My gripe about That Book wasn't the liberties with science, but that people keep saying it's so accurate. Which since it starts with a clanger (sadly not an actual Clanger) and then in the couple of chapters I managed, several others, it's evidently not very accurate.
It's really not. Even without the storm or the complete failure to address radiation
[1], the hydrazine thing is ridiculously impractical. And let's not mention the natural curiosity of potatoes. And when's the last time you transcribed hundreds of bytes by hand without cocking it up? While wearing a spacesuit? It's hard enough in a computer lab.
But hey, it's mainstream fiction with real science (rather than fantasy science
[2] or technobabble) driving the plot. Where engineering competence - and, indeed, failure - is celebrated, rather than feared. People are saying it's so accurate, but what they mean is that it's making a proper effort not to dumb things down, that this is refreshing, and they want more.
It's MacGyver for the generation who don't remember mullets. MacGyver was awesome. Yes, he frequently got the chemistry (deliberately) wrong, and credibility was stretched several times per episode. But the other half was plausible, and he was an all-American scientifically competent hero who brought a swiss army knife to a gunfight, and won. Repeatedly.
More of this sort of thing. Then it can get better. Maybe people will make exciting films about expeditions to Mars where nothing goes catastrophically wrong. Maybe people will see them, be inspired, and go on expeditions to Mars.
Or they could just give up and make another film about gangsters and lawyers instead, because nobody
[3] whines about those being unrealistic.
[1] Except by hanging a lampshade on the RTG.
[2] The delightful Tony Stark is disqualified on this basis, sadly.
[3] I'm sure there's a legal equivalent of badastronomy.com out there somewhere.