4 ms·
It takes a lot more than electricity to send a detectable signal multiple light years. And unless we're lucky, the minimum is likely to be tens of light years.
by bruce511 2y ago
It takes a lot more than electricity to send a detectable signal multiple light years. And unless we're lucky, the minimum is likely to be tens of light years.
Assuming we even found a likely star system, built some huge focused transmitter, we'd still need to broadcast for probably hundreds of years for it to have a chance of being received. And that's hoping the other side are in exactly the right stage of their development, have built a big receiver and happen to be pointing at us.
Which is to say that the risk of finding life via radio, is, well, pretty small.
We're more likely to find life by visiting other planets. To do that you only need to solve 5 (mildly hard) problems.
A) you need a multi-generational ship
B) a power source that can last at least 1000 years
C) a self-sustaining human population - probably between 200 to 600 individuals. Likely spread over 3 generations in terms of age.
D) an in-board biome capable of supplying food an oxygen to sustain the population.
E) pick a good direction to go in.
Given that pretty much any, and every, thing that can go wrong will kill the crew pretty quick, chances are the ship won't last a decade.
Of course even if the descendants of the crew actually find something, they won't have any way to tell us.
- nis0s 2y agoI think we need to develop faster travel [1]. [1] https://www.inverse.com/science/ny-to-la-in-one-second https://www.inverse.com/science/ny-to-la-in-one-second
- bruce511 2y agoThat's 1% of the speed of light. So a trip to the nearest star would take 400 years. Practically we need to go at least 10% of light speed to get much further than our closest neighbors.