Slashdot Mirror


SETI Finds Funds For the Allen Telescope Array (For Now)

Ransak writes "It looks as if SETI has met its short term funding goal to restart the Allen Telescope Array. Is crowdsourcing the long term future of pure research projects?"

28 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Good to hear by Lanteran · · Score: 2

    At least there's still a significant number of people interested in space.

    --
    "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    1. Re:Good to hear by IrquiM · · Score: 2

      Interested in space? This is communicating with space aliens, which is science fiction. It's slightly better than the army spending billions of dollars on remote viewing and other psychic nonsense, but it's still so far removed from science that I shudder to think of all the people wasting their talent on this.

      It is still science though - however useless it is, not science fiction.

      --
      This is blinging
  2. Money by identity0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    >Is crowdsourcing the long term future of pure research projects?"

    It is in the US if the current budget news is any indication....

    1. Re:Money by colinnwn · · Score: 2

      The array construction costs had already been funded, so SETI must not be too bad at grant writing. All they needed was small amounts of operational funding. It was a novel design that allowed easy and cheap upgrades to the array performance, and had the side benefit of allowing concurrent SETI observations to reduce the marginal costs of those observations. It is specifically in their "charter" that hard science projects take observational priority, and SETI observations are secondary. It was retarded and short-sighted that the array was defunded. It demonstrates our society's complete lack of commitment to basic scientific research today; the same kind of research that allowed all the amazing advances of the space age.

  3. I'm very happy to see this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It certainly indicates that there is a very healthy support on the ground for scientific research endeavours such as this. Could the same thing be said for research projects that are a little dryer? Who can say...

    Despite that I am very happy for SETI to have received this funding and I am looking forward to seeing more fresh data coming from this project. Even more so that they did not need to shut down the cryogenic components.

  4. Safe Funding Source by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2

    Is crowdsourcing the long term future of pure research projects?"

    Why not? God knows funding from the government isn't safe anymore.

  5. Re:James Webb by djl4570 · · Score: 2

    Not sure it was a waste but I think the assumptions need to be revisited before throwing more money at it. If ET were broadcasting in the EM spectrum SETI should have detected a signal by now. Either we are looking at the wrong frequencies, or the signals are beneath the SN ratio, or ET isn't broadcasting in the EM spectrum.

  6. Well, at least they found something... by pedantic+bore · · Score: 2

    Finding the funding for an alien telescope array is the first step in actually finding the alien telescope array itself...

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
  7. Welcome to the libertarian viewpoint. by 7-Vodka · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Welcome to the libertarian viewpoint. We do away with income tax and you get to spend your money on things you care about. Put it to use where it's most efficient.

    Fund a telescope array, feed the needy, keep non-profit hospitals open, invest in the local electric car startups, go part time at work and volunteer at the local EFF. I'm willing to bet you can spend your money better than the government can. Crowdsourcing could be the way of the future of the government would just get off your backs.

    No more bridges to nowhere and tax refunds for G.E.
    No more occupations, murder and wars.

    --

    Liberty.

    1. Re:Welcome to the libertarian viewpoint. by Arlet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm willing to bet you can spend your money better than the government can

      Yes, for some things. The free market is excellent at solving some problems. Government is good at solving other problems, and usually government programs are created after people notice that the free market isn't taking care of it.

    2. Re:Welcome to the libertarian viewpoint. by macraig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Riiiight... and if we took your profound advice, every stretch of road would be owned by some corporation, there would be no "highway neutrality", and we'd wind up paying multiple tolls to drive anywhere... because the government wouldn't be allowed to tax anyone to collectively buy off the builders of the roads for the ownership (and CONTROL) of them. Who do you suppose paid for all the roads you traverse every single day for free? The government... WITH TAXES. Exactly how would you propose crowdsourcing our streets and national highway system?

      Why do you think we're having these endless debates about "network neutrality" now? It's precisely because the government - WE - didn't insist on retaining ownership of all the telegraph, telephone, and telecommunications wires that companies like AT&T have been laying for more than a century. It's shared infrastructure, just like highways, and it should have been our government - us - paying to retain ownership (and control) of those wires... with taxes If we had done that, we wouldn't be worrying about network neutrality now because the wires would be TRULY neutral.

    3. Re:Welcome to the libertarian viewpoint. by genjix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And who says we need roads all over the planet? They're truly a scourge on the environment. Maybe we don't need roads to go right up to people's houses- they could drive and park to a spot and then walk 15 mins to their house. Either that or get public transport.

      The current mess with cities is due to government over-regulation. Urban planners agree that suburbanism (suburban means less than urban FYI) is ugly. It was Jane Jacobs who asked "Are we building cities for cars of for people?" If the free market doesn't pay for it then maybe you should think that maybe it isn't needed.

      Your internet argument is moot given that people can lay their own wires or easily route around using satellite dishes.

  8. This is the way it's supposed to be by mvdwege · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SETI, like all other religious endeavours, should be funded on donations by its adherents alone. The government has no business subsidising it.

    And yes, SETI is about as scientific as Intelligent Design. The whole fundament of SETI is a belief that something must be out there, with no better theoretical basis than the Drake Equation.

    Mart

    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    1. Re:This is the way it's supposed to be by Arlet · · Score: 4, Informative

      SETI is testing the hypothesis that something is out there.

      No, they are testing that something is out there (but not too far), with a powerful transmitter, and using a big dish aimed at us at exactly the same time we are aiming our dish at them.

      Everything else is too weak to detect.

    2. Re:This is the way it's supposed to be by Nutria · · Score: 2

      What's unscientific is believing, like you seem to do, that we are very special and that there can't be intelligent life on the other billions of planets in the vicinity.

      Nothing in OP's message indicates that we are unique in the galaxy. The point is that we don't broadcast all sorts of messy EM, why should anyone else?

      What would be a REAL scientific test would be to launch a large-antennae "Can you hear me now?" satellite with an ion engine aimed away from the orbital plane. Aim the antennae towards Earth. If it can't detect Earth signals at one Lunar orbital radius then SETI should close up shop and give the radio telescopes over to some worthwhile purpose. If it's still detecting signals at 120 AU, then the probability of SETI detecting something goes from zero to 10e-30.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:This is the way it's supposed to be by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SETI is perfectly scientific. You have a hypothesis ("There is intelligent life in the universe trying to communicate with us."), and conduct an experiment to test it.

      So, if SETI is scientific, what outcome of the experiment would falsify their hypothesis? It is equally scientific to hypothesise that God exists and is watching us and test it by the experiment of staring at the sky and trying to spot him.

      A real scientific theory makes predictions that can either be supported or contradicted by experiment. SETI makes no falsifiable predictions, and is therefore faith, not science.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:This is the way it's supposed to be by Ragondux · · Score: 2

      I'm wondering how you calculated that probability of [b]ZERO[/b]. I have no idea about the number of advanced civilization out there, but the only one I know of did broadcast messages to potential neighbours. Granted, it did so for a very short time, so that probably wasn't very effective, but it tried, and it might try again.

      You probably mean that that probability is not zero, but is too low for us to spend money on it. That would be a bit more reasonable, wouldn't it?

    5. Re:This is the way it's supposed to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A real scientific theory makes predictions that can either be supported or contradicted by experiment. SETI makes no falsifiable predictions, and is therefore faith, not science.

      I think you have an overly black and white view of the way science works. It's rarely as simple as "we run experiment X and if we see (do not see) Y then we accept (reject) theory Z.". Often you can only make statements like "given assumptions A, B, C we can excluded this region of parameter space of theory Z at the 95% confidence level." That doesn't mean theory Z is unscientific or that the experiment is worthless.

    6. Re:This is the way it's supposed to be by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      And when Christians pray to God, and Muslims pray to Allah, they are testing the hypothesis that someone is listening to them.

      See? Perfectly analogous.

      Not perfectly analogous. Unlike Christians or Muslims, SETI does a scientific analysis of the results, and openly admits that they haven't yet found anything. You'll probably not find many Christians who tell you "yeah, well, I don't know if god hears my prayers, up to now I haven't found a sign that he does, but I keep trying."

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:This is the way it's supposed to be by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Indeed. "Winning a football game" serves as evidence that God exists for most religious yokels.

    8. Re:This is the way it's supposed to be by thue · · Score: 2

      And the search for the Higgs is also religious, because we have a belief that something is there? Of course not; we search to validate (or repudiate) our hypothesis.

      It is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis that intelligent life exists elsewhere, based on current scientific consensus. We are merely trying to confirm that hypothesis.

    9. Re:This is the way it's supposed to be by grumbel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yes, SETI is about as scientific as Intelligent Design.

      That's bullshit. SETI does not proclaim that alien live exist, it doesn't proclaim anything. SETI is simply looking for it and they aren't exactly hiding the fact that they haven't found anything. In so far its not much different from a biologist or archaeologist running through a jungle or desert looking for interesting things, he might find something or not.

      Intelligent Design is vastly different, as they proclaim to already have the answer and then try to support it with fraudulent evidence, ignoring a far better theory that already explains everything they try to explain.

      The whole fundament of SETI is a belief that something must be out there, with no better theoretical basis than the Drake Equation.

      It's not a believe, its an assumption that there might be something out there and you can't know how false or true it is until you start looking. Also the Drake Equation isn't the theoretical basis for SETI, its not even a theory in the first place, its just a fancy why of saying "I wonder how likely intelligent live would be?". It was meant to foster discussion on a conference some decades ago, not hard science.

    10. Re:This is the way it's supposed to be by Ragondux · · Score: 2

      Playing the lottery is being called a tax on the mathematically challenged because we know the expected payoff is negative. We (reasonable people) don't know the expected payoff of SETI, so it's a bet, not a tax or a scam. Most research is a bet.

      (Please note I'm not trying to convince you, as you made it clear with your flat-earther comparison that you can't be convinced. I'm just stating my opinion for the sake of other readers: http://xkcd.com/386/)

  9. Re:James Webb by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, and I can't remember who said this, maybe some here can, but I remember reading how the odds that SETI would find squat would be so low as to be non-existent simply because there is only a teeny tiny window if you use our world as a model because one progresses from "blasting EM everywhere" to highly localized signals that don't go anywhere so quickly.

    Look at how quickly we went from nothing to analog "blast EM everywhere" to tight digital sat signals. What 100 years? In space time that would be less time than a girl's little squeaky fart. So even if there were tens of thousands of races out there, and they all used the same EM bands we did the amount of time their signal was sent out into the cosmos was so damned tiny you would have to watch the entire sky simultaneously to have any hope at all and even then it would be teeny tiny odds. it is like a blind man trying to find a needle in Nebraska and the needle is moved randomly.

    So while I thought the golden records were fine, hell it didn't really cost much to throw those on a ship we were launching anyway, I have to wonder if our limited resources wouldn't be better spent in studying our own solar system instead of hunting for ET. Hell even if we found ET it isn't like we could do a damned thing about it, the distances are simply too great. But if folks are willing to put up the cash because they are looking for ET? More power to ya, free country and all that.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  10. Re:James Webb by sophanes · · Score: 2

    Read the original SETI report (NASA SP-419) - from its inception, SETI didn't expect to overhear information-bearing signals. Instead, it was looking for deliberately generated 'beacons' - high-powered, spectrally dense transmissions. These should be detectable over distances of the order of several thousand light-years.

  11. Re:SETI Found Something!!!! by Xtense · · Score: 2

    Nobody expected to find a new continent by going around the planet to India.

    It's not a question of what we're looking for - it's a question of what we might find, and that, IMO, is what makes SETI worth keeping.

    --
    "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
  12. Why was there a need for this? by denzacar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Shouldn't the "invisible hand of the market" have fixed this?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  13. Progress needs 'random goals' even if unachievable by winterice · · Score: 2

    The way I see it is this: One of the way science and engineering advance, is when a difficult arbitrary goal is set with enough conviction. We try to reach to it, putting a lot of resources into it. Along the way, we are forced to solve difficult engineering problems and gain scientific insights. War is one way to achieve this (and certainly gets its share of resources) but trying to find life elsewhere or putting man on Mars, for example, is a much more pleasant way to do it.