Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: How Could We Actually Detect an Alien Invasion From Outer Space?

First time accepted submitter defiant.challenged writes As I was watching another sci-fi blockbuster about aliens wanting to harvest the life stock population on earth for their energy since we are such a robust species, I was wondering how likely and easy/difficult it would be currently to actually detect an outer space invasion (fleet). I am a firm believer that if we would be invaded, we would not stand a chance and would probably not even hit a single ship when it comes to fighting them. The aliens in the movie had the capability to space-jump right into our solar system and even very close to earth. My question is how good are we at the moment in detecting an alien ship/fleet that jumps into our solar system. Do we have radio dishes around the globe such that we can detect objects in space in all longitude and latitude degrees? I know we have dishes pointing to the skies but how far can they reach? Do we have blindspots perhaps on the poles? I also wonder if our current means, ie radio signals, are relatively easy to be compromised with our current stealth technology? To formulate it in more sci-fi terms, how large is our outer space detection grid, and what kind of time window can they give us?

64 of 576 comments (clear)

  1. maybe we should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Email Elon, see what he thinks.

  2. Sweet F A by bloodhawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any race advanced enough to travel here to invade will have capabilities way beyond anything we could hope to combat or detect. I would imagine the first sign you would have would be if you were one of the lucky ones to see half the world wiped out a few seconds before you yourself were removed from this mortal realm.

    1. Re:Sweet F A by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just because the hypothetical aliens are ahead of us in some respects (e.g. the ability to practically travel across interstellar distances) it does not necessarily follow that they would be ahead of us in all others. For instance, consider Harry Turtledove's short story The Road Not Taken which is based around a premise that humanity overlooked a blindingly simple technique for manipulating gravity that put our technological development onto a completely different track than the invaders of the story.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:Sweet F A by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While that is a nice hopeful story, and while I suppose ANYTHING is possible...

      It isn't very probable...

      Besides, even if they were at our level of technology, if they have starships, then they have nuclear weapons. They don't have to invade, they can simple drop rocks or nukes on us to accomplish the same thing, and there wouldn't be anything we could do about it...

      Unless of course, someone had a Mac laptop and was a cable repair man! :)

    3. Re:Sweet F A by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Interesting

      it's highly unlikely that space travel can be accomplished without huge amounts of EM radiation.

      Why? Why is it unlikely? We have really no idea how to travel faster than light, like so many things, I suspect it is something we haven't even thought of... like how silly airplanes looked, until they actually flew and pretty fast they didn't look anything like the silly 19th century attempts to fly.

      What was missing was power, lots of power, in a lightweight package.

      Even once we had airplanes, you have only a lifetime from 1903 to 1969, yet people in 1903 couldn't have dreamed of what the Saturn V would look like or how it would work.

      It is not rational to assume that unknown technology means godlike abilities.

      Nonsense, sure it does...

      I am quite sure that if you went back 500 years and took modern technology with you, it would look quite "godlike" to those people.

      If we can detect exoplanets, what makes you think that we wouldn't be able to detect alien ships?

      For one thing, the planets are in one place, stay in one place (well, in orbit) for a long time, they aren't trying to avoid detection, and they are really big. They also have an effect on something even bigger that is its own light source, a star.

      Starships fit none of those parameters. Even more, we aren't even looking for starships and if we were, we don't know what to look for. We DO know what to look for when it comes to stars and planets.

    4. Re:Sweet F A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because the hypothetical aliens are ahead of us in some respects (e.g. the ability to practically travel across interstellar distances) it does not necessarily follow that they would be ahead of us in all others.

      Uh, yes, it absolutely does. If they have mastered interstellar travel, then then there is no way that they will be behind us in any other aspect.

      On the positive side, this also probably means that they'd have nothing to gain by coming here or killing us off.

    5. Re:Sweet F A by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The better analogy would be near-earth objects. Even still, they stay in (sort of) fixed orbits, generally close to the orbital plane of the planets, and don't try to avoid detection. Yet we're nonetheless pretty terrible at detecting "ship-sized" NEOs. If by "ship-sized" one means "aircraft carrier-sized", odds are better than not that it wouldn't be spotted until it was within the orbit of the moon. If we're talking "space shuttle sized", it probably wouldn't be spotted until it got near LEO.

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    6. Re:Sweet F A by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But a space-jumping fleet of invading space aliens is? Did you even read the summary?

      Actually, it is very probable indeed... just not HERE!

      Space is big, really big, unbelievably big... Odds are, somewhere out there, "space-jumping fleet of invading space aliens" DOES exist. Odds of them being ANYWHERE NEAR HERE? Almost zero.

      Two separate points. :D

    7. Re:Sweet F A by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      That is a good point, and near-earth objects such as asteroids and comets aren't actually trying to avoid being detected.

      Could WWII RADAR detect a modern Stealth Bomber?

      Why do we think anything we have could detect a starship that has its "stealth systems" on? (whatever they might be)

    8. Re:Sweet F A by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The short story "Invasion from Aldebaran" by Stanislaw Lem pictures a very advanced race with lots of means to hide their presence or to seamlessly adapt to the environment they are landing in.

      The invasion starts in a forest near a small polish village, and the aliens transform into local people they just saw passing by, thus totally hiding their alien presence. But then they meet a drunkard, who bears a grudge against one of the people they have turned into anyway. Their biogenic attack weapons (a swarm of insect-like stitching and poisoning robots) turn back because they can't get through the ethylalcohol cloud surrounding the prospective victim, and the drunkard gets agitated because they aliens don't really react when he yells at them. Their weapon detecting device doesn't warn about the knag lying wayside, and the drunkard takes it and hits them on the head, while they still try to get their translation device to decipher the messages he was mumbling at them - thus killing the aliens and fighting off the alien invasion.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:Sweet F A by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If physics doesn't allow for it, it doesn't allow for it anywhere. It doesn't matter how large the Universe happens to be.

    10. Re:Sweet F A by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a cute concept, but the simple fact is, if you have some simple technology for gravity control that can take a primitive society whizzing around the cosmos, then that primitive society wouldn't be using flintlocks for battle. Because if you control gravity to the point that you can hop some primitive ship in and out of gravity wells and move at relativistic speeds then you're controlling *vast* amounts of energy to do so. And there's no way such a species is going to only make use of this vast amount of energy in their spaceships but not their weapons - even if they're only kinetic impactors.

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
    11. Re:Sweet F A by war4peace · · Score: 4, Funny

      By the same logic, there's also a room of moneys with typewriters somewhere turning out all the great books

      Thanks to the Internet, we now know that's not true.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    12. Re:Sweet F A by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I like the novel approach that "Footfall" took: the aliens aren't very smart - their technology came from a predecessor species on their planet that had driven itself extinct. Everything they could do with technology came from ancient documents. So they came in with a tremendous technology advantage, but also an evolutionary disadvantage.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Sweet F A by stjobe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      people in 1903 couldn't have dreamed of what the Saturn V would look like or how it would work.

      Funny that you chose 1903 as your date, since that was the year Tsiolkovsky published The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices, wherein among other things were mentioned that escape velocity could be achieved with a multistage rocket fueled by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.

      So yes, at least one person in 1903 not only could have dreamt, but did dream and explicitly state how rockets like the Saturn V would look and work.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    14. Re:Sweet F A by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      if something isn't forbidden by the laws of physics ...

      FTL travel, or even FTL communication, is forbidden by the laws of physics. Light speed limitations lead to boring science fiction, so FTL travel is common in sci-fi, where starships travel at the speed of plot. But there is no evidence that it will ever be possible in reality, and plenty of evidence that it will not.

      The real alien threat is not a giant fleet of starships coming out of hyperspace, but a small probe filled with nanobots.

    15. Re:Sweet F A by sFurbo · · Score: 2

      FTL travel, or even FTL communication, is forbidden by the laws of physics.

      It's not strictly forbidden. However, FTL communication is equivalent to time travel in special relativity. This means that it breaks causality. Since we haven't observed any breaks in causality, and special relativity is an extremely well tested theory, we assume that FTL communication can not exist.

    16. Re:Sweet F A by msauve · · Score: 2

      I get the distinct feeling that this whole thread is a joke from The Big Bang Theory, and Sheldon is upset that someone is questioning his science fiction heroes.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    17. Re:Sweet F A by dywolf · · Score: 2

      So in your mind we know all there is to know about this?
      There is no room for further advancement?

      Guess we better tell all the physics researchers they're no longer needed.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    18. Re:Sweet F A by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      The probability is much greater that, before that roomful of monkeys turns out its first Shakespeare play, it will produce parseable statements in Perl. At that point, anything can happen.

    19. Re:Sweet F A by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

      The second point is not really relevant, given that the thought experiment is about our ability to detect something that was invading us. If they are invading us, then they have found us.

      So you now have to explain 2 discrepancies in technology. 1) They are sufficiently advanced to have found us. 2) They are sufficiently advanced to get to us.

      The more you add to the list of things they would have to have in order to invade us, the less and less likely they are missing the things required to eliminate us undetected. For example, you would have a hard time explaining how they can move their fleet across the vast void of space, but can't move a sufficient number of asteroids from an asteroid belt to populous locations on Earth's surface.

      This is why I dislike most alien invasion movies.

    20. Re:Sweet F A by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Except, if they are that advanced they likely wouldn't even bother. We would be far more likely to not even see it as an invasion, hell they wouldn't even see it as an invasion.....no more than we see it as an invasion when we bleach the toilet.

      If anything we are far more likely to have them giving us their version of the smallpox infested blankets.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    21. Re:Sweet F A by dywolf · · Score: 2

      Necessity is the mother of invention, the saying goes.
      But even more accurately:
      -Innovation is a result of necessity of some form or other.
      -Continued use of innovation is also a result of continued necessity.

      Suppose they have a physiology similar to hydra or certain jellyfish, where they have the capability to regenerate completely, or in the case of hydra, actual re-order their cells back into a recognizable organism after being blended into a soup. Such a species could easily have a reduced or non-existent reliance on and knowledge of medicine.

      Or suppose they have learned how to incorporate symbiotic bacteria into their tissues that generate energy for them? We have such creatures on our own planet, that don't need to eat because they have learned how to photosynthesize, or incorporate other critters that do it for them, into their bodies. Such a species wouldn't need food, and would likely have little or no knowledge of food production, agriculture, etc. Such a species could even have once had that knowledge, but after eliminating their world hunger and food shortages by incorporating such things into their bodies, lost that knowledge as they no longer needed it.

      So in short, your statement includes some really big assumptions about the incoming invaders.
      They could easily be more advanced in some ways, yet behind or regressed in others.

      We see such things even in our own species history, and its one reason we even have the phrase (or its variants) "what's old is new again", as certain techniques, knowledge, or ideas become outdated due to progress, but then later rediscovered.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    22. Re:Sweet F A by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I am quite sure that if you went back 500 years and took modern technology with you, it would look quite "godlike" to those people."

      Don't behead me until your sailors have seen this! A little box, which I carry around with me everywhere, that knows its own position to within mere feet! All I do is press this button, tap right here, and --

      Oh, wait --

    23. Re:Sweet F A by dywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even once we had airplanes, you have only a lifetime from 1903 to 1969, yet people in 1903 couldn't have dreamed of what the Saturn V would look like or how it would work.

      In 1969 there were people still alive who were born in 1860.
      Even one who was born in 1858.
      Granted only a couple were in the US (and the recorded 1858 individual was in the UK).

      But it is so freaking cool, that in their lifetime humanity saw:
      -the first transcontinental railroad and mass adoption of trains globally (1863)
      -the American Civil War, and other wars around the world
      -the height of the Age of Sail, and then its end
      -the rise of the steamship
      -the rise of the automobile
      -the rise of the airplane
      -the shrinking of the world, and the end of the blank spaces on the map
      -the rise of nuclear energy
      -the rise of the League of Nations, and then the United Nations and the first real attempts at global diplomacy in place of war (and a reduction in large scale conflict; albeit with a shift to the Cold War)
      -the emergence of computers
      -and finally yes, the Saturn V rocket, and a man landing on the moon

      That is so FREAKING COOL, all that happened in those persons' lifetimes.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    24. Re:Sweet F A by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually travelling faster than light isn't really forbidden. What's impossible is accelerating to or past light speed. (Your mass will increase infinitely as you accelerate requiring an infinite amount of fuel.) However, you could theoretically start faster than light. The equations lead to an imaginary number which leads to some debate as to what that means. Interestingly, if you were going faster than light, you'd encounter the same effects (divided by the square root of -1) slowing down to light speed that we encounter speeding up to light speed. However, you could reduce those effects by travelling even faster.

      We haven't detected anything travelling faster than light, but that could just be a limitation of our detection capabilities rather than a limitation of the Universe.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    25. Re:Sweet F A by leonardluen · · Score: 2

      given either enough time or distance anything not specifically prohibited by the laws of physics is happening somewhere.

      if the universe were something like 10^10^100 light years across then there would be an exact duplicate of "you" somewhere in it. because there are only so many configurations and quantum states that a specific volume of space can take.

      granted we don't believe our universe is that large, only i think about 10^26 light years., but given a universe that is large enough then some seemingly unlikely things could be happening in it somewhere.

    26. Re:Sweet F A by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      You speak as if you live in a reality where there can be an objective third party point of view, and where physics has some kind of existence outside human imagination. How 19th century quaint.

      The Copenhagen interpretation is the best we've got since the upsets by Heisenberg et al.. To whit: physics is our best imaginary model of what the Universe might be like. That's not only as good as it gets, by the very nature of things that's as good as it can ever get. There is no objective reality. It is all in your head.

      Which is not to say that you cannot shape your imagination so that it is congruent with (but still separate from) somew of what is actually out there. Leading to things like the Apollo project, the Manhattan project, etc.

      "I can't believe I used to think that what I thought was happening was really going on." --The Sugar Beats

      --
      Will
    27. Re:Sweet F A by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      Parent post presents a reasonable argument. But the argument depends on an unstated assumption that cannot be verified and is most likely not true. The assumption being that our observational skills are so highly developed that we would recognize a break in causality if we saw it.

      On every scale from the dark matter/energy that makes galaxies the way they are to the mysteries of quantum foam, there are a multitude of indications that we really are not very good observers. For if we were, there would be a lot fewer oddities that the science teachers kick into the corner and tell the students to ignore them.

      --
      Will
    28. Re:Sweet F A by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Keyboard mashing can produce word patterns. If someone is mashing a keyboard and accidentally mashes "t" and "h", there is no magical force in the universe which quickly checks an English dictionary and stops the masher from mashing any button which would create a word ("the", for example). That's the thing about infinity - it makes the massively unlikely infinitely more likely. As long as something is not impossible, if attempted an infinite number of times, it is possible that it will happen.

      But the universe isn't infinite. Infinity is a mathematical concept, not a description of reality.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    29. Re:Sweet F A by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was a time in the development of the universe where space and time itself essesntially expanded faster than the speed of light. It is pretty widely accepted physics. But this inflationary period after the big bang wasn't technically "faster" than light travel, because the definition of "faster" was bound up in the expansion of space and time. (If the space-time I am standing in expands, am I "moving"?) So, there is a physical process where matter and energy do something like faster than light travel, but not really. I imagine we could better understand this inflationary process and exploit it in the future to do something that isn't technically "travel". Many things that have been impossible in the past are now possible (space travel). But many things that were impossible in the past remaln impossible (FTL travel). We don't know what the future science will be. So it is best to keep an open mind and not assume anything one way or another, with a bias towards "I won't believe your claims until you demonstrate them to skeptical physicists who subsequently change their minds. Currently, no reputable physicist believes inflation makes faster than light travel possible.Experimental results, or it didn't happen."

      --
      Join the IParty!
    30. Re:Sweet F A by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

      Your monkeys are deficient in randomness.

      Of course truly random monkeys would contain many random mutations many of which are not going to be viable, which means that room no matter that it is infinitely big, is going to be full of the stench of dead, decaying monkey flesh. The whole damn metaphor stinks.

      --
      Will
    31. Re:Sweet F A by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      I understood that, what I am saying is that the chance is not infinitesimal, it is 100% improbable because keyboard mashing *is not random* it is the product of hitting the keyboard in a particular manner that looks random and may be 99.9999999999999999999999999999% similar to random, but that is no-where near close enough. It is not random because a monkey is not a random number generator it will follow certain rules in order to mash and none of the finite number of patterns those rules will equate to anything substantial.

      But if you start with the premise that the keyboard mashing is perfectly random then yes, infinite monkeys will write books.

      You seem to be assuming that these are real monkeys. They aren't, any more than Schrodinger's cat was real.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re:Sweet F A by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

      FTL travel, or even FTL communication, is forbidden by the laws of physics.

      There is nothing in physical law that forbids FTL travel or communication. There is simply no known mechanism to achieve it, and some people choose to add it as a postulate to physical law.

      Light speed limitations lead to boring science fiction, so FTL travel is common in sci-fi, where starships travel at the speed of plot.

      Numerous science fiction stories are based on STL interstellar travel. It makes for quite interesting science fiction, actually.

      The real alien threat is not a giant fleet of starships coming out of hyperspace, but a small probe filled with nanobots.

      Once you have that kind of nanotech, you can cross interstellar distances even with STL travel and large fleets, because issues of lifespans become moot.

    33. Re:Sweet F A by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      Well if they're not real then they can't write books can they.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    34. Re:Sweet F A by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Entangled photons do not transmit information. Assume two states, A and B, such that a pair of entangled photons, when measured, will have one in state A and one in state B.

      Any modification to the state of one photon breaks the entanglement. The Earth observer can find that his photon is in state A, and therefore knows that the Pluto photon must be state B, but that doesn't pass information, since the Pluto observer knows only that its photon is in state B.

      Let's take an analogy that's not too horribly wrong. Take a red card and a black card, and put them into two envelopes. Separate the envelopes. Whoever opens the envelope and gets a red card knows instantly that the other envelope has a black card, and vice versa. So far, no communication. Now, suppose that somebody opens the envelope, removes the existing card, and puts a red card in. This doesn't affect the envelope with the other card at all.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:Sweet F A by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance could be used as to communicate.

      No it can't. Although entangled particles can interact, you cannot use the channel to communicate. Any "message" sent looks like random noise. It is only when you compare it after-the-fact that you can see the FTL influence.

      It is like you have two perfect random number generators, and you can switch from one RNG to the other, and have the change happen instantly light years away. But on the other end, they just see a continuous stream of random numbers. If you can latter look at the stream of numbers, you can see that the switch happened at faster than light speed, but no useful information was communicated.

    36. Re:Sweet F A by fisted · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, because the people at the end points can't control what they measure their entangled particles to be. There's no information transmitted in the process, all you get to do is:
      1. Measure the entangled property, say, the spin, on Earth.
      2. Be like: Wow, on Pluto that must've given <opposite property>.

  3. Just nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do you expect any other answer than "we would be fucked"?

  4. Would it matter? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Informative

    Frankly, any aliens able to travel here from another world are so far ahead of us, it wouldn't make any difference if we detected them or not.

    However, you asked the question... so...

    Our space detection system is largely aimed at Earth. For example, to warn of us of ICBM launches the first system put into space was called MIDAS between 1960 and 1966.

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

    The GPS satellites have nuclear detonation detectors, which doesn't do any good, but it another example of how our systems are aimed at Earth.

    All the stuff pointed out into space, like the Hubble Space Telescope, are designed to see VERY far away and aren't looking for ships. Given the small likely size of any ships compared to planets and moons, we aren't likely to be able to see them even if we're looking for them, until they are on top of us.

    After all, we still don't have a telescope that can see the moon landing sights. Pictures taken from sats in lunar orbit have gotten some pictures, but they aren't as good as you'd expect.

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

    This is the best image I could find of Apollo 11's landing site, and this was after the LRO was moved into a lower orbit:

    http://featured-sites.lroc.asu...

    Yea, you can tell what it is, because you know what you're looking at, but if you didn't even know where to look? You could stare at the moon for a month with such a camera and see nothing.

    --

    TL;DR - We likely would have no notice whatsoever of aliens until they entered orbit of Earth, and even then, it is just as likely to be a random person with a telescope who spots them as anyone from the government.

    Unless of course they can be seen with the naked eye, if their ships are big enough and they are in low orbit, that is possible.

    1. Re:Would it matter? by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      Imagine the US Military of today decided to invade Europe of Napoleon's era.

      Would their "old" technology do them a lick of good when a thousand M1 tanks rolled across the field at them? What about when Predator drones are flying overhead launching missiles at their supply depots behind the lines?

      Perhaps their bow and arrows will be effective against the modern artillery and mortars of modern warfare?

      ---

      Instead perhaps we are "closer" to the aliens, so lets move forward to World War I, it is 1916, armies in Europe are locked on the Western Front, unable to make any headway either way.

      The modern US military shows up with all the above items...

      How long would the Germans last?

      Reverse the roles, modern 21st century German army is transported back to 1916, how long would the British and French have lasted against the Leopard II tanks and Tornado fighter-bombers?

      ---

      It is silly to think that anything that we have would do anything at all to a civilization able to travel the stars.

    2. Re:Would it matter? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      > Would their "old" technology do them a lick of good when a thousand M1 tanks rolled across the field at them? What about when Predator drones are flying overhead launching missiles at their supply depots behind the lines?

      Just like the US military in Iraq, right? Or the British, Russian, and now US armies in Afghanistan for the last 150 years? Or both Napoleon and Hitler invading Moscow? While a thousand armored vehicles would flatten any native standing army any interstellar military force has _incredibly_ long supply lines. If transportation and communications are cheap and quick, and the invader's resources large enough, natives can be conquered quickly and thoroughly. But if the supply lines are long, slow, and expensive as we've seen in Terran warfare, we've seen amazing feats of local defenders against invading armies.

      If the natives weapons have _any_ effect, home turf advantage and guerrilla warfare are well established and critical factors. One of the critical keys to warfare is the _economics_. Is it worth the resources to commit the invasion justified by the gain? And at interstellar ranges, what does the supply line cost?

    3. Re:Would it matter? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Economics.

      Good archery takes more training, more equipment, and the equipment is much more fragile. A javelin can last for thousands of training uses, sit in a closet or in an armory for decades, and still work perfectly. A bow is much more difficult to make and maintain, much more fragile, and the ammunition is much less durable for training.

  5. Outside Context Problem by Dynamoo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's the case of the "Outside Context Problem" as described by the late, great Iain M Banks [via]

    ------

    The usual example given to illustrate an Outside Context Problem was imagining you were a tribe on a largish, fertile island; you'd tamed the land, invented the wheel or writing or whatever, the neighbors were cooperative or enslaved but at any rate peaceful and you were busy raising temples to yourself with all the excess productive capacity you had, you were in a position of near-absolute power and control which your hallowed ancestors could hardly have dreamed of and the whole situation was just running along nicely like a canoe on wet grass... when suddenly this bristling lump of iron appears sailless and trailing steam in the bay and these guys carrying long funny-looking sticks come ashore and announce you've just been discovered, you're all subjects of the Emperor now, he's keen on presents called tax and these bright-eyed holy men would like a word with your priests.

    Banks goes on to note that most civilisations tend to encounter an Outside Context Problem only once, at the point where that particular civilisation ends or is subsumed into the more powerful one. (Incidentally this is also the title of a series of eBooks by Christopher Nuttall which are satisfyingly geeky.)

    Of course, there are plenty of fictional examples of invasion, I guess ranging from the barely-competent aliens in Niven & Pournelle's "Footfall" (who were easily detected) and the almost-Gods of Arthur C Clarke's "Childhood's End" who basically just turned up without warning. It's too varied a field to come up with an idea of how we could detect them.

    --
    Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
  6. Re:Samsung will know. by spamchang · · Score: 2, Funny

    If Sony knows, then North Korea will be the first to know!

  7. Re:You can't. by Hadlock · · Score: 2

    They still have to match orbital velocity on the same ecliptic, even at 0.1c they would show up from a long ways away. There's no "stealth" in space, plain and simple. Spaceships produce too much everything, heat, radiation, gas etc.
     
    Orbital insertion would be pretty obvious as well, even at the L1 behind the moon we would notice them coming in.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  8. Human by AndyCanfield · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I once had two ducks. I wondered what I looked like to my ducks. I decided that I look like a duck. All the extra powers that make me more than a duck - speech, thinking, telphones, etc. - are beyond the duck's imagination. To a duck, I look like a duck.

    Then I wondered what an alian would look like to me, a human. I decided that an alien would look just like another human. So I began to wonder what advanced characteristics I couild watch out for. Successful businessman, good luck, healthy long life, mysterious origin, that sort of thing.

    I found one. At the time he was my boss. He pretends to be Chinese, but hey, what westerner really knows what Chinese people look like?

    They have landed already; and they are friendly. I was friendly to my ducks, and that Chinese family is friendly to me.

    1. Re:Human by gewalker · · Score: 5, Funny

      And if that Chinese family serves you Peking Duck what would you then conclude?

    2. Re:Human by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then I wondered what an alian would look like to me, a human. I decided that an alien would look just like another human. So I began to wonder what advanced characteristics I couild watch out for. Successful businessman, good luck, healthy long life, mysterious origin, that sort of thing.

      The best example individual that fits, is Elon Musk. The guy is ridiculously successful, but that is merely a means to his alien ends, which seem to be: to go back to his home planet. He needs processing power, so he funds high tech development, then sells it when it's sufficiently advanced so he can focus on developping the battery tech that he will also need later on, etc. Repeat the cycle until he gets the effective rocket / spaceship / dimensional portal tech required to get back home.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    3. Re:Human by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 2

      It's "The Man Who Fell to Earth", after the novel by the same name.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  9. Re:The question is utterly stupid... by Horus1664 · · Score: 2

    I don't think the question is stupid. Dismissing it out of hand seems more so.

    1. Asking questions such as this, where we have limited information, often spawns interesting approaches to solving them

    2. Any method for detecting 'unwanted visitors' may also be effective in detecting unintelligent (but still unwanted) visitors like significant lumps of fast moving rock which if unencumbered may cause an extinction event

    3. It is an opportunity to involve people across national, political, tribal and ethnic divides in pursuit of something important to all of us.

    (I'm sure there are many more advantages to at least contemplating what our civilisation could do in this 'hypothetical' situation but this lot should do for demonstrating that the question is at least worth asking...)

  10. We'd probably detect an invading fleet quite early by Henriok · · Score: 2

    We actually have quite many detectors pointing in every direction and these are for detecting different kinds of interesting stuff. Gamma rays, radio, gravity waves, neutrinos, asteroids, and so forth. There are satellites and ground based detectors to make sure that there is essentially no blind spot, not even behind the Moon or the Sun, and the detectors are very very sensitive. These are all automatic and will report anomalies quite fast. Most of these are even linked to other detectors that would try to capture events in another medium. For instance, when we detect a gamma day burst, we want to detect it in optical and gravity as soon as possible. We also have an army of amateur astronomers with very good telescopes (with wide fields of view) trying to hunt asteroids, comets, and by all means.. aliens too (we've found none yet, in case you were wondering). So, in an event of an alien fleet would suddenly appear in our solar system, I'd guess that such an agent would register as an anomaly in all kinds of different detectors, and turn pretty much the world's eyes towards it within hours. Astronomers are very keen of detecting new and strange phenomena. I think the alien technology would be pretty advanced to cloak it from detection in such different mediums as broad spectrum electro magnetic (gamma, optical and radio), neutrino and gravity. I think such technology would have to be so utterly alien that we probably would detect an innovation, even in progress.. we might already be invaded and exploited. And what would be the point of fending off such innovation, if we wouldn't even take notice of it?

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
  11. Re:You can't. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

    They still have to match orbital velocity on the same ecliptic, even at 0.1c they would show up from a long ways away. There's no "stealth" in space, plain and simple. Spaceships produce too much everything, heat, radiation, gas etc.

    Orbital insertion would be pretty obvious as well, even at the L1 behind the moon we would notice them coming in.

    We would? You mean like we notice all those asteroids flying by that we get a few days notice of, or sometimes get notice of AFTER they have passed us?

    What makes you think there is no stealth in space? Anyone who can come up with a FTL drive likely can come up with stealth in space.

    How does it work? I haven't a clue, but I don't know how FTL works either, just like someone from 400 years ago couldn't tell you how a modern turbofan engine works.

  12. Re:Detection window? by Rei · · Score: 2

    My thoughts exactly. The environments we've physically checked so far are:

    Earth: High degree of confidence that there is life here.
    Moon: A couple spots on the surface, moderate degree of confidence that there is no life there. Surface in general, low degree of confidence, based only on comparing the few places we've checked with how the geology looks from orbit, with no data from many types of terrain. Elsewhere: no degree of confidence.
    Mars: Same.
    Elsewhere in the solar system: no degree of confidence (no other probes to other bodies have returned samples or returned data that would allow us to have any sort of confidence in determining whether life was present or not)
    Elsewhere in the universe: no degree of confidence.

    Many people gladly make assumptions about where life would or wouldn't be, but that's of course highly anthropocentric. "We need water, a solid rocky surface, a low radiation environment, temperatures in the 273-330 kelvin range, and these building blocks..." - you have no idea what you actually need, you have a sample size of "1". That's why people obsess over, say, Europa, despite us having absolutely zero evidence that there's any sort of life there. Heck, the best direct evidence currently on hand for life outside of Earth is probably Titan's "acetylene / ethane, hydrogen, and methane problem" (acetylene and ethane seem to be highly deficient at the surface compared to what should be there; there's some evidence that hydrogen may be disappearing at the surface; and Titan's methane persistence over geological times has long baffled; before the data on acetylene, ethane, and hydrogen was even known, it had been theorized that any life on Titan would most likely metabolize acetylene and ethane with hydrogen into methane). Plus, we know that there's extensive organic chemistry making all kinds of complex CHN "building blocks" in the upper atmosphere. But any life on Titan would have to be utterly different than LAWKI to survive the radically different environment.

    --
    We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
  13. Why should they invade earth? by m.alessandrini · · Score: 2

    To me the best argument against an invasion is this (not mine, of course): with all the incredible technology they would have, they would find what they need in millions best places in the galaxy. Why should they chose one little planet among billions ones, and just the rare one that's hosting life? Unless they are sadist and enjoy killing living beings, of course, but that would be a too much expensive hobby even for them, I guess...

  14. Sigh by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

    We have problems spotting and tracking 1km-long rocks in space beyond the Earth's orbit. We literally get taken by surprise by large rocks and their orbits all the time, whizzing around our solar system without us knowing they're there.

    We're also not looking for those kinds of things, as such. A ship of some description able to sense us from afar and come into the system probably wouldn't jump in at the third planet out by default. They'd probably jump in off-axis, far away, and we'd be hard pushed to spot anything of space ship size (http://io9.com/nasa-spots-a-po...

    That wasn't spotted for ages, discovered only in 2013, when it was only 10 times the moon's distance away (nearly a Mars distance). It was spotted only by something looking for near-earth objects and only because it looked like its natural trajectory may bring it close to Earth in the next 100 or so years. It's 650 metres long, orbits every three years and could weigh tens or hundreds of thousands of tons.

    We can't see this kind of stuff. The angles and chances are just too small and anything that settles into a natural orbit is basically indistinguishable from a rock. It wouldn't take much for something to jump in just outside the outer planets and settle, say, a Saturn distance away, probably off-axis (hiding in-axis may well give shadows etc. that give it away and we likely look at the planets and other things in our axis more than elsewhere) and we'd never spot it. Never. If we did, we'd think it was a rock.

    From there, a basic telescope (or a pair of binoculars) would be able to light us up like a Christmas tree, show us to be particularly interesting, and a simple radio antenna would be able to prove that their was life on here, while at the same time being basically invisible to us without even trying.

    Any civilisation with a 1km intra-system space-ship capability likely has much better tech than a $200 telescope and a satellite dish connected to a radio scanner, They'd know we were here, and be able to observe us for centuries, long before we ever would know they were there - and we'd probably NOT know they were anything other than a rock.

    The distances are too immense, the angles involved far too tiny once you get out past the moon, and there's just too much stuff moving about if you have a sensitive instrument. Hell, we don't even reliably know what everything in EARTH ORBIT is, let alone trying to go out to even a Moon-distance or Mars-distance or Neptune-distance.

    Basically, we would never know. The only way to get to the point we would know would be to colonise enough of the solar systems to provide mapping and triangulation of the entire space in-between, And even then, you probably could still hide if you were at all careful.

  15. How did the American Indians detect the Europeans? by tlambert · · Score: 2

    How did the American Indians detect the Europeans?

    I suggest we *not* do that...

    Also how did the Poles detect the Mongols?

    Let's *not* do that, either...

  16. Re:You can't. by duck_rifted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, that doesn't make any sense, and I'd like a citation to that theory. Something is stealthed if you don't see it. To not see it requires no more than not looking at it. It is certainly allowable by the laws of physics that we don't look at something.

    In fact, to suggest an old theory that says stealth of any kind is impossible not only imagines a theory that doesn't exist, but it violates the very principles of empiricism, thereby undermining the entirety of Physics with every other science to follow.

  17. Today In: by buddyglass · · Score: 2

    "Things Only Slashdot (and maybe io9) Readers Worry About".

  18. I'm not doing your homework by portwojc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nice try advanced scout party. You slipped through but I doubt the armada will fair as well.

  19. Calvin said it best by TTL0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."

    --
    Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
  20. Re:Detection window? by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 2

    Life is pretty rare in the Universe Source? I'd be shocked if we didn't find life in the oceans of Jupiter's moons, if we ever bothered to go there.

    Direct observation. Anything other than evidence based science is just you daydreaming. Besides, even if life was found elsewhere in this solar system that wouldn't be enough to change the general premise that life is pretty rare in the Universe. When all is said and done, as of 2015, life has only been observed on one planet, in one system, in one galaxy in the entirety of the Universe. You can't even point to evidence of past civilizations. But I guess it's only been 14 billion years give or take. Give them some time. They'll show. In all honesty though, if life was as common as you assert then shouldn't we see colonies and ships by now? It'd only take 1 civilization to decide to colonize our galaxy. Mathematically, they could have done it in 50 million years without FTL travel. So where are they?

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
  21. Re:You can't. by petes_PoV · · Score: 2

    be glad that they're invading when they should simply destroy the entire solar system instead

    If these aliens were intent on destroying us, they'd simply drop something large, fast and nasty into the sun and cause some sort of X-Ray eruption. Since there is a massive nuclear reactor so close, it would be silly not to leverage that to your goals. No need for ships or an invading force.

    So we can assume that if aliens did arrive here, our destruction would not be their goal. They might, for example, just be neighbours popping over to ask politely if we'd mind turning down our electromagnetic emissions: TV, radar, etc.

    If domination / subjugation / removal of humans to make way for their own settlers was their intent, then there's no reason to expect it would have to be done quickly. It could be a centuries long process. And, again, climate control or sunlight restriction would be a straightforward approach that would cause little permanent damage and wouldn't involve their actual presence in our system.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  22. When they post on Slashdot... by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    Any race advanced enough to travel here to invade will have capabilities way beyond anything we could hope to combat or detect. I would imagine the first sign you would have would be if you were one of the lucky ones to see half the world wiped out a few seconds before you yourself were removed from this mortal realm.

    Well, I think when they start posting on slashdot asking about the possibility of detection, that's a pretty good first sign.