"Fitzsimmons, A., Snodgrass, C., Rozitis, B. et al. Spectroscopy and thermal modelling of the first interstellar object 1I/2017 U1 ‘Oumuamua. Nat Astron 2, 133–

"Fitzsimmons, A., Snodgrass, C., Rozitis, B. et al. Spectroscopy and thermal modelling of the first interstellar object 1I/2017 U1 ‘Oumuamua. Nat Astron 2, 133–137 (2018)" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0361-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0361-4 "Here, we report spectroscopic characterization of ‘Oumuamua, finding it to be variable with time but similar to organically rich surfaces found in the outer Solar System. We show that this is consistent with predictions of an insulating mantle produced by long-term cosmic ray exposure4" Which means that it can be concluded that: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/11/08/aliens-is-not-a-scientific-explanation-for-interstellar-asteroid-%CA%BBoumuamua/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/11/08/alie... "The spectral signature of the object, its color, reflectivity, and other properties are consistent with a natural, rather than intelligent alien, origin." But it's really fun to imagine "alien" possibilities and all the arguments that could support that; Loeb's page with his related papers: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/Oumuamua.html https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/Oumuamua.html The object is already out of our reach and we should just be ready to make more observations of the next objects with such trajectories (that one was really the first in our history!), and make even more precise measurements in the future. If "aliens" in this specific case would help to have more money being redirected to scientific astronomical investigations than now, then maybe it can be OK to talk about these "possible alien" aspects too. What's still wrong is to mix these tiny possibilities with most of the "commercial" uses of "aliens" which actually sell really unscientific and really stupid stuff, like "Ancient Aliens" and similar.