New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Sir Arthur C. Clarke, 1917-2008

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

He wore pajamas and a bathrobe, and a swollen bare foot was propped up on an ottoman. That was the figure cut by the revered science-fiction author Arthur C. Clarke the one time that I, along with a few other Scientific American editors, met him. It was October 1999, and he was in New York City, making an extremely rare trip, for medical reasons, outside of his adopted home country of Sri Lanka.

Clarke had invited us to his room at the historic Hotel Chelsea, where in the mid-1960s he worked on his best-known piece, 2001: A Space Odyssey. There he berated us for not taking cold fusion seriously enough. He believed that a revolutionary discovery could still come from the experiments of the small scattering of remaining devotees to the idea. Clarke’s optimism about the possibilities of future technology is embodied in his three famous “laws,” one of which states that a sufficiently advanced tech­nology is indistinguishable from magic.

In 1945 he wrote in the magazine Wireless World of how a satellite in an equatorial orbit with a radius of 42,000 kilometers would remain over the same location of the earth and how three of them could relay radio signals to anywhere on the globe. The concept was not new with Clarke, but he popularized the idea. In 1964 the first such geostationary communications satellite was launched.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Clarke, who suffered from post-polio syndrome and reportedly had trouble breath­ing before his death on March 18, wrote scores of books, both fiction and nonfiction, and won numerous awards. An asteroid, an orbit, a species of dinosaur and several prizes have been named after him. Many scientists, astronauts and writers have credited him with inspiring them in starting their careers. His impact, you might say, was indistinguishable from magic.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe