#3 – Perhaps there is a dearth of well-known sci-fi authors that are as astronomically accurate as the project expects, although it does mention they’re “award winning authors”.
I have been reading the stories since sci-fi notoriety has never been a criteria of mine. There are more one-hit-wonders in literature than there are in music and (with apologies to roses) a good story is a good story by any author.

And maybe, just maybe, that human quantum field theory student might learn a little something about transformation properties of continuous random tensor field verification along the way too.

When I read scifi that has things like interstellar travel that doesn’t take decades or centuries or consciousnesses being moved around without any debate over if that is the same person or not, I get taken out of the story because I don’t find it plausible. I can overcome that and enjoy it despite that but I’d rather have scifi be much more plausible.

Doubtful.
;)

Think about it for a few trillion nano-seconds. If we agree that [1] sci-fi is based upon upon the sciences, and if we agree that [2] we humans of today collectively do not know everything there is to know about the various sciences (including their interactions), and if we agree that [3] human sci-fi authors are reflecting a contemporary human knowledge of science (and of course, humans) in their writings, then scientific plausibility – not accuracy – is the key to a good science fiction story.

Is Star Trek‘s warp drive scientifically accurate? Hardly. But is it plausible? Sure. Can a person’s memories (as a combination of biological, chemical, electrical, and/or other components) be transferred to a computer and then restored into that person’s clone? Uhm, doubt it. But is it plausible? Sure.

Yes, there have been great science fiction tales that have been based upon science, that have even predicted scientific achievements (think Arthur C. Clarke). And yes, there has been some distinct cross pollination between fantasy and sci-fi in many areas that border on several sciences (think psychology or parapsychology, biology or exobiology). But no, if what we read is not scientifically plausible in the universe the writer creates for us it’s not science fiction (think disconcerting, perhaps).

Therefore I repeat: Scientific Plausibility trumps Scientific Accuracy in science fiction.

If this is the book I think it is, it has been published as a Print on Demand Title. Retail Bookstores are anathema to carry any Print on Demand titles, as there is no return credits. It languishes forever unsold (if unbought) until it is clearanced out at a loss.

Not only has it been published so, it has been done so BADLY.
Whoever formatted the text, layed it out, created a PDF for a 6 x 9 page, which was printed, as most Print on Demand Titles are, on an 81/2 x 11 page.

AND
each page has the word Copywrite 2008 (or 2009) at the top of each page.

That is not protecting it for copyright (copyRIGHT) purposes when you have a big honking TYPO as your legal notice on each page.

However, with the white space, astronomers could use the huge margins as note paper.

This is not lulu.coms fault that the book was designed SO poorly, it is the eagerness and incompetence of the editors.

Maybe I saw a rare first pressing however.

In either case, someone who KNOWS what they are doing should REALLY publish the book, properly formatted, with return credit, so it can be distributed physically. TOR or someone.

Print On Demand is a technology that really has not met its potential in the least, and has merely become an overpriced vanity press for the ignorant, in most cases, or a price gouging scheme for public domain works, from imprints such as Kessinger. There are some good titles at Lulu.com though.