Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Honestly (Score 1) 587

by WrongMonkey (#49416445) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political
Not science, economics is the problem. If there were some valuable resource that could only be obtained on the Moon or Mars or Venus or somewhere else off-world, then we'd actually see investment in space technology to obtain that resource. And this where hard SF has always fallen short, too. Exploration and colonization are presented as a given without ever given much justification beyond "human spirit" or some other handwaving.

Comment: Re:Would it matter? (Score 1) 576

If the objective is to obliterate us, they don't even need to invade. A relativistic warhead fired from another star system would do the trick. Any invasion scenario implies that they would at least want to keep the biosphere in a habitable condition. Which presents some opportunity for guerrilla tactics.

Comment: Re:Sweet F A (Score 1) 576

The technology needed for space travel would not be the same for all worlds and all species. Imagine a species that evolved on a Titan-like moon. Low gravity means that they could put large payloads into orbit with less energy. If they had a longer lifespan than humans or a natural means of suspended animation, then interstellar distances are not so insurmountable.

In fact, a race of space-faring tardigrades from a low-gravity moon sounds like a good start for a novel.

To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.