Is Searching for Habitable Worlds Really Worth the Effort?

Is Searching for Habitable Worlds Really Worth the Effort?

Everyone knows that humanity is not the only sentient life in the galaxy, let alone the Universe. It doesn't take proof to know that among trillions of stars in our Universe that more than one planet would have sentient life on it. But how are we supposed to travel to that far off distant world that is habitable? How are we supposed to respond to an alien signal from sentient life?

The means of traveling into space are based on liquid and solid boosters and basically coasting to an orbital insertion point. Traveling to a habitable planet 25 light years away would never be accomplished with our modern day rockets. Based on Einstein's Laws we can't travel even half the speed of light. Even if we could travel half the speed of light the time it would take us to reach a habitable planet 25 light years away would end taking 60 to 70 years.

If a sentient alien life contacted Earth, such a contact would mean that their ships would have to use FTL drives, once again a violation of Einstein's Laws. If the sentient alien race did give us their FTL technology, such technology would be destroyed, just to satisfy the notions of Einstein's Laws and those who have based their entire careers on the same Laws.

So needless to say and in all reality, spending billions of dollars a year on projects looking for planets orbiting a far off star, hoping to find that second Earth and searching the cosmos for an alien signal are really a waste of time and money. Money that could be spent elsewhere.

Without the use of FTL drives traveling to far off planets will never happen,ever. And because Einstein's Laws of the Universe cannot be changed, accepting any alien technology that would allow us to to travel close to the speed of light would be considered a violation of Einstein's Laws along with the rest of the laws of physics.

Therefore spending billions on programs to look habitable worlds other than Earth and monitoring the cosmos for alien signals is a waste of money and time because in the end Einstein's Laws says it is impossible, so why put forth the effort to try looking for habitable worlds and alien signals in space?

We won't be able to travel to said planet nor would we be able to use the alien technology, ever.

 

We don't know that, at all. We can surmise that it is likely, but we have no proof.

We're still learning. Just because we think we have the baselines correct, doesn't mean we can't figure out way around them eventually.

We shall see.

 

One does not need verifiable proof of water being wet when its raining.

Their is a factor of ego that Physicists have based their sciences on. None of them would allow Earth or alien based physics to undermine their ability to appear as the Universal Knowledge Keepers not to mention keeping humanity firmly locked to the Earth.

Physicists are no different than religious leaders, in the end all they value is their own ego and the wealth and getting into a history book. One day though they will be simply thrown into a burning barrel as their physics are laughed "who wrote this nonsense?"

Another laughable moment - https://www.space.com/interstellar-comet-borisov-seti-technosignatures-search.html


Our solar system's second known interstellar visitor appears to be keeping quiet, just like the first.

The Breakthrough Listen SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) project has scanned the interstellar Comet Borisov for "technosignatures" but come up empty so far, scientists announced today (Feb. 14).

Even if a technosignature had been found what could they have done? Absolutely nothing. Another failed scan hoping to find E.T. and then not being able to go after the comet to secure the technology creating the technosignature.

Science in all of its perfect angles and measurements and perfect knowledge, still can't get past the Moon to chase down their alien signatures. Why even waste the resources?

Science has really put the foot in their mouth on this one.

“For the whole of human history, we had a limited amount of data to search for life beyond Earth. So, all we could do was speculate," Milner said in the same statement. "Now, as we are getting a lot of data, we can do real science and, with making this data available to the general public, so can anyone who wants to know the answer to this deep question."

Its a comet. There really isn't any deep question there.

 

This is simply a bold faced lie. We've been to the fringes of our solar system. To Venus, to Mars, to Jupiter. It sounds like you're frustrated because things aren't moving on a timetable more to your liking.

Sixty years is a grain of sand in the depths of time of the universe.

 

Geez. You don’t know what you are talking about.

 

This is simply a bold faced lie. We've been to the fringes of our solar system. To Venus, to Mars, to Jupiter. It sounds like you're frustrated because things aren't moving on a timetable more to your liking.

Sixty years is a grain of sand in the depths of time of the universe.

A machine has been to the edge of our solar system. Humans have never made it past the Moon. Humans will not be able to travel any further than Mars without a sufficient upgrade in rockets. And as it looks there are no plans to upgrade rocket engines any time soon. It's not a timetable based on my wants, its a time table of necessity. Humans have put off traveling to the Moon and colonizing the Moon much like people put off bills until there is no chance to recover.

Defunding all E.T. and habitable planet hunting programs that generate unobtainable results and further public scorn for space exploration will be remedied by redirecting the funds to Lunar colonization efforts. Efforts that even amateur astronomers can view through our telescopes as being a stepping stone for humanity that amateur astronomers can share with their families and friends.

All E.T. and Habitable Planet Hunters have shown us is noise in space and unobtainable goals. Unobtainable goals drives many would be supporters away from supporting Close Earth Colonization efforts of the Moon and Mars.
Once a Lunar base has been established then a Lunar based telescope can be established on the Moon and eventually Mars to satisfy the planet and E.T. signal hunters.

If one wants to go to the Moon and colonize it you can't expect the water to drain itself if you leave the water running.

 

They do if no one else has ever encountered it before.

I don't know of too many physicists who are wealthy. Drink a bit too much of that Trump-brand Kool-Aid?

 

A NASA mission recently discovered that Jupiter has more water in its atmosphere than Earth has in all of its oceans. With such a new discovery why waste the money on trying to find planets that thousands of light years away when we can refine searches for habitable planets using the Jupiter model that are 500 light years away?

 

Everybody knows? Actually the truth is nobody knows. My belief is that there are much fewer suitable planets than reckoned. Current criteria addresses only a small proportion of requirements for life. Relative distance from the given star, temperature, gaseous composition, atmosphere etc are only a few of thousands of aspects needed and let’s face it, we don’t even definitively know the criteria required. The current probability is based on a statistical hunch. That’s a long way from supported common knowledge, even for Star Trek fans.

 

I prefer a statistical hunch to a gut feel.

 

I’m not talking about a gut feel. I’m talking about the difference between a comprehensive statistical analysis versus an in comprehensive one. Isn’t accuracy more important than ratio probability?

 

Belief is not statistical analysis.

 

You’re just being pedantic. Yes I believe that but it’s simultaneously a fact that the various conditions of life are only minimally addressed in the criteria.

 

As a result of the inherent limitations of the methods for hunting extrasolar planets, we mostly know of planets that are easiest to detect such as hot Jupiters and super Earths. It's not possible to extrapolate at all reliably what the true populations statistics of planetary types and conditions are from such examples. Gravitational imaging using the Sun might give us a means to examine other stellar planetary system from the solar system but we'd have to send probes out to 500 AU or farther - well beyond where even the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft currently are.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06351

Using lasers to propel microprobes to nearby stars is another possibility but I don't expect to see either of these techniques used in my lifetime because of the expense.

We also don't know whether types of life are possible other than the examples we have. The NASA definition of life is possibly too limiting - "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution". We do know what conditions are necessary to support those examples though. In a couple of hundred years time, our current speculations, estimates and extrapolations will probably seem as fanciful as discussions of canals and advanced life on Mars do now.

 

I particularly find the theory of non carbon based life really intriguing. There’s quite a few papers out there on silica based life potentials.

 

Yes, there are also hypotheses that life on Earth originated in clays (for example, Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith and Hyman Hartman).

My suspicion is that humans might be the only lifeforms in the observable universe that are capable of conscious, rational thought (or, alternatively, of harbouring the delusion that we have that capability). Perhaps we are viable Boltzmann brains and most other life out there is little more complex than pond scum - bacteria and archaea - not the much more complex eukaryotic single and multi-celled lifeforms.

Eugene Koonin has written:

-- Koonin, Eugene V. (31 May 2007). "The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life".

However, if the probability of a complex lifeform such as homo sapiens occurring once in an instantiation of the Universe is very low, I would expect the probability of two or more such lifeforms occurring to be much lower.

 

[Early morning ramble, may not be entirely coherent]:

I think that anything within 20 ly, should be investigated. At worst, a few probes on beamrider technology could be launched there. At best, we could journey there within a generation, particularly for anything within 10 LY.

I am optimistic about technology; it is more for a lack of want than a lack of capability we're not out in the solar system or launching interstellar probes. I even think the 'expense' issue is about to be solved soonish. Imagine launching five microprobes on five Starship launches? That's tomorrow Mundane technology, not far-future tech. Other fields like Metastable Metallic Hydrogen are a few more years beyond that, and profitable mature fusion a generation or two away, but this century shows promise.

However I do agree when I hear something like 'Kepler blah blah trappist blah blah 40-500 LY away is...a footnote, for now. We're not reaching those anytime soon. However, again. 20 LY, 10 LY, that's already a lot of stars and we could devise probes or even craft for such travel.

Let us launch many scopes, to far flung orbits, let us turn our scopes to Procyon, to Tau Ceti, Alpha Centauri, Proxima Centauri, Delta Pavonis, Altair; that is our neighborhood.

 

"Unobtainable results"?

Explain this, then:

https://exoplanet.eu/

 

We've already found habitable worlds.

I will be a contrarian and say the most habitable world besides Earth for humanity is Venus.

Venus requires no terraforming*. Venus has earth gravity, something we've evolved under and will not modify differently from without great difficulty. Venus is relatively easy to visit to and from, with far more transfer orbit opportunities than mars.

Other habitable worlds include the Moon, which could support a large transient earth population in lava tubes repurposed as cities and farmlands. What is most lacking is water. The problem it shares with Mars, and other habitable worlds like Titan and Jovian icy moons is low gravity. There is no understanding of the effects of low gravity on human life. Or any life, really. I don't believe this is trivial. It is one reason why I think long term, humanity will spread to large orbital habitats and not to planets. After a few centuries of this, life on orbital habitats might be the norm. IF that is the case, it might well be the norm for other sentient species in our universe, which means we don't REALLY know where to look for other civilizations. They could literally be anywhere.

And we should be anywhere too. I don't think we should stop looking for habitable worlds. It's good science. But I don't think we need them.

*aerostat colonies floating in Earth-temperature cloud layer of Venus could be very cheap, effective and practical. Venus could become the second breadbasket of a future solar system economy with floating automated farms. Indeed if farming is long-term found detrimental to Earth and a decision is made centuries later to forgo agriculture and let earth return to clean cities and largely wilderness spaces, Venus would be ideal for this. It is easy to think of Venus as a throwaway world with no value but it may be exactly what we need.