Talk:Space Transport and Engineering Methods

Origin of This Wikibook
This wikibook was originated as a port of the "Canonical List of Space Transportation and Engineering Methods" by Dani Eder (wiki account Danielravennest). The latest version I had prepared of that document (version 0.79, 26 July 2001) was on Geocities. A saved copy can be found at oocities.org

I worked for Boeing for 24 years on space related projects. Over the years I accumulated a lot of information on space propulsion and development. I started keeping a list of references organized by topic, which grew into the above document. As the internet developed, it was posted at various times, eventually ending up as a geocities web page.

An article entitled "60 Ways to Leave Your Planet" by W. Dan Leonard appeared in "Final Frontier" magazine about the list (May/June 1990, page 42).

I hope in this wikibook form it can develop further into a useful reference. Danielravennest (discuss • contribs) 05:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Status

 * Initial Outline Progress

Based on age of the original Canonical List from which this book originated, other documents I plan to merge, and amount of text in the various sections, I estimated progress towards an "initial outline" to be:


 * text completion: 25% @ 4 March 2012 - illustrations, tables, and scanned media: 1%, references and notes: 4%
 * text completion: 37% @ 14 March 2012
 * text completion: 45% @ 24 March 2012
 * text completion: 60% @ 6 April 2012
 * text completion: 80% @ 23 April 2012
 * Text completion: 100% @ 16 May 2012.

Initial outline meant the structure of the book was complete, and many sections had some level of text completion, but there are still significant holes. From this point the goal was to add more illustrations and references, fill holes, and improve the text and presentation. Danielravennest (discuss • contribs) 02:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First Draft Progress

First draft means all the book sections have substantial text, and supporting works (technical papers, design studies, spreadsheets) are partially done. Quantity is not a substitute for quality, but I have set a target of 500 equivalent pages of 500 words each as "textbook length", or 250,000 words x 6 bytes/word average. I have also arbitrarily set a goal of 1 link/reference per 200 words and 1 graphic (table, illustrations, and similar) per 1000 words. This just lets me keep track of progress as I work on my contributions. Based on those targets, the status was:


 * 16 May 2012: Text 40%, Graphics and References not yet counted
 * 05 Jul 2012: Text 52%, Graphics 8%, References 28%
 * 02 Sep 2012: Text 60%, Graphics 10%, References 47%
 * 08 Jan 2013: Text 93%, Graphics 8%, References 37% (graphics and references percentage regressed because they are relative to a larger text base)

Danielravennest (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge
I see no reason to repeat the description of every kind of rocket in 2 different places. I see 2 ways to avoid this unnecessary repetition:
 * (a) I suggest merging the entire book Rocket Propulsion into Space Transport and Engineering Methods, creating one huge book. Or,
 * (b) Pull all the "rocket propulsion stuff" out of the "Space Transport and Engineering Methods" book and put it in the "Rocket Propulsion" book, leaving 2 books: "Space Transport and Engineering Methods (except for rocket propulsion)" and "Rocket Propulsion".

I'm leaning towards (a), but you may be able to convince me to do (b). --DavidCary (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge Progress

Merge complete. How do we review the merge and then delete the other book?


 * I have posted a partial answer on David's talk. A simple review is made by the acting administrator (but only on the use of the content not a real quality assessment) as you tag the pages with the now merged tag you provide the destination page indication that is probably missing on your edit comments.
 * I've looked at the last ones and have only a merge indication (not the source), not a major issue but makes a second person to fallow and do a review extremely complex if only working on them. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding content
Shouldn't content that is not about space transport and it's engineering methods be moved to other works. I noticed that there are some sections covering colonization and prolonged stays, even terraforming considerations that would be best merged into Colonizing Outer Space. Any views on this (not urgent) but it seems that the material may be missed under the current title and/or duplicated on the other work. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The book title means 'Space Transport Methods' + 'Space Engineering Methods' as distinct topics with one part of the book dedicated to each. Colloquially the first is how you get there, and the second is what you do once you are there.  As the Introduction makes clear, you cannot consider them in isolation.  A vehicle is no use without a refueling station, for example, or a space colony is of no use if you don't have a way to get people there.  The Combined Systems section then gives an extended example of how you put the pieces together, including calculations, to make a logical sequence.  I know the book has holes, like illustrations are pretty much non-existent, but I hope that clarifies the direction I was heading in. Danielravennest (discuss • contribs) 00:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Then renaming of this work to something like Exploring/Understanding/A look into/Past and Future of/etc Space Engineering (something that doesn't define or limit the scope) and merging Colonizing Outer Space may seem in order no ?
 * In regards to Transport and Colonization I do not see them as strongly connected but do in regards to Engineering. When we discuss future colonization efforts (specifically) we need to cover not only engineering matters but social, political, economical and even architectural and cultural aspects.
 * Transportation is only relevant until an optimal solution to the different requirements is found after that technologies will compete more on economical costs and trip time then in specifically Engineering concerns. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was referring specifically the content in chapter 4 section 9,10,11 and 12. Except a brief requirement to cover future transport methodologies (that is already present in the other book) all content has little to do with Engineering (being Engineering a precises application of science for the creation and application of reproducible methodologies,processes and systems). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that colonization is a much wider topic. Looking historically, colonizing the New World (Americas) involved all those aspects you mentioned. What kind of ships they used and what tools were brought along is only a small part of the story, and I didn't intend to cover all aspects of colonization. MIT calls the field I intended to cover "Space Systems Engineering", so I would be OK with that for a title. I note, however, that engineers design things for other people, and analyzing what it is they want (requirements analysis) is part of the process which cannot be ignored. So for example if you set the problem as "design a transportation system to support a Mars Colony", you then have to ask how many people, when do they get there, and how self-sufficient they are. That last item affects how much you need to transport. So to find the optimum solution you have to consider the Mars greenhouses as well as what kind of engine is on your rocket. That sort of "looking at the whole problem" is what Systems Engineers do, and what I did as a systems engineer at Boeing's space division.  For now, I just want to finish writing the content.  What title to put on it and how it's organized can come later.


 * I'm not pressing the issue since I was mainly doing small maintenance on the Colonizing Outer Space even if I have an appetency for the subject. The points I was calling attention is that I felt there was a minor collision between the works on the later chapters and that those did not really seem well fitted for the subject matter covered in the rest of the book.
 * I take your point about mission designs but reading the work so far one is given the idea that mission designs should tendentiously evolve to be more generic and avoid being target specific (as much as they can) this not only reduces costs ans eases planing and even avoids errors in the supply chain. We can revisit the subject later and look in more detail if colonization issues can be reduced here (linking to the other work that is specially focused in that) the same can also be done on the other work on the section that are best covered here (they should if separated complement each-other).
 * I do believe that a rename would improve readers placing the book into its scope, and agree that the subject of rename is also not pressing at the moment and could be done later on, but we seem to agree that it would be an improvement.
 * I also make a minor personal comment. I disagree with the notion that "engineers design things for other people". Engineers tend mostly to design things for other engineers :) Only the most basic of system and process engineering can be comprehended by one that is not initiated in the not so mysterious processes of science, physics, mathematics and logic. We live in an age that is marked by reaching the pinnacle of demographics, yet these marvelous knowledges are by most seen as arcane and unnecessary... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Cover Picture
Rather than a photo of the Space Station, which is a past project, I think a future project representative of the contents of the book would be better. Something like a Lunar surface base illustration, with mining rovers, a structure being assembled, and a rocket vehicle. For now the ISS photo is OK as a place holder. Danielravennest (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Some ideas
I particular would like this project more focused, but there are some aspects that could benefit what is covered information about how to deal with engine vibration and heat and radiation shielding in all areas, would be interesting to have some coverage. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)