We simply weren't made to live without gravity. That fact has always been the biggest challenge about space travel. Think rocket science is hard? Try building a toilet that works in zero gravity.
In "Packing for Mars," Mary Roach explores all the crazy, gross, odd and fascinating physiological challenges that have confronted space engineers and scientists for the past 50 years of human space flight, and which make a trip to Mars a seeming impossibility. Roach — whose previous books include "Stiff," about cadavers, and "Bonk," about the science of sex — carefully researches the awkward details of life in space then describes what's she found with enthusiasm and great humor.
I interviewed Roach while she was in Austin late last month to promote the paperback release of "Packing for Mars." Here's an edited transcript:
American-Statesman: You were a kid in the 1960s, during NASA's heyday. Have you always been interested in space travel?
Mary Roach: No, surprisingly enough. I was born in 1959, so I was pretty young then, but I don't remember the moon landing. I was not at all a space-obsessed child. I'm a late bloomer to space flight.
What got you interested in the subject?
Years ago I had an assignment from Discover magazine about the neutral buoyancy tank, which is that huge tank where NASA trains astronauts for spacewalking. I got to the Johnson Space Center, and it was just like the magical kingdom. There was just so much bizarre, amazing, interesting stuff going on. The day I was there they were rehearsing what would be a six-hour spacewalk. The rehearsals were amounting to 250 hours of time in the tank. I had no idea the amount of training and work that goes into living in space.
One question you always hear astronauts asked is, how do you use the bathroom in space? That question ties in with your fascination with the human body in all its messy glory.
Well, yeah. I have a chapter in the book about going to the bathroom in space — it's only one chapter, but it picks up a disproportionate amount of the coverage of the book, which reflects, I think, a universal fascination. To me it was fascinating not just because of the tee-hee value but because it's a wonderful example of the unbelievable challenges of life without gravity. The things we take for granted — you don't really think of the toilet as something that requires gravity, but in zero gravity, the "material," to use a NASA euphemism, doesn't fall into the toilet. So you've got to completely rethink the toilet. That's a fascinating thing.
The book underscores two things: You really aren't aware how much you need gravity until you try to live without it. And so much for the glamorous life of an astronaut.
I know. It isn't glamorous, but I think most astronauts happily accept the inconveniences — the smells, the awkwardness, the lack of creature comforts — for the ability to be where they are, in this place with this amazing view that so few people have ever had. It's like backpacking times a hundred. You know, backpacking is difficult. It's a pain to sleep on the ground, you eat bad food, but it enables you to get to these amazing places that you don't ordinarily get to.
Do you use humor in your writing to make your subject more accessible? Or does your humor come from a natural, absurdist point of view?
The latter, I would say, more than the former. It's not a conscious tool that I use to draw the reader in. I'm not really using it in that much of an intentional way; it's how I enjoy writing and I guess it's how I see the world. It doesn't work everywhere, but I think it's more fun for the reader and it's certainly more fun for me as the writer.
You and I are roughly the same age. When we were kids, we were promised a future with jet backs, moon colonies and trips to Mars. But, really, there was no giant leap for mankind after Apollo 11. Our future was a fantasy, wasn't it?
It does seem to be dragging its feet. I remember "The Jetsons," "Lost in Space," "2001" a little bit later — yeah, "2001." Not quite! I do feel a little ripped off that I don't have a jet pack.
You know, Apollo happened so quickly. Obviously there were political pressures to get the moon landing done, make it happen and get there first. You look at some of the conferences that went down in the '60s, and everybody was saying, "OK, next up, Mars!" It did seem back then that that's where we were going to go. Then everything kind of slowed down.
As NASA grew, it became this sort of lumbering, decision-by-consensus bureaucracy. It's also the case that getting to Mars is just not as easy as people thought. And we don't have the pressure of, problems be damned, we are getting there first.
Do you think there's value in at least trying for Mars?
I do. You're thinking so far out of the box when you're dealing with zero gravity — everything has to be rethought and miniaturized and automated. There's just tremendous creativity that goes into it and I think that would be beneficial. Also, inspiring kids to go into engineering and science — you look at the number of kids doing math and science today and how far the U.S. is falling behind, I don't think that's insignificant.
And if you have a global mission with a lot of countries contributing money and expertise, it doesn't have to sap the budget the way it might if it were a one-nation effort.
I understand the other side of the argument: We have a lot of problems on Earth. But it's not like if you take money away from the space program it will automatically be applied to education or health care. It never works that way.
jseaborn@statesman.com; 445-1702
Packing for Mars
The Curious Science of Life in the Void
Mary Roach
Norton; $15.95 (paperback)
No comments:
Post a Comment