X Class Solar Flares, Killshot Risk Above 1% | S0 News
Nov.5.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md-6MfcDyD0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcPMMXUvcx4
https://www.youtube.com/@ve3en1
https://spaceweathernews.com/
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
https://avi-loeb.medium.com/post-perihelion-data-on-3i-atlas-3d1e72be2bb4
https://www.virtualtelescope.eu/2025/11/05/interstellar-comet-3i-atlas-aka-c-2025-n1-atlas-a-new-image-5-nov-2025/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XTvA_2FEvk (AVI LOEB WITH US TODAY! UNCENSORED TALK ON 3I/ATLAS! Nov 4, 2025)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15261117/NASA-boost-interstellar-visitor-speed-Earth-3i-atlas.html
https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2025/11/05/690b39cc46163f674b8b45c3.html
https://x.com/UAPWatchers/status/1985397474161275316
Post Perihelion Data on 3I/ATLAS
November 5, 2025
Reports from the Minor Planet Center (here) and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (here) just released new data on the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS following its perihelion passage on October 29, 2025. The new data covers the period between October 31 and November 4.
When compared to previous data obtained on October 5–8, it appears that 3I/ATLAS brightened by a factor of ~5 in the Green-band which is centered at a wavelength of 0.464 micrometers.
The value of the non-gravitational acceleration was reduced by a third relative to the value reported on October 29. This reduction is within the uncertainties. The net detection is now more robust, standing at a level of 3.7 standard deviations.
The non-gravitational acceleration was measured at the current perihelion distance of 1.38 times the Earth-Sun separation (defined as an astronomical unit or `au’), equivalent to 206 million kilometers from the Sun.
It has two components in the orbital plane of 3I/ATLAS but no detectable component vertical to that plane.
The measured components — parametrized to follow an inverse square law as a function of distance from the Sun, have the following values — normalized at a heliocentric value of 1 au:
-
A radial acceleration away from the Sun of 1.1x10^{-6} au per day squared.
-
A transverse acceleration relative to the Sun’s direction of 3.7x10^{-7} au per day squared.
Based on momentum conservation (as discussed here), it is straightforward to show that 3I/ATLAS must have lost a measurable fraction of its mass in order to gain this non-gravitational acceleration through the rocket effect.
As I derived here, the mass fraction lost during the perihelion passage time t equals: t*(a/v), where v is the ejection speed of gas from the nucleus surface and a is the non-gravitational-acceleration displayed by 3I/ATLAS.
The perihelion passage time is the ratio of the perihelion distance of 203 million kilometers and the perihelion speed of 68 kilometers per second, yielding t~1 month.
The reported non-gravitational acceleration amounts to 94 kilometers per day squared at perihelion. These values combine to imply that 3I/ATLAS lost a fraction of its mass equal to:
1/3
~13% divided by v in units of 300 meters per second,
where a value of v~300 meters per second corresponds to the characteristic thermal speed of molecules at the surface temperature of 3I/ATLAS near perihelion.
This ejection speed would be the maximum expected value for a natural comet, thus implying that 3I/ATLAS must have lost more than 13% of its mass near perihelion in the natural scenario.
However, a technological rocket engine could expel gas through its exhaust at a much higher speed, thus reducing the required fraction of the mass loss.
The considerable brightening and blue color of 3I/ATLAS near perihelion (as reported here) could either be a signature of cometary mass loss and CO+ emission (as discussed here) or a hot engine with a much smaller mass loss.
This contrast offers a clean test of the nature of 3I/ATLAS in the coming weeks. If 3I/ATLAS is a natural comet, it should be surrounded by a massive cloud of gas that carries at least 13% of the original nucleus mass.
This cloud must be much more than evident during July through September, when 3I/ATLAS did not display any non-gravitational acceleration (as derived by the analysis of 4,022 data points from 227 observatories here).
Spectroscopic observations of this new massive coma by the Webb telescope in December would allow us to infer the composition of the interior of 3I/ATLAS and not just its skin.
However, if 3I/ATLAS is not enshrouded in a much more massive gas cloud after perihelion than it had in the months preceding perihelion, then its recent non-gravitational acceleration must have resulted from a different cause than cometary evaporation.
The anomalies displayed so far by 3I/ATLAS include:
-
Its retrograde trajectory is aligned to within 5 degrees with the ecliptic plane of the planets around the Sun, with a likelihood of 0.2% (see here).
-
During July and August 2025, it displayed a sunward jet (anti-tail) that is not an optical illusion from geometric perspective, unlike familiar comets (see here).
-
Its nucleus is about a million times more massive than 1I/`Oumuamua and a thousand times more massive than 2I/Borisov, while moving faster than both, altogether with a likelihood of less than 0.1% (see here and here).
-
Its arrival time was fine-tuned to bring it within tens of millions of kilometers from Mars, Venus and Jupiter and be unobservable from Earth at perihelion, with a likelihood of 0.005% (see here).
-
Its gas plume contains much more nickel than iron (as found in industrially-produced nickel alloys) and a nickel to cyanide ratio that is orders of magnitude larger than that of all known comets, including 2I/Borisov, with a likelihood below 1% (see here).
-
Its gas plume contains only 4% water by mass, a primary constituent of familiar comets (see here).
-
It shows extreme negative polarization, unprecedented for all known comets, including 2I/Borisov, with a likelihood below 1% (see here).
-
It arrived from a direction coincident with the radio “Wow! Signal” to within 9 degrees, with a likelihood of 0.6% (see here).
-
Near perihelion, it brightened faster than any known comet and was bluer than the Sun (see here).
-
It exhibits non-gravitational acceleration which requires massive evaporation of a sixth of its mass (as calculated here), but preliminary post-perihelion images do not show evidence for it so far.
2/3
This morning, I received the following email all the way from Australia, down under:
“Dear Professor Loeb,
I am writing to you to say I have been really enjoying your writings and posts concerning 3I/ATLAS!
But I am not writing to you about 3I/ATLAS or any of its several anomalies observed thus far — I am sure you must be regularly receiving a plethora of communications from various quarters on that topic!
Rather I am writing to you to express my strong solidarity with your position on the current state of scientific thought, which I must say is completely aligned with mine.
I am neither an astronomer nor a physicist, but I do like to study about and ponder upon all developments in science, cutting across discipline boundaries including my own, which happens to be soft computing applications in managerial decision-making.
This spirit of wondrous curiosity is what has drawn me to know more about 3I/ATLAS and the astronomical observations/conjectures that have been snowballing around this event over the past few months.
What I find in your views on the topic, of course only as far as I can follow given my rather rudimentary understanding of the background theories and models, is a very refreshing and bold move to rise above the imposed walls within which current scientific thinking seems to relish staying confined.
I think these walls have unfortunately been imposed, and keep getting imposed, not necessarily via any consensus of the global scientific community at large but rather by some well-endowed core groups and lobbies within that community, often with interests that are perhaps not exclusively of an intellectual kind. In my upcoming book titled ‘Brainmaker — coevolution of human and synthetic intelligence’, I have drawn sort of an analogical parallel between the ‘scientific power lobbies’ of today and the church of the Middle Ages.
It is of course well known that scientific thinkers and astronomers like Galileo who propounded alternative viewpoints (eventually proved correct) were severely persecuted as their viewpoints flew in the face of those held by the church back at the time.
I think (and fear) that science is increasingly being positioned as kind of an organized religion and scientific power lobbies have started to resemble the high priesthoods of ancient temples.
If dissenting ideas are to sprout outside of what is deemed mainstream by those lobbies, they tend to be met with a resistance ironically comparable in their destructive ferocity to what proponents of scientific knowledge like Galileo had faced from the church.
Perhaps the only real difference is the substitution of physical persecution with intellectual persecution — systematically belittling radical ideas (and their propagators) often via ad hominem and straw man attacks and calling for an intellectual banishment from the so-called mainstream.
That you seem to be always able to thwart all such attacks, veiled or direct, with remarkable poise and grace as well as rigorous intellectual rebuttal, is what I have come to greatly respect and admire.
While I do not of course consider myself at par with your intellectual stature (not even close), it will be a matter of great honor to hear from you and perhaps even have a chance someday to exchange views with you on this rather unfortunate current state of science and its potential impact on the future of our species.
I thank you for your valuable time in reading my mail (among the hundreds that you must be receiving and reading on a regular basis) and will be elated and honored if you kindly do reply.
3/3
We could all use a little paladin power right about now
Trump turnabout sees him re-nominate amateur astronaut Jared Isaacman to run NASA
Wed 5 Nov 2025 // 06:40 UTC
US president Donald Trump on Tuesday decided who he wants to lead NASA, despite having ruled out the same person six months ago.
Trump’s pick is Jared Isaacman, the billionaire founder of payment outfit Shift4 who used some of his fortune to buy a ticket on a SpaceX tourism flight, during which he became the first private citizen to conduct a spacewalk.
Isaacman is also a qualified pilot who bought the MiG-29 fighter owed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, and holds the speed record for the fastest in-atmosphere trip around the planet.
Trump nominated Isaacman to become NASA administrator, but then reversed that decision in June, perhaps coincidentally a couple of days before Elon Musk ended his time as a member of the administration.
“I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be Mission aligned, and put America First in Space,” Trump wrote at the time.
A month later, Trump and Musk were trading barbs on social Media, and the president posted a further explanation of the reason he withdrew Isaacman’s nomination.
“Elon asked that one of his close friends run NASA and, while I thought his friend was very good, I was surprised to learn that he was a blue blooded Democrat, who had never contributed to a Republican before.
Elon probably was, also. I also thought it inappropriate that a very close friend of Elon, who was in the Space Business, run NASA, when NASA is such a big part of Elon’s corporate life.”
Trump then appointed Sean Duffy as temporary NASA administrator, giving him a side hustle to go with his day job as Secretary of transportation.
The Register encountered Duffy in September when he spoke at the International Aeronautical Congress in Australia, and said the Trump administration believes exploration of the universe and new technologies is NASA’s main job, and that once the agency innovates successfully the private sector should tap its expertise and carry on its work.
His rationale was that other US government agencies focus on science, climate, and other matters that NASA sometimes touches on.
Duffy said he expected that within a decade NASA would have helped to establish a permanently-inhabited “village” on the Moon, and “be on the cusp of putting human boots on Mars.”
On Tuesday, Trump praised Duffy, whom he said “has done an incredible job as Interim Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).”
The president then declared himself “pleased to nominate Jared Isaacman, an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut, as Administrator of NASA.
Jared’s passion for Space, astronaut experience, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration, unlocking the mysteries of the universe, and advancing the new Space economy, make him ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new Era.”
Trump did not explain what, if anything, made him change his mind. However, his reference to exploration suggests the administration’s plans for NASA remain unchanged.
Isaacman has previously endorsed the idea of private sector space companies taking on missions of national significance, suggesting that no extra funding is needed for NASA’s startlingly expensive Space Launch System if the three planned launches prove the technology.
He also has ideas of his own for NASA, including annual science missions on the scale of the James Webb Space Telescope. Isaacman said he is happy with cheaper, riskier, science missions, rather than expensive programs that take a decade to execute.
Whatever policy he settles on, Isaacman will have to do more with less as the Trump administration has significantly reduced NASA’s budget.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/05/jared_isaacman_nasa_administrator_again/
https://www.space.com/space-exploration/trump-nominates-billionaire-jared-isaacman-for-nasa-chief-again
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115493839582779089
https://gizmodo.com/blue-origins-big-boy-is-back-3-things-to-know-about-new-glenns-second-launch-2000681616
https://www.blueorigin.com/
https://www.youtube.com/@blueorigin
Blue Origin’s Big Boy Is Back: 3 Things to Know About New Glenn’s Second Launch
November 5, 2025
Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin is gearing up for the second launch of New Glenn. The megarocket is scheduled to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, no earlier than 2:51 p.m. ET on Sunday, November 9.
New Glenn rolled onto the pad at Launch Complex 38 Tuesday evening and went vertical Wednesday, according to Blue Origin’s X account.
It has since undergone a successful static fire test in which all seven of its BE-4 boosters performed as expected, operating at 100% thrust for 22 seconds, Blue Origin posted on Thursday.
The heavy-lift launch vehicle is now in the final stages of preparation ahead of Sunday’s milestone flight. Here are the three most important things you need to know before liftoff.
There will be another booster recovery attempt
It’s been nearly 10 months since New Glenn’s inaugural flight on January 16. The rocket’s upper stage successfully reached orbit—a first for Blue Origin—and deployed the Blue Ring Pathfinder payload.
This technology demonstration payload was designed to test the core flight, ground systems, and operational capabilities of the company’s Blue Ring orbital transfer vehicle.
One of the primary objectives of this test flight was to recover New Glenn’s booster—a key step toward rapid reusability. This did not go according to plan, however.
Blue Origin confirmed that the booster was lost “during descent,” meaning it failed to perform a soft, controlled landing on Jacklyn—a barge in the Atlantic Ocean.
A Federal Aviation Administration investigation ultimately determined that the booster failed to relight its engines, Blue Origin confirmed in March.
The FAA identified seven corrective measures focused on “propellant management and engine bleed control improvements,” which the company said it was already addressing.
Despite the booster mishap, the rocket’s first flight was a huge win for Blue Origin, officially putting New Glenn on the map as a major orbital launch vehicle.
Blue Origin will again try to recover the booster during New Glenn’s second flight. Just like last time, the company is targeting a propulsive landing on the barge named Jacklyn in the Atlantic.
1/2
Bezos’s company is hoping this second booster, named “Never Tell Me the Odds,” will have better luck than the first.
If the company can successfully recover and refurbish the booster, it plans to fly it again on its third mission, which will attempt to launch the first Blue Moon Mark 1 lunar lander.
This cargo lander is a stepping stone to a crewed version, which NASA has contracted to deliver the Artemis 5 astronauts to the Moon.
New Glenn will launch NASA’s ESCAPADE mission
New Glenn will carry another payload during its second test flight, but this time, it belongs to NASA. The megarocket will launch the agency’s twin ESCAPADE probes on a journey to Mars.
The Escape and Plasma Acceleration and Dynamics Explorers mission (try saying that five times fast) “will use two identical spacecraft to investigate how the solar wind interacts with Mars’ magnetic environment and how this interaction drives the planet’s atmospheric escape,” according to NASA.
The probes were supposed to fly on the first New Glenn launch, originally slated for October 2024, but NASA pulled the probes from the mission due to concerns about launching them on an unproven rocket.
On Friday, Blue Origin confirmed that the probes have been loaded into the payload fairing of New Glenn’s upper stage.
This $80 million mission raises the stakes for New Glenn’s second launch. Not only is it the first NASA mission to Mars since the Perseverance rover launched in 2020, it’s also the first multi-spacecraft orbital science mission to the Red Planet.
Blue Origin’s time to shine—or not
This test flight will be anything but routine—both NASA and Blue Origin have a lot riding on this launch.
Following significant New Glenn delays, Blue Origin needs to show that it’s ready to serve as a deep-space launch provider and that its big rocket is up for the task.
The ESCAPADE launch will serve as a crucial test. Should deployment go according to plan, New Glenn could become a viable option for critical NASA science missions and national security contracts.
That said, Blue Origin will still have to compete with other big players, such as United Launch Alliance and Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which routinely launches its Falcon 9s and Falcon Heavies—and will soon have a major industry disruptor in Starship.
Continuing to validate the BE-4 engine and achieving a booster recovery will also be key to New Glenn’s success.
If Blue Origin can hit these milestones on Sunday, it could reshape the heavy-lift launch market, whereas failure would further undermine Blue’s readiness to take on the challenges of the increasingly competitive commercial spaceflight industry.
2/2