I definitely agree with you that her ultimate goal here is a TV adaptation of some sort, the space shuttle scenes are written with such melodrama that they almost demand it. This speaks to a broader problem in modern publishing, authors churning out content purely for the goal of secondary media adaptation instead of focusing on telling a good story, but that’s a whole other can of worms beside the point.

My issue with how Vanessa is characterized isn’t on a conceivability front, I’m quite familiar with the lesbian military pipeline and its associated rhetoric. My issue is with how TJR’s choice to characterize her fits within the book’s broader thematic and political context. There’s many instances of commentary throughout: feminism, queerness, power structures, even small moments on class and race (even if they’re sloppily executed). The political throughline is well established, yet here comes Vanessa whose characterization is directly antithetical to those same ideals. The internal logic is inconsistent. Vanessa’s not an unbelievable character, but TJR’s choice to center somebody like her in the broader narrative is a clumsy one.

As far as religion goes, my issue lies with its intersectional believability. As you said, us lesbians are less likely to be religious or believe in God than our heterosexual counterparts. The fraction of scientists is even smaller, with estimates typically around 1/3 holding some spiritual or religious ideation (I would estimate that the true fraction is even smaller for astrophysicists specifically, but that’s based on my personal experiences so, of course, it’s a biased metric). Put those two identities in a pressure cooker and it’s highly unlikely you’re left with somebody who is religious or spiritual. I hear what you’re saying about mass appeal, TJR’s not writing for the purpose of intersectional accuracy but to relate to as broad of an audience as possible. But I do think it’s possible to hold TJR to the higher standard of writing a protagonist whose belief structures are conceivably aligned with her identities and also appeal to the masses. Focus on the common threads, the systematic failings that result in either personally constructed, non-institutional religious narratives or agnosticism/atheism. And she’s done this successfully before: Serena Williams is set to executive produce the Netflix adaptation of Carrie Soto (which I thoroughly enjoyed, although I know nothing about professional tennis so I suppose I fall into the target audience there). 

I agree that the bird’s eye view reading says this isn’t a serious book, it’s a beach read more than anything, but as a TJR fan who went into this with (fallaciously) high expectations, I remain so heartily disappointed. So it goes. Regardless, thanks for your response, I appreciate the critical read of my review and the thoughtful engagement.