SETI: call to arms!

Well, a science without a subject is not really a science except in
terms of the science of the search strategy and the medium itself (FFT,
electromagnetic spectrum, the sorts of signals we might hope to find).
All sort of other sciences (from archaeology to zoology) employ search
strategies but are aided with the benefits of finding things, confirming
theories, etc.

If SETI regularly found signals, and we decoded some of them with a
lexicon, etc. then we'd have HUGE science on our hands, not just the
science of a search strategy.

Science isn't just a search. Someone goes out on a sampling expedition
and uncovers a dinosaur skeleton. An amateur could have just as easily
done this. But to describe it as a new species, excavate and
reconstruct it -- that's where the scientist makes his grand entry. And
to publish, get the award, pad his vitae, and get more funding for the
next cycle -- that's the expectation of the scientist.


Rob Dekker wrote:
I agree : in my opinion, what we are doing with SETI still feels very
'alien'
to many people around us. They dont see it as science in the way
that other space explorations are seen as science.

When I talk to my friends about SETI, I find that they admire my
passion for the subject, and are impressed by the 4 million S@H 'ers,
but they dont really see the relation between seti and
more traditional forms of science for extraterrestial life.

So, I dont think that finding microbes on Europa (the moon, that is )
or Mars would change much about people's perception of SETI.
Even finding signs of oxygen or methane on a extrasolar planet
would still be seen as an incentive to boost SETI's funding.
It's a different form of science.

I believe that we are performing a science which is clearly
complementary to other searches for ET life.
But we did not show many facts for this yet !
So can we compare SETI to search for oxygen in extrasolar planets ?
Can we can make some calculations which makes this comparison clear ?

Something like this :
If we would live 100 lightyears from earth, would we first detect earth as
a planet, then earth's oxygen and then earth's radio/radar transmissions ?
Or would it be much easier to detect radio/radar transmissions ?

Basically, can we make it obvious that SETI is a cost-effective
way of searching extraterrestial life if it exists ?

If we can make this scientific comparison, then surely we should
at least be able to convice people with common-sense that
SETI is a viable scientific undertaking.
At that point, we turn SETI into a normal science. Which will
no longer be rediculed.

But frankly, I don't think we have shown this (comparison) yet..

Rob

"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message
m...

Jason,


"Jason H." wrote in message

hlink.net...

Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:

Bruno,



"SETI ITALIA Bruno IK2WQA" wrote in message

le.com...


Fellow SETI enthusiasts: We are missing the boat on
President Bush's new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" program!
This editorial is nothing less than a call to arms, metaphorically

speaking.


I recall thinking at the time that this initiative was announced that
this would be a good opportunity to do the long-talked-about
lunar-farside radio-telescope project (although the President's
initiative seems impossibly under-funded, there obviously are other
valuable astronomy-related uses for a radio-telescope array on the lunar
farside (perhaps a second generation High Resolution Microwave Survey
(Project Phoenix's predecessor I believe) is in order? ;^) Even if
congress eventually kills the funding (again) perhaps the seed money
will lead to a SETI program that can be taken over by universities or a
certain not-for-profit SETI Organization? (although we are talking about
mega-money here, once a robotic scope is setup, it's
low-to-no-maintenance and perhaps managable by smaller entities than the
a government?) Also, the radio-astronomy dual-use means there are other
science allies in the promotion of the idea.


Instead of using the Moon as just a "stepping stone to Mars",
as the US President's proposal has outlined, a lunar farside SETI

facility

(radio astronomy dishes linked like the Allen-array network,
and an optical cluster there as well for the Laser SETI Searchers)
offers as its reward the possible detection of a Galactic Internet,
not merely the frozen/fossilized microbes likely to be found on Mars.


Moon Yes, Mars No!
by Ron Sirull
http://www.setileague.org/editor/moonyes.htm


Why should Moon and Mars be mutually exclusive? (or conversely why are
they related at all?) Scarcity of science funds is one issue obviously,
but I don't see why the two are connected, positively or negatively.

Unfortunately, aside from robots being able to do Mars cheaper and
cleaner, I think that some of the new projects, especially the Jupiter
Icy Moons project and Moon, Mars & Beyond are all ways of helping the
compact nuclear power reactor industry to get more funding (I believe
the NASA administrator's father was a nuclear Navy officer too?) So I
don't think they have radio-astronomy science in mind (but there perhaps
is a synergy here that could help both.) I also could see another
reason why the administrator (being the son of a squid, it's an Army
thing :^) would be for this too, because there are (IMO) seemingly so
many similarities (IMO) between a seaman's life and that of an
interplanetary space-farer (solitude, comradery, adventure) and the
power demands are perhaps greater than the Sun can provide, especially
if one is doing the "Beyond" part. It seems like a natural mesh, at
least seemingly from the administrator's point of view (but I still
don't want them to launch the nuclear power source over my house!)



Clear skies from NW Italy! ;-)

Bruno Moretti
Cicognola Astronomical Observatory & IK2WQA Ham Radio Station
45°43'28"N 8°36'35"E QTH Locator: JN45HR
http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/ap...y.php?teamid=8
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/s...team_7422.html


I don't know about that! SETI seems to be too far out on the fringe of
"science". People, in general, everywhere, are "attracted" to the
possibility of other life "out there", but yet they joke about it too!

Like you said though Al, people are "attracted". Until recently I would
have agreed with you about people joking about SETI Al, but today I feel
that we are getting beyond that (some of the ignorant class though will
always be there.) I've gone to several astronomy-related public viewing
events where I've interacted with hundreds of people. There is a
sizeable crowd out there who support the search (perhaps more so than
ever.) If we don't promote the search aggressively (whatever method you
plug is up to you) we will not progress to better public-awareness.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.


Invariably when I tell someone I have 7 computers running seti@home

24/7

they get this friendly smile on their face and say: "found any little

green

men yet" :-)

I get bizarre looks sometimes from people when talking about the subject
(especially from religious nuts) and frankly, their signs of ignorance
to me are just evidence of an educational/awareness-building challenge.
We need to come out-of-our-shells to promote SETI and not fear
ridicule. Too much is at stake! I'm sure that the original NASA SETI
proponents (pre-congressional cuts) faced a much tougher crowd (and look
how far they got.)


It is a noble quest, but it is on the fringe and not likely to get

serious

support from the public in general ... what is inspiring is the

dedicated

few that keep the search going with almost no funding ....




If SETI is not 'in-their-face', some will continue to think of the
subject at arms-length, where it is socially acceptable to ridicule the
subject (because of ignorance). This can only be overcome by education,
promotion, marketing and selling the virtues of this search to the
public. We can't afford to put our tails between our legs every time
somebody scoffs at it and hope to eat the crumbs that are left over.
We must be SETI educators. If we are passive, we gain less than if we
are goal oriented. Even if we don't achieve our goals, we will be
better off than if we don't try to reach them at all.

The people I speak of are not ignorant. They are my friends (old it is

true,

but my friends and they are engineers and scientists. They believe that
there are others out there. They show great interest when I explain about
the complex molecules found in space, the prospect of life on Mars &

Europa

and perhaps many places, the early start of life on Earth, about

extra-solar

planets, and on and on, but still, STILL!, they kid me (in a friendly way
of course) about the "little green men" and the bottom line is they would
not spend hard earned money on the quest (not much anyway)! This is my
observation ... perhaps others, as you, find differently and I'd be glad

to

hear about it too ....there seems to be only a few which have a great
passion for SETI (enough that they would do what I do, many others too,

and

much, much, more than I do) ... You know, I think I contribute to

seti@home

more than the norm, but yet I'm embarrassed to say what I do contribute is
almost nothing! I must suffer from the same attitute! ... I contribute
countless hours of CPU time, (almost every day for over 5 years now I take
care of the seti@home processing) but very little funding in support of
seti@home, why? What is it that holds people back (holds me back!!)? I

think

it is because SETI, despite everything is viewed as "fringe science" ...
Hubble on the other hand (or the space station) ... well, you know
(billions, even after a horrible blunder!) ...
We're going to have to do real good first (!), like find life, without
question, on Mars or Europa or somewhere, before we'll (SETI) make(makes)

it

to the big time. Until then, it is going to be a hard and almost thankless
task ...
Al


Regards, Jason H.

Rob,

"Rob Dekker" wrote in message
. ..
I agree : in my opinion, what we are doing with SETI still feels very
'alien' to many people around us. They dont see it as science in the
way that other space explorations are seen as science.

It is all very odd. I would think that the search for other life in the
Galaxy (or Universe) would have much higher priority. To me, SETI is even
more meaningful than, for example, what Hubble does. Yet billions have been
spent on Hubble and all the studies & analysis surrounding it. Yet virtually
not a pitance for SETI. Yet if SETI succeeds it would be more mindboggling
than anything received from Huibble so far. It is all so odd!

Perhaps you are right in saying SETI is not a science, but then what of
Hubble? It is a search too --- an optical search of the Universe --- a step
in learning more and more detail about the structure of the Universe.

If it wasn't for the fact that SETI is searching for "electronmagnetic
radiation (signals) from other intelligent civilizations" then SETI would
just be "radio astronomy" ...

I stand by my earliar statement that SETI is out on the fringes of science
("fringe science") and as such does not get alot of respect in general.
Everyone is interested in finding signs of other intelligent life "out
there", but they'd rather put their money somewhere else ...


When I talk to my friends about SETI, I find that they admire my
passion for the subject, and are impressed by the 4 million S@H 'ers,
but they dont really see the relation between seti and
more traditional forms of science for extraterrestial life.

So, I dont think that finding microbes on Europa (the moon, that is )
or Mars would change much about people's perception of SETI.
Even finding signs of oxygen or methane on a extrasolar planet
would still be seen as an incentive to boost SETI's funding.
It's a different form of science.

But how does it differ from Hubble for example?

On the one hand:
Hubble is an optical telescope used by scientists to study the structure of
the Universe.

On the other hand:
SETI scientists use radio telescopes (and optical now) to search the Galaxy
for other intelligent civilizations.

Now where is the money going? Not to SETI!!

SETI is a real, real, long, long, shot --- the outcome is very uncertain...
But if SETI finds something, even a tiny hint, then wow!

I think SETI scientists need to "fess up" how much of a "long shot" it is.

Forget the Drake Equation, just determine what are the odds of detecting a
signal out there. What are the odds that seti@home will find a signal if we
assume there really IS someone transmitting? What are the odds that the SETI
Institute's Project Phoenix will detect a signal if there is a radar out
there pinging away "day and night" on some planet 800 LY's away? :-)
Project META searched for 5 years and they found nothing! Is that because
the "odds" are so poor or is it because "there really isn't anyone out there
within META's effective search area"?

I believe that we are performing a science which is clearly
complementary to other searches for ET life.

Well, in talking to you, I think I clarified things in my own mind ... SETI
is fine, it is a science, but the trouble is that it is "a very long
shot" --- I think many people in general understand that in some way and as
a result only a minimal amount of funding finds its way to SETI research...
that makes sense to me ...

But we did not show many facts for this yet !
So can we compare SETI to search for oxygen in extrasolar planets ?
Can we can make some calculations which makes this comparison clear ?

Something like this :
If we would live 100 lightyears from earth, would we first detect earth as
a planet, then earth's oxygen and then earth's radio/radar transmissions ?
Or would it be much easier to detect radio/radar transmissions ?

Radio/radar transmissions _could_ be very easy to detect --- if they were
there and you knew where to look!! That's the trouble "if they were there"
and "knowing where to look" and knowing "when to look" ... However, I
think, even if they were there and transmitting, they would still be very
difficult to detect depending on how much source power they use, their
distance from us, and the frequency band they use.

The planet may have all kinds of intelligent life but the intelligence that
builds radio telescopes might not develop until millions of more years have
passed.

They could be an ancient civilization and long ago abandoned radio
communication, and our odds of detecting them would be almost zero...


Basically, can we make it obvious that SETI is a cost-effective
way of searching extraterrestial life if it exists ?

I don't think so, because, well, SETI is a long shot with very poor odds of
detection ... that has been the problem all along ... how poor are the odds
exactly ... that is my question ... and that is the question the SETI
scientists meeting at Harvard on 7 August should ask and answer ...

Al


If we can make this scientific comparison, then surely we should
at least be able to convice people with common-sense that
SETI is a viable scientific undertaking.
At that point, we turn SETI into a normal science. Which will
no longer be rediculed.

But frankly, I don't think we have shown this (comparison) yet..

Rob

"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message
m...
Jason,

"Jason H." wrote in message
ink.net...
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:
Bruno,


"SETI ITALIA Bruno IK2WQA" wrote in message

om...

Fellow SETI enthusiasts: We are missing the boat on
President Bush's new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" program!
This editorial is nothing less than a call to arms, metaphorically

speaking.


I recall thinking at the time that this initiative was announced that
this would be a good opportunity to do the long-talked-about
lunar-farside radio-telescope project (although the President's
initiative seems impossibly under-funded, there obviously are other
valuable astronomy-related uses for a radio-telescope array on the
lunar
farside (perhaps a second generation High Resolution Microwave Survey
(Project Phoenix's predecessor I believe) is in order? ;^) Even if
congress eventually kills the funding (again) perhaps the seed money
will lead to a SETI program that can be taken over by universities or
a
certain not-for-profit SETI Organization? (although we are talking
about
mega-money here, once a robotic scope is setup, it's
low-to-no-maintenance and perhaps managable by smaller entities than
the
a government?) Also, the radio-astronomy dual-use means there are
other
science allies in the promotion of the idea.

Instead of using the Moon as just a "stepping stone to Mars",
as the US President's proposal has outlined, a lunar farside SETI
facility
(radio astronomy dishes linked like the Allen-array network,
and an optical cluster there as well for the Laser SETI Searchers)
offers as its reward the possible detection of a Galactic Internet,
not merely the frozen/fossilized microbes likely to be found on
Mars.


Moon Yes, Mars No!
by Ron Sirull
http://www.setileague.org/editor/moonyes.htm


Why should Moon and Mars be mutually exclusive? (or conversely why are
they related at all?) Scarcity of science funds is one issue
obviously,
but I don't see why the two are connected, positively or negatively.

Unfortunately, aside from robots being able to do Mars cheaper and
cleaner, I think that some of the new projects, especially the Jupiter
Icy Moons project and Moon, Mars & Beyond are all ways of helping the
compact nuclear power reactor industry to get more funding (I believe
the NASA administrator's father was a nuclear Navy officer too?) So I
don't think they have radio-astronomy science in mind (but there
perhaps
is a synergy here that could help both.) I also could see another
reason why the administrator (being the son of a squid, it's an Army
thing :^) would be for this too, because there are (IMO) seemingly so
many similarities (IMO) between a seaman's life and that of an
interplanetary space-farer (solitude, comradery, adventure) and the
power demands are perhaps greater than the Sun can provide, especially
if one is doing the "Beyond" part. It seems like a natural mesh, at
least seemingly from the administrator's point of view (but I still
don't want them to launch the nuclear power source over my house!)



Clear skies from NW Italy! ;-)

Bruno Moretti
Cicognola Astronomical Observatory & IK2WQA Ham Radio Station
45°43'28"N 8°36'35"E QTH Locator: JN45HR
http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/ap...y.php?teamid=8
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/s...team_7422.html


I don't know about that! SETI seems to be too far out on the fringe
of
"science". People, in general, everywhere, are "attracted" to the
possibility of other life "out there", but yet they joke about it
too!

Like you said though Al, people are "attracted". Until recently I
would
have agreed with you about people joking about SETI Al, but today I
feel
that we are getting beyond that (some of the ignorant class though
will
always be there.) I've gone to several astronomy-related public
viewing
events where I've interacted with hundreds of people. There is a
sizeable crowd out there who support the search (perhaps more so than
ever.) If we don't promote the search aggressively (whatever method
you
plug is up to you) we will not progress to better public-awareness.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Invariably when I tell someone I have 7 computers running seti@home
24/7
they get this friendly smile on their face and say: "found any
little
green
men yet" :-)

I get bizarre looks sometimes from people when talking about the
subject
(especially from religious nuts) and frankly, their signs of ignorance
to me are just evidence of an educational/awareness-building
challenge.
We need to come out-of-our-shells to promote SETI and not fear
ridicule. Too much is at stake! I'm sure that the original NASA SETI
proponents (pre-congressional cuts) faced a much tougher crowd (and
look
how far they got.)

It is a noble quest, but it is on the fringe and not likely to get
serious
support from the public in general ... what is inspiring is the
dedicated
few that keep the search going with almost no funding ....



If SETI is not 'in-their-face', some will continue to think of the
subject at arms-length, where it is socially acceptable to ridicule
the
subject (because of ignorance). This can only be overcome by
education,
promotion, marketing and selling the virtues of this search to the
public. We can't afford to put our tails between our legs every time
somebody scoffs at it and hope to eat the crumbs that are left over.
We must be SETI educators. If we are passive, we gain less than if we
are goal oriented. Even if we don't achieve our goals, we will be
better off than if we don't try to reach them at all.

The people I speak of are not ignorant. They are my friends (old it is
true,
but my friends and they are engineers and scientists. They believe
that
there are others out there. They show great interest when I explain
about
the complex molecules found in space, the prospect of life on Mars &
Europa
and perhaps many places, the early start of life on Earth, about
extra-solar
planets, and on and on, but still, STILL!, they kid me (in a friendly
way
of course) about the "little green men" and the bottom line is they
would
not spend hard earned money on the quest (not much anyway)! This is my
observation ... perhaps others, as you, find differently and I'd be
glad
to
hear about it too ....there seems to be only a few which have a great
passion for SETI (enough that they would do what I do, many others too,
and
much, much, more than I do) ... You know, I think I contribute to
seti@home
more than the norm, but yet I'm embarrassed to say what I do contribute
is
almost nothing! I must suffer from the same attitute! ... I contribute
countless hours of CPU time, (almost every day for over 5 years now I
take
care of the seti@home processing) but very little funding in support of
seti@home, why? What is it that holds people back (holds me back!!)? I
think
it is because SETI, despite everything is viewed as "fringe science" ...
Hubble on the other hand (or the space station) ... well, you know
(billions, even after a horrible blunder!) ...
We're going to have to do real good first (!), like find life, without
question, on Mars or Europa or somewhere, before we'll (SETI)
make(makes)
it
to the big time. Until then, it is going to be a hard and almost
thankless
task ...
Al


Regards, Jason H.

Rob,

"Rob Dekker" wrote in message
. ..
I agree : in my opinion, what we are doing with SETI still feels very
'alien' to many people around us. They dont see it as science in the
way that other space explorations are seen as science.

It is all very odd. I would think that the search for other life in the
Galaxy (or Universe) would have much higher priority. To me, SETI is even
more meaningful than, for example, what Hubble does. Yet billions have been
spent on Hubble and all the studies & analysis surrounding it. Yet virtually
not a pitance for SETI. Yet if SETI succeeds it would be more mindboggling
than anything received from Huibble so far. It is all so odd!

Perhaps you are right in saying SETI is not a science, but then what of
Hubble? It is a search too --- an optical search of the Universe --- a step
in learning more and more detail about the structure of the Universe.

If it wasn't for the fact that SETI is searching for "electronmagnetic
radiation (signals) from other intelligent civilizations" then SETI would
just be "radio astronomy" ...

I stand by my earliar statement that SETI is out on the fringes of science
("fringe science") and as such does not get alot of respect in general.
Everyone is interested in finding signs of other intelligent life "out
there", but they'd rather put their money somewhere else ...


When I talk to my friends about SETI, I find that they admire my
passion for the subject, and are impressed by the 4 million S@H 'ers,
but they dont really see the relation between seti and
more traditional forms of science for extraterrestial life.

So, I dont think that finding microbes on Europa (the moon, that is )
or Mars would change much about people's perception of SETI.
Even finding signs of oxygen or methane on a extrasolar planet
would still be seen as an incentive to boost SETI's funding.
It's a different form of science.

But how does it differ from Hubble for example?

On the one hand:
Hubble is an optical telescope used by scientists to study the structure of
the Universe.

On the other hand:
SETI scientists use radio telescopes (and optical now) to search the Galaxy
for other intelligent civilizations.

Now where is the money going? Not to SETI!!

SETI is a real, real, long, long, shot --- the outcome is very uncertain...
But if SETI finds something, even a tiny hint, then wow!

I think SETI scientists need to "fess up" how much of a "long shot" it is.

Forget the Drake Equation, just determine what are the odds of detecting a
signal out there. What are the odds that seti@home will find a signal if we
assume there really IS someone transmitting? What are the odds that the SETI
Institute's Project Phoenix will detect a signal if there is a radar out
there pinging away "day and night" on some planet 800 LY's away? :-)
Project META searched for 5 years and they found nothing! Is that because
the "odds" are so poor or is it because "there really isn't anyone out there
within META's effective search area"?

I believe that we are performing a science which is clearly
complementary to other searches for ET life.

Well, in talking to you, I think I clarified things in my own mind ... SETI
is fine, it is a science, but the trouble is that it is "a very long
shot" --- I think many people in general understand that in some way and as
a result only a minimal amount of funding finds its way to SETI research...
that makes sense to me ...

But we did not show many facts for this yet !
So can we compare SETI to search for oxygen in extrasolar planets ?
Can we can make some calculations which makes this comparison clear ?

Something like this :
If we would live 100 lightyears from earth, would we first detect earth as
a planet, then earth's oxygen and then earth's radio/radar transmissions ?
Or would it be much easier to detect radio/radar transmissions ?

Radio/radar transmissions _could_ be very easy to detect --- if they were
there and you knew where to look!! That's the trouble "if they were there"
and "knowing where to look" and knowing "when to look" ... However, I
think, even if they were there and transmitting, they would still be very
difficult to detect depending on how much source power they use, their
distance from us, and the frequency band they use.

The planet may have all kinds of intelligent life but the intelligence that
builds radio telescopes might not develop until millions of more years have
passed.

They could be an ancient civilization and long ago abandoned radio
communication, and our odds of detecting them would be almost zero...


Basically, can we make it obvious that SETI is a cost-effective
way of searching extraterrestial life if it exists ?

I don't think so, because, well, SETI is a long shot with very poor odds of
detection ... that has been the problem all along ... how poor are the odds
exactly ... that is my question ... and that is the question the SETI
scientists meeting at Harvard on 7 August should ask and answer ...

Al


If we can make this scientific comparison, then surely we should
at least be able to convice people with common-sense that
SETI is a viable scientific undertaking.
At that point, we turn SETI into a normal science. Which will
no longer be rediculed.

But frankly, I don't think we have shown this (comparison) yet..

Rob

"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message
m...
Jason,

"Jason H." wrote in message
ink.net...
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:
Bruno,


"SETI ITALIA Bruno IK2WQA" wrote in message

om...

Fellow SETI enthusiasts: We are missing the boat on
President Bush's new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" program!
This editorial is nothing less than a call to arms, metaphorically

speaking.


I recall thinking at the time that this initiative was announced that
this would be a good opportunity to do the long-talked-about
lunar-farside radio-telescope project (although the President's
initiative seems impossibly under-funded, there obviously are other
valuable astronomy-related uses for a radio-telescope array on the
lunar
farside (perhaps a second generation High Resolution Microwave Survey
(Project Phoenix's predecessor I believe) is in order? ;^) Even if
congress eventually kills the funding (again) perhaps the seed money
will lead to a SETI program that can be taken over by universities or
a
certain not-for-profit SETI Organization? (although we are talking
about
mega-money here, once a robotic scope is setup, it's
low-to-no-maintenance and perhaps managable by smaller entities than
the
a government?) Also, the radio-astronomy dual-use means there are
other
science allies in the promotion of the idea.

Instead of using the Moon as just a "stepping stone to Mars",
as the US President's proposal has outlined, a lunar farside SETI
facility
(radio astronomy dishes linked like the Allen-array network,
and an optical cluster there as well for the Laser SETI Searchers)
offers as its reward the possible detection of a Galactic Internet,
not merely the frozen/fossilized microbes likely to be found on
Mars.


Moon Yes, Mars No!
by Ron Sirull
http://www.setileague.org/editor/moonyes.htm


Why should Moon and Mars be mutually exclusive? (or conversely why are
they related at all?) Scarcity of science funds is one issue
obviously,
but I don't see why the two are connected, positively or negatively.

Unfortunately, aside from robots being able to do Mars cheaper and
cleaner, I think that some of the new projects, especially the Jupiter
Icy Moons project and Moon, Mars & Beyond are all ways of helping the
compact nuclear power reactor industry to get more funding (I believe
the NASA administrator's father was a nuclear Navy officer too?) So I
don't think they have radio-astronomy science in mind (but there
perhaps
is a synergy here that could help both.) I also could see another
reason why the administrator (being the son of a squid, it's an Army
thing :^) would be for this too, because there are (IMO) seemingly so
many similarities (IMO) between a seaman's life and that of an
interplanetary space-farer (solitude, comradery, adventure) and the
power demands are perhaps greater than the Sun can provide, especially
if one is doing the "Beyond" part. It seems like a natural mesh, at
least seemingly from the administrator's point of view (but I still
don't want them to launch the nuclear power source over my house!)



Clear skies from NW Italy! ;-)

Bruno Moretti
Cicognola Astronomical Observatory & IK2WQA Ham Radio Station
45°43'28"N 8°36'35"E QTH Locator: JN45HR
http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/ap...y.php?teamid=8
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/s...team_7422.html


I don't know about that! SETI seems to be too far out on the fringe
of
"science". People, in general, everywhere, are "attracted" to the
possibility of other life "out there", but yet they joke about it
too!

Like you said though Al, people are "attracted". Until recently I
would
have agreed with you about people joking about SETI Al, but today I
feel
that we are getting beyond that (some of the ignorant class though
will
always be there.) I've gone to several astronomy-related public
viewing
events where I've interacted with hundreds of people. There is a
sizeable crowd out there who support the search (perhaps more so than
ever.) If we don't promote the search aggressively (whatever method
you
plug is up to you) we will not progress to better public-awareness.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Invariably when I tell someone I have 7 computers running seti@home
24/7
they get this friendly smile on their face and say: "found any
little
green
men yet" :-)

I get bizarre looks sometimes from people when talking about the
subject
(especially from religious nuts) and frankly, their signs of ignorance
to me are just evidence of an educational/awareness-building
challenge.
We need to come out-of-our-shells to promote SETI and not fear
ridicule. Too much is at stake! I'm sure that the original NASA SETI
proponents (pre-congressional cuts) faced a much tougher crowd (and
look
how far they got.)

It is a noble quest, but it is on the fringe and not likely to get
serious
support from the public in general ... what is inspiring is the
dedicated
few that keep the search going with almost no funding ....



If SETI is not 'in-their-face', some will continue to think of the
subject at arms-length, where it is socially acceptable to ridicule
the
subject (because of ignorance). This can only be overcome by
education,
promotion, marketing and selling the virtues of this search to the
public. We can't afford to put our tails between our legs every time
somebody scoffs at it and hope to eat the crumbs that are left over.
We must be SETI educators. If we are passive, we gain less than if we
are goal oriented. Even if we don't achieve our goals, we will be
better off than if we don't try to reach them at all.

The people I speak of are not ignorant. They are my friends (old it is
true,
but my friends and they are engineers and scientists. They believe
that
there are others out there. They show great interest when I explain
about
the complex molecules found in space, the prospect of life on Mars &
Europa
and perhaps many places, the early start of life on Earth, about
extra-solar
planets, and on and on, but still, STILL!, they kid me (in a friendly
way
of course) about the "little green men" and the bottom line is they
would
not spend hard earned money on the quest (not much anyway)! This is my
observation ... perhaps others, as you, find differently and I'd be
glad
to
hear about it too ....there seems to be only a few which have a great
passion for SETI (enough that they would do what I do, many others too,
and
much, much, more than I do) ... You know, I think I contribute to
seti@home
more than the norm, but yet I'm embarrassed to say what I do contribute
is
almost nothing! I must suffer from the same attitute! ... I contribute
countless hours of CPU time, (almost every day for over 5 years now I
take
care of the seti@home processing) but very little funding in support of
seti@home, why? What is it that holds people back (holds me back!!)? I
think
it is because SETI, despite everything is viewed as "fringe science" ...
Hubble on the other hand (or the space station) ... well, you know
(billions, even after a horrible blunder!) ...
We're going to have to do real good first (!), like find life, without
question, on Mars or Europa or somewhere, before we'll (SETI)
make(makes)
it
to the big time. Until then, it is going to be a hard and almost
thankless
task ...
Al


Regards, Jason H.

As you state below : we don't know enough about the odds of finding ETI
with the SETI programs we are are running and designing.
Decision makers will typically look at the odds of finding something new,
weigh that against the cost, and then decide if that is a good investment.

SETI programs right now cannot detect a ETI civilisation of our own
technology level, even if it were in the Alpha Centaury system (a lousy 5 ly's away).

I'm not talking about our ability to detect cross-galaxy powerfull
narrowband SETI beacons around the waterhole in microwave, but I'm
talking about regular signals (communication/radar etc) that a civilisation
will leak into space (which are far more likely to exist than beacons).

If we want more funding, then I think we should put a decent proposal in place :

(1) Do a probablity analysis of how 'dense' ETI civilisations of technology
level of humans or better would be spread in our part of the galaxy.
We need to use our best knowledge to achieve that probablility, which I'm
sure will include Drake's formula. Don't dismiss this.
Suppose that the outcome of this is a 50% chance of having a ETI neighbor
within X LYs.
(2) Design a device/program which can detect regular transmissions from
ET civilisations of technology level of humans, within X LYs.
(3) Then calculate the cost for that device/program,
(4) Then decision makers can weigh the cost of that program against the
chance of making the biggest discovery in human history. That we are not alone.

The Hubble program got so much money because scientist could show that
with very reasonable certainty, Hubble would enable a wide range of new discoveries
about deep space, our galaxy, stars, planets and possibly even detecting planets around
other stars. Hubble has more that delivered in that respect, so space-telescope
programs have earned confidence with decision makers. That makes it much
easier to obtain money for follow-up programs.

For example, NASA's new space telescope program has a reasonable probability
of being able to detect earth-size planets around neighboring stars (withing 100 LYs?),
and possibly be able to analyze the make-up of their atmospheres (including detecting oxygen, which
is a strong indication of life). Now that's something which decision makers can work with.

We gotta do our homework.

That's my 2 cts.

P.S. I'd love to join the Harvard meeting, but that is a 6 hour flight away for me.
I'll wait until it's held in California.


"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message . ..
Rob,

"Rob Dekker" wrote in message
. ..
I agree : in my opinion, what we are doing with SETI still feels very
'alien' to many people around us. They dont see it as science in the
way that other space explorations are seen as science.

It is all very odd. I would think that the search for other life in the
Galaxy (or Universe) would have much higher priority. To me, SETI is even
more meaningful than, for example, what Hubble does. Yet billions have been
spent on Hubble and all the studies & analysis surrounding it. Yet virtually
not a pitance for SETI. Yet if SETI succeeds it would be more mindboggling
than anything received from Huibble so far. It is all so odd!

Perhaps you are right in saying SETI is not a science, but then what of
Hubble? It is a search too --- an optical search of the Universe --- a step
in learning more and more detail about the structure of the Universe.

If it wasn't for the fact that SETI is searching for "electronmagnetic
radiation (signals) from other intelligent civilizations" then SETI would
just be "radio astronomy" ...

I stand by my earliar statement that SETI is out on the fringes of science
("fringe science") and as such does not get alot of respect in general.
Everyone is interested in finding signs of other intelligent life "out
there", but they'd rather put their money somewhere else ...


When I talk to my friends about SETI, I find that they admire my
passion for the subject, and are impressed by the 4 million S@H 'ers,
but they dont really see the relation between seti and
more traditional forms of science for extraterrestial life.

So, I dont think that finding microbes on Europa (the moon, that is )
or Mars would change much about people's perception of SETI.
Even finding signs of oxygen or methane on a extrasolar planet
would still be seen as an incentive to boost SETI's funding.
It's a different form of science.

But how does it differ from Hubble for example?

On the one hand:
Hubble is an optical telescope used by scientists to study the structure of
the Universe.

On the other hand:
SETI scientists use radio telescopes (and optical now) to search the Galaxy
for other intelligent civilizations.

Now where is the money going? Not to SETI!!

SETI is a real, real, long, long, shot --- the outcome is very uncertain...
But if SETI finds something, even a tiny hint, then wow!

I think SETI scientists need to "fess up" how much of a "long shot" it is.

Forget the Drake Equation, just determine what are the odds of detecting a
signal out there. What are the odds that seti@home will find a signal if we
assume there really IS someone transmitting? What are the odds that the SETI
Institute's Project Phoenix will detect a signal if there is a radar out
there pinging away "day and night" on some planet 800 LY's away? :-)
Project META searched for 5 years and they found nothing! Is that because
the "odds" are so poor or is it because "there really isn't anyone out there
within META's effective search area"?

I believe that we are performing a science which is clearly
complementary to other searches for ET life.

Well, in talking to you, I think I clarified things in my own mind ... SETI
is fine, it is a science, but the trouble is that it is "a very long
shot" --- I think many people in general understand that in some way and as
a result only a minimal amount of funding finds its way to SETI research...
that makes sense to me ...

But we did not show many facts for this yet !
So can we compare SETI to search for oxygen in extrasolar planets ?
Can we can make some calculations which makes this comparison clear ?

Something like this :
If we would live 100 lightyears from earth, would we first detect earth as
a planet, then earth's oxygen and then earth's radio/radar transmissions ?
Or would it be much easier to detect radio/radar transmissions ?

Radio/radar transmissions _could_ be very easy to detect --- if they were
there and you knew where to look!! That's the trouble "if they were there"
and "knowing where to look" and knowing "when to look" ... However, I
think, even if they were there and transmitting, they would still be very
difficult to detect depending on how much source power they use, their
distance from us, and the frequency band they use.

The planet may have all kinds of intelligent life but the intelligence that
builds radio telescopes might not develop until millions of more years have
passed.

They could be an ancient civilization and long ago abandoned radio
communication, and our odds of detecting them would be almost zero...


Basically, can we make it obvious that SETI is a cost-effective
way of searching extraterrestial life if it exists ?

I don't think so, because, well, SETI is a long shot with very poor odds of
detection ... that has been the problem all along ... how poor are the odds
exactly ... that is my question ... and that is the question the SETI
scientists meeting at Harvard on 7 August should ask and answer ...

Al


If we can make this scientific comparison, then surely we should
at least be able to convice people with common-sense that
SETI is a viable scientific undertaking.
At that point, we turn SETI into a normal science. Which will
no longer be rediculed.

But frankly, I don't think we have shown this (comparison) yet..

Rob

"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message
m...
Jason,

"Jason H." wrote in message
ink.net...
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:
Bruno,


"SETI ITALIA Bruno IK2WQA" wrote in message

om...

Fellow SETI enthusiasts: We are missing the boat on
President Bush's new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" program!
This editorial is nothing less than a call to arms, metaphorically

speaking.


I recall thinking at the time that this initiative was announced that
this would be a good opportunity to do the long-talked-about
lunar-farside radio-telescope project (although the President's
initiative seems impossibly under-funded, there obviously are other
valuable astronomy-related uses for a radio-telescope array on the
lunar
farside (perhaps a second generation High Resolution Microwave Survey
(Project Phoenix's predecessor I believe) is in order? ;^) Even if
congress eventually kills the funding (again) perhaps the seed money
will lead to a SETI program that can be taken over by universities or
a
certain not-for-profit SETI Organization? (although we are talking
about
mega-money here, once a robotic scope is setup, it's
low-to-no-maintenance and perhaps managable by smaller entities than
the
a government?) Also, the radio-astronomy dual-use means there are
other
science allies in the promotion of the idea.

Instead of using the Moon as just a "stepping stone to Mars",
as the US President's proposal has outlined, a lunar farside SETI
facility
(radio astronomy dishes linked like the Allen-array network,
and an optical cluster there as well for the Laser SETI Searchers)
offers as its reward the possible detection of a Galactic Internet,
not merely the frozen/fossilized microbes likely to be found on
Mars.


Moon Yes, Mars No!
by Ron Sirull
http://www.setileague.org/editor/moonyes.htm


Why should Moon and Mars be mutually exclusive? (or conversely why are
they related at all?) Scarcity of science funds is one issue
obviously,
but I don't see why the two are connected, positively or negatively.

Unfortunately, aside from robots being able to do Mars cheaper and
cleaner, I think that some of the new projects, especially the Jupiter
Icy Moons project and Moon, Mars & Beyond are all ways of helping the
compact nuclear power reactor industry to get more funding (I believe
the NASA administrator's father was a nuclear Navy officer too?) So I
don't think they have radio-astronomy science in mind (but there
perhaps
is a synergy here that could help both.) I also could see another
reason why the administrator (being the son of a squid, it's an Army
thing :^) would be for this too, because there are (IMO) seemingly so
many similarities (IMO) between a seaman's life and that of an
interplanetary space-farer (solitude, comradery, adventure) and the
power demands are perhaps greater than the Sun can provide, especially
if one is doing the "Beyond" part. It seems like a natural mesh, at
least seemingly from the administrator's point of view (but I still
don't want them to launch the nuclear power source over my house!)



Clear skies from NW Italy! ;-)

Bruno Moretti
Cicognola Astronomical Observatory & IK2WQA Ham Radio Station
45°43'28"N 8°36'35"E QTH Locator: JN45HR
http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/ap...y.php?teamid=8
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/s...team_7422.html


I don't know about that! SETI seems to be too far out on the fringe
of
"science". People, in general, everywhere, are "attracted" to the
possibility of other life "out there", but yet they joke about it
too!

Like you said though Al, people are "attracted". Until recently I
would
have agreed with you about people joking about SETI Al, but today I
feel
that we are getting beyond that (some of the ignorant class though
will
always be there.) I've gone to several astronomy-related public
viewing
events where I've interacted with hundreds of people. There is a
sizeable crowd out there who support the search (perhaps more so than
ever.) If we don't promote the search aggressively (whatever method
you
plug is up to you) we will not progress to better public-awareness.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Invariably when I tell someone I have 7 computers running seti@home
24/7
they get this friendly smile on their face and say: "found any
little
green
men yet" :-)

I get bizarre looks sometimes from people when talking about the
subject
(especially from religious nuts) and frankly, their signs of ignorance
to me are just evidence of an educational/awareness-building
challenge.
We need to come out-of-our-shells to promote SETI and not fear
ridicule. Too much is at stake! I'm sure that the original NASA SETI
proponents (pre-congressional cuts) faced a much tougher crowd (and
look
how far they got.)

It is a noble quest, but it is on the fringe and not likely to get
serious
support from the public in general ... what is inspiring is the
dedicated
few that keep the search going with almost no funding ....



If SETI is not 'in-their-face', some will continue to think of the
subject at arms-length, where it is socially acceptable to ridicule
the
subject (because of ignorance). This can only be overcome by
education,
promotion, marketing and selling the virtues of this search to the
public. We can't afford to put our tails between our legs every time
somebody scoffs at it and hope to eat the crumbs that are left over.
We must be SETI educators. If we are passive, we gain less than if we
are goal oriented. Even if we don't achieve our goals, we will be
better off than if we don't try to reach them at all.

The people I speak of are not ignorant. They are my friends (old it is
true,
but my friends and they are engineers and scientists. They believe
that
there are others out there. They show great interest when I explain
about
the complex molecules found in space, the prospect of life on Mars &
Europa
and perhaps many places, the early start of life on Earth, about
extra-solar
planets, and on and on, but still, STILL!, they kid me (in a friendly
way
of course) about the "little green men" and the bottom line is they
would
not spend hard earned money on the quest (not much anyway)! This is my
observation ... perhaps others, as you, find differently and I'd be
glad
to
hear about it too ....there seems to be only a few which have a great
passion for SETI (enough that they would do what I do, many others too,
and
much, much, more than I do) ... You know, I think I contribute to
seti@home
more than the norm, but yet I'm embarrassed to say what I do contribute
is
almost nothing! I must suffer from the same attitute! ... I contribute
countless hours of CPU time, (almost every day for over 5 years now I
take
care of the seti@home processing) but very little funding in support of
seti@home, why? What is it that holds people back (holds me back!!)? I
think
it is because SETI, despite everything is viewed as "fringe science" ...
Hubble on the other hand (or the space station) ... well, you know
(billions, even after a horrible blunder!) ...
We're going to have to do real good first (!), like find life, without
question, on Mars or Europa or somewhere, before we'll (SETI)
make(makes)
it
to the big time. Until then, it is going to be a hard and almost
thankless
task ...
Al


Regards, Jason H.

As you state below : we don't know enough about the odds of finding ETI
with the SETI programs we are are running and designing.
Decision makers will typically look at the odds of finding something new,
weigh that against the cost, and then decide if that is a good investment.

SETI programs right now cannot detect a ETI civilisation of our own
technology level, even if it were in the Alpha Centaury system (a lousy 5 ly's away).

I'm not talking about our ability to detect cross-galaxy powerfull
narrowband SETI beacons around the waterhole in microwave, but I'm
talking about regular signals (communication/radar etc) that a civilisation
will leak into space (which are far more likely to exist than beacons).

If we want more funding, then I think we should put a decent proposal in place :

(1) Do a probablity analysis of how 'dense' ETI civilisations of technology
level of humans or better would be spread in our part of the galaxy.
We need to use our best knowledge to achieve that probablility, which I'm
sure will include Drake's formula. Don't dismiss this.
Suppose that the outcome of this is a 50% chance of having a ETI neighbor
within X LYs.
(2) Design a device/program which can detect regular transmissions from
ET civilisations of technology level of humans, within X LYs.
(3) Then calculate the cost for that device/program,
(4) Then decision makers can weigh the cost of that program against the
chance of making the biggest discovery in human history. That we are not alone.

The Hubble program got so much money because scientist could show that
with very reasonable certainty, Hubble would enable a wide range of new discoveries
about deep space, our galaxy, stars, planets and possibly even detecting planets around
other stars. Hubble has more that delivered in that respect, so space-telescope
programs have earned confidence with decision makers. That makes it much
easier to obtain money for follow-up programs.

For example, NASA's new space telescope program has a reasonable probability
of being able to detect earth-size planets around neighboring stars (withing 100 LYs?),
and possibly be able to analyze the make-up of their atmospheres (including detecting oxygen, which
is a strong indication of life). Now that's something which decision makers can work with.

We gotta do our homework.

That's my 2 cts.

P.S. I'd love to join the Harvard meeting, but that is a 6 hour flight away for me.
I'll wait until it's held in California.


"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message . ..
Rob,

"Rob Dekker" wrote in message
. ..
I agree : in my opinion, what we are doing with SETI still feels very
'alien' to many people around us. They dont see it as science in the
way that other space explorations are seen as science.

It is all very odd. I would think that the search for other life in the
Galaxy (or Universe) would have much higher priority. To me, SETI is even
more meaningful than, for example, what Hubble does. Yet billions have been
spent on Hubble and all the studies & analysis surrounding it. Yet virtually
not a pitance for SETI. Yet if SETI succeeds it would be more mindboggling
than anything received from Huibble so far. It is all so odd!

Perhaps you are right in saying SETI is not a science, but then what of
Hubble? It is a search too --- an optical search of the Universe --- a step
in learning more and more detail about the structure of the Universe.

If it wasn't for the fact that SETI is searching for "electronmagnetic
radiation (signals) from other intelligent civilizations" then SETI would
just be "radio astronomy" ...

I stand by my earliar statement that SETI is out on the fringes of science
("fringe science") and as such does not get alot of respect in general.
Everyone is interested in finding signs of other intelligent life "out
there", but they'd rather put their money somewhere else ...


When I talk to my friends about SETI, I find that they admire my
passion for the subject, and are impressed by the 4 million S@H 'ers,
but they dont really see the relation between seti and
more traditional forms of science for extraterrestial life.

So, I dont think that finding microbes on Europa (the moon, that is )
or Mars would change much about people's perception of SETI.
Even finding signs of oxygen or methane on a extrasolar planet
would still be seen as an incentive to boost SETI's funding.
It's a different form of science.

But how does it differ from Hubble for example?

On the one hand:
Hubble is an optical telescope used by scientists to study the structure of
the Universe.

On the other hand:
SETI scientists use radio telescopes (and optical now) to search the Galaxy
for other intelligent civilizations.

Now where is the money going? Not to SETI!!

SETI is a real, real, long, long, shot --- the outcome is very uncertain...
But if SETI finds something, even a tiny hint, then wow!

I think SETI scientists need to "fess up" how much of a "long shot" it is.

Forget the Drake Equation, just determine what are the odds of detecting a
signal out there. What are the odds that seti@home will find a signal if we
assume there really IS someone transmitting? What are the odds that the SETI
Institute's Project Phoenix will detect a signal if there is a radar out
there pinging away "day and night" on some planet 800 LY's away? :-)
Project META searched for 5 years and they found nothing! Is that because
the "odds" are so poor or is it because "there really isn't anyone out there
within META's effective search area"?

I believe that we are performing a science which is clearly
complementary to other searches for ET life.

Well, in talking to you, I think I clarified things in my own mind ... SETI
is fine, it is a science, but the trouble is that it is "a very long
shot" --- I think many people in general understand that in some way and as
a result only a minimal amount of funding finds its way to SETI research...
that makes sense to me ...

But we did not show many facts for this yet !
So can we compare SETI to search for oxygen in extrasolar planets ?
Can we can make some calculations which makes this comparison clear ?

Something like this :
If we would live 100 lightyears from earth, would we first detect earth as
a planet, then earth's oxygen and then earth's radio/radar transmissions ?
Or would it be much easier to detect radio/radar transmissions ?

Radio/radar transmissions _could_ be very easy to detect --- if they were
there and you knew where to look!! That's the trouble "if they were there"
and "knowing where to look" and knowing "when to look" ... However, I
think, even if they were there and transmitting, they would still be very
difficult to detect depending on how much source power they use, their
distance from us, and the frequency band they use.

The planet may have all kinds of intelligent life but the intelligence that
builds radio telescopes might not develop until millions of more years have
passed.

They could be an ancient civilization and long ago abandoned radio
communication, and our odds of detecting them would be almost zero...


Basically, can we make it obvious that SETI is a cost-effective
way of searching extraterrestial life if it exists ?

I don't think so, because, well, SETI is a long shot with very poor odds of
detection ... that has been the problem all along ... how poor are the odds
exactly ... that is my question ... and that is the question the SETI
scientists meeting at Harvard on 7 August should ask and answer ...

Al


If we can make this scientific comparison, then surely we should
at least be able to convice people with common-sense that
SETI is a viable scientific undertaking.
At that point, we turn SETI into a normal science. Which will
no longer be rediculed.

But frankly, I don't think we have shown this (comparison) yet..

Rob

"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message
m...
Jason,

"Jason H." wrote in message
ink.net...
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:
Bruno,


"SETI ITALIA Bruno IK2WQA" wrote in message

om...

Fellow SETI enthusiasts: We are missing the boat on
President Bush's new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" program!
This editorial is nothing less than a call to arms, metaphorically

speaking.


I recall thinking at the time that this initiative was announced that
this would be a good opportunity to do the long-talked-about
lunar-farside radio-telescope project (although the President's
initiative seems impossibly under-funded, there obviously are other
valuable astronomy-related uses for a radio-telescope array on the
lunar
farside (perhaps a second generation High Resolution Microwave Survey
(Project Phoenix's predecessor I believe) is in order? ;^) Even if
congress eventually kills the funding (again) perhaps the seed money
will lead to a SETI program that can be taken over by universities or
a
certain not-for-profit SETI Organization? (although we are talking
about
mega-money here, once a robotic scope is setup, it's
low-to-no-maintenance and perhaps managable by smaller entities than
the
a government?) Also, the radio-astronomy dual-use means there are
other
science allies in the promotion of the idea.

Instead of using the Moon as just a "stepping stone to Mars",
as the US President's proposal has outlined, a lunar farside SETI
facility
(radio astronomy dishes linked like the Allen-array network,
and an optical cluster there as well for the Laser SETI Searchers)
offers as its reward the possible detection of a Galactic Internet,
not merely the frozen/fossilized microbes likely to be found on
Mars.


Moon Yes, Mars No!
by Ron Sirull
http://www.setileague.org/editor/moonyes.htm


Why should Moon and Mars be mutually exclusive? (or conversely why are
they related at all?) Scarcity of science funds is one issue
obviously,
but I don't see why the two are connected, positively or negatively.

Unfortunately, aside from robots being able to do Mars cheaper and
cleaner, I think that some of the new projects, especially the Jupiter
Icy Moons project and Moon, Mars & Beyond are all ways of helping the
compact nuclear power reactor industry to get more funding (I believe
the NASA administrator's father was a nuclear Navy officer too?) So I
don't think they have radio-astronomy science in mind (but there
perhaps
is a synergy here that could help both.) I also could see another
reason why the administrator (being the son of a squid, it's an Army
thing :^) would be for this too, because there are (IMO) seemingly so
many similarities (IMO) between a seaman's life and that of an
interplanetary space-farer (solitude, comradery, adventure) and the
power demands are perhaps greater than the Sun can provide, especially
if one is doing the "Beyond" part. It seems like a natural mesh, at
least seemingly from the administrator's point of view (but I still
don't want them to launch the nuclear power source over my house!)



Clear skies from NW Italy! ;-)

Bruno Moretti
Cicognola Astronomical Observatory & IK2WQA Ham Radio Station
45°43'28"N 8°36'35"E QTH Locator: JN45HR
http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/ap...y.php?teamid=8
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/s...team_7422.html


I don't know about that! SETI seems to be too far out on the fringe
of
"science". People, in general, everywhere, are "attracted" to the
possibility of other life "out there", but yet they joke about it
too!

Like you said though Al, people are "attracted". Until recently I
would
have agreed with you about people joking about SETI Al, but today I
feel
that we are getting beyond that (some of the ignorant class though
will
always be there.) I've gone to several astronomy-related public
viewing
events where I've interacted with hundreds of people. There is a
sizeable crowd out there who support the search (perhaps more so than
ever.) If we don't promote the search aggressively (whatever method
you
plug is up to you) we will not progress to better public-awareness.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Invariably when I tell someone I have 7 computers running seti@home
24/7
they get this friendly smile on their face and say: "found any
little
green
men yet" :-)

I get bizarre looks sometimes from people when talking about the
subject
(especially from religious nuts) and frankly, their signs of ignorance
to me are just evidence of an educational/awareness-building
challenge.
We need to come out-of-our-shells to promote SETI and not fear
ridicule. Too much is at stake! I'm sure that the original NASA SETI
proponents (pre-congressional cuts) faced a much tougher crowd (and
look
how far they got.)

It is a noble quest, but it is on the fringe and not likely to get
serious
support from the public in general ... what is inspiring is the
dedicated
few that keep the search going with almost no funding ....



If SETI is not 'in-their-face', some will continue to think of the
subject at arms-length, where it is socially acceptable to ridicule
the
subject (because of ignorance). This can only be overcome by
education,
promotion, marketing and selling the virtues of this search to the
public. We can't afford to put our tails between our legs every time
somebody scoffs at it and hope to eat the crumbs that are left over.
We must be SETI educators. If we are passive, we gain less than if we
are goal oriented. Even if we don't achieve our goals, we will be
better off than if we don't try to reach them at all.

The people I speak of are not ignorant. They are my friends (old it is
true,
but my friends and they are engineers and scientists. They believe
that
there are others out there. They show great interest when I explain
about
the complex molecules found in space, the prospect of life on Mars &
Europa
and perhaps many places, the early start of life on Earth, about
extra-solar
planets, and on and on, but still, STILL!, they kid me (in a friendly
way
of course) about the "little green men" and the bottom line is they
would
not spend hard earned money on the quest (not much anyway)! This is my
observation ... perhaps others, as you, find differently and I'd be
glad
to
hear about it too ....there seems to be only a few which have a great
passion for SETI (enough that they would do what I do, many others too,
and
much, much, more than I do) ... You know, I think I contribute to
seti@home
more than the norm, but yet I'm embarrassed to say what I do contribute
is
almost nothing! I must suffer from the same attitute! ... I contribute
countless hours of CPU time, (almost every day for over 5 years now I
take
care of the seti@home processing) but very little funding in support of
seti@home, why? What is it that holds people back (holds me back!!)? I
think
it is because SETI, despite everything is viewed as "fringe science" ...
Hubble on the other hand (or the space station) ... well, you know
(billions, even after a horrible blunder!) ...
We're going to have to do real good first (!), like find life, without
question, on Mars or Europa or somewhere, before we'll (SETI)
make(makes)
it
to the big time. Until then, it is going to be a hard and almost
thankless
task ...
Al


Regards, Jason H.

Rob,

"Rob Dekker" wrote in message
...

As you state below : we don't know enough about the odds of finding ETI
with the SETI programs we are are running and designing.
Decision makers will typically look at the odds of finding something new,
weigh that against the cost, and then decide if that is a good investment.

SETI programs right now cannot detect a ETI civilisation of our own
technology level, even if it were in the Alpha Centaury system (a lousy 5
ly's away).

I'm not sure about that.

It would be great to have details on the statistics of radio emission from
Earth. The electromagetic noise profile of the Earth.

The most powerful sources are radars. They operate all over the 1-100 GHz
band. Long range radars operate in the so-called "L-Band" which runs from 1
to 2 GHz. There are also "S-Band" radars in the 2-4 GHz ("C-Band is 4-8GHz,
...., "O Band" is 60-90GHz) ... notice that the L-Band radar covers the
water-hole region near 1.420406 GHz.

Radars are used for many purposes and they are found around the world
operating day and night ...

I'm almost ("almost" because I'm lacking specific and sufficient data)
certain that, say, the Parkes (210 ft? diameter) radio telescope could
detect emissions from an equivalent Earth place at the distance of Alpha
Centauri.

I wish I knew more about the various radars systems (frequency, power, gain,
etc.) so that one could estimate long range detectability ...

I'm not talking about our ability to detect cross-galaxy powerfull
narrowband SETI beacons around the waterhole in microwave, but I'm
talking about regular signals (communication/radar etc) that a
civilisation
will leak into space (which are far more likely to exist than beacons).

Actually radar signals would be very detectable by SETI, ideal signals even
for SETI --- pulsed beacons ...
Our radar pulses are very narrow though ... about 1 microsecond, but I'm
pretty sure they are mostly composed of sinusoidal waveforms ...

SETI might not see "radar" waveforms (1 microsecond duration waveforms) like
that though because they are looking for longer duration signals
("gaussians") over longer integration times ... (hey!, a science question
pops up)


If we want more funding, then I think we should put a decent proposal in
place :

(1) Do a probablity analysis of how 'dense' ETI civilisations of
technology
level of humans or better would be spread in our part of the galaxy.
We need to use our best knowledge to achieve that probablility,
which I'm
sure will include Drake's formula. Don't dismiss this.

I'd just like to work with things that we can do first! Assume there is a
transmitter out there "R" LY's away, "pinging" away (with some duty cycle)
at frequency "f", in bandwidth "B", at Source (transmit) power "Pt", with
half-power beamwidth (HPBW) and antenna gain "Gt" ... what is the
probability of detection versus the various parameters that cannot be
resonably constrained?

Suppose that the outcome of this is a 50% chance of having a ETI
neighbor
within X LYs.
(2) Design a device/program which can detect regular transmissions from
ET civilisations of technology level of humans, within X LYs.
(3) Then calculate the cost for that device/program,
(4) Then decision makers can weigh the cost of that program against the
chance of making the biggest discovery in human history. That we are
not alone.

The Hubble program got so much money because scientist could show that
with very reasonable certainty, Hubble would enable a wide range of new
discoveries
about deep space, our galaxy, stars, planets and possibly even detecting
planets around
other stars. Hubble has more that delivered in that respect, so
space-telescope
programs have earned confidence with decision makers. That makes it much
easier to obtain money for follow-up programs.

In the vain about "fringe science" I noticed that in the August Astronomy
magazine that in the Sep issue they are going to have an article on SETI ...
They say, "SETI, Once considered fringe science, the search for life
elsewhere will take on greater significance as new telescope and detector
technology are placed into service" ... I guess they are talking about the
Allen Radio telescope ...

Maybe things are turning around. Still though, seti@home doesn't seem to
have much in terms of funding, just mainly good support with computers ..

The SETI Institute sure is doing a good job and NASA is following behind
(doing very good too with astrobiology and the search for earthlike
planets).


For example, NASA's new space telescope program has a reasonable
probability
of being able to detect earth-size planets around neighboring stars
(withing 100 LYs?),
and possibly be able to analyze the make-up of their atmospheres
(including detecting oxygen, which
is a strong indication of life). Now that's something which decision
makers can work with.

We gotta do our homework.

That's my 2 cts.

P.S. I'd love to join the Harvard meeting, but that is a 6 hour flight
away for me.
I'll wait until it's held in California.


"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message
. ..
Rob,

"Rob Dekker" wrote in message
. ..
I agree : in my opinion, what we are doing with SETI still feels very
'alien' to many people around us. They dont see it as science in the
way that other space explorations are seen as science.

It is all very odd. I would think that the search for other life in the
Galaxy (or Universe) would have much higher priority. To me, SETI is
even
more meaningful than, for example, what Hubble does. Yet billions have
been
spent on Hubble and all the studies & analysis surrounding it. Yet
virtually
not a pitance for SETI. Yet if SETI succeeds it would be more
mindboggling
than anything received from Huibble so far. It is all so odd!

Perhaps you are right in saying SETI is not a science, but then what of
Hubble? It is a search too --- an optical search of the Universe --- a
step
in learning more and more detail about the structure of the Universe.

If it wasn't for the fact that SETI is searching for "electronmagnetic
radiation (signals) from other intelligent civilizations" then SETI
would
just be "radio astronomy" ...

I stand by my earliar statement that SETI is out on the fringes of
science
("fringe science") and as such does not get alot of respect in general.
Everyone is interested in finding signs of other intelligent life "out
there", but they'd rather put their money somewhere else ...


When I talk to my friends about SETI, I find that they admire my
passion for the subject, and are impressed by the 4 million S@H 'ers,
but they dont really see the relation between seti and
more traditional forms of science for extraterrestial life.

So, I dont think that finding microbes on Europa (the moon, that is
)
or Mars would change much about people's perception of SETI.
Even finding signs of oxygen or methane on a extrasolar planet
would still be seen as an incentive to boost SETI's funding.
It's a different form of science.

But how does it differ from Hubble for example?

On the one hand:
Hubble is an optical telescope used by scientists to study the structure
of
the Universe.

On the other hand:
SETI scientists use radio telescopes (and optical now) to search the
Galaxy
for other intelligent civilizations.

Now where is the money going? Not to SETI!!

SETI is a real, real, long, long, shot --- the outcome is very
uncertain...
But if SETI finds something, even a tiny hint, then wow!

I think SETI scientists need to "fess up" how much of a "long shot" it
is.

Forget the Drake Equation, just determine what are the odds of detecting
a
signal out there. What are the odds that seti@home will find a signal if
we
assume there really IS someone transmitting? What are the odds that the
SETI
Institute's Project Phoenix will detect a signal if there is a radar out
there pinging away "day and night" on some planet 800 LY's away? :-)
Project META searched for 5 years and they found nothing! Is that
because
the "odds" are so poor or is it because "there really isn't anyone out
there
within META's effective search area"?

I believe that we are performing a science which is clearly
complementary to other searches for ET life.

Well, in talking to you, I think I clarified things in my own mind ...
SETI
is fine, it is a science, but the trouble is that it is "a very long
shot" --- I think many people in general understand that in some way and
as
a result only a minimal amount of funding finds its way to SETI
research...
that makes sense to me ...

But we did not show many facts for this yet !
So can we compare SETI to search for oxygen in extrasolar planets ?
Can we can make some calculations which makes this comparison clear ?

Something like this :
If we would live 100 lightyears from earth, would we first detect
earth as
a planet, then earth's oxygen and then earth's radio/radar
transmissions ?
Or would it be much easier to detect radio/radar transmissions ?

Radio/radar transmissions _could_ be very easy to detect --- if they
were
there and you knew where to look!! That's the trouble "if they were
there"
and "knowing where to look" and knowing "when to look" ... However, I
think, even if they were there and transmitting, they would still be
very
difficult to detect depending on how much source power they use, their
distance from us, and the frequency band they use.

The planet may have all kinds of intelligent life but the intelligence
that
builds radio telescopes might not develop until millions of more years
have
passed.

They could be an ancient civilization and long ago abandoned radio
communication, and our odds of detecting them would be almost zero...


Basically, can we make it obvious that SETI is a cost-effective
way of searching extraterrestial life if it exists ?

I don't think so, because, well, SETI is a long shot with very poor odds
of
detection ... that has been the problem all along ... how poor are the
odds
exactly ... that is my question ... and that is the question the SETI
scientists meeting at Harvard on 7 August should ask and answer ...

Al


If we can make this scientific comparison, then surely we should
at least be able to convice people with common-sense that
SETI is a viable scientific undertaking.
At that point, we turn SETI into a normal science. Which will
no longer be rediculed.

But frankly, I don't think we have shown this (comparison) yet..

Rob

"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message
m...
Jason,

"Jason H." wrote in message
ink.net...
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:
Bruno,


"SETI ITALIA Bruno IK2WQA" wrote in message

om...

Fellow SETI enthusiasts: We are missing the boat on
President Bush's new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" program!
This editorial is nothing less than a call to arms,
metaphorically

speaking.


I recall thinking at the time that this initiative was announced
that
this would be a good opportunity to do the long-talked-about
lunar-farside radio-telescope project (although the President's
initiative seems impossibly under-funded, there obviously are
other
valuable astronomy-related uses for a radio-telescope array on the
lunar
farside (perhaps a second generation High Resolution Microwave
Survey
(Project Phoenix's predecessor I believe) is in order? ;^) Even
if
congress eventually kills the funding (again) perhaps the seed
money
will lead to a SETI program that can be taken over by universities
or
a
certain not-for-profit SETI Organization? (although we are talking
about
mega-money here, once a robotic scope is setup, it's
low-to-no-maintenance and perhaps managable by smaller entities
than
the
a government?) Also, the radio-astronomy dual-use means there are
other
science allies in the promotion of the idea.

Instead of using the Moon as just a "stepping stone to Mars",
as the US President's proposal has outlined, a lunar farside
SETI
facility
(radio astronomy dishes linked like the Allen-array network,
and an optical cluster there as well for the Laser SETI
Searchers)
offers as its reward the possible detection of a Galactic
Internet,
not merely the frozen/fossilized microbes likely to be found on
Mars.


Moon Yes, Mars No!
by Ron Sirull
http://www.setileague.org/editor/moonyes.htm


Why should Moon and Mars be mutually exclusive? (or conversely why
are
they related at all?) Scarcity of science funds is one issue
obviously,
but I don't see why the two are connected, positively or
negatively.

Unfortunately, aside from robots being able to do Mars cheaper and
cleaner, I think that some of the new projects, especially the
Jupiter
Icy Moons project and Moon, Mars & Beyond are all ways of helping
the
compact nuclear power reactor industry to get more funding (I
believe
the NASA administrator's father was a nuclear Navy officer too?)
So I
don't think they have radio-astronomy science in mind (but there
perhaps
is a synergy here that could help both.) I also could see another
reason why the administrator (being the son of a squid, it's an
Army
thing :^) would be for this too, because there are (IMO) seemingly
so
many similarities (IMO) between a seaman's life and that of an
interplanetary space-farer (solitude, comradery, adventure) and
the
power demands are perhaps greater than the Sun can provide,
especially
if one is doing the "Beyond" part. It seems like a natural mesh,
at
least seemingly from the administrator's point of view (but I
still
don't want them to launch the nuclear power source over my house!)



Clear skies from NW Italy! ;-)

Bruno Moretti
Cicognola Astronomical Observatory & IK2WQA Ham Radio Station
45°43'28"N 8°36'35"E QTH Locator: JN45HR
http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/ap...y.php?teamid=8
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/s...team_7422.html


I don't know about that! SETI seems to be too far out on the
fringe
of
"science". People, in general, everywhere, are "attracted" to
the
possibility of other life "out there", but yet they joke about
it
too!

Like you said though Al, people are "attracted". Until recently I
would
have agreed with you about people joking about SETI Al, but today
I
feel
that we are getting beyond that (some of the ignorant class though
will
always be there.) I've gone to several astronomy-related public
viewing
events where I've interacted with hundreds of people. There is a
sizeable crowd out there who support the search (perhaps more so
than
ever.) If we don't promote the search aggressively (whatever
method
you
plug is up to you) we will not progress to better
public-awareness.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Invariably when I tell someone I have 7 computers running
seti@home
24/7
they get this friendly smile on their face and say: "found any
little
green
men yet" :-)

I get bizarre looks sometimes from people when talking about the
subject
(especially from religious nuts) and frankly, their signs of
ignorance
to me are just evidence of an educational/awareness-building
challenge.
We need to come out-of-our-shells to promote SETI and not fear
ridicule. Too much is at stake! I'm sure that the original NASA
SETI
proponents (pre-congressional cuts) faced a much tougher crowd
(and
look
how far they got.)

It is a noble quest, but it is on the fringe and not likely to
get
serious
support from the public in general ... what is inspiring is the
dedicated
few that keep the search going with almost no funding ....



If SETI is not 'in-their-face', some will continue to think of the
subject at arms-length, where it is socially acceptable to
ridicule
the
subject (because of ignorance). This can only be overcome by
education,
promotion, marketing and selling the virtues of this search to the
public. We can't afford to put our tails between our legs every
time
somebody scoffs at it and hope to eat the crumbs that are left
over.
We must be SETI educators. If we are passive, we gain less than
if we
are goal oriented. Even if we don't achieve our goals, we will be
better off than if we don't try to reach them at all.

The people I speak of are not ignorant. They are my friends (old it
is
true,
but my friends and they are engineers and scientists. They
believe
that
there are others out there. They show great interest when I explain
about
the complex molecules found in space, the prospect of life on Mars &
Europa
and perhaps many places, the early start of life on Earth, about
extra-solar
planets, and on and on, but still, STILL!, they kid me (in a
friendly
way
of course) about the "little green men" and the bottom line is they
would
not spend hard earned money on the quest (not much anyway)! This is
my
observation ... perhaps others, as you, find differently and I'd be
glad
to
hear about it too ....there seems to be only a few which have a
great
passion for SETI (enough that they would do what I do, many others
too,
and
much, much, more than I do) ... You know, I think I contribute to
seti@home
more than the norm, but yet I'm embarrassed to say what I do
contribute
is
almost nothing! I must suffer from the same attitute! ... I
contribute
countless hours of CPU time, (almost every day for over 5 years now
I
take
care of the seti@home processing) but very little funding in support
of
seti@home, why? What is it that holds people back (holds me back!!)?
I
think
it is because SETI, despite everything is viewed as "fringe science"
....
Hubble on the other hand (or the space station) ... well, you know
(billions, even after a horrible blunder!) ...
We're going to have to do real good first (!), like find life,
without
question, on Mars or Europa or somewhere, before we'll (SETI)
make(makes)
it
to the big time. Until then, it is going to be a hard and almost
thankless
task ...
Al


Regards, Jason H.

Rob,

"Rob Dekker" wrote in message
...

As you state below : we don't know enough about the odds of finding ETI
with the SETI programs we are are running and designing.
Decision makers will typically look at the odds of finding something new,
weigh that against the cost, and then decide if that is a good investment.

SETI programs right now cannot detect a ETI civilisation of our own
technology level, even if it were in the Alpha Centaury system (a lousy 5
ly's away).

I'm not sure about that.

It would be great to have details on the statistics of radio emission from
Earth. The electromagetic noise profile of the Earth.

The most powerful sources are radars. They operate all over the 1-100 GHz
band. Long range radars operate in the so-called "L-Band" which runs from 1
to 2 GHz. There are also "S-Band" radars in the 2-4 GHz ("C-Band is 4-8GHz,
...., "O Band" is 60-90GHz) ... notice that the L-Band radar covers the
water-hole region near 1.420406 GHz.

Radars are used for many purposes and they are found around the world
operating day and night ...

I'm almost ("almost" because I'm lacking specific and sufficient data)
certain that, say, the Parkes (210 ft? diameter) radio telescope could
detect emissions from an equivalent Earth place at the distance of Alpha
Centauri.

I wish I knew more about the various radars systems (frequency, power, gain,
etc.) so that one could estimate long range detectability ...

I'm not talking about our ability to detect cross-galaxy powerfull
narrowband SETI beacons around the waterhole in microwave, but I'm
talking about regular signals (communication/radar etc) that a
civilisation
will leak into space (which are far more likely to exist than beacons).

Actually radar signals would be very detectable by SETI, ideal signals even
for SETI --- pulsed beacons ...
Our radar pulses are very narrow though ... about 1 microsecond, but I'm
pretty sure they are mostly composed of sinusoidal waveforms ...

SETI might not see "radar" waveforms (1 microsecond duration waveforms) like
that though because they are looking for longer duration signals
("gaussians") over longer integration times ... (hey!, a science question
pops up)


If we want more funding, then I think we should put a decent proposal in
place :

(1) Do a probablity analysis of how 'dense' ETI civilisations of
technology
level of humans or better would be spread in our part of the galaxy.
We need to use our best knowledge to achieve that probablility,
which I'm
sure will include Drake's formula. Don't dismiss this.

I'd just like to work with things that we can do first! Assume there is a
transmitter out there "R" LY's away, "pinging" away (with some duty cycle)
at frequency "f", in bandwidth "B", at Source (transmit) power "Pt", with
half-power beamwidth (HPBW) and antenna gain "Gt" ... what is the
probability of detection versus the various parameters that cannot be
resonably constrained?

Suppose that the outcome of this is a 50% chance of having a ETI
neighbor
within X LYs.
(2) Design a device/program which can detect regular transmissions from
ET civilisations of technology level of humans, within X LYs.
(3) Then calculate the cost for that device/program,
(4) Then decision makers can weigh the cost of that program against the
chance of making the biggest discovery in human history. That we are
not alone.

The Hubble program got so much money because scientist could show that
with very reasonable certainty, Hubble would enable a wide range of new
discoveries
about deep space, our galaxy, stars, planets and possibly even detecting
planets around
other stars. Hubble has more that delivered in that respect, so
space-telescope
programs have earned confidence with decision makers. That makes it much
easier to obtain money for follow-up programs.

In the vain about "fringe science" I noticed that in the August Astronomy
magazine that in the Sep issue they are going to have an article on SETI ...
They say, "SETI, Once considered fringe science, the search for life
elsewhere will take on greater significance as new telescope and detector
technology are placed into service" ... I guess they are talking about the
Allen Radio telescope ...

Maybe things are turning around. Still though, seti@home doesn't seem to
have much in terms of funding, just mainly good support with computers ..

The SETI Institute sure is doing a good job and NASA is following behind
(doing very good too with astrobiology and the search for earthlike
planets).


For example, NASA's new space telescope program has a reasonable
probability
of being able to detect earth-size planets around neighboring stars
(withing 100 LYs?),
and possibly be able to analyze the make-up of their atmospheres
(including detecting oxygen, which
is a strong indication of life). Now that's something which decision
makers can work with.

We gotta do our homework.

That's my 2 cts.

P.S. I'd love to join the Harvard meeting, but that is a 6 hour flight
away for me.
I'll wait until it's held in California.


"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message
. ..
Rob,

"Rob Dekker" wrote in message
. ..
I agree : in my opinion, what we are doing with SETI still feels very
'alien' to many people around us. They dont see it as science in the
way that other space explorations are seen as science.

It is all very odd. I would think that the search for other life in the
Galaxy (or Universe) would have much higher priority. To me, SETI is
even
more meaningful than, for example, what Hubble does. Yet billions have
been
spent on Hubble and all the studies & analysis surrounding it. Yet
virtually
not a pitance for SETI. Yet if SETI succeeds it would be more
mindboggling
than anything received from Huibble so far. It is all so odd!

Perhaps you are right in saying SETI is not a science, but then what of
Hubble? It is a search too --- an optical search of the Universe --- a
step
in learning more and more detail about the structure of the Universe.

If it wasn't for the fact that SETI is searching for "electronmagnetic
radiation (signals) from other intelligent civilizations" then SETI
would
just be "radio astronomy" ...

I stand by my earliar statement that SETI is out on the fringes of
science
("fringe science") and as such does not get alot of respect in general.
Everyone is interested in finding signs of other intelligent life "out
there", but they'd rather put their money somewhere else ...


When I talk to my friends about SETI, I find that they admire my
passion for the subject, and are impressed by the 4 million S@H 'ers,
but they dont really see the relation between seti and
more traditional forms of science for extraterrestial life.

So, I dont think that finding microbes on Europa (the moon, that is
)
or Mars would change much about people's perception of SETI.
Even finding signs of oxygen or methane on a extrasolar planet
would still be seen as an incentive to boost SETI's funding.
It's a different form of science.

But how does it differ from Hubble for example?

On the one hand:
Hubble is an optical telescope used by scientists to study the structure
of
the Universe.

On the other hand:
SETI scientists use radio telescopes (and optical now) to search the
Galaxy
for other intelligent civilizations.

Now where is the money going? Not to SETI!!

SETI is a real, real, long, long, shot --- the outcome is very
uncertain...
But if SETI finds something, even a tiny hint, then wow!

I think SETI scientists need to "fess up" how much of a "long shot" it
is.

Forget the Drake Equation, just determine what are the odds of detecting
a
signal out there. What are the odds that seti@home will find a signal if
we
assume there really IS someone transmitting? What are the odds that the
SETI
Institute's Project Phoenix will detect a signal if there is a radar out
there pinging away "day and night" on some planet 800 LY's away? :-)
Project META searched for 5 years and they found nothing! Is that
because
the "odds" are so poor or is it because "there really isn't anyone out
there
within META's effective search area"?

I believe that we are performing a science which is clearly
complementary to other searches for ET life.

Well, in talking to you, I think I clarified things in my own mind ...
SETI
is fine, it is a science, but the trouble is that it is "a very long
shot" --- I think many people in general understand that in some way and
as
a result only a minimal amount of funding finds its way to SETI
research...
that makes sense to me ...

But we did not show many facts for this yet !
So can we compare SETI to search for oxygen in extrasolar planets ?
Can we can make some calculations which makes this comparison clear ?

Something like this :
If we would live 100 lightyears from earth, would we first detect
earth as
a planet, then earth's oxygen and then earth's radio/radar
transmissions ?
Or would it be much easier to detect radio/radar transmissions ?

Radio/radar transmissions _could_ be very easy to detect --- if they
were
there and you knew where to look!! That's the trouble "if they were
there"
and "knowing where to look" and knowing "when to look" ... However, I
think, even if they were there and transmitting, they would still be
very
difficult to detect depending on how much source power they use, their
distance from us, and the frequency band they use.

The planet may have all kinds of intelligent life but the intelligence
that
builds radio telescopes might not develop until millions of more years
have
passed.

They could be an ancient civilization and long ago abandoned radio
communication, and our odds of detecting them would be almost zero...


Basically, can we make it obvious that SETI is a cost-effective
way of searching extraterrestial life if it exists ?

I don't think so, because, well, SETI is a long shot with very poor odds
of
detection ... that has been the problem all along ... how poor are the
odds
exactly ... that is my question ... and that is the question the SETI
scientists meeting at Harvard on 7 August should ask and answer ...

Al


If we can make this scientific comparison, then surely we should
at least be able to convice people with common-sense that
SETI is a viable scientific undertaking.
At that point, we turn SETI into a normal science. Which will
no longer be rediculed.

But frankly, I don't think we have shown this (comparison) yet..

Rob

"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message
m...
Jason,

"Jason H." wrote in message
ink.net...
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:
Bruno,


"SETI ITALIA Bruno IK2WQA" wrote in message

om...

Fellow SETI enthusiasts: We are missing the boat on
President Bush's new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" program!
This editorial is nothing less than a call to arms,
metaphorically

speaking.


I recall thinking at the time that this initiative was announced
that
this would be a good opportunity to do the long-talked-about
lunar-farside radio-telescope project (although the President's
initiative seems impossibly under-funded, there obviously are
other
valuable astronomy-related uses for a radio-telescope array on the
lunar
farside (perhaps a second generation High Resolution Microwave
Survey
(Project Phoenix's predecessor I believe) is in order? ;^) Even
if
congress eventually kills the funding (again) perhaps the seed
money
will lead to a SETI program that can be taken over by universities
or
a
certain not-for-profit SETI Organization? (although we are talking
about
mega-money here, once a robotic scope is setup, it's
low-to-no-maintenance and perhaps managable by smaller entities
than
the
a government?) Also, the radio-astronomy dual-use means there are
other
science allies in the promotion of the idea.

Instead of using the Moon as just a "stepping stone to Mars",
as the US President's proposal has outlined, a lunar farside
SETI
facility
(radio astronomy dishes linked like the Allen-array network,
and an optical cluster there as well for the Laser SETI
Searchers)
offers as its reward the possible detection of a Galactic
Internet,
not merely the frozen/fossilized microbes likely to be found on
Mars.


Moon Yes, Mars No!
by Ron Sirull
http://www.setileague.org/editor/moonyes.htm


Why should Moon and Mars be mutually exclusive? (or conversely why
are
they related at all?) Scarcity of science funds is one issue
obviously,
but I don't see why the two are connected, positively or
negatively.

Unfortunately, aside from robots being able to do Mars cheaper and
cleaner, I think that some of the new projects, especially the
Jupiter
Icy Moons project and Moon, Mars & Beyond are all ways of helping
the
compact nuclear power reactor industry to get more funding (I
believe
the NASA administrator's father was a nuclear Navy officer too?)
So I
don't think they have radio-astronomy science in mind (but there
perhaps
is a synergy here that could help both.) I also could see another
reason why the administrator (being the son of a squid, it's an
Army
thing :^) would be for this too, because there are (IMO) seemingly
so
many similarities (IMO) between a seaman's life and that of an
interplanetary space-farer (solitude, comradery, adventure) and
the
power demands are perhaps greater than the Sun can provide,
especially
if one is doing the "Beyond" part. It seems like a natural mesh,
at
least seemingly from the administrator's point of view (but I
still
don't want them to launch the nuclear power source over my house!)



Clear skies from NW Italy! ;-)

Bruno Moretti
Cicognola Astronomical Observatory & IK2WQA Ham Radio Station
45°43'28"N 8°36'35"E QTH Locator: JN45HR
http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/ap...y.php?teamid=8
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/s...team_7422.html


I don't know about that! SETI seems to be too far out on the
fringe
of
"science". People, in general, everywhere, are "attracted" to
the
possibility of other life "out there", but yet they joke about
it
too!

Like you said though Al, people are "attracted". Until recently I
would
have agreed with you about people joking about SETI Al, but today
I
feel
that we are getting beyond that (some of the ignorant class though
will
always be there.) I've gone to several astronomy-related public
viewing
events where I've interacted with hundreds of people. There is a
sizeable crowd out there who support the search (perhaps more so
than
ever.) If we don't promote the search aggressively (whatever
method
you
plug is up to you) we will not progress to better
public-awareness.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Invariably when I tell someone I have 7 computers running
seti@home
24/7
they get this friendly smile on their face and say: "found any
little
green
men yet" :-)

I get bizarre looks sometimes from people when talking about the
subject
(especially from religious nuts) and frankly, their signs of
ignorance
to me are just evidence of an educational/awareness-building
challenge.
We need to come out-of-our-shells to promote SETI and not fear
ridicule. Too much is at stake! I'm sure that the original NASA
SETI
proponents (pre-congressional cuts) faced a much tougher crowd
(and
look
how far they got.)

It is a noble quest, but it is on the fringe and not likely to
get
serious
support from the public in general ... what is inspiring is the
dedicated
few that keep the search going with almost no funding ....



If SETI is not 'in-their-face', some will continue to think of the
subject at arms-length, where it is socially acceptable to
ridicule
the
subject (because of ignorance). This can only be overcome by
education,
promotion, marketing and selling the virtues of this search to the
public. We can't afford to put our tails between our legs every
time
somebody scoffs at it and hope to eat the crumbs that are left
over.
We must be SETI educators. If we are passive, we gain less than
if we
are goal oriented. Even if we don't achieve our goals, we will be
better off than if we don't try to reach them at all.

The people I speak of are not ignorant. They are my friends (old it
is
true,
but my friends and they are engineers and scientists. They
believe
that
there are others out there. They show great interest when I explain
about
the complex molecules found in space, the prospect of life on Mars &
Europa
and perhaps many places, the early start of life on Earth, about
extra-solar
planets, and on and on, but still, STILL!, they kid me (in a
friendly
way
of course) about the "little green men" and the bottom line is they
would
not spend hard earned money on the quest (not much anyway)! This is
my
observation ... perhaps others, as you, find differently and I'd be
glad
to
hear about it too ....there seems to be only a few which have a
great
passion for SETI (enough that they would do what I do, many others
too,
and
much, much, more than I do) ... You know, I think I contribute to
seti@home
more than the norm, but yet I'm embarrassed to say what I do
contribute
is
almost nothing! I must suffer from the same attitute! ... I
contribute
countless hours of CPU time, (almost every day for over 5 years now
I
take
care of the seti@home processing) but very little funding in support
of
seti@home, why? What is it that holds people back (holds me back!!)?
I
think
it is because SETI, despite everything is viewed as "fringe science"
....
Hubble on the other hand (or the space station) ... well, you know
(billions, even after a horrible blunder!) ...
We're going to have to do real good first (!), like find life,
without
question, on Mars or Europa or somewhere, before we'll (SETI)
make(makes)
it
to the big time. Until then, it is going to be a hard and almost
thankless
task ...
Al


Regards, Jason H.

"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message . com...
.....
The most powerful sources are radars. They operate all over the 1-100 GHz
band. Long range radars operate in the so-called "L-Band" which runs from 1
to 2 GHz. There are also "S-Band" radars in the 2-4 GHz ("C-Band is 4-8GHz,
..., "O Band" is 60-90GHz) ... notice that the L-Band radar covers the
water-hole region near 1.420406 GHz.

Radars are used for many purposes and they are found around the world
operating day and night ...

I'm almost ("almost" because I'm lacking specific and sufficient data)
certain that, say, the Parkes (210 ft? diameter) radio telescope could
detect emissions from an equivalent Earth place at the distance of Alpha
Centauri.

Well, Here goes. Use seti FAQ formula :

If we have a 300ft diameter dish (radius==50m), receiving a signal
from 5 LYs (Alpha Centauri) away, and lets assume we need 10dB S/N ratio
to make it recognizable, with receiver system temp of about 100K (pretty
good receiver in microwave), then the transmitter needs to radiate with 40GW EIRP.

That is assuming it is a CW pulse (not modulated, only one pulse), and that we are
using all information in the signal, so that a 1ms pulse of this power (by definition at
least 1kHz wide) will not go unnoticed.
I'm not sure if such pulses would go by unnoticed by seti@home. Do you know ?

40GW EIRP.

I don't know enough about radar to tell you if that is frequently used here on
earth, and for which purpose, but to radiate that around 1.4GHz you need a
lot of line-power, (10's or 100's of KW's) and a pretty decent size dish (10's of meters).
A airtraffic control radar signal will not make it I think.

So only radar for very special applications (military high-sensitivity radar) or
astroid radar would create that amount of power. And these are not transmitting
too frequently. And thus the signal would not be 'reproducable', and thus
we can't prove or dis-prove if the signal is actually artificial and from Alpha Centauri.

So I think we can't detect a earth-like civilisation even it there is one around Alpha Centauri.

...
snipsnap

"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message . com...
.....
The most powerful sources are radars. They operate all over the 1-100 GHz
band. Long range radars operate in the so-called "L-Band" which runs from 1
to 2 GHz. There are also "S-Band" radars in the 2-4 GHz ("C-Band is 4-8GHz,
..., "O Band" is 60-90GHz) ... notice that the L-Band radar covers the
water-hole region near 1.420406 GHz.

Radars are used for many purposes and they are found around the world
operating day and night ...

I'm almost ("almost" because I'm lacking specific and sufficient data)
certain that, say, the Parkes (210 ft? diameter) radio telescope could
detect emissions from an equivalent Earth place at the distance of Alpha
Centauri.

Well, Here goes. Use seti FAQ formula :

If we have a 300ft diameter dish (radius==50m), receiving a signal
from 5 LYs (Alpha Centauri) away, and lets assume we need 10dB S/N ratio
to make it recognizable, with receiver system temp of about 100K (pretty
good receiver in microwave), then the transmitter needs to radiate with 40GW EIRP.

That is assuming it is a CW pulse (not modulated, only one pulse), and that we are
using all information in the signal, so that a 1ms pulse of this power (by definition at
least 1kHz wide) will not go unnoticed.
I'm not sure if such pulses would go by unnoticed by seti@home. Do you know ?

40GW EIRP.

I don't know enough about radar to tell you if that is frequently used here on
earth, and for which purpose, but to radiate that around 1.4GHz you need a
lot of line-power, (10's or 100's of KW's) and a pretty decent size dish (10's of meters).
A airtraffic control radar signal will not make it I think.

So only radar for very special applications (military high-sensitivity radar) or
astroid radar would create that amount of power. And these are not transmitting
too frequently. And thus the signal would not be 'reproducable', and thus
we can't prove or dis-prove if the signal is actually artificial and from Alpha Centauri.

So I think we can't detect a earth-like civilisation even it there is one around Alpha Centauri.

...
snipsnap

Rob,

"Rob Dekker" wrote in message
m...

"Alfred A. Aburto Jr." wrote in message
. com...
....
The most powerful sources are radars. They operate all over the 1-100
GHz
band. Long range radars operate in the so-called "L-Band" which runs
from 1
to 2 GHz. There are also "S-Band" radars in the 2-4 GHz ("C-Band is
4-8GHz,
..., "O Band" is 60-90GHz) ... notice that the L-Band radar covers the
water-hole region near 1.420406 GHz.

Radars are used for many purposes and they are found around the world
operating day and night ...

I'm almost ("almost" because I'm lacking specific and sufficient data)
certain that, say, the Parkes (210 ft? diameter) radio telescope could
detect emissions from an equivalent Earth place at the distance of Alpha
Centauri.

Well, Here goes. Use seti FAQ formula :

If we have a 300ft diameter dish (radius==50m), receiving a signal
from 5 LYs (Alpha Centauri) away, and lets assume we need 10dB S/N ratio
to make it recognizable, with receiver system temp of about 100K (pretty
good receiver in microwave), then the transmitter needs to radiate with
40GW EIRP.

That is assuming it is a CW pulse (not modulated, only one pulse), and
that we are
using all information in the signal, so that a 1ms pulse of this power (by
definition at
least 1kHz wide) will not go unnoticed.
I'm not sure if such pulses would go by unnoticed by seti@home. Do you
know ?

40GW EIRP.

I don't know enough about radar to tell you if that is frequently used
here on
earth, and for which purpose, but to radiate that around 1.4GHz you need a
lot of line-power, (10's or 100's of KW's) and a pretty decent size dish
(10's of meters).
A airtraffic control radar signal will not make it I think.

So only radar for very special applications (military high-sensitivity
radar) or
astroid radar would create that amount of power. And these are not
transmitting
too frequently. And thus the signal would not be 'reproducable', and thus
we can't prove or dis-prove if the signal is actually artificial and from
Alpha Centauri.

So I think we can't detect a earth-like civilisation even it there is one
around Alpha Centauri.

..
snipsnap

Ah! So you read the FAQ. Humm :-) That's great!

I'll check into this too ...
(I wish I knew more about military radars myself ... space surviellance
radars for example)

You're right though, sounds like a special radar is needed.

Arecibo, of course, is a very special radar and very powerful one too used
in part for pinging off Solar System objects (planets, asteroids...)
(100 KW omni power isn't much though generally speaking nowadays)

(Arecibo, I think, transmits at 1-10 Megawatts ...it "can" put 10's of
terrawatts of power in a narrowband beam)
I wouln't count Arecibo though, because the odds of detection, even with
great SNR, would be very slim (one might need to look our way for ages
before one saw a ping ...)

I distinctly remember that some of the military radars could be detected 100
LY's away ... but I'll recheck all this ...

I'll get back here soon ...
Al