The world moves fast. You work day, even faster, pitching products, drafting reports, analyzing data. Microsoft 365 Copilot is your AI assistant for work, built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and other Microsoft 365 apps you use, helping you quickly write, analyze, create, and summarize. So you can cut through clutter and clear a path to your best work. Learn more at Microsoft.com slash M365 Copilot. Experience your favorite films like Never Before at the Royal Albert Hall, an out-of-this-world cinematic experience. Watch a full-length feature film on the big screen as a symphony orchestra performs the score live on stage. Upcoming films include Matilda, with live narration from Danny DeVito on stage, plus Pirates of the Caribbean and Star Wars. Book your tickets at royalalberthall.com Hello and welcome to another bonus episode of the Supermassive podcast from the Royal Astronomical Society. With me, science journalist Izzy Clark, astrophysicist Dr Beccy Smethurst, and the Society's deputy director Dr Robert Massey. Right, let's dive into the supermassive mailbox. Robert Rastopia has an idea for terraforming Mars try this they say. Hi, I discovered the supermassive podcast just recently and really enjoy it. You ask for curveball questions in one of your recent episodes and I have one. Has anyone in the science community ever seriously proposed this method of terraforming Mars? Here goes. One, create little thruster probes which have just enough fuel to get to Saturn's rings. Two, these probes then find a big chunk of ring ice and attach to it. Three, the probe then uses some of the mass of the ice chunk itself as thrust material, steering the chunk to crash into Mars gently, if possible. Four, repeat steps one to three, sending probes each year over the next century or two. How many probes would we need? Ten thousand, a hundred thousand? Five, wait a few decades for everything to settle down into oceans, thicker atmospheres, etc. Six, go live on Mars. I hesitate to say I thought of this myself. I could swear I heard this somewhere many, many years ago but cannot find a source. Would it be feasible, like all terraforming? It would take extreme patience and a multi-decade commitment to get off the ground. But wouldn't there be more than enough water and other trace elements out there around Saturn for use in this way? Thanks for your podcast. Can't wait for the next episode, Russ in Canada. Russ, thank you for taking up our challenge of curveball questions. Joining the nearest listeners who are doing this and hurting our brains every single time, which is what we need. I love it. I think this idea came up in places like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, which is sort of science fiction staple as one of the ways of doing it. And it's probably connected with the fact that we think a lot of the water on Earth might have an extraterrestrial origin, not necessarily all of it but some of it. And so it's an interesting question because it sounds quite plausible, but I think the floor is that Saturn's rings don't actually have enough mass. The oceans of the Earth, when I was doing some, again, back of the envelope calculation, is happy to be corrected if someone is better than this, but I think the oceans of the Earth have about a hundred times as much. So even if you assume shallower oceans, smaller planet Mars and the rest of it, I'm not sure there's enough in the rings, even if you remove all the rings, which won't make Becky very happy. No, that's true. If we're going to a Saturn without rings again, depending on how much water you want. So to create oceans and rivers and have a reliable warmer and thicker atmosphere is not going to be easy. And you do us a favor to scoop up really many, many billions of icy particles, and that's not going to be very easy. No, I don't think it'll just be a few thousand or even a few tens or even a hundred thousand probes. It's going to be even more than that. And then bring them to Mars. You probably also don't want to crash them into the surface because that will create other issues. A lot of this stuff might then get ejected into space, for example. It's not going to be a very efficient way of doing it. All a bit difficult. In theory, you could also, other sources, you could look at, say, all the ice in the asteroid belt in the same challenging way, but even that might not quite be enough. And maybe you could go out and scoop out all the comets in the Oort Cloud. But the difficulty is there is that some of them are really very, very far away. They're, you know, up to a light year from the sun and more, which we've simply never been able to go that far. And it will take a very, very long time to get there. It's interesting that NASA actually looked at whether it was possible to terraform Mars using our current technology. They looked at the paper in 2018 they published, and they concluded it wasn't still really difficult. We just don't have the means to grab things, the amount of energy we need and all of those things. And it makes me a bit sad in a sense. I'm very ambivalent about this. I definitely don't want to trash any indigenous Martian life through terraforming. You know, we have an unhappy history of doing this. It's going to be fragile life. You know, I'm not worried about this stuff getting it awesome. You should take it seriously, but that's probably not the biggest risk. The biggest risk is going to be we go along, stomp all over the place. And this surviving life deep under the surface of Mars gets wiped out by us. So that's what I worry about with terraforming with anything. Even if I'd like to imagine we could have these other Earths in the solar system, I think, you know, the ethical qualms around that are still very, very strong for me. Okay, I'm Becky Matt Taylor, and I assume this is a different Matt Taylor of, yeah, shout out to Matt Taylor, but both Matt Taylor. So a Matt Taylor has emailed us a question about stars and distances and says, thanks for the Q&A section of the podcast. Star sizes for the most part are tiny compared to the distances between them. Likewise for the distances between galaxies, what accounts for these massive distances? Why aren't they closer together? Also, the further we look into the night sky, the further back in time we're seeing when the universe was smaller. Yet the further you look, the universe appears larger. Hope you can shed some light on these. Sure. Okay, let's start with why aren't stars closer together? Well, sometimes they are, right? They are in big globular clusters, you know, and in other parts of the galaxy, they're further apart. It really just depends on how big and how dense the gas clouds that stars formed out of are. More dense gas cloud tends to form stars closer together. More dense gas cloud will form stars further apart just as gravity comes in together. In terms of why aren't galaxies closer together? Well, again, they used to be, and it depends on the gas clouds that they formed out of in the first place and how gravity pulled everything together. But also the universe is expanding, and that's moving galaxies further apart all the time. And then for the second part of your question, Matt, as we're looking back in time as we do, because light takes time to travel to us. So as we look at further distances, we see galaxies at those distances as they were when the universe was much younger. But the universe appears larger, as you say, but that's all just to do with perspective, right? We have a 360 degree perspective here on Earth, so we can look out in any direction, and we see the universe sort of spreading out around us in any direction. So yes, I get what you're saying. It appears larger. We look at a larger volume is what we say in astrophysics. When we are looking at more distant objects and we're looking back in time, we're not seeing the universe smaller. We're seeing it younger and denser, right? Think about it. If the universe is infinite, which we don't actually know whether the universe is infinite or not, because we can't see anything beyond the observable universe because of the fact that light takes time to travel to us. But if the universe was infinite and it's expanding, it doesn't make sense to say that it was once smaller. If it was infinite, right? It's a common misconception when it comes to the Big Bang Theory, right? We can't help but picture it like this shrinking balloon that is getting smaller and going back to some point in space. But the entire universe is all of space time, right? You don't have space time if you don't have the universe. There's no space time outside of the existence of the universe. There's nowhere for the universe to physically be, you know, if it is like a picture of a shrinking balloon, there's nothing outside for it to be. And there's also no time for the universe to be either. Harking back to this one's episode a little bit as well. So it's not right to say that the universe was smaller, but then it's right to say the universe was a denser and it is now expanding to become less dense. So as we look at further distances back in time, we're seeing it denser, but not smaller. I hope that makes sense. I hope. Thanks Becky. And Robert, here's a question on slow collisions from Iliich, which starts with a lovely message that was just to inflate our ecosystem. Hello, Supermassive Team. Thank you for a great podcast. I would like to express my admiration to you all for making a complex and mind-boggling subject understandable to a layman like myself, and I suppose others like me. Well, good. Thank you. We do. Whether we succeed. Now to my question. Collisions in space are usually very violent events, and I imagine the speeds of those collisions are a big part of the violence. What would happen, however, if say an Earth and Mars-sized planet were to collide, like with the formation of our moon, but this time colliding at a snail's pace? My guess is this would not be possible because their gravity getting closer and closer would make them speed up. But let's assume they magically do collide at a snail's pace and normal physics pops back into existence the moment they touch. So convenient. Yes. Would the following merger still be a violent event, or would this be a slow process where they would eventually merge into a bigger sphere? I hope this question is interesting. P.S. Becky's pronunciation of knocky might be my favorite moment of the podcast. Please don't stop being weird. Exactly. I'll leave Becky to do that one. There's nothing wrong with them flating our egos, which we appreciate that. I mean, they're wrong. I was thinking about this one. There are real examples of slow collisions when you get relatively small things and things like the two parts of our ACOF, the Kuiper Belt object that was visited by New Horizons in 2019. That's a contact binary where they didn't merge in a violent way. They're sufficiently low in vast. They've got a weak gravitational field between the two. So they collided quite gently, spiraling slowly. It's really hard to do that with something like the Earth and Mars because if you started them at zero, they're going to reach high speeds as they come together. I was trying to think about the part of the question about how you could suspend physics and switch it on again. I guess as soon as you switch it on again, you've got some magic thing where you switch off gravity or you make it very, very weak or you have some unimaginable force that makes the move slowly together. Once they merge together, the gravitational force is going to take over. You've got going to have a very big lumpy object. It's going to have to settle in some way. That is going to be a violent event. I suppose I'm thinking about even the event that formed the Earth-Moon system, which we think was a proto-Earth and something the size of Mars hitting that, that you mentioned. Even if you imagine that those things emerge together, is it going to be a non-violent? No, it's still going to be hugely violent. You've got all the settling, you've got all the churning inside. It's just impossible to imagine that it being a sort of quiescent thing. You can't take that much mass, put it together and expect it to be a nice gentle thing. They're not just going to stick together gently and cuddle up. It just doesn't work like that. Think of the centrifugal force alone, right? Because they'd be spinning. You'd have two objects touching and spinning. I guess it would go from that to a really oblique spheroid. It's the force of gravity. Once she's switched it on again, we always say in astronomy, gravity is a very weak force. But when you add it up on big scales, it matters. Sadly, there isn't a nice way of sticking planets together. It's not like, what's a good children's toy when you stick balls together? Something like that. You're not sort of plastic balls of Velcro on or something. It's always going to be a bit violent and a bit twitchy to make it happen. On the grander scales, when you look at things like neutron star mergers and so on, obviously, they're hugely extreme. But this is, even in this case, switching physics on again, switching it off, switching it on again, can't see how that's going to end well. Okay. Thank you, Robert. Becky Lambert 0B1001 has sent in a question following up from our time episode that I know you're going to love. And they ask, how much of the theory in Avengers Endgame regarding time is scientifically acceptable? Let's cue the rant, shall we? Oh my god. Okay. Well, I would like to preface this with that I do love Avengers. My ultimate escape films, they told that line perfectly of more fantasy than sci-fi, so I could just turn my brain off. Like, one for the book club, I'm reading Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir at the moment. It's fantastic, but I cannot turn my brain off for eating that one. There's no suspension of disbelief. Anyway, for the Avengers, there are so many things swept under the scientific rug. I'll start with the obvious, the PIM particles, the things that they use to shrink themselves down to quantum sized and time travel and whatever. PIM particles aren't a real thing, right? That's completely made up for the film. Although what I would say is that I thought it was really interesting that they went down like the quantum path with Avengers Endgame. Obviously, they already had it with like, man, already being there was an obvious thing to do. But like, I feel like the quantum physics sort of aspect of time is so far removed from any of the more plausible scientifically sort of accepted time travel devices, I guess for whatever better word. Like, for example, we have wormholes. They're very much hypothetical still, but like, we have the maths to describe them. For example, we know that they bend space time and therefore we can change time with a wormhole. You could punch through from one part of space and pop out in another space with a wormhole shore. But also, if you can manipulate space time, you can manipulate time to pop out in a different time as well, right? So that option was open to them and they didn't go for it as basically what I was saying. Quantum mechanics though, it governs the very, very, very small, right? And there's a lot we do understand about it and a lot we don't understand about it and I don't think anyone really fully understands it quite famously. And there's no way right now of linking quantum mechanics with general relativity and our understanding of space and time. So because we don't have that theory and those, you know, theoretical physicists all around the world that literally devote their entire lives trying to link these two things, like we can't really quite comment on like the time travel aspect through what they decide to do, which is using like quantum mechanics to do it. There's then the issue that you mess with time and you create paradoxes. Yeah. They sort of argue that because they've gone down the quantum mechanics, many worlds explanation, which if you remember we covered in an earlier episode of the podcast as well, remember is that one really did bend your brain? I love that. I just tried to pull that out of my brain. I was like, we've done it in the past. That's all I've got. You've got PTSD and your brains protected yourself from it. The multiverse episodes, yes we did. We've covered it then. Yes. Yeah. So it's this idea that like, you know, every single little thing that could be different, like even a roll of a dice would make a completely different universe that's parallel to our own with different things that have happened. And so, I mean, they really build on that in the multiverse adventures and low key and all of that, you know, so they're done. And so what they argue is that through that explanation, there is no paradox created by the fact that they take the infinity stones from the like past where they used to be before they were destroyed in the present kind of thing so that they can use them in the present, you know. And so they said it because by taking the stones all you're doing is creating this new multiverse almost like a divergent timeline as they describe it as that that doesn't affect the original master timeline of where they would eventually be as long as they then return the infinity stones back to where they took them from that then like prunes the divergent timeline, right? I think it's very convenient that they don't lose one of the stones while they were at it and they could actually return to the original timeline. But when we're thinking about this in terms of quantum mechanics again, there are some simulations of how photons would behave that at least for photons of light like that would be the case like it doesn't matter if you remove them from where they were. But there's still so many questions over the validity of that and it relies so much on this probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics of like those are probability that the particle will be here versus over here. And so if you play with that, then it doesn't seem to affect things but tiny, tiny particles and then like even human shrunk down to a tiny particle size but still made of all of the cells that make up a human. I'm sure the biologists would probably have something to say about that as well. So there are a lot of obviously completely different issues but I think the fact that they at least make an effort to throw in some jargon for the sort of like, you know, people who get a kick out of that is fun but at the same time it's yeah, it's very much swept under the scientific rug. Yeah, I love questions like these. So we are going, we said in the main episode but we are going to do a separate episode at some point on time travel, teleportation, all that other fun stuff. I mean maybe our Christmas special. Maybe, we do do fun things for Christmas. Yeah, we do the sort of off the wall stuff then. The wind stuff. When our brains are bushed. Yeah, exactly. Do keep sending your questions, pictures, funny little observations to podcast at ras.ac.uk or find us on Instagram at supermassivepod or share them in the supermassive club. We'll be back in a couple of weeks with an episode all about Pluto which I'm sure everyone will be again just annoyed. Yes, rage. But until then everybody happy stargazing. Built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint and other Microsoft 365 apps you use helping you quickly write, analyze, create and summarize so you can cut through clutter and clear a path to your best work. Learn more at microsoft.com slash m365 copilot. She came, she saw, she gentrified on bvci player. Senuous is a not-for-profit organization. We've literally never made a profit. You place your picture of yourself eating cakes and that's a job. Creating content isn't just a hobby, it's a way of life. I think you need to be a bit more respectful of my culture. My apologies to your people. Yeah, the new series of Amanda Land. There's more to me than meets the eye. And quite a lot meets the eye so watch on BBC iPlayer. With LB, I can get my car insurance from just £299. Just the price I'm after right now. And if I'm hit by an uninsured driver, I won't lose my no claim discount because insurance is simple when it's me and LB. No wonder we're rated excellent on trust pilot. Get your quote today at LB.com. 10% of new customers paid £299 or less July to December 2025. Uninsured driver promise is non-fault accident only. Other vehicle and driver details required. LB General Insurance is part of Allianz.
