"The crust is towards the thinner less dense end of the pre-mission expectations" -Mark Panning

So here's a major thing. A truly big deal. Mars is the feature of actual government conspiracy. Basically, people expect things of Mars, planetary science is not even remotely corroborating those expectations, and NASA literally will look straight into the camera and say "fossil" twenty times and "Hesperian" not even once during the Perseverance press release. Presumably they do this to keep the hype up, meaning they think plebeians would lose interest in Mars if they knew the truth. 

To find real facts about Mars, you really need these LPI videos. They are not at all vague. The "warm-wet Hesperian" they sometimes speculate about is still a huge frozen asteroid, no rain, no surface liquid. But people like Elon Musk and Robert Zubrin seem to have committed to a faith, and the church has many followers. 

In this video alone you can get a glimpse of real Mars. This video is about seismology, not specifically Mars or InSight, but the details are there.  

• Thick Lithosphere
• Mantle on the cool end of pre-mission expectations
• The core is light, not dense. Sulfur in the core
• Cerebus Fossae Graben
• Normal fault, extensional settings

The truth is Mars isn't made out of Earth. It's made out of Mars and that is far less dense, and far colder than people find intuitive. However, because Mars is so different compared to Earth, the geology is also vastly different, and fascinating.  

Probably the most intriguing thing about real-Mars is how large-scale its features are. One vast feature is the Amazonian horst-graben rifting, especially Valles Marineris. Mars earthquakes are largely the result of thermal contraction as the core freezes. Its heavy features, the Hesperian shield volcanoes and Noachian south, seem to remain anchored, while the northern lowlands seem to be experiencing large scale extensional rifting. That's incredible for a lot of reasons, but one thing to note is that if the core shrinking was the only thing driving Mars topography, there would be a lot more thrust-faults, not rifting, like on Mercury. The low density (hence poor ore) of Mars' thick lithosphere seems to be playing a mysterious role. 

Maybe one of the bravest things I did in Sweet was to touch on Mars being unsuitable to long term habitation, something poorly informed writers and fanatics eschew. At the point where people could truly exploit Mars, they could also dismantle it, and that is far far into deep time.  

 

 My last cat died on the 16th (or earlier) of negligence while I was away. I've been depressed about it ever since. 

No more recharge. 

 

 Not sure what I want to do with this one other than keep it for future reference. Scott Guzewich lectures mostly for climate change, it's a good reference vid so I want to put a pin in it. 

 The TLDR is that if you are an amateur looking to learn facts about planetary science, this book is currently mandatory. However, the bitter before the sweet, this is also the first time in my life I thought I could edit a book for certain. Although impeccably proofread, Bloomsbury Sigma should be ashamed that they contributed so little to such an important book. 

The books editorial issues subside around 'chapter 6, Peering In'. That's when Dr. Starkey starts dropping the bigger knowledge bombs instead of mostly prerequisites. She makes it fun, but avoids conjecturing. She puts out numerous up-to-date puzzle pieces, but avoids speculating that say maybe Maat Mons may one day grow so massive it sinks into Venus, causing a new resurfacing event. That she leaves for her readers.

It wont be long after Sweet is published before people will notice how relevant this book is to it. 

 So here's a thought exercise. One cannot predict the future well, but for those who are inclined to try, there are the ones taking faithful fliers, and the ones trying to get the answer right. Still, what is a safe bet? 

Anything that improves the quality of life, and can't be messed up by the government, (stupid supreme court,) is on the table, and anything that is happening now and has room for improvement is a fair bet. 

In Sweet, when dividing broad traits to four spacefaring nations, I'm not remotely trying to be predictive. Venusians are too much genetic engineers, Pacificans are too much androids, Mediterraneans are too much Cyborgs. They probably wouldn't be divided so starkly in reality, but it makes the story flow. Jovians are too much in tune with their wetsuits. 

This is existing and emerging tech. Here is a sciencedaily article and here is raman spectroscopy, a breakthrough discovery that's going to take it to the next level. If you want to start a business, get in on this racket. 

In Sweet I avoid sticking my neck out too much. Some for fun, but I mostly am only using real world tech, for example the above. Stuff that exists but hasn't been made ubiquitous yet. 

By doing it that way, I am laying out before the reader, options. Tech isn't an obstacle to overcome. How do you get to there, from where and when you are now?