• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

What If UFOs Were Camouflaged As Asteroids / Comets / Planets?

WondrWmn

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
21
I have been thinking about interstellar travel and UFO's a lot lately, in respects to their design. Yes, for decades people have seen saucers, cigars...triangles. But, I just saw a picture of the Asteroid Itokawa and it has NO craters and it made me think, what if some highly advanced space travelers are NOT traveling through space in saucers, triangles, and cigars etc. What if they've been in space so long they've learned to adapt to the environment? What if there ships actually resembled asteroids, comets and yes, planets? What if they've found a way to be inconspicuous to perhaps, a) malevolent space travelers, b) curious highly-advanced civilizations searching through space for proof of life, or c) simply because they've discovered that a clunky old 1000+ year old ship has better chances of surviving impacts etc., if it incorporated some of the design from nature (or whatever rules the organization of space).
What if some asteroids are actually clunky old space ships covered in debris?

WW

Here is a pic of Asteroid Itokawa


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051121.html

[Emp edit: Fixing BBcode - its not an image so the IMG tags won't work on it. The link will be fine.]
 
Or maybe someone's using hollowed out asteroids as space ships?
 
Or maybe planetoids themselves can be alien lifeforms. I remember an episode of Star Trek NG in which they found an alien floating through space which looked like a rectangular asteroid. It was hollow on the inside and, FWIRC, there was a character who wanted to live inside of it because he had some telepathic link with it and they felt at peace together.
 
That was Tinman.

I suppose the general sci-fi premise is that (usually just before shedding their physical bodies completely) older species would tend to slow down and go with the flow and leave all the running about to the younger species that always come along. So they may become indistinguishable from asteroids or their ships might or their ships may become sentient and like asteroids or they may merge with their ships and/or become their own ships.

I can't see why such entities wouldn't get craters on them but on the broade question:

What if some asteroids are actually clunky old space ships covered in debris?

Then we should be awfully careful when we start mining the asteroid belt or we could make someone awfully powerful rather angry.

Of course there are other ideas - some asteroids could be eggs of something very large indeed see e.g. Peter F. Hamilton's Fallen Dragon.
 
Something like the planet Mongo piloted by Ming the Merciless! Hot-Hail anyone?
 
They could be like cosmic level worm-casts. Or pebbles that Galactus has removed from the tread of his magenta and 'hot pink' boots with some giant Swiss army knife.
 
From what I remember hasn't the theory that Mars' Moon Phobos (I think)
is actually hollow and could be some kind of ancient space station/ship?

Either way it is a very good and probabal theory that aliens may mimic thier enviroment to blend in.
 
Mulder1800 said:
From what I remember hasn't the theory that Mars' Moon Phobos (I think)
is actually hollow and could be some kind of ancient space station/ship?

Either way it is a very good and probabal theory that aliens may mimic thier enviroment to blend in.

Similar things have been suggested about Iapetus.
 
In the book The Sirius Mystery the author talks about one of the moons of Saturn I think it is, which is supposed to be a conspicously perfect sphere. And has a orbit opposite of the rest of the moons. He also mentions it could be a sentinel, like the one in 2001: A Space Oddyssey.

Hollowing out asteroids could be done, though I don't know if keeping their original shape is a good idea. And I imagine they would be noticed anyway, due to non-ballistic orbits and thermal radiation.
 
byroncac said:
Something like the planet Mongo piloted by Ming the Merciless! Hot-Hail anyone?

I'm taking the tablets and everything is OK now.
 
I had thought this about our own moon.
Lots of people refer to it as being in an 'artificial' orbit - perhaps it was the vehicle of an ancient civilisation that seeded life here on Earth?
Perhaps this civilisation killed all the dinosaurs so that new life could take hold...
 
Oddly enough, it was a young Carl Sagan who speculated that the Martian moons might be artificial.
 
What do you mean by artificial orbit? Can't imagine having a spaceship based around a moon would be a good idea, way too much mass to be carrying around.

The Mars moons are not nice and round, they could well be captured asteroids. So doing orbital mechanics on them is probably a bit different than with something nice, round and homogenous.
 
Hollow moon

The author Jim Marrs put forward the hollow moon theory in his book "Alien Agenda".

The implication was that this was already known by the space-faring nations and was too disturbing to contemplate who actually built it.

The book also highlights the issue of the minority who seem to be taking incredibly risky decisions on behalf of humanity to allow these "visitors" to take what they want. ( Eg "the Eisenhower decision" was very bad diplomacy)
 
If Mimas (one of the moons of Saturn) is artificial we could be in a whole lot of trouble...

mimas2.jpg
 
Yeah, but check out the pictures of IAPETUS...it looks just like the DEATHSTAR and Iapetus is a curious thing. It's half dark, half light...always has the same face facing the sun, etc. It has a mountainous artificial looking wall around its circumference and when the sun hits it, it's actually trapezoidal in shape and NOT spherical. It is the oddest thing out there. And this is just my nutty/personal observation, but it looks like it cracks open like an egg from time to time...see this pic for emphasis:




[/img]http://www.astro-urseanu.ro/imagini/iapetus_s.jpg
 
WondrWmn said:
Yeah, but check out the pictures of IAPETUS...it looks just like the DEATHSTAR and Iapetus is a curious thing. It's half dark, half light...always has the same face facing the sun, etc. It has a mountainous artificial looking wall around its circumference and when the sun hits it, it's actually trapezoidal in shape and NOT spherical. It is the oddest thing out there. And this is just my nutty/personal observation, but it looks like it cracks open like an egg from time to time...see this pic for emphasis:




[/img]http://www.astro-urseanu.ro/imagini/iapetus_s.jpg

I started a thread on Iapetus earlier this year.

here
 
If one posits that the likliest non-terrestrial 'life'-form capable of traversing the vast distances of space (based upon our prevailing notions about physics) is artificial, then it stands to reason that a sentient machine would always choose efficiency over design asthetic.

Their craft - they/it might even be the craft itself - could look like anything.

And it could hang around for a long, long time too.
 
I have a question regarding the Moon. If it is made from the same material than our planet, why is it so different? Why is there such a big difference between the specific gravity of the Moon (3.33 grammes per cubic centimetre) and that of the Earth (5.5 gr.)?

Here's some other funny stuff.

The surprising thing is that however big the meteorites may have been which have fallen on the Moon (some have been more than 60 miles in diameter), and however fast they must have been travelling (in some cases the combined speed was as much as 38 miles per second), the craters they have left behind are for some odd reason all about the same depth, 1.2-2 miles, although they vary tremendously in diameter.
 
Iggore said:
I have a question regarding the Moon. If it is made from the same material than our planet, why is it so different? Why is there such a big difference between the specific gravity of the Moon (3.33 grammes per cubic centimetre) and that of the Earth (5.5 gr.)?

...
The Moon doesn't have a huge, molten, nickel iron core, whereas the Earth's is a big'un.

http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Sept99/MoonCore.html
 
Iggore said:
I have a question regarding the Moon. If it is made from the same material than our planet, why is it so different?

It is not made from the same material.
Accepted theory (?) is that the moon was created in a collision between the proto-earth and another planetoid. The molten material formed the earth-moon system. The light (molten) material escaped to form the moon, the heavy stuff settled to form the earth.
 
This reminded me of the "Search for Extraterrestrial Artifacts" or SETA. This is one of the more accepted branches of Ufology (or the most Ufological branch of accepted science?).

If you do a Google search you will find a lot of intelligent discussion. Here for example:

http://www.setv.org/online_mss/seta83.html

However SETA seems to have died a silent death in the 1970's although it's a good concept.

SETA (Search for Extraterrestrial Artifacts)

Theory and attempts to find and detect the handiwork of extraterrestrial intelligence within the solar system. The term was coined by Robert Freitas and Francisco Valdes in the early 1980s and applied initially to the search for extraterrestrial probes, although the search for probes has more recently tended to be called SETV (Search for Extraterrestrial Visitation).

SETA also includes the search for possible remains and relicts of extraterrestrial intelligence on the surface of planets and moons (see artifacts, alien). Significant contributors to this field, which has also been called exoarchaeology or xenoarchaeology, include Alexey Arkhipov and Mark Carlotto.

Although SETA is really a subdivision of SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), it has generally, and for no particularly good reason, been considered to fall outside mainstream activities in this field. A contributing factor to this exclusion from traditional SETI is the extensive fringe speculation, shading into pseudoscience and pseudohistory, that has built up around SETA.

Source: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/SETA.html
 
Rubbly Itokawa revealed as 'impossible' asteroid

* 19:00 01 June 2006
* NewScientist.com news service
* Maggie McKee



The small asteroid Itokawa is just a loosely packed pile of rubble that collected after a collision between asteroids, according to a slew of new studies based on data from Japan's Hayabusa spacecraft. The asteroid appears to be plagued by recurring impacts and tremors today, making its continued survival a mystery.

Hayabusa made two attempts to collect samples from the 535-metre-long space rock in November 2005. The attempts appear to have failed, but that will not be clear unless the spacecraft can be returned to Earth, which scientists are hoping to do in 2010. But during its approach, the spacecraft did take images and other data on Itokawa's topology, composition and gravity field.

What they found was completely unexpected. "Five years ago, we thought that we would see a big chunk of monolithic rock, that something so small doesn't have the ability to hold onto any pieces," says Erik Asphaug, a planetary scientist at the University of California in Santa Cruz, US, who is not involved with the mission. "Everything we suspected about it turned out to be wrong."

The spacecraft showed a surface littered with boulders and gravel, suggesting it was made of the debris from a larger asteroid that was shattered in a past collision. The latest observations from Hayabusa put an approximate size limit on that parent body.

Hot heart

Onboard gamma-ray and infrared spectrometers reveal the asteroid is composed of the "raw materials" of planets, such as olivine, pyroxene and metallic iron, says Asphaug. But these materials do not appear to have melted and separated, as would be expected if the parent body was larger than about 200 kilometres across, he says.

Nonetheless, Hayabusa's cameras reveal that some large boulders appear layered, "like you'd broken off a rock from the side of a river bed," he says. That suggests Itokawa's parent body was large enough to heat up at its centre and develop some internal structure, even if it wasn't large enough to melt. "There could have been hydrothermal processes conducting water around, similar to on Earth, where steam passes through rocks and alters their compositions," he told New Scientist.

Measurements of the asteroid's gravity field also suggest it coalesced from the debris of a previous collision. Hayabusa scientists used the data - combined with measurements of the space rock's size - to estimate its density. It appears to be 40% porous, or filled with empty space.

"That is astonishing," says Asphaug, adding that a handful of sand has a porosity of 20%. "It's very hard to get porosities greater than that. You've got to start balancing things delicately, like you were building a house of cards," he says. "The only way to do it is to gently pack the stuff together."

Tamping down

But that raises another mystery, he says, since repeated impacts with other space rocks over millions of years should have made Itokawa denser. "Every time you have an impact, you're going to tamp it down," he says.

And Itokawa certainly appears to have had its share of cosmic run-ins, even though it does not show many craters. New craters are thought to be buried by gravel that flows into them when Itokawa shudders after being struck by a space rock. This shaking is also thought to have buried the powdery dust created in such impacts, leaving only larger boulders and gravel-sized rocks visible.

Only one other asteroid has been studied so extensively, a 33-kilometre-long rock called Eros. That asteroid appears to be a single piece of rock, but its density is more like a rubble pile. Asphaug argues that more asteroids should be visited by spacecraft, in part to determine what sort of threat they might pose if they struck the Earth.

Itokawa does cross the Earth's orbit during its 1.5-year-long path around the Sun, but calculations show it will probably never hit the planet. But Asphaug says an asteroid the size of Itokawa is expected to strike the Earth once every 100,000 years, making robotic - or even human - missions to asteroids a priority. "You want to be ahead of the game" in the event that an asteroid is found on an impact course, he says.

Journal reference: Science (vol 312, p 1328 to 1353)

Source

Also more on a Hollow Moon.
 
Back
Top