Latest / Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries / #414: Stellar Collisions & Invisible Invitations: Unveiling the Universe's Secrets

Transcript

#414: Stellar Collisions & Invisible Invitations: Unveiling the Universe's Secrets · Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries

0:00
Hi there, thanks for joining us on this a Q and A episode of
0:03
Space Nuts. Andrew Dunkley here, good to have your company. On this
0:07
episode, questions from James, Lloyd, Rennie, and Ron. James is
0:11
asking about planet nine. Lloyd is asking about certain colliding objects in space.
0:19
We talk about black holes knocking each other off, and neutron stars and black
0:22
holes, but what about stars and stars or stars and stripes running into each
0:27
other. I don't know. We'll find out electromagnetism and how visible are we
0:33
to other civilizations. That's a really good question. We'll answer all of those
0:38
and furnish you with a couple of comments from the audience as well. On
0:41
this episode of Space Nuts. Fifteen said in Channel ten nine ignition quench Space
0:51
Nuts NY four three two Space Nurse as An actually bought it. Bill's good.
1:00
Let's get all the answers from his good self, Professor Fred. What's
1:03
an astronomer at LA? Hello? Fred? Hello, Andrew. Can't guarantee
1:07
to have all the answers, but well that's good. Now we're going to
1:15
start with a couple of comments. These came in in the last week or
1:19
so. The first one is directed at you, Hi, Andrew and Fred.
1:25
Thanks for the shout out. Fred. We're Kate and Jeremy, the
1:27
couple from the Central Coast who met you on the Canadian train. We ended
1:33
up in Gander on the island of Newfoundland in Canada for the eclipse. We
1:38
had clouds coming and going through the initial stages, and then right before totality,
1:42
clouds came over and we never saw the sun again. Oh no,
1:48
I still saw the surrounding effects. But now to see if we can get
1:53
to Spain in twenty twenty six. Great to meet you and love listening to
1:56
the podcast Kate and Jeremy and they can come to Dubo in twenty twenty eight
2:01
and catch it here. We should have should have clease, guys, but
2:06
you never know, do you. But you had the opposite. You had
2:08
clouds and then they disappeared right at the last second for so that's right.
2:14
And look, it was lovely to meet Kate and Jeremy. We were all
2:21
in a very party mood at the time and I think they just joined it
2:24
very briefly. But it was lovely to see them and just a quick plug.
2:30
That was our Canadian tour that Kate and Jeremy's accepted on the Canadian train
2:38
and we are going to do another one for the Spanish Eclipse twenty twenty six,
2:43
so there'll be a tour there, so keep it touched, Kate and
2:46
Jeremy. You never know. Yeah, fantastic with us. I think we're
2:49
going to Gibraltar actually, which too. That place rocks. Okay, that
2:57
was horrible and it was very quick though, Yeah, it was very quick.
3:01
I should work in radio. Now I've got a comment directed to me.
3:07
Just what to agree with Andrew. I'm trying to read The Three Body
3:12
Problem. It's a book that's now been made into a TV series which I
3:16
was intrigued by so much I had to get the book. Now. The
3:19
book was written by a Chinese author and it had to be converted into English,
3:23
and in doing so it sort of became a bit convoluted. I suppose
3:29
it was a bit It's a bit of a tough read. And Ralph's messaged
3:34
me to say, I agree with Andrew. I'm trying to read Three Body
3:38
Problem, but I'm about to give up on it. No fun, Ralph.
3:43
I have a solution for you. I've reached a chapter which is very
3:49
highly technical and it's sort of explanatory notes about what they're trying to do at
3:54
the research center that is the subject of the story. I have taught my
4:00
iPad to read to me. Apparently you can change some settings in an iPad
4:04
where it will read the book or read what's on the screen to you.
4:08
So I'm getting through those chapters by having it read it to me, so
4:12
I don't have to try and tangle with it myself. It works pretty well,
4:17
So maybe you want to look into that. If you've got an iPad.
4:19
I'm sure you can do it with Android devices as well. Don't well,
4:24
I think you can do it with a kindle. They all come with
4:27
spoken voice capability, I think. But that's how I got around it,
4:30
Ralph, don't give up. The story is actually really good. The only
4:34
problem I find is because all the characters have Chinese names, I keep forgetting
4:40
who's who, which is a bit of a sad indictment on me culturally speaking.
4:45
But I keep having the thing, now, who's that which one?
4:48
Because when you separate names like Fred Watson and Andrew Dunkley and all, that's
4:53
easy for us from a Western hemisphere, but the Eastern names I tend to
5:00
I lose track of who's doing what anyway, that's just that's my suggestion to
5:05
you, Ralph, get the book to read it to you rather than you
5:09
struggling through it. Of course, if you've got a paper copy, nothing
5:12
I can do for you, bless somebody else to read it to you.
5:18
Maybe maybe now, Fred, they're all text questions today because I had a
5:24
computer meltdown, not just in recording these episodes today, but last weekend when
5:30
I was getting prepared, and so I lost all my audio questions, which
5:32
I'm going to regather. So we're going text all away today. Planet nine.
5:39
Should such a thing be discovered, does it have a name that's just
5:43
waiting for the body to be discovered, or would the individual who makes the
5:46
discovery be allowed to name their discovery following whatever naming guidelines exist. Thanks for
5:51
putting a smile on my face. Fellow's name and then that comes from James.
5:58
Now a couple of things. It's about planet nine. You actually spoke
6:00
to someone on your recent tour who has a thought about the planet. But
6:06
well we might get to that in a minute. The name, let's say
6:10
they find it. Yeah, there's the Astronomical International Astrotomical Union is charged with
6:16
the responsibility of naming it. But does did the does discoverer get us say
6:20
in it? I'm sure they would. So the convention with planets is they're
6:29
named after principally Roman gods, because that's how it all started, you know,
6:35
with Mars, Mars, Mercury, Venus, and that was continued when
6:44
planets started being discovered, of which the first one was yeah, the one
6:53
that's upside down Neptune. Yeah, that's the other one. Sorry. Yeah,
7:00
So until seventeen eighty one, when William Herschel discovered the object that became
7:09
known as Uranus, no planet had ever been discovered because they were just known
7:15
before that. That's where you yeah, okay, that's what through me.
7:19
I was thinking, well, surely it was one of the inner planets that
7:23
was found first, but no, they've just always been in our awareness and
7:27
yes, that's right from you know truly edentry times, as soon as people
7:32
started looking at the sky and you know, first nations people here in Australia
7:36
would have known about them as well, but they gradually got associated with Roman
7:44
names Mars, the god of war and this other thing, and so that
7:49
would continue with the discovery of another planet. If it was classified as a
7:57
planet. Now we have a glitch in that, because Pluto was classified as
8:03
a planet when it was discovered in nineteen thirty. It was named, as
8:07
you and I have spoken about before, by an eleven year old, a
8:13
girl in Oxford in England, whose name was Venicia Bernie. She basically suggested
8:18
the name Pluto to her grandfather, who was a mate of Herbert Hall Turner,
8:24
who was the professor of astronomy in Oxford, and he telegraphed it to
8:28
the discoverers of the Loyal Observatory in Arizona, and Pluto was agreed. But
8:33
it was perfect because it was the Roman god of the underworld, and so
8:37
that's a great name. Venicia was interested not just in astronomy, but also
8:41
in mythology, Greek and Roman mythology, so it would have to follow that
8:48
guideline. Unlike the objects that are discovered, like and these are important in
8:58
this story because these are the one that suggest that planet nine might be there.
9:01
The transit Neptunian objects objects in the outer regions of the Solar System,
9:05
which now include Pluto. They are traditionally named now and again it's a convention
9:11
imposed by the International astronomical union. But again it probably has, you know,
9:16
the guidance of the people who made the discovery. They're named after deities
9:22
in the First Nations culture of wherever they were discovered, So that, for
9:28
example, is why and it's not a Kuiper Belt object, it's an interstellar
9:31
object. But it's why Umua has a Hawaiian name because it was discovered on
9:35
the island of Maui with the pan star's two telescope and Hawaiian word meaning first
9:43
messenger from Afar. And so you know, when you look at the list
9:48
of names of particularly the trans Neptunian objects, I'm thinking of Senna and thinking
9:54
of Mahe mahe. I'm sorry, it's Maki Maki. These are names that
10:01
come from the culture of whatever tradition it was in which they were discovered.
10:07
But planets are given Greek or Greek or Roman names of underworld. Oh sorry,
10:16
got of deities basically their deities. Yeah, well, I you know,
10:20
something sparked in my brain when you started talking about the discovery and naming
10:24
of Uranus, and I was right because I just looked it up. Herschel
10:30
didn't name it Uranus. He named it Georgie of Sidis, which is named
10:35
after King George the Third. Now we to call it George. Yeah,
10:39
that's right, but they weren't. You weren't allowed to keep that it was.
10:45
Actually, it's really interesting. There were there were three names. So
10:48
he discovered it on the thirteenth of March seventeen eighty one Urinus Day, internationally
10:52
Urinas Day, and so over the next twenty years there were basically different names
11:01
given to this object. He was, as you said, he wanted to
11:05
call it Georgimsidus, which means the Georgian star, named after the King George
11:09
the Third, who already was showing signs of being a bit loopy, and
11:15
that's why that was not a popular name. On the certainly incontinental Europe.
11:20
There was a body of opinion that wanted to call it Herschel, after the
11:24
discoverer, and that would be the case if it was a comet. By
11:30
modern convention, we'd call a comet after the discoverer. But people didn't like
11:37
that either, And it was actually Johannes Border, who was a very well
11:41
known astronomer in Germany, who suggested the name Uranus is the I think the
11:50
parent of Saturn in mythology, so it kind of you know, it works
11:54
quite well. Of course he would have called it Urganness because he was of
12:00
it. Than that's yeah, quite an innocent name compared with what we call
12:03
it. Indeed, so the answer to the question is that the discoverer may
12:11
have a say in it, but the International Astronomical Union will basically rub a
12:18
stamp it and it will probably take the name of some kind of Roman Goddish
12:22
person deity, King Queens. That's my explanation. All right, thank you
12:33
for the question, James Hope, that helped. This is space Nuts Andrew
12:37
Dunkley here with Professor Fred Watson. Okay, we take a space nuts.
12:48
Next question, very interesting the episode about the neutron star collisions. You've spoken
12:54
many times about black hole collisions and neutron star collisions. But do just normal
12:58
everyday stars like our sun ever collide and what do they create? Thanks to
13:05
the show Lloyd from Cans that's in North Queensland on the east coast of Australia
13:09
for those who've never heard of Cans and it's not spelt c Ans now see
13:15
A I. R. S. Kenes. Now, well the answer would
13:20
be yes, I mean just about anything and everything could collide with something of
13:24
its own making or something else, couldn't it. Yes, that's absolutely right,
13:31
And you know the collisions are. It's not usually something smashing directly into
13:37
something else. It's usually usually a dance. It's a dunce, that's right.
13:43
Yes, very spectacular one where things basically circulate around one another. So
13:50
if you yes, So if you brought two stars together, say about you
14:00
know, one to two solar masses each, and then merge, then you're
14:05
going to create something of order four solar masses, supposing there were two solar
14:11
masses each, which is more than the limit imposed by the gravitational physics.
14:24
I'm just trying to run this through in my head because it's something thought before,
14:28
which is terrible, isn't it. So you might get super over explosion.
14:35
Two big ones merged, they couldn't hold. That's right. You've got
14:41
something that's that's unstable, so you might get a super and over explosion.
14:46
I mean we see many instances. In fact, probably half the stars in
14:50
our galaxy are in pairs which are orbiting around one another. We call them
14:54
binary systems, and some of them are very close. Some of them are
14:58
close closely enough to stort the you know, to distort the physical body of
15:03
the star. There's something if you get it's something called the rocial limit.
15:09
If you get within the rocial limit, then you're going to distort the body
15:11
of the star and you probably pull one of these objects to pieces. So
15:16
there will be tidal forces. That's the trick that tidal forces which actually tend
15:22
to destroy the envelope of these stars. Anyway, really interesting thinking. I
15:28
mean, we do know that planets can be goggled up by their stars,
15:33
because we can see the evidence for that. We see planet type chemicals in
15:37
the atmosphere of some stars. And so it's not that big a leap of
15:43
the imagination that if you've got a binary system where they're very close and ones
15:48
inside the rocial limit of the other, then you'll get a combination of the
15:52
two and it might be something relatively gentle, or it could be super over
15:56
I mean if it was gentle. By that, I mean what would happen
15:58
something like a plan industry and nebula, which is what will happen to us
16:02
some it will shed its half to layers and make a beautiful shape nebula.
16:06
For anybody else who has to be looking at it from the outside. So
16:11
yeah, a really interesting speculation. I think the answer is yes, two
16:18
small stars could combine to make one slightly larger star. Is that realistic?
16:22
Yep? Ye, two large stars just they just go Yeah, all right,
16:29
very good. Thanks for the question. Lloyd was Lloyd? I should
16:36
really format my list of questions better because I keep losing the names. But
16:38
Lloyd and Hope all those wells from kings Yeah up in Queensland. Probably a
16:45
Cowboys follower. This is Space Nuts Andrew Dunkley with Professor Fred Watson spacebuts okay.
16:55
The next question, Fred, is about electromagnetism. Can you explain it
16:59
as far as how it forms, how it behaves, how common it is
17:03
on other planets? Do galaxies as a whole have electromagnetism and what happens to
17:07
a planet that doesn't have it? Love the show. That's from Rennie Traub,
17:11
who used to send in audio questions but has taken to the mighty pen
17:18
or keyboard these days. Thanks for the question. Really nice to hear from
17:22
you. Yeah, we talked about electromagneism magnetism. I think it was last
17:26
week, wasn't It was very recent? Yeah, we it's the stock in
17:32
trade of astrophysics, so we talk about it a lot. So yeah,
17:38
so you know, we we can think about electromagnism in two ways. We
17:45
can think of it as waves traveling through space, which is what gives us
17:52
the phenomenon of electromagnetic radiation like radio waves, gamma rays, X rays,
18:00
infrared all of them are infrared radio. Sorry, all of them are electromagnetic
18:04
radiation, which are a different wavelengths or different frequencies, which is the same
18:10
thing but turned upside down frequency being how how quickly they wobble wavelengthies O along
18:15
the waves are so. But the other way to think of it as is
18:22
and to some extent that you know, Ready's question is easier to answer this
18:26
in this scenario. We can also think of it as photons because photons are
18:34
the particles that carry electromagnetic radiation. They're subatomic particles. We know they exist.
18:41
We were talking last week about whether the human eye is sensitive enough to
18:47
detect single photons. We have the conclusion that we've seen research recently that said,
18:52
yes, it is possible for the human eye to detect single photons.
18:56
But yeah, so they're subatomic particles and they interact with other subatomic particles,
19:02
the particles of matter. And so that's a great way of understanding how electromagnetic
19:14
radiation is formed, because if you have you know to put it in the
19:18
old fashion nuclear scenario. Got electrons orbiting their parent atom centers. Those electrons
19:30
are in orbits. This is an old fashioned way of looking at it,
19:33
because it's a lot woolier than that under quantum theory. But this is the
19:36
really meant quantum theory. Those orbits can be at higher or lower levels.
19:41
And so if a photon hits an atom, it boosts an electron up to
19:47
oh maybe maybe put it a different way, if another particle hits an atom,
19:51
it can boost an electron up to a higher energy level, a higher
19:55
orbit. When it falls back, it admits a photon that emits the electromagnetic
20:00
radiation. And so that's how that's one mechanism by which they are four.
20:10
How does it behave? Well, it travels in straight lines normally in a
20:14
gravitational field, it might bend because we know that space bends light as the
20:19
space is distorted. How common is it on other planets? Well, other
20:25
planets are probably bathed in the electromagnetic radiation from their parents stars. So are
20:32
we as are we? That's right, we see it all around us.
20:34
I'm watching it at the moment. A few clouds in the way, but
20:37
there's electromagnetic radiation coming from the Sun. Do galaxies as a whole have electromagnetism,
20:45
Yes, they do. We now have the wherewithal with sensitive detectors.
20:49
In fact, I know one of the astronomers who's built one of these sensitive
20:56
detectors sensitive to one part in a million. Andrew. It's extraordinary. He
21:02
works at the University of himself Wales. You speak calling good mind at the
21:04
end Australian observa treature, I mean Bailey. So he builds what are called
21:10
polarimeters, and a polarimitter is something that takes light but can sense how it's
21:17
polarized. And most of us are familiar with polarized light, with the polarizing
21:21
sunglasses and things of that sort. His polarimeter is, as I said,
21:29
it's kind of like a pair of polarizing sunglasses. Stif it parts in a
21:33
million, which is quite incredible. And what that looks at is the way,
21:38
for example, the way light interacts with dust particles in a distant galaxy,
21:45
for example, and those dust grains are often aligned by magnetism. So
21:51
if you've got a galaxy that's got a magnetic field, it will actually show
21:56
up a polar emitter will show up the magnetic field around it by the way
22:00
way that the light from it is interacting with dust grains surrounding the the you
22:04
know, the galaxy itself. So we we've mapped the magnetism of galaxies really
22:08
quite accurately. By we, I mean the astronomical community. What happens to
22:12
a planet that doesn't have it. Well, our planet's magnetic because it's got
22:18
an iron core, and we think that Mars might well have an iron core,
22:26
but it's kind of static. It's just not hot and swishy like ours
22:30
is. So Mars doesn't have a magnetic field, so you don't have the
22:34
protection from radiation from the Sun because you don't have a you know, a
22:38
magnetic field that actually deflects that radiation. So that they're very quick and glib
22:45
answers to that list of questions you sent, really and I hope they help
22:49
because electromagnetism is everywhere. It's one of the fundamental forces of the universe,
22:56
and we probably couldn't do without it, certainly not here on Earth, because
23:00
it would be well douarded by radiation from the cell that would not be doing
23:03
us any at all. No, not really, Probably impossible for life to
23:08
develop in an environment like that, I would imagine, maybe, so yes,
23:12
yeah, yeah, all right, Thanks Rennie. And our final question
23:15
today comes from Ron. I like this one. I didn't like any of
23:19
the others. No, of course I did. If scientists in a distant
23:26
solar system were searching for exoplanets using the same technology that we are using,
23:30
and if they were to observe our planet, would they be able to tell
23:34
with any degree of certainty that there was life here? Or conversely, if
23:41
we were to observe an exoplanet that's exactly like Earth, teeming with carbon based
23:45
life, and perhaps with an advanced civilization modifying their atmosphere, could we tell
23:51
that there was life there? Thanks Ron. We've had variations of questions like
23:57
this, but I always like revisiting it because let's say somebody out the squidions
24:03
of miles away put points a telescope at us, you know, the John
24:11
Webster space telescope, let's call it. Would they be able to tell that
24:17
there is life here. The answer is yes, yeah, I thought it
24:22
would be yeah, and with and that's because of the you know, the
24:27
signature of living organisms in the atmosphere, and in the case of Earth,
24:34
that we call these biomarkers. So the biomarker would be oxygen, which is
24:41
sort of out of balance with carbon dioxide, and I think methane comes into
24:48
the equation as well. How to balance with methane, So that the only
24:52
way that you could get this mixture in the atmosphere is by the fact that
24:59
we've got life pro this is going on. If you had purely chemical reactions
25:03
taking place, then you wouldn't get these you know, these mismatches of some
25:10
of the chemicals that we have in the atmosphere. Not only do we think
25:15
that's the case, we know it's the case because it's been tested and this
25:19
is an experiment that's been done many times. You know, the phenomenon that
25:26
we call earth shine Andrew, what you see when you've got a crescent,
25:32
really thin crescent moon, you can actually see the rest of the moon dimly
25:36
illuminated. Yes, yes, yes, yes, not so long ago.
25:40
Yeah, you would probably see every month because if you're looking at the right
25:45
time. Yes, that's right. It was Slenado who da Vinci who sust
25:52
out what was going on there, that what you're seeing is the light from
25:56
the Sun hitting Earth and then being reflected back to the Moon's surface and then
26:03
reflect it back to us. Yes, so what you're seeing is second ancel
26:07
lies, but it's passed through Theth's atmosphere. And so if you with a
26:11
spectroscope, one of these devices that lets you see the barcode that's imprinted on
26:17
light by these different chemicals. If with a spectroscope you look at earth shine,
26:21
you can see the signature of Earth's atmosphere on it, and sure enough
26:26
you would be able to detect that there is life there, because that signature
26:30
is revealed by earthshine tells you exactly what we've just been talking about. Are
26:34
these chemicals imbalance, in imbalance with one another? In balanced? Moreover,
26:42
as Ron suggests, if you've got an advanced civilization modifying their atmosphere, which
26:48
we've certainly done, could we tell that there was life there? You could
26:52
probably tell that there was technology there. One of the signatures which are sometimes
26:59
to techno markers to look for in the atmosphere of a planet is something like
27:03
the CFCs, the chlorofluoro carbons, which are created by industrial processes and do
27:10
end up in the atmosphere. We try to get rid of them, what
27:14
they call it. One of the other things I think you and I talked
27:18
about once about detectability was the capacity. I think we've developed technology that would
27:23
be able to detect radar signals on another world. Was that something we talked
27:29
about. Yes, that's right. Well, indeed that's true because, for
27:36
example, the square kilometer array radio astronomy colleagues tell me would be sensitive to
27:44
airport radar a distance of fifty light years. Wow. You know, assuming
27:49
that the airports we're using the sense of of radar as we use here on
27:52
Earth, and that's likely that they might and nearly worlded develop the same way
27:57
as we have. So the is a resounding yes to that question. And
28:02
it's one of the principal tools that sorry astrobiologists are using to explore the details
28:08
of exo planets. And indeed, the gems Web telescope has actually I think
28:15
probably half a dozen cases, maybe even more, managed to sense the chemical
28:22
elements in some of the exoplanets that transit across the face of their parent star
28:29
because some of the light that's coming you know, that's that's coming past the
28:34
planet, that's transiting across its parents style in other words, that's between the
28:38
parents style and ourselves. Some of that line is going through its atmosphere,
28:41
and so you can pick up what the what these chemicals are, and there's
28:45
various different chemicals that have been detected. Carbon dioxide's world water is another.
28:52
You know, they are detectable. It's a technology that's still in its infancy
29:00
because our technology is limited. But once the ELT has come along the extremely
29:04
large telescopes, which the probably the first one will be the European one,
29:08
the ELT itself, the European Extremely Large Telescope. Once that comes on stream,
29:15
then we're likely to see more of this kind of discovery chemical elements in
29:18
the atmospheres of other star planet which may eventually lead to the detection of an
29:26
unambiguous biomarker which says, yes, there's life somewhere else. Wouldn't that be
29:30
amazing? I think it will just as an after postcript there. The unambiguity
29:37
is the difficult bit because often you can find just purely chemical processes that might
29:44
create the same thing. So These imbalances are what people look for rather than
29:48
just saying, oh there's oxygen, there, there must be life. It's
29:52
got to be in a state of, you know, imbalance with other chemicals,
29:57
which tells you that it's basically been constantly creating. Something else is going
30:03
on. Somebody pushed the button, all right. Of course, Just as
30:10
a side note, the famous Stephen Hawking has always said that we shouldn't reveal
30:15
our presence in any way or form. He's not He was never confident that
30:19
alien species would be kind to us. And I throw back to the three
30:26
body problem, which is exactly what that story is about an advanced civilization that
30:30
contacts Earth and decides they're going to come here because their planet sucks. And
30:34
so the basis of the story is they're interrupting our scientific development so that we
30:41
don't jump ahead of them in the four hundred years it's going to take for
30:44
them to arrive. Really interesting story, really interesting story. That's why I'm
30:49
persisting with it. I want to know what happens. It's a trilogy,
30:55
it's a three book story. So yeah, thank you, Ron, that's
31:00
it's a great question. Always a good discussion point that one, And thanks
31:03
for every to everyone who sent questions in, and of course don't forget to
31:07
send us your questions via our website Space Nuts podcast dot com, space nuts
31:10
dot io. You can click on the AMA tab up the top where you
31:14
can send us text and audio questions, or the right hand side of the
31:18
homepage send us your questions. It's audio only. As long as you've got
31:21
a device with a microphone, you're all set. And don't forget to tell
31:25
us who you are and where you're from. But we'll take both country and
31:29
Western questions. Text or audio not a problem. Thanks Freda both. Thanks
31:37
fred as always great pleasure. Andrew, good to talk. Thanks to all
31:42
our listeners who have sent stuff in. It's always it's always inspiring and stimulating
31:48
to look at those questions. It is indeed, fred Wat's an astronomer at
31:52
large. And Hugh in the studio, thanks for not asking us anything because
31:56
we don't know anything that you want to know. And from me Andrew Dunkley,
32:00
thanks for your company again. We'll catch you on the next episode of
32:01
Space Nuts. Bye bye. Thanks. You'll be listening to the Space Nuts
32:07
podcast available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, or your favorite podcast player.
32:15
You can also stream on demand at bites dot com. This has been
32:20
another quality podcast production from nights dot com.