[Bored chemist]

Really, please, please, educate me and explain how the 59,000 kg CSML changes direction 90 degree after propagating to the moon since I just cannot figure it out using your link.

Imagine that there was a rope tied to the spacecraft, with a grappling hook on it.
When the ship got near the moon, they threw the hook out and it stuck in the rocks on the moon.
Do you see how that would change the direction of the ship (as long as the rope was strong enough?

Well, it's much the same, but, instead of a rope, they used gravity.

[alright1234 (OP)]

Really, please, please, educate me and explain how the 59,000 kg CSML changes direction 90 degree after propagating to the moon since I just cannot figure it out using your link.

Imagine that there was a rope tied to the spacecraft, with a grappling hook on it.
When the ship got near the moon, they threw the hook out and it stuck in the rocks on the moon.
Do you see how that would change the direction of the ship (as long as the rope was strong enough?

Well, it's much the same, but, instead of a rope, they used gravity.

What you are say is ridiculous since an astronaut the ISS is weightless which nullifies you theory. If the earth's gravitational force had an affect that you suggest the astronaut in the ISS would not be weightless.

[Janus]

Really, please, please, educate me and explain how the 59,000 kg CSML changes direction 90 degree after propagating to the moon since I just cannot figure it out using your link.

The craft is launched into a trans-lunar trajectory.   If it weren't for the gravitational effect of the Moon this trajectory would result in a long ellipse with a apogee that would come up a bit short of the Moon's distance.  However, as the craft get fruther from the Earth, the Moon begins to have a significant effect on the trajectory deflecting towards the Moon.  As it gets closer to the Moon, its gravity curves the path more and more, eventually swinging it around the far side of the Moon. If, at this point nothing is done, the craft would continue to swing around and eventually on a trajectory sending back to the vicinity of the Earth.   Such a "free return" trajectory looks something like this:


This was used for the Apollo 11 mission as a safeguard, as once sent on its way to the Moon, it would return on its own if something forced them to abort the mission.  On the other hand, if everything went to plan, the craft would do braking burn which would put it in lunar orbit once its reached the proper point in its swing around the Moon.
Your failure to grasp the intricacies of orbital mechanics  is not proof or even evidence against them.   "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong" is not a valid argument.

[Janus]

Really, please, please, educate me and explain how the 59,000 kg CSML changes direction 90 degree after propagating to the moon since I just cannot figure it out using your link.

Imagine that there was a rope tied to the spacecraft, with a grappling hook on it.
When the ship got near the moon, they threw the hook out and it stuck in the rocks on the moon.
Do you see how that would change the direction of the ship (as long as the rope was strong enough?

Well, it's much the same, but, instead of a rope, they used gravity.

What you are say is ridiculous since an astronaut the ISS is weightless which nullifies you theory. If the earth's gravitational force had an affect that you suggest the astronaut in the ISS would not be weightless.

We have already gone over this.  Your assertion shows a profound ignorance of the actual physics involved.

[Kryptid]

What you are say is ridiculous since an astronaut the ISS is weightless which nullifies you theory. If the earth's gravitational force had an affect that you suggest the astronaut in the ISS would not be weightless.

If you were to jump off of a building, you would be weightless until you hit the ground. Being in free fall is the same as being weightless. Please learn basic physics before continuing.

[Petrochemicals]

What you are say is ridiculous since an astronaut the ISS is weightless which nullifies you theory. If the earth's gravitational force had an affect that you suggest the astronaut in the ISS would not be weightless.

If you were to jump off of a building, you would be weightless until you hit the ground. Being in free fall is the same as being weightless. Please learn basic physics before continuing.

I disagree with this point. In space, ie deep space or if the solar system where moving at a high enough speed, like a comet , you could forever not encounter other mass to give you said weight, where as if you are in orbit in the iss, you will  quickly degrade and impact the earth, if you do not have any external forces to stop you. One is literally freefall as you are falling toward, the other is self sustained !

[Bored chemist]

I disagree with this point.

Please learn basic physics before continuing.

[Kryptid]

I disagree with this point. In space, ie deep space or if the solar system where moving at a high enough speed, like a comet , you could forever not encounter other mass to give you said weight

Merely being near a mass won't give you weight.

where as if you are in orbit in the iss, you will  quickly degrade and impact the earth, if you do not have any external forces to stop you.

Given that the ISS does not "quickly degrade and impact the Earth", this is wrong. Centrifugal force/momentum keeps objects in orbit from doing that (ignoring atmospheric drag, of course).

One is literally freefall as you are falling toward, the other is self sustained !

You would be weightless in both scenarios:

[Janus]

What you are say is ridiculous since an astronaut the ISS is weightless which nullifies you theory. If the earth's gravitational force had an affect that you suggest the astronaut in the ISS would not be weightless.

If you were to jump off of a building, you would be weightless until you hit the ground. Being in free fall is the same as being weightless. Please learn basic physics before continuing.

I disagree with this point. In space, ie deep space or if the solar system where moving at a high enough speed, like a comet , you could forever not encounter other mass to give you said weight, where as if you are in orbit in the iss, you will  quickly degrade and impact the earth, if you do not have any external forces to stop you. One is literally freefall as you are falling toward, the other is self sustained !

Any trajectory that is free to respond to gravity is a free-fall one.  They come in four basic shapes.   Circular, elliptical, parabolic, and hyperbolic.*

Everything, From a tossed ball to an object falling in from deep space and leaving again never to return, is on one of these trajectories.    The tossed ball follows an elliptical path, while the deep-space object follows a hyperbolic one.
The only real difference between the elliptical path of the ball and that of the ISS is that the ellipse the ball follows is very narrow and intersects with the surface of the Earth, with the vast majority of it being underground and thus we only see a small section of it , while the ISS trajectory is much closer to circular and doesn't even pass deep into the atmosphere, which means the whole path remains above ground.**   The ISS is, in a sense. "falling towards the Earth", It's just moving so fast horizontally that the Earth curves out from under it as fast as its path curves towards the Earth, and thus it keeps "missing".   

* technically one could say that the circle is just a special type of ellipse and the parabola a special type of hyperbola, so their are only two types of trajectory.

** if you were able to compress the Earth to a small object, say less than 1 m in radius, then a ball tossed at just 40 mph horizontally from the same distance from its center as the surface is now,  it would fall in, whip around the center mass and return to its starting point repeatedly following that very narrow elliptical orbit.