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
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more