UK gets first female Astronomer Royal in 350 years
Now she is the first woman to be appointed the UK's Astronomer Royal in the post's 350-year history, and is part of the team sending probes to Jupiter's icy moons.
She told BBC News she hoped her appointment on Wednesday as the official adviser to King Charles III on astronomical matters would inspire more women and girls to study science.
The new Astronomer Royal added that she also wanted to use her new role to "open people's eyes" to the wonders of space.
"I want to engage with the public, excite them about what we do in astronomy, but also make it clear how important what we do is to the UK economy," Prof Dougherty said.
Prof Docherty is involved in one of the most exciting space missions to date: a European Space Agency probe to the icy moons of Jupiter to assess whether they have the potential to support life.
"It would be surprising if there wasn't life in our solar system," she said laughing, with the unbridled enthusiasm she is known for.
Her journey to Jupiter began when she was ten at the age of ten and saw the planet through a telescope she, her sister and her father built.
"That was when I got my first view of Jupiter and four large moons, never thinking I'd end up sending instruments on a spacecraft there," she said.
"I'm having to pinch myself at the thought of it and I'm having to pinch myself at the fact that I'm now Astronomer Royal!"
Prof Dougherty's achievement is all the more remarkable as she did not study science at secondary school in South Africa where she grew up.
"I had a choice between schools. One of them taught science, but none of my friends were going to it," she said. "So as a young 13 year-old, I thought, I want to go with my friends."
But the young Prof Dougherty was so good at maths that she was admitted to a science course at university.
"The first couple of years were hard. It was like learning a new language," she said.
But she soon caught up and came to the UK to become one of the country's leading space scientists, showing tremendous courage as well as talent.
"I said yes to things I didn't know how to do, and I learned as I went," she told me.
The role of Astronomer Royal dates back to the creation of the Royal Observatory in Greenwich in 1675. John Flamsteed from Derby was the first person to fill the role. The job back then was mostly to advise the king on using the stars to improve navigation at sea.
The observatory's senior curator, Dr Louise Devoy, explained that the job evolved over the years, to become one of the most important scientific voices in the country.
"By the 1800s the Astronomer Royal started to be called upon to act as a government advisor, so that may be to advise on the railways or bridges or telegraphy, a whole range of topics beyond astronomy," she said.
"If we fast forward to the 20th Century, it is more about developing international collaborations, which is why you have British astronomers working in telescopes in Chile, the Canary Islands and even the James Webb Space Telescope."
Over three and a half centuries,15 men have held the post of the most senior astronomer for all of the UK. But at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, Prof Catherine Heyman has held an equivalent post as Astronomer Royal for Scotland since 2021.
She was delighted to hear of Prof Dougherty's appointment.
"For the last 350 years the title of Astronomer Royal has been held by a white male astronomer, and that kind of reflected what the astronomical community has looked like for the last few centuries. But things are changing," she said.
"Science is becoming more diverse, which it needs to be if we want to answer these big questions, and I'm absolutely delighted now that the two Astronomers Royal across the UK are female, reflecting the fact that science is for everyone."
Prof Dougherty herself does not want to make a big deal of the fact that she is the first woman to hold the UK-wide post, but she hopes it will inspire others to follow in her footsteps.
"I think it is important. I think when young children in particular see someone that looks like them doing a job they think they would never get an opportunity to do, it changes their mindset a little," she told BBC News.
Prof Dougherty experienced this when she was head of the physics department at Imperial College between 2018 and 2024. During that time, the percentage of first year female undergraduates who came to Imperial increased from about 19% to 25%.
"Not a huge change," she said, "but there was a positive change. And I think it's because students saw that I was in a role that they might aspire to in the future".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
2 spacecraft flew exactly in line to imitate a solar eclipse, capture a stunning image and test new tech
During a solar eclipse, astronomers who study heliophysics are able to study the Sun's corona – its outer atmosphere – in ways they are unable to do at any other time. The brightest part of the Sun is so bright that it blocks the faint light from the corona, so it is invisible to most of the instruments astronomers use. The exception is when the Moon blocks the Sun, casting a shadow on the Earth during an eclipse. But as an astronomer, I know eclipses are rare, they last only a few minutes, and they are visible only on narrow paths across the Earth. So, researchers have to work hard to get their equipment to the right place to capture these short, infrequent events. In their quest to learn more about the Sun, scientists at the European Space Agency have built and launched a new probe designed specifically to create artificial eclipses. Meet Proba-3 This probe, called Proba-3, works just like a real solar eclipse. One spacecraft, which is roughly circular when viewed from the front, orbits closer to the Sun, and its job is to block the bright parts of the Sun, acting as the Moon would in a real eclipse. It casts a shadow on a second probe that has a camera capable of photographing the resulting artificial eclipse. Having two separate spacecraft flying independently but in such a way that one casts a shadow on the other is a challenging task. But future missions depend on scientists figuring out how to make this precision choreography technology work, and so Proba-3 is a test. This technology is helping to pave the way for future missions that could include satellites that dock with and deorbit dead satellites or powerful telescopes with instruments located far from their main mirrors. The side benefit is that researchers get to practice by taking important scientific photos of the Sun's corona, allowing them to learn more about the Sun at the same time. An immense challenge The two satellites launched in 2024 and entered orbits that approach Earth as close as 372 miles (600 kilometers) – that's about 50% farther from Earth than the International Space Station – and reach more than 37,282 miles (60,000 km) at their most distant point, about one-sixth of the way to the Moon. During this orbit, the satellites move at speeds between 5,400 miles per hour (8,690 kilometers per hour) and 79,200 mph (127,460 kph). At their slowest, they're still moving fast enough to go from New York City to Philadelphia in one minute. While flying at that speed, they can control themselves automatically, without a human guiding them, and fly 492 feet (150 meters) apart – a separation that is longer than the length of a typical football stadium – while still keeping their locations aligned to about one millimeter. They needed to maintain that precise flying pattern for hours in order to take a picture of the Sun's corona, and they did it in June 2025. The Proba-3 mission is also studying space weather by observing high-energy particles that the Sun ejects out into space, sometimes in the direction of the Earth. Space weather causes the aurora, also known as the northern lights, on Earth. While the aurora is beautiful, solar storms can also harm Earth-orbiting satellites. The hope is that Proba-3 will help scientists continue learning about the Sun and better predict dangerous space weather events in time to protect sensitive satellites. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Christopher Palma, Penn State Read more: What would a solar eclipse look like from the Moon? An astronomer answers that and other total eclipse questions Solar eclipses result from a fantastic celestial coincidence of scale and distance Total eclipse, partial failure: Scientific expeditions don't always go as planned Christopher Palma does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Violent subglacial flood fractured Greenland's ice in never-before-seen event
A massive subglacial flood punched its way through the Greenland Ice Sheet in 2014, but it's only now that scientists have pieced together how and why. New research reveals that a previously undetected lake beneath the ice drained with such explosive force that it fractured the thick ice above and burst out across the surface. This is the first time scientists have observed such an upward-moving flood in Greenland, and it's challenging long-held assumptions about how meltwater behaves beneath ice sheets. Ice shredded, not melted The event unfolded over ten days in a remote region of northern Greenland. Using satellite data from NASA and the European Space Agency, along with high-resolution surface maps from the ArcticDEM project, researchers tracked the dramatic drainage of a hidden subglacial lake. About 90 million cubic meters of water, roughly the volume of nine hours of peak Niagara Falls flow, escaped from beneath the ice, carving an 85-metre-deep crater across two square kilometers of ice surface. It stands among the largest subglacial floods ever recorded in Greenland. But what stunned the scientists even more was what they found downstream. In an area that had previously shown no signs of instability, they discovered a newly fractured ice landscape. Over 385,000 square meters, about the size of 54 football fields, was covered in deep crevasses and towering, 25-meter-high upturned ice blocks. Surrounding this zone was another six square kilometers of scoured terrain, nearly twice the size of New York's Central Park. The scale and violence of the flood left researchers with little doubt about the power of water moving beneath the ice. Lead author Dr Jade Bowling, who conducted the work during her PhD at Lancaster University, said the findings were initially hard to believe. 'When we first saw this, we thought there must be a problem with the data,' she said. 'But the more we looked, the clearer it became that we were seeing the aftermath of an enormous flood that forced its way up through the ice.' Models missed the rupture Until now, most models of Greenland's ice sheet assumed that meltwater moves from the surface down through the ice, eventually draining into the ocean. This study shows that, under extreme pressure, subglacial water can move in the opposite direction, fracturing the ice from below and exploding upward. Because most models don't include these mechanisms, they may be underestimating the ice sheet's vulnerability. Even more surprisingly, the flood occurred in a region where the bed of the ice sheet was thought to be frozen solid. That led researchers to propose a new mechanism: extreme water pressure caused fracturing along the ice base, which in turn allowed the water to erupt through the ice and escape at the surface. 'The Greenland Ice Sheet contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by more than seven meters,' Bowling said. 'Understanding how subglacial water moves and disrupts the ice is critical for predicting its future behavior.' 'This flood shows us that the ice sheet can respond in ways we didn't expect,' said co-author Dr Amber Leeson, a glaciologist at Lancaster University. 'It's a wake-up call to dig deeper into the processes we still don't fully understand.' Professor Mal McMillan, co-director of the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, emphasized the importance of satellite data in detecting such hidden events. 'This kind of event would have gone unnoticed without long-term satellite data,' he said. 'It shows how critical these observations are for tracking climate change in real time.' Because most ice sheet models assume meltwater travels only downward or laterally to the ocean, they overlook the possibility of upward-directed floods like this one. That blind spot could impact projections of how quickly the Greenland Ice Sheet is destabilizing in a warming world. As climate change continues to intensify surface melting and expand it into new areas, such extreme water surges may become more frequent. To keep pace, scientists say models must evolve to reflect the full complexity of subglacial hydrology. Continued monitoring from missions like ESA's CryoSat and NASA's ICESat-2 will be vital for detecting hidden lakes and tracking how they behave. The study was a massive international effort, involving researchers from over a dozen institutions, including Lancaster University, Northumbria University, the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, the University of California, the Alfred Wegener Institute, DTU Space, and the University of Leeds. The findings have been published today in Nature Geoscience.
Scientific American
30-07-2025
- Scientific American
Why the Russia Earthquake Didn't Cause a Huge Tsunami
The moment seismologists got word that a magnitude 8.8 earthquake had struck near Russia's Kamchatka peninsula, they felt an acute sense of anxiety. This location—where the Pacific tectonic plate is plunging below the Eurasian plate—can produce widespread, highly destructive tsunamis. It did just that in 1952, when a magnitude 9 quake effortlessly washed away a nearby Russian town while also causing extensive damage in far-off Hawaii. Today, when the seafloor next to Kamchatka violently buckled at 11:24 a.m. Wednesday local time (7:24 EDT), everything seemed primed for a dangerous tsunami. Early forecasts by scientists (correctly) predicted that several countries around the Pacific Ocean would be inundated to some degree. Millions of people were evacuated from coastal Japan, and many in Hawaii were ordered to seek higher ground. People across swaths of Central and South America were also advised to flee from the receding ocean. And as an initial smaller tsunami formed on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, there was some preliminary concern that waves could reach a height of nearly 10 feet. But for the most part (at the time of writing) plenty of countries in the firing line didn't get hit by an extremely lethal wall of water. It appears that waves of just over four feet hit Japan and Hawaii—two locations that have now significantly downgraded their tsunami alerts and rescinded some evacuation notices. One tourist in Hawaii told BBC News that 'the disaster we were expecting did not come.' Parts of California have seen water up to 8 feet, but without considerable damage. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. This raises a key question: Considering that the Kamchatka oceanic megaquake had a magnitude of 8.8— one of the most powerful ever recorded —why wasn't the resulting tsunami more devastating? The answer, in short, is this: the specific fault that ruptured produced pretty much exactly the tsunami it was capable of making, even if it intuitively felt like it should have been worse. 'First, it's important to recognize that the issuance of any warning at all is a success story,' says Diego Melgar, an earthquake and tsunami scientist at the University of Oregon. A tsunami doesn't have to be 30 feet tall to cause intense destruction and death; even a relatively modest one can wash people and structures away with ease. So far, it looks like there won't be a high number of casualties—and that's in part because 'the warnings went out, and they were effective,' Melgar says: people got out of danger. It's also fair to say that for Kamchatka and its surroundings, there actually was some localized destruction. The earthquake itself severely shook the eastern Russian city of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and did scattered damage to buildings there, and tsunami waves reached heights of up to 16 feet in Severo-Kurilsk, a town in the northern Kuril Islands just south of Kamchatka. Houses and sections of a port have been wrecked or swept out to sea. The way each nation issues a tsunami warning differs slightly. But in general, if a tsunami is very likely incoming and is thought to be potentially dangerous, an evacuation order for those on the afflicted coastline is issued. When such alerts go out, some tsunami wave height estimates are often given, but these numbers are initially difficult to nail down. One reason is because, when a tsunami-making quake happens, 'the tsunami energy is not distributed symmetrically,' says Amilcar Carrera-Cevallos, an independent earthquake scientist. A tsunami does not move outward in all directions with the same momentum, because faults don't rupture in a neat linear break, nor does the seafloor movement happen smoothly and in one direction. 'Initial warnings are based only on the estimated size and location of the source, but this alone doesn't determine how much water is displaced or where waves will concentrate,' Melgar says. 'To forecast impacts accurately, scientists need to know how much the fault slipped, over what area, and how close to the trench the slip occurred.' And that information is usually gleaned one or two hours after the tsunami has appeared. A tsunami like today's is tracked by a network of deep-ocean pressure sensors, which helps scientists update their forecasts in real time. But 'the network is sparse. It doesn't always catch the full complexity of wave energy radiating across the basin,' Melgar notes. This means it gives scientists only a partial understanding of the ocean-wide tsunami. Another issue is that the tsunami's wave height when it reaches the shore is influenced by the shape and height (technically called the bathymetry) of the seafloor it's passing over. Tsunamis are also hindered, or helped, by the shape and nature of the coastline they slam into. 'Features like bays can amplify wave heights; tsunami waves can also be diffracted (bent) around islands,' says Stephen Hicks, an earthquake scientist at University College London. It may also be tempting to compare today's magnitude 8.8 quake with the 2011 magnitude 9.1 quake that struck off eastern Japan, triggering a tsunami with a maximum wave height of 130 feet—one that killed more than 18,000 people. The 2004 magnitude 9.2 earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean—one that claimed the lives of over 220,000 people across a vast area—may also come to mind. That's understandable, but today's magnitude 8.8 quake was not quite powerful as one might think. The magnitude scale for earthquakes is not linear; in other words, a small increase in magnitude equals a huge jump in energy unleashed. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a magnitude 9.1 quake (like the 2011 Japanese example) is nearly three times stronger than today's. The 2004 and 2011 cataclysms 'were actually quite a lot larger than this event,' says Judith Hubbard, an earthquake scientist at Cornell University. They were simply more capable of pushing a giant volume of water across the ocean than today's temblor. Not knowing the exact height of an incoming tsunami at multiple locations all around the Pacific, though, is a secondary concern. What matters most is that the tsunami warnings went out to those in harm's way quickly, while giving accurate times as to when the tsunamis would arrive at each coastline. 'The current strategy of preventative evacuation does a good job of saving lives,' Hubbard says.
