5 ms·

Probably. Assuming they're correct. Our planet is 12,742km in diameter, yet we've only drilled 12.262km deep [1] (and we were wrong about how hot it was gonna

Probably. Assuming they're correct. Our planet is 12,742km in diameter, yet we've only drilled 12.262km deep [1] (and we were wrong about how hot it was gonna be), and sent a human down ~10.900km [2] (and we still can't decide how deep we've actually been). Do we really think we understand the probability of alien life on another planet that well, given the amount of data we have on those planets, and that we're constantly proven wrong on our own? And yet (either way) I'm not sure it really matters. No human has left our own planet for longer than 437.7 days [3]. Say they're right, though. If an alien race exists, we're still a ways from being able to do anything about it. Unless we can make it there in 1.198 years. If that alien race can make it here, awesome. Let's talk then. If they can make it here and are hostile, then it's been swell. See you on the other side. Probably. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records

nielsbjerg 10y ago
You got the units of the borehole wrong, it's in meters not kilometers.
- andrewstuart2 10y ago
  Well, we've certainly drilled more than 12 meters. :-P (Note the decimal point: 12.262km; I just converted to km to keep it consistent with the other measurements I cited) Could be confusing if you're used to the inverse comma/period from what we use in the US (comma=thousands, period=decimal).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - tluyben2 10y ago
    It is very confusing even though I know this to be the case. It is much harder to parse when the numbers are similar. I do not care which one, just wish everyone would use the same notation. In this case for me it would have been clearer if it said 12262km vs 12262m which is what I would have written. But he :) Interesting comment anyway.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    It would be far less confusing if you only reported the depth to the hundredths place, as it them both disambiguates the period/comma (in the case where it's reversed by locale), and makes it immediately recognizable.
  - nielsbjerg 10y ago
    It was indeed the thousand separator which confused me, thanks
  - skissane 10y ago
    I remember in high school we were taught we should separate thousands using spaces instead of comma or period, since it avoids that whole cross-cultural confusion about which symbol does what.
  - gh-lfneu28 10y ago
    Would be far less confusing if you'd just written "~12km" and "~11km". The meters add little to the point you're trying to make.
    - andrewstuart2 10y ago
      Well, that's probably true, but it was late and I thought the higher precision would help add to my point. Too late to fix it now, though. :-P
Dylan16807 10y ago
I like your post for the most part, but "Unless we can make it there in 1.198 years." is just nonsense for the sake of being pithy. We could do a decade easily. And it still doesn't get us to anywhere. No need to act like people die from a year in space.
- andrewstuart2 10y ago
  Could we? 0G is pretty rough on the human body (if you're planning on going back to a gravitational environment). And the truth is that beyond 1.198 years, we can only extrapolate what the effects are, as we have no evidence beyond that amount of time. Yeah, chances are we could go longer, but we don't know what happens until we've actually tried and measured.

nielsbjerg 10y ago

You got the units of the borehole wrong, it's in meters not kilometers.

andrewstuart2 10y ago
Well, we've certainly drilled more than 12 meters. :-P (Note the decimal point: 12.262km; I just converted to km to keep it consistent with the other measurements I cited) Could be confusing if you're used to the inverse comma/period from what we use in the US (comma=thousands, period=decimal).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tluyben2 10y ago
  It is very confusing even though I know this to be the case. It is much harder to parse when the numbers are similar. I do not care which one, just wish everyone would use the same notation. In this case for me it would have been clearer if it said 12262km vs 12262m which is what I would have written. But he :) Interesting comment anyway.
- kbenson 10y ago
  It would be far less confusing if you only reported the depth to the hundredths place, as it them both disambiguates the period/comma (in the case where it's reversed by locale), and makes it immediately recognizable.
- nielsbjerg 10y ago
  It was indeed the thousand separator which confused me, thanks
- skissane 10y ago
  I remember in high school we were taught we should separate thousands using spaces instead of comma or period, since it avoids that whole cross-cultural confusion about which symbol does what.
- gh-lfneu28 10y ago
  Would be far less confusing if you'd just written "~12km" and "~11km". The meters add little to the point you're trying to make.
  - andrewstuart2 10y ago
    Well, that's probably true, but it was late and I thought the higher precision would help add to my point. Too late to fix it now, though. :-P

Dylan16807 10y ago

I like your post for the most part, but "Unless we can make it there in 1.198 years." is just nonsense for the sake of being pithy. We could do a decade easily. And it still doesn't get us to anywhere. No need to act like people die from a year in space.

andrewstuart2 10y ago
Could we? 0G is pretty rough on the human body (if you're planning on going back to a gravitational environment). And the truth is that beyond 1.198 years, we can only extrapolate what the effects are, as we have no evidence beyond that amount of time. Yeah, chances are we could go longer, but we don't know what happens until we've actually tried and measured.