What do you think?
Rate this book
Smithsonian Atlas of Space: A Map to the Universe from the Big Bang to the Future
Journey to the farthest corners of the universe in this visually stunning coffee-table atlas by the former chief historian of NASA
300 maps and illustrations tell the incredible story of the past, present, and future of the universe and space exploration
Navigate the Solar System, the Milky Way, and beyond with 300 magnificent charts, illustrations, and photographs. This large-format atlas makes the immense universe feel more intimate, with striking full-page spreads and engaging text.
Former chief historian of NASA Roger D. Launius offers important perspective on the trajectory of space exploration and its achievements, covering topics like ancient ideas of the cosmos; the evolution of galaxies; the search for extraterrestrial intelligence; investigating the inner and outer solar system; and human migration to the Moon and to Mars. The book
Full-page and full-spread historical, scientific, cosmology, and specially commissioned maps. Amazing photos from NASA's archives and stunning new artworkBiographical sidebars highlighting important people involved in the search for knowledge about the universe, from Galileo to Nancy Grace Roman to Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.
With the growing market for space tourism, space exploration verges on a new era, and this book looks toward the future to include conceptions of futuristic space activities. The marvelous collection of maps provide visual reference to better understand science and humanity's place in the universe. Absorbing and exquisitely detailed, Smithsonian Atlas of Space is a showstopping journey through the cosmos.
300 maps and illustrations tell the incredible story of the past, present, and future of the universe and space exploration
Navigate the Solar System, the Milky Way, and beyond with 300 magnificent charts, illustrations, and photographs. This large-format atlas makes the immense universe feel more intimate, with striking full-page spreads and engaging text.
Former chief historian of NASA Roger D. Launius offers important perspective on the trajectory of space exploration and its achievements, covering topics like ancient ideas of the cosmos; the evolution of galaxies; the search for extraterrestrial intelligence; investigating the inner and outer solar system; and human migration to the Moon and to Mars. The book
Full-page and full-spread historical, scientific, cosmology, and specially commissioned maps. Amazing photos from NASA's archives and stunning new artworkBiographical sidebars highlighting important people involved in the search for knowledge about the universe, from Galileo to Nancy Grace Roman to Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar.
With the growing market for space tourism, space exploration verges on a new era, and this book looks toward the future to include conceptions of futuristic space activities. The marvelous collection of maps provide visual reference to better understand science and humanity's place in the universe. Absorbing and exquisitely detailed, Smithsonian Atlas of Space is a showstopping journey through the cosmos.
- GenresSpaceScienceNonfiction
400 pages, Hardcover
Published October 29, 2024
About the author
Roger D. Launius
76 books11 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Dr. Roger D. Launius earned M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in history at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge (American frontier and military history).
Dr. Launius was a civilian historian with the United States Air Force, and became Chief Historian for the Military Airlift Command. Since October 1990 he is Chief Historian for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). He is also Senior Curator at the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution.
He is also involved in the study of nineteenth century history and the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church).
Dr. Roger D. Launius earned M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in history at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge (American frontier and military history).
Dr. Launius was a civilian historian with the United States Air Force, and became Chief Historian for the Military Airlift Command. Since October 1990 he is Chief Historian for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). He is also Senior Curator at the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution.
He is also involved in the study of nineteenth century history and the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 2, 2025
Smithsonian Atlas of Space: A Map to the Universe from the Big Bang to the Future by Roger D. Launius has absolutely stunning photographs and illustrations. Unfortunately, the text in several places is mediocre and sometimes outright incorrect. Here’s some examples from just the first 101 pages:
p. 12 and p 21: “Within our ability to observe our universe—up to 92 billion light years away—...” The radius of the observable universe from Earth is about 46 billion light years, so that is the maximum distance in theory we can observe anything. The text’s 92 billion light years must come from using the diameter. Since from our point of view we are at the center and not the edge, we cannot observe more that about 46 billion light years.
pp. 24-25: The text and the diagrams cover the Ptolemaic earth-centered model of the solar system and of the Copernican sun-centered model. They give the impression that Copernicus got rid of the epicycles that Ptolemy needed to use. The Ptolemaic diagram for example shows epicycles while the Ptolemaic diagram does not have them. Actually, Copernicus also had to use epicycles in his model, as he, like Ptolemy, assumed the planet’s orbits were circular. It was only later when Kepler realized the orbits were ellipses that epicycles were no longer necessary. There’s plenty of room on these pages to briefly cover and show this.
p. 29: “While the universe had earlier been thought of as largely static... Einstein predicted a constantly changing universe.” Actually, Einstein initially believed the universe to be static. When the first version of his theory was shown not to be intrinsically static, he added a term to his equation that allowed it to be static. He only embraced the idea of an expanding universe after Hubble found evidence of the expansion. The sentence would be better if phrased along these lines: “While the universe had earlier been thought of as largely static... Einstein’s theory allowed for a constantly changing universe.” This is correct even for both versions of the equation (his later addition did allowed the universe to be static, but different values for his cosmological constant could still produce expanding or contracting universes).
p. 76 and p. 81: “The largest galaxies include millions of stars... The smallest are still massive, but may include only a few thousands stars...” Claiming the largest galaxies include millions of stars is a gigantic understatement. The largest ones are believed to have on the order of 100 trillion stars: trillion, not billion or million! “The largest galaxies include many trillions of stars...” would have been much better.
p. 79: “Two colliding galaxies in the dual-galaxy system Arp-Madore 2026-214 (AM 2026-214) are captured by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in the processes of destroying each other. Galaxy collisions are not uncommon, but this one shows a ring around both systems and the stretching of gas, dust, stars, and probably planets crashing into each other.” The two galaxies are merging. Saying they are destroying each other sounds like nothing will be left, whereas they will eventually become one galaxy. There seems to be something wrong with part of the last sentence, “this one shows... the stretching of gas, dust, stars, and probably planets crashing into each other”. The text is unclear on what is stretching and what is crashing. Since stars and planets wouldn’t stretch in a collision/merger of galaxies, it seems that the text is implying they are crashing together. That is most misleading. Given the vast distances between stars and their planets when galaxies collide/merge, it is very likely that almost all will not crash into one another. (Clouds of gas and dust, on the other hand, can be quite large and can collide.)
p. 91: “The elliptical galaxy... It often has few stars and is usually dominated by gases and protostars.” This is completely incorrect. Elliptical galaxies are full of stars and are depleted of gas and dust that form protostars. From Elliptical Galaxy (https://esahubble.org/wordbank/ellipt... “They typically contain a much greater proportion of older stars than spiral galaxies do... Current thinking amongst astronomers is that most elliptical galaxies formed from the collisions and subsequent mergers of spiral galaxies... Whilst spiral galaxies have rich reservoirs of the dust and gas that fuel star formation, elliptical galaxies appear to have virtually exhausted that fuel, and so there is very little raw material for the formation of new stars.”
p. 96: “Betelgeuse, in the constellation Orion, is a red giant star a thousand time larger than the Sun.” This seems to be an older estimate of Betelgeuse’s size. More recent ones place it at about 640-750 times the Sun’s diameter, with NASA stating “about 700 times the size of the Sun” (https://science.nasa.gov/universe/wha...).
p. 100-101: The text and the diagram have Sun-line stars evolving over time into white dwarfs stars, which then explode as Type Ia supernovas. Per the text: “Since a white dwarf is very dense, it gradually collapses in on itself until it blows up in a type Ia supernova.” This is incorrect. Most white dwarfs gradually cool over time without going supernova and in theory become black dwarf stars. (The universe is not yet old enough for any white dwarf to cool enough to become a black dwarf.) To go supernova, a white dwarf must gain enough more material (such as from a companion star or by merging with a companion white dwarf) to exceed the Chandrasekhar limit, whereupon it explodes as a Type Ia supernova. There is plenty of room on the pages for the text and diagram to show that a white dwarf has two main fates (black dwarf and supernova).
All told, enjoy Smithsonian Atlas of Space for its superb photographs and illustrations, but be aware that the text and some diagrams have problems. For a far more accurate book also with superb photographs and illustrations, I recommend Deep Space: Beyond the Solar System to the Edge of the Universe and the Beginning of Time by Govert Schilling.
p. 12 and p 21: “Within our ability to observe our universe—up to 92 billion light years away—...” The radius of the observable universe from Earth is about 46 billion light years, so that is the maximum distance in theory we can observe anything. The text’s 92 billion light years must come from using the diameter. Since from our point of view we are at the center and not the edge, we cannot observe more that about 46 billion light years.
pp. 24-25: The text and the diagrams cover the Ptolemaic earth-centered model of the solar system and of the Copernican sun-centered model. They give the impression that Copernicus got rid of the epicycles that Ptolemy needed to use. The Ptolemaic diagram for example shows epicycles while the Ptolemaic diagram does not have them. Actually, Copernicus also had to use epicycles in his model, as he, like Ptolemy, assumed the planet’s orbits were circular. It was only later when Kepler realized the orbits were ellipses that epicycles were no longer necessary. There’s plenty of room on these pages to briefly cover and show this.
p. 29: “While the universe had earlier been thought of as largely static... Einstein predicted a constantly changing universe.” Actually, Einstein initially believed the universe to be static. When the first version of his theory was shown not to be intrinsically static, he added a term to his equation that allowed it to be static. He only embraced the idea of an expanding universe after Hubble found evidence of the expansion. The sentence would be better if phrased along these lines: “While the universe had earlier been thought of as largely static... Einstein’s theory allowed for a constantly changing universe.” This is correct even for both versions of the equation (his later addition did allowed the universe to be static, but different values for his cosmological constant could still produce expanding or contracting universes).
p. 76 and p. 81: “The largest galaxies include millions of stars... The smallest are still massive, but may include only a few thousands stars...” Claiming the largest galaxies include millions of stars is a gigantic understatement. The largest ones are believed to have on the order of 100 trillion stars: trillion, not billion or million! “The largest galaxies include many trillions of stars...” would have been much better.
p. 79: “Two colliding galaxies in the dual-galaxy system Arp-Madore 2026-214 (AM 2026-214) are captured by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in the processes of destroying each other. Galaxy collisions are not uncommon, but this one shows a ring around both systems and the stretching of gas, dust, stars, and probably planets crashing into each other.” The two galaxies are merging. Saying they are destroying each other sounds like nothing will be left, whereas they will eventually become one galaxy. There seems to be something wrong with part of the last sentence, “this one shows... the stretching of gas, dust, stars, and probably planets crashing into each other”. The text is unclear on what is stretching and what is crashing. Since stars and planets wouldn’t stretch in a collision/merger of galaxies, it seems that the text is implying they are crashing together. That is most misleading. Given the vast distances between stars and their planets when galaxies collide/merge, it is very likely that almost all will not crash into one another. (Clouds of gas and dust, on the other hand, can be quite large and can collide.)
p. 91: “The elliptical galaxy... It often has few stars and is usually dominated by gases and protostars.” This is completely incorrect. Elliptical galaxies are full of stars and are depleted of gas and dust that form protostars. From Elliptical Galaxy (https://esahubble.org/wordbank/ellipt... “They typically contain a much greater proportion of older stars than spiral galaxies do... Current thinking amongst astronomers is that most elliptical galaxies formed from the collisions and subsequent mergers of spiral galaxies... Whilst spiral galaxies have rich reservoirs of the dust and gas that fuel star formation, elliptical galaxies appear to have virtually exhausted that fuel, and so there is very little raw material for the formation of new stars.”
p. 96: “Betelgeuse, in the constellation Orion, is a red giant star a thousand time larger than the Sun.” This seems to be an older estimate of Betelgeuse’s size. More recent ones place it at about 640-750 times the Sun’s diameter, with NASA stating “about 700 times the size of the Sun” (https://science.nasa.gov/universe/wha...).
p. 100-101: The text and the diagram have Sun-line stars evolving over time into white dwarfs stars, which then explode as Type Ia supernovas. Per the text: “Since a white dwarf is very dense, it gradually collapses in on itself until it blows up in a type Ia supernova.” This is incorrect. Most white dwarfs gradually cool over time without going supernova and in theory become black dwarf stars. (The universe is not yet old enough for any white dwarf to cool enough to become a black dwarf.) To go supernova, a white dwarf must gain enough more material (such as from a companion star or by merging with a companion white dwarf) to exceed the Chandrasekhar limit, whereupon it explodes as a Type Ia supernova. There is plenty of room on the pages for the text and diagram to show that a white dwarf has two main fates (black dwarf and supernova).
All told, enjoy Smithsonian Atlas of Space for its superb photographs and illustrations, but be aware that the text and some diagrams have problems. For a far more accurate book also with superb photographs and illustrations, I recommend Deep Space: Beyond the Solar System to the Edge of the Universe and the Beginning of Time by Govert Schilling.
April 22, 2025
all three stars go to the quality and number of pictures.
My 2 biggest complaints are that there are many CGI or Artist rendered images and the book does not make it clear which is which. On a cursory glance through the book, it is hard to tell what we really know about various celestial objects and what is speculative. This is annoying (lose one star).
My second complaint is the level this book is written at. For such a big book, conceptually this is just scratching the surface (and even barely). Perhaps I am not the target audience, but I was expecting some meaty, let's take a deep look at space and the universe as we know it. Launius makes broad sweeping statements throughout the book, and that would be fine, if he cited his sources. Again, a cursory look through the book does not make it clear what we already know vs what is speculative. You need to read between the lines and have some familiarity with the topic I think to understand.
What this book does well is the quality and number of JWST images as well as other telescopes. I don't recommend buying the book for just those images though. Perhaps a great coffee table book, or conversation starter.
My 2 biggest complaints are that there are many CGI or Artist rendered images and the book does not make it clear which is which. On a cursory glance through the book, it is hard to tell what we really know about various celestial objects and what is speculative. This is annoying (lose one star).
My second complaint is the level this book is written at. For such a big book, conceptually this is just scratching the surface (and even barely). Perhaps I am not the target audience, but I was expecting some meaty, let's take a deep look at space and the universe as we know it. Launius makes broad sweeping statements throughout the book, and that would be fine, if he cited his sources. Again, a cursory look through the book does not make it clear what we already know vs what is speculative. You need to read between the lines and have some familiarity with the topic I think to understand.
What this book does well is the quality and number of JWST images as well as other telescopes. I don't recommend buying the book for just those images though. Perhaps a great coffee table book, or conversation starter.
January 31, 2025
Great read if you love space.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews