remain constant about 7 600
m/s for 200 seconds, when the altitude is reduced
from 120 000 to 65 000 m (vertical speed 275 m/s).
The translational temperature
(!)
is only 2.950K
at the surface (but >13 000K a little above the
surface causing a plasma trail) but only 280K at
the bottom of the 25-50 mm deep AVCOAT heat shield,
i.e. the spacecraft is safe. After another 300
seconds in more dense atmosphere the speed is 0 m/s
(g 25 m/s²) and the spacecraft can land. The
writers of this nonsense are two students and a
professor paid by NASA.
The
development of the heat shield started already
2006:
"We
don't know what the final (advanced heat shield)
material will be until the testing and analysis
is complete," said George Sarver, manager of
Ames'
Orion/ Ares Support
Project.
According to Sarver, NASA must complete the
advanced heat shield development work by 2009 in
order to be ready for Orion's first flight that
possibly could be in 2012, but no later than
2014.
How
this flimsy 'shield' can absorb the
>2 600C heat generated at re-entry without
melting, catching fire and burning up is a mystery.
The 'shield' can easily be laboratory tested
on Earth to simulate its function at 8 900 m/s
speed in thin air. It melts and catches fire! It
appears that Apollo 11 had a similar heat shield
tested already 1969. And all US ICBMs carrying
nuclear bombs to destroy Russia! It is as useless
as the PICAX heat shield of Elon
Musk.
Re-entries are
impossible regardless of heat shields. The Orion
is just another magic trick of NASA to
keep the re-entry illusion alive. The
rocket is a model and the capsule is dropped from a
plane. No magic at all! Just a cheap trick invented
in the 1960's.
I have asked Mr Brandi K. Dean (JSC-AD931)"
<brandi.k.dean@NASA.gov>
of NASA about a log of the 5 December 2014
Orion flight with speed (m/s), course
(°) (horizontally), position (lat/long on
Earth below), altitude (m) - say every 5 or 10
minutes - from start to splashdown to include in this web
page, but Mr Dean has replied:
We can't
provide that information because it would reveal
information that ULA considers proprietary for the Delta
V.
It is clear that
NASA cannot provide any evidence that the
Orion ever flew anywhere in space above Earth.
Orion can only carry four persons to the Moon we are
told but lacks fuel to land on and depart from the Moon.
According NASAOrion will soon fly to planet Mars, though! The
Orion spacecraft and its first flight test will help
make it possible.
*
Airbus
NV - the
European airplanes manufacturer - is supposed to build two
Orions to be sent to the Moon in the near future! It
is ESA, the European Space Agency, that has placed the
Orion
orders so it is a joint NASA/ESA human space flight
hoax.
The Journey to
Mars is humanity's Next
Giant Leap
into our solar system according NASA. You wonder what
brainwashed twirps write and believe such nonsense? The
heavy weight 78 ton Shuttle
was a more impressive hoax. It too never visited space. The
NASA web pages linked* to above are really
poor and the only evidences of any trip are fake
footage and
cartoons of poor quality!
However - Exploration
Mission 1
(previously known as Space
Launch System
1 or SLS-1) is an unmanned planned flight of the
Space Launch System and the second flight of the
Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, according NASA. The
launch is planned for December 15, 2019 from Launch
Complex 39B at the Kennedy Space Center, so you have to wait
for it. It will take the Orion spacecraft around the
Moon! Imagine that!
Exploration
Mission 2 is
planned for June 2022! The Orion capsule with a crew
of four then delivers to lunar orbit the first module of
Deep
Space Gateway
(DSG); the 40kW Power/Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) Bus.
Bla, bla, bla. Imagine
what nonsense NASA
can invent!
Below is the latest
European space hoax 2015!
Maggie
Lieu is a model for the Mars One 2015
hoax
1.15 Mars
One
A Dutch one!
Mars
One
is a not-for-profit foundation that will establish
a permanent human settlement on Mars.
Human settlement
on Mars is possible today with existing
technologies. Mars One's mission plan
integrates components that are well tested and
readily available from industry leaders worldwide.
"The first
footprint on Mars and lives of the crew thereon
will captivate and inspire generations; it is
this public interest that will help finance this
human mission to Mars."
New
Horizonsis another NASA fantasy spaceship, mass
only 478 kg, which was sent away from planet
Earth19 January 2006 to planet
Pluto by a very strong rocket. In order to
resist gravity from Sun, the spaceship was
given a very high departure velocity to modify its
Earth orbit and away from the Sun -
unknown but probably of the order
>45.000
m/s - so it passed the Moon orbit after only
nine hours - heading for the orbit of the planet
Jupiter orbit, five AUs away, where it
closely encountered/passed Jupiter on 28
January 2007 … at another unknown
speed.
Quite good actually (and a complete hoax).
Jupiter orbits the Sun and you just fly by and
are kicked by it.
Jupiter is the
fifth planet from the Sun and the largest planet in
the Solar System. It is a giant planet with a mass
one-thousandth that of the Sun, but is two and a half
times that of all the other planets in the Solar System
combined. Its enormous gravity force would clearly attract
New Horizon so it crashes.
But no! Passing
Jupiter spaceship New Horizons was given a
magic, 100% fake gravity
assisted kick
instead - details unknown - to proceed to the orbit of
planet Pluto 39 AUs away with arrival/encounter date
14 July 2015. The astro-clown steering spacecraft
New Horizons is Alan Stern, a failed
NASA astronut. He believes planet Pluto has
atmosphere, four seasons, average temperature -230C, five
moons, etc. and that his spaceship New Horizons will
show it all.
When New Horizons
passed Pluto, it dropped off, Spacedust style
(see
below), the ash of
Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered Pluto 1930 and
died 1997. Actually Alan Stern does not steer New
Horizons. It is steered automatically by a GPS systems
using 3 000 stars for directions.
Pluto has an
average speed of only 4 670 m/s in a rather
elliptical orbit around the Sun 39 AUs away. The arrival
speed of New Horizon is not known. Alan suggests
>50 000 m/s! The Sun must have slowed it
down a lot for at least 8 years. One thing is certain. It
has no fuel to brake a lot. What a joke! Only superstitious
Americans believe the nonsense. Assisted by media of
course.
Sending a spacecraft like
New Horizons on this long journey is helping us to
answer basic questions about the surface properties,
geology, interior makeup and atmospheres on the heavenly
bodies passed, we are told.
Using Hubble Space
Telescope images, New Horizons team members discovered four
previously unknown moons of Pluto: Nix, Hydra, Styx and
Kerberos.
The United States is the
first nation to reach every planet from Mercury to
Neptune with a space probe. New Horizons is
allowing the U.S. to complete the initial reconnaissance of
the solar system, NASA says. However, it is all FAKE
NEWS. You can contact NASA
about it! Of course there are no replies.
1.17 Stepping into
fire - and fool the world. It is easy
Most people year
2019, 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 ~120C hot sunny
Moon ground at six visits, some even bringing a little car
along, while the other six had to watch from orbit around
Moon. Luckily nobody ever stepped on the Moon. It was all
done at Hollywood. Had they landed in the shadow, the
ground would have been -100C freezing cold!
Here
are three first US cosmo Moon clowns 1969 lying about
the trip. I agree with "icarusinbound"
on January 13th, 2015, 7:05
pm that they
look unhappy at the press conference. Until then all was
just fun. But from then they had to live with their lies. Of
course it was all a US copy/paste of similar Soviet Juri
Gagarinpropaganda. Media evidently didn't ask
any real questions. And later they and many others had to
believe the lies as truth and had to adapt accordingly the
rest of their lives. NASA top brass was very happy.
It is easy to fool the world!
The US cosmonuts or
asstroclowns on the Moon survived as their
space suits, gloves and shoes (!) were
air-conditioned.
They did not understand that their shoes would melt, when
touching the Moon surface. You cannot step on a +120C hot
ground of any kind in vacuum without heating up your
protective gear and getting burnt
yourself. Nothing
will burn on the Moon as there is no atmosphere there. But
asstronuts will boil inside their space suits. And the open
car will be pretty hot to sit in. The NASA space
air-conditioned space gloves were also magic. The
material of the thin covering + aircon system of the glove
fingers are still, 2018, secret. Anyway, the asstronuts had
no problems to handle cameras and click on their buttons and
push the handles with their magic gloves
on.
What was shown on TV
1969-1972 was just clever and silly propaganda -
nobody ever visited the Moon then. Plenty
of brainwashed US military
personnel
participated in the Apollo propaganda show - by order from
above, of course. Great fun. The USSR knew it was all show
too. They were part of the show. And afterwards anybody
questioning it was treated as an idiot.
1.18 Driving a car
in space - why
rockets work in vacuum (or
attached to an exhaust gas cloud)
Most people believe
travelling in space to the Moon or to the IFS is like
driving a car on Earth. Turn the wheel and you turn.
Push the accelerator and you go faster. And the brake is the
pedal in the middle. All this floating in vacuum space! Some
people on the other hand believe that rocket engines do not
work at all in vacuum, as there is nothing to push
against.
A rocket is just a simple
combustion chamberwith fuel and other bits
and pieces attached. The combustion chamberis
generally nozzle shaped and always open at one end. The fuel
mass combusts in the combustion chamber and is
ejected at high velocity through the opening as a hot gas
with mass, while the combustion chamber itself
with its bits and pieces - the rocket - is pushed in the
other direction. It works anywhere; in any fluid medium and
vacuum. It is Newton's 3rd law, which states that for every
action there is an equal and opposite
reaction.
When a rocket exerts a
force F on the hot exhaust gas being ejected from its
combustion chamber - an action - the
rocket itself is subject to a force - F, i.e. a force of the
same strength but in the opposite direction - a
reaction.
If the fuel is solid, it
is located and combusted in the combustion
chamber itself. If the fuel is liquid, it is
delivered from a tank to the combustion
chamber, where it is combusted. Many people believe
rockets are very complicated but, as just explained, they
are very simple; just a combustion chamber+
fuel mass + attachements.
Most people do not
understand that you have to eject mass rocket engine
exhaust gas, at high speed in the vacuum space in an
absolute precise direction - it provides a thrust or
force - to change spaceship speed up or down or change
course left/right/up/down/in the opposite direction, while
the spaceship is getting lighter and lighter in the process
(mass is reduced as fuel is consumed), and that you cannot
carry sufficient mass of fuel with you for any trip
with humans aboard. Any change in speed and direction
requires application of a force in the exact direction,
which requires fuel!
When the rocket engine or
rather its combustion chamber is ejecting
exhaust gas (mass) in vacuum, the spacecraft and the exhaust
are evidently connected with each other in vacuum space. You
could say that the spacecraft pushes against the plume of
exhaust that it leaves behind. When you stop the rocket
engine, it is the end of the exhaust cloud. The rocket will
continue at constant speed in space that is reduced by
gravity leaving the exhaust behind in the vacuum space as
pollution. That is how satellites are put in space at high
speed, e.g. in one way orbit around Earth. But the
satellites cannot ever brake by themselves. For that you
require a force in the opposite direction, which requires
fuel that they cannot carry. If they for any reason drop
back to Earth by gravity, they all burn up in the
atmosphere.
Imagine a spaceship in
vacuum space (no gravity influence of planets or suns) with
total mass m0 10 000 kg of which 5 000 kg is
fuel. All fuel is ejected as exhaust gas (mass 5 000 kg) at
exhaust velocity ve 2 500 m/s velocity (relative
the rocket) from the nozzle at the aft end of the spaceship.
Spaceship mass becomes m1 5 000 kg, while the
spaceship attains speed (delta-v) 1 733 m/s according
Tsiolkovsky*.
*Konstantin
E. Tsiolkovsky
has established that the change in velocity,
delta-v,
of a spacecraft in vacuum space (no influence of gravity
of adjacent planet Earth) is a function of the mass ratio
(spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1
firing the rocket engine, difference m0
- m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust
gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving
the spaceship rocket nozzle. The actual acceleration or
delta-v vector would be found by adding thrust per mass
on to the Earth's gravity vector acting on the space
craft.
Delta-v = ve ln
(m0/m1)
Example - you want to change
speed of the 10 000 kg (m0) Spaceship. You
have 5 000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a
velocity ve 2 500 m/s. m1 = 5 000
kg. ln(2) = 0.6931 . Delta-v = 1 733 m/s.
Assume that this takes 100
seconds.
The Spaceship then travels
86.643
m in one direction leaving a big cloud of exhaust gas
(total mass 5 000 kg) extending
336.643
m behind with variable speeds.
Before start the momentum
(mass times velocity) of the spaceship with fuel is 0. After
accelerating the spaceship the momentum of the empty
spaceship is 8,665 Mkgm and the momentum of the
exhaust gas is -8,665 Mkgm. The total momentum
remains 0.
Imagine the same spaceship
having speed 1 733 m/s (it has been given this speed
by another rocket). It has a momentum of 17.33 Mkgm.
The spaceship is now braking for 100 seconds burning 5
000 kg of fuel.
The exhaust is now ejected
from the nozzle in the direction of braking and after 100
seconds the speed (delta v) is 0.
The exhaust gas cloud
extends 336.643
m as before, but the spaceship has travelled
86.643
m into this exhaust cloud. The total momentum of spaceship
and exhaust remains 17.33 Mkgm.
Any spaceship will
sooner or later run out of fuel unless you find a way to
fill up in space. It is the reason why space travel is
impossible except sending simple satellites in
one-way orbits around Earth
People believed in human
space travel in the 1960/70s because they were manipulated
to believe it by TV, fake
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
2018. Or as Paul
C. Roberts
says (about two other recent events in the USA):
"I never cease to be
amazed by the gullibility of Americans, who know nothing
about either event, but who confidently dismiss the
factual evidence provided by experts and historians on
the basis of their naive belief that "the government
wouldn't lie about such important events" or "someone
would have talked." What good would it do if someone
talked when the gullible won't believe hard
evidence?"
The picture right
is a good example how to fool people. Apollo 11
taking off from the Moon! People think it happened
because somebody made a picture. Like UFOs. Plenty
Americans say they have seen UFOs flying around,
landing and taking off again without any noise in
their neighbourhood. They forgot to alert the
neighbours though. But later they told anybody
around. A big UFO landed just in front of me. And
took off again.
It is fun to fool
people, e.g. April 1. And it is not wrong to fool
people, unless you tell them a little later, that
you fooled them, so you could have a laugh about
it. If you don't, you manipulate, i.e. cleverly
influence people using unfair methods like Adolf
Hitler 1920-1945 terrorizing the Germans and
killing plenty people. It is thus very easy for any
government to manipulate the people.
Let's continue
with a recent, German example November
2014:
Fantasy
painting of LM ascent module Eagle lift-off
with two persons inside like fire
works
1.19 The ESA Rosetta
space trip - a Cosmic Billiard Balls 1993-2004-2018 Hoax,
Kicks & Fiasco. Three times 2005-2009 planet
Earth gravity assist kicked off Rosetta at a close fly-by
but ... gravity assist kicks are not
possible
"The Rosetta
spacecraft allegedly landed a probe on a comet. The whole
thing doesn't even deserve to be called a hoax, as it is
simply a silly joke with the gullible public. The 'lie
factory' has just become even more daring. Why is the
world letting them get away with so many
lies?"
In November 1993, the
International Rosetta Mission was approved
by unknown criminals as a Cornerstone
Mission in European Xpace Agency, ESA's
Horizons
2000 Science
Programme. At that
time more than 25 years ago it was believed by many
people, brainwashed by 30+ years of
propaganda that space travel or
similar (xpace) was possible and easy as a pie and
plenty, not very serious people were ready to steal
the money provided. The objective was one day early
2000 to send the 3 000 kg
Rosetta
spacecraft into space for a rendezvous fourteen
years later with comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
that elliptically orbits planet Sun every 6.4
years at an average speed much less than planet
Earth. Comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko was discovered 9/11
1969, BTW. A popular date! It is sad
that
ESA's Director General
Jean-Jacques Dordain never admitted that the
whole Rosetta mission incl. four gravity
assistkicks is a hoax made up by his
staff - like many other missions of ESA - stealing
millions of Euros from European tax payers.
European mainstream media are also part of the
fraud. Media's space expert journalists happily
publish all ESA lies. Reason? It is politically
correct to do so. You cannot possibly suggest the
whole thing is an old hoax started in the 1950's by
the USA/USSR during the cold war. It
is quite easy to fake the complete
project!
If you try to contact ESA
at
media@ESA.int
or by telephone, France, +33 1 53 69 76 54 for an
explanation of, e.g. gravity assist
kicks and other nominal processes
at ESA, you will never get any answers.
Earth orbits annually the
Sun almost circularly with a high speed of ~29
800 m/s. Imagine that! You the reader of my web
page are flying around the Sun at
29.800
m/s speed. Did you know it? The small comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko orbits the Sun
elliptically between planets Mars and Saturn at a
smaller average speed, we are told. When closest to
the Sun, the speed is 38 000 m/s. Far away
close to Saturn the speed is smaller.
In order to send a spacecraft to
a comet ESA must first put theRosetta
spacecraft into Low Parkingorbit
around planet Earth like a satellite with an
orbital speed of say 7 500 m/s using a
rocket - the Ariane 5.
At the right moment in
lowEarthparking orbit
the Rosetta must then modify the
orbit around Earth into a very
elliptical one beyond the Sun, and for that
you need temporarily a speed of at least 11 000
m/s relative planet Earth for quite some
time to get into a trajectory around the
Sun. If you stop too early, Earth
gravity will slow you down until the speed relative
Earth is zero ... and you drop back to
Earth. Anyway you do it, you will never
leave orbitEarth but return sooner
or later.
To this speed you must then add
the speed of planet Earth~29.800
m/s in orbit around the Sun.
Thus:
If Rosetta has
same direction as Earth, heading
0°, when leaving ahead of Earth and
after separation from the rocket and getting away
from Earth, Rosetta will have speed
of
~40.800
m/s in elliptical orbit around the
Earth and the Sun and it will take
Rosetta a certain time to fly-by
Earth again; the faster Rosetta
arriving frombehind at the fly-by of
Earth and a first gravity assistkick. Something like it is suggested to have
happened with the Rosetta after one year
from leaving planet Earth as explained
below.
Jan
Woerner
is new ESA Director since 1 July 2015 - he is today
in charge of the Rosetta hoax stealing money from
European tax payers! What a clown -
7
June 2015
he announced the building of a village on the Moon
2024! And April
2016
he explained how to do it!
You should
really wonder why ESA is run by people talking
nonsense all the time
If Rosetta has opposite
direction, heading 180°, as Earth, when leaving
behind Earth and after separation from the rocket and
getting away from Earth, Rosetta will have
speed of
~18.800
m/s in elliptical orbit around the Earth
and the Sun and it will take Earth another time to
fly-by Rosetta; the faster Earth arriving
ahead at the fly-by (collision) of the Rosetta. All
speeds are relative the Sun in orbits around
the Earth and the Sun.
Note that Rosetta has only limited
rocket power. To modify the orbit and speed, while
getting away from Earth, you need external
assistance for long time.
If you depart from Earthorbit at only 10 834.3m/s velocity at
a certain time in a new orbit, the speed will be only
790.7m/s after about 72 hours due to
influence of Earth gravity according Robert
A. Braeunig and zero after a
week. After that Rosetta would drop back and crash.
To get away from Earth all together you need a much
bigger start speed. Celestial dynamics are quite complex ...
and it is easy to fool people with them. It is of course not
possible to orbit the Sun starting from
Earth. You are always in orbitEarth!
1.19.1 Gravity assist
kicks/slingshots/flybys are not possible
(1)
Media should study and report this
impossible explanation
of the magic gravity assistkick, i.e. that a
spacecraft can turn 180° around a planet moving in the
opposite direction and at the same time increase its
velocity:
Say that Rosetta, mass 3 000
kg, after having been launched backwards (in
reality Rosetta was launched
forwards) from Earth by an
Ariane rocket in a trajectory around the Sun
arrives after a certain time with heading 180° at
constant velocity v18 800 m/s straight
(!) ahead towards the planet
Earth moving in the opposite direction in
orbit around the Sun at speed
29.800
m/s with mass 6 x 1024 kg, but offset
629.000
m above the surface not to crash straight into
Earth (or the Moon). Planet Earth has radius
6.371.000
m. This is a simple 3 bodies problem. Two bodies,
Earth and a spacecraft, Rosetta, moving around
a third body, the Sun, meet and the smaller object is
kicked away!
Rosetta,
instead
of crashing into planetEarth subject to Earth gravity, is
subject of a gravity assistkick at
629.000
m altitude above
Earth/7.000.000
m radius, we are told to believe that the
Rosetta turns magically 180°
around planet Earth at
621.900
m
altitude/7.000.000
m radius, while accelerating from 18 800 to
78 400 m/s constant speed (average speed
is
48.600
m/s after turning 90°) at about 125
m/s² and, after about 460seconds, speeds off at
76.600
m/s speed (v + 2U) in the
opposite (!) direction, heading 0°,
i.e. same direction of Earth.
During this time itself
Earth has moved about
13.700.000m in its orbit around the Sun ... in
the opposite direction! So the gravity
assistkick takes place around a planet
that is moving quite a bit in the mean time.
Orbital space dynamics are funny, magic
things!
You can of course take it easier
and approach Earth offset
7.629.000
m above Earth surface. Your turning radius is
then
14.000.000
m around centre of Earth and the 180° turn
will take double time, i.e. 922 seconds and the
acceleration will be half. And Earth will move
27.000.000
m in orbit around Sun in the opposite direction while
doing the kick. Do you follow?
How can you turn
around something that is moving in the opposite
direction?
The European
Space Agency, ESA, says it is
possible and shows a ridiculous video about it:
ESA's comet-chasing Rosetta mission launched
in 2004 and is using slingshot manoeuvres to reach its
destination, Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, in 2014. It
has received gravitational 'kicks' from close flybys of
Mars (2007) and Earth (2005, 2007
and 2009). Rosetta has also made close flybys of two
asteroids.
A spacecraft - Rosetta -
approaches Earth head on and instead of crashing
turns 180° around Earth and speeds off in the
opposite direction at >4 times increased speed.
Thus Rosetta slows down to zero
speed and then accelerates to >4 times increased speed in
the opposite direction. And how long does it take? A
second? But in one second Earth has moved away 29
800 m.
During the kickU is
slightly reduced as Rosetta steals some kinetic
energy from planet Earth, while being kicked around
180°!
What a joke! You should wonder if the
European
Xpace Agencyis
serious. Actually ESA is a criminal organization stealing
money from European tax payers.
You can, as an alternative, send your
spacecraft, like Apollo
13, away from Earth to
meet the Earth Moon head on (chose a date when the
Moon is ahead of Earth in its orbit
around Sun) for the first, 180° gravity
assist kick and direction change back to
Earth - speed increases! The second kick is
with Earth (do not land!!!) almost head on at full
speed around the Sun with a second 180°
direction change back to the Moon will really get you
going. After a few 180° kicks between
Moon/Earth your spaceship has reached a very great
speed using no fuel and you kick yourself away to,
e.g. a comet 67P by adjusting your last encounter a
little, e.g. above the South Pacific. Gravity assist
kicks provide free energy, you know! But maybe the
high g-forces applied at every kick at the rather big
space bodies will rip the spacecraft apart?
So how were gravity assist kicks
with the Moon, Earth and Mars planned in the
1990's? What forces are acting on spacecraft when
subject to a kick? Here
is one example by some well paid, science fiction propaganda
writers at the time:
"A major problem in designing
gravity-assisted trajectories comes from the fact that
there are no analytic solutions to the
n-body problem."
Correct. How n moving
bodies in space affect each other by gravity forces cannot
be calculated and predicted. And another:
"Another problem when designing
gravity-assist manoeuvres is that the analyst is trying
to hit a moving target (e.g. the Moon). Because a gravity
assist is so sensitive to the arrival conditions,
especially for Double Lunar Swingbys,DLSs, even slight deviations from the
nominal can have drastic effects on
the resultant trajectory."
It doesn't sound comfortable.
Sensitive to the arrival conditions! Double Lunar
Swingbys were popular 20 years ago! Never seen in
reality, though. And:
"It was mentioned earlier that targeting a
gravity assist is essentially an attempt to hit a moving
target. More accurately, it is a process of properly
missing the moving target- hitting the body would
severely shorten most missions! To "properly miss" a
target, the spacecraft must pass on the proper side of
the assisting body, at the right
distance."
How can a fast moving,
low mass body - a spacecraft like Rosetta - miss another
very fast moving, big mass object - a moon or planet - at
exactly the right time in space at the right
distance and the right speeds? And will a
kick really take place? Is it possible? And how long
will the kick last? Why does not the planet's gravity
just attract the spacecraft so it crashes? What are the
forces involved? And what is the influence that the bigger
object is moving quite a distance during the
"kick"?
Gravity force is well approximated
by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates
that the gravitational/pull force of two bodies of mass,
e.g. a planet and a spacecraft, is directly proportional to
the product of their masses and inversely proportional to
the square of the distance between them. The force is
applied to the centres of gravity of the two bodies. If the
law applies to bodies moving at high speed close to each
other is not certain, but let's assume so.
As we also know that any force will also
accelerate the body it is applied to, the velocity and
direction of the small body - the spacecraft - will increase
when approaching the
planet.
A small spacecraft
cannot have a constant speed v in one direction
before meeting a planet with constant speed U in the
opposite direction and then, after the kick, have
another constant speed v + 2U afterwards in the
opposite direction.
When a small
spacecraft approaches a big planet gravity accelerates it
and when the spacecraft tries to leave the planet, the
planet gravity will try to slow it down or pull it back. But
do not take my word for it. It is more complicated than
that.
When a gravity assist
kick allegedly takes place the masses remain constant but
the distance changes all the time as the masses are
moving. It means that the gravity force varies considerably
during the kick but is maximum, when the distance is
minimum. According my reasoning the distance always
becomes zero at any attempt of a gravity assist kick.
It means that there is no kick but a
collision! A gravity assist
collision!
Rosetta
spacecraft with solar panels
Only members of a foolish
sect believe that a kick is possible without
collision. To join the ESA
Rosetta team (and NASA, etc) you must
be a member of that sect - the worshippers of
gravity assistkicks. You can never
send an object from Earth that later can
meet Earth (or the Moon) head on or any
direction, because Earth gravity will affect
the smaller object, which will be
diverted
towards the centre ofEarth (or Moon) - like a meteor. It seems
also a gravity assist 180° kick takes place at
very high accelerations, 125 m/s², if
done at ~630 km altitude, which would rip the
Rosetta spacecraft and solar panels apart.
In reality the Rosetta would crash on
Earth trying anything like it. A 180°
kick is impossible! Same applies to any
° kick!
If Rosetta has 90° perpendicular course
towards the Sun, when leaving Earth,
Rosetta will have speed of
~11.000
m/s and increasing towards the Sun (and
~29.800
m/s tangential speed relative the Sun) after
separation from the rocket and it will take Rosetta
less than 160 days to collide with the Sun
149.597,870,700
meters away. No orbit around the Sun will take
place at all.
If Rosetta has 90°
perpendicular course away from the Sun, when
leaving and after separation from the rocket, Rosetta
will have speed of
~11.000
m/s away from the Sun and slowing down and
Rosetta will disappear into space. No orbit
around the Sun and no fly-by of Earth will
take place. The tangential speed
~29.800
m/s of the Rosetta relative the Sun
evidently remains unchanged.
The ESA 10+ years Rosetta fantasy
trip to comet 67P was something like:
According ESA
Rosetta was sent off from and ahead of
planet Earth by an Ariane 5 rocket
2/3 March 2004 at a speed of
~40.000
m/s and into an ellipticaltrajectory around the Sun
(blue
track in figure right) initially inside the
Earth's orbit and with much higher speed
than Earth (black track in figure
right). Rosetta then passed outside the
Earth's circular orbit well ahead of
planet Earth and continued outside
the Earth's circular orbit around the
Sun, when it, after having completed about
3/4
orbit,
again passed inside the Earth's
orbit.Exactly a year after start -
Earth was then back in the orbit,
where it launched Rosetta a year earlier,
the Rosetta was approaching Earth
from behind. The "kick" could be
done! During the trip with average speed 40 000
m/s there were some adjustments according
ESA:
10 May 2004: ... a change
in velocity (Delta-v) of only 152.8 m/s,
achieved through a continuous burn of the four
on-board axial thrusters for a duration of about
3.5 hours. Imagine that!
16 May 2004: .. short
burn for a Delta-v of 4.989 m/s. Three
decimals! You have to be accurate! Imagine two
corrections only 2 or 3 months after start when you
have hardly started to turn in elliptic
orbit.
25 Nov 2004: ... small
trajectory correction manoeuvre (planned) of
about 0.09 m/s was executed. It is
small!
Rosetta's
first elliptical
orbit
around the Sun (ignoring trajectory corrections!)
ending in the first gravity assist kick to
Mars
9 Dec 2004: ... a new trajectory
correction manoeuvre of about 0.11 m/s was
executed, i.e. 0.02 m/s greater than the previous one. Will
make a big change to your speed 40 000
m/s!
Rosetta managed to stay in the
same plane as Earth's orbit around the
Sun and didn't spin off up or down.
Rosetta now 4 March 2005
approached Earth in orbit around
Sun from behind at a speed of
~40.000
m/s and almost collided with planet Earth making
constant speed
~29.800
m/s in circular orbit all the time. AccordingESA:
The first Earth swing-by
will take place on 4 March 2005 at
around 22h10 UT, when the spacecraft
will be 1954 km from the surface.
Rosetta will approach from the direction away
(??) from the Sun
and have its closest approach on the illuminated side
(???) of the
Earth. As the spacecraft approaches,
it will seem (???)
to fly to the west and will disappear on the dayside
(????) of the
Earth.
Crystal clear? Now the magic,
firstgravity
assist
swing-fly-by/kick in 3-D space to speed
Rosetta off to planet Mars took place with
Rosetta coming up behind Earth -
Rosetta was much faster - >10 000 m/s -
than Earth - and then, at a certain altitude -
1.954.000
m - above the illuminated side of Earth,
i.e. the side facing the Sun and during a certain
time - the Rosetta was kicked away outwards
from the Sun and towards Mars ... without
hitting Earth in between.
Billions of humans on Earth could
watch the show, ESA told us! Amateur astronomers were
encouraged to look for Rosetta! Photos were taken!
What a show!
That the kick - sudden
acceleration - didn't rip Rosetta apart is ... magic.
ESA asked amateur astronomers to film the
little Rosetta spacecraft at
1.954.000
m altitude passing and turning 95° around
Earth.
Let's repeat (see also figure
right/below). Rosetta is in elliptical orbit
around the Earth/Sun at speed ~40 800 m/s,
when close to Earth (less when far away).
Earth is in circularorbit around the
Sun but at speed
~29.800
m/s. Rosetta approaches Earth from behind and at
a far away but certain distance Earth gravity starts
to attract Rosetta, that is accelerating, i.e. going
faster being pulled by Earth ahead. The direction of
Rosetta is to miss Earth by 1 954 000 m
on the inside relative the Sun, even if Earth
pulls Rosetta straight towards its centre of gravity
for several days before the close encounter. Planet
Earth has radius
6.371.000
m, so there will really be a close
encounter.
But no collision, we are
told. Just a kick ... away from the
Earth and Sun and into a new
trajectory towards planet Mars in
orbit around the Sun!
The 4 March 2005Earth swing-by (picture right) is further
described here.
Not much info! The picture is misleading. There is
no sharp >90° turn! Rosetta is just pushed
sideways/right while passing Earth. Note
that according ESA the
SUN
is shining head on at the swing-by and not from
90° at the side as in my picture
above.
Of course no amateur astronomers
on the illuminated side of Earth
could even find the small Rosetta travelling
at an initial speed of
~11.000
m/s or more relativeEarth ...
above the illuminated side of Earth
and making an about 95° (?!?) turn doubling
(?) the speed. But pictures were taken.
March 4 — The
first planned flyby of
Earth was executed
successfully. ESA asks amateur
astronomers that took pictures of the
spacecraft to submit them. Also,
tests with the Moon as target standing in for a
comet or asteroid, produced pictures and other
data as expected
(???)
Rosetta
first Earth swing-by on 4 March
2005
Rosetta (speed about 40 800 m/s) was 4
March 2005 according ESA approaching planet
Earth (speed 29 800 m/s) from behind in
orbits around the Sun and kicked
outwards from the Sun by planet Earth
at increased speed - magic - into a new, trajectory towards
and crossing the circular orbit of planet Mars
around the Sun - at unknown, new initial speed. But
what forces were acting on Rosetta making these
changes of speed and direction possible March 4, 2005?
Gravity alone? This is a 5-bodies problem. Earth, Moon,
Rosetta, Mars and the Sun.
I have 15 November 2015 asked ESA
Director General Jan
Woerner to explain how any
ESA gravity kick takes place! The reply will be published
here. No reply by 23 October 2018 though!
Another description of the
Rosettakick is shown right. Planet
Earth has radius 6 371 000 m. Assume
that average turning radius for Rosetta was
8.500
000 m during the kick. Smallest distance
between Earth and Rosetta was
1 984 km!
Earth has orbital speed
about 29 800 m/s and Rosetta has
speed about
40.800
m/s in orbit around the Sun, when approaching
from behind. The relative speed difference is
~11 000 m/s (like Apollo 11 landing on
Earth 1969 LOL).
It is suggested that
Earth gravity will increase that speed
difference - Earth pulls Rosetta
towards it before the approach and before the
kick and then direction changes and the
velocity increases away from Earth being
left behind.
Assume the average speed during
the kick course was 14 000 m/s.
Turning around Earth (moving at
29 800 m/s speed) would then take about
24 minutes. After that Rosetta is
speeding away towards Mars with say 17
000 m/s speed relative Earth according
ESA. The orbital speed is evidently much higher
even if I doubt it very much!
Because - according my
calculations Rosetta should simply had
followed the
crash
course and been
destroyed in Earth's atmosphere when
attempting a fly by. The figure right (assuming
Earth fixed) illustrates that a gravity
assisted kick as proposed by ESA is a simple
hoax.
During the 1430 seconds kickEarth and
Rosetta also move
41.470.000
m in orbit around the Sun, i.e. your departure location
is pretty long.
If Rosetta was in an elliptic
orbit around the Sun following Earth before
the kick, after the kick the Rosetta
trajectory is still elliptic but turned 95° to
intercept the orbit of Mars. However, Rosetta
will never encounter Mars in its orbit (for a second
kick). Easy to show with n-body calculations.
After one tour around the Sun and
Space manoeuvres on 29 September 2006 and 13 November
2006 and a Trajectory Control manoeuvre on 9 February
2007 Rosetta in its new trajectory encountered at
unknown but increased speed planet Mars27 or 25
February 2007.
Mars has a constant speed of
only
24.077
m/s in almost circular orbit around the
Sun and is thus much slower than
Rosetta apparently arriving at
~38 000 m/s after the first
Earth swing-by/kick and then being
slowed down by the Sun until arrival Mars.
Rosetta is thus arriving Mars at from behind
at the encounter.
Preparation activities for the
Mars swing-by was according to this ESA
plan:
DoY 031 (i.e. 25 days before
swing-by) - Configuration of the IMP (Inertial
Measurement Package, consisting of 3 gyros and 3
accelerometers to measure the spacecraft's
attitude). DoY 039 - Trajectory
correction manoeuvre. DoY 046 - Spacecraft
pre-configuration for Mars swing-by. ESA will
provide more details.
Now a secondgravity
assistkick again
outwards and with further increased speed at
only
250.000
m altitude, away from the Sun took
place:
OS
Occultation Start
Rosetta behind Mars as seen from
Earth
CA
Closest Approach
At ~250 km above surface
ES
Eclipse Start
Rosetta enters Mars shadow
OE
Occultation End
Rosetta observable from Earth
again
EE
Eclipse End
Rosetta exits Mars shadow
This
view of Mars's northern hemisphere shows the ground
trace of Rosetta during the swing-by on 25 February
2007
The time of closest approach is at
approximately 01:54 UT, when Rosetta is only
250 km above the Martian
surface and travelling at a speed of over 36 000
km/h
(10.000
m/s) relative to
Mars. The swing-by takes
Rosetta over Mars's
northern hemisphere, with the point of closest
approach of a surface position of 298.2° E
and 43.5° N.
This is what ESA tells us about
this amazing event. We don't really know the
directions of the trajectory of
Rosetta relative the Sun before/after the
kick over the northern part and how it
maintained the position in the plane of
Earth/Mars orbits around the Sun.
Rosetta could easily have
been kicked up or down and lost in space or
crashed. But no.
An
artist's impression of Rosetta at the closest
approach to Mars during the second gravity assist
kick that took place on 25 (?) February 2007, at a
distance of 250 km from the surface of the 'Red
Planet' (source - ESA). Rosetta had a speed of
10 000 m/s relative Mars and would have crashed
after 25 seconds if directed downwards by Mars
gravity. Here Rosetta is flying in space and Mars
is approached from behind at slower speed and
kicks Rosetta
After a sharp turn in space
Rosetta with further increased speed
apparently crossed the orbit of Mars
ahead of the bigger and slower speeding Mars
and arrived just behind Earth in its
orbit six months later 13 or 14 November
2007.
... Rosetta successfully went
through the second Earth Swing-by
manoeuvre that boosted the spacecraft
towards a new and bigger orbit around the Sun.
... the closest approach that was on the 13
November at 20:57:23 UTC when Rosetta flew at an
altitude of ca. 5300 km
over the South Pacific.
Thus the second Earthgravity
assist
swing-fly-by/kick took place at
5.295.000
m altitude over the South Pacific (which nobody
could see) - now inwards, toward the Sun and
into another elliptical orbit at further
increased speed but after a turn
behindEarth passed the Earth
orbit outwards bound from the Sun into a
long, slow speed, elliptical orbit to arrive at
Earth11 or 13 November 2009, i.e.
two years later.
The photo right allegedly taken
13 November 2007 appears to be from <400
km altitude (and not 6 250 km
altitude a stated by ESA) but who cares?
All ESA
photos/info are fake!
Rosetta's
navigation camera (NAVCAM) took this shot of Earth
right after Rosetta's closest approach to our
planet. The picture was taken at 22:56 CET on 13
November 2007, as Rosetta's second Earth gravity
assist kick was concluded, while the spacecraft was
flying at a height of about 6 250 km from the
surface (source - ESA) ... over the South
Pacific!
On DoY 317
at 20:57:22.964 UTC Rosetta flew at an altitude of
5294.852 km over the surface of the Earth for a 2nd
swing-by.
After five years and eight
months in space Rosetta was 11 (or 13)
November 2009 back close to Earth, where
it had started 3 March 2004, arriving at
unknown altitude, speed, say now ~44 000
m/s, and heading.
... the mission's fourth and final
gravity assist that will boost
Rosetta's orbit to place
the spacecraft on a trajectory to its final
destination: comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
Closest approach to Earth
is expected to occur at around 07:45:40 UTC,
with Rosetta passing at an altitude of about
2.481
km.
The navigation campaign leading up to the
swingby is proceeding
nominally.
Rosetta's
last visit to Earth 13 November 2009 finally being
kicked off to the comet 67P.Picture
shows clouds in an anticyclone over the South
Pacific imaged with the orange filter of the
narrow-angle camera. This image is shown in a
logarithmic scale to bring out details in the
varying light intensity. As a result the scene
looks roughly the same as it would appear to the
unaided human eye (source - ESA) .
The camera
is 2 481 000 m away from Earth!
Rosetta's
velocity relative to the Earth before swing-by was
13 300 m/s. What it was afterwards is not
known.
Of course Earth with constant speed 28
900 m/s was in another position relative the
Sun but still in a normal, circular orbit
and in perfect position (what chance!) to
kickRosetta to the comet. Very
little fuel was used to adjust the speed and
direction of the Rosetta for five years and
eight months to participate in fourgravity
assistkicks.
On 13 November at 07:45:40 UTC
Rosetta flew past the
Earth for its last swing-by
manoeuvre, which was conducted as planned and
with the expected results. ...
The navigation has been extremely precise
and the spacecraft is now on the final leg of
its journey towards comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.
OSIRIS
wide-angle camera image of cloud structures over
the South Pacific. Taken three minutes before the
image above on 13 November 2009 at 06:45 CET (when
Rosetta was finally kicked away to comet 67P), this
image is shown in a logarithmic scale to bring out
details in the varying light intensity. As a result
the scene looks roughly the same as it would appear
to the unaided human eye (source - ESA).
The camera
is 2 481 000 m away from Earth! But over the South
Pacific, which is a very popular location for
gravity assist kicks
So, 11 (or 13) November 2009, Rosetta was
given a final third Earthgravity
assist
swing-fly-by/kickmanoeuvre outwards from the
Sun at unknown, new speed into a new
trajectory towards the elliptical orbit around
the Sun of the 67P comet. Exact details are evidently
not available from the confusing ESA RosettaStatus Reports (that just suggest everything was
going fine, blah, blah).
You get the feeling that the 'status
reports' were written by outside science fiction
writers, e.g. JPL (and later adjusted! Dates and
altitudes differ or have been changed with time and there
are no direction or speed changes given) to cover up the
whole thing.
But one thing is certain! An ESA
gravity assistkick or swing-fly-by manoeuvre
must be done over the South Pacific on Earth
and the northern part of Mars.
Almost five years later Rosetta
arrived close to the comet 67PMay/November
2014, when braking/course changes were required,
we are told. We are 600 million kilometers from
Earth!
The comet consists normally of frozen
materia when far away from the Sun. When close the Sun the
comet materia melts and becomes a gas cloud that is frozen
again when far away from the Sun again. The big gas cloud is
lit up by the Sun and the comet is easily visible when close
to the Sun. How the frozen comet core is found is not known.
Rosetta has no means to find it in space!
However, on 9/11 2014 the frozen
comet was photographed for the first time by
Rosetta. It looked like the old Egyptian island
of Philae in the Nile - what a coincidence.
The island is today submerged, though. The camera
apparently cost $100 million.
Earth's orbit
around the Sun is inclined 7.1550°
relative to the Sun's equator in 3-D space. The
comet's orbit around the Sun is inclined
7.0405° relative to the Sun's equator in 3-D
space. It means that you must kick the
Rosetta 0.1145° out of the plane of
Earth's orbit to get into the plane
of the comet's orbit.
If you don't do it, the
Rosetta will miss the target. Say that the
distance to the comet was
600.000.000.000
meter. If you are 0.0001° off course at the
kick, you will end up
1.047.198
meter off the target; above it, below it, beside
it, at arrival.
When
Rosetta 11 (or 13) November 2009 was gravity
assist kicked away from Earth, Comet 67P was
apparently far ahead in its elliptical orbit around
the Sun between Mars and Saturn. 5 years later
Rosetta and 67P were flying side by side at same
speed/orbit
Navigation in 3-D space between different objects orbiting
the Sun is not easy - it is not just get your direction
absolutely correct from the start. You must also ensure that
the moving target is in place, when you arrive Evidently the
gravity of the Sun will slow you down all the time in your
trajectory towards the comet.
Why the Ariane 5 rocket could not
have sent Rosetta 11 or 13 November 2009 in a
trajectory direct to the comet is an
astrophysichysterical mystery that ESA will not clarify. Why
were four gravity
assist fly-by/kicks
each increasing/reducing the speed of Rosetta during
five and a half years required to finally start towards the
comet? If you ask this question, probability is high that
you are accused of being an unintelligent conspiracy
theorist suggesting the whole thing never took
place.
So the Rosetta spacecraft flew by
planet Earth three times - 3rd March 2005, 13 or
14 November 2007 and 11 or 13 November 2009 - and
was at each time kicked away at increased speed some
way or another by planet Earth at a new velocity and
in a new direction into new trajectories around the
Sun to enable the trip to the comet 67P to continue.
Rosetta was never kicked up or down out of the plane of
Earth/Mars orbits around the Sun.
You should really wonder about the first
strange and the three following even more strang fly-bys and
gravity
assistkicks in 3-D
into new trajectories around the Sun.
How can planets like Earth and
Mars fly-by and kick away a light, small spacecraft
like the Rosetta?
Why doesn't Rosetta simply collide
with the planets? Aha, Rosetta always arrives at the
correct altitude, speed and direction and the close
encounter only takes 20-30 or ?? seconds; after that the big
planet and the small spacecraft are too far away from
another again. Every day about 100
tons of meteoroids -
fragments of dust and gravel and sometimes even big rocks -
enter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up! No
meteoroids are ever kicked away from Earth! They are
all attracted by Earth gravity towards the centre of
Earth ... and burn up in the atmosphere.
1.19.2 Gravity assist
kicks are not possible (2)
Media should ask ESA at
media@ESA.int
or by telephone, France, +33 1 53 69 76 54, about
the exact details of these four magic
gravity
assistkicks
into new orbits around the Sun to first get
Rosetta away from Earth and to a
rendezvous with Mars, back to two more rendezvous
with Earth (why not the Moon?) and then off
to the frozen comet 67P.
The data must be stored
somewhere for independent review. The
details are (a) corrections (if any) of
Rosetta prior encounters, (b) straight (?)
headings (°)/constant
(!) velocities (m/s) of
Rosetta before/after kicks, (c)
altitudes (m) of kicks above the planet, (d)
time(s)/dates of kicks and (e) details of
the next trajectory around the Sun to enable
the next kick or final encounter with the
comet. Corrections (if any) are required to arrive
exactly, so you are gravity assist kicked off to
the next (moving) planet or comet and that you do
not go off target
up/down/left/right/tooslow/too fast. Remember you are in 3D
space and that the next, moving target is far away
somewhere. Media should also ask
why the
heading and velocity of the smaller object is not
changed ahead of encounter according
Newton, so it will aim
towards the centre of planet at increased speed...
and, e.g. burn up in the atmosphere or spin off
into space.
The 'status reports' of ESA are
evidently not detailed enough to prove anything.
I evidently know that a high speed, 2-D
gravity
assist kick is also explained
by Wikipedia:
A gravity assist around a planet changes a
spacecraft's velocity (relative to
the Sun) by entering and leaving the
gravitational field of a planet. The
spacecraft's speed increases as it approaches
the planet and decreases while escaping its
gravitational pull (which is approximately the
same). Because the planet orbits the sun, the spacecraft
is affected by this motion during the manoeuvre. To
increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of
the planet (taking a small amount of the planet's orbital
energy); to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against
the movement of the planet. The sum of the kinetic
energies of both bodies remains constant (see elastic
collision). A slingshot manoeuvre can therefore be used
to change the spaceship's trajectory and speed relative
to the Sun.
It is just another old, stupid joke/con
gameinvented by a Russian and improved in the 1960's
by the science fiction creators ofNASA/JPL:
In a gravity-assist trajectory, angular
momentum is transferred from the orbiting planet to a
spacecraft approaching from behind the planet in its
progress about the sun.
Without it space travel is not possible,
i.e. no money can be stolen from the tax payers without
these kicks. It is amazing how ESA and NASA
get away with gravity assist kick nonsense for more
than 50 years. All gravity can assist is a
collision/crash.
1.19.3 Little fuel
used for 14 years to reach the comet
The flyby anomaly is an unexpected energy
increase during Earth-flybys of
spacecraft. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in
the S-Band and X-Band Doppler and ranging telemetry.
Taken together it causes a significant unaccounted
velocity increase of up to 13 mm/s
during flybys
What a joke! Maybe the atmospheric
drag at
303.000
m altitude of the fast moving Earth plays tricks
how to plot the speed, straight (?) direction
and altitude of the very small, fast moving
spacecraft ahead of the encounter that cannot be seen with
the naked eye or any telescope at the fly-by and the dates
of the fly-bys? The moving big mass planets and the moving
small mass spacecraft must first rendezvous in space at
exactly the right altitude, times, directions, speed
differences and positions relative the Sun and it cannot be
done unless you know exactly where they are. And then
- magically - just by strong gravity forces between the Sun,
the moving planet and the spacecraft the spacecraft shall be
kicked off at accelerations of order 100 m/s²
... into a new elliptical orbit around the Sun in the exact
right direction outwards or inwards and not up/down at the
right departure speed, which might take a 20-30 seconds or
maybe minutes or hours. Kinetic energy is invisibly
transferred from one body to the other. Note that the
Rosetta didn't use much fuel at all to correct
speed, direction and altitude for four
perfect encounters/kicks during five years and eight
months. Few small outside adjustments of the Rosetta
by ESA were necessary! All just went without any major
outside interference! Nominally! Sounds like magic.
I evidently consider the whole
thing an academic fraud and a con game by ESA.
The Rosetta spaceship does not exist! A gravity
assist kick is not possible neither in
theory nor in practice, because the
heading
of the small object will always be diverted towards the
centre of the planetahead of the encounter by the
kick planet's gravity. The fact is that
the opposite - the kick - is just a
matter of belief by a sect of criminal astrophysicists. It
is not a big deal for me. I just feel sorry for them having
to lie and cheat for a living.
I have concluded that all space
travels (apart from satellites around
Earth) since 1960's are
hoaxes.Gravity
assist fly-by/kicks
happened three times 2005-2009 for the Rosetta
at low altitude just above planet Earth and
ESA didn't tell me, you, media, anyone to have
a look. Strange! No - Rosetta was too small to be
seen! ESA also gives different dates for the last two
fly-bys ... or they took time. Or they never took place
at all. Probably the last option. The Rosetta
does not exist! It is an illusion.
The Rosetta however, according to
unknown, highly educated, upper class, well paid, arrogant,
evidently criminal ESA astrophysicists (you wonder
how ESA finds these clowns) and supported by gullible media,
got out of the almost circular first orbit around the Sun -
the first fly-by - and, after
a couple of 360° elliptical orbits around the Sun
including three more 'kicks' from Mars and
Earth, slowly closing
and enterinto the different elliptical orbit of the
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko comet, which enabled a
rendezvous with the comet. Arriving parallel with the comet
the Rosetta shall then first radially orbit slowly
around the comet itself and finally put a sond - the
Philae - on the comet.
The ESA2-D
presentation of the trip is
ridiculous. Flat round discs representing the planets moving
around the Sun disc gravity assistkick
another round disc representing the Rosetta around
the Sun (no bodily contacts - just invisible transfers of
kinetic energy) until it arrives at the comet disc moving
around the Sun in a another plane relative the Sun. Is space
flat? 2-D? How do you ensure that the spacecraft isn't
kicked up or down into 3-D? Note that no kick
is a 180° course change, multiple speed increase: no,
the sudden kicks are sideways at much smaller angles
and the speed increases/times are not known but the sudden
accelerations are high. At each kick the new
direction and speed must be exact. If not, Rosetta
will not arrive at a fast moving planet for the next
kick. The Rosetta velocity at each kick
can only be increased. Rosetta goes faster and
faster. Therefore Rosetta can never arrive at a slow
moving comet like 67P in space. Personally I suggest
Rosetta would be ripped apart by the first
kick, if it were possible to kick, but it is
not. Rosetta would have crashed on Earth, if
attempting to be kicked.
1.19.4 The ESA con
game goes on and on 2018
When much later all new responsible,
unknown, highly educated, upper class, well paid, arrogant,
criminal ESA astrophysicists and similar persons and
assholes, not forgetting media journalists, getting
involved in these fantasies realized that the whole project
was not possible, they were easy to convince to participate
in the hoax and fool the tax payers. Money, money,
careers, fraud, what a music! Media evidently will not
report the criminal hoax because then media upset the
thieves. It is mainly an American/Soviet invention started
in the early 1960's. And media are part of it.
Rosetta has an expensive
propulsion system, though! Imagine
that! The Rosetta spacecraft main
propulsion consists of 24 bipropellant 10 N thrusters. One
thruster can apply 10 Newton thrust or force in a fixed
direction. It is assumed - everything is unclear of course -
that eight thrusters can push the spacecraft forward and
eight thrusters can brake the spacecraft in the opposite
direction. Two thrusters can push the spacecraft upwards and
two thrusters downwards. And two thrusters can push the
spacecraft left and two right. More than half of the
spacecraft mass was fuel. The
3.000
kg spacecraft carried at departure
1.670
kg of propellant composed of monomethylhydrazine fuel
and dinitrogen tetroxide oxidiser providing a maximum
Delta-v of
2.300m/s for the whole trip. Four of the thrusters are
used for Delta-v burns, we are told, if you understand the
ESA lingo.
Konstantin
E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in
velocity, delta-v,
of a spacecraft in vacuum space (no influence of gravity
of adjacent planet Earth) is a function of the mass ratio
(spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1
firing the rocket engine, difference m0
- m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust
gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving
the spaceship rocket nozzle. The actual acceleration or
delta-v vector would be found by adding thrust per mass
on to the Earth's gravity vector acting on the space
craft
Delta-v = ve ln
(m0/m1)
Example - you want to change speed of the
3.000
kg (m0) Rosetta. You have only
1.670
kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity
ve. m1 =
1.330
kg. With an Delta-v = 2 300 m/s, it would
appear the Rosetta ve is
2.827
m/s. Why not?
It means that you can only,
totally, slow down or speed up Rosetta 2 300
m/s during the complete trip. After having, e.g. changed
speed 100 m/s 23 times, you have run out of fuel.
It is therefore clear that the
Rosetta could never slow down to the comet's
speed using its own thusters/fuel. So how was it done?
The ESA clowns state that
"Unfortunately, no existing rocket, not even
the powerful European-built Ariane-5,
has the capability to send such a large
(!) spacecraft
directly to Comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko."
If the statement is 100% correct is not
clear. An Ariane 5 rocket can put 10 tons in LEO and
can apparently send away a 3 000 kg spacecraft at
>10 000 m/s speed away from Earth gravity. The
Rosetta could probably have been sent off in the
right direction at the right speed without being
kicked round. But no little spacecraft like the
Rosetta can carry enough fuel itself to get away from
fast speeding Earth and into a trajectory
around the Sun to a slow comet elliptically orbiting
the Sun (at variable speed). Rosetta was apparently
sent off Earth3 March 2004 by a big rocket
into orbit around the Sun at a certain speed (very
high) and there is no reason why the same rocket could not
11 or 13 November 2009, Rosetta have sent
Rosetta at a certain, higher speed directly towards
the elliptical orbit around the Sun of the
comet.
However, as shown above, the same
ESA clowns invented a magic, fantasy, circus trick -
the 3-D gravity
assistkick - to get
to the comet:
"Instead, Rosetta will bounce
around the inner Solar System like a
'cosmic billiard ball', circling the Sun almost four
times during its ten-year trek to Comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Along this roundabout route,
Rosetta will enter the asteroid belt twice and gain
(!) velocity from
gravitational 'kicks' provided by close fly-bys of Mars
(2007) and Earth (2005, 2007 and
2009)."
Sounds scientific? Or astrophysical?
Actually astrohysterical. According to the criminal
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's frozen core at any time in its orbit
and know its variable speed. Why ESA has chosen to
rendezvous with the comet so far away is not clear. In a
year's time or so the comet will be much closer to
Earth. Maybe the explanation is that the planets
Earth and Mars must be exactly in their right
positions at the same speed, when Rosetta
flies by as Rosetta can only brake totally
2 300 m/s, etc, etc, bla, bla. You just have fuel
to slow down/speed up 2 300 m/s. After that you
are dead.
The difficulty is however to
ensure that Rosetta in its trajectory
away from the Sun finally arrives at the
same position with the same speed and
direction of the slow moving comet in its
orbit around the Sun, wherever it is after four
perfect 3-D gravity
assistkicks.
The idea seems to have been that
the Rosetta with a high start velocity
~40.000
m/s relative Sun after having got away from
planet Earth can be accelerated up or down
and sent off in new trajectories by planets
Earth and Mars approaching at a
distance/altitude without causing a tragic crash,
i.e, some way or another kinetic energy was
transmitted to Rosetta without direct
contact at close fly-bys, so it speeds up (or slows
down) in new orbits. Pure fantasy.
Note e.g. that during the first
year of the trip Rosetta and planet
Earthorbited the Sun all the
time. The Rosetta orbit was elliptical, the
Earth orbit circular, and how Earth
could fly-by or kickRosetta after
exactly one year, appears impossible. The
ESA staff has plenty to explain. If planet
Earth for any reason came too close to
Rosetta again, it would simply have
swallowed Rosetta. End of trip.
Rosetta would have crashed on
Earth.
The ESA staff that
invented the Rosetta hoax 1993 (actually a
NASA/JPL copy/paste) have died from too many
'kicks' and their children (right) never
learnt anything at school except cheating and
playing theatre.
Evidently any planet (e.g.
Earth or Mars) gravity force will
attract a little spaceship in the vicinity,
so it will go faster and faster in direction of the
centre of the planet and change course ... and
crash at re-entry ... but kick it in the
opposite (or same?) direction with change of
direction? Gaining speed and free kinetic energy
transfer in space at fly-bys!? It cannot be done in
reality.
Typical
ESA astrophysicist clown, Dr
Matt Taylor,
that believes space
is flat
- 2-D! Matt is really a joke(r) or a paid
actor.
The objects are going too fast, the critical encounter takes
to short time. The navigation between and of the moving
objects is too complicated. In this case the heavy planets
with strong gravity forces are moving slower - Earth
(or faster - Mars) than the very small but fast little
spaceship of little mass so ... . Why bother? It is fantasy,
after all.
It seems, therefore, according the
ESA/NASA/JPL nonsense, that Rosetta managed to
be kicked away from Earth/Mars to the comet
orbit in exactly the right direction with correct speed
assisted by media but that Rosetta was in the end
apparently going too fast (!!!) and in the wrong
direction and had to brake not to bypass the comet!
Astrophysics is magic. Some sorts of astrophysics are taught
at many universities but nobody there can 2018 explain how a
planet can kick away a spacecraft at increased speed
in the right direction at a swing-fly-by of short duration.
Only job any lying astrophysicist can get is with
NASA, ESA or JPL or similar. Braking from, e.g.,
speed
29.800
m/s to
18.300
m/s (all relative the Sun) requires plenty fuel!
Actually 5 times more than Rosetta
carried!
And has the Rosetta a rocket
engine and fuel, so it can eject mass and brake? Evidently
not! The 24 10N thrusters are much too weak to stop anything
and you do not have enough fuel aboard anyway. The whole
thing is a 25+ years old fantasy with old equipment but with
plenty young fresh, stupid ESA people employed
November 2014, when everything is ... nominal.
Most of the present ESA people were babies, when the
hoax project started 1993, but have learnt the
NASA/JPL movie lingo. Nominal! Haven't we
heard it before? It is all theatre. There is no
Rosetta in space! It is all done in a film studio at
Babelsberg, Potsdam.
However, according ESA backed up by media
the Rosetta
spacecraft that took off
March 2004 from planet Earth with destination
comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko arrived there
November 2014 or at a close distance of X meter, we are
told to believe.
The Rosetta then had
velocity
~18.300
m/s relative the Sun at X meter distance from
the comet, exactly same velocity as the
comet, we are told. Rosetta had after 10
years managed to get into identical
elliptical orbit as the comet around the Sun
just X meter apart. X may be ~10 000/50 000 meter.
Only four fantasy, magic gravity
assistkicks
were required and no fuel was used to adjust
speeds and directions for
them.
The comet orbits
elliptically the Sun in 6.4 years. When the comet
is closest to the Sun - between Earth and
Mars - it heats up to by the Sun and the core
becomes a visible gas cloud. When it is further
away the temperature is much lower. Maybe today the
temperature is a pleasant minus 55C on the comet?
7 May 2014,
Rosetta’s
thrusters began to
brake the spacecraft for five months - it was
going 772.9 m/s too fast compared with the comet,
we are told.
At 6 August the speed of
Rosetta exactly matched comet
67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko’s
speed, location and orbital direction/flight
at X meters distance apart.
About 600 kg of fuel was used
for braking, i.e. reducing speed 772.9 m/s.
Why not?
On arrival the now 10+ years old
spacecraft Rosetta with plenty 15+ years old
technology inside it then first managed to fly
around or orbit the comet at X meter distance at a
radial speed of say 10 or 20 m/s (relative the
comet) and film it from all directions with a high
resolution camera! You should really wonder how it
was done. Can 24 thrusters and associated steering
system accomplish such a feat in empty space 25
light minutes away? Was it all done by a
pre-programmed computer? And all the time the
camera was focused on the comet's surface.
Unbelievable! All
footage looks like stupid, photo shopped, computer
generated images,
though. Made at Babelsberg, Potsdam, by
clever Germans.
On 12 November 2014Rosetta then sent a 100 kg sond, probe or
capsule - Philae - to descend X meter on the
comet - right - i.e. Rosetta applied a force
on Philae in exactly the right direction in
space, so it moved towards the comet and
Philae applied an identical force on
Rosetta, so it moved away from the comet.
After seven hours Philae touched down on the
comet PK67, we are told!
At
touch-down Philae hit a rock, turned over and
rolled away - Fiasco!
If the force had been applied a little in
the wrong direction, Philae would have missed the
comet all together. Imagine that! Your spacecraft
Rosetta is X or 20 000 meters from a small comet
PK67 only 4 100 meters big and shall send a sond
Philae to it - better send it in the right direction!
According ESAPhilae missed the target by 10
meters, hit a rock and turned over at touchdown and rolled
away
1.000
meters on the comet into a shady area where it ran out of
energy and will never be able to analyze the soil of the
comet, etc. Fiasco. But let's
face it. It was a joke from the beginning. Paid for by
European tax payers. Too difficult for ESA to fake comet
soil. Better abandon the effort.
Here are two fake, photoshopped ESA
photos of the comet 67P:
and
Comet PK67 is not rotating around
itself, because we were told that the Philae sond got
permanently stuck in shades, when it landed November 2014
and immediately ran out of electricity. The Sun or the
spotlight at Babelsberg film studios illuminating
PK67 must therefore be changing location between the
shots. June 2015 ESA announced that PK67 is in fact
rotating around itself every 12 hours and that Philae
had started to work again after six months ... in the
shades. Magic!
1.19.5
Water, deuterium and oxygen on the comet
Rosetta itself has already
September 2014 been able to analyze the water
(!) on and around 67P! According
Science
magazine Rosetta has an instrument that can detect the
amount of Hydrogen isotope Deuterium, D, in the water
vapour in cold space surrounding 67P from a distance
of 30 000 meters! According to Prof/Dr Kathrin
Altwegg of Bern University,
Switzerland, analyzing the signals, it is established that
the 67P water contains more than three times more D
than water on our planet Earth. Altwegg has not
understood that ESA just fakes the signals of the instrument
... all done on planet Earth ... to fool her. Kathrin
can be contacted at kathrin.altwegg@space.unibe.ch at
Bern
University.
October 2015 Altwegg has also told
media that she has found 3.8% oxygen gas02 in the atmosphere gas surrounding the
comet. Maybe the origin of the oxygen is from ice/water on
the comet according Olivier Mousis (astrophysical
laboratory, Marseille).
As of September/November 2014,
67P's nucleus had an apparent magnitude of roughly
20, with the Rosetta having arrived (!!) just beside
it. 67P next comes to perihelion on 13 August
2015, i.e. P67 is then closest to the Sun between
Mars' and Earth's orbits at maximum speed with
Rosetta still beside it. From December 2014 until
September 2015, P67 has an elongation less than
45 degrees from the Sun. On 10 February 2015,
P67 came to solar conjunction, when it
appeared 5 degrees from the Sun at 3.3 AU
(490.000,000
km) from Earth. Solar conjunction occurred
when comet P67 was on the opposite side of the Sun
from the Earth. P67 crossed the celestial
equator on 5 May 2015 and started to become best seen
from the Northern Hemisphere. Even right after
perihelion, when it is in the constellation of
Gemini, it might only brighten to apparent magnitude 11, and
will require a telescope to be seen.
Little Rosetta beside P67
cannot be seen. It is not there at all! You see, you
cannot fly from one elliptical orbit (Rosetta's)
around the Sun to another elliptical orbit around the Sun
(PK67's) and definitely not enable Rosetta to
encounter a comet, P67, in its elliptical orbit and
travel beside it at same speed. ESA simply fakes it
and fools Altwegg and Mousis. Sad!
US/NASA also fakes impossible
feats - collecting comet dust with another
spacecraft being kicked around. Read on!
1.20 The Stardust
robotic space trip hoax: departure from Earth 1999, round
trip in space incl. a gravity assist kick and
re-entry and landing on Earth 2006 of a 45 kg Sample Return
Capsule
The NASA/JPL
Stardustrobotic
space trip 1999-2006 is another funny example how
NASA/JPL fooled us 30 years after the Apollo
Moon trips! It is almost as funny as the
ESA
Rosetta space trip
2004-2015 described above and the OSIRIS
Rex trip 2016-2023
described at the beginning, which are
hilarious.
Stardust
was a 300-kilogram robotic space probe (no humans
aboard) launched by NASA on February 7, 1999.
The primary mission was to collect dust samples from the
coma of comet Wild-2, as well as samples of cosmic dust, and
return these to Earth for analysis. The
Stardust spacecraft was three-axis stabilized with
eight 4.41-N hydrazine monopropellant thrusters, and eight
1-N thrusters to maintain attitude control; necessary minor
propulsion manoeuvres were performed by these thrusters as
well. The spacecraft was launched with 80 kg (!) of
propellant. Information for spacecraft positioning was
provided by a star camera using FSW to determine attitude
(stellar compass), an inertial measurement unit, and two sun
sensors.
Imagine doing a seven years trip in space
with only 80 kg of fuel to adjust speed up/down to reach
various places. Not possible!
The trip started 6 February 1999
using a Delta
II rocket 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 Earth15 January 2001, when it
was given an impossible gravity
assistkick
(!) for two more, slightly
bigger, slower
(green,
blue)
orbital loops, so it could return 60 months later close to
Earth15 January 2006 and drop off a Sample
Return Capsule. Evidently any gravity
assistkick 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. The spaceship itself continued the voyage with
more loops around the Sun.
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 journey aboard
the agency's Stardust spacecraft. Stardust
was launched Feb. 9, 1999, and travelled about
2.12 billion miles to the comet Wild-2, arriving on
Jan. 2, 2004. It came within 149 miles of the
comet that day, collecting a sample of the particles that
surround its nucleus in a 32-inch-wide, 101-pound
container. The Lockheed Martin Corp.-built spacecraft
then travelled 752 million miles back to
Earth, dropping the capsule at about 1:57
a.m. New York time this morning, NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, JPL, in Pasadena, California,
said in a statement. The capsule landed at the Air
Force's Utah Test and Training Range near Dugway at about
5:10 a.m.
Stardust
thus passed Earth (for the third time) on January
15, 2006:
"It ejected its return capsule, which
re-entered the atmosphere at a speed greater
than that of any previous manmade object,
before landing in the desert at the Utah Test and
Training Range, 80 miles (128 km) west of Salt Lake
City",
(we are told by NASA). The
Sample Return Capsule was then sent to a facility at
the Johnson Space centre in Houston, Texas for storage and
analysis.
Summary of the Stardust
trip:
Start: 6, 7 or 9 February (!),
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)
For most of its 4.5 billion-year lifetime,
Wild 2 probably had a more distant and circular orbit. In
September 1974, it passed within one million kilometers
of the planet Jupiter, whose strong gravitational pull
perturbed the comet's orbit and brought it into the inner
Solar System. Its orbital period changed from 43 years to
about 6 years, and its perihelion is now about 1.59
astronomical units.
45 kg,
0.81 m diameter Sample Return Capsule with no
steering equipment of any kind but with a heat
shield at bottom and parachutes at top (that nobody
knows how they were
activated)
Return Earth: 15 January,
2006
Distance: 752 million
miles during about 17 000 hrs.
Average speed: about 44
000 mph or 20 000 m/s (the speed is again
higher close to Earth and slower when far
away from Earth due to the elliptical
loop)
It appears that the
Stardust spaceship made three elliptical
loops (one small
(red)
and two
(green,
blue)
a little wider) around the Sun starting 6, 7 or 9
February 1999 and collected interstellar dust
March-May 2000 (loop 1) and July-December 2002
(loop 2) and passed comet Wild-2 2 January
2004 (loop 3) collecting more particles in the tail
of the comet. Stardust then returned then 15
January, 2006, for a meeting with planet
Earth.
Planet Earth was in the
meantime orbiting the Sun seven times at a constant
speed of about 30 000 m/s. After two orbits
by Earth and one loop of Stardust, they were
together for a first gravity assist acceleration
meeting 15 January 2001 and after another two loops
of Stardust and five orbits of Earth, the
two bodies were very close together again. The
Stardust spaceship may have accelerated to
25 000 m/s speed, when it encountered
Earth the second time after the third loop,
i.e. planet Earth and the spaceship were
travelling side by side at almost the same speed at
the close encounter the night 15 January, 2006.
Perfect to throw the 45 kg Stardust Sample
Return capsule overboard. The Earth was in
fact much faster in its smaller orbit and was thus
coming from behind of Stardust and then
passing ahead of Stardust at the second
encounter. Collecting stardust is quite complicated
but paid for by US tax payers that are happy to
chip in.
Then Stardust one way or another dropped off or throw
away the 101 lb (45 kg) Sample Return capsule into
Earth's atmosphere at an unknown altitude at about
01.57 am. Imagine that. The 45 kg Sample Return
capsule was dropped off at about 01.57 am.
The Stardust 255 kg spaceship
itself continued to elliptically loop the Sun at reduced
speed after the drop, while planet Earth continued at
constant orbital higher speed. The Earth gravity
force strangely did not affect the spaceship - only the
Sample Return capsule! Luckily the Stardust spaceship
didn't collide with the Moon orbiting planet
Earth.
The Sample Return capsule with
start speed 25 000 m/s therefore miraculously
dropped down and landed intact at about 5.10 am at
Dugway, Utah. How it - the 3 hrs re-entry (see below
about re-entry)
was done remains a complete mystery 2015. NASA/JPL
cannot explain how a 45 kg Sample Return capsule can
be dropped down from a 255 kg spacecraft with a speed of say
25 000 m/s on a planet Earth moving at 30 000
m/s speed in space sneaking up from behind (apart from
rotating around itself) during three hours and land anywhere
intact at zero speed on Earth. The capsule should
simply have started to accelerate due to Earth
gravity force and to rotate around itself and then be burnt
up when entering the atmosphere like a comet ... or crashed.
However:
Stardust's "sample return canister," was
reported to be in excellent condition when it landed in
Utah, on January 15, 2006. A NASA
team analyzed the particle capture cells and removed
individual grains of comet and interstellar dust, then
sent them to about 150 scientists around the globe.
NASA is collaborating withThe
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
spaceship (Stardust), to another much bigger
spaceship (planet Earth) moving at a higher speed in
space, so the capsule, with no remote means to steer and
control, dropped only assisted by Earth's gravity
force and atmosphere - hole in one - on a remote military
base in Utah.
NASA/JPL and its staff are just
making up fairy tales since 1960, which I explain below.
Reason - Stardust was a typical NASA/JPL
science pseudo fiction fairy tale just to keep the expensive
staff occupied. The Stardust Sample Return capsule
was probably just dropped from a plane passing Dugway that
night and never was in space at all. Typical
NASA/JPL. Or just dropped off from a truck for some
soldiers to find? Anyway, the Sample Returncapsule was found in a military area where public had
no access and was not invited to watch. It would either wise
have been a great night show! Maybe the capsule was never
there at all?
And what about the dust analyzed by 150
scientists around the globe by The Planetary
Society?:
As of 2006 the
composition of the dust has contained a wide range of
organic compounds, including two
that contain biologically usable nitrogen. Indigenous
aliphatic hydrocarbons were found with longer chain
lengths than those observed in the diffuse interstellar
medium. No hydrous silicates or carbonate
minerals were detected, which suggests a lack
of aqueous processing of Wild 2 dust. Very few pure
carbon (CHON) particles were found in the samples
returned. A substantial amount of crystalline silicates
such as olivine, anorthite and diopside were found,
materials only formed at high temperature, etc, etc.
Does anyone believe this nonsense of what
was not found? Actually it is just an invention of
The
Planetary Society -
empowering the world's citizens to advance space science
and exploration - that is simply another American hoax
run by the NASA/JPL/Hollywood crowd.
Seven particles captured by the
Stardust Interstellar Dust Collector
and returned to Earth for laboratory analysis have
features consistent with an origin in the
contemporary interstellar dust
stream. More than 50 spacecraft debris
particles were also identified. The
interstellar dust candidates are
readily distinguished from debris impacts on the basis of
elemental composition and/or impact trajectory. The
seven candidate interstellar
particles are diverse in elemental
composition, crystal structure, and size. The presence of
crystalline grains and multiple iron-bearing phases,
including sulfide, in some particles indicates that
individual interstellar particles
diverge from any one representative model of
interstellar dust inferred from astronomical
observations and theory.
You wonder who invented a
representative model of a contemporary interstellar dust
stream and its origin.
* None of the 70
scientists having examined
the alleged "star dust" exists or are just paid
infiltrators to confuse you! Their names are just invented
by the web master of the Science page to impress you or
silly friends of the web master creating the "star
dust" hoax.
1.21 The Messenger six
gravity kicks 2005-2009 - used to indoctrinate young
US pupils
The NASAMErcury
Surface, Space ENvironment,
GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER)
spacecraft, or short Messenger
spacecraft was August 2004 launched and sent away on
its seven years voyage to planet Mercury, thus a
couple of months after Rosetta (see above) was
launched. Both spacecrafts are hoaxes. Most links below do
not work any longer.
August 2005, after one
orbit around the Sun, there was a first fake
Earth flyby/gravity
kick, we are
told, and Messenger was sent off to the
planet Venus around the Sun arriving October
2006 for a first fake Venus flyby/gravity
kick ... to Venus.
June 2007 there was a
second fake Venus flyby/gravity kick but
this time going to planet Mercury.
January 2008 there was a
first fake Mercury flyby/gravity kick
followed by a second fake Mercury flyby/gravity
kickOctober 2008 and a third fake
Mercury flyby/gravity kickSeptember
2009.
Between the totally six fake
gravity kicks the Messenger orbited
the Sun once for a following precise encounter for
another kick. Finally, after more orbits
around the Sun March 2011 the Messenger
arrived at Mercury and started orbiting
(!) the planet itself - no
kick! - until April 2015, when it
suddenly crashed on the planet. When orbiting on
Mercury's sunny side the satellite heated up to
427C to cool down to minus 173C in the shadow side.
It didn't crack!
There are 16 persons in a core team
handling this 11 years old, six gravity kicks hoax.
Meet them here.
Or here!
The Messenger
education program has
produced 255 858 fake pictures which are being used
to indoctrinate US pupils, students and teachers about the
NASA science fiction fantasies during 10 years, e.g.
that there is ice on Mercury.
If you wonder, why US citizens believe in
human space travel and ice on Mercury, etc, the reason is
intense indoctrination at schools and universities and by
media. Some media people ordered to report on, e.g.
Messenger, that then visit this web page to learn
something, get very upset. They are ordered to report
something and find that it is all a hoax but, when they
complain to their bosses, they are told just to report the
lies that NASA produces and ignore the Björkman
nonsense. Some media people then get sick ... and some of
them hate me. Their lives are destroyed, I am told. But most
media people just do what they are told. They have accepted
the fact to publish lies. It is a tough
job.
Another amazing example that USA and
Soviet union - today Russia - were faking space travel and
re-entries together already 1974, when the Cold War was
quite hot, is the meeting in space of US spaceship Apollo
18 and USSR spaceship Soyuz 19 July 17, 1975.
Both were launched July 15, 1975 and the meeting in space
took place two days later at about 7 500 m/s velocity at
around 229 km altitude.
The
Apollo 18/Sojuz 19 Docking Module was attached to the
Apollo 18 Service Module rocket engine end (like the
Lunar Module) at lift off and had to be transferred to
the Command Module top by flipping the spaceship
180° - see below
how it was done!
The meeting in space apparently took
place in a Docking
Module attached to the Apollo
18 Command Module (see above):
"The Docking Module was designed jointly by
the United States and Soviet Union, and built in the
United States. Its purpose was to enable a docking
between the dissimilar Soyuz spacecraft and the U.S.
Apollo. It was a three meter long cylinder 1.5 meters in
diameter, and in addition to serving as a docking device,
also served as an airlock module between the different
atmospheres of the two ships (the U.S. ship with 100%
oxygen at 260 millimeters of mercury; the Soyuz with a
mixed oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere at 520 mm HG--lowered
from its usual 760 mm Hg for this
mission)."
In what atmosphere the US astroclowns and
the USSR kosmokrauts actually met is unclear. Note
mercury, HG and Hg are the same stuff that
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!
But the US/USSR military space propaganda
show where everything was fake was older than
that:
On October 4, 1957, officials from the United
States and the Soviet Union met at the National Academy
of Sciences in Washington, D.C., as part of an
international effort to cooperate in some areas of space
exploration. The Americans, led by chief delegate Richard
Porter, relentlessly pushed their Russian counterparts
for information about their satellite program. When, they
asked, would there be an official launch date for any
such space vehicles? But no matter how many times (and
how aggressively) the Americans asked-"almost to the
point of embarrassment," one document says - the Soviets
refused to answer.
1.23 What amount of
fuel is used to travel in space?
Many persons today, 2019, are
curious about the mass or amount of fuel you need
just to fly to the Moon ... and back using 1960's or
today's spaceship technology and how much it costs and they
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 spaceship with a
very advanced steering system, a big mass of
fuel/energy to do it using the best, strongest, very strong
rocket engines available by the military very secret
industry, but you cannot carry the mass of all the
fuel with you, because you
get too heavy.
2. You can maybe get into LEO but
you cannot even land on Earth again!The spaceship brake system - a
heat shield (LOL) for capsules or stunt flying backwards by
invented US Shuttle pilots - does not work in the
atmosphere. Earth gravity is much too strong and your speed
is much too high. You or your mass including capsule
or Shuttle will just go faster and faster whatever you try.
No way you can brake at re-entry.
Your mass and ass will burn up! Of course October
2014NASA is just building a new spaceship
Orion
that will easily re-enter and land on Earth! But it is just
propaganda.
3. Any human
in a spaceship will immediately be fried to death due to
heat radiation from the Sun and
cosmic radiation.
To insulate the spaceship against
radiation will make it too
heavy.
A spaceship travelling between
Earth and Moon is exposed 24/24 and 7/7 to the Sun,
as if you were at the Equator of planet Earth but
without any filtering, damping, turbulent
atmosphere.Same applies to satellites and
(fake) space stations orbiting Earth high above the
atmosphere. They all heat up to ~120C, when exposed
to the Sun. Electronics may work then, humans
not!
5. You can probably
create (read
invent) sending a small,
unmanned (fake) spaceship to orbit the
Moon after
executing, automatically or by remote control, a
very complex brake manoeuvre to get into Moon orbit
at say 1 500 m/s speed and at
100.000
meters altitude (like Apollo 11), and then with
some complex sub-system land on the Moon (see
right) after executing another, automatically or by
remote control, extremely difficult brake and stop
manoeuvre to get out of Moon orbit and get down and
stop on the surface of the Moon at zero speed, but
I assume not even the People's
Republic of China
can manage it December 2013. The start rocket looks
like a model. And the Moon Lander unit (right)
weight, single (!) rocket engine for steering and
braking, fuel, control systems data, times of
manoeuvres, etc. are unknown and you wonder, if it
has been tested on planet Earth.
Chinese
(fake) soft Moon landing 2013. The camera,
facing down attached beside the rocket engine,
just records that Moon (?) gets closer without
any changes of perspective,
etc.
It looks like stupid science fiction. The video of the
landing just shows the flat Moon surface coming closer and
closer from 90° above. 100% nonsense. Those are the
reasons why USA/NASA faked Moon trips six times in
the 1960's and 1970's to impress ... and manipulate ...
friends and foes.
1.24 China's People
Republic's fake Moon landing 2013/4/8, etc.
Tiangong-1
was China's first prototype space station, serving as both
a manned laboratory and an experimental testbed to
demonstrate orbital rendezvous and docking capabilities.
Launched unmanned aboard a Long March 2F/G rocket on 29
September 2011, it was the first operational
component of the Tiangong program, which aimed to place a
larger, modular station into orbit by 2023. However,
after having been visited (?) several times by Chinese
female soldiers of heaven, it
was planned to crash on Earth April
2018! Tiangong-1
therefore reentered Earth's atmosphere at high
altitude at approximately 00:16 UTC on 2 April 2018
over the South Pacific Ocean at 24.5°S 151.1°W.
According to Chinese state news agency Xinhua, the 8.5
tonnes station mostly burnt up upon re-entry. The rest
dropped into the sea! It was the largest spacecraft to
re-enter the atmosphere since Fobos-Grunt in January 2012.
This was about 3 600 kilometres (1 900 nmi) from
Point
Nemo, a location often used
as a spacecraft cemetery to ridicuosly crash defunct
satellites. As the spacecraft made an uncontrolled reentry,
this was unintended coincidence. In my opinion
Tiangong-1 was/is just a propaganda spacecraft to
impress stupid people.It was never orbiting
Earth!
7 December
2018 the People's Republic of
China executed a repeat hoax! Spacecraft Chang'e
4 took off to land on the far
side of our Moon a little later or early 2019.Chang'e 4 first orbited Earth, orbit of which
included the Moon after a deorbit burn. Close to the
Moon, Chang'e 4 then fired its rocket engine
at the right location, time and direction to leave orbit
Earth to start orbit Moon a little later.
Noone knows how to leave one orbit
and enter another orbit, but ... !!! China had done
such impossible fake stunts before with spacecrafts
Chang'e 1, 2 and 3 and nobody complained. And
then, again at the right location, time and direction in
orbit MoonChange' 4 descended like Change'
3 2013 to land at zero speed ... on the Moon.
Pure nonsense, all of it. But headline Fake News in
media worldwide! Chang'e 4 actually landed at the
bottom of the Von Karman crater, which is at the bottom of
the biggest crater caused by meteorite impacts on the
Moon since beginning of the Milky way Galaxy!
Imagine
that! And there on the Moon
Chang'e 4 unloaded Swedish and German
instruments to have a look what happened billions of
years ago on the Moon. It keeps plenty Chinese,
German and Swedish criminal space scientists
occupied. Media don't dare to ask them detailed
questions.
Regarding the People's Republic of
China's Chang'e
3 2013 Moon landing it
was apparently remotely controlled NASA/Houston style
by the 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 spaceship Moon
landing. But it is just a hoax. Created by China Chollywood.
Square TV screens. LOL!
From
fake video of the 'Yutu' Moon
landing
After reading this the Chinese Moon car
'Yutu' (left) ran out of fuel 28 January
2014 and all the clowns above had to close shop
and go home. To come back December 2018 to
land Chang'e 4. What a stupid
show.
1.25 Europe
is also participating in the hoax
Europe is also working hard in
space!
There are, they say, about 100
billion stars (suns) just in our own galaxy the
Milky Way, where our Sun is 1 of them stars, and 1%
of the others will soon be recorded by our space
telescopeGaia!
"Gaia is an ambitious mission to
chart a three-dimensional map of our Galaxy, the
Milky Way, in the process revealing the
composition, formation and evolution of the
Galaxy. Gaia will provide unprecedented
positional and radial velocity measurements with
the accuracies needed to produce a stereoscopic
and kinematic census of about one
billion stars in our Galaxy and
throughout the Local Group. This amounts to
about 1 per cent of the Galactic stellar
population."
Most of these Milky Way stars are just <100 000 light
years away from us. Do not ask me what the Local Group is.
Then there are millions of other galaxies with plenty other
stars further away in the Universe. And it seems new
galaxies are popping up all the time.
But no human can never ever visit any of
them with a spaceship. I explain why below ... and how you
are fooled. Back to dear USA!
Charles Bolden seems also to have
forgotten the 2006
NASA web site about getting
more powerful rocket engines/brakes.
We all know that any rocket engine is
very simple. The mass of the fuel mix is just ignited at the
bottom of a nozzle and burns and becomes an expanding
gas mass. The expanding gas mass in the nozzle, is
then ejected out of the open end of the nozzle, as it
has nowhere else to expand, and applies a thrust in the
other direction of the nozzle. It works anywhere as
long as the mass of the gas can escape out of the
nozzle. It evidently works best in vacuum outside the
nozzle. As the mass escapes out of the nozzle
the rocket becomes lighter with less mass.
It is a crazy NASA website!
NASA official Dr. Robert M. Starr and editor
Sharon Bowers stated July 10, 2006 the
following:
"Nuclear thermal
propulsion allows a spacecraft to travel
faster by providing a more efficient, and light weight
system. We would not use nuclear propulsion systems until
the spacecraft was far from Earth. The 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
massof a fluid, usually
liquid hydrogen at minus 240C, in a high, say, plus
1 200C temperature nuclear reactor (so
it doesn't melt), so that the hydrogen
mass is ejected at, say, 10 000 m/s
velocity through a nozzle that creates
thrust to accelerate the remaining mass
of the rocket in space to enormous speed. It seems
NASA has not developed the matter further.
All rockets work exactly like that.
If you ask NASA what is
new, they will not reply. Reason is that you need
the same amount of fuel or mass to
brake and to accelerate, but you need to carry the
fuel or mass to brake with you, when
you accelerate, and then ... you get too
heavy.
And as soon as you get close to
any planet or moon, the local gravity will accelerate your
mass too and attract your mass,
so you will go faster and faster ... and you'll
crash.
But wait! Another fantastic
fantasy
perpetuum mobile interstellar space craft
engine is invented by a NASA,
Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, 35812, USA, manager
by name of David M. Burns, Ph.D. . His Helical
Engine works on the principle that mass can
disappear and reappear inside it, so force and thrust is
developed without outside interference.
Key benefits: the engine can operate
indefinitely without significant refueling; be energy
efficient (provided the decelerator energy is harvested);
be reliable as ions are the only moving
part; and have an extremely high speed. The
engine could be powered by solar energy for satellite
station keeping or a nuclear reactor for interstellar
travel. It may be the only practical long duration
interstellar engine based on existing technology. The
Helical Engine is possible because
of recent innovations: an engine architecture that
conserves propellant and offers an opportunity to recover
energy used to accelerate ions; lightweight, efficient,
space-rated, neutrally-charged particle beam components
developed by National Laboratories; space-qualified
nuclear reactor technology developed by NASA; and
lightweight magnets and high efficiency undulators
(LOL) developed for
producing synchrotron radiation in particle
accelerators.
Magic! No! Pure nonsense of course, but
typical NASA (August 2019).
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
1961backed 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 ...
... 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).
Imagine the amount of money NASA
has stolen from US tax payers since 1961 to keep the Moon
and other hoaxes going with fake propaganda. Imagine all the
physicists, PhD's and rocket engineers being paid to create
and support the NASA hoax! There are plenty web pages
2015 supporting the NASA hoax that started around
1961. They are compiled by the children and grandchildren of
the NASA clowns that started the hoax and were well
paid doing it. It is a family business. Why do serious work,
when you are better paid faking it at
JPL?
1.28 Physical reasons
why human space travel is impossible
"A significant factor contributing to the
difficulty (of space
travel) is the energy (read
mass) which must be supplied to
obtain a reasonable travel time. A lower bound for the
required energy is the kinetic energy K = ½
mv², where m is the final mass.
If deceleration on arrival is desired and cannot be
achieved by any means other than the
(rocket) engines of the ship, then the required
energy (read mass)
at least doubles, because the energy
(read mass)
needed to halt the ship equals the energy
(read mass)
needed to accelerate it to travel speed."
Etc, etc.
It means, e.g. that a spaceship
with massm = 10 000 kg arriving at
speed v = 10 000 m/s wanting to stop (0 m/s
speed) must use 500 GJ energy to brake because the
kinetic energy K (unit Joule or J) is
m 10 000 (kg) times v 10 000 (m/s)
times v 10 000 m/s divided by 2 or K =
½mv².
I
am actually a tanker man having operated oil
tankers for many years at sea. A super tanker with
weight
300.000.000
kg doing 15 knots (7.5 m/s) at sea has kinetic
energy only 8.4375 GJ. The spaceship with 30 000
times smaller mass but much faster needs almost 60
times more energy than a super tanker at sea on
Earth to stop. Imagine that! A modern supertanker
maybe uses
60.000
kg/day fuel just to sail at sea overcoming
resistance. It will stop by itself in say 30
minutes due to resistance, if the engine is shut
off. If you reverse the engine - crash stop - you
may stop in 15 minutes. In space there is no
resistance. You must stop by using your rocket
engine applying (brake) force in the opposite
direction of travel.
Assume it takes time t =
1 000 seconds to stop the spaceship, the
deceleration a while braking is a =
10 m/s² or about 1 g. As the average speed
during 1 000 seconds is
5.000
m/s, the total brake distance is 5 000 000 meters
(or 5 000 kilometers). The brake force
F applied to massm during
1 000 seconds is 100 000 Newton (because
F (Newton) = m a (kg
m/s²)).
Question is how much fuel
corresponds to 500 GJ that produces a brake force
of 100 000 Newton during 1 000 seconds. If 1
kg of rocket fuel can produce 10 MJ rocket
brake/deceleration energy, you need 50 000 kg fuel
to stop a 10 000 kg spaceship. But then the
spaceship has mass 60 000 kg before braking
starts and you need more fuel to stop m
because the extra mass of fuel (that is used
to produce the brake force) must also be stopped.
It is not easy to stop in space - you need time,
space and ... energy!
Evidently you can take it
easier. Assume it takes time t = 10 000
seconds to stop or 10 times longer than assumed
above. The deceleration a while braking is
then a = 1 m/s² or about 0.1 g. As the
average speed during 10 000 seconds is still
5.000
m/s, the total brake distance is 50 000 000 meters
(or 50 000 kilometers) or 10 times longer than
before. But there is plenty space in space. The
brake force F applied to massm
during 10 000 seconds is 10 000 Newton
(because F (Newton) = m a (kg
m/s²)) and the energy required is still 500
GJ. Physics or space dynamics is simple as long as
you use metric units (and not American
ones). Question remains though:
How much rocket fuel is required
to produce a (brake) thrust force of 10 000 Newton
or 10 kN during 10 000 seconds to stop a
rocket in space?
Thrust specific fuel consumption
(TSFC)
or sometimes simply specific fuel
consumption, SFC, is an engineering term that
is used to describe the fuel efficiency of an
engine design with respect to thrust output. TSFC
may also be thought of as fuel consumption
(grams/second) per unit of thrust (kilonewtons, or
kN). It is thus thrust-specific, meaning that the
fuel consumption is divided by the
thrust.
TSFC or SFC for thrust engines
(e.g. turbojets, turbofans, ramjets, rocket
engines, etc.) is the mass of fuel needed to
provide the net thrust for a given period e.g.
g/(kN s) (grams of fuel per kilonewton-second).
Mass of fuel is used rather than volume (gallons or
litres) for the fuel measure since it is
independent of temperature.
Say that the SFC
of the rocket engine is 0.309 kg/(kN s) like the
famous NK-33 Russian rocket engine from the 1960's.
Then you need 30 900 kg fuel! But then your
mass is 40 900 kg before
braking.
But why not use xenon and
electricity as propellant? NASA
has this crazy NEXT idea:
NEXT consumed
860 kg of xenon propellant.
A conventional rocket would require
10,000
kg of propellant to provide the same amount of
total momentum. By providing low, constant
thrust over long periods of time,
electric propulsion engines such as
NEXT can accelerate spacecraft using less than a
tenth of the propellant of a chemical rocket.
...
NEXT is part of a class of solar electric
propulsion (SEP) engines. How does it work?
"SEP uses electricity, generated by
solar panels, to power an electric thruster to
propel spacecraft," says Michael
Patterson, principal investigator.
"Because it reduces the amount of
propellant needed for a given mission, it
greatly reduces the weight of the
vehicle."
It seems that the xenon ions are
accelerated to
40.000
m/s speed in lieu of normal rocket exhaust gases
that are expelled at
4;000
m/s. Therefore the momentum or thrust is ten times
higher. But regardless - sooner or later you run
out of fuel. You should wonder what monkeys at
NASA inventing such nonsense.
My agency Heiwa
Co and Iare mainly interested in peaceful, maritime
transportation safety and fuel consumed at sea
and, therefore, also in space travel. Difference is not big!
How to travel in space safely? You need fuel to reach
your destination. And let's face it - Apollo 11 finally
ended up in water subject to maritime rules and regulations
- my specialty. My ships operate in the wavy interface
water/air on Earth that offers resistance and limits
velocity all the time and make some people sea sick.
Spaceships operate in vacuum space that offers no resistance
until you enter a planet's atmosphere. Only gravity forces
of the Sun, planets and moons affect vehicles in space apart
from the force of the rocket engine to brake and speed
up.
The mass of the fuel used
by the rocket engines during the first manned
Apollo
11 Moon visit July 1969 is of
great interest, as you must bring along all fuel from
start to accomplish all parts of the trip after getting
launched or trans-lunar injected to the Moon from planet
Earth by external rockets. The NASA faked
it!
You cannot fill up under way as there are
nowhere in space you can add mass (fuel) to your
spaceship! Solar panels can be used to charge batteries but
electricity cannot be used to brake your
spaceship.
You need fuel (energy) to
eject mass to brake or reduce speed and to accelerate
or increase velocity in space.
Rocket engine function to accelerate and
brake in space is very simple. See also 0.18 above
and 0.31 below.
The fuel combusts in the rocket
combustion chamber and is ejected through the opening
as a hot gas, while the combustion chamber itself
with its bits and pieces - the rocket - is pushed in the
other direction. It works anywhere; in any fluid medium and
vacuum. It is Newton's 3rd law, which states that for every
action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
When a rocket exerts a force F on the hot
exhaust gas being ejected from its combustion chamber
- an action - the rocket itself is subject to a force - F,
i.e. a force of the same strength but in the opposite
direction - a reaction.
Or, the mass of liquid fuel burns
in the rocket engine combustion chamber and becomes
hot gas at great volume. That mass is ejected at high
velocity in one direction through a rocket engine nozzle and
lost - the action - which produces a reaction force applied
to the remaining mass of the spaceship with the
engine/nozzle in the other direction that changes the speed
as required.
You have to carry the mass of all
the fuel with you from start.
It
is only possible to put a satellite in empty
space at great velocity using a rocket, e.g. to
orbit Earth. But you can never stop and
recuperate it. It will always burn up on return
to Earth. Just ask very young Russian Federal
Space Agency Roscosmos president Denis Lyskov
about it. Roscosmos is pretty good at launching
satellites but has never managed to get one back
on Earth. Lyskov has a hard time at Roscosmos.
Many fake comsokrauts wanted his well paid job
to promote the Russian space hoax propaganda.
Same situation at NASA.
Konstantin
E. Tsiolkovsky has
established that the change in velocity, Delta-v, of
a spacecraft in space (no influence of gravity of an
adjacent planet or Moon) is a function of the mass
ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after,
m1 firing the rocket engine, difference
m0 - m1 being the fuel mass ejected as
exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas
leaving the spaceship rocket nozzle.
Delta-v =
ve ln
(m0/m1)
Example - you want to slow down a
78.000
kg (m0) Shuttle
entering the atmosphere backwards at a horizontal speed of
9.000
m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only
8.000
kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve
of
2.800
m/s. m1 =
70.000
kg.
You find that Delta-v is only
303 m/s, i.e. braking with the Shuttle rocket
engines is not very effective. You are too heavy! And Earth
gravity pulls you down all the time (not considered by
Tsiolkovsky).
Tsiolkovsky works fine when accelerating
in vacuum space. It is simple fire works! The rocket goes
faster and faster, while it gets lighter and lighter burning
fuel that escapes as hot gas out of the rocket engine nozzle
behind the rocket. Flip the rocket around in order to brake
so it goes slower and slower into its own exhaust, while
getting lighter and lighter, you'll find that you soon run
out of fuel and ... crash or get lost in space!
According NASA[1]
you need 10 898 kg rocket fuel to
slow down a 32 676 kg spaceship (Apollo
11) from 2 400 m/s to 1 500
m/s speed during 357.5 seconds to get
into lunar orbit of a Moon that orbits Earth at
>1 000 m/s speed. These
10.898
kg fuel was according NASA available to
produce the 127 kN thrust consuming 88.73 GJ
energy to slow down the spaceship; 1 kg of rocket
fuel thus produced 8.14 MJ brake energy, i.e.
fuel consumption to produce energy for braking
was 8.14 MJ/kg fuel. It corresponds to an SFC
of 0.24 kg/kN s.
Using Tsiolkovsky (and ignoring
Moon gravity) with mo = 43 802
kg,m1 = 32 676
kg and Delta-v = 900 m/s, we get ve
3 071 m/s.
It sounds possible. One problem
though is that the P-22KS rocket engine could only
provide 97.4 kN thrust. And I do not believe it is
technically, humanly and physically possible for
the spaceship pilots/cosmokrauts to carry out the
braking manoeuvre flying backwards in 3D into its
own exhaust, while applying the brake force in
exactly the right direction. I explain more
below.
The light weight 7 327 kg Apollo Lunar
Module Eagle reportedly, [1]
again, used 7 952 kg of fuel to descend
from orbit around Moon at 1 500 m/s speed and to land
... at 0 m/s speed. We do not really know how long time it
took but if it took only 756.3 seconds the SFC was 0.225
kg/kN s. Why not?
Using Tsiolkovsky (forgetting Moon
gravity) with mo = 15 279 kg,m1 = 7 327 kg and Delta-v =
1.500
m/s, we get ve
2.041
m/s. Low because we forget Moon gravity.
And the 2 603 kg Lunar Module
needed 2 285 kgfuel to get back into
orbit at 1 500 m/s speed and to dock with the Apollo 11
service module orbiting above at 1 500 m/s speed too.
Sounds good, too! I look into it in my presentation below.
The time it took is not known. It seems NASA faked it
1969.
Using Tsiolkovsky (forgetting Moon
gravity again) with mo = 4 888 kg,m1 = 2 603 kg and Delta-v =
1.500
m/s, we get ve
2.381
m/s. A little higher because we ignore gravity.
Finally [1]
Apollo 11 used 4 676 kg rocket fuel to
accelerate the 12 153 kg Apollo 11 from 1 500
m/s to 2 400 m/s or more speed during 150
seconds to get out of lunar orbit towards Earth. It also
sounds too good to be true.
Using Tsiolkovsky (forgetting Moon
gravity again) with mo = 16 829 kg,
m1 = 12 153 kg and Delta-v =
900 m/s, we get ve
2.764
m/s.
I do however not believe it is possible.
Remember that the Moon orbits Earth at >1 000 m/s
speed. Imagine if you accelerated too early or late and in
the wrong direction and ended up at Venus! It is not easy to
pilot a spaceship in 3D-space as training and test flying
with rocket modules on Earth is ... not available.
You
have to start and stop at exact the right times
with the rocket aiming in the absolute right
direction in 3D. If you go off in the wrong
direction, i.e. you fuck up and waste fuel, you
have a problem.
NASA and Dr.
David
R. Williamsof the NASA Solar
System Exploration Data Services Office or Solar
System Exploration Division Services Office
(!), are not willing to tell
neither how much fuel was actually needed and
carried by the Apollo 11 Service and Lunar
modules and times used to fire the various rockets
to produce the kinetic energy required to produce
forces in the exact right direction, to get into
orbit
around
Moon with the Lunar Module, visit the
Moon and then get out of orbit around Moon direction Earth
and to brake upon arrival Earth again, nor how and where to
store it during the trip! Info is available in very
confusing reports, but if it can be trusted is not certain.
1969 model rocket engines seem to be very efficient. Too
efficient! It seems Dr. David
R. Williams is employed to
keep the hoax running.
Reason is that too much fuel was
required that could be carried and the pilot manoeuvres were
impossible to carry out ... and that everything was just a
hoax 1969. That people believed. It was easy to fool people
1969. Since the 1940's the public had been told that Flying
Saucers, UFOs, were regularly visiting Earth and that the
USA could easily do space flying too. No rocket engineers
would disagree. They are generally military where everything
is secret. But...
This article explains in detail the
energy, i.e. fuel, required by (1) the Apollo
command/service modules to get into and out of Moon orbit
from Earth and (2) the Lunar module to land on Moon and get
back into orbit around Moon again. Fuel consumption
is given as MJ/kg, i.e. how much effective kinetic energy 1
kg of rocket fuel produces during the various speed changes,
when fuel is consumed. Another fuel consumption figure,
kg/s, when the SM rocket engine was fired seems to have been
constant 30-31 kg/s, like the Specific Fuel Consumption,
SFC, around 0.24 kg/kN s.
There are no margins anywhere. Or
redundancy. It was and is all Hollywood nonsense.
(16
October 2013 or even before all below NASA
links/photos were not working due to some
shutdown in USA, i.e. NASA cannot pay $4 /month
to the ISP to keep them running! It is serious
if you cannot pay $4/month! It seems I am right
about NASA! It is just propaganda).
The article also analyses the Apollo
re-entry to Earth. No fuel at all was used to
decelerate the Apollo 11 descent on Earth. Only friction
and turbulence were used ... which is simply impossible.
The Apollo command module should have burnt up at re-entry.
Recently a
mad person with mass 90 kg + 40 kg gear jumped from just 38
000 meters altitude with
start velocity 0 m/s. After a minute his velocity was
>350 m/s due gravity alone because of little
friction and turbulence and it was only due to atmosphere
getting denser at <15 000 meters altitude that he slowed
down and could eject a parachute. Imagine an Apollo module
of >5 000 kg coming dropping into Earth's atmosphere
with almost horizontal start direction/velocity 11 200
m/s at
100.000
meters altitude. It is suggested friction and turbulence
at that altitude will slow down the spaceship but it only
happens at
<15.000
meters altitude and then the vertical velocity of Apollo 11
has increased to >350 m/s and total velocity is still
>11.205
m/s and there is little time to brake using friction. Try
then to brake using friction!
1.29 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 Agency wide safety, reliability,
maintainability, and quality assurance (SRM&QA)
policies and procedures.
"Wilcutt joined
NASA in 1990 as an
astronaut candidate and was accepted into the
corps in 1991. He logged more than 1,007 hours
in space as the pilot on two shuttle missions,
STS-68 in 1994 and STS-79 in 1996, and commander
of two others, STS-89 in 1998 and STS-106 in
2000. His technical assignments as an astronaut
included work on space shuttle main engine and
external tank issues; supporting shuttle
launches and landings as a member of the
astronaut support personnel team at
NASA’s Kennedy Space
centre in Florida; and technical issues for the
Astronaut Office Operations Development Branch
at Johnson."
If you try to contact Terrence, you will probably not get
through. It would appear Terrence W. Wilcutt is an
actor and part of the NASA hoax ... and may not even
exist. Imaging having been 1 007 hrs in space and done four
Shuttle re-entries, flying backwards from the Mir station
(twice) and ISS (once) like Mark Kelly that I
describe in Part
3. It is not possible.
Enjoy reading the end of the article and
the links (if they work)!
Comments are always welcome at
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
spaceship is ready! But can
you really trust the Mars space travel agent
Elon
Musk selling the tickets?
Elon is performing XpaceS
re-entries today apart from
selling Texla S cars that get hot and burn up.
Elon
Musk/XpaceS tests and films
its latest rocket in beautiful nowhere and it returns to
nowhere. It is 100% computer generated images. But stupid
people believe it ... 2015!
Is anybody really up there in the ISS
being re-entered by XpaceS? 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.
1.30 The Virgin
Galactic human space/sail
travel hoax - sailing in space!
A private
company offers human
space travel at a cost of US$
250.000:-
per person to be paid as an upfront deposit. It
will only last a few minutes though. The company
says it has already sold >400 tickets!
Or
800! Don't blame me
if the links
do not work any longer. The idea is that the
space/sail ship SS2 (right) with six
passengers - fasten your seat belts! - and
two pilots with electricity aboard by batteries is
carried by an airplane to
15.000
m altitude (it takes 30 minutes), where it is
released at say 100 m/s speed. A
rocket engine is then fired for 70 seconds
and the total start weight abt
9.000
kg SS2 space/sail ship speeds straight up
into the cold, empty thermosphere
or space at
115.000
m altitude in a few minutes ... if all goes
well.
The rocket engine is
simple pyrotechnics, i.e. fireworks with say
4.000
kg solid fuel burning. It is rumoured that
it can be regulated, i.e. stopped/started again but
nobody knows why it should be necessary. It should
just burn for 70 seconds
Photo
shopped picture of a space/sail ship SS2 -
it looks like a model made by a 12 years old
boy
The top speed while going up may
be
>1.000
m/s. Very simple actually but it has not yet
been tested full scale! Wing rudders and flaps
evidently do not work due to lack of air outside -
the spaceship is simply catapulted upwards in the
empty space by the rocket thrust. Inside is normal
air at 1 bar pressure.
After a few minutes a parabolic
"flight" takes place at lower
horizontal speed - say 300 m/s at
115.000
m altitude - you are weightless in space and can
release your seat belts. That's all! No drinks are
however served during flight and being
weightless.
Flight? The spaceship may
rotate around itself in any directions at this
stage. There is no system to keep it stable with
600 kg of passengers and crew moving around inside.
Then the vertical speed
becomes zero - you are at your zenith - and the
5.000
kg spaceship starts to drop or glide down to Earth
by itself free fall due to gravity at increasing
speed - re-entry!! - first into the
mesosphere, where meteors burn up and then into
the stratosphere.
Nobody knows what part of the
spaceship will face forward at this moment. And you
go, drop or sail at faster and faster
speed in the almost vacuum due the Earth's
gravity! Fasten your seat belts again! The
outside air gets slowly thicker and thicker again.
The pilots are now supposed to activate some wing
flaps to slow down the speed but nobody knows what
is up/down/right/left at this moment.
Back at
15.000
m altitude your speed may be only
1.400
m/s and here the pilots are supposed to take
over and steer the SS2 sail plane. How they
manage to reduce speed and brake during the
re-entry with this strange supersonic
space/sail ship to say 50 m/s to land is not
clear.
It is suggested that the flaps
at the end of the wings inside the vertical
stabilizers are raised at
1.400
m/s speed to produce a brake force. The sail
plane appears however to be unstable at high speeds
in space and cannot ever stop! It will
always wobble or rotate around itself and crash or
break up. There is evidently no engine available
for landing. You can only glide as a
sailplane and for that you need outside air!
SS2 has apparently only been tested at very
low speeds of 100 m/s in thick air at a few
1.000's
meters altitude. I have a feeling the future space
travellers have lost their money.
On 31 October 2014 the
SS2 space/sail ship didn't crash though! It
- or a mock-up of it - broke apart on its way up on
a test flight, when the
brake was activated
at low speed ~350 m/s. What a strange high flying
joke. Ultimately, the NTSB
concluded that
"the probable cause of this accident
was [Virgin Galactic contractor] Scaled
Composites' failure to consider and protect
against the possibility that a single human
error could result in a catastrophic hazard to
the SpaceShipTwo vehicle. This failure set the
stage for the copilot's premature unlocking of
the feather system as a result of time pressure
and vibration and loads that he had not recently
experienced, which led to un-commanded feather
extension and the subsequent aerodynamic
overload and in-flight breakup of the
vehicle."
Owner
of Virgin Galactic presenting new model of
spacecraft 2016. It looks as unsafe as the
previous one
It is worse than the
Shuttle
also using its wing flaps to brake ... a
complete impossible lie.
But plenty people
believe in human space travel (and
much other nonsense) because they are
brainwashed by silly propaganda and
haven't studied my articles.
So in February
2016 the owner of Virgin
Galactic
was back ... with a new design of the
spacecraft (left)!
It will soon bring
tourists into space. Plenty paid actors
were invited to applaud the show.
Haven't we seen it
before.
1.31 Blue Origin
sub-orbital space travel
Blue
Origin is a private
spaceflight company founded by Amazon.com CEO Jeff
Bezos to develop commercial rockets and spacecraft. The
company was founded in 2000, but came to public
attention in 2003 when it began buying land in Texas for its
testing grounds. So far it has only done sub-orbital flights
with its New Shephard rocket just into the lower
thermosphere.
The New Shephard rocket
system is reportedly a fully reusable vertical
takeoff, vertical landing (VTVL) space vehicle. The
system consists of a pressurized capsule atop a
rocket with tanks and engine. The combined vehicles
launch vertically, accelerating for approximately
two and a half minutes, before the engine cuts off.
The maximum speed is about Mach 3 (or
1.020
m/s. The capsule then separates from the
booster to coast quietly into space up to 93 500
meters altitude in the lower
thermosphere. After a few minutes of free
fall, the booster rocket performs an autonomously
controlled rocket-powered vertical landing, while
the capsule lands softly under parachutes, both
ready to be used again.
The New Shephard rocket system has apparently been
tested a couple of times latest November
2015. Only animations and low
quality videos exist. How the capsule separates from the
rocket and is thrown away upwards into space leaving the
rocket behind is not really clear (to me).
Anything being dropped from 90 000
m altitude in the almost vacuum there will have reached
velocity >870 m/s, when entering the
stratosphere at 50 000 m altitude after about
92 seconds or 'a few minutes' of 40 000
m gravity free fall. The velocity is still increasing
but will be slowed down due to the atmosphere getting
thicker below 50 000 m altitude.
If the velocity of the capsule is say
1 000 m/s at 20 000 m altitude in the
stratosphere, it will evidently hit ground and crash
in less than 20 seconds and there is no time to
deploy any parachutes. And to deploy parachutes higher up
will not really help, as there is very little air there in
the stratosphere. A re-entry from space using
heat shields and parachutes is impossible under any
circumstances - see 1.7
above. Imagine that it is so hard to understand.
Same applies to the
booster/rocket unit that also drops free-fall say
>60 000 m for 'a few minutes'. It will
also attain a speed of
~1.000
m/s and it is unlikely to be stopped by its own
rocket engine. It will also crash. It seems that
Blue Origin is another hoax ... maybe to
impress US tax authorities?
However ... imagine what
happens!!
October 2018Blue
Origin’s CEO Bob Smith confirmed
that the vessel right, M/S
Stena Freighter, has
been bought and will 2018/9 undergo a major
conversion project somewhere (Mexico/US?) to
transform her into a rocket landing
pad!
Well, why not? The upper deck
can carry fairly heavy trailers. Why not a rocket
from space?
pursuing personal
visions that humanity can progress in meaningful
ways.I will
not spend one minute of my life on anything that I
don't think is contributing to civilization and
society
to use his rocket startup to develop robotic
rovers and perhaps (?) human
habitats on the Moon's
surface, even if such projects fail to win
financial support from the U.S. government ...
Bezos
Moon lander 2019
Bezos'
future generation supporters
2019
Bezos said
future generations won't be able to survive
on Earth without expanding
into other parts of the solar system
..."We must
go back to the moon, and this time to stay,"
echoing one of the White
House's principles for establishing sustainable
outposts.
Bezos
aims to take people to the Moon by
2024, he announced on Thursday May 9,
2019. He unveiled a lunar lander (above)
designed by his company Blue Origin, another
step toward the billionaire entrepreneur's goal of
creating the infrastructure for millions of
people to live and work in
space.
Bezos said the enormous
lunar lander could deliver 6.5 metric tons (7.1
tons) to the surface of the Moon. He didn't
set a date for a mission, but said that the engine
for the lander will be tested this summer 2019, and
that the vehicle could be upgraded to carry humans
as part of NASA's push to return to the Moon by
2024.
It is a pity that US media report Bezos as
news. It is all lunatic Fake News! On 1, 2
August 2019 Bezos sold Euro
2.800.000.000
worth of Amazon shares on the NY Stock exchange to finanze
his space nonsense. Using a converted roro cargo ship
...
1.32 Flying
combustion chambers
Any rocket is just a simple combustion
chamber with fuel and other bits and pieces attached.
The combustion chamber is generally nozzle shaped and
always open. The fuel combusts in the combustion
chamber and is ejected through the opening as a hot gas,
while the combustion chamber itself with its bits and
pieces is pushed in the other direction. It works anywhere;
in any fluid medium and vacuum as already said in
1.18
above. It is Newton's 3rd law, which states that for every
action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
When a rocket exerts a force F on the hot
exhaust gas being ejected from its combustion chamber
- an action - the rocket itself is subject to a force - F,
i.e. a force of the same strength but in the opposite
direction - a reaction.
If the fuel is solid, it is located and
combusted in the combustion chamber itself. If the
fuel is liquid, it is delivered from a tank to the
combustion chamber, where it is combusted. Many
people believe rockets are very complicated but, as just
shown, they are very simple; just a combustion
chamber + attachements.
One problem is the fuel. You cannot fill
up in flight. You have to carry all fuel with you from
start. Another problem is how to eject the hot gas in the
right direction in vacuum space (in the atmosphere you can
steer the combustion chamber with fins attached) to
reach any target in order not to fly away in the wrong
direction and get lost in space.
Combustion chambers are not really
suited for humans to be attached to in space. I
explain why in Part
2.
1.33Deep
Space Climate Observatory, the solar eclipse that never took
place and LISA Pathfinder
Another recent US space hoax is
the Deep Space Climate ObservatoryNASA
DSCOVR satellite.
It is supposed to orbit
the Sun without humans aboard while
remaining in front of Earth at a constant
distance
91.960.000
miles from the Sun and
1.000.000
miles from Earth taking pictures of the
Sun, Earth and the Moon, which
is orbiting between
225.622
and
252.088
miles (average
238,857
miles from Earth) - see picture right. The
DSCOVR was sent away from planet Earth in a
straight trajectory towards the SunJanuary 2015.
To do that it had to accelerate
to
>11.000
m/s speed to overcome Earth's gravity
(according to
Newton).
Then it reached, after braking
for three months, its magic position between
Earth and Sun starting orbiting
Sun, we are told, where total Earth's
and Sun's gravity (forces) and the
satellites centrifugal force are zero. First
problem was to find the location to stop and second
problem was that DSCOVR lacked fuel/rocket
thrust to stop its radial speed completely
and reducethe tangential
speed (Earth tangential or orbital speed
around the Sun is about 30 000 m/s) to stay
exactly in location during the one year orbit
around the Sun. The latter it is normally not
possible! At that orbital speed you go too slow and
will spiral inwards to the Sun. If you go faster
(according to
Kepler), to keep the
distance to the Sun constant, you will soon be far
away from Earth.
Reason is that orbital velocity
is higher the closer you orbit the Sun. Otherwise
you do not orbit.
But there is a loophole, we are told. If the spacecraft is
placed between Sun and Earth, the Earth's
gravity pulls it in the opposite direction and
cancels some of the pull of the Sun. With a weaker pull
towards the Sun, the spacecraft then needs less speed to
maintain its orbit. The problem is just to find and
'place' the spacecraft in the right location, which I
doubt NASA could.
Earth's gravity acceleration (m/s²)
is reduced as a function of the altitude or distance
from Earth. If the gravity acceleration is 9.8 m/s on
Earth, it is only about 0.00016 m/s² or about
64 000 times smaller at
1.600.000
kilometers
(1.000.000
miles) from
Earth. Thus Sun or Earth
gravity force is extremely small, where DSCOVR is
lurking.
DSCOVR is according
NASA (but not
Kepler) since always
lined up with Sun/itself/planet Earth due to these
small gravity forces of Sun and Earth keeping it in
place and it can watch the sunny side of
planet Earth all the time from a
constant distance while it orbits the Sun in
one year. On the other side of Earth there is
night! Luckily planet Earth rotates around itself
in 24 hrs so people can sleep.
I cannot understand how anyone can
take NASA seriously 2015. NASA invents
anything since >50 years; humans on the Moon,
strawberries on the Moon, a new base on the Moon, ice on
Pluto, a location in space where a satellite DSCOVR
is kept fixed by microscopic gravity forces of the Sun and
planet Earth, etc, etc.
Between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m.
EDT (4 hrs 55 min) on 16 July 2015 (the
197th day of the year 2015), when Earth
rotates 73,75°, this happened according
NASA - see picture right - a
solar
eclipse seen from
DSCOVR in space:
The Moon (!) in the
eclipticpassed in conjunction infront of the
Sun seen from the sunny side of Earth (from left to
right seen from the Sun).
There wasn't a solar eclipse
on Earth that day according NASA!
The orbit
of the Moon is inclined about 5° to the
ecliptic and the Sun is always very near the
ecliptic, so eclipses only occur when the Moon
passes the ecliptic or nearby. Because of the
inclination of the Moon's orbit, eclipses thus do
not occur at every conjunction and opposition of
the Sun and Moon, but only when the Moon is near an
ascending or descending node and at the same time
it is at conjunction or opposition. It takes the
Moon 27.322 days to orbit planet Earth and
about four hours to pass in front of it seen from
DSCOVR, if in the ecliptic.
Fake
NASA photo of planet Earth with 'gray' (!) full
(lit up by the Sun) Moon in the ecliptic passing in
conjunction in front of Earth taken by satellite
DSCOVR on 16 July 2015
But, as already stated, there was no
eclipse of any kind seen over the Pacific 16 July
2015, though! Why is that? Well the Moon was not there!
So how could DSCOVR film the Moon passing
Earth?
The video is simple Computer Generated
Images, CGI, made at Hollywood! The clouds and
typhoon (outside Mexico!) on the rotating Earth, 73,75°
in 4 hrs 55 minutes, do not move, while the full but gray
Moon moves across the moving Earth, etc, etc. It is a
typical NASA stunt to continue getting money from US
tax payers since at least 1960! Media do not react of
course.
Same 28 September 2015 (the
271st day of the year 2015 or 74 days later
(!)) with the famous
Moon eclipse - the full Moon
now in opposition in the ecliptic was hidden behind and in
the shadow of the Earth - and to show it at http://epic.gsfc.NASA.gov/.
Click on HOME and chose a date, e.g. 16 July
and 28 September 2015. But there are no pictures
available!?!?
Same 27 July 2018 - the full Moon
should disappear behind planet Earth but DSCOVR could
not film it.
It seems that DSCOVRcanot film a
full Moon lit up by the Sun disappearing behind the dark,
not seen, night side of Earth with USA/Atlantic/Europe from
right and reappearing again on the left side four hours
later while DSCOVR were watching sunny Indian Ocean,
Australia and the South Pacific. It would have been a great
opportunity to show DSCOVR exists (but probably too
complex for the clowns at NASA?) or DSCOVR had
slipped away from its position.
But I asked NASA about it anyway.
I didn't expect an answer but on 23 October 2015 I
received the following:
Hello,
The DSCOVR lunar transit
images were taken in a special, high cadence
manual mode of the DSCOVR
spacecraft. So those images do not lend themselves to be
included in our automated Earth image database. By
popular demand, we will bring the eclipse images to the
EPIC web page as a "Gallery" tab
early next week.
Thank you for your interest in the DSCOVR
mission.
Dr. Adam Szabo, NASA DSCOVR Project
Scientist, Chief of Heliospheric Physics Laboratory, Code
672, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt,
MD 20771, Building 21, Room 159A, Phone: (301) 286-5726,
Fax: (301) 286-7194, Adam.Szabo@NASA.gov
So early week - 26 or 27 October
2015 - we were supposed to see the eclipses at
the EPIC web page! I checked myself and found nothing. So
31 October I asked Bobby Parker -
bobby.parker@NASA.gov
- responsible for the web page about the missing pictures.
No reply! Google has never heard about an "EPIC web
page "Gallery" tab".
Anyway; the next solar eclipses are
8/9 March (not seen!) and 1 September 2016 and
the next lunar eclipses are 23 March and 16/17
September 2016. Maybe NASA can fake it better
then!
Or 21
August 2017! A total eclipse
starts 10.15 hrs local time at Newport, Oregon, and
ends 1 hr 32 minutes later at Charlston, South
Caroline. During that time Earth rotates about 19.5°
itself, when the Moon is lined up above blocking the Sun.
Question remains if the Deep Space Climate
ObservatoryNASA
DSCOVR satellite will record
the event. Or if the totally fake ISS
will have a look at the eclipse
when flying by.
The Deep Space Climate ObservatoryNASA
DSCOVR satellite is not alone
in space at the famous location L1 between Earth and
the Sun.
The ESA LISA
Pathfinder
spacecraft is also there! It + a propulsion module
took off from Earth 3 December 2015 and went
into orbit around Earth. Over the next two weeks,
the spacecraft itself increased the orbit's highest
point in six critical burns using the propulsion
module. The final burn propelled the spacecraft
towards its operational location, orbiting around a
stable virtual point in space called L1, some 1.5
million kilometres from Earth towards the Sun
(right). LISA
Pathfinder reached
the L1 location mid-February 2016 but didn't
collide with the Deep Space Climate
Observatory.
LISA Pathfinder shall
measure gravity waves in space!
Deep Space Climate
Observatory has not sent any pictures of
LISA Pathfinder arriving.
I assume that both spacecrafts do not exist
and that both are hoaxes.
Cassini-Huygens
was an unmanned spacecraft sent to the planet Saturn
according NASA/JPL/ESA.
It was a Flagship-class NASA-ESA-ASI robotic spacecraft.
Cassini was the fourth space probe to visit planet
Saturn and the first to enter orbit, and its mission
was ongoing as of April
2017. It has studied the
planet and its many natural satellites since arriving there
in 2004, if you believe what NASA says. I
don't.
Development started in the 1980s, when
everything was possible and nobody queried anything. Its
design includes a Saturn orbiter (Cassini) and a
lander (Huygens) for the moon Titan. The two
spacecraft were named after astronomers Giovanni Cassini and
Christiaan Huygens.
The 5 712 kg Cassinispacecraft incl a Huygens moon landing spacecraft
was launched into LEO on October 15, 1997, aboard a
Titan
IVB/Centaur rocket.
After leaving Earth orbit one way or other direction planet
Venus and going around the Sun Cassini
made a first fake fly by gravity assist of planet
Venus on April 26, 1998 at a low 283 km
altitude without crashing. Everyone in the space biz
knows that gravity assists are 100% fakery.
Then it made another tour around the Sun
to visit Venus again June 24, 1999 at a high 6 052
km (or only 600
km) altitude for a
second fake gravity assist to arrive at Earth two
months later on August 18, 1999 at 1 171 km
altitude for a third, fake fly by gravity assist at a
certain altitude. Then the spacecraft was kicked to planet
Jupiter, where it quickly arrived on December 30,
2000, at
9.852.924
km altitude for a fourth fake gravity assist to
arrive at and to mysteriously enter orbit around planet
Saturn on July
1, 2004. How it was done,
nobody knows! But already May
31, 2004, Cassini had
discovered two new Moons orbiting Saturn!
On December 25, 2004,
Huygens separated from, and landed by parachute (!)
on Saturn's moon Titan on January
14, 2005. Huygens then
successfully returned data to Earth, using the Cassini
orbiter as a relay. This was the first landing ever
accomplished in the outer Solar System and the first landing
on a moon other than our own. All 100% fake of course!
JPL invents anything! Hollywood in space! Parachute
landing in photo shop space!
Cassini discovered that the icy
Saturn moon Enceladus
(or Encelade) conceals a sub-surface, salty (?) ocean
beneath its crust, and may be able to support living
microbes.
On May
31, 2008, the primary mission
was completed! But on February
2, 2010, the mission was
extended to 2017. The show had to go on ... or the
script writers/photo shoppers would go on strike.
January
30, 2013, there was a big
storm on Saturn! July
18, 2013Cassini took
a photo of planet Earth! On December
3, 2013, Cassini was
flying like a helicopter above the Saturn north pole
filming jet streams! Then Cassini flow around filming
the many moons of Saturn for several years. Space travel is
very easy. Just turn the wheel in the cockpit. There are
plenty JPL
actors as part of the Big
Empty show and the Finale!
JPL project scientists believe that
because of their discoveries/fantasies made up above,
textbooks on planetary science will have to be re-written.
Imagine what NASA
can invent during 20 years.
The Cassini spacecraft's descent
into Saturn's atmosphere and crash on Saturn
occurred on September 15, 2017. It was 20
years of NASA fakery! Media reported the Fake News and
nobody objected.
Saturn moon Enceladus was
back in the Fake News December 2019! Tiger
straps! But there is no
evidence that Cassini arrived at Saturn
ever!
But already August 12, 2018 the
NASA Parker
Solar space craft lifted off!
Another hoax! Never heard of since!
The Parker Solar Probe mission
design uses repeated gravity assists at Venus to
incrementally decrease its orbital perihelion to achieve a
final altitude (above the surface) of approximately 8.5
solar radii, or about 6×106 km (0.040 AU) around
2025, we are told! The spacecraft trajectory will
include seven fake Venus
flybys over nearly
seven years to gradually shrink its elliptical orbit
around the Sun, for a total of 24 orbits. The near
Sun radiation environment is predicted to cause
spacecraft charging effects, radiation damage in materials
and electronics, and communication interruptions, so the
orbit will be highly elliptical with short times spent near
the Sun. Imagine that - 0.04 AU from the Sun!
Isn't it hot there? No problem. It has a fake
heat
shield!
The Johns
Hopkins Applied Physics
Laboratory manages the fake
Parker Solar Probe mission for NASA. APL designed and
built the fake spacecraft and also operates it. But it is
better forgotten. Like many other APL ventures.
1.35 Arianespace -
any mass, to any orbit around Earth, anytime ... it is all
that can be done
Arianespace
is a small French company with only 330 employees and with
slogan "Any mass, to any orbit, anytime". The little
company belongs to the Airbus
Safran Launchers company with
unknown number of employees that in turn belongs to very big
Airbus
NV, of which I am a happy
(but small) shareholder. So in a way I can send any mass to
any orbit anytime, if I call my company. But it is
not really true! No! I cannot sendhuman mass of any kind into orbit
because it cannot ever return alive, land and stop on
Earth and tell me about it. It is only possible to
put small, simple, robust satellites in almost circular
orbits
around Earth at various altitudes.
Arianespace has successfully launched two
communications satellites: Horizons 3e for Intelsat and
SKY Perfect JSAT Corporation, and Azerspace-2/Intelsat 38
for Azercosmos and Intelsat.
The launch took place on Tuesday,
September 25, 2018 at 19:38 pm (local time)
from the Guiana Space Center (CSG), Europe's Spaceport in
French Guiana (South America).
This was Arianespace's sixth mission of the year,
as well as the 100th mission by the Ariane 5 heavy
launcher. In 22 years of operations, Ariane 5 has orbited
a total of 207 satellites.
...
Throughout its career, Ariane 5 has launched a
number of emblematic European missions: XMM-Newton in
1999, Envisat in 2002, Rosetta in
2004, Hershel and Planck in 2009,
five launches of the ATV resupply vessel for
the International Space Station from 2008 to
2014, and three launches to date for Europe's
Galileo satellite navigation system between 2016 and July
25, 2018. On October 19 of this year, Ariane 5 will boost
the BepiColombo spacecraft towards Mercury, on a mission
for the European Space Agency (ESA) in partnership with
Japanese space agency JAXA. ...
Arianespace guarantees access to
space transportation services and solutions for any type of
satellite, commercial as well as institutional, into any
orbit. Over the past 35 years, the company has lifted more
than 500 satellites into orbit with its three
launchers: Ariane, Soyuz and Vega. However
Arianespace has never lifted any human
mass into space and cannot do it. If it can do it ... and
bring the human mass back to Earth, it will
win my €1 million Challenge.
Human mass is today only sent into space by
the Russians. It is all fake!
Arianespace apparently sent
Rosetta
into orbits around the Sun >10 years
ago - according media - but it is an evident 'gravity
kicks' hoax. The Ariane 5 rocket was much too
weak to put Rosetta in very high speed orbit
around the Sun. If it is good PR for
Arianespace is another question.
The CEO of little Arianespaceuntil recently was M. Stéphane Israël
that gave interviews in, e.g. Le
Figaro! M. Israël
was very polite. He had seen videos of world leaders of fake
space exploration and competitors (!) like Elon
Musk XpaceS and
Jeff Bezos Blue
Origin where their rocket
launchers magically return and lands again ... to be reused
... but he does not really believe in it. It is a pity he
doesn't say so. Same with the US
NASA Shuttle ... it was a
reusable rocket spacecraft serving the space stations
orbiting Earth but is no longer in use ... if it ever
were. Why didn't M. Israël say so? I doubt M.
Israël believed in the
Shuttle.
Reason is that he is French and polite
and just carries on making money for Airbus NV and me
forgetting all the nonsense of other, criminal space
exploration companies of all kind stealing money from tax
payers.
Reason
is very simple. It is easy to put any (little)
mass into any orbit (normally around planet
Earth) any time. You just use a rocket for it,
e.g. an Ariane. But when the mass is in orbit at
high speed and altitude (plenty kinetic and
potential energy is then associated with the
mass), it cannot anytime be stopped, so it can
land on Earth again. There is no way to remove
the energy. And that is why human space
travel is impossible and why no one will ever
win my Challenge.
The new president of the Ariane
Group 2017 is M. Alain
Charmeau.
He suggests that the new Ariane
6 rocket available 2020 will
be both better and cheaper than the present 1990 Ariane
5 model to launch satellites one way and better
than anything NASA subsidized XspaceS can produce with its
relaunchable fake models ... and the
Chinese with its Long March rocket. Ariane 6 is very
simple - the first stage works only 460 seconds (the four
solid fuel booster rockets attached to it are only used 130
seconds) to catapult the second stage into GTO with
payloads 5-10.5 tons, which takes another 900 seconds. It is
all that is physically possible. Anything else is old and
new science fiction. Evidently a little Ariane 6
rocket cannot put anything away from low altitude Earth
orbits!
It seems therefore that Alain
Charmeau below left,
suggesting that Ariane 6 can carry
humans to the Moon and planet
Mars is just an actor.
Alain
Charmeau above thinks October 2018 that
humans (!!) can soon fly to the Moon and
planet Mars - using his Ariane 6 rocket
right.
They are
inventions of stupid people and it seems I pay for
it
Shouldn't
the four boosters of the Ariane 6 rocket have
stopped ejecting smoke after being ejected?
To ensure success ESA and other space
organizations should sign contracts with Ariane Group
to ensure six Ariane 6 launches per year until at
least 2025! If not it will indicate
that most present space projects like the ISF and
asteroid visits are 100% fakery to steal money
from the tax payers. Not to talk about the old hoaxes going
to the Moon and Mars. There is no biz like the
space biz.
The 911-report
and the CIA
Torture report
written by members of the U.S. Congress can be read
free of charge on the net. I review the reports
here.
Interesting reading. One POTUS encouraged
2001 the CIA to use torture to find out how
terrorists are brainwashed to terrorize (CIA
failed!) and another POTUS ordered 2011 the top
terrorist to be murdered, so we would never
know what really happened.
In 1969 a third POTUS watched
a fake re-entry and
splash-down!
