Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet

According ESA and other pseudoscientific agencies - NASA! - planet Earth with speed U can swing around 180° any little object approaching Earth head on at speed v with a little offset to avoid crash and accelerate the little object during 8 minutes, so it becomes speed v + 2U ... in the opposite direction! Nonsense of course. The g-forces on the little object during the 180° turn is of the order 12-13 g, which will rip it apart, but before it happens, the little object is re-directed straight on the planet and - CRASH!

Anders, you do realize that gravity does not need to be 180 degrees, don't you?  In fact, I challenge you to find one example where any space agency has claimed to have used a 180 degree gravity assist for one of its space probes.

Quote from: Heiwa on December 30, 2014, 07:55:27 AM

According ESA and other pseudoscientific agencies - NASA! - planet Earth with speed U can swing around 180° any little object approaching Earth head on at speed v with a little offset to avoid crash and accelerate the little object during 8 minutes, so it becomes speed v + 2U ... in the opposite direction! Nonsense of course. The g-forces on the little object during the 180° turn is of the order 12-13 g, which will rip it apart, but before it happens, the little object is re-directed straight on the planet and - CRASH!

Anders, you do realize that gravity does not need to be 180 degrees, don't you?  In fact, I challenge you to find one example where any space agency has claimed to have used a 180 degree gravity assist for one of its space probes.

Of course a gravity assist kick does not need to be a 180° turn of one object (the space craft) around another (a planet). It only happens when the two objects meet almost head on, we are told to believe by members of the sect of such believers.

We don't know the headings or directions of the four ESA/Rosetta gravity assist kicks . We only know that ESA claims that they took place but failed to photograph them, etc. I evidently claim ESA could not have carried out the b]gravity assist kicks [/b] and I explain why on my web site. The tattoed ESA clowns with their porno shirts have not clarified the matter. I am amazed that media do not ask ESA to clarify its claims.

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2014, 02:39:37 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on December 30, 2014, 07:55:27 AM

According ESA and other pseudoscientific agencies - NASA! - planet Earth with speed U can swing around 180° any little object approaching Earth head on at speed v with a little offset to avoid crash and accelerate the little object during 8 minutes, so it becomes speed v + 2U ... in the opposite direction! Nonsense of course. The g-forces on the little object during the 180° turn is of the order 12-13 g, which will rip it apart, but before it happens, the little object is re-directed straight on the planet and - CRASH!

Anders, you do realize that gravity does not need to be 180 degrees, don't you?  In fact, I challenge you to find one example where any space agency has claimed to have used a 180 degree gravity assist for one of its space probes.

Of course a gravity assist kick does not need to be a 180° turn of one object (the space craft) around another (a planet). It only happens when the two objects meet almost head on, we are told to believe by members of the sect of such believers.

We don't know the headings or directions of the four ESA/Rosetta gravity assist kicks . We only know that ESA claims that they took place but failed to photograph them, etc. I evidently claim ESA could not have carried out the b]gravity assist kicks [/b] and I explain why on my web site. The tattoed ESA clowns with their porno shirts have not clarified the matter. I am amazed that media do not ask ESA to clarify its claims.

When a space probe is performing a gravity assist manuver, they have greater concerns then to take pretty pictures of planets, they are more concerned with things like making sure they do the manuver right and performing the necessary corrections.  If it all was actually a con then do 't you think that they would just render out a few pictures the same way that they allegedly got all of the other space pictures.  There are actually commercialy available suborbital space planes on the market right now and commercial space flight is becoming a reality because that's the obvious thing to do if space does not actually exist.

Quote from: Heiwa on December 30, 2014, 08:53:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2014, 02:39:37 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on December 30, 2014, 07:55:27 AM

According ESA and other pseudoscientific agencies - NASA! - planet Earth with speed U can swing around 180° any little object approaching Earth head on at speed v with a little offset to avoid crash and accelerate the little object during 8 minutes, so it becomes speed v + 2U ... in the opposite direction! Nonsense of course. The g-forces on the little object during the 180° turn is of the order 12-13 g, which will rip it apart, but before it happens, the little object is re-directed straight on the planet and - CRASH!

Anders, you do realize that gravity does not need to be 180 degrees, don't you?  In fact, I challenge you to find one example where any space agency has claimed to have used a 180 degree gravity assist for one of its space probes.

Of course a gravity assist kick does not need to be a 180° turn of one object (the space craft) around another (a planet). It only happens when the two objects meet almost head on, we are told to believe by members of the sect of such believers.

We don't know the headings or directions of the four ESA/Rosetta gravity assist kicks . We only know that ESA claims that they took place but failed to photograph them, etc. I evidently claim ESA could not have carried out the b]gravity assist kicks [/b] and I explain why on my web site. The tattoed ESA clowns with their porno shirts have not clarified the matter. I am amazed that media do not ask ESA to clarify its claims.

When a space probe is performing a gravity assist manuver, they have greater concerns then to take pretty pictures of planets, they are more concerned with things like making sure they do the manuver right and performing the necessary corrections.  If it all was actually a con then do 't you think that they would just render out a few pictures the same way that they allegedly got all of the other space pictures.  There are actually commercialy available suborbital space planes on the market right now and commercial space flight is becoming a reality because that's the obvious thing to do if space does not actually exist.

One correction is to arrive exactly, so you are gravity assist kicked off to the next (moving) planet and that you do not go off target up/down/left/right/too slow/too fast. Remember you are in 3D.
You cannot adjust the planets involved so only the Rosetta can be adjusted ... but doesn't have enough fuel for it - apart from remote control pilots somewhere on Earth.
Of course it is all a con. No Rosetta is in space. Just look at the ESA clowns running the show!
Commercial space flight? All attempts of private flights away from Earth so far are failures. Only governments financed, communist style, space flights exist and they are all, 100% fake with criminal astrophysicists cashing in. Isn't it time to wake up? Isn't it better to spend the money on real things than on fantasy illusions?

I think there is a couple of private space flight companies that would argue that statement

I think there is a couple of private space flight companies that would argue that statement

Evidently there are space flight companies ready to fool prospective clients, e.g. the VG company selling 'space' trips or just an up phase starting from hanging below an airplane speeding up to a certain altitude and then a down phase trying to do a re-entry without breaking or burning up. The only available VG 'space craft' fell apart already in the up phase at a simple test. Then there is the US SX company selling trips to the International Fake Station that doesn't exist either. The only SX client is NASA = a corrupt government agency that says it sent people to the Moon 1969-1972. LOL! The owner of SX also sells electric cars that only fools or idiots buy or accept to drive. It takes hours to charge them, if you find a place to charge them. My 15 years old Opel Agila is much faster/better/more economic and safer.
Are you Pythagoras BTW associated with these companies/agencies?

You cannot adjust the planets involved so only the Rosetta can be adjusted ... but doesn't have enough fuel for it -

You've failed so far to prove this assertion. As you use bogus equations, it's not really surprising.

I was thinking more along the lines of space X.  And no nothing beyond my fascination with companies pushing the boundaries of countless fields of science engendering chemistry.

Iv just realised your sx  is a reference to space X.  My bad. And I think you will find NASH is far from its only client.

I was thinking more along the lines of space X.  And no nothing beyond my fascination with companies pushing the boundaries of countless fields of science engendering chemistry.

space X? FGS. Has it achieved anything? I contacted it and the female chief secretary advised all was secret, bla, bla. Only evidences that spaceX exists are some strange videos planted on the Internet; rockets or models of them flying up into the sky to the NASA ISF and capsules splashing into the Pacific outside Santa Monica, dropped there by some plane taking off an hour earlier from some private airport. 
So I ask you again - Are you Pythagoras BTW associated with these companies/agencies?

Quote from: markjo on December 30, 2014, 02:39:37 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on December 30, 2014, 07:55:27 AM

According ESA and other pseudoscientific agencies - NASA! - planet Earth with speed U can swing around 180° any little object approaching Earth head on at speed v with a little offset to avoid crash and accelerate the little object during 8 minutes, so it becomes speed v + 2U ... in the opposite direction! Nonsense of course. The g-forces on the little object during the 180° turn is of the order 12-13 g, which will rip it apart, but before it happens, the little object is re-directed straight on the planet and - CRASH!

Anders, you do realize that gravity does not need to be 180 degrees, don't you?  In fact, I challenge you to find one example where any space agency has claimed to have used a 180 degree gravity assist for one of its space probes.

Of course a gravity assist kick does not need to be a 180° turn of one object (the space craft) around another (a planet). It only happens when the two objects meet almost head on, we are told to believe by members of the sect of such believers.

Then please stop arguing as if a 180 degree assist is the only one ever used.

We don't know the headings or directions of the four ESA/Rosetta gravity assist kicks . We only know that ESA claims that they took place but failed to photograph them, etc. I evidently claim ESA could not have carried out the b]gravity assist kicks [/b] and I explain why on my web site. The tattoed ESA clowns with their porno shirts have not clarified the matter. I am amazed that media do not ask ESA to clarify its claims.

Actually, space probes such as Voyager, often do photograph the planets that they get the gravity assist from.  However, since Rosetta was getting its assists from Earth and Mars, I doubt that photographing these planets (that already have other probes in orbit and actively photographing them) was a priority.

Space X has launched plenty of commercial payloads. As I said NASA is far from its sole customer.

Space X has launched plenty of commercial payloads. As I said NASA is far from its sole customer.

Hm, according SpaceX home page http://www.spacex.com/ ...
"SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company was founded in 2002 to revolutionize space technology, with the ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets."

If you study the home page better you find that SpaceX has only sent up some satellites for Malaysian, Thai and Canadian telcom companies. Sending up a satellite old communist USSR did already 60 years ago. Nothing revelutionizing. Old copy/paste shit! The rest is only NASA and US war efforts. The suggestion of the ultimate SpaceX goal - enabling people to live on other planets - is utter nonsense.
Are you a SpaceX sect member?

Are you trying to say that because space X dose not do something revolutionary it's not real?

Are you trying to say that because space X dose not do something revolutionary it's not real?

No or yes. I only know SpaceX from its web site, which looks real but has not been updated since 2013. SpaceX has since 2002 tried to revolutionize the space biz but has only managed to send some satellites into orbit (which appears real) and some capsules to the ISF (which is fake). I have no confidence in the owner of SpaceX selling his space capsules on my web site (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm ). The capsule doesn't look fit to be dropped from 400 000 m altitude and speed > 7000 m/s into the Earth's atmosphere to land safely 8 minutes later a 0 m/s speed. I think anything dropped like that burns or breaks up in a very short time.
Are you a SpaceX sect member? You sound like one!

This SpaceX news is hilarious :
http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/09/16/nasa-selects-spacex-be-part-americas-human-spaceflight-program

"Today, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014,  NASA selected SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft to fly American astronauts to the International Space Station under the Commercial Crew Program. ...
Crew Dragon’s powerful launch escape system, the first of its kind, will provide escape capability from the time the crew enters the vehicle all the way to orbit.  Should an emergency occur during launch, eight SuperDraco engines built into the side walls of the Dragon spacecraft will produce up to 120,000 pounds of axial thrust to carry astronauts to safety."

Imagine that SuperDraco engines built into the side walls will carry astronauts to safety in an emergency. Hilarious! LOL, LOL!!
 

I think anyone who has seen a space X launch will disagree with you.  And as for you assertion about re entry and landing... well your math has been shown to be wrong countless times on countless websites so you will need to do better than that.

... as for you assertion about re entry and landing... well your math has been shown to be wrong countless times ...

Has it? Prove it!

You are a SpaceX sect member! You sound like one!

Maths at that level is beyond my abilities. But I'm able to trust others who are experts in such fields. Something flat earthers in general seem to not be able to do. But what I will say is that I have seen sats with my own eyes I have seen the space station with my own eyes I have seen the space shuttle with my own eyes. I have seen many of the planets ant the orbits they make with my own eyes. I understand orbital mechanics to a point and from what I do know I see no problem.

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 31, 2014, 07:36:57 AM

Are you trying to say that because space X dose not do something revolutionary it's not real?

No or yes. I only know SpaceX from its web site, which looks real but has not been updated since 2013. SpaceX has since 2002 tried to revolutionize the space biz but has only managed to send some satellites into orbit (which appears real) and some capsules to the ISF (which is fake). I have no confidence in the owner of SpaceX selling his space capsules on my web site (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm ). The capsule doesn't look fit to be dropped from 400 000 m altitude and speed > 7000 m/s into the Earth's atmosphere to land safely 8 minutes later a 0 m/s speed. I think anything dropped like that burns or breaks up in a very short time.
Are you a SpaceX sect member? You sound like one!

This SpaceX news is hilarious :
http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/09/16/nasa-selects-spacex-be-part-americas-human-spaceflight-program

"Today, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014,  NASA selected SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft to fly American astronauts to the International Space Station under the Commercial Crew Program. ...
Crew Dragon’s powerful launch escape system, the first of its kind, will provide escape capability from the time the crew enters the vehicle all the way to orbit.  Should an emergency occur during launch, eight SuperDraco engines built into the side walls of the Dragon spacecraft will produce up to 120,000 pounds of axial thrust to carry astronauts to safety."

Imagine that SuperDraco engines built into the side walls will carry astronauts to safety in an emergency. Hilarious! LOL, LOL!!
 

Your posts have a distinct lack of actual evidence.

The capsule doesn't look fit

Hilarious! LOL, LOL!!

Are you a SpaceX sect member? You sound like one!

What all of these quotes have in common is that they contain the "evidence" that supports your arguments.  The stealth bomber doesn't look like it can fly, but it flies just fine.  If you use math to come to your conclusions, then show your work.  If you have any actual evidence other then "it looks like it can't do this and that" then please post it.  Otherwise, don't post your crazy theories, because crazy theories are all they are if you can,t support them with evidence.

If people stopped posting their crazy theories in here then all that would be talked about is how round the earth is.

Maths at that level is beyond my abilities. But I'm able to trust others who are experts in such fields. Something flat earthers in general seem to not be able to do. But what I will say is that I have seen sats with my own eyes I have seen the space station with my own eyes I have seen the space shuttle with my own eyes. I have seen many of the planets ant the orbits they make with my own eyes. I understand orbital mechanics to a point and from what I do know I see no problem.

Topic is here Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet and it implies that Rosetta made four gravity assist kicks with planets Earth (3X) and Mars (1X) to arrive at the comet. The experts at ESA has been asked to provide info about the four gravity assist kicks but refuse.  Reason? Gravity assist kicks in space are not possible. Any maths suggesting otherwise is wrong.NASA to impress them. Many people have seen the space station as a bright spot in the sky but do not
Many people have from a distance seen an 80-90 tons Shuttle flying away assisted by small rockets. They never realized that it was just an empty 3 tons mock-up of a Shuttle sent off by understand it is only an empty satellite flying around to impress them. It is very easy to fool people with fantasies and illusions about space using simple tricks.

Any maths suggesting otherwise is wrong.

This should be easy to prove if it's true.  Please tell us how math can be manipulated to your will, because if you can prove that then it will prove FET.

Assisted by small rockets?

Quote from: Heiwa on January 01, 2015, 10:41:16 AM

Any maths suggesting otherwise is wrong.

This should be easy to prove if it's true.  Please tell us how math can be manipulated

I do it on my web site. It is assumed (by e.g. tattoed clowns in porno shirts at ESA) that the smaller, moving object - the space craft - is affected by the bigger, moving object by gravity forces interaction and kicked off at increased speed in a new direction. The assumption is wrong. The gravity force of the bigger object will simply attract the smaller object, so it crashes on the bigger object - like, e.g. any meteorite approaching planet Earth. The latter happens 100's of times every day/night.

Any maths asuming that the direction of the smaller object is not changed prior encounter with the bigger object and is kicked away is false. Only sect members believing in kicks assume otherwise - so they can collect salaries, etc.

Assisted by small rockets?

Yes - that can lift 3 tons. No rockets can lift 80-90 tons (a Shuttle incl. 10 tons pay load) into LEO.

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 01, 2015, 10:54:19 AM

Assisted by small rockets?

Yes - that can lift 3 tons. No rockets can lift 80-90 tons (a Shuttle incl. 10 tons pay load) into LEO.

Car to show us how you came to that conclusion?

Quote from: Heiwa on January 01, 2015, 11:05:49 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 01, 2015, 10:54:19 AM

Assisted by small rockets?

Yes - that can lift 3 tons. No rockets can lift 80-90 tons (a Shuttle incl. 10 tons pay load) into LEO.

Car to show us how you came to that conclusion?

I haven't found any rocket on the market that can lift 80-90 tons. Can you? My favourite rocket the French Arianne 5 can only lift off 15 tons - quite a lot for a satellite launcher.
The NASA idea to launch a very heavy Shuttle with very small pay load and then allow the empty 78 tons Shuttle to re-enter and land is really stupid.

It is like the US InterContinental Ballistic Missiles, ICBMs, with one or ten atomic bomb war heads at the nose (each 1 ton) that are sent up into space and then comes back a few minutes later hitting Earth at 7000 m/s wiping out Russian towns. Only problem with any ICBM is that it burns up at re-entry and never hits Earth ground. But it is a military secret - national security, you know. Imagine that the very expensive US ICBMs system is useless.

All I am seeing is opinions no facts. 

All I am seeing is opinions no facts.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/664158main_sls_fs_master.pdf is fun! NASA develops a new rocket that can do the same thing as a Saturn V could do 50 years ago. The drawings of the Saturn V rockets built 1965-1972 have disappeared and nobody knows what it really looked like.

The Shuttle hoax was easy to reveal - a heavy, 80-90 tons Shuttle was sent up with 10 tons payload and was orbiting Earth at > 7 500 m/s speed and then, after a while up there, it landed again empty (mass 78 tons) after a strange re-entry that NASA cannot explain, i.e. how it managed to slow down or brake.

Only idiots believe the NASA nonsense today. So Pythagoras you are not alone!

Can't they explain how it re enters and land?