The US Human Space Travel Show 1959-2017

No human beings have ever been in space.

People think that spacecrafts with humans aboard can be sent into orbits around Earth and then return to Earth or, from the orbits, blast off into space in new trajectories at increased speeds to later stop and visit the Moon and Mars and then, blast off from there and return to Earth via other trajectories, find the location at high altitudes to start the re-entry ... and land ... on Earth. But it is just Fake News!

People don't understand that they are deceived by the US Nationax Aeronautix and Xpace Administratiox, NAXA, that fakes everything concerning space since the 1960's using pseudoscience supported by Media It is quite funny, though. All is a big joke! The Russians started it.

No humans have ever been in space, because you cannot (1) calculate and execute your trajectories, or (2) carry enough fuel with you, or (3) re-enter and land on Earth or other planets after a trip in space. Only one-way trips into orbits are possible. The latest NAXA hoax is the OSIRIS-REx about asteroids colliding with Earth! But it is really stupid! Like all the private companies copying the NAXA hoaxes.
by Anders Björkman

Home

About us

Services

Contact info

News

Order books

Assbook

Personne n'est allé sur la Lune



Summary of this page:

Welcome to the most popular Heiwa Co web page on the Internet continuously up-dated - about fake, human and other space trips! People believe today 2017 that humans (like you and me!) have travelled in space! Sorry!

All information about humans just orbiting Earth since April 1961 is false! "The most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked on" pronounced by JFK September 1962 has never taken place!

No humans have not even orbited Earth in space and then landed on Earth again. All such trips were hoaxes.

No Apollo spacecrafts visited the Moon 1969/72. It was hoaxes every time! Fake News. Why? An Apollo space craft cannot return to Earth at >11 000 m/s speed and land after nine minutes. So it was Fake News:

I am certain you, like me, were fooled 1969! NYT publishing Fake News on the front page! They have done it 1945 and 2001 too. An old trick!

No space Shuttles flow into orbits 1981-2011 to build the International Space Station and later returned to ground. It was hoaxes every time! A Shuttle cannot return to Earth at 8 200 m/s speed and land during 1 821 seconds!

What looked like spacecrafts or Shuttles taking off, disappearing behind clouds up in the sky and later landing in front of people ... were all stage props and mock-ups. To deceive the viewers. It was big business! Plenty people assisting.

Hollywood does it all the time using computer generated images and photoshop.

No real spacecrafts of any kind can furthermore carry enough fuel for a trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth.

Prove me wrong and collect € 1 million!

My web pages/reports about human and other, interplanetary or even interstellar, space travel tricks, shows, jokes and projects, incl. the US Nationax Aeronautix and Xpace Administratiox, NAXA, billion dollars ones - Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, International Space Station, Elon Musk (lone skum) $2.6 billion (it is a really hilarious one), etc, etc, will take time to study. Hope you will enjoy it. It is fun. Don't get upset. JFK himself promised the Americans 12 September 1962 he could sail to the Moon:

... To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. ... but ... this will be (un-) done in the decade of the sixties. ...

Well, space is there, and we're going to climb (?) it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked. Thank you.

I have met many drunken sailors. JFK sounded like one. And I am a safety at sea expert! Comments are always welcome at anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr .

Since 20 January 2017 the USA has a new president, Donald Trump.

Donald is in fact today in charge of the US human space travel show! Donald must have agreed to Mr. Robert X. Lightfoot, Jr. as Acting (LOL) Administrator of the NAXA the same day. Robert is probably just another actor, date of birth unknown, to continue the show! You should really wonder why the President of the United States of America, agreed to this clown! My hope is that Donald wants to create his own reputation as explorer of the UNIVERSE and protector of planet Earth ... and just cancel the NAXA nonsense. You'll find the answers below.

All essential NAXA/XpaceS business is fake from the beginnings!


The Fake News show about human space travel started a long time ago.

NAXA opened for business on October 1, 1958, when it accelerated the work (or what you can call the nonsense?) already started on human and robotic space flight. NAXA's first high profile program was Project Mercury, an effort to learn, if humans could survive in space. It was quickly learnt it was not possible!


Only sending simple, short life satellites one-way into orbits around Earth taking photos, redirecting telephone calls and making GPS possible was and is possible. So NAXA decided (1) to keep the rest secret in the interest of national defense and the conduct of foreign affairs and (2) to fake it.

Other companies like

and agencies like

also fake their activities to maintain the NAXA hoaxes. I describe them below.

I am convinced that the president of the United States 1958 ordered the falsifications of manned and un-manned space trips and that the fakery should be kept secret forever by an Executive order to this effect backed up by laws to prevent any whistle blowers to tell the truth as described below. Call it a conspiracy, if you like. Imagine the billions of $$ stolen by NAXA from US tax payers to keep the space show alive almost 60 years. And how other companies and organizations play along.

I am convinced that the United States and key allies and partners 2017 use disinformation and other propaganda tools to undermine the national security objectives of Sweden, France and other countries deemed vulnerable to foreign propaganda and disinformation campaigns.

It is apparently legal!

A US federal employee with authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action must not use that authority to take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action against an employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that individual that is reasonably believed to evidence violations of law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless disclosure of such information is specifically prohibited by law and such information is specifically required by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defence or the conduct of foreign affairs.

There is 2017 a lone skum clown on Earth offering trips for humans to planet Mars in the near future. Main Stream Media, MSM, promote him as a hero. That clown is however just fooling you ... assisted by MSM. There is no way you can blast off from Earth in a rocket ... to go anywhere in space. But Elon does it live on TV ... and lands on Earth again ... after 10 minutes! But it is just a magic show. I explain it below!

Read on! It is quite funny and interesting. Nothing to get upset about. If you don't like the music, please do not attack me! I just play the music.

Human space travel was impossible in the past and is impossible in the future. It is just a funny invention of Fake News by lying presidents, astrophysicists and well paid fake astronuts! Tell your friends about it. Laugh about it.


All information since 1958 that humans can fly in space using fantasy astrodynamic tricks is pseudoscience and propaganda invented or made up by German, Russian and American (and other) astrophysicists, cosmoclowns and astronots on Earth, i.e. a practice which does not adhere to the scientific method. There is no evidence of anything! No spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth.

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

Most people simply do not understand that only one-way launches of un-manned satellites into orbits around Earth are possible. One such un-manned satellite is the fake ISS that can be regularly observed from Earth. It is just a very big silver balloon! Maybe the size of asteroid Bennu (see below). All other satellites are too small to see by naked eyes.

Fake photo of astronuts orbiting planet Earth every 90 minutes at 7 000 m/s speed building the fake International Space Station - half of the time in darkness. The photo is made in a swimming pool! There are therefore no videos since almost 20 years of any astronots doing anything extravehicular, e.g. screwing together a new ISS module or repairing an antenna, as the light and background should change all the time. It cannot be faked in a swimming pool. Only still photos are provided. The actors are just hanging on not to float up or upside down in the water. The background is pasted in. The fake ISS has eight power stations consisting of six heavy power storage batteries each outside the station and bolted to it. The life of the batteries is ten years so about every year six batteries are replaced requiring space walks, when photos are taken (in a swimming pool)


There is no possibility to send away such satellites further into space away from Earth orbit to, e.g. Moon, planets (Mars, etc) or comets and to stop and land there and to blast off again and return.

The extra force to get started out of Earth orbit must be applied at high speed in orbit at the right (1) time, (2) location, (3) direction, (4) duration, (5) strength and so on. No rockets can do it. The resulting trajectory and your location in it are always unpredictable.

You are going too fast in orbit to start with and as soon as the force is not applied any longer, Earth and Sun gravity forces will pull you back and change your direction and speed. Another reason is the so called NAXA/EXA astrophysicists and astronuts claiming they know how to do it and having done it. I name them below. Look at them!

Clowns!

Actors.

You can become an astronut! Just visit https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/be-an-astronaut-nasa-seeks-explorers-for-future-space-missions or https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts or https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html and find out how. The web pages are quite confusing to say the least and, please note, that the FY 2016 request of $1 243.8 million for commercial crew is critical to the employment program execution; if less funding is received, NAXA will need to delay milestones for employées and providers, resulting in possible contract cost adjustments and delays in certification, etc, etc. You will be well paid to lie if employed! But only if money is available.

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

The reasons why humans cannot travel in space and must lie about it are very simple. A spacecraft can never get away from the orbit around Earth, enter a trajectory in space away from Earth and later stop and land on the Moon or Mars (or a comet!) or even dock with another spacecraft at high speed in another orbit! Basic! And it cannot return, re-enter, and land on Earth later. It is going too fast. Gravity forces are too strong. No means to brake, re-enter and land! No spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth.

And no human being can be locked up for many years inside a spacecraft or habitat doing a boring return trip to Mars.

And then there is the cosmic radiation! Nasty stuff!

But as Russian, American and European space travel experts lie through their noses since the 1950's that humans can easily fly in space and schools, universities, academies of sciences and MSM transmit this message all the time, it is difficult to accept that you have been fooled and taken to the cleaners. Here is a typical example ... pure propaganda:

Main stream media publish anything they are told without checking, if it is true or possible. It is standard propaganda! Plenty magic tricks Houdini style and jokes are used. Clever inventions. Dangerous things! Lives are of course often at stake when human space flights are done! Not a true word though. Lies all of it. Stupid science fiction. No one has died doing these magic trips! Great dramas with crying parents having lost their astronut children are part of the show.

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

But why not start with the latest NAXA September 2016 joke? It is a small part of the big hoax.

The Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer OSIRIS-REx is a NAXA un-manned spacecraft!

It is named after Osiris that was the first Egyptian pharaoh (right) 5 400 years ago, usually identified as the god of the afterlife, the underworld and the dead, but more appropriately as the god of transition, resurrection, and regeneration. He was classically depicted as a green-skinned man with a pharaoh's beard, partially mummy-wrapped at the legs, wearing a distinctive crown with two large ostrich feathers at either side, and holding a symbolic crook and flail. Osiris was one of four children born from the womb of the sky-goddess, Nut and fathered by Ra, the sungod. Osiris took Isis as his wife, and they became the first rulers of Egypt.

Regolith is a layer of loose, heterogeneous superficial material covering solid rock.

Haven't you heard about it?

It is a 100% Fake News hoax! Quite funny. OSIRIS-REx

OSIRIS-REx spacecraft - LOL!

What a name!

It is however a funny spacecraft (left) with two large ostrich feathers like solar panels at the top side and a crook and a flail at the bottom to pick up regolith on an asteroid. It is just now not travelling to a near-Earth asteroid, called Bennu (formerly 1999 RQ36), to bring at least a 2.1 ounce sample back to Earth for study. The orbit of Bennu is intrinsically dynamically unstable, which means it is very difficult to find the asteroid. Bennu has a mean diameter of approximately 492 m, i.e. very small. Maybe it doesn't even exist? It is invented to be a stage prop! Bennu orbits the Sun in 437 days at an average speed of 28.000 m/s compared with Earth's orbital speed 29 800 m/s during 365 days.

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


Imagine that! Asteroids impacting Earth! This is probably the whole purpose of the hoax. During the fake trip OSIRIS-REx will discover another asteroid that is going to impact Earth. Main Stream Media will create mass panic and fear but Donald the Circus president (70) will solve the problem, bla, bla, bla, assisted by NAXA of course, and so on.

NAXA's Goddard Space Flight Center provides overall mission management, systems engineering and the safety and mission assurance for OSIRIS-REx. Dante Lauretta of the University of Arizona, Tucson, is the principal investigator, and the University of Arizona also leads the science team and the mission's observation planning and processing. Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Denver built the spacecraft and is providing flight operations. Goddard and KinetX Aerospace are responsible for navigating the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft. OSIRIS-REx is the third mission in NAXA's New Frontiers Program. NAXA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, manages the agency's New Frontiers Program for its Science Mission Directorate in Washington.

There are thus many funny individuals involved in the OSIRIS-REx hoax. Meet them, they are all just actors, on stage prior to the launch telling MSM all about it. It is standard NAXA praxis to line up the smiling experts on stage with a colorful background. If you ask a question the actors cannot answer, they will hint you are too stupid to understand it:

From left are: George Diller of NAXA Clownications; Geoffrey Yoder, acting associate administrator of NAXA's Science Mission Clownications in Washington; Dante Lauretta, OSIRIS-REx principal clown at the University of Arizona, Tucson; Tim Dunn, NAXA launch manager at Kennedy; Scott Messer, program manager for NAXA Clownications at United Launch Alliance in Centennial, Colorado; Michael Donnelly, OSIRIS-REx project manager at NAXA's Goddard Space Clownications in Greenbelt, Maryland; Rich Kuhns, OSIRIS-REx program manager for Lockheed Martin Clownications in Denver; and Clay Flinn, launch weather officer for the 45th Weather Squadron at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.
 

From left are: George Diller of NAXA Clownications; Ellen Stofan, NAXA chief clown scientist; Jim Green, NAXA Planetary Clownications director; Dante Lauretta, OSIRIS-REx principal clown at the University of Arizona, Tucson; Scott Messer, program manager for NAXA Clownications at United Launch Alliance in Centennial, Colorado; Rich Kuhns, OSIRIS-REx program manager for Lockheed Martin Space Clownications in Denver.

Some clowns - all on Earth - of this stupid, impossible magic show are:

1. Dwayne Brown, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 202-358-1726, dwayne.c.brown@nasa.gov

2. Laurie Cantillo, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 202-358-1077, laura.l.cantillo@nasa.gov

3. Nancy N. Jones, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 301-286-0039, nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov

4. Erin Morton, Office of the Principal Clown, University of Arizona, tel 520-269-2493, morton@orex.lpl.arizona.edu

5. Gary P. Napier, Lockheed Martin Clownications, tel 303-971-4012, gary.p.napier@lmco.com

6. George Diller, NAXA's Kennedy Space Center Office of Clown Affairs, tel 321-861-7643, george.h.diller@nasa.gov

7. Shannon Ridinger, NAXA's Marshall Space Clown Center, tel 256-544-3774, Shannon.J.Ridinger@nasa.gov

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

Call them and tell me (or MSM) what jokes they say ... or lie. I have managed to contact one of them 11 January 2017 - Nancy N. Jones! She promised to explain the famous orbit diagram,where OSIRIS-REx orbits (?) the Sun at variable speeds first away and 60° ahead of Earth later to slow down, so that Earth can catch up for the September 2017 'kick'. I have reminded Nancy several times ... no replies. Nothing can turn around the Sun like that!

OSIRIS-REx was therefore not launched 8 September 2016, at 7:05 p.m. EDT by the United Launch Alliance (ULA). The Atlas V didn't launch the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft into a hyperbolic* trajectory away (?) from Earth to begin a seven-year mission to return an asteroid sample 2023. The speed after departure escaping Earth gravity must have been of the order 41 000 m/s (or more) similar to the Stardust hoax 1999-2006! The direction was towards the Sun inside Earth's orbit.

*If something is hyperbolic, it tends to exaggerate things as being way bigger deals than they really are. Hyperbolic statements are tiny dogs with big barks: don't take them too seriously. A hyperbolic trajectory doesn't arrive anywhere; it is simply enlarged beyond truth or reasonableness.

The spacecraft will therefore not reach its asteroid target in 2018 and return a regolith sample to Earth (!!) in 2023. It is just the latest NAXA space joke! Not very funny actually so far. I wonder what twerps make it up.

One reason is that no spacecraft can fly around the Sun in a hyperbolic trajectory at variable speeds to start with!

The OSIRIS-REx spacecraft however fired, we are told, its Trajectory Correction Maneuver (TCM) thrusters for the first time already Friday 7 October 2016 in order to slightly adjust its variable speed, hyperbolic trajectory on the outbound journey from Earth back to Earth around the Sun for the Gravity Assisted Kick.

This funny maneuver changed the velocity of the spacecraft by 0.5 m/s and used 0.5 kg of fuel. The spacecraft was then about 14.5 million kilometers from Earth, we were told (see NASA figures below). The spacecraft (dry mass 880 kg) had total start mass of 2.110 kg of which 1.230 kg was fuel. Afterwards the mass was 2 109.5 kg of which 1 229.5 kg was fuel.

At what speed ve must the 0.5 kg of fuel exhaust be ejected to adjust the speed 0.5 m/s? The answer is simple.

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

Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)

Example - here m0/m1 is 2 110/2 109.5 = 1.000237, so ln(m0/m1) = 0.000237 and ve = 2 110 m/s.

To change the (delta) speed 0.5 m/s you need 0.5 kg fuel (when fully loaded). The remaining fuel 1 229.5 kg of fuel can only be used to change the speed totally 1.845 m/s during the complete (fake) trip.

How OSIRIS Rex, having fuel for total change of speeds 1.845 m/s leaving Earth in one plane, can find, reach and stop at an asteroid making ~28 000 m/s orbital speed in another plane, orbit it, grab a regolith sample off the surface of it, and then fly away from it to fly back to Earth making ~29 800 m/s orbital speed and drop off the sample there is magic. The smiling experts above cannot explain it and you better do not ask NAXA about it, even if I have done it - several times.

My understanding is that no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere and return to Earth. I provide more examples below.

The OSIRIS-REx spacecraft Wednesday 28 December 2016 then executed its first (fake) Deep Space Maneuver (DSM-1) putting it on a new, variable speed but still hyperbolic trajectory for the Earth Gravity Assisted Kick in September 2017.

DSM-1 represented the first major, post-launch milestone for OSIRIS-REx. The significant change in trajectory from DSM-1 was necessary to put OSIRIS-REx on course for an encounter with Earth in September of this year. 354 kg of fuel was used for a Delta-v of 431 m/s. Direction unknown!

With m0 = 2 109.5 and m1 = 1 755.5 we have m0/m1 is 2 109.5/1 755.5 = 1.201652, so ln(m0/m1) = 0.1837 and ve = 2 346 m/s. Before it was 2 110 m/s so maybe the rocket engine is getting better?

I have asked Ms Nancy N. Jones and Mr. Erin Morton to confirm the DSM-1 speed change, fuel used, what direction it was applied, etc, to be reported here. By 1 April 2017 there was no answer. Anyway, with only 875.5 kg fuel left aboard total Delta-v available is 1 620 m/s or less. Between Jan.16 and Mar. 6 the speed relative to Sun has been reduced by ~5 000 m/s but don't ask me why! On the other hand the speed away from the Sun is April 2017 >6 000 m/s!

Note the very strange OSIRIS-REx, variable speed/direction, irregular, hyperbolic, Jan. 16, 2017 trajectory around the Sun. Two weeks later, Jan. 30, 2017, the space craft was 0.91 AU away from the Sun and the speed relative to Sun was 33 km/sec, i.e. the space craft is distancing itself from the Sun and slowing down ... a lot. source

I will ask them later to explain the details of the Gravity Assisted Kick and change of inclination in September 2017 and how to arrive at little Bennu November 2018 in its intrinsically dynamically unstable orbit. So far they do not provide any information.

16 January 2017, i.e. 4 months and 8 days after launch from Earth, the spacecraft had according NAXA almost completed a 180° banana-shaped red, hyperbolic trajectory high speed, small distance, circular turn around the Sun and was only 0.85 AU from the Sun with speed reduced to 34 000 m/s (left)! You should really wonder what force turns the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft ... and reduces the speed.

Sun gravity? Yes, it pulls the spacecraft towards the Sun all the time until it crashes on the Sun. Earth gravity? Earth is far behind. Cannot influence the spacecraft.

I would therefore expect that the spacecraft would continue in the yellow trajectory or something similar to finally hit the Sun say in April 2017. However, it is suggested that OSIRIS-REx will continue the hyperbolic turn another 190° around the Sun in 9 months 1 week time, while distancing itself from the Sun to encounter Earth again from behind (!) at 1 AU from the Sun on 22 September 2017. To do so the spacecraft must slow down speed in or increase the distance of the circular turn, centre of which is not the Sun, and then speed up again. How is it possible? This is not rocket science! It is pseudo!


Earth is orbiting the Sun according
Kepler in an almost circular ellipse, green in figure right provided by NAXA & Co, at average 29.800 m/s speed (since billion years).

It takes a year. Distance from the Sun is constant 1 AU. Bennu is also orbiting the Sun in another, bigger and less circular ellipse; blue in figure right, at average 28 000 m/s speed but in another plane and sometimes inside or outside the Earth orbit. Bennu is January 2017 far ahead of and outside Earth and OSIRIS-REx.

The probability that Bennu will ever collide with Earth is remote or zero as it has not happened since Bennu was born. They will never pass at the same time in a billion years, where their orbits intersect in space. 

However, between 9-20 February 2017, the spacecraft, when intersecting the Earth orbit (Earth is not there but far behind) will activate its onboard camera suite and commence a search for elusive "Trojan" asteroids. It is part of the show! Anyway, these asteroids are not dangerous. 

The OSIRIS-REx spacecraft was February 2017 looking for Trojan asteroids at the L4 point 60° ahead of Earth in its orbit. Scientists suggest that the Trojans are difficult to detect from Earth as 'they appear near the Sun on the Earth's horizon'. I thought they should be ahead of the Earth and 60° away from the Sun.

So 20 February, 2017, OSIRIS Rex was 60° forward of Earth (right) in space relative Sun. OSIRIS Rex is apparently having a speed of 30 km/s relative Sun compared with Earth's 29.8 km/s, i.e. they do about same speed ... relative Sun, even if it is suggested that speed of OSIRIS Rex is 20 km/s (?) relative Earth. This is a typical NASA display. Nothing makes sense!

On Feb. 6, 2017, OSIRIS-REx, had turned about 210° around the Sun in its strange, banana shaped, variable speed trajectory and were looking for Troyan asteoroids 60° in front of Earth (relative Sun). Earth has evidently only turned about150° in its constant speed orbit (source) since launch

You cannot eject an object from Earth to start hyperbolically orbiting the Sun at variable speeds/directions in a circular or elliptic trajectory! The OSIRIS-REx will therefore not Friday 22 September 2017 make a flyby (!) of Earth, which we are told. There will be no collision! Earth's gravitational field can only pull the OSIRIS-REx towards Earth (increase the speed, change the direction), where it then cannot "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy, according NAXA fantasies. Imagine that! This additional orbital energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital (? - trajectoral!) inclination and sling it into a second, inclined, impossible, variable speed trajectory of irregular shape around the Sun for a rendezvous with Bennu in its orbit November 2018. No fuel will be used!

Flybys or Gravity Assisted Kicks are always part of any space joke!

See C below about this impossible hoax.

OSIRIS-REx was not launched by ULA (the Lockheed Martin and Boeing companies faking it jointly) into an impossible, variable speeds/directions, irregular, circular (?) but hyperbolic, trajectory (red in figure right) around the Sun first banana-shaped inside the Earth orbit at high speed, later outside the Earth orbit at slow speed, but always in the same plane, because it is not possible. January 2017 OSIRIS-REx was not far ahead of Earth. It probably never left Earth!

Can really a NAXA spacecraft encounter a fast moving heavenly body in space (?) November 2018, grab a little sample of it (??) and then return to Earth 2023 and deposit the sample at a desert in Utah ??? Of course not.

On Feb. 20, 2017, OSIRIS-REx continues around the Sun in its strange, banana shaped, variable speed trajectory and were looking for Troyan asteoroids 60° in front of Earth (relative Sun). The distance from the Sun has increased 0.06 AU in two weeks! The only thing that is constant is the speed relative to Earth - 20 km/s (?) since Jan. 16. Now OSIRIS-REx must start preparing for the Earth Gravity assist Friday Sept. 22 ... (source)

Similar magic nonsense has NAXA done before 1999-2006! Stardust! And it only had 80 kg of fuel! Now it is 15 times more! If you know the German language, study some questions - 38 Fragen - about it. A similar hoax was the EXA Rosetta trip 2005-2009!  

The OSIRIS-REx will thus September 2017 not be kicked or slung into a second, variable speed, irregular trajectory around the Sun to encounter little Bennu in its intrinsically dynamically unstable orbit somewhere in space November 2018.

It seems you must first travel around the Sun once - in an irregular but circular trajectory at variable speeds/directions (!) - to get kicked to travel a second time around the Sun in another inclined, variable speeds/directions, irregular but circular trajectory and then - magic - you will (not) encounter in space the moving target Bennu in its intrinsically dynamically unstable orbit, where you brake to same speed as Bennu, grab a sample ... and then speed off again back to Earth. It is rocket science described in A. just below. Reason why you cannot fly direct from Earth to Bennu without circling the Sun twice is that it is not possible.

I explain more hoaxes below. Enjoy. ROTFL! It is so stupid.

On Mar. 6 2017, OSIRIS-REx the distance from the Sun has increased to 1.O4 AU! The speed relative to Earth is reduced to 19 km/s (source)

On Mar. 13 2017, OSIRIS-REx the distance from the Sun has increased to 1.07 AU! The speed relative to Earth is reduced to 18 km/s (source)

On Sept. 22 2017, OSIRIS-REx will encounter planet Earth for a gravity assisted kick. Before it happen, planet Earth will turn ~180° around the Sun, while OSIRIS-REx slows down in its elliptical trajectory (source)

On Apr. 3 2017, OSIRIS-REx was further away from the Sun than ever before (1.13 AU) and planet Earth is catching up from behind. It is really magic (source)

On Apr. 10 2017, OSIRIS-REx was further away from the Sun than ever before (1.15 AU) in its hyperbolic trajectory and planet Earth is catching up from behind in its circular orbit. It is really magic (source)
On Apr. 24 2017, OSIRIS-REx was further away from the Sun than ever before (1.18 AU) in its hyperbolic trajectory and it will increase but planet Earth is only 6.15 light minutes behind in its circular orbit. It is really magic (source)


So 16 January the OSIRIS-REx was 0.85AU from the Sun (inside the Earth orbit) but on 10 April, 86 days later, it was 1.15AU away from the Sun (outside the Earth orbit) in its hyperbolic trajectory. An Astronomical Unit, AU, is the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun. In 2012, the International Astronomical Union defined the AU distance to be 149.597,870,700 meters. 0.3 AU is 44.879.361.210 meters. So every day the last 86 days the OSIRIS-REx is 521.853.037 meter further away from the Sun. It corresponds to a radial (sic) speed of 6.040 m/s away from the Sun! Imagine that. Earth radial speed is always 0 (orbit is circular). It seems the spacecraft has decided to fly away into our Solar system leaving the Sun behind.

So how can OSIRIS-REx and Earth meet at 1 AU from the Sun 22 September? Easy! The whole thing is a joke! Isis will not like it.

  

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

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

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

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

At present, January 2017, this useless course is not scheduled to be offered. It was a joke from the beginning. However ...

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

This is another basic course where you do not learn

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

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


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

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

After passing exams of above nonsense you can attend:

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

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

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

Ms Carol Norberg, PhD, bla, bla, gives courses about Human Spaceflight and Exploration since many years at Umeå University, Sweden, and has also written an expensive book with same name. Her students have all failed my space travel Challenge! I have asked her to help me. No reply! Carol has not understood that no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere.

Imagine what nonsense can be taught at university! Therefore the information below is not taught at any university incl: no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth.

 

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

A trajectory is the path followed by a projectile flying or an object or spacecraft moving under the action of variable forces, i.e. Sun and Earth gravity and its own rocket engine.

An orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object around a point in space or the path followed by one heavenly body, e.g. a planet, a moon or an artificial satellite around another planet or Sun without any power used.

If the orbit is circular, the local orbital tangential velocity (m/s), the change of direction (°/s) and the gravity (inwards) and centrifugal (outwards) forces (N) are constant and in balance. If the orbit is elliptical, which is the normal case, the orbital, tangential speed, change of direction and gravity/centrifugal forces are variable and greater, when the distance between the bodies is smaller, but they are always in balance. The position/tangential speed/change of direction of a body in orbit can be determined. Planet Earth orbits the Sun since billions of years without any assistance at about 29 800 m/s velocity and 360°/year change of direction. But you cannot stop Earth orbiting the Sun.

Space travel is simply to move in a trajectory from one orbit to another orbit and to/from these orbits down to the heavenly bodies being orbited, it is said. Question remains if it can be done. I pay €1M to you, if you can describe the trajectory, going through the variable or non-uniform gravity fields to the Moon and Mars! It sounds simple. It seems, however, most people agree that you cannot predict or calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft in a variable or non-uniform gravity field.

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

Same applies going to the L1 point 1.500.000 kms away from Earth (and 148.500.000 kms from the Sun) and orbit the Sun there, i.e. in the opposite direction going to L2 - the DSCOVR described below. Once in orbit around the Sun ... at L1 or L2 ... you remain there. No way to fly back and land on Earth.

It is much more difficult to fly to, e.g. the Moon nearby Apollo 11 style 1969. Then you must apply a force that catapults you out of Earth orbit to where the Moon will be a couple of days later to attract your spacecraft to it by its gravity force. Then you must apply a second force (using your engine) to avoid crashing on the Moon and a third force to get into Moon orbit, etc, etc.


My understanding is that no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere ... and return to Earth. Space travel between moving heavenly bodies applying variable gravity forces during the trajectory of the trip is much more difficult than going one-way to the L1 and L2 points in space.

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

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

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

Black Hole in space

Another hypothesis (a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) is that an object with infinite mass (and density) in spacetime - a Black Hole - will attract - by gravity - light with no mass, so it cannot escape at all. The photons without mass flying around in space are sucked up by the Black Hole (left) and disappear forever. Black Holes or singularities were discovered by cosmologist Stephen Hawking many years ago after looking too deep into glass of whisky, I assume! Such an asshole (?) in 3D cosmos or space is the result of a star collapsing into itself by gravity, when all hydrogene atoms of the star fuse into helium ones that fuse into or become other particles releasing energy/heat.


After a while all remaining particles are just a non-dimensional point of energy (!) or singularity in space without length, breadth and height but with indefinite density (!) or no density (energy has no density), unless they all disappeared into the fourth dimensions, according Stephen.

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

Stephen is since 1986 a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which was established in 1936 by Pope Pius XI, and has met three Popes. The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not "a magician with a magic wand", Pope Francis has declared October 2014 at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Imagine that? A Pontifical Academy of Sciences with a clown like Stephen as member. It is providing authoritative advice on scientific and technological matters including miracles of all kind. Listen:

"Creation, therefore, in time, and therefore, a Creator; and consequently, God! This is the statement, even though not explicit or complete, that we demand of science, and that the present generation of man expects from it".

Pius XII - 22 November 1951

It is very easy to spot a Black Hole in the UNIVERSE. Just look out for a quasar! They are everywhere!

A quasar is a compact (sic) region in vacuum space surrounding a supermassive Black Hole and emitting enormous amounts of electromagnetic energy/light, as mass from the core of a surrounding galaxy, under the influence of the Black Hole's gravity, falls onto its accretion disc.

You follow? Mass falls onto its accretion disc! As light!

70% of the 'stars' or illuminated points you see, when you watch the sky at a clear night, are quasars falling into Black Holes with infinite mass near by. Did you know it?

There are 1.000's of Black Holes that you cannot see from Earth, because they are invisible but just beside 70% of all those illuminated, compact points you can really see. The other points are just old, real stars.

A quasar in space dropping mass into a Black Hole! The yellow right thing is visible, the left blue thing is really black ... and cannot be seen!

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

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

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

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

All the photons and energy of the UNIVERSE was concentrated un one point. Magic! Inch Allah! It was hot and dense.

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


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

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

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

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

Just to make things clear:

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

The UNIVERSE is full of particles of all kind everywhere transmitting energy and similar, e.g. photons transmitting light or heat from stars, gravitons transmitting gravity force between objects, invisible 'black' energy particles noone knows what they are, etc. The UNIVERSE is mainly vacuum, i.e. it lacks air. Air or similar gases is only found close to planets or similar, e.g. Earth for us to breathe. Without air you will suffocate.

In this article gravity is a force.

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

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

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

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

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

To suggest that an ISRO or NAXA spacecraft leaves Earth 1 December 2013, at say 41 000 m/s speed and arrives at Mars 24 September 2014, i.e. ~298 days later at 24 000 m/s speed and that the spacecraft flies in a banana shaped trajectory somewhere between Earth and Mars about April 2014 at speed say 30.000 m/s ... and slowing down (!) ... is not possible.

In that time the spacecraft must also displace 0.52 AU radially away from Earth and the Sun to ... encounter Mars ... which orbits Sun at much slower speed. Orbit insert ... Mars??


What nonsense is it? Orbit insert? Is it to brake or slow down not to miss the target completely? No, it is to be captured into a planned orbit around Mars by imparting a brake force (at the right time, location, direction and speed), which is called the Mars Orbit Insertion (MOI) maneuvre ... and then to descend from this orbit, brake and land on Mars. The spacecraft trajectory shown above is nonsense! It is suggested (by Hohmann) that it is mathematically possible once every 30 months (LOL) ... but in practice it is impossible to leave Earth orbit at the right time, location, direction and speed and later to be captured into a planned (sic) orbit around Mars and finally brake hard (how? - you don't have the fuel for it!) and land on Mars. You do not have the fuel to do it! Try to land a spacecraft orbiting Earth on Earth! The re-entry is impossible - see
D below and here. Same applies to Mars. You should wonder what twerps invent this nonsense?

Actually, google "trajectory between planets Earth and Mars" and you get 620 000 results in 0.28 seconds, all of them banana or half moon shaped with different start and arrival speeds, times, variable directions and speed and all of them invented by different people ... and none of them true. The fastest, shortest, straight trajectory with great start acceleration, high top speed and hard braking is never considered for obvious reasons. It must be banana shaped with variable speeds to be pseudoscience!

And it is what is taught at universities! According Newton, on the other hand, as soon as you depart from Earth and stop your rocket engine, Earth gravity force attracts you and slows you down and pulls you back and as soon as you arrive in the vicinity of Mars (if you manage to get there!), Mars gravity force attracts you - your spacecraft velocity increases - and pulls it towards Mars ... and you crash! And in the mean time the Sun attracts you. So you cannot calculate your trajectory Earth/Mars to start with. The forces vary all the time. Any search on Internet about this simple problem - trajectory Earth/Mars - confirms it ... you find only nonsense. To apply an extra force on the spacecraft using a rocket engine consuming fuel to proceed towards a moving target, e.g. the Mars, must be done at the correct location and time in space but ... you do not know in what direction to apply the force and for how long. You will always miss Mars ... and fly away in the Universe. Bye, bye Earth.

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

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

Returning from space and landing on Earth is another obstacle. Example: Apollo 11 (see sketch below in D) returned from the Moon to the Earth 1969 during a couple of days with three humans aboard. Earth gravity pulled the spacecraft Apollo 11 with them faster and faster most of the time vertically towards the centre of Earth! They must arrive at a the re-entry interface location B in the upper Earth atmosphere at the exact location/altitude (say 120 000 m) at the exact time, speed and direction (almost horizontally!) to start their (impossible) re-entry into a trajectory to arrive at a location/altitude (say 5 000 m) to deploy parachutes nine or ten minutes later. As you cannot calculate your trajectory prior arriving and after leaving the re-entry interface location B, the whole venture is ... a typical NAXA hoax! Every return trip from the International Fake Space Station is also fake for the same reason! I explain more below! I also offer €1M to anybody showing I am wrong since many years. There is no winner ever for obvious reasons. Nobody can win it.

Another example of fake trajectory in space is the NAXA Juno satellite launched August 5, 2011. It was proposed that it cruised around in deep space (trajectory unknown!) until it returned to Earth (!) October 2013 for a fantasy gravity assisted kick (sling shot - see C below) to proceed to planet Jupiter. The Juno spacecraft then arrived at planet Jupiter July 4, 2016,(trajectory unknown!) and, after a 35 minutes long brake burn (!), started to orbit Jupiter looking for water.


What a joke! Media thought it was fantastic! You can be sure that the whole $1.1 billion Juno mission was another, typical NAXA hoax. There is no way you can travel around in space from Earth to Jupiter and then into orbit around Jupiter as suggested by NAXA. There is no way to establish the trajectory.

 

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

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

Media and all space agencies tell us that, according anonymous astrophysicians, artificial spacecrafts can manoeuvre between planets in space assisted by gravity assisted kicks to save time and fuel. It means that a spacecraft in its trajectory encounters (!) a fast moving planet in its orbit around Sun and is magically kicked away from it to another fast moving planet in another orbit around Sun in a new trajectory with another direction and at nominally increased speed/change of direction using no fuel, thrust or rocket engine aboard. MAGIC! But there is no way to calculate any spacecraft trajectory before and after a gravity assisted kick and there is no way to ensure that your spacecraft can encounter the planet in its orbit at the right time at all. So any space trips including a gravity assisted kicks are 100% pseudoscientific, old Fake News nonsense.

NAXA/JPL sent off two (fake) spacecrafts in 1977 subject to multiple gravity assisted kicks. VOYAGER 1 took off 5 September 1977 and encountered planet Jupiter 5 March 1979, which kicked it to encounter planet Saturn 12 November 1980. VOYAGER 2 took off a little earlier, 20 August 1977, but didn't encounter planet Jupiter until 9 July 1979, which kicked it to encounter planet Saturn 25 August 1981. The two initial spacecraft trajectories between Earth and Jupiter remain secret, i.e. NAXA/JPL have never been able to explain them.

Planet Saturn then kicked VOYAGER 1 into the Universe never to be seen again, even it is only about 138 AU from Earth. Planet Saturn on the other hand kicked VOYAGER 2 to encounter planet Uranus 24 January 1986, that in turn kicked the spacecraft to encounter planet Neptune 25 August 1989, that finally kicked VOYAGER 2 further into the Universe at 15.400 m/s speed never to be seen again, even if it is only 114 AU from Earth. This NAXA Fake News hoax has thus gone on for more than 39 years and keeps some people busy.


A funny
definition of a gravity assisted kick is:

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

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

Another crazy definition is:

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

This is a really stupid definition: 

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

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

The following is really fantasy:

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

Source

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

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


According to the NAXA/EXA experts of gravity assisted kicks

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have evidently asked the EXA how it is possible.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Isn't it funny? American tax payers pay $1.1 billion for ... nothing.

 

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

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

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

It cannot happen in reality!

Only brain washed people believe it!

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

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

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

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

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

Can a force of 130.900 N (or 13 tons) just suddenly appear out of nowhere up in the sky at 120 000 m altitude?


It is suggested that this brake force consists of aerodynamic drag and lift but there is no air at 120.000 m altitude to provide any drag and lift.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today 2017 it should be patently obvious to any intelligent person that the 'space race' was since day one in the 1950's - and still to this day - nothing but a silly TV 'reality show' and, undoubtedly, a very effective one. It was a brilliant idea on the part of the US (Hollywood?) scriptwriters to have the 'evil Russian communists' being cast as the first 'conquerors of space' and the Russians played along. All Russian cosmonauts were and are actors - like the American ones! Noone was in space!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

E - Elon Musk/XpaceS - the rocket landing hoaxes 2015/7

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

Elon Musk/XpaceS sends, in front of large audiences, up a nine-engines Falcon 9 rocket in space, where it disappears behind the clouds (as seen on TV). e.g. the July 18, 2016 XpaceS-9/CRS-9 Launch and Landing Attempt. It is head lines Fake News! After a few minutes the 24 tons rocket comes back again from space and lands on Earth after a boost-back burn, an entry burn and a final landing burn. If you need 60+ tons fuel for these three magic burns (at right locations, times, durations and directions) and 140+ tons extra fuel to get the 60+ tons fuel up into space, you should wonder why not use a much smaller three engines rocket and much less fuel to carry a 5 tons pay load into space? Why carry 200 tons extra fuel into space to land the 24 tons nine engines rocket in order to just launch a 5 tons satellite with a smaller three engines rocket? And forget about the recovery!

All is 100% fake - the Falcon 9 rocket, the launch, the Dragon capsule, the separation, the Falcon 9 rocket landing, the Dragon 9 docking with the fake ISS (and the later un-docking and landing of the capsule) and the ridiculous recovery. The whole show is pre-recorded CGI. Cheap actors explain the technicalities. What a stupid joke. The XpaceS reusable launch system development program is a fairly old, magic trick stunt starting 2012/3 supported by MSM. We are told then ... many years ago:

"In order to make the Falcon 9 reusable and return to the launch site, extra propellant and landing gear must be carried on the first stage, requiring around a 30 percent reduction of the maximum payload to orbit in comparison with the expendable Falcon 9.

The maxiumum payload is say 8.3 - 22.8 tons and a 30% reduction is then 3-7 tons. The extra landing gear has mass 3 tons! Does it mean only 4 tons extra propellant or fuel fuel is carried to recover the rocket? Of course not. You need >50 times more fuel to recover the rocket ... if you can get it off the ground. XpaceS just invents things and lets MSM trumpet it as truth since many years.

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

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

More about the XpaceS hoaxes below. You cannot do a re-entry from the IFS. You cannot calculate the trajectory prior of the re-entry and find the location where to start it, and you cannot calculate the trajectory later! But it is very easy to produce fake footage of it to fool the public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)

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

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

If the total mass before the boost back burn was, say, 75 tons the mass afterwards was 56 tons and 19 tons fuel was used for the horizontal boost back burn. It is suggested that hypersonic grid fins are deployed in space to steer the rocket ... but there is no air to steer in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why carry/burn 140 tons of extra fuel to recover the three times bigger first stage, when a smaller, lighter rocket with only three engines can do it using half the fuel? Answer is that all XpaceS launches are faked! There is therefore little about it on the Internet.

Lars Blackmore (pp 17-20 - right) has written about Autonomous Precision Landing of Space Rockets and their dispersions (LOL) and XpaceS refers to him as some sort of expert! All 18 references of the article are pure pseudoscience fiction (see below).

It is very easy to demonstrate that Elon Musk and XpaceS faked their four booster rocket landings 2016 - the CRS 8, the Jason 3, the SES-9 and the Jcsat 14 to gain notoriety!

Each landing takes about six minutes after separation from 2nd stage. Every time after separation there is a continued forward/upward motion of the booster and a 180° flip of it to enable a 30 seconds almost horizontal three engines boost back burn (to stop horizontal displacement of the booster at high altitude), followed by a free fall drop and a 30 seconds almost vertical three engine entry burn (to reduce speed by about 1 000 m/s), another free fall drop (at constant speed (?) - air drag/friction!) and then, finally, a 30 seconds one engine landing burn, when vertical velocity was reduced from 360 m/s faster than sound speed to 0 in 30 seconds for a soft touch down - brake distance 5 400 meters!

Source (US National Academy of Science)

Imagine that - going faster than sound and stop in 30 seconds, i.e. applying a force 12 N/kg for exactly 30 seconds, and stop exactly on the deck. Impossible!

The trajectory cannot be predicted and to steer by autopilot requires soft- and hardware that are not available. An object flying faster than the sound cannot stop in 30 seconds by applying a force - in the exact direction for the exact duration - to it. The 5.400 meters final trajectory cannot be established, so how can you land 'hole-in-one' or 'bull-eye'? Something looking like a rocket is later shown on a barge in port. But it is just a stage property to impress the general public and create the magic illusion that XpaceS is fantastic.

Here are propaganda videos of the CRS 10 start and CRS 10 landing 19 February 2017 taken from a helicopter or drone. The landing is pure CGI. 

It shouldn't be too difficult for XpaceS to provide a print out the following data every second during the 360 seconds (or whatever) recovery trajectory of the first stages as shown above, if the recoveries were real:

time (s)

mass (kg)
altitude (m)
speed (m/s)
direction re vertical down (°)
horizontal distance to landing site (m)
rocket fuel in the tanks (kg)
dispersions
rocket force (N) applied
steering flaps actions
Weather (wind, direction, etc)

But no such data can be published. It will give the hoaxes away!

 

March 30th 2017 Lone Skum was at it again. SES-10! Watch the stupid video! Note that at separation the speed is >2 200 m/s at 65.000 m altitude (time 21.36 in the video) and the first stage is still moving upwards, but, when it goes flat/horizontal, we can see the round horizon of the Earth in the background (time 25.00). It seems you are very high up!

There is no boost-back burn to slow down the horizontal speed vector, but it would appear that the first stage is starting dropping down towards Earth then. Then there is a 20 seconds entry burn (time 25.30-25.50), when passing 50 000 m altitude to slow down vertical motion a little for a touch down at time 28.20 in the video.

So the 50 000 m vertical descent took about 150 seconds after the end of the entry burn, i.e. average speed 333 m/s or the speed of sound. Assuming constant braking the vertical speed was 666 m/s at time 25.50 and altitude 50 000 m (dropping down from say 73 000 m altitude). Just dropping from 50 000 m would increase the speed 100's of m/s.

We don't know the duration of the landing burn, but at time 28.20 in the video the rocket (or whatever) is suddenly standing on the barge. 30 seconds before touch down the speed may have been 133 m/s at 2 000 m altitude. How the rocket with mass 23 tons managed to slow down from 665 m/s vertical speed to 0 in 150 seconds is difficult to understand, even if there was a 30 seconds late landing/brake burn. Imagine if the vertical speed was 133 m/s 30 seconds before touchdown and you misjudged the altitude by 2 000 m. You would hit the barge at high speed.

I assume the whole rocket, launch, landing, video, noisy control room are show!

Time

Altitude (m)

Speed (m/s)

25.50

50 000

666

26.20

32 000

533

26.50

18 000

400

27.20

8 000

267

27.50

2 000

133

28.20

0

0


Below are some clips of the video:

Three minutes 45 seconds and three minutes 16 seconds before touch down on the barge the rocket is still up in space with the bottom facing the round horizon of Earth below. The hypersonic steering flaps are out.

Two minutes 19 seconds before touch down the rocket is still high up in space with the bottom facing the round horizon of Earth below. The rocket must be pretty high up! The barge below is not visible.

One minute 6 seconds before touch down the deck of the barge is empty. Then there is a communications black out and ...

... 66 seconds later the rocket has landed. But maybe it is just a rocket glued in on the previous picture?

What a show!

I always like comparisons! A simple, expendable Arianespace Vega rocket - total mass 137 tons - easily puts 1.45 tons payload into orbit. The heavier, also expendable Arianespace Ariane 5 rocket - total mass 777 tons - has payload 6.1-16.0 tons. Most of the mass, >90%, is of course fuel and the amount of fuel used is proportionate to payload. Expendable means that the rocket, after all fuel is burnt and the payload is delivered into orbit, drops back into atmosphere and burns up. To suggest - like XpaceS does - that it can launch a rocket and recover a 23 tons first stage booster rocket without extra fuel carried along is simply ridiculous. Therefore every Elon M rocket recovery is a hoax.

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

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

How long will it last? I wonder/write/update this 31 March 2017. Media is not interested. They support the Elon/Texla hoax! What can I do?

I just watched Elon's latest show! I just laugh about it.

Imagine that the US National Academy of Science makes PR for this nonsense.

Lars Blackmore

Very funny references to explain the XpaceS automatic rocket landings on Earth: 

1. Açikmese B, Ploen SR. 2007.

Convex programming approach to powered descent guidance for Mars landing.

Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 30(5):1353-1366. 

2. Bibring J-P, Rosenbauer H, Boehnhardt H, Ulamec S, Biele J, Espinasse S, Feuerbacher B, Gaudon P, Hemmerich P, Kletz-kine P, and 9 others. 2007.

The Rosetta Lander ("Philae") investigations.

Space Science Reviews 128(1- 4):205-220. 

3. Blackmore L, Açikmese B, Scharf DP. 2010.

Minimum landing error powered descent guidance for Mars landing using convex optimization.

Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 33(4):1161-1171. 

4. Bonfiglio EP, Adams D, Craig L, Spencer D, Arvidson R, Heet T. 2011.

Landing-site dispersion analysis and statistical assessment for the Mars Phoenix lander.

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 48(5):784-797. 

5. Golombek M, Cook RA, Economou T, Folkner WM, Haldemann AFC, Kallemeyn PH, Knudsen JM, Manning RM, Moore HJ, Parker TJ, and 4 others. 1997.

Overview of the Mars Pathfinder mission and assessment of landing site predictions.

Science 278(5344):1743-1748. 

6. Henderson M, Blume W. 2015.

Deep Impact : A review of the world's pioneering hypervelocity impact mission.

Procedia Engineering 103(2015):165-172. 

7. Johnson A, Willson R, Cheng Y, Goguen J, Leger C, San Martin M, Matthies L. 2007.

Design through operation of an image-based velocity estimation system for Mars landing.

The International Journal of Computer Vision 74:319-341. 

8. Johnson AE, Cheng Y, Montgomery JF, Trawny N, Tweddle B, Zheng JX. 2015.

Real-time terrain relative navigation test results from a relevant environment for Mars landing.

AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference (AIAA 2015-0851), January 5-9, Kissimmee, FL. 

9. Launius RD, Jenkins DR. 2012.

Coming Home: Reentry and Recovery from Space.

NASA Aeronautics Book Series. Washington. 

10. Mattingley J, Boyd S.2012.

CVXGEN: A code generator for embedded convex optimization.

Optimization and Engineering 13(1):1-27. 

11. Meditch JS. 1964.

On the problem of optimal thrust programming for a lunar soft landing.

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 9(4):477- 484. 

12. Prakash R, Burkhart D, Chen A, Comeaux K, Guernsey C, Kipp D, Lorenzoni L, Mendeck G, Powell R, Rivellini T, and 3 others. 2008.

Mars science laboratory entry, descent, and landing system overview.

Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 1-8, Big Sky, MT. 

13. Soffen GA, Snyder CW. 1976.

First Viking mission to Mars.

Science 193:759-766. 

14. Squyres SW. 2005.

Roving Mars: Spirit, Opportunity, and the Exploration of the Red Planet.

New York: Hyperion. 

15. Tomasko MG, Buchhauser D, Bushroe M, Dafoe LE, Doose LR, Eibl A, Fellows C, Farlane EM, Prout GM, Pringle MJ. 2002.

The Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer (DISR) experiment on the Huygens entry probe of Titan.

Space Science Reviews 104(1/2):467-549. 

16. Tibbits B, Ivanov M. 2015.

Low density supersonic decelerator flight dynamics test-1 flight design and targeting.

23rd AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference (AIAA 2015-2152), March 30-April 2, Daytona Beach. 

17. Way D, Powell R, Chen A, Steltzner A, San Martin M, Burkhart D, Mendeck G. 2006.

Mars science laboratory entry, descent, and landing system.

2006 IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 4 -11, Big Sky, MT. 

18. Wolf AA, Açikmese B, Cheng Y, Casoliva J, Carson JM, Ivanov MC. 2011.

Toward improved landing precision on Mars.

IEEE Aerospace Conference, March 5-12, Big Sky, MT.

 

If you find anything wrong with my A B C D E above please tell me at anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr !

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

Read on!