I think that I understand the starting point for ideas in this forum: a writer has a story concept that involves humans creating or reacting to a major engineering achievement. I say engineering rather than scientific, because the focus of this group is on projects that, given the right social and economic support, could be achieved within twenty years. Then the engineers, if sufficiently enthused, offer plans and consulting that the writer can use – as suits their plot – to improve the technical reality of the story. I suppose that engineers could propose projects and hope that writers will be enthused enough to create stories about them, but writer instigation seems more likely.
So much for beginnings; but I have a question about endings. What is the goal? Is it the publication of fictional work that can inspire an upcoming generation of innovators and investors? Or is it, in conjunction with writing the story, to rigorously prove feasibility, to create a plan that could be seriously presented to a corporate board as a case for taking the risk of launching a major engineering project? It could be argued (as an example) that Professor Hjelmstad’s tall tower paper is rigorous in the sense that, within the context of specified caveats, that paper provides a logical, self-consistent argument. But, as that same paper also notes, “the issue of connecting the members together will start to emerge as one of the key engineering tasks (if not the key engineering task).” I agree. And it will emerge as the key manufacturing cost as well. So, is it part of the mandate to design the joints? Is it part of the mandate to send out drawings to vendors and collect cost estimates?
More succinctly, is the focus of this group the story, or the project? For the writer, it’s the story. But I’m asking about the forum as a whole. It’s not as though one answer is better than the other. But understanding what the forum founders had in mind will influence how I interact.
