Maggie Lieu on China going to Mars, Jeff Bezos suing NASA, and why robots won't do our housework
James Dillard: Hey, everyone. I’m James, and welcome to Browser Bets. I’m here today with Maggie Lieu.
Maggie is a Research Fellow of Machine Learning and Cosmology at the University of Nottingham. And she has an awesome YouTube channel called Space Mog that can teach you all about things like white holes and the astronomical Axis of Evil, and things that I didn’t even know existed. And before her current role, she was a Research Fellow at the European Space Agency.
Anything else I should add there?
Maggie Lieu: No, I think you’ve got it all!
James Dillard: Thanks for joining us today. I’m excited to talk to you about our space-focused predictions. Where would you like to take this? What bets would you like to make?
China will get to Mars by 2035
Maggie Lieu: So I think the first bet would be around space. Are humans going to get to Mars?
I think that this is very likely, and much sooner than we expect. China have started developing tools to go to Mars and get humans on Mars. Their predictions are 2030, and I think this is a pretty reasonable goal to achieve. Definitely, by 2035, I think we will see China be the first to win the space race to Mars.
James Dillard: Awesome. So, China – do you want to do 2030 or 2035?
Maggie Lieu: 2035 is reasonable, I think.
James Dillard: That’s awesome.
Maggie Lieu: Did you hear on the news today that NASA delayed their Artemis mission, which is a manned mission to the moon, by a year? It was originally 2024 but now it’s being pushed back to 2025. And this is a big deal, because humans haven’t been to the moon in half a century. 1972 was the last time.
James Dillard: I know. I get really sad when I think about that.
Maggie Lieu: This is going to be the first woman ever to go to the moon, and the next man. So it’s a big thing.
I feel like we’ve actually gone backwards in progress in going to space. because there was such a huge achievement back in the ‘70s - they were going to the moon regularly, I would say. There was huge funding from the US government for space and exploration of space. People thought that by now we would have explored most of our solar system, but we haven’t gone beyond the moon.
James Dillard: No, truly. This is going to date me a little bit, but I think about the West Wing episode where they wax nostalgic about the possibility of going to Mars. And when you watch it, as someone who grew up in the ‘90s and the 2000s, you’re kind of like, “Oh yeah, but there’s no way we would actually go and do this.” But then in the ‘60s and ‘70s they went out and did it, they put it together to get to get from Earth to the Moon and figured out a lot of science along the way.
Maggie Lieu: I think a lot of it is down to competition as well. At the time, there was a lot of competition between Russia and the US to see who would be the first in space, and then who would be the first person on the moon. Now, we’re seeing a lot of competition between private space companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin, which is Jeff Bezos’, the Amazon project, pretty much. And I think that is healthy competition.
One of the reasons that this mission was delayed was actually because – so originally NASA was going to select two private companies to build that Lunar Lander, but because of cuts to funding... actually, the Trump administration pushed a lot of funding towards getting humans to the moon, they really wanted it in a short timescale. But now, the current administration are looking more towards climate science and Earth observation, I think.
But anyway, regardless of that, they could only afford one private company and they chose SpaceX. So Jeff Bezos came back and said, “OK, we’ll pay you. We’ll pay NASA $2 billion, if you give us that contract to go to the moon, to build your Lunar Lander.” And NASA obviously declined them. That is a pretty crazy thing, right?
So they decline them and Jeff Bezos sued them. And because of this several months' lawsuit, it’s delayed the moon mission by a whole year.
James Dillard: Bad on you, Jeff Bezos. And now, the US is not going to be the first on Mars. So what are you doing, man? That’s wild.
OK, so I guess I’m trying to figure out which side of this bet that I want to take. And I can’t decide if – there’s part of me that actually wants to say 2035 is too late...
Maggie Lieu: Too late to get to Mars?
James Dillard: I think... I’m a lay person when it comes to this, I’m naive. I don’t understand it. I don’t know what the unsolved scientific problems or technical problems are to get a human being to Mars. I guess I suspect that it’s about getting them back, that that’s probably the challenging thing.
But, I don’t know, nine years is a really long time. And it feels like there’s so much – I guess I’m looking at the rate of change within the space industry right now. And it feels like it’s increasing. And so that makes me think that actually, our way of judging how this is going to come is like, we’re thinking about it the wrong way. But I don’t know, what do you think about that theory?
Maggie Lieu: OK. So let me put this to you. It takes about four days for us to get from the Earth to the Moon. And NASA originally said 2024 they’d get to the moon, and now it’s pushed back to 2025. Bear in mind that they haven’t even launched this launcher that will get them to the moon yet. It’s still in development phase. OK. To get to Mars, it takes between six and nine months. So it’s a huge gap.
James Dillard: It’s a much bigger problem.
Maggie Lieu: And also, they call the landing phase of Mars - I think it’s the eleven minutes of terror, because like, two-thirds of Mars missions fail. They tried to land and they just crashed because the atmosphere is just so thin. The atmosphere is so thin that if you don’t launch your parachute at exactly the right moment, it will just tear apart to pieces.
James Dillard: Right. I can’t lie though, if someone makes it to Mars, but the parachute does - like if unfortunately, someone died, the first astronaut who goes to Mars dies, I’m still going to count that as a win. Do they have to get back? They have to get back alive in order to…
Maggie Lieu: Well, they should at least land there alive.
James Dillard: Land there alive. OK. And this is a little bit of a conflict, but… this is a not a terribly well-informed bet but I think I’ll go under. I think I’ll say before… if you’re saying 2035, I’ll say before 2035, we’ll have a live human land on Mars.
Will they make it back? I guess my big risk here is the nine months it takes to get there, right? That’s what’s going to cost me, they’ll take off in 2034 or they won’t land until 2035.
Maggie Lieu: Who do you think will do it though? Will it be a government agency? Are the Russians going to be coming to that? Or will it be a private company?
James Dillard: I guess, to me, all the energy seems to be with private companies - yeah, the energy seems to be with private companies.
So I think it’ll be like this moon mission was supposed to be, where a country is sponsoring competition amongst private companies. Maybe there’s even a prize – maybe it’s prize-driven. But that seems how the industry has evolved. And I think China and the US is where I would – I wouldn’t take the field. I would take those two, but we’ll see. We’ll see.
Maggie Lieu: I mean it doesn’t matter really, right? A human on Mars is a human on Mars wherever they’re from. I’m saying that as a human.
James Dillard: Also, this will be a really healthy way, a really healthy global competition, right? I’m a believer that some competition between countries is inevitable. And if we’re going to put all that into trying to get out in outer space and understand the galaxy, great. You could have way worse problems than that.
Maggie Lieu: Right. Absolutely.
James Dillard: Cool. So that’s our first bet.
Before we go on to our second one, since you brought up space, I wanted to see if – you know, one thing that’s interesting to me is that space is such a unique domain to make predictions about because we have so little information. So much of what we do is inferred.
I’m thinking a little bit about you – I watched one of your videos where you were talking about how background radiation informs how we understand the Big Bang. What do you think you understand about making predictions in an information constrained environment, because of what you do?
Maggie Lieu: What do I think about making predictions in an information restricted domain? I would say that it’s also quite healthy. I mean, we all do it and that’s what keeps us scientists in our jobs, right? We get funding to do research, because there are so many unknowns out in the universe. And we can say, “Oh, we looked at this data. And it shows us that we know very little about anything. But we can make all these predictions. And now we need to test them.”
So having a scarce bit of information allows us to build theories that can align – there are so many theories that can align with small bits of information. And that’s what allows us to explore all these scientific avenues.
There are so many different science theories out there, particularly on the subject of dark matter and dark energy. There are so many things that can explain them away. But the large consensus is that dark matter does exist. So…
James Dillard: Are there any scientific theories that you’re particularly jealous of, or that you’re like, “I wish that I had thought of that”? Or that you think, “Hey, more people should understand this. I think this is secretly right, even though it’s not the consensus”?
Maggie Lieu: I can’t even remember the name of the theory. But there’s a theory that dark matter and dark energy might be the same thing. I’m going to have a look at what it is...
... a first Google doesn’t come up with anything. But there is a theory that says dark matter and dark energy are exactly the same particle, but it acts differently depending on where it is in space. So when it’s close by to other particles, it kind of attracts. But then when it’s farther away, it kind of pushes everything away from each other, like dark energy acts. I think that’s a neat theory, it would be just so simplistic, but…
James Dillard: Sometimes those are the best ones!
So, going back to this theme of lack of information, if there was one data set that you could have about space to help us understand it better, what would you like to have?
Maggie Lieu: There is so much data that I would want to have, it's so unfair! But I think if I had to choose one, I would choose to have an alternative perspective on the universe that we live in.
So there is a theory that dark matter – dark energy doesn’t exist, but actually, we live at the center of a void. So a void is just a vastly empty space, a vast empty space, devoid of galaxies and stars, et cetera. And that would explain some of the dark energy effects that we’re seeing, that everything is moving away quicker and quicker from us.
But some people don’t believe that that’s true. And obviously, if we live in an isotropic, homogeneous universe, everything looks the same wherever you are, and in all directions. Then we can make our standard model, which is our best description of how the universe works.
The only way that we can really test this realistically is to have another observation. So what would our observations look like if we lived, say, on the opposite side of the universe? There’s not an opposite side, but something far away.
James Dillard: How far away would you have to be? Mars isn’t going to do it, I assume.
Maggie Lieu: Yeah, I would say thousands of light years at least - even more than that.
James Dillard: That’s going to be tough. That one probably won’t happen by 2035.
Maggie Lieu: That definitely won’t happen. Unless we can create a warp drive or something and just travel throughout the universe as we want.
James Dillard: That sounds great. Let’s do that. Jeff Bezos, if you still have that money, instead of slowing down flight to Mars, let’s build a warp drive.
OK, cool. What do you want to make your next bet about?
Maggie Lieu: So, the next bet I want to make is on something to do with machine learning and artificial intelligence, because that forms a large part of my research: investigating machine learning algorithms to apply to astronomical problems.
So, I actually don’t like machine learning that much. I think it’s so over-hyped. Everyone hears machine learning and they feel like it’s going to solve all problems...
James Dillard: And cause all problems. Yeah.
Maggie Lieu: We’ll have robots do everything for us so we can just lie around and not do any work anymore
And the truth is, working with machine learning algorithms every day, I see that actually, it’s not as simple as people think it is. Your machine learning algorithm is only as good as what you put into it. And it’s largely about the data. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got infinite data. If that data is not very good, your machine learning algorithm is not going to be very good.
So my bet is by, let’s say 2035 again, we’re still not going to have robot maids.
James Dillard: No in-home robots by 2035. So we’re clearly not counting Roomba here.
Maggie Lieu: No. Have you seen the Amazon robot house bot thing?
James Dillard: No, is it creepy?
Maggie Lieu: It’s super creepy. It even looks like a little bit of a maid, but it’s kind of like a house pet that will tell you if there’s a burglar in your house. It will let you know if you’ve left the stove on and turn it off for you. And do odd bits around the house.
But I don’t mean that, I mean an intelligent maid. Do you know what I mean?
James Dillard: Yeah, yeah. Something where for most household tasks, I could be like, “Hey, could you clear the plate for me? Could you make me a grilled cheese sandwich? Or could you clean it?” Non-task specific is probably the best way to say that.
So this one is going to be hard, because I think I agree with you. I think the story of the last 10 years of my professional life has been working at these companies that first were calling themselves big data companies, and then they became machine learning companies, and then they became AI companies. And oftentimes, as these transitions are happening, the website is changing, it’s getting updated, and the actual code is not changing.
So I think I have a little bit of ingrained skepticism on those topics. It feels like self-driving cars is another one where we’ve been five years away for 10 years.
Maggie Lieu: Yeah, absolutely. But do you think, if people would just let self-driving cars just run now, they would just run? Because a large part of it is policy as well, and people – in the UK, we can’t use self-driving cars without letting go of our hands, because they think it’s not safe yet.
James Dillard: Yeah. So I think if I was given power to unilaterally make decisions, I think what I would do is start to make roads for self-driving cars only, because I actually think in that circumstance, the cars would do pretty well.
Then you also would have the opportunity to give the cars some ability to interact with each other, you’d be able to create a protocol, let the cars – I mean they still have to have some way to recognize, hey, actually there’s a deer in the street.
It changes the problem in ways that I think make it a little bit more solvable. But that seems unlikely to happen.
So yeah, I don’t know. My sense is that they are safe but I haven’t been in one of the ones where – I don’t have a Tesla. I haven’t been in one of the self-driving taxis that they have rolling around Las Vegas. I don’t know.
But I have to find a way to disagree with you on this one because otherwise there's no bet. So let’s see, we won’t have generalizable robots by 2035. I mean, I guess I have to say that we will. So what would have to happen for you to be wrong?
I think the biggest problem was probably on the hardware side, right? Because you probably could imagine something that you could speak to and get a good response back. It’s more the dexterity of the limbs, right? That’s going to be where, if something’s going to help me out in the house, right - cups and plates and cleaning up after children’s toys...
Maggie Lieu: And they do have that on very small scales. They have robot fruit pickers, they have robots that can flip up a griddle. But that’s still very clunky, large, expensive.
James Dillard: Yeah, I just don’t think that that’s going to change.
Maggie Lieu: Single purpose. Because you develop something specifically for a given task, right?
James Dillard: Mm-hmm. That’s how machine learning models are, now.
Yes, so you short it, you need to be able to put together computer vision, natural language processing, and basically a hand...
Maggie Lieu: Like a reinforcement learned multitasking bot.
James Dillard: Yeah, yeah. Well, so you have – I don’t know if you’ve been in an office that has one of these… well, none of us have been in office for a while, but they had these - you have an iPad on, it would roll around the office, and it had like…
Maggie Lieu: You have definitely a fancier office than me!
James Dillard: Yeah, yeah. I mean it wasn’t useful, just to be clear, but it did give a nice tech veneer.
So if that thing had a hand... what the hell, in my world, people are getting to Mars easily by 2035. So I’ll say I’ll bet on the side of progress on this one. We’ll have something that can perform multiple household tasks in our homes, affordable for both of us by 2035.
Maggie Lieu: So does that mean both in the US and the UK? Because we’re usually quite a bit slower than you. We had self-driving cars much later than you.
James Dillard: I’m going to say that you could buy it in the US and import it. It’s not going to be illegal for you to have it. But you're right, it’s a good point. I think you’ll have it. You’ll take a trip, you’ll go to Boston or wherever and visit friends, and then come back with your I Robot.
Maggie Lieu: Well, you’ll have it if you win this bet, right?
James Dillard: Exactly. Exactly.
Gravitational waves and the LISA spacecraft
James Dillard: I love it. OK, I’m going to ask you a couple more questions, and then we can go on to our next bet.
So we just talked a little bit about technology. A couple of these are more space-focused questions. We talked about what dataset you could have to understand space better. What technology would you like to have if you could have anything to help us understand the universe?
Maggie Lieu: I’m really excited about – there’s a spacecraft launching in 2035. It’s called LISA. I don’t know how familiar you are with gravitational waves.
James Dillard: Not at all.
Maggie Lieu: So gravitational waves are kind of like these ripples in space and time. And they’re passing through us all the time. But we don’t really feel them. They just pass straight through us.
Every time a super massive black hole collides with another super massive black hole, they’ll send quite a large ripple, still something that we can’t measure, really. So in the US, they built this - I would call it laboratory, called LIGO.
It’s essentially, two arms, each of them are four kilometers long and they have a laser going both ways. So they’re perpendicular to each other, the lasers go both ways, they hit a mirror, and then they reflect back. And then if a gravitational wave passes through them, then the lasers won’t return at the same time, even though they traveled the exact same distance.
And this thing is super sensitive, it can detect a human walking past or an earthquake on the opposite side of the earth or even a jet flying by. It's super sensitive.
The kind of scale of measurement that it’s going to get when these two black holes collide is the size of an atom. That’s how much change there is in the time that the lasers meet together. So it’s pretty unfeasible to do this from Earth. And by 2035, they’re hoping to launch a large scale one into space. And it’s going to be several times larger so it’s going to be much more sensitive to any distortions.
But then the problem is, how do you keep those kinds of lasers together, moving together, and without any things affecting it?
James Dillard: Well, I was going to say - before we started, you were telling me about your concerns about space junk. And now I understand why you’re so worried because you do all that work to get that all collaborated and then someone’s satellite comes crashing in...
Maggie Lieu: It’s scary how much junk there is out there. I’m sure you’ll be able to Google a video to see the amount of old satellites.
They used to build them so often, and then just leave them up there. Nowadays, the UN has a treaty that says you have to build spacecraft that will disintegrate when it falls back to Earth. But you still see several countries launch spacecraft that don’t follow these rules. They’re like, “We’ll just do whatever we want.” And we’re seeing, for example, Elon Musk launched his thousands of Starlink satellites to give people internet. These are crashing… They’re all over the place. There was a near miss with one of NASA’s spacecraft at one point. And NASA told them to move and they were like, “No, why don’t you move?”
There’s literally no law in space that says - there’s no right of way. Who owns space? No one can own space.
James Dillard: We’re going to have to figure it out!
How did you decide to start your YouTube channel?
Maggie Lieu: I decided to start my YouTube channel because I’ve always done outreach, since I was 18. For university I used to do planetarium shows, go into schools and give talks and stuff.
And then at one point, I was selected as the final 100 people to go to Mars, on the Mars One, one-way trip. And through that I was pretty much on every newspaper and every TV channel, all over the world, internationally.
That got me into media and doing those kinds of things, and I really enjoyed presenting and doing TV and media. That’s why I thought I’d make a YouTube channel to help explain all the science things that I learned about.
James Dillard: That’s awesome. I can’t believe you volunteered for a one-way trip to Mars. How did you…
Maggie Lieu: Why not?
James Dillard: I mean, I guess my first thought is my daughter. But that’s really brave. How did you think about that? Was there any hesitation for you? Or were you just like, “No, I would definitely do that"?
Maggie Lieu: There was a large amount of hesitation at the start, because when they made the call for it, I didn’t even think of applying really - even though I’ve always wanted to be an astronaut. But I didn’t feel like I’d stand a chance. Then my best friend was just like, “You have to do this. This is what you’ve always wanted to do.”
So last day, I put my submission in, and I was really surprised I got so far. But it is something that I’ve always dreamt of doing. And I think it is going to be feasible with all these private space missions coming up. It will be quite cheap in the future to literally fly to space.
James Dillard: I think I definitely agree with you on that. Well, hopefully you get a chance to go to Mars. I hope it's not a one way trip though. I want you to come back and tell me about it.
What do you want to do for the next bet?
Maggie Lieu: So, for the next bet, it’s again relating to my research about exploring cosmology, which is a field of research about the universe that we live in.
Cosmology has several models, but the standard model is currently the best accepted model for the universe that we live in. And it comes with several parameters. These are numbers that describe, for example, how fast the universe is expanding, how much dark matter and dark energy there is in the universe, et cetera.
With this selection of numbers, you can describe everything in the past that happened in the universe, and how it’s going to evolve in the future. Is it going to continue expanding forever? Or is it going to collapse back down into a reverse Big Bang? No one knows at the moment.
So, learning these cosmological parameters is important. But we infer these kinds of theories, these predictions from very limited data. And there’s various different ways that we can do that.
One way is through the cosmic microwave background, which is radiation from the universe. Another is supernovae, and how far their distances are. And there are various observables that we can use. Unfortunately, these different observables, they don’t agree on the cosmological parameters. So something funny is going on there. And even if you account for the uncertainties, they don’t agree.
So the worrying matter is then, are we doing something wrong? And that is actually a big possibility. If you think back to the ancient days, people used to take Newton’s gravity, and think that was well accepted.
James Dillard: Explained everything.
Maggie Lieu: It worked really well on earth. The Leaning Tower of Pisa and the dropped ball - they measured the rate of gravity. And it worked really well! Until humans went to space, and we developed satellites. If you don’t account for the gravitational effects of that, then your satellites wouldn’t keep in time very well. And that’s where General Relativity came in.
General relativity is able to explain a lot of the effects that we have on larger scales. It was able to explain how the planets moved around our solar system like they do. Unfortunately, general relativity doesn’t agree on the smallest scales, on particle scales, it doesn’t agree with quantum field theory.
So I hope that by 2035, someone comes up with a theory that is able to unite gravity on very large scales and quantum scales, and reconcile what’s going on with these cosmological parameters. Why doesn’t this tension go away?
James Dillard: I love that. I hope that that happens. I hope that that person is out there right now working away on this new grand unified... Unifying quantum physics with general relativity. That would be amazing.
Maggie Lieu: I bet they’re an eight year old at the moment or something.
James Dillard: Hopefully, they’re watching. If you remember us, come back on.
Maggie Lieu: We predicted it first!
James Dillard: Yeah! Well, we predicted that you would predict it.
No, I love that. As someone who follows from afar, it does feel like we’re entering a phase where we have more things that don’t fit than fit. And it's usually then that somebody comes along and finds a better way to make them fit together.
So I think that – yeah, I’m uniquely unqualified to take a position on this because I actually understand zero of the underlying science but – it does feel like that’s where things are going, is that someone is going to try to figure this out.
Maggie Lieu: By how long?
James Dillard: Well, so I don’t know how long science takes. I don’t know what the iteration cycles on this are
It seems to me that in the quantum physics relativity realm, the cycles are somewhat long. And then, in addition, the cycles are even longer to people like me, right?
So, there will be somebody who thinks of this and then it will take some time for it to become a scientific consensus. For at least a couple of years, people will be debating it, even if many people think it’s right at the outset. And then two or three years after that someone will popularize it, maybe you on your YouTube channel, and then I’ll be like, “Oh wow! Isn’t that so cool they figured this out?”. I expect to be at least five years behind on this.
So if you say it’s going to happen by 2035, in 2040, I’ll be having a cup of coffee one morning and learn about it – I’ll be like, “Oh wow, this is amazing.” I don’t know. Do you think that's right?
Maggie Lieu: I think it’s really optimistic by 2035. But I’m hopeful because there are so many people working on it. There are so many theorists out there, coming up with alternative gravity theories.
James Dillard: And it just takes one.
Maggie Lieu: It just takes one.
James Dillard: I’ll go against you on this one. I’ll say it’s longer. I’ll say by 2035, we still have this tension. We can’t really explain it. Maybe it’s gotten a little muddier but we don’t know how to square it. I don’t like betting against progress...
I did want to ask you this. I was watching one of your videos about the Big Bang. And I wondered: does the existence of the Big Bang make you feel it's more likely or less likely that some sort of divine being exists outside of our universe?
Maggie Lieu: Oh, well, that’s such a difficult question, isn’t it?
Personally, I’m an atheist. So, I don’t believe there’s one divine being or whatever. But there are also so many physicists and scientists, people in my field that do believe in God, surprisingly. I mean, even at the Vatican they have astronomers.
So I kind of want to pass on this one. Can I?
James Dillard: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. I think the reason I ask is because whenever I’m learning about – and I’m learning about this through popular science, but the idea that there was a single moment in time when all of that stuff happened – you need something to be before it, right?
It just breaks my mind. And that, I guess, takes my mind to the same place for "divine beings exist".
Maggie Lieu: I mean, how would you go about proving that?
James Dillard: I don’t think it’s... provable. I don’t have a way to prove it.
But I was interested because of your expertise – you’re interacting with these subjects on the level of somebody who understands and has opinions about whether or not they’re right or wrong.
I read a lot of these things and I can’t debate them. I can see two ideas conflicts, but I can’t assess which one is more likely or less likely, without a level of work that I don’t usually go to. So…
Maggie Lieu: Yeah, I think I wouldn’t be able to comment on if such a divine being exists or not, because there’s just no test. And I believe in facts, so if there was a test that could prove to me that it does exist, then sure, but there’s no test that we can do. So I guess it doesn’t even matter if there is or not, right?
James Dillard: Certainly not on our scale, compared to that of the Big Bang. But interesting to see...
Well, thank you so much for coming on the Browser Bets. I look forward to checking in with you in 2035. We’ve got a lot of stuff that we have to run through.
Anything else that you would like to tell our audience about before we get off? Do you have anything you’re working on that you’d like to share?
Maggie Lieu: Not particularly. I’m working on several projects, largely to do with machine learning, cosmology, clusters of galaxies.
I think people should be excited about the JWST mission, which is launching this Christmas, December 18th. That is like a mega Hubble. They call it the next generation Hubble, but it’s not actually like Hubble at all. It’s this giant origami telescope that was so large - it’s the size of a tennis court. But it’s so large they couldn’t fit it on a rocket so they made it to fold away. And then when it gets to space, it’ll fold back out again very elegantly.
James Dillard: That’s awesome.
Maggie Lieu: But they’ve been developing this for over 20 years, and it’s a 10 billion pound – 10 billion dollar project. So I think that’s something to look out for, if people are interested!
James Dillard: Awesome. Well, if you enjoyed this conversation, definitely check out Maggie’s YouTube channel, Space Mog. It’s awesome. It’s a great way to learn about space.
Maggie Lieu: Thank you for having me.
Not yet a subscriber? Every day, The Browser Newsletter sends you five fascinating pieces of writing to surprise and delight you, each one hand-picked and beautifully capsuled by our editors Caroline Crampton and Robert Cottrell. In a world consumed by bots, noise and breaking-news, The Browser gives you carefully-curated writing of lasting value.