Latest / Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries / From Dark Matter to Dormant Comets: Your Astronomy Questions Answered

Transcript

From Dark Matter to Dormant Comets: Your Astronomy Questions Answered · Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries

0:00
Professor Fred Watson: Hi there.
0:01
Andrew Dunkley: Thank you for joining us. This is Space Nuts
0:03
and it's a Q and A edition. My name is Andrew
0:06
Dunkley. What's Q and A stand for? I don't
0:09
know, but we've got questions, uh, from our
0:11
audience, which we will answer.
0:13
Qa. Oh, there it is.
0:15
Um, Casey wants to know about dark matter
0:18
stars even though they don't exist. And we
0:20
can't answer the question.
0:21
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, Michael.
0:23
Andrew Dunkley: Um, he's sent one in about dormant
0:26
comets, uh, which, uh, I found most
0:28
intriguing. So it'd be interesting to
0:30
discover what that's about. Uh, Derek is
0:33
asking about gravitational slingshots,
0:36
and Jason is asking what
0:38
Fred Watson thinks of the new wave of
0:41
smart telescopes. Ooh.
0:44
Uh, we'll talk about all of that on this
0:46
episode of space nuts.
0:48
Andrew Dunkley: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
0:51
10, 9.
0:53
Professor Fred Watson: Ignition sequence start. Space nuts.
0:55
Andrew Dunkley: 5, 4, 3, 2. 1, 2, 3, 4,
0:58
5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
1:01
Andrew Dunkley: Space nuts. Astronauts report at mill.
1:03
Andrew Dunkley: Good.
1:04
Andrew Dunkley: And he's, uh, back again to try and sort all
1:07
that out. It's Professor Fred Watson Watson,
1:09
astronomer at large. Hello, Fred Watson.
1:11
Professor Fred Watson: Hello, Andrew. Very good to see you again.
1:13
Andrew Dunkley: And you too. It's been minutes.
1:16
Professor Fred Watson: It has. Um, uh, I might add a postscript
1:19
to, um, when we recorded the last session.
1:22
Yeah, I just, uh, got back from the annual
1:25
science meeting of the Astronomical Society
1:27
of Australia. And I meant to mention that,
1:30
um, an old friend of Space Nuts was
1:33
there and I had dinner with him, um,
1:36
on the first night. And that is Peter
1:37
Verwein, who is our contact in
1:40
the world of mond. Uh, modified Newtonian
1:43
dynamics. Yeah. So, uh,
1:45
terrific. Nice to do. He's still
1:48
monding, although, um, I think
1:51
he's had some hurdles to overcome. So
1:53
we might have to do an update on that down
1:56
the track.
1:57
Andrew Dunkley: Well, while we're sending shout outs, I'll
1:59
send a shout out to an Instagram, um,
2:02
presence person named the Greens
2:05
Goddess, Uh, a female golfer who,
2:08
uh, started following me, I don't know, some
2:11
time ago. And I thought, I'll do the honour
2:12
of following her back. And, uh, she posted a
2:15
video of her swing the other day and I noted
2:17
a couple of issues with it. So
2:20
I sent her a note and said, look, you got a
2:23
bit of a reverse pivot going there.
2:26
Try this drill to sort it out.
2:29
Anyway, she sent a note back and said, oh,
2:30
that's very helpful. By the way, big fan of
2:33
Space Nuts.
2:34
Professor Fred Watson: Okay, that's nice.
2:36
Andrew Dunkley: Might have been why she followed me in the
2:38
first place.
2:38
Professor Fred Watson: But anyway, good on the Green Goddess.
2:40
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, good for her. All right,
2:43
um, shall we answer Some questions,
2:45
Fred Watson.
2:46
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, we might as well might.
2:47
We know we're here.
2:48
Andrew Dunkley: Let's get into our first one. And it comes
2:50
from one of our regular contributors. This is
2:53
Casey.
2:54
Andrew Dunkley: Hello, Fred Watson, Andrew and Huw. This is
2:56
Casey from Colorado. I know
2:59
that dark matter stars are completely
3:01
hypothetical at this point. I've read
3:04
before that they would be some of the
3:06
brightest objects in the sky. If they do
3:08
exist though, I was wondering if you could
3:11
please explain why that is and also how they
3:13
can get so hot without any fusion.
3:16
Hope you're both well and thanks for the
3:18
podcast.
3:20
Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Casey. I just knocked everything
3:21
over on my desk, but, um, it'll wash out,
3:25
um, dark matter stars.
3:28
I think somebody's brought these up once
3:30
before, if I'm correct in my thinking.
3:33
But, um, maybe we should start by
3:36
trying to explain what they're supposed to
3:38
be.
3:39
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, well, that's right. Uh, um,
3:42
uh, first of all, Dark matter
3:45
is still hypothesised, really,
3:47
notwithstanding, uh, what we're just saying
3:49
about, um, Peter Verweil. And that is an
3:52
alternative theory to try and account for
3:55
the, uh, low, um,
3:58
the way, uh, the galaxies tell
4:01
us that there is something there that we
4:03
can't see. Uh, um, his
4:06
uh, version of that is something called
4:08
modified Newtonian dynamics that suggests
4:10
that accelerations, uh, do not follow the
4:13
normal Newtonian rules at very low levels.
4:16
I think that's going into doubt though now.
4:19
So I think, I suspect that dark matter
4:22
is, um, basically
4:26
consolidating, uh, its position as the
4:29
number, um, one theory for why galaxies don't
4:31
just fly apart because they've got all this
4:33
stuff in them that we called out matter. So I
4:35
think it's true to say, um, that
4:38
despite a few people looking in other
4:40
directions, most of the scientific community
4:43
believes that we are in a universe
4:46
whose matter content is dominated by
4:48
something that we see sort of outweighs
4:51
normal matter by five to one. Yeah, uh, and
4:54
it's probably some sort of subatomic particle
4:56
that we just have not, uh, come to grips with
4:59
yet. Now, once you accept
5:02
the idea of new
5:04
species of subatomic particles that only
5:07
interact with, uh,
5:10
everything else through gravity, they don't
5:12
interact through electromagnetic radiation or
5:15
any other kind of, uh, particle physics.
5:17
It's only gravity that lets us know that
5:20
these things, uh, these dark matter
5:23
particles are there, hypothesised still, but
5:26
likely to be there. Uh, and it's their own
5:28
gravitational attraction that stops galaxies
5:30
falling apart or flying apart because they're
5:32
rotating too quickly. So that's what dark
5:35
matter is now, um,
5:38
on that bare
5:41
framework or foundation. Scientists have
5:44
built up some models of what dark matter
5:46
particles might be. And
5:49
um, in particular there is an
5:52
idea that if dark matter
5:54
particles come together, then
5:57
a bit like matter and antimatter,
6:00
they would annihilate and
6:03
basically produce radiation.
6:07
And that's the idea of a dark matter star
6:09
that you've got a, uh, hypothetical object,
6:12
um, bigger than your average solar system.
6:15
So they're very large.
6:17
Andrew Dunkley: Wow.
6:17
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, made of dark matter. Uh, but
6:20
what makes them shine is the dark matter
6:23
particles self annihilating.
6:27
Uh, and there are some
6:29
pundits who believe
6:33
that the very first stars that
6:35
formed when the universe was in its infancy
6:38
were actually dark matter stars. Uh,
6:41
were these ones that are super
6:43
bright in the sense that they emit a
6:46
large amount of radiation, but not,
6:49
not super bright in a way that you
6:52
might imagine. And that's because they are so
6:55
big. Um, they are
6:57
basically puffed up by the
7:01
energy coming from this radiation. Uh,
7:03
but because they're so big, their surfaces,
7:07
uh, are relatively cool. And so
7:10
what you see is an object in the infrared.
7:13
Uh, if you're looking out for a dark matter
7:16
star or what you would see
7:20
if they existed.
7:21
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, I get it.
7:23
Professor Fred Watson: Um, so that's why that's basically where the
7:26
energy comes from, the annihilation of dark
7:28
matter particles. Self annihilation.
7:31
Um, but yet
7:33
they're bright, um, because of
7:36
basically the amount of radiation
7:39
that they generate with these, uh, uh,
7:42
annihilation that makes them bright and they
7:45
get uh, to something like 10
7:47
billion times more
7:50
energetic than the sun in terms of the
7:53
energy that they release. Uh, but as I said,
7:55
it's infrared radiation. So they're really
7:58
releasing it, um, in the form of
8:01
heat.
8:01
Andrew Dunkley: So in terms of naked eye observation, you
8:04
can't see a thing.
8:05
Professor Fred Watson: I think that's right, yes. I mean there would
8:07
also be. If we're seeing them in the early
8:09
universe, these things will be very highly
8:12
redshifted. That means their light will not
8:15
only be infrared, but it'll be even redder
8:17
than red infrared, uh, because of the
8:20
expansion of the universe stretching out the
8:22
light waves. Um, so, uh, they
8:25
might be quite difficult, might be quite
8:27
difficult to detect. However, uh, it's
8:30
basically, uh, one of the things that the
8:32
James Webb telescope is looking for. It's
8:35
looking for any evidence of dark matter
8:37
stars.
8:38
Andrew Dunkley: So where a normal star like ours, um,
8:41
depletes its fuel and then turns into a
8:44
red giant and then collapses into a white
8:46
dwarf, a dark matter star
8:48
annihilates itself.
8:50
Professor Fred Watson: I think that would be right. I think it would
8:51
just basically fizzle out
8:54
Evaporate and fizzle out. Yeah.
8:56
Andrew Dunkley: Okay.
8:57
Andrew Dunkley: Wow.
8:57
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
8:58
Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Casey. Um, haven't found one yet,
9:01
but if you do stumble across one, let us
9:04
know.
9:05
Professor Fred Watson: Just hand it in, please.
9:06
Andrew Dunkley: Yes, yes. Just don't forget to put it in a
9:08
lead box.
9:10
Professor Fred Watson: That's right.
9:12
Andrew Dunkley: Thanks for the, the question.
9:13
Our next question, Fred Watson, comes from
9:16
Michael. Uh, he said, I understand that. Oh,
9:18
uh, he says, andrew, I apologise. I still not
9:20
do not have questions, uh, about dark matter.
9:23
It's all right, person before you did it. Uh,
9:26
as I have a firm understanding of how coffee
9:28
and Coca Cola power my day, uh, I understand
9:31
that dormant comments have been suggested
9:33
with a few even confirmed inside the snow
9:36
line, I'm wondering how many might exist.
9:39
Seven. There's seven. I have
9:42
no idea. Uh, and how, uh, a, uh, best
9:45
guess might be made to arrive at that number.
9:48
It was my best guess. I'm going. Well here.
9:51
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, you are, you're guessing.
9:52
Andrew Dunkley: Well, other than infrared telescopes and
9:55
cameras looking for low temperature dark
9:57
objects, what instruments on a smaller
10:00
satellite might be best for searching for
10:02
either or both of the Earth Sun Trojan
10:05
Lagrange points? Uh, that comes from Michael.
10:08
Now I'm assuming Michael's in Alberta because
10:11
I'm going off his email address and it had
10:13
the abbreviation AB And I looked that up and
10:16
that's the abbreviation for the Province of
10:19
Alberta, Canada. But I might be wrong and I'm
10:22
sorry if I'm way off the map,
10:24
Michael, but thanks, uh, for the question.
10:27
Okay, um, are there,
10:30
are there, um, yes.
10:33
Comets?
10:33
Professor Fred Watson: Thought to be. So, um, what's a dormant
10:36
comet? Uh, well, it is,
10:39
it would be a comet that has,
10:42
uh, gone past the sun several
10:45
times in its lifetime. I think that's
10:47
probably the bottom line. Uh,
10:50
it's an old comet
10:53
and uh, because
10:56
every time a comet gets near the sun,
10:59
it's basically radiates its uh,
11:02
gas and dust into space. Uh, the gas
11:05
turns into a kind of plasma. It's excited by
11:07
the sun's radiation. Uh, and
11:10
so you get what we call a gas tail for a
11:12
comet. And um, you can also get a dust tail
11:15
because comets are dusty objects with this
11:18
sort of frozen gas around them. The
11:21
dust leaks out when the gas blows away.
11:24
And so you get uh, comets that have two
11:26
tails. So um,
11:29
imagine, uh, one of these things that's
11:32
gone, ah, round the sun several
11:35
times. And basically
11:41
it would have a kind of crusty
11:44
layer to it, an outer layer,
11:46
uh, which is the dust sort of
11:49
coagulating on the surface. So the
11:51
gases has been blowing dust off.
11:54
But there's still a residual dust layer
11:57
that might give you this crust
12:00
around the edge of it. That means that even
12:03
though it goes near the sun, the sun doesn't
12:06
penetrate, uh, the sun's radiation and heat
12:09
don't penetrate the dust. And so it doesn't
12:11
actually, uh, stir into action. It doesn't
12:13
start behaving like a comet which is to
12:15
release its gas and dust.
12:17
Andrew Dunkley: Okay.
12:18
Professor Fred Watson: Um, and so, uh, that,
12:21
uh, you know, that would, that would be a
12:23
dormant comet once one that's gone to sleep.
12:26
Um, what might stir it back into
12:30
action is if you
12:33
had a dormant comet colliding
12:36
with something else. Uh, hopefully not the
12:38
Earth. Uh, but you know, maybe another,
12:41
another, um, an asteroid or
12:44
something like that, uh, that might
12:46
disturb that, that
12:50
dusty crust on the outside or crusty
12:53
dust, uh, the sort of crust of the. Over the.
12:55
I. If you could expose
12:58
the icy surface to the sun's radiation, then
13:02
it would basically start giving you what, ah,
13:05
we would call an active comet as well. Um, I
13:07
mean the way they are. And this is really the
13:09
nub of the question, I guess, how do you
13:11
detect them? Because the problem is,
13:14
um, if you've got a comet, even though it's
13:16
made mostly of ice, uh,
13:19
uh, if it's got this, um, dark
13:22
crust on the outside of it, there's very
13:25
little to distinguish that from an asteroid.
13:28
Um, and so how do you know whether this
13:31
is a dormant comet or an asteroid?
13:34
And it's really quite hard to do. Um,
13:37
there's not that much to choose between them.
13:39
You will be looking at a kind of thermal
13:42
signature because, um, asteroids are cold
13:44
rock. Uh, dormant comets
13:47
are cold ice with a kind of rocky,
13:50
sort of dusty, um, rocky layer on the
13:53
outside. Uh, there's not that much to
13:56
differentiate between them until you knock
13:58
some of the dust off and the thing. Thing
13:59
wakes up.
14:01
Andrew Dunkley: Yes.
14:01
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. Um, so, um,
14:05
I think, uh, there's scope for us
14:08
trying to do a survey. But it will be hard
14:11
to know, uh, whether
14:14
you've picked a dormant comet or you've got
14:17
an asteroid. And it may well be that some of
14:18
the asteroids that we consider to be
14:20
asteroids are actually dormant comets.
14:23
Andrew Dunkley: So they're super duper old. I suppose the
14:25
smoking gun would be. Most of them have got
14:27
Zimmer frames.
14:30
Professor Fred Watson: Could be, yep. Um, comet. Zimmer frame.
14:34
Yes. I like the sound of that.
14:36
Andrew Dunkley: You never know.
14:37
Professor Fred Watson: Um,
14:39
Andrew Dunkley: worth looking for or not. But
14:41
yeah. Okay, so, um, so
14:44
they might be out there. When Michael said
14:47
that, uh, a few have been confirmed in the
14:49
snow line. What's, what's he
14:52
Meaning there.
14:53
Professor Fred Watson: So that means. So the snow line is,
14:55
um, basically it's on the far side
14:58
of Mars's orbit. Ye, where, um,
15:02
water vapour stops being vapour and
15:05
freezes. It's the, uh, sort
15:08
of outer side of the
15:11
Goldilocks zone.
15:13
Andrew Dunkley: Okay, fair enough. Michael, thanks for the
15:16
question. Um, that was fascinating. Um,
15:19
and um, yeah, I suppose one day someone might
15:22
go, aha, I've found a way. And then
15:24
we've got the answer. This is Space
15:27
Nuts, Andrew Dunkley with Professor
15:29
Fred Watson Watson.
15:32
Space Nuts. Oh, that was. That
15:35
was it. That was so short. I'm going to
15:38
do it again. Space Nuts.
15:40
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. He's got a very nice voice, hasn't he?
15:42
Andrew Dunkley: He has, yes. I can do that on my
15:44
machine. Hang on. Yeah, wait for
15:47
it. Uh, not there.
15:48
Professor Fred Watson: Okay.
15:48
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, no, not there. Oh, here it is.
15:51
Space Nuts.
15:57
Professor Fred Watson: I, um. Yeah, I think you need some, uh,
16:00
Gaviscon or something.
16:02
Andrew Dunkley: I can do it with this one.
16:07
Yeah, I could go on forever.
16:10
Professor Fred Watson: I know you could,
16:13
Andrew Dunkley: but I won't. Um, we'll go to it.
16:15
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah.
16:15
Professor Fred Watson: Anyway, I'm sure you can use that, uh, in
16:18
suitable, uh, environments that, um, I
16:21
mean audio environments that might intrigue
16:23
our listeners or otherwise, um, confuse
16:26
them.
16:26
Andrew Dunkley: Indeed.
16:28
Our next question comes from Derek.
16:30
Andrew Dunkley: Hi guys, this is Derek from southern Ontario
16:33
and Canada. Again, um, just wondering if
16:36
you could explain the orbital
16:38
mechanics behind Slingshots. Gravitational
16:41
slingshots. And uh, I'm trying
16:44
to understand whether the rotation of
16:47
the planet has anything to do with that
16:49
slingshot or if it's just, uh, uh, in
16:52
terms of how close you get to the planet. Um,
16:55
if you can elaborate a little bit on that,
16:57
that would be great. Thank you. Love the
16:58
podcast. Have a great day.
17:00
Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Derek. Uh, it's a good question,
17:02
uh, and I think we've seen
17:05
it used, uh, many times for some of these
17:07
probes that have been sent, um, way out
17:10
into the solar system because we
17:13
find it's uh, a much more efficient way of
17:15
doing things because we haven't got the fuel
17:17
to send them all the way in under their own
17:19
steam. That was certainly the case with the
17:21
Voyagers, uh, and they were two
17:24
of the best examples of using the gas giants
17:27
for slingshots, um, but
17:29
even launching things off our own planet.
17:32
There's a bit of slingshot effect, isn't
17:34
there?
17:35
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yes, that's right, there is. Um, so,
17:38
um, it's not just getting to the outer
17:41
solar system. I think, um, the uh,
17:43
Bepicolombo, uh, spacecraft which is on
17:46
its way to Mercury, I think that's had
17:48
Something like seven slingshots with Venus
17:51
and the Earth. That's right. Might be
17:52
exaggerating, but, um, it's had a large
17:55
number, and that's in order to make
17:58
its velocity, uh, match the velocity of
18:01
Mercury, um, which you'd think will be
18:04
easy as you drop things into the inner solar
18:06
system, but it's not actually. It's quite
18:08
hard to do. You've got to kind of catch up
18:10
with Mercury as it steams around in its orbit
18:13
because it's going faster than the Earth is
18:14
in its orbit around the sun. Um,
18:18
so, um, yes. So it's a very useful tool
18:21
for exploring the solar system. I think
18:22
you're about to confirm how many it's had.
18:25
Andrew Dunkley: I haven't found it yet. I'm usually pretty
18:27
quick, but I'm not.
18:28
Professor Fred Watson: You are pretty quick, yeah.
18:30
Andrew Dunkley: It's proving elusive at the moment, but I'll
18:33
get it.
18:33
Professor Fred Watson: I will get. Has had an elusive number
18:36
of slingshots, uh, uh,
18:39
but the bottom line is that it's a process
18:41
that works well and is actually
18:44
very much a part of the
18:46
astrodynamicists toolkit when they're
18:49
actually working out the, um, orbits
18:52
and um, trajectories of planets.
18:55
Andrew Dunkley: Exploring the nine slingshots.
18:58
Professor Fred Watson: Nine slingshots. There you go. Seven was an
19:01
underestimate.
19:02
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. One at Earth, two at Venus, and six at
19:04
Mercury itself.
19:06
Professor Fred Watson: Yes. Fantastic. That's what you need to
19:09
match Mercury's orbital speed. Quite
19:11
remarkable. So, um, how does it work? Well,
19:14
it's counterintuitive, isn't it, because you
19:16
think that a, uh, spacecraft falling in
19:19
towards a planet, uh, it's going to
19:22
gain velocity, but then as it leaves the
19:25
planet, it's going to decelerate and so it
19:28
would lose velocity. And you might think the
19:30
two would balance up, but the bottom line is
19:33
they don't. And it's all about the angle that
19:35
you come in, uh, when you intercept
19:38
the planet's orbit. And if you get the
19:41
angle right, you can have this situation
19:44
where, uh, without making contact at
19:46
all, where some of the momentum of the planet
19:50
is transferred to the spacecra.
19:53
Um, and so the spacecraft gets
19:55
a, uh, push in velocity, its velocity
19:58
increases. The planet doesn't even notice the
20:01
difference because the spacecraft has so
20:03
little mass compared with,
20:06
um, the planet. Um, so it's
20:08
balancing the momentum.
20:11
Momentum, of course, is just the mass times
20:13
the velocity. Uh, and so you've got a very
20:16
big mass transferring momentum to a very
20:19
small mass. And, um, that means you get
20:22
quite a significant velocity kick, uh, in
20:25
doing that. And so it's not to do
20:28
with the rotation. Um, so Derek is
20:32
right to point out that as a query, is it to
20:35
do with the rotation? The answer is no. So if
20:37
you had a planet that wasn't rotating at all,
20:40
uh, you could still do a gravitational
20:42
slingshot very successfully with it. Oh,
20:44
okay.
20:47
Andrew Dunkley: So does the spacecraft, when it's doing
20:50
this slingshot, actually steal some of
20:53
the planet's energy?
20:54
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah.
20:55
Andrew Dunkley: Is that how it works?
20:56
Professor Fred Watson: It's stealing momentum, uh,
20:59
and um, using that to accelerate
21:02
and sometimes quite dramatically. So the
21:05
change in the orbital trajectory is really
21:07
significant. But it's a fantastic tool
21:10
for exploring the planets.
21:13
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, it is until the day we can
21:16
come up with a new way of,
21:20
a new form of engine
21:23
propulsion. That's the word I was wanting.
21:25
Uh, that um, renders
21:28
gravitational assist unnecessary.
21:30
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, that's right. At the moment, we haven't
21:32
got there yet. No, you're right.
21:34
Andrew Dunkley: But it might. Yeah, it could be
21:37
scramjet technology, it could be
21:40
nuclear power, like fusion engines, things
21:42
like that. We're a long way from that. But,
21:45
uh, those are possibilities. Yeah, yeah.
21:48
Um, who knows? Um,
21:51
but the more you speed up in space, the more
21:53
you've got to be careful because there's lots
21:55
of stuff you can bump into. You don't really
21:57
want to do that at pace, do you?
22:00
Professor Fred Watson: You've got to know where all this stuff is.
22:02
And that's what astronomers are for.
22:04
Andrew Dunkley: Indeed.
22:04
Professor Fred Watson: Tell you where it all is.
22:06
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, thank you, Derek. I hope that covered,
22:08
uh, your question adequately.
22:15
Space nuts. What we're going to do
22:18
now, Fred Watson, is, um, we've got, uh,
22:21
we've had quite a Canadian influence in, in
22:24
today's show by the look of it. Uh, this
22:26
comes um, from Jason in Montreal, in
22:29
Quebec. And uh, he says, I'm a big fan of the
22:32
show.
22:32
I have a question regarding the rapid rise of
22:34
fully automated smart telescopes
22:37
and their place in the modern hobby.
22:40
Uh, on one hand it feels like these devices
22:43
are, ah, an incredible cost effective
22:45
gateway. They allow beginners to dive
22:47
straight into astrophotography and see almost
22:50
instant results without spending thousands of
22:52
dollars on complex gear right away.
22:55
That immediate reward seems to be a fantastic
22:58
way to spark a lifelong interest in
23:00
astronomy. On the other hand, there
23:02
seems to be a, uh, bit of a divide in the
23:05
community with some traditional
23:06
astrophotographers viewing them as cheating
23:10
because the automated software removes so
23:13
much of the steep learning curve. What
23:16
are your thoughts on this technological
23:17
shift? Do you see smart telescopes as a
23:20
positive tool for opening up the night sky to
23:23
a broader audience, or do you Feel
23:26
something valuable is lost when we automate
23:28
the setup and tracking process.
23:31
Uh, I actually bought one recently and I've
23:34
already learned a lot over the past few
23:36
months. Getting those quick results didn't
23:38
stop me from wanting to learn more in. In
23:41
fact, it did the opposite. Uh, it got
23:44
me watching more astronomy and
23:45
astrophotography videos than usual, uh, on
23:48
YouTube and joining Facebook groups to learn
23:50
from other users. And of course, let me
23:53
find your podcast. Uh, thank you for the
23:56
great episodes. Uh, that comes from Jason in
23:58
Montreal. I'm going to show you something,
23:59
Fred Watson.
24:00
Professor Fred Watson: Yep. Let me see.
24:04
Uh, I've got one.
24:07
He's got one.
24:08
Andrew Dunkley: Um, I've got one. And yes, it simplifies
24:10
everything. It does all the hard work for
24:12
you, but if you someone who doesn't like
24:13
doing the hard work, it's a godsend.
24:17
Yeah, that's my take on it. I'll keep it nice
24:19
and short. I know a couple of people
24:22
who've got both. They've got a traditional
24:23
telescope with the whole kit set
24:26
up with their computers and the programmes
24:29
and all the tracking technology.
24:32
They like to do it the old fashioned way.
24:34
And, uh, they've also got smart
24:36
telescopes, um, which
24:39
do the same thing. But, um, you know,
24:42
you've got to rob Peter to pay Paul. The
24:44
efficiency and simplicity of that,
24:47
uh, also means that your images aren't going
24:50
to be nearly as good as a
24:53
traditional telescope. Uh, so
24:58
it ebbs and flows. There's a cost for
25:01
the, um, let's not say the word cheating,
25:04
but there is a cost. Um, uh, but it
25:07
does make astrophotography
25:10
immensely affordable for a lot of
25:13
people.
25:14
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. And accessible too. Yes. Um,
25:17
so, yes, look, um,
25:20
I think Jason sort of answered his own
25:22
question in exactly the way I would. Uh,
25:25
that, uh, you've got
25:28
the two aspects of it. It's a
25:31
brilliant way of getting
25:34
into astrophotography,
25:37
um, almost painlessly, um,
25:42
on a very good level too.
25:45
Uh, and if you then wanted to do
25:48
more, if you wanted to go for a bigger
25:50
telescope and do your image processing
25:53
in a more, um,
25:56
perhaps a more precise way that's,
25:59
uh, still open to you, I think, as a tool
26:02
for getting people involved in astronomy.
26:04
I think they're absolutely fabulous. I don't
26:07
have one myself. Uh, I'm glad you've got one
26:09
one, Andrew, because I've seen some of the
26:11
results from that and they are very
26:12
impressive. Uh, I've got a number of other
26:15
friends who've got them as well, who are
26:16
themselves professional astronomers.
26:20
Andrew Dunkley: There's a photo I took the Other night of the
26:21
M8.
26:22
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. There you go. And it's lovely.
26:25
Colour balance. That's pretty well what you'd
26:28
expect to see from a David Malin image.
26:30
And that's what's like.
26:32
Andrew Dunkley: David Malan was a pioneer in this stuff.
26:34
Professor Fred Watson: He did.
26:35
Andrew Dunkley: Now you can do it from your lounge room.
26:37
Professor Fred Watson: Yes. With. You can literally with your mobile
26:39
phone. On your m. Mobile phone,
26:43
Telescope outside. Um, yeah. I think
26:46
it's fantastic. I'm very, uh,
26:49
much old school. I love pottering around with
26:51
a telescope with nothing more than an
26:53
eyepiece. I've never really ventured into
26:54
astrophotography. The nearest thing I've got
26:57
to that has been a lot of aurora
26:59
photography. Uh, um, which I
27:02
love and is now also a lot more accessible
27:05
just with a smartphone. Uh, so I don't
27:08
carry around. Found all the kit I used to.
27:09
When we go up to the Arctic, uh, to look for
27:12
the aurora, just take my smartphone.
27:15
Um, but you're right. Um,
27:19
I think, as I said, I think Jason's answered
27:21
it perfectly. It's obviously
27:23
stimulated him to go further. Uh, he loves
27:26
what he's got and he's finding out more. Uh,
27:29
best of all, he found space nuts. Yes, nice.
27:31
But, um. Uh,
27:34
I would not be somebody who
27:37
would frown upon these devices and
27:40
saying, in my day we did not
27:43
have this sort of thing. You know, we had to
27:45
do it properly. We had to understand what was
27:47
going on. Well, you can still do it
27:50
and understand what's going on, uh, with
27:53
your smart telescope. Well, what's. Sorry, go
27:56
ahead.
27:56
Andrew Dunkley: On mine, when I pick a target, it then gives
27:59
me an audio briefing on what the target is,
28:02
who found it, when it was found.
28:05
Professor Fred Watson: That is fabulous.
28:06
Andrew Dunkley: It is amazing.
28:10
Good stuff.
28:10
Professor Fred Watson: It's an astronomy class as well.
28:13
Um, I think I'm right in saying that
28:16
the first of these smart telescopes was a
28:19
Unihedron. I think, uh, that was probably
28:22
six or seven years ago when I saw the first
28:25
one of those and I was very impressed with
28:27
it. But what I was going to say was that they
28:29
have now come down in price to be,
28:33
um, really quite affordable.
28:35
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah.
28:35
Professor Fred Watson: And it's not beyond the realms of possibility
28:37
that one day there might be one in the Watson
28:39
household. Although I do like things that are
28:42
made of brass. And do you look through one
28:44
end and see how they.
28:45
Andrew Dunkley: There are a mass of them out there and quite
28:47
a few are, uh, well under a thousand dollars.
28:51
Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
28:52
Andrew Dunkley: So, you know, that makes
28:55
a pretty wide target audience.
28:56
The other thing mine does is you can click on
28:59
the map on your phone and you can see where
29:01
other uh, people are that are using
29:04
the same gear as you.
29:06
Professor Fred Watson: Interesting.
29:07
Andrew Dunkley: I'm not sure, I'm not sure that goes down
29:09
with the privacy laws.
29:10
Professor Fred Watson: But anyway, uh, I was going to say is there a
29:11
privacy infringement there? Maybe, yeah.
29:14
Andrew Dunkley: I've got um, satellite navigation in the car
29:16
that does the same thing. It shows you other
29:18
users of that particular device but um,
29:22
they've um, curtailed it in Australia so it
29:24
only shows you where they were like 10
29:26
minutes ago.
29:27
Professor Fred Watson: Okay.
29:28
Andrew Dunkley: Which is pointless. Just turn it off.
29:30
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, it is of a waste.
29:32
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. Uh, well, you know, we live in nanny
29:35
state New South Wales, so you've um,
29:38
everything's on the table for uh, some sort
29:40
of scrutiny. Probably me now after saying
29:43
that. But yeah, Jason, look, I'm a big fan
29:46
and you are too. And uh,
29:49
I don't think it does spoil the tradition,
29:52
uh, or the traditional approach to um,
29:54
astrophotography because vinyl um,
29:57
records have come back, back. So you know,
30:01
you can't write anything off.
30:03
Yeah, but I wanted that question
30:05
to um, I wanted you to hear
30:08
that question Fred Watson, because I know
30:10
you've got a long history in um, in
30:12
telescopes, you've written books about them
30:14
and um, this is, this is the next big thing,
30:17
I suppose.
30:19
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, yeah.
30:20
Andrew Dunkley: While we're talking about it, um, when you
30:22
were away last, um, Jonty
30:24
Horner grabbed a couple of astrophotographers
30:27
and we did a special on astrophotography
30:31
which I'm not sure if Huw's released it yet,
30:33
but I think he's still working on how to get
30:36
that out there. It's quite a, I think it's an
30:38
hour long special on
30:40
astrophotography and the techniques and how
30:43
they did it and what you can do. So if you
30:45
really want to get into the nuts and bolts of
30:47
astrophotography, have a look for that one.
30:50
Um, I'm not sure it's been released yet. Yet.
30:52
Um, it took some pretty heavy editing because
30:55
there were four people on it. So it was okay,
30:57
it was a big show. But uh, yeah, that one
31:00
will be available soon, if not already.
31:04
Uh, and thanks for all your questions. Please
31:06
keep them coming at our, ah, website,
31:08
spacenutspodcast.com or spacenuts
31:10
IO and click on the Little AMA tab at the
31:13
top and send us your text or audio questions.
31:16
If you're sending us an audio question,
31:17
please remember to tell us where you're from
31:20
and your name.
31:21
Andrew Dunkley: Name.
31:21
Andrew Dunkley: Um, it doesn't do that by itself. Uh,
31:24
although I know sometimes people forget to
31:26
tell us their name on where they're from on
31:28
text as well. Um, but that's
31:30
okay. Um, it's not mandatory, but, uh,
31:33
it just helps us to know where everybody's
31:36
at. Fred Watson, we're done. Thanks very
31:38
much.
31:39
Professor Fred Watson: Oh, thank you, Andrew. Good fun and great to
31:42
hear from the listeners as well. Especially,
31:44
you know, when we get questions that, uh,
31:46
cover everything from, from dark matter,
31:49
stars and dormant comets to the latest in
31:51
telescope technology. Where else can you hear
31:54
about all that?
31:54
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, exactly.
31:55
Professor Fred Watson: Right.
31:56
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. All right. Thanks, Fred Watson. See you
31:58
soon.
31:59
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. Cheers. Cheers.
32:00
Andrew Dunkley: For now, Professor Fred Watson Watson,
32:01
astronomer at large, and thanks to Huw in the
32:03
studio, couldn't be with us today because he
32:05
bought a smart telescope. He's
32:07
not smart enough to use it. Uh, and from me,
32:09
Andrew Dunkley, thanks for your company.
32:12
We'll catch you on the next episode of Space
32:14
Nuts. Bye bye. Space Nuts.
32:16
You've been listening to the Space Nick Nuts
32:18
podcast, available at
32:21
Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
32:23
iHeartRadio or your favourite podcast
32:26
player. You can also stream on demand at
32:28
bytes.
32:29
Professor Fred Watson: Com. This has been another quality podcast
32:32
production from Bytes. Com. Um,