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

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...