#30 How Do Satellites Survive 4,000F + Degree Heat in Space?


Since the launch of Sputnik in the 1950s, thousands of satellites have been put into orbit around the Earth and even other planets. Each has served a different purpose, from complex space stations like the International Space Station to the Global Positioning System. Most satellites can be considered to be “in space”, but in terms of the Earth’s atmosphere, they reside in either the thermosphere or the exosphere. The layer through which a satellite orbits depends on what the satellite is used for and what kind of orbit it has.


The thermosphere is a region of very high temperature that extends from the top of the mesosphere at around 85 kilometers up to 640 kilometers above the Earth’s surface. It is called the thermosphere because temperatures spike to thermal levels

Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 2,000 °C (3,630 °F). Radiation causes the atmosphere particles in this layer to become electrically charged (see ionosphere), enabling radio waves to bounce off and be received beyond the horizon. In the exosphere, beginning at 500 to 1,000 kilometres (310 to 620 mi) above the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere turns into space.

The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day..  (Source)

The only elements in the periodic table that can withstand 2500°C are carbon, niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, and osmium. Except for carbon, these metals are very, very heavy and are of course extremely conductive to heat and most are very ductile when heat treated meaning they bend and coil. Carbon even has the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials! So, if you want to cook someone very efficiently and quickly, there is nothing better than a space capsule made out of graphite.

scene composition: litho, frame 22
NASA’s blast furnace-proof International Space Station

The solar panels which adjorn these machines would barely function even if they could keep it together long enough. A British company found a drop of 1.1% of peak output for every increase in degrees Celsius of photovoltaic solar panels once the panels reached 42°C, and of course at 1414°C silicon actually melts. But wait… the Hubble Telescope and satellites uses gallium arsenide instead of silicon which melts at an even lower temperature of 1238°C.

Excuse number one comes from a few websites such as Wikipedia who wish to insult our intelligence to the max. Here is the main explanation for why satellites aren’t converted into man-made meteorites:

The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2500°C (4530°F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.

Errr… wait a minute. I thought it is the sun that causes those few atoms of gas to heat up to 2500°C? Oh, it is.

Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation.

The source of the heat of the thermosphere is not a few atoms of gas. It is the sun!
Here is Wiki’s explanation of heat, that is not really heat when in space due to the all correcting and pacifying “vacuum” of space…which really isn’t a vacuum at all:
The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would be significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.

Even NASA themselves admit this in their question and answer session at question 3:

Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation. The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat.

So much for that excuse. They realize that there will be a few multi-cellular brained human beings out there that will see straight through this, so they’ll need reserve explanations. Enter Dr. Eberhard Moebius at question 5. who says,

…this is the second secret of the vacuum bottle (or thermos): while the vacuum suppresses heat exchanges by conduction and air convection, exchange by radiation is suppressed by the shiny metallic coating of the bottle. This shiny coating reflects the heat radiation like a mirror and keeps it either inside the bottle (if the content is hot) or outside (if the content is cold).

But none of NASA’s orbiting machines are completely covered in a layer of IR reflecting materials, only a bit of aluminum foil for the Hubble Telescope. Even if the foil could withstand 1500°C radiating heat, it certainly wouldn’t be able to stop conducting the heat from the the other materials of the telescope, especially those lovely infra-red absorbing dark areas, copper foil, plastic coated wires, and tarnished metal; and how about that same aluminum foil reflecting light back onto the telescope itself! Solar cooker anyone? There is so much wrong with the picture below that it is beyond words:

Dave, why haven’t we vaporized into white hot piles of meteoric ash?
Because we are in a swimming pool, Ivan.
Ah, for a minute there I almost forgot.  (source)

20,000 + satellites in orbit

Satellites are made of gold, titanium, aluminum and carbon fibers

Travel at 17,500 mph to stay in Earths orbit

Astronots train in NASA pool for space flight

Which also doubles as to carry out the ISS Space Station Hoax

NASA hoax ISS Actornaut Chris Cassidy accidentaly admits they are filming in the USA BUSTED


  • After 100km altitude it starts to get very hot. At 110km it is 200°C. At 500km it is somewhere between 500°C and 1500°C or more. This is the thermosphere.
  • The cause of this heat is the extra solar radiation above the ionosphere, closer distance to the Sun, and above all the vacuum of space which doesn’t allow the heat to radiate away fast enough or allow a lower pressure differential with increasing altitude.
  • Space machines are said to orbit between 120 and 35000km+ altitude making them traveling furnaces and obviously a pure fabrication if said orbital altitudes are correct.
  • Possible counterarguments against a hot thermosphere are: 1. Invisible stars at high altitude may be responsible for lower heat at same said height; although possible white hot asteroids orbiting the Sun and the detection of the extra sunlight intensity make this unlikely. 2. Long time spans make heating objects very slow and unnoticeable; although it only takes a few months to heat up convective air on the ground from one season to another – in space heat can only be radiated away.
  • Above 100km altitude, objects are said to freefall along the curve of the Earth if initially traveling laterally at over 28000 kph. Falling is an acceleration making those objects that have been orbiting for years travel many times the standard speed of light.
  • One model of the vacuum at 400km is estimated to be one trillion trillionth of the air density at sea level allowing for an extremely high terminal velocity.
  • The easiest way to detect fake NASA footage is to compare it to the control videos of high altitude weather balloons – if not similar then fake.
  • There are numerous red flags when analyzing space footage that is not similar to the control: 1. Conclusive bubbles in space. 2. Swimming astronauts kicking their legs. 3. Lady astronaut hair behaving in a totally different way than hair at zero gravity on an airplane. 4. Chris Hatfield caught with wires sticking out his shirt. 5. Chris Cassidy’s Freudian admission of real location.
  • There are very few genuine photos of the Earth as a globe, despite 3700 satellites having been launched over the decades (1100 still in operation, although 6,578 are said to have been ever launched into orbit). Any orbiting distance from 6200km away or more would show the whole ball Earth.
  • There is no video of the globe Earth, only animations of photo sets.
  • There are only two sets of photos of globe Earth (known to the author) said to be genuine: 1. Those taken from the Apollo missions, and 2. Those from the 1990 Galileo satellite.
  • The Blue marble 2012 globe Earth picture is a composite of much, much smaller and nearer to Earth satellite photos from various instruments, layered and tweaked.
  • The Apollo moon landings are a farce due to the thermosphere and common sense.





Is It Possible?

Would you be surprised if it turned out that Judith Resnik – “the first jewish woman in space” (and alleged Challenger-disaster-victim) is still alive and well? That she’s been involved in movies, such as Doug Liman’s “Fair Game” (a 2010 Hollywood blockbuster starring Sean Penn / Naomi Watts involving a female covert CIA agent and “yellowcake uranium for making nuuukular bombs”) which won the “Freedom of Expression Award” ? That she’s today a highly-honored academic and the ‘Arthur Liman Professor of Law’ at Yale Law School?


What about Challenger astronot Michael J. Smith?

During his 18 years in the college, Michael J. Smith has advised 80 master’s and PhD students. Recently, a group of those students honored him with a surprise party and an award for excellence in holistic education. “He respects you as an equal and gives you the freedom to explore your interests, challenge his ideas and talk to other professors. His door is always open,” says a former PhD student.


Photo of Michael J. Smith.


Tagged: , , , , ,

44 thoughts on “#30 How Do Satellites Survive 4,000F + Degree Heat in Space?

  1. Julien April 18, 2015 at 11:42 am Reply

    “The source of the heat of the thermosphere is not a few atoms of gas. It is the sun!”

    That is absolutely correct. The highly diluted gas particles in the thermosphere are heated by sun radiation until they become so hot that their own radiation compensates the part of radiation that they receive from the Sun. Thus the temperature of 2,500 °C corresponds to the point where there is an equilibrium between the absorbed radiation (due to the Sun) and the emitted radiation (due to the particle’s temperature). Indeed, single air particles have no other way to evacuate heat than to radiate it away.

    That’s for single particles. Now let’s look at what happens for objects in space (which are composed of many, many particles). Objects in space do indeed absorb radiation from the Sun. Or rather, the particles on the *surface* of these objects absorb the radiation. So the temperature of these particles should raise as well. But, unlike single air particles, the particles on the surface of objects do have another way to evacuate the heat: conduction. They can simply transmit the heat to neighboring particles. Which means the particles inside of the object receive a part of the heat as well, even if they are not directly exposed to radiations. Thus the heat received by radiations is shared among all particles of the object, not only by the particles on the surface, and the temperature of the particles increase more slowly.

    But of course that is not enough, because that just means that all particles of an object would simply slowly warm up until they become so hot that they cannot maintain the solid nature of the object : the object will melt. So, how can we avoid that?

    We could indeed cover the whole surface of the object with IR reflecting materials, but that would be inefficient. A better solution is to build heat pipes inside the object. Heat pipes are “circuits” that use heat conduction to redirect heat to a specific part of an object. Just like your refrigerator is built to redirect the heat to its back where the heat is evacuated by convection; just like your computer has heat pipes that move the heat away from its processor and send it to the ventilation fans.

    So, in the case of satellites or the ISS, where should we send the heat to? We should send it to a part of the object where it will be efficiently evacuated. And since we want to evacuate this heat away from the object and since convection is not an option (because as you said, the air particles are too diluted and too hot), the only option is to evacuate this heat through radiations. So, let’s build radiators! Radiators are flat panels much like photovoltaic panels, but they are specifically designed to emit radiations instead of absorb radiations. The photovoltaic panels are black and face the sun; logically, radiators are white and perpendicular to the sun. You can see them very clearly in the picture of the ISS: they are the white/gray panels which are perpendicular to the solar panels.

    You might argue that small satellites do not have apparent radiators. At first glance space suits do not have apparent radiators either. But they actually do have one, though depending on the size of the object they may not require a very big one. For example, there is an external radiator in the Life Support System of space suits.

    If you want to know more, you will easily find documentation about how heat pipes and radiators are designed for objects in space. 😉

    Liked by 2 people

    • joebobfrip August 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm Reply


      What happens if you build a vacuum room and put a radiator in ?
      If you stand in this room, will you feel the heat ?
      I guess you do. Else, the Earth couldn’t be warmed by the Sun (vacuum of space between).
      This is the issue.
      If you stand in the thermosphere when it has reached about 2000°C, you will be subjected to this heat. How can it be possible that ” A normal thermometer would be significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere) ?

      Please, can you explain me this ?

      And by the way, shown mercy for my poor english 😉

      Liked by 2 people

      • Daniel Hill October 22, 2015 at 9:01 pm

        The air up there is so tenuous that you can’t really feel the heat. In fact, it’s so thin that scientists can’t even measure the temperature directly. Instead, they put orbital decay to good use by monitoring the drag on satellites to estimate the density of the rarefied air. Then they can use the density to calculate the temperature — proof that every cloud has a silver lining! –This is a piece from a Article by Nasa, written in 2000, Talking about ISS.

        Liked by 1 person

      • jwlpeace October 23, 2015 at 3:47 pm

        And the Earth spins at 1,000 mph so perfectly the spin rate can be measured to the nano second due to “Conservation of Inertia” which means there is no resistance, though we have a rapidly spinning ball with atmosphere, mountains, rivers and Man’s mass inflections on Earth.

        Then we have the Earth being held to the Sun, where the Earth is closest to the Sun by 3 million miles in December in the N. Hemisphere by “gravity” which is unseen and unproven, yet is said to be dictated by the mass size and density of the planets, yet the Moon being 1/6th the gravity of EArth and 1/4 the size, from 238,000 miles away can move our mighty oceans up and down twice per day, yet astro-nots can walk nearly weightless in space at only 130 miles up…

        ….and the Earth is said by the same physicists to be oblique, no pear shaped now, yet we never see this phenomenon in any “images” from our “satellites” orbiting earth.

        …and no heat is really not heat but it is because excited molecules don’t give off heat in vacuums.

        blah, blah, blah. all lies. all lies.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Rhys July 9, 2021 at 11:45 pm Reply

      “So, let’s build radiators! Radiators are flat panels much like photovoltaic panels, but they are specifically designed to emit radiations instead of absorb radiations. The photovoltaic panels are black and face the sun; logically, radiators are white and perpendicular to the sun. You can see them very clearly in the picture of the ISS: they are the white/gray panels which are perpendicular to the solar panels.”

      But official sources say that these radiators are for moving heat out of the space station caused by computers and electronics. So what is it? both for internal heat (which remember would spread via convection equally in all directions), and solar radiation? sounds a little far fetched to me.

      Also why do the labels/signs and many other things that are dark colours on the outside off the ISS do not burn off during the day?


  2. revealed4you July 10, 2015 at 8:10 pm Reply

    Reblogged this on Discoveries Revealed.


  3. The Modern Gnostic August 6, 2015 at 2:07 am Reply

    […] How Do Satellites Survive 4,000F + Degree Heat in Space? There are only seven elements on the periodic table that could withstand this heat and none have […]


  4. Chris Rogers June 24, 2016 at 11:43 am Reply

    If the mesosphere and thermosphere so hot but do not Heat anything because the particles are too far apart then how did they even measure the temperature to know that it’s that hot if it doesn’t affect anything I mean because if it can affect anything then how could you take the measurement


  5. Brad Mundie August 6, 2016 at 1:19 am Reply

    This article is true and 99% of these people trying to debunk it are just indoctrinated into Scientism…you guys are in a fucking cult. Shit isn’t real science real science is a method. Shit we have now is dogma and religion. Fuck NASA they are a money draining scam, period.


  6. Mark Hoogeveen October 31, 2016 at 9:32 pm Reply

    Good question!
    Why it is possible:
    1. because even in Low Earth Orbit, there is a very low pressure around the spacecraft, making a smaller amount of atoms colliding with the satellite. As temperature is determined (by definition) as the measure at which atoms vibrate and collide with one another, temperature in orbit is experienced way different than it is on Earth, meaning the heating of the surface is not caused by the same processes at the Earths surface. Heating is by conduction is negligible, because this works with the exchange of energy between atoms around the spacecraft and the spacecraft itself by collisions. Heating by convection (warm fluids/gasses flowing to colder areas of fluid/gas) is impossible, obviously, because there is a negligible amount of gas and certainly no fluid in space. This leaves only heating by radiation (light from the sun) and internal components that produce heat.
    2. To ensure that the spacecraft doesn’t heat up too much by solar radiation, the satellite is coated with a material that reflects lots of solar radiation, minimizing the amount of absorbed solar energy by the spacecraft itself (of course this isn’t done for the solar panels)
    3. because at the side facing away from the sun, the amount of incoming solar energy is very low, this side cools to very low temperatures, because of the extremely low amounts of absorbed energy. As the side facing the Sun has the problem that it has to absorb less radiation, rotating the satellite slowly makes the ‘hot’ side of the satellite cool down, and the ‘cold’ side of the satellite heat up, as the spacecraft rotates. This helps in maintaining a constant temperature for the satellite.
    4. Excess heat can be released from the satellite (or any other spacecraft), by placing radiators. These are components, placed in particularly hot sections of the satellite, which are reflecting on the outside, and transparent on the inside (just like these mirrors in stores, behind which security may reside). These make radiation from only the inside the satellite to the outside possible. These things work the same way as a window, everyone can feel the sun’s heat trough a window, imagine only that for these radiators, it works only in one direction.
    5. The heat produced by internal components can be lost by creating a heat conducting path using a metal or liquid (thus convection) between the hot component and a radiator. Or by using pumps that pump evaporated cooling ‘liquid’ away, thus making sure that the still liquid cooling material doesn’t heat faster due to the presence of hotter gas.

    This is only a short summary of the most common methods, I hope it was clear for the people who did not understand this obviously hard subject. I also hope that people understand now that there is more than meets the eye and start doing a bit of research in the subject or their question before residing to theories with arguments that are easily debunked, with proper knowledge on the subject.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jwlpeace October 31, 2016 at 11:24 pm Reply

      “This is only a short summary of the most common methods, I hope it was clear for the people who did not understand this obviously hard subject”

      Do you BE LIe F everything that NASA tells you about space? Are you aware that today, science says we cannot even pass the Van Allen Belts due to “deadly Solar Radiation??

      Are you aware all space news comes from one source only? Are you aware that NASA was founded by Freemasons and NAZI”s who built the bombs that killed tens of thousands of allies and Americans fighting for freedom?

      Are you aware that gravity means “weight” and was not ever mentioned in Newtons Laws of Gravity.

      different sized atoms… ha ha thats a good one.

      go back to programming. You got an A.


  7. Tony Price December 27, 2016 at 1:00 am Reply

    @jwlpeace – what science “says we cannot even pass the Van Allen Belts due to “deadly Solar Radiation??” Van Allen himself called bullshit on claims that radiation in the belts named after him would mean almost instant death. The belts are thinnest near the poles, and that’s the direction satellite and man-carrying rockets take. Exposure is of the order of 20 minutes or so. Not a problem for electronics or astronauts.

    No, gravity does not mean “weight”, it means force. Objects in orbit aren’t “weightless” at all. It’s a common misconception. They’re constantly pulled down by gravity, but orbit fast enough that they don’t lose height.

    The thermosphere could have a temperature of a million degrees, and would still not heat up satellites, space stations, or space junk by more than a few degrees. At a height of 200km, it’s as near to a vacuum as it’s possible to get on Earth using the best vacuum pumps. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules. Heat is the product of #molecules x kinetic energy. Too few molecules up there to hold much heat. Direct sunlight is something of a problem. The simple solution is for satellites etc. to rotate slowly to spread the heating evenly. Remember also that satellites spend 1/2 the time in Earth’s shadow, cooling down.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jwlpeace December 27, 2016 at 3:26 pm Reply

      God, you not only drank the Kool aid but the whole 500 yr. lie. and your statements are just because you say so? versus my hundreds and hundreds of posts and articles of documentation. “temp is a measure of kinetic energy” ha ha ha…
      Gravity means weight! Look it up in the etymology of words
      gravity (n.) Look up gravity at Dictionary.com
      c. 1500, “weight, dignity, seriousness, solemnity of deportment or character, importance,” from Old French gravité “seriousness, thoughtfulness” (13c.) and directly from Latin gravitatem (nominative gravitas) “weight, heaviness, pressure,” from gravis “heavy” (see grave (adj.)). The scientific sense of “downward acceleration of terrestrial bodies due to gravitation of the Earth” first recorded 1620s.
      and don’t comment if you aren’t linking your sources…exclude NASA and all the other fake space agencies, exclude all corporate academia and do your own research plz.


      • BurntToast December 27, 2016 at 10:59 pm

        Using the word “weight” is just the beginning, not an answer to a question. So now we need to define weight, its affects on “things”, measuring it, and much much more.


      • jwlpeace December 28, 2016 at 3:29 pm

        NIce 180 burntoast! You said gravity doesn’t mean “weight”. I clearly show you that it does and then you refer to “things”. Are you a troll?


      • BurntToast December 28, 2016 at 11:34 pm

        Did I say something about gravity and weight in the past (I don’t recall)? If gravity is out, and weight is in – this needs some details beyond the word.

        Sorry if I’m too abstract with “things”. Until clearly defined, so there is a common understanding of weight, I can’t predict how it interacts with reality (or “things”).

        I need help getting beyond just the word; that is, if we’re going to use weight as part of what it does and doesn’t do, and especially how we measure it.

        Perhaps I’m wrong, though; is there a definition of weight that is simple and can be used to understand how it appears to us observing reality.

        Troll? I say not. I’m detailed many times and specific in what I’m trying to talk about. I don’t throw bombs, and sow discord with inflammatory language. I refer to observations, and look for the meaning of what is written / posted. I’m quite engaged in the topic, and seeking responses, not anger or discord. Does any of that describe a troll??


      • Ovulo August 14, 2017 at 5:21 pm

        From Dictionary.com

        the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth.
        heaviness or weight.
        gravitation in general.
        acceleration of gravity.
        a unit of acceleration equal to the acceleration of gravity. Symbol: g.
        serious or critical nature:
        He seemed to ignore the gravity of his illness.
        serious or dignified behavior; dignity; solemnity:
        to preserve one’s gravity in the midst of chaos.
        lowness in pitch, as of sounds.

        Liked by 1 person

      • jwlpeace August 14, 2017 at 5:27 pm

        yea Dictionary.com is a trusted reliable source for true
        Etymology! Gotcha


  8. Edward Osorio December 31, 2016 at 3:34 am Reply

    ITS ALL A BIG ..GAME DECEPTION.. ITS ALL A BIG LIE….Man on the moon, satellites, Hubble, even simple air planes can only get so high…before they start..to heat up…the average person believes all there told…cause they just… Dont do any research at all…its easier to fool a man..then to convince him he has been fooled…..all the above has been confirmed by myself and thousands of others who have taken there time to research the matter…me myself over a year…for those whom are interested in the truth..and are honest and sincere about it wen shown…I have a series…of excellent youtube..videos under my liked videos…scroll down..and you’ll see much more…my YouTube name..is EDWARD WISDOMKEEPER….look through and awaken yourself…free yourself from.. .ALLTHE BS…just as you seen those so called dead astronauts…pursuing there regular lives…living at present… Time to wake up folks…stop being sheeples…


  9. tooms1 February 19, 2017 at 7:43 am Reply

    I love when uneducated people get together and make themselves feel smarter by agreeing to believe things like this.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Stealing Sugar (@Stealingsugar) April 27, 2017 at 5:11 pm Reply

    It’s hot enough to protect us from meteorites, yet we can go through it? I don’t think so.


  11. Tom April 28, 2017 at 3:38 am Reply


    I have no idea what is “hot enough” to protect us from “meteors that reached the ground”, and whoever said that cannot possibly have evidence to back-up such a claim.

    Liked by 1 person

    • stargazer711 May 15, 2018 at 6:56 pm Reply

      As others have already pointed out, the idea that objects will be heated and destroyed in the thermosphere is an insane fairy tale. While the temperature can be very high, there is not enough atmosphere to convey any significant amount of heat. If you look at the charts at the start of this moronic article, you will see that the temperature does not really start to increase significantly until you reach an altitude of about 100km. This altitude is what we generally regard as the beginning of space, and the air at that altitude is about the same as we can achieve in a pretty good vacuum chamber on earth. No chance in the (spherical) world that it will melt ANYTHING!

      The heating of meteors and spacecraft entering the atmosphere is TOTALLY due to heating from atmospheric friction as they reach the denser layers of the atmosphere. The thermosphere is in no way involved in this heating! Remember that ONLY smaller meteors burn up completely, the larger ones, like the one that hit the Tunguska River region of Russia in 1908 make it through to the lover atmosphere. This object was estimated to be about 50m in diameter and when it exploded as it neared the surface it knocked the forest flat over an area of 800 square miles. The K-T event 65 million years ago that is thought by many to have been responsible for the the extinction of the dinosaurs resulted from the impact of an object about 10km in diameter near what is now Yucatan, Mexico.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Fuc Kyou June 9, 2020 at 5:40 am

        The 1908 Tunguska event was an experiment. Trees were still standing


  12. Shean Claven June 10, 2017 at 3:10 pm Reply

    All you naysayers…. AS204 rocket in 1967 where 3 asstronots
    died in a “fire”….more like melted to the rocket and incinerated to almost nothing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • stargazer711 May 15, 2018 at 7:01 pm Reply

      You are a real moron, aren’t you? The Apollo 1 fire was INSIDE the Command Module during a ground countdown test, the vehicle was not even fueled. You FE wackos have SO much wrong beyond just the shape of the (spherical) earth!

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Sid August 10, 2017 at 6:30 am Reply

    Q: At what temperature does aluminum melt?

    A: 660 Celsius

    Q: Aluminum melting time.How long from firing your furnace to liquid aluminum?

    A: Well it’s about 30min to 45 min to pour,

    Apollo 11 was the first mission in which humans walked on the lunar surface and returned to Earth.

    Q: What was the substance of the Apollo 11 Command Module outer structure?

    The CM was a conical pressure vessel with a maximum diameter of 3.9 m at its base and a height of 3.65 m. It was made of an aluminum honeycomb sandwhich bonded between sheet aluminum alloy.

    Q: How hot is the thermosphere?

    A: 2000 Celsius

    Q: Where does the thermosphere begin and how thick is the thermosphere?

    A: Begins at about 56 kilometers and up to 1000 kilometers or 677 miles

    Apollo 1 – Stage S-IVB

    After the S-II stage separated from the rocket, the third stage burned for about 2.5 minutes. It then cut off, and the Apollo 11 went into a “parking orbit” at an altitude of 191.2 km (118.8 miles). Its velocity was 7.791 km/s (28,048 km/h or 17,432 mph).

    After several orbits around the Earth (in 2000 Celsius temperatures… with no air conditioning because batteries drain badly on A/C), the rocket’s engines re-ignited, and it blasted off for what they call translunar injection.

    And then there is the Van Allen belt that would have fried the astronauts had they gone through it, and they would have had to go through it. The radioactive particles would have magnetized the melted aluminum hull and fried everyone inside.



    • FactYouAll August 15, 2017 at 3:02 am Reply


      I think you are confusing temperature with heat energy. Unless you know the heat energy of the sparsely dense thermosphere, you are missing a critical factor.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. DEEK August 26, 2017 at 7:08 pm Reply

    This was already a pretty amusing read, but I had a good laugh at the “still alive” photos. I really got a chuckle out the idea that they killed off fake astronauts, and then those fake astronauts simply continued life as normal with their same names and nobody noticed.

    The Judith Resnik one is an interesting coincidence, but upon close examination you can see several clear differences, especially if you look at other photos where they aren’t making the same expression at the same angle. Not to mention the fact that the living Judith is a real person with a completely different history. I suppose we should believe that she is so brilliant that she got advanced degrees in both engineering and law, or perhaps that the astronaut history is simply 100% fabrication. In this case the obvious question would be why they used their given names.

    The Michael J Smith one is really funny though. If you look at literally any individual feature, they are clearly not the same person. The skulls are different shapes. The eyes, nose, and mouth are all obviously different. Most significantly, the ears are not even in the ballpark. They have one thing in common: they are at the same angle with the same expression. You really gotta have blinders on to believe this stuff.

    Anyway, thanks for the laugh.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jwlpeace August 27, 2017 at 5:05 pm Reply

      your welcome
      move along


      • Erithulian August 27, 2017 at 11:39 pm

        Naw we’ll keep coming back for the laughs 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Ron Hill February 9, 2018 at 1:49 am Reply

    OK, so the absorption of radiated heat does not apply to solid objects, like ISS and Satellites, or the radiators efficiently remove said radiated heat before levels rise. Oh and of course the Astronaut suits are so well designed and radiated that no one is going to fry, even while doing space walks and working outside ISS, believable?
    Have a look at any photo of any satellite or even ISS and tell me honestly that they are capable of withstanding those temperatures and then assess the technology of the Lunar landing period and justify the same.
    Ignore Nasa’s admissions of not knowing how to travel past Lower Earth Orbit.


    • FactYouAll May 15, 2018 at 9:50 pm Reply


      Consider your own words; you speak of heat, and temperature. Two different words with two different definitions and meanings.

      A block of iron weighing 50 tons, that is only 5 degrees warmer than the surrounding air will produce heat for a very long time.

      A low density gas, contained in a container matching the size of the iron block, that is 1000 degrees warmer than the surrounding air will produce almost no heat. Its about the heat contained in the mass.

      A little scientific research of heat properties could go a long way.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. mark April 15, 2018 at 10:57 pm Reply

    anyone got any info on how a spaceship can accelerate to orbital speed of about 17000mph when the actual rocket jet gas is only able to do about 10,000mph max?


    • stargazer711 May 15, 2018 at 6:14 pm Reply

      I am in the middle of breakfast right now so I won’t look all this up now, but you are partially right, the final velocity a rocket can achieve is based partly on the exhaust velocity of the engine. But it is also based on a parameter called “mass ratio”. This is the fraction of the total mass of the rocket represented by propellant. For example, a rocket with a mass ratio of 0.9 is 90% propellant.You need to look up the “rocket equation”, devised by the great Russian theoretician Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. Brilliant man, everything he did was theoretical, never built or launched a rocket. did most of his work in the late 19th and eartly 20th centuries. In addition to the rocket equation, was the first to propose liquid propellant rocket engines and even the use of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellants. His work was the basis of astronautical research in Russia, but was not widely disseminated in other countries, so Oberth in Germany and Goddard in the U.S. both reached most of the same conclusions independently.

      Here is a link to a story about him:


      And the rocket equation:


      As long as I have your attention, I should point out that the wackos claiming that rockets and space travel don’t exist, the earth is flat, and that it is covered by a firmament dome are dead wrong and profoundly ignorant.

      Liked by 1 person

    • faceinbeta May 27, 2018 at 9:32 pm Reply

      Because you dont need to. the force on the rocket is based on the mass times the speed of the ejected exhaust. 100N of force will accelerate you by the same amount at any speed if you;re in a vacum (unless you’re taking into account special relativity which only comes into effect at wll above these speeds)


  17. d taylor May 18, 2018 at 3:31 am Reply

    Forget about how a satellite can survive. How can an astronaut survive on the iss. where are they getting their air and water from. If you believe this fictional video, then you believe that they are able to produce from their urine, enough oxygen and water for 6 people to survive off of. looks like they are producing more water and air than they are taking in. that would be an interesting trick to see.


  18. Tony May 23, 2018 at 12:19 pm Reply

    A simple for debunk for the argument of ROCKETS IN SPACE..

    Gas laws, Gas laws and Gas laws…… Newton died 1727 but the gas laws were not complete until over 100 years later. Cosmologists and rocket “scientist” completely ignore what happened after Newton, and still play around with billiard ball physics, treating gas particles as if they were lead shot. They are not! The home made youtube “video -proves” are also totally oblivious of what the gas laws say. The word vacuum in itself is irrelevant, what is relevant in gas laws is Volume-Pressure-Temperature-Amount. It is nonsense to have a narrow tube vacuumed, light a tiny rocket and show a recoil. If you don’t have the volume a gas wants to expand into, you have pressure, and therefore a recoil. But you cannot pressurize the infinite vacuum of space, a gas in practically infinite space always expands to zero pressure according to P=1/V with V=∞ . The effect is comparable to a lead shot where every lead “particle” has a spring attached to it, which pulls the particle out the nozzle with the same force it is pushed out. Result is zero recoil.

    Also, gases pressurize and de-pressurize omnidirectional, which means that depressurization in itself does not result in a force vector, a force vector can only be produced outside the nozzle, but only if there is “something” outside to react, if there is “nothing” i.e. a vacuum, there is no reaction.


  19. d taylor May 30, 2018 at 1:16 am Reply

    Helios (another god name used by nasa) aircraft flew 96,000+ feet in the youtube video at minute 2:42 again a flat horizon can be seen, they just do not show it very long.


  20. Eric M July 15, 2018 at 8:12 am Reply

    The dumbing down of America began with the Invention of the cellphone and culminated with the election of Donald Trump in 2016, due largely to Facebook ads. Trump is the main perpetrator of fake news which, apparently, has now gnne viral. Fake news would have the morons of this once-great-nation believe that Putin is our friend while NATO is our enemy, that the Earth is flat, that we never went to the Moon, that we never even launched a satellite into orbit (how do you think GPS works you dumbs****?), that the space station doesn”t exist (even though I can see it in my telescope at night and make out its detail) — oh, it’s actually a flying scale model a few thousand feet above us scaled down to look like the space station orbiting the Earth, etc….ad-nausium. The only space is the space between your ears from reading too much Facebook and electing a president based upon Facebook. A little less Facebook and little more air to circulate to jump-start your comatose brain would be a great start for every one of you idiots. Well… if I run for president, maybe I can make America great (once again). But the electorate will have to pull its head out of its ass first!


  21. […] deconstruct this lie, we will borrow some text from APlaneTruth, who has done a good job explaining how ridiculous the pseudoscience above […]


  22. pomeroo July 25, 2020 at 2:35 am Reply

    The flatard moron who wrote this spectacularly stupid article flunked out of school before learning about heat transfer.


  23. Oil June 11, 2021 at 7:33 am Reply

    Logic and grasp of scientific concepts in this article has more holes than a colander. Next you’ll be asking why a ball doesn’t just fly off into space when you toss it into the air.


  24. Buffalo September 17, 2021 at 11:10 am Reply

    Unfortunately for the cowards who refuse to think for themselves : Stanley Kubrick admitted to shooting the NASA moon landing in an interview that you can easily find on Odysee. He solemnly affirms that this is his greatest masterpiece, and asks the journalist not to publish the interview until 15 years after his death to protect his children. He adds it is impossible, that is why nobody gone their.

    Russian and NASA moon landing videos are grotesque. Besides, I’m still waiting for a photo from “space” with cities upside down from each other which should be achievable with modern equipment.

    GPS is terrestrial (only triangulation) like 95% of telecommunications.

    Moon is plasma, it is sometimes possible to photograph stars through. It is a luminaire opposite the Sun, whose light cools the bodies. Stanley didn’t know this, but he knew the moon landing was impossible because NASA confessed it to him, while still menting to him. He was unaware of the perfectly still nature of our world, and believed that one day we could walk on the Moon when it makes no sense… Nazism still active.

    Moon is a map of our world.
    Look at the trajectories of the planets from the ground. Think about the eclipse (electromagnetism and plasma). And the equal size of the Moon and Sun.

    Why is it possible to see Africa from Spain and England from France? Why don’t planes have to compensate for the curvature when they are powerfully powered?

    Why… And no response exept ridiculous.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: