Post by Kiwi on Sept 27, 2005 13:27:33 GMT -4
The following paragraph is very confusing and flowery, with repetition, superfluous words and typos. KISS. Needs a drastic rewrite. Beginners are not going to easily follow the distinction between a rocket and a rocket engine -- even I got confused. Talk about them separately, not both mixed together.
With the development of the Rocketdyne's - delete the possessive, OR delete "the" which means one less word S-3 rocket engine in late 1955, von Braun used it to - delete in his work for the Army He was with Rocketdyne AND/OR the army? to develpop their new the Jupiter Rocket in 1956, as well as working on plans for an improved Jupiter rocket, the JunoWorking on it, or on just plans for it? Confusing. Once more though, von Braun was looking to space wasn't he always? and when the Soviets launched Sputnik on 4th October, 1957, and the US Senate created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 1958, the Americans began taking the Space Race seriously In '57 or '58. Hadn't they already? The paragraph started in '55., but they were losing it. Messy because: Yet the race had only just begun being behind right at the beginning doesn't mean losing and von Braun still had an ace to play Sounds like he had been kicked out, or was about to be. Not explained. He and his team at the Army Ballistic Missile Agency had been working on a new -- superfluous larger version of the Juno Jupiter, according to above rocket already said that above, and with development of the an improved version of Rocketdyne's S-3D rocket engine more repetition called the H-1, they were able a cluster / he clustered eight of them together to find the 1.5 million lbs thrust powerhouse - superfluous required to lift it The Juno or the Jupiter?. The Saturn I Aaargh! S-3, Jupiter, Juno, H-1, Saturn – which is it? Where are we? Very confusing was ready to make its appearance onto the stage - what stage? Superfluous.
This last one and the following paragraphs are not chronological, going NASA-NACA-NASA-NACA-NASA. Confusing.
America was on its way to the Moon.
Like a typical Kiwi, I'm being blunt, non-PC, and forgetting time-wasting niceties. The same way I want people to criticise my work. Much prefer them rubbishing everything they possibly can instead of patting me on the back and saying "It's very nice," when I know it's not.
I think your pages are going to be much too long. HBs need their teeny-weeny sound bites, so will read for ten minutes and say "Stuff all this..." and leave. Remember that Margamatix said that he found nothing convincing at Clavius, which to those of us who know it well is rather amazing. There, we are brilliantly taught by the best teacher I've ever known in this medium, yet Marg couldn't follow anything. Poor guy.
Separate basics from the detail.
I'd suggest you do it like the best camera manuals I read in the 70s and 80s, written by Canon. They wrote the basics first so you could take a picture quickly, then followed it up with the detailed stuff in very plain and accurate language.
Bold each important point.
With technical matters it's best to make a brief statement in bold type then back it up with the detail (like I've done here), but write it in such a way that someone can just skim all the bolded stuff to get the message without having to study the detail if they don't want to. If they're intrigued enough, they will read at least some of the detail.
As it looks like there's going to be a lot of reading you could spell out at the beginning that you've done this. Many websites provide links to the detail, but I don't think that works as well. Better to write as if it's on paper and make a big distinction between the guts of the story and the detail.
If you like, PM me with your email address and I'll send you suggested revisions which you can adopt or ignore as you please.
With the development of the Rocketdyne's - delete the possessive, OR delete "the" which means one less word S-3 rocket engine in late 1955, von Braun used it to - delete in his work for the Army He was with Rocketdyne AND/OR the army? to develpop their new the Jupiter Rocket in 1956, as well as working on plans for an improved Jupiter rocket, the JunoWorking on it, or on just plans for it? Confusing. Once more though, von Braun was looking to space wasn't he always? and when the Soviets launched Sputnik on 4th October, 1957, and the US Senate created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in 1958, the Americans began taking the Space Race seriously In '57 or '58. Hadn't they already? The paragraph started in '55., but they were losing it. Messy because: Yet the race had only just begun being behind right at the beginning doesn't mean losing and von Braun still had an ace to play Sounds like he had been kicked out, or was about to be. Not explained. He and his team at the Army Ballistic Missile Agency had been working on a new -- superfluous larger version of the Juno Jupiter, according to above rocket already said that above, and with development of the an improved version of Rocketdyne's S-3D rocket engine more repetition called the H-1, they were able a cluster / he clustered eight of them together to find the 1.5 million lbs thrust powerhouse - superfluous required to lift it The Juno or the Jupiter?. The Saturn I Aaargh! S-3, Jupiter, Juno, H-1, Saturn – which is it? Where are we? Very confusing was ready to make its appearance onto the stage - what stage? Superfluous.
This last one and the following paragraphs are not chronological, going NASA-NACA-NASA-NACA-NASA. Confusing.
America was on its way to the Moon.
Like a typical Kiwi, I'm being blunt, non-PC, and forgetting time-wasting niceties. The same way I want people to criticise my work. Much prefer them rubbishing everything they possibly can instead of patting me on the back and saying "It's very nice," when I know it's not.
I think your pages are going to be much too long. HBs need their teeny-weeny sound bites, so will read for ten minutes and say "Stuff all this..." and leave. Remember that Margamatix said that he found nothing convincing at Clavius, which to those of us who know it well is rather amazing. There, we are brilliantly taught by the best teacher I've ever known in this medium, yet Marg couldn't follow anything. Poor guy.
Separate basics from the detail.
I'd suggest you do it like the best camera manuals I read in the 70s and 80s, written by Canon. They wrote the basics first so you could take a picture quickly, then followed it up with the detailed stuff in very plain and accurate language.
Bold each important point.
With technical matters it's best to make a brief statement in bold type then back it up with the detail (like I've done here), but write it in such a way that someone can just skim all the bolded stuff to get the message without having to study the detail if they don't want to. If they're intrigued enough, they will read at least some of the detail.
As it looks like there's going to be a lot of reading you could spell out at the beginning that you've done this. Many websites provide links to the detail, but I don't think that works as well. Better to write as if it's on paper and make a big distinction between the guts of the story and the detail.
If you like, PM me with your email address and I'll send you suggested revisions which you can adopt or ignore as you please.