So what if we do find Earth's twin?

votefornimitz · Jun 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The chances of two alien races making contact where they are more or less evenly technologically matched is a googleplex to one. (Or at least a google to one, which is still quite alot.) You envision their ray-gun being different from ours but of the same destructive power, get real. All you have to do is look at the history of our own planet to observe-not infer or deduce, but plainly observe- that this is astronomically impossible. Look at the Natives of the Western Hemisphere when encountering the Europeans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. You've been watching too much Star Trek the Next Generation or something. <br /> Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>Or not...</p><p>This is based on alot of assumptions, which goes with the nature of the thread, so I don't think I am too out of line in what I am saying...</p><p>Your Googleplex to one and google to one numbers are obviously contrivances, or your using incredibly skewed values in your manipulation of the Drake Equation. </p><p> As for the ray guns, you can look at history all you want, I'd rather look at physics, where eventually, weaponry is going to evolve to a point where it just becomes a matter of getting so many joules on a target it gets destroyed. I don't care what your flying, if I get enough joules on your craft, you are going down. So yes, there will be disparities in efficacy, but not power between two alien species weaponry. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="color:#993366">In the event of a full scale nuclear war or NEO impact event, there are two categories of underground shelters available to the public, distinguished by depth underground: bunkers and graves...</span> </div>

derekmcd · Jun 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What then?  Say we find a planet, and confirm that it is almost exactly like ours.  What would the world's nations need to do?  Is it even possible to go it alone, or only those with the will?  What about all of our differences?  Does this all need to come to fruition before we can even think about branching out? Keep in mind for discussion purposes that, it would be confirmed that we found another Earth like planet.  The distance is imaterial at this point, but for the sake of argument, lets say it was within 100 light years.. Discuss! Tim- <br /> Posted by Hicup</DIV></p><p>Considering it took the technological resources of an entire nation just to get us to the Moon, I've always assumed it would take the technological resources of the all nations to get us out of the Solar system.  Probably material resources as well.  But it will only happen if the will of the masses allow for it.  The only way that happens is if the people don't have to worry about nations competing against each other for resources and pride.</p><p>Look at what it is taking for us to accomplish a space station.</p><p>Another thing that I find a bit amusing, should we find a habitable earth twin... If we decide to send out a generation ship to make the journey, they probably won't be the first to reach Earth 2.  Their journey will probably take so long that technological advances here on Earth will allow for a bigger, faster, better ship that will pass them up.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

danhezee · Jun 25, 2008

<font size="2">How close of a twin are we talking about?  Venus is very close to our twin.  If earth didnt have life it would have a CO2 atmosphere and be a too hot to support life as we know it.  I personally think if we found a twin (same size and same atmosphere) 100 light years away, we wouldnt go out of our way to colonize it.  I think we will terraform everything in between the Earth and that twin before we decided to colonize it.  I am of the mindset that people want to stay as close to the mother planet as possible and would rather convert the closest planets first and then slowly crawl further and further away. </font><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Jun 25, 2008

<p><font color="#800080">Considering it took the technological resources of an entire nation just to get us to the Moon, I've always assumed it would take the technological resources of the all nations to get us out of the Solar system.  Probably material resources as well.  But it will only happen if the will of the masses allow for it.  The only way that happens is if the people don't have to worry about nations competing against each other for resources and pride.Look at what it is taking for us to accomplish a space station.Another thing that I find a bit amusing, should we find a habitable earth twin... If we decide to send out a generation ship to make the journey, they probably won't be the first to reach Earth 2.  Their journey will probably take so long that technological advances here on Earth will allow for a bigger, faster, better ship that will pass them up. Posted by derekmcd</font></p><p>Good point where ISS is concerned. When we went to the moon, we had the resources and will. With ISS, we have the resource including money. We lack the will. However, one reason IMO, is that we haven't really found anything in space that would capture public imagination on a large scale.</p><p>If we could not only find, but universally confirm an earth two, right down to spectrographic evidence for life...I'd be willing to bet we would also find that will that has been missing. Imagine its 1964 and the Mariner probe that dispelled the Lowell version of mars (Except to Hoaglanders) actually imaged cities.</p><p>Apollo 11 would have been a dress rehearsal for an eventual human landing which might have occured by the originally planned date of 1982. Of course, for an extrasolar world, it would take much longer...even at an accellerated rate...to develop interstellar travel capability for going to this earth 2.</p><p>There is another side to the generational ship thing. If we send them and they work well enough, we might not  develop faster craft soon enough to overtake any of the genships except those setting off for extreme destinations. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

qso1 · Jun 25, 2008

<p><font color="#800080">How close of a twin are we talking about?  Venus is very close to our twin.  If earth didnt have life it would have a CO2 atmosphere and be a too hot to support life as we know it.  I personally think if we found a twin (same size and same atmosphere) 100 light years away, we wouldnt go out of our way to colonize it.  I think we will terraform everything in between the Earth and that twin before we decided to colonize it.  I am of the mindset that people want to stay as close to the mother planet as possible and would rather convert the closest planets first and then slowly crawl further and further away. Posted by danhezee</font></p><p>At our current level of detection technology...if its a rock...its earthlike. But as we go on finding extrasolar planets and one day imaging them. The definition of earthlike will naturally narrow down. I generally already consider an earth twin to be a planet thats not only a rock, but is basically a planet where there is plentiful life and humans could go and exist without life support.</p><p>A place where the first humans could go and be the first to breath alien air. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

derekmcd · Jun 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is another side to the generational ship thing. If we send them and they work well enough, we might not  develop faster craft soon enough to overtake any of the genships except those setting off for extreme destinations.  <br /> Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p>Why wouldn't we?  500 years after the first launch, I would assume our natural tendency for technological growth would facilitate the desire to develop something better.  Even 500 years might be enough to allow for such a fundemental breakthrough, it would be silly not to take advantage of it.  Say the difference between an Orion type drive versus a matter/antimatter reaction drive. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

tampaDreamer · Jun 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What then?  Say we find a planet, and confirm that it is almost exactly like ours.  What would the world's nations need to do?  Is it even possible to go it alone, or only those with the will?  What about all of our differences?  Does this all need to come to fruition before we can even think about branching out? Keep in mind for discussion purposes that, it would be confirmed that we found another Earth like planet.  The distance is imaterial at this point, but for the sake of argument, lets say it was within 100 light years.. Discuss! Tim- <br />Posted by Hicup</DIV><br /><br />1. Listen</p><p>2. Broadcast a signal</p><p>3. Robotic Probe -- Obviously this would be pretty much beyond our technology at this point, but maybe in 100 years we'll have the capability to send off a probe on a 200 year mission to reach this spot and broadcast back what it finds.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

silylene old · Jun 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well. THAT really sucks. While I was posting a really long reply, the thread got moved and my work is lost. Oh well. Not gonna type it all again.  <br />Posted by dragon04</DIV></p><p>Ouch.  You got PLUCKED.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

schmack · Jun 25, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yea but being friendly allows them time to mobalize, study and adapt.      Once Mr. Alien-Magnon sees our cart goes better with a round thing on the bottem of it, it wont be long till hes using something similar with what looks to be reversed engineered guns of ours on top.  <br />Posted by neuvik</DIV><br /><br />No, i think that that's what WE would do if aliens invaded Earth in the present. But we would have to first do the studies discussed throughout this thread in order to find out just how the alien-magnon would re-act. If aliens really did land on earth way back in the stoneage, i think we would have viewed them as gods and with awe, i don't think we would have started trying to copy their tech for another few thousand years or more. Unless they gave the tech to us we would have been little to no threat at all. In fact if they (or we in this instance) chose to just ignore the existance of native inhabitants all together and setup camp on an un inhabited continent, then there would be no need at all to have contact with them, they wouldn't even know we were there. We could then monitor their technological progress and if we couldn't find a way to stunt it's growth or contain their forward movement, then we could decide what to do from there "war" wise. Either way, i think colonization would be a given and we as the curious, and industrial creatures we are, would not be able to help ourselves BUT to go and see what we could get out of the place for ourselves. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups</font> </font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ff0000">Gimme some Schmack Schmack!</font></p> </div>

qso1 · Jun 25, 2008

<p><font color="#800080">Why wouldn't we?  500 years after the first launch, I would assume our natural tendency for technological growth would facilitate the desire to develop something better.  Even 500 years might be enough to allow for such a fundemental breakthrough, it would be silly not to take advantage of it.  Say the difference between an Orion type drive versus a matter/antimatter reaction drive. Posted by derekmcd</font></p><p>Why wouldn't we? Because its a possibility.</p><p>Since we really don't know how the future will actually play out, what seems reasonable today might not actually occur tomorrow so anything is still possible. I would agree that eventually, faster starhips may become available but that would first depend on a breakthrough that would allow craft to get close to or exceed C. Assuming they do, then its just a matter of how long.</p><p>Will genships fly 500 years from now only to be overtaken 20 years later? Or will there be a gap of several centuries before much faster craft become available?</p><p>If all the theories about time dialation and relativistic theory proves true, whats the point of being able to go close to "C" or going FTL. Seems silly to me for human spaceflight critics to cling to the idea that cutting NASAs budget will improve education etc. But it still happens. So just because something seems silly, does not mean it wont happen. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

neuvik · Jun 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, i think that that's what WE would do if aliens invaded Earth in the present. But we would have to first do the studies discussed throughout this thread in order to find out just how the alien-magnon would re-act. If aliens really did land on earth way back in the stoneage, i think we would have viewed them as gods and with awe, i don't think we would have started trying to copy their tech for another few thousand years or more. Unless they gave the tech to us we would have been little to no threat at all. In fact if they (or we in this instance) chose to just ignore the existance of native inhabitants all together and setup camp on an un inhabited continent, then there would be no need at all to have contact with them, they wouldn't even know we were there. We could then monitor their technological progress and if we couldn't find a way to stunt it's growth or contain their forward movement, then we could decide what to do from there "war" wise. Either way, i think colonization would be a given and we as the curious, and industrial creatures we are, would not be able to help ourselves BUT to go and see what we could get out of the place for ourselves. <br /> Posted by schmack</DIV></p><p>Co-existance is a deadly gamble though.  Even if we keep our distance, they will continue to evole and their expansions will at some point stumble on to our settlements.  Trying to stunt their growth just bides them time; since we are not doing a full effort.  This creates a will for them to solves the problems we give them. </p><p> Presenting ourselves as gods, or them perciving us as gods will also have dire conclusions.   They will want miracles, cures, alms etc.   At some point they may become disgruntled.</p><p>Low profile observing ofcourse is needed in any situation prior to calling down the hammer.  Its just my philosophy that humans at some time, will screw up the relations with any intelligent xenomoprhs.  This would be exaserbated with infant colonies of ours; constant work of the colonist and the alien enviroment works against them.   We have to establish shelters, agriculture, and resource procurment, they could strike at any time and peoples minds will already be occupide with keeping themselves fed etc.    </p><p>So better that a military vanguard purges the planet prior to colonization.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Being friendly just leaves us open to be taken advantage of.   If we want the cuddly sci-fi story book enviroment were many species get along (exept for one evil race, whos' leader is usualy played by a British actor in an film event) we might as well just create one.    Expand our practices of biology and attempt to influence the evolution of earth species deemed most probably to show results.    Like dolphins or primates perhaps. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

nimbus · Jun 26, 2008

<p>"Presenting ourselves as gods"  is really a long-shot speculation.  We know little about brass tacks phsyics, nevermind the mindset of an alien "culture".</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Co-existance is a deadly gamble though.  Even if we keep our distance, they will continue to evole and their expansions will at some point stumble on to our settlements.  Trying to stunt their growth just bides them time; since we are not doing a full effort.  This creates a will for them to solves the problems we give them.  Presenting ourselves as gods, or them perciving us as gods will also have dire conclusions.   They will want miracles, cures, alms etc.   At some point they may become disgruntled.Low profile observing ofcourse is needed in any situation prior to calling down the hammer.  Its just my philosophy that humans at some time, will screw up the relations with any intelligent xenomoprhs.  This would be exaserbated with infant colonies of ours; constant work of the colonist and the alien enviroment works against them.   We have to establish shelters, agriculture, and resource procurment, they could strike at any time and peoples minds will already be occupide with keeping themselves fed etc.    So better that a military vanguard purges the planet prior to colonization.   Being friendly just leaves us open to be taken advantage of.   If we want the cuddly sci-fi story book enviroment were many species get along (exept for one evil race, whos' leader is usualy played by a British actor in an film event) we might as well just create one.    Expand our practices of biology and attempt to influence the evolution of earth species deemed most probably to show results.    Like dolphins or primates perhaps.   <br /> Posted by neuvik</DIV></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

neuvik · Jun 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Presenting ourselves as gods"  is really a long-shot speculation.  We know little about brass tacks phsyics, nevermind the mindset of an alien "culture". <br /> Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>Yes but anything is a possiblity hah.  They may not have that concept, but if they do and they see us as gods, well its a slippery slope hah. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

derekmcd · Jun 26, 2008

<p><strong>Why wouldn't we? Because its a possibility.  Since we really don't know how the future will actually play out, what seems reasonable today might not actually occur tomorrow so anything is still possible.</strong></p><p>What may or may not be possible doesn't change previous trends.  Throughout our history, we have built 'stuff' bigger, better, faster, stronger despite the current 'stuff' being sufficient for the job. </p><p><strong>I would agree that eventually, faster starhips may become available but that would first depend on a breakthrough that would allow craft to get close to or exceed C.</strong></p><p>I don't think such a huge leap approaching C would be necessary.  Just adding 5-10 percent is a huge leap in technology and would be worthwhile to send out a new craft. </p><p><strong>Assuming they do, then its just a matter of how long.Will genships fly 500 years from now only to be overtaken 20 years later? Or will there be a gap of several centuries before much faster craft become available?</strong></p><p>Considering our current technology and the length of time it would take to travel 100 light years, there would be plenty of time to make technological leaps. </p><p><strong>If all the theories about time dialation and relativistic theory proves true, whats the point of being able to go close to "C" or going FTL.</strong></p><p>There's no "IF"... relativisitic time dilation is real.  Traveling a speeds approaching C might not make a difference to those of us left behind, but there would be no doubt the astronaut aboard the spacecraft appreciates the reduction in travel time.  Space is harsh... the less travel time, the less chances for catastrophic failures.  </p><p><strong>Seems silly to me for human spaceflight critics to cling to the idea that cutting NASAs budget will improve education etc. But it still happens. So just because something seems silly, does not mean it wont happen.</strong>  </p><p>Odd analogy, but one I can't argue against.  How many bright minds would be lost if we never looked towards the sky. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

qso1 · Jun 26, 2008

<p><font color="#800080">What may or may not be possible doesn't change previous trends.  Throughout our history, we have built 'stuff' bigger, better, faster, stronger despite the current 'stuff' being sufficient for the job.</font></p><p>Not always. Look at fighter jest for example. It was once considered the faster the better and that was the trend until the 1970s and through the current time. Fighter jet top speeds were just over supersonic after the F-100 entered service. By the mid 1970s, the F-15, F-111, F14 were mach 2 aircraft. Today, the F-22...developed in the early 1990s...is a mach 2 aircraft.</p><p>In 1966, America, Russia and Europe were engaged in an SST race. The commercial SuperSonic Transport hailed as the next big advance in jet transport. Seemed logical enough when one considers the time business people loose in air travel. But instead of the mach 2.7 2707 entering service. The 747 took air travel into a different direction.</p><p>The 747 could be seen as you see it. That is, it was clearly bigger and better...but not faster.</p><p>For human spaceflight, the trends are even harder to actually define because of the purpose of certain vehicles does not always lend itself to just bigger better faster.</p><p><font color="#800080">I don't think such a huge leap approaching C would be necessary.  Just adding 5-10 percent is a huge leap in technology and would be worthwhile to send out a new craft.</font></p><p>To me, a huge leap in the ability to approach C would be necessary. For one thing a starship that can go only 10 percent faster than its predecessor is highly unlikely to beat its predecessor to a given destination. The other reason is relativistic theories. Why bother approaching the speed of light if the crew returns to earth 300 years after they left due to time dilation?</p><p><font color="#800080">Considering our current technology and the length of time it would take to travel 100 light years, there would be plenty of time to make technological leaps.</font></p><p>Assuming current technology at the time a genship departs, continues at an accellerated rate as it did the early part of the second half of the 20th century. Too many variables to know for certain and I'm not one to totally write off an idea so I'm not trying to say a faster ship wont ever be built and overtake a genship...I'm just saying it might not happen.</p><p><font color="#800080">There's no "IF"... relativisitic time dilation is real.  Traveling a speeds approaching C might not make a difference to those of us left behind, but there would be no doubt the astronaut aboard the spacecraft appreciates the reduction in travel time.  Space is harsh... the less travel time, the less chances for catastrophic failures.</font></p><p>I always leave open possibilities such as maybe we will one day exceed "C" even though current science says we wont. But assuming time dialation is an absolute proven reality. It reinforces my point. Sure the astronauts want less travel time...assuming we are doing no better at mitigating living conditions on spacecraft than we are now.</p><p>The speed factor would be great for those of us who might want to know what its like at Alpha Centauri within our lifetime of preferrably much sooner. But the oddities present in time dilation seem to me to negate any advantage brought by being able to approach or exceed "C".</p><p><font color="#800080">Odd analogy, but one I can't argue against.  How many bright minds would be lost if we never looked towards the sky.</font></p><p>My odd analogy reflects current attitudes towards spaceflight which probably will be far different by the time were capable of interstellar travel. Especially if were in the midst of the kind of rapid tech change we saw from the 1940s to the 70s. I'm not going to say that what your suggesting could never happen because clearly it could. But were witnessing a slowdown in our advancement towards the stars that indicate the possibility that we might not see a much faster starship developed just because it is much faster.</p><p>If anything, knowing what your saying...If I were in charge in say...the year 2149...I'd say skip the slow genship stuff altogether and go directly to the faster craft. Especially if were talking huge distances like 100 ly or more. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

derekmcd · Jun 26, 2008

<p><strong>Not always. Look at fighter jest for example. It was once considered the faster the better and that was the trend until the 1970s and through the current time. Fighter jet top speeds were just over supersonic after the F-100 entered service. By the mid 1970s, the F-15, F-111, F14 were mach 2 aircraft. Today, the F-22...developed in the early 1990s...is a mach 2 aircraft.In 1966, America, Russia and Europe were engaged in an SST race. The commercial SuperSonic Transport hailed as the next big advance in jet transport. Seemed logical enough when one considers the time business people loose in air travel. But instead of the mach 2.7 2707 entering service. The 747 took air travel into a different direction.The 747 could be seen as you see it. That is, it was clearly bigger and better...but not faster.</strong></p><p>I'll try not to derail the thread here, but to say that I'm talking about human nature's overall tendancy to improve stuff whether it be through a survival mechanism, convenience, efficiency, or competition.  It's what we do.  Our next manned mission to the moon won't be using much apollo technology despite it being sufficient to get the job done.  We will improve on that technology because we can... it's just logical to do so.  Of course, there has been political and economical situations that have slowed us down, but I'm assuming that when we are ready and willing to undertake interstellar travel, we will have put those pety differences behind us.</p><p><strong>For human spaceflight, the trends are even harder to actually define because of the purpose of certain vehicles does not always lend itself to just bigger better faster.</strong></p><p>I think you're taking my "bigger, better, faster" thing to literally.  Any improvement will suffice. </p><p><strong>To me, a huge leap in the ability to approach C would be necessary. For one thing a starship that can go only 10 percent faster than its predecessor is highly unlikely to beat its predecessor to a given destination.</strong></p><p>Let's assume we could build an orion type drive that could achieve 10% C (not likely for such a large ship).  Using Tim's example of 100 light years, it would take 1000 years to get there.  Add 10% C to that velocity and the new ship would only need 500 years to get there.  Give me 250 years to develop, build, and launch the new ship and I will beat you by 250 years.  This isn't even accounting for acceleration, deceleration and time dilation which might shave a few more years off. </p><p><strong>The other reason is relativistic theories. Why bother approaching the speed of light if the crew returns to earth 300 years after they left due to time dilation?</strong></p><p>I'm not following ya on this one.  Time dilation doesn't add time to anyone's measurements. </p><p><strong>The speed factor would be great for those of us who might want to know what its like at Alpha Centauri within our lifetime of preferrably much sooner. But the oddities present in time dilation seem to me to negate any advantage brought by being able to approach or exceed "C".</strong></p><p>How so?  The faster the astronaut gets to his destination, the faster he can return or send a signal back.  If he travels at C, he get there in 100 years, he returns or sends a signal and we recieve it in another 100 years... 200 years total.  Anything less than C and it takes longer for us to get that signal. </p><p><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

schmack · Jun 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Presenting ourselves as gods"  is really a long-shot speculation.  We know little about brass tacks phsyics, nevermind the mindset of an alien "culture". <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV><br /><br />I didn't say that we should "present" our selves as god. I said that if aliens had of landsed here 15-25000 years ago the cro-magnon man would have viewed them as gods. "Let there be light" etc. Hell even if we went back 25,000 years our selves with a flash light, a knap sack full of digital cameras, donkey kong games and a cigarette lighter we would be viewed as gods. Cro-magnon certainly wouldn't have gone down to the creek bed and tried to fashion a game boy out of stone, and even if he did, he would have failed. </p><p>And besides, by the time it took for alien-magnon to advance far enough to become a threat we could just as possibly found another planet within traversable distance from the Earth2 and maybe have an opportunity to move on again.</p><p> But as is stated earlier in the thread, i think that if the alien magnon were in their version of the renaisance, then we would either have to quietly slip away and find another "camp site" on another world or take the gloves off and go'em with our nukes.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups</font> </font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ff0000">Gimme some Schmack Schmack!</font></p> </div>

votefornimitz · Jun 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> think that if the alien magnon were in their version of the renaisance, then we would either have to quietly slip away and find another "camp site" on another world or take the gloves off and go'em with our nukes. <br /> Posted by schmack</DIV></p><p>1000 Year journey to an alien planet and the first thing you want to do when you get there is kill it.... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="color:#993366">In the event of a full scale nuclear war or NEO impact event, there are two categories of underground shelters available to the public, distinguished by depth underground: bunkers and graves...</span> </div>

schmack · Jun 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1000 Year journey to an alien planet and the first thing you want to do when you get there is kill it.... <br />Posted by votefornimitz</DIV><br /><br />no, if you read my previous posts you would see thats not the case. I was baiting neuvik. I would want to study, study study, and i would not even want to land if there were intelligent creatures on the ground. In fact i would be in favour of giving up the "mining expedition" or colonization of the planet in favour of study. </p><p>But i am interested in peoples opinion of what we would be in fear of when/if we find a lesser advanced alien race.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups</font> </font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ff0000">Gimme some Schmack Schmack!</font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Jun 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>no, if you read my previous posts you would see thats not the case. I was baiting neuvik. I would want to study, study study, and i would not even want to land if there were intelligent creatures on the ground. In fact i would be in favour of giving up the "mining expedition" or colonization of the planet in favour of study. But i am interested in peoples opinion of what we would be in fear of when/if we find a lesser advanced alien race. <br />Posted by schmack</DIV></p><p>It is highly unlikely that we could get there in 1000 years.  It would probably take much longer.  So, even if they were less advanced when we left Earth, they might well be more advanced than our expedition when it arrives. Since technological advancement commonly takes availability of a body of resosurces and the work of many people or the odd genius that appears in the midst of a fairly large group of people, one would expect the technology of the expedition to be relatively stagnant for the duration of the trip.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

schmack · Jun 26, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is highly unlikely that we could get there in 1000 years.  It would probably take much longer.  So, even if they were less advanced when we left Earth, they might well be more advanced than our expedition when it arrives. Since technological advancement commonly takes availability of a body of resosurces and the work of many people or the odd genius that appears in the midst of a fairly large group of people, one would expect the technology of the expedition to be relatively stagnant for the duration of the trip.  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />True, but this discussion seems to have been set around our arrival at the planet to find a cro-magnon equivalent species with us being the more advanced civ. I am very interested in the opinion of budding space admirals and how they would deal with the situation once they discovered this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups</font> </font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ff0000">Gimme some Schmack Schmack!</font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Jun 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>True, but this discussion seems to have been set around our arrival at the planet to find a cro-magnon equivalent species with us being the more advanced civ. I am very interested in the opinion of budding space admirals and how they would deal with the situation once they discovered this. <br />Posted by schmack</DIV></p><p>Well, if at least one looked like Raquel Welch in 1 Million Years B.C. .....  Captain Kirk would know what to do.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jun 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>True, but this discussion seems to have been set around our arrival at the planet to find a cro-magnon equivalent species with us being the more advanced civ. I am very interested in the opinion of budding space admirals and how they would deal with the situation once they discovered this. <br /> Posted by schmack</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Lot's of hypotheticals and unanswered questions here.  Are we the sole mission or is there a shipping line of support on the way?   If it is just us, would we be able to communicate with the Earth (yes, I'm aware of the lag) and tell them we are good to go and send supplies, new tech, new people?  </p><p>If I were a part of the decision making authority, my first order of business is the survival of the crew. </p><p>Considering the length of the trip and the limited amount of space and resources on the ship, I would assume this is a one way trip and we would, eventually, have no choice but to land and set up shop.  I'm also guessing this would be a permanent situation... not too many options I can think of, with known physics, to land on the surface and return to the ship.  I'm assuming this planet has similar gravity to the earth.  I'm not sure how we could have any type of system to shuttle back and forth... at least not right away.  It would take quite some time to gather resources and set up the infrastructure to accomplish such a thing.</p><p>I guess with that said, the colonists would eventually be in direct competition for resources.  I suppose I would try to not upset any existing balances, but if it's a matter of survival, may the best species win. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

neuvik · Jun 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>no, if you read my previous posts you would see thats not the case. I was baiting neuvik. <br /> Posted by schmack</DIV></p><p>Baiting me? To what end?  My opinion is (maybe just seems that way to me hah) pretty rock solid and clear.   Anyways this all hypothetical and unrealistic so no one can "win" this.  </p><p> If we just stuck to keeping the arguments about what is physically possible at this point in time, well, this thread would be quiet short.</p><p> </p><p> Ofcourse I'd want to study, but as mentioned  the colonists are fighting against the clock.   An unbelievable amount of work is needed to ensure the  colonist can survive.  We can not afford to compete for resources and territories while trying to build an infastrucutre and ensure the survival of our species.     </p><p>As Derekmcd said their are a lot of factors which would need to be taken in to consideration.  My standing orders would be to determine the succecptability of the inhabitants if any.   The best intel can be formed quite quickly without installing special forces on the ground.   Do they have any orbital installations or ships around planets towards the ends of their solar system?   How many orbitals are around their own home world?  Whats on the radio?</p><p>No far range orbitals -   inefficient fuel sources / political-region division / lack of physics                                            <span style="font-style:italic">No far range orbitals means no possibility of immediate deterrence, and enough time to do a long range study. </span> </p><p>No orbitals above planet - political-region division / physics extremely lacking                                                      <span style="font-style:italic">    With no orbitals above the planet they probably lack the physics to install satellites.  Alternatively the physics for kinetic weapons that would pose a threat to our ships in near orbit would also be lacking.  Best hope they have good health care.</span> </p><p>No radio signals (other than natural) -  lack of transistor technology / almost no physics.                                <span style="font-style:italic">Without the understanding of electromagnetic waves this race has no possible means of detection against our forces.  Smart weapons could not exist, and likewise quick communication methods.</span></p><p>   Basically within hours of arriving you can determine pretty darn well about how much of a fight the race can put up.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

qso1 · Jun 27, 2008

<p><font color="#800080">I think you're taking my "bigger, better, faster" thing to literally.  Any improvement will suffice.</font> </p><p>Your probably right.</p><p>Fortunately my stuff is only graphic novel related, and a failed GN at that. I doubt I could actually come up with an accurate portrayal of the future anyway, much less build a starship. My hats off to anyone who really has a grasp on the complexity of such an endevour. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

So what if we do find Earth's twin?

votefornimitz

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

danhezee

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

tampaDreamer

Guest

silylene old

Guest

schmack

Guest

qso1

Guest

neuvik

Guest

nimbus

Guest

neuvik

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

qso1

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

schmack

Guest

votefornimitz

Guest

schmack

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

schmack

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

neuvik

Guest

qso1

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page