Science(ish)

The Peculiar Science Behind the Movies

Rick Edwards, Michael Brooks

• Éditeur: Atlantic Books
• Année: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781786492227
• Sujet: Sciences physiques
• Sous-sujet: Cosmologie

A Sunday Times Book of the Year
A New Scientist Gift Pick "Bright, nerdy and funny! Of course I loved it." Dara O Briain Can we resurrect dinosaurs, Jurassic Park -style? Are we living in The Matrix 's digital simulation? Do aliens with acid blood exist somewhere in the universe? Will we ever go back and visit 1955? And just why were the original Planet of the Ape movies so terrible?In Science(ish), Rick Edwards and Dr Michael Brooks confront all the questions that your favourite movies provoke. Inspired by their award-winning podcast, this popular (hopefully) science (definitely) book dedicates each chapter to a different sci-fi classic, and wittily explores the fascinating issues that arise. Covering movies from 28 Days Later to Ex Machina, this is a joyous ride through astrophysics, neuroscience, psychology, botany, artificial intelligence, evolution, and plenty more subjects you've always wanted to grasp. Now's your chance: stylishly designed and illustrated throughout, Science(ish) is the perfect gift for every curious mind.

1

The Martian

HOW WILL WE GET TO THE RED PLANET?

IS A MARTIAN HOLIDAY GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH?

CAN WE REALLY MAKE A LIFE ON MARS?

I love The Martian. It’s Man vs Wilderness, botanist Mark Watney vs his cosmic fate, Matt Damon vs Ridley Scott leaving him stranded and helpless. It’s crammed with science about how humans might live on the surface, what the dusty red soil is made of, what we might be able to grow…

Not sure you’d need an actual botanist for that. Growing plants is hardly rocket science, is it?

Oh really? You think a quantum physicist would be better?

Well, plants are quantum mechanical at heart, with the photosynthesis mechanism transferring energy through the leaf in a superposition state…

Your weird fetish for quantum is embarrassing. The only reason I’d be taking a quantum physicist to Mars is to help the crew sleep through the journey. And as a source of protein.

Home alone

Ridley Scott’s film is based on an excellent and crazily well-researched book (you’re right, exactly like this one) by Andrew Weir. While astronauts are pottering around on the Martian surface in 2035, a storm hits. Poor old Matt gets whacked by a broken antenna that pierces his spacesuit and damages the instruments that broadcast his biostats. His friends think he’s a goner, so they leave him for dead, blasting off from Mars towards Earth before the storm blows their spaceship over. But this is a Matt Damon movie. So – surprise! – Matt regains consciousness, finds himself alone and with very limited food, and quickly realizes that he’s going to have to ‘science the shit’ out of this situation…

It’s a big ask. When you’re watching the film, you get the sense that Mars has no mercy. Its dust storms are apocalyptic. Nothing will grow there. There’s precious little water and barely any atmosphere, it’s generally nippy by day and needle-sharp cold by night, getting down to minus 125 Celsius in places. Even its reputation is aggro: the colour of the planet Mars, fourth rock from the Sun, reminded the Romans of blood, so they named it after their god of war.

And yet we are ludicrously keen on Mars. The Red Planet has always been an object of fascination to humans, and in the space age never more so. After all, it’s not so far away that we can’t get there, and although it looks like an alien world now, it was once a bit like Earth. It had an atmosphere, it had water and there’s at least some soil you can plant your feet on. If we were to get to Jupiter, we’d find nothing but gas. Jupiter is not a great place to establish a colony. Mars isn’t, either, to be honest – it ain’t no Center Parcs – but it’s a good start.

So the first question that arises is obvious. The Martian depends on us being able to get people to Mars. How are we going to do that?

Fantastic voyage

I’ve just been looking at the Wikipedia entry for Mars One, the colony project. It’s hilarious. ‘The project’s schedule, technical and financial feasibility, and ethics, have been criticized by scientists, engineers and those in the aerospace industry.’

And now it’s getting mugged off in our book. Have many people applied?

Amazingly, yes – they had more than 4,000 people pay to apply for places on their Martian holiday camp.

And are they ever going to get their money’s worth?

[Redacted for legal reasons.]

First, you’ve got to score a seat. Elon Musk, the deep-pocketed founder of SpaceX, says you’ll need to pay around $200,000 for a ticket on his flights to Mars – when he’s finally ready to issue them. You’ll also need to have a ‘sense of adventure’ and be ‘prepared to die’. Well, at least he’s honest.

NASA is not currently accepting applications for their programme that will eventually put people on Mars, but it was quite recently. In case they didn’t get what they were looking for and reopen the opportunity, here’s some of what you need to know.

In the recruitment round that closed in February 2016, the annual salary range was $66,026.00 to $144,566.00. In any event, you’ll need a science degree, plus three or more years of professional experience or 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time in jet aircraft. An advanced degree is desirable and you have to be a US citizen. And, would you believe, ‘Frequent travel may be required.’

Mars One is the third option. This is also closed to applications just now. But, they say, check back often. Their astronauts must be ‘intelligent, creative, psychologically stable and physically healthy’. And without emotional ties. Or financial commitments on Earth, presumably: there’s no pay, as such. Also, the ultimate selection will be by public vote in a TV series, so you’d better have a lot of friends. Or, since it’s a one-way ticket, enemies might be more helpful.

The curse of Mars

In The Martian, Matt Damon is left for dead because his fellow crew-members are worried that a dust storm will blow their spacecraft over, stranding them all on the Red Planet. Many people have scoffed at this, because the Martian atmosphere is only 1 per cent as dense as Earth’s, and would therefore struggle to blow anything over. However, it has happened before – or at least that’s what we think.

The Russian Mars 3 lander touched down on the planet’s surface in 1971. It sent a signal home, but the signal was cut off after just twenty seconds. Experts think its mission ended abruptly when a massive dust storm caused the lander to topple over.

Whatever the cause, it’s only one of twenty-seven Martian mission failures so far. The problems can usually be pinned on human error, incompetence or inexperience. It started with NASA’s 1964 Mariner 3 mission, whose solar panels failed to deploy. Unable to charge its batteries, the craft quickly died. The following year, a solar-panel problem caused the Russian Zond 2 to drift off, lifeless, into space. There was the European Space Agency’s Beagle 2 mission, led by the heavily sideburned Colin Pillinger, which landed intact but never called home. There was also the time engineers on the Mars Climate Orbiter mixed up SI and imperial units. Oops.

We’re getting a lot better at Mars missions now, though. Most of the failures were last century, and we have run plenty of successful orbiter and lander programmes in the last decade or so. That said, the European Space Agency lost its Schiaparelli lander in October 2016. The curse still has some power, it seems.

Assuming you’ve got a place, you need to realize it’s a long way t...