1) Isn't it safe to assume that the planets with the requisite magnetospheres will have regular and active releases of volatiles from the crust? The same process that drives dynamos will drive volcanic activity, plate tectonics. 2) Even 10m years of solar hyperactivity seems like a lot of time for a class G star to strip surface volatiles. Why is 100m+ a problem for Class M? Didn't earth experiences 100s of millions of years of orbital bombardment before/while life evolved?
1) I wondered this too, which leads me to - Is the thickness of Earth's crust normal? A thicker crust keeps heat in longer and leads to a longer dynamo but less volatiles. While a thinner crust reverses both of those. So what's normal? 2) Yes! Which is more dangerous, the star or cleaning out your orbit? I think the deadly radiation is mostly distance - the entire TRAPPIST-1 system is 1/6th the width of Mercury's orbit.
8:10 I just learned from this answer that we need IR flux reflected from an exoplanet, or passing through the atmosphere to spectroscopically detect said atmo, and techniques for higher wavelengths are raw and few... cool! Edit: Cool that I learned a new fact about spectroscopy and its strengths & weaknesses... not cool that we are currently limited in detecting most gases outside of the IR part of the spectrum ;)
For habitability of red dwarf systems, you probably want a planet to be towards the outer regions of the star's habitable zone. The main reason being that worlds in the outer half of red dwarf liveable zones are less likely to be tidally locked, and it also lessens the intensity of stellar flairs, both factors that are traditionally thought to preclude planetary habitability in red dwarf solar systems. It also helps if a planet is a superterran, as the increased mass of the planet would probably translate into a stronger magnetic field and a thicker atmosphere.
5:03 kinda common sense. When a star goes from gas Jupiter like to fusion, you’ve set off the biggest thermo nuke ever, creating vast explosion. Friction vs fusion; very different outputs.
It's actually not that at all: pre main sequence stars do not initially generate any of their heat from fusion. Their high temperature and luminosity is still purely heat from gravitational collapse. The fusion rate gradually ramps up as the star continues to collapse (and as it collapses, it shrinks and so gets smaller and therefore dimmer), but there is never any point where a star is like a nuclear bomb until the very end of its life if it's massive enough. Fusion reactions in the core of the sun are still incredibly rare - per unit volume the sun's core produces as much heat from fusion as a compost heap does due to microbial activity! That hydrogen fuel has to last for billions of years after all.
Yes, when a solar system is forming, the gravity interactions and/or eliptical orbits of various planets can cause them to change their orbit order, or even slingshot whole planets out of the system. Some models show that Jupiter probably did a lot of this with/to other planets before everything settled down into nice resonant near-circles. There is a thing called "perturbation theory" generally first credited to Pierre Laplace that describes the math of unstable or stable systems, depending on the small tugs things make on each other that can either throw something wildly out of whack, or basically cancel out the variations to an average. You can think of it as feedback loops, or resonant harmonies. Some loops go farther and farther from their starting points; but others go out a bit then in a bit and just cycle within a set range from there.
@@animistchannel I asked because if One planet was far from being in live the ring, with luck it can go INTO that ring when it is good (suitable) to live.
Sort of an unrelated question here. What would the images be like if you focused JWST on one spot in the sky for like 10 years? I know the longer you expose a shot the more info you get so what would that amount of time do?
All the red dwarf stars studied recently have been seen emitting large flares, in fact they are named variable stars. Any possible habitable zone about the red dwarfs is so close it is within the orbit of Mercury hence the stars flares are smashing into any possible habitable zone. Any planets smashed by flares are extremely unlikely to be habitable. fwiw Both Venus and Mars are within the Suns habitable zone so we have 3 data points not just 1.
those are purely convective stars with stable dynamo effect. Some observations show that active red dwarfs produce flares in the polar regions of the star thus making equatorial plane safer but compared to the Sun heliosphere it is still violent Perhaps twice aas violent as active Sun in its peak
Fraser, in the early years of our solar system the planets moved around in there orbits, for example Jupiter has move its orbit a lot and disrupted the orbits of other planets, can this impact the habitable zone analysis of other systems
One more question from my 10 year old, Wilder: is the speed of sound different on Mars (or other planets) because of the different air pressure? Thanks!
Hey Fraser! Thanks for keeping me and my family in science news. This is just an inane question, is there any possibility that the speed of light is not the fastest but rather the average universal speed?
Perhaps with trillions of years and orbital instability planets may collide forming an Earth Moon like system, would be interesting to observe how life would utilize the suns spectrum.
If you had a strong enough telescope and could travel faster than light, wouldn't you be able to look back and watch your entire trip? And would you see it play out in reverse?
Your faster than light premise renders your question invalid. Although theoretically if you could travel FTL you would immediately become a black hole.
Yeah assuming that was possible, and ignoring any Doppler effects, that is what you would see! Light from your trip would catch up to you in reverse order of when it was emitted from you, because you were outrunning it while you were travelling. So you'd first see the light from when you were pretty close by, and then the light from when you were a bit further, and then a bit further etc. But of course you'd have to transition from going faster than light to slower than light to give it a chance to catch up to you at all. While you're moving faster than light, you would only see things in front of you.
@@nomadicsynth sentience is the most complex thing in the universe whereas blackholes are the simplest. We are literally the conscious awakening of the universe itself able to ponder its own existence…. If we are the first of our kind then we are the single most important thing to ever develop in the history of the universe.
Every couple years they say “life isn’t possible on planets orbiting red dwarf stars” then a year or two later they say “life IS possible on red dwarf stars after all”. Then back and forth. I’ll wait a decade or two after they’ve gone back and forth on it another 10 times then maybe get excited.
Sounds good. Some people enjoy watching the evidence build and hear the arguments go back and forth. Other people want to wait until the end and hear how it turned out. I guess it's kind of like sports. Some people enjoy watching the game and the suspense of not knowing how it's going ot turn out. Others just want to hear what the final score is.
Per one of Fraser's guests: the greater the luminosity of the star the harder it is for our "current" telescopes to tease out data on Earth-like planets.
Or use Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. A spacecraft traveling at 99% of the speed of light has a kinematic time dilation ( called the Lorentz factor¹) of 7. For every day on the spacecraft 7-days would pass on Earth. However, building a spacecraft that can effectively accelerate to that velocity and withstand such a voyage is far beyond our ability. ¹Lorentz factor is represented by the Greek gamma γ.
Fraser, you really need to attend to the audio of the people you interview - this dude was unlistenable. Many of these guys are already dry, boring, academics - you gotta do more to help them. The information was good, your questions were great, but ultimately this was a FAIL and, ...yes, Fraser, ...it is your fault!
It seems slow similar to thinking about rocket development until recently. It would be good to see rapid development and rapid failure to increase our learning. With launch costs decreasing we need to rethink development timing of science missions.
There are multiple uses for telescopes, they can be used for communication with deep space probes, radars for tracking orbital debris, and of course astronomy. I would like to see NASA put out some two year RFPs for orbital radio dishes to supplement the wildly oversubscribed deep space network dishes. These would serve as test beds for more capable telescopes while solving a capacity problem. They should keep buying two dishes a year from multiple sources, until we have enough radio bandwidth. Assume a Starship launch and a laser link to Starlink or another constellation. The fixed priced proposals should be graded on highest bandwidth to Voyager 1 or some similar figure of merit. As NASA is transitioning to laser communication for deep space, they should do the same thing with optical telescopes. They could fund a telescope industry by consistently buying fixed priced, "low cost" telescopes for many years in a row. Do the usual staged contract thing, where the company gets progress payments for putting up a small scale demonstrator that can do all the usual folding telescope things, then meeting optical goals after calibration, etc...
We want to know about those atmospheres NOW! GRRR! Hahahah! Nah, that's OK, we can be patient for good science. But sheesh, it's like finding out Xmas isn't happening this year-so many of us were hoping for that JWST / Trappist-1 atmosphere observation goodies. Here's a thought: we don't know how much gas was trapped inside the Earth, Mars, Venus, or Mercury when they accreted. Mars, we now know, is loaded with water deep down, so if those volatiles could come to the surface, Mars would have a big atmosphere. And Venus has what, like 90x the atmosphere of Earth? Mercury we know so little about. How much variety might there be amonst "terrestrial" planets? A Venus to a Super-Earth with adequate tectonics might outgas for a billion years and have plenty of gas for its red dwarf sun's mature phase. We just don't know. Could Venus have held onto 10% of its atmosphere if it orbited Trappist-1? If so, it would have a nice atmosphere. We've got plenty of reason to be hopeful.
Most interesting... Of course the lifespan of the parent star is pretty immaterial where 'Earth-like' planets are concerned. A terrestrial planet of roughly our mass that actually has an internal dynamo will in all likelihood keep it for at most 5bn years. Then it's goodbye magnetosphere, goodbye atmosphere, and goodbye life... assuming plate-tectonics hasn't already wound down, killing everything as a result anyway. (eg: We've got 500 million years, tops)
As a layperson of 80 with interest in cosmology, over my life I've seen these "experts" shift their opinions over and over. They once didn't know about brown dwarfs; then when discovered not very long ago, they were rare. Then, suddenly they were discovered everywhere to be the most widely found stars. And then the habitable planets idea began. Now they blather on about how these stars take MILLIONS of years to form and settle down. Honestly, they DON'T know at all, it's a guess based on old models of cosmos. With millions of dwarf stars out there this "expert" really had NO IDEA of the possible variations and whether there were stable enough dwarfs to support life on close by planets. The current Goldilocks Zone model is equally or more implausible. And, suns periodically go mini-nova and CMEs wipe out life. Come back in a decade....it will be an entirely new bunch of passing theories.
Red dorf stars at first very hot & bomb bard planet & no life?,Our star went threw the same thing & our planet & 4 billion years later has life.,So,The guy is missing something & thats "IF" everything is the same?
I don't see how we can come to such broad, sweeping generalizations about the life potential around M dwarfs from a small sample -- considering the age variation of the dwarf stars and all the potential variation in rocky planets in terms of mass and composition. E.g., suppose you have a rocky planet at like 2.5x Earth mass with a super powerful magnetic field, orbiting an 11 billion year old M dwarf; you might only have a situation like that in a small percentage of systems.
...and if earth gets hit by a giant interstellar asteroid or comet, then mars is your next best homeworld. If the idiots on earth nuke it into an uninhabitable cinder surface, mars is your next best homeworld. If some freaky super-virus or mega solar flare wipes out all life on earth, then mars is your next best homeworld. Fortunately, there are ways to make mars a lot less crappy. At that point, a whole lot of people with bad knees may actually prefer to live there instead of in the crushing full gravity of earth. Most people over 50 will appreciate that notion in some way :)
His mic has that terrible, unnatural treble response, but Pekka Janhunen's was one of the worst I've heard, it was totally screaming. Those mics need to CHILL.
1) Isn't it safe to assume that the planets with the requisite magnetospheres will have regular and active releases of volatiles from the crust? The same process that drives dynamos will drive volcanic activity, plate tectonics. 2) Even 10m years of solar hyperactivity seems like a lot of time for a class G star to strip surface volatiles. Why is 100m+ a problem for Class M? Didn't earth experiences 100s of millions of years of orbital bombardment before/while life evolved?
1) I wondered this too, which leads me to - Is the thickness of Earth's crust normal? A thicker crust keeps heat in longer and leads to a longer dynamo but less volatiles. While a thinner crust reverses both of those. So what's normal?
2) Yes! Which is more dangerous, the star or cleaning out your orbit? I think the deadly radiation is mostly distance - the entire TRAPPIST-1 system is 1/6th the width of Mercury's orbit.
8:10 I just learned from this answer that we need IR flux reflected from an exoplanet, or passing through the atmosphere to spectroscopically detect said atmo, and techniques for higher wavelengths are raw and few... cool! Edit: Cool that I learned a new fact about spectroscopy and its strengths & weaknesses... not cool that we are currently limited in detecting most gases outside of the IR part of the spectrum ;)
Great interview. It was hard to hear the guest.
31:50 - Why do we keep skipping over K dwarves, which fall into an intermediate observational regime?
Only because telescopes like Webb can't observe them in the same way that it can with red dwarfs.
Wonderful interview. Excellent questions, and answers!
I took a class he taught! So cool!
For habitability of red dwarf systems, you probably want a planet to be towards the outer regions of the star's habitable zone. The main reason being that worlds in the outer half of red dwarf liveable zones are less likely to be tidally locked, and it also lessens the intensity of stellar flairs, both factors that are traditionally thought to preclude planetary habitability in red dwarf solar systems. It also helps if a planet is a superterran, as the increased mass of the planet would probably translate into a stronger magnetic field and a thicker atmosphere.
JWST = whole family vying for the 28.8k modem taking up the family phone line.
@@AproposOfWetSnow "Mom!! Janet has been in the Webb for half an hour now and I'm gonna be late for school!!"
@@roqua Lol the Webb, good one! :)
Hands down, Jesse M and crew still keep my fascination of the "maybe its true" alive! Thanks.
Fraser with Trappist-1 vid? guess I'll watch :D
Clicked so fast on this one..
Thanks for the upload!
5:25 - So is the pre-main sequence life cycle of K stars somewhere in the middle in terms of violent over-illumination of their planets?
5:03 kinda common sense. When a star goes from gas Jupiter like to fusion, you’ve set off the biggest thermo nuke ever, creating vast explosion. Friction vs fusion; very different outputs.
It's actually not that at all: pre main sequence stars do not initially generate any of their heat from fusion. Their high temperature and luminosity is still purely heat from gravitational collapse. The fusion rate gradually ramps up as the star continues to collapse (and as it collapses, it shrinks and so gets smaller and therefore dimmer), but there is never any point where a star is like a nuclear bomb until the very end of its life if it's massive enough. Fusion reactions in the core of the sun are still incredibly rare - per unit volume the sun's core produces as much heat from fusion as a compost heap does due to microbial activity! That hydrogen fuel has to last for billions of years after all.
Planets Also can Change positions?
Yes, when a solar system is forming, the gravity interactions and/or eliptical orbits of various planets can cause them to change their orbit order, or even slingshot whole planets out of the system. Some models show that Jupiter probably did a lot of this with/to other planets before everything settled down into nice resonant near-circles.
There is a thing called "perturbation theory" generally first credited to Pierre Laplace that describes the math of unstable or stable systems, depending on the small tugs things make on each other that can either throw something wildly out of whack, or basically cancel out the variations to an average.
You can think of it as feedback loops, or resonant harmonies. Some loops go farther and farther from their starting points; but others go out a bit then in a bit and just cycle within a set range from there.
@@animistchannelFraser's audience class reply 🤌
@@animistchannel I asked because if One planet was far from being in live the ring, with luck it can go INTO that ring when it is good (suitable) to live.
Sort of an unrelated question here. What would the images be like if you focused JWST on one spot in the sky for like 10 years? I know the longer you expose a shot the more info you get so what would that amount of time do?
All the red dwarf stars studied recently have been seen emitting large flares, in fact they are named variable stars. Any possible habitable zone about the red dwarfs is so close it is within the orbit of Mercury hence the stars flares are smashing into any possible habitable zone. Any planets smashed by flares are extremely unlikely to be habitable.
fwiw Both Venus and Mars are within the Suns habitable zone so we have 3 data points not just 1.
those are purely convective stars with stable dynamo effect.
Some observations show that active red dwarfs produce flares in the polar regions of the star thus making equatorial plane safer but compared to the Sun heliosphere it is still violent
Perhaps twice aas violent as active Sun in its peak
Aliens in my book mostly get material through Red Dwarf systems I appreciate this video it made me come to that conclusion
Fraser, in the early years of our solar system the planets moved around in there orbits, for example Jupiter has move its orbit a lot and disrupted the orbits of other planets, can this impact the habitable zone analysis of other systems
One more question from my 10 year old, Wilder: is the speed of sound different on Mars (or other planets) because of the different air pressure?
Thanks!
Yes, speed of sound and range is defined by the mediums density. There are also differences between matter phases, solid, liquid, gas.
Can planets regain a significant atmosphere once they've lost it through outgassing or collisions with other objects?
Oh nvm, you're addressing that point later, I should've waited! 😅
Hey Fraser!
Thanks for keeping me and my family in science news. This is just an inane question, is there any possibility that the speed of light is not the fastest but rather the average universal speed?
One of Fraser's guests stated that massive stars can form as quickly as 20,000 years (e.g. bi253.)
What about bound rotation? I think it´s another stumbling bock for life on these planets.
Perhaps with trillions of years and orbital instability planets may collide forming an Earth Moon like system, would be interesting to observe how life would utilize the suns spectrum.
Thank you!
Is there a scenario where we could imagine lighting in space at large scale?
Time is on their side, and rocky planets!
It would have been so nice to have these answers, before the end of our own civilization.
It's 10 AM on November 22! Where's our gamma ray burst?
If you had a strong enough telescope and could travel faster than light, wouldn't you be able to look back and watch your entire trip? And would you see it play out in reverse?
Your faster than light premise renders your question invalid. Although theoretically if you could travel FTL you would immediately become a black hole.
@@baarni Would I still be sentient? Being a black hole sounds like it has certain benefits.
Yeah assuming that was possible, and ignoring any Doppler effects, that is what you would see! Light from your trip would catch up to you in reverse order of when it was emitted from you, because you were outrunning it while you were travelling. So you'd first see the light from when you were pretty close by, and then the light from when you were a bit further, and then a bit further etc. But of course you'd have to transition from going faster than light to slower than light to give it a chance to catch up to you at all. While you're moving faster than light, you would only see things in front of you.
@@nomadicsynth sentience is the most complex thing in the universe whereas blackholes are the simplest. We are literally the conscious awakening of the universe itself able to ponder its own existence…. If we are the first of our kind then we are the single most important thing to ever develop in the history of the universe.
@@baarni 🤯
Every couple years they say “life isn’t possible on planets orbiting red dwarf stars” then a year or two later they say “life IS possible on red dwarf stars after all”. Then back and forth. I’ll wait a decade or two after they’ve gone back and forth on it another 10 times then maybe get excited.
Sounds good. Some people enjoy watching the evidence build and hear the arguments go back and forth. Other people want to wait until the end and hear how it turned out. I guess it's kind of like sports. Some people enjoy watching the game and the suspense of not knowing how it's going ot turn out. Others just want to hear what the final score is.
@ I’m normally like that, but they’ve gone back and forth on this topic so much… just waiting for the other shoe to drop.
this is one that'll be settled soon, I think, with more Webb observations of red dwarfs.
Concentrate on G and K type stars
Per one of Fraser's guests: the greater the luminosity of the star the harder it is for our "current" telescopes to tease out data on Earth-like planets.
Audio really suffered on this one which is a bummer
Good topic.
Dr. Josh is a little quiet/muffled so it wasn’t as attention keeping as it could have been.
This was a tough interview.
We need to figure out how to hibernate long term, then watch out Milky Way!
Or use Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. A spacecraft traveling at 99% of the speed of light has a kinematic time dilation ( called the Lorentz factor¹) of 7. For every day on the spacecraft 7-days would pass on Earth.
However, building a spacecraft that can effectively accelerate to that velocity and withstand such a voyage is far beyond our ability.
¹Lorentz factor is represented by the Greek gamma γ.
Fraser, you really need to attend to the audio of the people you interview - this dude was unlistenable. Many of these guys are already dry, boring, academics - you gotta do more to help them. The information was good, your questions were great, but ultimately this was a FAIL and, ...yes, Fraser, ...it is your fault!
It seems slow similar to thinking about rocket development until recently. It would be good to see rapid development and rapid failure to increase our learning. With launch costs decreasing we need to rethink development timing of science missions.
There are multiple uses for telescopes, they can be used for communication with deep space probes, radars for tracking orbital debris, and of course astronomy.
I would like to see NASA put out some two year RFPs for orbital radio dishes to supplement the wildly oversubscribed deep space network dishes. These would serve as test beds for more capable telescopes while solving a capacity problem.
They should keep buying two dishes a year from multiple sources, until we have enough radio bandwidth. Assume a Starship launch and a laser link to Starlink or another constellation. The fixed priced proposals should be graded on highest bandwidth to Voyager 1 or some similar figure of merit.
As NASA is transitioning to laser communication for deep space, they should do the same thing with optical telescopes. They could fund a telescope industry by consistently buying fixed priced, "low cost" telescopes for many years in a row. Do the usual staged contract thing, where the company gets progress payments for putting up a small scale demonstrator that can do all the usual folding telescope things, then meeting optical goals after calibration, etc...
Yeah I mean I thought it was obviously wrong that water had to come from comets
Red Dwarf is a big enough ship to have planets around it.
Well, stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas!
Yeeesh🤨
Mr Flibble is very cross
Thanks. IMO it's unlikely, but it's a big universe.
K-type stars should be our focus
Why?
Longevity and the close light emissions.@@JustOneAsbesto
@JustOneAsbesto why what?
@JustOneAsbesto better chance to find a world with better light than an m class dwarf and besides, why not?
@@JustOneAsbesto are you genuinely curious about the subject?, or are you just another troll with an over inflated ego?
We want to know about those atmospheres NOW! GRRR! Hahahah! Nah, that's OK, we can be patient for good science. But sheesh, it's like finding out Xmas isn't happening this year-so many of us were hoping for that JWST / Trappist-1 atmosphere observation goodies.
Here's a thought: we don't know how much gas was trapped inside the Earth, Mars, Venus, or Mercury when they accreted. Mars, we now know, is loaded with water deep down, so if those volatiles could come to the surface, Mars would have a big atmosphere. And Venus has what, like 90x the atmosphere of Earth? Mercury we know so little about. How much variety might there be amonst "terrestrial" planets? A Venus to a Super-Earth with adequate tectonics might outgas for a billion years and have plenty of gas for its red dwarf sun's mature phase. We just don't know. Could Venus have held onto 10% of its atmosphere if it orbited Trappist-1? If so, it would have a nice atmosphere. We've got plenty of reason to be hopeful.
Is this how I find out that Krypton exists?
I exist, Krypton exists...
Most interesting...
Of course the lifespan of the parent star is pretty immaterial where 'Earth-like' planets are concerned. A terrestrial planet of roughly our mass that actually has an internal dynamo will in all likelihood keep it for at most 5bn years. Then it's goodbye magnetosphere, goodbye atmosphere, and goodbye life... assuming plate-tectonics hasn't already wound down, killing everything as a result anyway. (eg: We've got 500 million years, tops)
RELEASE THE TRAPPIST-1 DATA NASA AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH
I know it's my ADHDs fault, but he explains things too slowly for me to follow. I had to listen at 1.25 speed at least.
I feel u bro lol
Ahh 1.25 speed the golden point between not too fast to make them sound like chipmunks but fast enough to take up the lag
I watch everything at 2X
It's great to sleep to though. I value astrum for this a lot and there aren't many sleep friendly channels like him.
@@alexeydenisov1863JMG😒
looking for life around red dwarfs is a complete waste of time...
As a layperson of 80 with interest in cosmology, over my life I've seen these "experts" shift their opinions over and over. They once didn't know about brown dwarfs; then when discovered not very long ago, they were rare. Then, suddenly they were discovered everywhere to be the most widely found stars. And then the habitable planets idea began.
Now they blather on about how these stars take MILLIONS of years to form and settle down. Honestly, they DON'T know at all, it's a guess based on old models of cosmos. With millions of dwarf stars out there this "expert" really had NO IDEA of the possible variations and whether there were stable enough dwarfs to support life on close by planets.
The current Goldilocks Zone model is equally or more implausible. And, suns periodically go mini-nova and CMEs wipe out life.
Come back in a decade....it will be an entirely new bunch of passing theories.
Like pulling teeth.
Try to capture the essence and not just the data.
Red dorf stars at first very hot & bomb bard planet & no life?,Our star went threw the same thing & our planet & 4 billion years later has life.,So,The guy is missing something & thats "IF" everything is the same?
But what is Joshua obsessed with these days???
I don't see how we can come to such broad, sweeping generalizations about the life potential around M dwarfs from a small sample -- considering the age variation of the dwarf stars and all the potential variation in rocky planets in terms of mass and composition. E.g., suppose you have a rocky planet at like 2.5x Earth mass with a super powerful magnetic field, orbiting an 11 billion year old M dwarf; you might only have a situation like that in a small percentage of systems.
"What is it with these 'We must go to Mars' people? Mars is a lifeless, airless, freezing $hithole! Earth? Air! Mars? No air! " 😂 - Bill Maher
...and if earth gets hit by a giant interstellar asteroid or comet, then mars is your next best homeworld. If the idiots on earth nuke it into an uninhabitable cinder surface, mars is your next best homeworld. If some freaky super-virus or mega solar flare wipes out all life on earth, then mars is your next best homeworld.
Fortunately, there are ways to make mars a lot less crappy. At that point, a whole lot of people with bad knees may actually prefer to live there instead of in the crushing full gravity of earth. Most people over 50 will appreciate that notion in some way :)
The guest hard to hear, and if he was my teacher I would certainly be fast asleep within minutes. His delivery of science is 😢
Once I do the math and figure out that there's zero way I'm still going to be alive when a mission is planned to launch, I kind of lose interest.
His mic has that terrible, unnatural treble response, but Pekka Janhunen's was one of the worst I've heard, it was totally screaming. Those mics need to CHILL.
Oh stop it.
This would have been less boring if dude had more enthusiasm and spoke a little louder , just saying. love you fraser
This "dude" is a scientist, not a late-night talk show host
Get him to juggle while riding a unicycle