What exoplanet might reply us back?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The signal has a mathematical anomaly with an occurrence rate of statistical impossibility.

Rough odds, the probability that we would receive it with this explicit characteristic, from a natural or "random" process is in this ballpark.

1 / 10^34

I had to find a calculator that wouldn't round that to zero. Online calculators all told me it was zero. Built-in calc app, zero.

I had to bust out a TI-89 Titanium just to get the precision without a zero rounding.

Given that I've spoken with the lead research teams involved with FRB121102, and even in the face of that statistical chance, no one will even touch the idea, and SETI went completely dark on the subject.

I attempted to decode some of the message. I figured out the header information from the embedded message within FRB121102.

Nobody cares.

So, I stopped. I don't care enough to waste my time digging further on it, if any finding I make would never be listened to anyway.

It's not worth me wasting my life, for deaf ears.

I agreed not to distribute any details on decoding it, but I have posted multiple times online about the involved statistical anomaly.

When I started to decode it, beyond the header, I found that it has some positioning information. I stopped before figuring out what the position was actually indicating.

Whether it was from a "neutron star" or not, is irrelevant to the possibility that the signal is intelligently constructed.

With that much energy? From that far away? We would not be able to differentiate a hyper advanced transmitter from a neutron star pulse.

The source transmission area was somewhere near the magnitude of about 10 kilometers.
10 kilometers seems pretty possible to me, to be a constructed device. Humanity has successfully built structures that far exceed that.

It is completely possible that a civilization lensed, and utilized a neutron star's energy pulse to send that signal. If it wasn't 100% artificial, anyway.

I'm willing to bend over backwards pretty far, to say Occam's Razor dictates it's "natural"

But I'm not willing to bend to the point that I'd throw out a 1/10^34 probability.

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The signal has a mathematical anomaly with an occurrence rate of statistical impossibility.

Rough odds, the probability that we would receive it with this explicit characteristic, from a natural or "random" process is in this ballpark.

1 / 10^34

I had to find a calculator that wouldn't round that to zero. Online calculators all told me it was zero. Built-in calc app, zero.

Well that would be 1.0e-35...according to the built in calculator for Win 10.

Given that I've spoken with the lead research teams involved with FRB121102, and even in the face of that statistical chance, no one will even touch the idea, and SETI went completely dark on the subject.

I attempted to decode some of the message. I figured out the header information from the embedded message within FRB121102.

Nobody cares.

I would suspect that its not so much that "nobody cares", as it is that nobody believes this could be an artificial signal. Intel says that signal is coming from some 3 billion lightyears away. Given the math on an electromagnetic signals...it would require more power than can be generated/produced artificially, which would make the source NATURAL, regardless of the seemingly embedded data.

Actually for this to be artificial would require the modulation of a super nova, and perhaps a bit of signal focusing (directing). The amount of power required is truly mind boggling...So, regardless of any other data, the source is natural.

So, I stopped. I don't care enough to waste my time digging further on it, if any finding I make would never be listened to anyway.

It's not worth me wasting my life, for deaf ears.

I agreed not to distribute any details on decoding it, but I have posted multiple times online about the involved statistical anomaly.

So, who made you agree to not divulge the details? Oh, and, when you have something you think is real, it is ALWAYS worth the effort of discussing it with others; they may have insights into your "questions" that you may not think of.

When I started to decode it, beyond the header, I found that it has some positioning information. I stopped before figuring out what the position was actually indicating.

Whether it was from a "neutron star" or not, is irrelevant to the possibility that the signal is intelligently constructed.

With that much energy? From that far away? We would not be able to differentiate a hyper advanced transmitter from a neutron star pulse.

The source transmission area was somewhere near the magnitude of about 10 kilometers.
10 kilometers seems pretty possible to me, to be a constructed device. Humanity has successfully built structures that far exceed that.

It is completely possible that a civilization lensed, and utilized a neutron star's energy pulse to send that signal. If it wasn't 100% artificial, anyway.

I'm willing to bend over backwards pretty far, to say Occam's Razor dictates it's "natural"

But I'm not willing to bend to the point that I'd throw out a 1/10^34 probability.

So...just HOW did you come up with the 0.1E-34 probability anyway?

Oh and I do believe that much more than just ole Occam's razor is indicating "natural"; the math behind electromagnetic propagation is seriously involved here, as is the theoretical output of a neutron star (as you put it), though I don't think a neutron star would have enough power...not to mention the degree of difficulty in modulating a signal like that! By the way; was that modulation amplitude, frequency, FSK, pulse width, what?

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The signal has a mathematical anomaly with an occurrence rate of statistical impossibility.

Could you elaborate on what exactly makes the rate of repetition of FRB121102 statistically impossible? Namely, what is so impossibly unique about that rate?

And not just what "makes it unique", but "what makes it impossibly unique"? I mean, any random event could be unique.

I'm not saying it can't possibly be an artificial signal (there are only hypotheses and theories trying to explain it as natural at the moment), but you seem convinced that it can't possibly be natural. I'll go back to the pulsars discovered in the 1960s: the pulsar signal was too regular to have any known possible natural explanation at the time, but it was eventually explained as natural.

a reply to: alfa015

The one with people on it.

a reply to: james1947

Neat.

Tell you what. If you can ask me those questions again without the foam in your mouth, I'll be happy to answer them.

As it is, I can't even read half of your post.

That's good for Windows 10. Wasn't my OS at the time.

I won't tell you anything that puts me at risk.

I pulled all data I analyzed, directly from either Greenbank Telescope in West Virginia, directly, from the Breakthrough data upload at Berkeley, or directly from a researcher firsthand.

You are assuming absolute limits on energy for arrtificial production.

Nice try, but you are scaling our knowledge to apply to something that would need to be Kardashev 2-3

Given that our whole civilization isn't even K1, your judgment isn't any better than mine, on that idea.

This addresses what I was able to read from your post. I'll talk more if you decide to be constructive.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




Sure.

Ultimately, until someone more capable digs through it and makes sure it's not a result of deconstructing part of the Fourier Traansformation. (I currently suspect this is a possibility.)

If you take the center bandwidth number from our FRB121102 data, and you apply it to pi, as an exponential power, you get back a number constructed of four primes, with delimiters.

Not very impressive, but one of the delimiters implies a movement of the decimal in the first exponent number we used. When you move the decimal then apply it again, you get a horribly large number, which is not prime.

However, that number, when factored, consists of 4 primes, all 4 of those primes, have at least 11 digits.

(The minimum distance on the number line for values with this characteristic - 1/10^34)

The minimum distance on the number line for values with both characteristics - Infinity until I get better equipment.

I haven't tested this behavior further, as I lack any calculatory device, capable of doing so.

With a highly polarised signal, as those involved all claim this to be, the center bandwidth numerical value would not care how old or from how far away it is.

Spatial distance would not harm it, the polarisation of that signal blows cosmic background radiation away. There are models that clearly show this.

The center bandwidth value is safe in a coccoon of polarization movement.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
I do, however, stand absolutely ready to be both joyously surprised, and enveloped in wonder, should a message return from any of the targeted locations.

Exactly. We're not rooting for failure, but knowing what we know now about how insanely improbable it was that we managed to survive and evolve enough to even ask the question, it realistically diminishes the odds of intelligent, radio or laser broadcasting civilizations existing anywhere, much less anywhere close enough to us to actually get a response to our puny signals. And life existing in some distant galaxy or a far corner of our own is essentially the same as them being imaginary.

Just have to wait and see. Or just wait. Can't prove a negative, after all.

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: james1947

Neat.

Tell you what. If you can ask me those questions again without the foam in your mouth, I'll be happy to answer them.

As it is, I can't even read half of your post.

What foam? It all still seems like simple direct English...

And, the precision of that calculator goes all the way back to Win3.x/

I won't tell you anything that puts me at risk.

I'm sorry, man, but all this statement tells me is that you don't really have much. There could be nothing contained within that signal that could possible affect planetary security...and that would be the only valid reason to secrecy.

I pulled all data I analyzed, directly from either Greenbank Telescope in West Virginia, directly, from the Breakthrough data upload at Berkeley, or directly from a researcher firsthand.

Got links?

You are assuming absolute limits on energy for arrtificial production.

Nice try, but you are scaling our knowledge to apply to something that would need to be Kardashev 2-3

Given that our whole civilization isn't even K1, your judgment isn't any better than mine, on that idea.

This addresses what I was able to read from your post. I'll talk more if you decide to be constructive.

Lol...no I'm not assuming absolute limits, but, I am imposing practical limits based on Math and Physics (primarily on what we know about magnetism and magnetic fields), much of this work is rather "final". Such things as the degradation of electromagnetic fields over distance, etc.

While I don't put ANY stock in the purely hypothetical Kardashev scale / ideas, my "judgement" on this is based on my education in physics, math, and electrical engineering...so, I think my judgement should be pretty good here.

Here is a little math:
1) or Sun has a power output on the order of 3.8E26 watts
2) SGR 180-20 a magnetar produced the greatest flash of light outside our solar system...it is estimated to be some 250000 times the power of Earth's Sun.
3) this would place the power output at around 9.5E31 Watts
4) over a distance of 3 billion lightyears that power level will diminish to 1.211E-19 watts...not enough to be detected by any terrestrial technology.

From this we can determine that; 1) SGR 180-20 isn't 3 billion light years away, and, 2) your signal cannot be artificial as the power is far too great to be produced by anything other than a dying star (super nova)...And that brings us back to the method of modulation, or "how" information was placed on that natural signal (the result of a super nova).

Sorry if my manner isn't what you like, but, I am me.

a reply to: james1947

You're right.

I am wrong.

FRB121102 couldn't possibly have been influenced by any intelligent being.

None of this discussion matters and you're just a jackass on the internet, like me.

Move on.

I have.

If you want more to this story, do the work yourself. Took me 7 months to get what I did.

Also, there is a flaw in your assumption about what calculators on Windows are able to display.

Feel free to find your own information. I'm not providing anything to you. I don't care if you look or not.

I am no longer invested in this search, nor this conversation. Reply to me if you want. I am leaving this thread permanently and will not respond to any PM's from you.

I gave up trying to discuss this topic with people who are actually involved with it. I'm not going to put myself at risk, nor waste my time discussing it with someone that isn't willing to listen.

I don't care what you think. Believe what you want. I can't and won't go into this conversation in a way that attempts to prove it to anyone.

I can only discuss what has been discussed, and what has already been found.

Anything after that, is on you.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I think the pragmatic thing to do, as long as this species exists, is to keep looking. There is little point in trying to second guess the universe, trying to reach a point where we can say that nothing is out there, because that point can never come, especially in a universe which is so vast that we cannot see the outer edges of it. We should keep looking not because we expect any particular result, but because if we stop looking, if we stop reaching outward, if our deflation at the prospect of failure keeps us from wanting to VISIT the places we can see in our telescopes, then we will have lost the animus necessary to drive our species forward at all.

Exploration is our defining feature as a people. From the first tribes to set to sea in a canoe made of animal hide, to the greatest galleons ever sailed, from the first powered flight, to the first steps on the moon, our best moments as a species, have been those in which we quested to reach distant things, learn about the world, our place upon it, and indeed its place within the solar system.

What new heights of wonder could we achieve, if we were to stifle our tendency for conquest, and instead purify our acts of exploration, render them purely scientific, not monetary in concern or militaristic in their intent, but purely for the benefit of knowing something new? If we were to quest in the deepest depths of space, learn how to bend the fabric of reality in order to propel us from place to place, rather than rely on chemical rockets, what amazing things could we discover OTHER than intelligent life?

I would warrant that the benefits to actual exploration, as well as improving our telescopy capacity, would be enormous, both to the reach and potential of the species, but also to its spirit, its heart if you will. Greater knowledge of the medium in which we are suspended, can only bring greater wonder and amazement into our lives, and I believe that this can only result in a better, happier, more inquisitive human race.

I know this has been said before but.....do we actually want anyone to reply to us?
Surely any civilization replying to us would be at least as technologically 'advanced' as us, probably more so.
Given our experiences here on earth of 'advanced' civilizations meeting 'not-so-advanced' civilizations do we really want them to know we are here?

Genuinely interested in what the more informed than me think.

a reply to: Archivalist

I'm not going to put myself at risk,....

Again, really interested......how could you possibly put yourself at risk by revealing what you know etc?
Who would want to harm you?

You say you 'don't care', but quite clearly you do!

a reply to: Archivalist

Again Wow! What a strong reaction!

I was only trying to ask a few questions so that I could get more information, and perhaps arrive at a better understanding. I also pointed a couple of serious questions that really should be answered...You know little things about how powerful that radio burst was, how far away it is, etc. These thing are important questions, and the answers may be critical.

7 months huh? Ya know, I may not have 7 months, especially since I have other projects of my own that I feel are a bit more important.

So, if you don't want to discuss this (One wonders why you posted it in the first place), I guess we're done. Shame, we both may have learned something new. But, I feel that One should follow the actual science instead of what we might want.

Oh, and on the Windows calculators; no assumptions!!! (rounding to zero really isn't a thing, but you may see this on a calculator that can only handle integers. All other calculators use floating point arithmetic and NEVER round to zero...i'm a retired software engineer and have written several calculators over the past 45 years)

originally posted by: Blue Shift
...And life existing in some distant galaxy or a far corner of our own is essentially the same as them being imaginary.

I used the analogy before that it might be like being on a desert island....

...While there's an entire planet full of 7 Billion people out there beyond the shores of that island, you might as well consider yourself to be "alone", because Earth and its oceans are so vast, and that island is so small, that there may be very little chance of ever seeing one of those other 7 billion humans.

There might be a universe of intelligent alien life out there, and even intelligent life in our own galaxy, but the universe (and the galaxy) is vast compared to the tiny Earth, and the nearest technological civilization may be so far away that we never have the chance to make any contact with them. And Interstellar travel may not be so simple and ubiquitous that those aliens ever have a reason to think about traveling to our infinitesimally miniscule region of the universe.

In that case, just like the desert island, we may as well consider ourselves "alone"...even in a universe that almost certainly has other intelligent life at this moment.

originally posted by: alfa015
Put in other words, which of these exoplanets do you think it might have intelligent life?

None. There are a lot more factors to consider, or requirements for a planet to have life and be habitable than some people would like to admit or bring up in their fanciful stories about "exoplanets" and the potentiality of life on them that are designed to pique your interest (for marketing purposes). This is just the tip of the iceberg (you can add things like our ozone layer which functions as a protective shield against harmful radiation, the distance to our sun and moon, etc.):

Our Unique Solar System​—How It Got Here

MANY factors combine to make our part of the universe unique. Our solar system is located between two of the Milky Way’s spiral arms in a region that has relatively few stars. Nearly all the stars that we can see at night are so far from us that they remain mere points of light when viewed through the largest telescopes. Is that how it should be?

If our solar system were close to the center of the Milky Way, we would suffer the harmful effects of being among a dense concentration of stars. Earth’s orbit, for example, would likely be perturbed, and that would dramatically affect human life. As it is, the solar system appears to have just the right position in the galaxy to avoid this and other dangers, such as overheating when passing through gas clouds and being exposed to exploding stars and other sources of deadly radiation.

The sun is an ideal type of star for our needs. It is steady burning, long-lived, and neither too large nor too hot. The vast majority of stars in our galaxy are much smaller than our sun and provide neither the right kind of light nor the right amount of heat to sustain life on an earthlike planet. In addition, most stars are gravitationally bound to one or more other stars and revolve around one another. Our sun, by contrast, is independent. It is unlikely that our solar system would remain stable if we had to contend with the gravitational force of two or more suns.

Another factor that makes our solar system unique is the location of the giant outer planets that have almost circular orbits and pose no gravitational threat to the inner terrestrial planets.* Instead, the outer planets fulfill the protective function of absorbing and deflecting dangerous objects. “Asteroids and comets hit us but not excessively so, thanks to the presence of giant gas planets such as Jupiter beyond us,” explain scientists Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee in their book Rare Earth​—Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe. Other solar systems with giant planets have been discovered. But most of these giants have orbits that would endanger a smaller earthlike planet.

The Role of the Moon
...
Another key purpose that our moon serves is that its gravitational force stabilizes earth’s axis with respect to earth’s plane of orbit around the sun. According to the scientific journal Nature, without the moon, the inclination of earth’s axis would wobble over long periods of time from “nearly 0 [degrees] to 85 [degrees].” Imagine if earth’s axis had no tilt! We would miss the delightful change of seasons and suffer from a shortage of rain. The earth’s tilt also prevents temperatures from becoming too extreme for us to survive. “We owe our present climate stability to an exceptional event: the presence of the Moon,” concludes astronomer Jacques Laskar. To fulfill its stabilizing role, our moon is large​—relatively larger than the moons of the giant planets.
...
Chance or Purpose?

How is one to explain the concurrence of multiple factors that make life on earth not only possible but also enjoyable? There appear to be only two alternatives. The first is that all these realities are the casual product of aimless chance. The second is that there is some intelligent purpose behind it.
...

Enjoy Our Beautiful Earth

ASTRONOMERS have seen that mankind’s home is just a tiny speck in the immeasurable reaches of a boundless universe. Nowhere else in the physical universe has life been found. Only on planet Earth have just the right conditions existed.

Moreover, we can enjoy life on this beautiful globe. How pleasant it is to feel warmed by the sun on a cold day! Who of us is not moved by a spectacular sunrise or sunset? Our sun, of course, does more than merely delight our senses. It is vital to our very existence.
...
Our solar system likely would not be so stable if it were located in a much larger, dense cluster of galaxies. But, as it is, few regions of the universe “are as amenable to complex life as ours,” state Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards in their book The Privileged Planet.

Is the existence of life on this planet the product of blind chance, the fortuitous result of some part of the “big bang”? Or is there a grander meaning to life on this beautiful planet Earth?

Many people have come to the conclusion that our earthly home was specifically designed to support life.
...

Evidence of design from biology

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: carewemust

FRB121102 - Changed nothing

There is really no evidence that FRB121102 is necessarily an alien signal. Sure -- it is within the realm of possibility that it is, but it's also likely that it is a natural phenomenon, perhaps from a magnetar or neutron star integrating with a magnetic field, as described in this article:

Magnetic Secrets of Mysterious Radio Bursts in a Faraway Galaxy

Similarly, when pulsars were first observed in the late 1960s, science had no idea what it was at first, and there was talk (even in the mainstream science community) that pulsars might possibly be artificial and alien in origin. However, as they learned more about the phenomenon, it became more clear that pulsars were natural. FRBs, and specifically FRB121102, seem to also more likely be natural in origin the more we learn about them.

I agree with you, there are as many as 10,000 FRBs happening every day in different parts of the sky.

originally posted by: alfa015
So.. we have sent radio messages to Gliese 273 b and the Gliese 581 system, where planet 'g' hasn't been confirmed yet but it is potentially habitable.

So, keeping some of the information of my previous comment in mind, let's have a look at Gliese 273 b:

It is the second planet in a system of 2 planets orbiting around GJ 273, a M3.5 class star...
The orbit is closer to the star than the internal limit of the habitable zone.
...

Source: Exoplorer: gliese-273-b

So according to this database it's the outer planet of a 2 planet-system, so no "giant outer planets that have almost circular orbits and pose no gravitational threat to the inner terrestrial planets." (quoting from the article in my previous comment) And no "outer planets fulfill[ing] the protective function of absorbing and deflecting dangerous objects."

On another website linked above I noticed that the star of this system has 29% of the mass of our sun, so the following from the article in my previous comment probably applies as well:

"The vast majority of stars in our galaxy are much smaller than our sun and provide neither the right kind of light nor the right amount of heat to sustain life on an earthlike planet."

No mention on these websites of any moons or ozone layer. Why would anyone even suggest this planet is habitable other than for making some easy money on the gullible lovers of science fiction? Many of whom can't tell the difference between science and science fiction anymore because of the activities of the philosophical naturalists and the promotion of philosophical naturalism as "science" (which is also a conflation)?

Now let's have a look at this unconfirmed but imagined planet "g" in Gliese 581 and what wikipedia says about that planet:

is the sixth planet orbiting the star...

Then if you go to the actual page for the star you see 3 confirmed planets and 2 unconfirmed of which planet g is listed as 4th. Either way, even if this imaginary planet exists somewhere thereabouts, it has no further "giant outer planets that have almost circular orbits and pose no gravitational threat to the inner terrestrial planets." And no "outer planets fulfill[ing] the protective function of absorbing and deflecting dangerous objects."

“Asteroids and comets hit us but not excessively so, thanks to the presence of giant gas planets such as Jupiter beyond us,” explain scientists Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee in their book Rare Earth​—Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe. Other solar systems with giant planets have been discovered. But most of these giants have orbits that would endanger a smaller earthlike planet.

Source: see previous comment

Again, this also applies (Gliese 581 is much smaller than our Sun):

The sun is an ideal type of star for our needs. It is steady burning, long-lived, and neither too large nor too hot. The vast majority of stars in our galaxy are much smaller than our sun and provide neither the right kind of light nor the right amount of heat to sustain life on an earthlike planet. In addition, most stars are gravitationally bound to one or more other stars and revolve around one another. Our sun, by contrast, is independent. It is unlikely that our solar system would remain stable if we had to contend with the gravitational force of two or more suns.

Again, no consideration for ozone layers and moons in discussions about habitability (on wikipedia where that subject for planet g comes up for example). Funny how an unconfirmed imagined planet is already deemed habitable by those claiming it exists or is likely that it exists. With no consideration for the things I brought up in my previous comment I might add.

Which incidentally contains a link at the end to all the evidence you need for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. But those involved in SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence) won't acknowledge any of it cause it's not as entertaining as talking about aliens or as profitable as continuing the search (with no end in sight regarding expenditures and research grants) for something that has already been found by many (who are not, like those involved in SETI, paid for coming up empty and with no regard for results as long as they adhere to the promotion of philosophical naturalism).

originally posted by: alfa015

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: carewemust

FRB121102 - Changed nothing

There is really no evidence that FRB121102 is necessarily an alien signal. Sure -- it is within the realm of possibility that it is, but it's also likely that it is a natural phenomenon, perhaps from a magnetar or neutron star integrating with a magnetic field, as described in this article:

Magnetic Secrets of Mysterious Radio Bursts in a Faraway Galaxy

Similarly, when pulsars were first observed in the late 1960s, science had no idea what it was at first, and there was talk (even in the mainstream science community) that pulsars might possibly be artificial and alien in origin. However, as they learned more about the phenomenon, it became more clear that pulsars were natural. FRBs, and specifically FRB121102, seem to also more likely be natural in origin the more we learn about them.

I agree with you, there are as many as 10,000 FRBs happening every day in different parts of the sky.

While you are correct that thousands of Fast Radio Bursts probably occur every day (extrapolating known observations to the whole sky), only a few dozen have been observed.

Having said that, FRB 121102 is unique among those observed FRBs. To play Devil's advocate for a moment, FRB 121102 repeats, which is NOT the usual observed behavior of FRBs.

However, there are plausible natural explanations for the repeating behavior of FRB 121102.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Again, no consideration for ozone layers and moons in discussions about habitability (on wikipedia where that subject for planet g comes up for example). Funny how an unconfirmed imagined planet is already deemed habitable by those claiming it exists or is likely that it exists. With no consideration for the things I brought up in my previous comment I might add.

Which incidentally contains a link at the end to all the evidence you need for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. .

Which link is it?
I couldn't find what you're talking about here.

Harte

a reply to: whereislogic

"In the habitable zone of its star" and "habitable" are two different things.

If we were 100 LY away looking back at our own solar system, by most definitions of the term "habitable zone", three planets -- Venus, Earth, and Mars would be -- considered to be within the habitable zone of our Sun.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
I think the pragmatic thing to do, as long as this species exists, is to keep looking.

Yeah. It has a very low cost:benefit ratio. A relatively small investment could have a potentially huge payoff if we actually managed to catch a transmission or get some other indication of non-terrestrial life, particularly if it's intelligent. Maybe meeting face-to-face with a technologically superior culture might mean our quick doom, it wouldn't hurt us to quietly eavesdrop on them and adapt those technologies for a while until we (literally) get up to speed. It could help us a lot in fending off those danged wild asteroids that could erase us tomorrow.

Of course, humans as a species may not last much longer thanks to genetic manipulation and the rise of super AI. So we have a limited window of opportunity. Who knows if our smart robots will want to go to the stars. They may think the whole idea is foolishly romantic, although if part of their programming is to join with all other AI systems, they might try to seek out other alien robots. Hard to say.