# 'Oumuamua: First extrasolar object spotted?



## Brian G Turner (Oct 26, 2017)

New Scientist reports on the discovery of a comet that could have originated from outside of our solar system: We may have just seen the first comet from another solar system

In the meantime, we've lost track of hundreds of others inside our solar system - including 135 that pass close to Earth: A 300-kilometre space rock has vanished since we saw it in 1995


----------



## Alexa (Oct 28, 2017)

Skywatchers will be busy for the next couple of weeks.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 28, 2017)

Here's more directly from the JPL website, with an animation showing the apparent track: News | Small Asteroid or Comet 'Visits' from Beyond the Solar System


----------



## Alexa (Oct 28, 2017)

Damn it ! I wish I were that asteroid or comet and go as fast through this Universe and finally find out what's hiding behind.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 10, 2017)

More on this story, as astronomers try to pin down its origin: Tracking the first interstellar asteroid back to its home star


----------



## LordOfWizards (Nov 10, 2017)

> The gravitational pull of our sun adjusted its sharply curved path, flinging it back out of our solar system at a new angle, never to return again.



Good riddance! (Pesky asteroids! )


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 10, 2017)

LordOfWizards said:


> Good riddance! (Pesky asteroids! )



Well, if it was really a comet, then it was a dirty snowball not a rocky asteroid.


I suppose our sun is just having a snowball fight with other star systems.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Nov 10, 2017)

Venusian Broon said:


> I suppose our sun is just having a snowball fight with other star systems.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 20, 2017)

It's been designated as an asteroid, named Oumuamua, and officially classified as the first interstellar object: Interstellar visitor given a name


----------



## Serendipity (Nov 20, 2017)

Oumuamua is unusually elongated - about 10 times longer than wide... this is one real weirdo... see Bizarre shape of interstellar asteroid


----------



## Paul_C (Nov 20, 2017)

Interstellar object confirmed to be from another solar system


----------



## J Riff (Nov 20, 2017)

Not from another solar system. A chunk of this one, hanging around all these millenia. Bet the ranch. Does Vegas have odds on it?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 21, 2017)

The BBC follows up, this time with an artist's impression: Bizarre shape of interstellar asteroid


----------



## Harpo (Nov 21, 2017)

Sixteen years too late, Mr Clarke!


----------



## Alexa (Nov 21, 2017)

Nope. Just on time.  Eyes of the Chrons are on you !

I like the meaning of the asteroid's name, 'Oumuamua "a messenger from afar arriving first".


----------



## Cli-Fi (Nov 21, 2017)

Brian G Turner said:


> New Scientist reports on the discovery of a comet that could have originated from outside of our solar system: We may have just seen the first comet from another solar system
> 
> In the meantime, we've lost track of hundreds of others inside our solar system - including 135 that pass close to Earth: A 300-kilometre space rock has vanished since we saw it in 1995



I bet stuff like this is responsible for some of the "cigar-shaped," UFOs documented in the 1800s.


----------



## J Riff (Nov 21, 2017)

'From another solar system" what does that mean? Is it visiting? Is it going home? What solar system, the nearest one?> This is hype to get you to read the article - that's a giant ET cigarshoppe ship, from some solar syatem or other. Maybe.


----------



## Alexa (Nov 22, 2017)

Cli-Fi said:


> I bet stuff like this is responsible for some of the "cigar-shaped," UFOs documented in the 1800s.



And admit UFO do not exist ? Poor Scully and Mulder.


----------



## Alexa (Nov 22, 2017)

J Riff said:


> 'From another solar system" what does that mean? Is it visiting? Is it going home? What solar system, the nearest one?> This is hype to get you to read the article - that's a giant ET cigarshoppe ship, from some solar syatem or other. Maybe.



Hard to answer when we only have telescopes and observe them.


----------



## Vertigo (Nov 22, 2017)

Call me pedantic but I hate the sloppy use of "solar system." There is, and can only be, one solar system and that is the one with the star called Sol at it's centre (the clue is in the name). _The_ solar system is one example of a stellar system.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 9, 2017)

And now talk of it being a fragment of a planet wrecked by a binary star system: [1712.01823] 1I/`Oumuamua as a Tidal Disruption Fragment From a Binary Star System


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 11, 2017)

....or it might be an alien craft just passing through :

Astronomers to check interstellar body for signs of alien technology


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 11, 2017)

What would the _Rama_fications of that be, I wonder....


----------



## Serendipity (Dec 13, 2017)

It was measured as 800 metres long and with an aspect ratio of 10:1, its diameter is about 80 metres. So it's one heck os a chunk of rock!

It's also going at speed. And we know it came from outside our solar system. A few thoughts:

1. If this rock can come into our Solar System at speed, others smaller than it can also do that. Some may not be detected until late and although the probably is minuscule, they could on target for Earth. If big enough, they could destroy the Earth. Do we have the capability of detecting such interstellar destroyers in time? [Hint... I don't know the answer, but someone far more expert than I am should look into this.]

2. Its aspect ratio is bizarre, but there is a plausible explanation for such a natural phenomenon, although I would consider it an extremely rare occurrence. We have seen within out Solar System, binary rocks being gravitationally attracted to each other to form dumbbell shapes with aspect ratios of 2:1, maybe 2.5:1. It takes 4, more likely 5, of these dumbbell shapes to combine to give the 10:1 ratio. under what conditions could such an event happen? This sounds like an interesting PhD thesis for some astrophysics student... with the added advantage it may guide the principles of interstellar ship building in the longer term. Again I'm no expert on this...


----------



## Harpo (Dec 13, 2017)

Others smaller than 80m across could destroy Earth if they're big enough?
Are you suggest asteroids can be "bigger on the inside"?


----------



## Parson (Dec 13, 2017)

The speed of the rock colliding is also significant and an extra-terrestrial rock would almost have to by definition be moving really, really, fast. I haven't heard if someone has suggested an origin point, but at the speed the rock is going this could very well be the first solar system its invaded and therefore should be able to be tracked.

Edit: Just looked back and saw the article detailing what the current thinking is.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 14, 2017)

Well, first results in....

Is ‘Oumuamua an alien spacecraft? First scans show no signs of technology

....and they suggest it's just a lump of rock.

Mind you, if it was guided by aliens, perhaps they actually have a Prime directive and they actually act on it. Hence just appearing as a piece of space rubble.


----------



## Dave (Dec 16, 2017)

If it IS an unmanned alien probe, then we have taken an extremely long time to turn the SETI radio telescopes around on it to send it messages. It has passed by the Earth now (in October) and will be gone soon. Also, should we not have taken advantage of this unusual circumstance to send some unmanned probe of our own there and piggyback a fast ride out of the solar system? It is travelling at a speed 196,000 mph. The fastest probe we have ever made was the New Horizons probe which travelled at a mere 36,000 mph. (Pioneer 10 made 32,400 mph and Voyager about 35,000 mph.) So, it is over five times faster than those probes!


----------



## Harpo (Dec 16, 2017)

Dave said:


> Also, should we not have taken advantage of this unusual circumstance to send some unmanned probe of our own there and piggyback a fast ride out of the solar system? It is travelling at a speed 196,000 mph. The fastest probe we have ever made was the New Horizons probe which travelled at a mere 36,000 mph. (Pioneer 10 made 32,400 mph and Voyager about 35,000 mph.) So, it is over five times faster than those probes!



It was only spotted eight weeks ago, and for half that time we weren't certain that it was from _outside._


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 16, 2017)

I suspect by the time a probe could be rustled together from scratch the object will be far out on its way out of the system and (I guess) out of range of any current propulsion tech!


----------



## Dave (Dec 16, 2017)

You're both right, of course! Maybe in future we can have one standing by, ready. 

Wasn't the Space Shuttle partly about having a spacecraft available with a very short turnaround? The ***** ************** recently announced that they would "send Americans astronauts back to the Moon, and beyond." I can't see much chance of that if they don't currently have the means to rustle together even a probe. 

Also, the plots of _Deep Impact, Armageddon_ and _Space Cowboys_ will all need to be re-written. We will still send nuclear missiles to destroy the asteroid before it hits the Earth, but we just need to delay it for a few years first while we build the delivery spacecraft. That gives us plenty of time to train young astronauts, so we won't need any of those old guys anymore. Buzz Aldrin (87 years-old) can rest easy again.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Dec 16, 2017)

There must be an emergency spacecraft that could be thrown together at a moments notice - I'd guess some old reliable Russian one - to rescue/help the people in the International space station...but that's just in low orbit around the earth.

I think the problem is that as soon as you try and go further than that, even - say - getting to the moon, which is pretty close, then you are really having to design a craft specifically for the mission requirements, so it becomes very much bespoke. And that would require a great deal of design and testing.

Then you've got to get the funds first - so that requires a bit of lobbying.

Having said all that, it surely depends on what opportunities come up. Imagine if that radio sweep of the object had picked up the faintest whiff of artificiality? I guess even Trump would throw billions of dollars at the problem of 'immediately' launching a probe to investigate.


----------



## Parson (Dec 17, 2017)

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I doubt that there is any technology available to us today, especially on short notice, that could run down an object moving away at 196,000 mph.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 17, 2017)

I'm still not sure about how we know the object is covered in spots....


*cough*


----------



## Harpo (Dec 17, 2017)

That's easy - the fastest animal is covered in spots, therefore the fastest aliens must also be so


----------



## Cathbad (Dec 17, 2017)

Does it have the measles?


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 18, 2017)

Parson said:


> I'm not a rocket scientist, but I doubt that there is any technology available to us today, especially on short notice, that could run down an object moving away at 196,000 mph.


This was my first thought as well. The difference in the speeds mean that it would be pretty much impossible for the probe to hitch a ride without being utterly destroyed in the process.

Shame...


----------



## Serendipity (Dec 18, 2017)

Oumuamua is covered in a thick crust of carbon-rich gunk to give it its reddish colour - see Interstellar object ‘Oumuamua covered in 'thick crust of carbon-rich gunk' - interesting because the gunk was 'frozen on', Oumuamua did not generate a tail on its close encounter with the Sun, the kind of thing we associate with comets passing close to the Sun.This detail disturbing is.


----------



## Dave (Dec 18, 2017)

Vertigo said:


> The difference in the speeds mean that it would be pretty much impossible for the probe to hitch a ride without being utterly destroyed in the process.


I was thinking of something crash-landing, but at 5x the speed and at such a very high speed you are, of course, correct. In addition, the last time we tried to crash on a comet it didn't work so well. Also, it has already passed us and could not be caught anyway. So, all in all, we don't have the technology. It is a pity though.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 20, 2017)

Serendipity said:


> Oumuamua is covered in a thick crust of carbon-rich gunk to give it its reddish colour - see Interstellar object ‘Oumuamua covered in 'thick crust of carbon-rich gunk' - interesting because the gunk was 'frozen on', Oumuamua did not generate a tail on its close encounter with the Sun, the kind of thing we associate with comets passing close to the Sun.This detail disturbing is.


Might the reason for this be its very high speed resulting in less time for stuff to evaporate off? Or maybe it's down to the material; the tail of comets is, I think, mostly water whereas this is 'carbon rich gunk' so very different composition.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 27, 2018)

The BBC reports on latest research that suggests 'Oumuamua may be a comet rather than asteroid.:  Interstellar visitor's identity solved

However, it seems a little bit at grasping at straws to define it - it has previously been suggested that it might be a planetary fragment: [1712.01823] 1I/`Oumuamua as a Tidal Disruption Fragment From a Binary Star System

In which case, wouldn't it's definition depend on its original - and still unknown - origin, rather than its current situation?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 27, 2018)

> However, it seems a little bit at grasping at straws to define it



I disagree. 

A comet is 'a celestial object consisting of a nucleus of ice and dust and, when near the sun, a ‘tail’ of gas and dust particles pointing away from the sun.'

It may be a very old 'comet husk' as the evidence they have found of the extra force and how to explain it seems to suggest that there is still outgassing of dust and gas (water vapour?) from the object. And hence a better classification

A planetary fragment or asteroid? Surely that would be mostly rocky and devoid of ice? If it was then it surely wouldn't have had this mysterious course correction.

It means perhaps that rather than search for it's creation in 'tidal disruption from a binary star' that perhaps there are other objects in the Kuiper belts/Oort clouds that look much like it and we should be looking for mechanisms for its formation in how those regions formed instead? (p.s. I'm saying it was still 'flung' out of an Oort cloud/ of another star, not _our_ Oort cloud btw...)

Just my initial thoughts on the article


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 27, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> A comet is 'a celestial object consisting of a nucleus of ice and dust and, when near the sun, a ‘tail’ of gas and dust particles pointing away from the sun.'



The problem to me is our definition of "celestrial object" invariably assumes "formed within our solar system", which isn't the case here. Also, we have no evidence of a nucleus of ice and rock, merely the suggestion of ice and rock.

Our definition of a comet seems dependent solely on bodies believed to have formed on the outskirts of our solar system - I think 'Oumaumau is showing the limitations of that, hence why it has been variably asserted to be comet or asteroid by different research groups.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 27, 2018)

Brian G Turner said:


> The problem to me is our definition of "celestrial object" invariably assumes "formed within our solar system",



I, in all my years of science education, have never assumed this. Celestial means anything and _everything _beyond the Earth's atmosphere. Stars and Galaxies, for example, have always been part of the definition for me! 

As I stated, there is nothing wrong with it being an old comet kicked out of it's original star system and arriving, for a moment, amongst us and the sun.



Brian G Turner said:


> Also, we have no evidence of a nucleus of ice and rock, merely the suggestion of ice and rock.



The evidence suggests that there is outgassing. Outgassing requires something for it to outgas. Ice & dust is a good bet. One would have to get a bit closer to do more experiments as to exactly what this is, alas I think it's on its way out for good. 

Otherwise what's your explanation?

Note that: 
"Asteroids are differentiated from comets...in the case of comets, the difference is one of composition: while asteroids are mainly composed of mineral and rock, comets are composed of dust and ice." Hence this suggestion by the researchers and it's classification.

Note also that these objects tend to form, according to our limited understanding, in different parts of a star system, so trying to figure out what it is, helps our understanding of its origins.



> Our definition of a comet seems dependent solely on bodies believed to have formed on the outskirts of our solar system



No, I don't think there are any astronomers who would have said that comets can't exist in other star systems. Oort clouds are, I believe, expected to form around all stars as they are born, so why wouldn't comets be absolutely everywhere, orbiting every star system?

Plus as there are a great many of them, given that they are cosmically tiny by mass, (for example, I believe 5000+ are known in our system), so with what we know of the gravitational 'nudging' and 'deflection' one could imagine that there are great many Oort cloud objects, (which we would define as comets), being flung all over the universe and escaping their original systems. 

Anyway, seems like a good start for trying to understand it. Maybe, if fresh evidence turns up, this theory will be wrong, but we have to go with the evidence that we have


----------



## J Riff (Jun 28, 2018)

It gots to be a planatery fragment, since that's the only thing ever blowed up round these heah parts.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 28, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> Otherwise what's your explanation?



I just think we're better off keeping an open mind as to 'Oumaumau's actual nature, rather than rushing to pigeon-hole it as something familiar - especially when it doesn't show classic comet traits. As we already knew there was ice on the surface it would be more surprising if there wasn't any form of gas ejection.



Venusian Broon said:


> Celestial means anything and _everything _beyond the Earth's atmosphere.



I know, I just meant in the instance of defining a comet as celestial. I suspect we're going to have to start inventing new catagories to account for observations such as 'Oumaumau and other extra-solar bodies. It's been a sleep-deprived week so I'm probably not explaining myself very well, though.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 28, 2018)

And now an attempt to backtrack where 'Oumaumau may have originated from: Tracking the interstellar object 'Oumuamua to its home

However, I suggest we'll need more data - and that may involve waiting until the next update from the Gaia mission, in 2021.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 22, 2018)

Gosh, I come across as a little grumpy and incoherent in the posts above - sorry about that. 

In the meantime, interesting comments about observations from the Spitzer telescope, which suggest it wasn't giving off any dust or gas:
'Oumuamua one year later



> After 30 hours of staring – a relatively long time – the object was not detected, and subsequent orbital analyses confirmed that the camera was pointed correctly toward it. The limit to its emission, however, was so low that it enabled the team to constrain some of its physical properties. The lack of an infrared signal, for example, suggests it has no gas or dust, species that would be expected if it were a cometary-like body.



_Presuming _they were actually looking in the right place.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 15, 2018)

Brian G Turner said:


> Gosh, I come across as a little grumpy and incoherent in the posts above - sorry about that.



And that's especially @Venusian Broon:



Venusian Broon said:


> Celestial means anything and _everything _beyond the Earth's atmosphere. Stars and Galaxies, for example, have always been part of the definition for me!



You're totally right - I must have been exhausted to have made such a fundamental mistake. I blame getting a puppy around that time. 

What I was meaning to say is that I wonder if objects like 'Oumaumau will force us to reconsider how we classify objects like that? 

For example, do we define asteroids and comets only by their behaviour, or will other details count? For example, Eon Musk apparently launched one of his cars into space - if we presume that over millions of years it might accumulate a coating of dust so as to no longer look like a car, would we still call it a car, or even man-made debris, especially if it were to behave like an asteroid or comet?

If we don't define it as an asteroid or comet, then why not?

Hence with 'Oumaumau - should we really try to only define it in terms of familiar near objects, or should we allow us room to reserve a different name or term, if we - hypothetically - were ever able to ascertain its origins? For example, if it were found to be a fragment of a planet, traveling through interstellar space, would the definition of comet really apply?

In fact, if its not bound to the Sun then can it ever really be defined as a comet at all?

I'm not pushing for answers - I'm simply thinking aloud. Because I suspect that the more we learn about the universe around us, the more difficult it may become to define some objects we will observe in familiar terms, simply by fact of their unfamiliarity.

2c.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Nov 15, 2018)

Grumpy? I didn't notice 

Use a definition if it fits, if whatever your defining strays far from the definition then build a new definition.

My point was really that Oumaumau didn't require any new definition as of now. It is fascinating and unique because of it's trajectory and shape (other objects are now being proposed to have come in from outside the solar system, and have actually been captured, but there's always the probability there is another mechanism that means they didn't originate from outside!) but it's properties were familiar enough, after the observations we've made. Sure it must have come from another solar system, but why shouldn't another solar system produce objects similar to the ones that our does? Another tick for the Copernican Principle .

Re: Tesla car. I know your trying to find something different to make your point. But I'd _really _call it junk or man-made/artifical debris, another well used definition . Especially as I believe it is likely to fall apart and litter the universe with bits of car! However if it tends to 'comes to rest' in the asteroid field and behave like an asteroid (I don't think it's got much outgassing in it!), then it's also an artificial asteroid. What's wrong with that?  No need to tie yourself in knots about what to call it.

Take satellites - I'd bet most people instinctively think that means a man-made object orbiting the Earth, but actually the word also applies to any natural object that orbits another, so really it should be that all those weather and spy platforms we've put up into orbit around us are really _artificial_ satellites. But the term artificial tends to be dropped in everyday conservation...



Regarding comets that are not bound by the Sun or any other star, we actually do have a model (essentially a model of where long-period comets come from) and therefore a definition for them. We currently call such things Oort cloud objects.

Oh, (1) I'm sure there may be Oort cloud objects that are asteroids by definition (a quick look states that the current estimate is ~1-2%) although through the process of solar system formation, the majority are generally made of ice - hence will outgas if pushed into an orbit around a star.

and Oh (2), an actual asteroid pushed from this Oort cloud into a trajectory that looks like a long-period comet is...an asteroid. The definition is pretty clear - outgassing!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 15, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> Take satellites



Ok, that's a pretty good example. 



Venusian Broon said:


> Regarding comets that are not bound by the Sun or any other star, we actually do have a model (essentially a model of where long-period comets come from) and therefore a definition for them. We currently call such things Oort cloud objects.



I had presumed that Oort Cloud objects were weakly bound to the sun's gravity, though I have seen suggestions that it could extend over 1.5 light years from the sun. If that were the case, it might seem that the Oort Cloud is not really something that follows our star, as much as interstellar debris that we happen to be passing through. Hmm, I like that idea.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 15, 2018)

And keeping with 'Oumaumau, a short piece on the outgassing today includes a nice animated image showing how that might have provided acceleration:

NASA Learns More About Interstellar Visitor 'Oumuamua


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 19, 2019)

And now a new theory - if out-gassing wasn't observed, maybe that's because radiation pressure could account for the change in acceleration? In which case, could 'Oumaumau have been foamy? Phil Plait gives good coverage to this latest idea: No, 'Oumuamua is not an alien spaceship. It might be even weirder.


----------



## Serendipity (Apr 14, 2020)

Interesting article on how Oumuamua may have formed... Interstellar object ‘Oumuamua believed to be ‘active asteroid’


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 14, 2020)

> You could imagine them as sandcastles floating in space


This analogy might work...


...if anyone had had a recent experience of seeing a sandcastle....

​


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 14, 2020)

I'm wondering if the supposed out gassing might have been a layer of ice that could have formed on the outside of 'Oumaumau, which was evaporated from the heat of the sun as it neared. IMO that's a simpler and more practical explanation.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 14, 2020)

Oh, wait, they have said that in this latest research:








						New formation theory explains the mysterious interstellar object 'Oumuamua
					

Since its discovery in 2017, an air of mystery has surrounded the first known interstellar object to visit our solar system, an elongated, cigar-shaped body named 'Oumuamua (Hawaiian for "a messenger from afar arriving first").




					phys.org
				




"If 'Oumuamua was produced and ejected by the scenario of Zhang and Lin, plenty of residual water ice could be activated during its passage through the solar system. The resulting outgassing would cause accelerations that match 'Oumuamua's comet-like trajectory. "


----------



## Paul_C (May 30, 2020)

"Likely made of hydrogen ice"

Hydrogen ice? Unheard-of composition could explain 'Oumuamua's weirdness


----------



## Serendipity (Aug 25, 2020)

Interesting article about Oumuamua here - Interstellar visitor 'Oumuamua could still be alien technology, new study hints


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 25, 2020)

I knew without clicking that it must be Harvard trolling the press again.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Aug 25, 2020)

> Asked if there is a clear leading candidate explanation for 'Oumuamua's acceleration, Loeb referred Live Science to a not-yet-released book he authored called "Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth," due for publication in January.



Sigh.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 25, 2020)

Ori Vandewalle said:


> Sigh.


Science done as an opportunistic cash grab and for personal media glory. 

Still the title seems clear what he thinks, so I don't need to buy it


----------



## Astro Pen (Aug 25, 2020)

It has never been meaningfully  photographed. I for one am hesitant to let the narrative be dictated by a quick and early "artists impression".
I have said before that I do not believe biological life can cross interstellar distances, appealing as the idea maybe. 
Robotics and space junk are something else though.  I think if we see another one it will almost certainly be a natural entity. If we never see anything like it again the book is somewhat more open.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 25, 2020)

Okay so I'm an intelligent extraterrestial and I'm sending a probe off through the galaxy. With all my super advanced technology I still think it's going to be a good idea to have it tumbling end over end; that should make any futuristic drive really easy to design. The original ET speculation suggested a solar sail so fine we couldn't detect it*, so obviously the best object to tether to such a sail is a long tumbling object. Of course!

Yet for a solar sail to work would we not be able to see it's lit side really clearly as it departs the solar system?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 25, 2020)

IIRC, Harvard have been very involved in the theoretical development of solar sails, so don't be surprised if the book is actually an advert for their work on that.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Aug 25, 2020)

Astro Pen said:


> I for one am hesitant to let the narrative be dictated by a quick and early "artists impression".



Agreed. I don't think we should take the cigar shape too seriously. The object has a very weird lightcurve, and one interpretation is an elongated, tumbling cigar, but it's only that--an interpretation.


----------



## Serendipity (Feb 11, 2021)

More news on what Oumuamua might actually be... New Theory Perfectly Explains ‘Oumuamua Naturally: It’s A Nitrogen Iceberg


----------



## Extollager (Mar 5, 2021)

Ori Vandewalle said:


> Agreed. I don't think we should take the cigar shape too seriously. The object has a very weird lightcurve, and one interpretation is an elongated, tumbling cigar, but it's only that--an interpretation.


It’s a cigar from the humidor of Galactus.


----------



## mosaix (Mar 18, 2021)

More:









						Space oddity Oumuamua probably shard of Pluto-like world, scientists say
					

Interstellar visitor likely made of frozen nitrogen, cookie-shaped rather than cigar, and not a comet or asteroid – while some stick to alien theory




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Dave (Mar 18, 2021)

Vertigo said:


> I still think it's going to be a good idea to have it tumbling end over end; that should make any futuristic drive really easy to design.


To produce artificial gravity by  centripetal force?

NB. I'm not saying this is a spacecraft, just that I could see a spacecraft rotating, and I could also see a large spacecraft being hewed from a huge rock/iceberg. 

Except that it would need to rotate much more quickly to produce enough centripetal force. So, such a ship would not be a cigar shape but the more classic spinning top UFO shape.


----------

