Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Air Force Pays SETI To Check Kepler-22b For Alien Life

Posted by Soulskill on from the best-defense-is-a-strong-offense dept.

New submitter iComp writes with this quote from El Reg: "The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has announced that it is back in business checking out the new [potentially] habitable exoplanets recently discovered by NASA's Kepler space telescope to see if they might be home to alien civilizations. The cash needed to restart SETI's efforts has come in part from the U.S. Air Force Space Command, who are interested in using the organization's detection instruments for 'space situational awareness'."

74 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Space Intruder Detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maintaining scan for UFO's.

    "Intruder...alert...U...F...O..."

    1. Re:Space Intruder Detector by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

      Plus the aliens could be funding an Al Qaeda base there or have Space Oi- Ahem, I mean Weapons of Mass Interstellar Destruction. Can't let those space-terrorists go undetected!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  2. Does this mean... by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean I'll finally have a use for my Y2k bunker? If so, I should get busy building it.

    1. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's ok, you still have the best part of 89 years to build it.

    2. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your clock says December 7, 1911 too? Mine didn't handle the century flip either. The great thing about the Y2K bug is that once you have it, it'll keep coming back every hundred years.

  3. USAF looking for new targets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Before they're finished blowing up people and things in Afghanistan etc?

  4. nice...sub orbital hypersonic missile tracker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the USAF wants to track sub orbital cruise missiles like DARPA is developing using the SETI ATA to look at close earth objects with high accuracy during the day when their optical tracking systems are offline. SETI wants to find alien civilizations at night. should work nicely.

    1. Re:nice...sub orbital hypersonic missile tracker. by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Funny

      "the USAF wants to track sub orbital cruise missiles..."

      I'd say that the discovery of sub-orbital missiles on Kepler-22b would be a pretty damn good indication of alien life. Intelligent? Not so much.

  5. Military the first one, huh? by TheDarkener · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If there is intelligent enough life on Kepler-22b to see that our U.S. military, who can't seem to figure peace out on our OWN planet, is the first to probe theirs...they could see it as a potentially hostile first impression. Just sayin'.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the military having foresight, produence, and due diligence. Their main job is to defend us, and one of the major part of that is accessing new threats wherever they are.

      If we were to find life on this planet, would you rather us to in completely blind about them?

    2. Re:Military the first one, huh? by ZankerH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The military's job is fighting wars. Securing peace is the people's and governments' job.

    3. Re:Military the first one, huh? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

      . . . our U.S. military, who can't seem to figure peace out on our OWN planet . . .

      Peace is not the job of the military. Their job is to fight wars. Peace is the job of politicians and diplomats.

      "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means," ("Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln") -- Carl von Clasewitz

      However, when we meet aliens, the politicians and diplomats will base their decisions on intelligence gathered by the military folks. Like, "What are the aliens' true intentions?" Are they secretly lizards who chow down on rats, or are they just passing through the space neighborhood and stopped for a pee-break at the Earth?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. Even though I don't want go to war with aliens (and it currently seems illogical to do so) I have no problem with funding dual-purpose research just in case.

    5. Re:Military the first one, huh? by dokc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The military's job is fighting wars. Securing peace is the people's and governments' job.

      And the military is the only who does it's job.

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    6. Re:Military the first one, huh? by AdrianKemp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well as luck would have it monitoring *one* planet is very reasonable and not overly resource intensive.

      SETI's problem was always that they tried to monitor a *lot* of planet/star/whateverthefucks

    7. Re:Military the first one, huh? by geekprime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you have any idea how far away these "possible threats" actually are?

      Really, it's a serious question.

    8. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's more likely is that the Americans will poke at them until they get annoyed, then start a fight. Then we'll have to send British and Swedish forces in to sort out the resulting mess when the Yanks can't handle it.

    9. Re:Military the first one, huh? by cryptoluddite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The possible threat is from mass panic and/or social unrest. Take somebody's whole lifetime of religious belief and pull the carpet out from under it and they'll react irrationally. Do that to the majority of people on the planet and you potentially have big problems.

      I mean our fundamentalists already go crazy over basic science like evolution or climate change or conception, just imagine what they'd do if we weren't the Chosen planet, let alone how people in some place like the Middle East would react. You know for a certainty people would at least try to blow up the radio telescopes and cover up the knowledge. What else? Who knows, but the government having some time to plan and prepare before word got out would be valuable preparation.

    10. Re:Military the first one, huh? by inasity_rules · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is an interesting read.

      I find it sad that writers fear to explore religion in speculative fiction. The reaction (specifically of the majority of Christians -i.e. catholics) may not be what you think it is.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    11. Re:Military the first one, huh? by qbast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't find any *human* motives for harming us. Alien lifeforms may have completely alien way of thinking and incomprehensible motivations. Even their definition of 'harm' may be different than ours.

    12. Re:Military the first one, huh? by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2

      Seti just listens and doesn't really poke things. I don't think we have the ability to actively poke something 600 light years away. How can anything really know we're watching if we're only using passive means to observe it? The time to start worrying maybe is when our radio and TV signals finally reach that planet.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    13. Re:Military the first one, huh? by whovian · · Score: 2

      It's the military having foresight, produence, and due diligence. Their main job is to defend us, and one of the major part of that is accessing new threats wherever they are.

      If we were to find life on this planet, would you rather us to in completely blind about them?

      I think you meant assessing, but the way things seem to work in the US, you would have been correct either way.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    14. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Damn that's a hilarious post. The British provide the comic relief while the Swedes glumly watch.
      Meanwhile, the Americans realize that once again, they've been screwed by the global elite and the useless UN.

    15. Re:Military the first one, huh? by syousef · · Score: 2

      I mean our fundamentalists already go crazy over basic science like evolution or climate change or conception, just imagine what they'd do if we weren't the Chosen planet,

      They would be divided between falling over each other reinterpretting their holy book to show that it predicted first contact, and insisting that first contact is a sign of the end of days and the aliens are devils in disguise.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    16. Re:Military the first one, huh? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've got news for you; if the aliens have the technology to come here, and they wanted to kill us off, there is nothing that we could do. All of the movies you see are a total joke; we would be the proverbial fish in a barrel to them. Actually, we wouldn't; it's way harder to kill fish in a barrel than it would be for them to wipe us out instantly. Just imagine the United States military going to war with a tribe of hunter gatherers, and the hunter gatherers have nowhere to hide.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    17. Re:Military the first one, huh? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

      It's the military having foresight, produence, and due diligence. Their main job is to defend us, and one of the major part of that is accessing new threats wherever they are.

      If we were to find life on this planet, would you rather us to in completely blind about them?

      Are you kidding me? The military's main job is to defend us? Have you been living under a rock? The military's main job is to support the political aims of the people in power. If the people in power were looking to defend us, those two goals would be aligned and there would be no conflict. Unfortunately, this is not even remotely the case. I am not even going to give you examples because honestly, at this point, if you need me to provide examples of how the people in power aren't looking out for us then there is nothing I can say to sway you from your naive optimism.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    18. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Exactly!

      Whereas any civilized species would need to have curiosity as a trait (I can't see how they would become advanced to civilization if they didn't) - they needn't necessarily have the same desire to preserve life as we do. (protected areas, national parks, pets, zoos).

      If they see us as someone who could be a threat to them in the future- the logical thing to do would be to wipe us out.

      We can't guarantee aliens will be compassionate.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    19. Re:Military the first one, huh? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

      You can't even leave out the possibility that they would be pointlessly malevolent; they could just find it amusing to fly around the galaxy and wipe out life as they find it. I mean, come on, they're fscking aliens. Do we really think that we can possibly predict what alien logic would look like?

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    20. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Yev000 · · Score: 2

      Far enough to be able to evolve from monkeys by the time the light gets here?

    21. Re:Military the first one, huh? by inasity_rules · · Score: 2

      I find other people's views interesting and speculative fiction on how they react to differing situations is interesting to me. This for example, is an interesting question, how would christian fundamentalists react? How would muslims?

      This is yet another interesting scenario. To me, at least. You may have no interest in how people who disagree with you think and react, but that however is your loss. Science fiction is very good at exploring such ideas. Perhaps you're not a fan of science fiction?

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    22. Re:Military the first one, huh? by tmosley · · Score: 2

      To make jib comments and cook.

      Bork bork bork.

    23. Re:Military the first one, huh? by fifedrum · · Score: 2

      wouldn't it be awesome if the first aliens with which we make contact had hard, bright red exoskeletons, horns on their heads, red glowing eyes and preferred sulfurous drinks? By way of answering my own question, it would be awesome.

    24. Re:Military the first one, huh? by zigmeister · · Score: 2

      Did you watch Cowboys and Aliens? Stupid movie I know but that is another reason: rare elements like gold, platinum etc that are only made during supernovae (or according to wikipedia particle accelerators and nuclear reactions, but at a very high projected cost.) Of course they probably wouldn't just come to earth for the gold but more like sweep through a lot of solar systems and planets in a round trip.

      Also, I agree that if they have FTL and are out hunting for gold (or whatever else) they'd squash us like a bug. I'm told that there is potentially a lot of gold in the earth's core, making our destruction a done deal, if they had the appropriate tech for that also. Not trying to sound like a UFO nut here, honestly don't believe we'll ever contact the buggers even if they do exist. It's just to unlikely, but can make for some stupid fun movies.

      --
      Failure formatting five FAQs of financial facts.
    25. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Jappus · · Score: 4, Informative

      We have had 2 world wars within a century because European pacifist douche bags like you sit back and watch every time the next Hitler crops up while the US goes out and smacks them upside the head.

      Actually, World War 1 started because Europe was full of militaristic (and mostly aristocratic) douche bags who wouldn't even take the offer not to start the War, because they already had all the plans made up and their little toy soldiers moved down from the attic to play with them.

      Now, World War 2 was a direct consequence of the winning militaristic idiots deciding that peace means giving the other militaristic dimwits a huge reason to start another war. In that climate, being a pacifist only saved peace for roughly 20 years (even less if you count Spain). After that, the militaristic and obscenely patriotic/nationalist side decided it'd be jolly good to start playing with toy soldiers again.

      The only reason we didn't have a Third and Fourth World War was that the militaristic idiots in all participating countries didn't get another chance to fuck the post-war peace up again. It may have been the military that won the war, but it were the pacifists that ensured that peace would last more than another 20 years.

      And what was the end result? The United States led one bloody war after another, whereas Europe saw continuously progressing unification and over 60 years of mostly peace ... up until an US-American, patriotic fuckwad decided a full blown war in two countries with hundred of thousands of dead would be the best response to a small group of confused people killing some 3000 US-Americans.

      Yeah, the military is great, isn't it? And for good measure, a big hooray for the war-mongers of the future!

    26. Re:Military the first one, huh? by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still a long way to go before we call it even for ending the two world wars.

      The US wasn't really responsible for ending WW1 and even if it had been, the resulting "peace" was not something that anyone would be proud of, leading inevitably to WW2 as it did. If I was American, I'd let the UK and France have WW1.

      As for WW2, the honours would have to be shared between the USSR and the US.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:Military the first one, huh? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

      Are you serious? I must assume that you are trolling because your argument can be refuted in one word -- Vietnam.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    28. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Agripa · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just imagine the United States military going to war with a tribe of hunter gatherers, and the hunter gatherers have nowhere to hide.

      That stupid phalanx killed three of my tanks so I am not so sure about this.

    29. Re:Military the first one, huh? by bckrispi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, World War 1 started because Europe was full of militaristic (and mostly aristocratic) douche bags who wouldn't even take the offer not to start the War, because they already had all the plans made up and their little toy soldiers moved down from the attic to play with them.

      Here's an interesting bit of trivia: What did King George the IV of England, Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, and Tsarina Alexandra (wife of Tsar Nicholas) have in common? Answer: a grandmother. These were all the spoiled grandchildren of Queen Victoria, and all first cousins. Austria is represented in this inbred family tree as well. Victoria's husband, Albert was a Hapsburg. One single family represented the initial primary belligerents in a conflict that led to the massacre of sixteen and a half million people.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    30. Re:Military the first one, huh? by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 2

      > [if] they wanted to kill us off, there is nothing that we could do.

      That's why this scenario is not the one we should be worried about. Here's a greater danger -- one plausible enough, that it might cause Earth-bound governments to invest significant resources in detecting extraterrestrial intelligence:

      Imagine that the intelligence is intentionally (or even: inadvertently) broadcasting information that can be used by one faction of Earthlings against another. Perhaps they are broadcasting what is to them, basic science information. (but to humans: the next, best, new weapon!) Perhaps they are broadcasting their own philosophy and ideology. (again: that could be used as an info- weapon, here.) Perhaps they have no desire to contact others -- but, inadvertently, there are signatures in their atmosphere(s) that indicate a variety of advanced technologies they're using. (...which would indicate fertile directions for future weapons research, here.)

      Just *knowledge* of their existence -- eg: being the first to provably detect such an intelligence -- could give one ideological faction on this planet more power than another.

    31. Re:Military the first one, huh? by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 2

      >600LY delay in communications is the deal breaker

      Even if an extraterrestrial intelligence were detected thousands of light years away, we could reasonably assume that they've been around a lot longer than we have. (it is unlikely that in our multi-billions-of-years-old galaxy, that their technological civilization emerged *exactly* at the same time ours did. ...whether or not you consider the delay in communication.)

      This means they could have long ago established outposts all across the galaxy, to which (whom) they can delegate decisions about what to communicate, or physically do. Such outposts could be very close to Earth.

      >trade for exotic technologies.

      Perhaps the "trade" is informational, or computational.

    32. Re:Military the first one, huh? by WowTIP · · Score: 2

      As for WW2, the honours would have to be shared between the USSR and the US.

      Well, given that 5 million German troops were lost on the eastern front against Soviet Russia and ~800 000 were lost on the western front against allied troops (also british, canadian, etc.), many would say a greater part of the honour would belong to USSR.

      Sources:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_II)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties

      --

      --

      "I'm surfin the dead zone
      In the twilight, unknown"
    33. Re:Military the first one, huh? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

      Well, that's the thing. Part of the problem there was that the Americans were pumping all sorts of goodies at the bratty German kid. It took well into 1942 before they realised they were backing the wrong side and, as with so many alliances the US have been involved in since, they flip-flopped and started to come round to the idea that maybe these *weren't* the good guys after all.

      Once the US had bought some important technologies from Britain (like, aero engines that didn't totally suck - the US has never made a good engine) and effective radio equipment, then they were able to help quite a lot. They sure as hell didn't "win the war" by themselves, though. They very nearly lost it utterly.

  6. Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do they have a bunch of "Space Marines" ready to jump out of the trunk of the Space Shuttle, like in Moonraker? Or are they working on "Space Warrior Robot Soldiers?" . . . definitely more geekier!

    Will our first contact with Alien Life be with military space drones? That ought to work out nice: "Oh, the Alien Military Drones' way of saying they like you, is to bite your Military Space Drone in the ankle!"

    Well, I guess I won't have to worry about such contacts happening in my lifetime. Unless we figure out how to surf those faster-than-light-neutrinos.

    Or maybe . . . "they" know how to do it?

    "Alien Charlie does surf!"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by guttentag · · Score: 3, Informative

      OK, I'll bite.

      We're not talking about Buzz Lightyear, Space Ranger.

      USAF Space Command is responsible for military satellites that support other commands. For a while, it was also responsible for intercontinental ballistic missiles (Anyone remember War Games? Or Spies Like Us? "Do you know what those things can do? Suck the paint off your house and give your family a permanent orange afro." Space Command was responsible for "those things" that the 1980s believed would bring about the end of the world.), but in recent years traded that responsibility for "cyber operations" (you know, the people who are watching the Chinese who are reading your email).

    2. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, right, deep space radar... Maybe Kepler-22b doesn't have a Stargate?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Who does the "USAF Space Command" command? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, from watching the declassified space documentary, "Stargate SG-1" they command a moderate size fleet of intergalactic-capable starships integrated with alien technology. They also regularly travel to other planets using an ancient alien device that creates wormholes.

  7. Jill Tarter by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 5, Informative

    I ran into Ms Tarter (the director of SETI) at the Oakland airport a few years ago and recognized her from her numerous bits of SETI branded gear she had.

    I was very pleased to find that she was both passionate and intelligent, as well as very pragmatic. We had the chance to talk for over and hour before the flight left and discussed many of the things that are interesting about the whole project.

    I certainly consider myself lucky to have seen a part of that and heard it first hand.

    1. Re:Jill Tarter by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but did she look like

      According to Google image search, a young Jodi Foster.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  8. Habitable Zone.... by mlauzon · · Score: 2

    The funny thing is, just because our planet supports life in this so-called 'habitable zone', doesn't mean life cannot thrive outside of this zone, until we actually have interstellar travel we'll never know for sure!

    --
    Michael
    http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
    1. Re:Habitable Zone.... by Rennt · · Score: 2

      Of course - but it is still smarter to start looking in places where we know life can exist then it is to start with all the places that we don't.

    2. Re:Habitable Zone.... by Rennt · · Score: 2

      We are also far more likely to want to trade/compete/fight/have sex with 'habitable zone' aliens.

  9. Explore, conquer, colonize. by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Explore, conquer, colonize. We are humans. Resistance is futile.

    There's intelligent life on our planet, and we are happily killing it into extinction for our own expansion. Looking at the way we behave at our own planet, I think it is extremely likely that we would inhabit every planet we can reach if it is inhabitable. And then take over sooner or later, with or without a struggle.

    It's in the line of expectations that the military get involved early on. Humans have never explored anything unarmed.

    1. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pacifism is great and all that, but it only works if the other guy does NOT want to kill you.
      Now if you're dealing with a psychopath, hungry carnivore, mugger, hostile alien warriors, etc, pacifism will only get you the short end of the stick, often followed by a funeral - if they can find enough of you to bury.

    2. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by migla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Blame natural evolution or god for creating us that way.

      Nah. Obviously, any human action depends on god/evolution to allow it, but often "blame" should lie more directly on for example culture/ideas than on the underlying plumbing that facilitates them.

      In this case of violent human exploration it is true that genes are probably pretty directly involved as the humans explore in states of fear and greed, but ideas and culture is still a bigger factor, and also the one we can do something about.

      While we have the capacity for violence and feelings of fear, anger, revenge and greed, we are also capable to marvel and feel sympathy, to be righteous and to share. The higher plane of ideas and culture is where we can work, building on a foundation of the genetics of a social, loving animal and overcoming the scared greedy brute within.

      So, no, don't blame god or evolution, even if they're visibly present in the state of things, because also the malleable ideas and culture of fear, greed and ruthlessness are there, shaping the order of things at least as much. Ideas and culture we can work on more readily.

      Don't surrender to what is hardwired. Work around it in the software.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    3. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pacifism is great and all that, but it only works if the other guy does NOT want to kill you.
      Now if you're dealing with a psychopath, hungry carnivore, mugger, hostile alien warriors, etc, pacifism will only get you the short end of the stick, often followed by a funeral - if they can find enough of you to bury.

      The best and safest way to deal with a psychopath is therapy or medical treatment.
      Many hungry carnivores will not consider you a prey unless you act like one.
      Muggers usually don't want to kill you unless you resist.
      Hostile alien warriors are fictional and are best dealt with without using violence unless Don Quixote is your role model.

      In all examples you gave, violence leads to a scenario where you are the most likely to end up dead.
      On those occations where violence would work you are already in a position where don't have anything to fear to begin with.

    4. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by meglon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, if they've figured out how to efficiently travel between stars, i'd lay money that no weapons we have are going to do a damn thing to them. These movies where the backwoods hicks with a hunting rifle take down the interplanetary killing machine is just about the biggest grasp at unbelievable as possible.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    5. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

      And WTF would we do against an alien civilization with technology so far ahead of ours that they are able to cross interstellar space to come here? Are you kidding me? There would not be any fight, there would not be a war. We don't even have the technology to leave this planet! We can't even retreat! If the aliens wanted to wipe us out, it would not be War of the Worlds, it would be an extermination. Literally the only thing we can do is hope that this doesn't happen and that any potential advanced life forms have progressed far enough as a society that they wouldn't want to kill us; which I think is honestly more likely the case anyway. I think a civilization that would have those tendencies (like, you know, ours) would wipe itself out way before going interstellar. The reasoning for this is simple; the vast amounts of energy required for interstellar travel could also be used to make weapons that would instantly destroy the species. All it takes is one psychopath/mistake/any other reason. It would likely take a rather peaceful society to make it past this stage (which is consequently, while we won't). Even if they are just kind of jerks, there is very little that they could want from us. Slave labor/food? With the technology they have, both of those concerns would likely be irrelevant. Resources? The Earth has nothing that can't be found in greater quantities elsewhere. The only thing we would really have to worry about is if they just wanted to kill us for fun, at which point we might as well not worry about it.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    6. Re:Explore, conquer, colonize. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      These movies where the backwoods hicks with a hunting rifle take down the interplanetary killing machine is just about the biggest grasp at unbelievable as possible.

      We have nuclear missiles and smart bombs, but lose soldiers to dumb little IEDs.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  10. Re:Space Situational Awareness? by captainpanic · · Score: 2

    Of course.

    But from the military's point of view, you cannot declare War on Asteroids, but you can declare War on Aliens. So, it's way more useful to find the aliens than to find the asteroids.

  11. Situational awareness? by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Funny
    Before I read that the array was going to be used by the Air Force for non-SETI purposes (something not made apparent by the summary), my thought was: "The planet is 600 light years away. Let's say we detect radio signals from Kepler-22b. That means we know that on a planet 3 quadrillion miles away, some species used radio signals 600 years ago. That's not exactly situational awareness..."

    I imagined a conversation about "situational awareness" during the Iraq war going something like this:

    General: So, what's the situation?
    Advisor: Sir! In the 15th century, the Aztecs defeated Azcapotzalco, sir!
    General: Excellent!

    1. Re:Situational awareness? by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just to make clear: The Air Force does not want to check Kepler 22b. Here's what they want:

      AFSPC, through the Space Innovation and Development Center (SIDC), is currently researching the possible use of the ATA to augment the already extensive sensors of the Space Surveillance Network, potentially leveraging the array to help increase space situational awareness. Initial demonstrations show promise for the ATA to track transmitting satellites in Low Earth Orbit, Medium Earth Orbit and, most promising, in Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO), which is home to the most costly, highly-utilized, and vital satellites that orbit the earth. A collision and subsequent debris field in GEO could permanently remove the GEO belt from worldwide use.

  12. In other news... by muckracer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple quietly got a grant from the U.S. Air Force Space Command to develop a virus for 'space-craft defensive measures'...

    1. Re:In other news... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Also a patent on rectangular solar panels with straight sides.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  13. HAnd how will they know that ? by aepervius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    kepler 22 is ~600 LY away. At the best case even if we were sending a message today , they would not receive is at roughly christmas 2611 and even at average 20% c speed their ship would not be there before many millennium, to find either a highly advanced civilization, or barbarian from a fallen society. How would they *divine* that it was sent by our military ? Would they even *CARE* that some folk military 600 LY away has their panty in a knot ? And we are not even sending a message, as far as I can read we are only checking.

    Anyway the article make it clear that space command seems to be more interested into mundane stuff.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:HAnd how will they know that ? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have it backwards, yet correct. We're only looking at them, so what we will see is how they were 600 years ago.

      If they looked our way today, they would have front-row seats to the rise of the Ottoman empire.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:HAnd how will they know that ? by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Funny

      If they looked our way today, they would have front-row seats to the rise of the Ottoman empire.

      Front row seats? If I had front row tickets to a concert, and they seated me 600 light years away, I'd be pissed. Unless it was a Disaster Area concert. Or Justin Bieber.

  14. Re:Finally! by dintech · · Score: 4, Funny

    You'll end up just as jaded as you are here on Earth. All I see is Orange, Greenette, Purplehead...

  15. This is not as batcrap crazy as it sounds. by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Fermi paradox isn't just a cute bit of philosophy. Our galaxy should be teeming with life. We live on prime real estate, the Thrints should have colonised it back in the Cambrian.

    So either we're unique (inconceivable), ~8.8 billion years isn't long enough for any other species anywhere in the Milky Way to have kicked off colonisation (improbable), or something is silencing them (merely unlikely and scary).

    Maybe we should take a look at that third possibility, and take a good hard look around rather than shouting "Here we are! Hey, over here, life!" into the void. Paranoid? Yes, but we're gambling the species on it, and the costs are essentially pocket lint.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  16. Re:Oblig. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    We may finally achieve the dreams of our ancient ancestors, who gazed up at the stars and thought, "I wonder if there are any bangable chicks up there?"

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  17. Re:UFO by Phrogman · · Score: 2

    My all-time favourite TV show when I was a kid. To be honest I think it could actually be remade in the modern day as one of the new-fangled "gritty" TV shows as was done with Battlestar Galactica. If HBO did it we would get to see the moon-chicks in the nude on a regular basis :P

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  18. Tracking GPS satellites, not aliens by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry to disappoint, but TFS is way off. (So unusual for slashdot...) Actual information is here.

    "Space situational awareness" is not Colonel O'Neil looking out for an invading alien fleet. It means tracking satellites and space debris to avoid collisions. The USAF is renting the SETI array to track GPS satellites.

  19. Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson by GregC63 · · Score: 2

    Mr. President, we must not allow a habitable exoplanet gap...

  20. Re:Hold your horses. by tophermeyer · · Score: 2

    Also, assuming we don't have FTL travel, they would need to have a lot of oil to justify the 1200+ year trip

    Yes. Not only oil, It's hard to imagine any natural resource being so valuable that it justifies the trip. Unless we find some super efficient energy source that allows us to zoom around the galaxy like they do on Star Trek, acquiring resources will likely never be worth the effort.

  21. Re:So that evidence can be suppressed... by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Shut up and think.

    Finding an Alien race would be a fucking blank check to do what needs to be done to get more information.

    It's like the chuckle heads who think NASA as secret information about aliens.

    It makes no sense. NASA find alien life, again, blank check.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect