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

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

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