Challenger Effect.

At least one theory suggested the starboard Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) pivoted on the upper attach strut as a result of the thrust coming from the burn through. This pivoting caused the nose of the SRB to strike the External Tank (ET) and the rest tragically followed.

An article called "Fire In The Sky" written by Chuck Klosterman appeared in the December 2015/January 2016 issue of AARP magazine. The article touched upon the usual ideas that prior to Challenger, NASA somehow made shuttle flight seem routine, safe. Indeed NASA did do this to a certain degree. The AARP article also touched upon the idea that the "Teacher in space" mission known as STS-51L in the Space Transportation System (STS) jargon of that era, was an overblown publicity stunt.

The Space Transportation System (STS) was envisioned as a system that would provide near airliner like routine operations to low orbit human space flight. Shown here is one version of the originally planned, fully reusable system including a flyback booster. Image courtesy NASA.

 

What was new in the article was something I had sensed several years before Challenger. First, some background information. I was employed by McDonnell Douglas as a Spacelab ground processing technician starting in March 1984. I was concerned about shuttle safety a year or more before Challenger occurred. Many of my coworkers were as well. We'd probably come to realize the dangers of shuttle flight through launch delays and Redundant Set Launch Sequencer or RSLS aborts. I was aware something was amiss when the planned flight rate went from a 1973 traffic model high of 60 annual flights between 7 orbiters to a March 1984 flight rate of 24 annual flights between 4 orbiters. In 1984, the actual flight rate showed little sign of reaching 24 annual flights.

Spacelab 2 crew. Middle two standing, Tony England, Karl Henize. Three standing in the back, Story Musgrave, Loren Acton and David Bartow. Seated are G. Fullerton and Roy Bridges. Image courtesy NASA.

 

I was assigned to work shuttle mission STS-51F which was the second Spacelab flight or Spacelab 2. It had actually come after Spacelab 3 due to schedule slippages. This all pallet spacelab was loaded with experiments and minutes after launch, STS-51F experienced a main engine shutdown caused by a sensor malfunction which threatened to shut down another engine before mission controllers corrected the problem. Spacelab 2 went on to a lower but effective orbit in what is known as an Abort To Orbit or ATO mode. Had this been a mission with a comsat or other payload requiring precision orbital insertion, the payload would have been returned to earth at high cost and reprocessed for a future mission. While that posed a chance for me to go overseas as part of the Spacelab recovery contingent, I didn't really want to go at the expense of a program setback.

Shuttle Plasma Diagnostics Package (PDP). Image courtesy NASA.

 

Prior to the July 29th 1985 launch of STS-51-F (Challenger), there had been an RSLS abort of that mission on July 12th. I had worked on Spacelab 2 since April 1984 and was frustrated that our payload had come so close and then...abort. Of course, the mission proceeded as planned after the successful July 29th launch. Fast forward to 2015 and the AARP article. I had long suspected the general public and scientific community were really not very fond of human spaceflight. As a space buff since about the age of 12, I became acutely aware of NASAs budget problems a year or so after my initial interest. I later discovered there had been funding reductions from 1967-71 which totaled nearly 50% of NASAs budget. I'd see the usual "Americans support space" propaganda but never really believed it after the budget cuts and subsequent Nixon Administration limitation of shuttle development to $5.5 B 1970 dollars from the originally estimated $10 B 1970 dollars.

NASA budgets indicate NASA only ever really existed because of Apollo. Image courtesy NASA.

 

NASAs budget is dwarfed by some of the other major government agencies yet NASA critics still think cutting NASAs budget is going to solve social problems much larger budgets such as Social Security, have yet to solve.

The AARP bore out my suspicions of how public support really is with the following quotes which were featured in the AARP article: "Suddenly we were all unconsciously asking questions about the space program that had not been asked for years. What are we getting from this, really? What is the larger motive here? Are we underrating the risk these voyages incur? Are we overrating our confidence in the people conducting them? And if NASA isn't infallible, what other institutions should we worry about?" End quote. It should be noted that other institutions came under suspicion long before the Challenger accident. Institutions came under fire during the 1960s and early 70s social upheavals. The lingering effects of those times still present to this day in the form of widespread conspiracy theories and these Challenger anniversary articles. This in large part due to assassinations, Vietnam and Watergate. Was it any wonder NASAs day would come sooner or later?

 

Prior to Challenger, it was often said human spaceflight could benefit the man on the street with discoveries stemming from experiments conducted aboard space missions. A favorite was the perfect ball bearing claims. Another was finding cures for disease. Even the post Apollo Skylab missions were touted as spaceflight to benefit the taxpayer directly. However, Challenger and Columbia demonstrated human spaceflight is still difficult and expensive. Especially when it's on the leading edge like the shuttle program was. The shuttles failure to make low orbit economical had a negative impact on the perception of human spaceflight. In addition, it seemed way too early to try to make spaceflight pay benefits to Joe public. To this day, human spaceflight is still largely experimental. There have of course, been benefits to Joe public. But they apparently haven't been as widespread as originally expected.

 

The failure of Challenger appears to have overshadowed the shuttles overall success in the post Challenger era. Even the abort modes mentioned earlier seemed to demonstrate that the safety features built into the shuttle, worked as planned. Otherwise, there might have been a disaster long before the ill fated Columbia (STS-107) mission of February 2003. Today the Challenger effect can be seen on YouTube where a lot of people spew absolute hatred of NASA. Some seeing it as the ultimate expression of evil government. These are the folks who now say all spaceflight is faked while adequately failing to explain how. For example, how would one fake 135 shuttle missions and why? It's one thing to say rockets are dumped into the ocean just after launch. But to do this with the shuttle, you'd have to build an orbiter for each mission because orbiter recovery nearly intact from the ocean after launch would be next to impossible. Not to mention how the shuttle is returned. I've yet to see a space faker explain returning the orbiters in a faked shuttle scenario. There are videos of shuttle re-entries over Texas, including STS-107 taken by amateurs. For those who might say shuttle flights were real but uncrewed, what would be so difficult about simply putting a crew aboard? Same goes with any other launch vehicle used for human spaceflight. As for Lunar Hoax Advocacy (LHA), if NASA was able to develop the incredibly complex shuttle and International Space Station (ISS). Then Apollo would have been nearly a cake walk in comparison. Summing it up, there is no reason to suspect spaceflight of any kind was ever faked. No credible evidence has ever come forth to indicate Apollo or all spaceflight was some grand hoax. Given that NASA is probably the only major government agency to survive budget cuts of almost 50%, if they had faked spaceflight, the whistle would have been blown after Apollo. Certainly by the likes of former US VP Walter Mondale, former US Senator William Proxmire and the former Soviet Union.

Flat Earth debates seem to have increased on forums such as Youtube where anyone can proclaim expertise on a complex subject, usually through a slick Youtube video.

 

The NASA haters largely consist of flat earthers, space fakers, and pretty much anyone who is anti-goverment in general. The space fakers obviously were not satisfied to just say the moon landings were faked because it was supposedly impossible to traverse the Van Allen radiation belts without killing the crews. Now it's all spaceflight regardless of the VA belts. Space fakers say ISS is faked and what people are seeing when it flies over is really just aircraft. This despite amateur astronomers the world over who have taken numerous pictures of ISS and shuttle in some cases through semi-professional telescopes. The space faker crowd even claims satellites are faked. They explain Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) are actually cell towers on the ground despite the fact people have been rescued using GPS from remote places where there are no cell towers.

The most commonly cited Flat Earth (FE) model has a 32 mile diameter sun and moon orbiting some 2,600 miles above a flat earth. They rotate around the north pole above equatorial regions so as to have the correct shadowing on the ground. Unfortunately for FE advocates, the model makers failed to see what happens to eclipses. The sun and moon would collide rather than eclipse. Lunar eclipses would be visible globally. Something that does not occur with actual lunar eclipses. Then there is the spotlight sun. No naturally occurring spotlights are known to exist in the Universe.

 

CGI must have been pretty good in 1972. At least as good as it is today since the space fakers claim NASA Earth images are faked using CGI. Image courtesy NASA.

 

The flat earth or FE crowd claims NASA fakes spaceflight because it shows images of a round earth. They often say "Spaceflight is all fake NASA CGI" while failing to realize one of the most famous images of earth, "The blue marble" predates modern CGI by decades. That image having been taken when CGI was still squiggly vector lines on CRTs driven by large mainframe computers. These are examples of the Challenger effect. Are flat earthers and space fakers some small minority? Have they always been among us and the internet has simply made them visible as never before? Hard to know since it appears there is no reliable data on the percentage of the population that would identify as space fakers.

 

FErs on the other hand were assumed to be a minority. Many of which belonged to the International Flat Earth Research Society (IFERS). Or the newer flat earth society resurrected in 2004. Indications from the YouTube comments section suggest FE ideas have spread in the past year. There are videos claiming to be documentaries that cover the subject from 2 to 7 hours long. Although FE beliefs are generally rooted in fundamentalist religious beliefs, it's connection to NASA as mentioned earlier makes it appear to be a result of the Challenger effect. Space faker advocates have even resorted to claiming the Challenger accident was staged and the people shown on the bleachers were crisis actors. As someone who worked on shuttle payload processing, I've seen the reality of human spaceflight. I witnessed the Challenger accident. When conspiracy theorists have to resort to crisis actor explanations for Challenger and the Sandy Hook shootings among others, they've stooped to sick new lows. The space faker/lunar hoax advocates think going into space or to the moon is just too hard. Can't have a great nation with people like that!

 

However, it's easy to marginalize the FE, space faker crowd but as something that appears to be a growing phenomenon, marginalization might come with a future price. That price would be in the form of the US totally loosing it's leadership position in science. It all seems to be part of the general publics attitude about science. From the attacks on evolutionary theory to denial of global warming. Increasing numbers of non professionals and non scientists suddenly believe they are qualified to tackle important scientific questions even as they sometimes proudly profess ignorance of the subject in question. And they make YouTube videos with "Hype titling" suggesting their ideas are proven, when all they have proven is that they can make slick propaganda videos. Even Presidential debates have shown a degree of proud ignorance towards science. I've never been a professional scientist but if I disagree with a scientific finding or theory, I will admit that I don't have evidence to back my disagreement. The FErs and space fakers don't do this. Especially those who are videographers. Instead, they prefer to hype their videos with words like "Proof" or "Proven" when videos rarely provide proof of anything regardless of what position they advocate.

 

Another Challenger effect was the numerous cancellations of programs after the approval of the space station in 1984 that lead to ISS. The Orient Express or X-30 National Aero Space Plane (NASP). Shuttle-II, Delta Clipper, Venture Star, the George Bush Sr. lunar mars initiative of 1989. The George Bush Jr. Constellation program...to name a few. I call it "Cancellation trail". NASA is in advanced development of the Space Launch System (SLS) Orion programs. If the present schedule holds, it will take longer to go from the recent SLS/Orion test to the second planned test than it did to go from the first Saturn-V test to the splashdown of Apollo-17. Of course, Apollo was what was then known as a crash program which necessitated an accelerated schedule. The private sector is working to restore America's ability to send astronauts into low orbit. It is also working to economize access to low orbit. If successful, they might cause cancellation of SLS/Orion. At that point, NASA would probably be out of the human spaceflight business for good. Perhaps that's as it should be since it would appear taxpayer support of human spaceflight will never support missions beyond low orbit. If it hadn't been for ISS being an international program, it would probably have been cancelled. It very nearly was in June 1993, having missed cancellation by just one vote in the House Of Representatives.

 

The private sector is beginning to discover human spaceflight may not be as easy as initially thought. "X" prize winner Burt Rutan, founder of Scaled Composites engaged in a bit of over confident NASA bashing following the "X" prize flight of Space Ship One. That was 12 years ago and space tourism has yet to see a single tourist flight from any of the current crop of companies working to achieve it. Much less Rutan and company. The tragic loss of SS-2 is a haunting reminder of Challenger and Columbia. An accident that had the same sort of schedule delays the shuttle was once harshly criticized for. Indeed, the whole space tourist plan has been plagued by NASA like slow progress. It's still a little early to assess whether the private sector will succeed or fail to economize low orbit. If it fails, then it too might be seen as having suffered the Challenger effect.

 

The Challenger effect has transformed a once bold organization seemingly incapable of failure, to an organization that represents the failures of science. An organization drawing the wrath of many a NASA basher and hater. The bashing and hating accomplishes nothing. It's time for the US to overcome the Challenger effect once and for all. This can be done by following through with a number of proposals that could have already been accomplished had it not been for the lingering Challenger effect.

If the space Shuttle Supported Apollo.

The basic Apollo hardware as shown in shuttle support mode. Completely new Trans Lunar Injection stages (TLI) would be required rather than using a Saturn S-IVB stage which is too wide to fit into the shuttle PLB. The TLI stage would be built to utilize a J-2 engine or equivalent. There would be a version without the engine to facilitate SM attachment and allowing clearance for the Apollo SM Service Propulsion System (SPS) engine Two of the engineless versions would be required to support a lunar mission. They would be docked to the engine equipped booster.

 

One of five shuttle launches required to support a single Apollo lunar mission.

 

What if the shuttle were the available launch vehicle during the 1960s for supporting Apollo rather than the Saturn-V? This hypothetical exercise will look at that question. The shuttle was originally rated to carry 32.5 tons of payload to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This was scaled back post Challenger to around 24 tons. But for the purpose of this article, we will look at the original 32.5 ton to low orbit capacity. The shuttle will be shown as it actually existed with the 60' (18.29m) X 15' (4.57m) Pay Load Bay (PLB). The one difference will be cost. The shuttle was originally planned at $10 million per mission or thereabouts depending on mission parameters. By the mid 1980s, that cost had zoomed to $450 million and by the 1990s, $1 billion. The cost having escalated primarily because of the huge standing army of support personnel required to manage and operate the complex shuttle system.

 

Comparing the payload capacities of the shuttle and Saturn-V.

 

The fully fueled 27.5 ton Apollo Service Module being deployed via tilt table.

 

A typical lunar mission would require the shuttle to lift Apollo hardware to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The Apollo Command and Service Modules would not require any external mods to fit into the shuttle PLB except for mounting trunnions. The Lunar Module (LM) descent stage would require mods or even a redesign. The total fueled mass of the CSM and LM also have to be accounted for in using the shuttle to lift them. The Service Module (SM) alone has a fueled mass of 55,000 lbs (24,948 kgs). This is just 10,000 lbs short of the total 32.5 ton lift capacity of the shuttle thus not allowing the manifesting of the LM and CM on the same shuttle. This would also be a problem for a Return To Launch Site (RTLS) abort because the return payload capacity for an orbiter on landing is 16 tons. In an emergency, this means the shuttle would have no choice but to execute an RTLS with the possibility of landing long or the fuselage breaking at the mid point of the vehicle. But this is better than loosing the vehicle during RTLS, assuming it does not explode upon crash landing due to residual hazardous propellants on board. In addition, the shuttle would have to execute this maneuver regardless of payload. As for payload manifesting, the CM would have to be sent to LEO with the LM and the LM would then be attached to the SM on orbit. Total LM/CM fueled mass would be about 24 tons. There would still be 8.5 tons remaining for Airborne Support Equipment (ASE) such as a tilt table to mount the SM. Once on orbit, the system would be assembled and attached to three boost stages including one with an engine. The boost stages would not be the SIV-B stage of the Saturn-V because it is presumed the Saturn-V would not have ever existed and the boost stages would have to be designed to fit into the shuttle PLB. Once the hardware is assembled, it is boosted by the three stages through the Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) phase of an Apollo mission. Once the stages are expended, the mission proceeds in much the same way as Apollo missions actually did. This would include the CM re-entry at 24,500 mph which precludes LEO rendezvous with a shuttle for returning the CM to Earth since the CM had no capability to re-enter LEO prior to re-entry into the atmosphere.

 

Three boost stages would be required in order to accommodate enough propellant for the Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) burn. Only one boost stage would require a boost engine such as the J-2 shown, or equivalent. The shuttle itself performs the LEO insertion burn that the Saturn-SIVB performed.

 

Two shuttles in orbit simultaneously. A feat never accomplished in the actual shuttle program. The remote Manipulator Arm (RMS) deploys the CM from Atlantis as Columbia with the deployed SM awaits the CMs attachment to the SM.

 

The images above tell the tale of how the shuttle could have lifted Apollo hardware to orbit fully fueled. The Remote Manipulator System (RMS) arm could have deployed each component and join the CM to the SM. It could have even been used to dock the LM to the CSM. Astronaut EVA could have been used to facilitate any other on orbit tasks if...or as required. Essentially, using the shuttle to support Apollo is basically the old Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR) method originally proposed for Apollo before Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) was chosen. The shuttle is a Saturn class vehicle in terms of thrust and payload. However, most of the payload capacity is the orbiter itself.

 

Five shuttles to do the Saturn-Vs job. Three shuttles are required just to get the TLI propellant filled boost stages to LEO. A Saturn-V launch in todays dollars would be $2.7 billion. On the flip side, a $1 billion dollar shuttle launch would cost $170 million dollars in 1970. Five shuttle flights would cost $850 million in 1970 or nearly twice the cost of a single Saturn-V launch.

 

One of the boost stages (Yellow stripe) and the CSM/LM are in LEO as shuttle Discovery prepares to deploy the long boost stage (Blue stripe). The docked CSM/LM await attachment to the top of a second short boost stage not yet in orbit.

 

Ultimately, it would have required five shuttles to do the same job just one Saturn-V did. Apollo 8 could have been assembled with 4 shuttle missions. Two shuttles would be required to get the CSM to LEO. But the LM could be replaced with a partially fueled boost stage. One of three necessary for the shuttle to support the TLI phase of the mission. All other lunar missions would have required five shuttle flights. Apollo 8 could have used 4 shuttle missions assuming a boost stage could be eliminated. There was no LM on Apollo 8. Apollo 9 would have required no boost stages for TLI because it was a LEO LM test mission therefore, only 2 shuttle missions would  have been required to support it. Apollo's 10 through 17 would have required five shuttle missions each for a total of 40 shuttle missions not counting Apollo 8 and 9 which would bring the total to 46 or 47 depending on the Apollo 8 final assembly mission configuration.

 

Two shuttles with the SM and CM/LM.

 

Just after the TLI burn, the already docked CSM/LM separate as they travel at the 24,500 mph escape velocity imparted by the TLI booster stack. Note the LM legs are fully deployed. Their deployment having occurred in LEO. From this point on, the mission would be the same as Apollo missions actually were. This includes the CM re-entry at mission completion. Note also, a standard LM is shown for illustrative purposes rather than a redesigned one.

 

In the end, the shuttle would have been far to expensive to support Apollo at the $1 billion per mission cost. Considering how Apollo ultimately played out, if shuttle had supported Apollo, that could have limited the Apollo program to as few as two lunar landings. Had the shuttle supported Apollo at it's original $10 million per mission cost, it would have totaled just $50 million per lunar mission. It would have been a bargain compared to the $450 million dollar average cost of a single Saturn-V launch.

UFO reverse scenario, part II.

UNANNOUNCED ARRIVAL:
An alternate scenario could have Earth unilaterally deciding to explore ACP-1 and not announcing the arrival. The Starship Centauri would go undetected in its solar orbit which is much further away than any detection capability similar to ours circa 2015. The lander could be detected when it gets within about half a million miles of ACP-1 by a NORAD like installation or by amateur astronomers. An amateur astronomer reportedly detected the Apollo 12 S-IVB at half a million miles from Earth in 2002. This kind of detection would depend on an enormous amount of luck. The starship lander would probably be about the same size, or larger than the Apollo S-IVB but could presumably employ stealthy methods to avoid detection.

PHASERS AND PHOTON TORPEDOES:
It should also be noted that if we have not detected any intelligent beings prior to setting off for the nearby stars, our starships are probably not going to have Sci fi like lasers or photon torpedoes. What type of weapons does one develop for a largely unknown threat? The only weapons a starship requires would be on board weapons such as those possessed by star ship law enforcement and possibly the passengers. In the scenario described here, some level of protection could be developed for the starship landers, expedition vehicles and crews while en-route. The protection level would be based on data acquired in the decades prior to the first expedition.

COMPARISONS:
Now with this scenario reversed, it can be better understood what to expect of an advanced race of beings that evolved in similar fashion to us per assumption number 2, part 1. The reversed scenario would be that say for example, the intelligent race came from ACP-1, and arrived here in 2024. They would be equipped to deal with our weaponry, including nuclear weapons because of what they learned about us during many years of signal study and en-route reconnaissance.

These alien visitors would interact first with our government. If they chose to interact with the population at large, the government could not do a thing to stop them, rendering any "government conspiracy" useless. To put this in perspective...Darth Vader Vs President Obama or Russian PM Putin. Would Darth Vader co-operate with President Obama in a worldwide government conspiracy? Would our own governments co-operate on such a grand conspiracy plan given their dismal record in settling disputes via the United Nations?

The method for rendering a government conspiracy useless from the start is very simple. Aliens show up and remain present in front of a mass of people in several locations for months on end. A scenario similar to the movies "District 9" and the opening scene of "Alien Nation". This would include getting documented by major media which justifiably, currently treats UFO stories as "Human interest" stories at best. This because current reports are difficult to confirm as anything more than a highly unusual and unexplained occurrence or scam.

In addition, there are those who believe we are not ready for contact. If this is so, how could the ancient Egyptians or Mayans have been ready for the alleged technical assistance they supposedly received to build the pyramids, Nazca lines and so on? How can we not be ready after half a century of preps by sci fi media and a growing culture of believers?
 
UFO LANDING SCENARIO:
UFO sightings are reported worldwide usually in rural locales by eye witnesses which sometimes include what are considered credible eye witnesses such as police officers or pilots. As shown in the above scenario, logically speaking an expedition would probably orbit the Earth for weeks, even months prior to landing. Orbiting until it is determined to be safe for "cross species interaction". In doing so, the expedition could land where a large number of people would be assembled to greet them. This due in large part to radio contact for decades before the expedition was mounted to begin with.

The government cover up scenario often mentioned as the reason we don't know what actually happened at Roswell etc, could only occur if the supposedly technically superior aliens allowed it. Going back to the Vader Vs Obama or Putin scenario, this is highly unlikely considering what the Darth Vader example would ultimately want.

ZIG ZAG AND ZIG AND ZAG!
Many reports have UFOs performing evasive maneuvers that defy the laws of physics as we know them. This in part presumably to avoid contact with Earthly military aircraft dispatched to intercept them. Sometimes the UFOs just maneuver seemingly for the hell of it. This fits no logical pattern. It is precisely this behavior, especially hovering by presumably utilizing anti-gravity type propulsion systems, that logically should allow UFOs to avoid Roswell like crashes.

Starship landing craft built by earthlings of our future in this scenario hover in formation above a present day setting. Imagine them as UFOs from another star system that have just decided it's safe to land on Earth. One credible scenario is seen in the opening of the movie "Alien Nation".

Though the starship lander concept in the above scenario employs a propulsive system that allows it to manipulate gravity rather than convert matter to energy. Such a vehicle would still be limited in its maneuverability and would have no reason to essentially show off. Its presence alone would scream to us that it belongs to someone more advanced than us.

LIGHT SHOWS:

UFO reports almost always have these vehicles adorned with some type of lighting which would most likely be unnecessary. The alien spacecraft should be advanced enough to employ automated collision avoidance technology. Not to mention that the craft lighting design would be up in the air. For example, if aliens used blue and purple aircraft position lights, this would not correspond to our standard red and green lights. Lighting would essentially be useless.
 
CROP CIRCLES:
There is no logical reason for a vehicle to randomly create crop circles or other phenomenon. If these are attempts to communicate messages to us dumb-ass ignorant humans, then they are dumber than we are. So how could they have achieved interstellar travel in the first place? Same reasoning applies to the idea that crop circles or the Nazca lines, could be maps for the aliens. If they are so advanced, they would not require markings in the ground to guide them back to the same area when an unmanned orbiting satellite could do the same job and not be subject to earths geophysical processes and ever changing climate.

The reverse scenario here would be our very own robotic Mars missions. If we decided to land a future spacecraft next to the Viking 1 spacecraft, is it necessary to leave some marking next to Viking 1? Of course not. Mariner 9, the Viking orbiters, Mars Global Surveyor have all mapped Mars with ever increasing detail. We know where Viking 1 landed and the image resolution of the current Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) is potentially good enough to actually image Viking 1 on the Martian surface.

ABDUCTIONS:
One can understand the logic behind an alien expedition requiring samples of the locale they visit. However, the abduction of beings and basically torturing them seems highly inconsistent. This because they should possess advanced medical as well as space travel technology. To say nothing of social enlightenment that should accompany technical advancement. Medical technology should advance to the point of allowing alien beings to be studied largely by computer simulation and diagnostics. Any physical samples would likely be obtained by advanced microbotic technologies.

HAVE AN OPEN MIND UFO BELIEVERS SAY:

Here's where an open mind comes in. It is entirely possible that advanced alien beings could have developed in a manner radically inconsistent with how we developed. In which case, the current UFO sightings, reports, etc. could be true. It is equally possible that alien beings have followed the alternate non-contact scenario described above. They might collect grab samples so to speak, and fly back to their home system. They may be operating from their mother ship in the remote orbit described in the contact scenario year 2131. Of course, in the contact scenario, the landers remain at ACP-1 for the duration of their mission rather than travel repeatedly and inefficiently between ACP-1 and the mother ship orbiting some distance away.

The bottom line is , there is currently no sufficient compelling evidence for logical, or illogical alien species having visited Earth in the past or at this time. To prove aliens are responsible for crop circles and so on, one must first follow the process of elimination by ruling out any and all possible earthly explanations.

Occams razor could be applied to this case in which case, one could ask. What is more likely, interstellar travelers come to earth to play in our skies? or UFO sightings are the result of an as yet, unexplained phenomenon? Would interstellar travelers come all the way to earth to put markings such as crop circles in the ground to find their way back? Or are markings in the ground just caused by human activity?

This application of the Occams razor principle is admittedly not totally scientific, but rather a kind of common sense exercise. The reverse UFO scenario gives one some idea of the complex process involved for intelligent beings with physical limitations exercising caution to make contact with intelligent beings with any sort of emerging technical capability. It defies logic for UFOs to travel interstellar distances to do light shows and crop circles, even if they do not announce their intention to visit Earth through their own SETI efforts. Travel four or more light years to basically play in our skies. The reverse scenario also provides a kind of guide for what we can expect if we turn out to be the civilization with technology more advanced than those we contact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return to part 1.

 

 

UFO, reverse scenario, part 1.

   UFO sightings have been reported for decades, particularly since the famous 1947 Kenneth Arnold sighting from which the term "Flying saucer" was coined. The alleged Roswell incident followed shortly afterwards. It seemed there were UFO sightings everywhere.

January 7, 1948, a P-51 Mustang piloted by Captain Thomas Mantell becomes Ufologies first known fatality as he was reportedly shot down by a UFO.

The more likely scenario is that he lost control of his plane while chasing a Skyhook weather balloon he believed to be a UFO.

Naturally these sightings got stranger with every report. Then came the contactee's of the 1950s. Contactee's of that time generally claimed they were abducted from this solar system. In a few cases, the alien visitors originated from the planet Venus. Then came the 1961 Barney and Betty hill abduction account. The Hills claimed they learned their alien abductors were from a nearby sun like star known as Zeta Reticuli. A star which has a companion star, both about 40 light years from our solar system. This account made national headlines. Today's abduction cases are also not surprisingly, replete with sexual molestation and medical tortures. These cases seem to reflect what has been seen in earthly news stories about sexual abuse since the 1970s.

Best viewed from the southern hemisphere, the sun-like star Zeta Reticuli lies about 40 light years away among a few well known star systems. Zeta Reticuli is actually composed of two nearly sun-like stars (Zeta 1 and 2 Reticuli) separated by 9,000 AU (837 billion miles). 

The actual evidence for visitations and subsequent abductions by alien beings in UFOs is weak at best. This despite numerous eyewitness reports of sightings and abductions. the eyewitness reports are usually accompanied by little or no physical evidence. Little evidence that most likely has an earthly explanation. So what would alien beings do...or what are they likely to do if visiting Earth? How can we presume to know what they would do? Perhaps a reverse scenario may shed some light as to how aliens might visit the Earth if they are anything like us at all. How would humanity do it if humans were as advanced as alleged UFO sightings suggest.

 

Given what we know about the world's human space flight efforts, the two key words that characterize them, "Difficult, and expensive" is the reason that only three Nations and a single, well financed private individual have sent people into space so far. Two of them, China and a US company called Scaled Composites have only recently done so. Knowing how difficult and expensive our own human space flight efforts have been will help shed some light on why it could be a similar problem to alien beings. In general, a reverse scenario might help one to better understand what an alien race could encounter to make the light-years long journey, again if they are anything like us.

 

For this reverse scenario, some basic assumptions are made:

 

1)

That UFOs are developed and crewed by physical beings from Other worlds, not from the center of our world or some astral plane. They would have to be at least several centuries ahead of us to travel from a world in orbit around even the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri. Proxima Centauri is the star nearest to our Sun and is thought to be part of the Alpha Centauri system but probably not suitable for intelligent life as we know it.

2)

The above assumption also presumes there are no advanced beings dwelling on any of the planets within our own solar system given what we know about these planets. It is also assumed that an earthlike world has been discovered orbiting Alpha Centauri. A star system close enough to make the journey relatively practical.

 

3)

These beings have life spans similar to ours but somewhat longer which would be consistent with their medical technology assuming they had advanced along the same lines as their space travel capability.

 

4)
The laws of physics being universal as best we know so far, these beings would be limited to the speed of light. This limitation would probably apply for at least a century or more, perhaps millennia.

The universality of physical laws as we understand them so far, also suggest that alien beings are probably similar to us and evolved technically in a manner similar to us. That is, an earth like world probably developed around a sun like star. The sun like star could be a binary or multiple as opposed to a single star system such as ours. The earthlike world is stable long enough for intelligent beings to develop to the point of technological advancement. One indication that the aliens allegedly visiting Earth are apparently not that far ahead of us is that they have not figured out how to avoid crashing their vehicles (Roswell, Kecksburg other alleged UFO crashes). This also reinforces the idea that if there are intelligent beings visiting earth, they are indeed similar to us. Of course, there is no direct astronomical evidence as yet to support the above earthlike world evolutionary hypothesis. Having said that, why would an advanced race of beings come to Earth to basically play. That is, make crop circles, hover in front of eyewitnesses, kidnap unsuspecting humans from fishing boats, trailer parks you name it, and use them as pin cushions and kinky sex experiments. Zip around at fantastic speeds and fly away then repeatedly return for more of the same.

The sheer difficulty of actually making the journey, including the difficulties of actually traveling at light speed. Not to mention the acceleration and propellant problems which would logically require an interstellar mission to have a well defined mission beyond light shows, abductions, and crop circles. Even with a propulsion breakthrough, interstellar travel would probably be limited to nearby star systems until multigenerational interstellar craft became available. Intergalactic travel would still be considered a distant dream. Consider that for a multigenerational human expedition aboard a colony class star ship, at the speed of light, this ship and successive crews would be required to last over two million years just to reach the next nearest Galaxy, Andromeda. Modern human civilization has only been around for roughly ten thousand years. In order to better understand just how a realistic UFO visit might occur, consider the scenario outlined below:

 

Here is a chronological look at how such a situation could come about. The key difference in this scenario is that we are the alien visitors to an earthlike world populated by beings less advanced than ourselves.

 

CONTACT: 

2035:

A new space telescope, the "G. Bruno Space Telescope Complex", images the first earthlike world detected outside our solar system. This world is designated "Alpha Centauri Planet-1" (ACP-1). 

 

2036:

SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) instruments have been monitoring ACP-1 since it was discovered in 2035. The SETI survey of ACP-1 has detected a primitive radio signal emanating from ACP-1. The signal is the product of a race of beings who have just invented television. This puts them roughly a century behind Earthly humanity.

 

2039:

The detection of these random television like signals is announced worldwide after careful review and peer confirmation worldwide. Note the timeline from first contact to this event. Prior to 2039, secrecy would probably be applied. The reason for secrecy is so that the scientific community can be absolutely certain of what they have before going public. 

 

2044:

Evidence and confirmations in hand, the worldwide scientific community announces that contact with an alien intelligence at ACP-1 has taken place.

 

2046:

Some of the data received on Earth is discovered to be imagery of the species making contact and selected images of their world. 

 

2060:

The process of full confirmation and data reduction, now well underway begins to establish an understanding of what has been detected. For example, are these beings a possible threat to humanity? 

 

2068:

By now, it has been confirmed that this species is similar to us meaning they have military capabilities that will require us to factor into any future plans to visit them. Though they are similarly warlike in there basic nature, their technical quantum leap comes not from a world war, but from increasing technical assistance transmitted from Earth. Many on earth ask, do the beings on ACP-1 see us as Gods?

 

2077:

Earth transmits a series of messages announcing who we are, and that we intend to visit their world early next century, of course, explaining our calendar system among many other things.

 

2083:

ACP-1 is now advanced enough to decipher and understand our message in part because we eliminated most of the translation process by transmitting back in their language and frequencies.

 

2089:

As we begin to develop practical interstellar travel technology, resulting in large part from the ACP-1 contact, it is decided there will be an expedition to ACP-1 in the early 22nd century. A message to this effect is transmitted to ACP-1, effectively asking for permission to visit. 

 

2098:

ACP-1 says yes. Communications continue, Earth giving general details about what to expect. We come in peace as explorers and that certain precautions will be taken such as a thorough examination as to whether the two species can safely interact without spreading catastrophic diseases. This could be accomplished by Earths advanced understanding of the human genome, and the alien genome or equivalent once the expedition gets to ACP-1. Subsequent messages transmit details of the planned expedition.

 

2126:

Starship Centauri departs for ACP-1 which has advanced to the point where we were in about 2035 thanks in part to some limited technical assistance.

 

2131:

Starship Centauri assumes a nearly circular orbit around Alpha Centauri "A" at a distance of about 4 billion miles from the star and the planet ACP-1. Three landers are dispatched to assume circular orbits about a thousand miles above ACP-1. Detailed data acquisition begins before anyone is sent to the surface of ACP-1. The genomes of both human and alien are compared and it is determined that there could be some disease transfer capability. The lander medical teams devise treatments for the identified diseases.

 

2132:

Contact is made between ACP-1 beings and humans from Earth at a place designated by ACP-1 as its equivalent of a United Nations. This can be accomplished without crop circle construction and/or other illogical activities.

Proceed to part II