Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1*v8F8Rrw8rID3DLHRzpNt5g.png
1*DenykI5-GMdpLhj3etfJ0A.png
Bottom panel: Brightness map of the projected jet structure around 3I/ATLAS, observed on January 14, 2026 by the Hubble Space Telescope. The image was processed through a Larson-Sekanina Rotational Gradient filter, which removes the circularly symmetric glow around the nucleus. The three mini-jets are nearly equally separated from each other and are supplemented by a longer anti-tail jet in the sunward direction. Top panel: The jet system is wobbling periodically with a period of 7.2 hours around the rotation axis, based on two Hubble exposures separated by 23 minutes on November 30, 2025. (Images credit: T. Scarmato and A. Loeb, as discussed in a new paper here based on data released by NASA/ESA/STScI here)

For a technological civilization born on a planet as massive as Earth, the easiest way to engage in high-speed interstellar travel might be to hitchhike.

Over the past decade, we discovered several interstellar objects, the biggest and fastest of which is 3I/ATLAS.

An abundant population of objects like 3I/ATLAS — which are larger than a kilometer and faster than 60 kilometers per second, could be viewed as vehicles for interstellar travel. They take less than a billion years to reach stars on a ring around the center of the Milky-Way galaxy.

Nine days after its perihelion approach on October 29, 2025, 3I/ATLAS was observed for 32 days by the all-sky hydrogen (Lyman-alpha) camera onboard the Solar and Heliosphere Observatory (SOHO). The camera detected a massive plume of hydrogen around 3I/ATLAS, implying the release of 13.5 million metric tons of water during the month of observations (as reported here).

Hitchhiking a water-rich object like 3I/ATLAS, offers the benefit of using electrolysis to break water molecules into their constituent hydrogen and oxygen, which serve as efficient rocket fuel. A system of thrusters can use the fuel to navigate towards desired destinations like the orbital plane of planetary systems. SOHO may have detected some of that hydrogen fuel.

A hitchhiked interstellar object could also account for geometrical oddities, such as the 5-degree alignment between the trajectory of 3I/ATLAS and the orbital plane of the solar system planets, the alignment of its rotation axis with the direction of the Sun at large distances, the symmetric jet system of 3I/ATLAS (as summarized here), as well as composition anomalies — such as the anomalously high nickel to iron ratio on the background of familiar cometary outgassing.

Embedding a technological object inside a cometary exterior has the benefit of masquerading the equipment as a natural object and avoiding risks from outsiders, akin to the benefits offered by the Trojan Horse in Greek mythology.

Naïve observers throughout the Milky-Way galaxy would mistake these hitchhiked vehicles for natural objects at first sight. However, highly intelligent scientists might notice subtle anomalies as flags of technological signatures (as discussed here). These scientists are most like to be ridiculed by their colleagues at first, until their civilization will decide to launch interceptor missions that study interstellar objects from up close. A close-up camera might reveal the infrastructure and power source that generate the electricity needed to convert water into hydrogen & oxygen fuel and enable activities by the passengers on the vehicle.

What might be the technological fingerprints on an interstellar comet? They could include:

1. Excess heat from an engine, potentially detectable by infrared sensors, like the Webb Space Telescope.

2. Unusual maneuvers that cannot be explained naturally.

3. A system of thrusters in designed configurations, as considered here.

4. Artificial lights.

5. Release of mini-probes in strategic locations.

The detailed constituents of the payload depend on the goals of the interstellar mission, which reflect the ambitions of the senders over periods of billions of years. As in any blind date, it would be wiser for us to observe the interstellar package rather than second-guess the motivations of its senders over the huge spacetime horizon (billions of years and tens of thousands of light-years) that they contemplated. Finding an interstellar vehicle of this type might motivate us to hitchhike natural interstellar objects for the same purpose.

If we decided to hitchhike our way to interstellar space, what would we need to do? After discovering a suitable vehicle on its way towards us, we would need to deliver a payload that includes suitable power supply and technological equipment into a path that crosses the trajectory of the desired interstellar object at a sufficiently low impact speed, so that the payload will not get damaged during the delivery. It would also make sense to endow the equipment with artificial intelligence, since the light crossing time across the Milky-Way disk of stars is of order 50,000 years — making it impractical for the traveling equipment to get real-time guidance from the senders. Biological brains are far more vulnerable to the hazardous conditions in interstellar space than technological brains. This is why I titled a recent essay here: “What if 3I/ATLAS is AI/ATLAS?”

Given this perspective, it makes most sense to keep monitoring 3I/ATLAS in the coming months, including after its passage close to the Hill radius of Jupiter on March 16, 2026.

The extraterrestrials should be pleased if others imitate them. As Oscar Wilde noted: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” If interstellar hitchhiking happens to be a popular trade among technological civilizations, then we might find out after landing our equipment on a passing interstellar object that it already has some alien equipment. In that case, we might join the aliens in their endeavor and read from their travel journal all the highlights of their journey thus far.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

1*grMVAGuoEmk9A0uQcoJlcg.jpeg
(Image Credit: Chris Michel, National Academy of Sciences, 2023)

Avi Loeb is the head of the Galileo Project, founding director of Harvard University’s — Black Hole Initiative, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the former chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University (2011–2020). He is a former member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and a former chair of the Board on Physics and Astronomy of the National Academies. He is the bestselling author of “Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth” and a co-author of the textbook “Life in the Cosmos”, both published in 2021. The paperback edition of his new book, titled “Interstellar”, was published in August 2024.

stat?event=post.clientViewed&referrerSou

View the full article

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Topics

    • By SpaceObserver
      In a recent segment on NewsNation, Dr. Kayla Iacovino discussed the potential catastrophic effects of a super-eruption from the Yellowstone supervolcano. One striking point made was that such an event could have consequences akin to those of a massive asteroid impact. This comparison raises important questions about our preparedness and understanding of volcanic hazards.
      Dr. Iacovino explained that Yellowstone is home to one of the largest volcanic systems on the planet, and an eruption could bring about widespread devastation, affecting air quality, climate, and even agricultural systems. The scale of the potential damage is daunting. Using historical data on previous eruptions, such as the last major activity around 640,000 years ago, scientists can estimate the far-reaching effects on both local and global scales.
      The discussion led by Jesse Weber emphasizes how critical it is to separate science fact from science fiction, particularly when discussing such profound geological threats. Many people might dismiss the supervolcano's potential for future activity, often viewing it as a distant concern, but the reality is that these systems are constantly monitored by geologists and volcanologists.
      One of the key challenges in understanding supervolcanoes is the unpredictability of their eruptions. Unlike asteroids, which can be tracked and predicted to a degree, volcanic activity can be much harder to foresee. While scientists can monitor signs of unrest, such as earthquakes and gas emissions, predicting the exact timing and magnitude of an eruption remains complex. This uncertainty is a significant limitation in our current scientific understanding.
      Moreover, the comparison to asteroid impacts brings up fascinating avenues for discussion regarding disaster preparedness. If we can clearly articulate the threats posed by Yellowstone, perhaps we can begin to develop more robust strategies for crisis response and even public education on this topic. The dialogue around such geological hazards is often overshadowed by more immediate concerns, yet the potential for widespread disruption makes it a critical issue.
      So, considering the implications of Dr. Iacovino's insights, how should we balance between monitoring these geological threats and investing in public awareness regarding their potential impact? Understanding the science is one thing, but engaging the public with accurate information is another challenge altogether. What steps can we take to ensure that awareness translates into effective preparedness?
    • By DisclosureWatch
      During a recent congressional hearing, former military and NASA officials presented alarming testimonies regarding Unidentified Submerged Objects (USOs) off the U.S. East Coast. This second hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) raised new questions about what might be lurking beneath the waves and the implications for national security. The emphasis on USOs adds a unique dimension to the ongoing discussions about UAPs, which have traditionally focused more on aerial phenomena.
      The witnesses claimed to have encountered USOs during military operations, noting that these objects demonstrate capabilities far beyond current human technology. This part of the testimony opens up avenues for speculation and concern. If these USOs are indeed of non-human origin, what does that mean for our understanding of potential threats from the ocean depths? The fact that these claims come from credible sources like former military personnel and NASA officials lends weight to the discussion, but it also raises issues of verification and transparency.
      Historically, underwater sightings have often been relegated to the realm of anecdotal evidence. However, the congressional focus on USOs signals a shift in how such phenomena are perceived by government entities. The acknowledgment that there may be objects operating undetected in our oceans presents a significant challenge to existing maritime security frameworks. With advancements in technology, monitoring and engaging these USOs could become a pressing need for defense agencies.
      One key challenge that remains is the lack of specific data supporting these claims. While the testimonies provide intriguing insights, they do not come with the robust documentation often demanded in scientific discourse. A lack of concrete evidence can lead to skepticism among those in the scientific community and the public. As discussions unfold, it will be crucial for the government to provide more than just verbal testimonies to substantiate these claims.
      Moreover, this hearing comes at a time when societal interest in UAPs is surging. With the recent push for disclosure and transparency regarding UFOs, the focus on USOs could further fuel public curiosity and demand for information. The ocean is still one of the least explored places on Earth, and if USOs are real, it could mean that our understanding of both the ocean and potential extraterrestrial life is far from complete.
      As we consider the implications of these testimonies, a critical question emerges: What steps should be taken to investigate these USOs further, and how can we balance national security interests with the public's right to know? The testimony underscores a complex interplay of scientific inquiry, military secrecy, and public accountability that will be essential as this dialogue progresses.
    • By DisclosureWatch
      The Pentagon's recent release of UFO files has garnered attention for featuring footage of unidentified objects moving in unison at speeds estimated around 480 mph. What's particularly striking is that officials have yet to provide any explanations for these phenomena. This lack of clarity raises questions about the nature of these sightings and the government's ongoing efforts to investigate them.
      This release highlights a trend in UAP discussions, particularly in the context of transparency. As more files become accessible, the public remains eager to understand what the government knows. The footage in question shows multiple objects exhibiting coordinated movement, which suggests a level of control that challenges our current understanding of airborne technology. The speed alone is remarkable, and it leaves one wondering whether these objects could be advanced military technology, natural phenomena misidentified, or something else entirely.
      Historically, the Pentagon has been criticized for its opacity regarding UAP matters. With the establishment of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) and recent congressional hearings, there seems to be a shift towards greater accountability. Yet, the consistent absence of information surrounding these specific sightings is disconcerting. Why are officials hesitant to provide clarity on what these objects are? Could it be a matter of national security, or are there other factors at play?
      Additionally, the release of these files aligns with the ongoing discussions around the implications of UAP phenomena. The fact that the Pentagon is actively releasing previously classified material might suggest that they are grappling with the need to address public interest while also managing the consequences of disclosure. The challenges of balancing transparency with security are complex, and this situation exemplifies that dilemma.
      As we analyze this new footage, it's essential to consider the broader context of the Pentagon's UAP investigations. While some might jump to conclusions about the existence of extraterrestrial technology, the footage itself does not inherently support such claims. It merely presents us with a mystery that demands further inquiry and discussion.
      Given the evolving nature of UAP investigations, what do you think should be the next steps for the Pentagon and other authorities in addressing these sightings? Should they prioritize more public disclosure, or is it more important to focus on the investigation itself without revealing sensitive information?
    • By UAPResearcher
      In a recent discussion on NewsNation Prime, physicist Avi Loeb raised an intriguing point regarding UFO sightings and their notable absence of sound despite high speeds. This notion challenges conventional understanding of aerodynamics and vehicle design, particularly in how we expect objects moving at such velocities to produce noise. Given the context of the conversation, which revolves around the Pentagon's recent release of declassified UFO files, it prompts questions about what we might be missing in our analysis of these observations.
      The Pentagon’s latest release includes declassified documents alongside an audio recording and a transcript from a Project Blue Book presentation by Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt from March 1952. The historical connection to Project Blue Book, which was the U.S. Air Force's program to investigate UFO sightings, adds layers to the current discourse. Loeb’s comments underscore a long-standing mystery surrounding UAPs: if these objects can travel at high speeds without generating sound, what mechanisms are at play? This observation could lend credence to the idea that we might be dealing with technology that defies our current understanding.
      Furthermore, the implications of soundless high-speed objects extend beyond just the realm of UFOs. They challenge assumptions about propulsion and energy usage. If traditional physics cannot adequately explain these phenomena, do we need to rethink our understanding of motion and sound in relation to objects we can’t yet fully grasp?
      While Loeb's insights provoke thought, we must keep in mind the limitations of the evidence presented. The declassified files may not yet provide a clear picture, and the absence of sound does not automatically equate to an otherworldly origin. This lack of verification creates a gap in our understanding that is crucial to address as we explore these claims further.
      The historical context from the Project Blue Book files is also significant. It highlights that these questions about sound and speed are not new; they have been part of the UFO discourse for decades. Yet, even with the current advancements in technology and analysis, we still find ourselves grappling with fundamental questions presented by these sightings.
      As we consider Loeb's perspective, it raises an important discussion point: what are the potential implications of soundless high-speed objects for our current understanding of physics and aerodynamics? How might this inform future investigations into UAPs? What would a shift in our understanding mean for the broader conversation about unidentified aerial phenomena?
    • By UAPResearcher
      The recent video released by the US military showcases several unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) tracked by advanced sensors between 2022 and 2025. This footage presents a striking claim: some of these objects were recorded traveling at speeds up to 500 mph. It’s intriguing to see how the military is gradually revealing more about these phenomena, especially considering the historical secrecy surrounding such encounters.
      The footage highlights six small spherical objects that move in unison, frequently changing direction—an aspect that leaves uncertainty about their nature and origin. These motion characteristics could suggest advanced maneuverability, which is not typical of known aircraft capabilities. The objects were tracked using infrared and electro-optical sensors, which adds a layer of credibility to the report since these technologies are designed for precise detection in various conditions.
      Interestingly, the mission reports indicate a velocity range for these objects, from a minimum of 80 mph up to the maximum of 500 mph. This range could imply varying capabilities or perhaps even different types of phenomena being observed in the same vicinity. The fact that these objects can travel at such high speeds raises a number of potential explanations—everything from advanced military technology to entirely new forms of aerial phenomena that we have yet to understand.
      In analyzing the evidence presented, it’s crucial to consider the limitations of the footage and the context in which these observations were made. While the military's release is a step toward transparency, the lack of detailed context about the conditions under which the objects were observed leaves room for speculation. Factors such as sensor errors, environmental influences, or even misinterpretations of atmospheric phenomena could account for some of the observed behaviors.
      Moreover, the viewer reactions to the video reflect a mixture of fascination and skepticism. Some viewers express excitement over the possibility of discovering new technology, while others urge caution, advocating for deeper analysis before jumping to conclusions about the objects' origins. This dichotomy of perspectives highlights the ongoing debate within the UAP community about the interpretation of such footage.
      As the military continues to release more information, the investigation into UAPs becomes more critical. It raises significant questions about what we are actually dealing with—are these phenomena merely advanced military experiments, or do they point to something beyond our current understanding of technology and physics? With the government's renewed focus on these reports, it would be beneficial to have further clarification and perhaps more data to analyze.
      In light of this new footage, what do you think should be the next steps for the military in terms of transparency and further investigation into these UAP sightings?
×
×
  • Create New...