Q&A 89: Why Didn't NASA Build More Hubbles? And More...
In this week's questions show, I explain why NASA decided to build James Webb and not more Hubble Space Telescopes, what would happen if you opened up a jar in space, and do we know of any stars without planets?
Watch the video here:
00:45 Why doesn't NASA build more Hubbles?
02:42 Where did life come from?
04:05 What if you opened a jar in space?
05:58 Why didn't I answer your question?
07:15 Will we give up all the sky?
09:06 Annoyed about light pollution.
10:28 Less satellites, higher up
11:41 Stars without planets?
12:25 Worth getting a degree in astronomy?
14:33 You can buy SpaceX stock
15:20 Do I really get death threats?
17:32 Can planets be independent from a galaxy?
Comments (8)
Fraser, A Question: I was thinking about a black hole with an accretion disc of charged particles orbiting it at near relativistic velocity. As I understand it, there is a resultant magnetic field created with its axis perpendicular to the plane of the accretion disc. Is it possible that we could observe the axis of the magnetic field precess, in the manner seen with a magnetar? If the axis does indeed precess, is it reasonable to expect a corresponding shift in the plane of the accretion disc, which should also be observable? I would guess these phenomena would occur, if they do, over a very long period. I admit my knowledge in your field is little better than rudimentary. So, if none of this makes any sense, my apologies.
Hi Errol, I think this one's above my paygrade. :-)
Richard, I would guess that since the planet and moon both orbit a common center of mass, they would eventually become tidally locked to the star as a unit, with a bad result for both planet and moon.
Great answer.
OMG Death threats???? And you still do what you do? I never realized talking about space science was so dangerous. God, or RA, or Dog, or Buddha, or Brahma or whoever bless you.
Actually, the universe is out to kill him. And to kill you too. And everybody ;-O
So many planets have been discovered around M dwarf stars but it seems they are all supposed to be tidally locked due to the proximity to the start. And this is supposed to be bad for the atmosphere or life prospects. But I haven't heard anyone discuss if a large enough moon - generating a massive amount of angular momentum - would prevent this from happening. ets. If a planet had a large enough moon, and these were tidally locked, would the momentum of this pair of worlds prevent the planet from becoming tidally locked to its start? If yes is there probably a mass ratio of moon to planet above which tidal locking of the planet to the star can be avoided? Wouldn't that be great for stable climate and avoidance of hot side / frigid side atmosphere collapse synd?
Wow! Wonderful question!!