This episode of Space Nuts is brought to you with the support of NordVPN. To get our special Space Nuts listener discounts and four months free bonus, all with a 30-day money-back guarantee, simply visit www.nordvpn.com/spacenuts or use the coupon code SPACENUTS at checkout.
Cosmic Queries: The Birth of Our Sun, Future Discoveries, and Gas Giants
In this thought-provoking Q&A episode of Space Nuts, hosts Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson tackle an array of intriguing listener questions that span the cosmos. From the possibility of witnessing the birth of our sun to the future of astronomical discoveries, this episode is filled with insights that will leave you pondering the mysteries of the universe.
Episode Highlights:
- The Birth of Our Sun: Daryl from South Australia wonders if we could ever witness the birth of our sun through ancient light. Andrew and Fred explore the limitations of observing such distant events and the fascinating concept of light echoes that allow us to glimpse historical cosmic phenomena.
- Future Discoveries in Astronomy: Rennie from California asks what we might uncover in the next century regarding dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Bang. The hosts discuss the rapid advancements in technology and how they may lead to groundbreaking discoveries in our understanding of the universe.
- Gas Giants and Their Moons: Dave from New Jersey poses a hypothetical scenario about a super Jupiter with an Earth-sized moon. The discussion delves into tidal locking and the potential for life in the Goldilocks zone of such massive planets, revealing the complexities of planetary formation.
- Gas Giants and Supernovae: Cal from Swansea questions whether a gas giant could absorb debris from a supernova to become a star. The hosts clarify the dynamics of supernova explosions and the potential for rogue planets to host their own moons, igniting curiosity about the possibilities of life in the cosmos.
For more Space Nuts, including our continuously updating newsfeed and to listen to all our episodes, visit our website. Follow us on social media at SpaceNutsPod on Facebook, X, YouTube Music Music, Tumblr, Instagram, and TikTok. We love engaging with our community, so be sure to drop us a message or comment on your favorite platform.
If you’d like to help support Space Nuts and join our growing family of insiders for commercial-free episodes and more, visit spacenutspodcast.com/about.
Stay curious, keep looking up, and join us next time for more stellar insights and cosmic wonders. Until then, clear skies and happy stargazing.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/space-nuts-astronomy-insights-cosmic-discoveries--2631155/support.
00:00:00 --> 00:00:03 Andrew Dunkley: Hello again. Thanks for joining us on a Q and
00:00:03 --> 00:00:05 A edition of Space Nuts. My name is
00:00:05 --> 00:00:08 Andrew Dunkley. This is where we answer
00:00:08 --> 00:00:10 audience questions. And, uh, Daryl
00:00:11 --> 00:00:14 is asking, uh, could we witness the birth of
00:00:14 --> 00:00:17 our sun? That's looking at old
00:00:17 --> 00:00:20 light, I suspect. Uh, we also, uh,
00:00:20 --> 00:00:23 um, uh, have a question from Rennie, who
00:00:23 --> 00:00:25 wants to know what we might solve over the
00:00:25 --> 00:00:27 next hundred years in astronomy and space
00:00:27 --> 00:00:30 science. Uh, Dave is asking about a
00:00:30 --> 00:00:32 super Jupiter with a mo moon the size of
00:00:32 --> 00:00:35 Earth. It's a bit of a what if question. And
00:00:35 --> 00:00:38 Cal is asking about whether or not a
00:00:38 --> 00:00:41 gas giant could become a star.
00:00:41 --> 00:00:43 Fred will be answering all of those questions
00:00:43 --> 00:00:46 on this episode of space nuts.
00:00:46 --> 00:00:49 Generic: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
00:00:49 --> 00:00:51 10, 9. Ignition
00:00:51 --> 00:00:53 sequence start.
00:00:53 --> 00:00:53 Professor Fred Watson: Space nuts.
00:00:53 --> 00:00:55 Generic: 5, 4, 3, 2.
00:00:55 --> 00:00:55 Andrew Dunkley: 1.
00:00:55 --> 00:00:58 Generic: 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2,
00:00:58 --> 00:01:01 1. Space nuts. Astronauts report it
00:01:01 --> 00:01:02 feels good.
00:01:03 --> 00:01:04 Andrew Dunkley: You'll also be answering the question as to
00:01:04 --> 00:01:06 why sometimes when you push a button, nothing
00:01:06 --> 00:01:08 happens. Hello, Fred.
00:01:09 --> 00:01:11 Professor Fred Watson: That's usually because you've pressed the
00:01:11 --> 00:01:12 wrong button.
00:01:12 --> 00:01:14 Andrew Dunkley: I pressed the right button, but
00:01:15 --> 00:01:16 it didn't do anything. So
00:01:17 --> 00:01:20 it used to happen on the radio a lot.
00:01:21 --> 00:01:22 Professor Fred Watson: Press a button and nothing happens.
00:01:22 --> 00:01:25 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, because. And you know what? It's a
00:01:25 --> 00:01:27 quirk of the digital age. When we worked in
00:01:27 --> 00:01:29 analog radio, a button was a button
00:01:30 --> 00:01:31 until it broke.
00:01:32 --> 00:01:33 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right.
00:01:33 --> 00:01:35 Andrew Dunkley: But in the digital age, uh, you press the
00:01:35 --> 00:01:38 button and that goes, nah, nah, I don't want
00:01:38 --> 00:01:41 to do that. No, sorry. Go find
00:01:41 --> 00:01:42 something else to push.
00:01:42 --> 00:01:43 Professor Fred Watson: Need a reboot?
00:01:43 --> 00:01:46 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, indeed. How you been, Fred?
00:01:46 --> 00:01:49 Professor Fred Watson: Very well, thank you. Yes, um, uh, you know,
00:01:49 --> 00:01:52 just relishing, uh, being back home and, uh,
00:01:52 --> 00:01:54 being back into the routine with Space Nuts,
00:01:54 --> 00:01:55 uh, twice a week.
00:01:55 --> 00:01:57 Andrew Dunkley: Yes, indeed. Although it's so close to the
00:01:57 --> 00:02:00 end of the year, we were just about to go
00:02:00 --> 00:02:02 into summer recess or Christmas New year
00:02:02 --> 00:02:04 recess. But we won't. I don't think we'll
00:02:04 --> 00:02:07 take a heck of a long time off. Uh, we'll
00:02:07 --> 00:02:09 work it out. We've got to work it out. Uh,
00:02:09 --> 00:02:12 now I've got four text questions,
00:02:12 --> 00:02:15 and, um, we get a lot more
00:02:15 --> 00:02:17 text questions than we do audio, so I thought
00:02:17 --> 00:02:19 we'd bump a few of these off
00:02:19 --> 00:02:22 politely. Uh, so let's get to our first
00:02:22 --> 00:02:22 one.
00:02:23 --> 00:02:25 Uh, g', day, Space Nuts. When we look up,
00:02:26 --> 00:02:28 um, uh, when we look up at our space,
00:02:28 --> 00:02:31 we're always looking back in time.
00:02:32 --> 00:02:34 So when we look at Andromeda, the light was,
00:02:34 --> 00:02:36 uh, that we see is two to two and a half
00:02:36 --> 00:02:38 million years old. Could we train our
00:02:38 --> 00:02:41 telescopes to see light from four and a Half
00:02:41 --> 00:02:44 billion years ago and see our sun
00:02:44 --> 00:02:47 being born? My guess is no, but I
00:02:47 --> 00:02:49 love the idea of it. That comes from Daryl in
00:02:49 --> 00:02:52 South Australia who is a patron. Thank you,
00:02:52 --> 00:02:55 Daryl. Um, much appreciated. So, um, yeah,
00:02:55 --> 00:02:57 if you want to become a patron and jump on
00:02:57 --> 00:03:00 our website and get all the details and the
00:03:00 --> 00:03:02 platforms are Patreon or Supercast or
00:03:02 --> 00:03:05 Spreaker or Apple Podcasts. They all do their
00:03:05 --> 00:03:07 own versions of patron, uh, services.
00:03:08 --> 00:03:10 So if you're interested in joining
00:03:10 --> 00:03:13 Daryl, um, that would be greatly
00:03:13 --> 00:03:15 appreciated, but it's not mandatory.
00:03:15 --> 00:03:18 Okay. This one, uh, I suspect he's
00:03:18 --> 00:03:21 right that we probably can't look back at the
00:03:21 --> 00:03:24 birth of our sun. It's not as simple as
00:03:24 --> 00:03:26 just finding it and going, oh, look at that.
00:03:26 --> 00:03:28 That's, that's what was happening, you know,
00:03:28 --> 00:03:30 all those billions of years ago. But um, we
00:03:30 --> 00:03:32 can see a lot of stuff that's historical.
00:03:32 --> 00:03:34 Just about everything actually.
00:03:35 --> 00:03:37 Professor Fred Watson: Yep, that's right. You're as, ah, exactly as
00:03:37 --> 00:03:39 Darrell says, when you look out into space,
00:03:39 --> 00:03:41 you're always looking back in time. And
00:03:41 --> 00:03:44 that's the trick. So, um,
00:03:44 --> 00:03:46 we do indeed see The Andromeda Galaxy
00:03:47 --> 00:03:50 2½ million years after the light
00:03:50 --> 00:03:53 left. So we're looking back quite a long
00:03:53 --> 00:03:53 time.
00:03:53 --> 00:03:56 Andrew Dunkley: That's shortening slowly because ultimately.
00:03:57 --> 00:04:00 Professor Fred Watson: That's right actually. Um, and as well, just
00:04:00 --> 00:04:03 a quick um, plug for the
00:04:03 --> 00:04:05 Andromeda Galaxy while we're talking. It's
00:04:05 --> 00:04:08 um, very much in our skies at the moment. Uh,
00:04:08 --> 00:04:10 uh, November is the time of year when
00:04:10 --> 00:04:13 Andromeda is sort of at its highest. Uh,
00:04:13 --> 00:04:16 it only skirts our northern horizon here in
00:04:16 --> 00:04:18 Australia. But, but if you're in Europe or
00:04:19 --> 00:04:21 the United States or elsewhere in the
00:04:21 --> 00:04:22 Northern Hemisphere, it passes almost
00:04:22 --> 00:04:25 overhead. Um, and in fact I was looking for
00:04:25 --> 00:04:28 it a, uh, few nights ago from Cyprus. Um,
00:04:28 --> 00:04:31 but the pair of binoculars that I
00:04:31 --> 00:04:34 had weren't good enough to find it among the
00:04:34 --> 00:04:36 light pollution of the place where I was
00:04:36 --> 00:04:38 looking. So I didn't see it, but I kind of
00:04:38 --> 00:04:41 knew where it was. I saw Saturn instead. Um,
00:04:41 --> 00:04:43 never mind. Uh, that um, is,
00:04:44 --> 00:04:47 uh, you know, that's what
00:04:47 --> 00:04:48 happens when you're looking at something that
00:04:48 --> 00:04:50 is so far away the light has taken two and a
00:04:50 --> 00:04:53 half million years to get here. Um,
00:04:53 --> 00:04:56 the problem with finding our sun being
00:04:56 --> 00:04:59 born, uh, is that that
00:04:59 --> 00:05:02 happened 4.5 exactly as Darrell
00:05:02 --> 00:05:04 says, 4.5 billion years ago
00:05:04 --> 00:05:07 and the sun is only 150 million
00:05:07 --> 00:05:10 kilometers away. So we can never see the
00:05:10 --> 00:05:13 sun, uh, uh, except at
00:05:13 --> 00:05:16 any other stage, uh, than what it was eight
00:05:16 --> 00:05:18 minutes ago. That's the look back Time for
00:05:18 --> 00:05:20 the sun, it's about eight minutes. Um,
00:05:21 --> 00:05:23 so when you see the sun, um, you're seeing it
00:05:23 --> 00:05:25 as it was eight minutes ago, not four and a
00:05:25 --> 00:05:28 half billion years ago. So really
00:05:28 --> 00:05:31 the only way you could do this and it still
00:05:31 --> 00:05:33 wouldn't really work. But if you could find a
00:05:33 --> 00:05:36 way of putting a mirror, uh,
00:05:37 --> 00:05:40 2.25 billion years
00:05:40 --> 00:05:42 from us, looking back at us,
00:05:42 --> 00:05:45 and you look in that mirror, then the
00:05:45 --> 00:05:48 light from the sun being born will have gone
00:05:48 --> 00:05:51 out to the mirror. Taken 2.25 billion years
00:05:51 --> 00:05:53 to do that. It'll take another 2.25
00:05:53 --> 00:05:56 billion years to get, uh, to now
00:05:57 --> 00:05:59 when we're looking at it and we might see the
00:05:59 --> 00:06:02 sun being born. But that is flight of
00:06:02 --> 00:06:03 fancy, because it's never going to happen.
00:06:04 --> 00:06:06 Andrew Dunkley: Even gravitational lensing probably couldn't
00:06:06 --> 00:06:07 bend like that.
00:06:07 --> 00:06:09 Professor Fred Watson: No, that's right. That's correct. You're
00:06:09 --> 00:06:09 right.
00:06:11 --> 00:06:14 Andrew Dunkley: Sorry, Darrell. Uh, probably not, but,
00:06:14 --> 00:06:16 um, great question. And keep, uh, them
00:06:16 --> 00:06:19 coming. Uh, but we are seeing and
00:06:19 --> 00:06:22 learning so much from, uh,
00:06:22 --> 00:06:25 historical light and uh, gravitational
00:06:25 --> 00:06:27 lensing. And we even get to witness certain
00:06:27 --> 00:06:29 things more than once because the light gets
00:06:29 --> 00:06:32 split each two or three ways and we can
00:06:32 --> 00:06:35 see something from different angles. It's
00:06:35 --> 00:06:38 really quite, um, quite amazing what's going
00:06:38 --> 00:06:40 on out there. And, um, to
00:06:40 --> 00:06:43 quote, uh, Jonti, it makes my head hurt
00:06:43 --> 00:06:45 sometimes to try and think of how this is all
00:06:45 --> 00:06:47 working and why it's all happening.
00:06:48 --> 00:06:50 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yeah, that's right. Mine does all the
00:06:50 --> 00:06:53 time. Um, but you reminded me something I
00:06:53 --> 00:06:56 meant to mention, uh, because there is
00:06:56 --> 00:06:58 a quirky thing. We can look back,
00:06:59 --> 00:07:01 uh, at, uh, some events that took place in
00:07:01 --> 00:07:04 the historical. And what I'm thinking of is
00:07:04 --> 00:07:07 light echoes. Uh, so, for example,
00:07:07 --> 00:07:10 the supernova that was observed by
00:07:10 --> 00:07:13 Tycho Brae, the Danish astronomer
00:07:13 --> 00:07:15 in, um, I think it was
00:07:15 --> 00:07:18 1572 when he observed that.
00:07:18 --> 00:07:21 Uh, that has recently been observed again
00:07:21 --> 00:07:23 because it lit up dust clouds,
00:07:24 --> 00:07:27 uh, which give it a dogleg path.
00:07:27 --> 00:07:30 Uh, so these dust clouds, ah, are sort of 400
00:07:30 --> 00:07:32 light years away. And you get this dogleg
00:07:32 --> 00:07:35 path and the light comes to us again with
00:07:35 --> 00:07:38 that 400 year delay. And so we can
00:07:38 --> 00:07:40 see what that supernova looked like because
00:07:40 --> 00:07:43 the light is still traveling. And you can
00:07:43 --> 00:07:44 analyze that with modern instruments and find
00:07:44 --> 00:07:46 out what sort of supernova it was. I think we
00:07:46 --> 00:07:48 covered that in space notes quite a while
00:07:48 --> 00:07:50 ago, but it's great. Light echoes, uh, are
00:07:50 --> 00:07:51 terrific things.
00:07:51 --> 00:07:54 Andrew Dunkley: Yes, indeed. Thanks for your question, Daryl.
00:07:57 --> 00:07:59 Generic: Three, two, one.
00:08:00 --> 00:08:02 Andrew Dunkley: Space nuts. This one comes from
00:08:02 --> 00:08:04 Rennie. Knowing the pace at which technology
00:08:05 --> 00:08:07 builds on itself do you think we will have
00:08:07 --> 00:08:10 solved the mysteries of what was before the
00:08:10 --> 00:08:13 Big Bang, Dark matter, dark energy and
00:08:13 --> 00:08:14 the expansion of the universe, let's say,
00:08:14 --> 00:08:17 within the next 100 years. Uh,
00:08:17 --> 00:08:20 Rennie's from California, uh, uh, and a
00:08:20 --> 00:08:22 regular contributor. Thank you, Rennie. Um,
00:08:22 --> 00:08:25 I, I suspect we'll have solved maybe one or
00:08:25 --> 00:08:28 two of those things, uh, even while you
00:08:28 --> 00:08:31 were away. Uh, and maybe just before you
00:08:31 --> 00:08:34 went, they were starting to sort of waver on
00:08:34 --> 00:08:36 the expansion of the universe theory. They
00:08:36 --> 00:08:38 were starting to think, well, no, we're.
00:08:38 --> 00:08:41 We're probably now looking at a gnab gib.
00:08:42 --> 00:08:45 Um, so that. That's
00:08:45 --> 00:08:47 now starting to change. Um,
00:08:47 --> 00:08:50 the evidence is. Is, um, mounting up
00:08:50 --> 00:08:53 to, um, change the probability
00:08:53 --> 00:08:56 in that regard. So, yeah, um, 100
00:08:56 --> 00:08:59 years is a long time in terms of, um,
00:08:59 --> 00:09:01 science and astronomy development.
00:09:03 --> 00:09:05 Professor Fred Watson: Yes, it is, at the rate technology is
00:09:05 --> 00:09:08 changing now. Absolutely. And I think Rennie
00:09:08 --> 00:09:09 asks a really good question. You know, it,
00:09:10 --> 00:09:12 um, behoves us from time to time to stop and
00:09:12 --> 00:09:14 think, well, what we're going to find out
00:09:14 --> 00:09:17 next. Um, the expansion of the
00:09:17 --> 00:09:19 universe. Yes, you're right. The, the most
00:09:19 --> 00:09:22 recent observations, uh, seem to
00:09:22 --> 00:09:25 suggest that the acceleration of
00:09:25 --> 00:09:28 the expansion is slowing down. And if the
00:09:28 --> 00:09:31 acceleration slows down enough, then
00:09:31 --> 00:09:34 it might well start to decelerate. And so,
00:09:34 --> 00:09:36 yes, perhaps one day, um, I've forgotten how
00:09:36 --> 00:09:38 many billion years into the future it is.
00:09:38 --> 00:09:40 It's 40 or 50, I think, uh, we might have a
00:09:40 --> 00:09:43 gnab. Gib. A big crunch when everything falls
00:09:43 --> 00:09:45 back together. So you're right. That's a, uh,
00:09:46 --> 00:09:48 thing that this is discoveries, or what you
00:09:48 --> 00:09:50 might call facts about the universe that are
00:09:50 --> 00:09:53 constantly being updated. Um,
00:09:54 --> 00:09:56 what was before the Big Bang? That's always
00:09:56 --> 00:09:58 an open question because, um,
00:09:59 --> 00:10:02 the general theory of relativity suggests
00:10:02 --> 00:10:04 that time started with the Big Bang. And
00:10:04 --> 00:10:07 so before might not have any meaning.
00:10:07 --> 00:10:10 Uh, but there are people thinking, well,
00:10:10 --> 00:10:13 maybe that's not correct. Uh, we've talked
00:10:13 --> 00:10:16 about, you know, explosive, um, um,
00:10:16 --> 00:10:19 phenomena in a kind of continuum.
00:10:19 --> 00:10:22 Things like gigantic black holes
00:10:22 --> 00:10:25 exploding. And if we're in one of them, that
00:10:25 --> 00:10:27 might be what we see as a Big Bang. Even
00:10:27 --> 00:10:28 though that black hole was in space, that
00:10:28 --> 00:10:31 existed already. This is another idea, uh,
00:10:31 --> 00:10:33 that I think we talked about a few months
00:10:33 --> 00:10:36 ago, Andrew. So, um, that's, um, you
00:10:36 --> 00:10:38 know, how you find the evidence for all those
00:10:38 --> 00:10:40 things is the important bit. And at the
00:10:40 --> 00:10:43 moment, our perhaps most powerful
00:10:43 --> 00:10:45 tools are the cosmic microwave background
00:10:45 --> 00:10:47 radiation, the flash of the Big Bang, which
00:10:47 --> 00:10:49 is still being analyzed, um, and
00:10:50 --> 00:10:52 gravitational wave telescopes, which might
00:10:52 --> 00:10:54 lead us to some inferences about
00:10:55 --> 00:10:57 the dynamics of the Big Bang, the way
00:10:57 --> 00:11:00 material shifted around. Um,
00:11:00 --> 00:11:03 so ah, that's one I think uh, we'll
00:11:03 --> 00:11:06 see a lot more uh, emphasis and we might have
00:11:06 --> 00:11:09 new discoveries about it. Dark matter I hope
00:11:09 --> 00:11:12 will, we'll get to the bottom of that within
00:11:12 --> 00:11:15 uh, maybe the next 10 years rather than the
00:11:15 --> 00:11:17 next hundred years. But um, it's a
00:11:17 --> 00:11:20 problem that's existed for 90 years
00:11:21 --> 00:11:24 since Fritz Vicki first spotted it. So it
00:11:24 --> 00:11:26 might still have another 90 years to go. I
00:11:26 --> 00:11:28 don't know. Dark energy, um,
00:11:29 --> 00:11:32 that it really feeds into the, or uh,
00:11:32 --> 00:11:34 our understanding of dark energy uh, is
00:11:34 --> 00:11:36 basically tied up with our understanding of
00:11:36 --> 00:11:39 the way the acceleration of the universe is
00:11:39 --> 00:11:42 changing. Because if you've, if the
00:11:42 --> 00:11:45 acceleration is actually decreasing as we
00:11:45 --> 00:11:47 now think it might be, then dark energy is
00:11:47 --> 00:11:49 not what we used to call the cosmological
00:11:49 --> 00:11:51 constant. It's not a constant, um,
00:11:52 --> 00:11:54 phenomenon. It's something that evolves with
00:11:54 --> 00:11:57 time and that becomes even more mysterious.
00:11:57 --> 00:11:59 So I think of all those, dark energy is the
00:11:59 --> 00:12:01 one that's going to take us the longest to
00:12:01 --> 00:12:03 work out. But I Hope it's not 100 years
00:12:03 --> 00:12:05 because I won't be around in 100 years time
00:12:05 --> 00:12:07 even with the best will in the world.
00:12:07 --> 00:12:10 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, yeah, I know, um,
00:12:10 --> 00:12:12 but you know,
00:12:13 --> 00:12:16 where technology's going, it's just going
00:12:16 --> 00:12:18 ahead in leaps and bounds how quickly
00:12:18 --> 00:12:20 artificial intelligence is taken off.
00:12:20 --> 00:12:21 Professor Fred Watson: That's right, yeah.
00:12:21 --> 00:12:23 Andrew Dunkley: What uh, are we going to be able to do in 100
00:12:23 --> 00:12:25 years with telescopes? And uh,
00:12:26 --> 00:12:28 there'll probably be uh, telescopes
00:12:29 --> 00:12:32 uh, on the moon and Mars and maybe on a few
00:12:32 --> 00:12:34 of the other moons in other parts of the
00:12:34 --> 00:12:37 solar system. Um, you
00:12:37 --> 00:12:39 know there'll be more space telescopes than
00:12:39 --> 00:12:41 you can poke a stick at I imagine. And, and
00:12:41 --> 00:12:43 very, very high tech compared to what we can
00:12:43 --> 00:12:45 achieve now, which is really high tech in
00:12:45 --> 00:12:46 itself.
00:12:47 --> 00:12:49 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, um, space telescopes um,
00:12:49 --> 00:12:52 are things ah, that are not that prolific
00:12:52 --> 00:12:54 because they're expensive compared with
00:12:54 --> 00:12:57 ground based telescopes and astronomy doesn't
00:12:57 --> 00:13:00 really have budgets that are huge, um, you
00:13:00 --> 00:13:02 know, compared with something like defense or
00:13:03 --> 00:13:05 education or all of those other publicly
00:13:05 --> 00:13:08 funded things. So astronomy tends to be very
00:13:08 --> 00:13:10 much picking up the pieces. And something
00:13:10 --> 00:13:12 like the James Webb telescope is an
00:13:12 --> 00:13:14 exception. Uh, that uh, is
00:13:15 --> 00:13:18 revolutionary. But it's true that there are
00:13:18 --> 00:13:20 other space telescopes coming on stream. The
00:13:20 --> 00:13:23 Grace Roman telescope which will be
00:13:23 --> 00:13:25 launched I think within the next year,
00:13:25 --> 00:13:26 probably sooner I hope.
00:13:27 --> 00:13:30 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, I looked up a while back that
00:13:30 --> 00:13:32 there are 27 or something in the
00:13:32 --> 00:13:33 pipeline.
00:13:33 --> 00:13:35 Professor Fred Watson: In the pipeline, yeah. Not all of those will
00:13:35 --> 00:13:38 be funded though. And you know, so that when
00:13:38 --> 00:13:41 you think like the James Webb telescope
00:13:42 --> 00:13:44 came and got into action, what, 20, 22,
00:13:45 --> 00:13:47 is that right? Um, something like that.
00:13:47 --> 00:13:50 Thereabouts. Um, the last big thing in
00:13:50 --> 00:13:52 optical astronomy and in uh, infrared
00:13:52 --> 00:13:54 astronomy was the Hubble telescope launched
00:13:54 --> 00:13:57 in 1990. So, you know, that's
00:13:57 --> 00:14:00 like 30 years interlude. But
00:14:00 --> 00:14:02 yeah, you're right. Um, as time goes on, I
00:14:02 --> 00:14:05 mean, one of the things that is changing that
00:14:05 --> 00:14:08 will actually affect this is that it's now
00:14:08 --> 00:14:10 much cheaper to put stuff into orbit than it
00:14:10 --> 00:14:12 was, uh, partly because of
00:14:12 --> 00:14:14 SpaceX being able to reuse its Falcon
00:14:14 --> 00:14:17 boosters. Um, the latest record is one
00:14:17 --> 00:14:20 that has flown 31 times, uh, which
00:14:20 --> 00:14:22 is quite extraordinary. But also we've now
00:14:22 --> 00:14:24 got Blue Origin coming into the picture with
00:14:24 --> 00:14:27 their successful recovery of their new new
00:14:27 --> 00:14:29 Glen booster a couple of weeks ago, which is
00:14:29 --> 00:14:31 fantastic. So things are changing.
00:14:31 --> 00:14:34 Andrew Dunkley: Yes, indeed. Thanks Rennie. Great to hear
00:14:34 --> 00:14:36 from you. This is Space Nuts with Andrew
00:14:36 --> 00:14:39 Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson.
00:14:42 --> 00:14:43 Professor Fred Watson: Space Nuts.
00:14:43 --> 00:14:46 Andrew Dunkley: Okay, next question. Hey guys. Greetings from
00:14:46 --> 00:14:49 Dave. He's from Sussex county in New Jersey.
00:14:49 --> 00:14:51 I have a pretty quick question in 25
00:14:51 --> 00:14:54 parts. Uh, suppose, no,
00:14:54 --> 00:14:57 suppose that a Jupiter size or sub
00:14:57 --> 00:15:00 brown dwarf planet, um, has a
00:15:00 --> 00:15:02 moon the size of Earth. Would the moon
00:15:02 --> 00:15:05 necessarily be tidally locked to the planet?
00:15:05 --> 00:15:08 Also, would it be possible for the Earth
00:15:08 --> 00:15:10 sized satellite to be in the Goldilocks
00:15:10 --> 00:15:13 zone of the super Jupiter? Love listening to
00:15:13 --> 00:15:16 your podcasts. It's good stuff. Thanks
00:15:16 --> 00:15:18 Dave, appreciate it.
00:15:19 --> 00:15:22 I like this question because, um, when you're
00:15:22 --> 00:15:25 talking gas giants, sub brown
00:15:25 --> 00:15:27 dwarfs, um, failed stars, whatever you like,
00:15:28 --> 00:15:30 um, you're getting into some pretty exciting
00:15:30 --> 00:15:31 territory.
00:15:33 --> 00:15:35 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, you are indeed. That's right. Um,
00:15:36 --> 00:15:38 so super Jupiters, things bigger than
00:15:38 --> 00:15:41 Jupiter, uh, and um,
00:15:42 --> 00:15:45 exactly as Dave says, that would be a sub
00:15:45 --> 00:15:48 brown dwarf. Um, I've got to get my
00:15:48 --> 00:15:51 thinking right here. I think brown dwarf, um,
00:15:52 --> 00:15:54 probably. I hope I don't get this number
00:15:54 --> 00:15:57 wrong, but I think it has to be more than
00:15:57 --> 00:16:00 13 times the Mass of Jupiter, uh, for
00:16:00 --> 00:16:03 the low level nuclear reactions that will
00:16:03 --> 00:16:05 power it and turn it into a brown dwarf, uh,
00:16:05 --> 00:16:08 to actually make much difference to it, to
00:16:08 --> 00:16:11 mean that it radiates in the infrared region
00:16:11 --> 00:16:13 of the spectrum. In a sense, Jupiter itself
00:16:13 --> 00:16:15 is a sub brown dwarf because it actually,
00:16:16 --> 00:16:19 uh, radiates, I think it's 50% more
00:16:19 --> 00:16:22 radiation than it receives, um, from
00:16:22 --> 00:16:24 the sun. So there are nuclear processes
00:16:24 --> 00:16:26 taking place deep in Jupiter that actually
00:16:26 --> 00:16:29 give off energy. Um, and so
00:16:29 --> 00:16:31 something like, you know, if you have
00:16:31 --> 00:16:34 something, let's say halfway between a brown
00:16:34 --> 00:16:37 dwarf and a Jupiter and it's got a moon the
00:16:37 --> 00:16:39 size of the Earth. That's the scenario that
00:16:39 --> 00:16:41 Dave's postulating. Would the moon
00:16:41 --> 00:16:43 necessarily be tied, locked to the planet? In
00:16:43 --> 00:16:45 other words, would that moon, the Earth sized
00:16:45 --> 00:16:47 object, uh, be um,
00:16:48 --> 00:16:50 one that always faced its parent
00:16:50 --> 00:16:52 planet? I think the answer to that is yes.
00:16:53 --> 00:16:55 Uh, because it's all about mass, this whole
00:16:55 --> 00:16:58 gravitational locking of uh,
00:16:59 --> 00:17:02 um, moons, uh, around planets or
00:17:02 --> 00:17:03 indeed planets around their parent star.
00:17:03 --> 00:17:05 Because the same thing happens, it's all
00:17:05 --> 00:17:08 about gravity. Uh, and if you've got um, you
00:17:08 --> 00:17:11 know, two objects that are bigger than the
00:17:11 --> 00:17:13 ones that we think of at the moment, uh, then
00:17:13 --> 00:17:15 I think you would still get the tidal
00:17:15 --> 00:17:18 locking. So my guess is that your moon, your
00:17:18 --> 00:17:21 Earth sized moon would be uh,
00:17:21 --> 00:17:23 tidally locked. In other words, it would
00:17:23 --> 00:17:26 always face the sub brown dwarf.
00:17:26 --> 00:17:28 And then, uh, would it be possible for the
00:17:28 --> 00:17:30 Earth, uh, sized satellite to be in the
00:17:30 --> 00:17:32 Goldilocks zone of the super Jupiter? Uh,
00:17:33 --> 00:17:35 so that depends on what just how
00:17:35 --> 00:17:37 much energy you're getting from it. I mean
00:17:38 --> 00:17:40 the, the Goldilocks zone of a brown dwarf is
00:17:40 --> 00:17:43 much closer uh, to the brown dwarf
00:17:43 --> 00:17:46 than it is for a normal star. Uh, and
00:17:46 --> 00:17:49 maybe uh, you don't, you can't get near
00:17:49 --> 00:17:51 enough. That might be the answer to that
00:17:51 --> 00:17:53 question. That the Goldilocks zone is so
00:17:53 --> 00:17:56 close to the super Jupiter, uh, that it
00:17:56 --> 00:17:58 really is, you know, it's not something
00:17:58 --> 00:18:01 that's at all practical, uh, I'm guessing at
00:18:01 --> 00:18:04 that. And some planetary specialists might
00:18:04 --> 00:18:05 correct me, but I think that would be the
00:18:05 --> 00:18:08 case that you're going to find the Goldilocks
00:18:08 --> 00:18:10 zone of a super Jupiter. Uh, that's going to
00:18:10 --> 00:18:13 be very helpful, um, uh,
00:18:13 --> 00:18:15 for life on an Earth sized satellite of
00:18:16 --> 00:18:19 such a star. Um, work
00:18:19 --> 00:18:20 that one out for yourself.
00:18:21 --> 00:18:24 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, you were right though. Thirteen, um,
00:18:24 --> 00:18:25 masses.
00:18:25 --> 00:18:26 Professor Fred Watson: Okay, good.
00:18:26 --> 00:18:28 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, when you get to, sorry, I put my hands in
00:18:28 --> 00:18:31 front of the camera there, uh, 13 to 80
00:18:31 --> 00:18:34 Jupiter masses is defined as a brown
00:18:34 --> 00:18:36 dwarf. And then beyond
00:18:36 --> 00:18:38 that is a star I guess because it can
00:18:39 --> 00:18:41 burn hydrogen or something. Is that it?
00:18:41 --> 00:18:42 Professor Fred Watson: That's right.
00:18:42 --> 00:18:45 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yes. So yeah,
00:18:45 --> 00:18:48 under 13 is um, is,
00:18:48 --> 00:18:50 is basically just a gas giant.
00:18:51 --> 00:18:52 Professor Fred Watson: Indeed. That's right, yes.
00:18:52 --> 00:18:53 Andrew Dunkley: Right.
00:18:54 --> 00:18:54 Professor Fred Watson: Or a sub brown.
00:18:54 --> 00:18:56 Andrew Dunkley: Or a sub brown dwarf.
00:18:56 --> 00:18:57 Professor Fred Watson: Yes. Yeah.
00:18:57 --> 00:18:59 Andrew Dunkley: It's just hard to. Yeah.
00:19:01 --> 00:19:04 Um, so yeah, the tidal locking
00:19:04 --> 00:19:06 question definitely, probably would,
00:19:06 --> 00:19:08 probably, definitely would happen that way.
00:19:09 --> 00:19:11 I think so as Dave said. Great, um,
00:19:11 --> 00:19:14 question. Thank you for sending it in, Dave.
00:19:16 --> 00:19:19 Generic: Three, two, one.
00:19:19 --> 00:19:20 Andrew Dunkley: Space Nuts.
00:19:21 --> 00:19:24 Our final question today comes from
00:19:24 --> 00:19:27 Cal. Hi Space Nuts. I was uh, wondering if a
00:19:27 --> 00:19:29 gas giant orbiting a star
00:19:30 --> 00:19:33 that went supernova can then subsequently
00:19:33 --> 00:19:36 absorb the debris from that star at the end
00:19:36 --> 00:19:38 of its life to form enough mass to then
00:19:38 --> 00:19:41 form itself into a star.
00:19:42 --> 00:19:43 And the second part of my question
00:19:45 --> 00:19:47 is, uh, if not, can a gas
00:19:47 --> 00:19:50 giant have enough mass and gravity for, uh,
00:19:50 --> 00:19:53 other smaller planets to end up orbiting the
00:19:53 --> 00:19:56 gas giant with no star? Is there
00:19:56 --> 00:19:58 any example, uh, or evidence of this ever
00:19:58 --> 00:20:00 happening out there? Thank you so much. Cal
00:20:00 --> 00:20:03 from Swansea, uh, Swansea, South Wales in
00:20:03 --> 00:20:06 the, um, Lake Macquarie region of
00:20:06 --> 00:20:09 New South Wales, just, uh, across near
00:20:09 --> 00:20:10 coast from us. I drove through there the
00:20:10 --> 00:20:11 other day actually.
00:20:13 --> 00:20:13 Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
00:20:14 --> 00:20:16 Andrew Dunkley: Uh, so, um, what was it? What's he want to
00:20:16 --> 00:20:19 know? Gas giant. Um, a
00:20:19 --> 00:20:20 gas giant orbiting a star that goes
00:20:20 --> 00:20:23 supernova. Could it absorb enough energy to
00:20:23 --> 00:20:26 become a star itself? First part of his
00:20:26 --> 00:20:26 question.
00:20:26 --> 00:20:29 Professor Fred Watson: Um, so when an object
00:20:29 --> 00:20:32 turns into a supernova, it basically
00:20:32 --> 00:20:35 blasts debris, a very high
00:20:35 --> 00:20:38 velocity, uh, into the surrounding
00:20:38 --> 00:20:41 region of space. Um, and it's
00:20:41 --> 00:20:43 not even clear that a gas giant would survive
00:20:43 --> 00:20:45 that, let alone accrete
00:20:45 --> 00:20:48 debris to form a star itself. So I
00:20:48 --> 00:20:50 think the answer to that first part of the
00:20:50 --> 00:20:53 question is no. Um, uh, if,
00:20:54 --> 00:20:57 you know, if you've got, uh, this gas
00:20:57 --> 00:21:00 giant orbiting a star that goes supernova,
00:21:00 --> 00:21:02 I don't think it would end up a star itself.
00:21:02 --> 00:21:05 It might even end up being destroyed
00:21:05 --> 00:21:07 by the shockwaves that come from the
00:21:07 --> 00:21:10 supernova. Um, on the other hand, we do
00:21:10 --> 00:21:12 have one example of a planet orbiting
00:21:12 --> 00:21:15 something that has gone supernova. And, um,
00:21:15 --> 00:21:18 that was the first, um, extra solar
00:21:18 --> 00:21:20 planet that was discovered back in the 1950s,
00:21:20 --> 00:21:23 70s. I think there's
00:21:23 --> 00:21:25 something called the double pulsar.
00:21:26 --> 00:21:29 I think I'm right in digging that up from my
00:21:29 --> 00:21:31 memory. Anyway, second part of the question,
00:21:31 --> 00:21:33 if not, can a gas giant have enough mass and
00:21:33 --> 00:21:35 gravity for the other smaller planets to end
00:21:35 --> 00:21:37 up orbiting it with no star?
00:21:37 --> 00:21:40 Um, so perhaps what
00:21:40 --> 00:21:43 you're thinking of here is one of
00:21:43 --> 00:21:45 these objects that we call a rogue planet or
00:21:45 --> 00:21:46 an orphan planet, something that is going
00:21:46 --> 00:21:49 through space with no star. Uh, and
00:21:49 --> 00:21:52 many of them are gas giants. Right. There
00:21:52 --> 00:21:55 might be what we could call failed stars and
00:21:55 --> 00:21:57 probably, uh, they have their own M moons
00:21:57 --> 00:22:00 which might in some circumstances be
00:22:00 --> 00:22:03 the size of smaller planets. Uh, we
00:22:03 --> 00:22:06 haven't observed any moons of rogue planets
00:22:06 --> 00:22:09 or orphan planets yet. But, um, it's
00:22:09 --> 00:22:11 possible they might be there. Uh, so
00:22:11 --> 00:22:13 the last bit of the question, is there any
00:22:13 --> 00:22:15 example or evidence of this ever happening
00:22:15 --> 00:22:18 out there? Um, I don't think there is, but I
00:22:18 --> 00:22:20 wouldn't rule it out. It might well turn up
00:22:20 --> 00:22:22 that we see, uh, objects in
00:22:22 --> 00:22:25 orbit around rogue planets when We've got,
00:22:25 --> 00:22:28 um, well, probably the next generation of,
00:22:28 --> 00:22:29 uh, big telescopes.
00:22:30 --> 00:22:33 Andrew Dunkley: Yes, indeed. Uh, when it comes to astronomy,
00:22:33 --> 00:22:35 it's very difficult to rule anything out a
00:22:35 --> 00:22:38 lot of the time because, uh, the
00:22:38 --> 00:22:40 more exoplanets we discover, the more
00:22:40 --> 00:22:43 unusual things we tend to find.
00:22:43 --> 00:22:46 Like those cotton canned
00:22:46 --> 00:22:47 planets.
00:22:47 --> 00:22:49 Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, that's right. Fluffy ones.
00:22:50 --> 00:22:52 Andrew Dunkley: Um, really huge planets that have got
00:22:53 --> 00:22:55 next to no density at all. In some respects
00:22:55 --> 00:22:58 they're just like vapor,
00:22:58 --> 00:23:01 um, for want of a better term. And there
00:23:01 --> 00:23:02 probably is a better term for that. But
00:23:04 --> 00:23:07 we're finding, uh, and Jonti and I talked
00:23:07 --> 00:23:08 about this recently, and you and I have
00:23:08 --> 00:23:11 talked about this, that our solar system
00:23:11 --> 00:23:13 starting to look like it is not typical
00:23:14 --> 00:23:17 when we look at other solar systems and how
00:23:17 --> 00:23:19 they've formed and how gas giants seem to be
00:23:19 --> 00:23:21 on the interior rather than the exterior.
00:23:21 --> 00:23:24 Ours seems to have kind of flipped and
00:23:24 --> 00:23:27 doesn't look normal at all. We're
00:23:27 --> 00:23:30 unique, possibly, I would think, in
00:23:30 --> 00:23:31 the scheme of things, we wouldn't be. But,
00:23:31 --> 00:23:33 um, it's just looking that way.
00:23:33 --> 00:23:35 Professor Fred Watson: But certainly you're absolutely right. We
00:23:35 --> 00:23:38 look very unusual. We look a bit conspicuous,
00:23:38 --> 00:23:38 really.
00:23:38 --> 00:23:40 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. And we've got one other thing that's
00:23:40 --> 00:23:42 really weird that no other solar system's
00:23:42 --> 00:23:44 shown us that they've got yet. We've got a
00:23:44 --> 00:23:46 planet with life,
00:23:47 --> 00:23:50 an abundance of life in a great many forms,
00:23:50 --> 00:23:53 from cnidal cells right up to complex life
00:23:53 --> 00:23:54 forms, um,
00:23:56 --> 00:23:58 plant life. Um, the
00:23:58 --> 00:24:00 list is long.
00:24:01 --> 00:24:03 When you really think about it, this planet
00:24:03 --> 00:24:06 is miraculous with
00:24:06 --> 00:24:07 what it contains.
00:24:09 --> 00:24:12 Professor Fred Watson: Well, that's right. And that's one of the
00:24:12 --> 00:24:13 reasons why, um,
00:24:15 --> 00:24:18 you know, why there is such an emphasis on
00:24:19 --> 00:24:21 detecting other Earth like
00:24:21 --> 00:24:24 environments to see whether the same sort of
00:24:24 --> 00:24:27 miraculous array of living organisms
00:24:27 --> 00:24:29 can exist there. And so far we've drawn a
00:24:29 --> 00:24:29 blank.
00:24:30 --> 00:24:32 Andrew Dunkley: No, the Drake equation remains at one.
00:24:33 --> 00:24:34 Professor Fred Watson: Yes, it does. That's right.
00:24:35 --> 00:24:37 Andrew Dunkley: Would, um, finding life
00:24:37 --> 00:24:40 on one of the ice moons in our solar system,
00:24:41 --> 00:24:43 um, like Enceladus changed the Drake
00:24:43 --> 00:24:46 equation? No, no, because it was based on
00:24:47 --> 00:24:50 life that is capable of communication, wasn't
00:24:50 --> 00:24:50 it?
00:24:50 --> 00:24:51 Professor Fred Watson: That's right, it is, yeah.
00:24:51 --> 00:24:51 Andrew Dunkley: Yeah.
00:24:51 --> 00:24:53 Professor Fred Watson: It's basically life on, um, planets around
00:24:53 --> 00:24:56 other stars. That's right, yeah. So
00:24:56 --> 00:24:59 Drake equations set up. So no change to that.
00:24:59 --> 00:25:00 Andrew Dunkley: Indeed.
00:25:00 --> 00:25:02 All right, uh, Cal, thanks for the question.
00:25:03 --> 00:25:05 Very, uh, very interesting and thought, uh,
00:25:06 --> 00:25:08 provoking and, um. Yeah. Oh, that's right.
00:25:08 --> 00:25:10 There was a question that came to my mind
00:25:10 --> 00:25:13 from Cal's question. Um,
00:25:13 --> 00:25:16 how big a, uh, radius
00:25:16 --> 00:25:18 when a, um, star goes supernova? Are we
00:25:18 --> 00:25:20 talking in terms of devastation?
00:25:23 --> 00:25:25 Professor Fred Watson: Uh, you're talking about light years, um,
00:25:25 --> 00:25:28 because the shock wave, um,
00:25:28 --> 00:25:31 you know, when you think of like Supernova
00:25:31 --> 00:25:33 1987A, which is one of the best studied of
00:25:33 --> 00:25:35 all supernovae, it was in the Large
00:25:35 --> 00:25:38 Magellanic Cloud, so relatively nearby, 100
00:25:38 --> 00:25:40 meters, whatever. Is it 130
00:25:40 --> 00:25:42 light years away? Something like that,
00:25:43 --> 00:25:46 yes. My numbers are all a bit rusty because
00:25:46 --> 00:25:48 of jet lag, but it's something like that.
00:25:48 --> 00:25:51 Maybe 160. Anyway, never mind that it's a
00:25:51 --> 00:25:53 long way off, uh, and it's very well studied
00:25:53 --> 00:25:56 and you can already see the, you know,
00:25:56 --> 00:25:59 the fact that, um, this high energy
00:25:59 --> 00:26:02 radiation gone through a large, large
00:26:02 --> 00:26:04 neighborhood around it, measured in light
00:26:04 --> 00:26:06 years, which of course is much bigger than
00:26:06 --> 00:26:09 the solar system. So that's the area of
00:26:09 --> 00:26:10 devastation. Yeah.
00:26:10 --> 00:26:13 Andrew Dunkley: So a, uh, planet sort of orbiting a star like
00:26:13 --> 00:26:14 that probably wouldn't have a prayer, would
00:26:14 --> 00:26:15 it? Yeah.
00:26:15 --> 00:26:16 Professor Fred Watson: Yep, that's right.
00:26:18 --> 00:26:20 Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Cal. Enjoyed, uh, that question
00:26:20 --> 00:26:22 very much. And if you've got a question for
00:26:22 --> 00:26:24 us, please send it in. You can do that
00:26:24 --> 00:26:26 through the Space nuts website, uh,
00:26:26 --> 00:26:29 spacenutspodcast.com spacenuts IO
00:26:29 --> 00:26:31 click on the AMA M link at the top and you
00:26:31 --> 00:26:34 can send, uh, text or audio questions. Easy,
00:26:34 --> 00:26:36 uh, to send an audio question because if
00:26:36 --> 00:26:38 you've got a device with a microphone, like,
00:26:38 --> 00:26:41 I don't know, a smartphone or a
00:26:41 --> 00:26:42 tablet or a computer, they've all got them
00:26:42 --> 00:26:45 these days. Just, um, press and talk and
00:26:45 --> 00:26:47 uh, don't forget, forget to tell us who you
00:26:47 --> 00:26:49 are and where you're from. We're all done,
00:26:49 --> 00:26:50 Fred. Thank you.
00:26:51 --> 00:26:53 Professor Fred Watson: Great pleasure, Andrew, good to chat and
00:26:53 --> 00:26:55 great to get our listeners questions again.
00:26:55 --> 00:26:57 There's some really intriguing thinking going
00:26:57 --> 00:26:59 on there. Indeed.
00:26:59 --> 00:27:00 Andrew Dunkley: Um, we'll catch up with you real soon.
00:27:00 --> 00:27:01 Professor Fred Watson: See you, Fred. Sounds good.
00:27:01 --> 00:27:03 Andrew Dunkley: Thanks a lot, Fred Watson, astronomer at
00:27:03 --> 00:27:06 large. And uh, thanks to Huw in the studio
00:27:06 --> 00:27:08 who, uh, couldn't be with us. We were just
00:27:08 --> 00:27:10 talking about gas giants. Well, he's got a
00:27:10 --> 00:27:11 giant gas problem
00:27:13 --> 00:27:15 and he's had to go to hospital, but he'll be
00:27:15 --> 00:27:17 back soon. And from me, Andrew Dunkley,
00:27:17 --> 00:27:19 thanks for your company. We will see you on
00:27:19 --> 00:27:21 the very next episode of Space Nuts. Until
00:27:21 --> 00:27:24 then, bye bye. You'll be
00:27:24 --> 00:27:26 listening to the Space Nuts podcast,
00:27:27 --> 00:27:30 available available at Apple Podcasts,
00:27:30 --> 00:27:32 Spotify, iHeartRadio or your
00:27:32 --> 00:27:35 favorite podcast player. You can also stream
00:27:35 --> 00:27:37 on demand@bytes.com.
00:27:37 --> 00:27:39 Professor Fred Watson: This has been another quality podcast
00:27:39 --> 00:27:41 production from bytes.com.