Different Is More: The Value of Finding an Inhabited Planet That Is Far from Earth2.0.

The search for an inhabited planet, beyond our own, is a driver of planetary exploration in our solar system and beyond. Using information from our own planet to inform search strategies allows for a targeted search. It is, however, worth considering some span in the strategy and in a priori expectation. An inhabited, Earth-like planet is one that would be similar to Earth in ways that extend beyond having biota. To facilitate a comparative cost/risk/benefit analysis of different potential search strategies, we use a metric akin to the Earth-similarity index. The metric extends from zero, for an inhabited planet that is like Earth in all other regards (i.e., zero differences), toward end-member values for planets that differ from Earth but maintain life potential. The analysis shows how finding inhabited planets that do not share other Earth characteristics could improve our ability to assess galactic life potential without a large increase in time-commitment costs. Search strategies that acknowledge the possibility of such planets can minimize the potential of exploration losses (e.g., searching for long durations to reach conclusions that are biased). Discovering such planets could additionally provide a test of the Gaia hypothesis-a test that has proven difficult when using only Earth as a laboratory. Finally, we discuss how an Earth2.0 narrative that has been presented to the public as a search strategy comes with nostalgia-laden baggage that does not best serve exploration.

Messaging with cost-optimized interstellar beacons.

On Earth, how would we build galactic-scale beacons to attract the attention of extraterrestrials, as some have suggested we should do? From the point of view of expense to a builder on Earth, experience shows an optimum trade-off. This emerges by minimizing the cost of producing a desired power density at long range, which determines the maximum range of detectability of a transmitted signal. We derive general relations for cost-optimal aperture and power. For linear dependence of capital cost on transmitter power and antenna area, minimum capital cost occurs when the cost is equally divided between antenna gain and radiated power. For nonlinear power-law dependence, a similar simple division occurs. This is validated in cost data for many systems; industry uses this cost optimum as a rule of thumb. Costs of pulsed cost-efficient transmitters are estimated from these relations by using current cost parameters ($/W, $/m(2)) as a basis. We show the scaling and give examples of such beacons. Galactic-scale beacons can be built for a few billion dollars with our present technology. Such beacons have narrow "searchlight" beams and short "dwell times" when the beacon would be seen by an alien observer in their sky. More-powerful beacons are more efficient and have economies of scale: cost scales only linearly with range R, not as R(2), so number of stars radiated to increases as the square of cost. On a cost basis, they will likely transmit at higher microwave frequencies, approximately 10 GHz. The natural corridor to broadcast is along the galactic radius or along the local spiral galactic arm we are in. A companion paper asks "If someone like us were to produce a beacon, how should we look for it?"

Searching for cost-optimized interstellar beacons.

What would SETI beacon transmitters be like if built by civilizations that had a variety of motives but cared about cost? In a companion paper, we presented how, for fixed power density in the far field, a cost-optimum interstellar beacon system could be built. Here, we consider how we should search for a beacon if it were produced by a civilization similar to ours. High-power transmitters could be built for a wide variety of motives other than the need for two-way communication; this would include beacons built to be seen over thousands of light-years. Extraterrestrial beacon builders would likely have to contend with economic pressures just as their terrestrial counterparts do. Cost, spectral lines near 1 GHz, and interstellar scintillation favor radiating frequencies substantially above the classic "water hole." Therefore, the transmission strategy for a distant, cost-conscious beacon would be a rapid scan of the galactic plane with the intent to cover the angular space. Such pulses would be infrequent events for the receiver. Such beacons built by distant, advanced, wealthy societies would have very different characteristics from what SETI researchers seek. Future searches should pay special attention to areas along the galactic disk where SETI searches have seen coherent signals that have not recurred on the limited listening time intervals we have used. We will need to wait for recurring events that may arrive in intermittent bursts. Several new SETI search strategies have emerged from these ideas. We propose a new test for beacons that is based on the Life Plane hypotheses.

The Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher (MAX-C): a potential rover mission for 2018. Final report of the Mars Mid-Range Rover Science Analysis Group (MRR-SAG) October 14, 2009.

This report documents the work of the Mid-Range Rover Science Analysis Group (MRR-SAG), which was assigned to formulate a concept for a potential rover mission that could be launched to Mars in 2018. Based on programmatic and engineering considerations as of April 2009, our deliberations assumed that the potential mission would use the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) sky-crane landing system and include a single solar-powered rover. The mission would also have a targeting accuracy of approximately 7 km (semimajor axis landing ellipse), a mobility range of at least 10 km, and a lifetime on the martian surface of at least 1 Earth year. An additional key consideration, given recently declining budgets and cost growth issues with MSL, is that the proposed rover must have lower cost and cost risk than those of MSL--this is an essential consideration for the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG). The MRR-SAG was asked to formulate a mission concept that would address two general objectives: (1) conduct high priority in situ science and (2) make concrete steps toward the potential return of samples to Earth. The proposed means of achieving these two goals while balancing the trade-offs between them are described here in detail. We propose the name Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher(MAX-C) to reflect the dual purpose of this potential 2018 rover mission.