Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[nomuse]

Um...geostationary orbit is implicit in Kepler. Just this simple; if the orbital period is defined by the distance, then there exists a distance for any arbitrary desired period. Including one that matches the rotation of the primary. (To within reasonable limits!) All that remains is to be on the equator going the same direction.

The basic idea of a satellite net for telecommunications had been around since at least 1928, and George O. Smith was crafting vacuum-tube space opera around related ideas with his "Venus Equilateral" stories before Clarke's article came out. Clark popularized use of geostationary orbits, though, and that's why we still give him credit.

[Jason Thompson]

I always knew that his stories were based on fiction / fantasy so we all thought his paper on creating a so-called stationary satellite was also fantasy.

An unlikely position for anyone in the 1960s who was even slightly scientifically literate.

We studied Clarke’s equations in our Mathematics classes as well and of course they were proven to be correct in theory.

As you have been told already, the equations are not Clarke's. Orbital equations had been around for a long time (actually centuries) before Clarke wrote Extraterrestrial Relays in 1945. No physics student of any true capability would call them Clarke's equations, and no physics professor would present them as such.

He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth.

Actually he used well-known equations (so well known by that time that they are not even in the body of the text anywhere but the results of the relationship between orbital velocity and distance from the centre of the Earth are presented without much fanfare) to make mention of the existence of a geostationary orbit, and most of the article (it is not a paper) is actually taken up with describing the use of such an orbit as a communications relay. Since the article was published in Wireless World in 1945, this is entirely apt.

Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time.  Jockndoris

Your ignorance of space history knows no bounds, it seems. In 1945 the technology to reach geosynchronous orbit was indeed not present, but by the time you were supposedly studying his work it most definitely did exsist. The first geosynchronous satellite was launched in 1963, and the first geostationary one in 1964.

Why do you persist in telling these lies?

[nomuse]

He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth.    Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time.  Jockndoris

Syncom-3 was launched in 1964. In 1961 alone, between the Soviet Union and the US there were 50 launches, most into Low Earth Orbit, but two achieved High Earth Orbit (well above geosyncronous height) and one was heliocentric. Not to ignore the Venus fly-by in that same year.

But...I'm sorry, the error here lies deeper. We don't have to send a spacecraft up to verify how orbits work. Or how gravity works, or how vacuum works. It took a while for the engineering -- the power sources, the control strategies -- to get there, but the orbital principles were known by Kepler. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky could have worked out the entire flight profile of Apollo 8 if you gave him enough paper.

[JayUtah]

No, Mr Burns.

Tell us precisely which of Clarke's equations you studied. That is, show the equations you claim Clarke derived.

What math classes? In which math textbooks from the period would I have found those equations and derivations that you allege Clarke originated?

Clarke computed the altitude of a geostationary orbit in his paper, but he used Kepler's third law to do so. He computed the rocket parameters required, but he used Tsiolkovaky's equations to do so.

Your answer merely restates your claim in a particularly evasive, hand waving fashion. Keep in mind you are talking to people here who in many cases are professional spacefarers. We know our industry and its history.

You have mentioned Clarke in connection with his major patent, which was for placing communication relays in GS orbits. That's likely because I already fed you that information. Now please tell us what GS orbits have to do with travel to the Moon.

[smartcooky]

He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth.    Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time.  Jockndoris

Syncom-3 was launched in 1964. In 1961 alone, between the Soviet Union and the US there were 50 launches, most into Low Earth Orbit, but two achieved High Earth Orbit (well above geosyncronous height) and one was heliocentric. Not to ignore the Venus fly-by in that same year.

But...I'm sorry, the error here lies deeper. We don't have to send a spacecraft up to verify how orbits work. Or how gravity works, or how vacuum works. It took a while for the engineering -- the power sources, the control strategies -- to get there, but the orbital principles were known by Kepler. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky could have worked out the entire flight profile of Apollo 8 if you gave him enough paper.

I always knew that his stories were based on fiction / fantasy so we all thought his paper on creating a so-called stationary satellite was also fantasy.

An unlikely position for anyone in the 1960s who was even slightly scientifically literate.

We studied Clarke’s equations in our Mathematics classes as well and of course they were proven to be correct in theory.

As you have been told already, the equations are not Clarke's. Orbital equations had been around for a long time (actually centuries) before Clarke wrote Extraterrestrial Relays in 1945. No physics student of any true capability would call them Clarke's equations, and no physics professor would present them as such.

He explained how it was possible to have the object in orbit round the earth apparently remaining in the same spot because it was travelling round the centre at exactly the same speed as the earth.

Actually he used well-known equations (so well known by that time that they are not even in the body of the text anywhere but the results of the relationship between orbital velocity and distance from the centre of the Earth are presented without much fanfare) to make mention of the existence of a geostationary orbit, and most of the article (it is not a paper) is actually taken up with describing the use of such an orbit as a communications relay. Since the article was published in Wireless World in 1945, this is entirely apt.

Of course we didn’t have the technology then to test out his theory for quite some time.  Jockndoris

Your ignorance of space history knows no bounds, it seems. In 1945 the technology to reach geosynchronous orbit was indeed not present, but by the time you were supposedly studying his work it most definitely did exsist. The first geosynchronous satellite was launched in 1963, and the first geostationary one in 1964.

Why do you persist in telling these lies?

Um...geostationary orbit is implicit in Kepler. Just this simple; if the orbital period is defined by the distance, then there exists a distance for any arbitrary desired period. Including one that matches the rotation of the primary. (To within reasonable limits!) All that remains is to be on the equator going the same direction.

The basic idea of a satellite net for telecommunications had been around since at least 1928, and George O. Smith was crafting vacuum-tube space opera around related ideas with his "Venus Equilateral" stories before Clarke's article came out. Clark popularized use of geostationary orbits, though, and that's why we still give him credit.

All of which would be readily apparent, i.e. the bread and butter, of someone who had a real Degree in Physics.... like this one



NOTE THE WORDING MR BURNS

[JayUtah]

There were also Molniya orbits, which are not geostationary yet require significant sophistication in orbital mechanics to set up. Those date to 1963-1965 and have nothing to do with Arthur C Clarke.

[JayUtah]

I think we decided "Natural Philosophy" was close enough since it's the archaic word for the body of sciences that includes physics. Disingenuous of him to call it Physics in the book.

[nomuse]

Well, there's two different horses on that cart (whether they are in front of it or behind).

The one is whether any accredited institute would give out a science degree, or even natural philosophy, based on the work described.

The other is whether that work, regardless of what academic notoriety it achieved, stands up to examination against modern understanding of the subject. Or to put it another way, does even what a bright student wrote in 1963 dictate what is possible in 1969?

As Jay points out, Jock appears to be trying to claim expertise in the subject, and let the very existence of his prior work stand as a statement of unimpeachability for his offered opinions today.

[smartcooky]

As Jay points out, Jock appears to be trying to claim expertise in the subject, and let the very existence of his prior work stand as a statement of unimpeachability for his offered opinions today.

Well, Jock misses out on the most important parts of the issue; the fact that he is unable to "walk-the-walk" or "talk-the-talk".

I do not have a Physics degree, although I did complete and pass (with distinction) the University Entrance examination in Physics and Chemistry in 1972. I chose a different career path and ended up with qualifications in Electronics and Avionics instead.

However, even I know that it was Johannes Kepler who did the calculations that lead to our understanding or orbital mechanics, and that Arthur C. Clarke (who is one of my favourite authors) had little if anything to do with it.   

[nomuse]

Heh. I don't have that much. I know just enough physics to grasp how little I know.

That means it is always a risk to say the question is so basic even I can understand it. I don't have enough background to know that. What I do know, is as basic as my understanding is, Jock's appears to be even more basic. As with many hoax believers, I think I am capable of recognizing when they make mistakes I used to make, or might make now. I do not believe I am failing to follow their reasoning because that reasoning is beyond me. I believe I am failing to agree with their reasoning because I can follow it.

[JayUtah]

Well, Jock misses out on the most important parts of the issue; the fact that he is unable to "walk-the-walk" or "talk-the-talk".

Not at all, either one.  He's apparently still stuck on a belief that he can nominate a science-fiction writer as some sort of recognized authority in orbital mechanics, and handwave something else vague about "we studied his equations in math class," and have that be accepted by professionals and other people who know better.  When you're caught bluffing, it's usually not a good idea to try to keep on bluffing.

If I got together all my orbital mechanics texts, some of which date back to the early 1900s (i.e., "celestial mechanics"), they'd probably occupy about two feet of shelf space.  This is stuff I have had to actually use.  I know how it works and I know where it came from.  I would love to have a detailed discussion with him about what the thinks the actual problems with orbital mechanics were in 1963 and why it was though back then that orbital flight was nigh unto impossible.  But so far he can't talk or walk:  it's all just the same vague, general handwaving repeated over and over again.

[gillianren]

Either comes from 'prisoner of mother England' or pomigranite - a reddish coloured fruit that native Australians (Aboriginals) thought had a similar colour to the skin of sunburnt Brits.

The first one is definitely wrong.  The second one might not be.

[raven]

Well, what is he supposed to do? Be a better person and actually admit the pamphlet he sells for money is so much hogswallow?
In front of his biggest fan?
Yes, actually, he should, but will he?
I have my doubts.

[carpediem]

Well, what is he supposed to do? Be a better person and actually admit the pamphlet he sells for money is so much hogswallow?
In front of his biggest only fan?

Fixed.

[raven]

Well, what is he supposed to do? Be a better person and actually admit the pamphlet he sells for money is so much hogswallow?
In front of his biggest only fan?

Fixed.

Technically, his only fan is also his biggest.