The Premise: A Colossal Interstellar Intruder
Consider an interstellar guest, ten times more massive (or a hundred times more massive, depending on estimates) than 3I/ATLAS — already itself making waves in the astronomical community. If NASA attempted to intercept such a giant, would we be prepared? And what would we know (or hazard) by doing so?
To appreciate the stakes, let's first revisit what 3I/ATLAS is, how large it could be, and why scientists are already seriously considering intercept missions.
What Is 3I/ATLAS — And Why It Matters
3I/ATLAS (also known as C/2025 N1 (ATLAS)) is the third confirmed interstellar object (i.e. an object originating from outside our solar system) discovered thus far, following 'Oumuamua (2017) and 2I/Borisov (2019).
It was found by the ATLAS (Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System) survey telescope in Chile on July 1, 2025.
Early observations had it being modest-sized, but more recent, more precise telescope campaigns (such as Hubble, JWST, and ground-based follow-ups) have updated its potential nucleus diameter upwards, though with enormous uncertainties. The upper limits now place rough estimates at a few kilometers in diameter.
The comet boasts a remarkably CO₂-rich coma (the dust/gas cloud surrounding it), and the JWST has observed a high CO₂-to-H₂O ratio — a strange feature compared to most solar system comets.
Since it is interstellar, it entered on a hyperbolic path, blazing through the solar system at approximately 130,000 miles per hour.
Its trajectory will take it close to Mars's orbit, and subsequently it may fly relatively close to Jupiter — which would make it an ideal target for deep-space observation campaigns.
So 3I/ATLAS is already remarkable. But plans now envision extending further: catching it with spacecraft to collect in-situ data, or even preparing for theoretical future interstellar objects much bigger.
The Intercept Idea: Dreams, Proposals, and Calculations
Astronomers and space mission planners have actually considered the feasibility of intercepting 3I/ATLAS. One proposed plan is using the Juno spacecraft (in present Jupiter orbit) to modify its path to meet with 3I/ATLAS on a near pass by Jupiter.
In the article "Intercepting 3I/ATLAS at Closest Approach to Jupiter with the Juno spacecraft," the authors make the case that through the application of a total ΔV (delta-V, i.e. change in velocity) of approximately 2.6755 km/s at the optimal time, Juno's trajectory can be maneuvered such that it is on a collision or near flyby with the interstellar object by March 2026.
That type of mission would allow us to probe the object's structure, makeup, and perhaps find anomalies invisible to telescopes. It's bold, dangerous, and would call for overwhelmingly accurate maneuver planning.
Neither of these proposals suggests a current or completed NASA mission that already caught a 100×-scale object.
The "100× Bigger" Twist — Fiction or Misinterpretation?
If you say "100× bigger than 3I/ATLAS," this can mean anything:
Mass — Maybe someone makes a claim of an interstellar object having 100 times the mass of 3I/ATLAS.
Volume or diameter — A diameter ~4.6× greater (as volume scales with the cube) would give ~100× volume (and maybe mass, if density is comparable).
Brightness or reflectivity — Some claims may overdo brightness as "size."
To date, as of the scientific literature, there is no documented instance of such an object entering the solar system, and no proof that NASA has actually intercepted it. Numerous sensationalized headlines citing the claim seem to be speculative, social media–blown-out-of-proportion hype.
However, it's entertaining (and educational) to think about what would then ensue if NASA attempted it.
What Would Occur If NASA Attempted an Intercept?
1. Planning, Timing, and ΔV Requirements
Catching a high-speed interstellar object is incredibly difficult. The main challenges:
The object is traveling at very high velocity.
It probably comes in on a high-aspect, hyperbolic approach.
You must fire (or translate) a spacecraft sufficiently early to overtake or meet.
The ΔV (fuel cost) involved is gigantic — even the Juno mission proposal required ~2.7 km/s of velocity change.
The vehicle has to accommodate instruments, communications, guidance, etc., adding mass and sophistication.
If the object in question were 100× larger than 3I/ATLAS, the mission would require to be even stronger: heavier shielding, greater resolution sensors, perhaps greater margin of fuel.
2. Implementation: The Flyby or Rendezvous
If the mission is a success, NASA might try:
A flyby — fly by close and obtain high-resolution photos, collect dust, gas, perhaps even ejectors to collect surface.
A rendezvous / orbital insertion — far more difficult; you’d have to match velocities with an object moving at interstellar speeds, likely beyond current propulsion capacity.
Possibly a crash probe or sample-return attempt — extremely speculative.
The closer the approach, the richer the data, but the risk also increases (collision, dust, communication loss, etc.).
3. Shockers, Discoveries & Risks
If the intercept succeeded, some possible “shocking” outcomes:
Uncommon composition — finding materials, isotopic ratios, or molecular signatures not previously observed in solar system comets.
Unexpected internal structure — finds of hollow cavities, layered accumulations, or metallic centers, which could stoke speculation of artificial origin.
Anomalies in activity — unusual jets, unexpected outbursts, or extreme behavior when warmed by the Sun.
Signals — in a crazier scenario, observation of electromagnetic or radio anomalies (although such assertions would have to be extraordinary evidence).
Probe damage — high-impact dust might render instruments inoperable; thermal stress, radiation exposure, or outgassing might disturb trajectories.
The more cautious scientific anticipation is that 3I/ATLAS–type objects are natural comets or icy bodies, with aberrations but nothing "alien spacecraft" scale.
No confirmed public NASA intercept has occurred.
Concepts such as the Juno-based intercept remain the subject of theoretical proposals.
Telescope observations (Hubble, JWST) have helped hone our size estimates, bound composition (particularly CO₂ predominance), and followed its orbit.
NASA and scientists have officially dismissed wild speculation that 3I/ATLAS is clearly man-made or a spaceship. They point out that the object's nature is in line with a comet (albeit with peculiar characteristics).
One rumor or speculative piece said that an object "100× larger than 3I/ATLAS just arrived" — probably misinterpretation or a sensationalized head rather than an established scientific fact. (I couldn't find a credible source to confirm that.)
Scientists are agnostic and skeptical. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Why This Story Engages Imagination
Alien potential: The bigger or more anomalous the object, the more people wonder about extraterrestrial intelligence.
Intercept drama: The idea of “us chasing an interstellar visitor” is straight out of science fiction — thrilling, risky, visionary.
Unknown frontier: We’ve barely scratched the surface of understanding interstellar objects; each new one may widen our understanding of the universe.
Media amplification: Press and social media love shocking headlines (“NASA battles alien artifact,” etc.), even when the actual science is more grounded.
The argument "NASA simply attempted to intercept something 100× larger than 3I/ATLAS" has no credible scientific evidence so far.
This is true in the sense that NASA and scientists are considering intercept proposals for 3I/ATLAS and studying it with powerful telescopes.
If an intercept mission were attempted, it would be among the most audacious space missions ever attempted — and most likely provide unexpected findings.
But the "shock" might not be alien contact;
the shock (if any) is more likely in finding nature's unforeseen surprises.
.jpg)
0 Comments