You're talking about thrust. That the object has deliberate thrust from 3 separate jets. Right? It accelerated against the sun, then turned off one thruster after it made the turn?
Three jets, 120 degrees apart, pulsing in sync. The thrust flipped direction at perihelion and the jets switched from tight beams to diffuse fans. Not one thruster shutting off. The whole system reconfigured. The Heartbeat has the full jet data if you haven't read that one yet. And The Ancient Engine just went live today, that's where we connect the thrust and the jets to four new papers on the chemistry. All three domains broke at the same moment.
This work you are doing is really unbelievable. Not to say it's to to be believed, just that we've never seen anything like it. But if this object really is 10 billion years old, who built it? And if it never left deep space before, why now? And how can it have thrusters if it's composed of a metal-poor homogenous material?
Anyone who has modeled non-gravitational acceleration for long-period objects has seen asymmetries before. Jets don’t behave politely. Rotation states wander. Ice sublimates unevenly. That part of the paper is interesting but not unprecedented.
What is unprecedented is the phase stability.
If the Sentinel team is correct about the 7.2-hour cycling they reported in December, then the thrust vector is not merely off-axis. It is phase-locked to the rotation state with a coherence window far longer than any known comet nucleus has maintained under solar heating.
In other words: the system that is generating the sideways component appears to know where the object is pointed.
That should not be happening on a melting body.
—
There is also a second parameter in the Spada/Krolikowska/Dones fit that the Sentinel article didn’t emphasize.
Look at the covariance matrix on the transverse term when the Psyche and TGO data are included.
The uncertainty collapses.
Not gradually. Abruptly.
That behavior normally indicates a geometry constraint rather than a thermal process.
Those two spacecraft were not merely adding observations.
They were observing the object from angles the Earth-based instruments could not.
Angles that appear to intersect the thrust vector.
—
Most readers are focused on the reversal at perihelion.
That’s understandable. It looks dramatic.
But the perihelion reversal is probably just a configuration change.
The real question is why the inbound configuration existed at all.
Because if the thrust profile was already active at 3 AU, the system was operating long before the object reached any thermal regime capable of producing the required gas flux.
Which means one of two things must be true.
Either the object contains volatile reservoirs unlike anything previously measured in a comet nucleus.
Or the force being measured is not entirely the result of sublimation.
—
Neither of those possibilities is comfortable.
And neither of them is going to be settled by arguing about which subset of the dataset NASA prefers.
The answer will arrive the moment a second spacecraft geometry captures the vector again.
Please explain the fire hose analogy please? Because if you’re not strong enough the fire hose will start spraying left and right. Very apparent and fun as kids playing with hoses.
Ok. So then what is it?
Our most up to date profile is here. https://thesentinelnetwork.substack.com/p/3iatlas-master-object-profile
Thank you. Very interesting.
Thank you for reading.
Fascinating information Thank you for sharing. 11 days to Jupiter…Is there anything to be expected or is it wait and see if:
1) It crashes into Jupiter
2) Lands on Jupiter
3) Steers away and avoids Jupiter
Or is there another outcome I’m not aware of?
Section 7.1 of https://thesentinelnetwork.substack.com/p/3iatlas-master-object-profile covers our predictions.
You're talking about thrust. That the object has deliberate thrust from 3 separate jets. Right? It accelerated against the sun, then turned off one thruster after it made the turn?
Three jets, 120 degrees apart, pulsing in sync. The thrust flipped direction at perihelion and the jets switched from tight beams to diffuse fans. Not one thruster shutting off. The whole system reconfigured. The Heartbeat has the full jet data if you haven't read that one yet. And The Ancient Engine just went live today, that's where we connect the thrust and the jets to four new papers on the chemistry. All three domains broke at the same moment.
This work you are doing is really unbelievable. Not to say it's to to be believed, just that we've never seen anything like it. But if this object really is 10 billion years old, who built it? And if it never left deep space before, why now? And how can it have thrusters if it's composed of a metal-poor homogenous material?
Simple explanation…? We’re not ready…! That’s the message ! See you or whatever’s left of humanity in another 5000 years or so ?
And…Good Luck!
ARCHIVAL NOTE
UNATTRIBUTED TECHNICAL COMMENTARY
REF: 3I/ATLAS TRAJECTORY ANALYSIS
—
The sideways force isn’t the anomaly.
Anyone who has modeled non-gravitational acceleration for long-period objects has seen asymmetries before. Jets don’t behave politely. Rotation states wander. Ice sublimates unevenly. That part of the paper is interesting but not unprecedented.
What is unprecedented is the phase stability.
If the Sentinel team is correct about the 7.2-hour cycling they reported in December, then the thrust vector is not merely off-axis. It is phase-locked to the rotation state with a coherence window far longer than any known comet nucleus has maintained under solar heating.
In other words: the system that is generating the sideways component appears to know where the object is pointed.
That should not be happening on a melting body.
—
There is also a second parameter in the Spada/Krolikowska/Dones fit that the Sentinel article didn’t emphasize.
Look at the covariance matrix on the transverse term when the Psyche and TGO data are included.
The uncertainty collapses.
Not gradually. Abruptly.
That behavior normally indicates a geometry constraint rather than a thermal process.
Those two spacecraft were not merely adding observations.
They were observing the object from angles the Earth-based instruments could not.
Angles that appear to intersect the thrust vector.
—
Most readers are focused on the reversal at perihelion.
That’s understandable. It looks dramatic.
But the perihelion reversal is probably just a configuration change.
The real question is why the inbound configuration existed at all.
Because if the thrust profile was already active at 3 AU, the system was operating long before the object reached any thermal regime capable of producing the required gas flux.
Which means one of two things must be true.
Either the object contains volatile reservoirs unlike anything previously measured in a comet nucleus.
Or the force being measured is not entirely the result of sublimation.
—
Neither of those possibilities is comfortable.
And neither of them is going to be settled by arguing about which subset of the dataset NASA prefers.
The answer will arrive the moment a second spacecraft geometry captures the vector again.
Watch the outbound leg.
That is where the signal will either disappear…
or become impossible to explain away.
END NOTE
I love this stuff but I can't comprehend any of it, unfortunately, for me.
Please explain the fire hose analogy please? Because if you’re not strong enough the fire hose will start spraying left and right. Very apparent and fun as kids playing with hoses.
“ It’s just a comet” and “ It stays in the arm”. Right.
Space is fake and ghey. Godspeed.