Latest / Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries / Interstellar Inquiries: The Quest for Planet Nine & Understanding Black Holes

Transcript

Interstellar Inquiries: The Quest for Planet Nine & Understanding Black Holes · Space Nuts: Astronomy Insights & Cosmic Discoveries

0:00
Heidi Campo: Welcome back to another fun, exciting
0:03
Q and A episode of space
0:06
nuts.
0:07
Generic: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
0:09
10, 9. Ignition
0:12
sequence start. Space nuts. 5, 4, 3,
0:15
2. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 4,
0:18
3, 2, 1. Space nuts. Astronauts
0:21
report it feels good.
0:23
Heidi Campo: I am your substitute host for this episode,
0:25
Heidi Campo. And joining us is professor
0:28
Fred Watson, astronomer at large.
0:31
How are you doing today, Fred?
0:32
Professor Fred Watson: Um, I'm very well, thanks, Heidi, and great
0:35
to see you, as always. And I hope you're well
0:37
and I hope you're surviving the thunderstorm
0:39
that apparently is going on around you at the
0:40
moment.
0:41
Heidi Campo: It is. You know, like I just said,
0:44
would I would rather have a thunderstorm than
0:46
a hurricane? Because I am here in Space
0:48
Center Houston, not m. Space Center, Space
0:50
City. I'm not in the Space Center. I'm in
0:53
Space City. Um, we did have a hurricane last
0:56
year that was not fun. Um,
0:59
I was alone. My husband was traveling at the
1:01
time for work, and I had a broken foot. My
1:03
neighbor's tree. The trunk didn't
1:06
fall, but almost all of the big branches did.
1:09
So I was out there with a broken foot
1:11
brace on my leg crutches and a chainsaw
1:14
trying to chop up these branches and deal
1:17
with it. Dealing with my first hurricane.
1:20
And then we didn't have power for nine days.
1:23
It was awful. In the middle of July. Oh,
1:26
whoa, whoa.
1:27
Professor Fred Watson: That's awful.
1:28
Heidi Campo: So those are. I guess
1:31
I just. Just sheer will, I
1:34
guess. But those of you who live, um,
1:37
in climates where you don't get hurricanes,
1:40
enjoy those.
1:41
M. Speaking of,
1:44
looks like our first question today is from
1:48
Jakob or Jacob. If I'm saying that right,
1:51
I think it's Jakob from Norway.
1:54
Uh, they do not get any hurricanes there. You
1:56
are safe from hurricanes, and you get to
1:58
enjoy the auroras. Jakob's, uh, question
2:01
is, um. Hi, this is Jakob
2:04
from Norway. I'm working on a presentation
2:06
about planet nine for my school, where I will
2:09
be comparing the mathematical prediction of
2:12
the nine planet with
2:14
Urbian. Lee Verriners.
2:17
You'll have to correct me on that, Fred. Um,
2:20
work to finding Neptune. In
2:23
1864, Lee Varenner saw
2:25
that something was wrong with the orbit of
2:28
Uranus and figured out that it was getting
2:32
pulled on by another planet. He told
2:34
astronomers exactly where to look for this
2:37
planet. And surely enough, they found Neptune
2:39
on the first night of looking. What are the
2:41
odds of that? Now, almost 200 years later,
2:44
scientists see something wrong with some
2:46
objects in the Jupiter belt and say that,
2:49
excuse me, say that another planet may be
2:51
causing these strange orbital paths. My
2:53
question is, why can't we predict
2:56
exactly where Planet Nine is like Lee
2:59
Varenner did in 1864. Have we gotten
3:02
worse at maths? Thank you for the great
3:05
podcast and.
3:07
Professor Fred Watson: Thank you for the great question Jakob
3:09
because um, you know you've hit the nail on
3:11
the head there. You're quite right about uh,
3:14
the discovery of Neptune. Um
3:17
um it's usually said that Neptune was the
3:19
first planet discovered with the point of
3:22
a pen because it was calculations by
3:25
Le Verrier and also um,
3:28
actually a British ah, astronomer,
3:32
uh, I think his name was Adams, I might be
3:33
misremembering that uh, who did the
3:35
calculations at the same time and also
3:38
predicted the existence of another planet.
3:40
But he couldn't get anybody in England
3:42
interested in actually following up on it. Le
3:45
Verrier um, basically was
3:48
fortunate in having the director of the
3:50
Berlin Observatory um,
3:52
uh, to help him out. And that was
3:55
when Neptune was discovered exactly where it
3:57
was predicted. Now Planet nine, uh,
4:00
you're absolutely right. There's a nice
4:03
link there between um, 1846
4:06
and the early 2000s because it was back in
4:08
2016 that two American astronomers
4:12
figured out that there was something about
4:14
the orbits of uh, objects
4:17
as you mentioned in the Kuiper Belt, uh,
4:20
which are uh, aligned in a way that
4:22
suggested that there's another planet out
4:25
there, uh, that's pulling them all into
4:28
uh, this alignment, this orbital alignment,
4:31
um, but we haven't found it yet and
4:34
some suggest that, that it doesn't exist at
4:36
all. And the difference between
4:39
the discovery of Neptune and the search for
4:42
Planet nine is that Neptune, uh
4:45
the prediction of Neptune's existence was
4:47
based on very accurate observations
4:50
of one object which was the planet Uranus
4:53
uh in the outer solar system. And it was what
4:55
we call perturbations in the orbit of Uranus,
4:59
Uh but that means it's being pulled out
5:01
of what you'd normally expect
5:04
to see. And it's that pulling that was
5:07
attributed Neptune. And you can then because
5:09
you're only looking at well three objects,
5:11
the Sun, Uranus and the other, whatever
5:14
mystery body it is which turned out to be
5:16
Uranus. You can do the calculation and
5:18
predict pretty exactly where you're going to
5:21
find the as ah, yet unknown object. And
5:23
that's what happened. It's a great story uh,
5:26
with lots of twists and turns. It's a bit
5:28
different with Planet nine. What we're seeing
5:31
is uh, the suggestion uh, that some
5:33
of the orbits of these Kuiper Belt objects
5:36
are aligned in a way that uh, means that
5:39
they're being pulled uh, out of a uh,
5:42
different orbit by a hidden planet. But
5:44
you're now talking about not accurate
5:47
positions of gravitational pulls. You're
5:49
talking about statistical, uh, uh,
5:52
discussions because you're talking about many
5:54
objects, uh, and you're talking about many
5:57
orbits. And one of the reasons
6:00
why, uh, this is such a difficult problem
6:03
is that if there was an object pulling
6:06
these, uh, Kuiper Belt objects into their
6:09
elongated orbits, into their aligned orbits,
6:12
uh, it would be a very long way away from the
6:14
sun. It would be very faint and very
6:16
difficult to see. But the other thing is
6:19
you can't be sure that you're not
6:21
seeing a statistical fluke. And a
6:24
number of scientists have pointed this out
6:27
that maybe the Kuiper Belt objects, these
6:29
icy asteroids beyond the orbit of Neptune,
6:32
uh, those objects are uh, just a small
6:35
sound of what is a bigger
6:38
sample that we have not yet discovered. And
6:40
if we could see the whole sample, there
6:42
wouldn't be an issue. There would be no
6:44
preferred alignment. Uh, so it's what we
6:46
would call a selection effect. It's a
6:48
statistical fluke. So that's the bottom
6:51
line with this. It's a statistical business
6:54
rather than a, ah, direct gravitational
6:57
um, calculation which is what it was for
7:00
Neptune. So we haven't yet found planet nine.
7:02
A lot of people are still looking. I'm kind
7:05
of hopeful that we will do. But the latest
7:07
results suggests that maybe it's not there at
7:09
all.
7:11
Heidi Campo: Sounds like, um, machine learning may be
7:13
a very beneficial asset in
7:16
discovering these statistics and
7:18
advanced, advanced formulas to find this.
7:22
Professor Fred Watson: That's right. I'm sure people are throwing
7:24
AI at uh, this problem. Uh,
7:27
there's only so much you can do though
7:29
because you're limited with the data
7:32
set that you've got to start with, which is
7:34
something like, I don't know, I think they're
7:35
about 10 of these, uh, asteroids which
7:38
are particularly aligned that suggest the
7:40
existence of planet nine.
7:42
Heidi Campo: This is true. This is true.
7:45
Well, our next question is from
7:48
Enrique and this is an audio question that we
7:50
will play for you now.
7:52
Henrique: Hello, I'm, um, Henrique from
7:55
Portugal. Thank you for
7:58
answering my last question about space
8:01
time. I have another one.
8:04
How do black holes have density
8:08
if the singularity doesn't have
8:11
volume? Thank you.
8:14
Bye.
8:14
Heidi Campo: It's always so sweet to hear from Enrique.
8:17
Um, you said he was, uh, what did we say
8:20
his last email said he was six.
8:23
So. Is that right, Fred? I think when they
8:25
emailed us before he said he was 6 years old.
8:28
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, that's correct.
8:29
Heidi Campo: Something like that, yeah. No Enrique, so
8:32
cute. He's so smart too. I'm like, man,
8:35
I was not thinking about this stuff when I
8:37
was his age.
8:38
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, me neither. Sorry.
8:41
Um, uh, just to let our listeners
8:44
know that we are improvising here, we're
8:46
listening separately to, uh, it might
8:49
be Henrik rather than Enrique. Anyway, it's
8:52
um, Henrik by the sound of it, from Portugal.
8:55
And I was listening slightly after you, so
8:58
I could. So that's why you, you didn't get a
9:00
response from me to your question, which I'm
9:03
sure Huw will tidy up when he edits this
9:06
whole thing. Um, his question was,
9:09
um, how can you have.
9:12
How can an object have density when it's got
9:14
zero volume? I, uh, think I'm
9:17
paraphrasing that correctly. And, uh,
9:19
Henrik has gone straight to
9:22
the nub of the matter with a black hole
9:25
because a black hole is effectively
9:27
defined as a point in space which has
9:30
infinite density. Uh, now
9:33
black holes have mass and we can measure
9:36
different masses for black holes. Some are
9:37
supermassive black holes, uh, which have
9:40
masses millions or even billions of times the
9:42
mass of the sun. Uh, some are stellar, uh,
9:46
mass black holes, which are similar in mass
9:48
to the sun. Uh, but they all have mass.
9:52
If they don't have volume, though, uh, you'll
9:54
remember. Maybe you don't know this formula,
9:56
Henrique. I, uh, don't think I did when I was
9:59
6. But density is mass
10:02
divided by volum. If volume is zero,
10:05
and that's the way we think a black hole is,
10:07
then the density is infinite. Uh, because
10:10
if you divide something by zero, the answer
10:12
you get is infinity. Two very odd
10:14
mathematical quirks. So,
10:17
um, it's possible that
10:20
real black holes don't have infinite density,
10:23
but their densities are very, very high
10:25
because a black hole by definition is
10:28
either zero volume or at least a very,
10:31
very small volume. Uh, so it's a great
10:33
question and what you is, you've basically
10:36
gone to the heart of what defines a black
10:38
hole. Well done.
10:39
Heidi Campo: And we absolutely need more young people
10:41
interested in this stuff. I saw. Um,
10:44
I'm actually. Oh, I'm gonna brag for a
10:46
second. I am a brand new aunt for the first
10:48
time. I had my first nephew. So
10:51
shout out to baby Roman. So excited you're
10:53
here. But I was looking through baby books
10:55
and I guess they have the cutest little baby
10:57
books these days. You can get quantum, um,
10:59
physics for babies, astronomy, um, for
11:02
babies, um, math for
11:05
babies. They have all sorts of cute little
11:06
book and I am so excited because I'm going to
11:08
buy him all the science books in the world
11:10
because their brains are little
11:13
sponges and they can learn so much so fast.
11:16
And I'm like, you know what we should do is
11:17
we should have little kids solving these
11:20
problems because they would probably come up
11:22
with the answer faster than an adult
11:24
would.0G.
11:28
Professor Fred Watson: And I feel fine.
11:29
Heidi Campo: Space Nuts. Well, our uh, next question.
11:32
Professor Fred Watson: Congratulations on your um, on being an
11:34
aunt.
11:35
Heidi Campo: Thank you so much. Oh, I'm so excited. He's
11:38
so cute.
11:39
Um, our next question is from Ben.
11:42
Um, Ben, looks like you're emailing us from
11:44
Northwestern University. Ben says
11:48
I don't know how common it is, but I do know
11:51
for certain. I do know for certain things
11:53
like gravitational wave detections, many
11:56
observations will drop or uh, many
11:58
observatories will drop what they're doing to
12:01
attempt to observe the source of the waves.
12:04
I have four questions about this.
12:07
One, is it common for
12:09
observatories to do this? Two,
12:12
for what sort of events do
12:15
observatories do this? Three,
12:17
are there any sort of observations
12:21
which are immune to these interruptions?
12:23
And four, my understanding is that
12:26
observing time is quite constricted, highly
12:29
scheduled and difficult to obtain. So
12:32
how do they compensate for these
12:34
interruptions? Do they just move the entire
12:36
schedule schedule back? Do they just find a
12:38
different slot for the observations that were
12:40
interrupted while keeping most
12:43
observations unimpacted or something else?
12:46
Professor Fred Watson: Thanks Heidi and Ben. That's um, a question
12:49
that I don't think we've ever been asked
12:51
before on Space Nuts. And it's a really good
12:53
question because it's part and parcel of
12:56
the work of your average
12:59
observatory. Uh, and so
13:02
the first of your four questions, is it
13:03
common for observatories to do this? And the
13:06
answer is yes. Uh, these are
13:10
effectively what we call target of
13:11
opportunity observations where
13:14
uh, you know the scheduled use of a
13:17
telescope. And you're absolutely right, those
13:19
schedules are ah, laid down months in
13:22
advance. People have applied for
13:25
telescope time, sweat, blood and tears
13:28
to actually uh, get their applications in and
13:31
succeed in winning the telescope time. I used
13:33
to do this quite a lot back in the day.
13:36
Um, typically uh, on the Anglo Australian
13:38
telescope, which is the one I used most, uh,
13:40
the biggest visible uh, light telescope in
13:43
Australia. Uh, typically for
13:45
every night uh, of available observing
13:48
time there will be three to four different
13:50
groups wanting to use it. So that's the level
13:53
of competition that there is. And of course
13:55
only one wins out. And the result of that is
13:58
you might be allocated two or three nights
14:00
and four occasionally got fauna
14:03
allocations where you're at the mercy of the
14:06
weather, uh, and at the mercy of all the
14:08
instruments working but you've worked so hard
14:09
to get that time. Uh, the last thing you want
14:12
is for somebody to come along and say, oh,
14:15
there's been, uh, X, Y or Z happening in
14:17
the space. We're going to grab your
14:19
telescope. But, um, it is,
14:22
uh, sort of built into most observatories
14:25
that, that is a potential way of
14:28
operating. I guess some don't. Uh,
14:31
but certainly at the Anglo Australian
14:32
Telescop, uh, these
14:35
target of opportunity observations were made.
14:39
Um, so, uh, Ben, your second question is for
14:41
what sort of events do observatories do this?
14:43
Well, as you said, uh, it's, you know,
14:46
some of the gravitational wave detections in
14:49
recent months of, um,
14:52
neutron star collisions where there might be
14:55
a radio or optical counterpart, in other
14:58
words, a flash either in the radio spectrum
15:00
or the visible light spectrum. Uh, then you
15:03
would that the target of opportunity
15:06
rules would kick in because there would have
15:08
to be rules about this. Um, it works, I
15:11
think, for radio telescopes as well. I don't
15:13
have any direct experience of observing on
15:16
radio, um, telescopes, but I do know about
15:18
the other kind, the optical telescopes. And
15:20
yes, your time will be taken over.
15:22
So neutron star collisions, um,
15:25
supernovae is the most common one. If you've
15:27
got a bright supernova, uh, and you have
15:30
a telescope that's got the right equipment on
15:32
it, you will probably turn to that to detect,
15:35
uh, the supernova explosion and measure its
15:38
spectrum at the peak of its intensity. Uh,
15:41
that's happened a lot. Gamma ray bursts,
15:44
the visible light counterparts of things that
15:46
are detected by gamma ray satellites.
15:49
That's happened too. Uh, so these things are,
15:52
um. You know, there are several transient,
15:54
what we call transient phenomena for which
15:57
this kind of, um, uh, observation
15:59
would be made. Uh, number three, are there
16:01
any sorts of observations that are immune to
16:03
these interruptions? Well, that be. Would.
16:05
Would depend, I think, on the policies of the
16:08
particular observatory in question. There
16:10
might well be, um, certainly at the aat,
16:13
uh, there weren't. We did a lot of
16:16
routine survey work where we were building up
16:18
large catalogues of information on things.
16:20
And that would be very much, uh, something
16:23
that could be interrupted by, uh, a target
16:26
of opportunity observation. Uh, and four,
16:29
my understanding is that observing time is
16:30
quite constrained, highly scheduled and
16:32
difficult to obtain. Indeed it is. So how do
16:35
they compensate for those interruptions? Uh,
16:38
do they just move the entire schedule back?
16:40
No, they don't. Uh, what they do is
16:43
the astronomers who've lost the time
16:46
really, uh, have to face the fact that
16:48
they've lost the time. Um, and that
16:51
might be, you know, one of the conditions
16:53
under which they accept the time, the
16:55
telescope time in the first place. Um,
16:57
often though, there will be,
17:00
uh, you know, there will be moves
17:03
to try and compensate, uh, for
17:06
that loss of time. And that's the
17:09
last part of your question. Do they just find
17:11
a different slot for the observations that
17:14
were interrupted while keeping most
17:15
observations unimpacted? That's basically the
17:18
way it works. Uh, and in the
17:21
case of the Anglo Australian telescope, we
17:24
had, uh, time. There was a small amount of
17:27
time that was not allocated to users. We
17:29
called it director's time because it was at
17:31
the director's discretion to allocate that
17:34
time, whether it was for hardware
17:36
improvements or whatever tests, things of
17:38
that sort. Uh, but, um, that is what
17:41
normally would happen. The director would try
17:44
and allocate some of his director's time
17:47
to compensate for somebody who had lost time
17:49
because of a target opportunity observation.
17:52
The great question. Thanks very much, Ben.
17:54
Heidi Campo: Yeah, and I can attest to that. My good
17:57
friend, um, Dr. Allison McGraw, she's a
17:59
planetary scientist over at the Lunar and
18:01
Planetary Institute, and she is always
18:04
competing to get the best telescope time. Um,
18:07
she was just in Hawaii not too long ago and
18:09
she was so excited because it was perfect,
18:11
perfect conditions and she got everything she
18:13
wanted.
18:14
Professor Fred Watson: Very good.
18:18
Generic: Three, two, one.
18:21
Heidi Campo: Space nuts.
18:22
All right, so this brings us to our very last
18:24
question for the evening, which is from
18:27
Fenton. And this is an audio question that I
18:30
will play for you now. I'll
18:32
give Fred just a second to get synced up with
18:35
me.
18:35
Professor Fred Watson: Synced up with me.
18:36
Heidi Campo: And then we can, we can both hit play
18:39
at the same time and listen to Fenton's
18:41
question, which you will hear now.
18:43
Fenton: Hey, Fred and Andrew, this is Fenton from St.
18:46
Paul, Minnesota, in the U.S. uh,
18:49
I understand you guys need some questions, so
18:51
here's one for you to think about. I really
18:53
like, by the way, uh, everything that you do
18:55
with the questions, whether they're good or
18:58
bad, you always do a good job of coming up
19:00
with something interesting on them. So you
19:03
guys talk a lot about gravity waves.
19:07
And I ask myself, can you
19:10
compare a gravity wave to a
19:13
geometrical wave that is a sinusoidal
19:16
wave or a sine wave that's going to have
19:18
regular minima and maxima
19:21
to it? So what do you think of that? Does
19:23
that make any sense? Um, and
19:25
then if that were the case, I thought,
19:29
can two gravity waves interact?
19:32
Can they either double their intensity or
19:35
nullify each other?
19:38
Can they be in phase or out of phase is
19:40
another way of looking at it. And then
19:43
if we want to continue this classical
19:46
analogy of, um, speed
19:49
is equal, uh, to
19:51
wavelength divided by time.
19:54
Can one gravity have a wavelength
19:57
that, for example, would be one half
20:00
that of the others? In other words, you'd
20:02
have a sort of phase shifting there, maybe.
20:05
I'd love to hear what you think about it. I
20:06
hope you like the question. Cue up the good
20:08
job and stay, uh, warm
20:11
down there. Bye now.
20:13
Heidi Campo: Well, that was a very nice question. Thank
20:16
you so much, Fenton. I will stay warm.
20:22
It's nothing but warm here in Houston in the
20:24
summertime for us.
20:25
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, I can imagine. So, Fenton,
20:27
that's a, uh, good set of questions. And the
20:30
answer to most of your questions in there is
20:33
yes, uh, the,
20:35
um, gravitational waves, ah, are,
20:38
uh, waves. They're basically
20:41
vibrations of space. Uh, and you probably
20:44
know that, um, the waves
20:47
that we're normally familiar with, like sound
20:50
waves, are what are called longitudinal
20:51
waves. The molecules of
20:54
air move backwards and forwards as the wave
20:57
progresses. Whereas, uh, light waves
21:00
are transverse, uh, waves. Which are
21:02
a vibration of the magnetic and
21:05
electric fields, uh, which are, uh, you know,
21:08
existent at any given time. So, uh, they are.
21:12
They are sinusoidal is the way you describe
21:14
them. Gravitational waves are something
21:16
different. They're called quadrupole waves.
21:19
And they're a bit like sine waves,
21:22
but they've got a sort of rotational
21:24
component to them as well. So
21:27
they are not, um, exactly like, uh,
21:30
a light wave. But they are similar,
21:33
uh, in broad characteristics. And
21:36
in particular, they are similar in that,
21:39
yes, they can interfere with one another.
21:41
That's the phenomenon that you were talking
21:42
about, uh, where, uh, light waves
21:45
can either cancel out or add. Uh, to
21:48
give you these, what we call fringe patterns,
21:51
uh, gravitational waves can do that as well.
21:53
Uh, the quadrupole waves can interfere with
21:55
one another. And you're also right that
21:58
they come in different wavelengths. We
22:01
normally think of it as different
22:03
frequencies. Uh, so gravitational waves
22:05
caused by different phenomena. Have a
22:08
very, very wide, uh, variation in
22:11
frequency. Uh, some are, uh, what we call,
22:14
uh. Well, let me just tell you the ones
22:17
that we've observed so far. And that's
22:20
because the particular gravitational wave
22:22
detectors that we have. Are tuned effectively
22:25
to these frequencies. They're the ones that
22:27
come from colliding neutron stars,
22:29
colliding black holes, all of that sort of
22:31
thing we were just talking about a few
22:32
minutes ago. Uh, and they are
22:35
more or less in the, um, audio frequency
22:38
spectrum. Uh, so if you amplified them
22:41
enough, you could hear them. They're, uh, a
22:43
few hundred hertz. One hertz is one
22:46
cycle per second. But some of the
22:48
bigger phenomena in the universe. And I'm
22:51
thinking now of things like the Big Bang or
22:53
the epoch of inflation times in the universe
22:56
when things were very different from what
22:57
they are now. They generate what we call
23:00
nanohertz waves, where the frequencies,
23:03
uh, are, uh, measured in, uh,
23:06
billionths of a hertz rather than
23:09
a few hundred hertz, uh,
23:12
uh, so they would be detected in a
23:15
completely different way. And in fact, we
23:16
think. I think one of the ways of detecting
23:18
them might be from the cosmic microwave
23:20
background radiation, the flash of the Big
23:22
Bang that we can still see. So you're right
23:25
on the money, uh, with all of those
23:26
questions. Yes, gravitational waves do behave
23:29
almost in an analogous way to light. They
23:32
certainly travel at the same speed of light.
23:34
They can interfere, and they do come in
23:36
widely different frequencies.
23:38
Heidi Campo: Well, excellent. Thank you. Thank you so
23:39
much, Fred. These have been wonderful answers
23:42
to some wonderful questions. And thank you so
23:45
much to everybody who has written in.
23:48
Um, we really do have some of the
23:51
best listeners here. I mean, this podcast,
23:54
we have such an amazing, engaged
23:57
audience. I mean, you guys are half of the
23:59
show, really. Your questions are half of the
24:01
show. Um, so please stay curious. Keep
24:04
sending in your wonderful
24:06
questions. Uh, it's certainly so fun
24:09
for me to hear Fred, um, answer them
24:13
and, ah, it's a good time.
24:15
Um, Fred, do you have anything else you want
24:18
to say before we sign off for today?
24:20
Professor Fred Watson: No, just keep the questions coming in, folks,
24:22
because this is the thing that makes SpaceNut
24:25
special. We've got such a wide audience
24:28
all over the world. We love hearing from you
24:30
and we cover your questions, tricky ones or
24:33
non tricky ones alike. Thank you.
24:35
And thanks to you, Heidi, too.
24:37
Heidi Campo: Oh, thank you, Fred. You're so sweet.
24:40
All right, well, this has been, um, another Q
24:42
and A episode of Space Nuts.
24:45
We are, Heidi and Fred, signing off.
24:49
Generic: You've been listening to the Space Nuts
24:51
podcast, available at
24:54
Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
24:56
iHeartRadio, or your favorite podcast
24:59
player. You can also stream on
25:00
demand at bitesz.com. This has been another
25:03
quality podcast production from
25:06
bitesz.com