A 3.2 second exposure of 3I/ATLAS by the HiRISE camera onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter with a spatial resolution of 30 kilometers per pixel. Due to spacecraft jitter and motion during the observation period, the light from 3I/ATLAS is smeared by several pixels. The directions of the Sun and 3I/ATLAS’ motion are indicated by arrows.(Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona)
Why are scientists arguing so fiercely over a blurry dot of light in space?
Welcome, dear readers, to FreeAstroScience. In this article—written only for you—we’ll unpack the heated debate around the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS: NASA says it’s a natural comet, while Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb suggests we should stay open to a possible artificial, even technological, origin.
We’ll walk through what 3I/ATLAS is, what NASA actually said, why Loeb disagrees, and how principles like Occam’s razor and probability guide scientific judgment. If you stick with us to the end, you’ll not only understand this specific case—you’ll better understand how science itself works when reality gets weird.
What Is 3I/ATLAS and Why Does It Matter?
3I/ATLAS is the third known interstellar object passing through our Solar System, after:
- 1I/‘Oumuamua (discovered in 2017)
- 2I/Borisov (discovered in 2019)
Unlike asteroids and comets born in our Solar System, interstellar objects come from outside—from other star systems. They bring:
- clues about how other planetary systems form
- “samples” of distant environments
- and, inevitably, speculation about extraterrestrial technology
NASA and multiple observatories have been tracking 3I/ATLAS with space telescopes like Hubble, Webb, SPHEREx and others. Its path takes it rapidly through the inner Solar System, so there’s only a short time window to collect data before it fades into the dark again.
That ticking clock is part of why the debate feels so intense: scientists know this is a once-in-a-career opportunity.
What Did NASA Actually Say at the November 19, 2025 Press Conference?
On 19 November 2025, NASA held a press conference to present new data on 3I/ATLAS, delayed by the recent U.S. government shutdown.
Key elements from NASA’s side:
- Classification: NASA’s message was clear: 3I/ATLAS is a natural comet.
- Behavior: It “appears and behaves like a comet,” as associate administrator Amit Kshatriya stated—shedding gas and dust and following gravitational dynamics consistent with a cometary body.
- Data sources:
- A HiRISE image from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter on 3 October shows a fuzzy ball of light with a spatial resolution of about 30 km per pixel at a distance of ~30 million km from 3I/ATLAS.
- Spacecraft jitter and motion smeared the light over several pixels.
- Additional, even fuzzier images came from other space telescopes.
- MAVEN detected hydrogen in the ultraviolet, consistent with sublimating water and ices—again, comet-like behavior.
From NASA’s point of view, all available evidence so far fits a natural comet. No striking anomaly has yet forced them to invoke exotic explanations.
So, if NASA is so confident, why is Avi Loeb pushing back?
Why Is Avi Loeb Dissatisfied With NASA’s “Just a Comet” Explanation?
Avi Loeb, Baird Professor of Science at Harvard and head of the Galileo Project, has become known for arguing that some interstellar anomalies might hint at technology from other civilizations.
In his Medium article responding to the press conference, he writes that NASA “repeated the official mantra that 3I/ATLAS is a natural comet” and criticizes the agency for not highlighting the puzzles and uncertainties around the object.
Here are the main points of his critique:
1. “Judge a book by its cover? Bad idea.”
NASA emphasizes that 3I/ATLAS is outgassing like a comet. Loeb replies: a spacecraft coated with dust and ices traveling through interstellar space could also form a comet-like crust that sublimates under sunlight.
So a fuzzy coma and a tail do not automatically rule out a technological object; they only show that something volatile is evaporating.
2. The mass anomaly: why so big?
Loeb points out that estimates of 3I/ATLAS point to a mass roughly:
- 1,000 times greater than 2I/Borisov
- 1,000,000 times greater than 1I/‘Oumuamua
He argues that, given a limited amount of solid material floating in interstellar space, you’d expect to discover far more small objects (like ‘Oumuamua) before finding such an enormous one—unless something special is going on, such as an intentional trajectory toward the inner Solar System.
We can summarize the relative masses this way (normalizing ‘Oumuamua to 1 unit):
| Object | Discovery | Type | Relative Mass (‘Oumuamua = 1) |
Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1I/‘Oumuamua | 2017 | Unusual object | 1 | Baseline interstellar visitor |
| 2I/Borisov | 2019 | Comet-like | ≈ 103 | Thousand times more massive than 1I |
| 3I/ATLAS | 2025 | Comet (NASA classification) | ≈ 106 | Million times more massive than 1I, according to Loeb [[1]] |
Loeb’s argument is statistical: if big objects are rare, finding such a massive one this early seems surprising, unless there is selection of some kind.
3. The orbital alignment puzzle
Another point: 3I/ATLAS’s trajectory appears unusually well aligned with the plane of the planets (the ecliptic), with Loeb estimating a probability of around 0.2% for such an alignment by chance.
He argues this made the object an easy target for many NASA observatories—again, oddly convenient if it were just a random rock.
We can write that probability in simple mathematical form:
Estimated alignment probability:
P(alignment) ≈ 0.002 = 0.2%
Loeb claims that, if 3I/ATLAS is natural, then “Mother Nature was kinder to NASA than expected” by at least a factor of 100,000, combining the mass and alignment anomalies.
4. The mysterious collimated jets
Perhaps the most visually striking evidence comes not from NASA, but from amateur astronomers. After 3I/ATLAS passed closest to the Sun on 29 October 2025, several amateurs captured images showing:
- tightly collimated jets, pointing toward and away from the Sun
- jet lengths of the order of a million kilometers
Loeb calls these images “far more exciting” than NASA’s HiRISE view.
He argues that upcoming observations with Hubble, Webb, and large ground-based telescopes will be able to measure:
- jet composition
- jet speed
- mass-loss rate
Those measurements should reveal whether these jets are caused by natural ice pockets warmed by sunlight or by technological thrusters. He even suggests we may have an answer by 19 December 2025, when 3I/ATLAS makes its closest approach to Earth—a potential “gift of new interstellar knowledge for the holidays.”
5. Call for searching for fragments or probes
Loeb also recommended that NASA check data from:
- Mars rovers and orbiters
- Earth-based NASA satellites
- Galileo Project observatories
to look for additional objects that might have accompanied 3I/ATLAS or separated from it—either fragments from a breakup or mini-probes deployed by a “technological mothership.”
To him, life is more interesting when we allow the unexpected, and he warns against “bureaucrats or unimaginative scientists” who only want us to believe in what’s expected.
So far, that’s the “push” side of the debate. Let’s look at the “pushback.”
How Does Filippo Bonaventura (and Many Scientists) Respond to Loeb’s Claims?
Italian astrophysicist and science communicator Filippo Bonaventura wrote a detailed editorial on Geopop, reacting to Loeb’s article and NASA’s press conference.
His position can be summarized as:
NASA is doing exactly what science should do here:
focus first on the most probable explanations and only move to highly speculative ones if standard models fail.
Let’s unpack his main points.
1. NASA is not “refusing” the alien hypothesis
Loeb suggests NASA is clinging to a “mantra” and not sufficiently considering a technological explanation. Bonaventura counters that the agency isn’t excluding exotic scenarios in principle; it is simply prioritizing based on probability and existing knowledge.
Given limited observing time and a fast-moving target, scientists:
- first test explanations compatible with established comet physics
- only if the data contradict those models do they spend serious effort on exotic ideas
This is not close-mindedness—it’s triage.
2. Occam’s razor and the “teapot in space”
Loeb argues that current data on the chemical composition of 3I/ATLAS’s emissions don’t exclude the possibility that a hidden alien craft lies beneath a shell of water, CO, and CO₂ ice.
Bonaventura calls this a deeply problematic claim, comparing it to the famous “flying teapot” idea—an unfalsifiable object placed where nobody can check it.
Here he invokes Occam’s razor:
when several explanations fit the data, scientists prefer the one that introduces the fewest new assumptions.
In simplified form:
Occam’s razor (conceptual form):
Choose the explanation that explains the observations using the smallest number of
additional hypotheses, unless data require something more complex.
To say, “It could be a hidden alien ship under ice,” without any data that demand that extra step, violates that principle.
It’s not that aliens are impossible. It’s that you don’t jump to “alien ship under the ice” when plain “big weird comet” already fits what you see.
3. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary data, not just imagination
Bonaventura notes that many anomalies around 3I/ATLAS are still being studied. The right approach is:
- keep track of anomalies
- build models and simulations
- see whether standard comet physics can explain the observations
- only then, if they fail badly, seriously consider more radical hypotheses
He suggests that, so far, Loeb is pushing a strong hypothesis before the normal scientific work is complete—almost the opposite of the Sherlock Holmes quote Loeb himself likes to cite about not theorizing before having data.
4. Language that sounds uncomfortably like conspiracy rhetoric
Bonaventura is especially critical of Loeb’s phrasing about “bureaucrats and unimaginative scientists” who want to make us believe only in the expected, while “the rest of us know that the best is yet to come.”
He calls this a style of language closer to conspiracism and pseudoscience than to science communication, because it sets up:
- “us” (visionary outsiders)
- versus “them” (closed-minded, possibly corrupt insiders)
This rhetorical move makes the debate hotter, but not necessarily clearer. He therefore urges the media to contextualize Loeb’s claims carefully, rather than amplifying them uncritically.
So, Is 3I/ATLAS More Likely Natural or Technological?
Right now, based on the sources we have:
- NASA’s data show:
- comet-like outgassing
- hydrogen detection consistent with sublimating ices
- images that look like a fuzzy cometary coma
- No clear “smoking gun” demands a technological explanation.
- However, there are anomalies and puzzles, including mass estimates, trajectory alignment, and jet morphology, that scientists—including Loeb—are eager to understand better.
From a Bayesian point of view (updating probabilities with evidence):
- Our prior expectation that any random interstellar object is artificial is extremely low.
- Our prior that it’s a natural object is extremely high.
- Observations so far are fully compatible with a natural comet.
Even if the alignment probability is 0.2%, that isn’t small enough by itself to overturn very strong priors about how overwhelmingly common natural rocks are compared to hypothetical alien probes.
So, on balance, the weight of evidence and method points to:
3I/ATLAS is most probably a natural comet, with some open scientific questions.
That doesn’t make the alien-probe idea “forbidden.” It just means science reserves that kind of radical upgrade for when reality forces our hand.
What Can We Learn from the “Jets” and Upcoming Observations?
Here’s where things get truly exciting, regardless of which “side” you’re on.
In the coming months (and especially around December 2025), telescopes will:
- measure the spectrum of the jets (what molecules are present?)
- estimate the velocity of the outflowing material
- estimate the mass-loss rate—how much material is being ejected per second
If the jets are:
- Irregular, patchy, tied to surface regions, and match known ice compositions → that supports a natural comet model.
- Very stable, symmetric, with odd compositions or dynamics that resist comet physics → that would force scientists to rethink their models and at least consider more exotic scenarios.
Right now, the smart move is to do what NASA, other teams, and even Loeb ultimately all agree on: collect better data and let the data decide.
How Should We Think About “Anomalies” Without Losing Our Minds?
Anomalies are where science grows—but they can also be where people lose critical thinking. So, how do we stay curious and rigorous?
Here’s a simple mental checklist you can use whenever you hear about cosmic mysteries (including 3I/ATLAS):
Is the anomaly real or just early, noisy data?
- First question: could better measurements erase the “weirdness”?
Are we sure we applied known physics correctly?
- Comets are complex: dust, gas, rotation, thermal cracking… there’s room for modeling surprises.
How many assumptions does each explanation require?
- Natural comet: uses physics we already know.
- Alien probe disguised as a comet: adds a whole civilization, technology, intent, etc.
Does anyone have a clear, testable prediction?
- “If it’s natural, we should see X.”
- “If it’s technological, we should see Y.”
Are people using “us vs them” language?
- That’s a red flag that the discussion might be drifting toward ideology.
If we apply that checklist to 3I/ATLAS, we end up where many working scientists currently are:
- fascinated
- cautious
- and waiting on more data
Why Does This Debate Matter for How We Do Science?
Beyond the details of 3I/ATLAS, this whole story is a case study in:
- how institutions handle extraordinary claims
- how public communication can amplify or distort scientific nuance
- how imagination and skepticism need each other
Loeb is right about something important:
we shouldn’t let routine thinking blind us to genuine surprises. He reminds us that “known unknowns are great but the unknown unknowns are the best,” urging us not to miss potentially revolutionary findings out of fear or inertia.
Bonaventura, NASA scientists, and many others are also right about something equally crucial:
you don’t get to skip the hard work of normal science and jump straight to headlines about alien ships whenever you see a puzzle.
The real art of science is balancing:
- openness to the unexpected
- with discipline in how we update our beliefs
So, What Should We Take Away from the 3I/ATLAS Story?
Let’s pull the threads together.
- 3I/ATLAS is our third interstellar visitor, and it’s being watched intensely by NASA and many observatories.
- NASA’s current conclusion: it’s a natural comet—its gas, dust, and behavior match that interpretation.
- Avi Loeb highlights puzzles: unusually large inferred mass, special orbital alignment, and striking collimated jets, and he urges us to seriously entertain a technological origin.
- Filippo Bonaventura and others respond that:
- NASA is doing science the right way
- Occam’s razor disfavors “hidden alien spacecraft” when simpler explanations work
- and that some of Loeb’s rhetoric risks sounding like conspiracy culture rather than careful science.
- The most scientifically grounded position today is:
- 3I/ATLAS is very likely a natural comet
- but its anomalies are worth studying deeply, and upcoming observations may clarify a lot.
For us, as curious humans, there’s a bigger lesson:
we need to keep our imagination sharp and our reason even sharper.
At FreeAstroScience, we like to remember Goya’s warning:
“The sleep of reason breeds monsters.”
If we abandon reason, we fall for any wild story.
If we abandon imagination, we stop noticing when the universe is whispering something new.
The goal isn’t to choose between NASA’s caution and Loeb’s boldness, but to understand why each stance exists and how, together, they can push science forward—provided we let data, not drama, decide the outcome.
Stay curious, stay critical, and keep watching the sky. The next strange visitor may already be on its way.
Post a Comment