Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

SETI Gains Respect, NASA Funding 228

Posted by simoniker from the more-cash-out-there dept.
securitas writes "After having its funding cut off by Congress a decade ago, the SETI program has just received a NASA five-year grant (Google link) to participate as a lead team in the NASA Astrobiology Institute, which investigates the origin and future of life in the universe. For more information, see the Astrobiology Institute's announcement and the NASA press release."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SETI Gains Respect, NASA Funding More

SETI Gains Respect, NASA Funding

Comments Filter:

  • Meanwhile... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:07AM (#6406091)
    The search for intelligent life on Earth continues.
    • Or, the search for cynics discontinues.

      Not meant to be a troll. I hear you.

      ~S

    • Re:Meanwhile... (Score:5, Funny)

      by hdparm ( 575302 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:21AM (#6406127) Homepage
      It's been found. [mytrailerpark.com]

    • Re:Meanwhile... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ratphace ( 667701 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @09:09AM (#6406941)

      I think that SETI is a worthwhile endeavor, but you know, one has to wonder that if my doing the seti@home thing that eventually they will run out of units for folks to process and start pawning other NASA projects off to our PC's to crunch numbers beause undoubtedly they'll have so much stuff to do that they won't be able to get it done with the cutbacks in other areas. :) So, in order to get caught up it's a good idea to start funding SETI so they can start passing their work off to the seti@home folks.

  • Its nice... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by soliaus ( 626912 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:08AM (#6406094) Homepage Journal
    ...to see that the government is dishing out some money for the advancement of programs which were at one time considered to be fantasy or science fiction. Personally, I hope to see more funding in these areas.

    -----------------
    God, is that you?

    • ...to see that the government is dishing out some money for the advancement of programs which were at one time considered to be fantasy or science fiction. Personally, I hope to see more funding in these areas.

      Fantastic works of utter fiction seem to be part and parcel with this current regime.

  • NASA funded? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by inaeldi ( 623679 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:11AM (#6406101)
    I didn't know NASA had enough money to donate, with all the cutbacks and whatnot.

    • Re:NASA funded? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mwongozi ( 176765 )
      It's all relative. Even with cutbacks, it can still afford to throw a few more robots at Mars this year.

    • Re:NASA funded? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by psavo ( 162634 ) <psavo@iki.fi> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:57AM (#6406189) Homepage
      I didn't know NASA had enough money to donate, with all the cutbacks and whatnot.

      Sounds more like outsourcing facilities to more competent business?

    • Re:NASA funded? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Madcapjack ( 635982 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @05:04AM (#6406198)
      Well the strange thing about funding is that it isn't necessarily like all the money that an agency has can be used how it wants to use it. NASA for example might be short of funds for space exploration but have an excess of cash to be appropriated for certain kinds of research, and no matter how NASA might wish to appropriate the fund.

    • Re:NASA funded? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by s0rbix ( 629316 )
      If you look at budget summaries for 2003 compared to the proposed 2004 budget (or maybe its 2002 and proposed 2003) the funding for NASA increased a good percentage (10% if i remember correctly).

    • Re:NASA funded? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bourne ( 539955 )

      I didn't know NASA had enough money to donate, with all the cutbacks and whatnot.

      Look at it from the other direction. Do you find it odd that, in an environment where they're facing cutbacks, NASA would do something to put their name on perhaps the most publicly acknowledged (non-NASA) space-related project? Of course not!

      Between Contact and SETI@Home, SETI has mindshare in the voting public with positive connotations. Just what NASA needs right now.

    • what cutbacks? NASA's budget hasn't gone down.

  • this is great news (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PhysicsExpert ( 665793 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:11AM (#6406102) Homepage Journal
    Its about time that SETI got some serious funding, its mainly been kept going by enthusiastic amateurs over the last few years and at one point in the early 80s it actually looked like it was going to close.

    One thing they should be able to do with is money is investigate the interesting readings they've been getting from proxima centuri, where several M class planets have been discovered. The chances of it being life are small but the fact is that the 55Gev readings they've been getting are a complete mystery so even if the're just coming from a tachyon field it should produce some interesting new data

    • Re:this is great news (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:49AM (#6406168) Journal
      > Its about time that SETI got some serious funding, its mainly been kept going by enthusiastic amateurs over the last few years and at one point in the early 80s it actually looked like it was going to close

      Hey, I'm all for the SETI thing (did over 7500 units on SETI@home myself), but I don't think using our tax dollars searching for aliens in a time when we've got the largest national debt in history makes alot of sense. Yeah, it might be cool to discover life elsewhere, but ya need to prioritize. One last point...the money that NASA spends (like most other govt. agencies) is hughly inefficient compared to that of private industry.

      • Re:this is great news (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ceejayoz ( 567949 ) <cj@ceejayoz.com> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @08:34AM (#6406740) Homepage Journal
        Yeah, it might be cool to discover life elsewhere, but ya need to prioritize.

        Personally, I feel you're the one who needs to prioritize - putting the national debt ahead of finding intelligent life?
      • How do you know the efficiency of private industry funds; considering their books are closed and all claims come from their marketing departments!?

        Why should government be less efficient that private sector? We are all the same Americans public or private.

      • One last point...the money that NASA spends (like most other govt. agencies) is hughly inefficient compared to that of private industry.

        Do you have any proof of this? People keep saying it over and over again, but I've never seen anyone actually show some numbers to prove. This indicates to me that its a myth. In fact I would guess the opposite is true.

        Governmemnt can borrow money cheaper than a private company can. Private companies pay a lot out to their CEO's and other executives. Coporations have

      • I am not defending the public funding of SETI, but cutting these expenses wouldn't help the US national debt. You would have better results looking at the taxes cut by W Bush and military spending in the war in Iraq (despite what he might say, this war has not ended and soldiers from both sides continue to die).
      • As someone mentioned above, NASA may be short on funds to explore space, but they probably have a glut of funds for donating to organizations such as SETI. The point I'm making is that NASA and another government agencies don't just get a big check from Congress once a month to do with as they please. They are given several checks, each designated for specific area/task, and none of those funds may be moved to any other department/project. Add on top of that the typical beuracratic mindset that Congress

    • Re:this is great news (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, I still call this government hipocracy. They dropped funding and turned their backs when nothing was seen coming from the project. And not that a few hundred scientists have started finding interesting stuff (55Gev) in their spair time, the government is ready to walk in and calm the victory themselves. So typical.

      Anyway, about the 55Gev, it's really interesting, I've heard stories that whatever it is, the civilization that made those stuff (if one existed) would have now vanished. Incredbile thinkin

      • Re:this is great news (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FroMan ( 111520 )
        I doubt that the government is thinking, "Oh lets ride on SETI's coattails." More likely the government someone figured, hey, they actually seem to be getting somewhere, we can toss them a few coin and see what they come up with.

        I know, its much to easy to think bad things of the government, but try to think objectively.

    • Re:this is great news (Score:5, Funny)

      by puusism ( 136657 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:58AM (#6406190) Homepage
      You know perfectly well that M class planets only exist in Star Trek. The same applies also to tachyon fields. :-) And no earth-like planets have ever been discovered around Proxima Centauri...

      I think you should not be modded down as troll, because this is a good indicator about the data quality found on Interesting 5 Slashdot posts.
    • I love the comments attached to this. That subtle sense of British humor bites 'em in the ass every time.

      Kudos, man. +1 Funny troll.

      SB

  • Chance or Design? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:11AM (#6406106) Homepage Journal
    It is important to note here that the U.S. government through its agency NASA has officially thrown support to the adherents of evolution.

    If there is no evolution, then there is no chance that life would exist anywhere else in the universe because it would have had to have been Created only here. The New Testament of the Bible (in which most Creationists readily and eagerly believe) repeatedly claims that there is only one Son of God and that only through Him is salvation possible. This would mean that if by some chance that there were lifeforms elsewhere in the galaxy that they would have to be perfect beings or destined for Hell. Since a loving God wouldn't create beings guaranteed to spend eternity in the flames of Hades, it stands to reason that God would have only created Life here on Earth (where, again, He sent His Son).

    But with NASA supporting the search for ET life, the government has implicitly thumbed its nose at the Creationists.

    It's about time, if you ask me.

    • Re:Chance or Design? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarenN ( 411219 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:46AM (#6406162) Homepage
      There's soooo many holes in that that I wasn't sure where to start. Incidentally IANAC (I am not a creationist)

      If there is no evolution, then there is no chance that life would exist anywhere else in the universe because it would have had to have been Created only here

      That makes no sense. The basis of most religions is that their god is omnipotent and ominescent, so why can't they have created multiple intelligent lifeforms. For that matter, the power of the god can explain evolution, too (how could such a finely balanced lattice have occured without something guiding it's creation)

      The New Testament of the Bible (in which most Creationists readily and eagerly believe) repeatedly claims that there is only one Son of God and that only through Him is salvation possible.

      He was human incarnate, not human. Why couldn't he have been "Ugly bug-eyed monster from Proxima Centauri incarnate" or "Betazed incarnate"?

      You can be absolutely certain that if intelligent life were discovered tomorrow, on Earth or anywhere else the scriptures of most of the major religions would prove flexible enough to accomodate it.


      And to bring this back on topic, it's good to see the funding, but I wonder is it because SETI is starting to get data that interests NASA for some reason (like the readings from Proxima Centauri mentioned in another post).

      • Re:Chance or Design? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Kinniken ( 624803 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @05:14AM (#6406218) Homepage
        He was human incarnate, not human. Why couldn't he have been "Ugly bug-eyed monster from Proxima Centauri incarnate" or "Betazed incarnate"?

        You can be absolutely certain that if intelligent life were discovered tomorrow, on Earth or anywhere else the scriptures of most of the major religions would prove flexible enough to accomodate it.

        I have no doubt that at least some churches would adapt, but it would be far more difficult than what you say. For a start, any alien life would be most likely very different from our own ; not only physically, but in terms of psychology, values, organization, beliefs... simply "transposing" the Bible to their civilization and thus making them "human equivalents" would most likely be totally impossible.
        Even supposing that they look and behave enough like human for such a transposition to be possible (or more likely, that not enough is known about them to disprove it and that the churches chooses to believe it is the case), you are still left with some big, big problems. For a start, Humanity is no longer the sole "summit of creation", as claimed by the Bible. We are no longer "created to God's image". And even with your idea of a "Christ-incarnate" in the different alien races which solves the problem of having multiple sons of God, that still means that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection were not unique - they happened a number of time in different alien worlds.
        I suppose Religions, including Christian one, would adapt, but definite proof of the existence of Alien civilizations would require massive updating of the Churches' beliefs.

        • Re:Chance or Design? (Score:5, Funny)

          by richie2000 ( 159732 ) <rickard.olsson@gmail.com> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @06:02AM (#6406290) Homepage Journal
          definite proof of the existence of Alien civilizations would require massive updating of the Churches' beliefs.

          Not really. Just some kick-ass space crusades.

        • Re:Chance or Design? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by GooberToo ( 74388 )
          simply "transposing" the Bible to their civilization and thus making them "human equivalents" would most likely be totally impossible.

          I'm not sure you need to. After all, look around our own planet. It's not like there is one and only one religion found on our planet. Wouldn't other species be looked at like any other "alien" (non-christian) religion?

          For a start, Humanity is no longer the sole "summit of creation", as claimed by the Bible. We are no longer "created to God's image".

          That doesn't have
        • "created to God's image"

          IANAT

          Since when does image have anything to do with what you look like. Could not our intellegence and free will -our potential have been created in His image?

          An image is a representation of something, and an image is not always true, but an image is not the original.

      • You can be absolutely certain that if intelligent life were discovered tomorrow, on Earth or anywhere else the scriptures of most of the major religions would prove flexible enough to accomodate it.

        In fact, Catholic scholars as far back as the 13th Century proved to their satisfaction that life being discovered elsewhere would prove no problem for their doctrine. The only part of the debate left open was, would an alien civilization require an alien "instantiation" of Jesus, or could they use ours?
    • But with NASA supporting the search for ET life, the government has implicitly thumbed its nose at the Creationists.

      Not the US government - NASA, which as a scientific organization is much more likely to be "pro-evolutionist" than "pro-creationist". I doubt this was conceived by high-level officials from the Bush administration as a show of support for the ToE...

    • Re:Chance or Design? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by panurge ( 573432 )
      Try reading the Bible. In fact, try learning some Hebrew. You'll get a shock, in fact a whole series of shocks. From the first verse of Bereshit (Genesis) in fact, where the word used for "God" (Elohim) is a plural form. What the Creationists say is usually what one verse taken out of context of the Bible says.

      However, many theological writers have pointed out that the belief in multiple inhabited worlds is history-neutral as well as evolution-neutral. Terry Pratchett often makes this point in humorous ways

      • Yahweh (the hebrew word for God) cannot be prounounced in Hebrew. Kind of dovetails with the "No graven images" concept in a peculiar sort of way.

        I always get a kick out of the Toaist notion that to understand the universe, ou have to stop using words to describe it.

        To me, I couldn't give a rats ass how the universe actually started. Nor do I particularly care how it's going to end. These events do not in any way affect what I am doing right here, and right now.

        Or I thing Loa Tsu said it best:

        Therefo

      • From the first verse of Bereshit (Genesis) in fact, where the word used for "God" (Elohim) is a plural form. What the Creationists say is usually what one verse taken out of context of the Bible says.

        Many theological writers have also pointed out that the christian belief in the Trinity is simply evidenced as early as Genesis through the use of the plural form. Your claim is simply mangling theology as badly as many creationists mangle science.

        To avoid misunderstandings, I'm an agnostic who thinks that
    • CS Lewis wrote his Space Trilogy, and so far I believe his claim that it was the first that suggested that other worlds might be more advanced than earth. And he was Christian and HE noted that nothing in scripture or tradition would prevent or require life on other worlds. If there were, they might be unfallen (and would probably avoid us), fallen but redeemable (and either BC or AD regardless of their technology), or fallen and unredeemable.

      The latter category is where the demons go (having been angles
      • My problem with SETI is how do we know when it has failed? If there are millions of indistinguishable stones to overturn looking for treasure, and you can only overturn a thousand, is it really science?

        It's impossible to see every single square mile of the Earth, but that doesn't make travelling less worthwile.

        Funding based on mere beliefs in ETs or God(s) should either both or neither be funded.

        We know that intelligent life can exist - we're the proof of that. We don't have any hard scientific evide

      • Even given that this is true (it's not true at all), why does this make evolutionary biology pseudoscience? What is your definition of pseudoscience?

        • Most creationists define pseudoscience as those scientific fields that disagree with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, when pressed, creationists will categorize all or parts of the following fields as pseudoscience:
          • Evolution
          • Genetics
          • Biology
          • Geology
          • Astronomy
          • Physics

          As you move down in the list, it is more likely that the creationist will object to a smaller portion of the scientific field. To think like the creationist, it is sufficient to merely apply the following litmus test to sc


    • You know, I don't believe in Creation or really disbelieve in it. The way I see it is this. If some all-powerful diety created the heavens, would he have told us all the nitty gritty physics and math or whatever it is even today let alone ages ago? No, of course not. We would have gotten some children's tale. The Creation thing, if it has a place, is in allergory.

    • Re:Chance or Design? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LilMikey ( 615759 )
      I'm always disappointed when people quote the Bible trying to disprove science. There are 2 things to remember here...

      1. The Bible is a blueprint. Very few theological scholars believe the Bible should be taken as an account of history. What we were given wasn't a reference manual, it was a lesson book. In my view (as off-base as it may be) reading the Bible to get an account of what happend a couple thousand years ago is missing the point and somewhat cheapening the meaning of the book.

      2. God was

      • Re:Chance or Design? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gobbo ( 567674 )
        God was speaking to scientifically primitive people. If he mentioned aliens on other planets how would they take it? How would they write it? They didn't even have the words in their vocabulary.

        Well, (s)He might have described it through the eyes of a prophet, like this: [mystae.com] "I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north--an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal, and in the fire was what looked like four living

  • What's so great about SETI?? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:12AM (#6406109) Journal
    Sometime back, we read NASA withdrew funding for DARPA, IIRC. What's so compelling for NASA to pump more funds into SETI? Some kind of social engineering at work here, methinks.

    It's ironic, but NASA seems to be getting more attention after a spectacular failure (Colombia disaster)
    • It's ironic, but NASA seems to be getting more attention after a spectacular failure (Colombia disaster)

      When a government program fails, instead of being replaced with a more competant competitor, they are normally rewarded with more funding. This is a natural consequence of a business model based on force (rather than voluntary association as in the market). When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Look at drug prohibition for a classic example. After decades of prohibition, we hav

    • Sometime back, we read NASA withdrew funding for DARPA, IIRC. What's so compelling for NASA to pump more funds into SETI? Some kind of social engineering at work here, methinks.

      Not necessarily. One of the reasons that SETI is now getting the spotlight is because it has finally stated to lose its "giggle factor". The reason for this is the great advances that astronomy has made in detecting planets around other stars. This alone is proof that it is at least possible for other stars to have planets, so it gr

  • Finally.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VladTheBad ( 178747 ) <dashi10343.aol@com> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:13AM (#6406111)
    I never understood why it was so hard to give funding to a program that could make the most important discovery yet.... (except for oil on mars... that'd be the only thing that'd get us off this rock faster...)

    At least they got the 24 hours of time to point Arecibo where they wanted before... now maybe they'll get more time, more radio telescope data to send out as workunits.

    The whole program seemed to be a great use of national money to me when I first learned about SETI, and its still a good place to invest money I think.

    Of course, I could be wrong....

    • What makes you think anyone would care about oil on Mars...and more than they care about the coal, frozen chunks of natural gas, iron (not iron ore, but actual iron), gold, titanium, etc. that are floating around where they'd be even easier to get at than oil on Mars?

      The only thing I can figure: most planners / politicians don't really believe in space, any more than they believe in Santa's workshop, history, or the constitution of the country that they "serve". These sorts things are all handy to have i

    • I never understood why it was so hard to give funding to a program that could make the most important discovery yet

      Are you smoking crack? It would be entirely useless. Communications would be impossible(remember, the closest object is what, hundreds, if not thousands of light years away?), as would be travelling there(we can barely get people to the moon.)

      The SETI people are an embarassment to the scientific community- they're basically religious fanatics, almost cultists- convinced that there MUST

      • Rebuttal: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by VladTheBad ( 178747 )
        No, I don't smoke crack.....

        Sure, even if communication is impossible.... it could create a scientific drive to invent some method to communicate.

        I don't think the SETI people expect to find proof of intelligent life "any day now"

        I think that a snowballs chance in hell is good enough.
        50 years from now.... the event horison of places that have seen our signals, AND had time to respond, will have increased by 25 light years.

        Yes, that doesn't get you a whole lot farther, but at least it opens up more doors

  • Just goes to show (Score:5, Funny)

    by maroberts ( 15852 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:14AM (#6406112) Homepage Journal
    That putting that trojan in the screensaver that lobbies congressmen was a good idea.....

  • Search for ET... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dammerung ( 679511 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:16AM (#6406116)
    It's now nice to know all those 60-Some data sets I've gone through at about 30 hours each weren't in vain.

  • SETI Announcement (Score:5, Informative)

    by pen ( 7191 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:19AM (#6406125)
    SETI Institute Selected as Astrobiology Lead Team [seti.org]
    The SETI Institute is proud to announce that it has been chosen as a lead team for NASA's Astrobiology Institute (NAI), the international research consortium coordinated through NAI's offices at NASA's Ames Research Center. NASA Ames is a long-standing partner of the SETI Institute in the search for life on other worlds, and we welcome this opportunity to deepen our scientific relationship.

  • War of the Worlds (Score:5, Funny)

    by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:32AM (#6406145)
    Preemptive War on Drugs. Taken care of.

    Preemptive War on Terrorism. Almost taken care of.

    Preemptive War on Little Green Men. That's our next Goal.

  • What about seti@home? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @04:41AM (#6406156) Homepage
    I mean, with all the infrastructure and the servers running smoothly I personally believe this to be a very promising effort. So are they in or are they out of the funding?

    cu,
    Lispy
    • The problem with seti@home is that the Arecibo telescope covers only a tiny fraction of the sky.

      I would like to see more funding put into projects such as those run by the non-profit organisation Seti League http://www.setileague.org/ [setileague.org]

      Seti League's Project Argus aims to have approximatley 5000 small aperture radio telescopes (generally modified satellite TV antennas) operating in a coordinated effort which allows the entire sky to be continuously monitored. The problem with telescopes such as Arecibo is th

  • All they need to do... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Quaoar ( 614366 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @05:27AM (#6406240)
    ...is point their telescopes at Alabama. Tons of other-worldly creatures live there.

  • I knew it... (Score:2, Funny)

    by EvilMike ( 640266 )
    NASA have run out of stuff to exploit from the crashed flying saucers at Area 51 and now they're looking for which star system to send their 'honeypot' radio signals to :-D.

  • First decoded alien signals from SETI: (Score:4, Funny)

    by deathcow ( 455995 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @05:51AM (#6406274)
    "PLZ resend disk 2 of TWO TOWERS"

  • We don't really read the articles, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by slasho81 ( 455509 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @05:53AM (#6406279)
    Isn't it time for Slashdot to partner with NYT just like Google did (link-wise)? After all, Slashdot is a rather large referrer to NYT articles.

  • Excellent use of NASA funds... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jerry ( 6400 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @07:41AM (#6406507)
    because SETI gets more bang for the buck!


    Their hypothesis is also a good test of the theory that IL abounds in the universe. But so far, in the narrow range (+-10deg) that the Arecibo telescope scans, no synthetic transmissions have yet been received. Considering that during the last 5 years signals from anywhere as close as this solar system to as far away as the edge of our galaxy could have been recieved, but have not, leads to a few hypotheses.


    One, all existing IL have evolved past the use of ER as a means to communicate. Even here on Earth communications are rapidly moving to cable and the Internet, neither of which have any significant radiation leaking into space. Two, our civiliation is the only one to have reached the stage of using ER for communications. Three, there are no other civilization 'out there', ours is the only one.

    • 4.) They've seen our TV and are avoiding us like the plauge we are.

      Jaysyn
    • Yet another 4. Alien civilizations use ER in a way or in a frequency range on which we are not listening.

  • downside... (Score:4, Funny)

    by LMCBoy ( 185365 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @07:50AM (#6406555) Homepage Journal
    Bummer. I will no longer be able to righteously correct slashdotters who ignorantly complain that SETI is "wasting" their tax dollars. :)

    I was always kind of proud of SETI for making it on private donations alone; it seemed like losing federal funds was the best thing that ever happened to them. Anyway, this grant is just for the Astrobiology Institute partnership; they still have their own funds for their normal operations.

  • Farscape (Score:2, Interesting)

    by solarlux ( 610904 )
    Watch the Farscape episode "I, E.T." for a stimulating glimpse of what it might be like for us to discover alien-life. This script was well-written and well-acted. Note: it's a human making contact with an alien Jodie Foster-like astronomer.
  • With all due respect, the question of origins is a philosophical one rather than a scientific one. It is not possible to use the scientific method to determine origins.

    The creationist and the evolutionist are in the same boat. Neither can observe, record, repeat the process.

    Both are constrained to collect extant data and propose theories about what caused the universe. In that respect, they are limited to speculation.

    Speculation is unlikely to provide an answer. On this idea, CS Lewis said: "It's like
    • Certainly "it is not possible for scientists to say with certainty how the universe was prior to its existence". I've never heard one claim otherwise, though I have read theories that state it is categorically impossible to know what was before.)

      However the "origins of life" are not necessarily a one off historical event the sort of which we are forever prevented from revisiting. Indeed, one of the questions is whether life has originated independantly in different places. We do not know whether we can "

  • Funding? What funding? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nicodemus05 ( 688301 ) <nicodemus05@hotmail.com> on Thursday July 10, 2003 @08:35AM (#6406756)
    We are funding a fictitious war over 100 million.

    There was a headlining story [nytimes.com] on the NYT yesterday:

    Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that violence and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that troop levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly doubled the estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month.

    My math might be worse than Dubya's, but I figure it at about $130 million A DAY.

    While it's great that we're "funding" SETI, perhaps some of the money we're pouring into Iraq would be better spent on science. Mars, anyone? Zubrin's plan calls for $30 billion for a long term program, just over 7 months worth of war. Which would you prefer, nonexistant WMDs or a manned landing on the Red Planet?

  • Not sure why someone would write an article about SETI with that many links without puting a link the the actual SETI@Home web site.

    SETI@Home [berkeley.edu]
    • What do you mean with "the actual SETI@Home web site"? Seti@Home is one of the many SETI projects around, though arguably the most famous. For a comparison, you could say that Linux is something like Unix@home, but it's not the one and only Unix.
  • I think the SETI project has the SETI@Home Screensaver to thank, a project that provides both useful computational power and an indication of the public support that the program has. Although people might really just want a nice screensaver and don't expect to find little green men.

  • So, their five-year mission... (Score:3, Funny)

    by centauri ( 217890 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:47AM (#6407545) Homepage
    ... is to seek out new life forms and new civilizations?

    /me desperately hopes no one has made this joke yet.

  • To shed some light on the subject (Score:3, Informative)

    by mcscary13 ( 582322 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @10:48AM (#6407550)
    I made a short documentary film about SETI last year covering the origins of the SETI search, Drake's equation, the various groups involved, and people's opinions about SETI. Maybe some of you might find it interesting. Its a 25 MB download in Quicktime format and you can find it here: http://homepage.mac.com/mcgeary/seti/ Enjoy!

  • Quote from Times article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quixotic Raindrop ( 443129 ) on Thursday July 10, 2003 @11:35AM (#6407820) Journal
    According to the journal Nature, Representative Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who called the hearing, said the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe would be "one of the most astounding discoveries in human history."


    "Funding should match public interest," Mr. Smith said, "and I don't believe it does."

    I disagree that interest levels should be a determinant of funding levels. One of the things that, IMO, the goverment must do is fund activities that are worthy endeavors regardless of the public interest in them or their potential profitability. If it were profitable to search for intelligent life, there would be an entire sector of our economy making (and spending) money to perform the search, and SETI would long ago have had all the money it needed to perform that search, and several other organizations would have cropped up to compete with them. This argument also applies to, say, prescription drugs for the elderly, indigent, and unemployed: it seems to me to be pretty clear that just because a pharmecutical company can't make a billion extra dollars a year in profit that they should be able to deny prescription drugs to people who must have them to survive (or, live a reasonably comfortable life). Since a profit-making organization is unwilling to perform that action, then either a not-for-profit, or the government, must step in and perform it. I am not seeing much in the way of the not-for-profit help, which leaves only the government.

    I am not convinced that the bureaucracy that we have in America is the best tool for that job, but it sure seems like it is, presently, the only tool.

  • SETI Institute: Dr. Christopher Chyba leads a team that will investigate a wide range of questions in astrobiology, including the origin of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, a comparison of nitrogen and carbon cycles on Earth and Mars, the possible habitability of Jupiter's moon Europa, and the prospects for finding habitable worlds around cool stars.

    In other words, they will be doing environmental modeling and research - there's no "Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" being funded. People seem to be m

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close