Near Earth Space Is A Very Crowded Place!

 

From The Washington Post

There's No Evidence That UFO's Are From Another Planet

Recently, 60 Minutes ran a segment on unidentified flying objects (UFO's) seen by Navy pilots on numerous occasions.

This is seen by some as proof that we are being visited by beings from another planet. But that is jumping to a conclusion that is not warranted. Just because an object can't yet be identified or explained doesn't mean it has an extra-terrestrial origin.

In fact, there is yet to be any evidence at all that the Earth has been visited by beings from another planet -- either now or in the past.

The following is most of an article on this subject by Dr. Adam Frank, a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester:

I’m an astrophysicist who is involved in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. My colleagues and I were recently awarded one of the first NASA grants to look for signs of advanced technology on planets outside our solar system. (I’ve argued in these pages that the 10 billion trillion habitable planets that we now believe exist in the universe make extraterrestrial civilizations far more likely.)

I understand that U.F.O. sightings, which date back at least to 1947, are synonymous in the popular imagination with evidence of extraterrestrials. But scientifically speaking, there is little to warrant that connection. There are excellent reasons to search for extraterrestrial life, but there are equally excellent reasons not to conclude that we have found evidence of it with U.F.O. sightings.

Let’s start with the Navy cases. Some of the pilots have told of seeing flying objects shaped like Tic Tacs or other unusual forms. The recordings from the planes’ cameras show amorphous shapes moving in surprising ways, including appearing to skim the ocean’s surface and then disappear beneath it. This might appear to be evidence of extraterrestrial technology that can defy the laws of physics as we understand them — but in reality it doesn’t amount to much.

For one thing, first-person accounts, which are notoriously inaccurate to begin with, don’t provide enough information for an empirical investigation. Scientists can’t accurately gauge distances or velocity from a pilot’s testimony: “It looked close” or “It was moving really fast” is too vague. What a scientist needs are precise measurements from multiple viewpoints provided by devices that register various wavelengths (visual, infrared, radar). That kind of data might tell us if an object’s motion required engines or materials that we Earthlings don’t possess.

Perhaps the videos offer that kind of data? Sadly, no. While some researchers have used the footage to make simple estimates of the accelerations and other flight characteristics of the U.F.O.s, the results have been mixed at best. Skeptics have already shown that some of the motions seen in the videos (like the ocean skimming) may be artifacts of the cameras’ optics and tracking systems.

There are also common-sense objections. If we are being frequently visited by aliens, why don’t they just land on the White House lawn and announce themselves? There is a recurring narrative, perhaps best exemplified by the TV show “The X-Files,” that these creatures have some mysterious reason to remain hidden from us. But if the mission of these aliens calls for stealth, they seem surprisingly incompetent. You would think that creatures technologically capable of traversing the mind-boggling distances between the stars would also know how to turn off their high beams at night and to elude our primitive infrared cameras.

Don’t get me wrong: I’ll read with great interest the U.S. intelligence report about U.F.O.s that is scheduled to be delivered to Congress in June; I believe that U.F.O. phenomena should be investigated using the best tools of science and with complete transparency.

But there may be more prosaic explanations. For example, it’s possible that U.F.O.s are drones deployed by rivals like Russia and China to examine our defenses — luring our pilots into turning on their radar and other detectors, thus revealing our electronic intelligence capacities. (The United States once used a similar strategy to test the sensitivities of Soviet radar systems.) This hypothesis might sound far-fetched, but it is less extreme than positing a visit from extraterrestrials.

What’s most frustrating about the U.F.O.s story is that it obscures the fact that scientists like me and my colleagues are on the threshold of gathering data that may be relevant to the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. But this evidence involves subtle findings about phenomena far away in the galaxy — not sensational findings just a few miles away in our own atmosphere.

Powerful telescopes that will soon be operational may be capable of detecting city lights on the night side of planets that orbit distant stars or the telltale mark of reflected light from planet-wide solar-collecting arrays or the distinctive sign of industrial chemicals in a planet’s atmosphere. All of these “technosignatures,” should we find evidence of them, will be small effects. If we do detect such things, you better believe that my colleagues and I will go to extraordinary lengths to eliminate every possible source of error and every possible alternative explanation. This will take time and careful effort.

The work of science, though ultimately exciting, is mostly painstakingly methodical and boring. But that is the price we pay because we don’t just want to believe. We want to know.

UFO's Are Real - But That's Not Proof Of Alien Spacecraft

Appearing on The Late Late Show a few days ago, Barack Obama said: In addition,

"What is true, and I'm actually being serious here, is that there are, there's footage and records of objects in the skies, that we don't know exactly what they are. We can't explain how they moved, their trajectory. They did not have an easily explainable pattern. And so, you know, I think that people still take seriously trying to investigate and figure out what that is."

In addition, the Department of Defense recently released three videos taken by Navy pilots. The videos showed flying objects that have not been identified, and admitted that for a couple of years these sightings were an almost daily occurrence.

This has caused some consternation, but it shouldn't. Unidentified Flying Objects have been known about for decades. A UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) does not necessarily mean that we are being visited by little green men from outer space. It simply refers to an object or phenomena in the sky that cannot be explained (yet).

To be blunt -- While there is evidence of the existence of UFO's, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of alien spacecraft having visited this planet!

In spite of that, about a third of the United States population believes that at least some of the UFO's are alien spacecraft. The chart above illustrates this. It is from a Gallup Poll done in August of 2019 of a national sample of 1,522 adults, with a 3 point margin of error. Interesting is the fact that this belief crosses political lines -- with roughly equal percentages of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents believing it.

Commander-In-Chief "Bone Spurs" Wants A Space Army

(Image is from Facebook. I don't know who created it.)

Donald Trump has announced that he wants (and has asked our military to create) a new division of the military -- separate from the Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard. He didn't go into detail, and left many questions unanswered about this proposed branch of the military.

Alex Ward (with his tongue planted firmly in cheek) has enumerated 25 of the questions needing answers in a post at Vox.com:

1. Can Trump unilaterally create a space force?
2. ... Or does he need congressional authorization, as experts say?
3. Will Trump ever wear a spacesuit?
4. Would lawmakers approve a new space force?
5. What will the military equipment look like? Rockets? Lightsabers?
6. Who will pay for the space force?
7. Did Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis know about Trump’s decision, even though he’s against a space force?
8. Did the Air Force know about Trump’s decision, even though it’s against a space force?
9. Will the training facilities for space force troops be called a “space camp”? Please let that be a thing.
10. Can the US set up a base on the moon? Newt Gingrich promised one.
11. What will the space force uniforms look like?
12. Who will write the official space force song?
13. What will a space force challenge coin look like?
14. Where will the headquarters for the space force be?
15. Did Trump get this idea from Star Wars, Star Trek, Starship Troopers, or some combination of the three?
16. When will the US send its first space force member go to space?
17. People who serve in the Army are soldiers. People who serve in the Navy are sailors. People who serve in the Marines are Marines. People who serve in the Air Force are airmen. But what will we call people who serve in the space force — space cadets?
18. Will troops in the new service wear space helmets?
19. Will there be a separate department for the space force, or will it fall under another service (like how the Marine Corps falls under the Department of the Navy)?
20. Trump has yet to visit American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Will he visit troops in space?
21. How will the space force interact with NASA?
22. Whom should I call to answer all my questions? Seriously: The Pentagon and Air Force are barely answering any questions.
23. What should we call the military official in charge of the space force? The Space Commander? Master Space? Supreme Space Leader? Darth Commander? Master Jedi? El Jefe del Espacio?
24. What will be the first space force acquisition project to go completely over budget and take forever to be used? My guess is an X-wing-style fighter.
25. Does Trump want a Death Star? He totally wants a Death Star. You know he does.

Green Party Calls For A Treaty Banning Space Weapons

Most people in the United States probably don't know it, but back in 2008 both Russia and China called for a treaty banning weapons of any kind in space. That treaty didn't happen because another country killed it -- the United States. That's right. The only country to refuse to sign a treaty saying they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a future war, is also the only nation to refuse to sign a treaty banning space weapons. This is unconscionable for a nation that claims to be the defender of peace and freedom.

The Green Party of the United States disagrees with this position on space weapons. They are calling for all nations, including the United States, that have access to space to negotiate and sign a treaty banning any kind of space weapons. Here is what Alice Slater (Green Party Shadow Cabinet member) wrote just a few days ago:

The  U.S. Now Backs a "Code of Conduct" for Space, Instead of a Legally Binding Treaty to Ban Space Weapons. The  U.S. Now Backs a "Code of Conduct" for Space, Instead of a Legally Binding Treaty to Ban Space Weapons.

“The most important lesson one can acquire about  U.S. foreign policy is the understanding that our leaders do not mean well. They do not have any noble goals of democracy and freedom and all that jazz. They aim to dominate the world by any means necessary. And as long as an American believes that the intentions are noble and honorable, it’s very difficult to penetrate that wall. That wall surrounds the thinking and blocks any attempt to make them realize the harm being done by  U.S. foreign policy.”

- William Blum, former member of the U.S. State Department, author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II

More than 5,000 satellites have been launched into orbit since the space age began. Today, eleven countries have space launch capability, with over sixty countries operating about 1,100 active satellites orbiting the earth providing a constant stream of data and information relied upon for critical civilian communications as well as for military operations by some. As we grow ever more dependent on the ability of these satellites to perform their essential functions without interruption, there are growing concerns that this useful technology is giving rise to a new battleground in space for the purpose of sabotaging or destroying the vital services our space-based communications now provide.

The  U.S. and Russia have been testing anti-satellite technology (ASAT) since the space age began, and have even contemplated using nuclear tipped ballistic missiles to destroy space assets.    In 1967, the  U.S. and Russia realized it would be in their interest to support the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which banned the placement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in space, although they failed to ban the use of conventional weapons in space. And in 1972 they agreed to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) to slow down the space race and the ability to harm each other’s assets in space. Unfortunately, George Bush walked out of the ABM treaty in 2002, and the race to weaponize space was on once again in full force. China is getting into the act too, having launched, in 2007, a device which destroyed one of its aging weather satellites orbiting in space. The  U.S. followed suit in 2008, destroying a non-functioning satellite, while both nations denied any military mission for their acts, claiming they were merely trying to destroy outdated satellites that no longer functioned.

With the proliferation of military spacecraft such as imaging and communications satellites and ballistic missile and anti- missiles systems which often pass through outer space, there have been numerous efforts in the UN Committee on Disarmament (CD) to outlaw the weaponization of space through a legally binding treaty.    But the United States is having none of it. In the CD, which requires consensus to take action, the  U.S. has been the only nation to block every vote to begin negotiations on such a treaty, with Israel generally abstaining in support. Russia and China actually prepared a draft treaty to ban weapons in space in 2008, but the  U.S. blocked the proposal, voting against it each year thereafter when it was reintroduced for consideration, saying the proposal was “a diplomatic ploy by the two nations to gain a military advantage”.

While continuing to block a legally binding treaty to ban weapons in space, the  U.S. has recently begun to work with a group of nations in a new initiative that began in the European Union in 2008, proposing a “Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities“ which would lay out a non-binding set of rules of the road for a safer and more responsible environment in space. Some of its key objectives are to mitigate damage to satellites that could be caused by space debris orbiting the earth, to avoid the potential of destructive collisions, and to manage the crowding of satellites and the saturation of the radio-frequency spectrum, as well as to address direct threats of hostility to assets in space. At first, the  U.S. rejected any support for the Code, but has now agreed to participate in drafting a new version based on the third iteration from the European Union. Obama’s Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, acknowledged in 2012 the necessity for a Code to deal with orbital debris and “other irresponsible actions in space”, while at the same time, noting that,

"It is important to clarify several points with respect to the code. It is still under development, we would not subscribe to any code unless it protects and enhances our national security, and the code would not be legally binding."

In addition, the  U.S. is insisting on a provision in this third version of the Code of Conduct that, while making a voluntary promise to “refrain from any action which brings about, directly or indirectly, damage, or destruction, of space objects”, qualifies that directive with the language “unless such action is justified”. One justification given for destructive action is “the Charter of the United Nations including the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense”, thus lending legitimacy and codifying the possibility for warfare in space as part of the Code’s established norm. And while the Charter of the United Nations prohibits aggressive action by any nation without Security Council approval unless a nation acts in self-defense, we know there have been numerous occasions where nations have by-passed the Security Council to take aggressive action, often protesting they were acting in self-defense. Instead of banning ASAT development and warfare, this Code justifies such warfare as long as it’s done, individually and collectively, under the guise of “self-defense”. Thus despite lacking the force of law that would be established with a legally binding treaty, this new  U.S. version of the Code creates, as the norm it is proposing, a possibility for space warfare.

Our world deserves better!

China Makes "Soft" Landing On The Moon

While the United States has abandoned its moon program, preferring to spend its money on a bloated military budget, illegal wars that cannot be won, and tax giveaways to the rich and corporations, China is going full steam ahead with its own space program -- and they seem to be making great strides.

On Saturday (December 14th), China became the third nation to make a soft landing on the moon. The picture above (from Space.com) shows their rover (called "Jade Rabbit") immediately after it was released from the Chinese landing craft (the Chang'e 3).

The photos below show the rocket launching the moon craft, and the mission control room.

Olympic Torch Goes On A Space Walk

The season is approaching for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. It seems that each country hosting an Olympic Games tries to outdo the preceding nation in some way -- and the Russians are no different. They have done something quite unique. Instead of trying to top other nations with their opening ceremony (although I'm sure they will put on a good show), they have taken a different route to make their Olympics unforgettable.

Last Thursday, they sent the official Olympic torch (which will be used to light the Olympic flame in the opening ceremony) into space. As they sent three new astronauts into space to replace astronauts finishing their time on the international space station, they sent the torch up with them. Although an Olympic torch has been to space before, the Russians took it one step further. They sent the torch on a space walk with Russian cosmonaut Oleg Kotov (see picture above). The torch was then returned to Earth on Monday.

I like the symbolism of this. While the Olympics are rooted in the past (the original games in ancient Greece), the space walk of the torch also links it firmly to the 21st Century.

Congratulations NASA !

Once again, the scientists at NASA have managed to pull off an incredible feat. This time they landed an SUV-sized "rover" on Mars (much larger than the two previous rovers). The mission this time is to search for evidence that life could exist, or could have once existed on the red planet. The picture above is one of the first pictures sent back to us from the new mars vehicle. Congratulations NASA -- both on a job well-done to land this much larger vehicle, and on the new journey they are now taking us on. This is exciting stuff!

The Great Inter-Galactic Crash

The illustration above is of what the night sky will most likely look like far into the future -- as the Andromeda galaxy crashes into our own Milky Way galaxy. Scientists have long known that the two galaxies have a gravitational pull on each other, even though they are millions of light years apart. But they could not predict if or when the two galaxies might collide, because they could not measure the sideways motion of Andromeda.

But by using the Hubble Telescope, they have now been able to make those measurements. And they found the two galaxies will indeed crash together, and form one elongated giant galaxy (much like many other elongated galaxies seen throughout the universe).

There's no need to worry though. The two galaxies won't collide for another 4 billion years (and then take another two billion years to form the final elongated galaxy). That's plenty of time for the human race to finish destroying itself -- as it seems intent upon doing. It'll sure be a fine show for whatever species rules this Earth after we are gone though.

Space Junk's Reaching A Critical Danger Point

Mankind has a way of plunging into an endeavor without thinking about the consequences of its actions. That was done with the environment here on the planet, and now we are faced with destroyed environments, vanishing species, dirty and unsafe water & air, and the prospect of global climate change which could easily hurt the lives (and possible existence) of future generations. And unfortunately, man seem to be doing the same in space.

For the last 50 years or so an ever growing list of nations has been shooting a wide variety of things into space, and most of those things are still up there -- about 22,000 of them. And that's just the bits of space junk that are large enough to be detected from Earth. There are thousands and thousands more that are only 1 centimeter in diameter or slightly larger that can't be detected -- and these, in spite of their small size, could pose a real danger to spacecraft (which could hit them while traveling at enormous speeds).

A new report by the United States National Research Council (NRC) says that the enormous amount of space junk is reaching a critical "tipping point", and now poses a significant risk of causing fatal leaks in spacecraft or damaging valuable satellites. The report called for international regulations to limit future space junk and more research on how to reduce the amount of space junk that is already orbiting above the Earth.

Some might think we could just blow up the large space junk, but that would just exacerbate the problem rather than solve it. Back in 2007 the Chinese tested an anti-satellite weapon on a decommissioned weather satellite -- and the result was a disaster. They were able to blow up the satellite, but now instead of having one large piece of space junk there are thousands of much smaller pieces.

Then in 2009, two satellites crashed in orbit, creating thousands more tiny bits of space junk. Scientists believe the Chinese explosion and the satellite crash together may have doubled the amount of space junk. Donald Kessler, a retired NASA scientist, believes the situation is getting out of control since there is no doubt there will be further space junk collisions, and each collision makes the problem worse. He says, "We've lost control of the [space] environment."

It is obvious that the international community must get together and solve the space junk problem -- and soon. But what can be done? The NRC report didn't offer any solutions, but it did reference a previous report from a Pentagon think-tank, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The DARPA report talked about ideas like a space harpoon, space nets, or an umbrella-like device. These could round up space junk and either send it to burn up re-entering Earth's atmosphere or push them much farther out into space.

But whatever the international community decides to do needs to be done quickly. Time is running out, and we may soon have another space disaster that takes human lives and destroys valuable property.

New Supernova In Earth's "Backyard"

Astronomers have discovered a new supernova (basically an exploding star that increases greatly in size). The exciting thing is that this is the closest supernova to Earth in the last 25 years -- only 21 million light-years away in the Pinwheel Galaxy. In astronomical terms, that's virtually in Earth's backyard. In the above pictures, it is the growing dot at the tip of the green arrow.

This is also the earliest time in the life-cycle of a supernova that scientists have discovered one. It started out as about an Earth-size object and it had expanded to about the size of the distance between the Sun and Jupiter when it was discovered last Monday (the pictures above were taken on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday). Scientists believe it will continue to expand as a normal supernova, and by the first or second week of September it will be visible on a dark night with just a pair of binoculars.

To find it in the sky, look just north of the last two stars in the handle of the Big Dipper. The supernova will form a rough equilateral triangle with those two stars.

Pluto Is Getting Redder

In 2006, Pluto was downgraded from a planet to a dwarf planet by scientists. Now they tell us that Pluto is getting redder -- about 20% redder so far. Here's how BBC News describes what the scientists think is happening:

Experts say they believe this is because of changes in Pluto's surface ice as it enters a new phase of its 248-year-long rotation.

The new images are said to show frozen nitrogen brightening in the north and becoming darker in the south.

"These changes are most likely consequences of surface ice melting on the sunlit pole and then re-freezing on the other pole," Nasa's Space Telescope Science Institute said in a statement.

But some astronomers have expressed shock at the changes.

"It's a little bit of a surprise to see these changes happening so big and so fast," said Marc Buie, of the Southwest Research Institute. "This is unprecedented".

Personally, I think Pluto may be just immensely embarrassed at being demoted to "dwarf planet" status.