Latest / Space News Today / Uncharted Discoveries, Comet C/2026 A1 & Elon’s Solar Pergola | SN604 Q&A | Space Nuts:...

Transcript

Uncharted Discoveries, Comet C/2026 A1 & Elon’s Solar Pergola | SN604 Q&A | Space Nuts:... · Space News Today

• 0:00
  Hi there. Thanks for joining us. This is
• 0:02
  a Q&A edition of Space Nuts. It's where
• 0:05
  we take questions from the audience, we
• 0:07
  tear them up, throw them in the bin, and
• 0:09
  just make up something else. Today, we
• 0:11
  are going to answer questions about
• 0:13
  things yet to be discovered. That'll be
• 0:15
  a short conversation. Uh, finding
• 0:18
  planets closer to Earth versus distant
• 0:21
  discoveries. Somebody's a bit confused
• 0:23
  about that. Uh, we spoke about comets in
• 0:25
  the last episode. But we're going to
• 0:26
  look at one specifically because we've
• 0:29
  got a question about comet 2026A1,
• 0:32
  a very very recent discovery. And uh
• 0:35
  remember when Rusty from Donny Brooks so
• 0:38
  long ago suggested that we could cool
• 0:40
  the planet with a solar poll? Well, he
• 0:42
  thinks Elon Musk has the answer and he's
• 0:45
  going to ask us a question about it on
• 0:46
  this episode of Space Nuts.
• 0:49
  >> 15 seconds. Guidance is internal. 10 9
• 0:53
  ignition sequence start. Space Nuts.
• 0:56
  >> 5 4 3 2
• 0:59
  >> 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1
• 1:01
  >> Space Nuts.
• 1:02
  >> Astronauts report. It feels good.
• 1:05
  >> Joining us again to try and sort all of
• 1:07
  that out is Professor Fred Watson,
• 1:09
  astronomer at large. I know he lo loses
• 1:11
  sleep over the audience questions
• 1:13
  because he just wants to get them all so
• 1:15
  right. Hello, Fred.
• 1:17
  >> Hi, Andrew. Yeah, I do like to get them
• 1:19
  right. You know, it's why people ask
• 1:23
  >> sometimes we get challenged or sometimes
• 1:25
  we have somebody look something up and
• 1:28
  say,
• 1:29
  "I think you needed to tell us a bit
• 1:31
  more." But, you know, we do our
• 1:32
  homework. Sometimes we we get back to
• 1:35
  people. Um, sometimes takes us a year or
• 1:37
  two, but we do we do do it.
• 1:40
  >> We're always always aiming for adequacy.
• 1:43
  >> Adequacy is is key when we talk about
• 1:46
  space nuts.
• 1:48
  Shall we get into some questions, Fred?
• 1:50
  >> Let's do that. I'm just going to turn
• 1:52
  the light on. Just hang out on a moment
• 1:54
  so I can hear what I'm doing here.
• 1:55
  >> All right. Well, I'll just sit here and
• 1:58
  and peruse the question. There it is.
• 2:01
  >> There we are.
• 2:02
  >> Okay.
• 2:02
  >> I don't know whether that made any
• 2:03
  difference, but I can actually see what
• 2:04
  I'm doing now.
• 2:06
  >> It helps.
• 2:08
  >> Yes. Um, let's start. Uh, hi Fred and
• 2:11
  Andrew. Do you think there are things in
• 2:14
  the universe that we haven't imagined
• 2:16
  existing? Uh, we didn't see exoplanets
• 2:19
  until the 1990s, but we assumed they
• 2:22
  were there and we were right. But what
• 2:24
  about things we haven't considered like
• 2:26
  an undiscovered element or a planet
• 2:28
  bigger than its parent star? What else
• 2:31
  could be out there? That comes from uh
• 2:33
  South Africa. Actually, Bailey in
• 2:35
  Durban. I visited Durban last year. It's
• 2:39
  um it's a fascinating place. Uh,
• 2:42
  beautiful beaches. Lovely.
• 2:45
  >> On the on the western Indian Ocean, I
• 2:48
  think you'd say. Yeah, the west coast of
• 2:50
  the Indian Ocean.
• 2:53
  >> Oh, it is. That's right. Um Um
• 2:56
  >> or the east coast of Africa, whichever
• 2:58
  way.
• 2:58
  >> Yeah, that's right. That's what I was
• 3:00
  struggling with.
• 3:00
  >> Yeah, I was doing the ocean coast rather
• 3:02
  than the
• 3:03
  >> Yeah. Well, that's because I live over
• 3:06
  here and I was thinking in terms of
• 3:07
  where it is in proximity. That's on the
• 3:10
  western side of the Indian Ocean.
• 3:13
  >> That's that's correct. But
• 3:14
  >> sorry Bailey
• 3:16
  >> getting very confusing.
• 3:19
  >> Uh but it's a great question and I mean
• 3:22
  the the answer is yes really.
• 3:25
  >> Um it has to be
• 3:27
  >> um you know even just within the last
• 3:31
  few months we've got things that people
• 3:35
  have not considered before. Little red
• 3:37
  dots.
• 3:38
  >> Yes. uh galaxies in the early universe
• 3:40
  that look as though they're too massive
• 3:42
  for um you know for um uh their age,
• 3:46
  their young age because they're can't be
• 3:49
  more than a couple of hundred million
• 3:50
  years old and yet they're they've got
• 3:52
  very high mass and are very concentrated
• 3:55
  and that didn't really fit the theory.
• 3:58
  So these sorts of objects um especially
• 4:02
  as our telescopes get bigger are going
• 4:04
  to take us by surprise. Uh and I think
• 4:08
  um you know the James Webb telescope has
• 4:10
  certainly done that par excalance we've
• 4:12
  come across so many um things that were
• 4:16
  unexpected
• 4:17
  uh and had to re almost rewrite the
• 4:20
  textbooks uh in many cases and the next
• 4:23
  big thing in that regard as I've said
• 4:24
  many many times before on space nuts
• 4:26
  will be the ELT the extremely large
• 4:28
  telescope um with an aperture much
• 4:31
  bigger than the James Web telescope uh
• 4:34
  at 39 m compared of the 6 and a half
• 4:37
  meters of the web. So, we're going to
• 4:39
  learn stuff from that that will I think
• 4:41
  blow our minds uh could be exactly the
• 4:44
  kinds of things that um um you know that
• 4:47
  uh Bailey's mentioning exoplanets bigger
• 4:51
  than their parent stars and things like
• 4:53
  that. An undiscovered element is less
• 4:55
  likely because we know kind of what's
• 4:58
  going on in the elemental world from the
• 5:01
  periodic table. Uh which doesn't have
• 5:03
  >> the periodic table does purposely have
• 5:06
  gaps in it for future discovery, doesn't
• 5:09
  it?
• 5:10
  >> Well, yes, but they're all at the the I
• 5:13
  think um you're kind of beyond the
• 5:16
  elements that would exist in nature,
• 5:19
  >> right? Um,
• 5:20
  >> something we we might accidentally
• 5:22
  invent in the kitchen to make.
• 5:24
  >> Yes.
• 5:24
  >> Yeah. I'll try to make kitchen s nuclear
• 5:27
  reactor somewhere.
• 5:29
  >> If you're s Yeah. If your sodo produces
• 5:32
  new elements, so I think you're probably
• 5:34
  burning it a bit.
• 5:36
  >> Probably.
• 5:37
  >> And you you might need to watch for the
• 5:38
  radiation that's coming from it as well.
• 5:40
  >> Yes. Yes, indeed. I I'll be just sort of
• 5:43
  doing some AI searches on things that
• 5:46
  >> Okay, good.
• 5:47
  >> may one day discover. Um, gravitons.
• 5:50
  We've talked about gravitons several
• 5:52
  times. Um, we don't know if they exist,
• 5:55
  but they might. We've never found one,
• 5:58
  but it seems to be a plausible way of,
• 6:03
  you know, justifying the existence of
• 6:05
  gravity.
• 6:06
  >> Um, new states of matter, just a
• 6:09
  generalization, new states of matter.
• 6:12
  That's a good that's actually a good one
• 6:14
  because there are you know the there are
• 6:16
  subtleties in the states of matter uh
• 6:18
  that are still that are still being
• 6:20
  discovered. That might be physics that
• 6:22
  does that though rather than astronomy.
• 6:24
  >> Yeah, maybe maybe uh black hole stars
• 6:28
  there's another one people have often
• 6:30
  asked us questions about. Um
• 6:33
  they haven't actually found one, but
• 6:35
  they're starting to find evidence that
• 6:37
  could lead to the possibility of one. Is
• 6:40
  that a fair point?
• 6:41
  >> That's That's right.
• 6:42
  >> Yep.
• 6:42
  >> And the other one that comes up a lot,
• 6:44
  white holes, wormholes, cosmic strings,
• 6:48
  other dimensions, multiple universes.
• 6:52
  >> In a sense, they're
• 6:54
  things that um if they were discovered,
• 6:57
  they wouldn't surprise us because
• 6:58
  there's already a theoretical
• 7:00
  >> background for them. Um, but the things
• 7:03
  that I guess that perhaps Bailey is
• 7:06
  thinking of are things like the the
• 7:07
  little red dots which we now know are
• 7:10
  very unusual aggregations of stars in
• 7:12
  the early universe which we didn't think
• 7:14
  existed.
• 7:15
  >> It might have been what prompted the
• 7:16
  question because it's been big in the
• 7:18
  news lately and I actually saw another
• 7:20
  story about it the other day. It it
• 7:23
  it's continuing to
• 7:25
  >> hold it. That's right. Yes.
• 7:27
  >> Yeah. We we we still don't really know
• 7:29
  what they are. Yeah.
• 7:31
  >> Um you know the um the the latest theory
• 7:35
  is slowly spinning dark matter halos.
• 7:38
  They are I think the latest theory for
• 7:40
  what comp what actually makes these
• 7:44
  compact red galaxies that the web
• 7:47
  telescope has been finding in the early
• 7:49
  universe. That's I think the current
• 7:50
  theory. That was uh October last year
• 7:53
  that I saw a paper on that. So yes, it's
• 7:56
  still still still a work in progress.
• 7:59
  There you go, Bailey. Uh, there's still
• 8:01
  a lot yet to be discovered and some of
• 8:03
  it will definitely surprise us down the
• 8:05
  track. Um, like even in the last
• 8:09
  episode, we were talking about a comet
• 8:10
  that reversed its spin. We Yep. You
• 8:13
  know,
• 8:14
  >> no one's ever seen that before.
• 8:16
  >> No, that's right.
• 8:17
  >> So, that's uh that's sort of thing we're
• 8:19
  talking about. Great to hear from you.
• 8:21
  Hope all is well in uh Durban. They've
• 8:25
  got a great water park there, too, by
• 8:26
  the way. uh to our next question. Uh if
• 8:30
  we can find planets orbiting stars in
• 8:32
  other solar systems hundreds or
• 8:34
  thousands of light years away, why can't
• 8:36
  we find planet 9 in our own solar
• 8:38
  system? I believe that we're not even
• 8:41
  sure about how many planets are in the
• 8:43
  Alpha Centuri system, which is our
• 8:45
  closest neighbor. I don't understand how
• 8:47
  we can't find things uh close by when we
• 8:51
  can find things eons away. Please
• 8:53
  enlighten me. That's uh from Sarah in
• 8:56
  Townsville in North Queensland.
• 8:59
  >> A great question too, Sarah. Thank you
• 9:00
  for asking that and sending it in. Um
• 9:03
  and it dep look it depends on the
• 9:07
  technology and the techniques that we're
• 9:09
  using to make these measurements. Um
• 9:13
  planet planet 9 is a peculiarly
• 9:16
  difficult thing to try and observe uh
• 9:19
  because it's going to be faint. It's
• 9:22
  going to be for all intents and purposes
• 9:24
  just an ordinary star uh until you
• 9:27
  observe it over a fairly lengthy period
• 9:29
  of time when you might detect its
• 9:32
  movement. Um it's so far away if it if
• 9:35
  it exists. Um whereas and and turning to
• 9:40
  Alpha Centuri, that's another good
• 9:42
  point. We do know that there are planets
• 9:44
  in the Alpha Centuri system, but there
• 9:46
  might be more than we think there are.
• 9:48
  And um
• 9:49
  >> so
• 9:49
  >> I think that I think they've found
• 9:52
  um gas giants at this point, but they
• 9:56
  >> Yes,
• 9:56
  >> they believe there are probably rocky
• 9:58
  planets, but we haven't found them.
• 10:00
  >> Yeah, that that's right. And that's
• 10:03
  there's a couple of things going on
• 10:05
  here. Uh one is that the smaller the
• 10:09
  planet going around a star, the harder
• 10:12
  it is to find it. Um, and also it might
• 10:16
  take a lot longer to find it because if
• 10:18
  you've got a planet like the Earth going
• 10:19
  around a star, uh, and you're looking
• 10:21
  for its signature on the either the
• 10:24
  light or the velocity of the star, it's
• 10:26
  got this, you know, 365 year period. So,
• 10:30
  it's something you need to observe over
• 10:31
  a long period of time. Uh but the other
• 10:34
  thing I was going to say is that the two
• 10:36
  main methods for finding planets around
• 10:39
  other stars uh first of all that what we
• 10:43
  call the Doppler wobble technique. fact
• 10:45
  that as a planet goes around a star, it
• 10:48
  the the planet pulls the star slightly
• 10:51
  out of out of place and um you can
• 10:54
  actually measure that displacement of
• 10:56
  the stars light. Uh because it turns out
• 10:59
  that you're looking for velocities in
• 11:02
  the region of a meter/s.
• 11:05
  uh that's very a very low velocity for
• 11:08
  you know trying to measure the these
• 11:10
  things by the radial velocity method
• 11:12
  spectroscopy the Doppler Doppler effect.
• 11:15
  So the Doppler wobble technique is
• 11:17
  really sensitive to massive uh planets
• 11:21
  that pull the star slightly off center
• 11:25
  more than a smaller planet would. uh and
• 11:28
  it's also sensitive to massive planets
• 11:30
  which are close to the star because that
• 11:32
  they have the biggest impact on the
• 11:34
  star. So you've got this combination
• 11:37
  that means that you you really need um a
• 11:41
  lot of light to make these measurements.
• 11:43
  So for the Doppler wobble technique you
• 11:45
  you you've got to have stars that are
• 11:47
  relatively nearby i.e. they're
• 11:49
  relatively bright in our skies. Um, and
• 11:53
  but then you might find that we know
• 11:55
  much more about some systems that are
• 11:57
  further away because you're measuring
• 12:00
  those by what we call the transit
• 12:01
  technique where the light of the star
• 12:03
  dims slightly when the planet passes in
• 12:05
  front of it. Uh, and that actually is
• 12:07
  more sensitive first of all, it's more
• 12:09
  sensitive to things further out in a in
• 12:12
  a solar system, further away from their
• 12:14
  parent star. Um, it's sensitive to
• 12:17
  smaller objects as well because we can
• 12:19
  measure brightness much more accurately
• 12:21
  than we can these tiny radial
• 12:23
  velocities, these tiny speeds along the
• 12:26
  line of size.
• 12:27
  >> There is there is a downside to that
• 12:29
  process though, isn't it? The transit
• 12:31
  method because I think to confirm an
• 12:33
  exoplanet, you got to see it twice, is
• 12:35
  it? Or
• 12:36
  >> yes, has to be seen twice.
• 12:39
  >> If it's orbiting a star at like once in
• 12:41
  a thousand years,
• 12:43
  >> don't come back next week.
• 12:46
  That's right. In fact, you really want
• 12:47
  to see it three times because um that
• 12:50
  way you know that it's the same period
• 12:53
  um of the of the the planet going around
• 12:56
  the star. Um you'd really like to see it
• 12:59
  three times so that you can measure the
• 13:00
  distance between the first two transits
• 13:03
  and the second two transits and they
• 13:05
  should be the same uh because you're
• 13:07
  looking at something in orbit around the
• 13:08
  star. But but two is uh is acceptable as
• 13:12
  well. Um, and so what what I was going
• 13:14
  to say was you can you can look at that
• 13:16
  you can make that measurement for
• 13:17
  objects much much further away. Uh, now
• 13:20
  the Alpha Centuri system doesn't lend
• 13:22
  itself to the transit technique. Uh, and
• 13:24
  so that's why we're not sure about how
• 13:27
  many planets there are. It doesn't lend
• 13:28
  itself to to very lightweight rocky
• 13:30
  planets either. So, um, it's a great
• 13:33
  question and it's got some fairly
• 13:35
  sensible answers and really they depend
• 13:37
  on our abilities to discover different
• 13:40
  things under different classifications
• 13:43
  of of observing, for example.
• 13:45
  >> Yeah. And and it's an interesting quirk,
• 13:48
  isn't it, that the closer something is,
• 13:50
  the less likely we are to find it in
• 13:53
  certain circumstances. So,
• 13:55
  >> under some circumstances, that's right.
• 13:56
  Yeah. That's most mostly being nearer
• 14:00
  makes generally speaking something
• 14:01
  that's nearer is easier to to make
• 14:04
  discoveries from just because you've got
• 14:05
  more light to play with.
• 14:06
  >> Yeah. Yeah. Fair enough. Thank you,
• 14:09
  Sarah. Lovely to hear from you. I' I've
• 14:11
  actually never been to Townsville, but
• 14:13
  I'm going to get there one day. I um I I
• 14:18
  think furthest north I've ever made it
• 14:19
  is uh or if you don't count being on a
• 14:21
  cruise ship is um with Sundays. about as
• 14:24
  far north as I've ever been able to get.
• 14:27
  This is Space Nuts with Andrew Dunley
• 14:29
  and Professor Fred Watson.
• 14:33
  >> I believe that this nation should commit
• 14:35
  itself to achieving the goal before this
• 14:38
  decade is out of landing a man on the
• 14:41
  moon and returning him safely to the
• 14:43
  Earth.
• 14:44
  >> These nuts.
• 14:46
  Last episode, Fred, we were talking
• 14:47
  about comet P41, which was doing that
• 14:50
  weird re-spinning thingy thingy. It did.
• 14:54
  Uh, it's it stopped spinning one way and
• 14:57
  started spinning the other way and very
• 14:59
  confusing. Uh, what we're talking about
• 15:01
  now is a question from Anchorage,
• 15:04
  Alaska. Woohoo. Uh, Eli has um messaged
• 15:08
  us. I've heard that there has been yet
• 15:11
  another once-in-a-lifetime comet being
• 15:13
  discovered and will be visible in April.
• 15:17
  Um, they're even saying we might be able
• 15:19
  to see this one in daylight. Um, it's
• 15:22
  called uh C 2026A1
• 15:26
  and is referred to as a sunrazer. What
• 15:29
  makes this one so special? Where will it
• 15:32
  be visible? Thanks, Eli. Great question.
• 15:34
  I did read about this one. I meant to
• 15:36
  bring it up with you, but Eli's done it
• 15:38
  for me.
• 15:39
  >> Yeah, that's nice when when that
• 15:40
  happens.
• 15:41
  >> Um, well, it's it it is a sungrazer, uh,
• 15:45
  which means it, as its name implies,
• 15:48
  passes very close to the sun. Uh, often
• 15:51
  sungrazers fall to pieces because the
• 15:54
  gravitational forces that they feel as
• 15:56
  they pass the sun, the what we call the
• 15:57
  tidal effects tend to want to pull them
• 16:00
  apart. Uh and so sometimes they just
• 16:02
  disintegrate and you get lots of little
• 16:03
  comets that aren't really that
• 16:05
  interesting. Um so but uh yes, comet C2
• 16:10
  26A1
• 16:12
  uh it will it will pass something like
• 16:17
  160,000 kilometers from the sun's
• 16:20
  surface. Um, and it may be that uh the
• 16:26
  way the the the light is being um
• 16:30
  released from the comet, the what we
• 16:32
  call forward scattering, it could make
• 16:34
  the comet look quite a lot brighter,
• 16:37
  which is one reason why people are
• 16:38
  talking about it being a daylight comet.
• 16:41
  I am very always very skeptical when
• 16:44
  people talk about that because there's
• 16:46
  that old story, uh, comets are like
• 16:49
  cats. They have tails and do anything
• 16:51
  they like.
• 16:53
  >> And uh yes, great. And it's perfectly
• 16:55
  true as well uh that you never quite
• 16:58
  know what a comet is going to do, but
• 17:00
  some of these sun grazers have turned
• 17:02
  out to be uh to be quite bright. So, it
• 17:06
  gets nearest the sun in April. Um, and
• 17:10
  it's probably
• 17:12
  uh going to be one that uh is is not
• 17:18
  that um that that won't give us that
• 17:22
  much time to observe it. And I'm saying
• 17:24
  that because it's got a um it's got a
• 17:27
  long long period uh of probably
• 17:30
  something like 6,000
• 17:33
  years. Sorry, Big B. No, not not 6,000.
• 17:37
  about 800 years, something of that sort.
• 17:40
  Um, and in fact, I've got a figure here
• 17:44
  that is double that. I'm probably
• 17:45
  looking at the the wrong numbers there.
• 17:48
  Uh, orbital period something like um
• 17:50
  depends on on what part of the orbit you
• 17:54
  look at 1687 years inbound. So, yes,
• 17:58
  it's um it is um an object that's pretty
• 18:02
  interesting. Uh, I think if it gets
• 18:05
  bright and actually starts showing signs
• 18:08
  of being a very very um brightly visible
• 18:11
  planet, we'll talk about it again. But
• 18:14
  for the moment, I'm always, as I said,
• 18:16
  I'm always skeptical. Uh, because you
• 18:18
  never know what a comet is going to do.
• 18:19
  And usually they don't do what you want
• 18:21
  them to do. So,
• 18:22
  >> just like cats. Just like cats.
• 18:24
  >> Just like cats. Yes. Um, remind us again
• 18:27
  how they name them because I'm gathering
• 18:29
  from C 20226A1.
• 18:32
  This is the first one they've spotted
• 18:33
  this year.
• 18:35
  >> Uh it's um it's also got a temporary
• 18:38
  designation 6ac4721.
• 18:41
  Oh.
• 18:42
  >> Uh which I think is probably the
• 18:45
  designation for the object category when
• 18:48
  it was actually uh discovered. But but
• 18:50
  you're you're right. Um
• 18:53
  now um the the P uh prefix on a comet is
• 18:58
  when it's periodic and that usually
• 18:59
  means it's got a period of less than 200
• 19:01
  years. This is not a P. This is a C. Uh
• 19:05
  and it tells you that it's sort of
• 19:07
  classification
• 19:08
  is uh I can't remember what C stands for
• 19:11
  actually.
• 19:11
  >> Oh, I know. I know. It means we're all
• 19:13
  cactus next time it turns up.
• 19:17
  >> That'll be it. Yeah, that'll be it. I
• 19:19
  think you're right there. Yeah. just
• 19:21
  takes a long long time to come back and
• 19:23
  say hello.
• 19:25
  >> Yeah, it may be. Um I mean it's a it's
• 19:27
  sometimes called a CR group comet, but
• 19:29
  that would make it a K rather than a C,
• 19:30
  so that can't be what it is.
• 19:32
  >> No, no, I could try and look it up, but
• 19:36
  um
• 19:36
  >> why don't you do that?
• 19:37
  >> Yeah. All right. Why don't I uh What
• 19:40
  does the C
• 19:42
  stand for? I got to type fast in the
• 19:45
  naming of a comet.
• 19:47
  >> Yep, that's the right question.
• 19:49
  >> That's an AI. We'll see.
• 19:52
  >> Cactus.
• 19:53
  >> Cactus. No, it says, you're not going to
• 19:55
  believe this. C stands for non-periodic.
• 19:59
  >> Yeah, that was what I thought. But I
• 20:02
  couldn't work out where the P maybe
• 20:06
  maybe you take the last letter of the
• 20:08
  word non-periodic.
• 20:10
  >> On the other hand, if you did that, a
• 20:12
  periodic comment would also be a C. So,
• 20:14
  we're not getting any.
• 20:16
  >> Well, see, they've got they've painted
• 20:18
  themselves into a corner, haven't they?
• 20:19
  AB: Absolutely. Yeah.
• 20:22
  >> So much for the International
• 20:23
  Astronomical Union.
• 20:24
  >> Yep. Yep. Yeah. That's what happens when
• 20:26
  you put bureaucrats in charge. Um, no,
• 20:28
  they're good people. Um,
• 20:30
  >> so it may
• 20:32
  >> Look out for it.
• 20:33
  >> Yeah, look out for it. It may be good to
• 20:35
  observe. Whether or not it's a visible
• 20:38
  comet in daylight, debatable.
• 20:41
  >> Um, but it's definitely on its way. And,
• 20:43
  uh, yeah, April is the month to keep an
• 20:46
  eye out for it. Where would be the best
• 20:48
  place to sit to to have a look at it?
• 20:51
  >> Uh somewhere dark.
• 20:53
  >> Anywhere on the planet?
• 20:55
  >> I don't know.
• 20:57
  >> Um um I don't know what it's you what
• 21:00
  the exact details of its orbit are. So
• 21:03
  it it may well be one that is best seen
• 21:07
  before dawn uh or after after sunset,
• 21:11
  but it would depend a little bit on what
• 21:13
  your latitude and longitude are as to
• 21:15
  >> Okay. Best places, best regions,
• 21:17
  midsouthern latitudes, Chile, South
• 21:19
  Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
• 21:21
  >> Well, I think best opportunities. There
• 21:23
  you are.
• 21:23
  >> Thanks. So, yeah, I I I think we should
• 21:26
  just stop Space Nuts and go to AI.
• 21:29
  >> No, no, they've got funny voices.
• 21:34
  >> Yeah, I don't think so.
• 21:35
  >> We've got funny voices as well.
• 21:37
  >> And the jokes are terrible. Oh, hang on.
• 21:39
  That's the same.
• 21:44
  Oh, dear. All right. Uh, Eli, thanks for
• 21:46
  the question and hope all is well in
• 21:48
  Anchorage. Uh, a very interesting,
• 21:52
  remote, cold place, but um, much
• 21:57
  visited. Lots of tourists go there uh,
• 22:00
  for obvious reasons. It's just such a
• 22:02
  unique destination. Thanks, Eli.
• 22:07
  I'm going to step off the limb now.
• 22:11
  That's one small step for man.
• 22:16
  one
• 22:18
  for mankind.
• 22:19
  >> Space nuts.
• 22:21
  >> Our final question comes from a regular.
• 22:24
  Um, I don't like to give him too many
• 22:26
  bites of the cherry, but he's just come
• 22:27
  up with something that I could not avoid
• 22:29
  based on previous uh theories that he's
• 22:32
  come up with. Rusty from Donny Brook, he
• 22:34
  says Elon's 1 million satellite power
• 22:37
  station. Hi Fred and Andrew. Just
• 22:39
  looking at the environmental impacts of
• 22:41
  these power stations, about a quarter of
• 22:44
  these will shade the earth at any one
• 22:46
  time. Each will have about uh an acre,
• 22:49
  4,000 square meters of solar collectors.
• 22:52
  I don't know what the next bit means. Uh
• 22:54
  or the ISS is 2 a half th000 square
• 22:57
  meters. That's right.
• 22:58
  >> Uh he will use about 20% efficient cells
• 23:01
  and there will be about 10% loss in
• 23:03
  conversion of light energy. If the
• 23:06
  unders sides are black for astronomical
• 23:08
  purposes, then we have an 800 square
• 23:12
  kilometer array of solar uh for our
• 23:14
  solar pagola. Elon will kill two birds
• 23:17
  with one or 1 million stones. Uh data
• 23:21
  center power and global warming. I
• 23:24
  caution that if he doubles the size, it
• 23:26
  will create a cooler environment than we
• 23:28
  want. Cheers, Rusty from Donny Brook. Uh
• 23:30
  he he won't give up on his solar pa. He
• 23:33
  came up with the idea, I don't know, a
• 23:34
  couple of years ago and pitched it and
• 23:36
  we we we basically koshed it. But now,
• 23:41
  could Elon have accidentally created
• 23:43
  one?
• 23:45
  I don't know. I um I checked what um
• 23:47
  what's available about the spacecraft
• 23:50
  design for these proposed 1 million
• 23:53
  satellites that uh that SpaceX is
• 23:56
  proposing to um act as an orbiting data
• 24:01
  center. and I couldn't find any
• 24:04
  dimensions for the solar panels. Um, an
• 24:07
  acre or 4,000 square meters sounds very
• 24:10
  big to me. Uh, and uh, a large a large
• 24:15
  amount of real estate that I am not sure
• 24:21
  is I I mean I I suspect Donnie sorry
• 24:24
  Rusty's
• 24:26
  not not Donnie of Rusty Brookke but
• 24:28
  Rusty of Donny Brook.
• 24:29
  >> I like that.
• 24:30
  >> Um, yeah.
• 24:32
  uh that um I mean Rusty might have done
• 24:34
  the calculations as to what's needed but
• 24:36
  uh but but so far I haven't seen any any
• 24:39
  details of the individual spacecraft. In
• 24:41
  fact, they may not exist. Uh but an acre
• 24:44
  for each one sounds like a lot of real
• 24:47
  estate for a million satellites and I
• 24:49
  suspect it's not going to be anything
• 24:51
  like as big as that. So I think the
• 24:54
  solar pagola idea will once again be
• 24:56
  shelved as it has done many times
• 24:58
  before. Maybe, maybe. Um, based on
• 25:02
  recent reports regarding SpaceX's
• 25:04
  proposed orbital data center plans, the
• 25:07
  solar panel infrastructure of these
• 25:08
  satellites is projected to be massive
• 25:11
  with some proposed structures stretching
• 25:14
  to 4x4 kilometers in size.
• 25:18
  >> Well, if you do that, you're you kind of
• 25:21
  this marks the end of astronomy really.
• 25:24
  >> Yeah. It can't be 4x4 kilometers.
• 25:28
  Not maybe not all of them, but some of
• 25:30
  them it says.
• 25:32
  >> Yeah. Um Yeah. Yeah. Interesting.
• 25:38
  >> I don't I don't even know that we have
• 25:40
  the the wherewithal to manufacture solar
• 25:43
  collectors of that sort of size.
• 25:45
  >> Yeah. I think I mean you'd have more
• 25:47
  like putting a pie in the sky, I reckon.
• 25:51
  Um the um current state of that uh
• 25:55
  venture is that it's gone to the Federal
• 25:58
  Communications Commission. Uh, and I
• 26:02
  will be interested to see whether they
• 26:04
  approve it because eventually it's got
• 26:06
  to go to the International
• 26:06
  Telecommunications Union
• 26:08
  >> and they will probably freak out a bit
• 26:10
  because they are whilst they are kind of
• 26:15
  mandated to issue launch permits to
• 26:17
  anybody who can demonstrate the
• 26:19
  likelihood of being able to put their
• 26:21
  spacecraft into orbit. Um, I think this
• 26:24
  one might actually cause them to swallow
• 26:26
  a little bit deeply. Although they did
• 26:28
  they did tick off on the 300,000
• 26:31
  spacecraft of uh the Rwanda government's
• 26:33
  proposal back in 2020. Uh I think that I
• 26:37
  think that will lapse next year. I think
• 26:39
  uh it's a seven-year period that you've
• 26:41
  got when you put in a filing to the
• 26:43
  International Telecommunications Union.
• 26:45
  I think you got seven years and if you
• 26:46
  don't launch anything before that then
• 26:49
  you basically lose the lose the slot.
• 26:52
  >> Yes, I believe so. And it may well be
• 26:56
  that that's what's going to happen in
• 26:58
  this case. Although Elon tends to have
• 27:00
  um you know the cash to back his ideas
• 27:04
  and he certainly followed through on a
• 27:05
  lot of them and uh they've been very
• 27:08
  very successful.
• 27:10
  So
• 27:11
  >> yeah, one wonders where this will end
• 27:13
  up. Are they really going to approve
• 27:15
  that kind of infrastructure in orbit if
• 27:17
  it's going to cause so many problems for
• 27:20
  so many other people, especially I mean
• 27:24
  space science.
• 27:25
  >> The first Yes, that that that's a good
• 27:28
  question. We we kind of hope that um
• 27:32
  common sense prevails. Another of the
• 27:34
  problems, of course, and this is already
• 27:37
  being noticed by Starlink, more or less
• 27:40
  one at one one Starink spacecraft a day
• 27:42
  that now re-enters uh because they they
• 27:44
  only have a 5year lifetime. Uh and we're
• 27:48
  already starting to see um pollutants in
• 27:51
  the upper atmosphere that come from the
• 27:52
  spacecraft burning up. Uh now I was in a
• 27:56
  meeting last week that uh I heard one of
• 28:01
  my colleagues, it was a meeting actually
• 28:02
  in Vienna and I was just dialing into
• 28:04
  it, but one of my colleagues uh who's
• 28:07
  based in the UK had a throwaway line um
• 28:10
  which was that Musk is going to put the
• 28:15
  defunct um data center spacecraft into a
• 28:21
  solar system orbit rather than basically
• 28:24
  bring them back into the Earth's
• 28:25
  atmosphere to avoid that problem. Uh but
• 28:28
  I'm not I don't know whether that's
• 28:30
  true. I haven't found any references to
• 28:32
  that online. And it would mean to do
• 28:35
  that you need um effectively an awful
• 28:37
  lot of rocket power on each spacecraft
• 28:39
  because it takes much more
• 28:41
  >> yeah much more oomph to get to get rid
• 28:44
  of a spacecraft that way uh to put it
• 28:46
  into orbit around the sun than it does
• 28:48
  to put it back into the Earth's
• 28:50
  atmosphere. So all of these are
• 28:52
  questions that I think will be raised by
• 28:54
  by you know anybody who's really
• 28:57
  interested in this stuff and that
• 28:58
  includes space nuts.
• 29:00
  >> Yes. Well Rusty at least and Rusty. Well
• 29:03
  Rusty is a space nut.
• 29:04
  >> He certainly is. Yes.
• 29:06
  >> Good question though. Love it. Um keep
• 29:08
  working on it Rusty. I'm sure you'll
• 29:09
  come up with another solder pagola
• 29:12
  theory in the not too distant future.
• 29:14
  Good to hear from you and good to hear
• 29:16
  from everybody who sent us in questions.
• 29:18
  If you've got questions for us, we'd
• 29:19
  love to get them. Just go to our
• 29:21
  website, spacenutspodcast.com,
• 29:23
  spacenuts.io,
• 29:25
  click on the AMA button at the top, the
• 29:28
  link, uh, that says ask me anything
• 29:30
  basically, and that's what you do. Uh,
• 29:32
  and don't forget to tell us who you are
• 29:34
  or where you're from. Text and audio
• 29:35
  questions most welcome. And have a look
• 29:37
  around while you're there. Don't forget
• 29:39
  to visit our social media pages as well.
• 29:42
  Fred, we're done. Thank you very much.
• 29:44
  >> It's a pleasure, Andrew. Uh we're um uh
• 29:47
  it's always good to be done. Uh and
• 29:51
  sometimes it's good to be undone as
• 29:53
  well.
• 29:54
  >> Yes. Yes. Well, that's you know getting
• 29:56
  a bit too personal. But anyway, we'll
• 29:57
  carry on.
• 29:59
  >> Thanks Fred. We'll see you later.
• 30:02
  >> See you next time.
• 30:03
  >> Professor Fred Watson, astronomer at
• 30:04
  large. And thanks to Hugh in the studio,
• 30:06
  uh who couldn't be with us today. He was
• 30:08
  looking into Bailey's question about
• 30:11
  things that are yet to be discovered and
• 30:12
  he realized that nobody knew he existed.
• 30:17
  From me, Andrew and Dunley, thanks for
• 30:19
  your company. We'll see you on the next
• 30:20
  episode of Space Nuts. Bye-bye.
• 30:22
  >> Space Nuts.
• 30:23
  >> You'll be listening to the Space Nuts
• 30:25
  podcast
• 30:27
  >> available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 30:30
  iHeart Radio, or your favorite podcast
• 30:33
  player. You can also stream on demand at
• 30:35
  byes.com. This has been another quality
• 30:38
  podcast production from sites.com.