# From Diamond Rain to Rogue Planets: Unpacking Cosmic Curiosities

An episode of [Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1080090608), 24 Aug 2026, 37 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/pscrb.fm/rss/p/op3.dev/e/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/74619097/from_diamond_rain_to_rogue_planets_unpacking_cosmic_curiosities_nordvpn_sponsor.mp3

Sponsor Link: This episode of Space Nuts is brought to you with the support of NordVPN. Protect your online activities with a special deal at www.nordvpn.com/spacenuts. In this Q&A episode of Space Nuts, hosts Andrew Dunkley and Professor Jonti Horner tackle a variety of fascinating questions from listeners. From the intriguing phenomenon of planetary atmospheres that may rain diamonds and sapphires, to the complexities of satellite approvals and the possibility of planets forming without a star, this episode is packed with cosmic insights. Key topics include: - Nick from Perth asks about the science behind the claims of diamond and sapphire rain on distant planets, prompting a discussion on spectral analysis and the nature of scientific reporting. - Sandy from Melbourne raises concerns about the recent FCC approval for Reflect Orbital's satellite, leading to an exploration of the regulatory landscape surrounding space launches and the implications for global cooperation. - Rennie from California queries whether planets can form without a sun, which sparks a deep dive into the theories surrounding rogue planets and the role of dark matter in planetary formation. Join Andrew and Jonty as they navigate these thought-provoking questions, shedding light on the mysteries of the universe and the ever-evolving field of astronomy. 00:00 - This is a Q and A episode and in this particular show we're answering audience questions 01:00 - Professor Jonty Horner joins us to discuss astrophysics 01:29 - The heat stays a bit longer than summer and the cold stays too much past winter 02:55 - Nick in Perth has a question regarding planetary atmospheres 11:29 - Scientists are extrapolating from what they know about planets' interior 12:49 - Andrew Dunkley: Question comes from Sandy in Melbourne, Australia 14:51 - FAA proposing to circumvent environmental laws for commercial launches and spacecraft reentries 21:54 - Fast developing industry with no regulation developed around it 25:20 - Space Nuts Q and A edition with Andrew Dunkley and Jonty Horner 25:38 - Can planets form without a sun because dark matter would be the gravity 33:41 - You can send in your Space Nuts questions via our website Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/space-nuts-astronomy-insights-cosmic-discoveries--2631155/support.

## Transcript

[0:00] Professor Fred Watson: Hi there.
[0:00] Andrew Dunkley: Thanks for joining us again. This is Space
[0:02] Nuts. My name is Andrew Dunkley, your host.
[0:04] It's always good to have your company. Hope
[0:06] you're well. This is a Q and A episode
[0:09] and in this particular show we're going to be
[0:11] answering audience questions. Uh, one about
[0:14] planetary atmospheres, another
[0:17] about, uh, FAA approval for things
[0:20] like reflect orbital, which we talked about
[0:23] not so long ago. And funnily enough, at
[0:26] the very same time as someone asks that
[0:27] question, a storey pops up in the news. So
[0:30] we'll have a quick look at, uh, also planets
[0:32] forming without a star. Is that possible? And
[0:35] if we've got time, we'll chuck another one
[0:37] into the mix. Uh, and we'll answer
[0:40] them all on this episode of space
[0:43] nuts.
[0:44] Professor Fred Watson: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
[0:46] 10, 9. Ignition
[0:49] sequence time.
[0:50] Jonti Horner: Space nuts.
[0:51] Professor Fred Watson: 5, 4, 3, 2. 1, 2, 3, 4,
[0:54] 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
[0:56] Jonti Horner: Space nuts.
[0:57] Professor Fred Watson: Astronauts report it feels good.
[1:00] Andrew Dunkley: And joining us once again while Fred Watson
[1:02] is gallivanting in places that, uh,
[1:05] he ought to be, because that's what he does,
[1:07] is Professor Jonty Horner. Professor, uh, of
[1:10] astrophysics at the University of Southern
[1:13] Queensland. Jonty, hello.
[1:15] Jonti Horner: Good afternoon. How are you going?
[1:17] Andrew Dunkley: I am well. Good to see you again.
[1:19] Jonti Horner: Oh, it's good to be back. I'm enjoying the
[1:22] warmth of my fire here and thinking the
[1:23] warmth of the fire is a little bit too much
[1:25] warmth actually. But, um, it's a hard life.
[1:27] Andrew Dunkley: I wish I had that problem.
[1:29] It is absolutely freezing in my studio
[1:32] video here. Um, we are, um, not quite at the
[1:34] end of winter, although we're getting there.
[1:36] But that doesn't mean the cold will go away
[1:38] because that's not how it works. The heat
[1:41] stays a bit longer than summer and the cold
[1:44] stays too much time past
[1:46] winter, in my opinion. I'm a summer person.
[1:49] But, um, yeah, I think it's the, it's the
[1:52] campfire analogy that describes best how the
[1:55] seasons work.
[1:56] Jonti Horner: The heat all down to thermal inertia. And
[1:58] growing up in the uk, we're very familiar
[2:00] with that. Um, yes, the ocean is a blanket
[2:02] that keeps you warm, but it takes. Takes time
[2:04] to warm up and cool down.
[2:05] Andrew Dunkley: Exactly.
[2:05] Jonti Horner: So, yeah, hottest time of the year is always
[2:08] a few weeks after midsummer. And the coolest
[2:10] time of the year is usually a few weeks after
[2:11] midwinter.
[2:12] Andrew Dunkley: Indeed. Which we're into.
[2:15] Um, well, now we're beyond that now. Should
[2:17] be starting to warm up. Should be. I, ah,
[2:19] know the hay fever's already hitting me. I
[2:22] mean, it seems to get early year in, year
[2:24] out. That's really frustrating. I'VE got my
[2:28] anti hay fever device right in front of me
[2:30] now.
[2:30] Jonti Horner: Um, it's been so dry recently as well that
[2:32] we've got a. We've got all the wattles coming
[2:34] out, which for the listeners in the northern
[2:36] hemisphere, wattles are awesome and they're
[2:37] beautiful. Yes. Um, but also we have all the
[2:40] dust because it's been the dry season and
[2:43] so, yeah, I've got. One of my students
[2:45] has had horrific problems with hair fever and
[2:48] visits to Ents and stuff like that. So, yeah,
[2:51] everybody's suffering. Get well soon.
[2:53] Andrew Dunkley: It can be debilitating.
[2:54] Jonti Horner: Yes.
[2:55] Andrew Dunkley: Shall we deal with some questions?
[2:58] Let's go to our first one. Greetings from
[3:01] Perth. Been an avid listener for years. My
[3:03] dog loves the. As I listen while
[3:06] walking him. Uh, he has a question. No, he
[3:09] doesn't. Um, I have a
[3:12] question regarding planetary atmospheres. I
[3:15] note that some planets rain diamonds and
[3:17] others rain sapphires. How do we know this
[3:20] spectral analysis tells us about atoms,
[3:22] molecules and compounds? Uh, it can
[3:25] tell us, uh, anything about, uh. It cannot
[3:28] tell us anything about crystallography. Uh,
[3:31] um, you need to prove the lattice with X
[3:34] rays for that. Uh, is it possible that
[3:37] we're dealing with crystal forms of carbon
[3:40] and a
[3:43] 12.
[3:43] Jonti Horner: Aluminium oxide.
[3:45] Andrew Dunkley: Aluminium oxide, right. Um, respectively
[3:48] that have not been documented? After all, we
[3:51] are discovering new crystal forms all the
[3:53] time. That comes from Nick in Perth. That's a
[3:56] really good question. Yes, but we have heard
[3:58] of, um, such planets that rain diamonds and
[4:01] who knows what else. Um, salt, like
[4:04] planets, uh, and so
[4:07] on. Um, and this is your. This is your area,
[4:10] isn't it?
[4:10] Jonti Horner: Yeah, there's a lot of allegedly in this. I
[4:13] think there's a lot of
[4:16] beauty and, um, storytelling between what a
[4:19] paper says and what a press release says. I
[4:21] think that's maybe a polite way of putting
[4:23] it.
[4:24] Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, I know exactly where you're coming
[4:25] from. We refer to it as the popular press.
[4:28] Uh, clickbait. Getting the headline whatever
[4:30] you like.
[4:31] Jonti Horner: Well, it's one of the reasons I've actually
[4:33] really enjoyed in the past writing for the
[4:34] conversation, because as a scientist there, I
[4:36] get to tell my storey. And the editor signs
[4:38] off on it and helps you write it, rather than
[4:41] it being passed through a lens of multiple
[4:44] stages where the storey gets a little bit
[4:45] changed every time, which happens sometimes
[4:48] with press releases. You know, your
[4:50] university media office will often write a
[4:52] press release without consulting the
[4:54] scientists involved, um, because people are
[4:56] busy and they're doing them a favour. You
[4:57] know, there's nothing sinister about it. And
[4:59] then journalists will base their storeys on
[5:01] the press release, not the paper, but put
[5:03] their own spin on it, and so on and so forth.
[5:06] Now, none of that is to say that there's
[5:08] anything dishonest going on here, but I think
[5:10] what happens is that certainly storeys
[5:13] about planets around other stars that ren.
[5:15] Sapphires and diamonds, uh, are
[5:19] straying into the possible rather than the
[5:21] factual, if that makes sense. What we can
[5:23] learn about planets around other stars at the
[5:25] minute is for the largest planets
[5:28] we can start to learn something about their
[5:30] atmosphere, their composition of the
[5:31] atmosphere, the temperatures of the
[5:33] atmosphere, things like that. So one of the
[5:35] planets that has been flagged up as
[5:39] raining various Precious Stones is
[5:41] WASP121B. And I've got an article open here
[5:44] in front of me where a sentence says, a place
[5:47] where winds blow at 11,000 miles per hour,
[5:50] it rains liquid metal rubies and
[5:52] sapphires. This description worthy science
[5:55] fiction novel actually corresponds to the
[5:56] reality of an exoplanet called WASP121B.
[6:00] That's your storey. When you actually look
[6:03] into what we've learned about WASP121B, we
[6:06] don't know that there are rubies and diamonds
[6:08] in the atmosphere. What the study
[6:11] that birthed these storeys told us was that
[6:14] the atmosphere is really, really hot,
[6:15] particularly on the sunward side of the
[6:17] planet. You're getting to temperature of 2500
[6:20] to 3000 degrees centigrade. That's four
[6:23] and a half thousand to what, five and a half
[6:25] thousand Fahrenheit, Roughly ridiculously
[6:27] hot. We can see
[6:30] absorption bands in the atmosphere that tell
[6:32] you that there's water molecules, that there
[6:34] are titanium oxides, vanadium oxides,
[6:36] iron chrom, vanadium,
[6:39] titanium oxide, vanadium oxide that have been
[6:42] detected in some studies and not in others.
[6:45] More recent studies have shown things like
[6:47] magnesium, calcium, nickel, all this kind of
[6:50] stuff. You then have studies
[6:53] of these kind of planets that can tell you
[6:54] the differences in the weather between the
[6:56] day side and the night side and
[7:00] what's going on there. So I'm going to hop
[7:01] onto a different planet here because I've
[7:03] actually found a paper that talks about iron
[7:06] rain specifically.
[7:07] Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, we heard about that one.
[7:08] Jonti Horner: I think this one sounds, sounds a bit more
[7:11] like the press releases about iron rain
[7:14] fit in well with what the science says
[7:16] because what this paper found, which was
[7:18] published, um, the article is
[7:21] called Nightside Condensation of Iron in an
[7:23] Ultra Hot Giant Exoplanet. This is another
[7:26] one of the really, really super hot
[7:29] planets. In this case another Wasp planet,
[7:31] Wasp 76 b. What
[7:33] they've found is that they can get the
[7:36] spectrum with information about the
[7:38] daytime atmosphere on m that planet and the
[7:40] nighttime atmosphere on that planet. The
[7:43] nighttime's colder than the daytime, but they
[7:46] find very strong winds blowing from the hot
[7:48] side to the cold side. You find incredible
[7:50] weather going on there. But what they've also
[7:52] done is resolved the signal of iron
[7:55] in the atmosphere there as iron
[7:58] vapour. Um,
[8:01] but they found that that signal is not
[8:03] visible on the night side and it is visible
[8:05] on the day side. It's visible in the day side
[8:08] all the way to the twilight side and then
[8:10] disappears, what they say. And again, I'll
[8:12] read this out so you can hear exactly where
[8:14] they're coming from. Um, we're going to talk
[8:17] here about the blue shifting and the red
[8:18] shifting of the signal. That's relative to
[8:21] the zero speed. So if it's blue shifted,
[8:23] that's material coming towards you. If
[8:26] it's redshifted, it's material going away
[8:27] from you and the speed is relative to the
[8:30] average speed of the planet. So the planet
[8:31] itself set at zero. That's just a context.
[8:34] And in the end of their abstract, they say
[8:37] the absorption signal attributed to neutral
[8:39] ion is Blue shifted by 11 kilometres per
[8:42] second on the trailing limb. This can be
[8:45] explained by a combination of planetary
[8:46] rotation and wind blowing from the hot day
[8:49] side. In contrast, no signal arises
[8:52] from the night side close to the morning
[8:54] terminator, showing that atomic iron is not
[8:56] absorbing starlight there. In other words,
[8:59] iron must condense during its journey across
[9:01] the night side. So you're seeing iron vapour,
[9:04] uh, uh, in the evening
[9:07] when the wind is blowing from the hot side to
[9:09] the cold side. But you're not seeing iron
[9:11] vapour carried by the winds that go from the
[9:13] cold side to the warm side in the morning. So
[9:15] the iron has to have disappeared between
[9:17] sunset and sunrise, which means it
[9:20] must have condensed and fallen out of the
[9:22] atmosphere there. So that's where they're
[9:25] getting this idea of either iron rain or
[9:27] iron hail, essentially.
[9:30] Jonti Horner: Yeah.
[9:30] Jonti Horner: And that makes sense. You've got iron in the
[9:31] day side, uh, atmosphere because it's super
[9:33] hot, but it precipitates out in the evening
[9:36] and it's gone by much morning. So that's
[9:38] where the idea of iron rain comes from
[9:40] with diamonds. We also have the
[9:43] discussion of diamond rain within the solar
[9:45] system on Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.
[9:48] This, I think, was first postulated, probably
[9:51] to explain the unusual amount of heat coming
[9:53] out from Neptune's interior, suggesting there
[9:56] have to be some physical process going on
[9:59] that is releasing latent heat and
[10:01] warming the planet up. And so the idea was
[10:04] that you've got this essentially carbon in
[10:07] the lower atmosphere getting under so such
[10:08] high pressure that it solidifies and drops
[10:10] and in that process you're releasing heat
[10:13] that warms the atmosphere. But there's a lot
[10:15] of discussion about the idea that very
[10:18] deep in Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, you've
[10:21] got a domain where you have very high
[10:24] density gases like methane and ethane.
[10:27] And, um, you also, a little bit deeper than
[10:29] that, the pressure is so high that any carbon
[10:32] would be squashed to become diamonds.
[10:35] There's a study that notes that Saturn gets
[10:37] lots of lightning. So suggesting that what
[10:40] possibly is going to happen is you have
[10:42] lightning strikes that break up methane and
[10:44] ethane, creating molecular carbon or
[10:47] atomic carbon, that then under the high
[10:49] pressure forms into molecular carbon and
[10:52] is squashed and forms little micro diamonds
[10:55] and then they rain out and precipitate out
[10:57] and they're gone. That's the idea there. Now
[11:00] we're not talking here about forming hundred
[11:02] thousand carat diamonds, you're talking about
[11:04] little nano diamonds, little mini diamonds,
[11:07] but that's where that idea comes from. Now
[11:09] this is all happening sufficiently deep
[11:12] in these planets that we can't see it. So
[11:14] it's all down to modelling based on our
[11:16] understanding and, um, based on the
[11:19] observations of the outer atmosphere from
[11:21] Earth based observatories and orbital
[11:23] observatories from the Cassini spacecraft
[11:26] going around Saturn and the data returned by
[11:28] Voyager.
[11:29] So it's one of those things where scientists
[11:31] are taking the information we know and trying
[11:32] to explain it and extrapolating to figure out
[11:34] what's going, going on in the interior of
[11:36] these planets. So to come back to the
[11:38] question, you are, I think, in many ways dead
[11:40] right. I think talking about raining
[11:42] sapphires and raining rubies and things like
[11:44] this is probably hyperbolic based
[11:47] on the information we have, but it's a way of
[11:50] illustrating just how extreme these planets
[11:52] are, uh, just how totally unlike
[11:55] anything in the solar system the conditions
[11:57] are. And at least in the case of the raining
[12:00] iron thing, that seems to be well supported
[12:02] by the paper that talked about it. Yeah, the
[12:04] raining diamond thing is quite widely
[12:06] discussed in solar system for Saturn, Uranus
[12:08] and Neptune. And, um, I think it's at that
[12:11] blurry edge where science and science fiction
[12:13] meet at the moment. So hopefully that's me
[12:15] being fair to the journalists involved and
[12:17] the scientists involved, but also trying not
[12:20] to muddy the waters any further.
[12:22] Andrew Dunkley: Never let the truth get in the way of a good
[12:24] storey.
[12:25] Jonti Horner: Absolutely.
[12:27] Andrew Dunkley: More or less. Um, yeah,
[12:30] it's a Great question though. And uh, yeah,
[12:33] I think we clearly demonstrated we can't see
[12:35] this. But, uh, certain assumptions can be
[12:37] made and when you give that information to a
[12:40] journalist they'll go, oh, I like that bit.
[12:43] There's the headline. Bam.
[12:45] I think Nick was on the money there. Thanks
[12:48] for the question, Nick.
[12:49] Uh, this is Space Nuts with Andrew Dunkley
[12:51] and Professor Jonty Horner.
[12:55] Professor Fred Watson: Three, two, one.
[12:58] Jonti Horner: Space Nuts.
[13:00] Andrew Dunkley: Now let's uh, go to an audio question which
[13:03] uh, comes from Sandy in Melbourne.
[13:06] Jonti Horner: Um, my question this time is just
[13:09] around satellites, um, and in particular the
[13:11] recent FCC approval of Reflect
[13:14] Orbitals test satellite. I believe.
[13:17] Um, the Reflect Orbital proposal, as
[13:20] I guess hopefully everyone knows it's. It's a
[13:22] fairly, um. Uh,
[13:25] one of concern, I suppose. Um, I'm just
[13:28] curious about the approval process, um, and
[13:30] in particular why the FCC is able to
[13:33] approve something that. That can potentially
[13:35] impact the entire globe. Um, I'm not,
[13:38] I don't mean this question in any negative
[13:40] light. I'm just curious about the approval
[13:41] process and why there isn't maybe more
[13:45] uh, international cooperation on approval of,
[13:47] you know, these sorts of proposals
[13:51] that. That has the potential to impact the
[13:53] entire globe and not just, um, the.
[13:55] The United States. Um, amazing. Thank you
[13:58] for an awesome show. Um, looking forward to
[14:01] hearing the answer.
[14:03] Andrew Dunkley: Thank you, Sandy. Lovely to hear your voice.
[14:05] Uh, hope all is well down in Melbourne, which
[14:07] is generally a colder place than where I am,
[14:09] but not by much. It depends on the time of
[14:12] year. But, uh, yeah, uh, this is a
[14:15] controversial topic and one
[14:17] that um, probably won't disappear in the
[14:20] near future with so many plans to put so many
[14:23] satellites in space, creating so much
[14:26] disturbance for, um, astronomers.
[14:29] Um, but, um, Reflect Orbital, now
[14:32] that was a case of somebody wanting to
[14:35] create, uh, more light on
[14:38] Earth through reflecting sunlight.
[14:41] And it got deeply
[14:43] controversial, um, because
[14:46] of certain approvals or applications that
[14:49] were made to the faa.
[14:51] But before we get to Sandy's question,
[14:54] there is a storey in the news at
[14:57] the moment about the uh,
[15:00] FAA approving, um,
[15:03] or trying to circumvent
[15:06] certain environmental laws for
[15:09] commercial launches and spacecraft
[15:11] reentries. What's that one about?
[15:13] Jonti Horner: There's all sorts of kind of car
[15:16] crash news around this. And you know, thank
[15:18] you, Sandy, for the question. It's very
[15:19] topical. Um, and it is
[15:22] all really reflecting the fact that the
[15:25] space industry is
[15:27] developing and evolving at a speed that is
[15:30] far greater than our ability to legislate
[15:32] about it worldwide. And in fact, the only
[15:34] real treaty.
[15:34] Andrew Dunkley: Well, the Internet did that too.
[15:35] Jonti Horner: Oh, absolutely. Um, the
[15:38] treaties that are in place that are very
[15:40] limited governing global use of
[15:43] space date back to the 1960s when you were
[15:46] looking at a few launchers PA from government
[15:48] agencies and nothing else. And they are
[15:51] wholly not set up for the current era of
[15:54] commercial space. You've then got the
[15:57] thing that, uh, people are trying to launch
[15:58] from more and more countries. Companies are,
[16:00] uh, designed to
[16:04] do what's right for the company to try and
[16:05] make money. Now, people will often say,
[16:08] well, why doesn't government X of
[16:11] country Y be stricter on the rules about
[16:14] launchers and start cracking down on this?
[16:17] But the problem is, if you go to a company
[16:19] that's wanting to put things in space that
[16:22] will service one country or will service all
[16:24] around the globe, whatever, and say to them,
[16:26] you know what we want to regulate about your
[16:28] launches, they can just say, well, thank you
[16:30] very much, we'll take our business elsewhere
[16:31] and launch from another country. So
[16:34] there's a perverse incentive, I think, there
[16:36] for countries to not get in the way too much.
[16:40] What then happens is that there
[16:43] is some kind of level of regulation in
[16:46] that the country from which something is
[16:48] launched is normally responsible for if it
[16:50] falls back to Earth. The
[16:52] vast overwhelming majority of launchers come
[16:55] from the us, um, and from US companies.
[16:58] And companies that want to launch in the US
[17:01] have to get permissions from US agencies.
[17:04] And it seems that there are two agencies
[17:07] involved with this. You've got the Federal
[17:09] Aviation Administration, who are the people
[17:12] who legislate around the launches themselves,
[17:15] where you can launch from, how many launches
[17:17] there can be. And then you've got the fcc,
[17:19] which is a federation, the
[17:22] federal communications body, effectively,
[17:25] and what they are legislating for is the use
[17:28] of radio frequencies for communication.
[17:32] Right. So the recent permission for
[17:33] reflectorbital was actually FCC permission
[17:37] to give them the permission for the satellite
[17:40] to use certain frequency bands to communicate
[17:42] with the Earth.
[17:43] Andrew Dunkley: Right.
[17:43] Jonti Horner: So you are permitted to launch your satellite
[17:45] and use these things to communicate. The
[17:48] new storey that you alluded to there is there
[17:51] is a proposal from the Federal Aviation
[17:54] Administration, who are the people that
[17:56] govern the launch in the us that is following
[18:00] the recent policy announcements from the
[18:02] Trump administration more, ah, widely, to try
[18:04] and get environmental regulations around
[18:06] launches repealed, to allow them to
[18:09] fast track launches, to remove
[18:12] blocks to the commercial activities and all
[18:14] the rest of it by getting rid of
[18:17] regulation around endangered species or
[18:20] native title or things like this. It's quite
[18:23] concerning when you read about it. The FAA
[18:25] proposal, this is me reading a quote,
[18:27] proposes to waive requirements of laws of the
[18:30] US for a licence or permit after
[18:33] consultation with the head of the appropriate
[18:35] agency when the requirement is not
[18:37] necessary to protect the public health,
[18:39] safety of property and uh, national security
[18:42] and foreign interests of the United States.
[18:46] Nothing in there about the interests or
[18:47] health and safety of people anywhere other
[18:49] than the United States. Of course these
[18:50] launches pass over other inhabited countries
[18:53] as they're getting to altitude. Uh, there's
[18:55] nothing in there about environmental
[18:56] protections they want to get rid of And
[18:59] I quote 13 federal laws to stop them
[19:02] applying to certain commercial space licences
[19:04] and permits, um, with examples including the
[19:07] National Environmental Policy act, the
[19:09] Endangered Species act, the Clean Water act,
[19:11] the Clean Air act and the National Historical
[19:13] Preservation Act. So this is
[19:16] a little bit concerning. People are getting
[19:19] a little bit worried um,
[19:22] about things like attempts to build
[19:25] launch environments in habitats for
[19:28] endangered species, all sorts of stuff like
[19:30] this. So that's going on. But the FAA are the
[19:32] people who approve the launches, the FCC
[19:36] who are the ones that have just approved
[19:37] Reflectorbital approve the communications
[19:40] side of it. And they have been
[19:43] very, very clear in their thinking that they
[19:45] don't have any right to pass any
[19:48] opinion on the activities. They're just
[19:50] approving the communication channels.
[19:53] So again quoting about the
[19:55] Earundel 1 satellite reflect orbital
[19:57] satellite, um, loads of comments, loads of
[20:00] international concern. People raised it with
[20:03] the FCC to say come on really mirrors in
[20:06] space. This is really dangerous, please don't
[20:08] approve this. And the FCC has
[20:11] said we find that concerns about Earendel's
[20:13] impacts on optical astronomy fall outside our
[20:15] review and authorization of the space station
[20:18] and are not a basis for denial or additional
[20:21] conditions on the operations. Um, and
[20:24] they went on further to say we find that the
[20:25] operation of a solar reflector attached to a
[20:28] satellite is too attenuated from the
[20:30] commission's action of approving use of
[20:31] spectrum and thus beyond our authority. So
[20:34] they're just passing the book. Yeah. The
[20:37] thing is though, uh, you can see exactly the
[20:39] same buck pass being done by the FAA
[20:42] when it comes to launches thing the FAA can
[20:44] say we have no ability to rule on what the
[20:46] satellite's going to do when it's up there.
[20:48] Our rule is solely to regulate um, on whether
[20:50] the launch can happen in a safe way. So it
[20:53] really does feed into this Wild west
[20:55] narrative that the commercial
[20:58] use has really outstripped regulation.
[21:01] It's arguable whether people are actually
[21:02] rushing to keep up or not or whether there
[21:04] are uh, less efforts being made to keep up
[21:07] than you would like. But certainly we're a
[21:09] long, long way from having any kind of
[21:12] oversight globally on the use of space
[21:15] or any way of managing it globally. There's a
[21:17] lot of discussions. I've got a PhD student
[21:20] studying with us at UNESQ remotely who talks
[21:22] a lot about satellites and the use of the
[21:25] night sky from the cultural lens and the
[21:27] impact on traditional owners of the land for
[21:29] whom the night sky is incredibly culturally
[21:31] significant, who don't have a voice.
[21:34] You know, we've spoken about that before as
[21:36] well with the IDE sending dead people to the
[21:38] moon, which is considered very sacrilegious
[21:40] to a number of native groups around the
[21:42] planet. But who cares? The company can do
[21:45] what they want. Seems to be the impression.
[21:47] And um, the company involved were very
[21:48] caustic in their comments that uh,
[21:51] effectively we don't care, we're not going to
[21:52] listen. They should grow up.
[21:54] And it's fairly horrific in a lot of ways,
[21:57] this stuff going on. But it is fast
[22:00] developing industry with no regulation
[22:03] developed around it.
[22:04] Andrew Dunkley: And that's because of the speed of technology
[22:07] enabling these things long before the
[22:10] legislation makers can do anything about
[22:13] it. And we see that a lot. I remember when
[22:15] email first started popping up, you could get
[22:18] away with practically murder on email
[22:21] because it wasn't a legal document.
[22:24] That law has been changed. But there was a
[22:27] time where it was such a grey area that email
[22:30] didn't count, uh, in terms of
[22:33] defamation or slander or any of
[22:35] those, uh, legal areas
[22:38] that could uh, get you into trouble. Um,
[22:41] that's now changed obviously and email
[22:43] can be used against you in a court of law,
[22:45] etc. Etc. Now we've got this situation
[22:48] where the um, private enterprise
[22:51] is getting so involved in space and wanting
[22:54] to do all these extraordinary and some form
[22:56] what, in some cases ludicrous things
[23:00] and the law hasn't caught up to it yet.
[23:03] And then you've got bodies that are saying,
[23:05] well look, you know, we only deal with this
[23:07] little bit here. We, you know, we got no say
[23:10] over the rest of it. So that's okay. We, we
[23:12] can let them do that. Someone else will have
[23:14] to decide what happens to the rest of it.
[23:17] Jonti Horner: Even though those bodies are uh, ignoring
[23:20] their own rules. Some of the times, you know,
[23:21] there have been things permitted to use bands
[23:23] of the spectrum that have been meant to be
[23:25] kept safe and pristine for radio ash
[23:28] running. Sure, Fred Watson has had views on
[23:29] that in the past. Should say. Incidentally,
[23:32] we've had a hello in the public chat from
[23:35] Moose again. So, hi, Moose again or Moose
[23:37] again. Um, so I saw the
[23:40] chat thing flash up. It's like, what's going
[23:41] on? We have somebody listening.
[23:43] Andrew Dunkley: So hello I can actually see the numbers. Yes,
[23:45] we do have quite a few people listening at
[23:47] the moment.
[23:47] Jonti Horner: Fabulous.
[23:48] Andrew Dunkley: That's nice.
[23:49] Jonti Horner: I appreciate you keeping us company today,
[23:51] but, yeah, it's a very bizarre situation and
[23:53] it's hard to see how it'll change at the
[23:56] minute. Especially given that the biggest
[23:59] players don't seem to be awfully
[24:01] interested in global rules and regulations.
[24:04] Maybe that's a way of putting it. And
[24:07] equally with the rate it's gone, you can
[24:09] imagine why they didn't legislate about this
[24:11] in the 1960s. Because can you imagine if
[24:15] the global bodies in 1967,
[24:17] 1969 when the space Treaty was done, um,
[24:20] had put in rules about the commercial use of
[24:23] mega constellations? Nobody would have even
[24:25] thought about it. It and anybody trying to be
[24:27] that forward thinking would have been shut
[24:29] down. It's never going to happen.
[24:31] Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. And yet it's happening as we speak.
[24:34] Um, yeah, we're talking about two kettles of
[24:36] fish, um, but they kind of
[24:39] interrelate, uh, in regard to what's
[24:42] going on in low Earth orbit
[24:45] and, uh, what the future will hold, I do not
[24:47] know. But when you've got federal government
[24:49] organisations that are kind of wanting
[24:52] to manoeuvre
[24:55] around certain legislation and certain
[24:59] acts of parliament, depending on which
[25:01] country you're in, um, that's a bit of
[25:03] a worry. Yes, thanks for
[25:06] the question, Sandy. Um, it's a
[25:09] pretty deep and meaningful one and, uh, very
[25:12] controversial and certainly not going to go
[25:14] away in the near future. Um,
[25:17] but hopefully common sense will prevail.
[25:20] Good question. This is Space Nuts, a Q and A
[25:23] edition with Andrew Dunkley and Jonty Horner.
[25:28] Professor Fred Watson: Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here. This
[25:30] is Houston. Say again, please.
[25:32] Andrew Dunkley: Houston, we've had a problem.
[25:33] Professor Fred Watson: We've had a main B plus. Roger, main B
[25:35] interval. Okay, standby 13. We're looking at
[25:37] it.
[25:38] Andrew Dunkley: Spacebuds, our final question
[25:40] is a very quick and easy one.
[25:43] Uh, except I can't find it. Here it is. Uh,
[25:46] this comes from Rennie, who's a regular
[25:49] contributor at Sunny West Hills in Californ
[25:51] here. Can planets form without
[25:54] a sun? Uh, let's say because dark
[25:57] matter would be the gravity. Rennie is
[26:00] asking. Uh, well, planets are your thing. Uh,
[26:03] can planets form without a sun? Now, we know
[26:06] there are rogue planets, but we're going to
[26:08] assume that they were once part of a system
[26:11] that probably had a star at its centre
[26:14] and it got booted out for not paying the rent
[26:16] or something. But, um, yeah, that's not what
[26:19] we're talking about. About we're talking
[26:20] about planets forming without a star or a
[26:23] sun, whatever you want to call it.
[26:24] Jonti Horner: Yeah. And there's all sorts of different
[26:26] angles to this. Now, dark matter
[26:30] is not really well understood.
[26:33] I'm not a cosmologist, but there's a number
[26:35] of different things that have been proposed
[26:36] to be dark matter. And I mean fundamentally
[26:38] at the simplest level, anything that has
[26:41] mass that cannot be seen can be
[26:44] considered dark matter. So I guess some
[26:46] degree you could consider black holes dark
[26:48] matter. When they're not feeding on
[26:50] something. We can see the evidence that the
[26:52] mass is there, but we can't see the material
[26:54] itself. There was a storey
[26:57] a few weeks ago and I'm remembering this off
[26:59] the top of my head. Don't have it up in front
[27:01] of me. Where people have done research
[27:03] looking at uh, the incredible
[27:05] accumulations of material you can get in the
[27:08] interior of very massive galaxies. Material m
[27:11] that's been corralled by supermassive black
[27:13] holes. Suggesting that you can get
[27:16] at certain distances from supermassive black
[27:18] holes, enough density of material that you
[27:21] could get spontaneous planet formation
[27:22] happening, forming trillions
[27:25] quadrillions of planet sized objects
[27:28] in the kind of inner reaches of a galaxy.
[27:31] Not forming stars, forming loads of planets.
[27:33] So that's one way this could happen. You also
[27:36] have ideas of things like planetary
[27:38] formation around objects like white dwarfs
[27:41] and normal sized black holes and um, neutron
[27:44] stars. We found planets around pulsars in the
[27:47] past and planets around pulsars pose a real
[27:50] problem because you'd expect them to that a
[27:52] pulsar being the result of a supernova
[27:55] explosion. The supernova would have destroyed
[27:58] any planets that were in orbit around the
[28:00] star or they'd have escaped. Bit of both.
[28:03] So how can you have planets around a pulsar?
[28:06] And uh, one of the suggestions is you get a
[28:07] second generation of planet formation
[28:10] where some of the material from the death of
[28:12] the star falls back to form a disc around the
[28:15] star, the stellar corpse.
[28:18] And you get a generation of planet formation
[28:21] that forms objects like the size of the moon
[28:22] and a bit bigger, a bit smaller. So you can
[28:25] get that. You also have
[28:28] the possibility of forming objects the size
[28:30] and mass of planets in star forming regions
[28:33] as almost like mega failed stars. And this
[28:36] goes back to something we discussed on the
[28:38] previous episode about when is a star not a
[28:40] star. You get objects that are not massive
[28:43] enough to be a star get called brown dwarfs.
[28:45] That's why you've got something more than 13
[28:47] times the mass of Jupiter, less than 80 times
[28:49] mass of Jupiter. And we know you can form
[28:52] brown Dwarfs in star forming regions where
[28:55] you form something that just doesn't get
[28:57] massive enough to begin fusion. If
[29:00] you're forming things that size, you will
[29:01] also form things that are smaller than that.
[29:03] And so you will form free floating things of
[29:06] planetary mass in star forming
[29:08] regions. So in that way you could get
[29:11] planets forming without suns in that way.
[29:15] In terms of dark matter
[29:18] being the origin of the gravity, this is
[29:20] where you could get a really awesome
[29:23] collaborative project going between
[29:24] cosmologists and um, exoplanet people,
[29:28] when neither of us has all of the knowledge
[29:29] to absolutely definitively answer that. So
[29:32] I'm going to give the caveat that what I say
[29:35] from now on is based more on judgement than
[29:38] knowledge. In a way, my
[29:40] memory is that uh, most
[29:43] discussions of dark matter these
[29:46] days seem to talk about it being very
[29:48] distributed, very finely spread.
[29:51] So it's not like you get isolated clumps,
[29:54] you don't get a planet sized clump of dark
[29:56] matter, dark matter planet, you have a lot of
[29:59] material spread very wide. And that means you
[30:01] wouldn't have like a nucleation site around
[30:04] which material could gather to form a planet.
[30:06] In that paradigm of the dark matter all being
[30:09] very thinly smeared out and very spread out
[30:11] out. If you had though, in a star
[30:14] forming region, a clump of dark matter that
[30:17] was a mass of the sun that could form a disc
[30:20] around it where planets could form. So if you
[30:22] could get that clump of matter the size of
[30:24] the sun, the mass of the sun, then things
[30:27] would happen around it just the same as if it
[30:29] was any kind of visible matter,
[30:32] baryonic matter, because
[30:35] all that you're looking at there is gravity
[30:37] doing what gravity does. The thing is,
[30:40] my understanding, and my understanding here
[30:42] could very well be flawed, is that most
[30:45] cosmologists these days talk about the dark
[30:47] matter being very spread out, which would
[30:49] kind of preclude that kind of setup
[30:51] happening. If, however, you go back to
[30:54] the days where people talked about the
[30:57] potential origin of dark matter being what
[30:59] were known as machos, massive compact
[31:01] halo objects, uh, that version of dark
[31:04] matter was the idea that you had massive
[31:07] objects that you could not see, whether
[31:09] that's brown dwarfs, whether
[31:12] it's black holes, whether it's things like
[31:14] that, things that are large localised
[31:16] agglomerations of matter that
[31:19] are not visible for whatever reason. Those
[31:22] kind of things could be seeds, they exert
[31:25] gravity. You can imagine if one of those was
[31:27] in a star forming region, it could get a disc
[31:30] of material around it. Now it would also
[31:31] accrete itself, baryonic matter,
[31:34] which Means you could potentially get star
[31:37] that are formed with a core of dark matter in
[31:39] that type scenario. But we are getting beyond
[31:43] my area of expertise there. So we are kind of
[31:45] verging on the speculative and the science
[31:47] fiction rather than the science facts. I do
[31:49] want to caution that. Take what I've just
[31:51] said with a pinch of salt.
[31:54] Andrew Dunkley: No, fair enough. But, um, the
[31:57] bottom line is the answer to Rennie's
[32:00] question is probably yes,
[32:03] Jonti Horner: yes, for a given version of what dark matter
[32:05] is. You know, like I said, we have found
[32:08] the pulsar planets. Um,
[32:11] like I say, you can look up the paper from a
[32:13] few weeks ago or the news articles from a few
[32:15] weeks ago that were talking about planetary
[32:17] formation near supermassive black holes.
[32:21] You could very much argue that supermassive
[32:23] black holes, when they don't have active
[32:25] material falling into them, are invisible but
[32:27] for their gravity. So therefore are dark
[32:29] matter by definition because they're matter
[32:31] that is dark. Um, so, yeah, there
[32:34] are ways to answer the question in the
[32:35] affirmative, but I think if you
[32:38] went down to the kind of very thinly smeared
[32:40] dark matter, then that side of things,
[32:43] probably not.
[32:44] Andrew Dunkley: Okay, now, fair point. Uh, and as you say, we
[32:47] don't know a lot about dark matter. And it's.
[32:49] Yeah, we're at the very dawn of that, um, you
[32:52] know, trying to figure it out. Uh, someone
[32:55] will crack it sooner or later. But, uh, at
[32:57] this stage, it's all a bit of a head
[32:59] scratcher. And let's not get into dark energy
[33:02] because that's, you know, that
[33:04] if dark matter is a head scratcher, dark
[33:07] energy is, um, boring out your brain with a
[33:10] pneumatic drill type of scenario.
[33:13] Jonti Horner: Oh, it is. I mean, we're very fortunate that
[33:15] we do have here in Australia some of the
[33:16] world's foremost experts in these kind of
[33:18] things. It's just I'm not one of them. I
[33:21] would encourage, you know, having a special
[33:23] at some point with the incredible Tamara
[33:25] Davis. Professor Tamara Davis from the
[33:27] University of Queensland. Cause she can speak
[33:29] about dark energy and dark matter in a way
[33:31] that makes you think, you understand. There
[33:34] is no greater praise of a science
[33:35] communicator than that.
[33:37] Andrew Dunkley: That would be fascinating. Yeah, that's a
[33:40] great idea.
[33:41] Uh, Rennie, thanks for your question in
[33:42] regards to your grandchildren. Rennie
[33:44] messaged us not so long ago to say that, uh,
[33:47] one of his grandchildren, um, uh, through.
[33:50] Through Space nuts, has now been inspired to
[33:53] include astronomy into part of his college
[33:56] studies. So, um, we were really thrilled to
[33:58] hear that. So thanks for the question,
[34:00] Rennie. And, uh, I think that's just about
[34:03] it. Yes, I think, uh, call
[34:06] it quits here. But we will remind you that,
[34:08] uh, you can send in your questions via, ah,
[34:11] our website, spacenutspodcast.com
[34:13] spacenuts IO either of
[34:16] those platforms work? And, uh, click on
[34:19] the Ask me anything um button at the top.
[34:22] It's labelled ama and you can send us text
[34:24] and audio questions there. Don't forget to
[34:27] tell us who you are and where you're from.
[34:30] And have a look around on our website while
[34:31] you're there. And I'll remind you too,
[34:33] wherever you listen to us or watch us, please
[34:35] leave reviews. Um, apparently they
[34:38] help. I don't know how they help. I don't
[34:40] think they feed the hungry, but they might. I
[34:43] don't know. Uh, and um, Jonty,
[34:46] thanks so much. Uh, we will, uh,
[34:49] look forward to the pleasure of your company
[34:51] again in the next episode.
[34:52] Jonti Horner: Yeah, looking forward to it. Thank you for
[34:54] having me, Professor Jonty
[34:56] Andrew Dunkley: Horner, um, Professor of Astrophysics at the
[34:58] University of Southern Queensland. And, uh,
[35:01] thanks to Huw in the studio. Um,
[35:04] Huw couldn't be with us today, surprisingly.
[35:06] Uh, apparently he, uh, applied to the FCC to
[35:09] get approval to log into the show today and
[35:11] they said no. And from me, Andrew Dunkley,
[35:14] thanks for your company. We'll see you on the
[35:16] next episode of Space Nuts. Bye. Bye.
[35:20] You've been listening to the Space Nuts
[35:22] Jonti Horner: podcast, available at
[35:25] Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[35:27] iHeartRadio or your favourite podcast
[35:30] player. You can also stream on demand at
[35:32] bytes. Com.
[35:33] Andrew Dunkley: This has been another quality podcast
[35:35] production from Bytes.
[35:37] Professor Fred Watson: Com.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.