Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#41

Post by ComputerGuru »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #40
eightails wrote: post #5

How hard is it for people to just admit that we probably have inadequate evidence to reach a solid conclusion. This was the first object of its kind and we had very limited observations of it. From what I've read, none of the hypotheses regarding the measured acceleration (e.g. outgassing vs manufactured solar sail) can really be backed up in any substantial way. So it seems disengenuous to get into vitriolic argumen…

The reason we have inadequate evidence is the relatively low priority of SETI compared to other science. SETI has literally been living off financial scraps for decades. If a couple of billionaires hadn't funded efforts with very generous personal donations there would be almost no SETI at all. And if SETI had been funded properly - which would still be a drop in the ocean compared to other government spending, natio…

> This is all quite strange considering how much of a game changer and scientific motivator evidence of ETI would be.

All conspiracy theories aside, there is an argument to be made that something with the potential to completely undo the status quo would, in a less-than-ideal world, have a hard time finding funding from those at the top of the totem pole of power.

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#42

Post by breck »

willis936 wrote: post #21
avian wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can estimate how many comets are out there with orbital mechanics models, but what about objects originating from outside the solar system? We can estimate the frequency and size of impacts, regardless of the origin of the impacting body, from observing craters on the Earth, moon and other planets. Those show that the "end of life" impacts are pretty rare - the conclusion that also follows from the fact that we'…

The solar system has an orbital period of 250k years. Nearby systems do not have the same orbital period. I’m not sure galaxies are considered stable to individual stellar systems.

> The solar system has an orbital period of 250k years.

I thought it was 250 million years, though maybe I'm misunderstanding you. [1]

[1] https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-long-does-it-take-the....

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#43

Post by karmakaze »

Gys wrote: post #17
eightails wrote: post #5

How hard is it for people to just admit that we probably have inadequate evidence to reach a solid conclusion. This was the first object of its kind and we had very limited observations of it. From what I've read, none of the hypotheses regarding the measured acceleration (e.g. outgassing vs manufactured solar sail) can really be backed up in any substantial way. So it seems disengenuous to get into vitriolic argumen…

Early mankind did not understand storms and thunder and invented gods to explain the phenomenon. We still have phenomenon we cannot explain but ruled out gods. So now alternatively we like extraterrestrial life for explanations :)

I don't think it's quite the same. We know there are things we don't know from continuous discoveries of things we didn't know before.

From my perspective I want aliens to exist, if for no other reason than to resolve the Fermi paradox: one less unknown. Existence if true is easier to prove than non-existence if true.

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#44

Post by calibas »

eightails wrote: post #5

How hard is it for people to just admit that we probably have inadequate evidence to reach a solid conclusion. This was the first object of its kind and we had very limited observations of it. From what I've read, none of the hypotheses regarding the measured acceleration (e.g. outgassing vs manufactured solar sail) can really be backed up in any substantial way. So it seems disengenuous to get into vitriolic argumen…

I think it's precisely because we don't know that people have such strong opinions. People get to fill in what they want to believe, then argue a point that can never really be proven wrong or right.

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#46

Post by giantrobot »

sandworm101 wrote: post #7
ckozlowski wrote: post #4

I'd gotten the impression that Loeb isn't trying to convince the public and scientific community that it was an alien probe so much as is he trying to show it could have been. I think is agenda is to get the community looking for these things more often, perhaps out of some disappointment that if it had been an actual probe (a la "Rendezvous with Rama"), we'd already have missed it. Whether it's worth bending the sci…

His battle is only partly about Oumuamua. That is just a vehicle for his arguments. The real issue is the bias against life detection experiments generally. Want to sample soil on mars and measure oxygen absorption? Great. We will put your sensor on the next rover. Want to pour nutrients on that soil and see if anything eats it? Go away you crazy person. Want to detect methane in an exoplanet atmosphere? Here is your…

Science money is very limited. Space science money more limited. Space science money to get components on rovers yet more limited. Telescope time is also limited. Mission time on remote probes is also limited.

So you devise an experiment to measure oxygen absorption that uses a probe's existing mass spectrometer. Your experiment doesn't cut into the probe's mass budget so it basically is just a scheduling issue. If your experiment is bumped from the mission schedule there's not compromising the probe or total mission. You've got a pretty good chance of getting that experiment on the docket.

This is contrary to a nutrient experiment that eats into the probe's mass budget and mission time. If the sensors are dedicated to the experiment that's less mass for other sensors. Even if you got approved if you can't built the experiment to be reliable and survivable it won't get approved.

Similar is true for trying to measure CFCs on exoplanets. There's a handful of instruments that can even get spectra from exoplanets and even then only from transiting ones and even then only has giants so far. Even if we could detect CFCs in terrestrial planet atmospheres, CFCs do not stay in the atmosphere very long so you'd only detect them (from a technological civilization) for a very short window of time. The odds of finding them are vanishingly low with current instruments. No one is going to return your e-mails if you propose observations of CFCs because it's a snipe hunt wasting valuable and limited instrument time. If you're a serious researcher you'd know this already and wouldn't waste people's time. Methane is a general purpose biomarker and is something far more likely to be found. Since you've got a limited stars you can even gather information from the time is better spent on the more likely observation.

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#47

Post by nix23 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #24
arnaudsm wrote: post #10

The title implies research on Oumuamua was censored, which was never the case.

I think he's just implying that people have been too polite to Loeb before.

So in other articles hes censoring him self (the peoples he wants to be polite with), or has any title of him about another person the word uncensored?

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#48

Post by nix23 »

asidiali wrote: post #39
annoyingnoob wrote: post #29

How do we jump to the conclusion of aliens with so little information? Why not God sent it?

If it comes flying in on an asteroid sized spaceship...what’s the difference?

Spaceship or Gods poo makes a difference i think ;)

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#49

Post by sandworm101 »

giantrobot wrote: post #46
sandworm101 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His battle is only partly about Oumuamua. That is just a vehicle for his arguments. The real issue is the bias against life detection experiments generally. Want to sample soil on mars and measure oxygen absorption? Great. We will put your sensor on the next rover. Want to pour nutrients on that soil and see if anything eats it? Go away you crazy person. Want to detect methane in an exoplanet atmosphere? Here is your…

Science money is very limited. Space science money more limited. Space science money to get components on rovers yet more limited. Telescope time is also limited. Mission time on remote probes is also limited. So you devise an experiment to measure oxygen absorption that uses a probe's existing mass spectrometer. Your experiment doesn't cut into the probe's mass budget so it basically is just a scheduling issue. If y…

>> if you propose observations of CFCs because it's a snipe hunt wasting valuable and limited instrument time.

That's what they said about hot jupiters. Exoplanets could have been detected decades earlier had there not been a consistent bias against the idea of large objects orbiting so near host stars, a bias based on a single data point (our solar system).

Re: The Uncensored Guide to ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, and That Harvard Astronomer

#50

Post by Damorian »

I'm just saying, if I wanted to probe every solar system in the galaxy, I'd build a craft with extreme geometry that would fly very close to stars and accelerate for a gravity assist before flying toward the next target star. So it would look exactly like what we saw.
Post reply on HN