Space Nuts: Q&A on the Swift Satellite, Redshift, and Hypothetical White Holes
In this engaging Q&A edition of Space Nuts , hosts Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson dive into a myriad of intriguing questions posed by listeners. From the fate of the Swift satellite to the mysteries of redshift and the speculative nature of white holes, this episode covers a wide range of cosmic curiosities.
Key topics include:
- The fate of the Swift satellite and the challenges faced by the Link mission meant to boost its orbit.
- An exploration of redshift and the implications of energy loss in distant light.
- Insights into the temperature variations on the Moon and the potential for human habitation beneath its surface.
- A thought-provoking discussion on the hypothetical merger of black holes and white holes, and what that could mean for our understanding of the universe.
Join Andrew and Fred Watson as they tackle these questions with their signature blend of humour and expertise, providing listeners with a deeper understanding of the cosmos.
00:00 - This is where the audience asks us questions, we scratch our heads
01:20 - Do you always record on the same day and time
02:56 - What are your thoughts on the red dots as seen by James Webb Telescope
06:33 - A spacecraft called Link will boost the decaying orbit of the Swift satellite
14:08 - Is distant light redshifted? What happens to the lost energy
16:18 - Professor Fred Watson discusses Apollo 13 problems in Q and A edition
17:19 - Fenton from Minnesota has a question about the temperature on the moon
23:13 - European astrobiologist working on Roslyn Franklin rover on Mars
26:03 - Fred Watson asks what would happen if a white hole merged with a black hole
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/space-nuts-astronomy-insights-cosmic-discoveries--2631155/support (https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/space-nuts-astronomy-insights-cosmic-discoveries--2631155/support?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss) .
Episode link: https://play.headliner.app/episode/35136046?utm_source=youtube
00:00:00 --> 00:00:01 Hello again. Thank you for joining us on
00:00:01 --> 00:00:03 a Q&A edition of Space Nuts. This is
00:00:04 --> 00:00:06 where the audience asks us questions. We
00:00:06 --> 00:00:08 scratch our heads and it's all over in
00:00:08 --> 00:00:11 about a minute. Um but uh if we are to
00:00:11 --> 00:00:14 answer questions, we may well uh um
00:00:14 --> 00:00:16 answer the question as to how they're
00:00:16 --> 00:00:20 going to save the Swiss uh the Swift
00:00:20 --> 00:00:22 observatory, which as you might recall
00:00:22 --> 00:00:24 in a previous episode was under threat
00:00:24 --> 00:00:27 of um you know coming back into the
00:00:27 --> 00:00:28 Earth's atmosphere and being lost
00:00:28 --> 00:00:31 forever. Well, uh, James, who asked a
00:00:31 --> 00:00:32 question, is going to be in for a bit of
00:00:32 --> 00:00:35 a shock on that one. Uh, also a followup
00:00:35 --> 00:00:37 on red shift. We're going to look at
00:00:37 --> 00:00:40 temperatures of the moon and a white
00:00:40 --> 00:00:43 hole black hole merger. What would be
00:00:43 --> 00:00:46 the effect? Fred knows. We'll ask him on
00:00:46 --> 00:00:48 this edition of Space Nuts.
00:00:48 --> 00:00:53 >> 15 seconds. Guidance is internal. 10 9
00:00:53 --> 00:00:55 Ignition sequence start.
00:00:55 --> 00:00:58 >> Space Nuts. 5 4 3 2
00:00:58 --> 00:01:01 >> 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1
00:01:01 --> 00:01:02 >> Space Notes
00:01:02 --> 00:01:04 >> Astronauts reported feels good.
00:01:04 --> 00:01:07 >> And joining us to unr all of those
00:01:07 --> 00:01:10 rattling questions is Professor Fred
00:01:10 --> 00:01:11 Watson, astronomer at large. Hello,
00:01:11 --> 00:01:12 Fred.
00:01:12 --> 00:01:14 >> Hello, Andrew. Fancy.
00:01:14 --> 00:01:17 >> Long time long time no see.
00:01:17 --> 00:01:20 >> Yes. Um I a question without notice. Do
00:01:20 --> 00:01:22 you always record on the same day and
00:01:22 --> 00:01:27 time? No. No, we don't. No, it's uh it's
00:01:27 --> 00:01:29 never that easy.
00:01:29 --> 00:01:31 That was an easy one to answer.
00:01:31 --> 00:01:34 >> Is that from our live uh audience?
00:01:34 --> 00:01:36 >> Yes, that's from Moose. Good day, Moose.
00:01:36 --> 00:01:37 >> Yeah, hi.
00:01:37 --> 00:01:39 >> But uh No, no, we don't. Um it it all
00:01:39 --> 00:01:43 comes down to who's available on
00:01:43 --> 00:01:46 whatever given day and uh today was the
00:01:46 --> 00:01:49 day. But uh no, it's it's it it sort of
00:01:49 --> 00:01:50 jumps around. Sometimes we have to
00:01:50 --> 00:01:53 double up. In fact, um this is the first
00:01:53 --> 00:01:56 time we've actually recorded together
00:01:56 --> 00:01:58 for over a month
00:01:58 --> 00:02:00 >> because Fred was traveling and we we had
00:02:00 --> 00:02:03 to double up for um quite a few weeks to
00:02:03 --> 00:02:06 get ahead and um we didn't quite make it
00:02:06 --> 00:02:08 which is why Jonty covered things for
00:02:08 --> 00:02:10 the last couple of weeks. But uh we we
00:02:10 --> 00:02:13 generally try to do it in the morning so
00:02:13 --> 00:02:15 that we can catch the evening viewers in
00:02:16 --> 00:02:18 the United States which um works out
00:02:18 --> 00:02:21 pretty well for most. Then most of the
00:02:21 --> 00:02:22 people in this part of the world are at
00:02:22 --> 00:02:24 work. So
00:02:24 --> 00:02:26 >> it's lose lose basically. You can't
00:02:26 --> 00:02:28 cater for the entire world at one given
00:02:28 --> 00:02:31 moment. But that's that's that's the way
00:02:31 --> 00:02:33 it goes. If we could sort of just have
00:02:33 --> 00:02:34 one time zone with daylight everywhere
00:02:34 --> 00:02:36 all the time, it would make it easier.
00:02:36 --> 00:02:37 But um yeah, they're still working on
00:02:37 --> 00:02:40 that. And I'm not joking, they are still
00:02:40 --> 00:02:41 working on that. They're trying to put
00:02:41 --> 00:02:43 up these big mirrors and I don't know
00:02:43 --> 00:02:45 what else. It's weird.
00:02:45 --> 00:02:48 >> Um do you want to tackle some questions,
00:02:48 --> 00:02:51 Fred? Yes, please. Thank you. Um,
00:02:51 --> 00:02:53 actually, we do have a live question
00:02:53 --> 00:02:55 straight up, so we'll we'll might jump
00:02:55 --> 00:02:56 straight at that one. What are your
00:02:56 --> 00:02:59 thoughts on the red dots as seen by the
00:02:59 --> 00:03:02 James Webb telescope? Asks good.
00:03:02 --> 00:03:04 Interestingly, they're in the news at
00:03:04 --> 00:03:06 the moment because there there was a
00:03:06 --> 00:03:08 story I only read just before we we came
00:03:08 --> 00:03:10 on live to suggest that they think
00:03:10 --> 00:03:12 they're about to witness a red dot
00:03:12 --> 00:03:14 merger.
00:03:14 --> 00:03:14 >> Okay.
00:03:14 --> 00:03:15 >> Interestingly,
00:03:16 --> 00:03:19 >> yeah. Um so they are being well studied
00:03:19 --> 00:03:22 uh and one of them
00:03:22 --> 00:03:24 in particular
00:03:24 --> 00:03:26 uh which has a name it's I think it's
00:03:26 --> 00:03:31 called BH star one BH star is an
00:03:31 --> 00:03:35 abbreviation for black hole star one uh
00:03:35 --> 00:03:39 and um it this is a little red dot that
00:03:40 --> 00:03:43 unlike many of the other ones is in a
00:03:43 --> 00:03:46 relatively empty environment. So uh
00:03:46 --> 00:03:48 let's just recap what are little red
00:03:48 --> 00:03:50 dots there. What the the penetrating
00:03:50 --> 00:03:52 power of the James Web telescope has
00:03:52 --> 00:03:55 revealed for the first time uh in the
00:03:55 --> 00:03:57 early universe at a time when the
00:03:57 --> 00:03:59 universe was only you know few hundred
00:03:59 --> 00:04:01 million years old. We see these objects
00:04:02 --> 00:04:03 which have now got the name of little
00:04:03 --> 00:04:08 red dots. Um they're compact uh and they
00:04:08 --> 00:04:11 are quite bright in terms of the amount
00:04:11 --> 00:04:15 of energy that they uh emit. And I think
00:04:15 --> 00:04:19 BH star one, if I remember rightly, it's
00:04:19 --> 00:04:21 100 billion times brighter than it
00:04:21 --> 00:04:22 should be.
00:04:22 --> 00:04:23 >> Whoa.
00:04:23 --> 00:04:26 >> Uh, and but that's leading to
00:04:26 --> 00:04:29 the suggestion that what we're seeing
00:04:29 --> 00:04:30 here
00:04:30 --> 00:04:34 is a star which uh is basically a cloud
00:04:34 --> 00:04:38 of gas with a super massive black hole
00:04:38 --> 00:04:41 at its center. So if you think about our
00:04:42 --> 00:04:44 knowledge of galaxies, most of which
00:04:44 --> 00:04:46 seem to have super massive black holes
00:04:46 --> 00:04:48 at their center. They're made of stars.
00:04:48 --> 00:04:50 Uh that star formation process takes
00:04:50 --> 00:04:53 place over billions of years. Um and we
00:04:53 --> 00:04:55 used to think that it took a long time
00:04:55 --> 00:04:57 for these black holes to become super
00:04:57 --> 00:05:01 massive by you know them being basically
00:05:01 --> 00:05:04 gobbling up each other uh gobbling up
00:05:04 --> 00:05:05 material so that they became super
00:05:05 --> 00:05:08 massive. But we see super massive black
00:05:08 --> 00:05:10 holes now. so early in the universe and
00:05:10 --> 00:05:13 it looks as though BH star 1 has got one
00:05:13 --> 00:05:15 at its center. I think it's 50 or
00:05:15 --> 00:05:17 thereabouts times the mass of the sun. I
00:05:17 --> 00:05:19 can't remember the details. Um I've had
00:05:19 --> 00:05:22 an operation since I read all that. Uh
00:05:22 --> 00:05:26 the um the the so the um uh the evidence
00:05:26 --> 00:05:29 seems to be that we are seeing a new
00:05:29 --> 00:05:33 class of object uh essentially a galaxy
00:05:33 --> 00:05:35 something not the size of a galaxy
00:05:35 --> 00:05:37 because their dimensions are kind of
00:05:37 --> 00:05:38 solar system size. They're much bigger
00:05:38 --> 00:05:40 than the solar system, but they're
00:05:40 --> 00:05:43 clouds of gas. And we think that they
00:05:43 --> 00:05:47 are energized by the accretion disc, the
00:05:47 --> 00:05:50 way material is swirling around the
00:05:50 --> 00:05:52 black hole at their center. And that's
00:05:52 --> 00:05:54 raising temperatures in the middle to
00:05:54 --> 00:05:56 very high degrees. And so you get very
00:05:56 --> 00:05:59 high levels of energy emission, which is
00:05:59 --> 00:06:01 why they're said to be 100 billion times
00:06:01 --> 00:06:03 brighter than they should be. So, it
00:06:03 --> 00:06:05 looks as though we're on the track of
00:06:06 --> 00:06:07 identifying these little red dots as
00:06:08 --> 00:06:10 something quite new and kind of
00:06:10 --> 00:06:12 unexpected. I'm sure they were predicted
00:06:12 --> 00:06:15 that we'd find uh stars made basically
00:06:15 --> 00:06:18 of nothing but gas in a black hole uh
00:06:18 --> 00:06:21 rather than, you know, other stars. Uh
00:06:21 --> 00:06:23 and um that seems to be what they are.
00:06:23 --> 00:06:24 So,
00:06:24 --> 00:06:25 >> yeah,
00:06:25 --> 00:06:29 >> watch for space though. Um you know,
00:06:29 --> 00:06:30 >> yes, Moose. Thanks.
00:06:30 --> 00:06:32 >> No, it wasn't moose. It was good. Sorry.
00:06:32 --> 00:06:34 Um but thanks for the question. Uh we
00:06:34 --> 00:06:36 got an audio question now. This is from
00:06:36 --> 00:06:38 James.
00:06:38 --> 00:06:38 >> Hi.
00:06:38 --> 00:06:41 >> This is James in higham England. So as
00:06:41 --> 00:06:44 of the 6th of July, there's a spacecraft
00:06:44 --> 00:06:46 called link which will boost the
00:06:46 --> 00:06:50 decaying orbit of the Swift satellite.
00:06:50 --> 00:06:53 What will it do to boost the orbit? And
00:06:53 --> 00:06:55 what even does that mean to boost an
00:06:55 --> 00:06:59 orbit? Um, I guess I assume that pushing
00:06:59 --> 00:07:02 it from underneath might not be the
00:07:02 --> 00:07:05 answer. So, look forward to hearing how
00:07:05 --> 00:07:08 it might actually do that. Thanks,
00:07:08 --> 00:07:09 James.
00:07:09 --> 00:07:11 >> Thank you, James. Hope all is well in I
00:07:11 --> 00:07:13 think you said how in the UK.
00:07:13 --> 00:07:14 >> Hi, Wickham.
00:07:15 --> 00:07:16 >> All right.
00:07:16 --> 00:07:19 >> Okay. Could have been either.
00:07:19 --> 00:07:21 >> Um, we've got some bad news for you,
00:07:22 --> 00:07:25 James, I'm afraid. Haven't we Fred?
00:07:25 --> 00:07:28 >> Yeah. So it it's uh it is it's really
00:07:28 --> 00:07:33 sad because um this project has been a
00:07:33 --> 00:07:35 bit of a poster child for NASA because
00:07:35 --> 00:07:38 normally their projects take decades to
00:07:38 --> 00:07:40 come into fruition. But they've they
00:07:40 --> 00:07:44 tasked a company uh something like a
00:07:44 --> 00:07:48 with a year's notice or something uh to
00:07:48 --> 00:07:51 uh develop a spacecraft uh and actually
00:07:51 --> 00:07:53 um
00:07:53 --> 00:07:56 basically work out how you could rescue
00:07:56 --> 00:07:58 the Swift spacecraft. So the story is
00:07:58 --> 00:08:02 Swift is uh an an elderly spacecraft
00:08:02 --> 00:08:05 launched in 2004 to study gammaray
00:08:05 --> 00:08:08 bursts but it's been so successful uh
00:08:08 --> 00:08:13 that there was a real I guess desire to
00:08:13 --> 00:08:15 uh to save it because its orbit is
00:08:15 --> 00:08:19 decaying and as of later this year we
00:08:19 --> 00:08:22 expect it its orbit will actually get so
00:08:22 --> 00:08:24 much atmospheric drag that it will decay
00:08:24 --> 00:08:26 very quickly and the spacecraft the
00:08:26 --> 00:08:28 Swift spacecraft craft will burn up in
00:08:28 --> 00:08:32 the atmosphere. So, um the link mission
00:08:32 --> 00:08:36 uh was a joint uh project between NASA
00:08:36 --> 00:08:39 and a company called Catalyst Catalyst
00:08:39 --> 00:08:42 Space. Uh and indeed, the link
00:08:42 --> 00:08:46 spacecraft was launched on July the 3 um
00:08:46 --> 00:08:49 uh with every intention of rendevuing
00:08:49 --> 00:08:51 with the Swift spacecraft and and
00:08:51 --> 00:08:53 lifting its orbit. And I'll get on to
00:08:53 --> 00:08:54 that in a minute because that's
00:08:54 --> 00:08:57 basically uh James's question. Uh but
00:08:57 --> 00:08:59 what happened was um they had an
00:08:59 --> 00:09:03 attitude control issue. Uh and so very
00:09:03 --> 00:09:06 quickly the
00:09:06 --> 00:09:09 probably within weeks uh link the
00:09:09 --> 00:09:11 spacecraft that was going to save just
00:09:12 --> 00:09:15 started tumbling out of control. Um and
00:09:15 --> 00:09:18 we got an announcement uh very soon
00:09:18 --> 00:09:20 after that that the spacecraft would not
00:09:20 --> 00:09:23 capture or boost the Swift satellites
00:09:23 --> 00:09:25 altitude as planned.
00:09:25 --> 00:09:31 Um, I think they're still attempting to
00:09:31 --> 00:09:34 rendevu with Swift. In other words, to
00:09:34 --> 00:09:38 bring the link spacecraft close to Swift
00:09:38 --> 00:09:40 just to check that all their
00:09:40 --> 00:09:43 capabilities in terms of rendevous uh
00:09:43 --> 00:09:46 are working, but because of this out of
00:09:46 --> 00:09:49 control tumbling um they're not going to
00:09:49 --> 00:09:54 be able to do anything uh on that. Um so
00:09:54 --> 00:09:57 um it's turning into a mission that it's
00:09:57 --> 00:10:00 a face saving mission in a way. Uh there
00:10:00 --> 00:10:03 is a nice piece on uh our old friend
00:10:03 --> 00:10:05 Universe Today. Uh they've got a nice
00:10:05 --> 00:10:07 piece on it called NASA announces next
00:10:07 --> 00:10:10 steps for Swift rescue mission and it
00:10:10 --> 00:10:13 has a lot of quotes from uh people like
00:10:13 --> 00:10:15 uh the NASA administrator Jared Isaacman
00:10:15 --> 00:10:18 uh and and other people involved. uh
00:10:18 --> 00:10:21 Catalyst Space have released a statement
00:10:21 --> 00:10:24 um all of which is you know basically
00:10:24 --> 00:10:26 saying that they they they'd hope for
00:10:26 --> 00:10:29 more science from Swift um I think this
00:10:30 --> 00:10:34 is a comment from Shan Domagel Goldman
00:10:34 --> 00:10:36 who's director of astrophysics at NASA
00:10:36 --> 00:10:37 who says we were all hoping for more
00:10:37 --> 00:10:39 science from Swift but we knew the
00:10:39 --> 00:10:41 takeaways from this mission would be
00:10:41 --> 00:10:43 worthwhile either way we've gained so
00:10:43 --> 00:10:44 much through the series of
00:10:44 --> 00:10:46 accomplishments up to this point
00:10:46 --> 00:10:48 building testing and operating ing this
00:10:48 --> 00:10:50 mission has already strengthened
00:10:50 --> 00:10:52 America's space industry pipeline
00:10:52 --> 00:10:54 advancing in space servicing
00:10:54 --> 00:10:57 capabilities in completely new ways and
00:10:57 --> 00:10:58 I think that's a reflection of the fact
00:10:58 --> 00:11:00 that this was all done in double quick
00:11:00 --> 00:11:03 time uh even though it's in the end not
00:11:03 --> 00:11:06 succeeded um it has been a mission from
00:11:06 --> 00:11:09 which people have learned a lot so just
00:11:09 --> 00:11:13 going back to James' question how do you
00:11:13 --> 00:11:15 boost uh the orbit or increase the orbit
00:11:15 --> 00:11:17 of a spacecraft
00:11:17 --> 00:11:19 What you have to do is you have to
00:11:19 --> 00:11:23 increase its velocity. And so um what I
00:11:23 --> 00:11:25 think the link spacecraft would have
00:11:25 --> 00:11:28 done would have been and I think it had
00:11:28 --> 00:11:31 three arms that could grapple onto Swift
00:11:31 --> 00:11:34 onto hard points on Swift's sort of
00:11:34 --> 00:11:36 fuselage what they call the bus the main
00:11:36 --> 00:11:39 part of the satellite. So I think it was
00:11:39 --> 00:11:41 three that it would grab hold of and
00:11:41 --> 00:11:45 then you use the link uh thrusters to
00:11:45 --> 00:11:49 apply a a velocity or an acceleration
00:11:49 --> 00:11:51 essentially in the direction of travel.
00:11:51 --> 00:11:53 Uh because remember all satellites are
00:11:53 --> 00:11:55 essentially traveling horizontally.
00:11:55 --> 00:11:58 They're they're all moving in orbits
00:11:58 --> 00:11:59 that are parallel to the earth.
00:11:59 --> 00:12:01 >> Of course it's the fact that the earth's
00:12:01 --> 00:12:02 a sphere that means the orbit is a
00:12:02 --> 00:12:05 circle. Um so what you do is you boost
00:12:05 --> 00:12:10 its velocity and what that does is it
00:12:10 --> 00:12:14 raises what we call the apogee. So it
00:12:14 --> 00:12:16 elongates the ellipse that the
00:12:16 --> 00:12:18 spacecraft is that the spacecraft orbit
00:12:18 --> 00:12:23 is in. Um, so you you boost its velocity
00:12:23 --> 00:12:26 and you get an extended ellipse and the
00:12:26 --> 00:12:27 near part of the ellipse, what we call
00:12:27 --> 00:12:30 perigee, the part closest to the earth,
00:12:30 --> 00:12:31 it's sort of where you started from,
00:12:31 --> 00:12:33 that's still at the same height, but
00:12:33 --> 00:12:36 you've given the far part um the apogee
00:12:36 --> 00:12:39 a much higher radius. And then what you
00:12:39 --> 00:12:44 do is uh at the apogee, you boost it
00:12:44 --> 00:12:46 again. You boost the velocity again. And
00:12:46 --> 00:12:49 that lifts the perigee. that actually
00:12:49 --> 00:12:51 lifts the near point. So, it's a
00:12:51 --> 00:12:53 two-step process. Uh, but it's all about
00:12:53 --> 00:12:55 just increasing the velocity of the
00:12:55 --> 00:12:57 spacecraft and that automatically lifts
00:12:57 --> 00:12:59 the orbit uh in a way that I've
00:12:59 --> 00:13:01 described.
00:13:01 --> 00:13:03 >> That's how it works in theory, James. It
00:13:03 --> 00:13:05 uh unfortunately didn't happen. The
00:13:05 --> 00:13:07 rescue missions failed, but uh the good
00:13:07 --> 00:13:10 news is Swift will continue to operate.
00:13:10 --> 00:13:12 Uh they've restarted um its
00:13:12 --> 00:13:15 observations. Uh but it is in a very
00:13:15 --> 00:13:19 rapid uh decaying orbit and they expect
00:13:19 --> 00:13:24 re-entry late uh well not so long now.
00:13:24 --> 00:13:27 Late this year late we're we're entering
00:13:27 --> 00:13:29 late this year already. So
00:13:29 --> 00:13:31 >> that's right. Yeah.
00:13:31 --> 00:13:33 >> Only got a couple of months to live
00:13:33 --> 00:13:35 unfortunately. They couldn't save it.
00:13:35 --> 00:13:40 But um yeah that it w it I I guess they
00:13:40 --> 00:13:42 were very hopeful but um it was a pretty
00:13:42 --> 00:13:45 last minute thing to try and do and um
00:13:45 --> 00:13:49 it just didn't work out unfortunately.
00:13:49 --> 00:13:51 Um got a message from Europe as well.
00:13:52 --> 00:13:53 Someone's up at 4:00 a.m. and I asked
00:13:53 --> 00:13:55 why and he said my little toddler woke
00:13:55 --> 00:13:59 me up. They do that. They do that. But
00:13:59 --> 00:14:02 um anyway, glad you found us. Uh thank
00:14:02 --> 00:14:04 you James for the question. Uh we'll
00:14:04 --> 00:14:05 move straight onto our next question
00:14:05 --> 00:14:08 from Dale who's in New Zealand. Uh he's
00:14:08 --> 00:14:10 referring to a question that came from
00:14:10 --> 00:14:12 Roger the the trucker which uh I think
00:14:12 --> 00:14:15 we covered a few weeks ago. Um who asked
00:14:15 --> 00:14:18 is distant light redshifted? What
00:14:18 --> 00:14:21 happens to the lost energy? And Dale
00:14:21 --> 00:14:24 says surely no energy is lost. Isn't it
00:14:24 --> 00:14:27 just stretched?
00:14:27 --> 00:14:30 Yes, that's right. So, excuse me. But
00:14:30 --> 00:14:32 but longer wavelength, which is what you
00:14:32 --> 00:14:38 stretch it into, um means uh means that
00:14:38 --> 00:14:41 the energy that's carried is less.
00:14:41 --> 00:14:45 Uh and it's I guess it it's like you
00:14:45 --> 00:14:47 know the partic the the particle wave
00:14:47 --> 00:14:49 dual duality, the fact that we can think
00:14:50 --> 00:14:51 of light as both a particle and as a
00:14:51 --> 00:14:53 wave. You can think of it as a particle
00:14:54 --> 00:14:56 with certain energy, a photon. Uh or you
00:14:56 --> 00:14:58 can think of it as a wave with a certain
00:14:58 --> 00:14:59 wavelength. And the longer the
00:14:59 --> 00:15:01 wavelength, the lower the energy. So we
00:15:01 --> 00:15:03 talk about high energy astrophysics as
00:15:03 --> 00:15:05 being things that where we use gamma
00:15:05 --> 00:15:10 rays and x-rays to to probe space. So um
00:15:10 --> 00:15:13 I I do remember we looked at this
00:15:13 --> 00:15:15 question and got a number of different
00:15:15 --> 00:15:19 answers. um most of which were don't
00:15:19 --> 00:15:22 worry about it,
00:15:22 --> 00:15:25 which is kind of uh kind of what our
00:15:25 --> 00:15:28 listener is is saying, don't worry about
00:15:28 --> 00:15:32 it. It'll be all right. Um it, you know,
00:15:32 --> 00:15:34 there is a suggestion that some of that
00:15:34 --> 00:15:37 energy uh effectively goes into raising
00:15:37 --> 00:15:39 the background temperature of the
00:15:39 --> 00:15:41 universe by a tiny gazillionth of a
00:15:42 --> 00:15:44 degree. Uh but there's another point of
00:15:44 --> 00:15:46 view. It's interesting. It's worth, you
00:15:46 --> 00:15:48 know, having a look and uh going down
00:15:48 --> 00:15:50 the rabbit hole. I haven't had time to
00:15:50 --> 00:15:54 do that again. Um but um uh yeah, go
00:15:54 --> 00:15:55 down the rabbit hole and and have a look
00:15:55 --> 00:15:57 at what people think about the energy
00:15:57 --> 00:16:01 loss uh from um the red shift. Energy is
00:16:01 --> 00:16:03 lost. It goes somewhere. Uh because the
00:16:03 --> 00:16:06 universe is a closed system. My
00:16:06 --> 00:16:08 understanding as was always that it
00:16:08 --> 00:16:09 basically heats the cosmic microwave
00:16:10 --> 00:16:12 background very very slightly. That
00:16:12 --> 00:16:14 makes sense. Yes. Hope that answers your
00:16:14 --> 00:16:16 question, Dale. Thanks for sending it in
00:16:16 --> 00:16:18 and hope all is well in New Zealand.
00:16:18 --> 00:16:20 This is Space Nuts. Andrew Dunley here
00:16:20 --> 00:16:23 on a Q&A edition with Professor Fred
00:16:23 --> 00:16:26 Watson.
00:16:26 --> 00:16:28 >> Okay, we've had a problem here.
00:16:28 --> 00:16:30 >> This is Houston. Say again, please.
00:16:30 --> 00:16:31 >> Houston, we've had a problem. We've had
00:16:31 --> 00:16:34 a main
00:16:34 --> 00:16:35 standby. We're looking at it.
00:16:35 --> 00:16:38 >> Space. I'm going to let a cat out of a
00:16:38 --> 00:16:41 bag here, Fred, in my um new trilogy
00:16:41 --> 00:16:43 that it's just been released and I think
00:16:43 --> 00:16:45 I've sold one copy.
00:16:45 --> 00:16:47 >> Um
00:16:47 --> 00:16:49 the main Bus undervolt problem on Apollo
00:16:49 --> 00:16:50 13.
00:16:50 --> 00:16:51 >> All right.
00:16:51 --> 00:16:53 >> I I used that in I used that in one of
00:16:53 --> 00:16:54 the books
00:16:54 --> 00:16:56 >> just for fun.
00:16:56 --> 00:16:57 >> Love it.
00:16:57 --> 00:16:58 >> Yeah.
00:16:58 --> 00:17:01 >> It's nice to put these little little
00:17:01 --> 00:17:02 snippets in. And I've done that in a few
00:17:02 --> 00:17:04 of my books that put things in it that
00:17:04 --> 00:17:06 probably I'm the only person would know
00:17:06 --> 00:17:08 that I I was alluding to something else.
00:17:08 --> 00:17:11 >> I I do it a lot. I think I've done it a
00:17:11 --> 00:17:13 few times in this series just for fun.
00:17:13 --> 00:17:14 And the people who know will know. The
00:17:14 --> 00:17:16 people who don't will just keep reading
00:17:16 --> 00:17:18 and it'll just be part of the story. So
00:17:18 --> 00:17:19 >> that's right.
00:17:19 --> 00:17:21 >> Yeah. Um let's go to our next question
00:17:21 --> 00:17:23 from one of our regular contributors.
00:17:23 --> 00:17:25 Here is Fenton.
00:17:25 --> 00:17:29 >> Hello Fred and Andrew. This is Fenton
00:17:29 --> 00:17:31 calling you from Minnesota.
00:17:31 --> 00:17:34 Thank you for your podcast. I never miss
00:17:34 --> 00:17:37 an episode for it. I have a question for
00:17:37 --> 00:17:41 you about the temperature on the moon.
00:17:41 --> 00:17:43 Now, it's well known that the
00:17:43 --> 00:17:46 temperature on the surface swings
00:17:46 --> 00:17:49 greatly with the orbit of the moon. But
00:17:49 --> 00:17:52 what about underneath the moon that is
00:17:52 --> 00:17:56 below its surface? How constant is it?
00:17:56 --> 00:17:58 Does it also swing around?
00:17:58 --> 00:18:01 Doesn't matter how deep you go
00:18:01 --> 00:18:05 underneath the moon. This has of course
00:18:05 --> 00:18:07 relevance to putting people on the moon
00:18:08 --> 00:18:12 and living on them. Thank you very much
00:18:12 --> 00:18:14 for the question. Bye now.
00:18:14 --> 00:18:16 >> Thank you Fenton. He brings up a really
00:18:16 --> 00:18:19 good point. We are going to have people
00:18:19 --> 00:18:21 spending time on the moon in the not too
00:18:21 --> 00:18:23 distant future. And some of them will,
00:18:23 --> 00:18:24 you know, they're not just going to go
00:18:24 --> 00:18:27 up and kick the sand and then come home
00:18:27 --> 00:18:28 again like you do when you go to the
00:18:28 --> 00:18:30 beach. They'll be up there for a decent
00:18:30 --> 00:18:33 period of time. Um, I'd say rotating
00:18:33 --> 00:18:36 rosters of of weeks or whatever. Uh, how
00:18:36 --> 00:18:37 are they going to deal with these
00:18:37 --> 00:18:40 temperatures? Because, as far as I
00:18:40 --> 00:18:41 recall,
00:18:41 --> 00:18:43 um, the moon is one of the coldest
00:18:43 --> 00:18:47 places in the solar system, is it not?
00:18:47 --> 00:18:49 >> And the warmest as well. Um, it's
00:18:49 --> 00:18:51 temperature variation. I always get
00:18:51 --> 00:18:52 these figures wrong, but it's it's
00:18:52 --> 00:18:57 almost a 300° C variation from -50 to
00:18:57 --> 00:18:59 plus 150. They're slightly different,
00:18:59 --> 00:19:03 just like do.
00:19:03 --> 00:19:06 >> Yes. Yes. It's a lot like double.
00:19:06 --> 00:19:08 >> No, I think I think our temperature
00:19:08 --> 00:19:10 variations are somewhere around 50
00:19:10 --> 00:19:11 degrees,
00:19:11 --> 00:19:13 >> but it's still Yeah, that's that's
00:19:13 --> 00:19:14 right. That's remarkable.
00:19:14 --> 00:19:16 >> Celsius. Um
00:19:16 --> 00:19:18 >> 50 Celsius. Yes. What's your lowest that
00:19:18 --> 00:19:20 you've ever had?
00:19:20 --> 00:19:22 >> - 7.4,
00:19:22 --> 00:19:23 >> I think.
00:19:23 --> 00:19:23 >> Okay.
00:19:23 --> 00:19:25 >> Which was only a couple of years ago.
00:19:25 --> 00:19:25 >> Yeah.
00:19:25 --> 00:19:27 >> Y
00:19:27 --> 00:19:29 >> something like that.
00:19:29 --> 00:19:33 >> Quite our warmest is 40. No, we got to
00:19:33 --> 00:19:36 50 the year before last. So there you
00:19:36 --> 00:19:41 go. It's 50 50 nearly 58° variation.
00:19:41 --> 00:19:45 Yeah. Yeah. eat your heart out moon
00:19:45 --> 00:19:48 because the moon's much higher and of
00:19:48 --> 00:19:49 course the reason for that is that
00:19:49 --> 00:19:52 there's no atmosphere. So during the day
00:19:52 --> 00:19:54 you've got the sun's radiation beaming
00:19:54 --> 00:19:56 down heating the surface. Uh and it's
00:19:56 --> 00:19:57 the surface temperature that we talk
00:19:58 --> 00:19:59 about when we mean these things well
00:19:59 --> 00:20:02 over 100° and at night that just all
00:20:02 --> 00:20:05 radiates into space. Um and the surface
00:20:06 --> 00:20:09 cools to minusund and something degrees
00:20:09 --> 00:20:10 as well. I can't remember I can never
00:20:10 --> 00:20:11 remember the exact figures. I should
00:20:12 --> 00:20:15 have them in my head. But the good news
00:20:15 --> 00:20:17 is, and I think you know this is what
00:20:17 --> 00:20:21 Fenton's alluding to, is that the the
00:20:21 --> 00:20:23 lunar soil
00:20:23 --> 00:20:26 um is very poor. It's a very poor
00:20:26 --> 00:20:28 conductor of heat.
00:20:28 --> 00:20:32 >> Uh and so that means that, you know, you
00:20:32 --> 00:20:34 don't have to go
00:20:34 --> 00:20:37 down too far to find that those
00:20:37 --> 00:20:40 temperatures even out quite a bit. I'm
00:20:40 --> 00:20:44 reading from um from a an article
00:20:44 --> 00:20:46 actually on lunar surface temperature.
00:20:46 --> 00:20:48 Uh I'm going to quote from it.
00:20:48 --> 00:20:52 Measurements from the Apollo 15 and 17
00:20:52 --> 00:20:57 missions show that temperatures 35 cm
00:20:57 --> 00:20:58 below the surface, that's not much more
00:20:58 --> 00:21:05 than a foot, are 40 to 45° Kelvin warmer
00:21:05 --> 00:21:07 than the minimum surface nighttime
00:21:07 --> 00:21:09 temperature, avoiding the harshest cold.
00:21:09 --> 00:21:11 So it brings it it brings the
00:21:11 --> 00:21:14 temperature up and that's only a foot or
00:21:14 --> 00:21:15 so below the surface.
00:21:15 --> 00:21:15 >> Yeah.
00:21:16 --> 00:21:19 >> And then continuing the same article um
00:21:19 --> 00:21:21 by the time you get to getting on for a
00:21:21 --> 00:21:26 meter 80 cm 30 in if you prefer that
00:21:26 --> 00:21:30 below the surface the day and night
00:21:30 --> 00:21:34 variations are imperceptible.
00:21:34 --> 00:21:37 So that is incredible really that you've
00:21:37 --> 00:21:42 only got to go um you know 80 cm less
00:21:42 --> 00:21:45 than a meter below the surface and the
00:21:45 --> 00:21:47 material there does not see these
00:21:47 --> 00:21:51 enormous swings in temperature. Uh it's
00:21:51 --> 00:21:53 become imperceptible.
00:21:53 --> 00:21:56 Um and then when you get to below a
00:21:56 --> 00:21:59 meter, um then you get an average
00:21:59 --> 00:22:01 temperature which is kind of the average
00:22:01 --> 00:22:03 of the hottest and the coldest. And that
00:22:04 --> 00:22:05 is very nice because it makes it about
00:22:05 --> 00:22:12 20° C or um you know that sort of
00:22:12 --> 00:22:18 basically that uh 20° C is I beg you
00:22:18 --> 00:22:21 pardon. It's minus 20° C, not 20°, but
00:22:22 --> 00:22:27 still within reason. Um, and so there it
00:22:27 --> 00:22:29 means that if you if you can look for
00:22:29 --> 00:22:33 caves and pits in the lunar uh regalith
00:22:33 --> 00:22:35 in the in the lunar soil, then you've
00:22:35 --> 00:22:38 got a really good chance of having a
00:22:38 --> 00:22:41 place where you've got without any air
00:22:41 --> 00:22:43 conditioning or anything, you've got a a
00:22:43 --> 00:22:48 ready temperature round about 17° C uh
00:22:48 --> 00:22:49 day and night.
00:22:49 --> 00:22:49 >> Wow.
00:22:49 --> 00:22:52 >> Without these extremes. So um that's
00:22:52 --> 00:22:55 really good news I think from the
00:22:55 --> 00:22:57 perspective of our future exploration of
00:22:57 --> 00:23:01 the moon uh that this this variation uh
00:23:01 --> 00:23:04 is only on the surface. The extreme var
00:23:04 --> 00:23:06 variation is only on the surface itself.
00:23:06 --> 00:23:09 H there you go Fenton. So good question.
00:23:09 --> 00:23:11 Thanks for asking it. Uh and uh great to
00:23:11 --> 00:23:15 hear from you again. uh our uh European
00:23:15 --> 00:23:17 listener whose toddler woke them up at
00:23:17 --> 00:23:19 4:00 a.m. has sent us a note saying he's
00:23:19 --> 00:23:22 an astrobiologist working in the Exomar
00:23:22 --> 00:23:25 science team. Uh is a big fan of the
00:23:25 --> 00:23:27 show and I thought well I'm going to
00:23:27 --> 00:23:31 look this up. uh Exomar science team uh
00:23:31 --> 00:23:36 is um looking into Exom Mars missions
00:23:36 --> 00:23:41 and uh particularly in um
00:23:41 --> 00:23:44 part working on the Rosland Franklin
00:23:44 --> 00:23:45 rover
00:23:46 --> 00:23:48 >> and they're trying to find out did Mars
00:23:48 --> 00:23:49 ever have life and could traces of it
00:23:49 --> 00:23:52 still be preserved underground. So um I
00:23:52 --> 00:23:54 looked that up and and since then
00:23:54 --> 00:23:56 another notes come through. Our rover
00:23:56 --> 00:23:59 has a 2 m drill to get samples from Mars
00:23:59 --> 00:24:02 subsurface. Organics will be preserved.
00:24:02 --> 00:24:06 Um, what do you think? Will we find bio
00:24:06 --> 00:24:08 signatures? Oh, he's thrown you a curvy
00:24:08 --> 00:24:10 there.
00:24:10 --> 00:24:12 >> The trouble is it's knowing that they
00:24:12 --> 00:24:15 are bio signatures. Yes, he or she. Uh,
00:24:15 --> 00:24:18 well, look, an honor to have uh somebody
00:24:18 --> 00:24:20 working right in the front line of this
00:24:20 --> 00:24:22 stuff, particularly in Europe, very
00:24:22 --> 00:24:25 close to my heart. Uh it's an honor to
00:24:25 --> 00:24:27 have you listening and participating in
00:24:27 --> 00:24:30 the show. Thank you very much. Um the
00:24:30 --> 00:24:33 the the issue with bio signatures is are
00:24:33 --> 00:24:35 they bio signatures
00:24:35 --> 00:24:38 >> or are they false alarms? And it is so
00:24:38 --> 00:24:42 difficult to essentially eliminate
00:24:42 --> 00:24:44 everything else that could be causing
00:24:44 --> 00:24:46 whatever that bio signature is whether
00:24:46 --> 00:24:50 it's microbial structure or you know met
00:24:50 --> 00:24:53 metabolic activity or whatever it is.
00:24:53 --> 00:24:55 It's very hard to eliminate what you
00:24:56 --> 00:24:59 might call natural non-biological uh
00:24:59 --> 00:25:02 origins, but digging deep is the way to
00:25:02 --> 00:25:05 go. Um I think the Exom Mars project has
00:25:05 --> 00:25:07 had mixed fortunes because it was
00:25:07 --> 00:25:11 originally uh going to be uh a joint
00:25:11 --> 00:25:15 European Russian project um which I
00:25:15 --> 00:25:17 think was shelved probably at the time
00:25:17 --> 00:25:20 of the invasion of Crimea in 2014. I
00:25:20 --> 00:25:24 think that's what happened. Um and so um
00:25:24 --> 00:25:26 but but I think Europe is is carrying on
00:25:26 --> 00:25:30 on it on its own. Uh I wish uh our
00:25:30 --> 00:25:32 listeners and everybody working with
00:25:32 --> 00:25:34 them every success uh because these are
00:25:34 --> 00:25:36 things we want to know.
00:25:36 --> 00:25:38 >> Yeah, absolutely. Uh, issa says the
00:25:38 --> 00:25:40 rover will target an ancient clay rich
00:25:40 --> 00:25:42 region where minerals formed in the
00:25:42 --> 00:25:45 presence of abundant liquid water and
00:25:45 --> 00:25:46 could have preserved evidence of ancient
00:25:46 --> 00:25:48 life. And their launch
00:25:48 --> 00:25:52 >> window is set for late 2028 at this
00:25:52 --> 00:25:55 stage. So yes, fingers crossed. That'll
00:25:55 --> 00:25:56 be exciting. Looking forward to that.
00:25:56 --> 00:26:01 Thanks for letting us know.
00:26:01 --> 00:26:04 >> Also, space nuts. Final question, Fred.
00:26:04 --> 00:26:07 This comes from Kevin. So, uh, this is,
00:26:07 --> 00:26:09 uh, going to more of a hypothetical. I
00:26:09 --> 00:26:12 understand we have no observational
00:26:12 --> 00:26:14 evidence of white holes, but we do have
00:26:14 --> 00:26:16 a fair mathematical understanding of
00:26:16 --> 00:26:18 them. So, my question is, if a white
00:26:18 --> 00:26:22 hole actually existed, what would happen
00:26:22 --> 00:26:24 if it merged with a black hole, would
00:26:24 --> 00:26:26 they essentially cancel each other out?
00:26:26 --> 00:26:29 What would be left afterwards? Uh, just
00:26:29 --> 00:26:31 some random thoughts I was uh, thinking
00:26:31 --> 00:26:33 and would love some insight on what you
00:26:33 --> 00:26:35 guys think. Amazing show. Keep up the
00:26:35 --> 00:26:37 great work, Kevin. I know the answer to
00:26:37 --> 00:26:39 this one, Fred.
00:26:39 --> 00:26:41 >> Good. Good.
00:26:41 --> 00:26:44 >> It It would be a gray hole.
00:26:44 --> 00:26:47 >> Well, that's could be right. My mind
00:26:47 --> 00:26:50 went straight to when a black hole and a
00:26:50 --> 00:26:52 white hole love each other very much.
00:26:52 --> 00:26:53 >> Oh, boy.
00:26:53 --> 00:26:56 >> Then they
00:26:56 --> 00:26:58 come together and make a gray hole.
00:26:58 --> 00:26:59 How's that?
00:26:59 --> 00:26:59 >> Yeah.
00:26:59 --> 00:27:02 >> Um I I don't That's a good question. And
00:27:02 --> 00:27:05 um I sorry I'm I'm am still a little bit
00:27:05 --> 00:27:10 um uh unprepared for these uh because my
00:27:10 --> 00:27:13 focus is on making my knee better. But
00:27:13 --> 00:27:15 uh I would like to check that out and
00:27:15 --> 00:27:16 see what the pundits think in the world
00:27:16 --> 00:27:18 of black holes and white holes. We've
00:27:18 --> 00:27:21 never seen any evidence for a white
00:27:21 --> 00:27:25 hole. Um you can create a white hole
00:27:25 --> 00:27:26 mathematically
00:27:26 --> 00:27:30 uh by reversing the time uh factor in
00:27:30 --> 00:27:32 the equations of relativity and then you
00:27:32 --> 00:27:33 get a white hole rather than a black
00:27:33 --> 00:27:36 hole. But that does not mean that they
00:27:36 --> 00:27:38 exist. We do know that black holes
00:27:38 --> 00:27:40 exist. The evidence for their existence
00:27:40 --> 00:27:45 is absolutely compelling. Um I you know
00:27:45 --> 00:27:46 the idea of them can canceling out is
00:27:46 --> 00:27:49 the one that has the most appeal because
00:27:49 --> 00:27:50 they are sounds
00:27:50 --> 00:27:52 >> gravitational wells. Yeah, of different
00:27:52 --> 00:27:54 kinds.
00:27:54 --> 00:27:57 >> But I I that's a flippant comment. I'll
00:27:57 --> 00:27:58 need to look at this again. Perhaps you
00:27:58 --> 00:28:00 can remind me and so we can get back to
00:28:00 --> 00:28:01 Kevin
00:28:01 --> 00:28:03 >> uh and talk about what happens when you
00:28:03 --> 00:28:05 get a gray hole.
00:28:05 --> 00:28:08 >> Yeah. Um I think you end up in a
00:28:08 --> 00:28:14 retirement village or
00:28:14 --> 00:28:16 >> and Moose says, "Aren't white holes
00:28:16 --> 00:28:18 still theory only?" Yes, absolutely. We
00:28:18 --> 00:28:20 >> That's right. Absolutely right.
00:28:20 --> 00:28:22 >> Yeah. It's like many things in the
00:28:22 --> 00:28:24 universe. The mathematics says yes, they
00:28:24 --> 00:28:26 could exist.
00:28:26 --> 00:28:29 >> Um, but we've we've never seen them and
00:28:29 --> 00:28:31 we don't have any other proof. So,
00:28:32 --> 00:28:33 >> quite a
00:28:33 --> 00:28:35 >> yes indeed. Uh, thanks for the question,
00:28:35 --> 00:28:36 Kevin. Thanks to everybody who
00:28:36 --> 00:28:38 contributed. Thanks to our live audience
00:28:38 --> 00:28:40 who contributed today. Lovely to hear
00:28:40 --> 00:28:42 from you. I I think that's the most
00:28:42 --> 00:28:45 active it's ever been. So, it's value
00:28:45 --> 00:28:47 added to the show. We really appreciate
00:28:47 --> 00:28:50 it. And thank you, Fred, as always.
00:28:50 --> 00:28:52 It's a pleasure, Andrew. I hope next
00:28:52 --> 00:28:55 time we speak, my knee will be just
00:28:55 --> 00:28:57 slightly more tractable than it is at
00:28:57 --> 00:29:00 the moment as the months wear on and um
00:29:00 --> 00:29:03 I get back to being 100% mobile again,
00:29:03 --> 00:29:05 which I'm looking forward to. Fingers
00:29:05 --> 00:29:08 crossed. Good to have you back, too.
00:29:08 --> 00:29:10 >> Professor Fred Watson, astronomer at
00:29:10 --> 00:29:12 large. And uh don't forget to visit us
00:29:12 --> 00:29:13 online where you can leave questions on
00:29:13 --> 00:29:16 the AMA button at the top. Um text or
00:29:16 --> 00:29:18 audio questions. Don't forget to tell us
00:29:18 --> 00:29:19 who you are or where you're from. And
00:29:19 --> 00:29:21 please leave reviews wherever you listen
00:29:21 --> 00:29:24 to us and um have a look around on our
00:29:24 --> 00:29:25 website while you're there and see what
00:29:25 --> 00:29:28 else you can find to uh keep you amused
00:29:28 --> 00:29:31 between episodes. And uh thanks to Hugh
00:29:31 --> 00:29:33 in the studio who couldn't be with us
00:29:33 --> 00:29:35 today because um like many things in the
00:29:35 --> 00:29:38 universe, he his existence is just
00:29:38 --> 00:29:40 theoretical. And from me, Andrew
00:29:40 --> 00:29:42 Duckley, thanks for your company. We'll
00:29:42 --> 00:29:43 see you on the next episode of Space
00:29:43 --> 00:29:45 Nuts. Bye-bye.
00:29:45 --> 00:29:47 >> Space Nuts. You've been listening to the
00:29:47 --> 00:29:50 Space Nuts podcast
00:29:50 --> 00:29:53 >> available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
00:29:53 --> 00:29:56 iHeart Radio, or your favorite podcast
00:29:56 --> 00:29:58 player. You can also stream on demand at
00:29:58 --> 00:30:01 byes.com. This has been another quality
00:30:01 --> 00:30:06 podcast production from byes.com.