Book: "Spacecraft Design for Science Fiction Authors"

[scottlowther]

Well obviously, but c'mon, they are damned cool.

Sure. And that's why SF authors and movie makers are going to keep using them. Even though the whole idea is impractical (we've fired off anti-ICBM missiles capable of forward accelerations of *400* g's, and 150+ g's lateral, while manned vehicles will be restricted to somewhere on the order of 10 g's, barring "inertial dampening fields" and the like, and human reaction times are already far slower than computers), it still makes for effective drama and/or eyecandy.

And thus there's no reason to ignore the concept... and no reason to ignore the physics involved.

[adam_grif]

It'd be pretty sweet if we could get one big SciFi reference book, which contained an Atomic Rocket style treatment of not only space ships, their weapons and so on, but also of other SciFi techs like Artificial Intelligence (like a bigger and better version of the FAQ that's in SLAM), nanotech and so on.

[Havok]

By the way, welcome to the board (in case no one has said it). Not to bash anyone else (including myself? ), but it is nice to have a new quality contributor. Hope you stick around.

[scottlowther]

It'd be pretty sweet if we could get one big SciFi reference book, which contained an Atomic Rocket style treatment of not only space ships, their weapons and so on, but also of other SciFi techs like Artificial Intelligence (like a bigger and better version of the FAQ that's in SLAM), nanotech and so on.

That would be a bit out of my field. I am by nature, training and former vocation a rocket engineer, which I've decided gives me the expertise to take a stab at a book on science fiction spacecraft design. But other aspects of SF would probably have to be left to others. Especially given that I'm estimating that my book will be around about the size of ARA Press's "Spaceship Handbook," about as large as you really want to make a book. Of course, if my book gets published and sells like crazy, then there'll certainly be interest in companion volumes.

[scottlowther]

it is nice to have a new quality contributor.

It's always wise to leave off qualifiers when using a word like "quality" when referring to an unknown quantity. Thus later you can always say, "well, I meant *bad* quality."

[Nyrath]

Wouldn't that basically be Atomic Rocket without the pictures?

Actually, it'd be Atomic Rocket with substantially more (and more directly relevant) diagrams, and a whole lot more detail on a whole lot more territory.

AR was one of the reasons why I kinda dropped the project in 2004. The guy behind AR is one of those suggesting that I go forward with it.

Indeed I did. I'm a talented amateur who reads a lot. Mr. Lowther is a pro. I'm looking forwards to this book.

[ThomasP]

Wow, what a great idea. Atomic Rockets has been such a huge inspiration and reference for me; I'll definitely want a copy of this.

[Swindle1984]

It'd be pretty sweet if we could get one big SciFi reference book, which contained an Atomic Rocket style treatment of not only space ships, their weapons and so on, but also of other SciFi techs like Artificial Intelligence (like a bigger and better version of the FAQ that's in SLAM), nanotech and so on.

If there were a series of such reference books, nerds the world would orgasm in joy. It'd also make such information/research more available to the layman, and may motivate people who would otherwise be discouraged by the technical expertise required to enter such fields to do it anyway. "Hey, I understand this shit, this is cool."

Plus, if it's a series broken down by subject, the sales would be greater. Not only would people be more likely to buy a book on a specific subject than one that contained that subject and a shitload of others (and was the size of a phonebook), but you'd also make more off of selling multiple books anyway. You always gotta consider the profits.

[Darth Wong]

Mind you, you don't want to give nerds the impression that they actually understand the subject matter in any serious way. All the books would give them is the ability to write fiction in a manner that doesn't induce howls of derision and laughter from anyone who knows what he's talking about.

How many people thought they understood the principle of entropy (or plenty of other physics concepts) just because they read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"?

[scottlowther]

Mind you, you don't want to give nerds the impression that they actually understand the subject matter in any serious way. All the books would give them is the ability to write fiction in a manner that doesn't induce howls of derision and laughter from anyone who knows what he's talking about.

Let's face it: in order to really accomplish that, the series of books would have to include:
1) Spacecraft Design
2) AI Design, Capabilities and Utilization
3) Nanotechnology: Facts and Falacies
4) "Theory =/= Wild-Ass Guess:" Your Guide To What Science Really Is
5) Girls: Theory and Practice

[adam_grif]

Mind you, you don't want to give nerds the impression that they actually understand the subject matter in any serious way. All the books would give them is the ability to write fiction in a manner that doesn't induce howls of derision and laughter from anyone who knows what he's talking about.

How many people thought they understood the principle of entropy (or plenty of other physics concepts) just because they read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time"?

Let's be honest. It can't be a step back from the people whose experience with Science comes from watching Trek or playing Halo. I agree it's no substitute for an actual education in the matters, but it's better than the current situation.

Preparing the necessary components of a hard SciFi setting into an accessible format for the layman allows people who don't have the necessary science background to tell stories in hard SciFi settings in the same way that a level editor allows people with no coding and mapping experience to create levels for a game.

[Darth Wong]

Mind you, you don't want to give nerds the impression that they actually understand the subject matter in any serious way. All the books would give them is the ability to write fiction in a manner that doesn't induce howls of derision and laughter from anyone who knows what he's talking about.

Let's face it: in order to really accomplish that, the series of books would have to include:
1) Spacecraft Design
2) AI Design, Capabilities and Utilization
3) Nanotechnology: Facts and Falacies
4) "Theory =/= Wild-Ass Guess:" Your Guide To What Science Really Is
5) Girls: Theory and Practice

Ha ha, that last one made me laugh out loud. The next thing you know, you'll be trying to explain to them why hentai characters are actually not realistic portrayals of women.

Having dealt with plenty of young-Earth creationists who honestly think cavemen romped with dinosaurs, I can't bring myself to laugh at that second-last one. It's too realistically accurate.

[adam_grif]

Having dealt with plenty of young-Earth creationists who honestly think cavemen romped with dinosaurs, I can't bring myself to laugh at that second-last one. It's too realistically accurate.

I spent the better part of 2009 stomping on the fuckers at, of all places, GameTrailers.com messageboards. You'd think a videogaming site would be safe, but there were swarms of them. Most of the high profile ones left eventually when it became clear that even the majority of the Christians there were rejecting their idiocy. For some reason the Muslims were the worst in that I only met two of them who claimed they "believed in evolution" (I hate it how they try to frame it as though it's just a competing religion or some shit), and both of them were secretly trying to undermine it by posting things like "Now I support evolution, but you have to admit that the eye is too complex to have evolved naturally..." and so on.

Excuse me, I have to go cry in a corner for a while.

[Razaekel]

The thing is, I want this book to be something akin to the rocket-science equivalent of Dan Raymer's "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach," in that the educated and enthusiastic layman could use it to not only design Neato Sci-Fi Stuff, but actual launch vehicles and spacecraft, at least to the preliminary level.

If I were an easily excitable person, I would say that this statement officially makes the book AWESOME, but I'm not so I'll save it for somebody who is. How in-depth do you plan to get into the details of the systems that you'll be describing in the book? a general layman's overview, with some details for the more engineering inclined types, or all the way to the nuts and bolts of actually designing and building the system?

[Darth Wong]

The thing is, I want this book to be something akin to the rocket-science equivalent of Dan Raymer's "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach," in that the educated and enthusiastic layman could use it to not only design Neato Sci-Fi Stuff, but actual launch vehicles and spacecraft, at least to the preliminary level.

If I were an easily excitable person, I would say that this statement officially makes the book AWESOME, but I'm not so I'll save it for somebody who is. How in-depth do you plan to get into the details of the systems that you'll be describing in the book? a general layman's overview, with some details for the more engineering inclined types, or all the way to the nuts and bolts of actually designing and building the system?

That depends on what you mean by "nuts and bolts". Hobbyist-level understanding involves the ability to make something which sort of works, whereas real design involves lots of numbers and calculations and exotic parts and complexity. Think of a hobby rocket compared to a NASA rocket.

[Ford Prefect]

For what it's worth, I'd totally get your book. Atomic Rockets is great (and the 'Destruction' page on the main board is an interesting read too), but it's always nice to have another reference (especially in book form). I quite enjoy the 'layman's rocket science', in part because it makes feel intellectually superior even when writing giant robot punching. More seriously, everyone could stand to learn some rudimentary rocket science.

[Teleros]

Wouldn't mind getting this as well, sounds like a good idea .

[scottlowther]

How in-depth do you plan to get into the details of the systems that you'll be describing in the book? a general layman's overview, with some details for the more engineering inclined types, or all the way to the nuts and bolts of actually designing and building the system?

That depends on what you mean by "nuts and bolts". Hobbyist-level understanding involves the ability to make something which sort of works, whereas real design involves lots of numbers and calculations and exotic parts and complexity. Think of a hobby rocket compared to a NASA rocket.

For reasons of pure practicality, it'd have to be a bit on the lower end of detail. A book that would truly decribe the processes involved in designing even a simple unmanned launch vehicle would be a monster, and would bore the reading public to sobs. The science fictional aspects of the book would wind up being a small appendix at the back.

Still, by the time you've read my book, you'll be able to make a preliminary design of all manner of launch vehicles and spacecraft, and you'll know the whichness of the whys for them. You'll know why "winged vs vertical powered lander" is the aerospace equivalent of "Kirk vs Picard," and why "to be affordable it's gotta be winged and powered by scramjets" is bunk.

[scottlowther]

The next thing you know, you'll be trying to explain to them why hentai characters are actually not realistic portrayals of women.

They're not?

[scottlowther]

... I'm a passably good draftsman. See the diagrams I'm working on to complement Paul Suhlers book on the development of the SR-71, "From RAINBOW to GUSTO." http://up-ship.com/blog/?cat=41

Speaking of which, the latest update: the Lockheed A-5, drawn 1958.
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=5435

[Coalition]

For reasons of pure practicality, it'd have to be a bit on the lower end of detail. A book that would truly decribe the processes involved in designing even a simple unmanned launch vehicle would be a monster, and would bore the reading public to sobs. The science fictional aspects of the book would wind up being a small appendix at the back.

One book I enjoyed, about designing a commercially viable rocket (fiction, unfortunately) was The Rocket Company.

They talked about how they decided to go with selling the launch vehicle, rather than selling launch access. The basic phrase would be "for a quarter of a billion, you too can have space access". The library was organized according to what was needed for the first stage separate from what was needed for second stage.

Similar for the production lines, where the first stage (who cares about weight, just keep costs low) was kept separate from the second stage (each pound is critical, pay more for lighter mass).

They also talked about how they had to stay off the 'radar' of the larger aerospace companies, to avoid any competition. They basically 'advertised' their launch vehicle as 'we can take one ton to orbit, as long as it fits within a very specific set of criteria'.

The book was enjoyable, to me.

[scottlowther]

the first stage (who cares about weight, just keep costs low) was kept separate from the second stage (each pound is critical, pay more for lighter mass).

This is the basic truth of two-stage launch vehicles. The first stage should be a beast, the upper stage a delicate flower. Consequently, you want your first stage as capable as possible, to reducethe requirements for the second. And if at all possible, don't work towards making the first stage as advanced as possible.. instead make the second as low-tech as possible.

First stages will almost invariably stage somewhere around Mach 5 to Mach 7-ish. Those speeds are low enough that the thermal protection requirements can be approximately nil. Conversely, coming in from orbit will *always* be thermally entertaining. The consequnece of these is that the first stage is necessarily more recoverable than the second. Designs that devote all the effort towards second stage recovery at the expense of first are damned silly, excepting manned vehicles.

[RedImperator]

Conversely, coming in from orbit will *always* be thermally entertaining.

Please tell me your posting style is similar to your writing style.

[scottlowther]

Conversely, coming in from orbit will *always* be thermally entertaining.

Please tell me your posting style is similar to your writing style.

Generally, except when writing for employers and such (which, perhaps sadly, has not been an issue for a while), as a report on a prediction of the ballistic performance of a forthcoming Shuttle RSRM does not lend itself to "personality." Only major difference between my online posting style and my writing style for Aerospace Projects Review and the Spacecraft Design book and the like is the use of a spell checker, which leads to a slight reduction in slepping errors.

Now, if'n y'all want bad writing, I could break out some of my actual science fiction.

Shudder.

[Stofsk]

I really like the idea that you're giving attention to a number of different design formats (ie what exists today and can be built today, versus what is 'over the horizon' versus what's more fantastical and handwavy). It sounds really interesting and I'd buy a copy if you wrote it.