Technological pointers from K3 civilizations?

[chimericoncogene]

One recent trend in SETI has been trawling existing databases for obvious signs of astroengineering, either on a stellar or galactic scale.

It seems clear that the discovery of unambiguous signs of astroengineering would generate far more interest than the discovery of say, atmospheric oxygen (or some other unambiguous biosignature) on Proxima. In addition to being of scientific interest, a K2/K3 object might also prove of technological interest, even if it were entirely passive and half a billion light-years away, and by demonstrating conclusively the feasibility of long-term survival, interstellar spaceflight, and galactic settlement, might affect long-term investment decisions by nation-states regarding spaceflight.

Questions are thus prompted:
What other technological know-how might be discernable from passive observation of a distant, passive K2/K3 civilization?
Is a technological arms race to build giant telescopes to tease technological secrets from the gods in the heavens in the cards?
How much money will the NRO need to spend on the new gravitational interferometer to close a Telescope Gap with the Europeans ?

[Composeure]

First off, don't use the Kardashev scale?

I'm sorry, but the Kardashev scale makes no scientific sense internally since past nebulously "type ii" you are relying on what amounts to absolute pseudoscience to do anything since the implications of all those are based on nothing we have observed in our universe at all, and how the scale would put a planet of single celled photosynthesizers as on the equal level of a "type i" since they are technically using the same amount of energy, not to mention how the second you introduce ideas not proved in our universe (you know, like hyperspace for example) then the scale falls apart, so tl;DR the Kardashev scale is as outdated as old Soviet food rations and why Sagan and his ilk treated it seriously when it is based on practically nothing of use baffles me.

Sorry, but this is something that genuinely annoys me when I see it tossed around (much like when I see the word "intergalactic" used incorrectly)

More to the point, this post verges almost into conspiracy theory territory, but to give a semi serious answer, I would think that looking, at, say, something like a dyson swarm wouldn't gain us much (considering the whole point is to block out sunlight, and light takes long enough to reach us as it is). Maybe at most we get some vague shapes.

To be frank, I doubt we would be able to really detect and see ANYTHING using our current tech, much less somehow discern enough details to somehow "reverse engineer" it in any way, considering there isn't really any proof of anything that this post is trying to talk about. A "telescope race" (of all things) would be useless, if anything the far better plan would be to develop our own civilization since no matter how much you see-- if you cannot actually BUILD the thing, the knowledge is basically useless.

[Jub]

What other technological know-how might be discernable from passive observation of a distant, passive K2/K3 civilization?
Is a technological arms race to build giant telescopes to tease technological secrets from the gods in the heavens in the cards?
How much money will the NRO need to spend on the new gravitational interferometer to close a Telescope Gap with the Europeans ?

Not to necro this thread any more than has already been done but this is an interesting line of questions even if the answers are boring.

For the most part, I wouldn't expect us to learn much from these observations. The distances are going to be too large for us to resolve anything and even if we could that would tell us very little. For a thought, experiment consider just how little we'd learn from observing even a very high-resolution image of the outside of a current communications satellite. Now reduce that down to a slight dimming of light on an object that itself is barely more than a handful of pixels. There's just not much to be gained from that kind of observation.

That all said, it would spark a new space race and new JWST+ satellites if only to confirm our findings. The fact that we'd have proof that something else colonized its solar system/galaxy might also prompt us to increase the rate at which we move some industrial capacity into space as now we know that it can be made to work.

[Ralin]

It would tell us that it can be done. Changing the question from can it be done to how is it done would have all sorts of effects on peoples' motivation, priorities, funding, etc. Shouldn't underestimate how big of a deal that is

As for technical specifics? Well, in the communications satellite example, we could figure out how far and how close it is to the earth, how fast it moves, we could make predictions on how tough the material it's made of has to be to hold up under all that, its size and how much it could carry and we'd be able to start speculating about why someone would create such a thing and put it in orbit around the planet.

I can't give examples like that for a dyson sphere because I know fuck all about real dyson spheres if they do exist.

[Composeure]

Fwiw a "real" dyson sphere would likely be a "dyson swarm" (the "mainstream" version is ridiculously impractical).

A "telescope race" makes no sense, a "new space race" (assuming we can fix up our pitifully poor space program) would, however.

[Formless]

I don't know why you treat that as a binary; its already the case that putting a telescope in space allows you to get a better picture of the sky. And there have also been proposals to put telescopes on the moon for a while (you can turn an entire crater into a giant telescope using mercury and a centrifugal mechanism as a reflector, but you would never try that on Earth because of its toxicity). The resolution of a moon telescope could be absolutely monstrous, although pointing it would be tricky.

Also, if we saw technosignatures of even a type I civilization right now, it would absolutely spur radio astronomers to finally take SETI research seriously, as you already have a target to point your radio telescopes at just in case they are sending signals we can pick up on. It couldn't hurt to see if they're trying to deliberately contact us or at least broadcasting TV into the sky. If you can decrypt those signals, you might even get a chance to see what they look like, or tune in to their equivalent of nature and science documentaries. Even if its low level science, any science that they know and we don't will clue us in to how their technology works and how we might reverse engineer it.

[Solauren]

I don't know why you treat that as a binary; its already the case that putting a telescope in space allows you to get a better picture of the sky. And there have also been proposals to put telescopes on the moon for a while (you can turn an entire crater into a giant telescope using mercury and a centrifugal mechanism as a reflector, but you would never try that on Earth because of its toxicity). The resolution of a moon telescope could be absolutely monstrous, although pointing it would be tricky.

What about doing that with a large asteroid in a near-Earth orbit? I can imagine that would be easier to point.

Also, if we saw technosignatures of even a type I civilization right now, it would absolutely spur radio astronomers to finally take SETI research seriously, as you already have a target to point your radio telescopes at just in case they are sending signals we can pick up on. It couldn't hurt to see if they're trying to deliberately contact us or at least broadcasting TV into the sky. If you can decrypt those signals, you might even get a chance to see what they look like, or tune in to their equivalent of nature and science documentaries. Even if its low level science, any science that they know and we don't will clue us in to how their technology works and how we might reverse engineer it.

I would LOVE to watch a legitimate alien science documentary.

[Batman]

Going to the moon and leaving stuff there is something we've done before (if only on a rather small scale). Nabbing a sizeable asteroid and dragging it to Earth orbit? Not so much. Once we GOT it to Earth orbit sure, it'd be easier to point.

[Composeure]

I think we might be overestimating the amount of usable info telescopes could give us, but I didn't mean that it was a binary-- merely that the way the op phrased it was a bit confusing. Telescopes (and related tech) are part of a "space race"

[Formless]

I don't know why you treat that as a binary; its already the case that putting a telescope in space allows you to get a better picture of the sky. And there have also been proposals to put telescopes on the moon for a while (you can turn an entire crater into a giant telescope using mercury and a centrifugal mechanism as a reflector, but you would never try that on Earth because of its toxicity). The resolution of a moon telescope could be absolutely monstrous, although pointing it would be tricky.

What about doing that with a large asteroid in a near-Earth orbit? I can imagine that would be easier to point.

Simple-- the idea only works for a body large enough to have long lasting craters, but with low enough gravity to spin mercury across the entire surface of it. The idea is to turn the entire crater into a giant parabolic mirror, which requires a balance of just enough gravity but not too much, and a celestial body with the right surface characteristics to support the telescope's structure. Asteroids are generally rubble piles, so they don't actually have craters on them; and they also have such incredibly weak gravity that even if they did, you couldn't construct a mirror this way at all.

[Solauren]

Ah yes. I kept forgetting that asteroids are not big solid rocks.

[NecronLord]

Post deleted.

While we're lenient with thread necromancy these days, don't do this again.