A City On Mars
October 28, 2024 12:30 AM - Subscribe
Earth is not well. The promise of starting life anew somewhere far, far away—no climate change, no war, no Twitter—beckons, and settling the stars finally seems within our grasp. Or is it? Critically acclaimed, bestselling authors Kelly and Zach Weinersmith set out to write the essential guide to a glorious future of space settlements, but after years of research, they aren’t so sure it’s a good idea. Space technologies and space business are progressing fast, but we lack the knowledge needed to have space kids, build space farms, and create space nations in a way that doesn’t spark conflict back home. In a world hurtling toward human expansion into space, A City on Mars investigates whether the dream of new worlds won’t create nightmares, both for settlers and the people they leave behind. In the process, the Weinersmiths answer every question about space you’ve ever wondered about, and many you’ve never considered
From the bestselling authors of Soonish, a brilliant and hilarious off-world investigation into space settlement
Can you make babies in space? Should corporations govern space settlements? What about space war? Are we headed for a housing crisis on the Moon’s Peaks of Eternal Light—and what happens if you’re left in the Craters of Eternal Darkness? Why do astronauts love taco sauce? Speaking of meals, what’s the legal status of space cannibalism?
With deep expertise, a winning sense of humor, and art from the beloved creator of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, the Weinersmiths investigate perhaps the biggest questions humanity will ever ask itself—whether and how to become multiplanetary.
“Scientific, educational, and fun as hell.”
— Andy Weir, New York Times bestselling author of The Martian and Project Hail Mary
“There is simply no more engrossing, entertaining, or thorough way to understand the intense challenge of humanity's off-Earth future than A City on Mars. I LAUGHED THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH.”
— Hank Green, New York Times bestselling author of An Absolutely Remarkable Thing
“Listen up, humans. How to poop in space will be the least of our concerns. Herein are challenges most space-heads, including me, never even considered: not just technological, but legal, ethical, geopolitical. Despite the breadth and depth of research and some impressive near-wonk-level detail, this is a clear, lively, and hilarious read. Slam dunk, Weinersmiths!”
— Mary Roach, New York Times bestselling author of Fuzz and Packing for Mars
From the bestselling authors of Soonish, a brilliant and hilarious off-world investigation into space settlement
Can you make babies in space? Should corporations govern space settlements? What about space war? Are we headed for a housing crisis on the Moon’s Peaks of Eternal Light—and what happens if you’re left in the Craters of Eternal Darkness? Why do astronauts love taco sauce? Speaking of meals, what’s the legal status of space cannibalism?
With deep expertise, a winning sense of humor, and art from the beloved creator of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, the Weinersmiths investigate perhaps the biggest questions humanity will ever ask itself—whether and how to become multiplanetary.
“Scientific, educational, and fun as hell.”
— Andy Weir, New York Times bestselling author of The Martian and Project Hail Mary
“There is simply no more engrossing, entertaining, or thorough way to understand the intense challenge of humanity's off-Earth future than A City on Mars. I LAUGHED THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH.”
— Hank Green, New York Times bestselling author of An Absolutely Remarkable Thing
“Listen up, humans. How to poop in space will be the least of our concerns. Herein are challenges most space-heads, including me, never even considered: not just technological, but legal, ethical, geopolitical. Despite the breadth and depth of research and some impressive near-wonk-level detail, this is a clear, lively, and hilarious read. Slam dunk, Weinersmiths!”
— Mary Roach, New York Times bestselling author of Fuzz and Packing for Mars
It's a downer of a book if you're ready for our Star Trek future or even our Expanse futre, but it's always better to be armed with the facts, and doubly so when delivered in entertaining fashion. Recommend!
posted by stevis23 at 5:54 AM on October 28 [1 favorite]
posted by stevis23 at 5:54 AM on October 28 [1 favorite]
I liked it a lot. I hope it leads to a lot more support for uncrewed space exploration in the future. We’ve accomplished so much science on Mars with landers, rovers, orbiters, and a helicopter, for example, and the latest round of rovers are leaps and bounds more advanced than Sojourner. There’s basically no crewed mission that wouldn’t be better, faster, and more safely done by an equivalently budgeted set of robots. Pride and wish-fulfillment are pretty much the only motivators for crewed space exploration.
Even if we someday had cheap, reliable constant acceleration drives, it’d still make more sense to use them to send armies of increasingly capable robots rather than a few humans.
But instead we’ll probably keep wasting time and money on crewed flight because of the distortionary effects of the whims of a few billionaires, Musk and Bezos chief among them.
posted by jedicus at 10:47 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
Even if we someday had cheap, reliable constant acceleration drives, it’d still make more sense to use them to send armies of increasingly capable robots rather than a few humans.
But instead we’ll probably keep wasting time and money on crewed flight because of the distortionary effects of the whims of a few billionaires, Musk and Bezos chief among them.
posted by jedicus at 10:47 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
I've just ordered the book on the strength of this thread. Really looking forward to reading it.
posted by Paul Slade at 12:52 AM on October 29
posted by Paul Slade at 12:52 AM on October 29
There’s basically no crewed mission that wouldn’t be better, faster, and more safely done by an equivalently budgeted set of robots.
That's true, but only human-crewed flight can produce the drama needed to captivate public attention and support in a big way. Any kind of Government-funded programme in a democracy has to take that into account.
posted by Paul Slade at 12:57 AM on October 29
That's true, but only human-crewed flight can produce the drama needed to captivate public attention and support in a big way. Any kind of Government-funded programme in a democracy has to take that into account.
posted by Paul Slade at 12:57 AM on October 29
If that's true, Paul Slade, then the other imperative of space travel--to boldly go where our species has never gone before--is going to run into the hard limits of what is possible* not just with our current technology but what would be possible with any foreseeable feasible technology. Radiation exposure is a non-trivial factor there.
*AFAIK, it would be possible to do something like hollow out an asteroid that's big enough to provide an adequate amount of shielding, attach rockets to it, and fly around in that, but whether it's feasible considering the staggering cost of doing so is another matter. We may need to work on implementing Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism before we can consider that kind of space travel.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:45 AM on October 29
*AFAIK, it would be possible to do something like hollow out an asteroid that's big enough to provide an adequate amount of shielding, attach rockets to it, and fly around in that, but whether it's feasible considering the staggering cost of doing so is another matter. We may need to work on implementing Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism before we can consider that kind of space travel.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:45 AM on October 29
The problem with the idea of using a hollowed-out asteroid is that now it is now evident that the vast majority of larger asteroids are just conglomerations of rubble, not solid rocks.
posted by fimbulvetr at 6:16 AM on October 29 [2 favorites]
posted by fimbulvetr at 6:16 AM on October 29 [2 favorites]
I didn't like this very much. Sure it has some good info, but the target audience seems to be teenagers who find Andy Weir's "the Martian" to be great because of all the wise-cracking science stuff.
Fully a third of the book is dedicated to the legal obstacles of field that hasn't even been truly invented yet : space colonization. That's important, sure, but I'd rather have Carl Sagan's optimism than the doomerism I found here.
Space is hard. Those who have followed the space program from the sixties know that it was miraculous that we got to the moon in a decade, and likely will need a miracle to make that type of advancement happen again, but one thing that won't help is popularizing an attitude of "it's impossible".
posted by OHenryPacey at 7:09 AM on October 29 [1 favorite]
Fully a third of the book is dedicated to the legal obstacles of field that hasn't even been truly invented yet : space colonization. That's important, sure, but I'd rather have Carl Sagan's optimism than the doomerism I found here.
Space is hard. Those who have followed the space program from the sixties know that it was miraculous that we got to the moon in a decade, and likely will need a miracle to make that type of advancement happen again, but one thing that won't help is popularizing an attitude of "it's impossible".
posted by OHenryPacey at 7:09 AM on October 29 [1 favorite]
I heard about this book via an episode of Atlas Obscura. I’ve checked it out via Libby to read on my Kindle this week. Looking forward to reading it!
posted by Roger Pittman at 6:05 PM on October 29
posted by Roger Pittman at 6:05 PM on October 29
We may need to work on implementing Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism before we can consider that kind of space travel.
So just Fully Automated Luxury Gay Communism? I'm in!
posted by JohnFromGR at 3:45 AM on October 30 [3 favorites]
So just Fully Automated Luxury Gay Communism? I'm in!
posted by JohnFromGR at 3:45 AM on October 30 [3 favorites]
one thing that won't help is popularizing an attitude of "it's impossible".
The vibe I got from the book is definitely not, "it's impossible," and more, "it's not a good idea" (and beyond that, "it's not a good idea right now"). The whole point of diving into the legal framework issues is pointing out that without true global cooperation, or at least a globally accepted framework, trying to build permanent settlements in space leads to a higher risk of conflict here on Earth. That's true whether we get a technological miracle that protects us from space radiation and counteracts the effects of microgravity or not.
Like, I love the idea of space exploration. I think that an international research station on the moon is not only a good idea, but one that should happen; I think we should put human beings on Mars. Yes, robots are cheaper, but crewed missions are cool as hell. (Paul Slade, I'm interested in where you land on this after reading the book.)
Building a settlement, however, where people spend their entire lives on without returning to this biosphere is not worth the effort. And the problems aren't just technological (though "a leak in your cabin will kill you and replacement parts are six months away and cost more than the vast majority of people make in their entire lives" is a tough one to solve), but also social. Do you really want some tech billionaire to have the ability to park an asteroid in Earth orbit and miss? Do you want a nation-state to have that capability? The kinds of people excited to die on Mars are also the kinds of people you don't want in control of millions of joules of fuel.
posted by thecaddy at 6:45 AM on October 30 [1 favorite]
The vibe I got from the book is definitely not, "it's impossible," and more, "it's not a good idea" (and beyond that, "it's not a good idea right now"). The whole point of diving into the legal framework issues is pointing out that without true global cooperation, or at least a globally accepted framework, trying to build permanent settlements in space leads to a higher risk of conflict here on Earth. That's true whether we get a technological miracle that protects us from space radiation and counteracts the effects of microgravity or not.
Like, I love the idea of space exploration. I think that an international research station on the moon is not only a good idea, but one that should happen; I think we should put human beings on Mars. Yes, robots are cheaper, but crewed missions are cool as hell. (Paul Slade, I'm interested in where you land on this after reading the book.)
Building a settlement, however, where people spend their entire lives on without returning to this biosphere is not worth the effort. And the problems aren't just technological (though "a leak in your cabin will kill you and replacement parts are six months away and cost more than the vast majority of people make in their entire lives" is a tough one to solve), but also social. Do you really want some tech billionaire to have the ability to park an asteroid in Earth orbit and miss? Do you want a nation-state to have that capability? The kinds of people excited to die on Mars are also the kinds of people you don't want in control of millions of joules of fuel.
posted by thecaddy at 6:45 AM on October 30 [1 favorite]
That's true, but only human-crewed flight can produce the drama needed to captivate public attention and support in a big way. Any kind of Government-funded programme in a democracy has to take that into account.
The way I usually think of this is that an awful lot of space exploration is probably not worth the billions of dollars for the science -- there will almost always be something with better scientific bang for the buck than sending another probe to Jupiter. If nothing else, it would probably make more scientific sense to spend that money having the Census Bureau do lots of baseline attitudinal and psychological research so that commercial and academic surveys can have the baseline data they need for really good poststratification.
But the Apollo program was probably worthwhile just as -- we could quibble about how much of each -- an art project or mass entertainment.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:37 AM on October 30
The way I usually think of this is that an awful lot of space exploration is probably not worth the billions of dollars for the science -- there will almost always be something with better scientific bang for the buck than sending another probe to Jupiter. If nothing else, it would probably make more scientific sense to spend that money having the Census Bureau do lots of baseline attitudinal and psychological research so that commercial and academic surveys can have the baseline data they need for really good poststratification.
But the Apollo program was probably worthwhile just as -- we could quibble about how much of each -- an art project or mass entertainment.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:37 AM on October 30
That's true, but only human-crewed flight can produce the drama needed to captivate public attention and support in a big way.
Ooh! Ooh! Why not send out a spacesuited Elon Musk in another Tesla Roadster? People would subscribe to watch that, I'm sure!
posted by y2karl at 3:58 PM on October 31
Ooh! Ooh! Why not send out a spacesuited Elon Musk in another Tesla Roadster? People would subscribe to watch that, I'm sure!
posted by y2karl at 3:58 PM on October 31
One of the many things I liked about The Expanse TV show was that the Belters and Mars pioneers resented Earth dwellers' casual destruction of the home planet's climate and ecology. Anyone living off world knew how much effort and tech it took them just to survive from one moment to the next, and were stunned at how little Earthers seemed to appreciate being given a benignly hospitable planet for nothing.
posted by Paul Slade at 4:58 AM on November 2
posted by Paul Slade at 4:58 AM on November 2
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by whuppy at 5:35 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]