Arken

Oh sure... that's why I described it as merely a problem and not an impasse. With what we know from our own experience, the microwave band isn't the best to use for communications purposes but of course our experience and knowledge on the subject is very limited and again, I am far from suggesting that we abandon SETI.

The program I really don't have much hope for is Optical SETI but maybe that belongs in a new thread?

auto-da-fe

ok, so we which search method should be prefferred, and therefore, better funded? Should SETI (the one using radio waves) be our major means for searching? I don't think so, there are way too many variables that could hamstring you before you even start.

Arken

I really don't see too many alternatives to finding intelligent life elsewhere. As I said, there is 'Optical SETI' which searches for any high-powered lasers which might be coming from extrasolar planets but, of course, being a laser, they pretty much have to be pointed directly at us if we're going to see them. What other alternatives do you see, Dave?

auto-da-fe

Well I still hold out hope for Visual Confirmation of some sort. I personally think we will find a way to look far away w/o the use of mirrors, a la traditional telescopes. Contra was talking about using the suns gravity well as a focusing lens, I think something like that will be the key. I know we won't ever be able to see anything in detail with today's technology, but who knows in 5 or 10 years from now.

My point is, for the moment, our best hope for finding alien life is in R&D for new searching techniques. That is where most of our funding should be going, not to any of the existing projects (although, at the same time, I do not think we should cancel SETI or anything, just fund it at a level amount).

Jayjay

I recall reading somewhere that if we built an array of telescopes on the dark side of moon, we could conceivably not only directly see rocky planets light years away (or perhaps it was indirectly, the same way we can deduce the existence of gas giants now), but also potentially figure out their atmospheric composition and thus whether they might harbor life.

This is pretty much the only reason why I think we should colonize moon.

Rhaedas

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't SETI been for a few years at least privately funded...I thought the gov't tossed it out, and donations were supporting it now. I agree that we should fund more direct space programs, such as getting of the rock easier...we should always have ears out listening, but our main goal should be to get into space cheaply.

Jayjay: the dark side of the moon would be a good place as far as being isolated from the noise of the earth...however, empty space is better, because you have no limitations of size due to gravity. The moon is weaker than earth, but large structures would still need much support, unlike deep space. Plus maintenance trips to points in space are much more fuel efficient than to any place in a gravity well.

Marduk

The gov't dumped SETI quite some time ago, it is privately funded. but are the receivers able to pick up say an alien sit-com signal from 1000 LY away? I read somewhere that it couldn't detect such a weak signal, only one intentionally sent as a message beacon in a limited frequency range.

Autonemesis

Hubble was never meant to observe microwaves. It is a visual, near-infrared and near-ultraviolet optical instrument.

Shadowy Man

Yes. And it doesn't have a lens, it has a mirror. And it's mirror isn't bent, it just has a little extra spherical aberration, which is completely corrected in every instrument on board right now.

mark9950

That amount cannot fit in our solid sky dome hard as a molten mirror.