Speaker 1: Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. Today is Saturday,
Speaker 1: Valentine's Day apparently, and we have a vault episode for you.
Speaker 1: This is going to be The Burning Mountains of Io,
Speaker 1: Part three. It originally published two thirteen, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: It is part three of three. Let's jump right in.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My name
Speaker 1: is Robert Lamb.
Speaker 3: And I am Joe McCormick, and we're back with the
Speaker 3: third and final part in our series on Jupiter's moon Io,
Speaker 3: the innermost and third largest of Jupiter's four Galilean moons
Speaker 3: and the most volcanic body in our solar system. Years ago,
Speaker 3: we did a multi part series on the moons of
Speaker 3: Jupiter at large, but this time we wanted to come
Speaker 3: back and do a deeper focus on Io, in particular
Speaker 3: to explore its own peculiar Hadean prodigies, because it really is,
Speaker 3: as I've said in the previous two parts, I think
Speaker 3: probably one of the most dramatic places in our Solar system,
Speaker 3: certainly beyond Earth. Now, if you haven't heard the previous
Speaker 3: two parts yet, I would recommend you go back and listen.
Speaker 3: Listen to those in order, but to briefly recap, we
Speaker 3: started off by talking in detail about some really eerie
Speaker 3: and thrilling images of the surface of Io, mostly based
Speaker 3: on data collected in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty
Speaker 3: four by NASA's Juno mission. These images highlighted a lot
Speaker 3: of the really enigmatic features of the Moon's topography, including
Speaker 3: these gargantuan thorn like mountains and volcanic highlands, huge fields
Speaker 3: blanketed and yellow sulfurous frost, Vast lakes of molten lava
Speaker 3: constantly overturning with ways waves, giant lava flows spreading in
Speaker 3: some cases hundreds of kilometers, forever resurfacing the Moon and
Speaker 3: erasing all the scars of its history. We also talked
Speaker 3: about the physical ironies of the conditions on Io, including
Speaker 3: the fact that it is at once deep cold due
Speaker 3: to its extremely thin sulfur dioxide atmospheres inability to trap heat.
Speaker 3: Doesn't really have much of an atmosphere, can't trap heat there,
Speaker 3: but of course in places it is unimaginably hot due
Speaker 3: of course, two volcanic eruptions. According to a volcanologist we
Speaker 3: discussed in Part one a single one of the Moon's volcanoes,
Speaker 3: the lava lake known as Loki Petera, which we did
Speaker 3: do a little focus on, that was the one that
Speaker 3: has has a big island in the middle of it
Speaker 3: actually has a number of islands, but one big old
Speaker 3: island in the middle, which which shall not be named.
Speaker 3: That one volcano emits more heat than all of Earth's
Speaker 3: volcanoes combined, which is a pretty startling fact. We also
Speaker 3: talked in previous parts a bit very briefly about the
Speaker 3: historical exploration of Io, including Carl Sagan's account of the
Speaker 3: discoveries made by the voyager one Probe in nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 3: We talked about the character from Greek myth that provides
Speaker 3: Io its name, about how the story of Io was
Speaker 3: told by Avid and other ancient authors, and how in
Speaker 3: ancient times the character of Io was said to overlap
Speaker 3: or interact with other religious figures, such as the Egyptian
Speaker 3: goddess Isis. In Part two, we discussed when and how
Speaker 3: Io tends to pop up in science fiction storytelling. There's
Speaker 3: sometimes what at least feels like a dearth of Io stories,
Speaker 3: and then we talked about a mystery regarding images of
Speaker 3: so called ridges on the Moon's surface, which paradoxically look
Speaker 3: extremely similar to wind driven sand dunes on Earth and Mars.
Speaker 3: This is paradoxical because of the tenuous, barely their atmosphere
Speaker 3: of Io, which wouldn't see to be thick enough to
Speaker 3: support the winds needed to make dunes. And then we
Speaker 3: got into a paper that offered a likely solution to
Speaker 3: this mystery. Finally, in the last episode, we talked about
Speaker 3: the possibility of life on Io Io being a blasted, cursed, irradiated, waterless, sulfurous,
Speaker 3: freezing cold, searing hot kind of nightmare ball, a place
Speaker 3: from the video game Doom I would not seem to
Speaker 3: be a good place to look for signs of extraterrestrial life,
Speaker 3: but if it were to exist there, we talked about
Speaker 3: some astrobiology speculation on where and how that life might persist.
Speaker 3: And now we are back today to round out the discussion,
Speaker 3: talk about a few more things that's right, all new
Speaker 3: things quite true in fact. To kick things off today,
Speaker 3: I want to talk about a pretty new research paper.
Speaker 3: I think it was just published a couple of months
Speaker 3: ago in the journal Nature, I believe in December twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four. Which addresses a longstanding mystery about the interior
Speaker 3: of Io. We've talked about the mysteries of its surface,
Speaker 3: but now we're going to talk about mysteries of what
Speaker 3: lies inside. So this paper was by park at All
Speaker 3: and it's called Io's Tidle Response Precludes a shallow magma Ocean,
Speaker 3: again published in Nature twenty twenty four, So a bit
Speaker 3: of context about this. For the past four decades or so,
Speaker 3: there has been a question about what powered the volcanic
Speaker 3: eruptions on Io, and it was long suspected for a
Speaker 3: number of reasons, but not confirmed, that underneath the surface
Speaker 3: of the Moon there lay a vast planetary magma ocean,
Speaker 3: sometimes thought to be maybe roughly fifty kilometers deep below
Speaker 3: the surface, a vast ocean of liquid magma stretching around
Speaker 3: the planet, which found release points at each of Io's
Speaker 3: roughly four hundred active volcanoes. So this was long suspected
Speaker 3: by some researchers to be the case. But this new paper,
Speaker 3: published in Nature in twenty twenty four has a group
Speaker 3: of researchers who took information gathered by the NASA Juno
Speaker 3: mission and used it to argue that the magma ocean
Speaker 3: hypothesis cannot be correct, and instead each volcano is probably
Speaker 3: powered by its own distinct magma chamber, and I'm going
Speaker 3: to try to explain how we get there. So a reminder,
Speaker 3: going back to part one of this series, volcanic activity
Speaker 3: on Io was not directly detected until the discovery of
Speaker 3: a volcanic plume by NASA JPL scientist Linda Morabito in
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy nine. The image was found in actually navigational
Speaker 3: images created by the Voyager one spacecraft. Volcanism had been
Speaker 3: hypothesized by the astrophysicist Stanton Peel beforehand, but this was
Speaker 3: the first time direct evidence was identified. But ever since
Speaker 3: the erupting volcanoes were first discovered, there has been this
Speaker 3: mystery about like what's inside the moon to feed the eruptions?
Speaker 3: And I wanted to read a quote here by JUNO
Speaker 3: principal investigator Scott Bolton, who is quoted in a NASA
Speaker 3: press release about this new paper. Bolton summarizes it saying, quote,
Speaker 3: since Mora Beido's discovery, planetary scientists have wondered how the
Speaker 3: volcanoes were fed from the lava underneath the surface. Was
Speaker 3: there a shallow ocean of white hot magma fueling the volcanoes,
Speaker 3: or was their source more localized. We knew data from
Speaker 3: Juno's two very close flybys could give us some insights
Speaker 3: on how this tortured moon actually worked. So how did
Speaker 3: they investigate this? Well? I thought this was pretty cool.
Speaker 3: So the Juno spacecraft did flybys of Io in December
Speaker 3: twenty twenty three and February twenty twenty four, and during
Speaker 3: those close passes, Juno interfaced with an Earth based tool
Speaker 3: called NASA's Deep Space Network, which is a network of
Speaker 3: three equidistant ground based radio antennas on Earth. There's one
Speaker 3: in California, there's one in Australia, and one in Spain.
Speaker 3: And the ideas with this equidistant spacing of these antennas,
Speaker 3: they always at least one of them can maintain contact
Speaker 3: with something in space. You never have it going dark. Together,
Speaker 3: these instruments were able to acquire high precision Doppler readings
Speaker 3: to detect minute changes in Juno's acceleration, which was in
Speaker 3: turn able to tell us things about the gravity of Io,
Speaker 3: but the gravitational influence of Io, because it was primarily
Speaker 3: Io's gravity that would have been affecting Juno's acceleration at
Speaker 3: these moments. So essentially researchers were looking for how the
Speaker 3: gravitational field of IO changes during its tidal stretching cycle.
Speaker 3: More on that than just a minute, because that would
Speaker 3: help us know how rigid the Moon is. A more
Speaker 3: rigid IO would be consistent with a more solid interior,
Speaker 3: but a more flexible IO would indicate a liquid magma
Speaker 3: ocean underneath. Now on that sort of flexing and stretching cycle,
Speaker 3: IO is in a very close orbit around Jupiter. The
Speaker 3: average distance between the planet and the Moon is four
Speaker 3: hundred and twenty two thousand kilometers over the course of
Speaker 3: its roughly forty two point five hour orbits. Now, that
Speaker 3: is not much further than the distance between the Earth
Speaker 3: and the Moon, which is about three hundred and eighty
Speaker 3: four thousand kilometers, except think of how big Jupiter is.
Speaker 3: In the words of Scott Bolton, the junoprincipal investigator IO
Speaker 3: is orbiting a monster and this has many different effects.
Speaker 3: We've talked about some of them already, but a big
Speaker 3: one is a gravitational effect. Gravity follows the inverse square law,
Speaker 3: meaning that the attractive force between two objects in space
Speaker 3: is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them,
Speaker 3: and another way of thinking about that is, as you
Speaker 3: get closer to a planet, the force of gravity asserted
Speaker 3: on you rapidly becomes greater. So get a little bit
Speaker 3: closer to Jupiter and you get pulled harder toward it.
Speaker 3: A strange thing about Io is that, in addition to
Speaker 3: being very close in orbit around a very massive planet,
Speaker 3: the orbit of this moon is also not circular. It
Speaker 3: is slightly elliptical, meaning that if you look down from
Speaker 3: above the orbital plane, you're going to see the orbit
Speaker 3: being slightly longer in one direction than another. It's a
Speaker 3: little bit more oval shaped than a circle. This elliptical
Speaker 3: orbit is actually because of regular gravitational influence by two
Speaker 3: more of the Galilean moons, Europa and Ganymede. These moons
Speaker 3: are in what's called an orbital resonance with Io, which
Speaker 3: means that their orbits are sort of like small integer
Speaker 3: multiples of the orbits of iOS. They frequently line up
Speaker 3: in the same place as Io as they're going around
Speaker 3: the planet, and the fact that they continually line up
Speaker 3: in the same direction over and over means that they
Speaker 3: sort of stretch Io's orbit in that one direction. So
Speaker 3: the elliptical orbit of Io means that the distance between
Speaker 3: Io and Jupiter keeps changing, And so as the distance
Speaker 3: keeps changing, the strength of Jupiter's gravitational pull on Io
Speaker 3: keeps changing.
Speaker 1: Two.
Speaker 3: And this really affects the Moon because it's always the
Speaker 3: case that the side of the Moon facing Jupiter experiences
Speaker 3: a stronger pull than the side that's farther away. The
Speaker 3: nearer side is pulled harder than the far side. But
Speaker 3: because of the constantly changing distance between Io and Jupiter,
Speaker 3: the difference between the pull on the far side and
Speaker 3: the near side of the planet keeps changing too. And
Speaker 3: this manifests as what planetary geologists might call tidal flexing.
Speaker 3: It's a squeezing, stretching of the solid material that the
Speaker 3: Moon is made of in the fluctuating gravitational field. You
Speaker 3: can kind of just imagine this by by like holding
Speaker 3: a rubber ball in your hand and just like squeezing
Speaker 3: it over and over again. It's a it's a flexing
Speaker 3: of the material that the moon is made of. Now, Rob,
Speaker 3: did you ever do the thing in like the school
Speaker 3: cafeteria when you were younger where you get one of those,
Speaker 3: you know, cheap metal forks, cafeteria forks, and you bend
Speaker 3: it back and forth a bunch of times, real fast,
Speaker 3: until it gets hot.
Speaker 1: No, I never did this. I didn't even know this
Speaker 1: was a thing. I mean, I mean, physically, I understand
Speaker 1: why it's possible, but I didn't know it was a
Speaker 1: thing that kids do.
Speaker 3: I guess it was the thing I did. I don't
Speaker 3: know sure, is that are most forks supposed to bend
Speaker 3: like that?
Speaker 1: You're using your hands right, not your mind?
Speaker 3: Yes, just hands, just hands. This this has got to
Speaker 3: be possible only with like real bottom shelf cutlery. But yeah,
Speaker 3: so you know, you flex a piece of metal back
Speaker 3: and forth a bunch of times. Usually what you will
Speaker 3: find is that the metal heats up. The flexing causes
Speaker 3: a frictional force within the material that excites the atoms,
Speaker 3: and it makes the metal hot or at least warm.
Speaker 3: Similar principle here. The flexing of the Moon by the
Speaker 3: changing gravitational field as it gets closer and farther away
Speaker 3: from Jupiter causes frictional heating of the inside of the Moon,
Speaker 3: and that heat is immense. It is so immense that
Speaker 3: it melts parts of the Moon's interior, and this massive
Speaker 3: build up of internal heat energy is released to the
Speaker 3: surface through volcanic eruptions. But this brings us back to
Speaker 3: the question we started with, what is the nature of
Speaker 3: the subsurface magma source? To read from the paper in
Speaker 3: Nature quote for decades, it has been speculated that this
Speaker 3: extreme tidal heating may be sufficient to melt a substantial
Speaker 3: fraction of Io's interior, plausibly forming a global subsurface magma ocean.
Speaker 3: Many worlds are believed to have had magma oceans early
Speaker 3: in their evolution, notably the early Moon referring to Earth's
Speaker 3: moon there, notably the early Moon which is thought to
Speaker 3: have had a shallow magma ocean in the first one
Speaker 3: hundred million years, caused by the giant impact that birthed
Speaker 3: the body, which that is not new information in this paper,
Speaker 3: but that on its own is just a fascinating fact
Speaker 3: to consider it, you know. So there is the main
Speaker 3: theory of the origin of the current Earth and Moon
Speaker 3: is the giant impact hypothesis. So the idea is that
Speaker 3: roughly four and a half billion years ago, during the
Speaker 3: formation of the Solar System, when the you know, the
Speaker 3: planets were just accreting. There was a collision between the
Speaker 3: early proto Earth and some kind of roughly Mars sized object,
Speaker 3: and this collision caused a fracturing that eventually ended up
Speaker 3: causing the the separation of the material that became the
Speaker 3: Earth and became the Moon. So that's the common origin
Speaker 3: of the Earth we have now and where the Moon
Speaker 3: came from. And so the idea here is that for
Speaker 3: the first one hundred million years or so after that,
Speaker 3: the Moon probably had a global shallow magma ocean surrounded
Speaker 3: by liquid by molten rockow would have been cool to see,
Speaker 3: perhaps not physically cool, but anyway. So the authors cite
Speaker 3: that as an example of a global shallow magma ocean
Speaker 3: surrounding a planetary body or a moon, and then the
Speaker 3: quote goes on to say Io's extreme volcanism strongly suggests
Speaker 3: the existence of at least a partially molten interior. Whether
Speaker 3: the interior contains a shallow global magma ocean has been
Speaker 3: an outstanding question since the discovery of Io's volcanism. Now,
Speaker 3: beyond these theoretical models, were there any recent experiments that
Speaker 3: would have provided support for the idea of a global
Speaker 3: magma ocean. I was looking into this, and it appears, yes,
Speaker 3: there were some good reasons, some findings that pointed in
Speaker 3: this direction. Apparently, the Galileo mission took some magnetic measurements
Speaker 3: that were thought to be consistent with a shallow, shallow
Speaker 3: reserve of global magma. And I also wanted to flag
Speaker 3: another argument for the magma ocean. I came across in
Speaker 3: a space dot com article by Keith Cooper, which pointed
Speaker 3: out that previous data collected by the junomission had actually
Speaker 3: enabled researchers to create the first global map of Io's
Speaker 3: volcanic activity. Rob actually pasted a picture of this global
Speaker 3: map in the outline for you to look at here.
Speaker 3: And so it's got little color coded polka dots of
Speaker 3: different energy levels of volcanic eruptions all over Io's surface.
Speaker 3: The authors here assembled this map based on near infrared
Speaker 3: signatures of Io's poll polar regions. In particular, data collected
Speaker 3: by previous missions had already done some of this mapping,
Speaker 3: I think, but had left us with an incomplete picture
Speaker 3: of volcanic activity near the poles. And I was reading
Speaker 3: a space dot Com article that quoted study author Ashley Davies,
Speaker 3: a volcanologist, at NASA, JPL and Caltech Pasadena, and Davies
Speaker 3: explained their findings by saying, quote, before this analysis, it
Speaker 3: was thought that Io's polar volcanoes were fewer and more
Speaker 3: powerful than at lower latitudes. We showed that polar volcanoes
Speaker 3: are about as prevalent as at lower latitudes, and actually
Speaker 3: with lower emitted power, suggesting smaller eruptions. And another thing
Speaker 3: the researchers found is that these findings were interpreted by
Speaker 3: computer modeling to lend support to the hypothesis of a
Speaker 3: global subsurface magma ocean. So it seemed like this looked
Speaker 3: good for the magma ocean.
Speaker 1: Did they consider connecting these dots and seeing if it
Speaker 1: made a pentagram or not, because that's generally what you
Speaker 1: do in detective movies.
Speaker 3: It really does look like people should be putting tax
Speaker 3: in and putting string between them, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, say it all lines up with that unnamed island.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, that unnamed island is I'm sure going to
Speaker 3: be right around one of the yellow dots here. In fact,
Speaker 3: I think I see where Loki Ptera is, and yes
Speaker 3: it is. In fact one of it is one of
Speaker 3: the hottest types of dots, any pentangles, I'm not really
Speaker 3: seeing it.
Speaker 1: If you want them bad enough, they will manifest.
Speaker 3: But anyway, coming back to the new Jono experiment, park
Speaker 3: it all from twenty twenty four, So the author is
Speaker 3: use the Doppler data from the JUNO flybys and the
Speaker 3: Deep Space Network radio telescopes, as well as data previously
Speaker 3: collected by the Galileo mission to try to look at
Speaker 3: the tidal deformation of Io. And again remember they're looking
Speaker 3: for if it's more, if it's stretching more, if it
Speaker 3: seems more easily deformed, that probably means liquid magma ocean underneath.
Speaker 3: And if it's more rigid, that probably means that it
Speaker 3: is more solid underneath. And they concluded based on their
Speaker 3: findings that Io could not have a global magma ocean
Speaker 3: underneath its surface. Instead, the Moon must be mostly solid
Speaker 3: with individual magma chambers driving the hundreds of volcanoes. The
Speaker 3: authors of the Paperwright quote, our results indicate that tidal
Speaker 3: forces do not universally create global magma oceans, which may
Speaker 3: be prevented from forming owing to rapid melt ascent, intrusion
Speaker 3: and eruption. So even strong tidal heating such as that
Speaker 3: expected on several known exoplanets and super earths may not
Speaker 3: guarantee the formation of magma oceans on moons or planetary bodies,
Speaker 3: and rob I've got a little artist's rendition for you
Speaker 3: to look at here. This is an artist's impression of
Speaker 3: the interior of Io informed by these new findings. Does
Speaker 3: not show a global magma ocean. Instead shows these the pockets,
Speaker 3: these magma chambers that are leading up to the volcanoes
Speaker 3: on the surface, some of these volcanoes being connected to
Speaker 3: plumes that we see erupting far over the surface of
Speaker 3: the planet. This has more the look of you know,
Speaker 3: it's like when you see superheroes and movies that like
Speaker 3: have the fire inside and you see their skin kind
Speaker 3: of cracking and then the fire is ready to come out.
Speaker 3: It looks like it's about to go supermode exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, these kind of yeah, these deep I want
Speaker 1: to describe them as veins because they don't really have
Speaker 1: that kind of rooting pattern. But deep fissures, I guess
Speaker 1: would be more glowing fissures would be the way to
Speaker 1: describe them.
Speaker 3: And so perhaps one reason Io doesn't have a magma
Speaker 3: ocean would be all of its volcanoes, they may in
Speaker 3: fact be dissipating the heat that would otherwise melt the mantle.
Speaker 3: The author's right in their conclusion quote. On Earth, deep
Speaker 3: melts can be denser than the surrounding mantle and thus
Speaker 3: remain sequestered. In a basal magma ocean. On io, pressures
Speaker 3: are much lower, so mantle melts are expected to be
Speaker 3: always less dense than the surrounding solid mantle. The melts
Speaker 3: will tend to ascend, making maintenance of a deep magma
Speaker 3: ocean dynamically problematic. Conversely, if the melts are dense, for example,
Speaker 3: if sufficiently iron rich, although a deep magma ocean could
Speaker 3: then form, it would be hard to explain how any
Speaker 3: such melt would ascend and erupt. Thus, we conclude that
Speaker 3: the volcanism seen on iosurface is not sourced from a
Speaker 3: global magma ocean. So it seems like that interesting idea
Speaker 3: is likely put to rest unless something causes us to
Speaker 3: really reinterpret these results. But despite the magma reserves not
Speaker 3: being part of a sort of global shared ocean in nature,
Speaker 3: I still think that leaves the volcanoes and the plumes,
Speaker 3: and the eruptions and the lava lakes no less fascinating
Speaker 3: and charismatic.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Plus, you know, if you miss that, if
Speaker 1: you miss that vision of what IO is, it's probably
Speaker 1: out there somewhere else in the universe. So you can
Speaker 1: just imagine that it's out there somewhere waiting.
Speaker 3: For you used to be present on our moon.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, it's somewhere else in time and space and
Speaker 1: in time, maybe a lot closer than you thought. Now.
Speaker 1: One of the features of the illustration that you showed me,
Speaker 1: and certainly listeners can find various images that either depict
Speaker 1: this or are actual captures of this. One of the
Speaker 1: distinguishing features that you often see with IO is that
Speaker 1: of these plumes coming up from its surface, a volcanic
Speaker 1: eruption that is ejecting material into space. And it is
Speaker 1: always kind of weird to look at because it feels
Speaker 1: completely out of scale, like we're not used to seeing,
Speaker 1: you know, we we've all seen images of volcanic eruptions,
Speaker 1: and yes they can actually they can look quite alarming
Speaker 1: from orbit, but this just looks These just look amazing
Speaker 1: because the moon in profile has this plume coming off
Speaker 1: of it, just this ridiculously far reaching plume of volcanic eruption,
Speaker 1: and so that's what I want to explore here in
Speaker 1: this next section, getting into like what exactly this is,
Speaker 1: what does it mean for not only Io but for
Speaker 1: the the basically the entire orbital realm of Jupiter itself.
Speaker 3: I totally agree with what you say about looking at
Speaker 3: these plumes, that the plumes, even in real direct images
Speaker 3: taken from reality, look fake. They look like they look
Speaker 3: like art. The word photo can be misleading because the
Speaker 3: instruments used to capture these images can be different. In nature,
Speaker 3: it's not always just visual light. But but yeah, like
Speaker 3: direct images of reality that we're looking at, but they're
Speaker 3: that they look like a yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like this is grotesque and ridiculous. But I'm reminded
Speaker 1: of pimples. You know, usually in profile, you are not
Speaker 1: going to notice a pimple, And if a pimple were
Speaker 1: to burst on a person, you wouldn't see that in profile.
Speaker 1: You wouldn't see like the silhouette of the eruption. And
Speaker 1: if you were to see that, well, you would be
Speaker 1: watching like an itchy and scratchy cartoon or a SpongeBob
Speaker 1: cartoon or something. It would be a cartoon exaggeration of
Speaker 1: reality and that's what the scale of these things really
Speaker 1: looks like.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. We see plumes on Io that are
Speaker 3: like somebody with a three inch high pimple that when
Speaker 3: you pop it, it squirts like six feet off their body.
Speaker 1: Yes, So what's going on here? Well, you know, here
Speaker 1: on Earth we certainly have powerful volcanic eruptions as well,
Speaker 1: we have in the past, and they occur periodically and
Speaker 1: they will continue to occur. But we also have some
Speaker 1: other things going for us that you don't find on
Speaker 1: Io and you don't find everywhere else. In our Solar system.
Speaker 1: We have a robust atmosphere, We have resulting wind resistance
Speaker 1: and sufficient gravity to place the necessary escape velocity beyond
Speaker 1: what even a very powerful terrestrial eruption is capable of reaching.
Speaker 3: Right, So that escape velocity number is going to mean
Speaker 3: that our volcanoes, they might erupt quite powerfully, but they're
Speaker 3: not blasting stuff out into space so that it never
Speaker 3: comes back, or not much stuff certainly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've read that while terrestrial volcanoes can't really blast
Speaker 1: things into orbit, they can reach really high into the atmosphere,
Speaker 1: in arguably touching space. For instance, the twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: Hanga Tonga volcanic eruption supposedly shot water vapor up that
Speaker 1: high to where it was essentially touching space. But it's
Speaker 1: not quite what we're seeing with Io at all.
Speaker 3: Right, And even if it were to go into space
Speaker 3: and go into orbit, that still wouldn't be a scape velocity.
Speaker 1: Right right. Yeah, you've got to get all the way
Speaker 1: out of there, you got to. It's got to be
Speaker 1: a complete breakup with the planet, not one of these things.
Speaker 1: We'll continue to see each other socially. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: you've got to be out of there.
Speaker 3: Volcanoes are not doing that.
Speaker 1: So this thinking about this led me to, you know,
Speaker 1: get into escape velocity uh here on Earth and elsewhere,
Speaker 1: and ways to escape it. You know. The most obvious
Speaker 1: way to do it is, of course, in a rocket.
Speaker 1: That's what we're used to seeing with our Earth space technology.
Speaker 1: The escape velocity on Earth is eleven point one eighty
Speaker 1: six kilometers per second. That is, that's that's going to
Speaker 1: be a higher velocity than is necessary for any of
Speaker 1: the other inner planets. On Earth's own moon it's two
Speaker 1: point thirty eight kilometers per second, and on Io the
Speaker 1: number I've seen is two point five five eight so
Speaker 1: just to give you a little frame of reference for
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here again coming back to what
Speaker 1: does Earth have that a lot of these other suspects
Speaker 1: don't you know? It has the gravity, it has the
Speaker 1: robust atmosphere, and so forth. So this all adds up
Speaker 1: to a greater necessary escape velocity for anything that is
Speaker 1: leaving the surface of the planet or any point within
Speaker 1: the atmosphere of the planet and hoping to free itself
Speaker 1: of our orbital dominion. Now, one thing, I want to
Speaker 1: go ahead and get out of the way at the
Speaker 1: top here there, I think a lot of people have
Speaker 1: probably heard the legendary manhole shot into space story via
Speaker 1: operation plumb Bob. These were atomic tests in nineteen fifty seven.
Speaker 1: The idea here was that you had these test wells
Speaker 1: for atomic detonations with a metal cap on the top,
Speaker 1: essentially a manhole cover, and at least one of these
Speaker 1: blasted the cap off, and it was said that it
Speaker 1: achieved such velocity. In fact, I think the number that
Speaker 1: is often cited is six times the necessary escape velocity,
Speaker 1: and therefore flew off into space and is potentially still
Speaker 1: out there well. According to a twenty twenty two snop's
Speaker 1: article by Bethania Palma. There's nothing actually out there to
Speaker 1: back this up. This all seems to stem from a
Speaker 1: comment by Robert Brownly, who worked on the project, who
Speaker 1: remarked that the manhole cover in question would have been
Speaker 1: blasted off at six times the necessary escape velocity. It
Speaker 1: apparently went flying, but that's all that's really known. We
Speaker 1: don't know if it was launched into space, and if
Speaker 1: it was, we have no records or recording of it.
Speaker 1: I think it's also been mentioned that it's possible that
Speaker 1: it would have burnt up on the way up as well,
Speaker 1: So you know, we have to consider all these options.
Speaker 1: But there's no clear evidence that this thing actually made
Speaker 1: it into orbit or beyond orbit and so forth.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all we actually know is that this was a piece,
Speaker 3: a solid piece of metal that was hit from below
Speaker 3: with tremendous energy. But we don't know exactly what happened
Speaker 3: to that matter and energy afterwards. What its journey was
Speaker 3: question mark right now. Of course, we already mentioned rockets.
Speaker 3: Rockets are you know, we can compare rockets to volcanoes
Speaker 3: in that you know, the rocket is taking advantage of
Speaker 3: a very explosive chemical reaction in order to propel this,
Speaker 3: you know, tower of steel and so forth upwards through
Speaker 3: the atmosphere, and you know it's and rocket science has
Speaker 3: come a long way. It's ultimately a lot more dependable
Speaker 3: than trying to blast into space on a volcano, which
Speaker 3: again probably wouldn't give you the exactly the push you needed. Anyway,
Speaker 3: I wonder if it's been tried.
Speaker 1: It you'd have to be you'd have to be so patient.
Speaker 1: I don't think. I don't think it's just maybe there's
Speaker 1: some sort of sci fi scenario, or it would make
Speaker 1: sense if you know of a science fiction tale which
Speaker 1: someone uses a volcano to escape a planet's orbit, do
Speaker 1: write in and tell us about it. Now, in terms
Speaker 1: of just using explosions, though, and explosive events to potentially
Speaker 1: transfer into orbit or beyond orbit, we do have to
Speaker 1: mention Project Ryan here. This has come up on the
Speaker 1: show in the past because it is an early concept
Speaker 1: of how we might achieve interplanetary travel. It was a
Speaker 1: nuclear pulse spaceship concept from the nineteen fifties and sixties.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of you may be familiar with
Speaker 1: this essentially built around the idea was built around the
Speaker 1: concept you could propel a craft through space via a
Speaker 1: series of nuclear detonations behind the craft. Not to be
Speaker 1: confused with nuclear thermal rockets such as the Nerva project,
Speaker 1: in that you'd have a nuclear reaction that was heating
Speaker 1: fuel rather than depending on a chemical reaction to do so.
Speaker 3: So the nerve rocket would still be a reaction drive,
Speaker 3: but it would just be that the heating is from
Speaker 3: nuclear sources.
Speaker 1: Correct. Yeah, And that one was never tested in space,
Speaker 1: nor was Orion. But the Orion program is like, let's
Speaker 1: keep throwing atomic bombs behind the ship, allowing them to explode,
Speaker 1: thus propelling our ship onward and onward through space with
Speaker 1: each blast like pushing up against a blast plate on
Speaker 1: the rear of the vessel. An idea that I've just
Speaker 1: always found. I mean, it's it's it's preposterous and yet reasonable,
Speaker 1: amazing in its own right, and you know, in in
Speaker 1: Yourself to the Stars, Yeah, yeah, and yeah, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's one that I've come back to a few different times.
Speaker 1: But it's one of Sagan wrote about as well. Actually
Speaker 1: up an old like press briefing where someone asked Sagan
Speaker 1: about it, and you know, he pointed out he'd written
Speaker 1: about it in Cosmos or I don't remember if you'd
Speaker 1: written about it in Cosmos or you just discussed it
Speaker 1: on the television series. But he pointed out like, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: this is actually not a bad way to go ahead
Speaker 1: and get rid of some of our atomic weapons. Let's
Speaker 1: use them to propel a spaceship. But of course there
Speaker 1: are all these various hazards to such a technique as well.
Speaker 1: Some of these we'll get into here in the discussion.
Speaker 1: So I was, you know, I was mostly familiar with
Speaker 1: the concepts involved here, the potential benefits and the downsides.
Speaker 1: But one thing that I didn't quite realize is that
Speaker 1: early models of the project oriyon nuclear pulse spaceship during
Speaker 1: the fifties and sixties actually considered it not only for
Speaker 1: propelling a vehicle through space, but for using it in
Speaker 1: liftoff in order to achieve escape velocity from Earth.
Speaker 3: WHOA, I don't think I'd ever thought of it that way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I was reading about this in a couple of sources.
Speaker 1: One was in a Nuclear Pulse Propulsion Orion and Beyond
Speaker 1: by Schmidt at All for NASA, and they pointed out
Speaker 1: that early drafts of the proposal called for a bullet
Speaker 1: light capsule to be launched from the ground from the
Speaker 1: ground via an atomic detonation, likely from a Nevada nuclear
Speaker 1: test site. The mass of the vehicle on takeoff would
Speaker 1: have been on the order of ten thousand tons, most
Speaker 1: of which would have gone into orbit. At takeoff, the
Speaker 1: zero point one kiloton yield pulse units would be ejected
Speaker 1: at a frequency of one per second. As the vehicle accelerated,
Speaker 1: the rate would slow down and the yield would increase
Speaker 1: until twenty kiloton pulses would have been detonated every ten seconds.
Speaker 1: The vehicle would fly straight up until it cleared the
Speaker 1: atmosphere so as to minimize radioactive contamination. This is one
Speaker 1: of the big hazards and downsides to this whole concept
Speaker 1: is that you would it would entail detonating multiple, multiple
Speaker 1: atomic weapons in this model within the atmosphere. But even
Speaker 1: if you weren't using that within its atmosphere to achieve
Speaker 1: lift off, if you were going to the program where okay,
Speaker 1: you know, once you get your spaceship away from Earth,
Speaker 1: then you can start dropping bombs in order to accelerate.
Speaker 1: Even then you're still causing all of these detonations, and
Speaker 1: then what happens when you reach your destination. There are
Speaker 1: some models that were outlined that would call for detonating
Speaker 1: bombs as you landed, thus like you know, nuking the
Speaker 1: landing site ahead of your arrival, and if there are
Speaker 1: people on board, whether they're gonna have to deal with
Speaker 1: with the literal fallout of all of that. The original
Speaker 1: concept was created by Ted Taylor and Freeman Dyson, and
Speaker 1: Freeman Dyson's son, George Dyson, claimed historian of science, wrote
Speaker 1: about all this in the book Project Orion, The True
Speaker 1: Story of the Atomic Spaceship, and he points out quote
Speaker 1: these early four thousand ton ground launch versions of Orion
Speaker 1: specified the ejection of about eight hundred bombs raging and
Speaker 1: yield from zero point fifteen kilotons at sea level to
Speaker 1: five kilotons in space to reach a three hundred mile
Speaker 1: orbit around Earth. Points out that each bomb would have
Speaker 1: weighed around half a ton. Less yield would be necessary
Speaker 1: at lower altitudes, since the thicker air itself would absorb
Speaker 1: energy and add to the kick against that plate. But
Speaker 1: then you would need more yield. You'd have to steadily
Speaker 1: increase the yield of the detonations as the vessel is
Speaker 1: propelled upwards, and this would have all required like tight
Speaker 1: precision and exactly how you're detonating these bombs, and even
Speaker 1: how you're getting them back there underneath the ship, like
Speaker 1: is it a trapdoor or is there some sort of
Speaker 1: a you know, some sort of a targeted rocket system
Speaker 1: that launches them alongside the vessel and then back underneath it.
Speaker 1: You know, you would have to work out all of
Speaker 1: those problems. So that's about eight hundred bombs. The original
Speaker 1: design called for about two thousand bombs or two thousand
Speaker 1: pulse units, far more than needed to reach orbit according
Speaker 1: to their calculations, but that was because they'd set their
Speaker 1: sites pretty high. Their slogan was Mars by nineteen sixty five,
Speaker 1: Saturn by nineteen seventy, and they were talking about like
Speaker 1: crews of one hundred and fifty people. So this was
Speaker 1: a really ambitious concept. Obviously, this is not the way
Speaker 1: it all worked out.
Speaker 3: I mean I said this in a totally different context earlier.
Speaker 3: But there's a cartoonishness to this. It kind of reads
Speaker 3: like a joke.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it does, and I think that's one of the
Speaker 1: reasons it resonates so well. It's like this interesting perversion
Speaker 1: of the accumulation of atomic weapons, though not necessarily a
Speaker 1: negative pervert, like the accumulation of atomic weapons is already
Speaker 1: a perversion in many respects. But the idea of then
Speaker 1: taking them all and using them to propel a spaceship
Speaker 1: to another planet, you know, with such ambition, it you know,
Speaker 1: it's ultimately more attractive. Like Sagan said, it's like, well,
Speaker 1: that's one way to get rid of the weapons, or
Speaker 1: at least that's the way he put it at one point.
Speaker 1: Now the concept here continued to evolve again, they ended
Speaker 1: up moving away from the idea of it potentially blasting
Speaker 1: off of the surface of the Earth like this via
Speaker 1: atomic weapon detonations. It had many powerful supporters, but it
Speaker 1: never came to fruition for a variety of reasons, including cost,
Speaker 1: including risk, and of course including international treaties about nuclear testing.
Speaker 1: George Dyson points out that, yeah, you had these had
Speaker 1: various drawbacks to such a program, including the idea that
Speaker 1: if you were going to use detonations while potentially a
Speaker 1: landing a ship in another world, again, you would be
Speaker 1: pre contaminating the landing site. So even if you even
Speaker 1: if that wasn't going to make it too you know,
Speaker 1: radioactive for then humans to venture out on the surface
Speaker 1: of this destination world. You're still messing with what you
Speaker 1: were going to explore to begin with. You know, uh
Speaker 1: so so many different reasons to not go in this direction.
Speaker 1: Now you might be wondering, was there another way to
Speaker 1: get something into orbit from Earth's surface without some sort
Speaker 1: of an explosion. Well, there has been research into the
Speaker 1: use of centrifugial force, and such research actually continues at
Speaker 1: least as as a rocket aid to decrease the dependence
Speaker 1: on traditional rockets. You know, you can think essentially like
Speaker 1: slingshots in terms of like the basic fundamentals here. This
Speaker 1: is the sort of thing we could potentially come back
Speaker 1: and do a more dedicated episode on this idea, because
Speaker 1: again they're there. There as at least one company out
Speaker 1: there that continues doing a lot of well funded work
Speaker 1: in this area. Now elsewhere in speculation and in science fiction,
Speaker 1: there are some ideas related to directed panspermia to consider,
Speaker 1: so directed PAMs spermias, of course, they this would entail
Speaker 1: the intentional seeding of other worlds with life, and in
Speaker 1: some creative takes on what this might look like, it
Speaker 1: might entail some manner of biological propulsion, maybe some sort
Speaker 1: of biocannon that enables a seed of some sort to
Speaker 1: escape from one world's gravity, drift through space and find
Speaker 1: another world. And we actually saw a vision of what
Speaker 1: this might look like in a recent film that we
Speaker 1: discussed on Weird House Cinema, Beyond the Mind's Eye.
Speaker 3: Oh, that's right, with the yon Hammer soundtrack, It's like
Speaker 3: the second or third track on there is the one
Speaker 3: that the seeds blasting into space and then we see
Speaker 3: them form. And what was the deal with that? Like?
Speaker 3: Why do I associate that with a cover of Black
Speaker 3: Sabbath's Planet Caravan.
Speaker 1: Because it was used as a music video for that
Speaker 1: cover the Planet Caravan. Yeah, which kind of shakes out,
Speaker 1: kind of makes sense. Now is this at all feasible?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Again, I think it comes down to
Speaker 1: what sort of world are you attempting to escape with
Speaker 1: this seed? You know, what's the gravity like, what's the
Speaker 1: atmosphere like and so forth. Now I haven't seen this
Speaker 1: movie in ages, but I believe the bugs in the
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety seven Starship Troopers movie also have something like this.
Speaker 1: I think they're called plasma bugs in that and some
Speaker 1: sort of organic cannon system.
Speaker 3: Right, biological artillery. Yeah, there's some big bugs that kind
Speaker 3: of bend over and they like eject something out of
Speaker 3: their backside that goes up into orbit and it takes
Speaker 3: out the capital ships.
Speaker 1: All right, So some maybe some sort of weaponized version
Speaker 1: of something that might otherwise be used for pan spermic.
Speaker 3: Purposes possibly, who knows.
Speaker 1: Now, there's another major player in the world of science
Speaker 1: fiction biothreats, and that's the Tyrannids and the Warhammer forty
Speaker 1: thousand universe. These are if you're not familiar with these,
Speaker 1: they're kind of there's a little bit of zenomorph to them,
Speaker 1: except they are a spacefaring species. They have big, big
Speaker 1: leviathan bioships and they arrive on worlds and they invade
Speaker 1: them and eventually like turn all the bio they convert
Speaker 1: all the biomass on the planet. But then they have
Speaker 1: to get it off the planet. And interestingly enough, unless
Speaker 1: I'm mistaken, they don't have any kind of way of
Speaker 1: like launching it directly back up with their you know,
Speaker 1: entirely biological civilization. Instead, they depend on something called capillary towers,
Speaker 1: which are like organic space elevators. So they just have
Speaker 1: the big ships in orbit suck it all up back
Speaker 1: off the surface of the planet, which I guess is
Speaker 1: one way to potentially do this.
Speaker 3: Sounds kind of necromonger style.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, there's a certain necromongernous to them, or
Speaker 1: there's a certain tyrannid nature. Did the neckromongers one way
Speaker 1: or the other? Including an image an illustration here of
Speaker 1: what this might look like, you know, the big coiling
Speaker 1: ambilical cord going from the planet's surface up to some
Speaker 1: sort of you know, horrifying living alien vessel.
Speaker 3: Yikes, give me out.
Speaker 1: But anyway, back to the real world, back to volcanoes. Yeah, so,
Speaker 1: while Earth volcanoes can't blast things into orbit space, volcanoes,
Speaker 1: including ice volcanoes, which I think we've talked about on
Speaker 1: the show before, absolutely can and the volcanoes of Io,
Speaker 1: dealing with much less gravity and atmosphere, can easily jet
Speaker 1: their contents into orbit, and not only into their orbit,
Speaker 1: but into the orbit of Jupiter. Ah.
Speaker 3: Well, this actually brings us back to the one of
Speaker 3: the first things we talked about in the series, when
Speaker 3: we were discussing Carl Sagan's comments about what scientists knew
Speaker 3: as the voyager probe was approaching Jupiter before they actually
Speaker 3: had to direct evidence of the volcanoes. One of the
Speaker 3: indications that there might be something strange going on with
Speaker 3: Io was he said that they had already detected a
Speaker 3: huge doughnut shaped tube of atoms in orbit around Jupiter,
Speaker 3: basically within the sort of the same position as the
Speaker 3: orbit of the Moon. Io made up of just like
Speaker 3: just isolated atoms of things like sulfur and potassium and sodium.
Speaker 3: And for some reason that's just going around the planet.
Speaker 1: Why that's right. Yeah, These eruptions create a toroidal or
Speaker 1: doughnut shaped cloud of charged particles that follow Io's orbit
Speaker 1: and wraps part of the way around Jupiter. It's also
Speaker 1: referred to as a plasma taurus, and it produces ultra
Speaker 1: violet light, intense radiation, and as Io orbits Jupiter, it
Speaker 1: travels through the torrent, generating an enormous electrical current, thus
Speaker 1: amplifying Jupiter's magnetosphere. So the ioplasma Taurus play a major
Speaker 1: role in strengthening the most powerful magnetosphere in the Solar System.
Speaker 1: I mean, the magnetosphere of Jupiter almost reaches the orbit
Speaker 1: of Saturn. Now, there are other sources of charge particles
Speaker 1: in Jupiter's orbit, including other Jovian moons and the Solar wind.
Speaker 1: But according to the ESA, Jupiter's magnetosphere captures all of
Speaker 1: these particles and then speeds them up like it's a
Speaker 1: literal particle accelerator, creating intense radiation belts out of these
Speaker 1: accelerated particles, and i OWE is a major contributor. These
Speaker 1: radiation belts pose an additional obstacle to missions to any
Speaker 1: missions to the Jovian moons, particularly any possible future missions
Speaker 1: that might feature live crew members, because this would expose
Speaker 1: them to lethal doses of radiation for like hours at
Speaker 1: a time potentially, and it imposes a risk to equipment
Speaker 1: as well. So any mission through these belts requires, on
Speaker 1: one hand, additional navigation precision to avoid as the ESA
Speaker 1: points out, low latitude orbital paths around Jupiter, and also
Speaker 1: you just need to have additional shielding and protection for
Speaker 1: any gear because I've read that it essentially would be
Speaker 1: it would be a case where whatever kind of equipment
Speaker 1: was aboard one of these craft, it would encounter as
Speaker 1: much radiation as a terrestrial satellite would endure over the
Speaker 1: course of multiple decades. And Joe I included a couple
Speaker 1: images here in the notes for you. Here the sort
Speaker 1: of highlight iOS plasma Taurus and shows shows us like
Speaker 1: how it sort of features into the complex magnetosphere and
Speaker 1: orbital ecosystem of Jupiter. Ah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, So branching out from the poles we see
Speaker 3: the magnetic field lines, but then closer in to of
Speaker 3: course those extend out really far into space. But then
Speaker 3: in closer to the planet we see the gold ring,
Speaker 3: we see the ring of the atom or the ion Taurus.
Speaker 3: And this is a lot of this, as you said,
Speaker 3: stuff that is actually being ejected from the thin atmosphere
Speaker 3: and uh, an orbit of io bi volcanic eruptions and
Speaker 3: just goes off into space and ends up in orbit
Speaker 3: not around Io, but around Jupiter.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, so I found found this that this is
Speaker 1: just another way in which IO stands out and I
Speaker 1: think is rather fascinating. It's it's again, it's easy to
Speaker 1: consider IO and think, Okay, well it's not It's maybe
Speaker 1: not a top consideration for extraterdustrial life. It's not a
Speaker 1: top consideration for some sort of uh you know, distant
Speaker 1: future human colony. Uh. And it's not even like the
Speaker 1: biggest moon. Maybe in your opinion it's not the most
Speaker 1: impressive moon in the Jovian system, but when you look
Speaker 1: at details like this, it's clear that it is a
Speaker 1: major player in the Jovian system. Like it, it contributes
Speaker 1: quite a bit. So it would be you would be
Speaker 1: in great error if you were to completely dismiss Io
Speaker 1: and be like, oh, it's not interesting it it doesn't
Speaker 1: really do anything, etc. Like No, it's it's it's of
Speaker 1: extreme importance.
Speaker 3: I want to meet the person who says it's not
Speaker 3: interesting because it's not the biggest size matters not. Come on,
Speaker 3: look at the volcanoes. I know it's got that island.
Speaker 1: There's a lot going on here, you know, maybe maybe
Speaker 1: not life, but maybe life. As we discussed in the
Speaker 1: last episode, we just don't know. There's a lot more
Speaker 1: to learn from Io, that's for sure.
Speaker 3: Did I tell you I've been thinking about that big
Speaker 3: island in the middle of Loki Potera as the island
Speaker 3: of Death.
Speaker 1: That would be something if it had the like the
Speaker 1: signature booklan topography going on there. Once we get some
Speaker 1: more detailed imagery, all right, well, we're going to go
Speaker 1: ahead and close the book on Io. Here you know,
Speaker 1: at least until more data presents itself and provokes us
Speaker 1: to come back and take another look. But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: we'd love to hear from all of you out there
Speaker 1: if you have feedback on anything we've discussed in these episodes. Wise,
Speaker 1: are there other moons that we've covered in the past,
Speaker 1: Jovian moons, the moons of Saturn and so forth that
Speaker 1: you think deserve a second, more detailed examination on the show.
Speaker 1: If so, write in let us know and we will
Speaker 1: consider giving it a go.
Speaker 3: I feel like the obvious candidate is Titan, right, Yeah,
Speaker 3: here we go deep.
Speaker 1: On Titan, Yeah, or you know whatever, the biggest one is, right,
Speaker 1: all right? Just a reminder to everybody's stuff to Blow
Speaker 1: your Mind is primarily a science and culture podcast, with
Speaker 1: core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, short form episodes on
Speaker 1: Wednesdays and on Fridays. We set aside most serious concerns
Speaker 1: to just talk about a weird film on Weird House Cinema.
Speaker 3: Huge thanks as always to our regular audio producer JJ Posway,
Speaker 3: and shout out special thanks today to our guest producer
Speaker 3: Max Williams. Thank you so much. Max. If you would
Speaker 3: like To get in touch with us with feedback on
Speaker 3: this episode or any other, to suggest a topic for
Speaker 3: the future, or just to say hello, you can email
Speaker 3: us at con Intact. That's Stuff to Blow Your Mind
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 2: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 2: more podcasts from My heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.
Speaker 2: M