The mass of a 50 kg astronaut on the earth is calculated using Newton's gravity equation,

F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.38 x 106)2 = 492 N or 50.2 kg.............92

The mass of a 50 kg astronaut in the international space station (ISS) that is 250 miles (402,336 m) above the earth surface is calculated where the distance r from the center of the earth to the astronaut is equal to 6.88 x 106 m.

F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.88 x 106)2 = 422 N or 43.2 k..............93

According to Newton gravity equation (equ 91), a 50 kg astronaut would weigh 43.2 kg (equ 93) while in the international space station (ISS) yet the described astronaut is weightless which proves the ISS is fictional. One of their argument is that the astronauts are weightless because of a free fall but that is completely a big lie since the ISS is not falling but ISS is said to be orbiting the earth at 7 km/s which is to fast since the ISS are weightless that would result in the ISS to fly into celestial space since the tangential velocity of the ISS would be 7 km/s and it is questionable if a centipedal force is affecting the ISS. There is also a problem of the satellites above the north pole since those satellite are not orbiting the earth.

During sunrise/sunset, the earth's atmosphere is opaque to the stars and the ISS since the stars and ISS are above the earth's atmosphere. On the surface of the earth's gases are formed which produces the earth's atmosphere that humans (Taylor Swift with a gold tooth), animal (big cats and dogs) and amphibian (frogs) breath to exist since life on earth requires air that the earth's atmosphere is composed but at 250 miles above the surface of the earth and in the vast distance of celestial space where the stars exist there is no atmosphere since in that region a vacuum is formed where all the gases are eliminated but the light is emitted through the atmosphere at sunrise/set which would prevent the viewing of the ISS. Now physicists think or more closely hope that this is a matter of Trumping in a card game where a two of shapes can Trump an ace or hearts or where Emma Calvé is singing a song beats a bird singing a song but science is not a card game or a bird song One inconsistence negates everything regarding the ISS or the Apollo 11. Just one. Uno une Jeden. ---- kiss from Marie Antoinette or a hug by Edith Piaf or coffee with Agnieszka Holland and I would be in heaven.

carl eto wrote:
>
> ... One of their argument is that the astronauts are
> weightless because of a free fall but that is completely
> a big lie since the ISS is not falling but ISS is said to
> be orbiting the earth at 7 km/s which is to fast since

*facepalm*

> the ISS are weightless that would result in the ISS to fly into
> celestial space since the tangential velocity of the ISS would
> be 7 km/s and it is questionable if a centipedal force is affecting the ISS.

*facepame*^2

> There is also a problem of the satellites above the north pole since those
> satellite are not orbiting the earth.

*LOL*

> [snip more bs]
>

well, whatever...

The mass of a 50 kg astronaut on the earth is calculated using Newton's gravity equation,

F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6..38 x 106)2 = 492 N or 50.2 kg.............92

The mass of a 50 kg astronaut in the international space station (ISS) that is 250 miles (402,336 m) above the earth surface is calculated where the distance r from the center of the earth to the astronaut is equal to 6.88 x 106 m.

F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6..88 x 106)2 = 422 N or 43.2 k..............93

According to Newton gravity equation (equ 91), a 50 kg astronaut would weigh 43.2 kg (equ 93) while in the international space station (ISS) yet the described astronaut is weightless which proves the ISS is fictional.
In addition, at night the shadow of the earth would prevent the ISS from being illuminated and during sunrise/sunset, the earth's atmosphere is opaque to the stars and the ISS since the stars and ISS are above the earth's atmosphere.

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 3:44:55 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> The mass of a 50 kg astronaut on the earth is calculated using Newton's gravity equation,
>
>
>
>
>
> F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.38 x 106)2 = 492 N or 50.2 kg.............92
>
>
>
>
>
> The mass of a 50 kg astronaut in the international space station (ISS) that is 250 miles (402,336 m) above the earth surface is calculated where the distance r from the center of the earth to the astronaut is equal to 6.88 x 106 m.
>
>
>
>
>
> F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.88 x 106)2 = 422 N or 43.2 k..............93
> According to Newton gravity equation (equ 91), a 50 kg astronaut would weigh 43.2 kg (equ 93) while in the international space station (ISS) yet the described astronaut is weightless which proves the ISS is fictional. One of their argument is that the astronauts are weightless because of a free fall but that is completely a big lie since the ISS is not falling but ISS is said to be orbiting the earth at 7 km/s which is to fast since the ISS are weightless that would result in the ISS to fly into celestial space since the tangential velocity of the ISS would be 7 km/s and it is questionable if a centipedal force is affecting the ISS. There is also a problem of the satellites above the north pole since those satellite are not orbiting the earth.
>
>
> During sunrise/sunset, the earth's atmosphere is opaque to the stars and the ISS since the stars and ISS are above the earth's atmosphere. On the surface of the earth's gases are formed which produces the earth's atmosphere that humans (Taylor Swift with a gold tooth), animal (big cats and dogs) and amphibian (frogs) breath to exist since life on earth requires air that the earth's atmosphere is composed but at 250 miles above the surface of the earth and in the vast distance of celestial space where the stars exist there is no atmosphere since in that region a vacuum is formed where all the gases are eliminated but the light is emitted through the atmosphere at sunrise/set which would prevent the viewing of the ISS. Now physicists think or more closely hope that this is a matter of Trumping in a card game where a two of shapes can Trump an ace or hearts or where Emma Calvé is singing a song beats a bird singing a song but science is not a card game or a bird song One inconsistence negates everything regarding the ISS or the Apollo 11. Just one. Uno une Jeden. ---- kiss from Marie Antoinette or a hug by Edith Piaf or coffee with Agnieszka Holland and I would be in heaven.
dfdf

How do you land back onto the earth's surface from the ISS if the ISS has a horizontal velocity of 7.7 km/s. Like jumping off a bullet train.

Hey Lollipop------Make me want to shoop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vaN01VLYSQ

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 11:51:29 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> How do you land back onto the earth's surface from the ISS if the ISS has a horizontal velocity of 7.7 km/s. Like jumping off a bullet train.
>
>
> Hey Lollipop------Make me want to shoop
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vaN01VLYSQ

Dragon is expected to have around 1300 kg of propellant, enough for over 400m/s of deltaV even when using the less efficient SuperDracos. More than enough for both deorbit and landing and then some.

Mass: 12055 kg

return pay load 3,000

Total return mass 15,000 kg using 1,300kg of fuel to reduce the 7.7 km/s velocity?.

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:16:23 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 11:51:29 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> > How do you land back onto the earth's surface from the ISS if the ISS has a horizontal velocity of 7.7 km/s. Like jumping off a bullet train.
> >
> >
> > Hey Lollipop------Make me want to shoop
> >
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vaN01VLYSQ
> Dragon is expected to have around 1300 kg of propellant, enough for over 400m/s of deltaV even when using the less efficient SuperDracos. More than enough for both deorbit and landing and then some.
>
>
> Mass: 12055 kg
>
>
>
> return pay load 3,000
>
>
> Total return mass 15,000 kg using 1,300kg of fuel to reduce the 7.7 km/s velocity

To descend is approx. with the opposite of the ascent. To ascent a 500 kg payload using a rocket requires 50,000 kg of fuel; consequently, a rough number to reduce of velocity to a reasonable value would require at least 100,000 kg of fuel yet the Dragon has a fuel load of 1,300 kg which 100 times less than required.

Make me want to shoop.

he mass of a 50 kg astronaut on the earth is calculated using Newton's gravity equation,

F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.38 x 106)2 = 492 N or 50.2 kg.............92

The mass of a 50 kg astronaut in the international space station (ISS) that is 250 miles (402,336 m) above the earth surface is calculated where the distance r from the center of the earth to the astronaut is equal to 6.88 x 106 m.

F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.88 x 106)2 = 422 N or 43.2 k..............93

According to Newton gravity equation (equ 91), a 50 kg astronaut would weigh 43.2 kg (equ 93) while in the international space station (ISS) yet the described astronaut is weightless which proves the ISS is fictional. One of their argument is that the astronauts are weightless because of a free fall but that is completely a big lie since the ISS is not falling but ISS is said to be orbiting the earth at 7 km/s which is to fast since the ISS are weightless that would result in the ISS to fly into celestial space since the tangential velocity of the ISS would be 7 km/s and it is questionable if a centipedal force is affecting the ISS. There is also a problem of the satellites above the north pole since those satellite are not orbiting the earth.

During sunrise/sunset, the earth's atmosphere is opaque to the stars and the ISS since the stars and ISS are above the earth's atmosphere. On the surface of the earth's gases are formed which produces the earth's atmosphere that humans (Taylor Swift with a gold tooth), animal (big cats and dogs) and amphibian (frogs) breath to exist since life on earth requires air that the earth's atmosphere is composed but at 250 miles above the surface of the earth and in the vast distance of celestial space where the stars exist there is no atmosphere since in that region a vacuum is formed where all the gases are eliminated but the light is emitted through the atmosphere at sunrise/set which would prevent the viewing of the ISS. Now physicists think or more closely hope that this is a matter of Trumping in a card game where a two of shapes can Trump an ace or hearts or where Emma Calvé is singing a song beats a bird singing a song but science is not a card game or a bird song One inconsistence negates everything regarding the ISS or the Apollo 11. Just one. Uno une Jeden. ---- kiss from Marie Antoinette or a hug by Edith Piaf or coffee with Agnieszka Holland and I would be in heaven.

Dragon is expected to have around 1300 kg of propellant, enough for over 400m/s of deltaV even when using the less efficient SuperDracos. More than enough for both deorbit and landing and then some.
Mass: 12055 kg return pay load 3,000 Total return mass 15,000 kg using 1,300kg of fuel to reduce the 7.7 km/s velocity

To descend is approx. with the opposite of the ascent. To ascent a 500 kg payload using a rocket requires 50,000 kg of fuel; consequently, a rough number to reduce of velocity of the SpaceX Dragon (15,000 kg return mass) to a reasonable value would require at least 100,000 kg of fuel yet the Dragon has a fuel load of 1,300 kg which 100 times less than required.

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:34:50 AM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:

> To descend is approx. with the opposite of the ascent. To ascent a 500 kg payload using a rocket requires 50,000 kg of fuel; consequently, a rough number to reduce of velocity of the SpaceX Dragon (15,000 kg return mass) to a reasonable value would require at least 100,000 kg of fuel yet the Dragon has a fuel load of 1,300 kg which 100 times less than required.

I can pretty much guarantee that the Earth's atmosphere all by itself can reduce an orbiting body's velocity from any orbital speed to its terminal velocity and that almost zero fuel is required... especially if you have a big parachute... we've been there done that...over and over again... you keep forgetting that you don't know squat about physics and will continue to make basic errors like forever... you need to read a bunch of textbooks because your imagination is getting you nowhere, fast... I urge you to go to https://www.heavens-above.com/ and look up the next visible pass of the ISS and go outside and look at it for yourself... or, you can wallow in your vast ignorance forever... your call...

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:49:14 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:

I can pretty much guarantee that the Earth's atmosphere all by itself can reduce an orbiting body's velocity from any orbital speed to its terminal velocity and that almost zero fuel is required... especially if you have a big parachute..

Then why do they use rocket for?

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:49:14 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> I can pretty much guarantee that the Earth's atmosphere all by itself can
> reduce an orbiting body's velocity from any orbital speed to its terminal
> velocity and that almost zero fuel is required... especially if you have a big parachute..
>
>
> Then why do they use rocket for?
>

To reduce it from terminal velocity (about 100 mph) to a lot less than
terminal velocity (about 10 mph) for a soft landing.

If you decide that, because of all these conspiracies going on, you’d
better jump from a tall building, the atmosphere will quickly reduce your
acceleration to zero and your fall rate will be terminal velocity. I
guarantee you that you will not survive impact with the ground at terminal
velocity.

But maybe you’ll tell me your common sense has told you that you’ve jumped
out of tall buildings many times and been just fine.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 12:48:00 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:49:14 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > I can pretty much guarantee that the Earth's atmosphere all by itself can
> > reduce an orbiting body's velocity from any orbital speed to its terminal
> > velocity and that almost zero fuel is required... especially if you have a big parachute..
> >
> >
> > Then why do they use rocket for?
> >
> To reduce it from terminal velocity (about 100 mph) to a lot less than
> terminal velocity (about 10 mph) for a soft landing.
>
You cannot do that with the fuel load of the Dragon.

On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 21:48:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> If you decide that, because of all these conspiracies going on, you’d
> better jump from a tall building, the atmosphere will quickly reduce your
> acceleration to zero

Bod, poor stinker, according to your Shit it's oppositely: the
atmosphere will make him accelerating and his trajectory
curved instead geodesic. No surprise, of course, that
you don't know your Shit.

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:00:39 PM UTC-8, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 21:48:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > If you decide that, because of all these conspiracies going on, you’d
> > better jump from a tall building, the atmosphere will quickly reduce your
> > acceleration to zero
> Bod, poor stinker, according to your Shit it's oppositely: the
> atmosphere will make him accelerating and his trajectory
> curved instead geodesic. No surprise, of course, that
> you don't know your Shit.

Hey, I think you are absolutely right about Bodkin. What do you think Bodkin.? When someone is contradicting you. Once again it may be you that has a problem since Maluw thinks you are wrong. Bodkin maybe you should re-read a physics text book with Paul before you post on this thread. Thank you very much. Elvis

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 12:48:00 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:49:14 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>
>>> I can pretty much guarantee that the Earth's atmosphere all by itself can
>>> reduce an orbiting body's velocity from any orbital speed to its terminal
>>> velocity and that almost zero fuel is required... especially if you
>>> have a big parachute..
>>>
>>>
>>> Then why do they use rocket for?
>>>
>> To reduce it from terminal velocity (about 100 mph) to a lot less than
>> terminal velocity (about 10 mph) for a soft landing.
>>
> You cannot do that with the fuel load of the Dragon.
>

Go watch it in person, and then tell yourself that it’s impossible.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:00:39 PM UTC-8, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 21:48:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> If you decide that, because of all these conspiracies going on, you’d
>>> better jump from a tall building, the atmosphere will quickly reduce your
>>> acceleration to zero
>> Bod, poor stinker, according to your Shit it's oppositely: the
>> atmosphere will make him accelerating and his trajectory
>> curved instead geodesic. No surprise, of course, that
>> you don't know your Shit.
>
>
>
> Hey, I think you are absolutely right about Bodkin. What do you think
> Bodkin.? When someone is contradicting you. Once again it may be you
> that has a problem since Maluw thinks you are wrong.

Well, Woz is also one of the few mentally ill people posting on Usenet. So
fascinating that the two of you would happen to meet here.

> Bodkin maybe you should re-read a physics text book with Paul before you
> post on this thread. Thank you very much. Elvis
>

You signed this Elvis? Does that sound sane to you?

By the way, Woz says he’s one of the greatest logicians humanity has ever
had. Does that sound sane to you?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:13:06 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:00:39 PM UTC-8, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 21:48:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you decide that, because of all these conspiracies going on, you’d
> >>> better jump from a tall building, the atmosphere will quickly reduce your
> >>> acceleration to zero
> >> Bod, poor stinker, according to your Shit it's oppositely: the
> >> atmosphere will make him accelerating and his trajectory
> >> curved instead geodesic. No surprise, of course, that
> >> you don't know your Shit.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey, I think you are absolutely right about Bodkin. What do you think
> > Bodkin.? When someone is contradicting you. Once again it may be you
> > that has a problem since Maluw thinks you are wrong.
> Well, Woz is also one of the few mentally ill people posting on Usenet. So
> fascinating that the two of you would happen to meet here.
> > Bodkin maybe you should re-read a physics text book with Paul before you
> > post on this thread. Thank you very much. Elvis
> >
> You signed this Elvis? Does that sound sane to you?
>
> By the way, Woz says he’s one of the greatest logicians humanity has ever
> had. Does that sound sane to you?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

That is a nickname which are given to friends

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:13:06 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 1:00:39 PM UTC-8, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 18 February 2022 at 21:48:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you decide that, because of all these conspiracies going on, you’d
>>>>> better jump from a tall building, the atmosphere will quickly reduce your
>>>>> acceleration to zero
>>>> Bod, poor stinker, according to your Shit it's oppositely: the
>>>> atmosphere will make him accelerating and his trajectory
>>>> curved instead geodesic. No surprise, of course, that
>>>> you don't know your Shit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, I think you are absolutely right about Bodkin. What do you think
>>> Bodkin.? When someone is contradicting you. Once again it may be you
>>> that has a problem since Maluw thinks you are wrong.
>> Well, Woz is also one of the few mentally ill people posting on Usenet. So
>> fascinating that the two of you would happen to meet here.
>>> Bodkin maybe you should re-read a physics text book with Paul before you
>>> post on this thread. Thank you very much. Elvis
>>>
>> You signed this Elvis? Does that sound sane to you?
>>
>> By the way, Woz says he’s one of the greatest logicians humanity has ever
>> had. Does that sound sane to you?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> That is a nickname which are given to friends
>

But we are not friends. I did not give you that nickname, so I did not give
it to you. You did not give it to me, because we’re not friends. So does
signing it Elvis sound sane to you?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:36:0

maluw is Elvis.

you think to highly of yourself.

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:36:0
>
>
> maluw is Elvis.
>
> you think to highly of yourself.
>

Is he your friend? How do you know him?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 4:41:41 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:36:0
> >
> >
> > maluw is Elvis.
> >
> > you think to highly of yourself.
> >
> Is he your friend? How do you know him?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tab

Bodkin you are banned

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 4:48:17 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:

> Bodkin you are banned

Only in your dreams...

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 4:41:41 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 2:36:0
>>>
>>>
>>> maluw is Elvis.
>>>
>>> you think to highly of yourself.
>>>
>> Is he your friend? How do you know him?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tab
>
>
> Bodkin you are banned
>

Wow. Unlimited power.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

The Dragon X contains 1,300 kg of fuel during re-entry but the Apollo 11 estimate value (equ 23) suggests it would require approximately 5,000 kg of fuel to decelerate the Dragon (15,000 kg return mass) that is propagating with a velocity of 7.7 km/s around the earth to the initial velocity of zero at 250 mile above the surface with a thrust in the opposite direction to the angular velocity. The Dragon thrust would decrease the 7.7 km/s tangential orbital velocity to zero. From 250 miles above the surface, the falling Dragon’s velocity would increase which would result in a terminal velocity of 400 mph. If the initial speed of the Dragon is not zero than the Dragon would burn up during re-entry which is the reason for the initial thrust which reduces the velocity; consequently, it is not physically possible for the Dragon rocket engines to reduce the Dragon velocity to zero or close to zero since the original orbiting velocity of the Dragon is 7.7 km/s yet the Dragon only contains a fuel load of 1,300 kg. It would take approximately 5.000 kg of fuel to decrease the Dragon to allow the Dragon to safely descend to the earth. In addition, the space shuttle (SS) is said to have dock with the ISS where the space contains approximately 20,000 kg of rocket fuel and oxidizer yet the weight of the SS during re-entry is approximately 150,000 kg which would require 50,000 kg of fuel but the SS has a fuel load of 20,000 kg.

In the photographs taken from the international space station (ISS), an astronaut is floating weightless but the mass of a 50 kg astronaut in the international space station (ISS) that is 250 miles (402,336 m) above the earth surface is calculated where the distance r from the center of the earth to the astronaut is equal to 6.88 x 106 m.

F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.88 x 106)2 = 422 N or 43.2 kg..............93

According to Newton gravity equation (equ 91), a 50 kg astronaut would weigh 43.2 kg (equ 93) while in the international space station (ISS) yet the described astronaut is weightless It is argued that the astronaut is weightless because of a free fall but there is no sufficient free fall downward velocity that could justify the free fall argument. Also, the ISS is said to be orbiting the earth at 7.7 km/s which is to fast and result in the ISS to fly into celestial space. It is questionable if a centipedal force is affecting the ISS since the astronaut within the ISS are weightless. If the centipedal force was effecting the astronaut than the astronaut would have a weight of 43.2 kg. Also, the photographs of the ISS taken, at night 12:00 pm, are fabrications since the shadow of the earth would prevent the ISS from being illuminated. It is proposed that the ISS is illuminated during sunrise and sunset but during sunrise/sunset, the earth's atmosphere is opaque to the stars and the ISS since the stars and ISS are above the earth's atmosphere. On the surface, during sunrise/sunset, the observe would have to look through the earth's atmosphere which would prevent the viewing of the stars and the ISS.

The Dragon X contains 1,300 kg of rocket fuel during re-entry but the estimated fuel load require to decelerate the 15,000 kg Dragon is estimated at approximately 5,000 kg of rocket fuel using equations 23 - 25. The Dragon rocket thrust decelerates the Dragon that is propagating with a velocity of 7..7 km/s angular velocity around the earth to the initial velocity of zero, at 250 mile above the surface, where the Dragon thrust is directed in the opposite direction to the 7.7 km/s angular velocity. The Dragon thrust would decrease the 7.7 km/s tangential orbital velocity to zero. From 250 miles above the surface, the falling Dragon’s velocity would increase while descending to the earth's surface which would result in a terminal velocity of 400 mph. If the initial speed of the Dragon is not zero than the Dragon would burn up during re-entry which is the reason for the Dragon thrust is reduced the velocity to zero but it is not physically possible for the Dragon rocket engines to reduce the Dragon velocity to zero or close to zero since the original orbiting Dragon velocity of 7.7 km/s would require 5,000 kg of fuel for a substantial reduction in the Dragon's angular velocity yet the total Dragon fuel load upon re-entry is 1,300 kg. It would take approximately 5.000 kg of fuel to decrease the Dragon to allow the Dragon to safely descend to the earth. In addition, the Space Shuttle is said to have dock with the ISS where the Space Shuttle contains approximately 20,000 kg of rocket fuel and oxidizer during re-entry yet the weight of the 7.7 km/s angular velocity Space Shuttle during re-entry is approximately 171,000 kg which would require 40,000 kg of fuel but the Space Shuttle has a re-entry fuel load of 20,000 kg.