No, not the decidedly iffy sequel to the marvellous original Movie, but actual, real, extra-terrestrial beings.
Let me first state that I'm not delving into nutjob conspiracies here, I'm just discussing our reaction as a species to certain phenomena.
It's a given that currently we do not have evidence of actual life from another planet. Let's just park that there. No. evidence.
But, the question arises: should we be looking for it? Not just the far-away stuff like exoplanets, but closer to home?
Yes, I'm initially taking about the Congressional report that was released in America a couple of weeks ago. It seems it raised more questions than answers. While it conformed that there are unexplained aerial phenomena, it didn't really explain why they had not be fully and properly researched before. It did say that maybe now is the time we start to fit better sensors, to better identify and classify (80's reference) whatever it is the pilots in the air and people on the ground are seeing.
Now, I know when I look at some of the videos and pictures available on the web, I can see straight away that the majority are no alien tech, or some such. More likely blurry FLIR pictures of target drones, or camera artefacts of light sources at night.
But there are a few that cannot be explained, hence the conclusion that we need clearer pictures, more data and more importantly more funds.
Not just on the Earth, there are objects in the Solar System that cannot be easily explained.
I listened to a podcast from the fascinating "Event Horizon" channel on YouTube interviewing Avi Loeb regarding Oumuamua, the now confirmed extrasolar object that came into the solar system, slingshotted round the Sun and then went back on it's way into deep space.
He explained that although the chance were it was a chunk of rock from another solar system, there's the possibility it was something else. But without the ability to intercept such objects, photograph and closely analyse them, we will never know if they are anything more. It's all just speculation. And he's right. Taking the little green men out of the equation, Oumuamua exhibited properties that couldn't be explained by a chunk of rock. Oumuamua accelerated away from the Sun at a greater rate than a simple chunk of rock. Outgassing, solar capture, all have been speculated. But not confirmed.
And it's that confirmation, that certainty that is necessary to inform science. If we had confirmed it was a chunk of rock, then we can confirm that chunks of rock can work like solar sails and accelerate, pushed by the solar wind.
The problem is the cost of confirmation: the cost of making a rocket that can blast off from the earth, with a big package of advanced sensors that can once in space accelerate to the extreme velocities necessary to intercept an object crossing the solar system itself at extreme (for us) velocities. It's Rocket Science, but not the easiest Rocket Science.
Which brings us closer to home: certainly it's easier and cheaper to identify these terrestrial objects by using better quality cameras and sensors. So why don't we improve the quality of reporting? Comparatively, cost is not as high as identifying opjects in Space, so why not?
And if, by some massive quirk of fate we find alien objects, then fair enough. But even if we don't, we will have confirmed the mis-identification of what should be explainable phenomena. Hopefully it will make airspace safer.
Posts
