Professor Fred Watson: Hi there.
Andrew Dunkley: Andrew Dunkley here, and you're listening to
Space Nuts. It's a Q and A edition. This is
where we take audience questions. We put them
in a barrel, we pluck one out and we go, now
that's too hard. And we just keep doing that
over and over again until we find four easy
ones. Uh, today we've got questions about
black hole evaporation.
Simple. Uh, Jordy atmosphere,
uh, Artemis 2, and those, uh, moon
meteorites that they witnessed. Somebody's
thrown in a question about that. And missions
to the sun. Don't forget your sunscreen.
That's all coming up on this episode of space
nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
10, 9. Ignition
sequence start. Space nuts. 5, 4, 3,
2.
Speaker C: 1.
Professor Fred Watson: 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2,
1.
Andrew Dunkley: Space nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: Astronauts report it feels good.
Andrew Dunkley: And joining us to try and solve all of those
little riddles is Professor Fred Watson,
astronomer at large. Hello, Fred.
Professor Fred Watson: Good day, Andrew.
Andrew Dunkley: Nearly say good morning or good afternoon or
good evening. Because it might not be that.
When people listen to us, on the
Professor Fred Watson: other hand, it is a day. I could say good
night.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, yeah.
Professor Fred Watson: Anyway, it's certainly a day. Daytime here.
Andrew Dunkley: All is well with you, I assume?
Professor Fred Watson: Um, apparently, um, still seem to have.
That's a good answer I'm supposed to have.
Yes. Well, it can only be apparently, because
you never really know, do you? What's going
on inside, what's going on?
The things that you haven't found out about
yet. Yes, all well so far.
Andrew Dunkley: I recently had a profile piece
done by the Cancer Council in Australia for
Men's Health Week because of what You've been
dealing with the last three and a half years.
So, uh, to encourage men to
go and get their PSA tests and, uh,
get their, let's just say, junk
checked out to make sure that they're free
and clear. And, um, I
think it's a very important message. But one
of the things I've learned, uh, through the
treatment and discussions I've had over the
last three and a half years in regard to
prostate cancer is that because I have
now had it, there is a possibility
that my three children have a
50% higher chance of developing it in their
lives. So it's not just about you.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, exactly.
Andrew Dunkley: It's not just about you as an individual.
If you've got, um, sons, it's
about them too. So it makes it even more
important to get tested.
Professor Fred Watson: Absolutely.
Andrew Dunkley: And you don't just have to be in Australia.
This can happen to any male on the planet.
So go and get
that, uh, Prostate test done
for peace of
Mendham, lecture
over. Uh, let's deal with
some questions, Fred.
Um, we will go to our first one. This is a
pretty short and sweet one, but it's, um,
a complicated issue really. Uh, black holes
are gaining Massey, if
they are colder than the cmb,
how much does this lengthen the
time before they evaporate? That's a
question from Bob.
Professor Fred Watson: So I'm interested in who this question has
come from because I've got a very old friend
by the name of Bob Argyle, uh, which is the
name on the email you sent me.
Andrew Dunkley: It is.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, we worked together in the Royal Greenwich
Observatory, uh, at a place called
Herstmonceux Castle in the south of England
in the early 70s. Uh, now, Bob went
to Cambridge and I think he's still there. I
wondered if there was any clue to his
whereabouts in your email.
Andrew Dunkley: Um, no, because what you see
is what you get.
Professor Fred Watson: What you get. Okay.
Anyway, well, if it's Bob. G', day, Bob.
Good to hear from you. We should email
one day. Yes, um, it's good, Good to
hear he's still going strong, if it is. And
if it's not, um, I apologise that I'm mixing
you up with somebody else. Uh, but it's a
great question and it's one that, uh,
I had to, um, do some homework
on before, um, before the, before the show.
Um, and the,
the bottom line is, first of all, what's the
cmb? The cosmic microwave background. That
is the, basically the flash of the
Big Bang, which we still see. Uh,
when that light was emitted, it was bright,
white light. Uh, as the universe has
expanded, that radiation has expanded
also. It's been stretched, the waves have
been stretched into microwave
waves. So we see this background
of, um, microwave light over the
whole sky and we can deduce lots of things
from it. Um, it corresponds to a time, I
think it was about 380,000 years after the
Big Ban, when the universe basically,
um, stopped being bright and a fog of
radiation, uh, everywhere, which it
was until that time. So that's the cmb. Now,
what the CMB does is give space
a temperature. And the temperature
is 2.73
degrees Kelvin, uh, degrees above
absolute zero. And
so, uh, that is when
you compare it with the temperature of
a black hole. And we've discussed this
before, Andrew, uh, on The Q&As,
black hole temperatures are very, very
cold. Um, typically,
um, a few tens of nanokelvin.
That means a few tens of billionths of
a degree above absolute zero. Compared with
the 2.73 degrees. And so,
um, that, uh, that temperature.
What that means then is that,
uh, photons of cosmic microwave
background radiation, uh, can
be added to the mass of a black
hole because,
uh, the temperature of the black hole is
colder than the temperature of the background
radiation. So,
uh, there is an issue, uh,
which is one that Bob raises.
Uh, I've lost my question here. It is, how
much does this lengthen the time before they
evaporate? So if you've got a situate, we
know that black holes evaporate. Um,
the situation that was highlighted by
Stephen Hawking back in the 70s. Black holes
evaporate over very, very long
periods of time. Uh, but what Bob's
saying or asking is, does the fact
that they're gaining mass because the cosmic
microwave background is warmer than the black
hole, does that extend this time
significantly? Uh, I had to go
to AI to answer this question because it's
got some very, very lengthy
calculations. Uh, but the answer
is, uh, it's, um.
Well, as the AI tool I used says, it
was practically negligible. Oh, um,
uh, changing the final lifespan by less than
one part in 10 to the power 50. So
that is definitely negligible. Uh,
and it's because of the,
uh. It's about the length of
time that the
cosmic microwave background radiation feeds
the black hole. And it turns out that,
um, the black hole is
effectively evaporating
faster than the stuff that it's. That's
feeding it. And so it
basically extends the life of the black
hole by a very, very small amount
indeed. Uh, there's plenty on the web
about this if you really want to get into the
nitty gritty of it. But, um, it is a
really interesting question, one
that I have to say, Andrew, had not occurred
to me before. Uh, so I'm very,
uh, glad that Bob has raised it and I
appreciate him doing that. And if it is you,
Bob, I've still got your record of Das
Rheingold in my record cabinet behind
me. The one that you gave me back in
1973.
Andrew Dunkley: Well, he doesn't want it back. No, that's the
other thing that said in the email. Don't
send that back. It's rubbish. No, I don't
know. But maybe Bob could message us again
just to confirm or deny.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, I know nothing of Fred Watson.
Andrew Dunkley: Yes, never met him. I don't want to.
Professor Fred Watson: I don't want to know.
Andrew Dunkley: Um, the other interesting thing that comes
from that is, uh, because of, uh, how cold a
black hole is, um, if you get too Close. You
turn not only into spaghetti, but cold
spaghetti and that. Have you ever eaten that?
It's horrible.
Professor Fred Watson: It's not nice. No, you're right. It's the
worst of all worlds, isn't it?
Andrew Dunkley: Gosh, it just gets worse. These black holes
are just starting to m. Make things even more
horrible. Yeah, thanks, Bob.
Great question and thanks for sending it in
and we, uh, look forward to hearing from you
again.
Our next question, Fred, comes from
Greg. Uh, hello, Fred and Andrew. It's Greg
from Minnesota. Coincidentally,
Greg is the only Greg in
Minnesota.
Professor Fred Watson: That's just as well, I believe.
Andrew Dunkley: Maybe not. Uh, he says Titan is just a
moon of Saturn. I mean just a moon of Saturn.
That's all it is. It's nothing important.
Anyway, it has an atmosphere so thick the
pressure is 1 1/2 times Jordy
Venus is just a bit smaller than Jordy and
its atmospheric pressure is 90 times
Jordy give or take. Uh, does Jordy have an
unusually thin atmosphere for a rocky planet
this size? If so, could our
wispy atmosphere be because it all got
blown away by fear? Love the
show. Uh, thank you, Greg. Uh, the one and
only Greg in Minnesota.
Um, that's a really interesting question.
Uh, I've never really thought of Jordy
atmosphere as maybe being, you know,
thin and wispy. Thin and wispy. But, um,
it generally is. When you look at photos of
Jordy from space and you
identify the atmosphere, oh, it makes
you cringe a bit because you think, is that
it? Is that all it is?
Professor Fred Watson: I mean, 10 kilometres, you're above
75% of it. It's scary
in that regard. So you're you
when you're in a jet, you're above most of
the atmosphere. Uh, quite extraordinary.
Yes, it's thin and wispy, exactly as
Greg says.
Um, so
let's deal with these objects first.
Titan. Uh, and yes,
just a moon. It's the second largest moon in
the solar system. It's bigger than the planet
Mercury. Uh, it's got, but
it does have about one and a half times the
atmospheric pressure of our own planet
and that's largely due
to the difference in temperature between
Jordy and Titan. Um,
so Titan has
temperatures, it's in the surface
temperatures around about minus 180,
minus 190 Celsius. And of
course that's cold enough for its surface
to be solid ice, water ice and to have
liquid natural, uh, gas, ethane and
methane lakes on its surface, lakes and
seas. Uh, it's also got this very thick
atmosphere. Um, so these,
the molecules of Gas in
Titan's atmosphere are very cold
and so they don't sort of bubble
up to be the. To get up to
escape velocity. And so basically you've
got an entrapment of this,
um, atmosphere. Um, of
m. I think it's mostly nitrogen. Thinking,
uh, about it. Um, actually it
is just checking a number here. It's 90, uh,
5% nitrogen, uh, and the rest is
methane and other hydrocarbons. So,
yes. So it's um. The
nitrogen atmosphere, very, very cold,
doesn't have enough energy to sort of
disappear off into space. So its pressure is
much higher than Jordy Um, it's a
similar storey in regard to Venus,
only kind of more so. Uh,
because, um, with
Venus we have the situation
that, um.
Uh,
excuse me, sorry, I've just CLOiD the page I
was looking at here. Uh, which is not what I
wanted to do. Um, let me
just bring it back.
Andrew Dunkley: So we've all been there, Fred. We've all done
that.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. So, um, we've got a pressure.
It's roughly 90 times
Jordy uh, which is, uh,
kind of unbelievable. Um, why is
that? It is because the atmosphere is
mostly carbon dioxide, which is a
dense gas. As you know, it's uh, uh, heavier
than air. Um, and so that
basically, uh, increases the
atmospheric pressure. Uh,
we know that, uh, it's had this, you know,
runaway greenhouse effect because there is so
much carbon in the atmosphere
and that's essentially the carbon dioxide
traps the heat. You've got the runaway
greenhouse effect. So you've got a surface
temperature which I think is in the region of
460 degrees Celsius.
Um, so the question, I guess
the real nub of Greg's question
is why isn't the Jordy like that? Was it all
blown away by theia? And the answer
is maybe,
probably not, but maybe in a way because
what keeps our atmosphere
temperate, uh, is what's
called the carbon cycle. It's the fact that
we have, uh. Basically we've got a planet
whose surface is divided into tectonic
plates. Those plates slide around one
another and you get a, uh, volcanism,
uh, putting carbon into the atmosphere.
That carbon sinks down into the
ocean and eventually gets subsumed back
underneath. Uh, the, um,
uh, continental plays. Uh, that's the
mechanism. And that, uh, circulation of
carbon acts as a kind of thermostat. It's
what keeps the Jordy uh, temperature
reasonable. Uh, uh.
The reason why I said there might be a link
with THEIA is I guess it's possible that
THEIA had something to do with the Origin of
tectonic plates. Although my understanding.
Andrew Dunkley: So not a direct correlation,
but maybe something, you know, an after
effect.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, that's right. The consequences. We've
got tectonic plates, uh, which
stabilise the atmosphere and that might have
something to do with Theia. Although my
understanding of the Theia impact is that the
Jordy at that time was probably
um, basically a magma world. It was, it
probably had a molten surface.
Andrew Dunkley: So would it have not had an
atmosphere at all or maybe just something
really sinister and nast?
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, I think it had pretty nasty stuff in
its atmosphere. There would have been an
atmosphere there which was probably highly
toxic and uh, not good for
future planet Jordy So
um, there could be a link with Theia.
I suspect not. As I said, I think my
understanding of the latest idea on the Thea
impact is that the Jordy had basically a
magma ocean when the impact took place. And
that's why, um,
the structure of the moon, the isotopes in
the moon are more related to
the Jordy uh, isotopes than
what THEIA might have had. We don't know what
isotopic ratios there were on Theia. We don't
know exactly what elements were there. Uh,
but the moon is made of stuff largely similar
to the Jordy Okay, all right.
Andrew Dunkley: Um, but yes, we do live on
a planet with a um, thin and
wispy atmosphere and we, we should
do as much as we can to protect it.
Professor Fred Watson: Keep it there. That's right.
Andrew Dunkley: Although, although you did, um, you gave me
an idea. I mean if, if carbon comes out of
the volcanoes, goes back into the ocean and
then eventually gets sucked back down through
the tectonic plates. We're not
wrong to throw all our rubbish in the ocean.
By the sound of a threat, we should keep
doing that.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yes, I think there
might be arguments against that. Yeah,
probably are.
Andrew Dunkley: Yes, yes, don't, don't do anything usually
wrong. Uh, but thank, uh, you very much,
Greg for sending in your question.
This is Space Nuts with Andrew Dunkley and
Professor Fred Watson.
Speaker D: Three, two, one.
Andrew Dunkley: Space Nuts. Okay Fred, we got a couple
of audio questions, uh, so let's get into
those. The first one comes, uh, this one
comes from Switzerland.
Speaker D: Hello Fred and Andrew, this is Michael from
Switzerland. I have a
question for you regarding the
Artemis 2 mission. So, uh,
there it is claimed that they have
visuals of meteorite impacts
on um, the moon's far side.
So uh, my question is how
do we discriminate uh, these
uh, one person side things
from physiological, uh, impact
of uh, high energy
radiation with the human retina
in in space,
um, one person,
visual, uh, to my knowledge, is
not a scientific evidence. So you need uh,
at least two or more
individual, uh, sightings of the
same event, uh, or at
least a technical, um,
sighting. So, uh, what is your
opinion on that? Because this
makes uh, big wave, uh, in the,
in the community. And uh,
I'm not sure whether they really have seen
meteorite impact or just were fooled by their
own side. Thank you for
answering and love your show. Bye.
Bye.
Andrew Dunkley: Thank you. Michael. Uh, I
mean, it's a good question to ask because,
uh, all I've heard is that
there were four astronauts on Artemis 2,
uh, that went around the moon,
um, as far as I'm aware,
and I've just double checked it, all four of
them witnessed this event.
So it wasn't just one,
as far as we're aware.
Professor Fred Watson: Um, it's a bit more complicated than that,
Andrew.
Andrew Dunkley: I had suspected it would be.
Speaker C: Yeah.
Professor Fred Watson: So there were
the Gary.com of four and
six impact flashes were
observed, uh, uh, and I
think there is a breakdown, um,
which I have had, but
can't lay my hands on it as to. Oh, here
we are. Yeah. Um, Reid Wiseman
was the commander. He saw
two impacts. Jeremy
Hansen observed another two.
And uh,
I think also the other two
Gary.com members observed some.
But, uh, the bottom line here is
Andrew Dunkley: they only saw them one at a time.
Professor Fred Watson: Were they. Yes. Were they
seen together? And,
um, once again my AI assistant,
uh, says the specific number of flashes
definitively witnessed by more than one
astronaut at the exact same moment has
not been isolated from the total Nally by
nas. So we
don't know whether any of them
saw the same, you know, more than one of them
saw the same flash.
And in that regard, Michael's got a very good
point. I think because one
visual sighting isn't really
a scientific observation. It needs to be,
uh, somehow corroborated. And you know,
one way of doing that would have been
photography. Uh, but I don't think there were
any photographic or imaging records
of these flashes. So I think he's right to
raise the question, uh, because we do know
that, uh, subatomic particles, and this
is particularly cosmic rays, pass through the
body and can uh, essentially
give you a flash on the retina as they go
through one of your retinal cells. They can
basically excite it, uh, and you see a flash
of light. I'm pretty sure You've been them
myself. A single flash
against a black background. Certainly
the electronic detectors that we used to use
at Siding Spring Observatory, they're
probably better these days. Were Very
susceptible to these cosmic ray events. So
when you took an image, uh, you found that a
lot of flashes, sometimes lines where the
cosmic ray has gone. Actually
entered in the plane of the detector. So it's
gone through many pixels and excited them
all. Um, so it's a real phenomenon.
Now,
my instinct would be that there might be
a differentiation in the duration of these
flashes. Because cosmic ray flashes on your
retina are, uh, extremely brief. Uh,
but I think the flashes observed by
the Artemis astronauts were also
extremely brief, uh, in
the region of milliseconds, probably.
Um, and that's. You probably
would not be able to tell the difference
between one and the other. And, uh,
again, they're in a high radiation
environment. They are,
uh, in orbit around the moon. They are,
um, shaded from the radiation field
of the sun, the direct radiation field of the
sun, because the moon's in the way. Uh, they
were looking at these on the dark side of the
moon, but the cosmos as a whole was open to
them. And that's where cosmic rays come from.
They come from the universe, generally.
So I, uh, think Michael raises a good point,
and it's one. It'd be nice to get a bit
more knowledge of this to see if we can get
some eyewitness accounts from the Artemis
astronauts. They may be writing their memoirs
or whatever at the moment. It would be very
good to see if any of them can corroborate
these millisecond long, uh,
flashes of light.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. It says a lot though, about the
sensitivity of the human eye though, doesn't
it?
Professor Fred Watson: It does, yes. Yes. Well, it all does, we
think, um, there have been experiments done,
uh, quite some time ago that suggest that the
human eye can almost detect individual
photons, kind
of, you know, perhaps groups of five or
something like that are, ah, detectable. I
can't remember the details of it, but yeah, a
good, uh. Well, well thought out, um,
uh, question from Michael there. To which we
don't really have the exact answer. No.
Andrew Dunkley: I Space if, um, they do
write a report or something, they might be
able to, um, clarify what
exactly was seen and who saw it and how
many of them at the same time, etc.
Uh, but if it turns out that they only each
saw this phenomenon
individually, then probably, uh, it remains
just a, um, I don't know, a casual
observation, not a, A scientific
thing.
Professor Fred Watson: That's. That's correct. Yes, exactly.
Andrew Dunkley: All right, great question, Michael. Well
done. Uh, and thanks for sending that one in.
Okay, We've had a problem here.
Speaker D: This is Houston.
Professor Fred Watson: Say again, please. Houston, we've had about.
Andrew Dunkley: We've had a main B undervolt. Roger, main B
undervolt. Okay, standby 13. We're looking at
it. Stay sputs F5.
Final question today comes from somebody who
forgot to tell us their name.
Speaker C: Hi guys. Um, You've been listening to the
show for many many years. Um,
I'm a Brit obviously. You've been wondering
about how to ask a question. I've had several
questions in the past. Uh, the question I
have now is is there anything else that I
haven't found that is going to go and
observe the sun at such or even at
a longer thing? Because my favourite
spacecraft in the world, Parker Solar
Probe and I think it is
done such an amazing job and I was just
wondering if there was anything else that you
guys knew that might um, be
more exciting. So there we
go. Anyway, thank you very much for this. Um,
the podcast has been fantastic for me. It's
kept me going through several nights, months
and years and that was the best
question I could come up with.
Andrew Dunkley: Fair enough. And uh, it's a good one. Uh,
thanks for sending it in. Don't know your
name but um, we know where you are. We know
where you are. Um,
now he mentioned the Parker Solar Probe. Um,
that's also uh, achieved the fastest speed by
a human made object ever I think.
Um, fairly recently. Uh, there are
several uh, probes out there
sort of doing the solar thing. The Solar
Orbiter which is an ESA mission. There's also
the Solar Dynamics Dynamics Observatory,
although I don't is it, is it up there or is
it on Jordy I can't remember. It's a NASA
observatory, uh, soho,
uh, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory.
Uh, stereo, uh that's we've talked about
stereo. It's two spacecraft um,
orbiting the sun from different angles uh, so
that they can get a um, 360 degree view
of the star. And the JAXA
NASA mission.
Professor Fred Watson: That's right, yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: Uh, which is focusing on magnetic fields. Um,
so they're the ones that I'm aware of at the
moment. Are they more exciting? I Space in
their individual ways they've all got
something different to contribute. So they'd
all be exciting in one way or another.
Professor Fred Watson: Um, that's right. And uh, there are some
upcoming ones as well that I think qualify
for being exciting. Um, but
just backstory of the Parker Solar
Probe, uh, the reason why it goes so fast is
that it comes so close to the sun and
anything that's in orbit, um, and an
elliptical orbit is at its fastest when it's
at uh, perihelion, the nearest point to the
sun. Uh and in fact that near point
um takes it through the
sun's inner corona. Uh and I think
I read um, this last week
it had its um. Was it its 28th
uh, flyby of the solar
corona? I think that's right.
Um, uh
yes. Uh, on the 11th of
June it completed its
28th close approach to the sun, sorry on the
8th of June, uh matching its record distance
of 3.8 million miles or about
5 million kilometres, something like that. So
that's why that's exciting because it gets
fried nearly every time it goes that close to
the sun. But I think there are some coming up
which are uh, um, also pretty exciting.
Uh, ESA's Vigil spacecraft
uh, which will launch in 2031.
That's going to be at the L5 point. Andrew.
So it's one of the two Lagrange
points which shares the same orbit as the
Jordy and it's actually the one behind the
Jordy in terms of uh, the
way the Jordy uh circulates in its orbit. So
it's 60 degrees behind the Jordy
Uh and what it sees from that vantage point
is a different view of the sun because it
sees uh, the side of the sun
that is invisible to us but is about
to become visible as the sun rotates.
So it will see the sun
uh several days before
it moves into our view from
Jordy So what it's doing is giving you
advanced warning of all the kind of
activity that we see on the sun's surface.
Uh, coronal Massey, ejections,
solar flares, all of that stuff will be
visible before it comes uh, into
our uh, um before it points
towards the Jordy Uh where some of
these things could actually have an effect on
us. On Jordy Um, there's
ah, something called Prober
3 which is two satellites
and this I think is pretty exciting as well.
Uh they're in Jordy orbit but they uh,
basically give you an artificial eclipse
in space. Oh wow. So um, you have
one which is shaped like a disc
in as much as you can see it in the direction
towards the sun that sits in front of the
sun, the other one's some distance behind.
Uh, and the two of them uh
let you see the inner corona of the sun. So
that's also exciting. Uh,
I uh, don't know when that's uh, planned to
be launched but I Beg your pardon, that is
already in orbit. Uh, that's one that's
already in orbit. It's a very
highly precise formation, um,
pair of satellites. I think we've talked
about it before actually now I've come to
remember.
Andrew Dunkley: Sounds familiar.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. And then once again another uh
there's a NASA, a set of satellites called
Punch, uh four satellites um
which basically are ah in what's called a sun
synchronous orbit. They're always uh
moving along the line between day and night
and again that will give us uh
3D observations because there are four
satellites more than and they're in different
places uh there's going to be an Indian one
I think there's all sorts of really exciting
stuff coming up up for solar astronomy which
we'll uh learn from a whole new fleet of
spacecraft. So once again uh, I'm sorry I
don't know your name but it's a good question
and a great one to ask indeed.
Andrew Dunkley: Uh and not forgetting all the land based
solar observatories and one that You've been
that um I visited there last year or
drove past it anyway was on uh Mount Tedi
in Tenerife. Yes it's
a solar observatory, the Gregor
Professor Fred Watson: Observatory I think, I think that's right,
yes. And there's also the Daniel K Inouye
telescope uh which is on the summit of
Haleakala on Maui uh we
got married in front of it Marnie and I um
and uh that's the biggest solar telescope at
the moment. Uh I think there's a bid to try
and build a bigger one but the Daniel uh K
inoue telescope, a 4 metre telescope looking
at the sun. So we've got the most exquisite
detail on the sun's surface coming from the
telescope.
Andrew Dunkley: You can't keep China out of it because
they've got the Chinese Large Solar Telescope
um which is um quite a big
one and the list is long. There are many,
many on the, on the actual
surface of the planet that are dedicated to
solar observatory so and for the record
the Parker solar probe uh achieved the
fastest speed by any human made
object on 24th December 2024
when at perihelion it achieved a speed
of 430,000
miles per hour which is
692,000 kilometres hour
and uh, yes everyone's been arrested now
Professor Fred Watson: quite right too, yes
Andrew Dunkley: um, that's, that's, that's extraordinary
speed though. It really is um, quite an
amazing feat but um, thanks for sending it
uh in your question uh whoever you are but
we know where you live uh and that brings us
to the end. Fred thank you very much.
Professor Fred Watson: Pleasure Andrew good uh to talk again and
we'll speak again soon.
Andrew Dunkley: We will indeed. Professor Fred Watson,
Astronomer at large. And if you would like to
send a question in for our Q A episodes,
please do. Just, uh, go to our website, space
nutspodcast.com spacenuts IO
Click on the AMA link at the top where you
can send text and audio questions and we'll
do our very best to ignore them, but then
again, we'll probably answer them. Uh,
sometimes we get people that double up and
triple up. And, uh, so if we don't answer
your question, it's probably because someone
else already beat you to the punch. But, uh,
you know, I do my best to go through them and
make sure we don't miss anybody. But, um,
yes, I try to share it around. So it's, um,
different people all the time as well. So
there's all these bureaucratic things I've
got to deal with. And, uh, thanks also
to Hugh in the studio.
Uh, now, our last, um, question came from,
um, a fellow who said he was looking into
how to ask a question. And that got Hugh
thinking, so he went to look it up and he's
still trying to figure out how to ask a
question. That's why he couldn't be with us
today. And from me, Andrew Dunkley. Thanks
for your company. We'll see you on the next
episode of Space Nuts. Bye. Bye.
You're listening to the Space Nuts podcast,
available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
iHeartRadio or your favourite podcast
player. You can also stream on demand at
Bitesz.com.
Professor Fred Watson: Um, this has been another quality podcast
production from Bitesz.com.
Andrew Dunkley: Um,