Good Read: "The Martian" by Andy Weir

[knave]

Had this not been recommended to me I would have completely overlooked it. To my brain the title suggests little green men...however, it is not about them at all.

The book is a journal of a US astronaut who is stranded on mars and how he manages his limited resources to survive and try to overcome the curveballs the hostile environment throws him.

If you enjoy sci-fi, or space exploration, or just science in general it is a fun read.

Side note:
Ridley Scott is making a movie about it. If it stays true to the book it looks promising.

[wp34]

I agree.  It might be the best book I read last year.  The movie looks great as well.

[pbj]

My wife and I enjoyed it, too.  Hadn't heard a word about it until I saw the trailer.  The trailer gives away a LOT of the plot, though.

[Ginsu Victim]

It was kinda funny to me when I saw this trailer at the movies. I was like, "Hey, Matt Damon sort of did this in Interstellar already....oh, and it's basically Saving Private Ryan, which was also Matt Damon."

[pbj]

Yeah, but at least Matt Damon isn't a clumsy metaphor for satan in the desert in this one...

[ark_ader]

So its not Stranger In A Strange Land?

[BadMouth]

If you like the lone guy going through survival protocols thing, you may enjoy "All is Lost" starring Robert Redford.
Nobody I hang out with in real life would have enjoyed it, but I did.

[ark_ader]

If you like the lone guy going through survival protocols thing, you may enjoy "All is Lost" starring Robert Redford.
Nobody I hang out with in real life would have enjoyed it, but I did.

When I rented that movie, I thought it was a black comedy.

[ark_ader]

Based on opinions I bought the book, so far so good.

Very technical.  A nice change.

[wp34]

Based on opinions I bought the book, so far so good.

Very technical.  A nice change.

Grok.

[BadMouth]

No time to read, so I got the audiobook.  I think reading it would be more enjoyable, but I can't do that on the way to work.
Kinda reminds me of the documentary "Alone in the Wilderness" at times.

I'm about halfway through.

[pbj]

I'm about halfway through.

You get one more week before this turns into a spoiler thread.

[BadMouth]

Listening to an interview with the author....
http://www.tested.com/science/space/530955-talking-room-adam-savage-interviews-andy-weir/

It's pretty cool that the book was originally self published and given away for free, then sold for 99 cents on Amazon, then purchased by a publisher for several hundred thousand dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_(Weir_novel)

[dkersten]

Listening to an interview with the author....
http://www.tested.com/science/space/530955-talking-room-adam-savage-interviews-andy-weir/

It's pretty cool that the book was originally self published and given away for free, then sold for 99 cents on Amazon, then purchased by a publisher for several hundred thousand dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_(Weir_novel)

Yes, that is very cool, and about the same odds as winning the lottery, lol.  20,000 new books on Amazon each week now, with 3.8 million already up, almost all Indie authors, and 99.999% of them never sell more than 1 copy (usually to mom).  Free doesn't do crap any more either, 1 in 1000 people who download a book for free will never even read it, 50% of those who download it and read it will not like it because it isn't their genre (they just got it for free).  So for a free book to do well enough to gain a following, then to do well enough at 99 cents to get a traditional publishing contract that actually pays more than what they would have made on their own, then to do well enough to get a book deal is super rare. 

[wp34]

Listening to an interview with the author....
http://www.tested.com/science/space/530955-talking-room-adam-savage-interviews-andy-weir/

It's pretty cool that the book was originally self published and given away for free, then sold for 99 cents on Amazon, then purchased by a publisher for several hundred thousand dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_(Weir_novel)

Interesting. I did not know that. 

[BadMouth]

Finished this morning.  Spoil away.

[Locke141]

I love this book.

My favorite part was when he almost died.

[pbj]

I found the notion that NASA would abort everything to save one person rather laughable.  I've seen Capricorn One.

[megamoze]

Great book!  Excited to see the movie.

[BadMouth]

Kindle version is on sale for $2 if anyone is still interested: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EMXBDMA?tag=slickdeals&ascsubtag=d7aeead969524a4cb3c787fac01918aa
After buying the kindle version, you can add the audible audiobook version for $3 more.

[pbj]

Well, I'll hand it to NASA.  They've been recycling announcements for years, but this "Photographic Evidence of Water on Mars!!!" stuff may take the record.

Here's a photo from 1998 showing the same wet streaks in the upper left:



It was released in 2000.  Primary source may be found here:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/SP233806.html

Oh, but I'm afraid it gets much, much worse.  This was already published 15 years ago in Science:

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/288/5475/2330.full



So, go see The Martian, support increased funding for NASA, and entertain delusions about manned space travel to outer space!

[SavannahLion]

Is Mars One actually a NASA project? Just checked out their site and it reads more like a Kickstarter....

[Slippyblade]

No, Mars One is a private thing.  NASA will have nothing to do with a manned mission unless there is a return built into it.  Mars One is a one way thing.

[Howard_Casto]

All I can say is we better start funding NASA again.  Even if you are a miserable, soul-less person who doesn't get excited about space exploration, it is fact that 98.99% of the technology we have today is a direct result of the space race.  Since we stopped going to space, for the most part anyway, we stopped having ground-breaking ideas.  Computers are faster, existing technology has improved and this improved tech has been applied in new ways, but we don't really have anything new.   

Give men an impossible task and a butt-load of funding to work on the task and not only will they complete the task, but discover hundreds if not thousands of things, both as applied technology and theoretical concepts along the way.  Don't give them such a goal and we get the iPhone 9.... exactly the same as the iPhone 8, only now with "special pictures", which are in reality just video clips.

We need space... we need people to get excited about space... the reason our world is in such a sorry state is because we no longer explore space. 

Water on Mars is a big deal.  They've announced it in the past but it was inconclusive.  Now they have a rover on the ground exploring dried up lake beds and are arguing over the option to send the rover to the flowing water to test it.  The only thing holding them back is the fact that the rover may be contaminated with earth bacteria and spores. 

[Locke141]

Sing it brother Buzz.

[pbj]

I've heard a lot of weird conspiracy theories over the years regarding NASA, but the only one I've given any degree of consideration concerns an internal power struggle between the folks at JPL and the others at Johnson Space Center.  Essentially, if we discover hospital conditions or any evidence whatsoever of any type of life, people are going to want manned expeditions.  So JPL gets shuttered and the funding pours into Houston instead.  That's why you see strange behavior like photos of Mars artificially tinted red, the same "increases the likelihood" announcements over and over, and why we don't have unfiltered access to the images coming back.



I'm all for funding of scientific research, but I'm not so sure NASA is the proper channel to handle it.

[Locke141]

I've heard a lot of weird conspiracy theories over the years regarding NASA, but the only one I've given any degree of consideration concerns an internal power struggle between the folks at JPL and the others at Johnson Space Center.  Essentially, if we discover hospital conditions or any evidence whatsoever of any type of life, people are going to want manned expeditions.  So JPL gets shuttered and the funding pours into Houston instead.  That's why you see strange behavior like photos of Mars artificially tinted red, the same "increases the likelihood" announcements over and over, and why we don't have unfiltered access to the images coming back.



I'm all for funding of scientific research, but I'm not so sure NASA is the proper channel to handle it.

I was under the impressions that all the NASA images when in to the public domain. 

[Howard_Casto]

The released ones are made freely available, but they are copyrighted NASA and typically aren't in the public domain.  That being said it's the government that holds up the flow of pictures.  Technically speaking NASA is a military agency, so all photos have to be cleared and de-classified first and many are lost in the shuffle. 

That being said, if you want to explore space properly, for better or for worse, it has to be funded by the government.  The problem with private space exploration is the fact that these companies, weather they admit it or not, eventually want a return on their investment.  So you'll get accidents due to cost cutting and coal mines (or whatever is abundant to mine) on mars.  Something that seems lost on the modern public is the fact that government is in place so that we can have social services and public works projects that don't need to turn a profit... like the US mail, social security, libraries, or space exploration.  It's a shame really.... everyone is only concerned about money.

[dkersten]

That being said, if you want to explore space properly, for better or for worse, it has to be funded by the government.  The problem with private space exploration is the fact that these companies, weather they admit it or not, eventually want a return on their investment.  So you'll get accidents due to cost cutting and coal mines (or whatever is abundant to mine) on mars.  Something that seems lost on the modern public is the fact that government is in place so that we can have social services and public works projects that don't need to turn a profit... like the US mail, social security, libraries, or space exploration.  It's a shame really.... everyone is only concerned about money.

I agree that proper space exploration should be funded by the government, although even that has it's issues (ie military oversight so often the pure science is overshadowed or even dismissed).

However, when it comes to government and tax dollars, the purpose is not to provide social services, it is to provide an infrastructure to support an economy and allow the people to sustain themselves so the economy can grow.  You build a highway so you can transport food and energy and consumer goods effectively and efficiently, not so Joe Schmoe can more easily visit his grandma once a year.  You build sewage treatment so you can have a healthy yet dense population and focus people in one location, creating an environment where much of the economy supports itself, and is fed by the highway and rail system (food from farms shipped in).  The same goes with subsidizing the costs of power, utilities, and even tax breaks for businesses.  Sure, it is muddier these days than it was 1 or 2 centuries ago, but the core function of the government hasn't changed.  What changed is the perception of what the core function should be (and hence what our tax dollars should pay for). 

The space program was initially funded partly as part of the Cold War effort, and partly to keep patriotism and morale up (both critical to a stable economy).  Much of the program was actually run by private organizations with military ties (JPL for example, who doesn't just make rocket motors for space travel) but funded heavily by the government.  This not only created a LOT of high paying jobs, it also allowed a LOT of new technology to come about.  The government still funds a lot of research, and much of it still brings about new advances in science that eventually end up in our homes.  I completely agree that the space race stimulated this sort of thing dramatically, and any massive infusion of money into research like that will result in new technology.  But in the end it all comes back to the economy.  You fund programs that eventually lead to products people will buy, jobs are created and wealth is generated, resulting in a stronger economy.  A strong economy means a stronger military, happier citizens (less likely to revolt), more respect from other nations (at least militarily, which history has shown is what really matters most), etc.  Feed the research and in the end you get a stronger nation in return. 

On the other hand, "social services" only weaken the country as a whole.  You create a class of lazy people who can't provide for themselves let alone contribute to the economy.  You create a class of people who are looking to vote based on how much of a raise in income they get rather than how much it strengthens the country as a whole.  Sure, social services are a necessity unless you want to see the old, unhealthy, and impoverished people begging on the streets in an attempt to live another day, but it doesn't do anything to strengthen the country or stimulate a self sustaining culture.

I would love to see a LOT of the money used to fund drug habits and welfare baby makers spent instead on space research.  Unfortunately it isn't going to happen as long as voter have a choice between bigger welfare checks and a stronger future for our kids.

(P.S., I am all for having welfare programs, and when I was young and broke and needed help I used them.  But I used them to help get back on my feet, and if the programs were only used for that, we would have the money for things like space exploration.)

[pbj]

Here you go, sport.  Go take a look at this and let us know if defunding food stamp programs and spending it on rocket ships will really solve all our problems:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Anyway, going on a tour of Johnson Space Center these days is a real eye opener.  Looks like it hasn't been touched in 30 years.  Stuff I used to climb on as a kid is now roped off with security watching you carefully.  We were in for ~$100 just for two of us to wander around. 

The NASA employees I interact with (well, they're all contractors I suppose) have certainly failed to impress.  I'm not real sure what the hell any of them actually do.

[dkersten]

Here you go, sport.  Go take a look at this and let us know if defunding food stamp programs and spending it on rocket ships will really solve all our problems:

Um, you looked at that, right?  about a trillion (around 1/3 of the total) is on the "social services" I mentioned.  So yeah, divert a few hundred billion of that and you have funded space exploration. 

What ISN'T listed in that is the cost of NOT collecting taxes (and hence not having money for spending) from the 50% of the U.S. population who ends up getting more back than they put in.  That could account for a few hundred MORE billion to apply to things that actually strengthen our economy. 

As for it solving all our problems, no, but then paying people to sit at home, make babies, and smoke pot all day isn't exactly helping either.  That's when they aren't working their 20 hours a week at McDonalds for 15 dollars per hour (because they had to cut their hours to keep their section 8 housing and EIC benefits).

[pbj]

We are here to bash NASA, not entertain your libertarian fantasies.  Thanks!

[BadMouth]

The NASA employees I interact with (well, they're all contractors I suppose) have certainly failed to impress.  I'm not real sure what the hell any of them actually do.

Well, they raided a home and business here last week.
I kept asking NASA, you've got to mean NSA?
Nope.  Apparently NASA's Office of Inspector General is granted search warrants.

[dkersten]

We are here to bash NASA, not entertain your libertarian fantasies.  Thanks!

Who else other than you is bashing NASA?

And all I did was respond to the idea that the government's core function is to provide social services.  That is the LAST thing a central government should be in place for, and while the facts revolving around it might come across conservative or libertarian or anti-liberal, it's just because they are simple facts.  Social programs don't strengthen a nation, stimulating the population to get off their butts and contribute does.  Doesn't mean I believe social programs should all go away, just that they should at least come with the means to ensure they aren't abused.  Take away the abuse in those programs and start pushing people to contribute again and suddenly you have a country that can fund the kind of research that leads to things like curing diseases and harnessing cleaner energy.  Take it however you want.

I will be at Kennedy Space Center next Thursday - a trip I look forward to (will be my 4th visit there in the last 30 years).  I don't see it as a trip to see what NASA is working on today, I like seeing the history from back when American's were inspired by programs like this, not immersed in conspiracy theories some Blockbuster cashier came up with in his spare time.  I have a friend who works there and I get to hear a few stories now and then about what they are working on and I think it is pretty cool.

[harveybirdman]

Wait a minute... You still have Blockbuster?

[Locke141]

We are here to bash NASA, not entertain your libertarian fantasies.  Thanks!

+1

Social programs don't strengthen a nation

Have you ever been to a country that does not have a functioning social safety net? Do some traveling.

This web site puts things in perspective.
http://nasawatch.com

The latest article seem to lend credence to PBJ's comment about JPL.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/09/nasa-cancels-b6.html

I still think we need to spend more on NASA. The money should just come from the military side of the budget.

[dkersten]

Social programs don't strengthen a nation

Have you ever been to a country that does not have a functioning social safety net? Do some traveling.

Give any of those countries you are thinking about a working economy where the population has a way to earn their own way and live well and you don't need the safety nets.  Take a country where there is a social "safety net" but no working economy and you have a fantasy land or a country that will not exist when the bills come due because they are spending money they don't have to support a population that can't or won't contribute to society.  Give the population a way to earn their OWN way and take away the ability for them to live comfortably on the "safety nets" and suddenly you have a productive society that doesn't need to spend a trillion dollars a year on welfare programs.

Besides, I am all for safety nets, just not ones that 50% of the population are using because 90% of those are capable of living without them but can live better by not putting in the effort and letting the others do the work for them.  Take out the abuse and suddenly you have hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on things like NASA (or better yet, balancing the budget and paying down debt).

[Slippyblade]

You are overlooking the fact that a large part of the reason so many are relying on these "safety nets" is due to an unsustainable model.   Over the past several decades costs of living have skyrocketed, yet wages have been mostly stagnant and in some markets, dropped.  Once upon a time a person could put themselves through college by working a summer job at minimum wage.  Now it takes two full-time workers making substantially more than minimum just to be above poverty.

A sizable chunk of the "welfare" and "social spending" that charts like these use is highly misleading since they include Medicare and Social Security.  Neither of those are actual tax spending and the only reason they are even included in the budget charts is due to policies that "borrowed" from those funds to pay for more military that we don't need.  This started with Reagan and has been continued since.

[yotsuya]

This is why I don't read the P N' R forum. 

[dkersten]

You are overlooking the fact that a large part of the reason so many are relying on these "safety nets" is due to an unsustainable model.   Over the past several decades costs of living have skyrocketed, yet wages have been mostly stagnant and in some markets, dropped.  Once upon a time a person could put themselves through college by working a summer job at minimum wage.  Now it takes two full-time workers making substantially more than minimum just to be above poverty.

There is certainly a widening gap between the rich and the poor and cost of living raises don't seem to track very well with the actual cost of living increases.  But frankly when I compare 20 years ago to today, I don't see things have really changed much.  Costs of living across the board have nearly doubled, but then so did minimum wage.  I was able to live off minimum wage 23 years ago, and there is no reason someone couldn't do it today. 

Rather than post actual costs from then and now and talk about perceived standards of living, just look at the poverty line: 
In 1992 it was roughly $12k for a family of 3 (two adults, one child).  Min Wage was $3.85 per hour, which at full time is ~$16,000 for two working adults.
In 2015, it is roughly $20k for a family of 3.  Min wage is $7.25 per hour, so 2 working adults full time is ~ $30,000 per year. 
You are better off today making min wage than you were 2 decades ago, and even 2 decades ago 2 working parents were WELL above poverty.

Now college:
In 1991, I went to Montana State University.  It cost me $3k per semester for tuition, room, and board.
in 2015, my daughter is going to Montana State University.  It cost me $7800 per semester for tuition, room, and board. (Notice I said "me", not "her", lol)
It is certainly up at a higher rate than the poverty line increase, and even looking at actual costs then vs now of housing, cars, gas, and food costs, college is more expensive by about 20-30% than back then.

However, unless your "summer job" included a pole and a lot of dollar bills, you would have been hard pressed 2 decades ago to work for a couple months in the summer to pay for a year of college.  Perhaps in 1950 you could do that, but in 1950 you lived 20 years less than you do today, so I guess there are some tradeoffs there...