SETI

[GavMackem®]

Okay, have I got this right:

-There are 34 stars within 50 (light?) years that could be capable of supporting life as we know it.

Do we know how many of those stars have planets within the circumstellar habitable zone (Goldilocks range)? As far is I'm aware that simply means that a planet has an sufficient atmospheric pressure that it could have liquid water, not even that it definitely does.

Next year if the James Webb Space Telescope doesn't ferk up travelling 1.5 million miles to deploy itself we should have a literally a clearer image. We need bigger ground telescopes but the 3 big ones are under construction and they are 2022-2024 for first light.

 

[DaveH]

Okay, have I got this right:

-There are 34 stars within 50 (light?) years that could be capable of supporting life as we know it.

Do we know how many of those stars have planets within the circumstellar habitable zone (Goldilocks range)? As far is I'm aware that simply means that a planet has an sufficient atmospheric pressure that it could have liquid water, not even that it definitely does.

Yes, sorry I should have said light years away, which is 50 years of travelling from some of our earliest radio broadcasts. These 34 stars are ones like our sun and we think are the most likely to be able to support habitable planets. I have no idea how many of them have been confirmed to have planets, certainly not those that can have liquid water. I'd need to do a load of cross referencing for that.

Regardless, our 'footprint' on our galaxy is still tiny. 100 (ish) years ago our footprint was no bigger than the earth. Since we started sending radio broadcasts, that footprint is now a bubble 100 light years across, and that is only a tiny fraction of the galaxy. We are just so small.