"1,200 of the most probing questions in the universe answered within..."
Nearly everyone is fascinated with the unknown and the challenge of outer space. Is there life on Mars? What is a dwarf galaxy? Did an asteroid cause the extinction of the dinosaurs? The answers to these and 1,200 other questions can be found in The Handy Space Answer Book. Approximately 100 photos and illustrations.
When I read about space, I don’t want to read mini biographies of guys in 50’s suits who had theories about physics and that their tests resulted in a number for the speed of light that was within 10% of the real number. Is that…good? Bad? I couldn’t calculate the speed of light within 10% of the real number, but then again 10% in this case means like billions of miles off.
I don’t know how so many books manage to make space so boring. There’s so much cool shit in space. You know what’s not cool? Discussions of wavelengths. This has never been cool. This would be boring even if I started shooting lasers from my eyes and a discussion of wavelengths was relevant to me every time I opened my eyes. Even then, still boring.
I kinda get that we might need some fundamental knowledge to understand space, but can it be packaged in something more interesting? Can you make it like a Raisinet? But one with chocolate outside, then raisin, then like money inside?
Maybe the problem is that the kind of people who write books about space know a lot about space, and they know a lot about space because space is interesting for them. ALL of space. What we need is an amateur edit on this one. Someone who wants to learn cool space stuff but doesn’t want to read about what radio waves are, you know?
Also, let’s start with something more interesting. I barely heard anything about other planets or moons or attempts to blow up asteroids with a nuclear bomb drilled into the asteroid by Bruce Willis. Maybe if you give me interesting stuff up front, I can hang with the boring parts a little longer.
The book is dated, both because it was written in the late 90's and lacks more current data, and because its purpose - to provide an exhaustive reference of concise summaries of astronomy-related topics - has been obviate by Wikipedia. That said, it still manages to do what it set out to do, and the scope of what it covers along with the readability it accomplishes makes it a sufficient one-stop source to be fully informed on the history of astronomical development current to the 90s.