\
argument and UFO reports is the fact
that objects have been reported to land
and take off. Having arbitrarily settled
on a design for a ship employing annihilation of matter for power and a
horribly inefficient photon drive for
thrust, Markowitz proceeds to imagine
this starship entering the atmosphere of
Letters
a planet and landing on its surface, us-
ing the full fury of its interstellar drive,
a process akin to docking the Forrestal
UFO Consensus
I agree with Markowitz (“The physics and metaphysics of unidentified flying objects,” 15 Sept., p. 1274) that extraterrestrial control of UFO’s is unlike-
ly. Nevertheless I find his arguments
unconvincing.
First, a minor point—he seems to
imply that Hynek is inconsistent when
he states that UFO’s have been seen
by “scientifically trained people” but
have not been seen by “trained ob-
servers.” I think the distinction here is
reasonably clear.
In
this
age
of lasers.
superpower
microwaves, and superconducting magnets, his appeal to the law of StefanBoltzmann seems curiously unimaginative. as does his dependence upon solid
surfaces to deflect high-energy particles.
He arrives at a power required for
interstellar flight of 3 * 10" watts.
noting that it is 30 times the world’s
electric generating capacity. An equally
pertinent comparison would be to note
that it is only 300 times the power of
a single Saturn V, andthat on/y a single
decade of development effort separates
that vehicle from its 300 times smaller
predecessor! In any case. why does an
interstellar vehicle need an acceleration
of Ig?
On the other hand, a ship for such
a voyage would probably weigh much
more than 5000 kilograms. So in the
end, one must agree that a satisfactory
interstellar propulsion system is quite
beyond the capability of our present
technology. But his arguments in no
way prove or imply that it is beyond
someone else’s—or even beyond what
we will have 100 years from now. As
far aS proving that interstellar flight
use a specific impulse of 3 x 10" seconds to lift off the earth when 1000
seconds or less would do? In short, the
use of an interstellar space ship to explore within our atmosphere seems
about as likely as the use of airliners
to explore the bottom of the sea.
Why suggest that a 1000-year trip
duration should make the voyagers anxious to meet us formally? An alternative deduction would be that another
hundred years, more or less, is of little
consequence to them. The fact that
Columbus did not hesitate to talk to
the Indians was not without consequences that were unfortunate for Eur-
ope and tragic for the Indians. Per-
haps
our
interstellar
visitors
have
learned to be more cautious—and con-
siderate.
Finally, the suggestion that “hard-
of physics are valid.” The non sequitur
is blatant: Markowitz has proven only
that his own design does not explain
reports of takeoffs or landings. He has
revealed his own haste to arrive at a
particular conclusion.
When Markowitz “assumes for purposes of discussion” the existence of
technically advanced beings, one might
expect that this assumption would play
a part in the discussion, but evidently
the implications of such an assumption
have escaped his notice. A technically
advanced race just a cosmic clock-tick ahead of us in achievement would not
only have inconceivably advanced sci-
just like observations of any other in-
would
drop the matter? The only valid argument against extraterrestrial visitors is,
carried out with a casualness that would
shock our poverty-stricken souls. It is
no more possible for us to expand our
minds enough to encompass what will
be the truth in a thousand years than
it would have been for Charlemagne to
teresting phenomena, seems constructive. But why insist, on the other hand,
that the Air Force should completely
I believe, a statistical one. The probability of there being a civilization ad-
vanced enough, near enough, and dili-
gent enough to find us is simply not
very high.
RICHARD J. Rosa
Aveo Everett Research Laboratory,
2385 Revere Beach Parkway,
Everett. Massachusetts 02149
I acknowledge Markowitz’ analysis of
the UFO problem, and wish him well
in the next field to which he lends
just as we propose to do? And why
the contents of UFO reports. The one
link between Markowitz’ theoretical
8 DECEMBER 1967
ports of landings andlift-offs of UFO's
are not reports of spacecraft controlled
by extraterrestrial beings, if the laws
entific ability, but technological skill be-
of the technical community to peruse,
ments are simply irrelevant.
His argument that the ground should
be seared and radioactive where a UFO
has touched down also seems irrele-
vant. Isn’t it probable that such voyagers would use “excursion modules”
have never been observed, Markowitz
concludes, “Hence, the published re-
data” cases should be published for all
his attention, since he has apparently
finished this one. He cannot depart
quickly enough, however, to escape the
objections of those he left standing
amid the shambles. His entire argument
against the possibility of extraterrestrial
control of UFO’s rests on theoretical
violates the laws of physics. his argu-
by running it up onto a beach. Since
the obvious results of such foolishness
grounds, and bears no relationship to
yond our comprehension. Such beings
effectively
command
immense
wealth; what would seem to us impossibly ambitious, ruinously expensive, and
even frivolous undertakings would be
speculate on the present gross national
product of France, without even a word
for 10°. The contrast between the notion of an advanced civilization’s mode
of transport {as one may legitimately
attempt to imagine it) and Markowitz’
sketchy design for a starship is ludicrous.
Of course there may not de any advanced civilization, or any starships.
Nobody can go beyond premise-bound
speculations on those subjects, and even
our speculations are denied the use of
physical principles and effects that remain undiscovered.
WILLIAM T. POWERS
Dearborn Observatory,
Northwestern University,
Evanston, [linois 60201
1265