All about orbits and trajectories of spaceflights between Earth and Mars in a Universe full of invisible Black Holes and visible quasars - also why Earth orbits the Sun

by Anders Björkman


About us


Contact info


Order books


A trajectory is the curved path of an object, a projectile or spacecraft moving under the action of variable forces, e.g. Sun and Earth gravity, its own rocket engine and friction (lift/drag) of e.g. an atmosphere. The trajectory of a spacecraft flying between planets Earth and Mars orbiting the Sun in vacuum space is governed by the gravity forces of the planets and the Sun and it cannot be predicted as speeds, distances and directions then change all the time.

An orbit is the gravitationally curved path of an object A around a point B in space or the path followed by one heavenly body A, e.g. a planet, a moon or an artificial satellite around another planet or the Sun, object B, without any power used. A geocentric orbit is around Earth, a heliocentric orbit is around the Sun. Normally the mass of object A is much smaller than the mass of object B. An orbit can be predicted, as an object in orbit always returns to where it once was; the trajectory of an orbit is closed. The object goes round and round in the orbit!

Do we know that orbits are real?

Yes! Galileo Galilei observed already 7 January 1610 how moons orbited planet Jupiter. Galilei also studied the moons orbiting planet Saturn. You yourself can see our Moon orbiting planet Earth. The NASA/ESA spacecraft Cassini allegedly disovered two new Saturn moons 2004 after a strange spaceflight starting from Earth 1997, trajectory of which passed the orbits of planets Venus and Jupiter around the Sun, when respective planets also happened to be there. I consider the Cassini trip 100% fantasy! A man made spacecraft cannot fly by planets and study the local moons.

A man made spacecraft initially orbiting Earth will always orbit Earth until the force of some other heavenly body, e.g. the Moon or the Sun, takes over, so you start orbiting that body or crash on it. But it is not easy to change one orbit, e.g. around Earth, and enter another orbit, e.g. around the Moon or the Sun. To do so you have to apply plenty forces/energy to get out of or modify the first orbit around Earth and the apply other forces/energy to, after a while, enter a new orbit around Mars, the Moon or the Sun. In my opinion, no man made spacecraft can carry enough fuel/energy to do it several times to return to the original orbit! Just going to the Moon requires a big change in orbit: Example Apollo 11!

It seems, according space experts, going from Earth to Mars, your first orbit Earth, then orbit Sun for a while and finally orbit Mars. But nobody can explain how it is done.

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 or elongated, e.g. going to the Moon, 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 any orbit can be determined/predicted.

Planets Earth, Venus and Mars (and other planets) orbit the Sun in our heliocentric system since billions of years without any assistance. The Earth orbits the Sun in 365 days at about 29 800 m/s tangential velocity and 360°/year change of direction. The Earth also rotates around itself at the north/south poles 360°/24 hrs. Above the Earth North pole is the Polaris star in our 3D solar system (the Milky way galaxy). It is ~14 million times further up and above, perpendicular from Earth orbiting the Sun and therefore always, an almost fixed (sic) point/star in the sky above the North Pole and perfect for navigation at sea, on ground and in the air, even if Earth rotation axis is tilted 23.5° relative the Earth/Sun orbital plane. Currently Polaris is extremely well suited to mark the position of the north celestial pole, as Polaris is a moderately bright star with a visual magnitude of 2.1 (variable), and it is located about one degree from the pole.  Anyone can see it!

Mars is seen outside the Sun from Earth orbiting the Sun inside Mars, but sometimes you have to look the other way to see Mars from Earth. Reason is different orbit times and locations of observations. It is well established.

But there are wildly excited and enthusiastic people, friends of mine, believing today 2018 that it is the Sun (!) that orbits Earth in a year like the Moon in a month, while planets Mars; Venus and Mercury orbit the Sun (left).

The idea was developed by Tycho Brahe already 1573 and his followers think 2018 that the Copernicus heliocentric system is 100+ years old conspiracy theory!

Below I show that Tycho Brahe was wrong. Just imagine how travel between Earth and other heavenly bodies, if possible, differs, if the Sun orbits Earth and the other heavenly bodies orbit the Sun!

A fake, impossible space trip trajectory Earth/Mars in a heliocentric solar system. 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 trajectory is a joke and evidence that spaceflight is not possible at all

You cannot stop Earth orbiting the Sun (or vice versa, if you believe Tycho Brahe) or rotating around its North Pole. In the heliocentric system a space trip from Earth to Mars was done as follows according experts (sic):

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 between two moving, heavenly bodies Earth and Mars, which are orbiting the 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.

To suggest that an ISRO or NASA spacecraft leaves Earth orbit 1 December 2013, at say 41 000 m/s speed with Mars (!) far ahead on the outside, enters a mysterious trajectory and arrives in Mars orbit 24 September 2014, i.e. ~298 days later at 24 000 m/s speed with Earth (!) far ahead on the inside ... is not possible. To suggested that the spacecraft in the meantime flies in a banana shaped, variable speed trajectory between Earth and Mars, and, when the two planets are closest together about April 2014, the average speed is say 30.000 m/s ... and slowing down (!).

The fastest, shortest, straightest trajectory with great start acceleration, high top speed early April 2014 and hard braking late April 2014 is never considered for obvious reasons. It must be banana shaped with variable speeds to be pseudoscience!

While in the 298 days trajectory the spacecraft also displaces an extra 0.52 AU radially away from Earth and the Sun to ... encounter Mars ... which also orbits Sun at much slower speed.
Orbit insertion ... Mars?? According experts:

Orbit insertion is a spaceflight operation of adjusting a spacecraft's momentum to allow for departure from a trajectory and entry into a stable orbit around a planet, moon, or other celestial body.

What nonsense is it? Orbit insert? Is it to brake or slow down somewhere not to miss Mars completely? No, it is to be captured into a new, 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) manoeuvre ... and then to descend from this orbit, brake and land on Mars that also rotates around itself. One problem is the fuel! You cannot carry it with you.

Try to plot the same trip Earth/Mars with the Earth at the center of the Universe (according Brahe) with the Sun orbiting Earth and planet Mars orbiting the Sun! It gets confusing, to say the least:

Going from Earth to Mars in a Tychonic solar system - start positions 1 Dec. 2013 - Source 1 Source 2

Left is thus shown the same Earth to Mars trip in a Tycho Brahe solar system, where Earth is the center; the Sun orbits Earth and Mars orbits the Sun. Source 1 , Source 2 .The start positions of Earth and Mars (left) are about the same 1 Dec. 2013. So what about the trajectory of the trip to Mars to arrive on 24 Sep. 2014, if it is the Sun that orbits Earth?

The spacecraft banana shaped trajectory shown above in the heliocentric solar system is of course nonsense! It is suggested (by Hohmann) that it is mathematically possible once every 30 months (LOL) ... but in practice it is impossible to leave a rotating Earth orbit at the right time, location, direction and speed to go to Mars via an unpredictable trajectory 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.

15 April 2014 the distance between Earth and Mars is minimum and suitable for a short space trip ... if you can start and land of course and calculate the funny space craft 'trajectory' between a fixed Earth and Mars orbiting the Sun that orbits Earth - Source 1 Source 2

You do not have the fuel to land either! 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? Space experts?

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, straightest 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!

The arrival positions of Earth and Mars are also about the same 24 Sep. 2014.

Going from Earth to Mars in a Tychonic solar system - arrival positions 24 Sep. 2014. The spacecraft 'trajectory' relative the Sun orbiting Earth sems to have been U shaped - Source 1 Source 2

However, in the Tycho Brahe solar system (left) the situation is completely different because on 15 April 2014 Mars and Earth were very close together reason being that the Sun orbits the Earth and Mars orbits the Sun. Instead on spending nine months in a banana shaped trajectory you only need one month for a quick jump from Earth to Mars starting Apr. 1 and arriving May 1, 2014.

But it is not what is taught at US, Japan and Europe universities!

According Newton, on the other hand, as soon as you depart from Earth and stop your rocket engine, Earth and Sun gravity forces attract you and slow you down and pull you back (so you'll never arrive at Mars) 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!

It is easy, from Earth, to observe planets Venus and Mars orbiting the Sun to confirm the heliocentric system first established by Nicolaus Copernicus 1543, confirmed by Galilei and than generally adopted after 100+ years of studies by others. It takes
Mars 687 days and Venus 225 days to orbit the Sun according Wikipedia & Co. Sometimes Venus is behind or in front of the Sun as seen from Earth orbiting the Sun outside Venus. Sometimes Venus is close to Earth and sometimes far away.

In the (Tycho's) geocentric system geo Earth is located in center (!) of our solar system with the Sun orbiting Earth at average 1 AU distance. The Moon orbits Earth much, much closer, while all other planets orbit the Sun! The Polaris star is presently almost above the Earth's North Pole but after 10 800 years it will be replaced by the Vega star. The reason is that Earth and our Solar system also rotate around something, what ever it is.

Planet Mars is orbiting the Sun at average 1.52 AU distance and is therefore seen one day "0" to have made a 360° turn in front of and very close to Earth at 0.52 AU distance with a given star behind as per figure right. I have never seen it. 273 days later Mars is five times further awway 2.52 AU distance from Earth far behind the Sun.

Elon Musk (see below) offers passenger trips to Mars. Best would be to arrive at Mars when it is closest the Earth avoiding going around the Sun! Same going back. But Lone Skum apparently believes in Copernicus?

Between days "273"and"365" - about three months - Mars cannot be seen from Earth at night because Mars is cruising behind and hidden by the blazing Sun.

Mars, after total "546" days, can be seen in front of Earth and the given star again but the distance Earth/Mars is double. And soon Mars will be seen to do a 360° turn close to Earth again. Probably around day "687". Do you follow?

It is magic. Like the software used to show it. Of course Mars is just orbiting the Sun in 687 days.

The force that keeps the Sun orbiting Earth in the geocentric system is of course also of magic unknown origin or due to the gravity effects of distant stars.

I don't believe in magic, so I consider the old Copernicus/Galilei heliocentric system the only possible one. I don't like conspiracy theories either. I believe in intellectual honesty.

It is easy to check the Tycho's geocentric system is valid by observing planet Venus from Earth (Source 2) relative the Sun:

Source 1 Mars trajectory seen from Earth. Source 2 - Note how planet Venus' orbit approaches and crosses Earth regularly and flies backwards for a while as seen from Earth and then flies far back behind the Sun, while Mars is slower but also is seen to approach Earth and stop (!) as seen from Earth and then to fly back far behind the Sun for three months. I have not seen it from my balcony though but I will look again

Situation 28 October 2018 - Venus is very close (0.4 AU) to Earth with the Sun behind
Situation 23 August 2019 - Venus is very far away (1.6 AU) from Earth behind the Sun

Similar checks can be done for planet

Situation 1 April 2018

Planet Mars is in front of the Sun and planet Venus is behind the Sun

Situation 12 August 2018

Planet Earth is lined up between the Sun and planet Mars with Mars very close to Earth. Venus is coming closer from behind

According we will see Mars at 23.59 hrs looking North. The Sun is of course behind Earth

Situation 1 October 2018

6 months after 1 April 2018. Venus and Mars are close to Earth

Situation 26 October 2018

Planet Venus passes in front of the Sun very close to Earth. Planet Mars is moving away from both

According to NASA/JPL Venus is in front of the Sun. It seems to happen also in the Copernican solar system.

Situation 19 August 2018

Mercury, Venus and Mars are close to Earth

Situation 4 September 2019

Mercury, Venus and Mars are behind the Sun

By coincidence the latest NASA hoax takes place May 5 - November 26, 2018. It is the NASA space craft InSight flying from Earth to planet Mars as shown below. It is a nice opportunity to check if our solar system is geocentric (Tycho Brahe) or heliocentric (Copernicus).

The trajectory of a spacecraft flying between Earth and Mars differs a lot in the two systems.

In the geocentric (Tycho Brahe) system the spacecraft trajectory is first straight leaving Earth 5 May and, when Earth and Mars are close together 16 August, the spacecraft turns 90° left to go to Mars arriving 26 November. It would appear much simpler to depart Earth early August and and arrive Mars a little later same month.

If the solarsystem is heliocentric, the InSight trajectory is banana shaped and halfway around the Sun, where speeds and directions change all the time.

Navigating in space between planets is not easy. Actually, regardless of what solar system you prefer - Copernicus or Brahe - you cannot fly from one moving heavenly body in space to another moving heavenly body in space. The InSight mission is clear evidence that all space trips between planets are hoaxes.

Planet Mars is in front of Earth, when space craft InSight takes off for Mars 5 May in Tycho's geocentric system

In a heliocentric system it looks like Earth is behind Mars and InSight must fly outwards to catch Mars in its orbit (Source)

Situation 5 May 2018

Planet Mars is very close to Earth, when space craft InSight is halfway to Mars on 16 August and lit up by the Sun as seen from Earth

In a heliocentric system it looks like Earth is now in front of Mars with InSight in between on the outside

Situation 16 August 2018 (halfway to Mars)

When space craft InSight lands on Mars 26 November after a funny L shaped trajectory, planet Earth is far away from Mars again. How the landing on Mars is taking place, nobody really knows

In a heliocentric system the 205 days banana shaped trajectory looks like high speed Earth is passing slow Mars on the inside since 5 May and is 26 November far ahead

Situation 26 November 2018

InSight is going to measure seismic marsquakes (sic) after landing at a cost of US$, 15% of which is paid by France.

The seismic equipment, SEIS, is built by France (sic), which had great problems making the equipment air tight or sealed, which delayed the mission two years. Atmospheric pressure is very low at Mars, i.e. <1/100th that on Earth (and 0 in space), but for unknown reasons the equipment must be inside a gas tight box. The temperature outside is average minus 60°C on Mars but much colder during the night as there is no atmosphere to store any heat. So the box is also insulated. Imagine all humans going to Mars to survive Earth in the future. They really must carry warm clothing!

It is said that SEIS can also record meteorites crashing on Mars. The meteorites do not really burn up in the Mars atmosphere.

The whole InSight mission is of course a hoax and no InSight spacecraft has ever left Earth and nobody can say what kind of trajectory is used between Earth and Mars.

Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object, e.g. a near star (assumed fix) relative distant stars (also assumed fix) viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines, i.e. the parallax angle. If planet Earth is orbiting the Sun in a year, a near star hould be seen moving relative distant stars as per figure left ... assuming that the Sun does not move, which it does. The parallax angle is small and, if planet Earth wasn't orbiting the Sun at all, the parallax angle should be 0. By knowing the distance of Earth orbiting the Sun (or vice versa) you can also calculate the distance to the near star. In April 2014, NASA astronomers reported that the Hubble Space Telescope, by using spatial scanning (sic), can precisely measure distances up to 10.000 light-years away, a ten-fold improvement over earlier measurements. But as the Hubble Space Telescope is a hoax, measuring parallaxes does not confirm that Earth is orbiting the Sun at all.

It is also very easy to measure the angles between Earth/Mars/Sun at any time to confirm what object orbits what orther object. It seems it hasn't been done 2018!

Regardless - serious, real space travel is "simply" to move in a trajectory from one moving object in one orbit to another moving object in another orbit and to/from the orbits down to the moving heavenly bodies/objects orbiting, it is said. All, 100% fake spacetrips done so far by NASA, ESA & Co, use the Copernican system for navigation.

Question remains, if it can be done.

I pay 1M since many years to you, if you can describe the trajectory, going through the variable or non-uniform gravity fields from orbit Earth to orbit Moon and Mars and fuel used! It sounds simple. Just apply a force and blast off, etc, etc. Nobody has collected my money.

Most people agree that you cannot predict or calculate a
trajectory of any man made spacecraft moving in a variable or non-uniform gravity field in a heliocentric planetary system. It means, of course, that all space trips outside Earth orbit are faked-up, invented fantasies.

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.

It seems nobody at NASA, ESA or people assisting Elon Musk can predict a simple trajectory Earth/Moon or Mars and what departure force to apply at what direction and how much fuel is burnt and at what arrival speed, direction and time to arrive at a location "X" in the vicinity of the target, where the gravity force of the target takes over ... and you have to brake!So you cannot calculate your trajectory Earth/Mars to start with. The speeds/directions vary all the time. Any search on Internet about this simple problem - trajectory Earth/Mars - confirms it ... you find only nonsense. To apply a temporary force of short durations on any spacecraft using a rocket engine consuming fuel to proceed towards a moving target, e.g. 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 straight 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 ... NASA! I cannot understand how MSM can take Elon seriously. 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 its Volkswagen cars and Stalin's USSR. Elon M also builds cars.

But Elon is not alone: The ESA 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 ESA! 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 ESA astrophysicists can invent and lie about! And we European taxpayers pay for it.

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 to start orbit the Sun there (behind the Earth), i.e. escape from Earth gravity and to be controlled by Sun gravity force and subject to centrifugal force in a Copernican heliocentric solar system.

You are in a 90 minutes initial Earth high speed orbit to start with. When your tangential, orbital velocity (in Earth orbit!) 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 three months of travel or so at decreasing speed - your radial speed away from the Sun and Earth 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 on your spacecraft is in balance with the centrifugal force acting on the spacecraft in orbit around the Sun 151.500.000 kms away. You shall there and then only continue orbit the Sun (and not the Earth), so you must also adjust the orbital velocity (around the Earth) a little, as you are further way from Earth. With skill you have moved from orbiting Earth to orbiting the Sun via a straight trajectory! It is magic! You only have to apply the right force at the right time at the right location and direction when orbiting Earth and ... you start to orbit the Sun like the Earth. The trajectory of the trip to L2 starts in Earth orbit and ends at L2 - the arrival point in space in Sun orbit. Earth and Sun very weak gravity forces added together there just balance the centrifugal force on your spacecraft at L2. If you believe the nonsense? Try then to do the same trip in a Tychonic solar system, where the L2 point orbits Earth at 1.500.000 kms altitude.

Same applies going to the L1 point 1.500.000 kms away from Earth and towards the Sun (and 148.500.000 kms from the Sun) and orbit the Sun or Earth there, i.e. in the opposite direction going to L2 - the DSCOVR mission described below. Once in orbit around the Sun (or Earth) ... 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 modifies your 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 in space ... and return to Earth rotating around itself. All space trips are simply one-way trips into various Earth orbits. 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. I have not been able to understand how you can leave one orbit, e.g. around Earth, and start in another orbit, e.g. around the Sun with a straight or whatever trajectory in between.

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 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 maybe move from one orbit to another but never arrive to the second orbit, when the heavenly body to be visited there happens to pass.

According Einstein gravity is not an ordinary force, but rather a property of space time geometry, i.e. a field - the product of bodies moving through curved space time. Space and time are relative entities, interwoven into a "fabric" called space time in a dynamic universe space. 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 on way to the Earth. It has (maybe!) been verified studying the light of stars on Earth during eclipses and the light of stars hitting a NASA satellite orbiting Earth. The light from the stars changes direction (is bent), when passing the Sun, 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 moving in space between Earth and its Moon or planets orbiting the Sun, etc.

But then there is this video about Black Holes! Watch it and enjoy the music before proceeding. It is paid for by the US Black Hole sect:

countless, might, surmised, billions, gravity, impossible to see, concept, intrigued, gluttons, black holes, imaginary surface, event horizon, science fiction, dream, influence, won't let go, disappear, "maw", no detectable energy, accretion disk, light years, remarkable, appears, time-dilation, squeezed from side to side, gee whiz factor, infinitely dense pinpoint, laws of gravity break down so badly, event horizon, singularity, lost forever, actual size, if you squeezed the mass of the sun(!), sun isn't heavy enough, core's nuclear reaction, nuclear fuel, super nova, super-dense nutron star, infinitely dense, probably sprinkled, can't see it anymore, pipsqueaks, super massive black holes(!) - (I thought they were already infinite), even heavier!, 6.6 billion times, twice as wide as our entire solar system, one idea, collapse of giant clouds of gas, smaller building blocks, idea how, smaller stellar mass black holes, hundreds of solar masses, trillion times brighter than the sun, they can turn on again if they get enough to eat, best way to feed a black hole, black holes will feed on each other, in the future, very far future, extremely far future, Stephen Hawking (!), trillions of years, deathrows of a black hole.

Black Hole in space

Its 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 space time - a Black Hole - will attract - by gravity - light with zero 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 hydrogen 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 was 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 - forever. 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 criminal scientific fraud 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

Stephen Hawking, or a person said to be him, died March 2018. He was just an actor in a strange show. All his findings were never peer reviewed by anybody. They were just fantasies.

This would be a good time to remind you that black holes were invented and modelled before the dark matter catastrophe. Mainstream physics now admits that 95% of the universe - and therefore 95% of this Seyfert galaxy and proposed black hole - is a big question mark in the equations. It is a total unknown, and can't be included in the equations in any way. Every black hole model is a gravity-only model, and it doesn't include dark matter as a player in celestial mechanics, except in a small squishy way via the cosmological constant. …

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

A quasar is a compact (sic) region in vacuum space surrounding a super massive 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 nearby. 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 and criminal asstronomers and asstrophysicists to keep them busy.

People say 10 August 2017 (!) they have discovered a Black Hole - Sgr A* - at the centre of our Milky Way galaxy universe with a finite mass 4.15 × 106 greater than the mass of our Sun. It is only 26 000 light years away from Earth but no quasar was reported close by, reason being that the nearest quasar is 600 million light years away. How this Black Hole just around the corner from Earth can collide with anything and where it came from are not clear either!

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

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

Gravitational 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 in one point. Magic! Inch Allah! It was hot and dense.

Its temperature was 1032 K (Kelvin) or 1047K. 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 finite or 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 space time producing gravitational waves that were detected and seen 14 September 2015, by two Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave 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 space time 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 hot Black Holes in space without quasars prior collision becoming one dark Black Hole distorting space time!

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. I really think that Black Holes in space are shear propaganda.

Here is more nonsense about Black Holes taught at university by Dr. Richard Feynman. Richard was a real, pseudoscientific asshole and womanizer fucking around everywhere. He was part of the team that invented the fake atomic bomb 1942/5 and another team that investigated/invented a fake Shuttle accident 1986/8. In between he invented all sorts of fake things about 'quantum electrodynamics' - complete nonsense that gave him the Nobel Prize physics 1965.

3 October 2017 the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences decided to award the Nobel Prize in Physics 2017 with one half to Rainer Weiss, LIGO/VIRGO Collaboration and the other half jointly to Barry C. Barish, LIGO/VIRGO Collaboration and Kip S. Thorne, LIGO/VIRGO Collaboration. Takaaki Kajita thought it was fantastic. What another joke! Actually the four persons mentioned are the latest, Nobel pseudoscientific prize winning criminals I know. It is sad. Similar to the Nobel Prize for Peace 2017 given to some other clowns.

The reason was that on 14 September 2015, a universe's gravitational wave or waves were observed for the very first time by Rainer, Barry and Kip with Taakati cheering on. The wave or waves, which were predicted by Albert Einstein a hundred years ago, came from a collision between two Black Holes 1.3 billion years ago. It took 1.3 billion years for the waves to arrive at the LIGO detector in the USA. And I didn't notice it at Beausoleil on 14 September 2015. So no Nobel Prize for me! This year. But 2018? 

Another collision or space time ripple event (or what?) took place on 25 or 26 December 2015 and a third on 4 January 2017 and a fourth on 17 August 2017 at 14.41 hrs!

GW170814 was a gravitational wave signal from two merging black holes, detected by the LIGO and Virgo observatories on 14 (sic) August 2017. On 27 September 2017, the LIGO and Virgo collaborations announced the observation of the signal, the fourth confirmed event after GW150914, GW151226 and GW170104. It was the first binary black hole merger detected by LIGO and Virgo together.

Image credit: LIGO/Caltech/MIT/Sonoma State (Aurore Simonnet)
"LIGO has discovered a new population of black holes with masses that are larger than what had been seen before with X-ray studies alone (purple (left)). The three confirmed detections by LIGO (GW150914, GW151226, GW170104), and one lower-confidence detection (LVT151012), point to a population of stellar-mass binary black holes that, once merged, are larger than 20 solar masses—larger than what was known before."

It seems that LIGO has missed Black Hole - Sgr A* - at the centre of our Milky Way galaxy universe with a finite mass 4.150.000 greater than the mass of our Sun.

But my dear old Europe is not far behind! The European Virgo gravitational wave laboratory at Pisa, Italy, started only 1 August 2017 and already 17 August 2017 it registered a gravitational wave due to the collision of Black Holes of 31 and 25 Sun masses that took place a Friday only 1.800.000.000 years ago far away. Imagine that!

This new Black Hole has a mass of 53 Sun's. The missing three masses is the energy of the 1
.800.000.000 years old gravitational wave according to plenty European experts, e.g. Benoit Mours, LAPP, Annecy, Patrice Hello, LAL, Orsay and Thibault Damour, IHES, Paris. All according to Physical Review Letters that publish weekly nonsense of Black Holes, bla, bla bla, since many years! Nothing can escape from a Black Hole except gravitational waves. Why we build expensive instruments and employ and pay crazy physicists to find them is a mystery.

But maybe it wasn't a Black Holes collision?

The neutron star collision 130 million light-years ago but observed on Earth 17 August 2017 (left) unlocks cosmic mysteries we are told by media: 

The two neutron stars converged in the galaxy NGC 4993, on 17 August only 130 million light-years from Earth, emitting gravitational waves in the process.

Imagine - two neutron stars converged!

The mysterious, single, lonely 17 August 2017 gravitational wave was apparently formed only 130 million years ago in a neutron stars collision or convergion (!!) as follows:

i. First, two, very dense heavenly bodies (probably neutron stars - it is not certain) danced around each other at very great speeds somewhere in the Universe, actually the Hydra constellation (see vii. below).

Photo of the neutron star collision in the star constellation Hydra, that consists of billions of galaxies and named after a fantasy sea serpent. The collision took place 130 million years ago

neutron star is the collapsed core of a large star having between 10 and 29 solar masses. Neutron stars are the smallest and densest stars known to exist. Though neutron stars typically have a radius on the order of 10 kilometers, they can have masses of about twice that of the Sun. A neutron star can also be a very small, super-dense star which is composed mostly of tightly-packed neutrons. It has a thin atmosphere of hydrogen according some experts. Imagine a star ... with atmosphere! It has a diameter of about 5-16 km and a density of roughly 1015 kg/m3. There are thought to be around 100 million neutron stars in our galaxy the Milky Way.

So two such heavy, solid, dense stars rotated around each other until they suddenly ...

ii. second, collided releasing great amounts of energy. Imagine that! According other experts they just fused and became one bigger neutron star. However ...

iii. the collision was so violent that the space time structure (whatever that is?) vibrated - only once! - and released one, only one, gravitational wave into the 3D universe. Imagine that! But there is no evidence for anything except contradictory press releases and Google articles ... so

iv. third, like 2D waves formed in the interface sea water/air, when you drop a stone in the water, this lonely 3D wave - pressure pulse? - propagated through the 3D space time structure at the speed of light, until it, 130 million years later, passed the two American LIGOs and the European VIRGO Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatories. We are thus told:

Approximately 130 million years ago, ... two neutron stars were in their final moments of orbiting each other, separated only by about 300 kilometers, or 200 miles, and gathering speed while closing the distance between them. As the stars spiraled faster and closer together, they stretched and distorted the surrounding space-time, giving of energy in the form of powerful gravitational waves, before smashing into each other.

It seems that more than one wave was formed, but only one wave or pressure pulse was recorded 130 million years later here on Earth. I have to admit that I didn't notice it. Maybe I was asleep?

v. The wave or pressure pulse passed the three observatories during 0.01 seconds. It was 100 times longer than the three previous gravitational wave observations due to Black Holes collisions! Imagine that ... 100 times longer ... and

vi. fourth, less than two seconds later the American Fermi and the European Integral satellites recorded a short burst of gamma radiation! It is assumed the origin is the collision 130  million years ago. So

vii. fifth, less than five hours later the location of the origin of the collision was established to be in the star constellation Hydra, that consists of billions of galaxies and named after a fantasy sea serpent. The collision however took place in one of only fifty Hydra galaxies as seen (!) by a small telescope located at Las Campanas, Chile. What was seen, and recorded, was a blue light flash - gamma rays? - turning red, then infrared and finally disappearing as a radio signal.

viii. Sixth, actually the discovery (!) of the collision lasting 0.01 second producing one little gravitational wave was made using the US-based LIGO detectors, the Europe-based Virgo detector and some 70 other ground- and space-based observatories. Bla, bla, bla! What a stupid show!  

ESA is also faking gravitational waves research 2018. The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), is an ESA mission designed to detect and accurately measure gravitational waves from astronomical sources like Black Holes, but also White Dwarfs and Neutron stars.

According Julien Lavalle of Laboratoire Univers et Particules de Monpellier, LUPM, there are at least two types of Black Holes! One low mass type that starts with the collapse of a star at the end of its life. The other type is much more massive and is of unknown origin. Neither can be observed as all types of Black Holes cannot be seen. They do not reflect any light, you know. But maybe they eject ULX! UltraLuminous X-rays:

Black holes are observed (sic) in nature (? universe or space) with masses of the order of ten times the mass of the Sun, and with masses of millions to billions the solar mass. The former are 'stellar black holes', the end product of massive stars, while the latter are 'super massive black holes', and exist in the centers of galaxies. Intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) are a hypothetical third class of objects, with masses in the range of hundreds to thousands of solar masses. Intermediate-mass black holes are light enough not to sink to the centre of their host galaxies by dynamical friction, but sufficiently massive to be able to emit at ULX luminosities without exceeding the Eddington limit. If a ULX is an intermediate-mass black hole, in the high/soft state it should have a thermal component from an accretion disk peaking at a relatively low temperature (kT ˜ 0.1 keV) and it may exhibit quasi-periodic oscillation at relatively low frequencies.

You follow? An intermediate-mass Black Hole 'may exhibit quasi-periodic oscillation at relatively low frequencies', so it can be seen! But it also ejects gravitational waves!

Gravitational waves astronomy is an emerging branch of observational astronomy which aims to use gravitational waves to collect observational data about sources of detectable gravitational waves such as binary star systems composed of white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes; and events such as supernovae, and the formation of the early universe shortly after the Big Bang.

A White Dwarf is a small, very dense, hot star that is made mostly of carbon according astronomers. These faint stars are what remain after a Red Giant star loses its outer layers, we are told. Their nuclear cores are depleted. They are about the size of the Earth (but tremendously heavier)! They will eventually lose their heat and become a cold, dark Black Dwarf. Our sun will someday turn into a White Dwarf and then a Black Dwarf. The companion of Sirius is a White Dwarf. A Red Giant star is a relatively old star whose diameter is about 100 times bigger than it was originally, and had become cooler (the surface temperature is under 6.500K). They are frequently orange in color. Betelgeuse is a Red Giant star. It is about 20 times as massive as the Sun and about 14.000 times brighter than the Sun, and about 600 light-years from Earth. According Wikipedia. Therefore it can be seen!

A Neutron Star is a very small, super-dense star which is composed mostly of tightly-packed neutrons. It has a thin atmosphere of hydrogen according some experts. Imagine a star ... with atmosphere! It has a diameter of about 5-16 km and a density of roughly 1015 kg/m3. It is very heavy ... but a Black Hole of any type is much smaller and much heavier. There are thought to be around 100 million neutron stars in our galaxy the Milky Way. Imagine what people can invent. There is though no evidence for anything mentioned above.

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 White Dwarfs or Neutron Stars and, finally, Black Holes of different types that will collide, produce gravitational waves or pressure pulses or 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 don't believe in faint cosmic microwave background fluctuations, only 1/100,000 compared to the 2.73K average temperature of the radiation field. First I don't believe that the cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of the BIG BANG and, second, that the 1/100 000 fluctuations - the density ripples - are an imprint of density contrast in an early UNIVERSE 300,000 years after the BIG BANG.

The density ripples are said to have given rise to the visible structures that populate the UNIVERSE today: clusters of galaxies and vast regions devoid of galaxies billions of light years away. LOL! But you cannot measure 1/100 000 fluctuations in temperature of a cosmic microwave background. No instrument can do it. It is all fakery.

I consider any scientists and astronomers suggesting it - with shaky, false instruments in balloons, spy planes and satellites - as religious, stupid, crazy, religious, myth creating idiots. Giving Nobel prizes to them is a shame. But so is the case. Few complain. I just laugh about it.

And I agree fully with Hannes Alfvén:

"When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical approach and the empirical scientific approach. In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world, what perfect principle must have been used."

This, he said, is the method of conventional cosmology today: to begin from a mathematical theory, e.g. Einstein's, to deduce from that theory how the universe must have begun, and to work forward from the beginning to the present-day cosmos. The Big Bang fails scientifically because it seeks to derive the present, historically formed universe from a hypothetical perfection in the past, e.g. a singularity. All the contradictions with observation stem from this fundamental flaw.

The other method is the one Alfvén himself employed:

"I have always believed that astrophysics or cosmology should be the extrapolation of laboratory physics, that we must begin from the present universe and work our way backward to progressively more remote and uncertain epochs."

This method begins with observation, i.e. observation in the laboratory, from space probes, observation of the universe at large with proper instruments, and derives theories from that observation rather than beginning from theory and pure mathematics.  

The UNIVERSE is furthermore 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 no one 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.

My UNIVERSE is very simple. It is infinite in all directions without beginning and end, it has always existed, it has never been created - no big bang, no God, no Black Holes, no Einstein space time, etc. - and will never cease to exist. It upsets many people believing in mysteries. My UNIVERSE is very dynamic. Like a ship at sea. And I am a part of it. But do not ask me to explain how my UNIVERSE works. It does not work according a mathematical formula or path with a 0 start point.

A prime number (or a prime) is a natural number of the Hindu-Arabic base 10 type numeral system greater than 1 that has no positive divisors other than 1 and itself. Some 'astronomers' and 'space physicists' believe there is a secret code based on prime numbers that would explain their universes … but my UNIVERSE is based on the binary system. In the binary number system there are no prime numbers as all binary numbers consist only of 0 and 1. Everything in my UNIVERSE rotates around itself and orbits around everything else all the time in all directions and planes to keep life on Earth possible ... forever. But do not ask me to explain how my UNIVERSE works. It can only be watched ... from ground ... on Earth ... by humans or from a satellite orbiting Earth using instruments. So no Gods in no Black Holes or what certain clowns are proposing!

As gravity forces exist and attract material masses everywhere to each other as per Newton, you would expect that all those moving masses would attract each other into a big lump somewhere some time - the END!

But no! The secret of my UNIVERSE is that material, moving masses, develop out of nothing and disappear into nothing all the time. So my UNIVERSE is always in balance, as can be seen by looking out of any window. Masses and forces appear and disappear far away, like galaxies, stars and suns by strange forces not yet explained. It is easy to demonstrate. Any atoms of protons, neutrons and electrons can be destroyed in collisions in cyclotrons in laboratories and the whole atoms and their parts, protons, neutrons and electrons disappear, i.e. become invisible particles of no mass or anything. And it happens in my UNIVERSE all the time. Maybe it is due to plasma? Normal cosmologists and astrophysicists à la Einstein refuse to accept it. They believe in fantasy, false atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs invented by their particle friends encouraged by corrupt politicians and military people! They scare normal people about radiation at Fukushima/Japan, where there is nothing to worry about! They also have to believe in fake space travels of all sorts invented by other cosmos and military friends. And they also believe in false Arabs landing planes in skyscrapers! To be a member of their sect you have to adore Einstein and a big bang and similar hoaxes. And an invisible god? I feel sorry for them.

In this article about space travel gravity is a force. As described by Newton 300 years ago.

It is fairly easy to put an artificial, robust spacecraft, i.e. a very lightweight satellite in orbit around a rotating Earth. I can do it. I particularly 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 a rotating 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.

There are people that believe that you cannot even put a lightweight GPS satellite into orbit. They suggest that rocket engines do not work in vacuum ... only in air. They think that a rocket can only throw a satellite into orbit, as long as the rocket itself is in the atmosphere. After that the satellite is in vacuum space and cannot be controlled, as the rocket engine doesn't work there.

These people haven't understood that the real ... and only ... problem is to get the fuel mass, i.e. energy, into space for extended trips. Evidently rocket engines work in vacuum. To apply a force on your spacecraft you eject mass (hot fuel gasses) one way into vacuum space, i.e. you fill vacuum space with exhaust gas, and the spacecraft is accelerated in the opposite direction leaving the exhaust gas behind as shown in this video of a rocket in vacuum. The space behind the ignited/running rocket engine is no longer vacuum. It is polluted by exhaust. Rocket engines work anywhere, where it is possible to eject mass in the shape of exhaust.

But 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/energy 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. If you have extra fuel aboard, you can do simple manouvers in space; e.g. increase the altitude of your Earth orbit. But you cannot return and land on a rotating 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. 

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 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 NASA hoax! Every return trip from the International Fake Space Station is also false 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 false trajectory in space is the NASA 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 (where did the fuel come from?), 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 NASA hoax. There is no way you can travel around in space from Earth to Jupiter and then into orbit around Jupiter as suggested by NASA. There is no way to establish the trajectory.

Go to C.