Skip to main content

How Space Physics Really Works - Andrew May ****

This slim book has the appealing premise of looking at the basics of space physics, from gravity through rocket science to the nature of a vacuum, by using examples from 'well-constructed science fiction'. We are not talking about the typical movie or lightweight SF novel here, but rather the work of 'hard' science writers - most notably Arthur C. Clarke and Andy Weir (not to mention astronaut-turned-author Chris Hadfield). Andrew May uses extensive quotes from such authors showing how the real physics of getting into space and living away from the Earth is significantly different from the Hollywood version.

Things start off with Jules Verne and his two Moon novels. May admits that Verne had to wildly fudge things over getting into space, using a cannon that would have mashed the occupants, but apart from that, Verne did his best to stick to the science as much as was known at the time, for example even putting in an equation giving a rough calculation for escape velocity. (Arguably not a great way to write great fiction - but at least it showed Verne cared.)

From there we get lots of examples where key writers have highlighted the realities of being in space, often before it had been practically achieved. Clarke famously prefigured the idea of using geostationary satellites (apparently cursing himself for not patenting the concept), but there is far more, from the approach taken to being in high gravity, or generating artificial gravity, to the problems involved in intercepting a spacecraft and what's necessary for survival in space. This is all entertainingly presented and both a great introduction to the basics of the physics involved in space travel and also an interesting history of the more reality-based aspects of science fiction.

My only real criticism is that I would have liked to have seen more details of the bad physics in science fiction movies and stories. May sticks most of the time (apart, for example, for criticising the way spacecraft turn in Star Wars) to when science fiction gets it right. One issue with this is that it does mean he has relatively few sources - there was too much reliance, for example, on Weir's Project Hail Mary which sometimes seemed to turn up every other page - and I missed the opportunity to poke fun at Hollywood getting it wrong. For example, I love the way people ejected into space are often shown freezing almost instantly (where in reality a vacuum is a good insulator - think vacuum flasks) or even, as in the original Total Recall, shown people inflating and exploding when in low pressure. The bad examples can make for a more memorable illustration.

Providing more illustration of errors might have made it a bit more fun, but it's still a great read both for those who enjoy science fiction (or want to write it) and those wanting to know a little more of the realities of potential life in space.

Paperback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re