Speaker 1: Imagine something arriving in our solar system, not just arriving,
but speeding through way faster than anything we've ever launched.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's not from around here. We're talking thousands
of light years away, right.
Speaker 1: And the weird part, it seems to be well ignoring
some basic physics at least how we understand them for
natural things like comets or asteroids, and it looks completely
alien compared to them too.
Speaker 2: Exactly. That's not science fiction anymore. It's what instruments have
been tracking recently. This is the whole mystery around three
I Atlas ray atlis. Okay, we're looking at data points
that are frankly, they're just really strange. Anomalist doesn't quite
cover it. It pushes the boundaries of what we thought
a natural object could even do.
Speaker 1: Okay, So this sounds like a cosmic detective story, a
big one, and that's our mission for you listening. We're
going to distill all this complex science, all the scrutiny,
into clear takeaway.
Speaker 2: We want that Aha moment.
Speaker 1: Exactly by looking hard at the evidence, the weird light signature,
this huge acceleration that isn't gravity, the fact that it's
missing a tail.
Speaker 2: And the chemicals. It's shedding bizarre, right, and we're.
Speaker 1: Relying purely on the instruments here. They're the only witnesses
that don't.
Speaker 2: You know, fib And that's so crucial. Yeah, because the
easy answer, the oh it's just a weird comet idea, Yeah,
it just doesn't hold up when you look at the
actual physical facts. We have to follow the data, even
if it leads somewhere, well, somewhere uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: All right, let's dive in Section I, the close encounter
and the Bluer anomaly. This thing had its moment in
the sun, didn't it perihelium.
Speaker 2: It did closest approach to the Sun. Let's walk through that. Okay,
So that happened on October twenty ninth. At its closest
point three i Atlis was about two hundred and three
million kilometers away from the Sun.
Speaker 1: Sounds far, but for something coming in from deep space.
Speaker 2: Exactly, that's the point of maximum heating.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It was soaking up around seven hundred and seventy watts
per square meter of solar radiation.
Speaker 1: Okay, seven hundred and seventy watts. That's enough to make
ice spoil off.
Speaker 2: Definitely. If it were made of typical solar system ices,
you know, water, ice, carbon dioxide, ice. That kind of
heat would cause significant sublimation. Gas is boiling off the surface.
Speaker 1: And did we see a reaction? Did it change? Oh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, immediately observatories saw brightened up dramatically, like five times
brighter than it was before.
Speaker 1: It got close five times brighter. Okay, so far, so
good for the comet theory. Maybe heating up, releasing gas
and dust.
Speaker 2: That initial brightening, yes, that fits the pattern. But almost
right away things started to look weird. The observations took
a sharp turn from the norm.
Speaker 1: And this is where we get to the color paradox,
because usually when things heat up near the sun, they
look a certain way, right, And but this one it
went blue.
Speaker 2: That's the fascinating part and really challenging. It became distinctly
bluer than the sun itself.
Speaker 1: Okay, hang on explain that for us, normally comets get redder, yes.
Speaker 2: Typically redder. When a standard comet warms up and starts
shedding material, it releases dust, often larger particles, silicates, complex hydrocarbons, and.
Speaker 1: Bigger dust particles scatter red light better like a sunset.
Speaker 2: Exactly like a sunset analogy, The dust cloud around a
typical comet tends to make the whole thing look redder. Plus,
the comet surface is much much cooler than the sun,
which also contributes to that reddish tint.
Speaker 1: So if three alice went bluer, that means the light
was skewed towards the short wavelengths, the high energy end.
What does that tell us?
Speaker 2: It implies something very different is happening for an object
getting hit with that much solar energy to look bluer. Well,
the material coming off can't be typical large.
Speaker 1: Dust, so what could it be.
Speaker 2: It might be extremely fine particles, like smaller than the
wavelength of light itself. Those scatter blue light really well,
that's rarely scattering, like why our sky is blue.
Speaker 1: Or maybe some weird gas or.
Speaker 2: Yeah, maybe it's releasing specific exotic gases. They glow or
fluoresce strongly in the blue part of the spectrum when
hit by sunlight. Either way, it just throws the whole
familiar comet idea right out the window.
Speaker 1: The composition is just wrong, defining geological nerms pretty much.
Speaker 2: And you know, as strange as the color is, it
almost pales in comparison to how this thing is moving.
Speaker 1: Ah, yes, the non gravitational acceleration. This sounds like the
real smoking gun.
Speaker 2: It's definitely the centerpiece of the whole mystery. It's like this.
We track the object, we calculate exactly where the Sun's
gravity should pull it, and then we see it's. Of course,
it's deviated. There's other force acting on it, a kiny,
steady push that isn't gravity.
Speaker 1: Now, usually for a regular comment, astronomers see that and
think rocket effect. Right, ice turns to gas jets out
pushes the commet exactly.
Speaker 2: That's the standard explanation, the null hypothesis we always test first.
So okay, let's assume for a second, despite the weird
blue color, this is some kind of natural icy thing. Okay,
if that acceleration is just gas jets, we can actually
calculate how much stuff, how much mass, it would have
to lose to create that push.
Speaker 1: That sounds complicated during out the Sun's pull and isolating
this tiny extra force.
Speaker 2: It involves a pretty complex dynamics. Yeah yeah, but the
results they're kind of mind blowing.
Speaker 1: How much mass are we talking about to get that
observed acceleration?
Speaker 2: And numbers are just staggering even simple calculations. Assuming it's
shedding common stuff like water or CO two ice, it
must have lost a huge chunk of its total mass, huge,
at least a tenth ten percent, and that's a lower limit.
Some estimates push it closer to maybe twenty percent of
its entire initial mass gone in just that one pass
near the sun.
Speaker 1: Ten to twenty percent in one go. That implies this
thing is incredibly just consuming itself at an insane rate
it does.
Speaker 2: And thinking about that much mass loss, that huge amount
of material supposedly boiling off, Yeah, well that leads us
straight into the next major contradiction, Where did it all go?
Speaker 1: Right? Section two? The case against a natural comment. This
is where the story really twists, isn't it? Because if
it lost, say, fifteen percent of its masses gas and dust,
what should we actually see?
Speaker 2: You should see an absolute mess, a gigantic, glowing, obvious
cloud of gas and debris way bigger than the object.
Speaker 1: Itself, a coma right and a tail.
Speaker 2: Absolutely solar wind and sunlight would push all that vaporized
stuff back, creating a brilliant, unmistakable cometary tale pointing away
from the Sun. I mean brightened five times over, demands
that kind of visual aftermath. You can't shed that much
material secretly.
Speaker 1: But the pictures, the recent images, they show.
Speaker 2: The exact opposite. That's the missing kil conundrum. It's the
perfect contradiction. The images show no tail, nothing, not fuzz
just a fuzzy blob of light, basically the same way
it looked when it was way out cold and far
from the sun. This is absolutely not what an object
looks like when it's actively shedding a fifth of its
entire body mass.
Speaker 1: So the movement, the physics of the acceleration, demands a tail,
but the pictures, the actual visual evidence, show nothing.
Speaker 2: Precisely, it doesn't add up. We have this object accelerating
like crazy, supposedly from massive outgassing, but visually it's completely quiet,
no evidence of the engine, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Is there any way that gas could just vanish without
scattering light, some weird and visible gas.
Speaker 2: That's the big scientific question right now. We've kind of
run out of standard explanations for any normal commet. Losing
mass means a visible coma entail, full stop. So for
this object, either there's some totally new physics we've never
conceived of. Maybe some ultra fluffy, highly reactive stuff that
just ionizes and disappears instantly. Yeah, which seems unlikely, or
we have to seriously consider discarding the natural comet explanation altogether.
Speaker 1: And you mentioned a comparison that really hammers this home
something the same telescope.
Speaker 2: Saw, Yeah, the Comet lemon comparison. It's crucial. Just two
days before, looking at three IAT lists, the exact same
telescope looked at a regular solar system comet comet lemon,
and Comet lemon looked like a textbook comet, clear beautiful
tale streaming away from the sun. Perfect example. The telescope
worked fine, it knows what a comet should look like.
Speaker 1: But then it looked at three iye atlans and saw just.
Speaker 2: The fuzzball, no tail. The difference is just stark. It's
right there in the observational data.
Speaker 1: Okay, so the collar is wrong. The acceleration is huge,
but lacks of visible cause. Where do we go next?
Speaker 2: Forensics the actual material.
Speaker 1: Exactly, We need a look deeper at the chemical signatures.
Analyzing the light that is scattered, what little there is
reveals something else very strange.
Speaker 2: The composition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, specifically the ratio of certain elements being shed seems
to be shedding a noticeable amount of nickel nickel. Okay,
but this is the weird part. Very little iron nickel
but not much iron. Isn't that unusual in space rocks?
Don't they usually come together?
Speaker 2: They absolutely do. Nickel and iron form together, condense together
in things like supernova remnants or the discs where planets form.
They have similar chemical properties under those conditions.
Speaker 1: So if you find a natural object shedding nickel, you'd expect.
Speaker 2: To see a proportional amount of iron coming off with it.
Finding lots of nickel but hardly any eye iron is well,
it's exceptionally rot in natural objects, maybe even unheard of.
Speaker 1: Is there any super rare natural scenario, like I don't know,
the core of a shattered planet formed under weird conditions.
Speaker 2: People definitely explore those possibilities, you have to, but they
remain highly speculative. Really reaching the source material points out
something quite striking, though, Which is the only other place
we reliably find this specific high nickel low iron ratio
is well, it's here on Earth in controlled industrial.
Speaker 1: Processes, industrial like manufacturing.
Speaker 2: Specifically in making certain high performance nickelilois things used in aerospace,
maybe specialized manufacturing stuff that requires very specific engineered properties.
Speaker 1: Wow, Okay, that's not just an anomaly anymore. That sounds
like a potential fingerprint, an industrial fingerprint.
Speaker 2: It forces you to consider it, doesn't it that the
origin might not be some random cosmic rock but something
processed engine maybe.
Speaker 1: And this specific chemical signature, combined with the blue collar,
the tail Liss acceleration, it really strengthens the case for
something technological.
Speaker 2: It does. And let's not forget what first got astronomers interested,
even before all this perihelium weirdness.
Speaker 1: Right, the orbital path. It was huge, wasn't it compared
to Umahmua.
Speaker 2: Massive? Yeah, maybe a million times more massive than Umahmua,
the first interstellar object we saw. But it wasn't just
the size, it was where it was going.
Speaker 1: It was traveling in the plane of the planets, the ecliptic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, basically flat along the same plane that the planets
orbit the Sun. Now, think about that, interstellar visitors drifting
randomly between stars. They should come in from all angles, right,
steep inclinations, like.
Speaker 1: Throwing darts at a dartboard from across the room. They'd
hit anywhere.
Speaker 2: Pretty much for a massive object like this to be
cruising along the Solar System's main highway, it's statistically unlikely.
It suggests or at least raises the question of a
trajectory that isn't purely random, maybe even implies design, or
at least a very specific, non random origin point in
its own system.
Speaker 1: The evidence is really piling up for something unconventional, to
say the least, and now we connect it to something historical,
the Wow signal.
Speaker 2: This just adds another layer of profound intrigue. Maybe coincidence,
maybe not. The Wow signal that incredibly strong, unexplained radio
bursts from nineteen seventy seven.
Speaker 1: The one that made the astronomer right wow on the
print out, never repeated, never explained.
Speaker 2: That signal came from the same general patch of sky
that three I atlas appears who have originated from within
about nine degrees, which on the scale of the entire
sky is remarkably close an astronomical stone's throw.
Speaker 1: So a random rock just happens to arrive decades later
from almost the exact same spot as the most famous
mystery signal in SETI history.
Speaker 2: The coincidence is striking enough that the question is being
seriously asked, could there be a connection, a link spanning
decades between that radio mystery and this physical object. It
just adds this incredible, dramatic weight to the whole investigation.
Speaker 1: It definitely shifts the perspective from astronomy to well, potentially
something much bigger. Okay, So the anomalies are undeniable. They
push way past normal commentary stuff, which means scientifically, we
have to stick to the data right, no matter how
wild the implications seem. Section three, the search for scientific
truth and institutional response.
Speaker 2: That's the absolute core of the scientific method. Rely on
the instruments, calibrated data, not opinions, not stories, not what's
trending online. The data is the only witness that counts
in this cosmic court room.
Speaker 1: And there's that powerful historical parallel mentioned in the source,
the Galileo analogy, a warning about ignoring data.
Speaker 2: It's such a critical lesson, isn't it. The Church refused
to look through Galileo's telescope because what he saw contradicted
the established Earth centered view.
Speaker 1: They stuck to the dogma, and it took.
Speaker 2: Them centuries until nineteen ninety two to formally admit Galileo
was right, ignoring data, refusing to look just because it
challenges your beliefs. It's not just bad science, it's an
institutional failure that echoes for generations.
Speaker 1: The universe doesn't really care about our opinions or anxieties,
does it. Whether we have neighbors out there depends on
the evidence, whether we choose to look at it or
not exactly.
Speaker 2: Our job as scientists is just to rigorously check the data,
follow where it leads, and figure out what's really going on,
even if the answer turns out to be a giant,
super fast, blue technological thing flying past the Sun.
Speaker 1: And this quest for truth isn't just happening in labs
and observatories anymore. It's reached government level. Congress is getting briefed.
Speaker 2: That's right. Scientists myself included, have been talking to members
of Congress about these anomalies, about UAP reports in general,
and stressing the need for better data, better tracking, especially
for these interstellar objects.
Speaker 1: How's that going? Are they receptive?
Speaker 2: Honestly, my experiences and those of colleagues have been pretty positive.
We've met individuals showing real curiosity, a genuine willingness to
push for scientific progress. They seem to grasp the huge
implications here.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Representative Anna Paulina Luna specifically regarding a key
piece of data.
Speaker 2: Yes, she was incredibly engaged. She actually met with NASA
about getting access to a specific image, the highest resolution
one taken by the high rise camera on the Mars reconnaissance.
Speaker 1: Orbiter, an image of three iaalis.
Speaker 2: Relevant to understanding its structure. Yes, but its public release
got tangled up in bureaucracy, partly due to the timing
of a government shutdown.
Speaker 1: Ah fun times, right, But she.
Speaker 2: Pushed for transparency, arguing quite rightly that the public deserves
to see the best available data, especially on something this
potentially significant.
Speaker 1: So we've got government channels with let's say, some friction,
but also some real political interests. And then there are
the private efforts like the Galileo project.
Speaker 2: The Galileo project is purely about the science. It's a
private initiative, yes, focused entirely on proactively searching for actual
evidence of extraterrestrials technology, not relying on anecdotes or blurry photos,
but hard instrument data.
Speaker 1: How does it work? What's the approach?
Speaker 2: Pretty straightforward? Conceptually, build state of the art observatories, point
them at the sky and use sophisticated AI machine learning
to sift through everything, filter out all the known stuff satellites, planes, meteors, atmospheric.
Speaker 1: Effects, everything we can explain exactly.
Speaker 2: And see if anything is left over, anything operating outside
the known performance envelope of human tech or natural phenomena.
Speaker 1: Where does that stand? Now? Are the observatories running?
Speaker 2: Yes, we have three operating now. The latest one just
came online in Las Vegas, all focused on getting that
verifiable instrument data.
Speaker 1: And what if? What if you find nothing after all
that effort.
Speaker 2: That's the built in win win. If we search rigorously
and find absolutely nothing anomalous, nothing beyond known physics or
human tech, then we take all the advanced sensors, the
sophisticated AI software we developed, and we offer to defense organizations.
So even in the null result, the science effort directly
enhances national security capabilities by providing better monitoring tools.
Speaker 1: That makes sense, which leads us to the government's own
official body for this stuff ARO, the All Domain Anomaly
Resolution Office set up to handle the military UAP reports right.
Speaker 2: AARO came out of the National Defense Authorization Act. It's
meant to be the central hub for investigating these military
sidings provide a secure channel for personnel to report and
ideally bring some transparency to the whole issue.
Speaker 1: So what's the official word from AARO leadership. Have they
found the smoking gun among all those military reports evidence
of aliens?
Speaker 2: Their public statements, including recent ones, have been pretty clear
on that. They state they have no clear, definitive evidence
of anything extraterrestrial among the cases they've thoroughly investigated.
Speaker 1: So far, no evidence despite all the videos and pilot accounts.
Speaker 2: They emphasize the difference between a report and verified data.
They've noted that many sensational claims, including some attributed to
whistleblowers or even FBI eye agents, haven't held up when
subjected to rigorous multi sensor data analysis. Pilot sightings are
valuable leads, but science needs instrument confirmation.
Speaker 1: Which brings us right into that thorny area. The classification
debate the persistent suspicion that the really good stuff, the
high res data, is being kept secret.
Speaker 2: And this is a major point of tension from a
scientific perspective, especially for astronomy. Classifying data about objects that
originate outside our solar system seems well inappropriate, way inappropriate
because national security, by definition, usually deals with terrestrial threats
things originating from Earth or near Earth space. An object
from another star system is fundamentally not a terrestrial national
security issue in the same way it's an astronomical phenomenon
first and foremost.
Speaker 1: So you're arguing that if the military does have, say,
amazing sensor data on three i AT lists or umuumua
before it, that data shouldn't fall under typical secrecy rules.
Speaker 2: That's the argument withholding data on non terrestrial objects hinders science.
It prevents the global scientific community from analyzing the full picture,
understanding what we're dealing with, and responding appropriately whether it's
natural or not. It feels like knowledge that should be
shared for humanity's understanding of its place in the cosmos.
Speaker 1: Okay, we've gone from the anomaly to the science to
the institutions. Let's get practical. Section four Planetary Defense and
Future Opportunities. The source asks bluntly, are we screwed? If
this thing is technology? How vulnerable are we right now?
Speaker 2: It's the sobering reality check, isn't it, And based purely
on our current technological capabilities, The answer is, well, yes,
we're potentially quite vulnerable if this object represented a threat.
Speaker 1: How bad is it? You mentioned speed?
Speaker 2: The speed difference is the killer. Three Eyeatlas is moving
roughly three times faster than our fastest rockets can currently
achieve three times.
Speaker 1: So interception is just off the table pretty much.
Speaker 2: Even if we saw it coming years in advance, launching something,
getting it up to speed, and maneuvering for an intercept,
we just don't have that capability right now against something
moving that fast.
Speaker 1: And it's not tiny either.
Speaker 2: No estimates put it around fifty times bigger than SpaceX's starship.
So if it were hostile tech, or even just accidentally
on a collision course, yeah, yeah, we currently lack the
means to stop it. Technically, we're exposed.
Speaker 1: That's not comforting, but science always looks for the upside. Right,
If we do encounter advanced tech and it's not hostile,
what's the takeaway?
Speaker 2: The hopeful outlook has to be humility and inspiration. If
we meet older, more advanced siblings in the galactic family,
it shouldn't be about fear or jealousy. It should be
a profound wake up call to get our act together,
to learn, improve, strive for better understanding and technology ourselves.
Speaker 1: Like meeting the varsity team when you're still playing junior
league exactly.
Speaker 2: Hope they're not bullies. Of course, the optimistic view is
that this cosmic blind date, as the source calls it,
doesn't involve a serial killer.
Speaker 1: Okay, so defense wise, we did have that DART mission's
success recently smashing into an asteroid.
Speaker 2: DART was huge, absolutely invaluable. It proved definitively that we
can nudge an asteroid off course using a kinetic impactor.
The basic physics works for predictable natural threats, but.
Speaker 1: Applying that to three iatless we run into that capabilities gap. Again.
Speaker 2: We do DART worked because we knew exactly where that
asteroid would be years in advance, and it wasn't moving
at interstellar speeds with three iatlists. Even if we wanted
to send something, what could we send?
Speaker 1: Nothing currently in space.
Speaker 2: I actually ran the numbers for a paper recently. It
turns out the Juno spacecraft currently orbiting Jupiter. Yeah, it
actually could have intercepted three iatlests on March sixteenth, twenty
twenty six. Its trajectory was right.
Speaker 1: Seriously, a mission already out there could.
Speaker 2: Have done it could have, yes, but only if JUNO
had kept all its initial fuel reserves, which of course
it didn't. It used most of its propellant for Jupiter
orbital insertion and maneuvers.
Speaker 1: AH so close, but no cigar.
Speaker 2: It perfectly illustrates the problem. We don't have a dedicated
rapid response system. We're relying on repurposed science missions that
usually don't have the fuel or the mandate for emergency
intercepts of high velocity unowns. The opportunity was theoretically there,
but our preparedness wasn't.
Speaker 1: Which points directly to needing a long term strategy. We
need to get proactive, not reactive, for both defense and frankly,
the incredible science opportunity.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, if the world decides that tracking and potentially intercepting
these intercetal objects is a priority, and I think it
should be, then we need a dedicated system. We can't
just hope a convenient science probe is nearby.
Speaker 1: What would that system look like ideally.
Speaker 2: Two main parts. I think. First, a dedicated network of sensors,
ground based, space based, constantly scanning specifically designed to pick
up these faint fast movers early, give us maximum morning
time and precise tracking. A set of purpose built interceptors,
maybe stationed in strategic locations, maybe launch on demand, but
designed from the ground up for high speed, long range interception,
capable of matching speeds with these objects, whether they're rocks
or something else.
Speaker 1: Because the nature of the potential threat has changed too,
hasn't it.
Speaker 2: Fundamentally, the new defense challenge isn't just about big dumb
rocks following predictable gravity pads anymore. That's the dart scenario.
Speaker 1: Now we have to consider.
Speaker 2: Now we have to at least consider the possibility of
technological objects that could potentially maneuver, that could change course,
that might have an intent completely different from a natural asteroid.
It turns planetary defense from simple ballistics into something much
more complex, almost strategic.
Speaker 1: But alongside that challenge, there's this amazing opportunity just staring
us in the face.
Speaker 2: It really is the opportunity of a lifetime. Just think
about it. These objects, whether three Eye Atlis or umu
Ormua others to come, they are guaranteed samples of material
from other star.
Speaker 1: Systems, stuff from potentially thousands of light years away, stuff.
Speaker 2: That would take us centuries millennia, maybe millions of years,
and unbelievable resources to go get ourselves, if we ever
even could Sending a probe to another star, grabbing a sample,
bringing it back, that's a truly monumental multigenerational task.
Speaker 1: And these things are just showing up, delivering the sample
right to our cosmic doorstep free delivery.
Speaker 2: It's an incredibly unique, relatively cheap chance to study the
actual materials from another star system, to look for different chemistry,
different isotopes, maybe even the building blocks of life that
formed elsewhere, or yes, maybe even the materials of technology
from far away. The journey's done for us. We just
need to be ready to look.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's wrap this deep dive up. We've seen three
a at lists basically shred the rulebook for comments. Let's
just quickly recap that stark choice that data leaves us with.
Speaker 2: It's a perfect storm of contradictions. Really, It turns bluer
than the sun when heated, It accelerates massively without gravity,
implying huge mass.
Speaker 1: Loss, but shows absolutely no visible tail where that mass.
Speaker 2: Should be exactly. And then you add that weirdly industrial
nickel to iron ratio and the echo of the wow
signal from the same direction.
Speaker 1: It forces us into this fundamental dichotomy, doesn't it. Option A,
this is an incredibly rare, massive, super fast icy rock
formed in some totally bizarre, unknown environment. We can't even
imagine the.
Speaker 2: Environment that produces things that don't behave like anything in
our own solar system.
Speaker 1: Or Option B, it's technology, a manufactured object, an artifact.
There's really no comfortable middle ground left by the data,
is there?
Speaker 2: Not? Really? And whichever it turns out to be, the
immediate path forward is the same. Collect more data, better data,
right now, that's the only way to get closer to
the truth. Use the instruments.
Speaker 1: And speaking of right now, there's that date coming up,
the upcoming deadline, December nineteenth.
Speaker 2: It's closest approach to Earth. Yeah, just before the holidays.
Let's profoundly hope it just sailes on by peacefully. Yeah,
deliver any unexpected gifts. But that date really brings home
how close this visitor is passing.
Speaker 1: Okay, So final thought here, we've established the universe is
in a way sending us messages with these objects. If
the data eventually confirms it's something technological can survive interstellar travel,
for ages, handle intense solar radiation, maybe even maneuver. What
does that tell us about life and civilizations out there?
Speaker 2: It implies, while it implies the potential for longevity, for
technological endurance, so frankly, our own civilization hasn't yet demonstrated.
If survival across cosmic timescales requires that level of technology,
then what about us? Then? The big question for us becomes,
how do we level up? What capabilities do we need
to develop now beyond just defense? How do we shift
from just passively watching these things fly by to actively
exploring our own neighborhood, becoming participants. It's not just about
fast rockets. It might require a whole new level of
cosmic humility maybe and ambition recognizing we might just be
the new kids on a very, very old block.
Speaker 1: A profound thought, indeed, something for all of us to
think about as we wait for December nineteenth, until our
next deep dive. Keep looking up