Welcome to the first Sci-Fi Book Battle!
I’ll pit two novels against each other in a duel to the pain! (Okay, not really—that’s for my fellow Princess Bride fans…)
In this post, I’ll throw two giants in the Mars exploration genre into the arena: Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson and The Martian by Andy Weir.
OK, ready for Red Mars vs The Martian? Let’s battle!
Since both books posit a near-term mission to Mars, we’ll start with the REALISM behind each premise.
Red Mars leaps out the gate with a start date of 2026. That’s when a major colonization mission launches to the Red Planet, carrying the First Hundred on the Ares (which uses repurposed Space Shuttle external tanks—extra points awarded for wise recycling…). They arrive in 2027 and immediately set up camp using pre-positioned supplies at a major scale. We’re talking a high-tech trailer park, heavy equipment, nuclear reactors, you name it. It’s like Home Depot meets Caterpillar meets General Electric. Go big or go home—that’s the vision Robinson presents for a Mars colony. Oh…and they’re going to terraform the @%#! out of the planet.
It’s bold. It’s optimistic. And it’s absolute fiction. Look at how difficult it is today to collaborate on anything within national boundaries—much less a multi-trillion-dollar international enterprise with little short-term payback. (Red Mars features very friendly relationships between the American and Russian space programs—which sadly seems a stretch as we move into a post-ISS world.)
To be fair, Robinson published Red Mars in 1992, just after the fall of the Soviet Union. This lulled some people into believing another Cold War was impossible; that the so-called “peace dividend” would free up world resources for many other things—including space exploration. But that dream crashed to Earth like the Russian Mir…
In gallops The Martian. Set in 2035, its picture of Mars exploration is far more modest. A few prepositioned items, a crew of five (all American except for one German), and an outpost that resembles camping more than construction. The only heavy equipment Watney has is the rover. Then he digs up a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) to stay warm—not as a power source. Other than creating a potato micro-farm, he’s not trying to terraform anything. Staying on Mars as a colonist is the last thing on his mind (perhaps as a space pirate…).
Given real-world progress with spacecraft such as Starship and Artemis, the timeline and scale of Weir’s vision is much more believable. (If you care about such things in your sci-fi.)
So, in Red Mars vs The Martian, I award POINT #1 to THE MARTIAN.
Next, let’s look at the SCIENCE itself.
Here, The Martian makes a major blunder at the very beginning. Watney and crew struggle against a Martian dust storm that seems more like a scene out of Twisters. This despite the fact the atmosphere on Mars is about 100 times less dense than Earth’s.
Dynamic pressure (q) from the wind is calculated as:
q = ½ ρv2 (where ρ is atmospheric density and v is wind velocity)
So, given air density is about 100 times less on Mars, for an Earth-equivalent wind force, Martian wind velocity would have to be 10 times higher (because of the squared velocity term). Put another way, a Martian gale of 100 miles per hour (161 km/hr) would only feel like an Earth breeze of 10 mph (16 km/hr).
Hardly enough to threaten Watney or make the crew run away without him. (Perhaps they split over musical differences…?)
There are other scientific quibbles with The Martian (a whiff of hydrazine, anyone?), but the error with the inciting storm is the biggie. It seems Weir balanced trying to “science the @%#!” in his novel with just writing an engaging story (which he did).
And what about Red Mars? How did Robinson do with the science?
Let’s just say he went deep…
He goes into great detail about the machinery needed to build an initial colony—and build it out over time. All while thickening the Martian atmosphere. Granted, much is speculative (we’ve barely scratched the Martian surface…literally). But Robinson’s worldbuilding was very impressive. In many places, I felt I was reading a how-to manual for long-term colonization. I can only imagine how many engineers will peek at Red Mars as a reference when humanity actually takes its first steps on the rusty dirt.
Thus, POINT #2 in Red Mars vs The Martian goes to RED MARS.
One more round will decide the winner in this epic battle of Red Mars vs The Martian.
And this round has nothing to do with science or realism.
It’s about the STORY.
Here is where Red Mars bogs down in its grand vision. While the main characters are decently drawn, they get lost on the vast stage and deep scientific exposition. The plot is complex—and a very slow burn. Again, as a novel of its time period, such slower pacing isn’t too unusual. And character development does happen. But let’s just say this was a good bedtime read…
Published over two decades later, The Martian was ready-made for general audiences—thus the quick adaptation to the screen. It has a likeable protagonist, a straightforward plot, and a satisfying climax and resolution. It has enough “smarts” to be believable and sufficient action to keep you moving through the pages. Of course, it’s also witty. I’m not a big fan of dropping the f-bomb on line one—but at least it fits Watney’s character…and his dire straits.
Oh, and The Martian is waaay shorter than Red Mars (never mind the time required to finish the entire trilogy with Green Mars and Blue Mars…I’m not going there.)
No surprise, then, that THE MARTIAN wins POINT #3—and takes this competition of Red Mars vs The Martian by a score of 2 to 1!
Now go celebrate with anything except Mars-grown potatoes…
Agree or disagree? Comment below on your vote for Red Mars vs The Martian.
And stay tuned for the next edition of Sci-Fi Book Battle!
Dan