To the start page

This is the English version of an article in German, published on the 29.10.18:
„Wie fliegen NASA und Elon Musk in den Orbit um andere Planeten?“

Space travel is full of orbits: around the Earth and other celestial bodies like planets, moons, asteroids and comets. The logic behind: if we can fly into an orbit around the Earth, we can fly into orbits around other celestial bodies as well!

The ingenious Elon Musk plans evidently countless orbits. He already sold a travel to the Japanese billionaire Yasuku Maezawa who booked an orbit around the moon. He will start 2023. For Musk the moon is only one of his goals. With his giant „BFR“ („Big Fucking Rocket“) he will start in 2024 for Mars. There he wishes to establish first a basis, then a colony and finally a selfsustaining civilization. (Source: German magazine DER SPIEGEL, Nr. 44, 27.10.2018, pp. 114-116: „Abenteuerspielplatz All“.)

An investigation by a self-thinking layman

Contents

1. Space flight from the Earth into the Earth orbit
2. Space flight into the orbit around another planet
3. Sketch: Flight of a space probe to the planet
4. None of the 3 alternatives enables the space probe to enter into the orbit
5. Only a direct hit onto the planet or flight into the interplanetary space – no orbit!
6. Insights into the current narrative of „space travel“
7. Old perfect example: APOLLO 11 in an orbit around the moon
8. The general oblivion about the permanent moving of all celestial bodies
9. The literature (Wikipedia) and the latest project „BepiColombo“

 

1.  Space flight from the Earth into the Earth orbit

The orbit flight is a permanent fight of forces: the space probe would fly straight ahead, but the gravitation pulls the probe to the planet back into a circular course. If we could turn off the gravitation suddenly and totally, the space probe would continue its flight straight ahead. Who wishes to fly into an orbit must try to reach the gravitational field of the planet, stay in this field and try to reach a flight plane which passes through the gravitational center of the planet.

The decisive characteristic of the orbit flight is a round or elliptic course in a plane that passes through the center of the planet.

From Earth one can start a space probe from each point of the surface with a rocket vertically. After separation from the rocket the space probe may continue to fly vertically upwards: it is free to decide into which direction it will leave the vertical, and in each direction the space probe will reach an orbit around the Earth because in each direction it will fly in a plane through the center of gravitation (the center of the planet approximately).

When leaving the vertical, the gravitational force will pull the space probe into a horizontal round course (circular or elliptical). If the space probe reaches an orbit, this depends on its velocity. For each celestial body there exists a characteristic minimum velocity (the first cosmic velocity) which every space probe must arrive at to reach an orbit flight. This first cosmic velocity depends on the gravitation of the celestial body; for the Earth this cosmic velocity is around 8000 meter per second. If the space probe has a velocity above 11000 meter per second (the second cosmic velocity), it will leave the gravitational field of the Earth and fly into interplanetary space. If the probe does not arrive at the first cosmic velocity it will fall back to Earth.

2.  Space flight into the orbit around another planet

The conditions and flight phases for the space probe to arrive at an orbit around another planet are completely different from those on Earth.

1. The space probe has reached the vicinity of the planet.
2. All celestial bodies are moving relative to others.
3. The planet moves on his course around the Sun with a certain velocity.
4. The space probe flies with its velocity to meet the planet.
5. The place where the course of the space probe crosses the course of the planet will be called crossing point.
6. To reach an orbit around the planet, the probe should arrive at the crossing point (above or under the planet) exactly at the same time when the planet reaches this point.
7. If the coincidence according to (6) has been realized the space probe can change its course into a circular flight (around the planet) in a plane that passes through the center of the planet.
8. While the space probe starts the curve into the orbit the planet moves away on its course, and with the planet moves its center of gravitation. As a consequence the intended flight plane of the probe changes into a new position (drifts aside) while the space probe must continue its course. The space probe leaves the intended flight plane. Furthermore the growing distance from the planet weakens the gravitational force on the probe.
9. The movement of the planet has thus two grave effects on the space probe: it changes the position of the intended flight plane and weakens the gravitational force on the probe. The planet does not have the force and the time to pull the probe into an orbit. The space probe without any propulsion cannot reach the constantly moving planet and flies into interplanetary space.

10. The space probe could approach the planet from different angles: from aside, from the front, and from behind.
11. Approaching the planet from the front the two flying bodies with opposite directions of flight, after the crossing point would go away from one another very quickly. The space probe has no chance of being attracted by the planet. [Alternative 1.]
12. Approaching the planet from the side, the two flying bodies would go away from one another in different directions. The space probe has no chance of being attracted by the planet. [Alternative 2.]
13. Approaching the planet from behind the space probe would have a chance to fly into an orbit around the planet: the course of the probe lies in a plane through the center of the planet. To reach this orbit the space probe, however, would have to perform navigation manoeuvres for which the probe lacks the capability of drive and brake. Therefore we must choose for consideration of this alternative a space ship. It should be capable to brake (if it is flying faster than the planet) and to speed up (if it is slower than the planet) and then to break for not to pass the planet. But space ships with two rocket engines (to accelerate and to brake) and an appropriate fuel reserve up to now have not been planned in the NASA projects: the projected space ships until now would not have been able to use this flight variation from behind. [Alternative 3.]

3.  Sketch: Flight of a space probe to the planet

We use the sketch from the German version. The situation of the space probe reaching the planet is shown in two variations.

(1) A space probe approaches from the side
– RS = space probe
– PL = planet
Abb. 1 shows probe and planet at the crossing point.
Abb. 2 shows the planet after having moved one diameter away.

(2) A space ship approaches fom behind on the same flight course as the planet
– RS = space ship
– PL = planet
The space ship has approached the planet from behind and reduced its velocity to the same velocity as the planet. Approaching from behind there is instead of an crossing point the arrival of the space ship above the planet center. In this position the space ship should start a curve into the intended orbit around the planet.

Einflug einer Raumsonde in den Orbit

The velocities on the sideways drift of the planets

To illustrate the sideways drift we calculate from the velocities of 4 planets and the moon
Mercury – Venus – Moon – Earth – Mars
the time it takes the planets to move a quarter of their diameter aside. For this calculation we need the following data taken from the Wikipedia-articles:

1. Velocity of the planet/moon on his course in meter per second;
2. diameter of the planet/moon in km;
3. calculation of a quarter of the diameter in km;
4. calculation of the time to move a quarter of the diameter.

Mercury
(1) 47360 m/sec – (2) 4.879 km – (3) 1219 km
(4) 1219000 m : 47360 = 25,7 sec. = 0,428 minutes

Venus
(1) 35020 m/sec – (2) 12.103 km – (3) 3025 km
(4) 3025000 m : 35020 m = 86,3 sec. = 1,43 minutes

Moon
(1) 1023 m/sec – (2) 3476 km – (3) 869 km
(4) 869000 m : 1023 m = 849 sec. = 14,15 minutes

Earth
(1) 29780 m/sec – (2) 12.756 km – (3) 3189 km
(4) 3189000 m : 29780 m = 107 sec. = 1,78 minutes

Mars
(1) 24130 m/sec – (2) 6.792 km – (3) 1698 km
(4) 1698000 m : 24130 m = 70 sec. = 1,16 minutes

When the planet has moved aside a quarter of his diameter, the direction of the space probe is evidently no longer in a plane through the planet’s center. The times calculated show how quickly this situation is arrived at. Since the drift of the planet continues indefinitely the space probe (without propulsion) has no chance to reach the intended flight course in a plane through the planet’s center.

The consequences of the moving planet center

To reach an orbit around the planet the space probe has to fulfill 3 preconditions which, however, are destroyed by the drift of the planet.

(1) An orbit can take place and can be maintained only through a constant and persistent effect of the gravitation on the space probe. Whitout this permanent effect of the gravitation there would also be no orbit around the Earth. The permanent effect of the gravitation must counteract the permanent acceleration of the space probe in its orbit flight around the Earth. If the gravitational effect diminishes, the space probe will leave the orbit path.

(To prevent misunderstandings, it should be reminded that the acceleration of the space probe does not mean an increase of its velocity on the orbit path, but the permanent diversion of the probe from the inertial movement straight ahead into the curve of the orbit constitutes an acceleration.)

Through the planet’s drift the gravitational force on the space probe will diminish continously, and a permanent change of the gravitational force would prevent the creation of an orbit for the space probe.

(2) Before the start the planner of space flights must define an orbit in a certain altitude above the planet and a certain velocity of the probe as the objective of the space probe. Both parameters will change through the planet’s drift while the spaceflight parameters of the probe are preset and cannot be changed later.

(3) For the flight of the space probe into an orbit a certain angle of flight must be obeyed in a certain range; if the flight course is too near to the planet the space probe will fall onto the planet, if it is too flat the probe will pass the planet and fly into the interplanetary space. Until today the planners of space flights use to claim that their supposed „space flights“ successfully managed to observe the range of parameters, but they have not even demonstrated the possibility to achieve this. They simply produce the „news“ for the mass media, that their probe has successfully „entered the orbit“. But to obey the preset correct flight angle would be impossible through the continous motion of the planet.

Probably through the propaganda for „space travel“ there has been put into the public’s mind the idea, a space probe must only fly into the proximity of a planet and promptly the probe is caught by the planet and parked in an orbit. Certainly nobody has told that platitude in public – but all protagonists of „space travel“ behave as if. About the real problem the public is never informed. This beautiful job is let to us laymen because we have not been involved in any crime of that field and have not to fear additional reprisals.

4.  None of the 3 alternatives enables the space probe to enter into an orbit

According to our current knowledge the insights about orbits are a hard lesson for all planners of „space trips“.

With alternative 1 (approach from aside) and alternative 2 (approach from the front) the planet moves permanently away and the space probe could not enter into a flight plane that goes through the planet’s center. The reason is that the space probe has only one flight direction but the planet’s center with the orbit’s flight plane moves away continously and thus changes the position of this plane.

The alternative 3 (approach from behind) could offer a flight into a plane that passes through the planet’s center only for a space ship being capable to accelerate and to brake and with an adequate fuel reserve. Until now space ships for NASA projects with these capabilities have not been seen. The current space ships could not have profited from this chance because the lack of technical equipment. For space probes (without capability of acceleration and braking) this alternative was not viable anyhow.

5.  Only a direct hit onto the planet or flight into the universe – no orbit!

The orbit is a very special case – flight into a plane which goes through the planet’s center – and the navigation from outside into an orbit around a planet is not trivial. The reason why are the movements of all celestial bodies.

Instead of an orbit a space probe in the proximity of a planet could receive a certain deviation of limited duration in direction to the center of gravitation, more or less the center of the planet. Afterwards the probe would continue its flight into space. The dimension and direction of the deviation depends on the position of the space probe relative to the planet, its velocity and distance from the planet and the force of the gravitatioal field.

Only for a space ship with the capability of propulsion it would be possible to follow the planet drifting aside: thus the space ship would come closer to the alternative 3 with its characteristic preconditions: two rocket motors for propulsion and braking and a sufficient reserve of fuel.

On its flight to a planet the space probe has only exact two alternatives: or a direct hit onto the planet (with braking or without) or the flight into the universe. The orbit remains an unreachable goal even for a space ship approaching the planet from outside with the currently used technical equipment.

6.  Insights into the current narrative of „space travel“

All pretended „space flights“, socalled „missions“, which maintain having reached an orbit around a planet or moon, could have happened only on condition that

(1) a fully manoeuvrable space ship has been deployed,
(2) the approach to the planet has been done from behind,
(3) the space ship has taken exactly the course and velocity of the planet,
(4) the space ship has reached the point exactly above the planet’s center,
(5) the space ship has been in an altitude above the planet in which the course of the intended orbit was supposed to lie,
(6) the space ship has started a curve into the intended orbit at the correct time and has maintained its course in the plane that passes through the planet’s center.

A space flight project having fulfilled these 6 preconditions until now has never been heard of.

All as successful pretended „flights“ of NASA into the orbit of other celestial bodies must be examined for the modalities of approach to the target planet. As a result all pretended flights of space probes (without propulsion and braking capabilities) into an orbit around other planets or moons must be considered as pure fantasy and a simple lie.

The same has to be said about orbits around asteroids and comets. These target objects can cause additional problems for the calculation of their flight data because of their small size and great distance from the Earth. The small mass means a weak gravitation so that the gravitation eventually may not be able to attract a space ship or a space probe into an orbit and hold it there.

According to these insights a great part of supposed „space flights“ with orbits around other planets, moons or other small celestial objects have been proved pure fantasy and a fraud.

The proof that an orbit from outside around a planet or moon practically cannot be achieved is a further proof against manned and unmanned space travel. Its especially great importance for manned space travel is that after the two fundamental proofs (no re-entry to Earth; no protection against cosmic radiation) we have got a third fundamental proof against manned space travel: this proof is independent from the other two proofs and already by itself conclusive evidence against all space flights with alledged orbit around another celestial body without demonstrating that they could have used the only real chance with approach from behind.

7.  Old perfect example: APOLLO 11 in an orbit around the Moon

The „miracles of manned space flight“ have been the alledged flight to the moon with an orbit around the moon, landing on the moon, start back from the moon to the command module in orbit, start from the moon orbit back to Earth, directly from the return flight landing on Earth (without an Earth orbit), landing in the Pacific near President Nixon. Navigational highlights were the two passages through the „neutral point“ between Earth and moon, where the gravitational forces of the two bodies are equally strong: this point moves nearly as fast as the moon.

To our knowledge the whole APOLLO 11-flight never happened and thus there has never been an orbit around the moon. An additional proof has now been provided through this present investigation: because of supposedly passing the „neutral point“ APOLLO 11 would have arrived at the moon vertically to the moon’s motion: with this flight direction APOLLO 11 could not have reached an orbit around the moon. With that we have a further k.o.-argument against the „miracles of manned space flight“.

8.  The general oblivion about the permanent moving of all celestial bodies

Why has the general public forgotten the simple fact of the movements of all celestial bodies? Naturally this strange oblivion has not come by coincidence. The space organizations whit their concentrated intelligence, first of all the NASA of the USA, do know everything and have decided, protecting their own interests, not to draw general attention to the moving of all celestial bodies. Because movements of all celestial bodies make space projects – manned and unmanned – complicated and some even impossible. Furthermore they could provoke unpleasant questions.

The space organizations naturally were not able to ban officially this information but through their total control of all mass media (since 1963, after the J.F.Kennedy murder the CIA boasted to control all media through 300 agents in decisive positions) they could prevent all informations and all reminiscence of this fact. As a consequence of the dependence of the public from the „published opinion“ in the media the simple fact of movements of all celestial bodies has been lost in oblivion. It is as if one makes the school children forget the one to ten times tables. As a consequence of this common oblivion NASA can establish orbit flights around other planets so simply as if the good Lord would halt the planet for a while to let the space probe enter the orbit flight through the attraction of the planet – and when the orbit would have been reached this good Lord would have let the planet continue his flight together with the space probe in orbit.

Such alledged „flights into the orbit“ were often followed by alledged „landings“ on the celestial bodies bringing supposed special cars, socalled „rovers“ to the surface of the planet where they fotografed their landing sites and panoramas of the landscape and transmitted the fotos back to Earth, very often through transmitters in the orbit. All these consequences of the „orbit technology“ must be reconsidered in view of the „reality“ of these orbits. Surely the greatest part of all unmanned space projects is connected with the pretension of „orbits“ and therefore must be checked on the conditions of their navigational possibilities.

9.  The literature (Wikipedia) and the latest project „BepiColombo“

Common sources about „space travel“ are the articles in Wikipedia which are totally controlled by NASA and therefore do contain exclusively NASA informations. Any criticism of the official NASA narrative cannot take place there. The world of Wikipedia is populated by all the persons and events of the complete alledged world of space travel of all times, which have been proved by the critics to be fairy tales and pure fantasy. Since a majority of some 75 percent of the population believes the NASA legends to be real the wikipedia articles find great acceptance with the public and therefore have to be checked for relevant statements. As relevant for questions about orbits we have found some articles in the English version of Wikipedia.

Orbit – Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit)

Section „History“: Mentions „the case of an artificial satellite orbiting a planet“ but doesn’t describe how to place the satellite there.

Section „Astrodynamics“: „Orbital mechanics or astrodynamics is the application of ballistics and celestial mechanics to the practical problems concerning the motion of rockets and other spacecraft. The motion of these objects is usually calculated from Newton’s laws of motion and Newton’s law of universal gravitation. It is a core discipline within space mission design and control. Celestial mechanics treats more broadly the orbital dynamics of systems under the influence of gravity, including spacecraft and natural astronomical bodies such as star systems, planets, moons, and comets. Orbital mechanics focuses on spacecraft trajectories, including orbital maneuvers, orbit plane changes, and interplanetary transfers, and is used by mission planners to predict the results of propulsive maneuvers. General relativity is a more exact theory than Newton’s laws for calculating orbits, and is sometimes necessary for greater accuracy or in high-gravity situations (such as orbits close to the Sun).“

From the section „See also“ two references seem to be interesting:
Orbital spaceflight
Rosetta (orbit)

Orbital spaceflight – Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_spaceflight)
Section „Orbital maneuver“: „In spaceflight, an orbital maneuver is the use of propulsion systems to change the orbit of a spacecraft. For spacecraft far from Earth—for example those in orbits around the Sun—an orbital maneuver is called a deep-space maneuver (DSM).“
Treats only orbits aroung the Earth. No mention of the flight into an orbit around another planet.

Rosetta (orbit) – Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(orbit))
No mention of the flight into an orbit around another planet.

Satellite – Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite)
First section (untitled): „Over a dozen space probes have been placed into orbit around other bodies and become artificial satellites to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, a few asteroids,[3] a comet and the Sun.
Satellites are used for many purposes. Among several other applications, they can be used to make star maps and maps of planetary surfaces, and also take pictures of planets they are launched into.
Section „Orbit types“ – subsection „Centric classifications“:
Geocentric orbit: An orbit around the planet Earth, such as the Moon or artificial satellites. Currently there are approximately 1,886[19] artificial satellites orbiting the Earth.
Heliocentric orbit: An orbit around the Sun. In our Solar System, all planets, comets, and asteroids are in such orbits, as are many artificial satellites and pieces of space debris. Moons by contrast are not in a heliocentric orbit but rather orbit their parent planet.
Areocentric orbit: An orbit around the planet Mars, such as by moons or artificial satellites.“
Section „Special classifications“:
Sun-synchronous orbit: An orbit which combines altitude and inclination in such a way that the satellite passes over any given point of the planets‘ surface at the same local solar time. Such an orbit can place a satellite in constant sunlight and is useful for imaging, spy, and weather satellites.
Moon orbit: The orbital characteristics of Earth’s Moon. Average altitude of 384,403 kilometers (238,857 mi), elliptical–inclined orbit.“ – Doesn’t mention an artificial satellite around the moon.
This long article of about 20 pages tells us the NASA narrative of „artificial satellites to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, a few asteroids,[3] a comet and the Sun“ but doesn’t tell us how to fly into an orbit around another planet: satellites can „take pictures of planets they are launched into.“ According to Wikipedia satellites are simply „launched“.

From this survey we conclude that there are no NASA informations about the problem how to fly into orbit around another planet. We didn’t find any such information elsewhere. Only orbits around the Earth are treated. This seems to promote in public opinion the idea that flights into orbits around other planets are as trivial and simple to organize as around Earth. The public opinion sees as proof the many „NASA news“ about successful flights into the orbits as listed above. Latest example is the just started („launched“) ESA space probe

BepiColombo – Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BepiColombo)
„The mission will perform a comprehensive study of Mercury, including characterization of its magnetic field, magnetosphere, and both interior and surface structure. It was launched on an Ariane 5[2] rocket on 20 October 2018 at 01:45 UTC, with an arrival at Mercury planned for December 2025, after a flyby of Earth, two flybys of Venus, and six flybys of Mercury.[1][6]“ BepiColombo consists of two spacecraft components:
Mercury orbiter
Spacecraft component: Mercury Planetary Orbiter (MPO)
Orbital insertion: Planned: 5 December 2025
Orbit parameters
Perihermion: 480 km (300 mi) – Apohermion: 1,500 km (930 mi) – Inclination: 90°
Mercury orbiter
Spacecraft component: Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter (MMO)
Orbital insertion: Planned: 5 December 2025
Orbit parameters
Perihermion: 590 km (370 mi) – Apohermion: 11,640 km (7,230 mi) – Inclination: 90°“

„Arriving in Mercury orbit on 5 December 2025, the Mio and MPO satellites will separate and observe Mercury in collaboration for one year, with a possible one-year extension.[1] The orbiters are equipped with scientific instruments provided by various European countries and Japan. The mission will characterize the solid and liquid iron core (3⁄4 of the planet’s radius) and determine the size of each.[12] The mission will also complete gravitational and magnetic field mappings. Russia provided gamma ray and neutron spectrometers to verify the existence of water ice in polar craters that are permanently in shadow from the Sun’s rays.“

As we see from the Wikipedia article, „arriving in Mercury orbit“ is an unproblematic navigational procedure and has become a routine.

NASA and ESA are as clever as we laypersons

Each one of our contemporaries being fairly critical can reach the same findings as in this investigation presented: there is no orbit for space probes approaching from outside to a planet. NASA and ESA are as clever as we are and know very well that several „swing-by“-s and a final orbit at Merkur will never function as pretended. Therefore nobody will realize the

socalled „BepiColombo mission“ of ESA and JAXA.

It will remain a product of fantasy of the unmanned space travel which must be continued like the manned space travel. A sudden stop of this gigantic hoax would be seen as betrayal by the public and would cause confusion in the minds of the people. The media show must go on! Therefore there are continuously new projects in space travel complicated with always additional features and goals in greater distance and up to now unknown precision: the MPO of „BepiColombo“ will enter into orbit after 7 years with the parameters
„Perihermion: 480 km (300 mi) – Apohermion: 1,500 km (930 mi) – Inclination: 90°.“

First pay, then swallow and finally cheering!

Although the most expensive newest technology and testing and training are promised, the technical apparatus can be only a dummy for the press fotos and videos of the massmedia, for the rocket start can serve an old archive foto: nobody in the public can recognize when the pictures have been made. The high amounts of money from the taxpayer – according to Wikipedia: „The total cost of the mission is estimated at USD$ 2 billion.“ – for rocket, space probe and the physical-technical equipment and maintaining all the services with scientific personal over 7 years of the „mission“ can be spared, they are not needed for the space hoax and can go into dubious channels where one knows a much better use. An uninformed public is condemmed first to pay, then to swallow and finally to cheer.

***

Now all space travel specialists, astrophysicists, navigators and technicians of space travel are welcome and invited to judge this investigation of a self-thinking layperson. We are always eager to learn more and to become still cleverer. We will report should the occasion arise.

B., 22. November 2018

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s