You are correct about those problems, and Robinson acknowledged them in an interview I read. I remember him categorically stating he was not making an argument for terraforming Mars. As I stated earlier, even those writers with strong scientific backgrounds took liberties, as an example, with faster than light travel. The work was largely character driven, and one of the most brilliant character expositions I read spanned the first book and a half. The Coyote.
@Vince Higgins Completely agree. The problem with the Mars Trilogy is it is so well written. The Coyote YES. The concept of terraforming Mars becomes believable in normal pop culture. The Mars ONE program or Mars Direct or Elon Musk’s statements give us genuine belief or hope in humanities next step. Unfortunately, they are fantasy driven. So, if you really wanted to terraform Mars what would you need? A magnetic field that protects the planet’s atmosphere to start with. This on earth caused by the molten iron core spinning etc. Mars lost this protection with its core cooling. Earth's magnetic field - Wikipedia Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia I imagined something along the lines of the LHC/CERN in the future of replicating a mini neutron star or pulsar. Drill down to the Mars core and build something similar that would generate a magnetic field. From there you have atmosphere protection allowing manipulation as in the books. The issue still stands on the lower gravity. This is why it won’t be colonized with permanent residents. First generation settlers are forcing a death sentence onto the second generation. You just would not do it. Short stay trips only with a 1G orbital environment is the only realistic policy. This issue becomes ever clearer the further we push out. Whether to Alpha Centauri or further the 1G factor is a real limiting hurdle that’s not addressed yet in Sci-Fi or science to date. MartinM
Sci-Fi, or any genre for that matter, can make a reader no longer willing to suspend disbelief if something is just too far removed from reality. Depends on the knowledge of the reader, of course. Some readers are not well enough informed about scientific facts to notice that something violates the laws of nature. Another glitch is when the author violates the conditions s/he has established at the beginning of the story, even if they don't violate the known laws of nature.
Sci-fi is a prop, a very clever prop that can deliver fantastic ideas. Sci-fi science is as important as the reader feels it is. Fact and theory can be found in the journals. Sci-fi is a world-building tool, so in fiction, science is what we can sell. I love sci-fi. I write sci-fi, but I call it drama. I read sci-fi if it entertains, usually front to back. If I have to slog through anything, I skip or put it down, sometimes for decades. Don't prove it to me, put me in it. Sell it to me.
This sounds to me like tonal dissonance: The level of scientific realism didn't match the expectations of these readers, causing annoyance that kept breaking their immersion. In that case, the problem wasn't so much that the science of the setting was unrealistic, but rather that the readers weren't primed to suspend their disbelief about that. Stuff like radiation mutating creatures into monsters, etc, is the sort of thing you see in old monster movies and comic books. (These days more commonly substituted by genetic engineering, nanotechnology, quantum physics or just weird glowy alien stuff. But regardless, functionally it may as well be magic.) And that's fine if the story is supposed to read like a fun, campy pastiche that you really aren't supposed to take too seriously. On the other hand, if people go into it expecting some serious hard science fiction exploring the possibilities of actual theoretical science, of course they're going to feel disappointed. This can be tricky to manage, especially since the definition of what is and isn't proper sci-fi is kinda subjective.
Unpopular opinion: It's called science-fiction, not science-research. If people want to get into that, perhaps they should make the subcategory of science-fantasy a primary genre and put many classics like Star Wars and Star Trek into it.
Well, there's hard sci-fi for the folks who enjoy realistic, researched science fiction. Nothing wrong with it if nerds get tired of rolling their eyes at magical nonsense and want to stick with real science. I enjoy most subgenres of sci-fi.
