Cyclone Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 90 light years instead of 4... That's going to take a lot longer. I'd start with the close target and prove that the technology is viable before going for the one 20 times as far away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted August 30, 2016 Author Share Posted August 30, 2016 90 light years instead of 4... That's going to take a lot longer. I'd start with the close target and prove that the technology is viable before going for the one 20 times as far away! Yeah, I know, but say they are an intelligent Kardashev Type II civilisation. The probe might not need to get all the way there before they come and say hi (on the basis that the signal was directed and they might be monitoring us for a response). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 (edited) Maybe we should forget about Proxima b and send a probe to HD 164595 b instead. http://observer.com/2016/08/not-a-drill-seti-is-investigating-a-possible-extraterrestrial-signal-from-deep-space/ Tabloid overhype I'm afraid. SETI Institute damps down 'wow!' signal report from Russia http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/30/seti_institute_damps_down_wow_signal_report_from_russia/ it could feasibly be “interference from a passing satellite”. “It doesn’t even look like terrestrial interference has been ruled out — sometimes something as simple as a spark from a power line can cause radio interference that can mess with telescopes. With only one blip like this, seen by one telescope, it’s really impossible to know what it might have come from.” unexpected signals are a common occurrence, and so far haven't needed extra-terrestrials to explain them Edited August 30, 2016 by alchresearch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Yeah, I know, but say they are an intelligent Kardashev Type II civilisation. The probe might not need to get all the way there before they come and say hi (on the basis that the signal was directed and they might be monitoring us for a response). If it's a real signal and not a bit of random noise, then the quickest way to get a response would be to send a directed signal back. No need for a probe at 0.2C when we can send a signal at 1.0C. We might get a reply within 200 years that way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now