What do you think?
Rate this book
A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through?
Earth is not well. The promise of starting life anew somewhere far, far away—no climate change, no war, no social media—beckons, and settling the stars finally seems within our grasp. Or is it? Critically acclaimed, bestselling authors Kelly and Zach Weinersmith set out to write the essential guide to a glorious future of space settlements, but after years of research, they aren’t so sure it’s a good idea. Space technologies and space business are progressing fast, but we lack the knowledge needed to have space kids, build space farms, and create space nations in a way that doesn’t spark conflict back home. In a world hurtling toward human expansion into space, A City on Mars investigates whether the dream of new worlds won’t create nightmares, both for settlers and the people they leave behind. In the process, the Weinersmiths answer every question about space you’ve ever wondered about, and many you’ve never considered:
Can you make babies in space? Should corporations govern space settlements? What about space war? Are we headed for a housing crisis on the Moon’s Peaks of Eternal Light—and what happens if you’re left in the Craters of Eternal Darkness? Why do astronauts love taco sauce? Speaking of meals, what’s the legal status of space cannibalism?
With deep expertise, a winning sense of humor, and art from the beloved creator of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, the Weinersmiths investigate perhaps the biggest questions humanity will ever ask itself—whether and how to become multi-planetary.
Can you make babies in space? Should corporations govern space settlements? What about space war? Are we headed for a housing crisis on the Moon’s Peaks of Eternal Light—and what happens if you’re left in the Craters of Eternal Darkness? Why do astronauts love taco sauce? Speaking of meals, what’s the legal status of space cannibalism?
With deep expertise, a winning sense of humor, and art from the beloved creator of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, the Weinersmiths investigate perhaps the biggest questions humanity will ever ask itself—whether and how to become multi-planetary.
11 pages, Audiobook
First published November 7, 2023
2057 people are currently reading
31469 people want to read
About the author
Kelly Weinersmith
3 books295 followersDr. Kelly Weinersmith is adjunct faculty Biosciences department at Rice University, where she studies parasites that manipulate the behavior of their hosts. She also cohosts Science…sort of, which is one of the top 20 natural science podcasts. Kelly spoke at Smithsonian magazine’s The Future Is Here Festival in 2015, and her work has been featured in The Atlantic, National Geographic, BBC World, Science, and Nature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,259 reviews
February 18, 2024
“So, humans are squishy and weak. The real estate options are toxic. And pointy. And cold. You’ll be growing vegetables in your own waste, tending your food bugs, and fighting off bark scorpions while drunk on beet wine. This is humanity’s new dawn.”
As both a huge space nerd and an enormous science fiction fan (and yes, I can quote every line in The Martian, too), of course I’m in the “Sign me up for the Mars colony” cult.
Yes, I do own this shirt and wear it often.
But I’m seriously reconsidering that Mars cult membership. Seriously.
“The typical behavior of a non-Earth planet encountering a human is to cook it, freeze it, or crush it.”
It’s easy to get all starry-eyed about leaving our humanity-cradle Earth and imagine heading off-planet for many reasons, be it the hope of preservation of humanity once we finally succeed in destroying the Earth, or just the desire to start anew and better and free of Earth stereotypes and constraints and disasters, or as an ego massage for space billionaires too rich to relate to the rest of humanity any longer. But the reality is, as the Wienersmiths show with humor and occasional cartoons and a whole lot of realistically (and metaphorically) pissing on my imaginary space parade, that we have no technologies or reasonable space laws and that we still have to put up with the same pasty nature of humanity that gave us wars and colonialism.
Not to mention that even the crappiest place on Earth, even if devastated by human activities or just being Antarctica is a paradise compared to the nicest space real estate.
” The only way you could believe this would be if you had no idea how thoroughly, incredibly, impossibly horrible Mars is. The average surface temperature is about -60°C. There’s no breathable air, but there are planetwide dust storms and a layer of toxic dust on the ground. Leaving a 2°C warmer Earth for Mars would be like leaving a messy room so you can live in a toxic waste dump.”
And not to mention occasional musings on space cannibalism.
” Professor, prolific author, and triathlete, Dr. Erik Seedhouse wrote an analysis of space cannibalism in Survival and Sacrifice in Mars Exploration. We don’t know Mr. Seedhouse personally, and he didn’t respond to our email, but we will note that his book’s index contains precisely one entry on “behavioral challenges,” a very important topic, but FIVE entries on the gustatory mode of crew integration.
Seedhouse asks, “Imagine you’re stranded on the Red Planet with three crewmembers. You have plenty of life-support consumables but only sufficient food to last one person until the rescue party arrives. What do you do? . . . One day, while brewing coffee for breakfast, you realize there are three chunks of protein-packed meat living right next to you.” He argues that the largest people should sacrifice themselves first, since they both consume and provide the most food. We don’t know where Seedhouse would fall in the buffet line because we couldn’t find his height and weight online, and honestly we’re scared to ask. Mostly because his book includes a weirdly detailed look at how to butcher Homo sapiens. Also, on page 144, the reader will find a photo of ten astronauts floating happily in space, with the caption: “In the wrong circumstances, a spacecraft is a platform full of hungry people surrounded by temptation. Is it wrong to waste such a neatly packaged meal?”
That is, as they say, a question for philosophers. But we do have one pragmatic piece of advice for any potential Mars settler: Leave Erik Seedhouse at home.”
————
Space settling, even just as far as our own Moon, has issues that go way beyond starry eyes. It’s that pesky realism that ruins the fun.
Babies and reduced gravity (hey, even Elton John did not think Mars was a good place to raise Rocketman’s kids — and that’s before one brings up a “pregnodrome”). Interbreeding. Radiation. Energy. Space toilets. Self-sufficient biospheres (we can’t quite do those yet). Who gets to own resources (would one really want wild capitalism in space?) Possible space land grabs by the rich and the powerful. Company towns and labor practices that are terrible even when those billionaires are still on Earth. Space wars. Flinging asteroids around (just ask the dinosaurs).
“Fantasies about going to space usually involve escape. Sometimes it’s the personal escape of a single character in a story, but just as often it’s about humanity escaping institutions and traditions seen as repressive or ugly or dying or dull. But here’s the thing: You can’t leave. Not really. Not in time to stop any calamity on the horizon or any social decay you see as imminent. And if you could leave and build a new civilization, do you know what you’d do first? You’d start re-creating Earth as we know it. Not just our biosphere, but social institutions we’ve had to wrench away from the darker side of our nature—things like the rule of law, human rights, and norms of behavior between societies.”
This is a fun book that’s smart and funny but it doesn’t overdo it on the funny. Some books are trying too hard to be funny but this one manages to stop just short of that. It worked for me but may irritate those more seriously-minded (or those who don’t include Mars shirts in their wardrobe). I loved the cartoons (obviously) and the apologetic tone for ruining our imagined space fun.
The Wienersmiths would be fun to go for drinks with, that’s for certain.
Maybe, just maybe, I’ll leave Martian potato poop-farming to Mark Watney. Enjoy your pooptatoes, dude. I’ll consider the mild paradise of a friendly Antarctica weather instead.
4.5 stars.
“Earth isn’t perfect, but as planets go it’s a pretty good one. We aren’t saying you should give up on the hope for a life off-world—that’s too pretty a dream to part with. What we are saying is that if you do want that dream, you have to see the challenges as they are—real, profound, and present at every level from molecules to sociology. We hope, at the very least, when you read an article or hear a conversation about space settlement as an idea, you’ll be able to see it as a very rich problem, which won’t be solved simply by ambitious fantasies or giant rockets.
————
“We don’t know how to do it yet, but we still believe that someday, with enough knowledge, we can have Mars. And one very faraway day, other solar systems. But we have to earn it, both by gaining in knowledge and by becoming a more responsible, more peaceful species. Going to the stars will not make us wise. We have to become wise if we want to go to the stars.”
February 27, 2024
This is a fun pop science book about space settlement and mining in space. The authors are very witty and had me chuckling throughout. That, along with lots of cool facts, makes this a very entertaining read.
February 2, 2024
"It is no longer a question of if we will colonise the Moon and Mars, but when..."
—Tim Peake, astronaut
A City on Mars had its moments, but ultimately, it ended up being a mixed bag for me. I am admittedly a huge fan of books on space exploration and future science, but this one left a bit to be desired. More below. The authors drop the quote above at the start of the book.
Authors Kelly Weinersmith and Zach Weinersmith are married. Kelly is an American scientist, New York Times-best selling writer, and podcaster. She is a member of the faculty at Rice University, and an alumni collaborator with the Parasite Ecology Group at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Zach is an American cartoonist and writer, best known for his webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
Zach Weinersmith and Kelly Weinersmith:
The book opens with a good intro. They've got a lively style; for the most part. The book is written with liberal pepperings of humour added, in an attempt to keep things fun and light. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is (IMHO) very difficult to pull off effectively, and can be really hit-or-miss... Someone like Bill Bryson is a good example of an author who really nails this style well.
Sadly, I feel that - despite the authors' best efforts - this style didn't really work here. I found their attempts to be funny got a bit grating as the book went on, and managed to irritate the hell out of me as the book progressed... (Sorry)
Although this could have been a lot to do with the narrator of the audio version. She's very... animated (for lack of a better term), and I think this started to wear on me.
They lay out the aim of the book in this bit of writing:
As I mentioned above, I love books about future science. I read a lot of sci-fi in my youth and it sparked a life-long flame for me. The topic(s) of space exploration and/or colonization are extremely interesting.
My own take (before and after reading this book), is that it will remain no more than a pipe dream for a very long time. There are just some basic but extremely difficult obstacles to overcome.
To their credit, each of these topics (and more) are examined in this book.
They are; in no particular order:
* Interstellar radiation. All kinds of short-wave ionizing radiation are being beamed throughout the cosmos everywhere, and always. Bad for humans. Crops can't survive this bombardment, either.
* Energy. What can we use? There are no fossil fuels on Mars.
* Life at <1g-0G. Humans have not evolved to live in environments less than 1g. Although you may want to discount this, there have been major problems with life in 0g, even from durations as short as a few months.
* The long transit time between Earth and Mars. The long communication delay for any correspondence.
They also drop this quote early on, speaking to the difficulties of colonizing Mars:
On the positive side, I will say that the book was very well-researched and contains quite a lot of informative and interesting information about the possibilities, limitations, and challenges of colonizing other planets, and even space; in general. The authors clearly spent quite a lot of time with this book, and it would make a great reference guide.
However, and further to what I mentioned earlier, I felt that the book was just too long. The version I have clocks in at a buky 628 pages. The audio version: Over 11 hours. While it got off to a good start, I found my finicky attention wandering many times as it progressed...
Fault me if you will for being too picky about how engaging I find a book, but I often find that shorter books are more effective at conveying information than longer ones. Longer books tend to go off on lengthy segues and dive deep into the weeds, rarely coming up for air. This has the effect of leaving the reader frustrated (well, this reader, anyhow...)
In this case, I felt that there was just too much superfluous writing, particularly after the first ~half of the book. I found the latter ~half of the book really dragged for me. Obviously, this is likely a subjective thing, and your mileage may vary...
********************
A City on Mars was a mixed bag for me. On one hand, it contained quite a lot of really interesting and informative writing. On the other hand, I became frustrated with its long length and tedium at times.
So, this leaves me rating it at 2.5 stars, but rounded up to 3, since the authors did try to keep things lively.
It's just too bad that it didn't resonate as well with me as I'd hoped...
—Tim Peake, astronaut
A City on Mars had its moments, but ultimately, it ended up being a mixed bag for me. I am admittedly a huge fan of books on space exploration and future science, but this one left a bit to be desired. More below. The authors drop the quote above at the start of the book.
Authors Kelly Weinersmith and Zach Weinersmith are married. Kelly is an American scientist, New York Times-best selling writer, and podcaster. She is a member of the faculty at Rice University, and an alumni collaborator with the Parasite Ecology Group at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Zach is an American cartoonist and writer, best known for his webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
Zach Weinersmith and Kelly Weinersmith:
The book opens with a good intro. They've got a lively style; for the most part. The book is written with liberal pepperings of humour added, in an attempt to keep things fun and light. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is (IMHO) very difficult to pull off effectively, and can be really hit-or-miss... Someone like Bill Bryson is a good example of an author who really nails this style well.
Sadly, I feel that - despite the authors' best efforts - this style didn't really work here. I found their attempts to be funny got a bit grating as the book went on, and managed to irritate the hell out of me as the book progressed... (Sorry)
Although this could have been a lot to do with the narrator of the audio version. She's very... animated (for lack of a better term), and I think this started to wear on me.
They lay out the aim of the book in this bit of writing:
"The little book you’re reading right now, which admittedly begins with a Uranus joke and contains an explainer on space cannibalism (stay tuned), is nevertheless the only popular science book we’re aware of that offers the whole picture without trying to sell you on the idea of near-term space expansion.[*] Rather, we’ll try to clear up a lot of misconceptions and then replace them with a much more realistic view of how feasible space settlements are and what they might mean for humanity."
As I mentioned above, I love books about future science. I read a lot of sci-fi in my youth and it sparked a life-long flame for me. The topic(s) of space exploration and/or colonization are extremely interesting.
My own take (before and after reading this book), is that it will remain no more than a pipe dream for a very long time. There are just some basic but extremely difficult obstacles to overcome.
To their credit, each of these topics (and more) are examined in this book.
They are; in no particular order:
* Interstellar radiation. All kinds of short-wave ionizing radiation are being beamed throughout the cosmos everywhere, and always. Bad for humans. Crops can't survive this bombardment, either.
* Energy. What can we use? There are no fossil fuels on Mars.
* Life at <1g-0G. Humans have not evolved to live in environments less than 1g. Although you may want to discount this, there have been major problems with life in 0g, even from durations as short as a few months.
* The long transit time between Earth and Mars. The long communication delay for any correspondence.
They also drop this quote early on, speaking to the difficulties of colonizing Mars:
"Consider the 2015 Newsweek article “ ‘Star Wars’ Class Wars: Is Mars the Escape Hatch for the 1 Percent?” which claims “the red planet will likely only be for the rich, leaving the poor to suffer as earth’s environment collapses and conflict breaks out.” The only way you could believe this would be if you had no idea how thoroughly, incredibly, impossibly horrible Mars is. The average surface temperature is about -60°C. There’s no breathable air, but there are planetwide dust storms and a layer of toxic dust on the ground. Leaving a 2°C warmer Earth for Mars would be like leaving a messy room so you can live in a toxic waste dump. The truth is that settling other worlds, in the sense of creating self-sustaining societies somewhere away from Earth, is not only quite unlikely anytime soon, it won’t deliver on the benefits touted by advocates. No vast riches, no new independent nations, no second home for humanity, not even a safety bunker for ultra elites."
On the positive side, I will say that the book was very well-researched and contains quite a lot of informative and interesting information about the possibilities, limitations, and challenges of colonizing other planets, and even space; in general. The authors clearly spent quite a lot of time with this book, and it would make a great reference guide.
However, and further to what I mentioned earlier, I felt that the book was just too long. The version I have clocks in at a buky 628 pages. The audio version: Over 11 hours. While it got off to a good start, I found my finicky attention wandering many times as it progressed...
Fault me if you will for being too picky about how engaging I find a book, but I often find that shorter books are more effective at conveying information than longer ones. Longer books tend to go off on lengthy segues and dive deep into the weeds, rarely coming up for air. This has the effect of leaving the reader frustrated (well, this reader, anyhow...)
In this case, I felt that there was just too much superfluous writing, particularly after the first ~half of the book. I found the latter ~half of the book really dragged for me. Obviously, this is likely a subjective thing, and your mileage may vary...
********************
A City on Mars was a mixed bag for me. On one hand, it contained quite a lot of really interesting and informative writing. On the other hand, I became frustrated with its long length and tedium at times.
So, this leaves me rating it at 2.5 stars, but rounded up to 3, since the authors did try to keep things lively.
It's just too bad that it didn't resonate as well with me as I'd hoped...
December 1, 2023
For anyone who watched The Martian and thought, "Heck yeah! When can we go?", A City on Mars is an entertaining reality check.
The book was a lot of fun considering the somewhat downer of a thesis. In the opening chapter of the book, the authors answer the main questions posed in the subtitle: Can we settle space and should we settle space? To paraphrase the fun-loving Weinersmiths, we probably can... but let's not try just yet.
The authors pose a lot of important questions that science has not yet answered. The chapters on space babies and closed ecosystems were particularly interesting to me. However, I struggled a bit through the space law chapter. (I know it's important, but it's just not super exciting.) Lastly, I thought the comparison to company towns was super insightful.
I am by no means a space geek, but the Weinersmiths kinda made me want to become one.
Good times all around!
The book was a lot of fun considering the somewhat downer of a thesis. In the opening chapter of the book, the authors answer the main questions posed in the subtitle: Can we settle space and should we settle space? To paraphrase the fun-loving Weinersmiths, we probably can... but let's not try just yet.
The authors pose a lot of important questions that science has not yet answered. The chapters on space babies and closed ecosystems were particularly interesting to me. However, I struggled a bit through the space law chapter. (I know it's important, but it's just not super exciting.) Lastly, I thought the comparison to company towns was super insightful.
I am by no means a space geek, but the Weinersmiths kinda made me want to become one.
Good times all around!
August 21, 2025
Space sucks
This was an extremely entertaining pop science book about the possibilities of colonizing space and the authors are not shy about their opinion: there is little reason for humanity to colonize space at the current moment. Why? Because space sucks. The authors go over every argument of the benefits for colonizing space and basically tear them apart. No, there are not unlimited sources of materials on the moon, Mars or an asteroid that would even remotely justify an expedition to mine then. No, the world wouldn't just spontaneous get rich from the bounty of space that is ripe for the taking. All the reasons that people put forth as benefits of space are literally already on Earth. All the ways in which humans suck on Earth will continue to happen in space. Just because the moon has some helium 3, doesn't mean it's in meaningful abundancy to justify an expensive space mission to claim it. There is zero economic reason to get resources from space.
The authors drag out all the reasons why space sucks: no atmosphere, everything is dangerous, tons of solar radiation and oh yeah-terrible gravity. We know absolutely nothing about the long term problems of living in low gravity let alone growing a fetus and raising children. No one in the right mind should be trying to have children in space, the moon or Mars. The data is just extremely lacking on the effects of space colonization on the human body. They talk about the best ways to colonize which wouldn't be some domed colony but probably trying to get by in a "lavatube" a natural cave in the ground to protect from space radiation and try to create an atmosphere underground.
There is an amazing discussion about the politics of space colonization and the Outer Space Treaty (OST) and the extreme lacking of durable space law. If countries try to colonize the moon, which does have a few some resources, is it their land? Does space sovereignty exist? Who controls a colony if it is own my Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos? Do space colonizers want to live in corporate towns where now the very air they breath is privatized? A bazillion more questions like this are just on the table and remain unanswered while moguls say we'll have a colony on Mars in 20 years. It's just so absurd.
This book is written by space dorks. They have the street cred to be both naysayers and alarmists. Highly entertaining and seems like a great book for the general public to read.
This was an extremely entertaining pop science book about the possibilities of colonizing space and the authors are not shy about their opinion: there is little reason for humanity to colonize space at the current moment. Why? Because space sucks. The authors go over every argument of the benefits for colonizing space and basically tear them apart. No, there are not unlimited sources of materials on the moon, Mars or an asteroid that would even remotely justify an expedition to mine then. No, the world wouldn't just spontaneous get rich from the bounty of space that is ripe for the taking. All the reasons that people put forth as benefits of space are literally already on Earth. All the ways in which humans suck on Earth will continue to happen in space. Just because the moon has some helium 3, doesn't mean it's in meaningful abundancy to justify an expensive space mission to claim it. There is zero economic reason to get resources from space.
The authors drag out all the reasons why space sucks: no atmosphere, everything is dangerous, tons of solar radiation and oh yeah-terrible gravity. We know absolutely nothing about the long term problems of living in low gravity let alone growing a fetus and raising children. No one in the right mind should be trying to have children in space, the moon or Mars. The data is just extremely lacking on the effects of space colonization on the human body. They talk about the best ways to colonize which wouldn't be some domed colony but probably trying to get by in a "lavatube" a natural cave in the ground to protect from space radiation and try to create an atmosphere underground.
There is an amazing discussion about the politics of space colonization and the Outer Space Treaty (OST) and the extreme lacking of durable space law. If countries try to colonize the moon, which does have a few some resources, is it their land? Does space sovereignty exist? Who controls a colony if it is own my Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos? Do space colonizers want to live in corporate towns where now the very air they breath is privatized? A bazillion more questions like this are just on the table and remain unanswered while moguls say we'll have a colony on Mars in 20 years. It's just so absurd.
This book is written by space dorks. They have the street cred to be both naysayers and alarmists. Highly entertaining and seems like a great book for the general public to read.
July 19, 2024
Why is there a subset of people who are obsessed with moving to Mars and how likely is this dream to come true? I suspect that they have a variety of reasons including adventure, loving technology, wanting a new start on a new frontier, and a long standing love of science fiction. If you have a thorough grounding in genre fiction, you can envision space stations, planetary colonies, asteroid mining facilities, and spaceships making regular flights just like airlines. The problem with these visions is the beginning: how do you get these things started?
How long have we (humanity, that is) had space stations? It's been decades and these facilities are nowhere near being self sufficient. They are close enough to Earth for regular resupply, as they must be. Going outside is a major endeavour, fraught with danger from debris and radiation, not to mention the cold vacuum out there. Heck, they still are constantly having to fix the station toilet (see An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth or Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void. It turns out gravity really is your friend if you want well functioning plumbing).
The authors of this book state that they are concerned that space settlement seems to be becoming a purview of tech billionaires, who have unusual ideas about human behaviour that may skew the process. Indeed, if you pay any attention to these matters, you know that Musk has his eye on Mars while Bezos is a proponent of giant space stations. There seems to be a lot of hand waving about how the actual details will be worked out. Making a rocket to take people off Earth is easier than creating a balanced environment to welcome these travellers. Space agencies and rich guys all have a very entitled white guy mentality—they seem to take for granted that the environment will simply accommodate them, just as Earth does or that the new place will easily be adapted to human necessities. Since biosphere experiments here on Earth have been somewhat harrowing, this doesn't bode well for our space pioneers. Devaluing the natural world and its processes doesn't negate its importance. They also just seem to assume that pregnancy and fetal development will just happen naturally in low to no gravity situations, taking women for granted too. Shouldn't this be researched a bit?
I was very engaged in the first 200ish pages, as the technical details of survival are examined. Then the legal chapters followed, inspiring a great deal of yawning and very heavy eyelids on my part. Yes, it's important. Yes, it has implications for space development. However it's like reading your cell phone contract--only interesting to certain folks and a horrible slog for the rest of us. Of more interest to me was the discussion of company towns and the economic relationships between administrators and workers in the very isolated environs of space. Planners of space settlements seem to forget that humans aren't very good at utopia. We bring human nature with us wherever we go, even to Mars and beyond. (Read Martha Wells' Murderbot Diaries and see if her corporate entities sound familiar. See also C.J. Cherryh's Company Wars series.) After all vanity, ambition, and stubbornness are known in every human society. You can rest assured that they will accompany us to space.
If this book interests you, I would recommend also reading Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires to get a good feel for how billionaires view the world. If you want to read fiction about tech billionaires trying to escape the rest of humanity, try The Future. Science fiction about the planet Mars is everywhere. Most notable is the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, which envisions humans moving to the Red Planet, doing some serious terraforming, and developing their own society and politics. I found that series technology and politics heavy, but I finished it eventually. More fun (and realistic) to my way of thinking is Andy Weir's The Martian (which I now have a burning desire to reread).
How long have we (humanity, that is) had space stations? It's been decades and these facilities are nowhere near being self sufficient. They are close enough to Earth for regular resupply, as they must be. Going outside is a major endeavour, fraught with danger from debris and radiation, not to mention the cold vacuum out there. Heck, they still are constantly having to fix the station toilet (see An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth or Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void. It turns out gravity really is your friend if you want well functioning plumbing).
The authors of this book state that they are concerned that space settlement seems to be becoming a purview of tech billionaires, who have unusual ideas about human behaviour that may skew the process. Indeed, if you pay any attention to these matters, you know that Musk has his eye on Mars while Bezos is a proponent of giant space stations. There seems to be a lot of hand waving about how the actual details will be worked out. Making a rocket to take people off Earth is easier than creating a balanced environment to welcome these travellers. Space agencies and rich guys all have a very entitled white guy mentality—they seem to take for granted that the environment will simply accommodate them, just as Earth does or that the new place will easily be adapted to human necessities. Since biosphere experiments here on Earth have been somewhat harrowing, this doesn't bode well for our space pioneers. Devaluing the natural world and its processes doesn't negate its importance. They also just seem to assume that pregnancy and fetal development will just happen naturally in low to no gravity situations, taking women for granted too. Shouldn't this be researched a bit?
I was very engaged in the first 200ish pages, as the technical details of survival are examined. Then the legal chapters followed, inspiring a great deal of yawning and very heavy eyelids on my part. Yes, it's important. Yes, it has implications for space development. However it's like reading your cell phone contract--only interesting to certain folks and a horrible slog for the rest of us. Of more interest to me was the discussion of company towns and the economic relationships between administrators and workers in the very isolated environs of space. Planners of space settlements seem to forget that humans aren't very good at utopia. We bring human nature with us wherever we go, even to Mars and beyond. (Read Martha Wells' Murderbot Diaries and see if her corporate entities sound familiar. See also C.J. Cherryh's Company Wars series.) After all vanity, ambition, and stubbornness are known in every human society. You can rest assured that they will accompany us to space.
If this book interests you, I would recommend also reading Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires to get a good feel for how billionaires view the world. If you want to read fiction about tech billionaires trying to escape the rest of humanity, try The Future. Science fiction about the planet Mars is everywhere. Most notable is the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, which envisions humans moving to the Red Planet, doing some serious terraforming, and developing their own society and politics. I found that series technology and politics heavy, but I finished it eventually. More fun (and realistic) to my way of thinking is Andy Weir's The Martian (which I now have a burning desire to reread).
January 29, 2024
This was very engaging and fun way to read and learn about settling in space. Think it was well researched and easy to understand. Altough it's very clear that living in space is not a great idea at least in the nearest future which actually makes me feel calmer. I've heard the discussion about settling in space and I wasn't getting good feels about it and according to at least this book, I was right.
December 5, 2023
Abandoning early for now, but may return later. Not enjoying as much as other Weinersmith publications. Some initial observations:
- There's a missing mood--space travel is cool! The beginning especially is pessimistic where pragmatism would have sufficed.
- Spends the opening section arguing against a set of naive positions that I imagine relatively few readers endorse (or have even heard of).
- Seems satisfied with "we have no evidence" statements around long-term health effects of space. Let's get some (so long people consent to the risk)?
- Overly deferential to the same political processes that created the much-maligned current regulations. Surely they can be changed before they destroy the world?
- But the point on short-term space settlement increasing existential risk is interesting!
- But also, space is horrible and mostly empty but so desirable that people will fight civilization-ending wars over it?
- Might be addressed later, but seems to be overfitting on current technological landscape. Advances in robotics, nanotech, AI, etc. could quickly upend underlying assumptions.
- There's a missing mood--space travel is cool! The beginning especially is pessimistic where pragmatism would have sufficed.
- Spends the opening section arguing against a set of naive positions that I imagine relatively few readers endorse (or have even heard of).
- Seems satisfied with "we have no evidence" statements around long-term health effects of space. Let's get some (so long people consent to the risk)?
- Overly deferential to the same political processes that created the much-maligned current regulations. Surely they can be changed before they destroy the world?
- But the point on short-term space settlement increasing existential risk is interesting!
- But also, space is horrible and mostly empty but so desirable that people will fight civilization-ending wars over it?
- Might be addressed later, but seems to be overfitting on current technological landscape. Advances in robotics, nanotech, AI, etc. could quickly upend underlying assumptions.
November 6, 2023
A very good accessible and understandable academic piece of literature. As a student currently creating a piece of writing about whether humanity should be exploring space, it was a very useful resource that covered a variety of bases. It was also very informative in general about just how much needs to be considered before space colonisation can ever really be an option.
April 4, 2024
This is a very informative book but what’s with the humor? This is a bit too much tongue-in-cheek for my taste. Otherwise, this is much recommended read.
August 27, 2025
A City on Mars : Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through? (2023) by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith is an amusing read about just how difficult space settlement would really be. Zach is the author of the highly successful webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal and his wife Kelly is a biologist at Rice University.
The book covers similar ground to the book Spacefarers by Christopher Wanjek. That book is better overall but not as funny.
It’s important to note that the Weinersmiths are self-described space nerds and they are really keen on space exploration, but they also want people to be realistic about space travel and space settlements.
The book has six parts. The first is all about just how hard living in space is on a human body. They go into how what happens to astronauts when they spend six months in space. The second part of the book surveys the places people could live in space, the best places being the moon, Mars or a space station. The difficulty of creating a successful biome in space is next considered. Part four looks at space law and how tricky that is. Part five looks at how space colonisation could be done. Part six describes how many people you’d need for a successful civilisation and considers space politics. The book finally summarises what the Weinersmiths think.
The book is probably the first popularisation that really goes into detail about how ferociously difficult space settlement would be. It’s quite a contrast to books like ‘The High Frontier’ and books by Robert Zubrin. It’s probably far more realistic too.
The book spends quite a lot of time discussing the legal difficulties of space exploration. This is interesting, but of all the things about space settlement being difficult this is one that surely we can handle. Humanity handled it, albeit with wars, when Europeans colonised the Americas. Also the law has shown itself to be able to adapt to new circumstances very well. The way the law has managed to work well with the internet.
The book also, surprisingly, has little to say about the role of robotic exploration of the solar system. With the recent improvements in AI and NASA’s success with robotics avoiding sending wet meatbags into space with so much requirement for life support may not be as necessary. About 15-20 years ago I went to an interesting talk where the way to colonise space was described as sending robots with human eggs and sperm to other galaxies. With nuclear powered spacecraft similar to Project Orion this would be physically feasible.
A City of Mars is well worth a read for anyone interested in space exploration. Even for people who disagree with the conclusions it’s an amusing read that presents serious arguments well.
The book covers similar ground to the book Spacefarers by Christopher Wanjek. That book is better overall but not as funny.
It’s important to note that the Weinersmiths are self-described space nerds and they are really keen on space exploration, but they also want people to be realistic about space travel and space settlements.
The book has six parts. The first is all about just how hard living in space is on a human body. They go into how what happens to astronauts when they spend six months in space. The second part of the book surveys the places people could live in space, the best places being the moon, Mars or a space station. The difficulty of creating a successful biome in space is next considered. Part four looks at space law and how tricky that is. Part five looks at how space colonisation could be done. Part six describes how many people you’d need for a successful civilisation and considers space politics. The book finally summarises what the Weinersmiths think.
The book is probably the first popularisation that really goes into detail about how ferociously difficult space settlement would be. It’s quite a contrast to books like ‘The High Frontier’ and books by Robert Zubrin. It’s probably far more realistic too.
The book spends quite a lot of time discussing the legal difficulties of space exploration. This is interesting, but of all the things about space settlement being difficult this is one that surely we can handle. Humanity handled it, albeit with wars, when Europeans colonised the Americas. Also the law has shown itself to be able to adapt to new circumstances very well. The way the law has managed to work well with the internet.
The book also, surprisingly, has little to say about the role of robotic exploration of the solar system. With the recent improvements in AI and NASA’s success with robotics avoiding sending wet meatbags into space with so much requirement for life support may not be as necessary. About 15-20 years ago I went to an interesting talk where the way to colonise space was described as sending robots with human eggs and sperm to other galaxies. With nuclear powered spacecraft similar to Project Orion this would be physically feasible.
A City of Mars is well worth a read for anyone interested in space exploration. Even for people who disagree with the conclusions it’s an amusing read that presents serious arguments well.
November 29, 2023
A book with a bibliography of this size has every right to be more serious and focused and technical. The humor, despite giving me a few laughs, distracted and detracted. It all ended up as more of a comedic opinion fluff piece rather than the persuasive research-backed book it aspires to be. Too bad, as there was some good information and some good arguments in there.
As to UNCLOS being a model for the space commons, it seems to me to have a major difference: the deep sea is here, and damaging it by spewing far ranging toxins affects the life it contains, so environmental concerns argue for proceeding slowly (even if commercial interests win out in the end). Everywhere else is “just a rock, no indigenous life”. There is nothing short of the threat of war to stop the mad dash for space, and we can only hope that threat is taken seriously.
As much as I love the idea of space travel in spite of its dangers, seeing it dominated by egotistical libertarian billionaires brings me down.
As to UNCLOS being a model for the space commons, it seems to me to have a major difference: the deep sea is here, and damaging it by spewing far ranging toxins affects the life it contains, so environmental concerns argue for proceeding slowly (even if commercial interests win out in the end). Everywhere else is “just a rock, no indigenous life”. There is nothing short of the threat of war to stop the mad dash for space, and we can only hope that threat is taken seriously.
As much as I love the idea of space travel in spite of its dangers, seeing it dominated by egotistical libertarian billionaires brings me down.
November 10, 2025
DNF @ 20%. I can respect the opinions of the author but it was influencer-ish. I do better with science talk instead of pop culture. It just wasn’t for me.
August 11, 2025
"We've repeatedly encountered space-settlement enthusiasts who believe that because we don't know whether there's a problem, we should assume it's okay."
A City on Mars is an absolute slam-dunk, hole-in-one, touchdown manifesto on the realities of settling space. Twinkling with humor, wit, and--above all--passion, Kelly and Zach Weinersmith precisely lay out why the grass would not be greener for humans on Mars or the Moon. Good luck even getting that grass to survive. The Weinersmiths give us an incredibly organized argument detailing many of the biological, ethical, economic, legal, and environmental issues that space-settlement enthusiasts either brush off or outright ignore, and the flawed logic they instead try to make part of the narrative. This book wouldn't work as well as it does if the Weinersmiths weren't so passionate and invested in this field--this book wasn't originally intended to be a critique, but the more research they did, the more they were unable to ignore the issues. Loving something means accepting it, flaws and all. A City On Mars is a masterpiece of popular science writing, a page-turner despite the dense and intimidating subject, carefully balancing critique and optimism, and lovingly littered with cartoons and jokes that made me laugh out loud. As a full-time astronomy educator, I learned a lot from this book. Sure, some of the slightly more political opinions may not be for everyone, but anyone interested in living on another planet needs to read this book. If my fourteen year-old self who wanted to go die on Mars got to read this book, I might've figured a few things out much quicker.
"We don't know how to do it yet, but we still believe that someday, with enough knowledge, we can have Mars. And one very faraway day, other solar systems. But we have to earn it, both by gaining in knowledge and by becoming a more responsible, more peaceful species. Going to the stars will not make us wise. We have to become wise if we want to go to the stars."
You're welcome, former B&N coworkers, feel free to use this review to talk to customers about this or write shelftalkers.
A City on Mars is an absolute slam-dunk, hole-in-one, touchdown manifesto on the realities of settling space. Twinkling with humor, wit, and--above all--passion, Kelly and Zach Weinersmith precisely lay out why the grass would not be greener for humans on Mars or the Moon. Good luck even getting that grass to survive. The Weinersmiths give us an incredibly organized argument detailing many of the biological, ethical, economic, legal, and environmental issues that space-settlement enthusiasts either brush off or outright ignore, and the flawed logic they instead try to make part of the narrative. This book wouldn't work as well as it does if the Weinersmiths weren't so passionate and invested in this field--this book wasn't originally intended to be a critique, but the more research they did, the more they were unable to ignore the issues. Loving something means accepting it, flaws and all. A City On Mars is a masterpiece of popular science writing, a page-turner despite the dense and intimidating subject, carefully balancing critique and optimism, and lovingly littered with cartoons and jokes that made me laugh out loud. As a full-time astronomy educator, I learned a lot from this book. Sure, some of the slightly more political opinions may not be for everyone, but anyone interested in living on another planet needs to read this book. If my fourteen year-old self who wanted to go die on Mars got to read this book, I might've figured a few things out much quicker.
"We don't know how to do it yet, but we still believe that someday, with enough knowledge, we can have Mars. And one very faraway day, other solar systems. But we have to earn it, both by gaining in knowledge and by becoming a more responsible, more peaceful species. Going to the stars will not make us wise. We have to become wise if we want to go to the stars."
You're welcome, former B&N coworkers, feel free to use this review to talk to customers about this or write shelftalkers.
March 12, 2024
I wasn’t a huge fan of the beginning—it comes across as a bit of a wet blanket on all the proposals for actually settling on Mars or the Moon or anywhere else in our solar system. Space is dangerous! Humans are too adapted to the specific conditions of Earth! Even a limited amount of time without gravity is really bad!
But then they systematically went through all the physical, biological, psychological and geopolitical challenges that would need to be solved before attempting anything like this. For anyone looking to think about this realistically (maybe when writing a near future space settlement story), this has it absolutely covered.
But then they systematically went through all the physical, biological, psychological and geopolitical challenges that would need to be solved before attempting anything like this. For anyone looking to think about this realistically (maybe when writing a near future space settlement story), this has it absolutely covered.
December 8, 2023
An entertaining and educational read. Lots of fun, lots of information, and I was pleased to discover early on that, unlike so many similar books that take themselves far more seriously, this book was not USA-centric when it came to studying the history of space exploration.
January 1, 2025
Ganz nette Lektüre, aber für mein empfinden zu lange und zuviel Wiederholungen
Want to read
June 4, 2024This will likely be a library bust (why do they insist on asking for their books back?). For those wondering if they should read, it feels a bit like pop journalism. The couple of chapters have a lot of ongoing political and scientific references, particularly efforts by Bezos and Musk and whomever to do their own spacey things. It feels, in a word, more topical than sciencey at this point. Also as such, it tends to have lots of arch commentary within its discussion. I mean, I'm a fan of recognizing their isn't such a thing as unbiased (more or less), but this leans pretty far into biased. Which, cool for recognizing it, but my GenX skepticism can't help but reject the blatant position-statement feel of the authors.
January 4, 2025
I heard of A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through? via Cory Doctorow's review. The authors are the couple behind Sunday Morning Breakfast Cereal, the only webcomic I've come across that mocks free market economics effectively. The tone of the book is similarly chatty and comedic, while also conveying a great deal of very interesting information and thought-provoking conjecture. I was anticipating that it would focus on the technological challenges of humans settling on the Moon or Mars, so was pleased to discover that legal, political, and social challenges received just as much consideration. I also love the term they frequently use for space settlements: spome! Apparently Isaac Asimov came up with that. The illustrations are really fun as well.
If you don't mind spoilers for a non-fiction book: the Weinersmiths conclude that settlements on the Moon or Mars are much further off and more difficult to achieve than is popularly assumed. Questions that are rarely mentioned when space settlement is being hyped abound: can human babies be safely born away from Earth? Is there an ethical way to find out? Can a habitable biome be cultivated outside Earth's atmosphere? Who would legally own a Moon base? What economic returns would a space settlement provide in return for the gargantuan investment required? How would we deal with fact that Mars' surface is highly poisonous to humans? (I didn't previously know this; Mark Watney would have perished immediately I guess.) I appreciated the authors' acknowledgments that much is not known and some things (e.g. long term effects of microgravity on humans) could be OK. But a great deal more research is needed before it's worth the risk. Moreover, huge investment in the Moon and/or Mars would have real and dangerous impacts on Earth as long as it continues to be a matter for competition between superpowers.
Thankfully the Weinersmiths also find time for a few digs at free market economists, including this comment in a section about the commons:
A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through? largely strikes a good balance between sensible, measured points and silly facts. It treats humanity's future with thoughtful consideration as well as joking about zero gravity toilets. I found it both entertaining and thought-provoking. This point is perhaps the most important:
If you don't mind spoilers for a non-fiction book: the Weinersmiths conclude that settlements on the Moon or Mars are much further off and more difficult to achieve than is popularly assumed. Questions that are rarely mentioned when space settlement is being hyped abound: can human babies be safely born away from Earth? Is there an ethical way to find out? Can a habitable biome be cultivated outside Earth's atmosphere? Who would legally own a Moon base? What economic returns would a space settlement provide in return for the gargantuan investment required? How would we deal with fact that Mars' surface is highly poisonous to humans? (I didn't previously know this; Mark Watney would have perished immediately I guess.) I appreciated the authors' acknowledgments that much is not known and some things (e.g. long term effects of microgravity on humans) could be OK. But a great deal more research is needed before it's worth the risk. Moreover, huge investment in the Moon and/or Mars would have real and dangerous impacts on Earth as long as it continues to be a matter for competition between superpowers.
Thankfully the Weinersmiths also find time for a few digs at free market economists, including this comment in a section about the commons:
Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist Dr. Elinor Ostrom became famous for her work documenting the ways that common resources are effectively managed despite the lack of private property or even an overarching authority to enforce regulations. [...] She did not accomplish this without pushback from economists insisting she couldn't be right, because models at the time didn't support the concept. An 'Ostrom's Law' sometimes attributed to her goes: 'A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory.'
A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through? largely strikes a good balance between sensible, measured points and silly facts. It treats humanity's future with thoughtful consideration as well as joking about zero gravity toilets. I found it both entertaining and thought-provoking. This point is perhaps the most important:
We said at the beginning of this book that there is no 'short-term Plan B' in space. There are certainly lots of scientific, technological, and ethical barriers in the way, but the difficulty of autarky may be the last and largest nail in the coffin. If you think Earth is dying and you want to save humanity, you either have to transfer a huge population to Mars - possibility on the order of hundreds of millions - in a short period, or you have to have unimaginably developed robot technology. Although it's hard to predict the future, it seems to us that if we're so good at robotics and ecology that we can build a permanent bubble world for 1 million people on a distant oceanless planet, well, surely we can clean some carbon dioxide out of the air on Earth.
June 27, 2024
I'm an engineer in the space exploration business so have an opinion and vested interest in space exploration, but not directly with manned flight or space settlement. As someone who has published many technical papers, I have to say this is the worst engineering/science related book I have ever read. They start out with an agenda, which is "we are rushing to settle space", and pretty much harp on this topic throughout the book, without any supporting materials as to who is rushing and how we are rushing. They also harp on how space law will limit our ability to settle space, as if these laws won't change or even be ignored as exploration and settlement really begin. It's a book written on a made up notion for the sake of writing a book.
The book continually references imaginary straw men, as a foil for the authors point of view. Such as:
"Depending on which theory you believe, space is supposed to: lessen the chance of war, improve politics, end scarcity, save us from climate change, reinvigorate a homogenized and rapidly wussifying Earth, and in one widely held notion called the “overview effect,” make us all as wise as philosophers."
Who is saying this? The authors never site these "theories" or the people who are saying proposing them. It's idiotic and just horrible, amateurish, childish writing. It happens continually throughout the first half of the book.
Another: "If you accept Daniel Deudney’s argument that a large human presence in space gives us a lot of power to destroy ourselves, you should think twice about creating settlements where you anticipate the culture will place a low value on human life." There is no tangible supporting facts that space settlements will "place low value on human life", the "logic" used to support his idea is juvenile.
The book also gets too cutesy, like it's trying to appeal to grade schoolers. There are several punny quips though.
There are some interesting tidbits in the book, with some facts and ideas I hadn't heard of. However, overall, I found the book just terrible.
The book continually references imaginary straw men, as a foil for the authors point of view. Such as:
"Depending on which theory you believe, space is supposed to: lessen the chance of war, improve politics, end scarcity, save us from climate change, reinvigorate a homogenized and rapidly wussifying Earth, and in one widely held notion called the “overview effect,” make us all as wise as philosophers."
Who is saying this? The authors never site these "theories" or the people who are saying proposing them. It's idiotic and just horrible, amateurish, childish writing. It happens continually throughout the first half of the book.
Another: "If you accept Daniel Deudney’s argument that a large human presence in space gives us a lot of power to destroy ourselves, you should think twice about creating settlements where you anticipate the culture will place a low value on human life." There is no tangible supporting facts that space settlements will "place low value on human life", the "logic" used to support his idea is juvenile.
The book also gets too cutesy, like it's trying to appeal to grade schoolers. There are several punny quips though.
There are some interesting tidbits in the book, with some facts and ideas I hadn't heard of. However, overall, I found the book just terrible.
January 10, 2024
2024 reads, #2. Not nearly as fun a book as I thought it was going to be, and way more tedious a book than I realized it was going to be. It's "interesting," but "interesting" in the same way that five straight hours of NPR during a car ride because you have literally nothing better to do is "interesting." Buyer beware.
November 8, 2025
Strongly recommend you read the GR description of this book, as it sums things up very nicely.
This is a comprehensive and well-researched (if lightheartedly-written) analysis that address pretty much all aspects of the "can/should/will we settle in space" question. And while it tries to remain objective, it quickly and convincingly answers a resounding "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" to the first two questions (can/should?), if ultimately concluding with a discouraged "(sigh) probably" to the third.
It is quickly determined that the only possible places to expand in space are the moon (which offers us few rewards) and Mars (which has an even longer list of its own problems). That's because space cities, mining colonies in the asteroid belt, and ANY settling of space outside the inner solar system are all complete non-starters, (although you'll need to read the book to understand why.)
Most all problems/questions here fall into three categories: biological, technological and (surprisingly) legal; although in many ways that last one is the scariest. While the authors quickly explain why we never need fear wars in outer space, we should be very afraid of future Earth wars fought about outer space. (In fact, the only real security threat from space itself won't be "Jewish space lasers" or other high-tech weapons, but more along the lines of simple low-tech terrorism, as explained here but also seen very clearly in the excellent book and TV series "The Expanse," since any technology that can mine rocks in space and deliver those somewhere else could just as easily hurl such rocks at the Earth with extinction level results.)
The second half of the book gets sloggy as it digs too deep into the initially-interesting but ultimately mind-numbing legal and political issues around setting up in space. But overall, a fascinating listen that concludes (as if we didn't know) that HUMANS REALLY ONLY HAVE ONE HOME, AND SO WE BETTER $@!%ING START TAKING BETTER CARE OF IT!!! It also hammers the point that poorly-considered decisions we make today in terms of law and technology will affect the direction of our efforts in space for decades, if not centuries…and so maybe shouldn't be made solely by billionaire idiots like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk…
This is a comprehensive and well-researched (if lightheartedly-written) analysis that address pretty much all aspects of the "can/should/will we settle in space" question. And while it tries to remain objective, it quickly and convincingly answers a resounding "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" to the first two questions (can/should?), if ultimately concluding with a discouraged "(sigh) probably" to the third.
It is quickly determined that the only possible places to expand in space are the moon (which offers us few rewards) and Mars (which has an even longer list of its own problems). That's because space cities, mining colonies in the asteroid belt, and ANY settling of space outside the inner solar system are all complete non-starters, (although you'll need to read the book to understand why.)
Most all problems/questions here fall into three categories: biological, technological and (surprisingly) legal; although in many ways that last one is the scariest. While the authors quickly explain why we never need fear wars in outer space, we should be very afraid of future Earth wars fought about outer space. (In fact, the only real security threat from space itself won't be "Jewish space lasers" or other high-tech weapons, but more along the lines of simple low-tech terrorism, as explained here but also seen very clearly in the excellent book and TV series "The Expanse," since any technology that can mine rocks in space and deliver those somewhere else could just as easily hurl such rocks at the Earth with extinction level results.)
The second half of the book gets sloggy as it digs too deep into the initially-interesting but ultimately mind-numbing legal and political issues around setting up in space. But overall, a fascinating listen that concludes (as if we didn't know) that HUMANS REALLY ONLY HAVE ONE HOME, AND SO WE BETTER $@!%ING START TAKING BETTER CARE OF IT!!! It also hammers the point that poorly-considered decisions we make today in terms of law and technology will affect the direction of our efforts in space for decades, if not centuries…and so maybe shouldn't be made solely by billionaire idiots like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk…
August 23, 2024
I really enjoyed this one!! Writing style reminded me of Mary Roach, which is always a good thing, and being a certified space girlie, the topic of space settlement was right up my alley. I thought the topics covered here were really fascinating and covered a wide range of incredibly necessary and practical things we'll need to figure out if we're to have a self-sustaining colony in space: how are we going to live and eat, how to procreate/raise children in an environment not meant for humans, how will society be governed, how will social services be handled, how will property and legal stuff be handled? Diverse range of fascinating topics, and as space (and space settlement) is increasingly in the news, this gave me a new lens to view that information through. If you're interested in space stuff, I'd definitely recommend!
February 13, 2024
Dr. Kelly Weinersmith is an actual scientist, albeit a parasite biologist rather than a space specialist. And Zach Weinersmith is the artist behind Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, a nerd webcomic that I've reading for almost two decades now.
"Dad, I have ennui"
Space colonization has been a perennial topic of science fiction practically since there was science fiction, and a more or less serious policy proposal since the 1950s. With SpaceX and the dramatic reduction in the costs of reaching orbit, as well as it's CEO Elon Musk's well known desire to settle Mars, space colonization has gotten a second kick. So is it a good idea? The Weinersmiths went in as optimists, and came out with a "nah".
There are four main barriers to space settlement, two biological, one legal, one economic. As much progress has been made on rocketry, space medicine is still profoundly in its infancy. The longest single stay in space is 487 days. The longest total stay is 886 days (and counting, record holder Oleg Kononenko is still in orbit as of this review). We know that astronauts suffer many health effects, including bones density loss and mysterious changes in eyeball shape. We also know that even inside Earth's protective magnetosphere, astronauts are constantly irradiated, with a likely elevated risk of cancer. We have no idea if babies can be born in space, or if human beings can reach maturity without gravity. Answering these questions is not a priority for any space agency, and there are clear ethical issues for experimentation.
Second, we still don't know how to run a closed-cycle biosphere. The infamous Biosphere 2 experiment was a failure, and nothing has come close to its scale. A space settlement needs near total recycling of water, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and a host of other key elements. We know even less about living in close proximity to lunar dust, an abrasive that could likely cause silicosis and which one astronaut was allergic, or on Mars, where the soil is about 1% poisonous perchlorates.
Third, the legal environment is incredible hostile to the idea of space colonization. The Outer Space treaty is a vague framework, but one thing it is clear on is that national claims of a solar system body are illegal. A nation can claim a specific facility, but not the lunar land it is built on. And forget private efforts, because a station staffed with Americans, launched from a US facility, and commanded by an American CEO, would be under American jurisdiction, and pragmatically you are unlikely to find anyone to argue otherwise.
Finally, it would be immensely difficult to see any return from space colonization, given the distances, time, and expense involved. While the colonies of the age of imperialism were often money-losers for their governments, they were immensely profitable for many people involved. But who would accept life in an absolute company town where the boss controls everything down to the air? And who would fund a venture where getting anything there and back costs millions of dollars?
One of the better arguments for space colonization is the security of multiplanetary species, an argument which the Weinersmith's demolish. Any space colony would be highly dependent on Earth for decades, if not centuries. And while there is lots of room on the moon and Mars, there are far fewer reasonable options for settlement. Space colonies hardly aid national security if we're shooting each other over the very finite amounts of lunar ice. And while dinosaur killing asteroids are a risk, given human nature, space terrorists are going to crop up far sooner than another mega impact.
Marcos Inaros from The Expanse
"Every time we demand to be heard, they hold back our water, owkwa beltalowda, ration our air, ereluf beltalowda, until we crawl back into our holes, imbobo beltalowda, and do as we are told!
Another argument is a version of Turner's frontier thesis, that the harshness of space will inspire innovations both scientific and technological. The Weinersmiths offer an analogy to Earth biosphere, the Necrosphere, an immense expanse of vacuum surrounding a small hab, with very finite resources, more accessible with only the greatest difficult, and the whole thing bombarded with ionizing radiation. Would we expect advances from the inhabitants, or would we expect them to die?
Like the Weinersmiths, I've long been an idealistic if uncommitted proponent of space colonization. And after reading this book, I'm convinced that it's a scam. The outer solar system is best left to robots. And while we should continue to push space science, including closed cycle ecosystems, colonization is a matter of centuries, not decades.
"Dad, I have ennui"
Space colonization has been a perennial topic of science fiction practically since there was science fiction, and a more or less serious policy proposal since the 1950s. With SpaceX and the dramatic reduction in the costs of reaching orbit, as well as it's CEO Elon Musk's well known desire to settle Mars, space colonization has gotten a second kick. So is it a good idea? The Weinersmiths went in as optimists, and came out with a "nah".
There are four main barriers to space settlement, two biological, one legal, one economic. As much progress has been made on rocketry, space medicine is still profoundly in its infancy. The longest single stay in space is 487 days. The longest total stay is 886 days (and counting, record holder Oleg Kononenko is still in orbit as of this review). We know that astronauts suffer many health effects, including bones density loss and mysterious changes in eyeball shape. We also know that even inside Earth's protective magnetosphere, astronauts are constantly irradiated, with a likely elevated risk of cancer. We have no idea if babies can be born in space, or if human beings can reach maturity without gravity. Answering these questions is not a priority for any space agency, and there are clear ethical issues for experimentation.
Second, we still don't know how to run a closed-cycle biosphere. The infamous Biosphere 2 experiment was a failure, and nothing has come close to its scale. A space settlement needs near total recycling of water, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and a host of other key elements. We know even less about living in close proximity to lunar dust, an abrasive that could likely cause silicosis and which one astronaut was allergic, or on Mars, where the soil is about 1% poisonous perchlorates.
Third, the legal environment is incredible hostile to the idea of space colonization. The Outer Space treaty is a vague framework, but one thing it is clear on is that national claims of a solar system body are illegal. A nation can claim a specific facility, but not the lunar land it is built on. And forget private efforts, because a station staffed with Americans, launched from a US facility, and commanded by an American CEO, would be under American jurisdiction, and pragmatically you are unlikely to find anyone to argue otherwise.
Finally, it would be immensely difficult to see any return from space colonization, given the distances, time, and expense involved. While the colonies of the age of imperialism were often money-losers for their governments, they were immensely profitable for many people involved. But who would accept life in an absolute company town where the boss controls everything down to the air? And who would fund a venture where getting anything there and back costs millions of dollars?
One of the better arguments for space colonization is the security of multiplanetary species, an argument which the Weinersmith's demolish. Any space colony would be highly dependent on Earth for decades, if not centuries. And while there is lots of room on the moon and Mars, there are far fewer reasonable options for settlement. Space colonies hardly aid national security if we're shooting each other over the very finite amounts of lunar ice. And while dinosaur killing asteroids are a risk, given human nature, space terrorists are going to crop up far sooner than another mega impact.
Marcos Inaros from The Expanse
"Every time we demand to be heard, they hold back our water, owkwa beltalowda, ration our air, ereluf beltalowda, until we crawl back into our holes, imbobo beltalowda, and do as we are told!
Another argument is a version of Turner's frontier thesis, that the harshness of space will inspire innovations both scientific and technological. The Weinersmiths offer an analogy to Earth biosphere, the Necrosphere, an immense expanse of vacuum surrounding a small hab, with very finite resources, more accessible with only the greatest difficult, and the whole thing bombarded with ionizing radiation. Would we expect advances from the inhabitants, or would we expect them to die?
Like the Weinersmiths, I've long been an idealistic if uncommitted proponent of space colonization. And after reading this book, I'm convinced that it's a scam. The outer solar system is best left to robots. And while we should continue to push space science, including closed cycle ecosystems, colonization is a matter of centuries, not decades.
May 20, 2025
This books reminds me with "Will My Cat Eat My Eyeballs?" by Caitlin Doughty, but in the opposite direction. So, while I came to the first book with a huge fear for the topic of the book ("Death"), I left my journey with the book with a good feeling toward Death, as I consider it now a part of the journey of life!
While this book, the author , Kelly Weinersmith managed to turn my naive good optimistic feelings for how much the "Space" is going to be the challenge to bring humanity together again, into a feeling of fear and anger, of how could "Space Exploring" be just another area (or space) for more human conflict!
While this book, the author , Kelly Weinersmith managed to turn my naive good optimistic feelings for how much the "Space" is going to be the challenge to bring humanity together again, into a feeling of fear and anger, of how could "Space Exploring" be just another area (or space) for more human conflict!
November 21, 2023
I like that the authors have really put in the time, research, and thinking to show what'll we need to be ready to settle somewhere outside of Earth, and how likely it will be in the near future.
May 9, 2024
Rarely this disappointed in a book. Started reading it with great optimism, but it's so negative on so many fronts that it was hard to finish. In fact much of the second half I skimmed through - Is anyone interested in space law beyond law geeks?
Beyond that, I personally found the humor rather...unfunny. There were occasional humorous parts, but for the most part my funny bone went untickled while reading the book. Not quite sure why Planetizen thought it was one of the best planning reads of 2023??? 🤔
Beyond that, I personally found the humor rather...unfunny. There were occasional humorous parts, but for the most part my funny bone went untickled while reading the book. Not quite sure why Planetizen thought it was one of the best planning reads of 2023??? 🤔
May 7, 2024
I knew nothing about space settlement science, so I assume this is a good read for beginners in this field with interesting discussions about the biology, ecology, sociology etc on sending a bunch of people to Mars in order to create some kind of human presence there.
February 17, 2024
Though we’ve known since the early 20th century that Mars is essentially a lifeless wasteland, humans have been reluctant to relinquish the dream of one day living there. In A City On Mars, self-described space geeks, Kelly and Zach Weinersmith explore the feasibility of life among the stars.
As technology advances providing continued innovation in space travel the dream may seem closer than ever but it’s only a single practical challenge among many. Drawing from several years of original research including interviews with a myriad of experts, the Weinersmith’s explore topics with regards to the the ability of both the human body and mind to withstand life in space for long periods, and the obstacles to creating safe, self sustaining biomes at scale among hostile environments. It’s surprising to realise just how much we don’t know about living in space, and I found these sections to be the most engaging.
A large section of the book is also devoted to examining legal and ethical concerns regarding space settlement, and though I found myself skimming a fair bit of the detail that covered the former, the issues raised were interesting to consider. The analogy with company towns is a clever comparison, I look at the mess Musk’s ego has made of Twitter, and know I could never trust him to act in my (or society’s) best interests.
The Weinersmith’s interject some humour into their work, which enhances its readability and their enthusiasm for the topic comes across well. Zach’s illustrations are a lighthearted, if superfluous, addition. I do think readers will require at least a casual interest in the subject to stay engaged with the narrative. The length of the book works against it slightly, though I appreciate the authors’ thoroughness.
A City on Mars is a pretty pessimistic view of the viability of space colonisation, there are still many questions to be answered and I agree with the Weinersmith’s conclusion that just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. Life in space is no guarantee of utopia, in fact we’d just be taking all the same problems with us, and likely creating many more.
As technology advances providing continued innovation in space travel the dream may seem closer than ever but it’s only a single practical challenge among many. Drawing from several years of original research including interviews with a myriad of experts, the Weinersmith’s explore topics with regards to the the ability of both the human body and mind to withstand life in space for long periods, and the obstacles to creating safe, self sustaining biomes at scale among hostile environments. It’s surprising to realise just how much we don’t know about living in space, and I found these sections to be the most engaging.
A large section of the book is also devoted to examining legal and ethical concerns regarding space settlement, and though I found myself skimming a fair bit of the detail that covered the former, the issues raised were interesting to consider. The analogy with company towns is a clever comparison, I look at the mess Musk’s ego has made of Twitter, and know I could never trust him to act in my (or society’s) best interests.
The Weinersmith’s interject some humour into their work, which enhances its readability and their enthusiasm for the topic comes across well. Zach’s illustrations are a lighthearted, if superfluous, addition. I do think readers will require at least a casual interest in the subject to stay engaged with the narrative. The length of the book works against it slightly, though I appreciate the authors’ thoroughness.
A City on Mars is a pretty pessimistic view of the viability of space colonisation, there are still many questions to be answered and I agree with the Weinersmith’s conclusion that just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. Life in space is no guarantee of utopia, in fact we’d just be taking all the same problems with us, and likely creating many more.
December 28, 2023
I never thought reading arguments about international laws and treaties could be captivating.
"But here's the thing: You can't leave. Not really. Not in time to stop any calamity on the horizon or any social decay you see as imminent. And if you could leave and build a new civilization, do you know what you'd do first? You'd start re-creating Earth as we know it. Not just our biosphere, but social institutions we've had to wrench away from the darker side of our nature-things like the rule of law, human rights, and norms of behavior be- tween societies."
"But here's the thing: You can't leave. Not really. Not in time to stop any calamity on the horizon or any social decay you see as imminent. And if you could leave and build a new civilization, do you know what you'd do first? You'd start re-creating Earth as we know it. Not just our biosphere, but social institutions we've had to wrench away from the darker side of our nature-things like the rule of law, human rights, and norms of behavior be- tween societies."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,259 reviews