Megastructures, Exoplanet Myths & Satellite Showers: #495 - The Quipu Conundrum and More

What's that mean? We'll tell you soon. Um, this is uh, one of um, the biggest bugbears that Jonti has to deal with the overselling of the potential for life on exoplanets. Yes, there is one in the news at the moment. We'll do an update on M20, 24 yr, uh 4. The odds of it hitting us have halved and SpaceX satellites raining down on our atmosphere. Uh, what does that mean? We'll tell you on this episode of space. Space nuts.

mind splittingly amazing.

critical. Um, because, you know, the size of the things that I don't know in cosmology is enormous. M just like the subject itself. But this is a really interesting one. When we think about the universe, you see all these wonderful simulations that come out of our models of how the universe works that people produce all the time.

And, um, you can almost see videos on fabulous documentary series where they start at the scale of an atom and keep zooming out, and you eventually get to the person and keep zooming out. And the scale of cosmology is roughly the same scale compared to a human being, that a human being is compared to an atom. So that's the kind of size scale we're talking about here, which is the study of the

ridiculously big. But as you zoom out from that human being on the earth, you get the solar system, then you get the local stars, then you get our galaxy. And then as you move out, you get structures of galaxies together. So you get small clusters of galaxies, and those small clusters hang together in bigger clusters that gather together in superclusters. And they, for a long time, were kind of the biggest structures we saw in the

universe. But then as you zoom out further, you start seeing these structures like walls and filaments, where those clusters and super clusters of galaxies are themselves forming structures with huge voids in between. So on this kind of scale, when you see those simulations, it looks almost like a view of a sponge. So if you've had a sponge in your bath, the sponge is a lot of open air spaces

surrounded by lots of solid material. And all the solid material is in contact with all the solid material, but all the air is in contact with all the air. So you could put a bit of string and go all the way through the sponge, through the air holes, and come out the other side and m that's kind of what this view of the universe looks like. It sees long filaments and walls all connected to one another with these enormous voids of empty space between

them. That's the context we're talking about here. So the team of researchers who studied this have been carrying out observations using an X ray survey looking at very high energy electromagnetic radiation that's produced from incredibly hot gas in the most massive clusters of galaxies. Enormous structures themselves, and they've looked at a region about 250 million parsecs across in all directions, maybe a bit more, looking for the biggest

structures they can find in that region. And they've identified four of these, what they're calling superstructures. And their superstructures are megastructures because they are bigger than normal structures. They're structures made of structures made of superclusters made of clusters made of local clusters made of galaxies. On we go all the way down again. Now, these four structures that they found between them contain

45% of all the galaxy clusters. They could see 30% of all the galaxies and 25% of all the matter, but they only occupy about 13% of the volume. So that gives you the idea of lots of empty space with these filaments around it. The biggest of these, this is someone quipu that's getting all the attention is ridiculous. They talk about it being 2000-000000-00000 times the mass of the sun. So if you remember. So for listeners in countries that do things differently, we're using the

kind of British scale million billion system here. So a million is 10 to the six one with six zeros after it. A billion is a thousand million. So that's 10 to the 9. A trillion is a thousand billion or a million million. That's 10 to the 12. A quadrillion is a thousand trillion or a million billion or a billion million. So it's 10 to the 15, 200 of those means this is 2 times 10 to the 17 or 2 with 17 zeros after it times the mass of the Sun. Now that's

a number that is bound to make your head hurt. So I converted that down by looking at how many Milky Ways that would be. And that would be something like 130,000 times the mass of our galaxy. So stupidly big numbers it is spread over a distance. It's a big long feature, about 400 megaparsecs long. So one parsec is perversely the distance that an object would be away from the Earth if its parallax, as the Earth goes around the sun, was 1/ arc second. It's a really obscure unit of

measurement. It makes sense when you're doing the maths of measuring distance, but it's not particularly user friendly. It's a bit like talking in feet. Light years is a bit like talking in meters. Same kind of thing. Most people find light years more straightforward to visualize, but where one light year is the time it takes light to travel in one year, and there are 3.26 light years in one parsec. So 400 megaparsecs is

1.3 billion light years long. So in other words, light leaving one end of this structure will take 1.3 billion years or, uh, 1300 million years to go from one end to the other. So it's an enormous, enormous structure. Now, that's all well and good, and it's fabulous cataloging the biggest and the most massive and the brightest. And I know a lot of people, I do this occasionally. Look up Wikipedia articles like, what's the most massive star? What's the

most luminous star? Things like that. But it's also really valuable to know this kind of stuff because if you study these big structures, that gives us information that we can compare to the models that are based on our current understanding of the universe to see if those models make sense. And, uh, the good thing is that the current models of how the universe work predict structures like this. So this is very much in line with what people expected to see. And

that's a really good part of how science works. It's very much a case of our models predicted this and now you've seen it, that makes us happy because it means the models are working correctly. It also is the kind of information that's really useful for people studying the Big Bang and more ancient universe. Because structures like this are sufficiently massive, then they will influence our view of what is beyond. You get gravitational lensing from the big objects.

You also even get. And, um, I don't fully understand how this works, but you also get the pollution of the cosmic microwave background, which is the last hiss of the Big Bang. It's our image of the last surface 300,000 years after the Big Bang, where the universe became transparent. And we found little bits of structure in that which are important for us understanding how the modern

structure of the universe formed. But that structure is polluted by the influence of these foreground objects by something called the integrated Sachs Wolfe effect. And I have no idea how that works, to be brutally honest. But if you've got something like that, that pollutes our view of what's beyond. And we want to understand what's beyond. The better we can see the foreground, the better we can account for it when we're studying the background. So

getting studies of this a. It's fascinating. It's a really good test for our models. But it also allows us in the future to get a better handle on how things like the cosmic microwave background really look when you filter out the foreground mess. And I guess the equivalent here will be like having a light pollution filter for people who are astronomy

photography enthusiasts. You've got a murky, light polluted sky, but if you put a light pollution filter on the front of your lens, you can cancel out that foreground mess and get a much better view of what's beyond. This will enable us to do that same kind of filtering when we're looking at the microwave background. So I think it's a fabulous story, full of numbers what make your head hurt. Quite.

like a long thick filament with thinner filaments branching off the sides of it. The authors of this paper noticed that this looks very similar to the traditional counting instrument of the Incan people in Peru. Um, which was essentially they did their counting using knotted ropes and ah, that knotted rope counting device was a Quipu. So it's quite a nice nod to the traditional culture of

that area in Peru. Again, I'm not an anthropologist or an archaeologist, I don't really know much more about it than that, but I think it is a really nice nod to a different culture. And as we've talked about in previous weeks, this idea of embracing all the cultures of the Earth in our studies going forward is really gaining traction. It's a really nice way of doing things, I think.

Boehringer. So uh, you might want to look that up. Space nuts. Uh, now, uh, let's move on to our next story. This is a pet peeve peeve story, um, which Jonti wanted to talk about. And look, I'm not surprised that bothers some people, uh, because I, I have often referred to the popular press when doing this podcast and how they latch onto something that isn't quite the story but it makes a great headline and that's what this is. Overselling the potential for life on exoplanets.

most Earth, uh, like, planet ever. And the reports on this planet are not quite that bad, but they have been talking about potentially habitable planet discovered around nearby star, because that gets the clicks. And before we dig into this story, the reason that this niggles at me is that people are getting exo Earth fatigue and also life elsewhere fatigue. So by reporting things when we haven't actually found what the reports are saying, it creates this opinion that

the science is already done. We've already discovered the autumn stuff. So when we finally find a planet that really does have life on it, or when we finally find a planet that genuinely is Earth, ah, 2.0. That'll be exciting. I'll be thrilled. We've finally got something to talk about and everybody will be kind of the boy who cried wolf. Well, you've told us that you've done this a million times already. Yeah, and it's easy. Why are you interested? You know, it's also the fact that we

basically don't know enough to make these statements yet. So when you see a headline like, we found the most Earth, uh, like, planet ever. What it's actually telling you is we found a planet that's about the same diameter as the Earth, and that's it. So it's like me being an alien and visiting the Earth and scanning the oceans and saying, I found the most human, like, creature ever. It's about the same length and it's about the same weight and it's about the same size. It's called a

dolphin. Nothing like a human whatsoever, but it's about the same size and about the same mass. So it's the most human, like, animal ever. So I get a bit grumpy. And there's a lot that goes into habitability that I can talk about a little bit later on, which is why I think this is a much more complex problem. And for me, that makes it much more interesting, a lot more research to do.

But it does mean that when you get a claim saying, potentially habitable planet, or the most habitable planet we've ever found yet People even publishing articles about super habitable planets that are more suitable for life than Earth. I don't think you can say any of that. Aha. Uh, in this particular case, it is an interesting story. There is a star called 82 Erudani, which also goes by the name HD 20794. You know, astronomers love

our acronyms and our barcodes. This is a star that you can see with the naked eye in the constellation of Eridanus, but it's not particularly bright. It's about magnitude 4, 4 and a half. And for a while we've known it had two planets around it. But it's been monitored by the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Search for Spectrograph HARPS in Chile. And HARPS is an incredible instrument. It allows you to measure the velocity of a

star. So you take the light from a star, you break it up into its component colors, and laced across that spectrum is a series of dark lines. And those dark lines, which we call the Fraunhofer absorption lines, are, uh, the fingerprint of all the different atoms and molecules in the star's outer atmosphere. Every atomic species, every molecular species absorbs light at a very specific, unique set of wavelengths. And it imprints this dark set of

lines across the star spectrum. Now, if the star's moving towards us, its light will be blue shifted. So all of those lines will move a little bit to the blue because of the Doppler effect. If it's moving away from us, the light will be redshifted. So it'll move a bit to the red again with the

Doppler effect. And I've talked about this before, this is the equivalent of having the siren coming towards you and hearing it high pitched and fast with Nino, Nino, Nino and uh, then it moving away and you're hearing it low pitched and slow with Nino, Nino to do with the waves getting stretched or compressed essentially. Now what that means is if we measure the positions of these lines accurately enough, we can measure the change in the speed of the star as it moves around

by seeing those lines move. So we can look at stars and see them wobbling and infer the presence of planets that we can't see by how those planets pull those stars around. But there are limits to this. There's a lot of challenges involved. So facility like the one we've got at the University of Southern Queensland, which is actually the Southern hemisphere's only dedicated exoplanet search facility, we can get an accuracy where we can measure the wobble of stars down to about two or three

Meters a second. So we could see a star, ah, changing in speed by about as much as someone going at a very gentle jog. What that means is we could not find these particular planets, they're just much too hard. But the HAARP spectrograph is on a much bigger telescope in a much better location and it's an incredibly accurate piece of kit. So it lets you get down to sub meter per second measurements, which is

breathtaking. Put that in perspective. We're looking at stars here whose distances are quadrillions ah, of kilometers away. Again using the units from before. These are stars where the light has taken decades to reach us and we are able to measure their velocity so accurately that we can see changes in that velocity of 50 centimeters a second. Wow, that's just astonishing precision

and that's what the team have done. So they've observed this star, uh, HD 20794 for a number of years with haps getting more and more data tracking how the speed changes. And in the past they'd found two planets and hints of a third and they've now confirmed that third one. That third planet,

HD2.0, uh, 794-D is making the star wobble with its speed changing by just 50cm a second plus and minus over a period of about 700 days. So you're watching for 700 days, you get rid of all the other noise, the star wobbling around itself, just oscillating like a shruk bell. You get rid of the orbits of the two inner planets which are causing it to wobble by a similar amount with a different period and you're left with a tiny wobble of plus or minus 50cm a second that takes 700 days

to complete once. And that's what they found. So this is our planet. It's a planet about six times the mass of the Earth, at least might be more than that. We don't know how edge on or tilted the orbit is because we're not seeing it transit. If it's tilted by 30 degrees, the mass of this planet will be higher. If it's tilted by 60 degrees instead of being 6 earth masses, it'll be 12 earth masses. So this is a minimum mass. So it's what we call a

super Earth, ah, or a mini Neptune. It's much more massive than our planet and certainly larger than our planet. It's moving on an orbit that if you calculated its semi major axis, the length of the ellipse, half the length of the ellipse, which sets a period that will put it in the habitable zone, um, that's what the paper says. Now, the habitable zone I'll get into in a

second. But this planet moves on a very elongated orbit, so its distance from its star is changing by a factor of two from its closest to the star to the furthest away. Now, if you scale that up to the solar system and put it in the same place, temperature wise, as it is in its system. Now, if you put it in the solar system so that its orbit had that same temperature range, that would mean when it's closest to its star, it's as close as Venus. When it's furthest from its star, it's

further out than Mars. You're going to have extreme, extreme temperature variability on this planet. Now, the habitable zone, um, is always thrown out for these planets. It's that Goldilocks idea. If you have a planet that's at the right distance from a star, the temperature will be not too hot and not too cold, and it'll be just right for liquid water on the surface. The subtle implication buried in this is not actually what I

just said, but it's rather. If you took the Earth as the Earth is today, and dropped it where this planet is, would the Earth, uh, still have liquid water on its surface? Now, that's a subtle difference. But to illustrate it, if you think about the solar system, the boundaries of the habitable zone are usually set by looking at Venus and Mars. That's what's motivated this. The calculations are more robust, uh, now, but that's about where it washes out. Venus, closer

to the sun than us, is super hot. 450 degrees centigrade on the surface and clearly not habitable. Mars is super cold. It's too cold for life. It's outside the habitable zone. The Earth's in the middle, and it's just right. But to illustrate why it's not so simple, imagine a thought experiment where you swap Venus and Mars around. If you put Mars where Venus is, it's got a thinner atmosphere than we do, so it's got less of a greenhouse effect. So it would probably remain clement where Venus

would overheat. Similarly, if you put Venus where Mars is, Venus has this incredibly thick atmosphere with an incredibly strong greenhouse. It will probably still be habitable. It would still be warm enough where Mars wouldn't. So this habitable zone is a much woollier concept than I think most people realize. And it's just not really a guideline. It's just an indication that this could be somewhere worth looking at. It's not more than that, but it tends to get

played up as being the Holy Grail. And one is in the habitable zone. It must therefore have the potential to be habitable. Whereas in fact, what you're saying is if you put the Earth on the orbit that this planet is on, it might still look like the Earth, except with the planet we're talking about at the minute. If you put the Earth on that orbit at, um, perihelion, when it was closest to the sun, it would receive a flux from the sun as high as Venus does. So the oceans would start to

boil. Fortunately, it doesn't spend long at perihelion. We move quickest when we're closest to the object. We swing out through the habitable zone, probably everything's fine. But you've got bonkers weather because you're dealing with all that heat you've just been given. Then you get to your furthest point from the star and that's when you move the slowest. So this planet spends probably more than 50% of its time further from its star

than the outer edge of that habitable zone by calculation. So those oceans would freeze and you get this deep, Game of Thrones style winter. You'd have everybody going, oh, look, winter is coming. Everybody's doomed. And then it would swing back into the star and have a brief furnace like summer, and then a long cold winter again. It doesn't sound particularly clement.

You add to that, though, the fact that this planet is six times the mass of the Earth means it's going to have a very substantial atmosphere, and I should say at least six times the mass of the Earth. A much thicker atmosphere means a much stronger greenhouse effect, which means the results of that extreme insolation, the extreme radiation at, uh, pericentre when it's closest to the star, is even more pronounced. So I don't think it's at all fair to say that this planet could be potentially

habitable. And in fact, the authors of the paper themselves don't really say that. What they do say is, is that this planet crosses the habitable zone. And, um, because it's a bit bigger and, um, because it has this big variation in existence from the star and, um, because it's around a nearby star, could be a really good test case for us to practice our observation techniques to learn more about atmospheres of planets this size before we really look at ones that could be habitable enough

like. But this planet certainly isn't it. And even then there's a whole heap of Other things that will impact habitability, which we may or may not have time to go into today. But the habitable zone really is just the first of an incredibly long list of variables that you can slide around that could influence a habitability. Because all it's saying is, how hot would the Earth be if you put it there? Essentially?

super Earth or mini Neptune. Super Earth is a rocky object with a big thick atmosphere, and mini Neptune is a big thick atmosphere with a rocky core. So you can see how that transitions between them. But if you estimate for a minute that it is a super Earth with a bit of a thick atmosphere, you could say, well, maybe it's twice the diameter of the Earth. Uh, and, uh, that would kind of make sense density wise. That would place it a little

bit less dense than the Earth. But that might make sense because it's a little bit cooler for a lot of its orbit. Even in that scenario, the acceleration due to gravity on its surface will be 50% higher than that we have on the Earth right now. You know, so gravity will be stronger. We'd probably all, if we were there, be squat and dumpy and grumbling about how heavy we feel and all the rest of it. You know, I'm heavy enough already without giving me 50%.

write articles. But it's also why I really appreciate our media team here at unisq because they actually talk to us when they're writing media releases and a lot of the bigger universities, the media team get hold of a paper and they write their own interpretation of it with, with a couple of quotes from the authors, but they don't let the authors read the

release. Then you get journalists who read the media release and spin it further and you end up from an article that says, we found a planet that is interesting to being new. Earth planet has been found. Life 2.0 is there. And that's not what anybody actually said.

done. And so we wrote this paper where we looked at all of the other things people have proposed that could make a planet more habitable or less habitable, more suitable. And for me, the thing here is, when we get to do observations to look for life on these planets, which is still a bit beyond us, but we're getting towards that point, those observations are going to be the

hardest observations humanity's ever had to carry out. You're talking hundreds or thousands of hours on the biggest space telescopes, really competitive time. You're not going to be able to look at them all. So you're going to have to find a way to pick the best target. You're going to have to find a way to whittle down a list of hundreds or thousands into the best two or three.

And you can't just use the habitables on there. So I thought, let's look at all the different things that can impact habitability to see if you can turn them almost into the volume sliders on the mixing desk of the dj, right? You can turn them up, turn them down, and see which planet gets the best score overall when you factor all of them in. And, um, some of them are things we can't yet observe. Some of them are things you might have to model with computer modeling, like I

do. But it can be everything from the nature of the star itself, how Variable it is all the way through to the other planets in the system, what their gravity does, how much debris there is, and even down to the planet itself. Whether it has plate tectonics, whether it has a magnetic field, all of these things will factor in. It's not just as simple as where do you place it? Is it in the right spot?

I always like to listen to it just to see how it sounds and you know, decide whether or not I'm doing a good job or not. Did it in radio, do it with the podcast. But I, I was picking up our grandchildren from school and uh, Nathaniel who um, is 10, uh, years old, um, he was listening and he said to me, is a comet going to hit Earth? And I had to kind of explain to him what was going on without alarming him. Uh, and now an

update on the story. Last week we were saying um, there was a 70 to 77% chance of this thing, um, hitting the atmosphere in 2032. Uh, sorry, yeah, see that's, that was a popular press comment. One in seven. But now that number's dropped as at now. But that could change again.

for that is we're getting more observations with every day that passes. And so with every day that passes we get a refined estimate of the orbit of this thing. That then means that uh, the exact location of the object on 22nd of December 2032 has a smaller uncertainty. So that big area of space that we think it will be in with each day's observations get smaller and smaller. Now if the Earth is still in that area of space, the Earth is a bigger fraction of

that total volume of space. And so the probability of impact is going up because we're a bigger fraction of the total area that thing could be in. But at some point, as that volume of space shrinks down, the Earth could fall out of it. And at that point, the probability immediately drops to zero. So it isn't a reason to panic at all. This is exactly the behavior you would expect to see. But that probability will continue to change day by day. It wouldn't surprise me if it

keeps getting higher. Now, this asteroid we're probably going to lose track of in about April. It'll be too far away to observe, but then we won't see it again till 2028. People are digging back through archival observations from 2016, 2012, 2008, because this thing comes roughly near the earth every four years or so. If we find it by chance on one photograph from one of those previous years, this probability will change dramatically and we'll probably drop to

zero straight away. If not, we'll have to wait till 2028. And until then we'll see this continual slight more wobbling around as each day's observations come in and it gets recalculated. So fundamentally, nothing has changed. This thing still poses a threat. Do not panic. Even if it were to hit us, it's not really going to cause a problem anyway, to be brutally honest. But it is fascinating to watch this happen and to see that evolution in real time.

fairly regularly. In fact, uh, the Space Nuts podcast group on Facebook has been, um, discussing this. They put an article on there that the listeners were discussing, and some were quite surprised by the kinds of numbers we're talking about. But this is just going to get more and more significant as time goes on because they haven't finished deploying their entire, uh, fleet or whatever. You want to call them of, uh, SpaceX satellites.

it. Now SpaceX are putting up their Starlink satellites to deliver Internet access, which is a great benefit to people in the regions. I've heard plenty of stories of people who are living remotely in Australia who can't get a good Internet connection on Starlink as been revolutionary to them.

They are low down because you need them to be in low Earth orbit in order to get good latency. If you put these at geostationary orbit, you've got the light travel time there and back again, you've got a long way to go and that puts a significant ping, which means for the people playing Twitch games and first person shooter games, they can't play and sulk. Um, but everybody wants a faster Internet connection with the lowest latency possible.

So these things are in low Earth orbit, which means that they are moving through a significant chunk of the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth's atmosphere doesn't just stop, it just gets thinner and thinner and thinner the further you go away. Technically, the moon is still encountering bits of the Earth's atmosphere. It should by that point it's so thin as to be irrelevant. But at the altitude of these Starlink satellites, they are actually traveling into

a headwind. So without something to bump them up, they would eventually come down naturally anyway. But also they are a fixed term thing. They typically, I think thinking about an individual satellite having about A five year lifetime.

atmosphere to burn up in a controlled fashion. So they're controlling where they drop them into the atmosphere to minimize the risk to air travel and the risk of them dropping on a city and things like this. And that is really good governance. It's really important to say that there's a lot of stuff up there that will come down of its own accord, at its own time, with no control over it.

And that's a risk. And people are talking about the fact that there's probably as high as a 26% chance that in a given year from now on space debris will fall through a populated airspace m which is problematic. There's even studies saying there's a 1 in 10 chance that within the next decade somebody will die as a result of space debris hitting them.

So that's a concern. And by deliberately deorbiting these things in a controlled fashion, they're mitigating those risks, putting things down in a safe fashion. But because of how many satellites they're putting up there, that means we've got an increasing number of them coming back down. There are currently 7,000 Starlink satellites up there. The goal is to get up to 42,000. That is their stated end. So that's the factor of six times more.

separate thing. With 7,000 up there at the minute, the retirements of those first gen ones are now coming at a rate of four or five satellites per day. So that means four or five satellites are burning up somewhere over the Earth, uh, every single day of the calendar year. That's only going to go up because if you increase the number of satellites up there by a factor of six times, then you'll increase that number of

reentries per day by a factor of six times. So within five Years, we could well be looking at something nearer to 25 or even 30 satellites per day coming back into the atmosphere. Now, these are coming in in a controlled fashion. So, uh, they're trying to drop them in the atmosphere away from things that would be threatened by lumps of metal hitting the Earth's atmosphere, essentially. Yeah. But there is now a growing concern about the pollution side of this.

material entering the Earth's atmosphere. Each of these Generation 1 satellites is several hundred kilos of material. So when you've got five of them coming in a day, that's a couple of tons of material being ablated and added to the atmosphere, mainly in the form of heavy metals. There is a fact that I've pulled out of an interesting article. India Today of all places, have got a fairly good article about

this. And, um, one thing they point out is that each individual one of these Generation 1 Starlink satellites, when it burns up in the atmosphere, when it ablates, deposits about 30 kilos of aluminum oxide into the upper atmosphere, about where the ozone layer is. Now that's a problem because aluminium oxide is a compound that is known to be very devastating to the ozone layer.

It's a real problem. Now, if each satellite is dumping 30 kg into the atmosphere, that has a potential to destroy a large amount of ozone. If you're suddenly dumping five of them in per day, that's 150 kilos per day. We go up to the 25. Obviously, that goes up again from 150 kilos to what, five times 150, 750. 50 nil. Your ton of aluminium oxide per day. Something that can damage the ozone layer. And we've only just got out of the time where we did an incredible job

of preventing us killing the ozone layer. Yeah, we're about to start it again. People have tried to do some computational studies of the effects of adding all this metal to the upper atmosphere. And, uh, nobody really knows what's going to happen? Some studies have said that it could accidentally help to slightly mitigate climate change because it might increase the albedo of the Earth's atmosphere. It might cause more clouds to form, so it could reflect a bit

more sunlight or could be good. But other studies have suggested the opposite, that it could actually lower the amount of clouds we've got and also add a bit more greenhouse nastiness to the mix. So it could have an impact on our climate. We don't know which way it'll go. It could have an impact on the ozone

layer. We just don't know yet. And so what's happening with this is we're effectively running a science experiment like the ones you do in the lab, the ones you do at school without ever done it, without ever having done it before. And we're running it on the planet that is our own home. Um, so I guess it's a bit like, you know, you've got two unruly toddlers running around with, um, insects, prey. Like the stuff you've got to get rid of. The mosquitoes. Yeah. Running around

emptying can after can of that in your house. And you just said, yeah, well, let's do it. What's the worst that can happen? And you just don't know.

It's cheaper at the minute m to just throw them away. I mean, we see with recycling efforts that there's not much motivation to recycle when making things from new products is still cheaper.

capacity yet with these constellations. If you'd like to read it, uh, as Jonti said, it's, uh, on the website India today.in that brings us to the end of the show. Don't forget to visit our website or our social media sites. Plenty of things to see and do there. Uh, if you have any thoughts on any of the things we've discussed, by all means, uh, send us a message

via our website. Just, there's a little, uh, button up the top of our homepage, um, ama, where you can send us messages and audio questions or whatever you like. Uh, spacenutspodcast.com or spacenuts IO is the place to go. John D. Thank you so much. We're at the end. We'll catch up with you real soon.