Book Review: Taylor Jenkins Reid's ‘Atmosphere' plays out amid the 1980s politics of NASA
Consider these lines between the two central characters of her new love story, 'Atmosphere,' set in the 1980s as two NASA astronauts in the space shuttle program fall for each other: 'I feel like I could know you forever and still be curious about what you're going to say next' and 'I want to show you every good thing I've ever found' and 'You're the first woman I've ever met who I feel like understands things about me before I even say them.'
Of course, Houston, we have a problem. The characters — Joan and Vanessa — are gay. Forced to hide their love for one another in public for fear of losing a ride on the shuttle, the pair meet up away from NASA for trysts and are careful at the frequent astronaut get togethers that make for perfect set pieces in the novel.
It would all feel a little passé if it wasn't so well told. Taylor Jenkins Reid is great at creating characters that while they fit a stereotype, exist on the page as comfortably (or awkwardly) as readers imagine they would in real life.
There's mission specialist Lydia, who Joan clocks as 'terrifyingly invincible,' navigating the NASA campus 'as if enjoying the walk would threaten to waste her time,' and Hank, the Top Gun pilot, 'tall and broad-shouldered,' who 'wore dark-tinted aviators that made him look like a movie star.' Outside of the astronaut corps, we meet Barbara and Frances, the sister and niece of Joan, who complicate her life but also help her sort out what truly matters.
Some of the best moments in the book are musings between Joan and Vanessa about the stars, God and their shared love of space exploration. 'It seemed so clear to Joan, as crazy as it might be, that the meaning of life had to be up there, somewhere,' writes Reid.
If there's any nit to pick, it's the pacing toward the end, as major life events seem to happen quickly before the ultimate do-or-die sequence between Mission Control and the astronauts aboard STS-LR9.
Beyond that, the plot of the novel doesn't really need much sketching. These are astronauts, after all, willing to risk an awful lot to join the exclusive club of humanity that has ventured into orbit. But are they willing to risk true love? That's the elevator pitch, and it's one Laika Studios has already swung at, hiring 'Captain Marvel' directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck to adapt the novel into a film.
___
AP book reviews: https://apnews.com/hub/book-reviews
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tom Hanks Honors Astronaut Jim Lovell, Who He Portrayed in ‘Apollo 13': ‘God Speed You, on This Next Voyage'
Tom Hanks has shared a tribute to James A. Lovell, the astronaut he portrayed in the 1995 feature 'Apollo 13.' Lovell died Thursday at the age of 97. The film, directed by Ron Howard, starred Hanks as Lovell and dramatized the Apollo 13 lunar mission, which faced an explosion after launching and forced NASA scientists to improvise solutions to return its crew safely to Earth. 'There are people who dare, who dream, and who lead others to the place we would not go on our own. Jim Lovell, who for a long while had gone farther into space and for longer than any other person of our planet, was that kind of guy,' Hanks wrote in a tribute shared on his social media platforms. 'His many voyages around Earth and on to so-very-close to the moon were not made for riches or celebrity, but because such challenges as those are what fuels the course of being alive — and who better than Jim Lovell to make those voyages.' More from Variety 'Apollo 13' Sets Imax Rerelease for 30th Anniversary- Film News in Brief The Rise of Ramo from Two-Person Law Firm to Industry Player Tom Hanks on Narrating 'The Americas,' the Power of Telling the Truth and Being Referred to as 'America's Dad': 'I'm Going to Treat That Seriously' 'On this night of a full Moon, he passes on — to the heavens, to the cosmos, to the stars. God speed you, on this next voyage, Jim Lovell,' the statement finishes. Howard also shared a statement honoring Lovell, as did his 'Apollo 13' producer Brian Grazer. 'Rest in peace, Commander Lovell. Navy test pilot, Gemini 7, Gemini 12, Apollo 8 and, of course, Apollo 13,' Howard wrote. 'Simply knowing Jim has been a tremendous honor. His combination of intellect, courage and commitment to duty made him one of the most remarkable individuals I've ever met. His support of our movie-making efforts inspired authenticity and elevated our process in so many ways. Thank you, sir, for your service to our country and to humankind.' 'Jim Lovell was a true American hero whose courage, intellect, and grace under pressure inspired a nation,' Grazer wrote. 'He was not only a legend in space exploration, but also an incredibly generous, kind and inspiring man. Thank you, Commander Lovell, for showing us the best of what we can be.' Lovell died Thursday in Illinois. He was 97. Along with Apollo 13, he was a veteran of three other spaceflights: Gemini VII, Gemini XII and Apollo 8. Released by Universal in June 1995 as a summer tentpole, 'Apollo 13' drew critical acclaim for its recreation of the nearly tragic mission and the nose-to-the-grindstone labor that saved lives. The film earned $355 million globally against a $52 million production budget, ranking as the third-highest-grossing global release of its year. It earned nine Academy Award nominations, including in best picture, and won two prizes, in best film editing and best sound. To commemorate its 30th anniversary, 'Apollo 13' is re-releasing to Imax theaters on Sept. 19. Best of Variety New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week What's Coming to Disney+ in August 2025 What's Coming to Netflix in August 2025 Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
17 hours ago
- The Hill
Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base
Sean Duffy, NASA's interim administrator, proved that the U.S. is serious about establishing a lunar base when he announced the deployment of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The idea, although a sound one, is not without its critics. The announcement that the first element of a lunar base will be a nuclear reactor was logical. Nuclear power, unlike solar, is available 24/7 and thus does not require backup batteries during periods when the sun is not available. That the reactor is first means that every other element of the lunar base can be hooked up and powered up immediately. As NPR notes, a 100-kilowatt reactor on Earth would be able to power 70 to 80 private homes in the United States, so it could power a decent-sized lunar base. It would have to withstand the extremes of heat and cold on the moon, not to mention the possibility of moonquakes and meteor strikes. Instead of water to cool it, the reactor would simply radiate the heat it creates into space. The cost would be about $3 billion. Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon describes some of the legal aspects of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, especially in context of the space race with China. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits claims of national sovereignty on the moon, the establishment of a nuclear reactor, especially with a lunar base attached to it, grants the nation-state that does it some measure of control over the surrounding territory. Its Article IX requires that states act 'with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.' The practical effect of the Article IX provision is that the first country to establish a lunar base on the moon's south pole would be able to claim control over some prime real estate, important where ice mining is likely to be an essential enterprise. Duffy is therefore correct that the U.S. and its allies should be first with a nuclear reactor and a lunar base before China can establish its own and thus exert control. The idea of a nuclear-powered lunar base is not without its critics. For example, a CBS News host opined that colonizing the moon was akin to the colonization of native peoples on Earth by European powers. Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson set him straight by pointing out that no native peoples exist on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond Earth. The exchange elicited eyerolling on the Fox News show 'The Five.' But even there, some griping occurred. Dana Perino, who used to work for President George W. Bush, expressed considerable ennui about the whole concept of space travel. From the perspective of someone who has seen a space shuttle launch in person and watched men walk on the moon live on television, the attitude seems to be bizarre and dispiriting. Tyrus, the former wrestler turned social and political commentator, trotted out the 'let's solve problems on Earth before we go into space' trope that has been around since the beginning of the space age. The obvious answer has always been, 'Do both.' Ross Marchand, writing for Real Clear Science, noted the $37 trillion national debt and then claimed that building a lunar base would be just too expensive. He undermined his argument by comparing the 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear power plant to the 1-gigawatt reactors that exist on Earth and cost $10 billion to build (largely because of permitting and environmental regulation problems). Then he increased the estimated cost by a factor of 10 'or more.' Although NASA projects often do suffer cost overruns, $3 billion to $100 billion would be a little much, even for the space agency with its history of inefficiency. Marchand also trotted out the 'robots can explore space cheaper and better than humans' claim that was soundly debunked by the late, great lunar geologist Paul Spudis. In fact, returning to the moon and going on to Mars also polls well and has bipartisan political support, even it still has its critics. No great endeavor ever undertaken since the beginning of civilization has not had people saying it can't or shouldn't be done. The International Space Station, for example, drew fierce opposition and was almost cancelled more than once. The orbiting space laboratory is currently churning out a stream of scientific discoveries and technological innovations, confounding its early critics, who are long since forgotten. The lunar base and even Elon Musk's planned Mars colony will undergo a similar process. Future generations will find it difficult to imagine a universe where humans just occupied one world. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently,' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Do Cuomo and Adams secretly want Mamdani to win?
I have worked with a number of very successful candidates and politicians. The one really invaluable skill they all had in common was that they understood basic math. They knew that two plus two often leads to victory, and that two minus one — or three — usually leads to defeat. Addition, subtraction, division. Simple. Unless, to paraphrase a line from 'Top Gun,' 'Your ego is writing checks your body can't cash.' There is no doubt that many New York City residents — as well as countless people around the country and world who now fear for that iconic city's future — have been shaken by a recent Siena College poll showing that far-left socialist Zohran Mamdani leads the race to become the next mayor by 19 points over his next-closest opponent, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Behind them are Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa with 12 percent and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams with 7 percent. Mamdani has the gift of basic math working massively in his favor. In this particular case, division. Without doing a thing, the cliché 'divide and conquer' has been the most important campaign strategy in his quiver. Other than offering the socialist panacea of 'a chicken in every pot' — free stuff to constituents who really know nothing about him — it is the one factor that may make him the next mayor of New York. Mamdani doesn't have to pay for it, focus-group it or expend any political capital. He simply has to sit back and prepare as the respective egos of Cuomo and Adams hand him the keys to Gracie Mansion — and the four years he will need to bring New York City to its knees. Why? Because Cuomo and Adams are now engaged in an ego-fueled blinking contest to see who might exit the race first. That, or they secretly want Mamdani to win. Either way, it's Mamdani with the Cheshire Cat-like smile. This is proving to be an interesting election in that the winning candidate will be the one least despised by the voters. Each of the four major candidates have high negatives and elicit harsh criticism from various blocks of voters. Sadly, forgotten in this high-profile contest between dueling egos are the millions of people in the city who are either barely getting by or suffering in the throes of dysfunction and despair — ironically enough, often caused by the failed policies of previous ego-driven mayors. Many of the residents of New York City who are struggling daily with poverty, crime and lack of education for their children are Black or minority. Ah, but we are seemingly not allowed to talk about that. Many on the left — with a huge assist from Democratic leadership, the media, academia and teachers unions — have gamed it so if you even try to point out the failings of a major American city such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington or Baltimore and who is running it, you risk being labeled a racist, bigot or a misogynist. I don't care what a mayor looks like or how they identify sexually. The only thing I care about is the suffering of millions of constituents. Life for those people is beyond brutal in many cases — an irrefutable fact you almost never hear about, because that would run counter to the various narratives of the left's noise machine. For example, let's look at another major American city that is a poster child for failure, massive dysfunction and turning its back on those most in need: Chicago. A city in which, as I have pointed out in the past, more than 40,000 men, women and children — almost all minority and from the inner city — have been murdered over the last six decades. Extrapolate that number across multiple American inner cities and you have our nation's greatest failing … ever. Except, 'shhhh,' once again, you are not supposed to talk about it. New York City is Chicago on steroids. It has multiple — fixable — problems and life-crushing emergencies across the five boroughs. Unfortunately for those most at-risk inhabitants, many of the people who can help them are entitled elites who exist in bubbles of luxury and safety floating far above the 'unwashed masses' of the city. Two of those elites are Cuomo and Adams. To them, it seems as if the title of 'mayor' is yet one more trophy they can amass, serving either as a potential stepping stone to higher office or to private sector appointments and riches once the last term is complete. In the meantime, those millions of desperately hurting New Yorkers ignored by the elites had better prepare themselves. If (when) Mamdani wins, things will get much worse. 'Free stuff' is the false promise to grab the vote of those New Yorkers. Once Mamdani secures that vote, it will only be about what is best for him and his socialist movement going forward. Those at-risk residents won't even be a fleeting memory.
