PSST! HEY, NASA! LOOK IN THE MIRROR! The GOOFINESS of the LAUNCH-BOOST-FROMEARTHS ROTATION myth is obvious.

Yet, somehow, that tattered old campus rumor has survived for almost 500 years. The biggest mystery may well be how that goofiness has never been noticed by anybody at NASA. Because every time an orbiter mission has returned to Earth, that goof-ball old myth has been disprovedincontrovertibly.

Assume a completed low-Earth-(Equatorial orbit) shuttle mission, launched and landed from the same (Equatorial) facility, with an orbit altitude of 200 miles and Eastward velocity of 18,000 MPH. In order to safely return from Orbit, NASA has to ( ) subtract the sum of the Gravity-potential energy of 200 miles of altitude, and the kinetic energy of 18,000 MPH of horizontal velocity from the shuttle. That is a lot of BRAKING. The only tools at hand are 1) the air (atmospheric resistance / drag) and 2) the shuttles weight (gravitational resistance / drag). The log of every safe return documents, in exquisitely precise detail, when and how the of every single drop of energy-@-interface is transformed into heat and geographic travel (down to TD velocity of about 200MPH, which parachutes and hydraulic brakes take care of. When the altitude and horizontal velocity have both been restored to Zero (pre-launch values), the shuttle is safely parked. At Rest. Zero going on.

Of course a parked shuttle-- and an ascending shuttle-- and a descending shuttle all steadily rotate eastward, in synch, regardless of altitude or latitude, @ 360 per day. Which does NOT represent any --not parked, not at liftoff, not during ascent, not during descent, not during runway TD and braking. Nada.

The lesson being that: Earths rotation is a NON-FACTOR in ballistics within Earths Gravitational Field.

The visualization of the shuttle during the Ascent phase seems to cast a sort of spell over the minds of the dull-witted. Their befuddled little minds ASSUME that the Eastward rotation of a shuttles launch pad @ 360 per day physically alters the ballistics of the ascending shuttle, sort of like a (magical) head-wind or tail-wind. They cant articulate exactly how or when it does its magic, but it does. They are CONVINCED that if you build a launch pad right on the Equator and launch on a 90 azimuth, you will in effect GAIN the energy equivalent of Eastward velocity of 1,000 MPH. So, to reach orbit V of 18,000 MPH, under those conditions, you would only need to provide V of 17,000mph. Ingenious, non? But NONE of these mutton-heads have EVER played their fantasy out logically through the descent and landing phase. Looky: If Earths rotation acted like a 1,000mph tail-wind during ascent, wouldnt it also act like a 1,000mph tail-wind during descent? Or, hell, maybe, since Earth would be running away from an eastbound vehicle, it would act like a 1,000mph head-wind. Q: Which one would it be, head-wind or tail-wind? A: Neither one. Look at the log of each and every safely completed shuttle mission. Every quantity of energy--absolutely 100%, not one whit more, not one whit less-of the Shuttles Orbital Altitude and Horizontal Velocity is accounted for. In ballistics of objects within Earths Gravitational Field, you get what you pay for. The Earth below and the over-flying object BOTH steadily rotate Eastward @ 360 per day. But since that is a SHARED trait, it has no ballistic effect. It doesnt CHANGE the object / Earth relationship. It does the opposite. It makes it NATURAL for the Earth and the object to enjoy a relationship AS IF the Earths rotation didnt exist. So a textbook of Earthly (sub-orbital) ballistics need not even mention Earths Eastward daily rotation. If it does bring up that topic, it can have no positive value. More likely, it will simply confuse the weak-minded student, who might then go through life imagining fervently that Earths rotation can and does provide a launch boost to space-bound rockets. And, God help us, some of those dullards might end up as Department Heads at NASA some day. Not good.

Heres another of my award-winning scribbled graphics that might help.

2011 by C N Gifford, Springfield, MO 65804 The Final Authority on Foucaults Pendulum