All of those things were known with quite good accuracy well before NASA and any deep space travel. Of course much more accurate data is now avaivable.
It wasn't even proven if earth was stationary or not....deep space travel made that indisputable.
Virtually all astronomers from after Kepler would hotly dispute that claim. A stationary Globe does not fit the movements of the planets.
While the docu ''the principle'' has very convincing info about the earth being stationary.
And where did most of the "evidence" presented in "The Principle" come from? Hint - not from the
surface of a flat earth!
Answer me that and we'll start again.
OK, it was some 1800 years or more from the Globe being accepted as the shape of the earth to the
Heliocentric Globe for a very good reason.
Aristarchus (and others) did suggest that the earth should orbit the sun instead of vice-versa.
He reasoned that it was logical that the smaller object, the earth, should orbit the larger.
His idea was rejected because it was argued that if the earth orbited the sun that "fixed stars" would appear to move, ie show parallax.
This view held sway till Copernicus
[1], but even then the heliocentric model was presented because it explained the apparent motion of the planets better.
Then Tycho Brahe made his far more accurate measurements of the apparent motion of the planets, but still could not accept the
"Copernican Hypothesis".
Once again this was because even with his far more precise measurements he could detect no
stellar parallax, so he proposed his own
The Tychonian planetary model, which was better than even the Copernican system.
There are quite a number, including at least one ex-flat earther, who uses the
The Tychonian geostationary model.
The reasoning of these people, at the time, seemed quite valid, but even Tycho Brahe could only resolve down to about
1 minute of arc.
Proxima Centauri, the closest star to earth, has a parallax of only
0.769 arcsec, so Tycho Brahe had no chance of seeing it.
That angle is approximately that subtended by an object 2 cm in diameter located 5.3 km away.
So for the moment let's forget the heliocentric model and look at just the shape of the earth.I have presented many references that in both the early Church and in the Muslim world from say 500 to 1250 AD at least the Globe was certainly the accepted shape of the earth and in the Greek world that belief goes back anothe 1000 years or so.
I'll just give a link to an earlier post to the pre-Copernican beliefs:
Flat Earth Debate / Re: SYD to SCL and flight range « Message by rabinoz on October 19, 2017, 01:30:51 PM ».
And on details of the beliefs in the earth shape and "cosmology" in the "middle Ages", this might be worth reading
THE SPHERE OF SACROBOSCO, by Iohannes de Sacrobosco.
Iohannes de Sacrobosco "was a scholar, monk and astronomer who was a teacher at the University of Paris."
[1] Though some claim that the Heliocentric Model was presented in the Muslim world around 1250 AD, possibly by Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi.