Skip to main content

How to Kill an Asteroid – Robin George Andrews ***

The cover image and title font leave little doubt that this book is targeted at fans of blockbuster sci-fi movies – which these days means a sizable fraction of the general population. That’s a great marketing ploy, because if potential readers paid too much attention to the words ‘real science’ tucked away in the subtitle, then the audience might shrink to a small fraction of the size. It’s a sad fact that space is only seen as cool when it’s fictional; as soon as it becomes factual then it’s strictly for science nerds only.

The most obvious reason is that, outside science fiction, there’s barely any ‘human interest’ angle to space. On top of that, once you get above the Earth’s atmosphere, it’s almost impossible to give a proper explanation of how objects behave and interact without recourse to at least GCSE-level physics. So I have to give Andrews top marks for avoiding both these pitfalls. He picks the one astronomical topic that really does have a human angle – a potential collision with a ‘city-killer’ asteroid, as he terms it. That’s something that’s bound to happen in the – well, in the next ten thousand years, say (but let’s not emphasise ‘astronomical’ numbers like this too much, or people might not buy the book).

As for the second problem – ‘don’t mention physics or you’ll lose most of your readers’ – Andrews does a pretty good job there too, by taking a purely narrative rather than explanatory approach. He focuses on describing events – including how a hypothetical future collision might play out, as well as historical occurrences such as the Tunguska and Chelyabinsk impacts, and comet Shoemaker-Levy’s 1994 encounter with Jupiter – and a handful of recent asteroid-related space missions. Most relevant to the subject of ‘How to Kill an Asteroid’ is NASA’s Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART), which Andrews provides a detailed first-hand account of, but he also touches on the Hayabusa and OSIRIS-Rex sample-collection missions, with their revelations about asteroid composition. The result, I suspect, is pretty much what that core audience of sci-fi movie addicts will be looking for – and while it’s not quite the ‘propulsive narrative that reads like a sci-fi thriller’ promised by the publisher’s blurb, it certainly flows smoothly enough and is a quick and effortless read.

There’s a downside, though, in that by studiously ignoring the physics of the subject, Andrews may leave his more scientifically inclined readers with a lot of unanswered questions. So if you want a detailed insight into how asteroids – and potential defences against them – really work, you might want to look for a more sciencey, less journalistic book. On the other hand, if all you want is a broad overview of the subject, this is as good as any.

[The reviewer is too modest to make the suggestion, but if you’d like a ‘more sciencey, less journalistic’ book, you could try Andrew May’s Cosmic Impact - Ed.]

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Review by Andrew May - See all our 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