Scott Joseph Kelly is an American retired NASA astronaut, U.S. Navy captain, test pilot, fighter pilot, and former member of NASA's independent UAP study team.123 On NASA's independent UAP study team, he drew on aviation and spaceflight experience to discuss perception, sensor, and data limits in UAP analysis.234
Navy Pilot And NASA Astronaut
NASA's February 2016 biography records that Kelly was born on February 21, 1964, in Orange, New Jersey, graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in 1987, earned a master's degree in aviation systems from the University of Tennessee in 1996, and retired from the U.S. Navy in June 2012.1 Before NASA selected him as an astronaut candidate in April 1996, he flew the F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Hornet at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at Patuxent River, and NASA credits him as the first pilot to fly an F-14 with an experimental digital flight-control system installed.1
Kelly flew four space missions.1 He piloted STS-103 on Space Shuttle Discovery from December 19 to December 27, 1999, commanded STS-118 on Endeavour from August 8 to August 21, 2007, served as a flight engineer on ISS Expedition 25, commanded Expedition 26 after November 24, 2010, and later returned to the station for the year-long ISS mission covering increments 43 through 46.1
Year In Space And Twin Study Context
Kelly and cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko launched for the International Space Station in March 2015 for a 340-day mission designed to study how the human body reacts and adapts to long-duration spaceflight.15 NASA said the mission included almost 400 investigations, three Kelly spacewalks, 5,440 Earth orbits, and work intended to reduce health risks for future exploration beyond low Earth orbit.15
The mission also made Kelly part of NASA's Twins Study because his identical twin brother, former NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, remained on Earth as a comparison subject.56 NASA's Twins Study page says ten investigators coordinated research in four categories to compare Scott and Mark Kelly's shared genetics under different environments, and NASA's 2019 results release said the study compared retired astronaut Scott Kelly in space with retired astronaut Mark Kelly on Earth.67
How UAP Entered His Public Record
NASA announced a new unidentified aerial phenomena study on June 9, 2022, defining UAP as observations in the sky that could not be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena and stating that the study would examine the subject scientifically.2 The same media advisory said UAP mattered for national security and air safety, while NASA also stated that there was no evidence UAP were extraterrestrial in origin.2
Kelly's documented UAP relevance began on October 21, 2022, when NASA named him as one of 16 members of the NASA UAP Study Team.8 NASA said the study would begin on October 24, focus only on unclassified data, identify how civilian, commercial, and other data could be analyzed, and recommend a roadmap for future NASA UAP data analysis.8 NASA's announcement framed Kelly's selection around his astronaut record, ISS command experience, Shuttle Discovery Hubble-servicing flight, F-14 and Navy background, and year-long station mission.8
The team was chaired by David Spergel, with Daniel Evans at NASA Headquarters as the official responsible for orchestrating the study.83 NASA's UAP resource page describes the study as an external scientific forum for community expertise, future data collection, scientific analysis techniques, civilian airspace data, reporting protocols, and possible NASA contributions to UAP understanding.3
Aviation Perception And Sensor Limits
At the May 31, 2023 public meeting, Kelly addressed how trained observers can misread objects in flight environments.34 Space.com reported that he described an F-14 episode in which his radar intercept officer thought the crew had passed a UFO, but after they turned around to inspect it, the object was "Bart Simpson, a balloon."4
Kelly later told Space.com that extraordinary UAP claims require extraordinary evidence, that eyewitness testimony can motivate investigation but is not enough for a scientific conclusion, and that flying over water or operating in space can make speed, size, and distance hard to judge because reference points are missing.4 He also used shuttle ice and the Gimbal video as examples of ordinary or sensor-based explanations that can look anomalous without better context.4
Role On The NASA UAP Panel
In the Space.com interview, Kelly encouraged reporting unusual observations because safety issues can be real, but he also said the most compelling unclassified cases remained interesting stories until supported by real evidence.4
NASA's final report lists Kelly as "Capt. Scott Kelly, USN, Ret., NASA Astronaut, Ret." among the panelists.9 The report says the team was asked to identify available data and produce a roadmap for future usable data, not review previous UAP incidents.9
Official Evidence Limits
The NASA report states that most UAP observations can be attributed to known phenomena or occurrences, and that the central problem is often the absence of the data needed to explain the remaining anomalous reports.9 It says eyewitness reports can be interesting and compelling, but on their own are not reproducible and usually lack the information needed for definitive conclusions about provenance.9
The report also places NASA in a supporting role within the broader government framework led by AARO, while recommending calibrated sensors, better metadata, multiple measurements, rigorous reporting, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and stigma reduction.9 On extraterrestrial origin, the report says peer-reviewed scientific literature contained no conclusive evidence for an extraterrestrial origin for UAP and treated that hypothesis as a last-resort explanation after other possibilities are ruled out.9
AARO said in its 2024 historical record report that it found no evidence that any U.S. government investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel had confirmed a UAP sighting as extraterrestrial technology, and no empirical evidence that the U.S. government or private companies had reverse-engineered extraterrestrial technology.10