AvastI agree nuclear would be the best option too with what we currently have.
I just don't know how we would manage it without spending a lot more money then NASA possibly has right now.
Solar is the best option, for the early stages at the very least. It would take about twice the area to generate the same amount of energy here on earth, but even so it would be safer, more reliable, and I would guess cheaper than nuclear. The whole no atmosphere thing would also make it more consistent than here on earth.
elliott_in a society that still has resource scarcity, hunting for extrasolar life is kind of pointless because there's no conceivable way to actually benefit from it for the most part. Like it'd be cool, but its not like we're gonna be able to trade or extract resources from anyone.
I support space exploration and shit but trying to say that its actually practical or really necessary isn't true.
Hunting for life outside of earth is necessary for our understanding of life, how it comes to be, and our place in the universe. Fundamental questions that science is well within its right to try and answer.
And the only resources we lose by searching for life is the metal and manpower we spend making spacecrafts and going through mountains of data. The money spent goes back into the economy, so what's really the issue?
Quert
There is no reason to be aggressive towards people that are enthusiastic about a topic they don't know everything about, especially astronomy.
With the number of habitable zone exoplanets discovered in recent years and considering how fast life was able to develop on earth it wouldn't be too surprising if at least one other planet in our galaxy has some form of life. Sentient or not. There isn't any evidence to prove one way or the other yet sure, but it's fine to think one way or the other as long as you don't present it as fact.