What are the advantages of robotic exploration of the solar system? What are the limitations? Is there any situation where human exploration is better? I discuss these questions and more in today’s Ask a Spaceman!

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/spaceman and get on your way to being your best self. Visit BetterHelp to get 10% off your first month!

Support the show: http://www.patreon.com/pmsutter
All episodes: http://www.AskASpaceman.com

Follow on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/PaulMattSutter
Like on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/PaulMattSutter
Watch on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/PaulMSutter

Read a book: http://www.pmsutter/book

Keep those questions about space, science, astronomy, astrophysics, physics, and cosmology coming to #AskASpaceman for COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME AND SPACE!

Big thanks to my top Patreon supporters this month: Justin G, Chris L, Barbara K, Duncan M, Corey D, Justin Z, Naila, Scott M, Rob H, Justin, Louis M, John W, Alexis, Gilbert M, Joshua, John S, Thomas D, Simon G, Erin J, David B, Frank T, Tim R, Tom Van S, Mark R, Alan B, Craig B, Richard K, Dave L, Stephen M, Maureen R, Stace J, Neil P, COTFM, Stephen S, Ken L, Alberto M, Matt C, Joe R, David P, Ulfert B, Sean M, Edward K, Tracy F, Sarah K, Steven S, Ryan L, Ella F, Richard S, Sam R, Thomas K, James C, Jorg D, R Larche, Syamkumar M, John S, Fred S, Homer V, Mark D, Colin B, Bruce A, Steven M, Brent B, Bill E, Tim Z, Thomas W, Linda C, David W, Aissa F, Marc H, Avery P, Scott M, Thomas H, Farshad A, Matthias S, Kenneth D, Maureen R, Michael W, Scott W, David W, Neuterdude, Cha0sKami, Robert C, Robert B, Gary K, Stephen J, dhr18, Anna V, Johanna M, Matthew G, Paul & Giulia S, Ron D, Steven M, Louis M, Michael C, Alyssa K, Lode D, Roger, Bob C, Patti H, Red B, Benjamin M, BlueDragon, Stephen A, Ian S, James R, Skip M, Robert O, Adam I, Lynn D, Jeffrey C, Allen E, Paul G, and Michael S!

Thanks to Cathy Rinella for editing.

Hosted by Paul M. Sutter, astrophysicist and the one and only Agent to the Stars (http://www.pmsutter.com).

EPISODE TRANSCRIPTION (AUTO-GENERATED)

we are forced to play a very difficult game. No one person or even company, even the biggest ones can fund all of the space exploration that we want to do. It requires big budgets over long timescales with no guarantee of success and no expectation of profit or reward, or even warm fuzzy feelings, which puts space exploration. And let me be clear here. I mean space exploration in the scientific sense, not in the oh, we're just gonna send people around for the heck of it or uh, for maybe we can make money off of it. No, just purely scientific space exploration. It's firmly at the whims of the public. Everybody in the world has to chip in a few bucks out of their hard earned money to support it. And by and large, while space exploration enjoys a significant amount of public support, that same public is only willing to give so much to the effort.

Exploration of the solar system is hard, and it doesn't really matter how you slice it. It's going to be expensive, and I wish we had infinite money to do all the things we want to do and follow all the curiosities that blossom in our hearts. But we don't Yes, all things being equal and with unlimited space bucks, we would do it all. We would simply explore the solar system, all of it. It's a big place out there with lots of interesting things to see, and we would go everywhere. We would do all the things for science, for exploration, for fun, for art, too. I mean, if doing interesting things on other worlds, just for the sake of it isn't the ultimate expression of human creativity and artistic ability, then I don't know what is. But we can't We only have so much money, only so much budget, only so many human minds, intelligent and educated enough to solve all of the engineering and technical challenges. So here's the game. How do we get as much science done with as little money as possible, all while ensuring the goodwill of the taxpaying public?

That's that's a difficult question and a multidimensional question, for sure. But here's just one relatively minor aspect of that puzzle. Should we send human explorers out into space or robots? Which option is better now, Of course, the future of space exploration will involve both. We're simply gonna do both there. There were humans on the moon. Now there are a bunch of robots. There are a bunch of robots on Mars. Someday there will be, I hope, humans, We're gonna do both. And so the question really boils down to where should we align priorities today? For example, if Congress gives NASA 1 billion space bucks this year, what missions and development should we fund? Are they human based ones, or are they robot based ones? And we'll have to answer that same question again next year and the next year and so on and so on. And so after a generation or two, we build up a preference, in other words, acknowledging that we're going to do both robotic and human exploration over the long term.

But over the short term, we have to make these small scale decisions. In which direction should we lean? If a historian, 1000 years from now, writes down a one paragraph description of our next 100 years journey into space, how many times will the word robot appear versus the word human? Where are we going to lean? These are important questions to answer. And they're very difficult to predict because in many ways we're not gonna know which one is better, because we often can't do both. We don't get to run a scientific experiment on the most efficient form of space exploration. We are going to have to choose today whether to emphasize robotic space flight or human space flight, robotic space exploration or human space exploration. We are going to have to choose, even if it's just a series of small scale, short term decisions that only look coherent to our future historian. What do we prioritize right now? We have a half century of experience of exploration in space. And given that experience and given our goals, which is better humans or robots, what should drive the next half century of space exploration or the next half millennium?

How do we go about answering this question? Well, first off, let's define the limits here. There are obviously places that humans aren't going to go any time soon. Like the moons of the outer world, the surface of Venus close in orbits around the sun, the Kipper belt. I mean, these are places that are either so far away, like the like the outer system just to get to the gas giants of the solar system. You're talking a journey of nearly a decade. We're not putting humans on those spacecraft anytime soon. Lead alone Pluto and the copper belt. The surface of Venus is hot enough to melt. Lead. We're not putting humans on the surface of Venus any time soon. We're not putting humans in a spacecraft orbiting, you know, a fraction of Mercury's distance from the sun. We're just not doing it. And so those those are definitely going to be the domain of robots for a very long time, simply because there is no other option. We do not have anywhere near the technical capabilities to send humans to those places in the solar system.

Sure, someday humans may step foot onto Titan and go swimming in its methane seas or drive a submarine in the oceans of Europa. But that's not something we need to worry about for, I don't know, at least a few dozen generations. It's gonna be a while, and there are going to be places where humans are definitely going to lead the way in exploration like, uh, like the Earth No, don't Don't laugh Like there's so much we don't know about our own planet and we're kind of adapted to this environment. We're really good at exploring it. And humans are definitely going to lead the way for continued earth exploration. And we're gonna send crude missions to the bottom of the ocean and we're gonna dig around in mountains and forests and all that. We're We're good at that. We got it. So what we're really talking about in this debate of humans versus robots in the near and mid and probably reasonably far future are three targets the moon, the Mars and asteroids.

These are all relatively easy to access from the Earth, at least when it comes to exploring the solar system, where everything is hard right off the bat. And we have a chance of sending humans to all of these in the next generation or so. You maybe need to add a couple generations. We'll see about that. In fact, we've already sent humans to the moon in the Apollo missions, and we've sent robots to all three. So those missions can serve as useful guides for deciding what to do next. Specifically, Mars Should we send more robots to Mars, Or should we start really gearing up a human exploration effort? Do we double down on the whole machine thing, or do we send some people there with some shovels? Also in? In discussing this human versus robot in the near term, we need to clarify what I mean by robot. I think we all understand what human means. I don't need to go there, but for a robot for this discussion, I'm going to assume that for several generations we'll be sending semi autonomous space probes around the solar system.

These are spacecraft that are smart but only a little bit smart, that we can't just send them up and they are 100% autonomous and do their own thing and make their own decisions and decide where to go. No, there's always gonna be a human over in Mission Control on Earth making the big picture decisions. And the robots may have a little bit of intelligence so that they know how to navigate around obstacles or know how to move their manipulator arms in order to get the sample into the sample chamber or whatever. So there's a little bit of intelligence there. It's not like you need a human pressing every single button and dictating every single task. But there is gonna be a human in the driver's seat. Why? Well, cost simplicity, Communications lag. It's hard to have a super intelligent system on a spacecraft when those super intelligent systems require a giant computer and lots of power and giant computers and lots of power are not easy things to do in the distant solar system.

And on the opposite end of the spectrum, you can't have a completely dumb robot where the human does all the work because of the communication lag. When it takes a few minutes to send a signal, we can't have, you know, a tele presence, you know, remote surgery kind of operation, where everything's instant feedback in a human is just doing it. But with robot hands on another planet, that's not an option either. So our robotic probes are going to be a little bit smart, but mostly dumb and largely consists of us saying, Hey, robot, go over there and then we go out for a lunch break while the robot goes over there so limits in place, we can start to tackle this question. How can we begin to compare humans versus robots when it comes to scientific exploration in space? Well, let's ignore cost for now. Don't worry. We'll get back to that and let's explore a few points of comparison. Let's talk about, say, strength. Well, humans are much stronger than robots, at least the kind of robots that we can send to other planets.

We are much more powerful in terms of grabbing and picking up things and moving things than our robots. Yes, robots on earth can can be scary strong, but we're not sending those to other planets. They're too heavy, but humans are relatively imprecise. We have these these meat sausages on the ends of our hands. And yeah, uh, we can, you know, in the animal world, we're very dexterous and and but not necessarily in the robot world. And robots are relatively weak compared to humans, but they can be precisely controlled and very accurately adjust their strength level. So we can say, Hey, robot, apply 0.75% of your maximum strength level and and and push on that rock over there, you know, good luck telling a human to do that. And when it comes to endurance, another dimension of comparison humans. Yeah, we need a lot of stuff. We need food, We need water. We need toilets.

We need medicine. We need to take naps all the time. We need coffee or tea, but there's a long list of needs we need our we need to carry with. That's a little bubble of Earth in order to to sustain us and we can endure, we can. We can do some pretty difficult stuff as long as all those needs are met and the list of needs is rather long robots. On the other hand, they can last much longer. They have much fewer needs. They need some electricity. They need to keep the dust out of their gears. That's basically it. Robots can last much longer on a mission than humans can, because their needs are much simpler. Relating to strength is the issue of precision. Humans can be incredibly precise, but that level of precision requires a lot of training, you know, think of an archaeological dig in how precise the humans are in, in slowly brushing away and revealing the artifacts buried in the dirt.

Yeah, we can do it, But we also need to be specialists in in training. And then the downside here is that we don't get to bring all of our precision to bear because when we're exploring a you know, an asteroid or the surface of Mars, we need to wear very, very clunky gear. We need to wear spacesuits. And so imagine how how nimble and precise your hands can be and how finely tuned you can. You can go and you can pick up a needle off of a table. Good luck having a robot do that, but now wear giant gloves in a pressure suit and try to do the same thing. All of a sudden, your precision is reduced. Robots, on the other hand, well, they're robots. They're not generalists, so they're not super precise in all cases. But they just do what they're told. Move your manipulator arm 50 millimeters to the right, and it just does it. Why? Because it's programmed to do that Now.

The downside of that is that needs a lot of intervention and a lot of babysitting to get that robot to do it. It can't naturally do it on their own. You you see an interesting rock over there and the robot. You know, you say OK, we're gonna very precisely maneuver our wheels here and then move the manipulate our arm down. I don't know why all these robots have manipulator arms. I don't know. That's just how how I'm describing them, where a human would just be like, Oh, I see the rock and just reach over and do it naturally because we've been picking up rocks since we were toddlers in terms of cognition, decision making, adaptability, humans. There's no comparison. We are very creative. We are very flexible. We can make rapid on the spot decisions. We can be walking along in the surface of Mars and see something interesting and just walk over there and check it out and just make that decision right away. If we want to grab something or move something or test something, we can try one thing and we can sit there and think about it for a little bit and then try something else. We're very adaptable.

We're very quick. We're very creative and flexible. Mentally. Robots, they're limited by their programming. Yes, they're a little bit smart, but not very because we can't send our best computers out there. And even our best computers are just pale imitations of our cognitive abilities. And at the end of the day, there's a human in the driver's seat anyway saying, Hey, that rock looks interesting. Robot, Check out that rock. The robot didn't think to look at that rock by itself, but a human on the ground could, in terms of patreon, humans can contribute by going to patreon dot com slash PM Sutter, where they get early ad free access to these episodes and other perks like direct access to asking me questions. Sometimes I even respond Robots. Robots can't go to patreon dot com slash PM center to contribute, and and I feel sorry for them in terms of perception and detection. Humans. We are so good at spotting stuff.

We are so good at seeing patterns. We're so good at saying, Hey, what's that thing over there? But once again, most of our senses are going to be limited by our clunky space gear. This is a huge drawback for human exploration because all of the magical things that make humans so awesome aren't so magical anymore. We can't touch stuff. We can't smell stuff. We can't hear stuff. We have limited vision. It's like, really annoying to wear a spacesuit all the time. Our awesome human abilities are not so awesome anymore. But we can make up for that by being adaptable by looking around by grabbing something and taking it back to the lab and then licking it on the other hand, robots, we can load them down with any kind of sensor we want. You want an x-ray spectrometer? Do it. You want some infrared glasses? Do it. We just We just build it that way and they can detect very small concentrations of just about anything because they're robots and we make them that way.

When it comes to speed, agility, versatility, dexterity. Humans are so fast compared to robots. It's not even a competition. Here we are fast, we are mobile. We can bend over, we can go on our tippy toes. We can climb a mountain If we feel like it. We can roll over, we can bend over, we can take one rock and bang it against another rock just to see what happens just because we felt like it. We can grab big things. We can grab small things. We are so fast and so mobile. Even with clunky space gear. Uh, the Apollo 17. Here's a comparison. The Apollo 17 astronauts covered 22 miles in three days of work. The Opportunity Rover has also covered on Mars covered 22 miles in eight years. We are so fast. Robots are slow. They're limited by their programming by their the reach of the manipulator arms, the speed at which they move. They can't handle most terrain. There's communications lag. There's no communications lag with a human, because you're you're just inside your own brain.

Your decision making apparatus is directly directly connected by nerves to your manipulator arm, which is also known as your arm. You're like, Oh, that's it. What's over there on the resin? Well, we got time. Let's check it out. And then you go check it out and you're like, Oh, that that was a bad idea. But then you didn't waste much because all you did was take a nice little walk on Mars. When it comes to fragility, well, humans, to be fair, humans are pretty robust. We can get cut. We can fall down. We can break bones. We can run out of food for a little while and we can We can make it. But no, we don't. And small things can make a whole mission collapse like, Oops. Our water purifiers stopped working. Now everybody's dead robots. If they actually make it, if they actually land on the surface of the planet, they tend to stick around. Individual components often fail. For example, the Insight mission on Mars. It was a lander and it contained a drill.

And the drill made it down like 12 inches before it just stopped. And so that's it. That's it for that component of the mission. We got 12 inches down into the Martian soil, and and we're never gonna get deeper. Humans would have just taken a hammer to it or a wrench and made it work. So, robots, This is an interesting mix up here. You know, robots are more robust because we build them to be robust, but often individual components fail. Humans are just naturally robust. But, you know, we we need a lot of stuff and any of the and if any of the stuff goes wrong. We tend to go wrong, and that leads into the last dimension, which is expendable. Humans are precious. We value human life. So we work really hard to make sure everyone comes home alive. Failure of a mission has huge political costs. Someone dies on Mars. We may not go back to Mars for another generation. Look at what happened with the space shuttle disasters and the awful loss of human life.

How much did that set us back? And rightly so. We value human lives. That's a good thing. And so we are right to be cautious and not just throw people at Mars and hope it works out for the best. But that's what we do with robots. We throw robots at Mars and hope it works out for the best. We literally ditch them into atmospheres or let them sit there rotting when we're done with them. And besides a few sappy sentiments on social media, we don't really care because they're robots. Robots are much more expendable for high risk emissions than humans are. So ignoring costs, which I promise we're about to get into the human versus robot debate, hinges on how much you value or weigh each of these individual factors. If expendable is your top priority, Robots are always going to win if it's speed and agility. If that's what you need. Humans will always win if it's sensing or detecting with precision. Ah, it's a toss up because robots have some advantages and humans have some advantages.

If it's versatility and ability to make quick decisions, it's humans. So ultimately, your robot versus human decision will come down to mission. It's not just about exploring space, but how. What are our goals for the next series of missions? What do we hope to learn, what science questions do we need to answer? And then what is the best way to approach that answer? And honestly, a lot of times robots are gonna win, which is why we've only sent robots to Mars. This show is brought to you by better health. One of my favorite things about doing ask a spaceman is how much I get to learn about my own field. It's either stuff that I forgot from graduate school or I'm learning brand new because it's simply not a part of my training and expertise and getting to learn new things and learn about yourself is so powerful. One way to do that is through therapy. Therapy doesn't solve all your problems, but that's not the point.

It solves some of your problems, and that makes it worthwhile. You get to continuously learn about yourself through my own therapy. I learn a lot about myself, my relationship with others, how the world works. It's pretty powerful. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give better help. A try. It's online. It's convenient, flexible, and it can be suited to your schedule. Discover your potential with better help. Visit better help dot com slash spaceman today and get 10% off your first month. That's better. Help EELB dot com slash spaceman. Yes, robots have a lot of limitations. They are not nearly as quick as nearly as fast as nearly as autonomous as humans, but they are useful. They are expendable. They're lightweight. They're rather robust. They don't require a lot of resources. They're great for initial exploration and testing new ideas, which is exactly where we are with Mars.

Robots are gonna win. Honestly, All things considered when you look at all these dimensions and you say OK, well, I wanna learn more about the Martian surface and, you know, check out if there's life down there or what was the water history on this planet? A lot of those questions we can answer with robots. Oh, right. But then there's the whole space box thing here. Human space flight is not cheap, which is a big reason again, why robots seem to be winning. Why we're sending a lot of robots into the solar system and not a lot of humans, because humans are expensive. We have so much stuff that we need to need to take with us, and we're so precious that we don't want to get it wrong now. Robots aren't exactly cheap either, by the way, but they are certainly cheaper than humans. And while that's a simple and correct observation, it does hide a lot of interesting nuance. And ask a spaceman is all about the nuance. First off, let's talk about robot mission prices.

Yes, they are, in general, cheaper than human missions. For example, the 1997 Mars Pathfinder mission you know, the one with the cute little Sojourner rover cost around a quarter of a billion dollars. The Apollo missions, all of them from start to finish in inflation adjusted totaled 175 billion space bucks. That's a big difference. And that at first that doesn't seem like a fair comparison, because I'm we're doing one Mars Pathfinder mission versus the totality of Apollo missions. But check this out. Check this out. One robot missions are getting more expensive with time. The Mars Pathfinder mission was a quarter of a billion dollars. The inside missions, the other one with the disappointing drill was 813 million space bucks, and it didn't even move. The Perseverance Rover, the latest one currently operating on the surface of Mars, cost 2.9 billion. Future missions are projected to cost even more. Why are costs going up with our robotic explorers? Well, because we want to send more capable missions to Mars.

Sojourner was awesome, demonstrating that we could operate a rover on the surface of Mars. But a dozen sojourners aren't going to answer the science questions that we are asking. They're just not gonna cut it. We need more capable, more powerful robots. Our robots are getting more expensive because they're approaching human level capabilities, not they're nowhere near human level capabilities, but we're trying to bring them up a little bit. Right now, robots definitely have the edge in price. But that's because the robots we're sending are basic. I mean, they're insanely advanced and rugged, but you get the idea compared to a human, they're basic and, yeah, the Apollo missions were crazy, expensive, and none of our robot missions are approaching anywhere near that level of cost, but they're getting more expensive. And, yeah, 100 and $75 billion for those Apollo missions. What did we get out of it? In terms of science, we spent a whole lot of money. But what we're interested in are the science results.

How much science did we get for 100 and $75 billion versus how much science do we get for all the money we've spent on Martian missions in here is an interesting wrinkle. Humans are fantastically expensive to send into space. That is absolutely true, but they are much, much faster. Steve Squires, the principal investigator for the Mars Exploration Rovers uh, spirit and opportunity wrote quote, The unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect Martian day, a human explorer could do in less than a minute. The Apollo missions were crazy, expensive, but they resulted in nearly 3000 scientific papers. And let's assume here that paper represents a single unit of scientific events. So we have some benchmark here. All of the Mars missions combined all of the robotic Mars Mars missions, all of them, all of them, all of them combined, have led to less than 1000 papers. OK, those 3000 papers that came out of the Apollo missions came from a grand total of 12.5 days of contact time on the surface of the moon, and that includes sleeping and eating and other gastrointestinal duties.

The actual E VA time was 3.4 days actual time in a suit on the surface, doing stuff grand total of 3.4 days. Humans have spent less than two weeks on the surface of the moon total, and we got 3000 papers out of it All The Mars missions, combined with less than a third of the scientific output, have spent thousands of days on the surface of Mars. So even though human space missions are 10 to 100 times more expensive than robot missions. They are thousands of times more productive on a cost per science basis. We're stupid not to send humans to Mars. We can keep chucking robots on Mars for generations, and one mission would produce more science than all of them combined. One human mission would produce more science than all of them combined.

We are efficient generators of science because we're the one asking the questions. Here. It's our brains. Anyway. We might as well send our brains over so we can just answer them right there and do all the interesting things. We are so much faster than robots. And yeah, humans have a lot of costs, but it's far cheaper to train them for new skills than it is to design a robot to do things. Once you have an astronaut ready to go anyway, it's much easier to train them to be a geologist than it is to design a robot from the ground up to be a geologist. And second, the science can piggyback on other human space flights. Science wasn't even the point of Apollo. The point of Apollo was to put humans on the moon, period to beat the Soviets. It was geopolitical arm wrestling. Only 1% of the entire Apollo budget actually went into science, which is nothing. The geological training that the astronauts got was an afterthought, a rounding error in the budget. We were going to put humans on the moon anyway. We were going to spend mega space box to do it anyway.

And we still got a ton of valid science from it. Lastly, humans, while incredibly fragile and precious and a single tragedy can doom an entire series of missions for a generation, have a unique ability that robots lack. And that's in the third leg of the triangle of the puzzle that we're trying to solve. Keeping the public on board. Remember that the triangle we're trying to solve is as much science as possible for as little money as possible. While maintaining the sport of the public, robots are always going to win in the cheapness department. Humans are always going to win in the volume of science department, and I believe this is my personal opinion that humans have the edge in keeping other humans interested. Yeah, the robots. We have on Mars. Super cool. So much fun learning lots of cool things. Lots of people are interested in them. Lots of people follow him around.

Could you imagine? And I I remember in the nineties when when Sojourner landed on Mars Oh, it's a huge media circus was amazing. I was enamored with the news. I loved it. Could you? It's impossible to fathom or to compare what humans on Mars, what kind of reaction? They'll get all of our Mars missions. They'll be mentioned in future histories of our time here, but they're not gonna build statues to them. They're not gonna make their mark like Neil Armstrong. That is a name you a gig and that those are names that are going to be etched into human history forever. 1000 years from now, those names will still be spoken. The Mars missions? I don't know. Will the Sojourner Rover be on the lips of schoolchildren 1000 years from now? Maybe there'll be a little plaque on that little speck of Mars where it landed. Humans have a unique ability to excite and inspire other humans, and I think humans have a clear lead here when it comes to robots.

The bad news is that we're not sending humans to Mars anytime soon because of the cost and the risk. And these are huge problems that we're trying to overcome. It is very difficult to send humans into space, and we have not solved all of the challenges that we need to solve in order to send humans to Mars. And it's very expensive to solve those problems. But the good news is that we don't actually have to decide between humans or robots. Why not both? I know, I know I set up this entire episode as a debate between the two, but honestly, each have their strengths, and each have their weaknesses in a complete exploration of the solar system requires both. Remember, we're trying to solve three problems at once. Cost scientific output and public support. If we waited for humans to do any science on Mars, then as of the recording of this episode, we would have exactly, um, zero science from the surface of Mars. None. And as we send more and more robotic missions march, we learn more and more not just about the conditions there and the surface and getting science done.

But how to send missions there? What kind of technological barriers we need to break. I don't know about you, but I'm a rather impatient guy. I want my signs now. Dang it. I wanna start sniffing and poking around on Mars now. And if mysteries crop up because of our robotic missions to Mars, good. Because who doesn't love a good mystery? It's a false dichotomy. It's a fake question. It's not humans versus robots. It's humans and robots. Robots can do it now, initially, while it's cheaper and while we're testing new ideas. But eventually there will be a tipping point where the only way to answer the kind of science questions we want to answer is with humans. Where will we lean in the next 100 years? What will our future historians say about the coming generations of scientific exploration in the solar system? I don't know, but I hope they say that we did the best we could and that we learned a lot Thank you to David L on email for the question that led to today's episode and thank you to all my patreon contributors.

That's patreon dot com slash PM Sutter. My top contributors this month. Justin G, Chris Barbara K, Duncan M, Corey D, Justin Z Nalla, Scott M, Rob H, Justin Lewis M, John W, Alex Gilbert, DA Joshua, John S, Thomas D, Simon G, Aaron J and Jessica Kay. Is all of you contributing that makes this show possible? I can't thank you enough. Send me some questions hashtag ask a spaceman. Ask a spaceman at gmail dot com or the website. Ask apace man dot com. Basically, ask us, Spaceman, just type it in Google. You'll you'll figure it out and I'll see you next time. For more complete knowledge of time and space, Prime Day is coming July 11 and 12 with two days of epic deals exclusively for prime members, you'll feel like a winner.

Number three is amazing deals from electronics to decor. It's on prime day.

1 Comment