SPACE

How many stars are in the cosmos?
is it more then 10^45000 ?
I think not.

Fucking saved

The drake equation has no practical use at this point, since even if one of the factors is wrong, your whole result is wrong, and you have to pull like three of the factors right out of your ass. The galaxy could be booming with life for all we know, since SETI would be incapable of detecting radio leakage even from the closest star system (and there is no logical reason to assume that a more developed civilization would have that much more radio leakage), and it has only scanned star systems within 200 light years, at which distance it could only pick up a gigawatt fucking beacon pointed right at us, so even if there was a civilization in the nearest star system, we would not know it.
Also, only finding some shitty microbes or dumb animals would be really interesting too. But even if we ignore the possibility of finding life, there's plenty of interesting things out there. Currently we can't directly observe black holes or neutron stars, and there are some pretty interesting types of hypothesized neutron stars that may actually exist, it would be pretty interesting if we could actually observe one. Also, we could probably colonize some planets that are much more Earth-like than mars.

Who gives a fuck how many shithole planets are out there? You just visit the ones that are non-shit. It's like having 50 tons of dogshit and 5 kilograms of gold, sure most of it is shit, but that doesn't decrease the value of the gold.

>most of it is

those are just the things that are easier for us to detect.

>if i cant see it right now its not there
classic empiricist retardation desu, science needs to let proper skeptics take over

>Bop Zomger
can I use that for my scifi novel?

Iirc another solution of the alcubierre drive requires a lot less energy. Also, accelerating to relativistic velocities can be achieved realistically, and there's nothing to slow you down in space, so you don't have to constantly propel yourself to avoid slowing down once you've reached a certain velocity. If you meant powering the ship itself, then I guess they could use fusion of fission reactors, or just plain old radioisotope thermoelectric generator. They are a tried technology, you could feasibly build one that could put out tens of kilowatts for hundreds of years, and they don't have many moving parts or other things that can go wrong. Also I guess you have to keep some fuel for the deceleration, but if you can build a ship that can reach 0.1 c, you most likely also have the tech to build a ship that can reach 0.1 c, and then slow down back to zero. Also, many things in space can function on their own for decades, so a couple hundred years don't seem infeasible. That kind of reliability has a price, sure, but it's not impossible.

>Here, I pulled some nice numbers out of my ass that are conveniently very small and prove that life is improbable.
Not an argument, please tell me why is Fi=10^(-45000).
>Fact there is no proof of hydras therefor hydras are considered to not exist unless evidence is provided.
>Fact there is no proof of alien life therefor alien life are considered to not exist unless evidence is provided.
Alien life and life on Earth aren't qualitatively different in the sense that they are both life, so your comparison is flawed, since we already know that life is possible in the universe, while no-one has ever observed a hydra. The next step is to find out what are the chances of life arising on another planet, and the answer to that is we don't know, so we'd better keep looking.

...

This desu. Earth exploration is still far from finished, we've still got the depths of the oceans to explore

bumo