Latest / Space News Today / Challenger’s Legacy, Cosmic Moons & the Mystery of Rapid Black Hole Growth | Space Nuts:...

Transcript

Challenger’s Legacy, Cosmic Moons & the Mystery of Rapid Black Hole Growth | Space Nuts:... · Space News Today

0:00
Hi there. Thanks for joining us on Space
0:02
Nuts, where we talk astronomy and space
0:04
science uh twice a week, in fact. And
0:07
I'm glad you could join us yet again. Uh
0:10
today's episode has some uh great news,
0:14
but also a bit of a sad reflection. It's
0:18
40 years since the Challenger space
0:21
shuttle disaster. Can you believe that?
0:23
40 years. Of course, some of you
0:25
listening to us
0:27
won't remember it because you're 40. Uh
0:29
but uh for those of us who are a few
0:31
years older, it is um a very very strong
0:34
memory. We'll uh talk about that. On a
0:37
happier note, we will reveal the
0:39
Australian of the year. I think most
0:41
Australians will know who that is. Uh
0:44
how do you define a moon? That question
0:47
has come up because of a potential
0:48
discovery. And they think they know why
0:52
black holes are getting big fast. We'll
0:56
talk about all of that on this episode
0:58
of Space Nuts.
0:59
>> 15 seconds. Guidance is internal. 10 9
1:04
Ignition sequence start.
1:06
>> Space Nuts.
1:07
>> 5 4 3 2 1 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1
1:12
>> Space Nuts.
1:13
>> Astronauts report. It feels good.
1:16
>> Joining us as always is his good self,
1:18
Professor Fred Watson, astronomer at
1:20
large. Hello, Fred.
1:21
>> Hello. It's good to be good. It is good
1:24
to be good. It's good to see you.
1:27
>> It's good to be in a cool room because
1:28
it's not cool in our part of the world
1:31
at the moment. We're right in the middle
1:32
of a week long uh run of 40 plus Celsius
1:37
temperatures. Uh we we've uh broken our
1:40
uh record in in do for the hottest day
1:44
in January and that was 461
1:48
I think we had uh on Monday on Australia
1:51
Day which um yeah it was dreadful. I
1:54
mean it was just horrific. Um so yeah
1:57
it's it's been a pretty rough week. U my
1:59
plants are suffering. There's nothing I
2:01
can do about it and I think we're going
2:04
to lose a few. know unfortunately that's
2:06
the way it goes. Um I suppose that's
2:09
what happens when they plant plants in
2:11
an environment like this that um don't
2:13
come from here. They struggle. But uh
2:17
yes, all all is well with you. Uh yeah,
2:20
our plants uh pretty well are all
2:22
natives uh in Man's Garden, so they they
2:26
don't seem to mind, but we've got um
2:28
much more modest temperatures than you
2:30
have here on the coast.
2:31
>> Probably about 10° cooler, I imagine.
2:34
Uh, it's not quite that, but not far
2:36
off. Yeah. Yeah. Actually, no, it's more
2:39
like 20 at the moment. 20°. Yeah, we're
2:42
down at um, but it's forecast to be 29
2:45
today. So,
2:45
>> yeah, we're going to get to 41, I think,
2:48
today. So, I think we're already pushing
2:51
towards 30 as I speak, and it's only
2:53
what, 9:30 in the morning local time.
2:56
So,
2:58
um, we got a lot to talk about, so we
2:59
better get stuck into it. Uh the first
3:01
thing is uh something that um I I don't
3:05
think anyone who was around at the time
3:07
will ever forget. I'm talking about the
3:11
Challenger space shuttle launch uh in
3:14
1986
3:16
and this is basically what happened.
3:19
>> T-minus 15 seconds
3:26
9.
3:29
We have main engine start. 4 3 2 1 and
3:36
liftoff. Liftoff of the 25th space
3:39
shuttle mission. And it has cleared the
3:41
tower.
3:50
>> Good. Roll program confirmed.
3:53
>> Challenger now heading down range.
4:03
Engine's beginning throttling down now
4:05
at 94%.
4:07
Normal throttles uh for most of the
4:09
flight 104%.
4:13
We'll throttle down to uh 65% shortly.
4:20
Engines at 65%. Three engines running
4:22
normally. Three good fuel cells. Three
4:24
good APUs.
4:28
Velocity 2257 ft per second. Altitude
4:31
4.3 nautical miles. Downrange distance 3
4:33
nautical miles.
4:39
>> Engines throttling up. Three engines now
4:41
at 104%.
4:42
>> Challenger go at throttle up.
4:44
>> Go throttle up.
4:50
>> 1 minute 15 seconds. Velocity 2900 ft
4:53
per second. Altitude 9 nautical miles.
4:55
Down range distance 7 nautical mile.
5:27
Flight controllers here looking very
5:28
carefully at the situation.
5:31
Obviously a major malfunction.
5:38
We have no down link.
5:49
We have a report from the flight
5:50
dynamics officer that the vehicle has
5:52
exploded. Flight director confirms that.
5:54
We are looking at uh checking with the
5:57
recovery forces to see what can be done
5:59
at this point.
6:01
>> And there it is. That was the launch of
6:03
Challenger in 1986
6:06
uh in real time. Uh and we heard the
6:10
final words of uh the commander Dick
6:13
Scobby when he said, "Roger, going with
6:15
throttle up." And that was basically
6:18
where it all went horribly wrong, Fred.
6:21
Uh the um cause of the accident was
6:25
ultimately blamed on the O-rings. the
6:28
the O-rings joined each section of the
6:31
solid rocket boosters and there were
6:35
several of them, but one of them had a
6:37
catastrophic failure and the um uh the
6:41
vehicle exploded as a consequence of of
6:43
that failure. And we all saw it, we all
6:46
watched it. Um it was it was horrifying.
6:52
Uh indeed it was. I remember it very
6:53
well too, of course. Um so yeah it was
6:56
um nothing to do with the throttling up
6:58
that that was just
6:59
>> that was just to get it going. Yeah that
7:01
>> and
7:04
um the throttle back for the um maximum
7:06
dynamic pressure uh region where when
7:09
you've got the biggest aerodynamic
7:11
forces you throttle back for that and
7:13
then throttle up again. Um and so it was
7:16
eventually determined that uh what had
7:19
happened was that the temperature on one
7:21
side of the shuttle uh it was a cold
7:24
morning. It was a winter morning 28th of
7:26
January. two degrees I think or
7:28
>> it was two degrees above zero ambient
7:31
when they launched but one of the one
7:34
side of the throttle sorry the shuttle
7:36
and its boosters were still at minus2
7:39
and at those temperatures um those
7:43
O-rings become effectively uh
7:46
non-pliable. They they don't you know
7:48
they're not flexible. Uh and so that's
7:51
what allowed the fact that it was not
7:53
behaving properly allowed gas to escape
7:55
from that joint is exactly as you've
7:57
said there are there are four sections
7:59
to the shuttle booster each sealed by
8:02
O-rings and it was the the lower one um
8:05
where combustion was at its extreme. Uh
8:08
it meant the gases came through and in
8:11
fact there is footage that shows exactly
8:13
that uh with these hot gases playing on
8:16
the main fuel tank. um the the you know
8:18
the external fuel tank of the shuttle.
8:20
So
8:21
>> it was uh very much their fate was
8:24
sealed even before launch basically and
8:27
>> there were people at the company who
8:29
built the boosters Morton Fire call who
8:31
knew that and they were overridden in
8:34
their warnings that this was likely to
8:36
be dangerous.
8:37
>> They they raised concerns a long time
8:39
before this happened. In fact, they'd uh
8:42
they'd discovered damage in the O-rings
8:44
from previous missions.
8:46
And even the night before the launch,
8:50
they held a meeting to say, "We don't
8:52
think you've got to scrub the launch.
8:54
It's not it's not safe. Something, you
8:57
know, something dreadful could happen."
8:59
>> And I think the the different the factor
9:02
that made the difference, as you said,
9:04
was the temperature that morning. Um
9:07
because previous flights were warmer. It
9:11
was warmer.
9:11
>> Yeah. I think 12 degrees was the lowest
9:14
they'd ever launched at and it was two
9:16
that morning as you said.
9:18
>> Um and one of the reasons for the for
9:22
the reluctance to scrub the mission may
9:25
have been the fact that we did have this
9:28
teacher uh on board. Yeah. Christina
9:32
McAuliff, that's her name, I think.
9:34
um she uh was a school teacher, not an
9:37
astronaut. Uh she'd engaged many many
9:40
schools across across this the the
9:43
country. So huge numbers of people were
9:46
were watching and NASA had done that
9:49
purposely I think to sort of inject some
9:51
more interest into the shuttle program
9:53
because they'd had 25 successful
9:55
launches and it was becoming
9:57
>> basically routine. Um you know very
10:00
people were blas about it. uh but just
10:03
to also confirm that there were a
10:07
further 87 successful shuttle launches
10:09
after that. So the problems were fixed
10:12
and uh the lessons were learned. Um it
10:16
was a tragedy of course a human tragedy
10:18
with the loss of life. Uh I I noticed
10:21
something yesterday that blew me away
10:23
Andrew. Um there are 17 astronauts were
10:28
lost uh in NASA programs. the three um
10:33
Apollo ast one astronauts who died in
10:36
the fire on the ground of the Apollo one
10:40
capsule. That was on the uh 27th of
10:44
January 1967.
10:46
>> Yes.
10:47
>> The uh Colombia disaster uh when um
10:52
re-entry was basically turned into a uh
10:55
you know a disintegration because of uh
10:58
damage to the to the shuttle wing. That
11:01
was on, wasn't it?
11:03
>> That's correct. That was on the 1st of
11:05
February, 2003. So these losses of life
11:08
were all within a week of each other in
11:12
anniversary times. It was quite amazing.
11:15
So yes, the the Challenger disaster uh
11:18
59 years before the day before we'd lost
11:22
the Apollo one crew and uh it's um it's
11:26
a coincidence, but it's a spooky one.
11:29
>> It is very spooky. I I remember where I
11:31
was when the news broke. I'd just got in
11:33
my car and um I naturally had the radio
11:38
on being someone who worked in the
11:40
industry and uh the news came on as I
11:43
was backing the car out and I just
11:45
stopped in my tracks and I just shook. I
11:48
couldn't believe it. M
11:50
>> um and and what really haunts me is that
11:53
only a week before I'd been talking to
11:56
my future sister-in-law who was still in
11:58
high school at the time and she brought
12:00
it up with me about the space shuttle
12:02
program and I said what worries me is
12:04
something horribly wrong is going to
12:07
happen. Yeah. Uh I I think I think
12:10
they're actually being too gung-ho.
12:13
those that's what I said to her and I
12:16
couldn't believe less you know about a
12:17
week later this happened.
12:20
>> Well, you were right in in a way that's
12:22
sort of what what led to it. Yeah.
12:24
>> Yeah. Yeah. Uh but the same thing uh as
12:27
you mentioned with the the loss of
12:29
interest in the space shuttle program
12:31
from the public perspective. Uh the same
12:33
thing happened with Apollo.
12:35
>> Like they were supposed to they were
12:36
supposed to have more missions but they
12:38
just went no one's interested anymore.
12:40
So they stopped at 17.
12:42
>> Um that's quite right
12:44
>> and and I I suppose these days space
12:48
travel has just become routine. There
12:50
are missions going up and down all the
12:51
time we never hear about because it's
12:54
just it's so very regular now. And and
12:58
when you bring in the private sector on
13:00
top of that, there's launches every
13:01
other day. It's it's just happening.
13:04
And and it was always going to go that
13:05
way, I suppose. Uh but you you've got to
13:08
um you've got to spare a thought for the
13:11
pioneers that sacrificed their lives to
13:14
make all this possible because without
13:16
them it it just would never have got to
13:18
the point it is now. And I think we've
13:21
said it before, you you go back to the
13:23
history of flight and we got to the moon
13:26
in less than a 100red years of the first
13:28
flight by a human being in a in a um
13:31
purpose-built
13:33
uh aircraft. It's just extraordinary to
13:35
to think that we we could have leapt so
13:38
far so fast and I suppose when you do
13:40
that there is a price and this was one
13:43
of the one of the costs of of space
13:46
travel and aeronautics and yeah it was
13:49
very sad day and um one I will never
13:52
forget red
13:54
>> uh we will leave challenger there um to
13:57
some happier news and of course uh the
14:01
other day we celebrated Australia day in
14:04
this country 26th of January and every
14:08
year we uh have the announcement of the
14:12
Australian of the year. Now quite often
14:14
it's a sports star [laughter] that
14:16
usually usually happens. Uh although in
14:19
recent years they've been focusing more
14:21
on the academic side of things or the
14:23
the medical side of things which is
14:25
which is good. This year though uh you
14:28
must be really pleased. It is an
14:30
Australian astronaut.
14:33
>> Uh absolutely delighted. Yeah. Really
14:35
thrilled about that. She's um she's an
14:38
an [clears throat] astronaut who uh has
14:40
been qualified under ISA's program,
14:42
astronaut program, Europe uh the
14:44
European Space Agency. She hasn't flown
14:46
yet. Uh there's every chance that she
14:48
will that she will fly to the space
14:50
station uh and fulfill a mission.
14:53
Katherine Benel Peg is her name. I
14:56
discovered um yesterday I was looking at
14:58
dates yesterday obviously um she is one
15:02
day short of 40 years younger than me
15:05
was
15:05
>> but her birthday is the day after mine
15:08
uh so that's that's that's a
15:10
non-coincidence but um not not only an
15:13
astronaut but she is also director of
15:15
space technology at this the Australian
15:17
space agency which was um very much um
15:20
close to my heart in the work that I did
15:23
for the government the Australian space
15:24
agency
15:26
a sister organization within the
15:27
department of industry science and
15:28
resources where I worked. So, a lot of
15:31
friends there. Um, and Katherine uh is
15:35
absolutely welldeserved recipient of the
15:39
annual Australian of the Year award and
15:41
she'll do great things with it. She
15:43
wants to be um very much a STEM
15:46
ambassador as well for public educ for
15:49
education uh for science technology
15:52
education. She'll do a great job. She's
15:54
a lovely person.
15:55
>> Yes. Um she comes across that way and
15:59
I I think the interest in space science
16:02
is starting to really uh grow from
16:05
strength to strength and uh she she will
16:08
do a a wonderful job in that regard and
16:10
and maybe inspire other Australians to
16:13
follow in her footsteps. And now that we
16:16
have our own space agency, we certainly
16:18
want that, don't we?
16:20
>> Very much so. Yes. The Australian Space
16:22
Agency was uh formed in 2018. It's um
16:26
still going strong. A lot of its uh
16:29
functions are regulatory. It's all about
16:31
regulating launches and things of that
16:32
sort. Um but also promoting startups and
16:36
uh things of that sort to encourage the
16:38
space industry here in Australia, which
16:40
was why it was set up in the first
16:41
place.
16:42
>> Yeah.
16:42
>> Katherine Katherine's a great um you
16:44
know, a great cheerleader for that. It's
16:46
brilliant.
16:46
>> Yep. She's got a busy year ahead of her
16:48
now because her her Australian of the
16:50
Year duties will be on top of what she
16:53
has to do for her regular gig. So, uh,
16:55
she'll be doing a lot more travel, a lot
16:57
more speaking, a lot more engagements.
16:59
Uh, it it's a big job when you're named
17:01
Australian of the Year, so I'm told.
17:05
[laughter]
17:05
Well, you never know, Andrew. One day,
17:07
one day.
17:09
>> Uh, look, I'd be I'd be lucky be to be
17:12
named, you know, my street member of the
17:15
year.
17:16
>> [laughter]
17:17
>> Not a big street either, but uh no, good
17:20
luck to her and congratulations to
17:22
Katherine Benell Peg. This is Space Nuts
17:26
with Andrew Dunley and Professor Fred
17:28
Watson.
17:32
>> Okay, we've had a problem here.
17:33
>> This is Houston. Say again, please.
17:35
>> Houston, we've had a problem. We've had
17:37
a main rot. Okay, stand by 13. We're
17:41
looking at it.
17:41
>> Space, do you like that, Fred? got some
17:44
new links.
17:45
>> I had a bit of time up my sleeve, so I
17:47
um created some new stuff.
17:49
>> That's a very appropriate one as well.
17:51
>> Yes, I thought so, too.
17:53
>> Yeah.
17:53
>> Uh now, uh our next story is about
17:57
defining what is a moon. This is come
18:00
about after
18:02
a study had been published um which is a
18:07
um peer reviewed paper in the archive.
18:10
Um, it's it's looking at a a a really
18:13
big gas giant, but they think it's got a
18:15
moon that could force us to redefine
18:18
what a moon is.
18:20
>> Is that is that the way it goes?
18:22
>> Well, yeah, because it's big. Um, that's
18:24
right.
18:25
>> I got that impression.
18:27
>> Yeah. So um this is uh work uh that's
18:32
been done uh uh actually led from the
18:34
University of Cambridge uh using uh a
18:38
thing called an interferometer which is
18:40
one of these things that that brings
18:42
light waves together and watches them
18:44
cancel out and by um doing that
18:47
carefully enough you can learn a lot
18:49
more than you otherwise could. Uh and
18:51
there is an intererometer which is
18:53
called gravity. uh good name for it
18:56
because uh that's one of its tasks was
18:58
to um kind of look at the look at the
19:01
gravitational forces around black holes
19:03
which done very successfully around the
19:05
black hole at the center of our galaxy.
19:07
It's on the very large telescope in
19:09
Chile and it's a way of you you will
19:12
know and some of your listeners sorry
19:14
some of our listeners will remember uh
19:16
that the very large telescope is
19:17
actually four uh 8.2 2 meter telescopes
19:21
which can be used together uh along with
19:23
um some auxiliary telescopes as well and
19:26
that's uh they're used together in the
19:30
science of interpherometry which lets
19:32
you uh look at um objects in space in
19:37
very great detail and and in particular
19:40
uh the scientists have been watching the
19:42
orbit of a gas giant uh uh exoplanet
19:48
which has the lovely name of HD 206893b.
19:52
It's 133 light years from our solar
19:55
system as the crow flies. Um, but what
19:58
they've done is they've watched the
20:00
motion of this gas giant. Uh, as it
20:04
orbits around its parent star, which is
20:06
HD 206893 itself. The B refers at the
20:10
end of that refers to the gas giant
20:12
planet itself. But what they've seen is
20:15
that the orbit of this giant planet is
20:18
wobbling slightly as it goes around. Uh
20:21
little um you know deviations from a
20:25
perfect ellipse which are interpreted uh
20:28
as being due to a moon. And by knowing
20:33
the knowing the mass of the or
20:36
estimating the mass of the planet itself
20:39
um you can estimate the mass of this
20:41
moon and it's it's enormous. Uh it's um
20:46
many times the mass uh if I remember
20:49
rightly something like nine times the
20:51
mass of Neptune, 40% of the mass of
20:54
Jupiter. Uh and you know when you
20:57
compare that with the moons in our solar
20:59
system it's [clears throat] much much
21:01
heavier than anything or much much
21:03
massier mass more massive than anything
21:05
we've got.
21:06
>> Uh so that
21:09
leads to the question well you know if
21:11
you've got something that's nine times
21:12
the mass of Neptune could you ever call
21:14
it a moon? Uh but the normal definition
21:17
of a moon or technically a satellite is
21:20
something that is in orbit around an
21:22
object that is in orbit around a star.
21:25
In other words, a planet. Um, so do we
21:27
want to bend that definition or are we
21:30
just content for this thing to be the
21:32
most massive moon known?
21:34
>> Well, where do you draw the line?
21:38
You know, if the definition is a
21:39
satellite orbiting at a an object
21:42
orbiting a star, then that's it.
21:45
Shouldn't matter how big it is, should
21:46
it?
21:48
>> Uh, no. That's right. That that would be
21:49
my view. uh that you you you keep the um
21:53
>> you keep the basically keep the uh
21:56
definition as it stands. Uh what you do
21:58
is you just extend your range of uh
22:02
expectance expectancy in terms of uh the
22:07
size of these objects. Um there's a in
22:12
fact there's a lovely comment there's
22:13
several comments from the lead author.
22:15
Uh I'm looking just to say where we're
22:17
looking. We're looking at Daily Galaxy
22:18
for this report, but it's a paper uh
22:21
that's been published I think in monthly
22:23
notices again or one of the leading
22:25
journals anyway. Um and the uh you know
22:30
the the quotation from Quinton Kra who's
22:33
one of the authors I think the lead
22:34
author of this paper um uh some nice
22:39
quotes. What we what we found is that HD
22:41
206893b
22:43
doesn't just follow a smooth orbit
22:44
around its star. On top of that motion,
22:46
it shows a small but measurable back and
22:48
forth wubble. The wobble has a period of
22:50
9 months and a size comparable to the
22:53
Earth Moon distance. This kind of signal
22:56
is exactly what you'd expect if the
22:57
object were being tugged by an unseen
22:59
companion such as a large moon, making
23:02
this system a particularly intriguing
23:04
candidate for hosting an exomoon.
23:08
um and goes on to say um uh this raises
23:14
the question because of the mass of this
23:16
moon. This naturally raises the question
23:17
of whether such an object should even be
23:19
called a moon. At these masses, the
23:21
distinction between a massive moon and a
23:23
very low mass companion becomes blurred.
23:27
However, there is currently no
23:29
definition of an exomoon. And in
23:31
practice, astronomers generally
23:33
generally refer to any object orbiting a
23:35
planet or substellar companion as a
23:38
moon. So that's the bottom line.
23:42
>> Um there are not many known and that's
23:44
because moons naturally are generally
23:46
small and so their effect on their on
23:50
the planet around which they're orbiting
23:52
is too small to to to uh discover.
23:56
Whereas uh this thing is so big that its
23:59
signal is really quite uh quite
24:02
impressive. It's it's uh sufficient for
24:05
the for this this team to to to give us
24:07
the the paper that that we're talking
24:09
about. And just one final quote uh from
24:12
Kra. It's important to keep in mind that
24:14
we're likely only seeing the tip of the
24:16
iceberg. Just as the first exoplanets
24:19
discovered were the most massive ones
24:20
orbiting very close to their stars
24:22
simply because they were the easiest to
24:24
detect. The first exom moons we identify
24:27
are expected to be the most massive and
24:29
extreme examples. It's a really good
24:31
point.
24:32
>> And there it is. And and yet again, we
24:34
find in a potential new discovery that
24:39
it's not what we would expect to be the
24:41
norm. This this is another thing that we
24:45
may not have anticipated.
24:48
>> Uh that's that's right. Um so yes. So, I
24:53
mean, it's the point is well made, uh,
24:55
Quent's point is well made that the uh
24:58
the the that you're going to find the
25:01
the real outliers first because they're
25:03
the easiest ones to find. Uh, but at the
25:06
same time, what you've said is true. Uh,
25:09
the outliers are sometimes so
25:10
surprising, but they're difficult to
25:12
believe. Uh but we've got a um yeah,
25:15
we've got an outlier here that might
25:16
well be the first of a new breed of uh
25:19
or a whole new regime of exom moon
25:22
discoveries.
25:23
>> Yeah, I I didn't even think about
25:25
exomoons. Like we've discovered so many
25:27
exoplanets now and we continue to do so,
25:30
but we we haven't actually laid our eyes
25:32
on a on an exomoon yet.
25:35
>> No. Um and in fact, we've not laid our
25:37
eyes on most of the exoplanets. We've
25:40
inferred their presence uh by indirect
25:42
means. there are one or two uh that we
25:44
we can observe directly. Uh but when you
25:47
think yes, moons are always going to be
25:49
smaller than their parent planets, um
25:52
that means that uh we're we're still
25:56
pushing the limits of what is
25:58
technically possible to to detect.
26:01
>> Could we maybe redefine this discovery
26:04
as like a dual planet?
26:07
it. So there is a definition of a dual
26:09
planet uh what we what we call a binary
26:12
planet uh which is uh if you have two
26:16
objects one orbiting the other if their
26:19
center of gravity or what we call the
26:21
baris center is outside the body of
26:23
either of them then it's a binary planet
26:26
rather than a planet and a moon uh and
26:31
in fact uh Jupiter sorry Pluto and its
26:35
moon kum um fit that bill. Pluto, of
26:38
course, is a dwarf planet, but Pluto and
26:40
Karen are probably a binary dwarf planet
26:42
for that for that reason.
26:43
>> Okay. Interesting. Yeah. So, um there'll
26:47
be more work to find out exactly what
26:51
the situation is here cuz they it's only
26:54
suspicion at the moment, isn't it? That
26:56
>> That's right. There'll be there will be
26:58
more observations to to confirm that
27:00
this uh this uh that you know the planet
27:03
itself behaves in a way that is
27:05
consistent with this large hypo
27:07
hypothesized moon. We haven't seen it.
27:10
We haven't seen it yet. In fact, we
27:11
haven't seen the planet either. But uh
27:13
we can we can deduce things from you
27:16
know from from the way the orbits
27:17
behave.
27:18
>> Yes indeed. If you'd like to read about
27:20
that, the study's been published on the
27:22
archive and it has been accepted for
27:24
publication in astronomy and
27:26
astrophysics.
27:27
You can also read about it on the daily
27:30
galaxy.com
27:31
uh website. This is Space Nuts with
27:34
Andrew Dunley and Professor Fred Watson
27:42
Base here. The angle has landed.
27:44
>> Space nets. Speaking of uh big planets
27:48
with big moons, what about big black
27:51
holes? Uh and the fact that they get big
27:53
fast. We have always been mystified by
27:56
this phenomenon, but uh have they solved
28:00
it, Fred?
28:01
>> Uh certainly some work that looks as
28:03
though it's pointing in the right
28:04
direction. Yeah, this comes about really
28:06
be and it's an issue that has only
28:10
arisen in the era of the James Web Space
28:11
Telescope when which has detected
28:15
um the evidence for super massive black
28:18
holes very very early in the universe
28:21
until the web came along. We all thought
28:23
that super massive black holes evolved
28:26
over time scales comparable with the age
28:28
of the universe that you started off
28:29
with small black holes and as time went
28:32
on you know billions of years passing
28:35
until we get to the universe's current
28:37
age of 13.8 billion years uh that they
28:40
gradually grew bigger to to form the
28:43
super massive black holes that we see in
28:44
today's universe. But when you look
28:46
further back further out into space as
28:48
the web has done, you're looking further
28:50
back in time. We're now seeing within a
28:52
few hundred million years of the big
28:54
bang itself and we find these super
28:56
massive black holes already there. U and
28:59
that's the puzzle. That's the conundrum.
29:01
How did they get so big so rapidly?
29:04
>> Uh and the so they they went to
29:08
McDonald's. That's what they did.
29:10
[laughter]
29:12
>> Uh the McDonald's of the early universe.
29:14
Yes. Uh, there must be a must be a name
29:16
for that. Um, [laughter]
29:19
>> fast food. That's what it's
29:21
>> It's a fast food. Yeah. And I was going
29:22
to work on drive-thru somehow, but that
29:24
doesn't scan quite the same way as fast
29:26
food does. It is fast food. That's
29:29
exactly in fact that sums up the the the
29:32
research paper by this team of
29:34
scientists who are actually based in
29:35
Ireland. Uh, it's sums up their work
29:38
very very succinctly. So the issue is uh
29:42
that
29:44
as we as the you know so what we've got
29:47
is this observations set of observations
29:50
tells us that black holes got super
29:52
massive very quickly and that's a puzzle
29:56
for the theoretical astronomers who work
30:00
out how galaxies work, how galaxies
30:02
form, how black holes form and and all
30:06
of that great stuff in the early
30:08
universe. And what um has been the point
30:12
that they've struggled with is that if a
30:16
black hole starts eating
30:19
m the surrounding material, which is how
30:22
they grow, the gas and dust that
30:24
surrounds them, if they start eating
30:26
that too quickly, in other words,
30:29
quickly enough to grow into a super
30:30
massive black hole very quickly, what
30:33
happens is they um the radiation
30:35
generated by this swirling mass of stuff
30:38
getting sucked in actually stops the
30:42
process. It it quenches the process of
30:45
uh of accretion and the black holes
30:48
growing. That's the way the theory has
30:51
uh appeared so far. Mhm.
30:54
>> But what the Irish astronomers have done
30:57
is um they've looked at the sort of
31:02
general turbulence of the gas in the
31:05
early universe uh as a background to the
31:10
the the feeding black hole. And it turns
31:14
out that if the universe is um a lot
31:19
more uh chaotic, turbulent, very violent
31:24
motions in the background gas, if you've
31:26
got a black hole in a in an environment
31:29
like that, um it turns out that they can
31:32
actually uh absorb huge amounts of gas
31:37
and so they can grow much faster than we
31:40
originally thought. Uh so um one of the
31:43
authors uh of this paper uh there's a
31:47
quote here um this is Scitec Daily that
31:50
is carrying this story but uh the the
31:53
researchers in one of the research
31:54
papers this is one of the authors saying
31:56
we found that the chaotic conditions
31:59
that existed in the early universe
32:01
triggered early smaller black holes to
32:04
grow into the super massive black holes
32:06
we see later following a feeding frenzy
32:09
which devoured all the material material
32:11
around them. We revealed using
32:13
state-of-the-art computer simulations
32:16
that the first generation of black
32:17
holes, those born just a few hundred
32:19
million years after the Big Bang, grew
32:21
incredibly fast into tens of thousands
32:24
of times the size of our sun. Uh, and
32:27
another comment another uh from one of
32:30
the other team members, this
32:32
breakthrough unlocks one of astronomy's
32:34
big puzzles, that being how black holes
32:36
born in the early universe are observed
32:38
by the James Web Space Telescope. uh as
32:41
observed by the James Web Space
32:43
Telescope managed to reach such super
32:45
massive sizes so quickly. So maybe
32:48
that's the answer to the puzzle, Andrew.
32:50
>> Yeah, they ate too much too fast.
32:54
>> That's right. Fast food
32:56
>> and then they get indigestion and then
32:58
they have those you know
32:59
>> Well, I think that was the problem
33:01
before uh that you know they got
33:03
indigestion and so they stop the
33:05
process.
33:05
>> Yeah. Uh but what these these authors
33:08
are saying is that uh if you put them in
33:10
a really turbulent um you know field of
33:14
gas that which we think was in the early
33:17
universe then things change you you they
33:20
don't get indigestion. They just go for
33:22
it. They just eat and eat.
33:24
>> Don't don't notice that they're full.
33:27
>> That's right.
33:27
>> And keep eating like a goldfish. That's
33:30
goldfish have that problem.
33:32
>> That's why that's why they're so blobby
33:34
looking. No. to stop eating.
33:36
>> No, they don't. No, apparently it's
33:38
>> cuz they can't remember when they
33:40
started eating. I guess [laughter]
33:42
>> I I don't believe that theory that
33:44
goldfish only have a threeminute memory
33:46
because I used to keep goldfish and they
33:49
knew who fed them
33:51
>> because they always reacted when you
33:52
went near the the tank.
33:53
>> Yeah.
33:54
>> The time to be time for food. Time for
33:56
food. They're like dogs except you can't
33:59
take them for a walk. They tend to buy.
34:01
Nice.
34:02
[laughter]
34:03
>> Got to take the bowl with the milk
34:06
>> as well if you That's right. Exactly.
34:08
You put them in a dog bowl, fill it with
34:10
water. No, let's not go there.
34:12
>> Uh but that's a fascinating story and uh
34:15
another one that will probably be
34:17
subject to future uh analysis, I
34:20
imagine.
34:20
>> Yeah, that's right.
34:22
>> If you'd like to read about it, as Fred
34:23
said, it's incitedaily.com or you can
34:26
read the entire paper start to finish if
34:28
you're having trouble falling asleep.
34:30
And that's in nature astronomy. Oh dear.
34:33
Um, we're just about done, Fred. Thank
34:35
you very much.
34:36
>> Oh, a pleasure, Andrew. Always good to
34:38
talk. And, um, we'll see you next time.
34:41
>> We will. Professor Fred Watson,
34:43
astronomer at large. Don't forget to
34:44
visit us online in the meantime at
34:47
spaceenutspodcast.com
34:48
or spacenuts.io.
34:51
You can have a look around. You can
34:52
visit the shop. You can sign up for the
34:54
daily news feed. Uh, if you hit the
34:57
supporter page, there are ways to
34:58
support us. if you so desire. We will
35:01
never make you do it. It's voluntary.
35:04
And plenty of other things to see and
35:05
do. And don't forget our social media
35:07
while you're at it. The Space Nuts
35:09
Facebook page or the podcast group on
35:12
Facebook uh Facebook. They're very
35:14
active. Always new members joining
35:16
there. We're on Instagram as well. And I
35:19
was going to say something else. Oh no,
35:21
I can't remember. Anyway, u that's just
35:23
about it. Uh also thanks to Hugh in the
35:25
studio who couldn't be with us today.
35:27
He's gone out the back to to brood for
35:31
not being named Australian of the year.
35:34
And from me, Andrew Dunley, thanks for
35:35
your company. See you on the next
35:37
episode of Space Nuts. Bye-bye.
35:39
>> Space Nuts.
35:40
>> You've been listening to the Space Nuts
35:42
podcast
35:44
>> available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
35:47
iHeart Radio, or your favorite podcast
35:50
player. You can also stream [music] on
35:52
demand at byes.com. This has been
35:54
another quality podcast production from
35:56
[music] bites.com.