The sands of Mars

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Has anyone else read this book by Arthur C. Clarke? Even though it was written in the 50's it's quite accurate for what a real mars colony and travel would be like. Now you would need more than just breathing apparatus to walk on the surface of Mars, and there's certainly no fat kangaroos and plants there, but aside from that the hard sci fi Clarke uses is pretty accurate.

 

[crazyeddie]

Has anyone else read this book by Arthur C. Clarke? Even though it was written in the 50's it's quite accurate for what a real mars colony and travel would be like. Now you would need more than just breathing apparatus to walk on the surface of Mars, and there's certainly no fat kangaroos and plants there, but aside from that the hard sci fi Clarke uses is pretty accurate.

It's been years since I've read it, but I believe it was meant to be a story based upon the scientific knowledge of the planet for it's day. Even still, it was optimistic. The idea of animal life on Mars was not widely accepted by planetary scientists, even in 1951. It was known since the early 1900's from spectroscopic observations that the Martian atmosphere contained no detectable oxygen and almost no detectable water vapor, making the possibility of animal life highly improbable. Plant life was thought to be possible, but only primitive types such as lichens.

Still, accurate or not, anything by Arthur C. Clarke is a good read!

 

[raptorborealis]

Has anyone else read this book by Arthur C. Clarke? Even though it was written in the 50's it's quite accurate for what a real mars colony and travel would be like. Now you would need more than just breathing apparatus to walk on the surface of Mars, and there's certainly no fat kangaroos and plants there, but aside from that the hard sci fi Clarke uses is pretty accurate.

It's been years since I've read it, but I believe it was meant to be a story based upon the scientific knowledge of the planet for it's day. Even still, it was optimistic. The idea of animal life on Mars was not widely accepted by planetary scientists, even in 1951. It was known since the early 1900's from spectroscopic observations that the Martian atmosphere contained no detectable oxygen and almost no detectable water vapor, making the possibility of animal life highly improbable. Plant life was thought to be possible, but only primitive types such as lichens.

Still, accurate or not, anything by Arthur C. Clarke is a good read!

True, good author. Didn't the main character in that novel have a manual typewriter on his spaceship? Perhaps that's a different novel.

The issue with a lot of futuristic writing is the 'devil is in the details.' i can write about all types of things but the hard science of physics is necessary to back them up. Anyone can write about one day there being a submersible in the ocean of Titans... a colony circling a black hole, etc....the really good science fiction writing (at least to me) is when an author doesn't conveniently subvert the laws of physics. One can't 'sort of' bypass physics...otherwise it's just magic with a fancy word coating like 'warp speed'.

 

[JonClarke]

Has anyone else read this book by Arthur C. Clarke? Even though it was written in the 50's it's quite accurate for what a real mars colony and travel would be like. Now you would need more than just breathing apparatus to walk on the surface of Mars, and there's certainly no fat kangaroos and plants there, but aside from that the hard sci fi Clarke uses is pretty accurate.

It was the first novel by Clarke I read. I liked it, I still do. Full of interesting ideas and well worked out technicalities, planetary, engineering, economic, based on what was known at the time. The only suspension of disbelief was the meson reaction.

It is also noteworthy because of is one of the earliest novels where terraforming is a key element.

 

[JonClarke]

It's been years since I've read it, but I believe it was meant to be a story based upon the scientific knowledge of the planet for it's day. Even still, it was optimistic. The idea of animal life on Mars was not widely accepted by planetary scientists, even in 1951. It was known since the early 1900's from spectroscopic observations that the Martian atmosphere contained no detectable oxygen and almost no detectable water vapor, making the possibility of animal life highly improbable. Plant life was thought to be possible, but only primitive types such as lichens.

I don't know about that. While the absence of oxygen was known (and features in the book), given the consensus view that plant life was locally extensive (the lichen-only idea was more 60s) there were several ways in which largish animals were conceivable.

Note that in the book the aninals were very rare and symbiotically linked to the only oxygen-producing plant (itself relatively rare and confined to the tropics).

Also absent were canals, martian civilisations (past or present). Which is a stark contrast to contemporary (or even later), supposedly "hard' SF by Heinlein, Blish, or Asimov.

 

[JonClarke]

True, good author. Didn't the main character in that novel have a manual typewriter on his spaceship? Perhaps that's a different novel.

Yep, he did . But then the story is set in the 80s, as I reall, so that is fair enough. And fax machines and interplanetary radio. We could have had Mars settlements by then, with different cultural priorities.

The issue with a lot of futuristic writing is the 'devil is in the details.' i can write about all types of things but the hard science of physics is necessary to back them up. Anyone can write about one day there being a submersible in the ocean of Titans... a colony circling a black hole, etc....the really good science fiction writing (at least to me) is when an author doesn't conveniently subvert the laws of physics. One can't 'sort of' bypass physics...otherwise it's just magic with a fancy word coating like 'warp speed'.

Indeed. In this regard Sands of Mars is probably the most scientifically accurate (based on what was known or could be extrapolated) Mars novel of the day. The only way he could have improved was by including a few impact craters, which Barnard claimed to have seen