The Martian question

(Not bragging) I actually worked at Lockheed/Martin ... Part of my job was working on the Rovers.

He had some unbelievable parts, which I believe I put in my review. But, mostly, the science was pretty good. He did keep things fairly simple, less technical, to keep everyone interested. Delving very deeply into the tech stuff would have killed the story.

I liked the book. But then I like SF as a rule, as long as the science is logical, and works. Just because we don't have workers in the asteroid belt doesn't keep me from enjoying a story about it. We will certainly have an industry there, even if it takes us 500 yrs ☺️

I understood only some of the science but the way the book was written made me FEEL like I understood it. I felt so smart after reading this book you have no idea. I don't think the science got in the way of the story. A few of my friends gave up on the book because they couldn't understand it though.

How important is my comprehension of the science and technology involved? Weir did an admirable job of making space travel and life on another planet seem real, risky and worthy of humanity's extraordinary efforts. I compare the sense of palpable danger caused by a simple dust storm on mars to the danger Tom Clancy made me feel when a Russian nuclear submarine was on the loose. Both got my blood flowing. The Martian didn't commit any howling scientific mistakes and that's all that matters for my tastes.

Pretty much all of it except for the electronics bit with Pathfinder. And for that, there was enough context to follow along.

I'm not going to lie: I didn't completely understand all of the science. But the way Weir explained it, sounded like it would work. So, I was like, "Sounds better than any plan I would have," and kept on reading.

All of it. I was actually quite surprised with the accuracy and detail with which Andy Weir talked about the different aspects of not only science but of how NASA functions.

The science bit went way over my head but I thought Mark explained it in as a simplistic way as possible without sounding condescending which I thought made him even more likeable.
Understand the techie stuff or not I think its a great book.

I understood about 5% of the science in the movie. From the book, about 50%. But a question: our hero DID have his very own source of protein but didn't take advantage of it. Not a very smart nutritionist, but still a good botanist.

The believable nature of a story is even more important in "science" fiction than other fiction. The "science" that is compared to the "science" written for a fictional story must be on par with what is reasonable and possible rather than improbable. Unreasonable lends the classification of the book to more fantasy than science fiction. I am comfortable enough with science and informed especially with aerospace science and engineering as an avocational interest that the book was a pleasant look at what an engineer can do with the right mix of smarts, basic components, a Swiss Army knife of tools and determination, as well as desire to survive!

I have to admit I did skip over several passages (and pages) of scientific explanations I didn't understand. I didn't want to pull the bookmark because I was enjoying the story like, so I endured the skipping, and was glad I did. I enjoyed the book!

I understood what Watney DID and the IMPACT it had on his life on Mars, but I didn't always get WHY/HOW it worked or what exact actions he took to get the jobs done.

So that made it long and confusing at times, but realistic, because I didn't expect to understand everything, seeing as I thought it was supposed to be really sciencey and simplistic in the first place.

I understood it (or possibly failed utterly to understand it) well enough to wonder why NASA isn't pursing a similar project.

Considering that "The Martian" was essentially Castaway on Mars, Weir did a great job of keeping the techno-babble from spoiling the fun factor in the story. Good sci-fi is extremely hard to write because modern readers are very sophisticated and knowledgeable when it comes to science. Suspension of disbelief is hard to accomplish in narrative form and I give credit to any writer that can pull it off. I am not a botanist or a theoretical physicist but Mark Watney and his martian adventure kept me engaged from the first page to the last.

I don't have a super deep knowledge of science, but since I took chemistry and some physics in school, I was able to understand a lot of the logic behind the science in book. For example, I was able to understand the burning of Hydrazine in order to produce water and things like that.

I don't think all the science is sound. Weir's done a better job than most SF writers in getting his story straight, but there are still some things that don't line up.

I didn't understand much of the science but that did not detract at all from enjoying the story. In fact, the story prompted me to read further into some of the science.

I understand the essentials without all of the details. While I cannot do the math, I can follow how he did the math.

I'm a nerd, so I understood pretty much everything. I really appreciated how full of accurate science it is. Even Film Theory applauded The Martian's science in a video.

I had fun trying to solve the problems before he did, but since I didn't know what his resources were as well as he did, I was at a disadvantage. I have a degree in mathematics and have taken a lot of science courses, so I understood most of the science, but his application of the science was genius.

None what so ever,some of the theory id never even heard off but that did not stop me from enjoying this book .

I read it last summer, but I think that I understood most of the science. What I didn't fully understand, I semi-understood through context. Basically what Drampuppy said.

Most of it but not all, similar to you. I didn't look anything up, though. If I just kept reading, most things would become clear through context. And if there wasn't enough context to figure it out, it wasn't really important.