Skip to main content

Lost in Space


It's a rare gift to be able to accessibly present real science to the public. It's even rarer to find someone who does so with an enthusiasm and humor that Mary Roach brings to the table. I picked up a copy of Packing for Mars on a whim. I'd never heard of the author before, but the premise sounded interesting. Humans evolved to survive the conditions on Earth; what happens, then, when we go into space, a place without air, food, water, or anything else we need? This thought fascinated Roach so much that she spent two years finding out, traveling and interviewing and researching all possible aspects of it. This isn't the glory you see on television, she writes. Far more interesting than the glamour shots of the moon landing are the mundanities that make it all possible. To illustrate her point, she begins with the flag planting ceremony from the moon landing. Months of preparation went into ensuring that a flag would go with the Apollo astronauts; since there is no wind on the moon, the flag itself was reinforced with metal rods, and a special container designed to survive the intense heat of leaving orbit was created. The actual moment was practiced on Earth numerous times to make sure it would work. The end result was effective enough that it spawned a generation of conspiracy theories about the moon landing, metal rods notwithstanding. And that isn't the weirdest thing we learn, not by a long shot.

 A whole cottage industry in science has sprung up to simulate conditions in space, from people who spend months in bed to mimic zero gravity, to subjects who willingly undergo months of isolation so that we can find out in advance whether a multi-month trip to Mars will send future astronauts spiraling into madness. Roach leaves no stone unturned in her quest, no matter how bizarre it is. You might expect to find a chapter about food for astronauts (there is), and even an explanation as to why everything NASA sends into space is so incredibly expensive, but not a chapter about the physics of sex in space. What happens if you vomit in your space helmet? How do you visit the bathroom when you can't actually sit down? You may never have wondered the answers to those questions, but rest assured Mary Roach will make sure you find out! 

Just as fascinating as the current science is the history of how we adjusted to space. While it is easy to mock early ideas, we had no idea, really, how the human body would fare outside the safety of our atmosphere. Some wondered if the human mind would snap, or whether internal organs would fail in zero gravity. Such fears turned out to be mercifully misplaced, but a lot of questions still remain about the effects of long-term journeys in space. We've learned a lot about how we deal with space in the short term. If we're ever to go to Mars, or beyond, however, there is still quite a lot to learn. 

Opening this book was like opening a cabinet of curiosities. The sheer breadth of the topic, and the research involved, is staggering. Yet Packing for Mars was fascinating enough that I read it in just a few days, and immediately found myself looking for another of Roach's books! Even people who generally aren't interested in science will be hard-pressed to find Packing for Mars dull, and the author's sense of humor ensured that I had to reserve reading this book at home, my laughter echoing off the walls. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...