I've read the Mars trilogy a couple of times, and it each time it's seemed like the details of the planet were really precise, but not necessarily accurate.

I understand Robinson does a truckload of research beforehand, but the book specifies information that isn't known even now. With this in mind, is there anything in the books that has since been proven to be false or spectacularly unlikely about Mars?

  • 7
    This might get more detailed answers if you summarize the book's predictions. – Goodbye Stack Exchange Mar 3 '11 at 23:10
  • @neilfein: It's a fair point, I may need to go for a third read first. :) – Stu Pegg Mar 4 '11 at 12:17
  • For the record, I have a deleted answer, because I understood this to be completely the opposite of the question (thanks to @Adamant for pointing this out). My bad - I will re-answer. – Mikey Nov 27 '16 at 7:40

As far as I can tell, it's still up in the air. We've mapped a good portion of the surface at pretty high resolution - but physically covered and investigated only a fraction of a percentage. Nowhere near enough to base conclusions on.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.