29 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Well, yeah... 😄
 

See?  This guy understands! 😄

Hook

I don't have a problem with it, Apollo Rockets were cool, best thing about them, I didn't pay for them either 🤣

On 7/28/2025 at 10:41 PM, Matthew Kane said:

Reality is anyone out there advanced enough to send anything towards us is likely just sending probes,

 

Von Neuman self replicating probes. 

On 7/28/2025 at 11:39 PM, Fielder said:

It's now been 103 years since organized searches on Earth for extraterrestrial life began. Search tools have grown very much more powerful during those decades. All these almost countless experiments so far are negative. Such life has not been found.

 

We've actually found many planets in the goldilocks zone that could potentially harbor life. Our ability to analyze the atmospheres of those planets in order to detect gases associated with life, is in its infancy. However, a recent study of an exoplanet called K2-18b detected potential biosignatures in its atmosphere. 

14 hours ago, LHookins said:

Communication across interstellar distances could conceivably be done using quantum entanglement.  Einstein's "spooky action at a distance."  Flip a bit here, and a corresponding bit instantly flips on the other end at another star without regard to the speed of light.

 

Nope, sorry, not according to our current understanding. It cant be used to transmit information faster than light. 

It is interesting that astronomers have yet to find a planetary system that looks anything like our own solar system. That may or may not be significant, but it does start to point towards the possibility that stable and well ordered planetary systems like ours could be extremely rare.

Edited July 30, 2025Jul 30 by Christopher Low

10 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

For me sending someone to Mars is also ridiculous when we are currently developing AI, Robots and Drones on a scale never seen before, those are what you send to Mars not people (as we already have been doing). Machines don't have physical or mental health issues and are getting far more advanced to do the job, but we will send people as impractical as that is because our arrogance dictates that is the objective

 

There's more to it than that. Ask any geologist if they are satisfied with data from a remote probe or if they would prefer boots on the ground, and they will say the latter. Probes have limitations, human beings can act spontaneously and creatively. There are political reasons too, that we aren't allowed to debate. There's aslo the concept of not having our eggs in one basket, in order to avoid the inevitable existential threats we are and will face. 

5 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

We didn't go back to the moon either because it was never economically viable, but we did go there just to say we could do it

 

Youve heard of Artemis, yes? And Lunar Starship? Landing is supposed to be 2027.... but yes, we can add a few years to that I reckon. Starship seems to be a bit behind schedule. 

4 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

It is interesting that astronomers have yet to find a planetary system that looks anything like our own solar system. That may or may not be significant, but it does start to point towards the possibility that stable and well ordered planetary systems like ours could be extremely rare.

With about 100 billion stars in the milky way, even if this phenomen we have on earth at 1 in a billion, that still leaves 100 others like us, but I think we are more likely a 1 in a million so that leaves a lot more life out there

1 minute ago, martin-w said:

 

Youve heard of Artemis, yes? And Lunar Starship? Landing is supposed to be 2027.... but yes, we can add a few years to that I reckon. Starship seems to be a bit behind schedule. 

Yes I nearly bought a model of that rocket. Artemis isn't going back because it's practical, it is going as a trail run for Mars.

My view on this has already been said. Mars Rover was a good solution, with the advances in AI and Drones etc, at this point we can do much better then we did with the Rover, that is the logical path. But lets put boots in that planet instead 🤣

1 minute ago, Matthew Kane said:

but I think we are more likely a 1 in a million so that leaves a lot more life out there

 

Simple life appeared as soon as this planet cooled, so seems easy. Complex technological life, us, took one third of the age of the universe, so seems very hard. 

Something to think about. 

So yes, technological live may be very rare, it would also have to coincide with us temporally in that 13.8 billion years of the universes existence. 

But who knows, we only have life on our own planet to go by, a sample size of one. 

19 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

But lets put boots in that planet instead 🤣

 

As I said, there's more to it. When Starship is perfected, routine trips to mars to bring back resources and transfer people and cargo becomes a reality. Especially with nuclear electric and nuclear thermal propulsion in development. Trip time is a mere 45 days. With humans existing in various locations around the solar system we ensure our species long term survival. 

 

Quote

The United States and China are engaged in a new space race, with both nations aiming to return humans to the Moon and eventually reach Mars. While the US has a head start due to its past Apollo missions, China has made significant advancements in space technology and is rapidly closing the gap. Both countries are pursuing ambitious lunar and Martian exploration programs, with the US focusing on the Artemis program and China developing its own lunar base plans. The competition is not just about scientific exploration but also about national prestige, resource acquisition, and potential military advantages in space. 

 

Edited July 30, 2025Jul 30 by martin-w

Maybe all of the thinking here is too "3 demensional".  Could our visitors be very close? 🛸

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

It is interesting that astronomers have yet to find a planetary system that looks anything like our own solar system. That may or may not be significant, but it does start to point towards the possibility that stable and well ordered planetary systems like ours could be extremely rare.

Hmmm....I think they've found several so far.

Here's an example, 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67488931#:~:text=Researchers have located "the perfect,in the scientific journal%2C Nature.&text=The creation of our own,couldn't be more different.&text=Not only are the planets,for the last two planets

We've really only just begun to detect planets. We didn't have tge technology until recently and what we candetect is fairly limited to being 'near' us.

On 7/30/2025 at 5:36 AM, charliearon said:

Maybe all of the thinking here is too "3 dimensional".  Could our visitors be very close? 🛸

I wasn't sure I understood this when I first read it, but since then I've seen a video or two speculating that visitors might be from a higher dimension.  I thought this is what you meant, but wasn't sure enough to respond.  I first encountered this idea in some non-fiction work from the late 60's.  And no, not chemically enhanced stuff, either. 😄 

If an object that is obviously there suddenly disappears, rather than flying off, it could indicate a visitor leaving our 3D space.  We would see it get smaller and smaller, possibly changing shape, then gone.

Again, consult Mr. A. Square of Flatland.

Hook

You nailed it HooK! 😉 Hoping my post wasn't too awfully vague!