Slashdot Mirror


Deathmatch On Mars: an Interview With Warren Ellis

pigrabbitbear writes "Iconic comic book writer (Transmetropolitan, Planetary, Red), cult novelist (Crooked Little Vein), futurist intellectual, and beloved Internet curmudgeon Warren Ellis, known for his impassioned arguments for space travel, talks to Motherboard about Newt Gingrich's presidential plans for lunar colonies and conquering Mars." Warren Ellis does not mince words.

12 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. The farther and more unattainable the dream... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...the easier it is to promise

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:The farther and more unattainable the dream... by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Funny

      And it's time for that to stop. That's why I promise that if I receive the nomination of my party and am elected, then by 2016, I will put a stop to politicians promising things that they cannot possibly deliver!

  2. Re:All the Republicans are Loony Tunes by dragonsomnolent · · Score: 4, Informative

    Rick Santorum: "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." So no, technically not "handing control over the government" to the church, but....

    --
    I got nuthin
  3. Re:Space travel is next big step by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Informative

    I call BS. Artificial intelligence is more difficult, and gets us more benefits in the end. We get any practical space travel as a side effect of solving AI.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  4. Look, space travel has to *do* something... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Something practical, like provide electricity to earth, or a ubiquitous free satellite internet, or something besides, "It's really cool!" That's not going to go any further than revolutionary fervor did in sustaining communism. In the near to medium term, if you talk space, you'd better talk money. Mars and the moon have no profit possibilities. Near earth orbit, which is affordable, more easily achievable and potentially profitable needs to be our next focus. I'm sure this is what the Chinese will do, and what we in the USA no longer have the common sense to see.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  5. Re:Celebrity journalism redux by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, you could probably get better answers on the technology side from just about any engineering student a few months into their course or anyone that bothered to read the news clippings from Apollo onwards, but it does give us a different perspective.
    It's no less irrelevant than Newt running at all. I'm not from the USA but aren't you guys worried about the FBI arms deal sting and the possibility that the guy was willing to turn traitor? Surely any other possible candidate is a better choice.

  6. Re:All the Republicans are Loony Tunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since you provide no concrete reasons/facts for your comments, one is left to surmise that your a bigoted raciest like the rest of your GOP brethren that spew similar hate speech.

  7. Re:ISRU... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, I never said I wouldn't mine the asteroid belt, but the moon has the advantage of proximity. You can get to the moon in a few days, the asteroid belt is farther away than Mars. Also, the moon's gravity well is conveniently shallow enough to escape with a rail-gun (see: The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress), and most of the stuff you need to build and power your rail-gun is available in the regolith.

    So, first you go to the moon, and start mining the resources: oxygen for propellant and life support; iron, aluminum, magnesium, and titanium for building things. Once you can deliver these goods to lunar orbit, you start building the habitats and cargo ships you'll need in order to mine the asteroids. In the meantime, you can do a more close-up assay of the moon's resources. Given the number of asteroids that have impacted on the moon over billions of years, there's a good chance you could find some major sources of platinum, palladium, nickel, etc..

    In this scenario, the main things you'll need to import to the moon will be carbon and ammonia. Carbon is essential to life, and useful for making high-grade steel; ammonia gives you nitrogen and hydrogen, both of which are scarce on the moon, but necessary for human settlement.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  8. Re:All the Republicans are Loony Tunes by thrich81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree with you 100% but Slashdot is at its worst (and that is saying a lot) when it devolves into a USA Republican vs Democrat debate except in the very rare occasions where there is a clear policy difference between the two which concerns a technical subject (maybe climate change, too). I'd suggest to ignore the partisan trolls and maybe they will go away and infest some other sites.

  9. Re:Celebrity journalism redux by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He's just another fanboy pining for the glory days.

    That's not how I read him. Now Zubrin, who he mentioned, is unreasonably anxious to get out there. Why should we visit Mars? To show the world it's possible? To research the place? And if the latter, why send people instead of more robots? Only reason to send people is as a prelude to the ultimate goal of colonization, which we're a long ways from being able to do. If we can't colonize Antarctica, which at least has breathable air, we sure can't colonize Mars. We have plenty of deserts we are currently unable to utilize much. At this point, we really cannot even just visit Mars, as we did the moon. It's a nice dream, but it is just a dream. And I see that he realizes all this.

    I've spoken with Zubrin, and I asked him why the rush, why not wait 50 years or a century for technological improvements to make a Mars visit easier? He didn't want to wait, he felt our current capabilities were enough that we could do it now. And therefore we should. We should go "while we are young" is what he said. How romantic. But romance won't get us to Mars, and sure isn't a justification for trying.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  10. Re:All the Republicans are Loony Tunes by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think Republicans would like religion to be the defining difference between the two parties. They have certainly pulled out all the stops in pandering to know-nothing theocrats, but in fact the great majority of Democrats as well as independents and Republicans profess religion and for the most part the religion they profess is some form of Christianity.

    The difference on religion is mainly between Republicans who see nothing wrong with the government promoting their religion and most everybody else who think the government should be restricted from involving itself with religious belief.

    To me, the more defining issue is economic. Republicans want an unregulated market and don't tax the rich. Democrats want the government to make everybody play nice and use taxes to help poor people get a leg up.

    Independents apparently can't decide or worse can't distinguish between those approaches.

  11. Re:All the Republicans are Loony Tunes by turgid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a token non-American reading this thread, I'd just like to say, that of all the candidates running, the rest of the world would much prefer Obama to get in for a second term.

    There's a reason Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: it was to say thank you to America for at last no electing a foaming-at-the-mouth isolationist war-monger.