Slashdot Mirror


SETI Running Out of Money

New submitter opusman writes "According to an Australian space analyst, SETI is running out of money. Despite needing only $2 million a year, a relatively small amount in space industry terms, they are facing a financial crisis. From the article: 'Getting on board a spacecraft is tricky. There are few places for professional astronauts. Even when Richard Branson and a group of other visionaries makes space tourism more affordable, it will still cost huge sums to fly. But getting a foothold in the greatest quest of all can be done for just a few tens of donated dollars. Which is why it beggars belief that the SETI quest is on its knees.'"

28 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. That's sad. by multicoregeneral · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like they need a Kickstart project.

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:That's sad. by josephtd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or more of the slashdot readers that claim to support their efforts to pony up.

    2. Re:That's sad. by vriemeister · · Score: 5, Informative

      Googling SETI donate gave the first link:
      https://www.teamseti.org/donate

      SETI just isn't in the public consciousness as much as it used to be. Kickstarter or getting Justin Beiber to <3 aliens would definately be helpful.

    3. Re:That's sad. by SETIGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's important to distinguish between the SETI Insitute, an organization that does some SETI (but also does a lot of biology, geology, planetary science and bioastronomy), from SETI the discipline. Most people who do SETI do not work at the SETI Institute.

    4. Re:That's sad. by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Funny

      No need for that. All they need to do is update the SETI@Home client (BOINC) to also mine for Bitcoins.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    5. Re:That's sad. by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Citation please- gravity is limited by C the same as light is, as far as I'm aware. C is the universal speed limit for all types of matter and information, not just light. Yes, the Earth is attracted to the Sun by gravity as it was 8 minutes ago. This does not cause Earth to fly off into space- for Earth's purposes, there has always been a Sun 8 minutes ago around which to orbit.

      Faster than light communication is as firmly in the realm of sci-fi/fantasy as is faster than light travel, I'm afraid. Until someone comes up with a sensible theory for another method of communication, we might as well pin our hopes on the EM spectrum.

    6. Re:That's sad. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We at present do not have the means of sending or receiving an intelligent signal by means of gravity, which of by necessity would have to be ALMOST infinitely fast.

      No.

      If gravity were FTL, it would be pretty obvious, since then the Sun would appear to be in a different direction than the Sun's gravity.

      Alas, all the experimentation to date shows that gravity is pulling Earth directly toward that big light in the sky, NOT toward where that big light was eight and a fraction minutes ago....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  2. I Want to Believe. (not) by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like Fox Mulder I became cynical. He and I no longer believe in alien visitors. So no more donations.
    Deceive
    Inveigle
    Obfuscate
    BELIEVE THE LIE

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  3. Not now by Hentes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's quite sad that this happens now, when with the recent discoveries in exoplanets SETI could have actual targets for the first time instead of trying to find a needle in a haystack.

  4. Make Paul Allen fund it by rockout · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He started it, he could donate 40 years' worth of new budget and never even feel it.

    --
    I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    1. Re:Make Paul Allen fund it by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Make someone else do it. Always the solution, eh?

      Few have the resources to donate $2M to a project, so pretty much any solution anyone comes up with on here is going to rely on other people for the bulk of the funding.

      However, Paul Allen's net worth is $14B. So, comparing him to an above average person with a $500K net worth, if Paul Allen donated $2M to the cause, it would be equivalent to the $500K net worth guy donating $71.

      If someone told me that I could fund the project for a year by kicking in $75, I'd do it. If they told me that me and 26,000 of my friends had to come up with $75 each, well, I'd be a less likely to donate.

  5. Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most people believe SETI to be pointless at this stage. We have a better grasp of the probabilities involved, and the odds are very high that SETI will never find anything, even if there are 100 other equivalent civilizations to ours within 100 light years.

    1. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah... I actually feel embarrased now that back in the late 90s, I actualy signed up for and used SETI@Home for a brief period of time. As the years have gone by, the service has just begun to seem like more and more of a joke. I don't even remember what year it was I came to the conclusion that it *was* pretty much a joke... maybe 2004-2008? Of course, I haven't touched SETI@Home since the late 90s, though, but the more I hear about it the worse it sounds. Over the years, I have also gone from wondering "does any other intelligent lifeform exist" to a more skeptical viewpoint, that it's all bullshit and made up by morons who have nothing better to do that spout bullshit.

      Good riddance SETI.

    2. Re:Pointless by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah... I actually feel embarrased now that back in the late 90s, I actualy signed up for and used SETI@Home for a brief period of time. As the years have gone by, the service has just begun to seem like more and more of a joke. I don't even remember what year it was I came to the conclusion that it *was* pretty much a joke... maybe 2004-2008? Of course, I haven't touched SETI@Home since the late 90s, though, but the more I hear about it the worse it sounds. Over the years, I have also gone from wondering "does any other intelligent lifeform exist" to a more skeptical viewpoint, that it's all bullshit and made up by morons who have nothing better to do that spout bullshit.

      Good riddance SETI.

      I did roughly the same, and agree with your conclusion. Folks should just let the dying dog die. There are (many) vastly superior space related projects underway that might actually have interesting or useful results someday. Moreover, it's a project that encourages people to consume as much electricity as their computers are capable of. At scale, I bet SETI produces more carbon output than most coal power plants.

      Good riddance, SETI.

    3. Re:Pointless by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Informative

      So using that as a basis for comparison, seti@home is consuming 1,432,500 watts per second.

      No, it isn't--a "watt per second" is a nonsensical unit. The watt is already a rate of energy consumption, equal to a joule per second.

      Based on data provided by the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html ) which reports carbon output as 6.8956 x 10-4 metric tons CO2 / kWh, seti is producing 3,556 metric tons of CO2 per second!

      No, no, no. A kWh (kilowatt hour) is an amount of energy equivalent to drawing one kilowatt (one thousand watts) continuously for one hour: one thousand joules per second, times 3600 seconds per hour, gives 3.6 million joules per hour in one kWh. For comparison, one kilowatt is the amount of electricity drawn by roughly fifteen incandescent light bulbs, or by one smallish toaster. The average U.S. household uses on the order of 1000 kWh per month.

      Using your estimate of 1,432,500 watts - 1432.5 kilowatts, trivially equivalent to 1432.5 kWh per hour - for the power draw for SETI@home, we get a consumption of 0.398 kWh per second. Using your figure of 6.89E-4 tons CO2 / kWh, that comes to 0.000274 tons per second, or about 274 grams (a little over half a pound -not three thousand tons - per second). In total it comes to about a ton of CO2 per day.

      That's not a negligible amount of CO2. It comes out to the equivalent of the electricity use of about a thousand U.S. homes. (Note that that doesn't include household CO2 contributions from other sources, particularly fossil fuels burned for home heating, water heating, clothes drying, and transportation.) But it's also not an egregiously large amount of electricity--the U.S. has, what, a hundred million households?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  6. Tough times by addie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm a supporter of SETI in principle, though I can't say I've ever supported it materially (other than a brief run at SETI@home when I was in university). Unfortunately I think it's simply a matter of priorities during economic downturn.

    Up here in Canada, we have a program that also costs $2 million a year - the Experimental Lakes Area research station - and it's getting its funding cut by the federal government. It's upsetting to me, as I see valid science being disregarded in the name of fiscal responsibility.

    That aside, the SETI program is likely to run, in one form or another, for the entirety of human existence. It may get shut down periodically, but this is not a question that's going to go away. Ever. Perhaps when our collective economies rejig themselves to be less focused on growth and more on sustainability, we can find room for a relatively cheap, pure science initiative. Until then, either donate directly to those initiatives you find appealing, or take whatever action you can at the ballot box. Or both, if you're feeling less apathetic than most of us!

  7. Well, if they DO find intelligent life . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    . . . the intelligent life will probably NOT want anything to do with us anyway.

    They'll just avoid us, like tourists not stopping in a bad neighborhood.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  8. Maybe it has to do with results? by joeflies · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The money spent on space programs produce measurable, visible results. It also has milestones to show whether a project is on track, off track, or slipping.

    For someone to support SETI, on the other hand, has to have faith that maybe tomorrow will lead to results and all those years spent waiting for something to happen wasn't lost opportunity cost.

    Donating to SETI is perhaps more closely modeled on charity for religion rather than vis a vis to other space programs.

  9. I'd much rather fund nasa by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The seti project was always a bit silly.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  10. Re:"Beggars Belief"? by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can put my hard-earned money towards:
    a) Fusion research, which might work in 30 years, or
    b) SETI, which will NEVER find ET.

    Guess where I'm putting my money.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  11. Re:I Want to Believe. (not) by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > gigahertz and terahertz frequencies

    Or something else entirely. Look at our own communications, which are rapidly switching to all-digital. Unless you know how the digital is encoded/modulated/carried, all you're going to hear is random noise. And who says aliens use anything like we do?

    I postulate that a technical civilization would only stick with radio for approximately 100-200 years before moving to something better -- and something that we probably don't even know how to listen to. When measured against just the age of our local group, that's very narrow odds.

    Be better to spend the money actually GOING to the stars than just listening to them, in my opinion. :)

    --
    Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
  12. Re:I Want to Believe. (not) by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question is not will all alien species use radio, neither is it a question about the relative benefits of going to the stars vs listening to them, the cost of going to the stars is currently around infinity, which means if we could afford to go to the stars we could afford to finance the seti project and still have enough money go to the stars.

    The question is this: is it worthwhile spending 2 million per year listening for radio signals from other stars. I think it is, as 2 million is such an insignificant amount of money in terms of humanity's resources. We probably spend that each day on cocktail umbrellas.

  13. Re:I Want to Believe. (not) by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless you know how the digital is encoded/modulated/carried, all you're going to hear is random noise. And who says aliens use anything like we do?

    you miss the point entirely.

    it's not that we expect to overhear their personal or broadcast communications so much, but rather it's about listening for "hello, here we are" broadcasts or even directed transmissions. we can now locate habitable planets. such messages obviously wouldn't be encrypted, and would necessarily be something very simple that would have a high chance of being understood by completely alien species with different thought patterns, senses, and levels of technology.

    for inspiration, check out the pioneer plaque,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque

    that attempts to describe our location in the galaxy. or, the voyager golden record,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

    showing mathematical and physical quantities, the solar system and its planets, DNA, and human anatomy and reproduction.

  14. Re:I Want to Believe. (not) by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Be better to spend the money actually GOING to the stars than just listening to them, in my opinion. :)

    The Mars rovers including all mission extensions have cost almost a billion dollars and lasted less than ten years, so say $100 million/year. Shutting down SETI would then give you 2% of a Mars rover, want to make a guess at how infinitesimally small it'd be of an interstellar space ship? Not that we have the foggiest idea on how to build one... Space is absurdly big, Voyager 1 is 35 years out but less than 1/1000th of the way to the nearest star. Unless somebody is about to invent the warp drive, the only realistic chance of discovering alien life in the next 100 years - possibly next 1000 years - is to build huge, huge optical and radio telescopes, find earth-like exoplanets and ping them.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  15. priorities by ridgecritter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Stories like this contribute to my growing generalized cynicism and pessimism. I have no connection to SETI, but it seems to me like an honest, modest effort at discovery which could change humanity's perspective forever - one way or the other. And it's starving for funds that represent less than the annual property tax bills of Larry Ellison, Steve Ballmer, and Bill Gates on their homes. To me, this is a bright red flashing light on the societal annunciator panel that something's wrong with our priorities. If I had a $10 million net worth, I'd include $10K to SETI in my annual donation program. As it is, it will be much less. I hope that those of you who can do more, will. Thanks.

  16. Re:I Want to Believe. (not) by cerberusti · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your example says absolutely nothing about violation of causality due to a change in the maximum speed at which information can propagate. You are either describing a situation in which there is improper time coordination, or you are assuming time travelling signals to start with.

    While there are no known methods by which information can propagate faster than light...

    If something were to be discovered which could do this it would not necessarily violate causality, it would merely prove that relativity is either incorrect or incomplete (even if it were to allow instantaneous travel to any point in the universe, and the new maximum speed is therefore infinite.)

    In order to violate causality you would need to be able to receive a message you sent before you sent it.

    Instant propagation of information would likely allow a universal clock across all space, and you could coordinate time by that. You would need to adjust for the faster travel time if you are synchronizing your clock based on the speed of light, but it would be trivial to do that anyway.

    Under relativity it is undefined what would happen if you could travel faster than light, as the theory does not allow this. It is basically not usable in this case, and trying to do so would be foolish (it simply does not cover what you want to do, and you obviously have information that Einstein did not when he came up with it if you are communicating FTL.)

    If I could send this post beyond the edge of the known universe and back with zero travel time I still cannot read it before it is written, and causality remains very much intact.

    The only thing that would change is that if you are three light hours away, I could get a message to you three hours before an electromagnetic signal would be capable of. We would be able to converse in real time instead of with the delay, nothing else.

    If you could produce the post I just wrote before I wrote it, you would have a causality violation. No rate of travel allows this, no matter how large it is.

    I am not sure why this is so hard for many people to understand.

    --
    I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
  17. Re:I Want to Believe. (not) by Calydor · · Score: 5, Funny

    human anatomy and reproduction.

    So our first message to the rest of the universe is porn. Gotcha.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  18. Re:I Want to Believe. (not) by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not going to check, but I think I've already replied to you elsewhere.

    No, I'm afraid gravity propagates at C, which is the same as the maximum speed of light. If the Sun randomly vanished, no effect from that would reach us for 8 minutes- Earth would continue to orbit around the spot where the Sun had been for 8 minutes before the change in the gravitational field reached us. In Relativity, there are no cheats to get around C- it is the maximum speed for any form of matter, energy or information to travel, full stop.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity