Abstract
PROF. BLITZER has, I fear, misinterpreted my comments on his papers. First, I am glad to know that his solution for radial distance was correct. When I found the error in the intermediate equation, it did not seem worth carrying on with checking the analysis, which was extremely lengthy. I made it clear that my doubts about the correctness of the solution were based solely on the error in the intermediate equation. I then went on to say, “the solution is so lengthy that no progress can be made towards higher-order solutions, and the rotation of the major axis is not obtained”. Here I was not making a prophecy but only a statement of fact: in the papers I was referring to, there was no progress towards a higher-order solution, and the rotation of the major axis was not obtained. My statement was therefore correct. Next, as is clearly stated on its second page, my paper was “a shortened version of a Ministry of Supply report issued in October 1957”, and was written in the summer of 1957. It is therefore scarcely surprising that I made no reference to the paper (his ref. 4) by Prof. Blitzer, which was not published until November 1957.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
KING-HELE, D. Secular and Periodic Motions of the Node of an Artificial Earth-Satellite. Nature 186, 875 (1960). https://doi.org/10.1038/186875a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/186875a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.