Skip to main content

A City on Mars - Kelly and Zach Weinersmith ****

The subtitle of this book contains an important question when talking about settling space: 'Have we really thought this through?' - and in around 400 pages this key question is answered with an extremely thorough 'No way.' The Weinersmiths (as they refer to themselves) hammer many nails into the coffin of the science fictional idea that space is in some ways comparable to the kind of frontiers that were historically crossed on Earth. I was always aware that the obstacles were huge, but this book makes clear just how overwhelmingly enormous they are - and how many of them are pretty much ignored by enthusiasts for settling on the Moon, on Mars or in space habitats.

One topic the Weinersmiths cover in depth is the geopolitics of space, saying pretty well everyone ignores it. Admittedly, there has been a significant book this year dedicated to it (The Future of Geography/Astropolitics by Tim Marshall), but, that apart, the legal pitfalls and how nations will react to any attempts to settle space tend to be ignored. Here we get it analysed in depth with useful comparisons to Antarctica and the deep sea bed and what has happened there.

Similarly, the Weinersmiths give us plenty on the sociological, biological and agricultural aspects of living on the Moon, Mars or in space habitats. It's quite shocking how little we understand about these essential topics, given they will make the difference between life and death for any settlers. As the authors point out, what is spent on the International Space Station (which tells us almost nothing about living in a space settlement both because stays are too short and microgravity is not the same as being on a lower gravity planet or moon) would fund about 500 major experiments to try to find out more about those subjects. Can humans safely give birth and raise children in reduced gravity? Can we grow food on Mars, with poisonous soil, radiation and reduced sunlight? How will groups of people fare in a location where there can be no outside assistance in less than months if (or, rather, when) something goes wrong? And much more.

There is no doubt that the Weinersmiths have put in a huge amount of research into the topics they cover at length. The content can be a little repetitive - they don't so much make a point as drive it home with a sledgehammer. This is supposed to be lightened by the book's humour - but, to be honest, I find the cartoons included uninspiring and much of the humour weak. Author Andy Weir describes the book as 'Funny as hell' on the cover - I did wonder if it should have been a sarcastic 'Funny as Hell' with a capital H. There is also far too much information dumping, with insufficient narrative. Even what promises to be a good story about penguins and Nazis, for example, proves a big let down.

There's no doubt that the book is hugely informative, though. It should be enforced reading for anyone working in space agencies, for governments that deal with space, for journalists who overhype the possibilities, and for the many enthusiasts (space geeks, as they are called here), including certain tech billionaires, who are convinced that humans will soon be living off Earth and who tend to brush aside the economic, physical, biological, legal and other barriers. I don't doubt we will get visitors to the Moon and eventually Mars this century - but I am now far less hopeful for anything resembling the lunar/Martian colonies or vast space habitats suggested by the science fiction reading of my youth. It's more than a little depressing - but sometimes reality is.

Hardback:   
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

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more