 Oh, beautiful citizens of tomorrow. We have some exciting formatting changes on this episode of Tomorrow Science, and we're actually going to dive right into an exciting interview with Brennan Phillips and Zetio about some underwater origami robots. But that's not all. Lisa, what else do we have? Well, then we dive into your questions, comments, and thoughts from the community. So stay tuned. Tomorrow Science Discovery 1.08 begins right now. Hello and welcome to Tomorrow Science. So my name is Jade, and this here is Lisa, or Lisa if you want to be boring about it. And we're actually just going to go ahead and go right into this exciting interview because the more research I did about your origami robots, the more excited I got. And I have so many questions for you. But before we go ahead and dive in, really quick again, this is Brennan Phillips. This is Zetio. And to go ahead and start off this interview, can you please explain to me what is a rotary actuated folding polyhedron? It's a mouthful. And why do we need them? Go ahead, Z. I guess I'll take that. The rotary actuated polyhedrons is a way for us to fold a two-dimensional, let me demonstrate. I've got a paper model here. Yay! We love props. So it's a way for us to fold essentially flat structures into three-dimensional structures. What I have here is a net of a cube. The theory we've developed has enabled us to fold a two-dimensional net into its 3D shape using only one motor. Using one motor is pretty key here because if you can reduce the amount of motors needed to fold something, you reduce the complexity of how to integrate a system. That's really cool. And so we know that they're meant to go underwater, so what do they do then? Why invent these beautiful origami robots? What problem is it aiming to solve? Yeah, so Z came up with this design, I think a number of these designs, this is something that he works on regularly, is figuring out how to make these complex geometric shapes fold with that one motor. And so he and I worked together in the same lab at Harvard, and one day he showed off this model of the dodecahedron that could fold up, like a folding soccer ball type thing. And I got really excited. My background is in oceanography and deep sea exploration. And so I was working in the lab basically to take some of the concepts that people were working on and apply them in the field. So that's exactly what we did. I thought that Z's design was brilliant and it was really small. It started off with something a few centimeters and I thought maybe we can make it bigger. So we worked together on that and basically Z started pushing the limits of what we were able to 3D print. We ended up with a device that was as big as we could possibly make it, which is again about the size of a soccer ball. And it worked really well in the lab and we wanted to take it out in the ocean and actually use it to try and grab some animals. Oh, that's so neat. So essentially then it's a more gentle way to study these rather soft-bodied creatures. So what was used before then? Because I don't want to imagine harming any cute little sea jellies or any cute little squids underwater. So what did they use before? So people have been exploring the deep ocean for several decades now in rigor and there's a couple standard methods that are used right now to sample delicate animals. One is basically a suction tube. So a fancy vacuum cleaner that sucks it up and we'll put it into a jar. And with very delicate things, jellyfish, things that are really like thin tissueed, that doesn't work. It's just sort of a known thing. You're not going to get it with a suction sampler. The other approach is using these jars. Basically they're just a cylinder with two lids, one on top of the other. And together the lids can open and close. So you can open the jar and it's just like an open cylinder and then move it to get it the animal inside and then close the lids on top of it. That is successful at getting really, really delicate animals. But there's a number of challenges associated with it. Only that those jars are so big that they don't really work very well on a manipulator arm. So if you're trying to be underwater and actually reach out and grab something, that doesn't usually work so well. Usually you have to have it mounted on the front of a large vehicle. These are the size of like a jeep and then you have to move the entire vehicle around underwater to try to get the animal in just the right spot and then catch it. So those are the only two methods that are out there. The dodecahedron is this really awesome, elegant way to try a third way and it has its own advantages associated with it. So we have this really cool video that you guys provided of the device in action catching a squid. So we have this video, I think it's a squid. So can you guys walk us through like how the creature doesn't get like its tentacles like stuck as this, you know, this device is folding around. It's just a beautiful video. There's this orange squid coming in. So yeah, how does it not get stuck and like its tentacles squished? So one of the key design considerations here was that we don't want to harm the animal as we close the sampler. At the same time, we didn't want to integrate too much any sensors inside the sampler to, you know, make our job of integrating the system simpler. So what we did is if you look in the video, you would see that the edges are a soft, I made a soft silicone rubber and what that allows us is to, so that if part of the animal gets trapped, the soft edges would kind of deform around the creature. At the same time, we have a camera looking at the sampler to tell us if, you know, the creature is, you know, within, it's not inside the grab zone and we can stop closing the device. But Brennan, you were controlling it. So yeah, I think you can speak more to that. Well, no, that was great. The soft edges are really great at protecting the animal somewhat. At some point, it could be just too delicate and there's not much we can do about that. We just do the best job we possibly can. But yeah, no, the soft edges are really helpful and also we're able to kind of get it in just the right spot because of this being on the end of a robotic arm. So there's kind of like a catcher's mitt, you know, you get the animal right there and then you're guaranteed to have a nice smooth encapsulation onto it. One thing we were really worried about was that if we went too quickly, that the water would kind of squirt the animal out in a few different directions. And without doing any modeling, you know, we just kind of decided to try it out. And it turns out it doesn't do that at all. The motion is so uniform and there's so many spaces up until that last moment when it completely closes that the animal really just stays still right in the center of the palm. And we did this many times and it just stays right there and we get this perfect encapsulation of it every time. Gosh, that is so cool. Yeah, I actually had a similar concern, but that's really amazing. You were able to find, you know, material soft enough to where it wouldn't harm something as delicate as like a little tentacle. And the fact that it would actually deform to go ahead and accommodate for that little tentacle getting caught is actually really impressive. So definitely props to you. Well, thanks. And I think we have to give a shout out to other members of the team. So the lab at Harvard that Z and I worked in does a lot of different things. Micro robotics, origami robotics, soft robotics, which is a really interesting thing. And so we worked with Caitlin Becker, who's a soft roboticist. And she came up with these really nice molded edges that we were able to incorporate into that. And Z handled all the geometric design, the 3D printing part of that. And I got the easy part. I got the motor to work on the underwater robot. Wow. And so that actually kind of leads me into my next question. The design of the butt, like you said, when you look at it, it's so elegant and it just works so beautifully. But I know a lot of work and contemplation and into it, but it's so beautifully simple and functional. It leads me to wonder how come nobody else ever thought of this type of application for this type of device? And what inspired the initial design? I guess speaking to your first part of the question, I think because the lab has so many people working in different fields. So when we come together for our lab group meetings and we talk about research, because our fields are kind of varied, we see, you know, dots and then we start to connect the dots together. And so I think that's how this device came about. And your second question is, I forget, second part of the question. Yeah, basically like what inspired this particular design because it seems to work so perfectly? I see. I guess what inspired it was when I was doing my grad school work I was working on, you know, how do you build insect scale robots? And I was folding robots with, you know, little tweezers and, you know, looking under the microscope and folding one thing and wishing I had another hand to help me glue something. And so I was like, there must be a way to fold three-dimensional structures from 2D sheets. And that kind of drove me to kind of figure out how to do this. Nice. My question actually is for Brennan. And it comes from our chat room, one of our users from YouTube. Raj Luthor asks, can they control the speed of the catcher? So I wanted to ask that, but also you mentioned that you were actually like controlling the device yourself. So what kind of training went into that to learn, you know, how much speed to put in and like how to drive it? What does that process look like? So it's really simple and that's on purpose. So again, because of Z's design, all this motor has to do is turn in one direction or the other, not even a full rotation. It's something like 30 degrees or 40 degrees, right, Z? And so what we did is we took a motor that is rated to work underwater in the deep sea. That's something you can buy off the shelf. And basically with a little Arduino board converted it to have a little joystick controller using Serial. So Serial RS232, it's like old school standard protocol for communicating remotely. And so top side on the surface, on the vessel, communicating with a robot, we just have a little joystick, just like an Xbox. And you just move it in one direction or the other. And after a little while, you kind of get a good gauge of what's going too fast and what's going too slow. We certainly broke a number of things first, you know, you go really fast and crack it and go, oh, shoot, yeah, we got to go a little bit easier now. Set some limits in the software, that sort of thing. But really, I mean, I could we could train anybody in a couple of minutes how to do it and to do it safely. And that's all because the mechanical design is so elegant that, again, it just totally speaks to what Z was saying in the beginning. If there's less motors, it's less complicated. Everything's very simple. That's so cool. And actually, in terms of the capabilities, so I guess this question can be for Brennan, since you are the one with the oceanography background, we have a comment that asks from Heliopozing. They ask, how deep? So I'm assuming they're asking, how deep can this device operate? This particular device is only limited by the motor. So everything in Z's GMM in Z's design is, I guess I'll call it pressure compensated. So it's all open. It wouldn't matter whether it's at the very deepest part of the ocean or in surface waters, it's still going to behave the same. There's no small air cavity that compresses or anything about it. It's just pieces of plastic that move around on each other. And the motor we used is rated for the full ocean. So the deepest part of the ocean is 11 kilometers. We could take this to 11 kilometers deep and it would still work the same way it does. As it does in this video, which is only about 800 meters deep. And that isn't that deep, that isn't that deep, relatively speaking. But it can go full ocean. Wow. Our next question kind of relates to the applications of the device again. And it's a two part question. So I think the first part may be Z, if you could answer. And then Brennan, the second part is more kind of ocean biology. So the question is from Honeys Vordua on Twitch. And they ask, how big or small can these devices get? So can it be scaled? And then the second part, is there any particular species that this particular device could be used to get that's previously hard to capture? Sure. I'll speak to the first part of the question. So the first part of the question asks how big or small can these get? And so the mathematics for both big scale and small scale devices are the same. What is challenging as you grow, go from one scale to the other is what is your manufacturing strategy? And so when I was building small scale folding polyhedrons, I was manufacturing the devices using what the lab calls printed circuit, micro-electromechanical system elimination, elimination process that pretty much stacks layers together to form mechanical linkages. So that's one way to build devices that are on the order of centimeter scale. If you want to think about really big ones, then we start to rely on more traditional nuts and bolts kind of manufacturing. Awesome. And what about those different types of species that this device can enable us to study? Are there any like, you know, really kind of endangered or species that like we just haven't had the ability to study before that that you guys would like this device to focus on? Well, yeah. So here's a true story. There are literally thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of species in the deep sea that are undescribed. They're unknown to science. And that actually doesn't mean they haven't been seen before. It means they haven't been collected or imaged properly enough that we can actually describe them to the to the world, the scientific community. So I've certainly been this position many times where I've been out at sea with an underwater robot or a submarine, and you see something super delicate and super cool, and you just can't get your hand on to it. And so this type of device, this type of technology enables us to possibly describe new species simply because it is able to get them. Because otherwise, if you can't get your hands on them, if you don't have the right tool, they're just going to drift away. And that's that, you know, you can you can come back and tell a story, but you're not really describing it to the world. This device particular is really fast, so it can open and close in about a second in each motion. So it's pretty good at catching those fast moving species like squids or even fish. So if they can hold still for just a second, we can reach out and snatch them really, really quick and get them back. And then there are other animals like jellies or tinofors, which are super delicate and, you know, where we where we want to go with this. And maybe I'm getting ahead of the interview, but we want to go with this. We want to outfit the device with a bunch of cameras and then be able to do live reality capture right there on these animals that probably wouldn't even make it to the surface. They're just too delicate. They wouldn't survive the pressure change or the temperature change. So we want to do a lot of work in situ using this type of device to describe some new animals. Wow. OK. And actually, this next question from the chat room also comes from Hany's forward BNT. This is or Z. This is probably a question for you. Hany's forward from Twitch asks, could this folding technology be used for locomotion underwater, maybe for underwater drones? So do you see any other implications technologically that this can be applied to? Yeah, I think that that's a great suggestion, right? Because like you could. So right now, all the linkages are programmed mechanically programmed to have similar fold angles. But there is no reason why you can. There's no reason to choose a geometrical configuration that, you know, allows some sort of crazy folding that enables you to propel yourself in the water. So for sure, that that is something you could do with with this way of folding things. Which is one more, which is pretty cool. Yeah. Nice. And that actually kind of leads us into our next question. And I think both of you could actually chime in on this. Basically, we want to know what other tech implications can this design have, not just in the water, but outside of the water, like maybe in space or, you know, another extreme environment? Yeah, I'll take that. For sure, this can. So what one of my dreams is are is if I can, you know, design something that can go to space. And I think one of the things that comes to the top of my mind is, you know, what if you could design a spacecraft or a satellite to to have, you know, the Dodecoge Kedron shape satellite to unfold its panels where on its panels is a solar cell, so that would be pretty cool. And I think I think it can be applied to to space-based applications, for sure. I'm looking forward to the day that that happens. That'd be cool. Go ahead, Brown. Oh, yeah. Sorry. No, I was just going to follow up. Yeah. When we were writing the paper about about this work, we stumbled across some really interesting literature that talked about how folding mirrors, space telescopes and also solar arrays are really limited in their size based on the diameter of rockets that are able to be fired up. And so something like this, we hope, you know, it would be really cool if maybe they could draw inspiration from Z's work to expand how big a mirror could be, for example, or solar array could be deployed in space. And again, with that single motor turn, that that makes it more reliable and simple to operate all those things, which I think play out just as well as they do in space, as they do in the deep sea. I am incredibly looking forward to seeing your technology used in space. But also I'm looking forward to the when you guys get to the cameras on your ocean version and live streaming that because in the future we'd love to have plans to bring on a show called Tomorrow Oceans. And Ben credible in our chat room was actually really, really excited about Tomorrow Oceans. So if you guys end up streaming live streaming from the bottom of the ocean, capturing animals, I think that's going to look fantastic. I think it's going to be great if it's in 4K. And if you guys end up broadcasting that, we would we would love to show that on the show as well. But I'd love to thank both of you for taking time out of your Saturday to come and chat about this amazing device. We both wish you the best of luck in the continued research and sharing that with other people and all of your publications. Where can people go to find out more information about this if they want to find more about the technology? They can search for the paper on science robotics. And soon we should be posting a link to the research on the Havid Microrabotics Publication page. Cool. Awesome. Yeah, in that way. Yeah, no, there's a there's a number of news articles to the checkout. We this guy in like the New York Times, which is kind of neat. So you got to do that. And and I have some video up on my website. So if you search for my name, Brennan Phillips at URI, the University of Rhode Island, you can probably find my lab website. And through that, you'll see some of these videos, materials, links to the paper, et cetera. Fantastic. Thank you so much for your time. What we're going to do now is before we have a quick commercial break, I want to give a very huge shout out to our patrons that help make these shows possible, specifically to our Skate Velocity patrons. These are people that contribute ten dollars or more per episode. They get a whole bunch of rewards and we couldn't make this show go without you. But also I want to give a very huge thank you to our orbital citizens as well. These people contribute five dollars or more per episode. And again, thank you so, so much. Your name is in the show here as a measure of thanks, because honestly, we just couldn't do this without your support. So if you would like to contribute to the shows of tomorrow, head on over to patreon.com slash T M R O. We're going to take a quick commercial break. And when we come back, we're going to have community discussion, questions and comments. So stay tuned. There's more tomorrow coming right up. We've always looked to the stars. They guide us. Give us comfort. Help us find our way. We see ourselves out there when we look up. It inspires us. And we long for something we don't yet know. We yearn to go there. So we venture forth. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other thing, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goes to serve to organize a mission of this. At Gaudi Bay here, the eagle has landed. It's one small step for man, one giant leap for man. The exploration of space will go ahead when we join in it or not. Many think we stopped exploring, but we know our journey didn't end. We've only just begun. Ryan is functioning perfectly at this point. Come with us and explore tomorrow. And thanks for staying with us. Now, we want to talk about your cool things that are happening in the community and your questions and comments. But for those of you that maybe don't remember, last month we had a really cool guest. So we had Alex Moss of Canaria, who joined us to talk about her wearable tech and how it can help save lives. Really, really cool. Also, I'm totally out of the way. I'm so sorry I tried to hide it, but you can't hide how far I'm out of breath. Anyway, so our first comment comes off of the community forums. So we have JadedAnimal, who is an orbital citizen. And their comment is, as much as I like the science show, I have to agree with most comments here. I think an interview-only solution would be better, but I think that the value of the comment section is a bit undervalued. It's a nice way out of the show, and there have been really valuable comments. It should only be part of the program if there are comments that are worth it. But if there are comments that really move understanding of a topic forward, it can be a really valuable addition. And that's exactly what we did here. That's exactly what we did. So I think it's appropriate that we call each episode an experiment. Or actually, no, we call it discovery. Because we learn new things every time. It's discovery, it's experiments, it's all fun stuff. And yeah, because, I mean, this is a pretty major format change, but hopefully you folks out there enjoyed it. And if not, definitely let us know, and then we'll just keep trying to do what we need to do to improve the show. But yeah, and I like how JadedAnimal actually mentions that comment section is a bit undervalued, and it can be a really valuable addition, just like this comment. This is a valuable addition. And we wouldn't be tomorrow if we didn't bring you guys in. So yeah, absolutely. It's all about the community. And we're really trying to knuckle down on science. And I think news didn't really have the, it just didn't have the right feel that we wanted for this show. And so rather than just continue to do it, just because it's what we've always done and it's what we do in space, we're like, no, you know what, we're gonna put what works in science and we're gonna keep experimenting and changing it. Cause that's what science is all about. It's experimenting, it's seeing what works and what doesn't, and then learning from that. So that's why this format was a bit different this week. We started with an interview. We had two guests and two hosts interviewing. Like it was like almost like an interview round table. It was a party is what it was. It was an underwater science robot party. And it was amazing. I wanna have one of those. So on that note, there was a lot of changes. So please give us feedback on what you think worked really well, what changes you think we could make to make this show even better. Cause we do read your comments. We do listen and that's how they make it into the show. So. Absolutely. And rant. And rant. Can I go on now? All right. So this next comment is from YouTube from Michael Farrell. And this is actually, I believe referencing a story we did last month. If I'm not mistaken, this is about the story that I had talked about where they took genetics or they took the genes from old Neanderthal DNA to try to create a little mini brain. Kind of a creepy story, but really interesting. And Michael Farrell asks, are there gene banks set up for endangered or extinct species? May we bring back a dead earth in the future due to science? So the answer is yes. The answer is yes and no. I mean, there's two questions there, right? Exactly. So yeah, the answer is yes. We do absolutely have gene samples from like, I think for instance, we have the woolly mammoth. And we, you know, basically, I mean, think back to that scene from Jurassic Park where they extract the DNA from that poor mosquito and encapsulate it in the amber. And yeah, in terms of, I mean, what do you know of any other extinct species that we currently have the DNA for? I believe we now have DNA for Tasmanian tiger. Ooh. I'm ensuring my Australian background that Tasmanian tiger, also known as a thylacine, was found in Tasmania in Australia. And I believe also in the Southern mainland of Australia. I mean, it was hunted to extinction because people thought it was eating all the sheep. All the farmers were like, oh no, the Tasmanian tiger is eating all the sheep. So they hunted it. And it turns out it wasn't even the Tasmanian tiger, it was like foxes and cats and like dingos and stuff. So now they don't exist. But there's like a museum sample of like a pelt, like a taxidermy, like, yeah, anyway. And so they think that they can use that kind of the DNA left over from that to be able to like maybe make the Tasmanian tiger again, so. Exactly, and there are a few concerns. So although perhaps our scientific and technological capabilities will allow us to bring some of these creatures back, there's other concerns in terms of, yeah, we'll bring these creatures back, but we don't exactly have the same environment that it originally existed in. So, I mean, and that just goes to show you in terms of ethics, like let's say we bring back a creature that was very well acclimated to the environment of its time millions of years ago. And then you bring it back to, you know, goodness forbid, you know, how the environment is now, they wouldn't exactly fare as well. So you have to kind of take that into consideration as well because, you know, you don't want to wake them up just to have them not have the best time because we wanted to study them, you know? There's actually a really great comment in the chat room here from SmokeyDoug that says, there is a repository of tiger DNA samples specifically to try and bring them back should they go extinct or to help expand their gene pool. Now, I didn't know about this second application, but like, imagine keeping, you know, a repository so that maybe all the genetic diversity in a species is getting reduced because maybe you only have the ones that live in zoos now and you don't have any wild tigers to breed them with, but if you have this gene bank, like you can interbreed the two to make the species have a better chance of surviving because you're adding to its genetic diversity. Interesting. You don't have to keep inbreeding tigers in zoos and stuff. You give it like a better chance, right? Exactly. Wow, yeah, I didn't even know that that was an implication, that's amazing. Perfect. Thank you, SmokeyDoug. Yeah, that was a great insight. Cool, so our next comment is actually off of the community forums again. So if you're not on the community forums, I highly suggest you visit them community.tmro.tv. This one's from Johnny Spacer who is an escape velocity citizen. And the cool thing about the tomorrow community forums is that if you join and you're a patron, you get like a cool, neat little banner thing that appears on your user icon and it also says that you're a citizen so we can know. Anyway, it's really cool. But anyway, Johnny Spacer says, to kick this off, I would like to place on the table the matter of the wildfires in the West United States, specifically California. It's a bit of a wall of text, sorry. My point is that if we had proper land management, we would not have this problem. We seem to be operating under the idea of letting nature run its course, which is fine, but not where humans live. We need to go back to cutting down old growth for us to let new ones grow. Naturally, this is done by fires, but around human populations, we just don't do this. Or can't do this. By managing the land, cutting down old growth and planting new, we can mimic nature without burning whole neighborhoods to ashes. Thoughts? Question mark? Well, I thought this was actually a really interesting question that they posed simply because it's relevant. I don't know if you are particularly aware, but we've been experiencing an obscene amount of fire here in California. It is hot in here. It's real smoky. It's terrible. It's terrible, and not to poke fun at a very serious situation, but wildfires are a huge issue for California. We have so much dry brush area. And so I thought this was an interesting question just because they bring up proper land management. And actually, Jared Head, or very own Jared Head, had a very good response to this. And I wish I would have pasted it in here. But he brought up a few really good points as to how this is a very multi-headed monster. It's not just one thing or the other. And it has a lot to do. And he brought up good points about global warming. He brought up a lot about, I think, even brought up waste management or something like that. And so I kind of wish I put that in here. But I think it's interesting that this person brings up almost like a slash and burn reference, I think, saying, naturally done by fires, but around human populations, we can't do this. But actually, if you look into slash and burn agriculture or slash and burn techniques, it's not the most sustainable. Because I believe you can only do it so many times before it actually completely just depletes the land, and then you have no new regrowth. And I remember learning that in a physical land throw class years and years ago. So I might have remembered it a little bit not too accurate. But I don't know, Lisa, what do you think in terms of this huge issue we have every single year? Well, I think it's not just an issue in California. To wick it in the chat room. Oh, yeah. We're not the only ones. The entire planet has been having a really bad time with wildfires this year, not just the US. And that's true. I'm from Australia in the Australian summer, which is like January, February. We usually always get really bad bushfires. And it's just something that we were used to growing up. And I think it's tended to get a little worse, because over the years, we've been building more and more houses in areas that are traditionally full of bushland that usually does catch fire. Because it's part of the cycle of that particular forested area, like the seed pods for, I believe, its banksia species, or acacia, one of those. The seed pods don't open unless they get a chemical signal from smoke and fire. So it's part of that natural ecosystem cycle. That fire is part of that landscape. And so stupidly or not stupidly, we've built houses in this area. So now you can't be like, oh no, our houses are burning down. But you built your house in an area that has fire going through it all the time. So why are you complaining? Yeah, exactly. It's such a complicated issue. It's kind of similar to houses that are built in areas that have a lot of, for instance, landslides or that are susceptible to maybe oceanic disruptions, like tsunamis or hurricanes. Jared, hey. And yeah, Jared, I'm so glad you're listening. And I'm so sorry for completely slaughtering what your amazing response had been. But they mention, or Jared mentions, it's like people building a home on the side of a cliff and then acting surprised when the cliff collapses. And he also brought up the fact that to me, the biggest problem I made of a point was the encroachment of urbanization on wild lions. And that's exactly what Lisa just alluded to. It's the fact that we are the ones changing the environment. The environment doesn't have to accommodate for us. So it's definitely something that we need to keep in mind. And we are the masters of any species in terms of being able to control and manipulate our environment. But that doesn't mean that we can ultimately be the masters of nature in terms of these extremely unfortunate events. Like somebody had actually mentioned the terrible event that happened in Greece that I believe left 90 deceased that was fire related. So it just goes to show you, it's very sobering notion that we as humans can only do so much before. There are things that are kind of out of our control. Yeah. Fit Orion, just going back to how do we solve this problem, Fit Orion from Twitch says if we don't want fires, then humans need to take on the role and function that the fires had. So like how in Australia, the wild fires help that growth of the new forest. Maybe it is doing controlled burns, but only in a particular area. Because someone also said it was Fit Orion again from Twitch. Doing nothing is not a good management technique. We can't just build the houses and expect them not to burn. But if we're going to live there, then we need to do the role of nature. We need to have management practices in place, whether that's clearing or whether that's controlled burns. And maybe we even look to First Nation peoples for their management techniques. I know Australian Aboriginal people would actually set fire to the landscape in a controlled way in order to keep that cycle going. So I think it's a combination of all of the above. And actually really quick data, of course, brings up. I'm seeing a Tomorrow Science episode that can touch on this. A roundtable, get a guest. Yeah, and even Jared Head said, this could make a very cool Tomorrow Cities discussion. So look at that. I think we have some nice stuff to work with for maybe an episode down the road. So thanks for that valuable input, Dada. And if you guys know of any guests that are experts that you want to hear from on, say, land management, fire, anything like that, we would love. If that's even a roundtable topic that you guys want to see, let us know in the comments. We've kind of steered away from roundtables because I feel like the topics that we were choosing just weren't having that interaction from the community. So I guess the best way to do that is ask the community what roundtable topics you guys are interested in so that when you're watching live, which you should be watching live because there's a special magic to that, just let us know in the comments. And if enough people say that they want to have a roundtable about land management and fires and how to fix that, then we'll probably do it. Help us help you help us help you. And on that note, another way that we can help us to help you to help us is to thank our wonderful citizens of tomorrow. So again, I want to give a huge shout out to us escape velocity citizens. These are the people that contribute $10 or more per episode. And by doing that, they get the name in the show and a lot of other benefits. Thank you very much escape velocity citizens. But we also have our orbital citizens. These people contribute $5 or more per episode. They get the name, the show, and a whole heap of other rewards. But we also have the suborbital citizens who contribute $2.50 or more. And we just really couldn't make these shows go without your support. There are so many more names week after week after week after week. And it just blows me away that you guys support us like that. But we also have our ground support citizens as well. And this list is so big that the names are so small that I'm going to have to keep talking for so long so you can find your name. Ground support citizens contribute $1 or more per episode. And again, thank you so, so much. We really appreciate everything that you guys do for us to contribute. And if you would like to contribute as well, head on over to patreon.com. Slash T M R O. And we know that not everyone can help us out financially. So that's not the only way you can help us. You can hit subscribe, hit the little bell down there so you're notified when we get new episodes and sharing on social media. Absolutely. It all helps us out. And a little bit goes a long way, certainly. So that's our show for this month. That we will be with you September 1, I believe, is the next first Saturday of the month. But stay tuned on social media. We'll let you know when our next episode is. Thank you so much for watching. And I'll see you next time. Bye. Bye.