User:Naaman Brown/Fred Singer

I am going to park here my notes concerning Fred Singer on Iosif Shklovsky's artificial Phobos hypothesis.

my earlier draft

Singer and the Artificial Phobos Theory
In 1960, Singer commented in an article in Astronautics on the theory of Iosif Shklovsky (later mentioned in a 1966 book by Carl Sagan and Shklovsky) that the orbit of the Martian moon Phobos suggests that it is hollow, which implies it is of artificial origin. Singer: "My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big "if" lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them. " Later measurements confirmed Singer's "big "if"" caveat: Shklovsky overestimated Phobos' rate of altitude loss due to bad data. That has not prevented ufologists from presenting Singer as an unconditional supporter of Shklovsky's artificial Phobos theory.

Retrieved WP 23 May 2010:

1960: Artificial Phobos hypothesis
In 1960, Singer commented in an article in Astronautics on the hypothesis of Iosif Shklovsky (later mentioned in a 1966 book by Carl Sagan and Shklovsky) that the orbit of the Martian moon Phobos suggests that it is hollow, which implies it is of artificial origin. Singer wrote: "My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big "if" lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them." Later measurements confirmed Singer's big "if" caveat: Shklovsky overestimated Phobos' rate of altitude loss due to bad early data. Ufologists continue to present Singer as an unconditional supporter of Shklovsky's artificial Phobos hypothesis.

S.F. Singer, "More on the Moons of Mars", Astronautics, Feb 1960.

True believer Ufologists have morphed this obscure article into "Singer supports Shklovsky's hypothesis". Critics of Singer on other subjects have morphed this obscure article into a meme that "Singer proposed Martians built Phobos".

Singer had commented on Shklovsky's hypothesis in what was seen as a critique. If the satellite's orbit was decaying as Shklovsky's data indicated, Shklovsky's hypothesis would be true, if (big "if") the observations of the orbit were accurate. Singer had noted that since the measurements were made decades apart by different observers with different instruments, the data could be affected by systematic (systemic) errors (errors in data introduced by imprecision in the system of measurement). Like a number of US and Soviet space scientists, Singer speculated: what use would there be for a hollow satellite the size of Phobos in low orbit? One suggestion was to cleanse radiation from the Martian atmosphere.

An author referred to Singer's article as a "critique" not as support of the hollow Phobos hypothesis. The hollow Phobos hypothesis was viable to about 1966 but never advanced to the level of a theory and was eventually disproven as more accurate data on the orbit of Phobos was collected. In fact, Singer's 1966 proposal to land on Phobos as the next step after a moon landing was predicated on the theory that Phobos was a solid object with some degree of gravity. You do not use lunar landing technology on an artificial satellite. After 1969, the corrected data proved that Phobos behaved like a solid object, not a hollow sphere, and the Shklovsky hypothesis was abandoned by all but the true believers in UFO conspiracy theories, who continue to cite the "what if" speculations of Shklovsky, Singer and others as though they were facts. (Like some of the asteroids, Phobos may be made up of smaller objects collected by gravity, with internal hollow spaces, but not a hollow globe.)

some sources on Singer:

NASA, Vanguard--A History, "Chapter 1 Background of Space Exploration" mentions S. Fred Singer's role in early US space exploration.

Search of NASA documents including Fred Singer

Space Resources Roundtable VII (2005) 2049.pdf "Phobos: A Critical Link Between Moon and Mars Exploration" that cites Singer (Singer, S. F. (1981). The Ph-D Proposal: A Manned Mission to Phobos and Deimos, Case for Mars, P. Boston, ed., AAS 81-231, pp. 39-65.) and does not mention the long abandoned hollow Phobos hypothesis.

On the other side Andrew Kelleher, "Phobos: the odd moon of Mars", in Alienation News #211 Nov 2002.:

According to retired Soviet Air Force Colonel Marina Popovich, Phobos is an artificial structure. In a meeting with CSETI's international director, Dr Steven Greer, she told him that her sources also advised that it is hollow. Other scientists like chief space adviser to President Eisenhower, Dr. Fred Singer; Professor James A. Harder of the University of California; and Wells Alan Webb, respected Mars authorities agree that Phobos may actually host an alien colony. In 1963 a NASA official Raymond H. Wilson, Jr. chief of applied mathematics at NASA, joined Shklovsky and Dr. Singer in their Martian conclusions and announced to the Institute of Aerospace Sciences that "Phobos might be a colossal base  orbiting Mars".

Alienation News 2002 makes a big deal that the early Russian 1988 Phobos II and American 1992 Mars Observor spacecraft made unsuccessful attempts to explore Phobos, suffering technical problems as they made their approaches. As one can see in the very detailed photos in the Wikipedia article on Phobos, later probes were successful. The true believer UFO literature thrives on out-of-date news out of context.

This 2002 article is typical of what one finds in the UFO literature. By 1966 Singer was advocating a lunar landing on Phobos, calculations predicated on Phobos as a solid object, indicating rejection of the hollow Phobos hypothesis. In the UFO literature, once a conditional speculator on a UFO- friendly hypothesis, always presented as an unconditional supporter of the same as fact.

What Iosif Shklovsky, Marina Popovich, Steven Greer, Fred Singer, James A. Harder, Wells Alan Webb, Raymond H. Wilson Jr. and others speculated about Phobos in 1958-1969 on the basis of bad data is a historic artifact not a current fact.

The early data and the math about Phobos' orbit implied that Phobos was hollow: how seriously Popovich took the artificial origin of Phobos has been questioned. Until better data was collected it was an interesting hypothesis.

(Some of the hollow Phobos supporters mentioned above by Alienation News have Wikipedia articles:

Iosif Shklovsky was a Soviet astronomer and astrophysicist.

Marina Popovich Soviet air force testpilot and ex-wife of notable Soviet cosmonaut Pavel Popovich has long been a student of unexplained aerial and space phenomena, author of UFO Glasnost 2003.

Steven Greer founded CSETI (Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence) in 1990 and alleges the US government covers up the truth about UFOs.

James Harder was Director of Research for APRO (Aerial Phenomena Research Organization) from 1969-1982.)

--

A quick review of history of the Fred Singer article, shows:

and proposed that the Martian moon Phobos is a space station built by Martians.

was added with the comment:

Revision as of 21:32, 22 January 2008 (edit) (undo) Geoffrey.landis (talk | contribs) (added reference)

Landis (born 1955) is a NASA scientist and a hard-science SF writer. (It was Landis who committed the cardinal sin of putting the ref before the period ending the sentence, rather than after the period as is sane and rational practice on Wikipedia.) The "Phobos is a space station built by Martians" sounds like water cooler talk about one of the old guys in the office.

It was later removed with the comment:

Revision as of 06:37, 17 February 2008 (edit) (undo) Herbm (talk | contribs) (Removed unsubstantiated allegation about "martians" whose reference was just a link back to THIS page)

William M. Connolley restored this:

and, in 1960, proposed that the Martian moon Phobos is a space station built by Martians.

with the comment:

Revision as of 07:39, 17 February 2008 (edit) (undo) William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (rv: no, ref is to an external publication)

(Shklovsky proposed Mars acted like a hollow object in 1959. Singer commented on Shklovsky's proposal in 1960.)

The Phobos suggestion had been in the history part of the article under Singer's involvement in space exploration; on 28 Apr 2008 IP 68.84.44.206 editor removed it questioning the source as a blog; Stephan Schulz restored the Phobos theory, keeping the cite to Astronautics, dropping ref to the blog:

In 1960 Singer supported the suggestion of Russian astrophysicist Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky that the Martian moon Phobos was of artificial origin.

Singer critic User:William M. Connolley moved it from the history to the lead (lede or abstract) of the article with the comment:

Revision as of 18:19, 28 April 2008 (edit) (undo) William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) (rv: if you're going to try to bury embarassing stuff, at least be honest enough to include an edit summary)

William M. Connolley considers Fred Singer to be a "septic" skeptic of the science and politics of global warming, and issue in which Connolley is deeply involved.

previous drafts

The Shklovsky hollow Phobos theory hypothesis had its vogue from 1959 to about 1966 and was abandoned by all serious researchers in 1969. Singer's conditional support, based on "if" the observations of Phobos' orbit were correct (which data included observations by the US Navy observatory), was actually cited by one source as a "critique" of Shklovsky's hypothesis. It is only in the Ufology literature that Singer is cited as a continuing supporter of the hollow Phobos hypothesis. (In the UFOlogy literature Shklovsky's proposal is presented not as hypothesis or theory but as fact.) There was a lot of "what if" speculation between 1959 and 1966 on Phobos, including more people than Singer or Shklovsky such as Soviet Air Force Colonel Marina Popovich, but Singer's 1966 proposal to land on Phobos was predicated on calculations that it was in fact a solid object.

If observations of the orbit of Phobos over a period of decades by different observors using different measurement techniques proved to be useless in predicting the future orbit of Phobos, this appears to have contributed to Singer's skepticism that observations of climate over a period of centuries by different observors using different measurement techniques and different instruments may be useless in predicting future climate trends. The math on the orbit of a satellite is a lot simpler math than a climate model.

The hollow Phobos hypothesis was in vogue from 1959 to 1966, until better data on the orbit pf Phobos became available; one source that actually quoted from the Astronautics article typified Singer's conditional comment as a "critique" not as support. Singer certainly did not propose the hypothesis in 1960. In any case, the hypothesis was abandoned by all but the "I want to believe" UFO community by 1969.

http://www.answers.com/topic/phobos draws mainly on Wikipedia:Phobos

--

http://www.citizendia.org/Fred_Singer

Space and exploration

In 1960 Singer stated in relation to the Russian astrophysicist Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky's observation of the Martian moon Phobos; "My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big "if" lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them." Singer's critique was justified when earlier studies were later discovered to have used an overestimated value of 5 cm/yr for the rate of altitude loss, which was later revised to 1. 8 cm/yr. [21]. In 1981, he proposed a manned mission to the moons. Singer cited the following benefits of a manned mission to mars over a further delayed direct landing on Mars: [22] In 1994, Singer contributed to a paper on the results from the Interplanetary Dust Experiment using data from the Long Duration Exposure Facility satellite. NASA 's Long Duration Exposure Facility, or LDEF, was a School bus-sized cylindrical space experiment rack that exposed various material samples to [23] Singer also has been a proponent of manned exploration to Mars. [24]
 * Minimal delta v's needed to reach Phobos's surface
 * Ability to monitor Mars from a stable platform in low Mars orbit (LMO)
 * Ability to teleoperate robots on Mars without significant time delay
 * Opportunity to advance the scientific investigation of small bodies
 * Potential of finding H2O on Phobos which might be used as a resource

21.^ "More on the Moons of Mars". Singer, S. F., Astronautics, February 1960. American Astronautical Society. Page 16

22.^ http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2005/pdf/2049.pdf

23.^ http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PSISDG002214000001000076000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Long duration exposure facility (LDEF) interplanetary dust experiment (IDE) impact detector results

24.^ http://www.philsoc.org/2002Fall/2153abstract.html A Manned Mission to the Mysterious Moons of Mars, by S. Fred Singer

-- Park here from the Phobos article, saved 23 Jan 2012

Shklovsky's "Hollow Phobos" hypothesis
In the late 1950s and 1960s, the unusual orbital characteristics of Phobos led to speculations that it might be hollow.

Around 1958, Russian astrophysicist Iosif Samuilovich Shklovsky, studying the secular acceleration of Phobos' orbital motion, suggested a "thin sheet metal" structure for Phobos, a suggestion which led to speculations that Phobos was of artificial origin. Shklovsky based his analysis on estimates of the upper Martian atmosphere's density, and deduced that for the weak braking effect to be able to account for the secular acceleration, Phobos had to be very light — one calculation yielded a hollow iron sphere 16 km across but less than 6 cm thick. In a February 1960 letter to the journal Astronautics, Fred Singer, then science advisor to U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, said of Shklovsky's theory:

"If the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore Martian made. The big 'if' lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them."

Subsequently, the systemic data errors that Singer predicted were found to exist, and the claim was called into doubt, and accurate measurements of the orbit available by 1969 showed that the discrepancy did not exist. Singer's critique was justified when earlier studies were discovered to have used an overestimated value of 5 cm/yr for the rate of altitude loss, which was later revised to 1.8 cm/yr. The secular acceleration is now attributed to tidal effects, which had not been considered in the earlier studies. The density of Phobos has now been directly measured by spacecraft to be 1.887 g/cm3. Current observations are consistent with Phobos being a rubble pile. In addition, images obtained by the Viking probes in the 1970s clearly showed a natural object, not an artificial one.

However, mapping by the Mars Express probe and subsequent volume calculations do suggest the presence of voids within the moon and indicate that it is not a solid chunk of rock but a porous body instead. The porosity of Phobos was calculated to be 30% ± 5%, or a quarter to a third of the moon being hollow. This void space is mostly on small scales (millimeters to ~1-m), between individual grains and boulders. .