Episode 67      29 min 32 sec
400 Years of Astronomical Telescopes

Astrophysicist Prof Rachel Webster discusses the evolution of the astronomical telescope - from Galileo's version in 1609 to the iconic Hubble space telescope, and then onto a sneak peek of the upcoming James Webb space telescope which will be parked so far from earth that it can't be repaired. Every improvement to the telescope has extended our understanding of the universe around us. 2009 is both the International Year of Astronomy and the 400th anniversary of Galileo's astronomical telescope. With host Dr Shane Huntington.

"Instead of orbiting the Earth, James Webb will be in a location called L2. Now L2, if you were to draw a straight line from the sun to the Earth and then continue out, it’s about 1.5 million kilometres out past the Earth in a straight line." - Prof Rachel Webster




           



Prof Rachel Webster
Prof Rachel Webster

Prof Rachel Webster has a PhD from Cambridge University. She subsequently held research positions at Toronto in the Astronomy Department and at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. She has active research interests in gravitational lensing, quasars, clusters of galaxies and large-scale structure. Professor Webster is very much involved in the development of two 21st century radio telescopes, the Wide Field Array and the Australian Square Kllometre Array Pathfinder. Rachel is also Chair of the Space Telescope Science Institute Visiting Committee.

Credits

Host: Dr Shane Huntington
Producers: Kelvin Param, Miles Brown and Dr Shane Huntington
Series Creators: Eric van Bemmel and Kelvin Param
Audio Engineer: Miles Brown
Theme Music performed by Sergio Ercole. Mr Ercole is represented by the Musicians' Agency, Faculty of Music

View Tags  click a tag to find other episodes associated with it.

Download file Download mp3 (28.4 MB)

400 Years of Astronomical Telescopes

VOICEOVER
Welcome to Melbourne University Up Close, a fortnightly podcast of research, personalities and cultural offerings of the University of Melbourne, Australia.  Up Close is available on the web at upclose.unimelb.edu.au.  That’s upclose.unimelb.edu.au.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Hello and welcome to Up Close, coming to you from the Melbourne University, Australia. I’m Dr Shane Huntington.
On 12 May 361 BC there was a solar eclipse.  At the time Eudoxus, one of the earliest astronomers to use models to predict motion in the sky, had a disciple named Helikon who predicted this eclipse.  Helikon was appropriately rewarded for his efforts. Eudoxus himself lived from 408 BC to 355 BC.  He was the first to propose a solar cycle based on four years, three being of 365 days and one being of 366 days, an idea introduced some 300 years later by Julius Caesar.  Eudoxus also introduced a mechanism for planetary and stellar motions that was later fully accepted by Aristotle.  All of this work was performed with the naked eye, the invention of the telescope being still some two millennia away.
Today on Up Close we are joined by one of the global leaders in astronomy,  Professor Rachel Webster from the School of Physics, the University of Melbourne, Australia, who is also the Chair of the Space Telescope Science Institute Visiting Committee.  Welcome to Up Close, Rachel.

RACHEL WEBSTER
Thank you, Shane.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Now, as you know from the intro, I have an interest in the history here.  Before Galileo built the first telescope for astronomical purposes – and we know he wasn’t necessarily the first person to invent the telescope, but to use it for astronomical purposes it seems he was – how did people practice astronomy?

RACHEL WEBSTER    
Well, it was all naked eye observation.  Usually what I say as the shepherds watching their flocks by night.  So, obviously, the skies were much darker and people, if they went out at night – particularly if they lived in a place where it wasn’t too cloudy – would’ve had a very good opportunity to observe the heavens and see how they changed night by night.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
With that mind, what sort of observations could be made?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well, first of all they would have seen the changing locations of the stars night by night, so in other words they would have seen the sequential progression of the stars across the sky.  They would have seen what they called wandering stars, which were actually the other planets in our solar system, because they moved against that fixed backdrop of the sky, and they certainly had catalogued those movements for millennia, as you say.  Then they would have seen other significant events, and a particular one would have been supernovae.  So, through recorded history there are probably a good dozen supernovae, principally recorded by the Chinese but some of them were bright enough to be as bright as the moon during the day so they would have been recorded by anybody who wrote anything down; those were quite spectacular events so those were some of the things that certainly had been observed.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
In terms of the portion of the sky or the portion of the universe that we now see and look at, how much of that could they observe?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well, that’s a very interesting question because you want to frame it probably along a number of different dimensions.  Obviously, they could only see in the optical wavelengths of light, whereas now we look across the whole electromagnetic spectrum and so we see very different things.  Also, for the most part, since they lived in one location they would have only seen a fraction of the night sky – and while that’s still true today, obviously we can put together observations from different locations and see the whole sphere of the sky.  Then the final sort of dimension is distance, if you like.  With the naked eye you can certainly see stars in our galaxy, obviously the planets in our solar system, stars in our galaxy and then you can see the band of the Milky Way.  But it’s most unlikely that they really would have distinguished any external galaxies; even though some are visible with the naked eye, they certainly wouldn't have understood what they were.  We can now look back or look out in distance a very very long way, which is equivalent to looking back in time, so that’s another dimension along which we see things very differently.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
When we consider some of the objects that we take for granted today, what are some of the ones that they would just not have conceived of?  You mentioned planets and stars but there’s a lot of other stuff out there.

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well, the most obvious thing is the galaxy.  So they had no concept of the galaxy that we live in or that our galaxy was not unique, there’s billions – that’s with a B – of other galaxies out there.  That notion didn't really become understood or accepted until about 1930; it took some decades to really have wide acceptance, so it’s a relatively recent idea.  Then there are lots of other wonderful exotic objects such as quasars, which are powered by black holes, radio galaxies and all sorts of objects that they just would have had no opportunity to see.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Rachel, in 1609 when Galileo built the telescope he used, what did it look like?  How did it compare to something you would buy in your local department store?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Surprisingly, in some ways it was very similar.  It was what we call a refractor telescope, which means it had a lens in it rather than a mirror.  If you bought a refractor today it wouldn't be quite as pretty as the one that Galileo built, but essentially it would be the same instrument, so it would have a couple of pieces of glass in it and it would magnify the area of the sky that you looked at.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
I can imagine the absolute explosion as this started being used in astronomy.  What did it change?  What were the first things we saw?

RACHEL WEBSTER
You can directly take what Galileo saw because those were the significant observations straightaway.  So he looked at the moon and he saw craters and mountains, he saw typography on the moon.  He observed sunspots and he observed the changing of the sunspots.  Then I always think one of the most spectacular and beautiful observations were the moons orbiting around Jupiter.  I say that because that’s an observation that with a small telescope you can do today, so you can actually watch the innermost moon – Galilean moon, Io – orbit in less than two days.  You can actually watch it almost in real time moving around Jupiter, so quite a spectacular observation.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
So that was, I guess, what you would call the research grade telescope of the day around 1609.  What’s the ground-based research grade telescope today?  What does it look like?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well, it’s really extremely different.  What we’re talking about is the eight and ten metre class optical telescopes.  Australia, for example, has a share in a pair of telescopes called Gemini and these have mirrors that are eight or ten metres across.  Sometimes those mirrors are segmented so they’ve actually got lots of elements in them that are separately controlled.  Sometimes the mirrors are actually controlled actively because it’s quite difficult to cast a rigid mirror of that size and actually have it hold its shape.  They’re full of electronic equipment.  In particular, you don’t actually use them with the naked eye, of course, you put a bunch of instruments on the back that record the photons – the light – as it comes through the telescope.  So it’s a very, very different instrument.  These are typically housed in buildings that are five or six storeys high which are constructed to optimise the viewing conditions inside, so the modern domes are quite strange looking.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
These ground-based telescopes have a degree of limitation to them due to where they’re located.  Tell us a bit about what’s causing that and how we overcome it, if we do.

RACHEL WEBSTER
Obviously, we try and locate them in the best sites for weather that we can. But irrespective of that, there’s still the Earth’s atmosphere which will degrade the images of stars, for example – very small sources of light – as the light travels through the atmosphere.  And that’s just because the atmosphere is moving around and as the light comes in it jiggles around on a scale of less than a second. So when you record the light, you get a sort of smeared out image.  Now, there are two ways to get around this; one is to go up above the atmosphere, but the second is to try and move the recording device around – either in some real sense or virtually – so that you actually mimic the motion of the rays as they come through the atmosphere.  Now this is actually becoming quite sophisticated these days, but in order to do that you need to be able to observe some other image that you can lock onto that tells you how to move things around.  And there aren't enough bright stars in the sky to do that so we use what we call laser-guide stars these days.  It’s very futuristic; we shoot a laser up and bounce it off parts of the atmosphere and that creates an artificial star that we can then use to map the changes in the atmosphere.  Those sorts of instruments and technology are actually now operational in some of the big telescopes.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Because you're shooting that laser up, you know exactly what its composition is and how it varies so you can determine what’s happening, or is it just its location?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Yeah, it’s fluorescing off one of the layers of the atmosphere so it’s just a spot.  It really does create an artificial star at some fairly high level in the atmosphere and then, of course, the light comes back down through the atmosphere and you can see how it’s changing.  Now, it’s not as good as having a real star outside the atmosphere but it works pretty well.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
You're listening to Melbourne University Up Close.  I’m Dr Shane Huntington and we’re speaking with Professor Rachel Webster about 400 years of telescopes.
Rachel, we’ll move ahead now.  Thanks for the history. And, certainly, astronomy is one of the areas in science where we can look back and see some extraordinary things over such a long period.  You're currently, as I mentioned, the Chair of the Space Telescope Science Institute Visiting Committee.  Tell us what the Visiting Committee is there to do.

RACHEL WEBSTER
Most large astronomical observatories and institutes have Visiting Committees.  Their role is as independent observers to come in and look at the health and well being of the observatory or institute and report to the managing bodies about what they find.  So it’s a way of getting independent feedback on how well an institute is functioning.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Some of these projects are very large cross-country, cross-cultural sorts of projects.

RACHEL WEBSTER
Absolutely, yes.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
They involve huge teams of people that work together over very long periods.

RACHEL WEBSTER
That's right, so it’s a way of an independent group actually providing feedback on how those arrangements are working and whether there are barriers to performing the tasks that need to be performed and so on.  All the big observatories have these Visiting Committees.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
In terms of the Institute itself, what’s its role overall and what’s its public education role?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well, the Space Telescope Science Institute manages both the operations and the science program on the Hubble Space Telescope at the current time.  There are many facets to that operation but, as you mentioned, one important one is that they have a very active public education program – I think it is approximately 15 percent of their budget – and they’re charged with providing or taking astronomy not only to the general public but into the schools, both primary and secondary level.  The programs they have are just absolutely outstanding, in my view; they have teacher education programs and then they have a lot of resource material which is extremely creative and, of course, based around Hubble Space Telescope data so it’s quite inspirational.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
In regards to the Hubble Space Telescope, it was launched in April 1990 on the Space Shuttle Discovery by NASA.  Let’s start with Edwin Hubble.  How did he get his name on this telescope?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well, he was quite lucky.  I think probably Edwin Hubble has to be the sort of father of cosmology in some real sense.  He was an astronomer who mostly worked during the first half of the 20th century and was the guy who showed that there are galaxies outside our own Milky Way.  He also was the person who made the measurement of something we call the Hubble Law, which shows us that the universe is expanding.  Really, that is one of the key cornerstones for understanding modern cosmology.  So he was a great guy and that was a good enough reason to name it after him.  But one of the key programs for the Hubble Space Telescope when it first went up was, in fact, to measure the Hubble Constant, so it was the Constant in that relationship that Hubble had found.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Rachel, let’s talk about the technology itself a bit.  In contrast to the ground‑based systems, how is Hubble different?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well, obviously it’s a satellite and it flies above the Earth’s atmosphere; it’s about 570km up.  It’s got a mirror which is quite small by modern observatory standards, about 2.4 metres.  It’s optimised to work in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum which we can't access from the ground either, so that’s actually quite important.  It then goes through to about 1 micron, which is just into the infrared part of the spectrum – it’s a little beyond 1 micron, to about 2 microns so the instruments are all designed to operate across that range of wavelengths.  The 570km orbit means that it orbits the Earth every 96 minutes.  So, as astronomers, when we apply for time we get offered a number of orbits on the telescope, that’s the currency.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Presumably, when you're looking at it from that perspective there would be times, depending on what you're looking at, where the Earth itself gets in the way.

RACHEL WEBSTER
Absolutely.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
So five orbits is not five full orbits, is that right?

RACHEL WEBSTER
That’s exactly right.  Depending on what part of the sky you're looking at at any particular time, typically you get a little under an hour of that 96 minutes, you know, so around 50 or more minutes.  Although there are some parts of the sky which are called continuous viewing regions, and if what you want to look at is there you can squeak out a bit more time.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
People in the public domain would be aware that there have been some problems with the Hubble over the years – and of course we know that standard servicing missions were always expected by NASA and the Space Shuttle missions – but there was a significant requirement in 1993 to fix the main lens.  Tell us a bit about what happened there.

RACHEL WEBSTER
The original mirror was not ground quite correctly.  It was a very small aberration – something called spherical aberration in the mirror – and ironically it wasn’t checked with a very standard procedure that you would normally teach in undergraduate physics.  When it flew it had this spherical aberration in the images, so a couple of very clever astronomers immediately got to work on it and, basically, in 1993 they fitted some spectacles to Hubble and completely corrected the problem.  It was a very impressive piece of engineering.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
We’re certainly seeing some spectacular data.  You mentioned one of the first things Hubble did was measure the Hubble Constant.  What other big things has it been up to since 1993?  It seems like a long time now.

RACHEL WEBSTER
It certainly is and, look, there are many science programs that I could talk about.  I think one that has been very important is contributing to the measurement of dark energy. So there’s been a significant program to look at supernovae – very distant supernovae – at high red shift and to extend the measurement of the acceleration or deceleration of the universe out to large red shifts.  That has been strongly supported by Hubble, so that would be one.  And of course, the study of the planets and, for example, finding new moons around planets has been an ongoing program as well.  I think, too, one of the things that I can't help mentioning is the actual images that come from Hubble are just so inspirational at every level that I don't think that can be underestimated either. So, it’s just produced images that have changed the way that we think about the universe, I think.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
I suppose through the NASA website and other online available sources, pretty much everyone in the world can access these extraordinary images.

RACHEL WEBSTER
Absolutely.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Then the old books on my shelves are not as special as they once were to me.  In terms of talking about the data for a moment, as you say, this thing is highly sought after in terms of time so I expect it’s almost continuously collecting data.  What do we do with it all?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well the Space Telescope Science Institute actually has changed the way that we think about data, I believe.  Very early on they started to develop an archive for the data.  This is not just dumping raw data in an online system, they actually have developed the archive to a very high level so that most of the data that goes in there is calibrated, re-calibrated, it’s put together in a way that makes it very useable and accessible to anybody at all in the world who wants to go online and download it.  There’s no proprietary access or anything else, it’s completely available to anyone in the world.  In fact, basically there’s over 50 terabytes of data in the archive at the moment.  They also archive data from other satellite programs and other major all-sky surveys and so on, but there’s over 50 terabytes of data and there’s about that amount of data downloaded per year – about 50 terabytes of data downloaded per year from the archive.  I haven't been able to find the recent number but, as of a few years ago, it used to be that for every set of data taken and a paper published there would be perhaps three more published on that same data set from the archive.  So the data is being reused for programs that it was never initially meant for, but it’s there to be reused when people think of new ideas and want to test a new theory.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
You've been involved in the allocation of time over the years on Hubble.  How do people get to use Hubble?  Is it just the top few astronomers in the world?  Does it matter where you come from?

RACHEL WEBSTER
No, and again I think this is one great strength of the American scientific program; applications for Hubble time are completely open to anyone in the world.  Clearly, you need to demonstrate the capacity to do something sensible with the data, but anyone can apply.  Typically the oversubscription rate is high, though, so only about one in ten proposals are supported.  But it’s a very rigorous peer review process – over 100 astronomers usually meet once a year to look at these thousand-odd applications and determine who will get the time for the next year.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Now, we’re approaching the 20th anniversary of the Hubble Space Telescope’s launch and NASA will soon be decommissioning it.  Why are we actually moving towards the decommissioning given that it’s producing such extraordinary data, beyond the baseline idea that none of us have a car or a washing machine or any other device that is that old that is still effectively running and this thing obviously is?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well, there are two reasons really, I suppose.  By the time it’s decommissioned it’ll be about 25 years old, which is quite old, but the telescope has been refurbished.  There have been five missions to the telescope, well, there have been four; the last one is scheduled for May 12th of this year, and that will essentially give it a new life for the next five years to continue doing what it’s been doing – there’s a couple of new instruments, a couple of instruments to be fixed, batteries replaced and, you know, all the normal servicing that you would expect.  So, one reason is that it’s been continually refurbished.  But the second reason is that it will be replaced by a new telescope which is not the same but will essentially fill the sort of role that Hubble has filled over the last 20 years or so.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
You're listening to Melbourne University Up Close.  I’m Dr Shane Huntington and we’re speaking with Professor Rachel Webster about 400 years of telescopes.
Rachel, you alluded to the new telescope and it’s, of course, called the James Webb Telescope.  Let’s start with that – James Webb was?

RACHEL WEBSTER
He was a NASA administrator, so quite a different naming convention from Hubble, and he ran the Space Agency during the 60s.  But he is credited with doing more for science probably than anyone else in the administration, so really a very proactive supporter of space science.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
We’re expecting a launch in about 2013, all going according to plan.  You mentioned that this won't actually replace Hubble, as such, it’ll be different to Hubble and give us some different bits of data.  How is that the case?  What’s different about James Webb?

RACHEL WEBSTER
The first thing is that it will collect data in a different wavelength range from Hubble.  So whereas Hubble went from the ultraviolet to about 2 microns, just into the infrared, James Webb will collect data from about 0.6 microns – so that’s the red end of the optical spectrum – through to about 27 microns, which is right down into the mid infrared, so it’s quite a different range.  The telescope will also be quite a lot bigger; it’s a 6.5 metre telescope so it’s about seven times the collecting area.    Because of the change in wavelength, it’s also going to be located in a different place.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Right, so where will this one be located?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well, there’s a strange name given to the location. Instead of orbiting the Earth, it will be in a location called L2, which is a Lagrange point of the Earth-Sun system.  Now L2, if you were to draw a straight line from the sun to the Earth and then continue out, it’s about 1.5 million kilometres out past the Earth in a straight line.  Quite clearly, I mean, we’re talking about going from 570km to 1.5 million kilometres, so we’re not going to be visiting, we’re not going to be sending anybody out there if we make any mistakes with the optics.  So you might ask, “why on earth would you do that?”  
The short answer is that to do into the infrared you need to have a very cold telescope, less than 50 Kelvin – which is about -200°C.  It’s very, very cold, so you have to shield the telescope from any emission from the sun or the earth or the moon.  To do that they all have to be in the same direction from the telescope and you can only do that by going a long way away and then having then fixed in the right location.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
This telescope will be designed to not be serviced by any shuttle missions?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Absolutely, it can't be.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
I suppose we actually have a lot of experience in this, given the number of satellites we have around other planets already in the solar system?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Yes.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
So in a sense, although it’s a telescope, which makes it a bit different, it’s consistent with what NASA has been doing for quite some time?

RACHEL WEBSTER
That's right.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
You mentioned the particular wavelengths that it looks at.  Why is the infrared so interesting in astronomy?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Well, there are a couple of science programs that will be very well serviced by the infrared.  One is the study of planets and the birth of stars – and that’s something that we’ve become extremely interested in, in recent times – and, of course, going from the birth of stars to finding planets to then finding life is really one of the key drivers, I think, in astronomy these days.  So that’s going in one direction.  Going in the other direction, we’re trying to understand the birth of galaxies.  So this is the time, if you like, when the first stars turned on and, again, we expect that going into the infrared will be very useful for studying that era.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
This is, I guess, similar to what happened with Hubble.  But I notice with Hubble the ground-based telescopes are all still pretty much in operation, so the idea that having this extraordinary device in orbit outside of our atmosphere didn't necessarily turn all those telescopes into defunct objects.  Is a similar scenario going to be the case for infrared?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Yes, absolutely.  Firstly, the optical regime is not fully covered by James Webb so if you want to observe in blue light, for example, you will still need to do that from the ground.  But the other primary thing is that the field of view of James Webb – in other words, the region of sky that you can look at at any one time – is incredibly small, it’s a couple of arcminutes across typically.  There’s no way you can look at the whole sky when you've got an instrument that has such a narrow field of view, so for all the survey work we absolutely still need to remain on the ground.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
How many people are involved in the construction of the James Webb Telescope, and I assume this is already well and truly underway?

RACHEL WEBSTER
Absolutely, yes.  In fact, essentially through about 2010 you would expect to see most of the systems finalised, built, tested, signed off on.  So if the launch is in 2013, they’re not building up to the last minute by any stretch.  There’s about 1,000 people involved in building James Webb at the moment and I think there’s a huge range of nationalities represented there, probably 15 or more.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
We’re in this countdown at the moment of the last few Shuttle missions.  With the Shuttle completely decommissioned by 2013, how are we getting it up to the Lagrange point?

RACHEL WEBSTER
It’ll go up on a rocket obviously.  It’s not going to go up on the Shuttle, it’ll go up on one of the large rockets.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Rachel, with regard to this Lagrangian point, what keeps the telescope there?  I mean, we know in Hubble it’s in orbit around the planet and it orbits around very quickly.  What about James Webb?  Similar scenario?

RACHEL WEBSTER
No.  These Lagrange points are very interesting points gravitationally speaking.  It’s a point where the gravitational forces between the Earth and the sun are balanced and so, in a sense, the gravity works to keep the spacecraft located at the Lagrange point.  Now, it’s not in fact what we call a stable Lagrange point, it’s slightly unstable so there has to be a little bit of help from the little rockets on the spacecraft to keep it at that location, but the shape of the gravitational fields there will keep it in that linear orbit from the sun to the Earth to the spacecraft for the most part.  So it will orbit there quite stably for a long time.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Now, Rachel, just to finish up the interview I thought we should talk about what an exciting year it is for astronomy because it is the International Year of Astronomy 2009.  What does this mean?

RACHEL WEBSTER
As you noted in your introduction it’s 400 years since Galileo built his telescope, so that was the trigger for the application to UNESCO by the International Astronomical Union to have this recognised as the International Year of Astronomy.  It’s a celebration of that new era, what astronomy does for us culturally and socially.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Rachel, I think we’ve successfully covered about 2,000 years of astronomy during this interview.  It’s a pleasure to once again have you on Up Close and I look forward to seeing some of the amazing things coming out of James Webb in the future.  Thanks for coming on Up Close today.

RACHEL WEBSTER
Thank you, Shane.

SHANE HUNTINGTON
Links to relevant websites for the International Year of Astronomy 2009 can be found on the episode webpage.  Relevant links, a full transcript and more info on this episode can be found on our website at upclose.unimelb.edu.au.  We also invite you to leave your comments or feedback on this or any episode of Up Close.  Simply click on the Add New Comment link at the bottom of the Episode page.  Melbourne University Up Close is brought to you by the Marketing and Communications Division in association with Asia Institute of the University of Melbourne, Australia.  Our producers for this episode were Kelvin Param and Miles Brown.  Audio engineering by Miles Brown.  Theme music provided by Sergio Ercole.  Melbourne University Up Close is created by Eric van Bemmel and Kelvin Param.  I’m Dr Shane Huntington, until next time, goodbye.

VOICEOVER
You’ve been listening to Melbourne University Up Close, a fortnightly podcast of research, personalities and cultural offerings of the University of Melbourne, Australia.  Up Close is available on the web at upclose.unimelb.edu.au.  That’s upclose.unimelb.edu.au.  Copyright 2009, University of Melbourne.


show transcript | print transcript | download pdf