SpaceElevatorBookRevision: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''This is Keith's opinions on Brad's next book.''' | '''This is Keith's general opinions on Brad's next book.''' | ||
The purpose of the Bible is a non-fiction back of the envelope proof. Keep pushing the boundaries between good ideas and bad. | |||
A fictional book would be good, but that is your ''next'' book. | A fictional book would be good, but that is your ''next'' book. | ||
''Leaving the planet'' has new data and stories, better pictures and better editing, but it is not a proof. | ''Leaving the planet'' has new data and stories, better pictures and better editing, but it is not a proof. | ||
Making | Making a book 2x better will make sell 4x more copies. Market: 16-year old boys, Congressional staffers, etc. The goal is the the next book so good that friends demand their friends read it, and one that Oprah could read. The 2003 book is close to that level and some things were removed. | ||
== Nontechnical suggestions == | == Nontechnical suggestions == | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Anyone who goes to the trouble to read such a book will want a proof. It needs things like adaptic optics. You can make such a book readable by everyone and I am doing it with my book. | Anyone who goes to the trouble to read such a book will want a proof. It needs things like adaptic optics. You can make such a book readable by everyone and I am doing it with my book. | ||
There is too math inline: | |||
<blockquote>We could have the shipping capacity for space ships from 46 tons to the 200 ton ribbon to the 116 ships on the 500 ton ribbon if we stay within the FLP traffic size climbers; and up to 350 ton ships using max ribbon limit</blockquote> | |||
Two problems with above: 1. That sentence has no new information. 2. The idea of using the max ribbon limit instead of using FLP is bad and you shouldn't advocate it throughout the book. You should discuss this idea in your book as it is an interesting concept, then assume it will be implemented as you suggest throughout the rest. | Two problems with above: 1. That sentence has no new information. 2. The idea of using the max ribbon limit instead of using FLP is bad and you shouldn't advocate it throughout the book. You should discuss this idea in your book as it is an interesting concept, then assume it will be implemented as you suggest throughout the rest. | ||
Another: | |||
<blockquote>fill in</blockquote> | |||
You might make 2 or 3x more money if you translate this book into the other big languages. | You might make 2 or 3x more money if you translate this book into the other big languages. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 29: | ||
'''I'm not the expert, but these are my considered opinions''' | '''I'm not the expert, but these are my considered opinions''' | ||
I propose a 100 ton daily payload elevator | I propose a 100 ton daily payload elevator. Focus on powers of 10: 1, 10, 100. | ||
We should build the two ribbons 100% in parallel. We could even build 3 in case one of them doesn't make it. | We should build the two ribbons 100% in parallel. We could even build 3 in case one of them doesn't make it. | ||
We need to solve the 200 mph situation, or have a solution for humans. | |||
What about the space station and the moon station? These come up right after the elevator. There is too much about Jupiter, etc. and not enough back of the envelope information of what is at GEO. | |||
There are too many predictions of dates. Each one is a potential for error. Are you really sure that Venus is a century away? Then why do you talk about it? I like what you have to say although like other parts it can be tightened up. | |||
Also, we need something that takes 1 week to 1 month to go to Mars. | |||
You need to think about whether we really need atoms from other asteroids in the form of knives. Are we really running out of atoms here? With carbon nanotubes replacing steel, that will free up lots of iron. | You need to think about whether we really need atoms from other asteroids in the form of knives. Are we really running out of atoms here? With carbon nanotubes replacing steel, that will free up lots of iron. | ||
Revision as of 01:13, 26 June 2008
This is Keith's general opinions on Brad's next book.
The purpose of the Bible is a non-fiction back of the envelope proof. Keep pushing the boundaries between good ideas and bad.
A fictional book would be good, but that is your next book.
Leaving the planet has new data and stories, better pictures and better editing, but it is not a proof.
Making a book 2x better will make sell 4x more copies. Market: 16-year old boys, Congressional staffers, etc. The goal is the the next book so good that friends demand their friends read it, and one that Oprah could read. The 2003 book is close to that level and some things were removed.
Nontechnical suggestions
I believe these are important for market success
Anyone who goes to the trouble to read such a book will want a proof. It needs things like adaptic optics. You can make such a book readable by everyone and I am doing it with my book.
There is too math inline:
We could have the shipping capacity for space ships from 46 tons to the 200 ton ribbon to the 116 ships on the 500 ton ribbon if we stay within the FLP traffic size climbers; and up to 350 ton ships using max ribbon limit
Two problems with above: 1. That sentence has no new information. 2. The idea of using the max ribbon limit instead of using FLP is bad and you shouldn't advocate it throughout the book. You should discuss this idea in your book as it is an interesting concept, then assume it will be implemented as you suggest throughout the rest.
Another:
fill in
You might make 2 or 3x more money if you translate this book into the other big languages.
Technical suggestions
I'm not the expert, but these are my considered opinions
I propose a 100 ton daily payload elevator. Focus on powers of 10: 1, 10, 100.
We should build the two ribbons 100% in parallel. We could even build 3 in case one of them doesn't make it.
We need to solve the 200 mph situation, or have a solution for humans.
What about the space station and the moon station? These come up right after the elevator. There is too much about Jupiter, etc. and not enough back of the envelope information of what is at GEO.
There are too many predictions of dates. Each one is a potential for error. Are you really sure that Venus is a century away? Then why do you talk about it? I like what you have to say although like other parts it can be tightened up.
Also, we need something that takes 1 week to 1 month to go to Mars.
You need to think about whether we really need atoms from other asteroids in the form of knives. Are we really running out of atoms here? With carbon nanotubes replacing steel, that will free up lots of iron.
You need something near land, a big electricity grid, etc. Pick as close to land as possible.
Some of these things are hard to get right. I might say no laser power beaming to earth, but it would provide energy for the moonbase. It might end up being the reverse. Don't go to deep on things that aren't core to your case.
