SpaceElevatorBookRevision: Difference between revisions

From SpaceElevatorWiki.com
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(20 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[FreeFormats]]
'''This is Keith's 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, editing and more consistent layout, but it is not a proof. Something that is the best of both would be really awesome
 
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 understand, if not care to read. The 2003 book is close to that level if some things were removed.


== Nontechnical suggestions ==
== Nontechnical suggestions ==
''''I believe these are important for market success'''
'''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.
 
The Glass Giants Planets table has 1 or 2 too many columns. Your estimates of the cost of the 3rd and fourth ribbon are even more speculative so probably not necessary. Some of what is in your book isn't even your work. You can put them on a website. Any calculation which depends on 2 other calculations of yours is likely wrong. How confident are you even of the length it will be? Surely it is more settled than the payload, but is it truly settled?
 
:Yes, there are many places that need to be cleaned up.  In many of these cases we need to give basic information that is not completely settled but we should do a much better job of making it clear that in these cases what we are discussing is speculative and very uncertain. This will maintain our credibility through out as well as provide a complete discussion.
 
I think you should shoot down microwave power beaming, but only use one number to communicate that idea, not the page of them.
 
:Agreed.


Keep pushing the boundaries between good ideas and bad. The purpose of your book is a non-fiction "back of the envelope" proof.
Specifics:


''Leaving the planet'' has new data and stories, better pictures and better editing, but it is not a "proof."
<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>


Anyone who goes to the trouble to read such a book will want a proof. You can make such a book readable by everyone. I am doing it with my book. Your 2003 book is almost there, but it sometimes has too much math inline:
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 FLP early in your book as it is an interesting concept, then assume it will be implemented as you suggest throughout the rest.


"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"
: This is true though it does depend a bit on what the payloads are and how many there will be - obviously things we can not determine.  We can use either since there is a simple ratio between them. We can go with FLP, we just need to explain it up front and be consistent.


Two problems with above: 1. That sentence has no new information. You've given people this data in many forms already. 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.
<blockquote>The force from the wind perpendicular to the ribbon face required to break the initial and weakest ribbon is: MATHMATHMATH
To do the calculation correctly we need to calculate the aerodynamic drag on the two distinct material areas, the ribbon or the set of strings or rods</blockquote>


Making your book 2x better will make you sell 4x more copies. I meet so many geeks who know about the space elevator who would read your book. I think they could read it as-is, and your primary challenge might be marketing, but you should make a book so good that friends demand their friends read it, and one that Oprah could read. Your 2003 book is very close to that level!
: We have much more info on this which actually allows us to make the discussion simpler and more concise.


== Technical suggestions ==
Note that I don't want to suggest you remove your deployment schedule chart, the budget summary table, etc. Your book needs to have a cost for the first elevator, and that needs lots of numbers to boil down to that number. Or your funny jokes. In total, I love the 2003 book. Please do not throw out the baby. I would feel horrible if you trimmed too much.
'''I'm not the expert, but these are my considered opinions'''
 
You might make 2 or 3x more money if you translate this book into the other big languages. I have translators who I'm sure would be interested.


I propose a 100 ton daily payload elevator. 10 tons a day is not worth it. You might not understand it now, but you will! How much does the elevator in your building support? Figure out costs for 1 ton, 10 ton daily and 100 ton daily. Focus on powers of 10: 1, 10, 100.
:We can certainly do this.


:Agreed though we go through the same basic steps for all sizes so specifying the size will be more a focus of market - which also needs to be defined.'''
We need to solve the 200 mph situation, or have a solution for humans.


We need up and down ribbons. It will be built that way whether you put it there or someone else does. :-) You go on about how we could throw away climbers, and that is a bad idea. A lot of your examining of why bad ideas won't work is good, but this is not one of them. Somewhere early, you need to build bi-directional into the designs.
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.


:My thought on throwing away climbers is only before the second is built and throwing away means storing them in GEO for future use.  Nothing we send up should be wasted.
There are too many predictions of dates and each one is a potential for error. Is Venus really a century away? Then why is it discussed?


:: We should build the two ribbons in parallel. We could even build 3 in case one of them doesn't make it.  
Also, we need something that takes 1 week to 1 month to go to Mars. If there is so much matter and energy out there, let's use it. The back of an envelope should fully use available assets.


You need to solve the 200 mph situation. What about a big spool? We need a solution for humans, even if it is rockets.
== Technical suggestions ==
I'm not the expert, but I have several opinions I'd like to use this opportunity to mention. These ideas are not a part of any "contract", so I'm moving them to the discussion page.


:The speed is not a real limit only a zero rsk statement of what can be done now.
== Meta Issues ==
[[FreeFormats]]


What about the space station and the moon station? Also, we need something that takes 1 week to go to Mars.
== Signatures ==


:How about one month to Mars for starters?  That one I have already run the numbers on.
# Keith Curtis
#


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? That strikes me as one of the things people might look back on in 20 years and laugh that we'd bother to get iron from random places. How about we just put the existing iron to better use? 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. Location, location, location.


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.
''This page will be made read-only after we both sign. Financial details are written on check.''

Latest revision as of 07:15, 26 June 2008

This is Keith's 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, editing and more consistent layout, but it is not a proof. Something that is the best of both would be really awesome

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 understand, if not care to read. The 2003 book is close to that level if 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.

The Glass Giants Planets table has 1 or 2 too many columns. Your estimates of the cost of the 3rd and fourth ribbon are even more speculative so probably not necessary. Some of what is in your book isn't even your work. You can put them on a website. Any calculation which depends on 2 other calculations of yours is likely wrong. How confident are you even of the length it will be? Surely it is more settled than the payload, but is it truly settled?

Yes, there are many places that need to be cleaned up. In many of these cases we need to give basic information that is not completely settled but we should do a much better job of making it clear that in these cases what we are discussing is speculative and very uncertain. This will maintain our credibility through out as well as provide a complete discussion.

I think you should shoot down microwave power beaming, but only use one number to communicate that idea, not the page of them.

Agreed.

Specifics:

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 FLP early in your book as it is an interesting concept, then assume it will be implemented as you suggest throughout the rest.

This is true though it does depend a bit on what the payloads are and how many there will be - obviously things we can not determine. We can use either since there is a simple ratio between them. We can go with FLP, we just need to explain it up front and be consistent.

The force from the wind perpendicular to the ribbon face required to break the initial and weakest ribbon is: MATHMATHMATH To do the calculation correctly we need to calculate the aerodynamic drag on the two distinct material areas, the ribbon or the set of strings or rods

We have much more info on this which actually allows us to make the discussion simpler and more concise.

Note that I don't want to suggest you remove your deployment schedule chart, the budget summary table, etc. Your book needs to have a cost for the first elevator, and that needs lots of numbers to boil down to that number. Or your funny jokes. In total, I love the 2003 book. Please do not throw out the baby. I would feel horrible if you trimmed too much.

You might make 2 or 3x more money if you translate this book into the other big languages. I have translators who I'm sure would be interested.

We can certainly do this.

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 and each one is a potential for error. Is Venus really a century away? Then why is it discussed?

Also, we need something that takes 1 week to 1 month to go to Mars. If there is so much matter and energy out there, let's use it. The back of an envelope should fully use available assets.

Technical suggestions

I'm not the expert, but I have several opinions I'd like to use this opportunity to mention. These ideas are not a part of any "contract", so I'm moving them to the discussion page.

Meta Issues

FreeFormats

Signatures

  1. Keith Curtis


This page will be made read-only after we both sign. Financial details are written on check.

Retrieved from "http://spaceelevatorwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=SpaceElevatorBookRevision&oldid=580"