science fiction Archives

22/07/201922/07/2019

Moon Landing Anniversary – Don’t look to the stars when the ground is burning

Buzz Aldrin on the surface of Earth's moon

Space: the final frontier. This year marks the 50^th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing mission; the first time we had ever stepped foot on the moon. As Neil Armstrong boldly declared “that’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”, we perhaps reached a new peak of human achievement. A peak that continues to climb upwards, itself shooting for the moon.

I’ve grown up with franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek. Where somehow there’s always a white (human) man getting into trouble with aliens and flying space ships. One thing that’s common in much science fiction is the idea that we can colonise new worlds, terraforming their surfaces to sustain life (as we know it). This idea is pervasive in the years since the moon landing, and continues to be drawn upon even in recent films claimed to be scientifically sound (e.g. Interstellar and The Martian). Whilst this is a romantic idea—of humans gallivanting across the galaxy (hitchhiking even)—I sometimes worry about the price of this dream. Of course, I’m sure the notion has inspired many great minds the world over to learn about space, and perhaps to successfully take us all there one day. But does this idealism come with a cost?

22/02/201622/02/2016

Spud Oddity: Did The Martian really “science the sh*t out of this”?

It’s rare to come across a sci-fi movie that isn’t loaded with technobabble or scientific terms that are used ever so incorrectly. In fact, a lot of the Hollywood blockbusters are guilty of mincing the scientific words and concepts for entertainment value: “The Day After Tomorrow”, “Armageddon”, “Lucy”, “The Core”, to name but a few.
In short, Science itself has been drastically misrepresented by the Hollywood industry.

Then along came Ridley Scott’s sci-fi epic “The Martian”.
Based on the sci-fi novel by Andy Weir, it tells the story of astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon), who’s left stranded on a Mars space station after being presumed dead by his crew. Despite his circumstances, Mark manages to survive for over 500 days by employing his ingenuity as a botanist to grow and harvest potatoes on Martian soil.
After watching our astro-botany protagonsit build his very own Martian farm (synthesizing water and all) in a manner McGyver would be proud of, the question was working away in the back of my mind: Could this really happen? Or was Hollywood once again selling the science short?

Let’s put it to the test.

1) Solely spuds for survival?

Could one man live off Maris Pipers for nearly a year?

Yes.
Yes he could.
In 2010, Chris Voigt from the Washington State Potato Commission lived off nothing but potatoes for 2 months as a publicity stunt promoting their nutritional benefits. And lived to tell/blog the tale.
Potatoes are a source of high-level carbohydrates, providing around 163 calories each. They also contain essential nutrients such as magnesium, potassium folate, vitamins B6 &C, low levels of protein and dietary fibre in the skins.
However, supplemental vitamins A, E and K would be needed to stop our Martian protagonist from going blind.
Added to the fact that Mars has one-third the gravitational pull of Earth, the potatoes’ energy content can go the extra mile now that Mark is one-third his own weight, hence expending less energy than that on his home planet!

2) Life on Mars’ soil?
One of the biggest challenges faced with Martian agriculture is the lack of anything living in the soil – particularly bacteria that can fix Nitrogen, which is an essential for plant growth.
Luckily enough, Mark found access to the space stations’ vacuum-packaged poo to use as manure – giving a new lease of life on the Red Planet’s potato plantation.
While the thought of using you own fecal matter to fertilize your food may make some sick to their stomach, this is practiced today under the guise of “Biosolids”. As a fertilizer, they fetch up to £27 per tonne in dry mass for their nutrient content.
Also, we’re assuming Mark harvested his own poo, hence is only exposing himself to his own batch of pathogens and bacteria from his own gut. Otherwise he may make himself very sick from fiddling with foreign fecal matter!

3) Safe soil to sow on?
Mars soils consist of finely broken up basaltic fragments derived from volcanic gas emissions, which are highly enriched in sulphur (which may explain why nothing is living in it).
But the soil also contains salts called perchlorates, which were detected by NASA’s Phoenix lander in May 2008 in the form of calcium perchlorate.
At high enough levels, perchlorates – a key component in solid rocket fuel – can lead to thyroid problems, which makes it quite toxic to humans.
If 0.6% of Mars’ soil was made up of perchlorates (hence 60 grams/kg) how toxic would this be for Mark Watney?
A report from the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) highlights a longitudinal study of 2 healthy volunteer groups consuming perchlorate treatments for i) 35mg for 2 weeks or ii) 3mg for 6 months. At the end of both treatments, with both groups consuming up to 0.55g of this salt were found to experience no abnormal thyroid functionality.
But at such small doses, it doesn’t provide enough sound evidence that Mark wouldn’t have his thyroid tampered by the perchlorates percolating into the potatoes.

In summary, can one astro-botanist:
i)               survive on just potatoes?                                                                                        [Yes]
ii)              make fertile Martian soil?                                                                                       [Yes]
iii)            work around the soil’s “toxic” properties? [Jury’s out for now]

With the discrepancy of knowledge for our last scenario letting us down, the remaining facts are air-tight: Mark Watney most likely could have sustained himself on Mars with just potatoes.

As I’ve said before, a lot of Hollywood’s movies have sold Science a bit short in the past. But the Oscar-nominated* sci-fi flick has stepped up to the mark to produce not only a stellar cast and production, but to produce an adapted screenplay that is doesn’t lose sight of its tale of humanity and the triumph of the human spirit by “sciencing the shit out of this.”
*Currently nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Production Design.

Biosolids in Ireland
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDownLoad,17228,en.pdf

ATSDR Perchlorates Report
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=892&tid=181

Simon O’ Carroll – Graduating with a B.A. (Mod.) in Zoology in 2015, Simon is currently doing an Master’s in Conservation and Biodiversity at the University of Exeter.

Image Credits: io9.gizmodo.com, http://modernfarmer.com/2015/10/can-you-grow-plants-on-mars/

19/09/201417/09/2014

Creationism in Science Fiction: Artistic freedom or anti-science?

In the late 90s and early 2000s science fiction fans such as myself had a bit of a hard time. As happy as I was when the last few years brought, amongst others, the amazingly crafted science fiction spectacles Battlestar Galactica (2004) and the long anticipated Alien prequel Prometheus (2012), the more disappointed I became when I realised that both events based their storylines heavily on creationism.

Now one might argue that these are works of art and therefore subject to artistic freedom, and generally I do agree. But then again, that wouldn’t be much of a blog post. So let me describe why this is not only such a disappointment, but also cause for a bit of a tummy ache.

First of all, science fiction is not an art form as such but rather a movement within different artistic disciplines. Lots of disciplines use elements from science fiction. It appears in classic literature such as the works of Jules Verne, and the myriad of other authors following his footsteps, and on the silver screen with the most prominent works being Star Trek and Star Wars. More recently (and not surprisingly) science fiction is prominent in computer games and even in music, especially within electronic music with the best example surely being the robot outfits of French house legends, Daft Punk.

Within all these different art forms there must be a common ground, something that can give such different expressions as sound, word or interaction a common name. So what unites all these art forms under the science fiction umbrella? The most straightforward term that we might could come up with is ‘future’, but that would be too simple. Remember that Star Wars took place ‘A long time ago, in a galaxy far away’, but no one would refute that it is one of the defining works of science fiction. I think that the most important element in science fiction is exploration: take the now, look at our social, scientific and technological achievements and make a step forward. Imagine what could happen, imagine a Utopia, a Dystopia, or a world not so different from our own. It can take place on different worlds or on our own home planet. The defining element is that it is a fictional continuation of our current knowledge, exploring whatever implications the creator of the work wants to explore.

And there lies my problem with Creationism. In order to explore the future consequences of our current state-of-art, we must get the state-of-art right. Among the science fiction fans I know it is usually accepted that the general premise in science fiction is theoretically possible, given the knowledge at the time. Of course not everything has to be realistic: the Force in Star Wars adds a mystical element, and that is completely acceptable since it is defined as mystical within the original movies. However, when Prometheus takes an intelligent design approach, it sets an anti-science premise, and builds a future from it, giving the impression that intelligent design is a scientifically valid theory. Battlestar Galactica goes even one step further, bringing God directly into play as the creator. While one could consider this as an example of the previously mentioned mystical element, albeit in a somewhat convoluted way, the story of the show managed to completely mix up mysticism and hard science in a way that is nearly impossible to disentangle, especially for the viewers who do not have a background in science. (It is beyond this blog to summarise the story of a four seasons show, so for the readers interested in more detail I recommend the following essay by Brad Templeton.)

Using creationism or intelligent design as a creator of works of science fiction has two consequences: it disappoints those fans, such as myself, that have a background in science and it gives those fans who do not have a scientific background a false impression of realism associated with creationism, spreading anti-science further.

Of course this is a personal opinion, but I stand to it when I say that creating a work of science fiction should always take the science on which it is based seriously, whether that be promoting a technological future or warning about its perils.

Author: Jesko Zimmerman, zimmerjr[at]tcd.ie

Image Source: Wikicommons