Jason Wright

Thanks! All that is super useful.

I'm wondering how the NEATM (thanks for that term!) parameters that assume bare rock will be off exactly, especially in terms of the albedo.

Specifically, is it plausible that a small (~100m) shiny object could be misinterpreted as an unresolved cometary coma?

And I know we shouldn't be wasting more time on this but it is important that we make sure that the errors in his highly visible messaging are laid bare.

Avi and 3I/ATLAS Update Update on my previous post: So, Avi continues to post about 3I/ATLAS. I’ll skip the lengthy parts about repurposing the Juno mission to visit it (a spacecraft with a famously malfunctioning engine tha...

Avi has a new missive out about 3I/ATLAS and it's about what you'd expect. He cites a paper finding 3I/ATLAS has a coma but sometimes no obvious tail before July 18 as validating his earlier arguments, when it fact it proves he was wrong all along.

sites.psu.edu/astrowright/...

(And in case you're curious yes this is a SETI thing but it has nothing to do with Avi or 3I/ATLAS or 1I/'Oumuamua!)

Would I make an incorrect inference? Would the coma, perhaps, be rather transparent at MIR wavelengths and make my procedure above give me back an unphysically high albedo?

For instance, say, we have a small object that is just a point source which may or may not have a coma, and we have both MIR and optical fluxes.

I know how to interpret the MIR and optical to infer an albedo and cross-section if it's bare rock, but what would I see if it were, say, all coma?

Question for planetary science BlueSky:

I know we can use MIR observations of asteroids to use thermal balance to break the albedo-cross-section degeneracy from optical reflected light measurments. How is this complicated by the presence of a coma?

Details below…

🔭🧪

How to go about seeing if an operational spacecraft can observe an interstellar object:
- Look at the close approach distance
- Consider the spacecraft's instrument suite
- Write a very polite email to a senior person on that mission about the opportunity
- Wait for the mission team to assess

His claims of persecution would go into overdrive…and for once be justified!

Support from others validates him but invalidates those who disagree with him.

Social media and blogging is a sign of irrelevance in others but the size of his Medium following and email list is a sign of his relevance.

People who criticize him are just jealous but his criticism is principled.

I strongly disagree. I don’t think ending tenure would stop him in any way, and he is (poorly) using it to do things that might be unpopular, but he feels are intellectually important. That’s worth defending.

Avi Loebs are a small price to pay for academic insulation against political interference.

I am begging journalists to stop platforming him. These objects are SO EXCITING and there are people doing really good science on them and he is not one of them.

Loeb: we must stick to the facts, not judge things based on public opinion.

Also Loeb: Look at how many likes and messages my ideas get! I must be doing it right.

zet Oph is a supergiant so no worries there (except I’m surprised it’s not way too big for you!)

zet Pup is, IIRC, too low mass to be a good test case (it’s basically a B star).

Again, for anyone curious about Harvard Astronomer’s latest: he was told explicitly Juno does not have enough fuel to visit 3I/ATLAS.

So.

my guess is you are very unlikely to choose any O stars for digging accidentally because they are very rare and in nebular regions. They also have a high binary fraction.

But I hope you observe some ostensibly single ones on purpose!

This project fell off my priority list a long time ago, so it’s possible the issue has been resolved. I have not kept up with the literature here.

Resolving O star companions. Star formation models make competing predictions about them hosting discs that form one one-solar-mass planet-like companions.

Not sure if it has the aperture to resolve them, but it should have the contrast! It was just barely doable with GPI but we never got time.

I think perhaps the rise in popularity of bottled water and reusable water bottles has made this seem less important, but it is a simple, almost trivial courtesy and I really don’t understand why it’s not completely standard.

One of my hobbyhorses is that having a glass of water or swallowing pills is a very common part of people‘s bedtime rituals, and so having a cup from which to drink water in guest bathrooms and hotel bathrooms should be as standard as a mirror or soap.

I think that’s a big topic and, especially since I am no expert, I don’t think I can do it justice in this format.

I feel like that's the constant tension in a lot of journalism about aliens, to say nothing of stuff like Ancient Aliens.

They certainly play a big role in that of course, but there are a lot of currents pulling different directions, and a lot of different audiences influenced by different things.

Prestige publications like SciAm, the Atlantic, and NatGeo and society magazines like Eos, Sky & Telescope, and Physics Today set good standards here. I've learned a ton from working with @leebillings.bsky.social, @rossandersen.bsky.social, @nadiadrake.bsky.social, and @astrokimcartier.bsky.social.

It's a nuanced topic where I'm no expert. It can be hard to properly calibrate one's comfort level towards the necessary oversimplifications and promotion that goes with popular scicomm. I have found working closely with communication experts and science journalists helps a lot.

No, they pay me.

Congratulations! So happy for you!

Interesting decision here to:
1) Imply there may be enough fuel in Juno left to do this
2) Imply Juno's engine is working
3) Thank the Juno PI for helpful discussions in the acknowledgements

He started getting involved in SETI in 2019 or so.

[Image of an email]: Subject: Your ebook has been accepted for publication in the AAS-IOP Astronomy collection from: ebooksproduction@ioppublishing.org 4:50 AM (6 hours ago) to: me Body: Re: "The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" by Wright Dear Professor Wright, We are pleased to inform you that IOP Publishing has accepted your book for publication. Our next step is to prepare a proof, which may take up to six weeks for large books. You will next hear from us when your proof is available. We will send you an email with instructions on how to access and review your proof. In the meantime, we are interested to hear your thoughts on your experience with IOP Publishing so far. We would be grateful if you could complete a very short survey: Accepted Author Survey. (Please be assured that we will only use your details for the purposes of the survey).Thank you for your support of AAS-IOP Astronomy. Best regards, IOP Publishing eBooks Production Team ebooksproduction@ioppublishing.org

🤯