Lunar Landings, Asteroid Adventures & Andromeda Mysteries: #501

And we've had some questions recently about Andromeda. Well, uh, you be interested to know that it has been suffering from interference and it wasn't us. It wasn't. We didn't do it. And Voyager 1 back in the news again. That's all coming up on this episode of space nuts.

Um, now, we talked on the last episode or two, um, when you popped in on us, um, about your trip north. One thing I wondered is, while you were there to look at the aurora borealis and the like, um, on an astronomy tour, did you actually get to see, uh, the planetary alignment? Or couldn't you view it from that far north?

Professor Fred Watson: Uh, we could, but, uh, you're right, it's a good question because the ecliptic, which is where all the planets lie, uh, just like the equator, the celestial equator is very low down at the latitudes we were at. The furthest north we got was to north cape, which is 71 degrees latitude. Um, a lot of the time we're in

Greenland. Iceland's a little bit further south. It's only the top, really. The north coast of Iceland, that's within the Arctic Circle. But we're also, well, in the Arctic Circle in Sweden and Norway. North Cape, of course, is in Norway. Uh, so, yes, your view of the sky is different. Um, what? Always. And I remember being struck by this in my very, very first visit to the Arctic, which was back in 2012 when we led our first

expedition up there. Uh, and I was struck by the fact that I could see stars which from our latitude in. And I'm still thinking of the northern hemisphere from the latitude of the United Kingdom, were only visible in the summertime and we were there in the middle of winter. So you can see, um, at least two stars of something called the summer triangle. The summer triangle is Vega, Altair, and the brightest star in Cygnus, which is,

um, Deneb. Deneb. Vega and Altair. Vega and Deneb were very, very visible, uh, in midwinter, uh, near the north pole because the pole of the sky is tilted upwards so you can see things that from kind of middle latitudes you'd only see in summer. Uh, so what it meant was. Yes, your question is well made. Uh, we certainly saw Venus, Jupiter and Mars very clearly, probably Saturn, although it was quite near the horizon then. And I don't think we got a glimpse of

Mercury. So that parade of planets that really, uh, occupied the media, uh, for us in the southern hemisphere, it was actually best back in January. Yeah. Professor Fred Watson: Uh, it's, uh, it's only in the north that it's been a hot topic within the last few days. The reason I ask is it's been in the news again because they said that, uh, well, the popular press is saying, oh, you know, the big alignment first time. Yeah, last time we'll see it in 60 years, blah,

blah. Um, Jonti has a particular problem with the way the media. Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. Spews this kind of information out and, you know, don't let the truth get in the way of good story type of attitude. Professor Fred Watson: That's right. Um, but it was, uh, apparently it was the whole set at the end of February because Mercury was part of the deal then. Professor Fred Watson: From the Northern hemisphere.

Yeah. Well, there you go. And um, Yeah, I was just wondering if you got a chance to spot it. Professor Fred Watson: But, uh, no, didn't see Mercury. No, I didn't see any of it much. Professor Fred Watson: Okay. I did go out and look, but where I am in town, it's. It's a really bad position and I'd have to, uh, go out and find a hill and as you know, there are not that many of them around here.

Professor Fred Watson: No, no. You're a bit, uh, a bit low on hills up there. You need somebody to come and build one for you. Yeah, yeah. Or just cut all the trees down and. Professor Fred Watson: Oh, is that too. But that's not a good idea. No, not really. Professor Fred Watson: No. Okay. All right. Uh, let's get onto Our first official story and this one is very exciting and again getting a lot of press and that's been the successful landing of the Blue Ghost Lunar lander

on the moon. Uh, this is a lot different to what we were witnessing in the 60s and 70s and a few of the more recent missions because they were um, publicly funded and um, government gazetted and all that jazz. This is a completely different kettle of. Professor Fred Watson: Fish indeed because it is a commercial spaceflight, it's a commercial company, uh, with the lovely name of

Firefly Aerospace. Uh, their Blue Ghost lander is named after a rare species of Firefly, uh, which is found in the Appalachian area of the United States. I uh, love the name of the mission. It's not Apollo or Artemis or anything. It's called Ghost Riders in the Sky. I love it. Professor Fred Watson: Uh, and we did see, uh, earlier in the week before the spacecraft landed successfully, which it did on uh, March 2, uh, Eastern Standard Time, Sunday at the weekend.

The weekend just gone. Uh, we did see some images during the week from the navigation cameras which uh, showed the Earth and the moon as uh, the lander flew by. But the reason why this lander is going to the moon or has gone to the moon is that it's part of uh, something you and I have

Talked about, Andrew. NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program, CLPS Commercial Commercial Lunar Payload, uh, which basically is NASA contracting to private companies, uh, for payloads to go to the lunar surface, uh, either experiments or um, you know, I suppose they, they're all experiments or at least uh, things that test the technology, uh, uh, basically to check things out before the Artemis mission really gets underway with

a lunar landing. We hope that Artemis will see humans walking on the moon. 2027 I think is the current date. Uh, but that could change because all sorts of things are happening, uh, inside NASA, which we really didn't expect. Um, anyway, uh, the Launch was on the 15th of January, so it's taken a little while to get

there. It uh, um, the spacecraft rode into orbit on a Falcon 9, a SpaceX Falcon 9, uh, and essentially uh, having gone into lunar orbit, uh, earlier in February, 13th of February, it was descended or sent, um, a command to descend to the lunar surface on the 1st of March and successfully touched down on the 2nd. So really great stuff. Fantastic news that a, uh, commercial spaceflight has landed successfully on the moon. Yes, it is marvelous and um, it's a very short mission though, isn't

it? They're not going to be doing much for long from what I understand. Professor Fred Watson: I think that's Right. I think the, the, you know, the essential part was just demonstrating that they can get there. Yeah. Professor Fred Watson: Uh, which they've now done very successfully. Um, it's, uh, it's. I think it's, uh, as you said, it's a short mission. Uh, I think it's one of these things that will only last for a lunar day. I need to check that. But it's that sort of time.

Uh, it's easy to find some really nice pictures of, uh, what the sky would look like for Blue Ghost. Uh, there's a very nice picture on X of a gentleman by the name of Buzz Aldrin watching the landing. Yes. Yeah. He sent them a message of congratulations. Professor Fred Watson: Yes. Yeah. Uh, which is great. And, you know, who better to send a congratulations to a, um, like that than Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon.

Absolutely. Yes. And I, uh, think I've mentioned before I've had the great pleasure of meeting and interviewing him in my radio career. So that was one of the big highlights for me. Professor Fred Watson: Uh, and one of the highlights for me was having dinner with him. Oh, uh, that's even better. Yeah. Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, it was really interesting. We'll talk about that some of the time. It was a very interesting meeting, but it was very

stimulating. This is probably a decade ago. Yeah, yeah. Great. Professor Fred Watson: Great company, as you know. Yeah. I, I notice, uh, in one of the stories, I think it's in sky and telescope, uh.org they they refer to the, uh, descent orbit insertion as nine minutes of terror. Professor Fred Watson: Yes. But we've talked about these terrifying landings

on other worlds, particularly Mars. I wouldn't have thought that it would be as big a deal on the moon, given that this, you know, no atmosphere of. Professor Fred Watson: You're right. Yeah. And you're absolutely right because, um, you know, if you're landing on Mars, a lot of the, uh, trajectory is dictated not just by, uh, orbital mechanics, which is how things work in space, but dictated by

the vagaries of the atmosphere. If you've got slightly higher pressure than you expected, you've got more braking force, and suddenly, uh, your spacecraft is heading for a different part of the surface at a higher speed than you

would want or lower speed or whatever. Um, and you're right that, um, in the case of the Moon, it's all about orbital mechanics, which are very, very predictable. But you can imagine, you know, you've got to fire those thrusters at just the right moment to break it so that when it lands on the moon, it doesn't land too hard and smash up on the rocks or basically bounce off and then smash up. You've got to get things just right. So nine minutes of terror.

I can sympathize with that. I think I'd feel like that too. Well, when you're talking about breaking from 3,800 miles an hour to 90 miles an hour. Yes, that, that would be, that would be terrifying if, um, you know, you push the wrong button. And I think I had to smile when I read the story because they, they said successful, uh, landing and upright. So I think, I think they were sort of saying, well,

you know, even if it lands on its side, that's a success. But it's even better that it's standing. Professor Fred Watson: It was last year, wasn't it, that one of the spacecraft did land on its side? That's right. I think it was the Indian mission. Professor Fred Watson: Was it, Was it Indian or Japanese? I can't remember. Um, but yeah. So it was landed in such a way that the solar panels weren't seeing the sun.

Yes, that's right. Professor Fred Watson: So, yes, it's very important to have it the right way up. Yeah. Anyway, we wish them well. It'll be a quick visit and it paves the way for Artemis too. We still don't know when that's going to happen. Seems to be getting pushed back time and time again. But they will get there eventually. Professor Fred Watson: I'm sure they will. One will hope.

Professor Fred Watson: Yes, the uh, the comment that perhaps highlights the situation comes from, uh, uh, somebody by the name of Matthew Gialish, I think it is, who is the co founder and CEO of AstroDailyPod Forge, which is the, um, the organization that is operating the Odin spacecraft. Uh, what he said on Friday, uh, the 28th of February was we don't fully understand the state of the vehicle. Uh, it's thought still though, to be in a mode that means it's

not being fried by the light of the sun. It's in an attitude in regard to the sun that will not have parts of it being unduly heated, although, uh, we believe that it is tumbling. Um, and uh, you know, uh, this is not a good thing for a spacecraft, um, uh, to experience. That's one of two alternatives which I think are still valid,

Andrew. One is that the spacecraft is tumbling, uh, which is not nice, uh, or the other is that everything's fine, but there are issues with the telemetry back on Earth, their ground receivers not being properly configured or whatever. So they're still basically worrying about what's. What's going on. We should check that story again, perhaps next week. What's the goal of the mission? They're going to visit an asteroid. But what do they want to do with it?

Professor Fred Watson: Basically check it out, uh, to send imagery, uh, of, uh, an asteroid which rejoices in the name of 2022 OB5. Uh, and, um, it's a possible first step in basically recovering resources from a space object. In other words, asteroid mining. Wow.

So if this mission was successful, and we're not sure that that's the case at the moment, um, this mission is basically designed to focus, uh, the cameras, uh, on that asteroid 2022 OB5, in order to get a survey of the surface, see what's there, take lots of images, use, um, the filters in the cameras to get some idea of the surface texture and things of that sort, which you can do, particularly in the infrared wave band. But that's a precursor, uh,

to a second mission. This mission's called odin. The second mission is called Vestri, which will aim to land on the asteroid. So that's perhaps the more ambitious one that we will be looking at down the track. Assuming that Odin, uh, pulls it off or Space Forge pulls it off, as far as odin's concerned. Yeah, uh, well, fingers crossed. Um, I think this quote from Matt Gillick, uh, who you quoted earlier, says it all. I think we all know the hope is fading as we continue the mission.

Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, um, I mean, it's what we've always said. Space is hard. It's tough out there. Yeah, yeah, it's, uh, it's a difficult gig. But they keep on trying. And, uh, you know, not all missions are absolute failures. Even when they don't go well, there's something to learn, and there's always something to learn. Professor Fred Watson: That's right. It's better next time. Yes, indeed. And you, uh, can read about that story if you

[email protected]. this is Space Nets with Andrew Dunkley and Professor Fred Watson. Okay, we checked all four systems and team with a Go Space Net. Okay, Fred, let's, uh, head towards Andromeda. Or is it heading towards us? Either way, uh, we. We've had a few questions recently with Jonti about Andromeda, and he was, um. Yeah, uh, he had a lot to say about it. Uh, and one of the questions we got recently was is the Milky Way already affecting Andromeda? And you know, to

a certain degree, not a massive amount. The answer is yes, according to Jonti. Uh, but uh, we don't have to do that because it's now been discovered that Andromeda's um, being picked on by some little cousins nearby. It's already getting ah, a bit of a dust up, so to speak. Professor Fred Watson: It may. Yeah. So this may be the results of something bigger, something that we probably need to know about as well. Um, the bottom

line here is you're quite right. Uh, the Andromeda galaxy, we can see, we see it in the constellation of Andromeda, obviously, uh, at a distance of about 2 1/2 million light years, uh, like the Earth. Sorry, let me rephrase that. Like the Milky Way, our own galaxy, um, it's surrounded by a uh, swarm of dwarf galaxies. In fact about three or four dozen of them

altogether. Um, it's uh, it is, uh, those dwarf galaxies, we call them satellite galaxies because they are satellites of Andromeda, uh, have been analyzed to death, uh, in a, in you know, some new research that's been carried out using the Hubble Space TeleScope still, after 35 years, still doing a very, very fine job in giving us spectra and

images of distant objects. So uh, the researchers have used the Hubble, uh, essentially to map the motion of these dwarf galaxies, which is an extraordinary thing to be able to do, um, and look at their position in three dimensions around the uh, Andromeda galaxy. Uh, and it's comparing uh, what they found with what we know from the dwarf galaxies that orbit our own. And it's is probably a similar sort of number. It's about two dozen, I think,

satellite uh, galaxies that we have. The biggest two are the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. Uh, so you take all that, um, uh, you build a map of where these galaxies are around Andromeda and you find that they're in quite different orientations from what we find in our own

galaxy. Um, uh, one of the comments, uh, in this story, uh, and this is uh, coming from uh, some of the researchers in fact, uh, Daniel Weiss of the University of California at Berkeley, uh, has basically pointed out that something significant has happened to Andromeda to change the distribution of the satellite galaxies. Um, because half of them, uh, rather than sort of swarming around, uh, like you know, moths around a flame, half of these galaxies are actually in a plane.

Uh, you know, they're basically in, in one plane. Of the space around, uh, around Andromeda, and they're all going in the same direction. And that is, uh, as, um, as Daniel Weiss says, that is weird. Um, he says it was actually a total surprise to find the satellites in that configuration. And we still don't fully understand why they appear that way.

Another colleague, uh, says, um, this uh, is Alessandro Savino, says it is clear, it's a clear indication of how small galaxy growth is disturbed by the influence of a massive galaxy like Andromeda. Um, and I think the, the bottom line here is that they've got much, um, younger, uh, stars in them. These dwarf galaxies, uh, form their stars very early on in the history of the Andromeda galaxy, which probably goes back 12 or 13 billion years, um, and then kept on. And uh, the idea is that the,

the perhaps. And they say that they really don't know what's happening, but perhaps there was a collision between Andromeda and another galaxy, uh, some billions of years ago, which caused this peculiarity of the, uh, of the, of the dwarf galaxies surrounding Andromeda. Everything about it is weird, including my, um, my account of it. Just

uh. So they're saying it's weird. They say they don't really know what happened, but it would have to be some kind of gravitational effect or interference, wouldn't it?

Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. And I think that's probably what they're looking at, you know, as they try to understand how you can end up with a, uh, with a set of, uh, something like 15 or 20 dwarf galaxies, all of which lie in a single plane that flies in the face of everything we understand about dwarf galaxy formation, um, and certainly is very different from what we find in our own Milky Way galaxy.

And from what I can tell, they've tried to figure this out using computer simulations and it didn't work. Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So there you go. And uh, that's just basically telling you that you need to put something else into the simulation and maybe it is a collision with another large galaxy, something else that's not in there already, to try and, uh, replicate what we see in the real world.

So could that mean that if there was a collision with another large galaxy, that the result is Andromeda? Professor Fred Watson: Yes, that's. I think what you'd have to agree with that. Um, it, it's not been a, I mean the collision between Andromeda and the Milky Way, when it happens in three and a half billion years or whenever it says in the diary that that's going to happen. Uh, it's, that changes the shape of both of them. Uh, it basically you get a

collision. All the shockwaves, gravitational shock waves, cause formation of supernovae. Basically, uh, form really big stars which last only a short time, then explode as supernovae. That uses up all the gas, uh, in the galaxies and you end up with what we call Milkomeda, the Milky Way Andromeda combination, which looks more like uh, what we call an elliptical galaxy. A galaxy with no, um, no gas, no star formation. Uh, and Andromeda now is not like that at

all. It's a actively star forming galaxy. So the suggestion is that maybe it was a smaller object that caused this disruption to the satellite galaxies. It's. Is it classified as a spiral galaxy? Professor Fred Watson: Yes, it's a, it's a spiral definitely. Okay. Um, and so is ours. But when they get together they're just going to be boring. Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, they will, they'll be shaped like a football, uh, with no spiral arms. Nothing happening, nothing to see here.

Yeah. Ah, it's a bit sad really. Professor Fred Watson: I mean because they're both pretty smart looking now. What a pity. Oh well, um, you know, we can't stop it. We'll just have to put up with it when the time comes. How long? Three and a half billion. Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, yeah, it's um, something to look forward to, you know, with trepidation perhaps. Yes, eventually. All right, uh, that story is uh, uh, at Cosmos magazine dot com if you'd like to read up on that one.

so the. What the. Basically the story goes back in fact to uh, the 20. I uh, think. I can't remember what date it was, but it's back in November 2023. So it's um, you know, well over a year ago, uh, that um, the transmission started coming through in a gobbledygook format. Uh, and there was, I think an issue with one of the memory chips. Um, and you know, there was work done on trying to fix that, uh, which basically I think

took Five months or so. Uh, and then, uh, was it in April 2024, uh there was uh, a successful uh, receipt of data, um, and that the machine was sending back things that you could actually read rather than just gobbledygook. So that was back in April 2024. But I think there's been another loss since then. Uh, and the you know, the um, difficulties that Voyager 1 has are

uh, to some extent ongoing. Um, but uh, there is, you know, it's good news that uh, uh, at least we are still in some sort of communication with Voyager 1 and hopefully there's still potential for intelligible uh, signals to come back. The, the really interesting thing I guess is the, the power supply which is the radioisotope thermoele generator, which is now delivering a tiny fraction of what it delivered right at the beginning of the mission in the late 1970s. And so we've got

uh, an issue there. And what NASA has done is switched

off various instruments progressively so that things like the magnetometers that we call the magnetic field and things like that, I think they are now switched off so that you're saving power just for pointing the antenna, which is done by the spacecraft's thrusters and essentially sending signals backwards and forwards. Yeah, it's uh, it's quite remarkable though after all these decades that it's still going, we still communicate with it, we can still send it information.

Professor Fred Watson: Yes. And um, of course Voyager 2 is still out there and still going strong, although it too has had some issues. Although I think um, the most recent big issue with Voyager 2 was July 2023 when a series of commands was sent to the spacecraft, causing its antenna to point away from Earth. I think we did talk about that. Professor Fred Watson: We did talk about it. That's right. And it stopped the uh, spacecraft from receiving commands or sending data back to Earth.

And I think they managed to somehow circumvent that. Um, I, I, I believe it involved the Canberra deep space complex. Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, I was just going to mention that. In fact it must have done because that Canberra deep space complex, uh, the Tidbin Billa dish, as we call it in the trade, uh, is uh, the only uh, antenna um, on Earth that can actually communicate with Voyager 2. And that's because Voyager 2's at a latitude, if I remember

rightly. It's about 66 degrees below the equator in terms of the direction it's going out to, which makes it invisible to the other two, uh, stations in the Deep Space, uh, network, which are in Madrid and uh, Goldstone in California. So, uh, yes, only, uh, only Tidbinbilla can see Voyager 2. Yeah, and that's how they saved it. They picked up a very faint signal. Professor Fred Watson: That's right.

NASA was able to transmit some corrective data like, uh, to Voyager 2 and got it back online, which was very good news. Uh, and Voyager 1's now back with us. So they're both still going. They're both still talking to us. We did. Professor Fred Watson: Extraordinary. Yeah. We thought we'd offended both of them, but no, it's. It's all good. I mean, they've been alone for so long. I can understand them being a bit grumpy. Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. They might

like their own company though. M. They've both got music to listen to, so. Going different ways, aren't they? Professor Fred Watson: Yes, they are. That's the thing. Uh, Voyager 2 is heading much more to the south than Voyager 1 is. Yeah. M. It's such amazing. An amazing story for both of them, too. I mean, how far past end of mission have they survived? That's extraordinary. Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. Decades. It is, it is. It's fantastic. And they, you know, eventually their

batteries will run out. Those, uh, radioisotope thermal thermoelectric generators will fizzle out so that they can't even send power to the, uh, to the transmitters. But the spacecraft will keep on going because they are orbital mechanics. Maybe for billions of years. We just don't know. Yes. Until someone catches them in a Venus fly trap

on some other planet and it's all over Red Rover. Who knows? Professor Fred Watson: Who knows? Yeah, Great, uh, story about Voyager 1. You can, um, find that online. There's quite a few news stories about it. Professor Fred Watson: Can I just, um, add one comment? So, the Canberra deep space communication complex is 60 years old this month. Wow. Professor Fred Watson: There you go. I should have, should have remembered that. You did, yeah. Should have remembered it earlier.

60 years old this month. Yes. It took you 60 years to remember that? All right, um, we are just about done. Thanks, uh, for your company. Thank you, Fred, as always. We'll wrap it up and we'll catch you on the next episode. Professor Fred Watson: That sounds wonderful. I'll look forward to it. All right, we'll see you then. Professor Fred Watson, Astronomer at large. Don't forget to visit us, uh, on our website.

In the meantime, you can do [email protected] or spacenuts IO all sorts of things to see and do and buy there. Um, more mainly Fred's books. But you know, there's other stuff as well. Some of it's even interesting. Oh, sorry. Um, some of it's not. And I think I wrote those books. Never mind. Ah, and thanks, uh, to Huw in the studio, who couldn't be with us today because he was, um, stirring the pot around Andromeda, causing all sorts of mayhem.

Typical of you. And from me, Andrew Dunkley, thanks for your company. Catch you on the very next episode of Space Nuts. Bye. Bye.