Speaker 1: Welcome to the deep dive. So three months that feels
like quite a while for something to just be hanging
out up there.
Speaker 2: It really does, and in astronomical terms, three months of
observation can change everything.
Speaker 1: Especially with this particular object. It's gone from just another blip,
you know, another discovery, to maybe the most the most
thrilling cosmic puzzle we've got going right now.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, we're talking, of course, about three Ilis.
Speaker 1: Three IELLWA, an interstellar object, and if you haven't been
following this, you really need to understand. This isn't just
some pretty picture in a telescope.
Speaker 3: No, not at all. It's a rival.
Speaker 2: Okay, that was interesting enough, But what it's done since arriving,
that's what's forcing astronomers to ask some really fundamental questions.
Speaker 1: That'pends about what's normal out there, exactly what.
Speaker 2: Happens when you see something that well, the physics just
doesn't seem to quite fit, especially for what we thought
was just an icy rock wandering in from interstellar space.
Speaker 1: Right because the starting point, the sort of default setting
for most just looking at this was commet correct.
Speaker 2: The conventional wisdom the majority of you is this is
an icy body lots of all little stuff born around
another star, drifted here now reacting to our son. Fascinating, sure,
but natural.
Speaker 1: But then came the data, the observations, the observations, and
specifically the magnitude of what's being observed.
Speaker 2: That's where the conflict really starts, because the activity is
just extreme.
Speaker 1: And this is where you know, you get that counter
argument picking up steam, you do.
Speaker 2: It's a smaller group, definitely, but very vocal and led
by a prominent name, Avi Lobe at Harvard right.
Speaker 1: Love has been pushing this idea for a while with
other objects too.
Speaker 2: He has, and his argument here is that the behavior,
the characteristics we're seeing with three I A. L us
they just stretched that natural comet explanation too thin. Maybe
he suggests past the breaking point. So the alternative, the
alternative is well that we have to seriously consider. It
might be engineered alien technology, maybe some kind of probe.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the ultimate clash. Isn't it simple predictable physics,
even if it's violent physics like a comet breaking up
versus something deliberate, something designed.
Speaker 2: It is, and it's impossible to ignore the drama inherent
in that the source material even framed it pretty dramatically.
Speaker 1: I'd say, yeah, I saw that line. Did the mothership
just separate into a squadron of reconnaissance aircraft?
Speaker 3: Exactly?
Speaker 2: Now, look, that's obviously putting it in very stark Maybe sensational.
Speaker 1: Alternations are very sci fi.
Speaker 2: But the underlying tension that's real because the physical observations
we have, they genuinely seem to present a binary choice.
Speaker 3: The evidence points one way or the other.
Speaker 1: Either it fits neatly into this model of a comet
just falling apart under stress.
Speaker 2: Right, the fragmentation model, or it doesn't fit that at all.
And if it doesn't, the data seems to demand we
think about something with say, high velocity jets, but not
a lot of mass being thrown off, which sounds a lot.
Speaker 3: More like technology.
Speaker 1: The universe is basically forcing us to choose between those
two paths.
Speaker 3: It really feels that way sometimes.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this. Then that's what this deep dive
is all about today. We need to get into the weeds,
into the calculations, the actual observations that are fueling this
whole incredible.
Speaker 2: Debate, the detective work as you called it earlier, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Exactly how are astronomers using what we do know, like
the sould er wind as a kind of pressure gauge
to figure out the forces coming off three eye its less.
Speaker 2: That's the crucial part, using the known environment to probe
the unknown object.
Speaker 1: And we really need to look hard at this evidence
suggesting it's losing just an insane amount of mass, this
mass flux idea, what does that number actually mean for
the comet theory versus the tech theory.
Speaker 2: We're essentially using physics, momentum, velocity pressure. These are our
forensic tools here.
Speaker 1: Okay, so where do we start the forensic analysis the
object's path?
Speaker 2: I think we have to the trajectory and crucially it's
recent very close encountered with the Sun because three eye
loss has been very active lately.
Speaker 1: Right, And just to remind everyone, when we say interstellar object.
Speaker 2: We mean it wasn't born here. It came from around
another star, traveled across that vast emptiness between stars, the
interstellar medium.
Speaker 1: For potentially millions, maybe billions of years.
Speaker 2: Could be untold distances. Yeah, and then relatively recently in
cosmic terms, it got snagged by our Sun's gravity and.
Speaker 1: That journey culminates in this hairpin turn around our star.
It just recently passed its closest point perihelium.
Speaker 2: Which for anything icy is the make or break moment.
Speaker 1: Why specifically what happens there, Well, you.
Speaker 2: Get maximum stress several kinds at once. Intense heat obviously
from the Sun that makes volatile materials ices sublelate, basically
boil off straight into gas, often.
Speaker 1: Violently like dry ice here on Earth.
Speaker 2: Exactly like that, but on a potentially massive scale. And
then you also have tidal forces, the.
Speaker 1: Sun's gravity pulling harder on the near side than the
far side.
Speaker 2: Precisely, it stretches the object, tries to pull it apart.
For something that's basically loosely held together s which many
comets are, that combination of heat and stretching is often catastrophic.
It forces structural failure.
Speaker 1: And that event, that perihelium passage, is what gave us
this data crunch point we're talking about.
Speaker 2: That's what drove the whole calculation about the incredibly high
mass loss. It triggered the intense activity.
Speaker 1: And now the object is setting back out away from
the Sun, but it's going to pass relatively close to Earthstone.
Speaker 2: Which gives us our best chance yet for really detailed,
high resolution observations, we can get a much better look.
Speaker 1: And this is the big butt that kicked off this
whole debate. Based on what we saw happen around the sun.
Speaker 2: The immediate consensus the warning shot was that three iadols
might not be in one piece by the time it gets.
Speaker 1: Here for its close up, because the core observation was
this just unprecedented rate of mass loss, the mass.
Speaker 2: Flux, right, The initial calculation suggested it was shedding materials
so fast, so.
Speaker 1: Violently that the only way to explain it under the
standard comet model was that.
Speaker 2: It basically exploded or at least disintegrated, shattered into say
a dozen or maybe more smaller pieces, and each of
those pieces is now acting like a mini comet, spewing
out gas and dust.
Speaker 1: Okay, this is critical. We're not just talking about it
getting a bit brighter or having a slightly bigger tail
than usual.
Speaker 2: No, No, we have specific visual evidence, powerful ejection events
and highly directed ones. It's not just a big fuzzy
cloud diffusing outwards.
Speaker 1: And the observations got really specific, didn't they. That's what
makes this so compelling. Around what late October after it
whipped around the sun.
Speaker 2: Yeah, October twenty ninth is a key to eight mentioned.
Astronomers looking closely then didn't just see, you know, a
general Hayes. They saw distinct plumes, directional jets.
Speaker 1: Of material like nozzles firing off.
Speaker 3: That's a good way to picture it.
Speaker 2: The focus wasn't just on the coma, the big gas
cloud around the core. It was on these jets shooting
out of the core region.
Speaker 1: And they counted them.
Speaker 3: They did.
Speaker 2: Reports mentioned observing seven distinct jets coming out of what
they assumed was the collection of fragments, seven and maybe
even more than seven. The reports suggest it was hard
to tell. It somewhere overlapping.
Speaker 1: Seven distinct streams of stuff blasting out that detail right there.
That's what separates this from your average comet coming through absolutely,
because you know, I picture a comet, I think of
that classic graceful sweeping tail, maybe two tails gas and dust,
but seven or more distinct, powerful directional jets. That visual
alone screams something weird is happening.
Speaker 3: It does.
Speaker 2: It immediately flags this as highly unusual, and that observation
feeds directly into that hypothesis. High mass flux means it
must have broken up to create enough surface area for
all that material to come off.
Speaker 1: If you imagine like a single leaky pipe, that's one thing.
But if you see seven high pressure hoses blasting water
out of roughly the same spot, your.
Speaker 2: First thought is something broke, right, catastrophic failure. Or maybe
those aren't leaks, maybe they're engines.
Speaker 1: That's the unsettling part that forces.
Speaker 3: You to confront the limits.
Speaker 2: Is this natural commentary physics pushed to an extreme, or
is this something else entirely?
Speaker 1: And that sets up the core dilemma perfectly for you
listening right now. We have this really startling visual these jets.
So how do we figure out if this is just
a comment shattering under the Sun's heat, or if it's
something engineered propulsion.
Speaker 2: Maybe the answer, or at least the path to the answer,
lies in the physics. It's in the details of how
those jets are interacting with the solar environment around them.
Speaker 1: Right, we have to move past just being surprised by
the picture and get into the numbers.
Speaker 2: Because those jets, those seven or more streams, they're pushing
against something something we know a lot about solar winds,
the solar wind.
Speaker 1: This is where the detective work gets really cool. I think,
can you just set the scene. What exactly is the
solar wind in this context?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's crucial. It's not like wind on Earth, obviously.
It's a constant stream of charged particles, protons, electrons, other
atomic nuclei flowing out from the Sun really fast, supersonic speeds,
hundreds of kilometers per second.
Speaker 1: It fills the whole solar system.
Speaker 2: Permeates everything. And here's the key part for our mystery.
We know its properties pretty well decades of spacecraft flying
through it measuring it.
Speaker 1: So at any given distance from the Sun, we have
a good handle on its density, its speed, and therefore
the pressure.
Speaker 3: It exerts exactly.
Speaker 2: Think of it like a headwind blowing constantly outwards from
the Sun, a known quantifiable pressure, a cosmic baseline, like you.
Speaker 1: Said, okay, a fixed reference point. Now back to the
jets from three Ilis.
Speaker 2: Some of those jets we mentioned, they were observed pointing
towards the.
Speaker 1: Sun, so firing straight into that headwind.
Speaker 2: Directly against the flow of the solar wind, pushing back
against that constant pressure.
Speaker 1: And they don't just puff out and disappear instantly.
Speaker 2: No, that's the critical observation. They penetrate the solar wind,
they push into it for a measurable distance before being
dispersed or deflected.
Speaker 1: They hold their own against the flow.
Speaker 2: They maintain their structure, their coherence, pushing against that known
pressure for a certain distance.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we can see how far they push. Ah.
Speaker 1: Okay, now I see the pressure gage analogy. The solar
wind is the known resistance. How far the jet pushes
into it tells you how strong the jet must be.
Speaker 2: Precisely, we know the pressure of the solar wind is
exerting inwards. For the jet material to push outwards against
that pressure, for let's say distance X, we can calculate
the infit needs the momentum.
Speaker 1: Momentum, which is mass times of velocity. Right T equals
M times V.
Speaker 2: Basic physics, Basic physics, but incredibly powerful here. If we
know the momentum P required to penetrate the solar wind
to the observed distance.
Speaker 1: Then we have a relationship between the mass M being
ejected and the speed V it's ejected at.
Speaker 2: Exactly P equals mxv. We've measured P indirectly by seeing
how far the jet penetrates the known solar wind pressure.
Now we need to figure out M.
Speaker 1: And V, and this lets us calculate the total amount
of stuff coming out per second, the.
Speaker 2: Mass flux that's the term, yes, mass flux. How much
mass is flowing out in those jets over time. By
observing the penetration, we calculate the required mass flex needed
to generate that momentum. If we make an assumption about
the speed.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's make the first assumption the conservative one hypothesis
one is just a comet doing comet things, right.
Speaker 2: So the jets are made of typical comet stuff, mostly water,
ice turning into vapor, maybe some dust mixed in. It's
all driven by the sun's heat causing sublimation.
Speaker 1: Okay, So if it's subblimating ice, what kind of speed
does that give the material? Is it fast?
Speaker 3: Relatively speaking?
Speaker 2: No, sublimation is well, it's energetic, but it doesn't blast
stuff off at rocket speeds. We're talking characteristic speeds maybe
in the range of half a kilometer per second up
to maybe one kilometer per second. Definitely not dramatically higher
than that. It's a relatively gentle push compared to say
an explosion.
Speaker 1: Okay, so V is low in the p eqal mx
V equation V is low, and that immediately creates the
mass problem.
Speaker 2: It creates a huge mass problem, a catastrophic one really
for this single comet idea, because remember we calculated the
required momentum P from the jet penetration. If the velocity
V of that icy material is low.
Speaker 1: Then the mass M must be enormous to make the
equation mallons enormous.
Speaker 2: The sheer amount of mass that needs to be ejected
per second in those jets at that low speed to
push back against the solar wind that hard, it's just astronomical.
Speaker 1: How astronomical can we put that in perspective?
Speaker 2: Think about the surface of the comet. Sublimation happens off
the surface that's heated by the sun. If three icleas
was just one single reasonably sized commet.
Speaker 1: Nucleus like a few kilometers across maybe.
Speaker 2: Something like that, Yeah, the total surface area of that
single body, especially the sunlit side, is simply not big
enough to sublimate that much ice per second. You can't
get that calculated required mass flux off a single modest surface.
Speaker 1: The engine is too small for the power output required.
Speaker 3: Basically, that's a great way to put it.
Speaker 2: The required surface area just to boil off enough ice
to create those powerful jets is orders of magnitude larger
than what a single solid object of that estimated size
could possibly provide.
Speaker 1: So this is where fragmentation becomes not just a possibility,
but almost a requirement if you stick to the comet explanation.
Speaker 2: It's forced on you by the calculation. It's a mathematical
necessity under the low velocity ice assumption. The only way
a natural icy body can generate that much mass.
Speaker 1: Flux is if it's not one body anymore.
Speaker 2: Exactly, it has to have broken up into many, many
smaller pieces. Think of it like smashing a big block
of ice into lots of little chips.
Speaker 1: Suddenly you have way more surface area.
Speaker 2: Exposed, way more And if all those little fragments are
also heated by the sun and sublimating, their combined cumulative
surface area could potentially add up to the enormous total
area needed to release that huge required mass flux. Wow.
Speaker 1: Okay, so the physics really paints you into a corner.
There you see the strong jets. You assume it's low
speed ice. Therefore it must have shattered to provide the
needed surface area.
Speaker 3: It becomes a self consistent picture.
Speaker 2: Yes, assumption comet observation strong jets penetrating solar wind. Calculation
needs huge mass flux. Conclusion must be fragmented to provide
the surface area for that flux.
Speaker 1: So if it is a comment, we're basically just waiting
for the pictures to confirm. We can see the pieces
flying apart.
Speaker 2: That would be the definitive proof for the common hypothesis. Yes,
seeing those fragments clearly separated.
Speaker 1: Okay, now let's rewind the calculation, keep the same observation,
the jets pushing back against the solar wind, requiring a certain.
Speaker 3: Momentum P, same P required.
Speaker 1: But now let's explore hypothesis too. Let's question that assumption
about low velocity ice.
Speaker 2: This is where the technological idea gets its physical justification.
It offers a completely different way to satisfy P equals MXV.
Speaker 1: It tackles the V instead of the M.
Speaker 2: Precisely so hypothesis one. The natural comment says it shattered,
the pieces dispersed, and the huge combined surface area explains
the high mass flux big M of low velocity ice,
small V evidence needed.
Speaker 1: See the fragments, got it now, hypothesis too. Technological origin.
Speaker 2: This scenario starts differently. It assumes the object is inherently strong.
It's not a fragile snowball that fell apart. It survives
perihealium intact.
Speaker 3: And those jets, those jets aren't.
Speaker 2: Sublimation, they're engineered. They're propulsion like rocket exhaust.
Speaker 1: Okay, so how does that change the P MXV calculation dramatically?
Speaker 2: Because if the jets are technological exhausts, the ejection velocity
V can be much much higher than the gentle one
kilometers from sublimation.
Speaker 1: How much higher are we talking? Oh?
Speaker 2: Orders of magnitude. Potentially, standard chemical rockets achieve exhaust velocities
of say three.
Speaker 3: To five kilometers per second.
Speaker 2: More advanced systems like ion propulsion can reach tens even
hundreds of kilometers per second.
Speaker 1: So V becomes very large.
Speaker 2: V becomes very large. Now look at the equation again,
P equals MXV. We know P is fixed by the
solar wind observation i V is now huge.
Speaker 1: Then M the mass required can be tiny exactly.
Speaker 2: You don't need that enormous, physically impossible mass flocks anymore.
The object doesn't need the surface area of.
Speaker 3: A dozen fragments. A tiny amount.
Speaker 2: Of mass M ejected at extremely high speed V can
generate the exact same momentum required to push back against
the solar wind.
Speaker 1: It's the difference between stopping a truck with a fire
hose versus a bullet.
Speaker 2: That's a really good analogy. The fire hose is the
Comet model huge mass flow M low speed V. The
bullet is the tech model tiny mass M incredibly high
speed V. Both can deliver the same punch P.
Speaker 1: So the technological hypothesis solves the mass problem by cranking
up the velocity.
Speaker 2: It elegantly sidesteps the need for fragmentation. A single structurally
sound object could produce those jets if it has a
high efficiency, high velocity.
Speaker 1: Propulsion system, which means the evidence needed for this hypothesis
is the exact opposite of the.
Speaker 2: Comet one, completely opposite. For the tech hypothesis to hold water,
we need to see an object that has maintained its
structural integrity.
Speaker 1: It's stayed whole despite the solar passage, despite the jets firing.
Speaker 2: Yes, it needs to be intact, and it must still
be exhibiting those powerful directional jets whose strength can't be
explained by low velocity ice sublimation from a single body.
Speaker 1: So it really boils down to one simple visual check.
Is it in pieces or is it whole?
Speaker 2: That's the crux of it. Structural integrity. That's the single
observational factor that could decide this whole fascinating mystery. If
it's days whole, the standard comet model is in serious trouble. Mathematically,
physics then points strongly towards high velocity, and.
Speaker 1: High velocity points strongly towards something not natural.
Speaker 2: It certainly forces you to consider non natural highfficiency mechanisms
because nature doesn't typically produce one hundred kilometers jets from
sublimating ice.
Speaker 1: What an incredible fork in the road, and we're watching
it happen almost live.
Speaker 2: The timing is extraordinary because the coming weeks right now
are absolutely decisive. We're not talking about weeding years for data.
This is unfolding as we speak.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's focus on that timeline. What are the two
clear outcomes everyone's waiting for in say the next few
weeks leading up to mid December.
Speaker 2: It really is binary outcome. One confirmation of the comet hypothesis.
Speaker 1: What is Elaklin.
Speaker 2: We get clear images showing a fragmented object multiple distinct pieces,
and crucially, we see them separating from each other over time,
being pulled apart by the Sun's tidal forces. That would
be the smoking gun for natural fragmentation. Case closed pretty much, Okay.
Speaker 1: That validates the high mass flux, low velocity ice model correct.
Speaker 2: Now outcome two the plot twist.
Speaker 1: We don't see fragments.
Speaker 3: We don't see fragments.
Speaker 2: We see an object that clearly maintained its structural integrity
through perihelion, still one piece, or appears to be.
Speaker 1: But it's still firing those jets, and it's.
Speaker 2: Still exhibiting those powerful, persistent directional jets that cause all
the fuss in the first place.
Speaker 1: Because if it's intact, then the only way to explain
the jets pushing against the solar wind is high.
Speaker 2: Velocity pmxv must be large. We move from a calculation
that required fragmentation to potentially measuring that high velocity.
Speaker 1: You can actually measure the speed of the stuff coming
out if it.
Speaker 2: Stays intact and the jets are clear enough. Yes, telescopes,
especially with spectrographs, can measure the Doppler shift of the
light from the jet material to determine its speed. They
can also try to estimate the density and thus the
mass flux.
Speaker 1: So if it's intact and we measure the jets and
we find the speed is way higher than sublimation allows
and the mass flux is actually quite low.
Speaker 2: Then that confirms the activity is genuinely anomalous. It breaks
the known physics of comets. It tells us something very
unusual is happening.
Speaker 1: That sounds like it needs more than just one telescope
pointing at it. Oh.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, this is a global effort. Because the object is
faint and the activity might be variable. You need eyes
all around the world. Data from hundreds of observatories is.
Speaker 1: Being pooled, pictures, spectra.
Speaker 2: Everything, trying to confirm its structural state, is it one
thing or many? And measuring the properties of any activity,
what's it made of? How fast is it moving?
Speaker 1: There's a real sense of urgency here. Isn't there a
race against time? Time before it gets too far away
or too faint?
Speaker 2: Again, there is, and we're heading towards the peak opportunity.
The closest approach to Earth is on December nineteenth.
Speaker 1: That's the best viewing window.
Speaker 3: That's when it's nearest to us.
Speaker 2: Yes, but the critical observations about fragmentation versus integrity. Those
are happening right now and in the days and weeks
leading right up to the nineteenth We are smack in
the middle of the decisive period.
Speaker 1: So there's this cosmic deadline right around the holidays. The
source mentioned astronomers hoping that by the Holy Days.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the hope is that by late December we will
have a definitive answer.
Speaker 3: We'll know the nature of the object.
Speaker 1: Talk about a potential holiday bombshell. Imagine getting that news.
Speaker 2: It would certainly be numorable either way. Really, we'll either know. Okay,
it was a comment. It broke up, confirms our models
about these fragile interstellar visitors, or it's intact that jets
are real the speeds are high, Houston, we may have
a situation.
Speaker 1: Well, no, for sure, one way or the other. As
you said, that's the best part of science, getting that
clar yes or no on a hypothesis. Still, I can't
help but imagine the headlines if it holds together, mysterious
space object defies known physics.
Speaker 2: Well, let's hope the science reporting is accurate. But yes,
it would be major news. Though it's really important to
stress even if it does turn out to be just
a fragmented rock.
Speaker 1: We still learn something important, hugely important.
Speaker 2: Confirming it's a comet tells us a lot about the
composition and fragility of these objects. After that long, hard
journey through interstellar space. Maybe they get battered by cosmic
rays weakened. That has big implications for how we study
future interstellar visitors. We learn how delicate they are.
Speaker 1: So no matter what, this observation campaign is a win
for science.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: We either refine our understanding of deep space comets or
we stumble upon potentially the biggest discovery in human history.
It's a fascinating position to be in.
Speaker 1: One outcome is definitely a bit more paradigm shifting, shall we.
Speaker 2: Say, just a bit, But it's the best kind of
scientific cliffhanger where the resolution is guaranteed and imminent.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's try and wrap this deep dive up. We
started with this object three ir lists hanging around for
three months, turning into this major puzzle, and.
Speaker 2: We saw how the whole mystery really hinges on interpreting
those powerful jets interacting with the solar wind.
Speaker 1: The physics calculation that interaction requires a certain momentum, which.
Speaker 3: Forces a choice.
Speaker 2: If you assume low speed ice comet model, you need
enormous mass flux, which demands fragmentation to get enough.
Speaker 1: Surface area, or if you assume high speed dejection tech model,
you only need a tiny mass flux, which means the
object could easily stay intact.
Speaker 2: It's a direct trade off between mass and velocity, dictated
by the object structural integrity.
Speaker 1: So we're essentially on this this scientific blind day, as
the source kind of hinted, we're approaching it with our calculations,
ready for whatever shows.
Speaker 2: Up, ready for just a rock which confirms our models,
or ready for something more exciting which breaks them.
Speaker 1: And the answer comes down to whether it's it holds
together or falls apart in the next few weeks, with.
Speaker 2: The payoff being that definitive answer hopefully by late December.
Speaker 1: You know, I keep thinking about the implications if it
does stay intact. It's not just that it's weird technology.
It fundamentally challenges what we assume these interstellar wanderers are
made of.
Speaker 2: That's a really crucial point. We generally assume they're icy, dusty,
structurally weak, especially after maybe millions of years exposed to
harsh interstellar radiation. Comets aren't known for being robust.
Speaker 1: Right, they're cosmic snowballs.
Speaker 2: But if three i at lists sails through perihelion, firing
powerful jets and doesn't disintegrate, it implies it's made of
something much stronger, much denser than a typical.
Speaker 1: Comment materials that can withstand intense heat and tidal forces.
Speaker 2: Which starts to sound less like a randomly accreted snowball
and more like something constructed. Natural processes build things to survive, sure,
but engineering builds things to perform specific functions under stress,
like generate high velocity thrust while staying intact.
Speaker 1: That difference between just surviving and actively performing. That's the leap,
isn't it.
Speaker 2: It is, And maybe that's the final thought to leave
you with. What's truly fascinating here is how our standard
physics models commet sublimation low ejection speeds. Set these very clear,
very strict limits, limits on the surface area needed, the
mass flux needed to explain those jets.
Speaker 1: Physics straws a line in the sand.
Speaker 2: It does, and if three iatlis crosses that line by
staying intact while still producing those powerful jets, it forces
us to ask what other assumptions that we hold about
interstellar objects might be wrong. If the icy snowball model fails.
Speaker 1: Here, does it make us look again at things like Umumua,
that first interstellar visitor, which also had that weird non
gravitational acceleration.
Speaker 2: Exactly was that weird push also due to some kind
of high velocity, low mass emission we couldn't properly detect,
rather than some exotic, unseen outgassing. If one object challenges
the natural only.
Speaker 1: Assumption potentially reopens the case files on others.
Speaker 2: It could change our entire perspective on what's actually drifting
between the stars. How common might objects be that aren't
just rocks or ice? The answer might be waiting in
those telescope images over the next few.
Speaker 1: Weeks, a truly pivotal moment for astronomy and potentially for
all of us. Something profound to think about while we
wait for that December nineteenth close approach Until next time
on the Deep Dive