Skip to main content

Catching Stardust - Natalie Starkey ***

It is a truth universally acknowledged that geology is by far the hardest topic to make interesting in popular science. We're fine when it comes to stories of some of the characters of geological history, but as far as the geology itself, it's difficult to get excited. So what better way to raise the interest levels than to move your geology* into space? This is what Natalie Starkey does in Catching Stardust. But does it work?

The main focus of Catching Stardust is comets and asteroids. What they are, where they came from, what they're made of (lots about what they're made of) and their (literal) impact on Earth from potentially supplying water and amino acids to the destruction of the dinosaurs to the possibility of us getting a major strike in the future and what we could do to prevent it.

There's certainly plenty to interest us here, and though the focus is primarily on those space objects, Starkey gives us a fair amount on how the Earth and the Moon formed - in fact, the whole solar system - not limiting the content to asteroids and comets. In doing so, she introduced the most tautly stretched analogy I've come across in a long while. The solar system is compared to a city 'with the different parts of it as neighbourhoods.' It's difficult to see how this analogy helps understand anything, especially when we read, for example that before the planets formed the solar system was a swirling cloud of gas and dust: 'If we want to draw on the Solar-System-as-a-city metaphor here, we can think of this as the peaceful and luscious green countryside existing before our metropolis was built.' Well, not only does a swirling cloud of gas and dust have a limited resemblance to anything green and lush, the metropolis isn't made out of grass. The approach doesn't help, but luckily it peters out after a while.

Where Starkey is at her best is when she is talking about space technology. For example, her description of the use of dust collectors at high altitude to collect space dust, of the various missions to asteroids and comets (who could forget plucky Philae?) and in considering the possibilities and pitfalls of space mining. In these sections, the writing really comes alive.

Unfortunately, more than half the book focuses on the geological aspects of asteroids and comets and the Earth and so forth. And, sadly, here the curse of geological popular science is fulfilled. It is tough going, not helped by an overload of the academic tendency to want to be very precise and give lots of details that don't help get the story across. These sections simply lack any narrative drive - there's little to latch onto if you don't have an abiding interest in geology.

This lack of storytelling is compounded by the way information is put across. Take a section where Starkey spends a couple of pages talking about the way labs work. Useful for us to know, but described in far too general terms. So we get: 'There are many, many possibilities for the further analysis of IDPs [interplanetary dust particles - she uses acronyms a lot], depending on what exactly needs to be investigated to answer the scientists' queries.... The work a scientist can achieve is usually very much dependent on the budget constraints of the laboratory they work in, as this controls what scientific equipment is available to them... When a scientist establishes that further laboratory investigations are required on a sample, for instance to test a new hypothesis, but they don't have the right equipment available in their laboratory to carry them out, they will often aim to collaborate with other scientists...' It feels more like an undergraduate essay than a book.

If comets and asteroids are of interest to you, I don't want to put you off. You will certainly gain a considerable amount of knowledge from Catching Stardust. But the NASA representative who describes this as an 'action-packed narrative' on the back needs to get out more.

* Strictly, since 'geology' is literally about the Earth, this is probably an oxymoron.

Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you


Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...