Andrew Dunkley: Hi there. This is Space Nuts, where we talk astronomy
and space science. And my name is Andrew Dunkley, your host.
It's good to have your company on this episode.
We're going to Mars, uh, where we're going to
talk about water. Now, water is a very common
Martian topic, uh, but
this story is going to throw a completely
different light on Mars water. And we'll
tell you why. Uh, there's also a
great idea that's being put forward to
help spacecraft, uh, re enter
Earth's atmosphere. Because up until now, we've used heat
shields and tiles. Now they think
they've come up with something completely different. It's called
Sweat and the
Universe RIP Yep,
we're going to see it all end much sooner than we
expected. We'll talk about all of that on this episode
of space nuts.
Generic: 15 seconds. Guidance is internal.
10, 9. Uh, ignition
sequence start. Uh, space nuts. 4, 3.
2. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 5.
Uh, 4, 3, 2, 1. Space nuts. Astronauts
report it feels good.
Andrew Dunkley: And he's back again.
For more it is Professor Fred Watson Watson, astronomer at
large. Hello, Fred Watson.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, Andrew. How are you doing?
Andrew Dunkley: I'm doing quite well, thank you very much. Are you.
Professor Fred Watson: What a surprise to see it. Yeah, I'm very well, thank you. Yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: Oh, it is a surprise to see you there. I mean,
do you like my new background? I'm going to change the background every week
on my studio.
Professor Fred Watson: I think that's a good idea. Uh, and, um, I do like
it. Uh, it's a, uh, place that's close
to my heart as well as yours. It's a great place.
Andrew Dunkley: Well, isn't that the saying, I left
my heart in San Francisco.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, you probably did.
Andrew Dunkley: That's a photo I took after we crossed the
Golden Gate Bridge looking back to San Francisco. So
thought I'd use that as my backdrop today.
Professor Fred Watson: The, um, second line of that song is a good one as well.
I left my knees in old Peru.
Courtesy of the goons.
Andrew Dunkley: Yes, of course. Yeah. Beautiful
city. Really beautiful city. I think I told you about
the driverless taxis they've got. But there's so much more
going for it. Those cable, uh, cars are
fantastic. Um, we
obviously did the tourist thing and did a ride on one of those
and then, you know, did the walk down Lombard
street, that, uh, zigzaggy street that, um,
has become quite famous. And I don't know how many movies
and TV shows it's been in, but, um.
And it's like all of these things that when you see them on
tv, you think, oh, wow, got to go see that. And then you get
there and go, oh, it's. It's a lot smaller than
I thought. Ah.
But yeah, um, I don't know what the price of a
house is on Lombard street, but it's, uh, beautiful homes
there.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes.
Andrew Dunkley: But overall, a beautiful city. Beautiful city. I'd go back
there tomorrow. Uh, we better get into it,
Fred Watson.
And our first topic, uh, today
is the water on Mars. Or in this
case, according to a new theory inside
Mars. And we're talking about massive
amounts of water.
Professor Fred Watson: Indeed. That's right, we are. It's not just a
few drips or drops. Uh, so the
story, uh, the star of the story, Andrew,
is NASA's InSight spacecraft,
which it's almost. It's more
than a decade ago now. I think that, uh, Insight landed, uh,
you might remember it landed in the Arctic region,
region of Mars. And, um, basically
did one summer's worth of work.
Because we knew that once it got into winter on
Mars, the spacecraft would freeze and all the electronics
would die and it would pass away, which it did.
Uh, it's still there, of course, but it's inactive. Um,
so a great, uh, mission,
uh, it had one little, um,
hiccup in that the thermometer that they were trying to dig into the
ground didn't get dug in. You might remember we covered that on
Spacenauts. But what worked a treat was the
seismometer. Because it had a
very sensitive seismometer able, uh,
to listen to Marsquakes.
Uh, and, um, Marsquakes are caused by
a number of things. Um, impacting,
uh, meteorites actually cause a little
quake. And they also think there's some
residual. Not exactly plate tectonics,
but just slips and slides of fault lines and things of that
sort, which also create seismic M data.
Yeah. And so this is
where the story really starts. Because,
um, we know, uh, from other evidence
that Mars, uh, Probably
between about 4.1 and 3 billion years
ago, was warm and wet. Uh, the
evidence is in your face in many ways. You can see
evidence of beaches and river channels. And,
you know, the northern hemisphere of Mars is much smoother
and flatter than the southern hemisphere, which we think is because
there was possibly an ocean there. So all the evidence, science, uh,
is that during that early period in Mars's
history. And just remember that all the planets are
4.6 billion years old or thereabouts.
4.7, something like that. 4, uh.1
billion years is only half a billion years after the
origin of Mars. But, uh, we think that that
was more or less the start of when it was a warm and wet
world and that lasted for nearly a billion years. A little bit more
perhaps. So um, the
atmosphere, uh, uh sorry the water on
Mars is now no longer on the surface.
And uh, that's pretty evident because it's
as dry as dust and in fact it's got humidity effectively
not quite but effectively of zero. Very, very low
humidity. Um so the questions have
always been where did the surface water go? We
know that uh because Mars does not have
a strong magnetic field it's bombarded intensely
by the solar wind, uh and that
tends to separate any water
uh, vapour uh into its component
atoms, hydrogen and oxygen and they
then basically waft off into space. And we know that's happening
because there's uh, a spacecraft called Marvin or Maven,
uh which is still active in uh, orbit around Mars and that can
see this stuff all leaking away. So we
know that was part of the story. But um, the
planetary scientists who look at Mars in detail say that's
not enough. We can't actually account for,
for all the water that must have been there by
it just disappearing into space. Um,
we know some of it's frozen in the polar caps uh
of Mars. Um, and
probably you know, hydrolyzed minerals.
There have been minerals on Mars surface have been
affected by water. Uh that's still
the case however uh, there must
be more. And there was a calculation
done um, I think by the research group
that's uh, done this work with the Insights, um,
lander which estimates that
the water that's gone missing was uh,
enough to cover the planet in an
Ocean between 700 and 900
metres deep.
Andrew Dunkley: So that just blowed me away.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, uh,
it's gone um, where. And that's not an
insignificant amount of water. Remember Mars is only half the
diameter of Earth so it's not like uh, an
earthly amount but it's a lot of water, 700 to
900 metres deep across the whole planet.
So uh, where's it gone? Uh
and you know, if we can find it,
what, what might it be like? So uh, now
enter uh insight. Uh
and actually I was wrong. It's not a decade ago. It was
2018 when Insight landed uh and
uh, did all that super work with its sensitive
seismometer. Uh these
scientists looked at the
vibrations that come from
um, any sort of marsquake caused
by as I mentioned before, either
slippage in the rock or uh, a meteorite.
Uh but you can look very accurately at ah,
the um, essentially the types of
waves that you're getting because, uh,
there are pressure waves and shear waves. I think they're called S waves and
P waves in the, um. Uh, in the
jargon of seismometry. But these
waves, seismographic waves,
tell you something about the material that they are
passing through. And that is where
this, uh, story has gone. Because these
scientists estimate, uh, what they
call a significant underground anomaly
exists, uh, in a layer between
five and a half and eight kilometres
below the surface. Because they find that these
shear waves move more slowly, uh, in that
region. And the most likely
explanation. And remember, that's. That's a layer
that's, you know, it's two and a half kilometres,
two and a half kilometres thick. Um,
that layer they think is
likely to be porous rock,
uh, like we've got here on planet Earth,
uh, filled with liquid water, just a little bit like the
aquifers. And we've got a great one here in Australia, the
great Artesian Basin, uh, which is.
Andrew Dunkley: I'm sitting on it, right?
Professor Fred Watson: You're sitting on it. That's right. You are. Are your feet wet, Andrew,
or.
Andrew Dunkley: No, no. We do have, as
you know, several bores all over the city here
because, uh, we can tap the Great
Artesian basin and, and get that water for
domestic use. So we. We kind of,
um, take water from that source as well as from
river. The river is fed by a huge dam
upstream which is bigger than Sydney Harbour.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh.
Andrew Dunkley: And. Yes, that's right, Farendom Dam. So, uh,
yeah, we, uh, definitely use
the aquifer water from the great artesian
basin to supplement the city supply.
We are actually drought proof. As a consequence of that, we
will never run out of water because
we sit on the Great Artesian basin, which
basically stretches north to south across the entire
continent down, um, this sort of central, um,
eastern section.
Professor Fred Watson: That's correct, yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. It's massive.
Professor Fred Watson: It is massive.
Andrew Dunkley: It's like an underground ocean, basically. And that's what we're talking about
with Mars.
Professor Fred Watson: That's exactly right. And so it's a really nice,
um, you know, connection that we have here in Eastern Australia
with Mars. Uh, this sort of, you
know, um. It's almost. The rock itself is
sponge, like in the sense that it holds the water, the
liquid water.
And the thinking is, uh, that because
it's at a depth, as I said, a
few kilometres, between five and a half and eight kilometres,
um, the temperature there is warmer than
it is on the surface by quite a long way because of just the
internal heat of the planet. Uh, and so they think
it is actually liquid, uh, and that fits
the bill in terms of the seismic
waves that they've detected, uh, that you've actually
got this liquid water in porous
rock. Um, and what's
really nice about this story is, uh, that
if that is, um, a global,
uh, layer of rock, and it may well be,
um, they calculate how much water
is in it, uh, and sure enough,
it's enough to cover Mars in a global
ocean between. Well, the figures they quote is between
520 and 780 metres deep.
Just about the same as what they think is the missing
water mass on Mars.
Andrew Dunkley: So this is sense. Yeah, I mean, this
is still a maybe, not a definite,
but the numbers certainly support it.
That's what's really interesting about this story.
Excuse me. And, uh,
yeah, the question is, if we go to Mars,
and I know you don't like
this, but they will probably establish colonies there. If
one man has his way, um, will
they be able to access it? Could it. Could it
actually hold microbial life and could
you drink it?
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, yes, that's right. I mean, the middle question there,
the. The fact that there might be life in it, that's the one
that's so intriguing. Uh, I think, I
suspect at that depth you'd struggle to get
it. But we do know. And again, this comes from Insight.
Um. Uh, no, it wasn't. Insight was. It
was Phoenix. Yes, Phoenix was a spacecraft
like Insight, uh, which was
actually, uh, the one that was in the Arctic. And so. I beg your pardon,
I said something incorrect before. The INSIGHT was in the
Arctic. Martian Arctic. But it wasn't. It was Phoenix 2
spacecraft which was very similar. Uh, one was for
seismometry. INSIGHT was basically giving
us sight of the inside of Mars and M.
Phoenix was all about, uh,
basically, um, sampling the surface rock.
Uh, and, um, we remember
those classic pictures, they scraped away the top layer.
Andrew Dunkley: Of soil and there was ice.
Professor Fred Watson: There's ice underneath it.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um,
it was like a kid had been up there with his
Tonka tractor and he scraped the top of
the dirt and turned white.
Professor Fred Watson: That's right. So, uh, that is in the Arctic
region, but that's telling you there's a permafrost of water
and there is a huge amount there as
well. Uh, but, you know, to find liquid water
now, um, whether that's drinkable,
probably if you purify it, might have minerals in it that you'd like to
get rid of. But, uh, I think it will be drinkable.
Um, but yes, the intriguing thing is, as you said, is
whether it could harbour Martian
Biology that's uh, really, really interesting.
Uh, and, and in that regard, um, you
know we've talked about the planetary protection rules before
and uh, um, how
much of spacecraft has to be sterilised before it's sent to
Mars. If it's going anywhere where liquid water could exist,
what it would do. This would mean that we would have to be doubly
careful sort of no matter where you're going on
Mars because deep under the surface there might well be Martian
microbes that wouldn't like earthly microbes if they
found their way down through the rocks, so. Oh, uh, absolutely.
Andrew Dunkley: And, and we've got evidence on Earth of that kind of
contamination when like the Spanish went to South
America and the South American people
um, were exposed to diseases
that just didn't exist in there.
Professor Fred Watson: Wipe them out.
Andrew Dunkley: Wipe them out.
Professor Fred Watson: Almost completely similar things happened in our own
country. Andrew as well.
Andrew Dunkley: Yep, absolutely.
Professor Fred Watson: Smallpox and things like that. And I should just talking about our country,
I should mention that some of this work has been carried out by
Australian investigators at the Australian National University
as well as um, uh, scientists at the Chinese
Academy of Sciences.
Andrew Dunkley: Well hopefully there'll be some follow up to um,
maybe confirm what they think.
As I said, the numbers are stacking up in that favour
and it will mean that if uh, that's true,
um, Mars is not a dry
dead planet. It's probably a water world, but a
different kind of water. And we're seeing more and more
of that throughout the solar system.
Professor Fred Watson: We are indeed. That's right.
Andrew Dunkley: Very exciting indeed. All right, if you'd like to read up on that
you can uh, see that@the
conversation.com website. This is
Space Nuts Andrew Dunkley with Professor Fred Watson
Watson.
Space Nuts.
Professor Fred Watson: Speaking of water.
Andrew Dunkley: Well not quite but uh, we,
we've seen over the
entire space ah, race to
date, um, which began way back in the middle
of the last century, uh, that if you wanted to get a
spacecraft back into the atmosphere
you had to be prepared for it to potentially
burn up uh, unless you put a heat shield on
it. And later those heat uh,
absorbent tiles that were made famous by the
space shuttle and my son has actually got one of those
tiles at his place because he got it as a
secret Santa through um, one of the uh, social media
websites when they used to do that um, and
the warning came do not lick the tile. Well apparently it's
very toxic. Um, so
um, that's how it's been done to date. But now
they've come up with a new idea
that basically involves spacecraft
sweating to Stay cool as they come back
into the atmosphere. This is really fascinating.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, it's extraordinary. Yeah. And what you've said
is absolutely right. Um,
uh, the traditional uh, heat shield
is called an ablative shield because it ablates the
heat, takes it away. Uh, and that means
that you only use them once. So um,
that's an issue for example with the Orion
capsule which is um, going to be reused. Uh, this
is the one that will take astronauts to the moon.
Um, uh, and um, it's a pretty
large piece of kit and every time you reuse it
you've got to replace that ablative shield that's on there. Or
ablative shield, however you pronounce it. It's on the back of
the spacecraft. That's the bit that burns away, uh, as the
spacecraft re enters. Uh, so, um,
could you find a way of doing this, uh,
which was essentially reusable
something else, uh,
that would actually protect the spacecraft from the intense heat of
reentry. And it's a team at Texas A and
M University, uh, partnering with a
private concern called Canopy
Aerospace. And they've basically
developed uh, a 3D printed substance,
um, that releases gas
when you've got the heat of re
entry. Uh and the reason
that's interesting is that gas
ah, has a very low conductivity of
heat. Uh unlike you know, a piece of
metal or something like that which conducts heat very, very
well. Gas is pretty poor at conducting heat.
Uh, and it's actually, you know, you've got
a lot of uh, you know, why put it. Putting,
putting air in the space between your inner and outside
walls provides a bit of heat insulation and things of that
sort. Uh, it's um, a um,
good heat insulator. So if you
can make something that will release gas
as it enters the space, uh,
as the spacecraft enters the atmosphere, then you might
well find that you've got the situation
where you've got uh, something that's effect
reusable and that you don't have to replace every
time. And it, and the material itself is a,
it's a 3D printed silicon carbide,
uh, and it is strong
and I'm quoting here from the um,
Space.com article about this, which is a very nice
description, uh, written by Samantha
Mathewson a few days ago or a day or so
ago. Uh, uh, it's
designed to be strong enough to withstand
extreme atmospheric pressures, yet poor enough
for the coolant to sweat through. Uh,
and uh, she says prototypes are being tested at the
university to evaluate the material's ability to sweat and
how well, the gas that is released
insulates a spacecraft. Uh, so
it is. Yeah, um, it's a really interesting step.
You know, um, what struck me about this
is we've been using these ablative
shields since, well, the Mercury
capsule back in 1960,
whenever it was 62, I think, Mercury,
maybe 63. Um, and
they're still being used. They're still on the
Orion capsule, which is just a giant version of
Mercury in some ways. Uh, and it's great
to see people thinking outside the box as to whether we can
find better ways to do this and actually create, um,
you know, create new materials, given
where we've got to today in things like 3D printing,
uh, create new materials that can do the job better.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, I suppose the only way to really test this would be
to create this, this new form
of shielding and send one up and bring it back
and see if it survives, basically. And
you wouldn't want to sort of, um, go up there
unchecked and go, okay, we're going to test this new.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, no, you wouldn't, you wouldn't want
that. Um, uh, they've used
hypersonic, uh, uh, wind tunnels to
test it. So, and these are things that blow the wind along at
several times the speed of sound. And so they've got a good idea
that this is going to work, I think.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. As we've seen though, with the space shuttle, all
it takes is a tiny little
crack in a tile to cause a major
catastrophe. I'll never forget that.
Um, but, but, um, I would
imagine with a heat shield type of approach like
this, the gas that too could be
exposed if one of the vents or whatever it is
they use to release the gas fails.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, I guess that's right.
There'll always be, um, some sort of failure,
uh, possibility, uh, and the trick is
to reduce those as much as possible.
Andrew Dunkley: Indeed. Uh, well, uh, it will be really
interesting to see how this develops. It could, could
be one of the, um, the big leaps
forward in terms of getting
spacecraft back into Earth without having to
constantly regenerate,
um, shields. Because, uh, that's what happens at the
moment. Once a heat shield has been used, you can't
use it again. It's the same with the tiles on the space
shuttle. You, you have to replace them after every
mission. Apparently, uh, this could be a
renewable resource, a renewable approach to the
whole thing, which obviously would reduce
costs ultimately. And it's still very expensive
to get up there, send out your
payload or whatever, and then get the
hardware back to Earth. So, um,
uh, it's Been a long time coming.
We're coming up on 100 years of space flight and
it's taken three quarters of that time to
come up with a new idea. So fingers crossed that this
is actually the answer and who knows what else they might
figure out down the track that could do the job. So
um, I suppose a question that pops to mind
and this is sort of a very dumb question I
suppose, um, why can't they just re, enter
slowly to avoid the heat? I'm guessing
you wouldn't get back in.
Professor Fred Watson: Um, you're limited by, you know, the
mechanics of space flight. So um,
anything in space that's you know, that's not
coming back to Earth is orbiting at
uh, nearly eight kilometres per second. And
uh, that's why you need such a big rocket to put
things into orbit. Because you've got to not only get the height,
uh, to two or 300 kilometres, but also to
push it into this high velocity with respect
to the Earth's surface. And when you come back
you've somehow got to dump that velocity. You've got to kill it
somehow. Now you know, I do remember
when I used to read Dundeere, the uh, pilot of
the future in the Eagle. They, they used
um, what they called reactor rockets. So you had uh,
the spacecraft was in orbit and
then uh, the command that Captain
Dan Dare said was blower reactors and that
was forward firing rockets that slowed the
spacecraft down. And that's what they still do.
They fire forward firing rockets
to slow the spacecraft down. But unless
you've got the same amount of fuel as you used to put it
up there, you can't use that forward
firing rocket to gently land it on the planet's
surface. You've got to have something else. And uh, that something else is
aero braking which is using the atmosphere to slow the
spacecraft down. That's traditionally what
has been used. It's the only way we have available at the moment until
somebody invents something that doesn't need as much fuel
to slow you down as uh, it takes you up there.
Andrew Dunkley: Well that time will probably come. But
for now making your spacecraft sweat could
be uh, the new approach. And if you uh,
are interested in that story, uh, as Fred Watson said,
it's@space.com.
okay, we checked all four systems and team with a go
Space Nats.
Okay Fred Watson, our final ah, story today
is a very scary one because um, we
might not be here next week or maybe it's a
billion years. I always get the two mixed
up. Uh, but um, on a serious
note, uh, some Dutch scientists have come up with
a new theory as to when the universe will end.
And it is a heck of a lot sooner
than we originally thought if they are right.
Professor Fred Watson: Indeed it is. Uh, so here are the numbers,
okay. Uh, because we might as well start with
that. We used to think
that the universe would die
in 10 to the power 1100
years. So that is a one with 1100
zeros after it. It, that's how long we thought it would
take to die. The new
calculation uh, is only. It's a mere
10 to the power 78 years. And
that's 10 followed by, sorry one
followed by 78 zeros.
Look, that's ah, one heck of a
difference, isn't it? It's a factor of more
than 10 different uh, uh,
it's a factor of more than 10 in exponent, which means that it's a
very much different different. Um, so yes,
the universe has only got really a brief period of 10 to
the 78 years to last. Um but
let's cut to the reason why these scientists are
ah, uh, making these
calculations. They're um, scientists actually in the
Netherlands. Uh, and what they've
done is they've looked at
Hawking radiation. And
that is the, the trick to this,
this whole calculation. Hawking radiation
is uh, as we know, the rad that
leaks from a black hole. Uh which
is a quantum physics effect because uh,
relativity says nothing can come out of a black hole. But quantum
mechanics says well they can evaporate very, very slowly.
And they do. Uh, there's all the
evidence suggests that Hawking radiation is a real thing.
And so what these calculations are about is how long it
takes everything in the universe to come to an
end by Hawking radiation. Um, and they don't
just cover black holes. They cover everything.
They cover um, neutron stars which
are kind of failed black holes. They cover white
dwarf stars which are kind of failed neutron stars.
Um, and these all have um, a
Hawking age. And I think actually
um, the original calculation of 10 to the 1100
years was um, um,
basically coming from just the lifetime of white
dwarf stars does, but
uh, the new calculation have
uh, have um,
essentially said uh, the,
the decay time for white dwarfs is
uh, sooner than we
thought. Uh, I think actually the white dwarf decay
time originally didn't include Hawking radiation. I think it
was just how long it takes to cool down to a completely
inert object. So um, the new calculation
takes into account uh, the
basics of Hawking radiation. Um,
they've got some nice other
figures as well because uh,
they can Work out how long
neutron stars take to decay. That's 10
to the power 67 years. Um,
they can work out how long. Long the
moon will take to evaporate by human.
Uh, Sorry, By Hawking radiation.
And how long it will take a human to evaporate.
And those figures are respectively. Well, they're the same
10 to the power 90. So you and I, as we sit
here, Andrew.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah.
Professor Fred Watson: Uh, we will evaporate in 10 to the power 90
years, which means we actually outlast the
universe because the universe is going to
evaporate in. In 10 to the 78 years.
Uh, so we're, we're doing well there. How can we
outlast the universe? I'm not sure what the answer to that
is.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah, well, nothing, um, could. If the
universe comes to a grinding halt, that's the end of everything,
isn't it? Ah, to qualify this, you've
got to accept that, um, they're talking about the, the, uh,
fading out of everything. That's correct. But the
universe will still be there. It'll just be dead.
Professor Fred Watson: Unless, uh, the, you know, the
accelerated expansion of the universe results in the Big Rip,
which could come a lot sooner than those evaporation
times. So you're quite right. This is assuming
nothing else happens in the universe. The universe is as boring as
anything. Uh, and things just
evaporate by Hawking radiation. That's
the numbers that you get.
Andrew Dunkley: Yeah. And there was one other thing we left out of that, and that was
the, um, um, evaporation of brown
dwarfs, um, because they're failed Disney
actors, so got to take that into
account too. And that only takes 88 years.
Professor Fred Watson: Okay. Very good.
That's a neat calculation. I think you should write. That's up to the
conversation, Andrew.
Andrew Dunkley: It's terrible, Jack. Horrible. Yeah. Um,
no, but it is, uh, rather fascinating. Um, so do we
know. I don't know if you said it in number of years, what 10
to the 78 actually means for the
universe.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah, well, yes, uh, just means one followed by
78 zeros. It's a long time.
Andrew Dunkley: Still a long time.
Professor Fred Watson: Yeah. And, um, we should be right to.
Andrew Dunkley: Pay the, the water rates next week then.
Professor Fred Watson: That's right. I mean, you know, put it in perspective.
Uh, the Earth is probably going to get melted
within maybe 4 billion years.
What's that? 4 times 10 to 9 years. So.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's, uh.
That's. That's going to be a much more immediate
problem, uh, for us than the evaporation of everything by
Hawking radius.
Andrew Dunkley: That's assuming humanity has actually survived that long, which
is totally different.
Professor Fred Watson: Yes, we might.
Andrew Dunkley: Argument, theory, whatever you like.
Professor Fred Watson: M yeah.
Andrew Dunkley: All right. Uh, that story available through
fizz.org p h y s.org
if you want to read up on it. It's really, really interesting.
Uh, and that brings us to the end. Fred, thank you very
much.
Professor Fred Watson: Pleasure, Andrew, as always. And we'll speak again soon. I'm sure
we will.
Andrew Dunkley: And, uh, looking forward to it. And don't forget to visit us
online at our website and visit the shop
while you're there or just have a look around. And that's
at, uh, spacenutspodcast.com or
spacenuts IO. Uh, I would
have said thanks to Huw in the studio, but he couldn't be with us
today because he reached the age of 10 to the
78. And that was the end of that
from me, Andrew Dunkley. Thanks for your company. We'll see you
on the next episode of Space Nuts. Bye. Bye.
Generic: You've been listening to the Space Nuts Podcast,
available at Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
iHeartRadio or your favourite podcast
player. You can also stream on
demand at bitesz.com This has been another
quality podcast production from
bitesz.com