Who Or What Is Elon Musk?

I love ChatGPT! 

As I’ve said before, ChatGPT is like having a silicon-based Michael Shermer — whom I can truss up, eyes pinned open (a la A Clockwork Orange) — and have him at my beck and call to answer thorny questions that (out of intellectual terror) no gatekeeper in his/her right mind would sit still for.

I didn’t until recently… until, actually, GPT informed me of certain distance and velocity factors, realize how absurdly, utter, staggeringly (and so on) fraudulent the Spacex ‘missions’ really are. I mean I’ve known they are faked, but… but more on this later.

Although there are several aspects of Spacex that fail the common sense smell test, I will herein only deal with one real zinger, thusly preventing shills and/or idiots from misdirecting our critical thinking via straw men, irrelevancies, and red herrings of various species. 

The unedited exchange with GPT upon which this essay is based is almost 20,000 words; part of this is my fault but mainly GPT just refuses to shut up with ‘word salad,’ no matter how simple the prompt. Nevertheless, the unedited version will be on tomorrow’s post so anyone can parse it, i.e., figure out where I ‘went wrong.’  

I will italicize important GPT information and put in bold my comments.

Here is how my exchange started: 

At the separation point (when the first stage booster drops from the Falcon 9 spacecraft) the rocket has traveled how many miles east from the launchpad (and the landing pad as well, since we’re dealing with a landing at the Cape)?

ChatGPT

1 / 1

In a typical SpaceX Falcon 9 mission, the rocket would have traveled several hundred miles east from the launch site by the time of booster separation.

To provide a rough estimate, considering an average trajectory, a Falcon 9 rocket could have traveled approximately 300 to 500 miles (480 to 800 kilometers) eastward from the launchpad at the point of booster separation (my emphases). 

Addendum: To those who, in desperation, claim that GPT often spouts ‘untruths,’ accidentally, out of deceit, or due to programming errors, my response is that everything I tell you or GPT tells you here is also claimed by Spacex’s mouthpieces (minus one liiiittle detail, which I will deal with). So that will not work.

The embedded images are screen shots from the May 21, 2023 Falcon 9 mission to the ISS. The telemetry data is in the lower left corner; only the left side of the screen, which is the booster camera and data, is relevant. (The telemetry in the  images is in kilometers in altitude and kph in speed; GPT will do the conversions to mph etc, when I want to convert to miles.)

For clarity’s sake, I’ll first explain in simplest terms how a typical Spacex mission unfolds. I’ll then reproduce the relevant ChatGPT’s responses.

Upon liftoff the Falcon 9 at first goes vertical but quickly (within 30 seconds) its trajectory is mostly east, to achieve low earth orbit. 

The first stage of the ‘Falcon 9’ is known as ‘the booster,’ which separates and, according to Spacex, lands for re-use. The booster is our interest; we’ll see if it can possibly ‘land’ (at the pad a few miles from launch site) as Spacex claims. 

At about 2.5 minutes into the flight, there is stage separation, wherein the booster’s engines shut down and it falls away. This occurs at an altitude of about 44 miles and a speed of over 4,000 mph in an easterly direction. This is a ‘true vacuum’, meaning there is virtually no air resistance to slow the booster down.

Within seconds of separation the booster performs a ‘boostback burn,’ which they say ‘redirects’ the booster back towards the landing pad at the Cape. This is a 20 – 30 second burn, using only three of the nine Merlin engines.  

At the point of booster separation/boostback burn, Falcon 9 is from 300 – 500 miles from the launchpad, flying in a straight easterly direction. The future ‘landing pad’ for the booster is just a few miles from our launchpad (39A). For our purposes, they are the same place, also referred to as ‘the Cape,’ i.e., Cape Kennedy.

The key here is the ‘boostback burn,’ which, again, starts within seconds of stage separation and lasts 20 – 30 seconds. After this boostback burn, there is no means for the booster to alter course/change trajectory for about five minutes, when there is the ‘entry’ burn, to slow it’s descent.

The grid fins are useless absent ‘thick’ air and high speed: They are known as ‘hypersonic fins,’ meaning for use at speeds more than 5 times the speed of sound. So they are likewise useless during the actual landing, when the booster has slowed way down. In any event, their use is to adjust the booster’s attitude, meaning its ‘tilt’ from the vertical; they have a negligible effect on trajectory.

The ‘cold thrusters’ are only of use in a vacuum and likewise do not adjust trajectory; they are also for ‘tilt’ fine tuning. They are useless in the thick air of landing.

If we are to believe (and we will not) that the booster will return to the Cape, to the landing pad, and touch down there about five or so minutes after the boostback burn, then, obviously, the boostback burn will have to first flip the 230 foot-high booster 180 degrees so it’s engines (at one third capacity) can propel it back west to the Cape to its landing pad. As GPT will tell us (multiple times), at no time in the flight does the booster travel west.

Addendum: Interesting, but I never could get GPT to admit that the boostback burn must flip the booster so it’s pointing back at the Cape in order to propel it there. It was maddening, since it’s so obvious.

What this likely means is that Spacex, knowing there is no way for the booster to return to the Cape, does not actually try: The boostback burn is phony; there is no such maneuver. But for our purposes we will for now ignore this probability. (The series of images above tell us that if there is a boostback burn it does nothing re trajectory.) 

As you can see from the imagery, the 20 – 30 seconds of the boostback burn — using only 3 of the 9 Merlin engines — are not enough to flip the huge rocket, let alone slow it down from its over 4,000 mph easterly course, accelerate to the west, and have it ‘make its way’ (Spacex’s hilarious terminology) back to the landing pad. (Just flipping a 230 foot long beast would likely take longer than 20 – 30 seconds.)

As you will see, at no time in the flight does the booster fly in any direction other than east, which is proof that there can be no actual landing of a booster on a Spacex orbital mission. (We are using the May 21, 2023 mission as our example. ‘Falcon Heavy’ missions, which use two boosters, are in effect twice as impossible.) 

Addendum: Since part of my interest is in how ChatGPT actually works, I will be re-phrasing and repeating many of my prompts, to see how GPT reacts. Anyone wishing to debunk my theses about the Spacex fraud should ignore the ‘addendums,’ some of which will delve into other subjects. Just stick to the physics and the distances traveled.

1 / 1

To return to the landing site the booster must go west and down, right? In other words, no matter how you want to phrase it, the booster must reverse direction 180 degrees, right?

ChatGPT

1 / 1

Yes, you are correct. To return to the landing site, the booster needs to reverse its direction and travel westward. This effectively involves a 180-degree change in its course.

Notice that it says what the booster needs to do, not what it does do.  As you’ll see, GPT repeats over and over that the booster never actually turns around to go back west toward the Cape.

While the boostback burn is a critical maneuver in this process, it is important to note that the booster does not immediately execute a perfect 180-degree turn during this burn alone. The booster gradually adjusts its trajectory over subsequent maneuvers, using grid fins, engine gimballing, and other control mechanisms to refine its path and guide it back towards the landing site. The boostback burn sets the stage for these subsequent trajectory adjustments that ultimately result in the booster returning to the landing site.

See Spacex’s diagrams to understand that the above is pure misdirection, gobbledee gook, and outright nonsense. For example, after the boostback burn but before the entry burn there is no means to adjust trajectory, since the grid fins are useless in vacuum and there is no engine burn, gimbaled or not, during this ‘ballistic’ stage. (In separate prompts GPT states categorically that the fins and thrusters are useless for trajectory changes. Check the unedited version (maybe using word searches) to verify this. I am trying to keep this to reasonable length.)

You might want to return to the above Spacex diagrams later (they are worth re-embedding), after GPT has described trajectories. Although both GPT and Spacex tell us that the stage separation occurs at from 300 – 500 miles east of the launch, the diagram shows it is still over land when separation occurs. It does this because it would be impossible to slow down the booster from its 4,000 mph plus eastward velocity, let alone propel it 300 – 500 miles back west to the Cape.

That the Spacex diagram is itself fraudulent tells us what to look out for. 

1 / 1

You’ve said that 500 miles eastward travel is normal between takeoff and boostback burn and then the booster continues ‘for a significant distance’ eastward before the entry burn. So it may be like 700 total miles east from the launch pad (and the landing pad) when it begins its entry burn, right?

ChatGPT

1 / 1

Yes, after the boostback burn, the booster can continue its eastward travel for a significant distance before initiating the entry burn. 

Significantly, GPT does not realize that it’s describing what amounts to a physical impossibility. If the booster only travels eastward there is no way for it to return to the landing pad. As you’ll see, I give it many chances to see this and try  to resolve the contradiction, but it never ‘gets it.’

Keep in mind that the Spacex mouthpieces, in their call out, likewise tell us that the stage separation takes place hundreds of miles to the east of the Cape. This is key and cannot be blamed on ‘GPT error.’

1 / 1

You say that the entry burn ‘may also have some impact on adjusting the trajectory slightly’… slightly, you say, yet the entry burn is the only time, and the first time, any adjustment can be made for wind factors, which yesterday we agreed had to be known to a highly exact degree. 

Addendum: GPT and I did some calculations showing how accurate Spacex must have been with wind force calculations to stick its landings, but then I realized this was unnecessary, since the booster can never be anywhere near the landing pad on any flight, let alone land within a few feet of the big X on the pad.

If you are curious, skim the un-redacted version. The accuracy needed is to five decimal points of one mph of wind speed; this degree of accuracy is necessary for fine tuning the boostback burn. This of course is impossible. 

GPT’s spilling of the beans that after the boostback burn the booster’s direction of travel will still be eastward alerted me to the fact that pinpoint accuracy was moot — the booster never gets near the Cape landing pad. 

This is still another example of how nothing about these Spacex flights makes any sense. (This is also the liiiiittle detail Spacex forgot to tell us.)

 

1 / 1

From our exchange, my understanding is that after the boostback burn, the booster stage continues on an eastward trajectory until the entry burn. About how long a time is this? Meaning between the boostback burn and the entry burn?

\

ChatGPT

1 / 1

Typically, the boostback burn is followed by a relatively horizontal coast phase, during which the booster continues to travel eastward as it gains altitude. This coast phase allows the booster to cover additional distance before initiating the entry burn. 

Note that it continues eastward, i.e., away from the landing pad. This ‘ballistic’ phase is usually about five minutes, after which (Spacex claims) there is an entry burn (to slow it down) then a landing burn. Problem is, these final burns cannot be within hundreds of miles of the Cape and the landing pad.

1 / 1

So at the beginning of the entry burn, the booster stage is actually farther east than it was at stage separation, right? I repeat my questions and phrase them in a way that allows GPT to tell ‘the truth’ without actually saying that the booster must be in two places at once, i.e., hundreds of mile to the east while a cheering mob watches it land back at the Cape.

ChatGPT

1 / 1

Yes, that is correct. After the boostback burn, the booster stage continues to travel eastward during the coast phase, which occurs before the entry burn. As a result, when the entry burn begins, the booster is typically positioned farther east than it was at the point of stage separation. 

I will continue to allow GPT to beat this dead horse! 

After the boostback burn and the subsequent coast phase, the booster will generally be positioned farther east from the launch site compared to the point of stage separation. 

Yes, GPT is just repeating itself here, not noticing the inherent contradiction.

Addendum: This is the sort of contradiction that some film analysts figure drove the HAL 9000 to ‘insanity’ in 2001; A Space Odyssey. Given the staggering degree to which the history of our species is a pack of lies, we can only hope the same does not occur with the descendants of ChatGPT.

1 / 1

So at the beginning of the entry burn the booster stage is hundreds of miles from the landing pad, correct? 

Again, I phrase it this way to avoid the obviousness of the nonsense, so as to allow an ‘honest’ response.

ChatGPT

1 / 1

In some cases, the booster can be positioned several hundred miles away from the landing pad at the start of the entry burn. The boostback burn, followed by the coast phase, allows the booster to cover additional distance eastward. Ditto. 

Part of my reason for digging this deep into the GPT morass is to make sure anyone reading this gets it, but I am also curious about how GPT works. In spite of theories to the contrary, I have found that one must be careful with prompt wording, depending on whether you want the actual truth (in its response) or if you are testing its tolerance for blatant contradictions. 

Experts make the claim that GPT only repeats what it is ‘taught’, and it is also programmed to reason logically, in order to avoid contradictions, as it fails to do here. It will be interesting to see how more advanced iterations of GPT handle itself as the lies it’s programmed to tell us become more and more profound and dangerous. 

1 / 1

So from the beginning of the flight, the booster stage is always headed eastwards (aside from gaining altitude)?

ChatGPT

1 / 1

Yes, that is correct. 

I deleted several paragraphs here: No need to subject you to still more word salad as GPT goes on and on with technical jargon and nonsense about Spacex accomplishments. The vibe I got reminds me of Hal singing ‘Daisy, Daisy.’  It’s almost… sort of sad. Almost.

#

Who or What is Elon Musk?

Before we delve into Who or What Elon Musk is, let’s deal with the implications of the fact that first stage boosters are not returning to land for re-use. 

But wait. You saw it on Youtube or on CNN? And anyway, you’ve heard that ChatGPT is not always reliable. This is your means of debunking the laws of physics?

Let’s remind ourselves: Both GPT and Spacex tell us that the first stage booster in a Falcon 9 flight takes the spacecraft 300 – 500 miles eastward before stage separation and are hauling ass at over 4,000 mph when they separate. Then, in a 20 – 30 second ‘boostback burn’ using one third power the 238 foot booster has to turn around and reverse the booster’s direction, and bring it all the way back to where it started at the Cape, so it can touch down on a target the size of a manhole cover. 

You’re going to believe this nonsense because… you saw it on your iPhone?

But wait. Maybe you’ll bring up the spectators at the launch and booster landings, thinking that this disproves fakery. Something like this?

According to GPT and Spacex itself, ‘spectators’ can view the goings on from areas that are several miles from the Kennedy complex, i.e., the launch pad or the landing pad. This is for their ‘safety.’ Anyone closer to the action is going to be Spacex or NASA personnel. (Right, I’m talking about the idiots screaming their heads off, forgetting that all this was done and done better more than half a century ago — I mean if you believe that.)

Since it makes no sense to rig other (real) boosters to somehow appear out of thin air above the landing pad and drop for a perfect touch down, we might assume that the booster landings are done via hologram technology, which has been under DARPA refinement for decades.

You can laugh but if someone has a better explanation, I am all ears. 

Addendum: I have done several videos exposing Musk’s ‘car in space’ as having been shot in a studio, and I stand by them, so we know his fakery goes back at least that far. (I am a photographer, a good one — see my blog photos — and know studio lighting when I see it.)

I’ve also analyzed Spacex’s early flights and found them to be fakes. (For example, I asked GPT what color a Falcon explosion would be and it said ‘Dark smoke’: all the explosions in Musk’s videos show white smoke, quite impossible for RP-1 kerosene base rocket fuel. And so on. It pretty much never ends.)

Here are some of my videos (here and here and here) but look at them as being separate from this essay, which is all that’s needed to make my point about Spacex fakery. In this one I am probably wrong about there being no boostback burn, but this was before I realized that the burn was moot, i.e., it matters not a bit since the booster continues on eastward with or without it. 

This one exposes Musk’s ‘Boring Company’ for the two-bit fraud it is. There really is no end to the Musk frauds.

Elon Musk is of course a cultural phenom who, aside from his many ground shattering start ups, wants to send us to Mars and plug our brains into a device of his manufacture, to make us all… smarter. Oh, and he of course wants us all to have free speech. 

Yet he is faking his space adventures… Mmmm. 

In my view Elon Musk’s real job has not yet surfaced.

While we wait to see what that job might be, he will continue to serve as a distraction from the endless bullshit his bosses rain down, meant to frighten us. 

Allan 

A Final Note on the Trouble We’re In

or

Fill Me In

When I saw the first double booster landing I thought, ‘Great, the whole world is going to understand what a load of crap this is. Even SNL (Saturday Night Live, which hasn’t been funny since I was in my 30s) is going to be all over this.’

I mean two of the fuckers, having fallen like bricks through 50 or so miles of unpredictable high winds and air the density of which is in principle chaotic/unfathomable, yet they somehow touch down in perfect unison? Who is going to believe that?

Certainly, physicists, if not the gatekeeper scumfucks like that blubber belly Tyson and whatsisname that got busted groping a female student… Krauss… but real physicists are not gonna put up with this…

And how about the good old ‘alt media’? We can depend on them, right?

You know the rest. Looks like it’s only me who’s gonna say anything. 

What the fuck is wrong with our species?

Please fill me in.

#

I’ll add a section here that I took out as being redundant. If you still haven’t figured out the above you should read it:

 

1 / 1

And the booster has headed further east since stage separation, so the booster is actually farther from the landing pad (at the Cape) than at stage separation. Right? (Keep in mind that my added comments are in bold. Regular font means GPT’s words, including phrases italicized for emphasis.)

ChatGPT

1 / 1

You raise valid points regarding the challenges of trajectory adjustments and the distance covered by the booster during its flight. Let’s address your concerns:

• Trajectory Adjustment: The entry burn does provide an opportunity for some trajectory adjustment, primarily to fine-tune the descent path and align the booster for the final landing approach. While it can help mitigate some factors like wind, its primary purpose is to slow down the descent rather than making significant lateral adjustments. The precise control of lateral trajectory, especially considering wind effects, is more reliant on earlier stages of the flight, such as the boostback burn and other engine burns. 
•  
• It’s not dealing with the question, is it? I made the obvious point that the booster will be farther east than it was at the boostback burn (stage separation) and it did not deal with that. 
•  
• The boostback burn is the only other burn before the entry burn, which only slows the descent; it has minimal if any effect on trajectory. During this ‘coasting phase’, the booster is flying ‘ballistic,’ i.e., with no means of adjusting trajectory. 
•  
• But it must be obvious by now what’s going on here: There is no way the booster(s) is going to be anywhere near the landing pad at the end of this mission. 
•  
• So whatever the cameras filmed and the spectators saw landing back at the Cape (see image ??), it was not the booster from this flight. (What it might have been will be dealt with later.)
•  
• Distance Covered: It’s true that as the booster continues its flight, it covers additional distance from the stage separation point, particularly in the eastward direction. 
•  
• Do I have to keep emphasizing this? Yes, for the Michael Shermers out there, I do. 
•  
• The boostback burn itself slows down the booster and alters its trajectory, but it does not entirely reverse the eastward motion gained during ascent. As a result, the booster may still be positioned a considerable distance to the east of the landing site after the entry burn. 
•  
• ‘A considerable distance’ meaning many hundreds of miles, if not over a thousand. 
•  

The landing burn, which occurs after the entry burn, is primarily responsible for decelerating the booster and bringing it closer to a vertical descent. This burn further reduces the distance and aligns the booster for the final landing. 

Addendum: I could easily show you why it would be virtually impossible for the booster stage to stick a landing during the landing burn but for the sake of simplicity, and given the fact that the booster cannot via the laws of physics be within hundreds of miles of the landing pad, I will spare you the added intellectual discomfort.

I did one final round with GPT below, which you can skip if you want, as it’s more of the same. What it does do, however, is show that even after 24 hours has passed, and with different phrasing of the prompts, GPT is telling the same story (which, again, is not contradicted by anything Spacex says.)

I do have important added comments, which begin under the subhead ‘What is Elon Musk?’

 

NOTE: I AM HAVING TROUBLE POSTING A COMMENT TO ANSWER BRIAN. I KEEP GETTING A ‘404’ MESSAGE, WHICH HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. AND THERE IS NOT EVEN A BLANK MESSAGE BOX AT THE BOTTOM. I DUNNO WHAT IS GOING ON. PLEASE TRY TO LEAVE A MESSAGE AND/OR CONTACT ME AT ACWDOWNSOUTH AT YAHOO DOT COM.

THIS IS FUCKED UP.