It always amazes me how people with little or no experience doing science end up as science writers, and, worse, end up being taken seriously as science writers.
The latest example is Mary Roach, author of a book about space travel, Packing for Mars. She was interviewed on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" yesterday, and this hilarious exchange took place:
Interviewer Tony Cox: "Do you know whether or not a gun would even operate in zero gravity?"
Roach: "Oh! You know, ahh, that's something for the Mythbusters to play around with!"
(Now, there is actually a small scientific issue about whether a gun will fire in space, but it has nothing to do with "zero gravity". A gun's firing comes from a chemical reaction, and that chemical reaction needs oxygen. In an oxygen-free environment, if the gunpowder doesn't contain its own oxidizer, the gun wouldn't fire. But, as I understand it, most modern gun cartridges do contain their own oxidizers, so this would not be an issue.)
If you don't know that "zero gravity" isn't an issue for whether a gun could fire, then you have no business writing a book about space travel.
Elsewhere in the program, Steve from Florence, Kentucky said, "I understand that when people are actually put into a Faraday cage so there's no electromagnetic radiation that actually comes in contact with them, they kind of lose the ability to actually think. As I understand it, when humans go into space, this is a problem. How has NASA dealt with this?" And instead of laughing and explaining why this is nonsense, Roach goes off onto a tangent about "space stupids".
Shouldn't a good science education be a prerequisite for science writers?
You don't even need a good science education to recognise both questions as implausible.
ReplyDeleteA gun depends in no way on the action of gravity. You can fire it facing up or down, with the firing mechanism at any angle. It depends on gravity in no way more than a crossbow or, for that matter, the reaction thrusters that are used to steer a spaceship in orbit.
A "faraday cage" is just a metal box, encountered daily when one enters a car, train or airplane, or even an elevator. If such cages had the stultifying effects claimed, this would be very obvious.
So: Mary Roach knows less basic physics than I did in high school, but gets to wrote books that people pay good money for? Words fail.
ReplyDeleteWell, look at the short biographical sketch of this person, Roach, and you can see that she has a degree in psychology; no formal science/physics education.
ReplyDeleteYes, some sort of science education is somewhat necessary (but not sufficient) to become a science writer. Of course, education alone cannot make you a good science writer.
But why are we surprised about blunders of people who decide to engage in science writing in order to make some bucks? Look around in Academia, and you will find lots of people with formal science education and PhDs and what have you, who can do no science. (Sometimes they can do business.)
If you want an example of a good science writer, who has not had formal science education, but nevertheless managed to learn enough to understand what she's writing about, look at "King of Infinite Space", by Siobahn Roberts. This is a biography of H.S.M. Coxeter (and, perhaps, strictly speaking, not in the science writing category) and the book is superb. (Even Freeman Dyson says so.)
Of course you can fire a gun in space. Has she never watched the Firefly episode "Our Mrs. Reynolds"?
ReplyDeleteThough I have to say, I very much enjoyed Mary Roach's entertaining talk about orgasms at TED. For that I forgive her ignorance of high school physics.
ReplyDeleteDon't all explosives either contain their own oxidants or consist of a compound which is unstable to spontaneous exothermic decay? Gunpowder uses saltpetre (potassium nitrate) as an oxidant. If the explosive required external oxygen to detonate then its power would be limited by its surface area - not very effective.
ReplyDeleteNitroglycerine, otoh, spontaneously deflagrates:
C3H5(NO3)3 → 3CO2 + 2.5H2O + 1.5N2 + 0.25O2
Garkbit, I am no expert on explosive compounds, but I am sure that a lot of the volatile chemicals in explosives do not contain the oxygen to ignite them. I am pretty sure that you are correct that a lot of commercial and military grade explosives are packaged with their own oxidants to promote the most bang for the buck... pun kind of intended :)
ReplyDeleteFor example, the gasoline that is burned in automobiles does not contain the oxygen needed to ignite, but it readily aerosols, so it is very dangerous on our oxygen rich planet.
I think that firing a gun in space would be a bit foolish in the sense that since the gravity in space is greatly diminished in comparison to the Earth (depending on where you are of course) the velocity of the round fired would not slow as much as it would on Earth. That and puncturing the hull of your vessel would cause a lot of technical problems... So lets keep the guns out of space. :)
I suppose it's possible for the book to be good even when the author can't extemporize . . . but that's just . . . just . . . [facepalm]
ReplyDeleteVladimir, wait a minute, you're starting to sound a little like Mary Roach.
ReplyDelete"Garkbit, I am no expert on explosive compounds, but I am sure that a lot of the volatile chemicals in explosives do not contain the oxygen to ignite them...
For example, the gasoline that is burned in automobiles does not contain the oxygen needed to ignite..."
Gasoline is not an explosive - it's a compound that burns. Garkbit was right - explosives are chemical reactions that happen very very quickly, and having all the chemicals necessary right there in the mix is a requirement.
"I think that firing a gun in space would be a bit foolish in the sense that since the gravity in space is greatly diminished in comparison to the Earth (depending on where you are of course) the velocity of the round fired would not slow as much as it would on Earth."
What? This makes no sense.