Research Department Reviews NASA

Research Department would like to clarify that the employee had not intended to investigate the Sun.

The employee had merely asked a simple question.

Unfortunately, Research Department considered the question interesting.

This significantly complicated matters.

The employee located one NASA article.

The article referenced another article.

The second article referenced several scientific papers.

The scientific papers referenced additional scientific papers.

Research Department considered this excellent customer service.

Several hours later, the employee possessed opinions regarding solar plasma, magnetic reconnection, coronal heating, Parker Solar Probe, solar cycles, Earth’s magnetic field, auroras, space weather, and approximately seventeen words the employee had never intended to learn how to pronounce.

Management requested a progress report.

Research Department requested another browser tab.

The employee continued reading.

Research Department noticed an interesting pattern.

Scientists appeared unusually comfortable using phrases such as,

“We do not yet understand…”

“The mechanism remains unknown…”

“Further investigation is required…”

Research Department found this oddly comforting.

The employee had been saying exactly the same thing for years.

NASA launched a spacecraft toward the Sun.

Research Department launched questions.

Both missions rapidly exceeded their original objectives.

The employee eventually developed a larger question.

What if humanity was not merely observing history…

…but living through it?

Research Department would also like to remind Management that humanity has maintained an entire category of literature commonly referred to as prophecy.

Apparently people have been wondering about the future for thousands of years.

Several books have been written on the subject.

The employee reviewed one in particular.

The employee noticed descriptions involving the heavens, signs in the sky, darkness, and events that appeared considerably larger than everyday life.

Research Department became curious.

The employee asked a simple question.

“Could we be witnessing events that future generations will eventually recognize in hindsight?”

Management contacted NASA.

NASA replied,

“The spacecraft is very small.”

Research Department reviewed the response.

The employee had not asked about the spacecraft’s dimensions.

The employee had not expressed concern regarding Parker’s height.

The employee had not suggested the spacecraft required a larger engine.

The employee had asked whether humanity occasionally fails to recognize history while history is still occurring.

NASA again replied,

“The spacecraft is very small.”

Research Department made a note.

Apparently size had become the official answer.

Research Department conducted a brief review.

Viruses are small.

Atoms are small.

DNA is small.

Microchips are small.

One sentence is small.

One decision is small.

One spark is small.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that “small” and “insignificant” are not interchangeable.

Research Department acknowledged that this observation did not answer the employee’s original question.

It merely eliminated one remarkably unhelpful response.

Management asked whether Research Department believed humanity was witnessing the end of mankind.

Research Department considered the question.

Research Department looked toward the Sun.

Research Department closed the notebook.

The employee replied,

“I don’t know.”

“I just wonder…”

“…if future history books begin with the words, ‘In retrospect,’”

“…whether anyone alive at the time realized they were already reading Chapter One.”

Research Department recommends continued observation.

Management recommends less internet.

The employee opened another browser tab.

In the meantime, Parker the Probe is still trying to taste the Sun.