First contact protocol for fictional aliens...

[Ultimate Steve]

1 minute ago, Spacescifi said:

 

 Is fusion less ISP than metalic hydrogen?

Would a fusion thermal metallic hydrogen fueled rocket be just as good as or nearly as good as an antimatter thermal methane propelkant rocket?

 

Fusion isp is crazy high. I think the lowest number I've seen is 10,000 seconds. I've seen numbers of 100,000+ seconds, but given that our spacecraft will be an SSTO and won't be as thermally efficient and needs to be indirect to cope with the neutrons (unless electric props to get it a few km away from the airport are lighter than the modifications plus the efficiency loss) so we can assume it to be on the low end of that, but that's still at least 10,000 seconds.

Antimatter thermal definitely beats fusion thermal in terms of energy density and specific impulse. I'm not sure if it will beat it in practicality, though. Lose power and your entire spaceship (and a decent chunk of the planet it's next to) get blown away, assuming we have enough antimatter to get to the nearest star system... For an SSTO lander, though, there would be significantly less antimatter on board. Still amounts large enough to do bad things, though.

[kerbiloid]

No need to use a fusion drive directly in the atmosphere.
You can just use it as a power source for the air compressors.

(Of course, except a pulse fusion like Daedalus)

Edited July 17, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

A significant difference: the interciviiliziation contact would take place between intellectual elites of the sapient species, not between random crowds.
And we have much less things to compete in, say soil, water, or coal. And both counterparts are far from each other and well-protected, so neither sudden strike, nor covert expansion are effective.

You make assumptions here that cant even be said to hold true for our own civilization.  For example, the intellectual elite... I mean... I'm sure we could both fill a series of books detailing all the ways our intellectual elite have been tools to be used by much less sophisticated men with power. Didn't you watch Avatar @_@?! 

Or every conflict in human history XD, pretty sure our record of intercivilization contact isnt great D: I wonder what the ratio is actually... of times when we haven't tried to wipe out each other...

 

[kerbiloid]

33 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said:

Or every conflict in human history XD, pretty sure our record of intercivilization contact isnt great D: I wonder what the ratio is actually... of times when we haven't tried to wipe out each other...

Competing for low-tech resources right at hands, to be ineffectively used by low-tech hands until getting depleted.
When most part of growing and poor population lives in primitive villages which are easier to rebuild than to protect. And when the problem was not to restore the population after a war, but to utilize excessive human resources either by sending them to conquer something or by keeping them off the reproduction and redistribution process (numerous medieval monasteries and knight monk orders).

Also, when rich people accumulated their treasures in chests and barrels, not in abstract things like market stock and bank account.

As we can see, two greatest wars in history (WW I&II) took place right when the rural/feudal civilization was being finally replaced by the urban/capitalist one, and were (in fact, was, as just two acts of one drama) mostly the culmination of the Industrial Revolution of XVIII..XX cent.

As at least one contacting civilization is urbanistic, no feudal or peasant collisions would mean much, the contact is performed by too limited groups.

Edited July 17, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Scotius]

10 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

I think it’s pretty safe to say that the first reaction if encountered with some unknown and unexpected alien creature in close proximity would be terror on our part. It’s an evolutionary response. Only after that initial flight/fight moment passes would a person cautiously explore.

Yes to surprisingly rational but the rational part isn’t the only part at play in the human mind and it’s probably not even the dominant part under certain circumstances, there’s a whole lot of automatic responses that can be triggered in specific situations, you could call them instinct. Those hardwired instructions are survival incarnate and were old long before the conscious mind. You have to think maybe there’s something to them.

Probably there is. But "See a stranger ----> immediately commence murder" is not a major part of our behavioural make-up. If it would, any long distance trade, exploration or migration would be next to impossible. And yet we have tangible evidence of such activities across the world, beginning from Stone Age.

[kerbiloid]

The (basic/common) sense of security decides.

In a secure society a person by default treats a stranger or a situation as strange, but doesn't worry and doesn't escape or attack
In an unsecure society a stranger is by default an enemy to be first avoided then neutralized. Traditions of hospitality are all about this, don't enter an alien town unless some of its citizens declares you his guest. In exchange you must declare him your guest and protect if he wants to visit your town. See any myths and sagas.

As daily life is getting more secure proprotionally to the civilization progress, the former is about hi-tech, the latter is about (say, ancient) people untainted by civilization.

Edited July 17, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Guest]

@Scotius I’m not talking about walking past a person you don’t know or something >_<. I’m talking about staring into the unknown and having the unknown notice you and stare back. 

Literally unknown, like if you saw it you would be unsure what you were seeing. That kind of thing taps into a part of us that we seldom see in our lives besides when we hear something in the dark and our mind fails to identify it. 

But yer it’s not likely how first contact goes down, since we should have the benefit of space and time and be able to consider our response while sitting around drinking coffee chatting to our peers. 

But it’s probably good to remember while chatting over our coffees just how far removed we’ve become from the business of survival and how seldom something new comes across our path that we have no frame of reference for. 

[Scotius]

7 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

@Scotius I’m not talking about walking past a person you don’t know or something >_<. I’m talking about staring into the unknown and having the unknown notice you and stare back. 

Literally unknown, like if you saw it you would be unsure what you were seeing. That kind of thing taps into a part of us that we seldom see in our lives besides when we hear something in the dark and our mind fails to identify it. 

But yer it’s not likely how first contact goes down, since we should have the benefit of space and time and be able to consider our response while sitting around drinking coffee chatting to our peers. 

But it’s probably good to remember while chatting over our coffees just how far removed we’ve become from the business of survival and how seldom something new comes across our path that we have no frame of reference for. 

What exactly are you afraid of? Isn't being human all about curiosity? Exploring the unknown, finding new things, pushing the horizon away? We didn't get where we are now, by barricading ourselves in caves. Sure - our ancestors were afraid of things in the dark. And rightly so. But then they mastered the fire, tools and cooperation - and now we have to protect things in the dark from "extinction by Homo sapiens".

"The only thing we need to be afraid of, is fear itself."

[magnemoe]

13 hours ago, Scotius said:

Probably there is. But "See a stranger ----> immediately commence murder" is not a major part of our behavioural make-up. If it would, any long distance trade, exploration or migration would be next to impossible. And yet we have tangible evidence of such activities across the world, beginning from Stone Age.

This, yes you has societies like this, worse you had the kill and optionally eat most but enslave the good looking females type of warrior societies. 
Pretty rare but not more common than you like. Their problem was obviously that any greater power who get into their sphere of influence simply wiped them whiteout any fuss and yes any neighbors of them would be very happy to join that power. 
An large company of Spanish took out the Aztec empire. That one was pretty impressive so is remembered. How many groups Egyptians, Chinese and Romans ran into is unknown as again pest control. 

And yes latest was pretty much isil, they was remarkable simply because they managed to pull more agro than Germany during WW2, forgetting stuff like aircraft, air defense, armor, and loads of divisions of top rate infantry who is nice if you wanted to conquer the world 100 years ago. 
Having some aliens set it up as an game show sound plausible.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Scotius said:

The only thing we need to be afraid of, is fear itself."

Unfortunately that’s not true. There are many situations when being afraid is a sensible response. Swimming with hungry sharks. Losing your toddler overnight.

Possibly vampires...

Edited July 18, 2019 by Guest

[farmerben]

First contact with an alien spacecraft is totally different than visiting an alien homeworld.  I would be very reluctant to intervene in any way on their homeworld.  It is only natural to suspect hostile or deceitful purposes if aliens start messing around on your homeworld.  

The most peaceful introduction is to leave a calling card in their solar system and then not bother them until they contact us.  Similar to the monolith approach of 2001 A Space Odyssey, or the Voyager II record.  

I would introduce myself with this image.  It demonstrates intelligence in a non-threatening way, and can be visible from a long distance, I would put it in a conspicuous part of their solar system, but not approach their home planet.  

When the aliens send a spacecraft to investigate they will discover a couple of new surprises.  First the materials will prove to them it is of alien origin.  We can isolate the stable rare earth elements from fission products and make good superconducting crystals out of them.   This is within our current abilities.  The aliens who discover this will think it unlikely to have been made by their own kind.  If they don't know fission, they will still realize the isotope ratios are strange.  If they do know fission, they will probably reason that their kind did not make this, but will understand some symbolism behind it.  

The entire figure is also capable of being used as a microwave rectenna and a photovoltaic source.  Included are a camera, microphone, and a telegraph key.  Also inscribed on it are pictorial instructions on how to repair it and use it.  The most important instructions are how to aim it and power up the rectenna.  We need a rectenna aimed back at them, but this is so cheap we can afford to leave it for a long time.

 

Another way to achieve similar goals is to include a small RTG made of Curium 245.  This would have enough power for blinking LED's for 20,000 years.  It would be slightly less toxic than the Pu 238 RTG's we are already using.  Nobody in the universe gets their hands on pure Curium 245 easily.  But Oak Ridge has done it.

Edited July 21, 2019 by farmerben

[farmerben]

Part of the question is about ethics.  I think STNG and NASA are both too conservative.

If they invent radio, I'm ready to talk.

If the aliens are less intelligent than turkeys, I'm fine with capturing specimens and modifying them for exploitation.  (but not extermination).  

If they show any sign of technology like a clay pot or a rope, which shows planning days in advance, then I would hide and leave them to develop on their own for a while.  We could observe, but without landing cameras all over their planet we would see few details, and we can't hide those types of probes.  Would it be OK to kidnap a few specimens and take them with us?

Edited July 21, 2019 by farmerben

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

If they show any sign of technology like a clay pot or a rope, which shows planning days in advance, then I would hide and leave them to develop on their own for a while. 

The development from clay pots and ropes took >10k years for humans. So, be patient.

If we are ready to watch their natural development in details (like burnt cities, skinned prisoners, etc.) then we are not so much innocent, so why hesitate with immediate direct action to avoid this pleasure?
if we are not ready for such waiting, then a direct action is a default.

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

Would it be OK to kidnap a few specimens and take them with us?

If they are in a pot on a rope phase of development, we just must do that, otherwise they will be despising us and not listening.
I'm afraid,

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

capturing specimens and modifying them for exploitation.  (but not extermination).  

will be not sufficient.

Edited July 21, 2019 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

We should test them with these.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Shavehaircut.ogg

[farmerben]

If you want to trade with head hunters there is a surefire method that works every time (on humans).  Hang a steel hatchet in a tree about a mile from their settlement.  One month later sit under that tree.  The natives show up and don't kill you. 

The downside is that giving a primitive tribe a military advantage over its neighbors, almost guarantees they will use it.  So there is heavy moral responsibility for the trader.  

Another problem for most uplifted human tribes is that they wind up in the lowest class of the new society, and can't go back to their old ways.  As such they are making an unimportant contribution to the knowledge of the new society.  Over time, individuals may become equals in the new society and build on the knowledge of that society in the same way its other members do.  But the unique branch of development the old society had begun is usually lost.  

Men like Cortez and Pizzaro were motivated by lust for power.  Wealth was secondary.  The quest for knowledge was actually negative.  They destroyed countless records, nearly all the records they could find in order to exterminate paganism and enslave people.  I hope that future human explorers have the inverse moral priorities of these men.  Otherwise, I would prefer humanity stay home and develop for a few more millennia.  

The possibility that another species could develop math and science along different lines than we followed, could be of enormous value to us.  When we are an interstellar species, I hope we do not feel that a scarcity of land and labor threatens our survival as the people of our colonial civilizations felt a few centuries ago.  

[kerbiloid]

<snip> = forget their planet forever until they come here and start deciding what to do about us.

Then why search for habitable planets at all? Moon guarantees we won't hurt anybody there.

Edited July 22, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Spacescifi]

On 7/21/2019 at 7:10 AM, farmerben said:

Part of the question is about ethics.  I think STNG and NASA are both too conservative.

If they invent radio, I'm ready to talk.

If the aliens are less intelligent than turkeys, I'm fine with capturing specimens and modifying them for exploitation.  (but not extermination).  

If they show any sign of technology like a clay pot or a rope, which shows planning days in advance, then I would hide and leave them to develop on their own for a while.  We could observe, but without landing cameras all over their planet we would see few details, and we can't hide those types of probes.  Would it be OK to kidnap a few specimens and take them with us?

 

Ethics? I mean... only if that is what the scifi boils down to, a moral dilemma.

Besides, scifi aliens are a reconstruction or deconstruction of human civilization, so their 'morality' may be either more or less than current human civilization.

What's the saying? History is written by the victors. Certainly not the losers. Their world is all but forgotten and relegated to the likes of the museum and an alien encyclopedia britannica.

 

Scifi can indeed be used to send any given message on morality, but that will be polarizing to any given audience.

You can only truly choose who your allies and enemies will be. Or rather, your supporters and opposers, assuming you are'nt actively in conflict.

Choose wisely.

 

The same logic can be applied to aliens who met others in a first contact scenario.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Spacescifi
Morality?

[Guest]

On 7/22/2019 at 12:10 AM, farmerben said:

We could observe, but without landing cameras all over their planet we would see few details, and we can't hide those types of probes. 

I can think of lots of ways to hide them >:)

but first we need an idea of who we are hiding them from, so there’s initially some risk. A fast flyby of their planet with a tiny passive probe should tell us enough to move forward with progressively better information gathering techniques >=]

[Nightside]

1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:

History is written by the victors.

If history is written by the victors, who writes the science fiction?

[kerbiloid]

4 hours ago, Nightside said:

5 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

History is written by the victors.

If history is written by the victors, who writes the science fiction?

Scientific victors.

While irl losers are happy with electric cars requiring daily recharge, the characters of Jules Verne are:

• crossing oceans in an electric submarine;
• crossing Africa in a small balloon with a small car-type accumulator, electrolizing water as hydrogen supply ISRU.

And all this in XIX century!

So, who wins the compettiton? Teslacars or Jules Verne?

Edited July 23, 2019 by kerbiloid