The next time you're outdoors on a clear night and away from city lights, look up at the sky and get a sense of its myriads of stars. Train your binoculars on the Milky Way and appreciate how many more stars escaped your naked eye. Then look at a photograph of the Andromeda nebula as seen through a powerful telescope to realize the enormous number of stars that escaped your binoculars as well. When all those numbers have sunk in, you're ready to ask: How many civilizations of intelligent beings like ourselves must be out there, looking back at us? How long before we are in communication with them, before we visit them or before we are visited?

Many scientists have tried to calculate the odds. Their efforts have spawned a whole new field of science termed exobiology – the sole scientific field whose subject matter has not yet been shown to exist. Since a summary of the calculations fills seven pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, what more could we learn by further speculation? I'll suggest, nevertheless, that woodpeckers offer a fresh perspective.

Exobiologists find the numbers in their subject matter encouraging. Billions of galaxies each have billions of stars. Many stars probably have one or more planets, and many of those planets probably have an environment suitable for life. Where suitable conditions exist, life will probably evolve eventually.

Introduction

The possibility that life, primitive or advanced, might exist in other parts of the universe has occupied the thoughts of scientists and laymen for thousands of years. One of the earliest was the statement by the ancient Greek philosopher Metrodorus of Chios around 400 b.c., who wrote in his book On Nature that: ‘It is unnatural in a large field to have only one shaft of wheat, and in the infinite Universe only one living world.’

In a.d. 1690 the famous Dutch physicist Christian Huygens wrote in his book Cosmotheoros that: ‘Barren planets, deprived of living creatures that speak most eloquently of their Divine Architect, are unreasonable, wasteful and uncharacteristic of God, who has a purpose for everything.’

In the nineteenth century, several proposals were made by different distinguished scientists. The most famous was mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss, who proposed to establish contacts with advanced civilizations on other planets of our solar system, by planting a rectangular triangle with wheat in Siberia, with squares of pine trees at its three sides, to show that the Earth has intelligent beings that know the Pythagorean Theorem. None of these proposals, however, was implemented.

The modern era of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) started in 1959 with a paper to Nature by Cocconi and Morrison, which was followed soon after in the spring of 1960 by the first radio search by Frank Drake (Project OZMA), using the then new 85 foot radio telescope at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in West Virginia.

Interstellar Travel and Extraterrestrial Intelligence

The success of several proposals to search for extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) in the Galaxy (Cocconi & Morrison, 1959; Oliver & Billingham, 1971; Michaud, 1979) requires the existence of a large number of technologically competent cultures over a long period of time. For example, to expect to find one ETI within 1000 light-years in a perfectly efficient search would require about a million ETI in the Galaxy, each signalling for a million years. (Or it would require 108 ETI signalling 104 years, or 104 ETI signalling 108 years, etc.) Many people have asked why some of these ETI should not have taken advantage of their prolonged technological capability to find a method for interstellar travel and settlement of nearby stellar systems (see, e.g., Hart, 1975; Jones, 1976; Winterberg, 1979). If the initial problem of interstellar travel and settlement were solved, then it should become progressively easier for daughter settlements to eventually continue the process until every available stellar system in the Galaxy (including possibly our own) were inhabited.

The chances of this happening have been discussed extensively, often with minimal thought given to the physical requirements for interstellar settlement. In particular, it has been argued that interstellar settlement is either impossible (see, e.g., Purcell, 1960; Marx, 1973) or absurdly expensive (e.g. requiring trillions of man-years of effort to amass the nuclear fuel needed).

Earth is unique in this solar system – it is the only planet that seems to support life. Its hospitable ecosphere stands in stark contrast to the empty, lifeless landscapes of the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury and other worlds probed by our spacecraft. Recent arguments suggest that while planets may be common in the universe, habitable worlds may not be. Internally, a candidate planet's proper composition, tectonic dynamics and very narrow but extremely long-period thermal stability may be rare. External biosphere-destroying natural processes, from interstellar dust clouds to sterilizing radiation sources, may periodically rid vast regions of a galaxy of planet-bound life forms.

Such a severe limitation on life-supporting worlds significantly impacts discussions of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence at both ends of the question, the search for causes and the search for consequences. On the former issue, it seriously reduces the stage on which the formation and evolution of life may take its chances against the odds: few candidate planets means even fewer ultimate successes. At the other end of the question, it suggests strategies for searching for the few successful technologies that do evolve, by identifying potential technological activities they would choose to engage in, activities that may have very long range of detectability. The significance to human searches for ETI may be profound.

The issues of ‘probability of intelligence arising’ are dealt with in other chapters. My purpose is to address the question of final consequences.

Where are they? Enrico Fermi is reputed to have asked this question at the dawn of the atomic age. He must have been wondering why, having discovered and tamed nuclear energy sources, advanced extraterrestrials were not in evidence here on Earth or out in the skies.

During the 1960s and early 1970s, Fermi's question was largely forgotten or ignored. Advances in radioastronomy, the American and Soviet space programs, the blossoming of the study of molecular biology and progress in laboratory simulations of prebiological organic chemistry all contributed, in their own way, to a euphoric belief among many scientists that life in the cosmos is commonplace and might even be discovered soon. At a more popular level, numerous reports of close encounters of the second and third kind, lavishly bankrolled science fiction movies and enormously popular books on ancient astronauts all served to promote the idea that They are out there and will soon be, or already have been, here.

The past few years have seen the introduction of new and sobering input into this picture. The US program of planetary exploration, while highly successful from a technological and scientific standpoint, has failed to produce even a hint of an extraterrestrial biology. Although the search for simple nonterrestrial life in our solar system cannot be considered complete, the prospects for eventual success do not look good. In addition, searches for evidence of advanced technology, either in deep space or in the solar system, have been discouraging.

Introduction

Cocconi and Morrison (1959) closed their seminal paper on SETI with a statement that still well characterizes our current situation: ‘The probability of success is difficult to estimate, but if we never search the chance of success is zero.’ This chapter is a brief summary of how and why NASA has shaped the High Resolution Microwave Survey (HRMS), which it inaugurated on 12 October 1992. Some of the alternative search strategies that were considered are also noted, since these may well form the basis for the next generation of searches, should the HRMS fail to detect a signal.

Although this endeavor is often referred to as SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), as it is implemented today, and into the foreseeable future, individual search projects are actually seeking evidence of extraterrestrial technology. Thus for scientists and engineers engaged in this exploration, a species' ability to technologically modify its local environment in ways that can be detected over interstellar distances has become a pragmatic substitute for the overly complex and convoluted definitions of ‘intelligence’ offered by researchers in other fields. Far in the future lies the promise of being able to detect indirect, but compelling, evidence of life itself on a distant planet. The coexistence of highly reactive gases (such as methane and oxygen) in the atmosphere of a planet, orbiting at an appropriate distance from its host star (so that liquid surface water might be possible) would suggest a continuous biological source at the base of that atmosphere.

Introduction

Here in a nutshell is the entire concept of chemical evolution. What the experimentalist does is to try to recreate Darwin's warm little pond and to see whether those reactions that preceded the emergence of life can be retraced in the laboratory. Such ideas lay fallow for a long period of time until the Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin, in a dissertation published in Russia in 1924, contended that there was no fundamental difference between a living organism and lifeless matter and that the complex combinations, manifestations and properties so characteristic of life must have arisen in the process of the evolution of matter (Oparin, 1924). In 1928, Haldane had similar ideas. He described the formation of a primordial broth by the action of ultraviolet light on the Earth's primitive atmosphere (Haldane, 1929). The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is the basis of the scientific study of the origin of life.

Primitive Earth's Atmosphere

The composition of the primitive atmosphere is of paramount importance for the synthesis of organic material. The primary Earth's atmosphere was probably formed from the gravitational capture of gases from the solar nebula (Rasool, 1972); however, it was rapidly lost during the early evolution of the Sun.

Introduction

All of the life that is known, all organisms that exist on Earth today or are known to have existed on Earth in the past, are of the same life form: a life form based on DNA and protein. It does not necessarily have to be that way. Why not have two competing life forms on this planet? Why not have biology as we know it and some other biology that occupies its own distinct niche? Yet that is not how evolution has played out. From microbes living on the surface of antarctic ice to tube worms lying near the deep-sea hydrothermal vents, all known organisms on this planet are of the same biology.

Looking at the single known biology on Earth, it is clear that this biology could not have simply sprung forth from the primordial soup. The biological system that is the basis for all known life is far too complicated to have arisen spontaneously. This brings us to the notion that something else, something simpler, must have preceded life based on DNA and protein. One suggestion that has gained considerable acceptance over the past decade is that DNA and protein-based life was preceded by RNA-based life in a period referred to as the ‘RNA world’.

Even an RNA-based life form would have been fairly complicated – not as complicated as our own DNA-and protein-based life form – but far too complicated, according to prevailing scientific thinking, to have arisen spontaneously from the primordial soup.

There are both scientific and social reasons for wanting to go to the stars. On the scientific side, astronomy and planetary science (and very likely the biological sciences also) would benefit tremendously. Just consider the advantages of taking thermometers, magnetometers, mass spectrometers, gravimeters, seismometers, microscopes, and all the other paraphernalia of experimental science, to objects that today can only be observed telescopically across light-years of empty space. On the human side, it would seem that the total number of people who ultimately receive a chance of life, and the survival time of our species itself, would increase enormously if colonization of even a small part of the Galaxy were to prove possible. As pointed out by Shepherd (1952), ‘humanity dispersed over many worlds would appear to be more secure than humanity crowded on one single planet’. At the very least, the resulting cultural diversity would provide an exciting alternative to Fukuyama's (1989) dire predictions for the ‘end of history’ (a point discussed in more detail by Crawford, 1993a).

In this chapter we review some of the propulsion methods that might make it possible to travel interstellar distances on a timescale of decades (i.e. velocities ≥ 0.1c). The concepts discussed are necessarily selective, and the reader who wishes to dig deeper is referred to the extensive bibliography of interstellar travel and communication compiled by Mallove et al. (1980) and updated by Paprotny et al. (1984, 1986, 1987).

Are there intelligent beings elsewhere in our Galaxy? This is the question which astronomers are most frequently asked by laymen. The question is not a foolish one; indeed, it is perhaps the most significant of all questions in astronomy. In investigating the problem, we must therefore do our best to include all relevant observational data.

Because of their training, most scientists have a tendency to disregard all information which is not the result of measurements. This is, in most matters, a sensible precaution against the intrusion of metaphysical arguments. In the present matter, however, that policy has caused many of us to disregard a clearly empirical fact of great importance, to wit: There are no intelligent beings from outer space on Earth now. (There may have been visitors in the past, but none of them have remained to settle or colonize here.) Since frequent reference will be made to the foregoing piece of data, in what follows we shall refer to it as ‘Fact A’.

Fact A, like all facts, requires an explanation. Once this is recognized, an argument is suggested which indicates an answer to our original question. If, the argument goes, there were intelligent beings elsewhere in our Galaxy, then they would eventually have achieved space travel, and would have explored and colonized the Galaxy, as we have explored and colonized the Earth. However, (Fact A), they are not here; therefore they do not exist.

Introduction

An important corollary of the question ‘Where are they?’ is the question ‘Could they have gotten here yet?’ If we imagine a spacefaring civilization arisen a billion years ago and a thousand parsecs from Earth, what are the odds that the descendants of that civilization would have established settlements in the solar system before now? The answer, I believe, is that, if such a civilization had arisen and if interstellar travel is practical at a small percentage of light speed, it is virtually certain that the solar system would have been settled by non-natives long ago. Unless we discover that interstellar travel is impractical, I conclude that we are probably alone in the Galaxy.

We know nothing of any extraterrestrial civilization. If we assume that some have existed, it is also reasonable to assume that at least some would be as inquisitive and as eager for adventure as humanity (Hart, 1975; Jones, 1985). It would take but one such species to fill the Galaxy.

Humanity has a history of expansion into available areas on Earth. If we examine our past, we can estimate how long it might be before humanity would expand throughout the Galaxy.

How Probable Is It That Life Exists Somewhere Else in the Universe?

What is the chance of success in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence? The answer to this question depends on a series of probabilities. My methodology consists in asking a series of questions which narrow down the probability of success.

Even most skeptics of the SETI project will answer the above question affirmatively. Molecules that are necessary for the origin of life, such as amino acids and nucleic acids, have been identified in cosmic dust, together with other macromolecules, so that it would seem quite conceivable that life could originate elsewhere in the universe. Some of the modern scenarios of the origin of life start out with even simpler molecules, which makes an independent origin of life even more probable. Such an independent origin of life, however, would presumably result in living entities that are drastically different from life on Earth.

Where Can One Expect To Find Such Life?

Obviously only on planets. Even though we have up to now secure knowledge only of the nine planets of our solar system, there is no reason to doubt that in all the galaxies there must be millions if not billions of planets. The exact figure, e.g. for our own Galaxy, can only be guessed.

According to several estimates, up to 0.5% of all stars could have a planet similar to our Earth, but on the average about four billion years older than Earth, because our Sun is not an old star and star formation was most productive in the early times. Regarding the origin and evolution of life, our own case is at present the only instance of life we know of. Are we permitted to generalize this single case? Can we do statistics with n = 1? The laws of statistics say that n = 1 yields an estimate for the average, but none for the mean error (which would need at least n = 2). This means that assuming us to be average has the highest probability of being right, but we do not have any indication of how wrong this may be. Leaving statistics and arguing by analogy, we may add that most things in nature do not scatter over too large a range, up to a few powers of ten, mostly. Thus, the best we can do is to assume that we are average, but to allow for a wide (but not infinite) error of this assumption. If we now generalize our own case, then life in our Galaxy would have started on about one billion planets several billion years ago. And, arguing by extrapolation, we should expect this life to have developed meanwhile extremely far beyond our own present state.

Many members of the general public, and some academic scientists as well, maintain that at least some UFO sightings result from the activities of extraterrestrial visitors. Recent polls show that approximately 57% of the public believes that UFOs are ‘something real’ as opposed to ‘just people's imagination’. The figure rises to 70% belief for those who are less than 30 years old (Gallup, 1978), and have thus lived their entire lives in the age of television. UFO belief is not found predominantly only among the uneducated. A 1979 poll of its readers by Industrial Research and Development magazine shows that 61% believe that UFOs ‘probably or definitely exist’, a figure that rises to over 80% for those applied scientists and engineers under age 26. ‘Outer space’ is the most widely held explanation of their origin.

It is obviously true that even if the reality of UFOs were somehow to be fully established, it would not prove the reality of extraterrestrial visitors. UFOs could possibly be, for example, some poorly understood atmospheric phenomenon, or the result of some secret terrestrial technology, or even a life form or natural phenomenon which lies totally beyond the scope of present-day science. But in the public mind, the subject of UFOs is inextricably linked with the idea of extraterrestrial intelligent life, and since ETI is the subject matter of this book, I shall henceforth adopt the popular usage of terms, and examine UFO reports in the context of the evidence they purport to contain concerning extraterrestrial visitors.

Introduction

It is a widely held view that life will arise spontaneously on the surface of any planet that provides a suitable physical and chemical environment. This belief is saved from tautology by the generously broad definitions of ‘suitable’ that abound in discussions of the origin of life. Indeed it is almost sufficient to require only that liquid water occur on the planet's surface, for then it follows that the atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature will be in ranges that promote a rich variety of organic reactions.

On the ancient Earth, as today, the simultaneous presence of the three states of matter along terrestrial shorelines provided reaction sites and macroscopic transport for most of the planet's chemicals. The temperature was low enough to confer a substantial lifetime on thermodynamically improbable molecules formed in sunlit waters, yet high enough to give speed to the processes of chemistry, and to the evolution of life. The importance of speed in chemistry and evolution is emphasized by the reflection that a cooler planet than ours, where reaction rates were one-fourth as great, would see its sun burn away from the main sequence of stars before it witnessed intelligent life.

This standard scenario of life's origin has been strengthened greatly by the outcome of laboratory experiments in geochemistry (Fox & Dose, 1972). They show that the assumed primitive molecules of our planet's early atmosphere, if supplied with free energy, could form sugars, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and other life-related organic substances.

There is no lack of propulsion systems available to any creatures which possess some technical competence and a desire to travel around in the galaxy. The following is an incomplete list of propulsion systems which have been suggested and studied by members of our own species.

Group A: Systems which are certainly feasible but are limited to mission velocities of the order of 10–2c.

1. Nuclear-electric. Uses a fission reactor as energy source, and ion-beam or magnetohydrodynamic plasma jet for propulsion. One can imagine a ‘minimal starship’ using nuclear-electric propulsion, with 10–6 g acceleration, a mass of 5 kg/kW (electric) for reactor and radiator, and a mission duration of 104 yr for voyages of the order of 10 pc.

2. Old-fashioned Orion nuclear pulse propulsion, using full-sized fission or fusion bombs. This is also limited to velocities of the order of 10-2c but can have acceleration of the order of 1g, giving it much better performance in local maneuvers (see Dyson, 1968; Martin & Bond, 1979).

Group B: Systems which are probably feasible but require very demanding new technology. These systems should be capable of mission velocities of the order of 0.5c, and mission durations of a few decades for distances of a few parsecs.

1. 3. Laser-driven sails (see Norem, 1969).

2. 4. Microwave-driven sails (see Forward, 1985).

3. 5. Pellet-stream propulsion (see Singer, 1980).

4. 6. Direct electromagnetic launch (see Clarke, 1950).