Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet

Maybe. Sounds like speculation. Have any actual evidence?

Can you tell us why Rosetta could not carry fuel for maneuvering while you are at it? 

Then if there is time could you please do us a favor and research how slingshots work?

Thanks.

My ISP tells me I have >500 visitors/day. I think it is pretty good.

Re Rosetta fuel, pls refer to my web page, where it is explained, e.g. only 24 10N thrusters for maneuvering, 1600 kg fuel, etc. Cannot brake the spacecraft much.

Slingshots! According ESA it was done three times just in front of planet Earth - 3rd March 2005, 14 November 2007 and 11 November 2009 - but ESA forgot to tell us about it. Imagine if we could see a spacecraft like Rosetta fly by Earth and change direction, etc. ESA was apparently steering the Rosetta to arrive Earth three times at the right angle/velocity/time for the gravity kick BUT didn't let us see it. I think reason was that it never happened.

But if it happened, ESA should show as the records of the two masses' arrival speed/direction in 3-D and departure speed/direction in 3-D relative the Sun and how ESA adjusted them to suit. Remember that if you go off >1° you'll miss the target.

Quote from: Heiwa on November 21, 2014, 05:09:58 AM

Quote from: Arith on November 21, 2014, 04:00:33 AM

Your page is just text vomit.

I think you are jealous that I have 500 visitors/day to my site [...]

Um no. No matter how many hits, I would never be proud of that mess of text. Ever.
I don't have a website, but I do have a front facing server. It gets pretty close to that many 'hits' every day. From Russia, China, .. basically people scanning looking for holes.
If you're proud of effectively throwing alphabet soup at a canvas... then.. I guess. It's still terrible.

I am quite pleased with my web site up and working since 2000 and always on top when you ask Google about it. I think you don't know much about the matter. USA is mostly top visitor but for certain reasons visitors from little Estonia may now and then be on top. One or two of my web pages are in that language.
Rosetta is evidently a hoax that started 1993 when it was easy to fool people NASA style. I don't think it will last much longer. Have you seen the ESA clowns? Tattoes, Hawaii shirts with nude girls, etc. All crazy, JPL style.

I know enough about design principles to know you haven't got a clue what you're doing with that website.
You carbon copy your thoughts directly to your editor, which explains why it's a twisted mess.

As for the actual CONTENT, once I prepare my eyes I'm going to copypasta that entire wall of text and throw it into notepad. Then at least I can read it without getting eye cancer.
Like I said. Trainwrecks get lots of views too. Just because you have visitors, does not automatically mean every one of them are human, and if they are there's no guarantee they aren't just there to see "the worst looking site on the planet". Hell, I added a few to that number, showing my friends just how terrible that site is. You can be proud of that, if you're completely out of touch with reality. Like anyone had a doubt anyway.

I know enough about design principles to know you haven't got a clue what you're doing with that website.
You carbon copy your thoughts directly to your editor, which explains why it's a twisted mess.

As for the actual CONTENT, once I prepare my eyes I'm going to copypasta that entire wall of text and throw it into notepad. Then at least I can read it without getting eye cancer.
Like I said. Trainwrecks get lots of views too. Just because you have visitors, does not automatically mean every one of them are human, and if they are there's no guarantee they aren't just there to see "the worst looking site on the planet". Hell, I added a few to that number, showing my friends just how terrible that site is. You can be proud of that, if you're completely out of touch with reality. Like anyone had a doubt anyway.

Thanks for your not very intelligent comments about topic Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet that I describe at my popular web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS .
You seem to be like ESA - a flat 2-D space supporter - believing a spacecraft can bounce around like a billiard ball among the planets completely out of reality. People like you are easy to fool.

I know enough about design principles to know you haven't got a clue what you're doing with that website.
You carbon copy your thoughts directly to your editor, which explains why it's a twisted mess.

As for the actual CONTENT, once I prepare my eyes I'm going to copypasta that entire wall of text and throw it into notepad. Then at least I can read it without getting eye cancer.
Like I said. Trainwrecks get lots of views too. Just because you have visitors, does not automatically mean every one of them are human, and if they are there's no guarantee they aren't just there to see "the worst looking site on the planet". Hell, I added a few to that number, showing my friends just how terrible that site is. You can be proud of that, if you're completely out of touch with reality. Like anyone had a doubt anyway.

Is he really out of touch with reality or are you out of touch with reality. You appear to be knocking his work as though you can pshysically prove him wrong. How can you?

Ok you don't like what you see and you want to argue the point. Fair enough. The problem is, you are trying your utmost to ridicule him and making him out to be some nutter for no other reason than you have been trained to think this way by following mainstream media/science digs that use these terms for no other reason than to stop people actually getting closer to actual reality.

Is he dealing in fantasy or are you indoctrinated by it? I know which one  I think is closer to the truth and it makes interesting reading for me, as it will for others...maybe many many others. It's hard to tell how many because most people who have alternative thoughts and questions, dare not mention them for the very reason of people like you going into spasms in your attempts to ridiclue.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2014, 06:18:21 AM

Maybe. Sounds like speculation. Have any actual evidence?

Can you tell us why Rosetta could not carry fuel for maneuvering while you are at it? 

Then if there is time could you please do us a favor and research how slingshots work?

Thanks.

My ISP tells me I have >500 visitors/day. I think it is pretty good.

Re Rosetta fuel, pls refer to my web page, where it is explained, e.g. only 24 10N thrusters for maneuvering, 1600 kg fuel, etc. Cannot brake the spacecraft much.

Slingshots! According ESA it was done three times just in front of planet Earth - 3rd March 2005, 14 November 2007 and 11 November 2009 - but ESA forgot to tell us about it. Imagine if we could see a spacecraft like Rosetta fly by Earth and change direction, etc. ESA was apparently steering the Rosetta to arrive Earth three times at the right angle/velocity/time for the gravity kick BUT didn't let us see it. I think reason was that it never happened.

But if it happened, ESA should show as the records of the two masses' arrival speed/direction in 3-D and departure speed/direction in 3-D relative the Sun and how ESA adjusted them to suit. Remember that if you go off >1° you'll miss the target.

So your proof it did not happen is:

1. They did not broadcast the Rosetta fly bys.

2. The Rosetta cannot brake much.

Is that it?

So your proof it did not happen is:

1. They did not broadcast the Rosetta fly bys.

2. The Rosetta cannot brake much.

Is that it?

Not really - full story is at my web site. It started 1993. March 2004 Rosetta was sent up into space into orbit around the Sun magically a little off the Earth's orbit around Earth and a year later Rosetta almost collided with planet Earth - the first fly-by kick - that nobody saw. I would have loved to see it - Rosetta arriving at a certain speed and then due to Earth being kicked away towards Mars ... or where Mars will be when Rosetta crosses its orbit around the Sun - a second collision or fly by putting Rossetta into orbit around the Sun, so it can almost collide with planet Earth many monthes later for a second fly-by that nobody saw, etc, etc. Science fiction as its worst!
In the end Rosetta is kicked out towards the elliptical orbit of the comet and when it arrives there course and speed is changed so it after a couple of months Rosette flies parallell with the comet in the orbit of the comet.
How a spacecraft without engine can enter into an elliptical orbit of a comet is .
I do not like the Hells Angels dress code of the ESA staff, either.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2014, 10:08:58 AM

So your proof it did not happen is:

1. They did not broadcast the Rosetta fly bys.

2. The Rosetta cannot brake much.

Is that it?

Not really - full story is at my web site. It started 1993. March 2004 Rosetta was sent up into space into orbit around the Sun magically a little off the Earth's orbit around Earth and a year later Rosetta almost collided with planet Earth - the first fly-by kick - that nobody saw. I would have loved to see it - Rosetta arriving at a certain speed and then due to Earth being kicked away towards Mars ... or where Mars will be when Rosetta crosses its orbit around the Sun - a second collision or fly by putting Rossetta into orbit around the Sun, so it can almost collide with planet Earth many monthes later for a second fly-by that nobody saw, etc, etc. Science fiction as its worst!
In the end Rosetta is kicked out towards the elliptical orbit of the comet and when it arrives there course and speed is changed so it after a couple of months Rosette flies parallell with the comet in the orbit of the comet.
How a spacecraft without engine can enter into an elliptical orbit of a comet is .
I do not like the Hells Angels dress code of the ESA staff, either.

So your proof it did not happen is:

1. They did not broadcast the Rosetta fly bys.

2. The Rosetta cannot brake much.

Is that it?

Hey look. YOU found pictures of Rosetta's Fly-By!

Here!

Why is it that sceptimatic invariably sides with every whackjob—such as Heiwa—who posts their crapola on these forums?

This guy Anders Bjorkman (Heiwa) is totally loony tunes.  And if you want a really, really good laugh, check out his site(s).  The only reason he gets so many [sic] hits on his site is from referrals by people taking the piss out of him.  I guarantee that not a dozen people a day would visit his site for any factual information.

Not really - full story is at my web site. It started 1993. March 2004 Rosetta was sent up into space into orbit around the Sun magically a little off the Earth's orbit around Earth and a year later Rosetta almost collided with planet Earth - the first fly-by kick - that nobody saw. I would have loved to see it - Rosetta arriving at a certain speed and then due to Earth being kicked away towards Mars ... or where Mars will be when Rosetta crosses its orbit around the Sun - a second collision or fly by putting Rossetta into orbit around the Sun, so it can almost collide with planet Earth many monthes later for a second fly-by that nobody saw, etc, etc. Science fiction as its worst!
In the end Rosetta is kicked out towards the elliptical orbit of the comet and when it arrives there course and speed is changed so it after a couple of months Rosette flies parallell with the comet in the orbit of the comet.
How a spacecraft without engine can enter into an elliptical orbit of a comet is .
I do not like the Hells Angels dress code of the ESA staff, either.

Why do you imagine that nobody knew of Rosetta's flybys? They were in in science news and the flight plan was published way back, before the launch. The fact that you didn't know is hardly evidence of anything. Here's an example from 2007, this mission was never some sort of a secret like you'd like people to believe for some reason.

Rest of your case follows the same pattern. You know jack about a subject and make up some conspiracy crap about it instead of educating yourself. Please learn orbital mechanics. And redesign your site, the shill money they pay me is nowhere near enough to spend any time on that disaster you call a web page.

March 2004 Rosetta was sent up into space into orbit around the Sun magically a little off the Earth's orbit

No magic. Planning and well-understood orbital mechanics.

around Earth and a year later Rosetta almost collided with planet Earth

Near pass, by design, and it worked.

- the first fly-by kick - that nobody saw. I would have loved to see it - Rosetta arriving at a certain speed and then due to Earth being kicked away towards Mars ... or where Mars will be when Rosetta crosses its orbit around the Sun - a second collision or fly by

What would you have been looking for? Do you know if it was bright enough to see naked-eye, or would you need a telescope of a certain size? I don't know. Tell us.

Don't miss the next time if you want to see something like this. You can get some equipment and practice tracking satellites now so the next time something like this is planned, you'll be ready. And pay attention to the announcements so you'll know when it's about to happen.

putting Rossetta into orbit around the Sun,

It was already in orbit around the Sun.  The orbit was changed significantly with each boost - that's the whole point - but it was already in solar orbit before each slingshot.

so it can almost collide with planet Earth many monthes later for a second fly-by

Another near pass, by design, and it worked.

that nobody saw,

I don't know if this is true or not. Do you have more details about why you think this is the case?

etc, etc. Science fiction as its worst!

[Arthur C.] Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Orbital mechanics must be too advanced for Heiwa because it seems like magic to him (see his first statement). The rest seems like science fiction because he thinks the basics are magic. Just because he doesn't understand something doesn't mean it isn't real.

In the end Rosetta is kicked out towards the elliptical orbit of the comet and when it arrives there course and speed is changed so it after a couple of months Rosette flies parallell with the comet in the orbit of the comet.

Yeah! Cool, eh!

How a spacecraft without engine can enter into an elliptical orbit of a comet is .

Why do you think that it has no engine?

I do not like the Hells Angels dress code of the ESA staff, either.

Oh. Well, why didn't you say so earlier? Your taste in clothes totally makes your arguments valid. 

Quote from: Heiwa on November 21, 2014, 11:18:18 AM

*massive snip*

But, but, he has had visitors on his website!

But, but, he has had visitors on his website!

So did Bozo the clown LOL.

Quote from: neimoka on November 21, 2014, 01:05:47 PM

But, but, he has had visitors on his website!

So did Bozo the clown LOL.

Thats not true, my site visit 703 visiters day, americans most. whole story on my site. Bozo the Clown not real, conspiracy made in 1943 by nasa/esa/illuminati/mcdonalds. all on site with massive visitor. you just jealus my site have 703 visits day.

Thats not true, my site visit 703 visiters day, americans most. whole story on my site. Bozo the Clown not real, conspiracy made in 1943 by nasa/esa/illuminati/mcdonalds. all on site with massive visitor. you just jealus my site have 703 visits day.

Now for the truth..... All your base are belong to us!   

Quote from: Arith on November 21, 2014, 09:43:39 AM

I know enough about design principles to know you haven't got a clue what you're doing with that website.
You carbon copy your thoughts directly to your editor, which explains why it's a twisted mess.

As for the actual CONTENT, once I prepare my eyes I'm going to copypasta that entire wall of text and throw it into notepad. Then at least I can read it without getting eye cancer.
Like I said. Trainwrecks get lots of views too. Just because you have visitors, does not automatically mean every one of them are human, and if they are there's no guarantee they aren't just there to see "the worst looking site on the planet". Hell, I added a few to that number, showing my friends just how terrible that site is. You can be proud of that, if you're completely out of touch with reality. Like anyone had a doubt anyway.

Thanks for your not very intelligent comments about topic Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet that I describe at my popular web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#ROS .
You seem to be like ESA - a flat 2-D space supporter - believing a spacecraft can bounce around like a billiard ball among the planets completely out of reality. People like you are easy to fool.

Just my response to a "not very intelligent" website. Also, what the devil are you on about? 2D space supporter? The only 2D space I support has to do with game development. If billiards had to do with gravitational slingshots, you might be on to something.. but you're not.  People like you ARE the fool.

and now on to scepti..

Is he really out of touch with reality or are you out of touch with reality. You appear to be knocking his work as though you can pshysically prove him wrong. How can you?

In the grand scheme of things, I can't. Neither can you. The problem is, you have to prove alot more with the conspiracy angle than you do the "space travel is real" angle. Now if something solid were to prove your/his point.. alright, then we have a starting point. Instead we have this terrible website he cites, that he himself wrote.

Ok you don't like what you see and you want to argue the point. Fair enough. The problem is, you are trying your utmost to ridicule him and making him out to be some nutter for no other reason than you have been trained to think this way by following mainstream media/science digs that use these terms for no other reason than to stop people actually getting closer to actual reality.

He is a nutter. Everyone else has pretty much torn up his arguments. Two little chirps isn't my "utmost to ridicule him". I could do alot worse. His website however deserves all the ridicule it gets, because really. Damn.

You say your theories and thoughts on the whole flat earth thing is "getting closer to reality". How do you know you aren't just deluding yourself, drawing yourself further and further away from reality? As someone else said: appearances can be deceiving. Which is apparently most of what zetetic is all about. I'm not interested in stopping people from reaching the truth. I am however against people spouting some inherently insane crap and call the status quo fake... because.. conspiracy or something. You'd first have to prove your conspiracy before you can even address flat earth.

evyone is missing the most ovious thing. were supposed to believe that this so called ""probe"" can fly all around?  it doesnt even have wings

they must think were really stupid and gallibel

You guys are easily fooled, your brains are impervious to what Heiwa is saying. Plus you are assholes about it. If you would spend anytime reading the analysis, you might have a question or two about the"flight". You don't question any thing that NASA or ESA tells you. NASA and TPTB have in the palm of there hands. You suffer from belief prior to investigation. You are dummies.

You guys are easily fooled, your brains are impervious to what Heiwa is saying. Plus you are assholes about it. If you would spend anytime reading the analysis, you might have a question or two about the"flight". You don't question any thing that NASA or ESA tells you. NASA and TPTB have in the palm of there hands. You suffer from belief prior to investigation. You are dummies.

I read Heiwa's page and it is woefully short on analysis. However, there are plenty of incredulous claims interspersed with weakly supported factoids. If you were not so intent on believing him, you would see this.

You guys are easily fooled, your brains are impervious to what Heiwa is saying. Plus you are assholes about it. If you would spend anytime reading the analysis, you might have a question or two about the"flight". You don't question any thing that NASA or ESA tells you. NASA and TPTB have in the palm of there hands. You suffer from belief prior to investigation. You are dummies.

So what are the one or two questions about the flight we should have after reading his stuff? Have you considered doing any research to find the answers yourself, or, as usual, do you want us to do it for you? If you want us to do the work, can you present the questions here coherently and in a readable format?

You guys are easily fooled, your brains are impervious to what Heiwa is saying. Plus you are assholes about it. If you would spend anytime reading the analysis, you might have a question or two about the"flight". You don't question any thing that NASA or ESA tells you. NASA and TPTB have in the palm of there hands. You suffer from belief prior to investigation. You are dummies.

I also read it, because as someone that is fascinated with the scientific method, the only way I feel I can make any sort of informed choice is to know all facets of the argument. Even the incredibly ill informed ones.

This is all circular argument and conjecture with zero back up or proof. His whole validation of his 'proof' is that 500 people a day look at his site, and anyone that has dealt with the back end of a website knows that those analytics are skewed with the countless bots crawling all over the internet. He would be lucky if 20 of those are real hits.

So really the only dummy is the one that doesnt read everything, then figure out how to verify it for themselves. aka, you.

Quote from: sokarul on November 20, 2014, 08:07:54 PM

Looks easily doable to me. Shows the flight path.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62296.0#.VG66IsnYeQ4

If you look carefully, Rosetta, after four kicks, in one elliptical loop suddenly manage to move into another, different loop of the comet and then flies at same speed of the comet.

If you think that Rosetta got 4 kicks in one loop, then you obviously haven't studied the flight plan.

Anyway - each kick is impossible in 3-D space. The planets can only attract the spacecraft and not attract/kick off the spacecraft in another direction like a slingshot...

On what scientific principles do you base this claim?

Also the first orbit of Rosetta around the Sun and close by to Earth all the time before the first kick is impossible. Rosetta cannot fly away from Earth for say a week and then change course into an orbit around the Sun to collide with Earth again after a year. All ESA info is thus pure science fiction. Not even fun!

Again, have you studied the flight plan?

Again, have you studied the flight plan?

If you read my article at my web page you should find that I analyze the flight plan and find it impossible, e.g. the start. After leaving LEO and crusing out into space for a few days Rosetta changes direction to orbit the Sun like planet Earth. For that you have to brake in one direction and accelerate in another and Rosetta cannot do it. The flight plan starts with an impossible maneuver = typical ESA.

If you read my article at my web page

You should really stop that crap.  Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.

If you have a argument to make, then make it here.

Quote from: Heiwa on November 21, 2014, 11:34:50 PM

If you read my article at my web page

You should really stop that crap.  Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.

If you have a argument to make, then make it here.

My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you. Just a trip to Mars is impossible for that reason.
People that believe in space travel are really brainwashed by too much space travel propaganda.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 22, 2014, 02:46:02 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on November 21, 2014, 11:34:50 PM

If you read my article at my web page

You should really stop that crap.  Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.

If you have a argument to make, then make it here.

My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you. Just a trip to Mars is impossible for that reason.
People that believe in space travel are really brainwashed by too much space travel propaganda.

You claim this but never support it with evidence. Even on your popular website. You make a lot of assertions but never show your reasoning in detail. This is what I want to see.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 22, 2014, 02:46:02 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on November 21, 2014, 11:34:50 PM

If you read my article at my web page

You should really stop that crap.  Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.

If you have a argument to make, then make it here.

My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you. Just a trip to Mars is impossible for that reason.
People that believe in space travel are really brainwashed by too much space travel propaganda.

More empty hand waving.  Bring some numbers, then we can debate.

You claim this but never support it with evidence. Even on your popular website. You make a lot of assertions but never show your reasoning in detail. This is what I want to see.

All details you want to see about my evidence about impossible space travel are on my web site. Space travel is not possible. You cannot ever stop in or return from space alive. We can only send satellites one way away into space. That's not travel.
I have since many years offered anyone proving me wrong €1 000 000:- at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm , but nobody has collected.

Why?

Because I am right? Check yourself!


 

Quote from: Heiwa on November 22, 2014, 03:23:31 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 22, 2014, 02:46:02 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on November 21, 2014, 11:34:50 PM

If you read my article at my web page

You should really stop that crap.  Nobody wants to visit that abomination of a site and wade through your endless droning.

If you have a argument to make, then make it here.

My reasoning about the Rosetta hoax is quite lengthy and that's why I present it on my popular web site. Regardless, it would appear from the ESA flight plan that planet Earth was in a perfect location 11 or 13 November 2009 to launch Rosetta directly towards the orbit of the comet, so the whole show with a launch 2 or 3 March 2004 and then being kicked around like a billiard ball seems bad science fiction.
I evidently know both plans are impossible. You cannot send a spacecraft away from the orbit of Earth and Earth itself to enter another orbit of another planet or comet because in order to change speed and direction in space, you need energy and you cannot carry that energy/fuel with you. Just a trip to Mars is impossible for that reason.
People that believe in space travel are really brainwashed by too much space travel propaganda.

More empty hand waving.  Bring some numbers, then we can debate.

OK! € 1 000 000:- ! Collect it at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .

Then we can debate.