Scan barcode
A review by mburnamfink
A City on Mars by Kelly Weinersmith, Zach Weinersmith
4.0
Dr. Kelly Weinersmith is an actual scientist, albeit a parasite biologist rather than a space specialist. And Zach Weinersmith is the artist behind Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, a nerd webcomic that I've reading for almost two decades now.
"Dad, I have ennui"
Space colonization has been a perennial topic of science fiction practically since there was science fiction, and a more or less serious policy proposal since the 1950s. With SpaceX and the dramatic reduction in the costs of reaching orbit, as well as it's CEO Elon Musk's well known desire to settle Mars, space colonization has gotten a second kick. So is it a good idea? The Weinersmiths went in as optimists, and came out with a "nah".
There are four main barriers to space settlement, two biological, one legal, one economic. As much progress has been made on rocketry, space medicine is still profoundly in its infancy. The longest single stay in space is 487 days. The longest total stay is 886 days (and counting, record holder Oleg Kononenko is still in orbit as of this review). We know that astronauts suffer many health effects, including bones density loss and mysterious changes in eyeball shape. We also know that even inside Earth's protective magnetosphere, astronauts are constantly irradiated, with a likely elevated risk of cancer. We have no idea if babies can be born in space, or if human beings can reach maturity without gravity. Answering these questions is not a priority for any space agency, and there are clear ethical issues for experimentation.
Second, we still don't know how to run a closed-cycle biosphere. The infamous Biosphere 2 experiment was a failure, and nothing has come close to its scale. A space settlement needs near total recycling of water, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and a host of other key elements. We know even less about living in close proximity to lunar dust, an abrasive that could likely cause silicosis and which one astronaut was allergic, or on Mars, where the soil is about 1% poisonous perchlorates.
Third, the legal environment is incredible hostile to the idea of space colonization. The Outer Space treaty is a vague framework, but one thing it is clear on is that national claims of a solar system body are illegal. A nation can claim a specific facility, but not the lunar land it is built on. And forget private efforts, because a station staffed with Americans, launched from a US facility, and commanded by an American CEO, would be under American jurisdiction, and pragmatically you are unlikely to find anyone to argue otherwise.
Finally, it would be immensely difficult to see any return from space colonization, given the distances, time, and expense involved. While the colonies of the age of imperialism were often money-losers for their governments, they were immensely profitable for many people involved. But who would accept life in an absolute company town where the boss controls everything down to the air? And who would fund a venture where getting anything there and back costs millions of dollars?
One of the better arguments for space colonization is the security of multiplanetary species, an argument which the Weinersmith's demolish. Any space colony would be highly dependent on Earth for decades, if not centuries. And while there is lots of room on the moon and Mars, there are far fewer reasonable options for settlement. Space colonies hardly aid national security if we're shooting each other over the very finite amounts of lunar ice. And while dinosaur killing asteroids are a risk, given human nature, space terrorists are going to crop up far sooner than another mega impact.
Marcos Inaros from The Expanse
"Every time we demand to be heard, they hold back our water, owkwa beltalowda, ration our air, ereluf beltalowda, until we crawl back into our holes, imbobo beltalowda, and do as we are told!
Another argument is a version of Turner's frontier thesis, that the harshness of space will inspire innovations both scientific and technological. The Weinersmiths offer an analogy to Earth biosphere, the Necrosphere, an immense expanse of vacuum surrounding a small hab, with very finite resources, more accessible with only the greatest difficult, and the whole thing bombarded with ionizing radiation. Would we expect advances from the inhabitants, or would we expect them to die?
Like the Weinersmiths, I've long been an idealistic if uncommitted proponent of space colonization. And after reading this book, I'm convinced that it's a scam. The outer solar system is best left to robots. And while we should continue to push space science, including closed cycle ecosystems, colonization is a matter of centuries, not decades.
"Dad, I have ennui"
Space colonization has been a perennial topic of science fiction practically since there was science fiction, and a more or less serious policy proposal since the 1950s. With SpaceX and the dramatic reduction in the costs of reaching orbit, as well as it's CEO Elon Musk's well known desire to settle Mars, space colonization has gotten a second kick. So is it a good idea? The Weinersmiths went in as optimists, and came out with a "nah".
There are four main barriers to space settlement, two biological, one legal, one economic. As much progress has been made on rocketry, space medicine is still profoundly in its infancy. The longest single stay in space is 487 days. The longest total stay is 886 days (and counting, record holder Oleg Kononenko is still in orbit as of this review). We know that astronauts suffer many health effects, including bones density loss and mysterious changes in eyeball shape. We also know that even inside Earth's protective magnetosphere, astronauts are constantly irradiated, with a likely elevated risk of cancer. We have no idea if babies can be born in space, or if human beings can reach maturity without gravity. Answering these questions is not a priority for any space agency, and there are clear ethical issues for experimentation.
Second, we still don't know how to run a closed-cycle biosphere. The infamous Biosphere 2 experiment was a failure, and nothing has come close to its scale. A space settlement needs near total recycling of water, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and a host of other key elements. We know even less about living in close proximity to lunar dust, an abrasive that could likely cause silicosis and which one astronaut was allergic, or on Mars, where the soil is about 1% poisonous perchlorates.
Third, the legal environment is incredible hostile to the idea of space colonization. The Outer Space treaty is a vague framework, but one thing it is clear on is that national claims of a solar system body are illegal. A nation can claim a specific facility, but not the lunar land it is built on. And forget private efforts, because a station staffed with Americans, launched from a US facility, and commanded by an American CEO, would be under American jurisdiction, and pragmatically you are unlikely to find anyone to argue otherwise.
Finally, it would be immensely difficult to see any return from space colonization, given the distances, time, and expense involved. While the colonies of the age of imperialism were often money-losers for their governments, they were immensely profitable for many people involved. But who would accept life in an absolute company town where the boss controls everything down to the air? And who would fund a venture where getting anything there and back costs millions of dollars?
One of the better arguments for space colonization is the security of multiplanetary species, an argument which the Weinersmith's demolish. Any space colony would be highly dependent on Earth for decades, if not centuries. And while there is lots of room on the moon and Mars, there are far fewer reasonable options for settlement. Space colonies hardly aid national security if we're shooting each other over the very finite amounts of lunar ice. And while dinosaur killing asteroids are a risk, given human nature, space terrorists are going to crop up far sooner than another mega impact.
Marcos Inaros from The Expanse
"Every time we demand to be heard, they hold back our water, owkwa beltalowda, ration our air, ereluf beltalowda, until we crawl back into our holes, imbobo beltalowda, and do as we are told!
Another argument is a version of Turner's frontier thesis, that the harshness of space will inspire innovations both scientific and technological. The Weinersmiths offer an analogy to Earth biosphere, the Necrosphere, an immense expanse of vacuum surrounding a small hab, with very finite resources, more accessible with only the greatest difficult, and the whole thing bombarded with ionizing radiation. Would we expect advances from the inhabitants, or would we expect them to die?
Like the Weinersmiths, I've long been an idealistic if uncommitted proponent of space colonization. And after reading this book, I'm convinced that it's a scam. The outer solar system is best left to robots. And while we should continue to push space science, including closed cycle ecosystems, colonization is a matter of centuries, not decades.