Good books about the moon landings hoax?

[smartcooky]

Lets start with my reply to your  Arthur C Clarke question

Arthur C Clarke
Yes   Arthur C Clarke was a well known science fiction writer with a vivid imagination and I read many of his books as a boy.     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.

I was amazed to learn that he had a serious side to his work.....

So, you were a fan of his, and yet you had no idea that he wrote over a dozen non-fiction books spanning from 1950 to 1963, the time when you were supposedly doing your alleged physics degree.

Interestingly, one of those books, written in 1954 was "The Exploration of the Moon" in which he examines some of the methods of getting to the moon, addressing some of the very things that you claimed nine years later were impossible. 

when he announced he had worked out that it was possible to have an object in so called stationary orbit.

You seem to still be labouring under the misapprehension that it was Clarke who first thought of the idea of a geostationary orbit. IT WAS NOT!!! The idea was first mooted in 1928 by Herman Potocnik, an Austro-Hungarian rocket scientist, in a book called "The Problem of Space Travel - The Rocket Motor". Science fiction author George O. Smith also published the idea in his 1928 "Venus Equilateral" series.

What Clarke did was take this idea and add the idea of a radio relay station. He presented a paper to Wireless World about it in 1945. Here is that paper...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/extra_terrestrial_relays._clarke.wirelessworld._octubre_1945_6cf53078.pdf

Clarke is actually credited with "inventing" the communications satellite. It was Harold Rosen, an engineer at Hughes Aircraft Co, who is credited with "inventing" the geostationary satellite. He designed the first operational geosynchronous satellite, Syncom 2, which was launched on a Delta B rocket from Cape Canaveral July 26, 1963, around the time you, your classmates and your professor (according to you anyway) were still believing that GEO was "fantasy"

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

What's to study? In the appendix, Clarke does mention the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, V = v log_eR (more correctly V=v log_n M0/M1), but that was well known as it had been around since the late 1890's. He also quotes R_e = R(α+g)/α, a basic orbit equation that has been (AFAIK) around since Kepler. The only other equation I can find in his paper relates to the field strength of a half-wave dipole.... e=6.85√p/d . This is to do with the communications side of the issue and has nothing to do with orbital mechanics.

Sure he has a few nice diagrams and sketches, but nowhere does he mention any of the equations for Kepler's laws of planetary motion, the circular motion principles of satellites, the mathematics of satellite motion or the energy relationships for satellites, all of which are the types of equations you would need to look at, and none of which can be credited in any way as "Clarke's Equations"!!

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

It was available early in the same year that you claim to have been doing your degree, and the principles were well understood many years before that! You don't have to actually send a satellite into GEO to show that it works!!!

[JayUtah]

...addressing some of the very things that you claimed nine years later were impossible.

In fact there was quite a great deal of interest and investigation in the opportunities for space afforded by the practical rocketry developed during the war.  It was only the burning desire of all the rocketry inner circle since the 1920s!  And now with wartime dollars, pounds, rubles, and Reichsmarks having been copiously expended to develop it, it was being put to practical peacetime use in the 1960s.  Burns can't decide whether or not he studied any of this.  He asserts he discussed "Clarke's equations," but apparently there was no discussion of any of the practical machinery being built during that time to do the things Burns maintains were impossible.

In fact, Burns and his professor seem completely oblivious to any of the spacefaring being done at that time, except apparently Apollo (as a classroom exercise in the blind leading the blind).  Why the sudden interest in Apollo without any interest in any other spacefaring anywhere else for any other purpose?

Clarke does mention the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, V = v log_eR (more correctly V=v log_n M0/M1),

I assume you meant V=v log_e M0/M1.  We haven't decided yet on a good typographical convention for the handwritten ln.  But yes, that's a more common formulation.  We also habitually want to designate a shorthand for the mass ratio, since it refers both to a quantity and a concept -- which we typically embolden as MR.  But where typography permits, the M and R should be elided.  Obviously I don't know how to do that using Unicode or HTML.

Don't worry, your math is sound enough for this forum.  I notice we've yet to see a single equation of any kind from our illustrious physicist-cum-accountant.  He describes his study of physics as the happiest time of his life, and his professor (wouldn't he have had several?) as a delightful man and mentor.  Yet having passed his exams and been awarded a BSc when it was a great time to be a physicist, he marches straight off to the counting-house to write accounting programs in a language that wouldn't be invented for 15 more years, on computers that somehow existed despite his collegiate claim that they were invariably large and heavy -- and wouldn't run Quick Basic anyway.

He also quotes R_e = R(α+g)/α, a basic orbit equation that has been (AFAIK) around since Kepler.

Not quite; it's an attempt to compute the practical mass ratio (R in his formulation of Tsiolkovsky) for his hypothetical rocket that accounts for acceleration lost during initial ascent.  The term (a+g)/a is meant to be a scaling factor to the theoretical mass ratio derived via Tsiolkovsky for some given v and V.  It says nothing more complicated than "be sure to add the acceleration required merely to overcome gravity."  But that's valid only for constant-mass sounding rockets.  It doesn't really apply here, or really anywhere.  But it's a good enough first-order approximation to be published in a radio magazine.

[Andromeda]

Great post, smartcooky.

In fact, Burns and his professor seem completely oblivious to any of the spacefaring being done at that time, except apparently Apollo (as a classroom exercise in the blind leading the blind).  Why the sudden interest in Apollo without any interest in any other spacefaring anywhere else for any other purpose?

Good point.  Jockndoris, does "Mercury" mean anything to you in this context?

[smartcooky]

I assume you meant V=v log_e M0/M1.

Yes

ETA: Question. Are Log_e and Log_n not the same, i.e. "n" stands for "natural" or "napierian" and "e" stands for "base e", 2.718281828, or are we just talking nomenclature here.

(its been a long time!)

Not quite; it's an attempt to compute the practical mass ratio (R in his formulation of Tsiolkovsky) for his hypothetical rocket that accounts for acceleration lost during initial ascent.  The term (a+g)/a is meant to be a scaling factor to the theoretical mass ratio derived via Tsiolkovsky for some given v and V.  It says nothing more complicated than "be sure to add the acceleration required merely to overcome gravity."  But that's valid only for constant-mass sounding rockets.  It doesn't really apply here, or really anywhere.  But it's a good enough first-order approximation to be published in a radio magazine.

OK, so, without looking it up, I saw Re = R(α+g)/α in Clarke's paper and assumed it was one of the many equations used to calculate orbital speed, acceleration, period etc. I should have checked; here would have done.....

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion

....these are the sorts of equations I would have expected to find in Clarke's paper as the type Burns claims to have "studied"

As it turns out, Clarke's paper contains no orbital mechanical equations whatsoever!

So, Mr Burns, care to try again... another lie perhaps!?

[nomuse]

Gah. You got me with both of those. I also skimmed the "Re = R(α+g)/α" and thought I was seeing a manipulation of "F = G m1m2/r^2" and maybe a little "F = ma." Foolish me. I also have no idea how to write "natural log" in any kind of text, so I understood what smartcooky was after by using "n."

[JayUtah]

OK, so, without looking it up, I saw Re = R(α+g)/α in Clarke's paper and assumed it was one of the many equations used to calculate orbital speed, acceleration, period etc. I should have checked; here would have done....

Quite understandable, folks, given that R, a, and g are the commonly used symbols in the orbital mechanics (and analytical geometry) to describe the geometry of ellipses.  In EES, we prefer g₀ to describe the constant referring to the acceleration due to Earth's gravity.  It's often used, as in the formulation of specific impulse I_sp, as a system-agnostic method of relating the unit of mass to the unit of force, specifically of gravity.  E.g., F = g₀ m.  This is why specific impulse is the same value in EES as SI.

I want to point out that earlier, when I discussed Burns' disastrous foray into orbital motion, he told us he was happy to have educated us on some things we didn't understand about space travel.  I now find that abysmally presumptuous under his new revelation that such things weren't part of his study.  They are part of my study, and my professional practice.  So a gracious apology would be in order, as well as a concession that he does not have expertise commensurate to his critics, by his own admission.

As it turns out, Clarke's paper contains no orbital mechanical equations whatsoever!

Correct.  It contains two equations having to do with rocketry (one of them rather useless in practice, and neither having to do with orbiting rockets) and one having to do with electromagnetic field theory.  None having to do with orbital mechanics.  As I mention at Clavius, he presents the orbital parameters graphically, not analytically.  And they are simply Kepler/Newton values.

Kepler worked empirically.  He noted that the motion of orbiting objects behaved according to certain numerical relationships.  But he had no answer for why they did, other than to derive it from the behavior of conic-section geometry.  So his equations are numerically predictive, but Kepler's discussion was mostly observational.  Newton, in Principia, first formulated his theories of dynamics -- his Laws of Motion.  Then he formulated his theory of gravitation.  Then, in a bold stroke, he combined the two to derive Kepler's equations of orbital motion analytically rather than empirically.  But this is why you have to cite both of them.  Kepler shows that his equations predict reality; Newton explains why.

For Burns to have walked out the door of St Andrews with a BSc in physics(?), having been taught in an old-school "classical" fashion, without this having been the bread and butter of his first year is colossally incredible.  To present orbital motion without laying that foundation is like teaching 19th century French cooking and not mentioning Escoffier.

[Bob B.]

ETA: Question. Are Log_e and Log_n not the same, i.e. "n" stands for "natural" or "napierian" and "e" stands for "base e", 2.718281828, or are we just talking nomenclature here.

I've never seen log_n used before.  I've always seen either log_e or ln.

[Andromeda]

ETA: Question. Are Log_e and Log_n not the same, i.e. "n" stands for "natural" or "napierian" and "e" stands for "base e", 2.718281828, or are we just talking nomenclature here.

I've never seen log_n used before.  I've always seen either log_e or ln.

Same here.

[Bob B.]

It's often used, as in the formulation of specific impulse I_sp, as a system-agnostic method of relating the unit of mass to the unit of force, specifically of gravity.

Which I've had to explain numerous times when I get questions like, "but if we're orbiting the moon, shouldn't we use the value of g for the moon?"

[beedarko]

..he marches straight off to the counting-house to write accounting programs in a language that wouldn't be invented for 15 more years, on computers that somehow existed despite his collegiate claim that they were invariably large and heavy -- and wouldn't run Quick Basic anyway.

My interpretation of this statement is a bit different, in that I don't believe he was referring to the 1960's when he wrote of computing with QuickBasic.

At the beginning of chapter 8 on page 33, Burns writes, "I am setting you down gently in 1990 first.  That was just 21 years onwards...".  He goes on about tax returns and his assistant Alison, and a few paragraphs later he mentions using QuickBasic, presumably during this same time period, which would be consistent with the history of that particular piece of software and the PCs which ran it.  I began using QuickBasic in 1989 on my clunky old 286 machine,and I believe it'd been around for a few years even then.

Mr. Burns, will you elaborate any further and more specifically about the questions I posed, or are you satisfied that your answers adequately addressed them?

[smartcooky]

I've never seen log_n used before.  I've always seen either log_e or ln.

Aha! Its a sort of mathematical "mixed metaphor" then; you use ln or use log_e but you don't mix them up.

Thanks Bob. As I said, its been a long time. Last time I used logarithms regularly "in anger" was when I was still training as an Avionics Engineer in the 1970s. It was out of a printed table of logs, and we did the calculations using a slide rule!!!

[JayUtah]

Aha! Its a sort of mathematical "mixed metaphor" then; you use ln or use log_e but you don't mix them up.

Technically, log_n is simply "logarithm to the base n," where n could be any relevant number.  But we know it's not what you meant. 

To make matters worse, R_e in Clarke's paper is not "R sub e", where e would be some semantic qualifier.  No, it's to be read "R base e,"  If you work Clarke's arithmetic for the mass ratios he gives (20 and 37, respectively), you realize that

R_e = R ( a + g ) / a

should really be

log_e R′  =  { ( a + g ) / a }  log_e R

if it's going to match his arithmetic.  But Clarke's rocketry suffers from more than just unclear notation.  It's incomplete and theoretically problematic.  Further, the figures are worked for near Earth orbit, not geostationary orbit.

Clarke plots geodetic altitude, orbital period, and orbital speed on a graph.  From the graph he plausibly derives 8 km s^-1 as the required orbital speed for a near-earth satellite.  But then he appears to plug that into Tsiolkovsky's equation as V.  Yes, that would compute the parameters of a rocket needed to achieve the proper orbital speed along the orbit for the desired orbit.  But it ignores the rocketry problem of getting to that altitude in the first place.

Then when he tries to derive the effective mass ratio of a rocket departing Earth, by tweaking the theoretical mass ratio to account for g₀, he uses the same 8 km s^-1 figure (i.e., "downrange" orbital speed) plus a practical margin, but then seems to ignore that a and g₀ are vector quantities, and the directions don't match.  Trying to go that fast downrange, once you get to orbit, doesn't combine with trying to go that speed upward (which doesn't even make sense) while fighting gravity.  The adjustment applies only to sounding-rocket type missions where the rocket goes straight up and doesn't try to enter Earth orbit.

In other words, Clarke doesn't really express much correct quantitative understanding either of how to get to orbit.

[JayUtah]

My interpretation of this statement is a bit different, in that I don't believe he was referring to the 1960's when he wrote of computing with QuickBasic.

Read p. 16.

[Luckmeister]

Jockndoris, do you have any idea how repulsive and hurtful everything about your ghost nonsense would be to Armstrong's surviving family? Or do you give a damn?

[beedarko]

Read p. 16.

Wooops, yes that is problematic.  I wonder if he wasn't perhaps working on some earlier version and maybe misremembering what it was called.  I'm only a half-centenarian and often times my memory has similar glitches.

Mr. Burns, would you care to address the "QuickBasic" confusion?