Prometheus Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 There is a debate as to whether the human race should attempt to make contact with alien species by sending a message: a flare to light up our presence. So, should we attempt to make contact with alien species given what we have experienced when more technologically advanced peoples meet those less advanced? If so, what message should we send up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 "Experts have argued for decades about the wisdom of broadcasting into space." Except we've been doing that for decades http://abstrusegoose.com/163 Also, early-warning radar was a shining beacon back in the day https://what-if.xkcd.com/47/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 Interesting articles, thanks. From them i take it that though we have been broadcasting for a short while, these are unlikely to be heard and there are other means we could employ to increase the likelihood of being noticed. So, should we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 I'm a big proponent for the peaceful use of space. If we start amping up the attempts to contact ET life, there could very likely be a big counter-movement to weaponize the environment, for security and safety. I'd rather wait until we have a bit more infrastructure options offworld before calling more attention to ourselves, and I'd like to at least start with peaceful intentions when we begin boldly going. Remember that right now, private industry is paving the way for more commercial investors (aka, the megacorporations). They're starting to take the lead on space development away from public programs. Governments are certainly still firmly involved, but when the money starts going offplanet, will the governments be going along with the private companies moving out into the system, to regulate and maintain a certain standard other than profit? And if the mega-corps are out there with regulation enforcement spread very thinly, do you want them to be weaponized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danijel Gorupec Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 My opinion is that sending a message won't do any difference. Therefore I am neutral to that idea (supposing that only symbolic resources are invested). Maybe I could be even sympathetic if this could be a way to popularize space investigation with only a small investment. Well, if we are sending a message, maybe it can be a sentence like "A cup of tea, perhaps?" But seriously, if we are really into sending a message then I am thinking that maybe we should immediately expose our soft underbelly. Whoever might be able to reach us will be almost as powerful as God... (lol, imagine we receive a response: "Thanks for contacting us. We already sent a projectile that will destroy your planet. It is traveling at a near-light speed and will reach you two months after this message"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted September 12, 2015 Share Posted September 12, 2015 If so, what message should we send up? Maybe something like this: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) "Experts have argued for decades about the wisdom of broadcasting into space." Except we've been doing that for decades http://abstrusegoose.com/163 Except it does not work this way.. These sun system receive nothing but noise, with plentiful of data lost, not possible to decode properly. To send radiowave data to long distances, there is needed precise directional antenna. Even to send/receive data to satellite or spacecraft like Voyager that's pretty close in cosmic scale distances, rotation of antenna/receiver by fraction of mm mean lack of signal, or issues with sending/receiving.. And we need to send data in direction where will be object after years (hundred/thousands for 1000+ ly), not where we see it now. TV signal sent in the past is certainly not directional, and not in direction of any known star or planet. We often cant receive radio from broadcasting station that's just a few hundred km away, not to mention a few thousands. Some lucky can receive signal when they're in good location, because photons reflected from troposphere. Coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverage_%28telecommunication%29 Coverage map of broadcasting stations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverage_map Radiowave propagation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation Tropospheric scatter to reach larger distances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_scatter They mention 300 km reasonable distance. 1000 km with pretty demanding equipment. Edited September 15, 2015 by Sensei 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted September 15, 2015 Author Share Posted September 15, 2015 So a lot of focus has been on the fact we have already been broadcasting our existence, either via radio waves or the voyager probes. But from all the links provided it seems these are quite ineffective means of making contact. Presumably we could do better if we tried. The new debate is about whether more purposeful attempts should be made at making contact. Originally i too thought such an attempt wouldn't mean very much due to a low probability of aliens getting the message, and even if they did would they realistically be able to traverse those distances. But i find the points about the terrestrial effects interesting: could it really lead to weaponisation in space? I guess it could be used as an excuse to sway public opinion, but if someone with the resources to put weapons in space really wants to, do they really need public opinion? Balance this risk against the inspiration it could evoke and potential technologies developed and i'm not sure the cons outweigh the pros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Originally i too thought such an attempt wouldn't mean very much due to a low probability of aliens getting the message, and even if they did would they realistically be able to traverse those distances. But i find the points about the terrestrial effects interesting: could it really lead to weaponisation in space? I guess it could be used as an excuse to sway public opinion, but if someone with the resources to put weapons in space really wants to, do they really need public opinion? Balance this risk against the inspiration it could evoke and potential technologies developed and i'm not sure the cons outweigh the pros. Bush II had the resources to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, but he made sure he had public opinion on his side before invading, and in hindsight we can see why. Historically, it's not hard to peddle aggression as defense. Done right, you can even defend against enemies and WMDs that never actually show up. We can gain inspiration using outer space peacefully. Look at the inspiration and technologies our space agencies have already fostered. Don't you think we should continue on that kind of success, rather than risk an eventual Space Patriot Act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Except it does not work this way.. These sun system receive nothing but noise, with plentiful of data lost, not possible to decode properly. To send radiowave data to long distances, there is needed precise directional antenna. That wasn't the point I was making. We have, in fact, been broadcasting into space. The issue is not the wisdom of broadcasting. It's the wisdom of making a certain type of broadcasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 We have been broadcasting but the signals we send as "radio" leakage are absorbed within a couple of light years at most, high powered military radar might be detected and in fact similar signals have been detected in short bursts but as you would assume the signals, while detectable, would have to maintain a lock on our particular location to be repeatable and none have done so at this point. Another problem is the existence of nearby civilization, What is the time spent on broadcasting likely to produce results? Assuming a 100 ly radius of signal "leakage" it starts to look like a project that would be on the government chopping block in short order, the ancient Egyptians managed to send a signal over thousands of years but their civilization no longer exists I wonder what kind of disturbance in time and space we could make that would be detectable across 4000 years. Like one of the egyptian mummies sitting up and saying hello. This of course lead to the question of "where are they" if life is common enough to be reasonably likely to be detected then then they should be here, if not who cares about a signal 4000 years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts