Another thought on the problem of holding station. We can't speculate on the power source used to operate a relay but we might be able to make one hold to a relatively small area fairly simply.
Find a group of stars that radiate similar levels of energy and are roughly equal distance from each other and from a central point in the group. Send your relay toward that central point. I'm guessing you'd have to slow it down somehow, at least a little, because at some stage it will inflate a huge sphere of light-sail material around it. Once expanded and held by the balanced radiation of the group that sphere is going to be there for a very, very long time.

I'm referring to an article on the SETI@HOME site titled "Identifying SETI@HOME'S Best Signal Candidates For Reobservation".

It reads, "We consider a candidate exceptional if it exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:
Its location matches the location of a known star.
Its location matches the location of a known planet.
Its barycentric frequency is constant across time but cannot be attributed to RFI.
Matching up a candidate to a specific planet or star is like obtaining a return address. We want to examine these instances first before delving into candidates that don't have an obvious possible source."

& there is d solution about Cing a source which doesn't have star!
so they do look, just not @ 1st...
;)

so far, none of d candidates got a "repetition of similar signal" from ANY candidate!

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

I'm referring to an article on the SETI@HOME site titled "Identifying SETI@HOME'S Best Signal Candidates For Reobservation".

It reads, "We consider a candidate exceptional if it exhibits one or more of the following characteristics:
Its location matches the location of a known star.
Its location matches the location of a known planet.
Its barycentric frequency is constant across time but cannot be attributed to RFI.
Matching up a candidate to a specific planet or star is like obtaining a return address. We want to examine these instances first before delving into candidates that don't have an obvious possible source."

Hmm. I didn't know those were criteria. Why can't it be an exceptional candidate in the middle of nowhere?

When I watch that cloud of signals fill up the box over and over I can't help but wonder if there are patterns in there that we don't see because we're not looking for them or don't have the computing power to make them stand out.
And when I look at the mountain of signal data we've accumulated over the last 50 years my gut tells me we've already heard them.

Good point. :~)

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

the thing is that Arecibo as sensitive as it is, it's not very sensitive at all when we speak about space distances...I think Arecibo can pick up TV/radio signal from only 5LY away! :(

for better results we would need a "1sq km array", which will give much more distance detection!
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

All we need is one confirmed signal and they'll start building mile-wide receivers in orbit the next day.

All we need is one confirmed signal and they'll start building mile-wide receivers in orbit the next day.

they don't need that much...only few of them that are spread widely! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

All we need is one confirmed signal and they'll start building mile-wide receivers in orbit the next day.

they don't need that much...only few of them that are spread widely! ;)

True, in which case we could expect to see dozens of smaller ones go up even faster.
About the only thing I'm sure of in a post-detection world would be the overwhelming, universal cry for MORE, and for a long time everything else would be set aside while we build bigger ears to listen for it.

In the UK we already have a multi-dish, long baseline radio telescope, the base line is something like 200km long, somewhat bigger the SKA telescope....

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

In the UK we already have a multi-dish, long baseline radio telescope, the base line is something like 200km long, somewhat bigger the SKA telescope....

I know, but in the time after a detection event you'd see a lot of things being planned that wouldn't make sense as politicians try to appease the public demand for more information. All astronomy-related sciences would be funded overnight on a scale we can't imagine now.

All we need is one confirmed signal and they'll start building mile-wide receivers in orbit the next day.

they don't need that much...only few of them that are spread widely! ;)

True, in which case we could expect to see dozens of smaller ones go up even faster.
About the only thing I'm sure of in a post-detection world would be the overwhelming, universal cry for MORE, and for a long time everything else would be set aside while we build bigger ears to listen for it.

actually, Back side (notice, no Dark side) of d Moon is great for an observations...

why?
1. Moon doesn't rotate, only revolves around Earth...so u can put 5 dishes on it for outer checking of the extra-solar radiations:
- 2 of those on poles,
- 2 on edges of equator
- 1 in the middle of the back side of the Moon
that would give us an antenna of radii 3470km, & clear from terrestrial radio emissions & interference!
2. after 1.phase, another 2 compatible satellites should be put in L4 & L5 points of Moon orbit...

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

The Moon rotates (see the Atlas of Astronomy by Joachim Hermann, Munchen, 1973) but its rotation is locked with its revolution, so we see the same face of the Moon except for a small libration in longitude and another in latitude, so we see about 59% of the total lunar surface.
Tullio

---

The Moon rotates (see the Atlas of Astronomy by Joachim Hermann, Munchen, 1973) but its rotation is locked with its revolution, so we see the same face of the Moon except for a small libration in longitude and another in latitude, so we see about 59% of the total lunar surface.
Tullio

yes, u r correct...

but if we put the antennas on Back side...then the'll always be only on Back side, looking out of Earth & scan the Cosmos...
& it's slow rotation will give better accuracy than antennas or telescopes on Earth!
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

The moon was my first thought as well but I think the cost of doing that plus the time involved would make people focus on receivers in orbit or parked at one of the L-points. The cheapest ideas that could produce the fastest results would get the most attention.

The moon was my first thought as well but I think the cost of doing that plus the time involved would make people focus on receivers in orbit or parked at one of the L-points. The cheapest ideas that could produce the fastest results would get the most attention.

U would need a 3rd satellite, with only 2 it doesn't work! So @ least 1 would need to be on the Moon itself...
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU