Does Life Exist

[Atrocities]

I would like to be up front about what I believe to be the truth of the universe and that is that life does not rampantly exist. That life as we know it, or imagine it more than likely does not exist on more than a handful of worlds. Given what we now know about how unique our planetary situation is, and how lucky we are to have had the events in our planets history that fostered life on our world, one can not but help deduce that the odds of it happening else where in the universe is astonishingly astronomical to a number and degree that is beyond our ability to comprehend. How the moon played a pivotal role in creating life on our world and how it still plays a role in keeping our planet stable enough to support life coupled with the rare combination of h2o and gasses that make up our atmosphere, our distance from the sun, our distance from the center of the galaxy and so on. Life is extremely rare and even more so in the universe at large.

I do not believe that Earth has been “visited” by aliens, nor do I believe that we, even after a hundred generations to the 10th power, will ever encounter alien life similar to anything that we have imagined. At best we will find only microscopic simple organism or odd plant life, but no humanoid or intelligent life.

If you look at the facts as they are presented today, the truth is but a simple thing to see, we are alone, and if we do not take care of what we have, we will loose it.

[Slick]

Not an argument, judgement or a statement, just something to read if interested.

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

Slick.

[JurijD]

Hmmm I don´t agree with you at all. What you are describing (the distance to the Sun, the influence of the Moon, H20 etc. etc.) are all conditions that had to be met for a planet to turn out the same as Earth... but life can exist in countless different contidions. If Earth had a SO2/CO2 atmosphere mix (with 0% oxygen) and a temperature of say 150°C, forms of sulfur bacteria (that we know of today) would be plentiful all over the globe... and with those kind of gasses in the atmosphere it would get so dense that even water could exist in liquid form at temperatures higher than 200°C...Life is very very tough...the usual range of 0 to 100°C + water + oxygen is only limiting to very complex organisms (that we know of!) what I am trying to say here is that you must not limit yourself to planets that are similar to Earth. One of the best "conditions" for life is the presence of water and a rich "soup" of anorganic/organic compounds in the planets atmosphere and crust. I think life will be very plentiful in the universe, we will prolly find it in many solar systems... another question all together is how much of that will be intelligent and not only a green blob of goo on a rock somewhere... that noone can answer because we just don´t know how frequent intelligence comes around (we only know of one example on earth) we´ll just have to wait and see.

[Atrocities]

The moon keeps our planet anchored and thus we suffor few and minor wobbles that would otherwise decimate our climate and reduce the liveable life supporting time of our world to nill.

There is no proof, none what so ever, that life exsits on any other planet within our solor system. That is eight other planets and their moons with nothing.

I did state that life such as simple or extremely complex forms of it, bacteria, single celled ameba, and such can and more than likely do exsit. Hell I'll conceed that it is likely there are planets with oceans simular to Earth a billion years ago that may be teaming with life, but nothing like us. No developed life formes in the sence that they have a society like ours, advanced, and on the verge of exploring space.

So life can and probably does exsit on other worlds, but no life like we humans.

[General Woundwort]

Atrocities, have you been reading Rare Earth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387987010/103-6016853-8146208?vi=glance), by chance?

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, a brief summary of the Rare Earth argument can be found on this page...
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw102.html

[JurijD]

making statistical arguments like ... there are 8 other planets with moons in our sol. system and none of them has life is very argumentative. First of all we might discover life on some of them and even if we don´t the fact that there is life on only one of them tells us nothing about the rest of teh galaxy... Here are my conclusions:

- I have read the Rare Earth hypothesis and it is very similar to Drake´s assumptions but for one small difference. The guys that did R.E. assumed that there is little life out there and Drake assumed that there is a lot and both tweaked their equations to produce the desired affect. It´s the age old optimist vs. pessimist tug-o-war. The real problem is that none of the factors in their equations can be estimated and not to mention all other factors they left out.

- the real questions is how many intelligent life forms are out there ATM. Well given the fact that we´ve been monitoring the EM band closely for the Last 70 years and found no TV, radio or other transmissions comming from outer space one can resonably conclude that there are no human-like aliens (close to our tech level) in a radious of 70 light years around Earth.

- for the remaining 90k light years of our galaxy who can say... we simply don´t have enough knowledge to make a resonble estimate. It´s just not possible.

- what we can say is that if we do find aliens (or they find us) they will either be very very far ahead of us (tech like) or very very behind us. (since it is very very unlikely two cultures will be at the same tech level at any given time) ... but since we just barely climbed out of the stone age ourselves (10.000 years is nothing cmpared to the eones passed) any aliens that we *might* find will most surely be hugely superior to us

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ID4 all over again

[Atrocities]

Good point, if there is life out there, and it has the ability to travel the stars, will it be friendly or hostile toward other life? We are a resource devouring race therefore I believe that if there is life out there, and I do not believe there is life, then they to will be a race dedicated to self preservation above all else and if we meet, we are food.

[Suicide Junkie]

I just concluded that with a big enough radio antenna one could pick up the first transmissions from our system... and vice versa<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, broadcasting does send a lot of waste signal into space.

If you want to be communicating over long distances, cheaper and with less interference for others doing the same thing, you start using fibreoptics, and narrow EM beams from satellites and cell towers directly to your customer, rather bLasting it out everywhere...

Propaganda and distress signals are about all you'd want for omnidirectional signals, which unfortunately get the 'ol 1/r^2 fading. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[JurijD]

- Don´t EM transmissions fade at 1/r^3 ?

- Yeah but even with todays directed EM (cell phone, satellite comm.) a lot of it is reflected from structures and the earth itself and is rediated back out to space... I´m sure that if we were say 34 light years away we could watch Armstrong land on the moon... and if we were 2 light years away listen to Aaron talking over his cell phone with his phone company complaining about yet another problem http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Cirvol]

if any aliens did use standard energy to communicate, (and they were more advanced than us), they'd be using narrow band laser-type communication devices...

due to the minimalized signal strength fall off at long distances...

if not something so conventional (ie, if their tech was higher, they'd be using either tacyons or even most likely - Einstein coupled particles (where changing spin on one of them instantly changes spin on its 'brother', regardless of distance)...

these really are the most likely forms of long distance alien communication, which is why we need to get it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Loser:
I like the "if there's anybody out there, where the bleep are they!?!" side of the question. Even within the limitations of the speed of light, it would take no more than a couple hundred million years for one race of intelligent life to spread throughout the galaxy, the whole galaxy.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believe there is a very good chance that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Possibly a lot of it. There are a LOT of stars out there after all. I consider the Drake equations to be on the conservative side. The Rare Earth guys are down right pessimistic in their assumptions.

However, it may be exceedingly difficult if not impossible for life to spread beyond it's home system. Life that is built to exsist on a certain type of planet with a specific type of circumstances cannot easily pack up in man made, or Phong made for that matter, ships and fly to the next star over.

Technology can only do so much to prepare for the hostile conditions we know exsist in the vacuum between our own planets, much less anticipate and prepare for dangers we don't know about.

We may be hundreds of years from being able to establish semi-permanant facilities on Mars or teh moons of Jupiter. And those will still be heavily dependant on the supply of resources and personell from Earth.

For life to spread to another star system we have to figure out a way to design extremely intricate technological systems, but make them Last the decades or centuries that it would take to reach our destination. We'd need multiple upon multiple redundancies for systems, and some method of repair and replacment of critical parts only with the raw materials and manufacturing capacity that we can carry with us.

Some people equate it to the sailing ship explorers of the enlightenment age on Earth. But that is romantic nonsense. It's much harder then that. To equate it you'd have to have a sailing ship where you can't throw a line over and catch a fish, and you can't stop on an island and gather water, where the trip Lasts so long the ship would rot out from under you, but you have to rebuild it as it does from wood you have stored in the hold.

Not an easy proposition. It may be that intelligent life is abundant, or at least has been abundant over the lifespan of the galaxy. But it may be simply beyond the scope and ability of that life to travel the lifeless void of space between the stars.

At least until we get a Warp Drive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ August 08, 2003, 13:34: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[JurijD]

I don´t think we´re hundreds of years from having self-sustaining colonies on other planets. All the technology that we´d possibly need has long since been invented (say 30 years ago). If they could send a man to the moon in 69 we can most surely send several to mars and have them stay there indefinately... the ony problem is the will to do so. (if you have the will you find the money and the means)

We have the technology to construct self sustainable environments... there are about 200 of them floating uder the worlds oceans (called nuclear submarines) They surface once every 6 months only to resupply on food beause it would be too unpractical to have it produced on-board. Everything else... water, oxygen, heat etc. is produced by the nuclear reactors that turn CO2 to O2 and recycle urine and the vapour in the air to usable water.... In a hypothatical colony we´d only need to bring plants along to produce carbohydrates for us to eat (I admit, it would be a strange diet but one would be able to live off it indefinately) And if we could genetically change certain cells not to grow into animals but just to produce large quantities of proteins we´d have ourselves a meat substitute... we´re not there yet but its completely possible.

sailing off to distant stars is another matter... We simply don´t have the technology to do so in the desired time span (10 years there and back).

One proposal is to use say ion engines to propel enormous ships that carry hundrets of thousands of people in a self-sustaining enovironment with an fusion energy source that would Last for centuries to the nearest stars... they would require 50 years to get there and they would never return... but their offspring would construct a new civilisation on a planet orbiting that distant star and build new ships and send them off to yet other stars.... it has been calculated that it would take several million years but in the end we could colonize the enire galaxy using this principle...

Well I´m still hopefull that physics will save us and discover that travel over and beyond the speed of light is indeed possible... and I´m a firm believer in the saying that anyting is possible.

[Atrocities]

I don´t think we´re hundreds of years from having self-sustaining colonies on other planets. All the technology that we´d possibly need has long since been invented (say 30 years ago). If they could send a man to the moon in 69 we can most surely send several to mars and have them stay there indefinately... the ony problem is the will to do so. (if you have the will you find the money and the means) <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You should consider that to send a manned mission to Mars would require far more technology than we currently have. The effects of prolonged weightlessness on the human body, the micro metorites that would pummule a ship to dust, and the enormus calculations needed to get there and back, the cost, etc.

Keep in mind that NASA has stated that ships with rotating sectiosn are not fessable in any degree and the technology to create such a ship is currently not available.

The best we can hope for in the next 200 years is perhaps a small moon base or orbital facility near the moon. Nothing more.

[Suicide Junkie]

Don´t EM transmissions fade at 1/r^3 ?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, because when you send out a signal pulse, it moves out in a spherical shell. The area of the shell is proportional to r^2. Dividing the signal out along that surface, you get 1/r^2.

For a Cylindrical wave it goes down 1/r (think a long light bulb filament blinking on and off)

Plane waves maintain constant intensity. (1/r^0)

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I don´t think we´re hundreds of years from having self-sustaining colonies on other planets. All the technology that we´d possibly need has long since been invented (say 30 years ago). If they could send a man to the moon in 69 we can most surely send several to mars and have them stay there indefinately... the ony problem is the will to do so. (if you have the will you find the money and the means) <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You should consider that to send a manned mission to Mars would require far more technology than we currently have. The effects of prolonged weightlessness on the human body, the micro metorites that would pummule a ship to dust, and the enormus calculations needed to get there and back, the cost, etc.

Keep in mind that NASA has stated that ships with rotating sectiosn are not fessable in any degree and the technology to create such a ship is currently not available.

The best we can hope for in the next 200 years is perhaps a small moon base or orbital facility near the moon. Nothing more.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you are pretty alone in thinking that it's technology that hinders a manned mission to Mars.
Today it's mostly economics, the cost will be huge.
The problems with micro-meteroids won't be all that much bigger than when we went to the moon i'd belive, just more prolonged but not a major problem, we've sent probes much further than Mars. Yes, they get hit but it's solvable. Even I can solve that one, 1 meter of lead will stop most meteroids (Not the best solution I agree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).
Prolonged zero-g is not a hindrance either, a problem yes but not unsurmountable. The Russians have had people in space for over a year with much less training facilities than would be possible to mount inside a Mars mission.

The huge calculations is not any problem, that could be solved by most nations space agencies, even our small Swedish space agency has resources to calculate trajectories needed, fuel amount, thrust, launch dates etc..

No the problem is cost, it just costs too much and the profit isn't availible in any near future, to justify that cost will be hard.
If the motivation was right we could have had a manned mission to Mars in the 90-ies, heck, even in the early 70-ies if the motivation was STRONG enough to justify the cost in money and lifes.

Remember that it's hard to get funding for the international space station, the most expensive human space project so far, and that is much cheaper than a Mars mission I'd guess.

[ August 08, 2003, 14:52: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Ruatha]

Does anyone have any idiea how big an antenna we're talking about to receive a local TV-transmission out through the atmosphere and the magnetic belt of Earth and the magnetic belt of the solar system and then 34 light years away?

Hey, does the magnetic belts even interfere with EM's? I guess not. But there ought to be some EM disturbances from the sun though, or?

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by JurijD:
We have the technology to construct self sustainable environments... there are about 200 of them floating uder the worlds oceans (called nuclear submarines) They surface once every 6 months only to resupply on food beause it would be too unpractical to have it produced on-board. Everything else... water, oxygen, heat etc. is produced by the nuclear reactors that turn CO2 to O2 and recycle urine and the vapour in the air to usable water.... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, you are missing my point. I wasn't talking about renewable recourse like food and water. I know we are very close to or have acchieved teh basic technology needed for these things. I am not even talking about basic energy needs. Nuclear power is a good long term option, and there is some talk about magnetic scoops to pull hydrogen molecules from the surounding space.

I am talking about the huge amount of raw materials and manufacturing capability you would need to be able to build replacment parts for all the myriad pieces of technology on board the ship. It's not simply a matter of scale, or making a larger ship. Because the bigger you build it and the more equipment you have dedicated to these support functions, the more things you have that can break. It's a curve that I am not confident you can ever get ahead of when you consider you are looking at decades long trips at least.

The submarines are not nearly as self-sufficent as you think. 6 months suberged is nothing. They can surface any time they need and head for a repair dock if something breaks. Or a helicopter can bring them a new circuit board in a matter of hours.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
I think you are pretty alone in thinking that it's technology that hinders a manned mission to Mars.
Today it's mostly economics, the cost will be huge.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually if you read the recent literature most of the scientific community now believes that Mars colonization is out of our current technological reach. It is NOT simply a matter of money. Recent findings are that the radiation levels there are much higher then we previously believed among other things.

I think most agree that eventually we could have colonies on Mars. The question is whether we are capable of having self-sufficent colonies on mars. And I mean TOTALLY self sufficent. Not dependant on regular replenishment shipments from Earth with spare parts, etc.

Only when we can do that can we even think about sending a ship to another star. And that will be more difficult because at least on mars you have access to the planets raw materials.

A good example of what I am talking about is the Int'l Space Station. It is not anywhere near self sufficent. One accident grounds the Shuttle fleet and you hear talk of abandoning it alltogether. Even keeping it operational is tough. Depending on teh Soyuz means only two crew members can remain on the station. And those two are so busy doing station maintenance that they complain they don't have time for research. More money would not make it self sufficent. It might give us better options for replenishment, but wouldn't make the station self suficent.

[ August 08, 2003, 15:33: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[kalthalior]

Did the Drake equation thing that Slick posted, used pretty pessimistic figures (by my standards, anyway) and arrived at N=3. Interesting. Additionally, went out and found this:
Mars Colonization Plan (http://www.ibiblio.org/astrobiology/index.php?page=mars03)

Might be a little on the optimistic side, but it does spell out a fairly serious program. Also, I will admit to be a tad biased in favor of Mars colonization -- I'm a member of the Mars Society.

Mars Society webpage (http://www.marssociety.org/)

[Ruatha]

I gotta read the Posts better before I reply, sorry.
I missed the first post and replyed to the reply, thought it was about a simple two-way mission to mars, Colonies is something enterely different, I agree on that!

My sincere apologies, it won't happen again, ever, promise http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by kalthalior:
Might be a little on the optimistic side, but it does spell out a fairly serious program. Also, I will admit to be a tad biased in favor of Mars colonization -- I'm a member of the Mars Society.
[/URL]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I totally believe Mars will be colonizable someday. I was merely commenting that we aren't there yet. And not just fomr a lack of money or political will. There are definite, significant technological hurdles that need to be overcome for a permanant habitation. Self-sufficency is a long way past that, although I believe both are possible.

I just question whether it will ever be possible to build a ship that can travel between the stars without all the crew dieing and the ship turning into scrap metal before it gets there.

I do however believe life exsists out there. I think someday we may figure out a method of communication with them and be able to learn about each other. I am just not confident we will ever be able to visit them.

I can envision a "galactic internet" with information being shared about the various worlds and races. We could use this information to design virtual trips to these places.

[JurijD]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
[QUOTE] No, because when you send out a signal pulse, it moves out in a spherical shell. The area of the shell is proportional to r^2. Dividing the signal out along that surface, you get 1/r^2 <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">yes, yes I realize that normal enery disperses at that rate because of spacial enlargement... but Em waves are a combination of magnetic and dipole movement... I haev a vague memory that my physics book even has it derived somewhere that EM transmissions actually fade at 1/r^3 because of dipole movement on the antena...

I fo course could be wrong .. it´s been two years since I studied physics carefully http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ August 08, 2003, 16:13: Message edited by: JurijD ]

[Slick]

Originally posted by kalthalior:
Did the Drake equation thing that Slick posted, used pretty pessimistic figures (by my standards, anyway) and arrived at N=3. Interesting. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also, note that the Drake equation was formulated to look for life that can communicate with us. As such its numbers are for our galaxy alone because the assumption is that other galaxies are too far away to pick up individual signals.

So if the question is about "intelligent live in the universe", Drake equation would have to be multiplied by the "biyyllllons and biyyllllons" of other galaxies, and the term about communication dropped.

Slick.

[Loser]

Amusingly the Soviets, right at the end, had the capacity to get a man to Mars. The Energia rocket, biggest rocket in the world, has a huge potential for lift. With all six booster rockets it could easily lift the top Apollo stages high enough for the trans-lunar burn. I do not remember the exact details, but I believe it was also capable of getting something like fifteen tons to Mars. That's enough to get a brave hero to Mars. He isn't coming home for a while, but he can get there, maybe walk around for a little while, claim a great victory for the motherland, and take a happy-sleepy pill.

This is not as unlikely as you might think, either. These men, and women, have just about anyone else beat for pure daring-to. Read about cosmonauts some time, incredible humans with incredible accomplishments.

[JurijD]

Well the Russians (or our slavic brothers http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) have always had the edge in space exploration, even now after the collapse of the USSR, NASA actually bought the plans for a 20 year old russian rocket engine that offers a 30% better force to weight ratio than the best engines the americans every developed... and this masterpiece was sitting in an old abandoned warehouse ont he outskirts of Moscow for lack of funding in space exploration.

That aside... back to Mars: I still say the only real obstacle to Mars colonization is politics and the lack of will power... heck 20 years before they went to the moon we barely discovered the jet engine! When Kennedy proposed the idea there were large portions of the so called scientific community that called him a "very optimistic war-monger" that didn´t know what he´s talking about... their most serious objection was that if anyone ever tried to land on the moon they (and their Rocket-ship) would sink in the soft sandy surface never able to get free again.... LOL

The thing is that there are always problems... if there were´t any someone would have already done it. The challenge is to go for it and try to do it. Don´t try to solve every problem on the blackboard, that´s crazy and sadly that´s how nasa operates now... and its also the reason why the russians were alaways ahead with 1/10th of the USA resources.
I mean why the hell would rotating ships be a problem... there is no reason for it... just bring a big wheel into space, spin it around and you have a rotating ship... I mean asteroids spin all the time and they have no problems with space travel http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif heeh, jokes aside, there will always be people who say something is not possible and that we should wait... I say try and do it now and see if it cannot be done.

Capitalism really canot explore space... because every capitalistic country thinks in terms of money gains and not in terms of human advancement... but the Soviets saw the big picture, sadly the largest social experiment in human history didn´t work out so well because of human flaws and enemies aborad and within http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Growltigger]

As we are talking about colonising Mars, does anyone know anything about the radiation issue outside the Van Allan belt or something round the Earth.

As I recall, this was something I read about cosmic radiation, and how the Van Allan belt protected Earth, but outside it, long exposure would frankly kill astronauts. A short trip to the moon was not too bad, but longer flights would really be a no-no. Dunno if this is true or not, I suppose conventional radiation shielding would be too heavy to make it practical to launch (unless you did it peicemeal and assembled theship in orbit) but that would be a hellish undertaking.

My view is that there is most likely intelligent life out there as the universe is just so vast that even the remotest chance of life will mean it pops up in a few places. What I dont think it dies do is zip around Earth going wibble wibble and scaring farmers, rednecks and other wierdos

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Ruatha:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Atrocities:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> I don´t think we´re hundreds of years from having self-sustaining colonies on other planets. All the technology that we´d possibly need has long since been invented (say 30 years ago). If they could send a man to the moon in 69 we can most surely send several to mars and have them stay there indefinately... the ony problem is the will to do so. (if you have the will you find the money and the means) <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You should consider that to send a manned mission to Mars would require far more technology than we currently have. The effects of prolonged weightlessness on the human body, the micro metorites that would pummule a ship to dust, and the enormus calculations needed to get there and back, the cost, etc.

Keep in mind that NASA has stated that ships with rotating sectiosn are not fessable in any degree and the technology to create such a ship is currently not available.

The best we can hope for in the next 200 years is perhaps a small moon base or orbital facility near the moon. Nothing more.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you are pretty alone in thinking that it's technology that hinders a manned mission to Mars.
Today it's mostly economics, the cost will be huge.
The problems with micro-meteroids won't be all that much bigger than when we went to the moon i'd belive, just more prolonged but not a major problem, we've sent probes much further than Mars. Yes, they get hit but it's solvable. Even I can solve that one, 1 meter of lead will stop most meteroids (Not the best solution I agree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).
Prolonged zero-g is not a hindrance either, a problem yes but not unsurmountable. The Russians have had people in space for over a year with much less training facilities than would be possible to mount inside a Mars mission.

The huge calculations is not any problem, that could be solved by most nations space agencies, even our small Swedish space agency has resources to calculate trajectories needed, fuel amount, thrust, launch dates etc..

No the problem is cost, it just costs too much and the profit isn't availible in any near future, to justify that cost will be hard.
If the motivation was right we could have had a manned mission to Mars in the 90-ies, heck, even in the early 70-ies if the motivation was STRONG enough to justify the cost in money and lifes.

Remember that it's hard to get funding for the international space station, the most expensive human space project so far, and that is much cheaper than a Mars mission I'd guess.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I just watched a show on it a few weeks ago and the NASA guys stated that at current levels, we do not have the technology, nor the funding, for a manned mission to mars. They went into all the pros and cons and were very open about what was needed in order to mount a manned mission to the red planet.

So I am not talking out of my *** when I said what I said. It was all based upon what was said in the documentary.

[Slick]

I don't know the radiation levels exactly, but, yes, there are some lethal areas between Earth and Mars. The current idea is that there would be a small shielded compartment in the ship where the crew would go when passing through these areas. A small shielded (probably Pb) compartment is much more practical than shielding the entire ship. If required, the crew could safely make short excursions out of the shielded room to operate equipment, etc.

Slick.

[Loser]

The Soviets were ahead where they were ahead because Stalin choose to emphasize so-call 'old math' (mostly because an oppressed and decaying Soviet Union could not afford computers). This is the same reason such a huge percentage of the twentieth centuries' great mathematicians were from the eastern bloc. They came up with the mathematics that made it possible for one person to plot an orbit in a multiple-body system, that made that rocket engine possible, even the math behind stealth technology was developed by a Russian in the thirties.

The U.S. got to the Moon (which is not a moon, but that's another story), put out more deep space and interplanetary probes, and (until recently) had a much better safety record because it replied on 'new math', math that emphasized quickly turning any equation into one that could be run by a computer: less understanding, less elegant, more powerful, more number-crunching.

I don't know what the bleep happened to the U.S. space program after Apollo. It seems like they really haven't done anything useful since then. It is sad and I, for one, am waiting for the day when one of two things happen.</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Chinese get their act up to the level that actual completion for something meaningful starts and NASA gets its aft in gear.</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The space program is pulled of its current 'life support' level of funding and finally laid to rest. Maybe someday someone else that really loves it will pick it up and do something with it.
</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On another note, the reason that whole spinning-thing won't work is because there will be mass (astronauts and whatever) moving around inside it. "Every action ...." It then costs lots of fuel not only to maintain the right facing or alignment, but also to maintain the correct position relative to your surroundings. You may remember footage of the astronauts running around the inside of Skylab? Wonder why you don't seen any astronauts doing that anymore? It's because those kinds of antics actually knocked Skylab off course. I don't know if the Soviets ever even tried that nonsense, but you can bet that if it had worked, they would have set up something spinning on one of their eight space stations.

Additionally, on the note of how long the Russian or Soviet Space agency has kept people in orbit, do remember that those were experiments in how much a human body can take. They haven't put people up for longer because of the damage those experiments did to those men. Also recall that when long-term station residents come down they are weak: these men can only barely walk. Not going to do much good on Mars if you need three months to recuperate after landing.

(Yeah, yeah, Martian gravity is low... only one month.)

[Erax]

Guys, remember the old saying : "When an expert says something is possible, he is very likely right; but when an expert says something is impossible, he is very likely wrong."

[kalthalior]

Re-discovered another good link from NASA on FTL travel and the challenges it poses.

WARP DRIVE WHEN (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm)

[Growltigger]

Side tracking slightly to our earlier chat about ET's and all that, I always recall a really good short cartoon story in 2000AD (a great comic over here in Blighty).

Basically, NASA are shocked when an observatory spots flying saucers. All telescopes are tracking the ET's and they see them fly to the dark side of the moon. Over the next few weeks, blinding light is seen from the dark side of the moon, and a shuttle is prepped to go up there and make contact.

The shuttle launches and gets to the moon to see the ETs flying away. It goes round the dark side of the moon to see what is happening there and is shocked to find a great big sign, kind of like a road sign that says no parking or whatever.

The gallant astronauts manage to decipher the sign and are shocked when it turns out as saying "WARNING, IRRESPONSIBLE RACE IN CHARGE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AHEAD"

Laugh? I thought it was

[Cirvol]

jurijd, communism didn't fail because of enemies 'abroad and within'...

it failed because it absolutely relies on the 100% trustworthiness of people running the system to not take advantage of it...

since humans are animals, this will not happen

in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice... in practice however, its HUGE:)

[ August 08, 2003, 18:26: Message edited by: Cirvol ]

[Loser]

Originally posted by Cirvol:
in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice... in practice however, its HUGE<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's damn quotable.

[Slick]

Originally posted by Loser:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Cirvol:
in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice... in practice however, its HUGE<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's damn quotable.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It already is a quote. I am not sure when, but I have heard it many times before. I *think* it may be Einstein.

Slick.

[Geckomlis]

Originally posted by Slick:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Loser:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Cirvol:
in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice... in practice however, its HUGE<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's damn quotable.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It already is a quote. I am not sure when, but I have heard it many times before. I *think* it may be Einstein.

Slick.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, Yogi Berra...?

[ August 08, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: geckomlis ]

[geoschmo]

I have found links giving credit to that quote to Yoggi Berra, and to JAN L.A. VAN DE SNEPSCHEUT, a
Dutch-American computer scientist and educator (1953 - 1994)

Have not determined difinitivly if it's either of them, or someone else entirely.

[Slick]

Berra, Einstein... Same thing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slick.

[parabolize]

we are not going to another solar system soon
1. Yes there are planets that can harvist life out there, but they are far apart.
2. We dont see them and the optics to see them will need a very wide base line.
3. Multi generation ships are very very risky. In all societies there are distructive people. You would need a lead room for people and food to hide from radiation. Thats alot of lead so we would probably have to make a really good magnetic field instead.
4. no gravity and the inertia idea dosnt work.

i am not saying it wont happen

and with mars there just is not a reason to do it until we have micro machines that can turn rust and CO2 into steel and O2

[Suicide Junkie]

What do you mean by #4?

With "zero" gravity, inertia becomes more important, but certainly not stronger or weaker.

[Erax]

Warning : possibly controversial link below.

Is there intelligent life out there ? Here's (http://www.sinfest.net/d/20000827.html) one possibility.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Cirvol:
jurijd, communism didn't fail because of enemies 'abroad and within'...

it failed because it absolutely relies on the 100% trustworthiness of people running the system to not take advantage of it...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">These would be the "human flaws" jurijd mentioned but that you didn't quote. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[parabolize]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
What do you mean by #4?

With "zero" gravity, inertia becomes more important, but certainly not stronger or weaker.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">there is no gravity in space
They did a test to see if you could use inertia as artificial gravity. It didnt work the person still had a bad back when he came down.

[Loser]

Originally posted by parabolize:
They did a test to see if you could use inertia as artificial gravity. It didnt work the person still had a bad back when he came down.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ummm... Could you explain that one a little more? Or maybe drop a link. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

[Loser]

I like the "if there's anybody out there, where the bleep are they!?!" side of the question. Even within the limitations of the speed of light, it would take no more than a couple hundred million years for one race of intelligent life to spread throughout the galaxy, the whole galaxy.

Since the galaxy has been around for billions of years, they should be here, or at the very least we should be picking up radio transmission from them: communicating with each other, communicating between worlds or craft within the same system, even radio transmissions that are meant to only reach individuals on the same planet should be making some difference. What is there? Nothing.

The matter may stem from some specific failure mode (http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/explore/learn_01.html#DB1), some specific thing that intelligent life does to itself on a consistent enough basis that it never makes it out of its own solar system. That a bit depressing, as it could be seen as an assurance of doom. Whatever, keep breathing.

[ August 08, 2003, 12:11: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Suicide Junkie]

They did a test to see if you could use inertia as artificial gravity. It didnt work the person still had a bad back when he came down. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sounds like you mean a rotating ship type dealy. We don't have anything big enough to avoid significant force differentials at different heights.

[Katchoo]

Originally posted by Loser:
ummm... Could you explain that one a little more? Or maybe drop a link. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think what he's referring to is the proposed use of a "rotating section" on a spaceship to generate an artifical gravity, much like you see in Babylon 5 and 2001: A Space Oddessy.

I guess muscle loss/atrophy (sp?) still occurs in this simulated enviroment, although I would expect it to occur more slowly than in a non-simulated gravity enviroment.

Then again I may be completely off my rocker. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[JurijD]

Well this isn´t a good example but its the best I can do for now:

Before the Last ice age there were at least 3 differet species of humanoids living on Earth. People usually think that Homo sapiens evolved in a linear fashion from "lower" humanoids but what they tend to forget is that parallel to us several other species evolved (also from lower humanoids) that were in no way (mentally or physically) inferiour to us. But as you can see apparently only one of those species survived to this day (ok, forget about Big foot, the Snow man and the Easter bunny http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

So one can resonbly conclude that (at least on Earth) similarily evolved intelligent species (although related) didn´t really like each other very much and there is evidence that over the passage of time one species took over teritories that belonged to another only centuries ago... not a very encouranging thought concidering that "the aliens" won´t even be distantly related to us.

And encounters of a technologically superiour culture with one less developed (in a militarily and sientific way!!!) also don´t tell a hopefull story. just look at what 200 Spanish soldiers did to the Inka indians back in the 16th century (I think it was the Inkas... or the Aztecks later on... same story:)

I don´t think E.T. will attack Earth to steal our water:) (since they have a quadrillion times as much freely available in those ice asteroids orbiting not far away from Mars:) Maybe our small and unimportant planet is what will safe us in the end. Because what could they possibly want from us... I mean there are millions of other planets with the same (or better) mineral composition as Earth... and besides it doesn´t make sence for a space-ferring culture to mine planets ... it makes more sence to mine asteroids where you don´t need to bother with this annoying gravity we keep hearing about :-) I mean why would you mine gold on Earth and then have to haul it up at enormous costs of energy to space when you have a few rocks with .0000% g already in space that are loaded with the suff. (no really there is an asteroid orbiting near jupiter that has more gold and platinum on it that our enitre planet *ka-ching* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ August 08, 2003, 12:23: Message edited by: JurijD ]

[Ruatha]

To detect inter-system communication within another system is propably hard.
You have to aim at that system directly, it's not very high signals that would reach earth if the signals aren't directed in a tight beam towards us, I belive. Not to mention that we might be listening on the wrong frequency, if communication is sparse they might not be using that many frequencies. And perhaps there is other way to transmit communication than by radio waves. Wires planetside and light in space? Perhaps mass communication isn't for all species?
What where the SETI resources in the 40:ies?

So to say that we've been monitoring the EM band closely for the Last 70 years isn't the whole truth.

(I might be out on thin ice here as I really don't know but what I've written here seems reasonable, right?)

[ August 08, 2003, 12:27: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[Arkcon]

Atrocities, I gotta side with JuriD here. A handful, in a gigantic universe, equals countless planets with the possibility of life.

That the life forms in question have an intelligence like ours is hard to know for sure. The drake equation is easy to discuss and debate to figure out for number of stars and planets. But to define intelligence and technology, well, that might be difficult.

I'm a firm believer, that the laws of physics prevent these far flung societies from ever coming in contact with each other. If anyone ever discover warp points, jumpgates, I'll be shocked. And, IMHO, hyperspace drives and warp drives are just plain silly.

JuriD, you're back from vacation? Betcha you thought you'd have missed some turns on PBW, huh. Didn't figure you'd have missed nothing, didja. Welcome back.

[oleg]

Originally posted by parabolize:
....
2. We dont see them and the optics to see them will need a very wide base line.
....
and with mars there just is not a reason to do it until we have micro machines that can turn rust and CO2 into steel and O2<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quite soon - in 25 years probably, we should have an operational interferometer telescope in space capable to see Earth like planets around nearby stars.

Converting C02 to O2 is no problem - plants have been doing it for many million years http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif A little genetical engeneering and we will have algae capable to live on Mars providing there is enough water underground.

[JurijD]

Hey Arkcon... yeah 11 days in the mediteranian sun relaxes you more then u can imagine:) I´m glad PBW knew when to stop working:)

I understand your point Ruatha... I know that in the 30-ies old Adolf couldn´t exactly tune to Alpha Centauri between his looong screaming monolouges:) It just that I read somewhere that the voyager probe (if put far away from Earth) would be able to record (again) the first Elvis song broadcasted on radio... I just concluded that with a big enough radio antenna one could pick up the first transmissions from our system... and vice versa.

P.S.: and of course my argument only included intelligent species that have the same tech level and are similarily developed as we are... use teh same tech (radio freq. that we use are such because they are most appropriate and they would prolly use the same ones) ther of course could be a hugely developed culture living on alpha centaury that has ships that reach warp 9.86 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif but communicates by telephaty and has no need for radio and such primitive junk:)

[ August 08, 2003, 12:44: Message edited by: JurijD ]

[Ruatha]

Why would aliens attack us, what would they want? Information is one thing that would be valuable.
If the whole population on earth could be killed off without destroying the structires, computers, libraries etc, it would be a wealth of information.
New ideas and viewpoints, different ways to do the same thing, could be profitable but would require a huge investment, propably to big to be worthwhile, but what do I know of alien psychlogy?
Perhaps we would be considered devils, an abomination against their god and that we must be destroyed. Or a potential future threat if left alone?

Still, I for one belive that any possible alines would not be hostile, but I'll most likely ever know as there isn't even a slim chance that such a contact will be established in my lifetime, if there is intelligent life out there.

So what about the future?
I belive that one day there will be many different species out there, widely different in abilities and look, but all derived from human stock, geneticly altered by either man or nature to fit into different conditions, perhaps small alterations at first, better oxygnetaing blood platelets? But eventually accelerating, good or bad? For me it seems like a bad idea but then I'm not living in that time am I?

[JurijD]

Yeah of course, they could be after info... one could prolly even think of better reasons. I just wanted to say that we are (now) prolly insignificant to anyone out there. Take this example: what could we learn by watching how a cat chases a mouse or by killing all the snails in the world and examining their shells to see what they have hiding in there http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Or killing all the monkeys on Earth for fear of the evolving into something higher... Think of the developments we made in the Last 100 years... (try!) to extrapolate to the next 1.000.000 years of development... thats how developed they will be when (and if) we meet them. I don´t think they´ll even bother to stop here...

[ August 08, 2003, 12:51: Message edited by: JurijD ]

[parabolize]

yes millions of years
and thats how long it took to put O2 in the air millions of years...
yes 25 years from now we will see planets a few light years out, but as i said there isnt going to be that many good planets to see.

[oleg]

Originally posted by parabolize:
yes millions of years
and thats how long it took to put O2 in the air millions of years...
yes 25 years from now we will see planets a few light years out, but as i said there isnt going to be that many good planets to see.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And how do you know ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
May be there is a shiny blue planet orbiting Alpha Centauri !

[JurijD]

Originally posted by Cirvol:
jurijd, communism didn't fail because of enemies 'abroad and within'...

it failed because it absolutely relies on the 100% trustworthiness of people running the system to not take advantage of it...

since humans are animals, this will not happen

in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice... in practice however, its HUGE:)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I stated 3 reasons why communism failed. Please read them before you post a reply confirming one of my reasons and saying I´m wrong when you really agree with me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

1. human flaws (the reason you put up instead of my other two...)
2. enemies abroad (the western world who was afraid that their greedy capitalist ways would end..)
3. enemies within (stupid leaders who also got greedy)

You could put that up on a sign in the middle of Red square in Moscow and people would shake your hand...

[Taera]

yeah, with fungi lifeforms on it...

[JurijD]

THE SPINNING SHIP PROBLEM:

The 3 problems I saw mentioned here about using rotational inertia to replace gravity were:

1. movements of astronauts *inside* would "distabilize" the ship and cause it to stop rotating properly
2. as humans aren´t a point object as high school physics would like us to believe http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif a thing called the Corelious force develops when you rotate them on the inside of a wheel like structure of a radious not big enough compared to the size of the person inside.
3. even though inertia gives us 1 g and minimum corelious force we still experience muscle atrophy and "back stress"

My thoughts on these:
1. If we look closely at Newtons laws of motion we see that every action as a reaction... so what could be the "worst" disturbance an astronaut could cause to a rotating wheel? The absolute worst would be for him to run in the same direction the wheel is spinning... that way his legs would push the wheel in the opposite direction on the spinning motion and tend to slow it down... but the funny thing is that the moment this astronaut stopped running the wheel would start spinning at the same speed as it did in the beginning because there is a little thing called rotational inertia conservation which states that in any inclosed system (a spaceship and its occupats) the rotational inertia of the whole system cannot be changed by internal forces of the system... you can bounce all you want inside but you won´t change anything.

2. The obvious solution to this issue is to build a wheel that has a radious more than 100x the normal height of a person (heeh... big, yes... very big) althugh this might be impractical and almost impossible to do now it might be in the future... but sadly its the only solution physics offers us for now...

3. I´m pretty sure this is the result of insufficient inertia and persisting differential (Corelious) forces in a wheel not big enough or not spinning fast enough. Because if we had a big wheel with almost no differential forces and a g inertial acceleration at the ouer rim... we would´t be able to set it apart from normal gravity. (it´s not only simulated... it´s exactly the same as normal gravity in all it´s affects... you just have to have a wheel big enough to eliminate the differential forces)

[narf poit chez BOOM]

theologically, i've heard that their are microbes in volcanos. so if god put life there, he probably put it on other planets.

250,000,000,000 planets in our galaxy and something like 300,000 galaxies seems like a great waste of space to me otherwise. i mean 75,000,000,000,000,000 stars, since ours is a medium galaxy...it's not if, it's where.

[ August 09, 2003, 09:32: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[deccan]

Warning: Potentially controversial and offensive material, especially to people with strong religious / spiritual beliefs.

It should be obvious that as a fan of SEIV, MOO, Star Trek, Star Wars etc., I enjoy the idea and fantasy of huge starships moving across interstellar distances. But I have to say that I don't believe that it'll ever be anything more than a fantasy. The immense physical / energy problems is one thing. The economic cost / benefit rationale of such an endeavor is another. But perhaps the most overlooked obstacle to such a vision is that humanity may not stay in its current form for every long.

At the very least, one would expect severe genetic / bionic modifications to function optimally in a spaceship, because the energy costs of genetically / bionically modifying a human being is so much less than the costs of moving a ship at respectable velocities. A good example would be the type of modifications described in the short story "Spirey and the Queen" (http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/spirey.htm) by ALastair Reynolds. This surely puts paid to the Star Trek vision of future space travel.

But why be so conservative? It's likely that within the near future, we could have fully conscious, fully sentient artificial intelligences. Rather than being wholly alien and hostile, as in "Matrix" or "Terminator", I think that the likeliest scenario would be something similar to Walter Jon Williams' story "Daddy's World" (http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook424.htm) , i.e. they'll just be like us, being our offspring. Once conscious software has fully legal rights, I expect that people will start designing, rearing and interacting with software children instead of biological children. A spaceship carrying conscious software has very notable advantages over one that must carry biological lifeforms. In Greg Egan's "Diaspora" (http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/DIASPORA/DIASPORA.html) for example, "polises" that are physically only about the size of a shoebox, but containing untold billions of independent software persons in VR environments, multiply backed up and constantly updated with similar units with old-fashioned EM communications, creep across the galaxy.

Instead of sending huge colony ships across the galaxy, how about sending non-intelligent software controlled robots to build the necessary sensory, power, construction and communications infrastructure on distant worlds, and then sending future humans to inhabit them in the form of encoded EM radiation. After all, if materialism is true, then person-hood is nothing but data.

[JurijD]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I am sorry, I do not believe that we evolved from apes and monkies nor do I believe that we were "POOOOF" created.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You´re right... humans (Homo Sapiens) didn´t evolve from apes and monkeys but from lower primates. Apes and monkeys have a totally different evolutional branch than modern humans.

But since I get the distinct feeling that you really wanted to say that humans didn´t evolve from lower hominids in the way generally accepted by modern science:


Australopithecus Afarensis --> Australopithecus Africanus --> Homo Habilis --> Homo Ergaster --> (Homo Erectus) --> Homo Heidelbergensis --> Homo Sapiens


but rather came about by some other way... (not by a pooof as you say)... I have to urge you to reconsider http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif because human origins are a most accurately researched field of peleoantrophology and a more recent proof of its correctness is that evolutionary trees drawn up by examining bone reamins and anatomical similarities are in complete agreement with the trees drawn by mDNA analysis and genome compression analysis. It is very very rare that two totally different methods give so very similar results; in affect confirming one another. So the human evolution tree is here to stay. We don´t need any aliens or gods to complete the picture, in reality there is no such thing as a "missing link" so often popularized by the media... we have all the important "links" already, now we just add a few "nodes" to the tree every now and then. but the general structure will only get more detailed and won´t change in any radical way.

P.S.: And for those who think humans are the pinnacle of evolution I have to add that about 1 million years ago there were about 3 different fully developoed humanoid races living on this planet. For the evolutionary line is not a linear thing as I drawn it up there but has many other branches and "tree tops" other than our own. More importantly not one of these other hominid species was better developed than the other, we just got lucky that our ancestors were able to drive the other two off their teritories and push them into extiction.


My Conclusion:
So if you consider our ancestors intelligent (some 1M year ago) than the other two races were also intelligent. So we don´t really have to look out there for signs of alien intelligence, we have a perfect example than it can (and did) happen more than once here on Earth and so I´m pretty sure it also happened somewhere else.


[ August 09, 2003, 13:46: Message edited by: JurijD ]

[JurijD]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
But if we did not evolve on this planet, and were not magically created by some super being calling itself GOD (Government of Domocracy or General Operations Director) then a whole new avenue of possiblities opens. It is this theory that we came from somewhere else that holds the most hope for imagination and coversation for me.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You do realize that this statement is a paradox in itself, don´t you?

Because if we did come from somewhere else how did life get started there? (evolution?) And if it somehow managed to overcome the vast distance of space and landed on our planet it most surely landed somewhere else too... because the odds of life being created and then migrating to only one other planet in the universe are next to nothing... it would be against the laws of mathematics and nature fur such a thing to happen... so if you think about it, if you propose that life came from somewhere out of this earth then you also propose that the universe is full of life becasue the odds of it only comming here are not to be considered... so your argument contradicts what you said earlier about you believing the universe is empty of life (or thar life is very rare).

[ August 09, 2003, 13:55: Message edited by: JurijD ]

[Ruatha]

Technology for manned mission to mars?

Urlorama (whoa, am I even beating Thermo on amount quoted???):

Soviet plans for manned mission to Mars (http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/sovtions.htm)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/876112.stm
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mars/mars_crew.html

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/DOCS/EIC036.HTML

<a href="http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4212/ch1.html" target="_blank">
[7]....of the late 1940s when he and his fellow specialists from the German rocket program worked for the U.S. Army at Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Providing Ground, New Mexico, testing improved Versions of the V-2 missile, von Braun wrote a lengthy essay outlinings a manned Mars exploration program. Published first in 1952 as "Das Marsprojekt; Studie einer interplanetarischen Expedition" in a special issue of the journal Weltraumfahrt, von Braun's ideas were made available in America the following year. 4

Believing that nearly anything was technologically possible given adequate resources and enthusiasm, von Braun noted in The Mars Project that the mission he proposed would be large and expensive, "but neither the scale nor the expense would seem out of proportion to the capabilities of the expedition or to the results anticipated.'' Von Braun thought it was feasible to consider reaching Mars using conventional chemical propellants, nitric acid and hydrazine. One of his major fears was that spaceflight would be delayed until more advanced fuels became available, and he was reluctant to wait for cryogenic propellants or nuclear propulsion systems to be developed. He believed that existing technology was sufficient to build the launch vehicles and spacecraft needed for a voyage to Mars in his lifetime.
</a>

<a href="http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch3.htm" target="_blank">
[105] A key component of early Space Shuttle plans was its linkage to a possible mission to Mars as the next major NASA undertaking. During 1967 and 1968, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) reached key milestones in propulsion on the road to Mars. In tests in Nevada, the AEC conducted successful demonstrations of nuclear reactors built for use in rocket propulsion and showed that its contractors were ready to develop a flight-rated engine suitable for piloted missions to that planet.</a>

<a href="http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch4.htm" target="_blank">
One morning in early September 1969 I had to leave the senior staff meeting early to go see the Vice President. Peter Flanigan had alerted me that Agnew's Space Advisory Committee [sic] was about to make some recommendations to the President that Flanigan knew Nixon could not live with. Peter had been unsuccessful in dissuading the President's science advisor, Lee DuBridge, from agreeing with the staff of Agnew's Advisory Committee that there should be a very costly manned mission to the planet Mars in 1981. So Flanigan had asked for a meeting with Agnew, the ex-officio chairman of the committee, in the hope that we could persuade him to kill it. </a>

Sketches of Von Brauns Mras expedition proposal. (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/vonlift.html)

<a href="http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/Cirr/EM/l11/designs2.htm" target="_blank">In the 1960's, as NASA was designing spaceships to go to the moon, more Mars mission designs continued to be studied including a "Concept for a Manned Mars Expedition with Electrically Propelled Vehicles" devised in 1962, by scientists at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.

This mission, planned for the 1980s, included five ships and a crew of fifteen. The scientists and engineers planning this mission considered the possible loss of some of the ships during the voyage, believing the mission could continue even if two of the five ships were lost. This way of thinking about risk is reminiscent of early long sea voyages and the fleets sent to make them. One of the Mars ships could even be used as an emergency return vehicle with the entire crew onboard (albeit "under crowded conditions"). This ship design utilized nuclear electric propulsion and the radiation shelter was made of graphite and metal. For more shielding the scientists placed water and oxygen tanks around the crew module as well as the fuel tanks, an idea still under consideration today! </a>

<a href="http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/Cirr/EM/l11/designs3.htm" target="_blank">
In 1986, another Mars mission scenario was designed for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This plan was called 'The Case for Mars: Concept Development for a Mars Research Station'. This mission had as its overall goal a permanently manned scientific base using Martian resources to supply consumables, including propellant. This mission used a heavy lifting launch vehicle and three modules that would create artificial gravity. The spacecraft is constructed in Earth orbit and is a "cycler" continually going between the two planets. The Mars trip takes an average of six months with each crew living on the surface for about 25 months at a time. Each crew is relieved by another crew ensuring a permanent habitation of the planet</a>

<a href="http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/Cirr/EM/l11/designs4.htm" target="_blank">In 1993, The NASA Exploration Program Office launched the Mars Exploration Study Project and produced a Mars Design Reference Mission, that owes much to the Mars Direct mission plan. The spacecraft are not built in Earth orbit and there is no prior lunar base built for testing. This mission employs a heavy-lift launch vehicle to send the crew and cargo to Mars. The transit times are short and there are long Mars surface stays. In-situ resources are used to make fuel for the return journey and the habitat used to travel to Mars is the same as the one the crew lives in on the surface.

In 1997, a second reference mission, The Human Exploration of Mars, was prepared by the Mars Exploration study team at the NASA Johnson Space Center after the possible discovery of microbial life on the Martian meteorite was announced. Based on the previous reference mission, it called for the establishment of a Mars Program Office; the development of human quarantine and sample handling protocols (to protect Earth from contamination by possible Martian microorganisms); and making the program international from its inception.

In 2001, human Mars exploration plans were put on hold and NASA refocused on the space shuttle, the construction of the International space station and research on lunar exploration. </a>

<a href="http://history.nasa.gov/augustine/racfup5.htm" target="_blank">A number of studies have outlined vigorous space programs, many quite similar to the President's recent initiative. While these programs differ somewhat in content and schedule, they are surprisingly consistent regarding the near-term level of funding required. Based on our own review, we believe that a reinvigorated space program will require real growth in the NASA budget of approximately 10 percent per year (through the year 2000) reaching a peak spending level of about $30 billion per year (in constant 1990 dollars) by about the year 2000. Such a program will:

* provide for the basic infrastructure to operate NASA, the recommended Science program, the recommended and expanded Technology program, a Mission to Planet Earth, a new start on a phased and evolutionary heavy lift launch vehicle and a reconfigured Space Station; and
* provide sufficient funds to begin laying the foundation for lunar and Mars missions on a schedule that will permit real progress and significant periodic technical achievements leading to a manned Mars mission in approximately 30 years, i.e., Mission from Planet Earth. </a>

China denies plans on manned misison to Mars (Why did I include this link? I don't know) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2000506.stm)

[ August 09, 2003, 14:38: Message edited by: Ruatha ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by JurijD:
THE SPINNING SHIP PROBLEM:

2. The obvious solution to this issue is to build a wheel that has a radious more than 100x the normal height of a person (heeh... big, yes... very big) althugh this might be impractical and almost impossible to do now it might be in the future... but sadly its the only solution physics offers us for now...
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think there is a less material intensive method then a giant wheel. Couldn't you build two ships of equal mass, and then tether them together by a long strong cable and rotate them around a common axis?

I could see the "ship" would actually be two ships that are firmly clamped together during launch, complex manuvers and whatnot. But during the bulk of the trip which would be either straight coasting or straight ahead acceleration they could be detached and a cable reeled out of both of them which would allow them to get the neccesary radius for normal gravity within each ship.

There could be one of more counterwieghts crawling back and forth along this cable by means of computer control to balance out any fluctuations if there are any. You could either ahve all the crew on one half and equipment in the other, or the crew could move from one half toe the other when neccesary along the cable.

Geoschmo

[Atrocities]

(not by a pooof as you say)... I have to urge you to reconsider [Smile] <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Reconsider what? That we were created instantly or we were not created instantly?

I do not believe we were created instantly by some all knowing being. Nor do I believe that mankind is ruled by this being as religion would have you believe.

DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU ANGER EASILY

I think schizophrenics who heard voices and thought it was the voice of god wrote the bible. The bible was created so that a few could control many. Nothing more nothing less. If you look at the number of innocent people that have been put to death, or have died because of religion then one totally looses faith in it. Look at all the bad things that have been done to people in the name of the lord. I choose to believe that god did not create man, nor does god govern him, but we are ultimately judged by him.

Our deeds, good or bad are regulated by our own guilt and not out of fear of punishment after death. Trust me when your dead, your dead. There is no divine after life, no hell, and no heaven. Do you remember the time before your birth? Death is the same thing really, nothingness.

It is a depressing truth, but I do not expect people to Subscribe to my point of view and I do support the choices people make when it comes to what beliefs system they choose to Subscribe to. I hope they find what it is they are looking for, but I know they won't.

So God will play no part in man ability to explore the stars or meet new life. We are on our own in that endeavor and if God chooses to help out in his or her own way, then great, but for the most part, it’s going to be a long and lonely road to the final frontier.

[ August 09, 2003, 15:38: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[JurijD]

Oh no, you missunderstood my post entirely http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You said that you don´te believe us to be the product of evolution from lower hominids (you called them apes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif and that you also don´t believe we were created by a "pooof" ....

I explained then (in great detail) that we are actually (with the highest degree of probability science can offer us now) the product of evolution starting from "apes" as you called them or hominids as they are correctly termed.

... the quote you put up has nothing to do with what I said... perhaps I didn´t make that sentance clear enough.

I wanted you to reconsider your disbeliefes in the evolution of man... and I tried to name a few arguments to get you satrted on that way. This god bussiness you developed below has nothing to do with my argument and nothing to do with what I said...


Reconsider what? That we were created instantly or we were not created instantly? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To reconsider that we were created instantly or arrived from somewhere else... which is not the case...we most probably are the product of evolution.

[ August 09, 2003, 17:38: Message edited by: JurijD ]

[TerranC]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
If you look at the number of innocent people that have been put to death, or have died because of religion then one totally looses faith in it. Look at all the bad things that have been done to people in the name of the lord.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If one died because of religion (I assume you're talking about Martyrs), wouldn't that generate more faith, seeing how that person gave his own life in order to carry out his beliefs?

And although it is true that religion has generated lots of bad (sectarian violence, intolerance, holy wars, etc.), religion has also generated lots of good (charities, faith healing, hamnitarian aid, etc.).

Everything has a good side and a bad side. Religion is no different.

I'll stop replying to this off topic discussion.

Edit: One more point to make:

You say that religion was created in order for the few to control the many. While that was true in the olden days, it is an out of date statement; The pope does not control the world's vast Catholic population.

[ August 09, 2003, 17:51: Message edited by: TerranC ]

[JurijD]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
There could be one of more counterwieghts crawling back and forth along this cable by means of computer control to balance out any fluctuations if there are any. You could either ahve all the crew on one half and equipment in the other, or the crew could move from one half toe the other when neccesary along the cable.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes yes, we see eye to eye... there could be endless variations to the theme. One would of course have to guarantee that the entire composition would always have a center of gravity at the geometric center of the two ships... if for example too much cargo or people were to be moved from one side to the other then the whole constelation would start rotating around a different center that before and the lines would loose tension and the whole thing would fly apart...

[Gozra]

I would like to point out a few things.
First God is a God of law He obeys the RULES just like the rest of us.
Case in point: The parting of the red sea by Moses. If you carefully read in the Bible how that was done you will see that that miriacal(sic)was accomplished by natural means.

Second Blaming God for the terrible acts done in His name by PEOPLE is an error in doctrine. It comes right out in the Bible and says why we are here which is to choose between good and evil.

Third How we got here via evloution or 'Poof' is not the most important issue.What is of importance is have we chose good over evil and have we obeyed God?

And Forth The more knowledge we gain points out how little we know about everything. Theories are constantly changing as we gather new information about the universe around us. I just finished reading article that pointed out that we are not descended from apes but from a similar species.

Also in this thread I noticed people making statements about other star systems as if they were facts when really we don't know for sure. We need to allways be aware that there is more to learn.
Even in a construct such as SEIV there is more to learn every time I play.

I am here. I am aware. There has to be others like me beyond the confines of this solar system.

[ August 09, 2003, 23:07: Message edited by: Gozra ]

[Grandpa Kim]

To get back to the original question, it is my estimation that life is pretty rare in the universe. Not as rare as Atrocities believes but still, mighty rare.

I would not be surprised if we are the only civilization in this galaxy. I would barely raise an eyebrow if we were the only one in our local group of 17 galaxies. But thoughout the whole universe, the absolute number of civilization is reasonably high-- say between 100 and 100,000.

Unfortunately at our state of tech development we can never know for sure.

That brings to mind 2 points that have received little attention: tech level and intelligence level.

Tech Level

All the below assumes approximately equal brain power.

Right now, it is impossible for us to detect another culture as little as 100 years behind us-- a cosmic microsecond-- and it is impossible for them to detect us. This may not be true in as little as 200 years (2 cosmic microseconds). By then we may be able to see planets around another star as easily as we see the earth from the moon now. And this time span is just a tiny blip!

A society only 10,000 years more technologically advanced than us may not be obvious to us at all. Who knows what tech they might have? Whatever you guess is probably wrong. At the same time, they could hide from us easily if they so choose. If not, their antics may not even be noticed by us. Take longer spans and the gulf becomes ludicrous. We are not just "not on the same page", but in entirely different libraries!

Intelligence Level

To define, let me argue that there are various intelligence levels here on planet earth. Microbes are at one level, then perhaps worms, then insects. When we get to vertibrates, intelligence increases by quantum leaps. No doubt we are a quantum leap beyond dogs and horses and even chimps. The questions that are fairly simple to us cannot even be imagined by these creatures. I will paraphrase James Allen Gardner from one of his books.

Imagine a rock on the edge of a cliff. Its easy for us to see that eventually that rock will fall-- an errant gust of wind, an earthquake or simple erosion will push it over the edge. A few seconds observation and thought tells us this but is so unremarkable we hardly think about it. The chimp cannot even form the question let alone reach a conclusion!

It is not hard to imagine a quantum leap beyond our own level. What we can't imagine is the form it will take. In a million years, we will evolve somewhat but a million years is merely a cosmic day. It may not be enough to make that quantum leap. 10 million years may be enough. But imagine a race one billion years more evolved than us! Well, I really can't anything factual about such beings. I can say they may be all around us but we just don't have what it takes to recognize them.

The individuals of our species are very self centered. More than once (hah! many thousands of times) something has been "impossible" and we went ahead and did it anyway, yet we continue this self centered, "today" centered attitude. So, when someone says something is impossible, I just smile knowingly.

[Atrocities]

If you rule out evolution and the religious factors, what could be some other possibilities for how we came to be on this planet?

I am sorry, I do not believe that we evolved from apes and monkies nor do I believe that we were "POOOOF" created. I think there is truth in both however, but no substantial answers.

If we did develop on this world, then yes it is likely, however remote, that life could develop on other worlds. I Subscribe the theory that we are a unique side effect of a lot of rare occurances that lead to our being. I do not believe that the universe is teaming with life and the evidence to date supports this depressing view.

But if we did not evolve on this planet, and were not magically created by some super being calling itself GOD (Government of Domocracy or General Operations Director) then a whole new avenue of possiblities opens. It is this theory that we came from somewhere else that holds the most hope for imagination and coversation for me.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

there would be little point to this life if i remembered the time before my birth. how could i be challenged if i knew absolute good?

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by JurijD:
Oh no, you missunderstood my post entirely http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

You said that you don´te believe us to be the product of evolution from lower hominids (you called them apes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif and that you also don´t believe we were created by a "pooof" ....

I explained then (in great detail) that we are actually (with the highest degree of probability science can offer us now) the product of evolution starting from "apes" as you called them or hominids as they are correctly termed.

... the quote you put up has nothing to do with what I said... perhaps I didn´t make that sentance clear enough.

I wanted you to reconsider your disbeliefes in the evolution of man... and I tried to name a few arguments to get you satrted on that way. This god bussiness you developed below has nothing to do with my argument and nothing to do with what I said...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Reconsider what? That we were created instantly or we were not created instantly? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To reconsider that we were created instantly or arrived from somewhere else... which is not the case...we most probably are the product of evolution.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Would you consider that our species evolved from several differant lower primates? That over time cross breeding has created what we are today?

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Gozra:
I would like to point out a few things.
First God is a God of law He obeys the RULES just like the rest of us.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Gods thoughts are not our thoughts. Gods ways are not our ways." - Unknown

I think this to be true as well.

[JurijD]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Would you consider that our species evolved from several differant lower primates? That over time cross breeding has created what we are today?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, that is an interesting idea that was proposed a few years back. For now it cannot be definately proven nor can it be disproven. But since cross-species breading is an extremely unlikely event (the offspring of such unions in most cases are infertile) I think this is not very likely, but it could have happend.

I still think the most likely event is that we came about by slow mutation of our genes mostly... perhaps cross breading played a role too. but in any case it was all natural, aliens most likely didn´t play a role here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif and neither did some magical being that flipped a finger and the wolrd appeared... maybe that´s how time-space got started but later on I think physics governs everything.

[ August 10, 2003, 09:40: Message edited by: JurijD ]

[JurijD]

Back to the original debate:

Simple life:
I still think that life in one form or another will be very common in our galaxy. By this I mean some form of lower single-celled life. Bacteria, protozoa etc. etc. (if cells will even be the building blocks of life on other worlds... who know !) I base this on the discoveries we made in the Last few decades. Life has turned out to exist in the most unusual places... at the bottom of the sees, in vulcanos, 10km unde ground etc. etc. where the temperature, pressure and other conditional extremes challange our usual perception of a life friendly environment. I wouldn´t be at all surprised if we found bacteria living under ground on Mars and perhaps even Venus... the moons of Jupiter, Saturn and perhaps even further out.

Complex life: The evolution of multicelular organisms requires a certain environmental stability that earth provided. But obviously the more complex life gets the more rare it will be because the more complexity an organism has the greater are its envirnomental requirements. So I´m pretty sceptical that we will find complex multicelular organisms in our solar system... perhaps on Mars, Titan or Europa... but I doubt it.

Intelliget life: Lets put the early hominids as a base line. Anything more evolved is intelligent anything less is not. By this cretaria if we found some form of aliend dolphin it would not be an intelligent life form.... Noone can really answer this question, as I pointed out erlier. I wouldn´t be surprised if our galaxy had 1.000.0000 intelligent species in it and neither if we were the only one. This is because I cannot make a realistic approximation of the number for myself... its just not possible, the Drake and the Rare Earth equations are a bunch of §%!%"§ ... they can give whatever results you want, depends how optimistic you are so they are virtually useless.

Conclusion:
I think theis question will only be answered when we have explored our entire galaxy... or have enocountered an alien race that will share its knowledge with us. since both events are very unlikely I think this post could hang around for a very long time...

[oleg]

Originally posted by JurijD:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Atrocities:
Would you consider that our species evolved from several differant lower primates? That over time cross breeding has created what we are today?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, that is an interesting idea that was proposed a few years back. For now it cannot be definately proven nor can it be disproven. But since cross-species breading is an extremely unlikely event (the offspring of such unions in most cases are infertile) I think this is not very likely, but it could have happend.

I still think the most likely event is that we came about by slow mutation of our genes mostly... perhaps cross breading played a role too. but in any case it was all natural, aliens most likely didn´t play a role here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif and neither did some magical being that flipped a finger and the wolrd appeared... maybe that´s how time-space got started but later on I think physics governs everything.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Earlier this year there was a paper published in Nature that proved (apparently) there was no crossbreeding between neanthertals and modern man. We simply wiped them out.

[JurijD]

Originally posted by oleg:
Earlier this year there was a paper published in Nature that proved (apparently) there was no crossbreeding between neanthertals and modern man. We simply wiped them out.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interesting. Thanks for the input. I guess crossbreading really was an imposibility and not only very unlikely.

[oleg]

There are several recent and more or less rigourous scientific papers that assert we mayin fact be one of the First Ones - stars evolution indicates stars older then our Sun are too poor in heavy elements. At the same time, younger stars give up to 20% chance of planets observable by modern - and VERY rudimentary technics ! Basically, we still have some time handicape to evolve and go to the stars. If we fail, in a millenium or two, aliens will come and resolve our pitty squables http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[parabolize]

Originally posted by Gozra:
I would like to point out a few things.
First God is a God of law He obeys the RULES just like the rest of us.
Case in point: The parting of the red sea by Moses. If you carefully read in the Bible how that was done you will see that that miriacal(sic)was accomplished by natural means.

Second Blaming God for the terrible acts done in His name by PEOPLE is an error in doctrine. It comes right out in the Bible and says why we are here which is to choose between good and evil.

Third How we got here via evloution or 'Poof' is not the most important issue.What is of importance is have we chose good over evil and have we obeyed God?

And Forth The more knowledge we gain points out how little we know about everything. Theories are constantly changing as we gather new information about the universe around us. I just finished reading article that pointed out that we are not descended from apes but from a similar species.

Also in this thread I noticed people making statements about other star systems as if they were facts when really we don't know for sure. We need to allways be aware that there is more to learn.
Even in a construct such as SEIV there is more to learn every time I play.

I am here. I am aware. There has to be others like me beyond the confines of this solar system.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">wait wait a person of faith telling people theyre jumping to ideas to fast... There has been a great amount deduced by comparing stars to known nuclear reactions, giving us a good idea of what is out there.

[Gozra]

"wait wait a person of faith telling people theyre jumping to ideas to fast... There has been a great amount deduced by comparing stars to known nuclear reactions, giving us a good idea of what is out there."

Exactly what are you attempting to say here?

There is life on other worlds other than our own. And the possiblity does exist that we are here for spiritual reasons. At any rate NASA has a money budgeted and a launch date for 2012 to send a satillite out specifically to look for planets like ours. I am looking forward to the results.

[ August 11, 2003, 23:08: Message edited by: Gozra ]

[oleg]

Originally posted by Gozra:
...At any rate NASA has a money budgeted and a launch date for 2012 to send a satillite out specifically to look for planets like ours. I am looking forward to the results.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are you sure it will come so soon ? Last time I logged into NASA site it was 2025. And it can not be one satellite, we must have at least two to make the interferometer images of close stars. I think - not sure anymore.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Gozra:
...At any rate NASA has a money budgeted and a launch date for 2012 to send a satillite out specifically to look for planets like ours. I am looking forward to the results.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are you sure it will come so soon ? Last time I logged into NASA site it was 2025. And it can not be one satellite, we must have at least two to make the interferometer images of close stars. I think - not sure anymore.

[geoschmo]

It has occured to me my previous remarks about the unlikelyhood of us ever getting out of our own system were a bit pessimistic. If one considers the potential of nano-technology it may be possible someday. If you can conceive of a ship that is maintained and repaired by billions of microscopic nano-bots scouring the ship and making repairs at the molecular level, it's conceivable that we could build a ship that could travel for hundreds, even thousands of years and arrive at it's destination in the same pristine condition that it left Earth.

[Suicide Junkie]

Are you sure it will come so soon ? Last time I logged into NASA site it was 2025. And it can not be one satellite, we must have at least two to make the interferometer images of close stars. I think - not sure anymore.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You need two cameras... It could still be one satellite with a long arm that separates the cameras once in space.

[Gozra]

http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/sim_index.html

This project is due to launch in 2009. part of its mission is to search for planets about the size of ours.