What Happens to Plants in Space? New Research Reveals Surprising Changes

Welcome to Bedtime Astronomy. Explore the wonders of the cosmos with our soothing Bedtime Astronomy podcast. Each episode offers a gentle journey through the stars, planets, and beyond, perfect for unwinding after a long day. Let's travel through the mysteries of the universe as you drift off into a peaceful slumber under the night sky.

You know, for four billion years, life on Earth has had to adapt to a pretty chaotic planet. I mean, temperatures swing wildly from ice ages to these massive global hothouses. Right.

The chemical composition of the atmosphere changes constantly.

Exactly. Continents literally tear apart and crash into each other. But through every single epoch, through every mass extinction and, you know, evolutionary leap, there has been exactly one absolute unchanging physical constant.

Gravity.

Gravity. Just one G. It is the invisible scaffolding of biology itself. Every cell, every plant, every animal is fundamentally engineered around the assumption that gravity is pulling down.

It's basically the bedrock of all cellular architecture.

Right. So what happens to the underlying code of life when that four billion year old constant just vanishes in a matter of seconds? OK, let's unpack this, because what we are discussing today is completely shatters our understanding of how living things react to leaving Earth.

It really does rewrite the textbook.

We are focusing on a groundbreaking experiment conducted on August 29, 2024, during Blue Origin's New Shepard NS-26 flight. The mission was to take a small plant, Arabidopsis, and meticulously track how its fundamental genetic machinery reacted minute by minute as it launched into the sky.

And beyond the biology itself, we are exploring a radical shift in how this science is actually done. Because this experiment put a human researcher in a regular flight suit, physically in the loop during those crucial moments.

Yeah, and that human element paired with the sheer speed of the genetic data is what makes this a profound departure from the norm.

It is. Historically, space biology has operated on an entirely different timeline. I mean, we have spent the better part of the last two decades looking at adaptation over the long term.

Like days or weeks, right?

Days, weeks, or even months aboard the International Space Station. The overarching question has usually been, you know, how does biology settle in and survive once it is already up there?

Right.

But this discussion moves us away from that long-term orbital perspective. We are zeroing in on the intense rapid adjustments happening in the first few minutes of flight. We're looking at the immediate acute shock to the biological system as as it crosses the suborbital threshold.

And for you listening, I really want you to consider the sheer physical violence of that transition. Like, if you were strapped to do a spacecraft, the changes aren't gradual at all.

Oh, not even a little bit.

You were dealing with the deafening acoustics of the engines, the immense g-forces stacking up on your chest, the violent vibration just rattling your teeth, and then the sudden, eerie freefall of weightlessness. Your own body would react instantly.

Adrenaline floods your system immediately.

Right. Your respiration would change. Your pupils would dilate. But we are seeing that the biological reaction goes infinitely deeper than just a racing heart. We are talking about immediate, massive shifts at the foundational genetic level.

Which is mind-blowing.

It is. But to grasp the scale of this discovery, we really have to look at the massive blind spot that scientists have been working around for decades. We need to look at why that immediate suborbital threshold was essentially dark territory.

It is a dark territory. And it's one that space biologists like Rob Farrell and Annalisa Paul from the University of Florida have been trying to illuminate for over 20 years. They have built their entire careers around understanding how organisms respond to spaceflight. But the bulk of their historical research, and really the research of the entire global scientific community, has essentially been an examination of the aftermath.

Because the data we have is mostly from plants that have already survived long durations in orbit.

Exactly. The methodology was completely dictated by access. Orbital missions are marathons. By the time a payload reaches the ISS, gets unpacked by an astronaut, and is finally set up in a module, the initial trauma of the launch is long over.

The plant has already been dealing with microgravity for days.

Right.

Which feels like a monumental gap in the data. To me, looking only at plants that have been in orbit for a month is like, well, It's like trying to understand how a runner handled the starting gun of a sprint by only checking their heart rate at the finish line.

That's a really great analogy.

You capture the exhaustion, sure, but you completely miss the explosive spike in respiration, the initial surge of cortisol, the actual physical shock of the start. I look at this timeline and have to wonder why it took so long to prioritize those first few minutes. With all the resources poured into a space exploration, ignoring the launch phase... It just seems like a glaring oversight.

Well, scientists have acutely felt the frustration of that oversight, believe me. But what's fascinating here is that we have to consider the physical and engineering realities of a rocket launch.

Right. It's not a gentle ride.

Exactly. Capturing biological data in those volatile first minutes requires overcoming monumental technological hurdles. During ascent, a spacecraft experiences something called maximum dynamic pressure, or Max-Q.

OK, what does that actually mean for the rocket?

It's the point where the aerodynamic stress on the vehicle is at its absolute highest. The rocket is pushing through the thickest part of the atmosphere at immense speeds. The vibration is intense. The acoustic loads can literally damage delicate equipment and the G-forces are crushing. Everything inside that cabin has to be locked down securely for safety. You simply cannot have an astronaut unbuckling their harness during max queue to go fiddle with a delicate biological payload.

So the environment itself literally prevents the science.

Precisely the problem. And because orbital missions couldn't safely facilitate that immediate real-time science during launch, researchers had to look for alternatives, which brings us to the suborbital realm.

Ah, okay.

Flights like New Shepard. Yes, flights that launch, brush the Kármán line, experience a few minutes of weightlessness, and immediately descend. For a long time, the broader scientific community viewed suborbital flights with, you know, a degree of skepticism.

Like they were just tourism?

Yeah, some saw them as a novelty or merely an engineering stepping stone to quote-unquote real orbital spaceflight. But Rob Furl recognized something different. He has been a highly vocal proponent of the idea that suborbital space isn't just a stepping stone.

It has tremendous intrinsic value as a unique laboratory. Exactly. Because it isolated the exact variables of the launch and the immediate onset of microgravity. It is literally the only place you can study the starting gun... without the noise of the marathon.

That is the core argument. The critical gap in human knowledge hasn't been long-term survival. It has been the initial shock. What are the specific, microscopic, biological mechanisms triggering during the very first minutes as the environment rapidly shifts from the 1G we have known for 4 billion years to hypergravity to zero gravity?

That sequence is the most dramatic environmental upheaval a living organism can possibly experience. It is.

And suborbital flights provide the exact profile needed to study it, even if the logistical execution is immensely challenging.

And the primary challenge there is clearly the clock. Because these biological changes aren't happening over days. They are happening in seconds.

Milliseconds, even.

Right. They couldn't just launch a plant, let the capsule land in the Texas desert, open the hatch an hour later and see how the plant was doing. By the time the recovery crew gets there, the plant has already survived the launch shock, the float, the crushing reentry forces, and is now just sitting back in Earth's gravity trying to recover.

The genetic responses they want to study might have already switched off entirely or completely rewritten themselves.

Yeah, so they needed a way to literally freeze time in the middle of the flight. That necessity leads us to the physical setup of this mission, which moves us from the theory into highly choreographed methodology.

The methodology is where this transitions from a standard experiment into a master class in biological preservation. To capture that fleeting genetic data, they had to design a system capable of halting biology at the exact moment of stress, mid-flight.

The actual physical setup is so fascinating to me. Rob Furl is aboard the NS-26 mission. But he is not a passenger just enjoying the view of the curvature of the Earth.

No, not at all.

He is operating a flight suit laboratory. He has dozens of specially prepared high-tech tubes containing nanomaterials. Arabidopsis plants physically attached to his suit. He is essentially wearing his experiment while pulling multiple Gs.

Yeah, and the proximity of the experiment to the researcher is vital because of the speed at which the mission profile changes. The entire protocol was designed around four critical, highly deliberate thresholds.

Okay, let's break those down.

The goal was to capture four distinct snapshots of biological activity. The first threshold is before launch. This establishes the absolute baseline.

So they know what normal looks like.

Right. The team needs to know exactly what the plant's genetic activity looks like when it is sitting in the capsule on the launch pad, experiencing normal Earth gravity, normal atmospheric pressure, but perhaps experiencing the baseline vibrations of the rocket's life support systems.

The control state just before the chaos.

Exactly. Now, the second threshold occurs upon reaching microgravity. This is the capture of the immediate.

Shock.

Right. The New Shepard has punched through the atmosphere, the main engines cut off, and suddenly the crushing G-forces vanish. Weightlessness hits. At that exact moment, Ferrell activates the second set of tubes.

Wow.

And the third... The third threshold is targeted at the end of the waitlist period, right as the capsule begins its descent back into the atmosphere. This captures the transition back. The moment the organism realizes the physical environment is shifting yet again and gravity is returning.

And finally, the fourth threshold is activated upon landing, capturing the immediate aftermath of the return to a 1G environment. You've got it. To accomplish this instantaneous freezing of time, they used hardware known as Kennedy Space Center fixation tubes. When I first encountered that term, I pictured standard plastic laboratory vials with maybe a tight lid. But the engineering behind these is significantly more complex, isn't it? We are talking about legacy hardware.

Oh, it is incredibly sophisticated fluid engineering. The term fixation in biology refers to the preservation of biological tissues from decay. The KSC fixation tubes are specialized devices capable of instantly preserving material the exact millisecond they're activated. When ferrule triggers a tube, a plunger mechanism breaks a seal, releasing a proprietary chemical fixative, usually something similar to RNA later.

And what does that chemical actually do?

It instantly permeates the plant's cell walls and completely denatures the enzymes, specifically RNAases, that would normally degrade RNA.

So it arrests the transcription process entirely.

Entirely.

Whatever genes were actively producing RNA at that exact second are frozen in place.

That is the mechanism. It takes a perfect... High-fidelity molecular snapshot of the plant's biology. What adds significant weight to this is the pedigree of the hardware. The University of Florida team actually helped design these tubes years ago.

Wow, really? Yeah.

They have been deployed for hundreds of biological samples collected during long-duration space shuttle flights and ISS missions.

Oh, wow.

The brilliant move here was taking deeply proven, highly reliable orbital technology and adapting its use specifically for the rapid, violent, and chaotic environment of a suborbital flight.

But let me push back on the premise for a moment. Because if I am looking at a plant that just went through a rocket launch and its genes are going crazy, how do we definitively isolate gravity as the culprit?

It's a very valid concern.

I mean, a rocket launch involves massive acoustic vibration. The temperature in the cabin might fluctuate. The plant has been locked in a dark tube for hours waiting for the countdown. How do the researchers prove that the genetic shift is a reaction to the loss of gravity? and not just the plant reacting to the sheer mechanical stress of being shaken violently in a dark box.

That is the fundamental problem of controlling variables in spaceflight, and it is why the operation on the ground was arguably just as vital as the flight itself.

Really? Yes.

You cannot claim gravity is the trigger without a flawless control group experiencing everything except the loss of gravity. To achieve that, while Ferl was strapped into the capsule... His colleague, Jordan B. Callaghan, was stationed at the payload processing facility on Earth, running an incredibly complex synchronization operation.

Creating a perfect biological mirror?

A mirror down to the second. Callaghan was monitoring Ferl's exact telemetry and communications. She had an identical set of KSC fixation tubes prepared simultaneously, containing the exact same genetic line of Arabidopsis plants, housed in an environment matching the capsule's temperature and humidity.

So when Ferl activates his baseline tubes on the pad.

Callaham activated hers on the ground. When Ferl hit microgravity and triggered his second set, Callaham triggered her second set. When Ferl's capsule began descent, Callaham activated the third. They were perfectly matched in time.

That is insane precision. It is.

And simultaneously, Annalisa Paul positioned herself out in the field to intercept the capsule and lead the immediate physical recovery the very moment.

It touched down. The logistics of that are just staggering. You have a suborbital rocket accelerating to Mach 3, a scientist manipulating hardware in zero gravity, another researcher in a lab mimicking the timing perfectly, and a third racing across the desert for recovery. If any one of those nodes falls out of sync, the data is compromised.

Annalisa Paul actually noted the intense hours of training required to execute this. The activations had to occur at the exact right moments across both environments. If Callaghan was off by 30 seconds, or if Ferl struggled with a tube in microgravity, the comparative data between the spaceflight samples and the Earth-bound controls would lose its rigor.

Right. You wouldn't be able to trust the comparison. Exactly.

This flawless execution is what allowed the team to filter out the noise of time passage and isolation, leaving the shift in gravity and the physical flight profile as the isolated triggers for the biological changes.

And with those snapshots perfectly preserved across the four phases, both in space and on Earth, The team could finally sequence the RNA and read the genetic story. This transitions us from the physical engineering of the mission to the explosive biological revelations happening inside these microscopic cells.

The results were genuinely phenomenal.

And the sheer scale of the data is staggering. The sequencing revealed that more than 1,200 genes altered their activity during the flight. 1,200 individual genes shifted their expression in a matter of minutes.

It is a massive systemic biological response.

Here's where it gets really interesting to me. I think it is easy for a layperson to view a plant as a passive passenger. You put a plant in a rocket, it gets shaken, it floats, and it either survives the trauma or it doesn't.

Right. That's the common assumption.

But a 1200 gene shift completely shatters that view. It is less like a passive passenger and more like a city's emergency response network activating. One central alarm goes off and suddenly the plant is triggering the biological equivalence of the fire department, the hospitals, the grid operators. It is a cascading regulatory network where the organism is actively, frantically flipping thousands of internal switches the absolute second it leaves the ground, fighting to re-engineer itself in real time to survive an environment it has never encountered.

The emergency response network is an excellent way to conceptualize it. The genetic code is the operating system, and transcription factors are activating suites of survival genes simultaneously. We are seeing the operating system going into absolute overdrive. Wow. But what makes this data truly profound is the nuance within those 1,200 genes.

The genetic response was not uniform across the organism. The leaves of the Arabidopsis plants reacted fundamentally differently than the roots. They were activating completely different sets of emergency protocols.

I am looking at the physical structure of a plant, and I have to wonder why the reaction would be compartmentalized like that. Why wouldn't the central nervous system, or the plant equivalent, just issue a blanket stress response?

Well, to understand that, we have to look at how different tissues in a plant perceive the world. Different parts of the organism prioritize survival based on highly specialized evolutionary functions, and they sense their environment using entirely different mechanisms.

Okay, give me an example.

Consider the roots. Roots are biologically programmed for gravitropism. That's the ability to sense gravity to determine which way is down, ensuring they grow toward water and nutrients.

How do they actually feel gravity, mechanically speaking? Like, how does a root know what down is?

Three specialized cells called statocytes, located in the root tip. Inside these cells are organelles called ameloplasts, which are essentially dense, heavy packets of starch. Because they are heavy, gravity pulls them to the bottom of the statocyte.

Oh, I see.

When they settle at the bottom, they trigger a chemical cascade that distributes auxin, a plant growth hormone, telling the root to grow downward. Now, imagine porting that highly tuned system in a rocket.

Sadly, gravity vanishes.

Yes.

Those heavy starch packets stop settling at the bottom. They begin floating randomly inside the cell. The root loses its primary orienting force entirely. It is environmentally blind.

Oh, wow.

The chemical cascades are thrown into absolute chaos.

So the roots are experiencing a fundamental breakdown of their core sensory input. What about the leaves?

The leaves don't rely on ameloplasts in the same way. Leaves are programmed to sense light, atmospheric changes, and physical touch or vibration. During MaxQ, the leaves are experiencing intense mechanotransduction.

Meaning they're feeling the shaking. Exactly.

They are physically feeling the acoustic vibration and the aerodynamic stress of the launch. Therefore, the genes activating in the leaves are likely tied to mechanical stress pathways, like the release of ethylene, which is a plant stress hormone.

Oh, okay.

Or the activation of heat shock proteins that act as molecular chaperones to prevent other proteins from misfolding under physical trauma.

So the roots are panicking because they don't know where down is. while the leaves are panicking because they are being violently shaken. It makes perfect sense that their genetic responses would be entirely distinct.

Precisely.

That is incredibly elegant biology. The root is trying to reorient, and the leaf is trying to reinforce. And seeing those different pathways light up brings us to what is arguably the most significant paradigm shift from this entire dataset.

Which is how we view acclimation.

Right. When we look at the nature of these affected genes, especially those tied to environmental stress responses and reactive oxygen species, it forces a total redefinition of the concept of acclimation.

It absolutely does. If we look at the historical data from long-duration missions, it was very easy to fall into the trap of viewing acclimation as a binary state. The narrative was, you know, an organism is launched, it endures the trauma of the flight, it arrives in microgravity, it adjusts, and then it is acclimated.

It was viewed as a single static adjustment. You're either acclimated or you aren't. Exactly. Right, like getting off a boat and getting your land legs. You know, just a single transition.

But this high-resolution suborbital data proves that model is insufficient. The transcriptomic sequencing showed that the genetic activity during the launch phase, when the plant was experiencing massive g-forces and vibration, was distinctly different from the genetic profile during the microgravity phase. Okay.

And the microgravity profile was, again, different from the profile captured during descent. Acclimation is not a single event or a destination. It is a highly dynamic, progressive process.

It means the plant is actively driving through the mission. It's shifting gears for the launch, shifting again for the float, and shifting again for the fall. It is in a constant, rapid dialogue with the changing physical realities of the flight profile. Yes.

Capturing the samples at multiple specific thresholds allowed the researchers to watch the biological acclimation unfold sequentially. They weren't just comparing an Earth plant to a space plant. They were mapping the trajectory of adaptation.

That's a huge distinction. It is.

As Annalisa Paul highlighted, we now see that an organism's biology is a fluid, continuous negotiation with its environment.

It is genuinely stunning to realize that a tiny thale crest plant, something we might dismiss as a simple weed, possesses the sophisticated molecular machinery to read the room of a Mach 3 rocket launch and rewrite its own cellular manufacturing processes on the fly.

It really makes you respect biology.

Absolutely. But as revelatory as the 1200-gene symphony is, the actual execution of this mission points to another evolution entirely. The fact that Rob Furl was physically manipulating those tubes mid-flight brings us to a profound shift in the philosophy of space science. We are moving from the biological data to the role of the human operator.

And the operational success of having a researcher directly in the loop on NS26 carries implications that are just as significant as the transcriptomics. To understand why this is a breakthrough, we must contextualize the traditional methods of conducting science in space.

Right.

Historically, conducting an experiment in microgravity has relied heavily on one of two approaches, strict automation or the use of professional astronauts as proxy researchers.

Let's break those down. With automation, engineers are building highly complex self-contained payload boxes. You put the experiment inside, seal it up, program the sensors and the pumps. launch it, and hope the robotics execute the sequence flawlessly.

Which is incredibly risky, because the space environment is famously hostile to complex robotics. Fluid dynamics behave completely differently in zero gravity.

We'll get into that in a second, yeah.

The other approach relies on professional astronauts, but astronauts are, by absolute necessity, highly trained generalists. At any given moment, they are responsible for orbital mechanics, maintaining life support, repairing the station's plumbing... and executing dozens of different scientific protocols designed by researchers back on Earth.

It's the ultimate proxy problem. If I am an Earth-bound researcher and I design an intricate biological experiment, I have to write a manual, hand it to an astronaut, and hope they can execute my vision perfectly, all while they are simultaneously monitoring a fault in the carbon dioxide scrubbers.

It's a lot to ask of one person.

They cannot possibly have the deep, instinctual expertise in my specific subfield of botany.

Exactly the limitation Furl and Paul recognized. And that is where the architecture of the NS-26 mission represents a leap forward. Rob Furl wasn't on that flight as a space tourist, and he wasn't a professional pilot tasked with operating the vehicle.

Right.

He flew for the singular, exclusive purpose of tending to the experiment he had spent decades developing. And critically, he performed this work in a shirt-sleeve environment.

Meaning he was operating in a pressurized cabin, wearing his standard flight suit, rather than being uncovered by a bulky, pressurized extravehicular spacesuit with thick pressurized gloves that make delicate manipulation impossible. He was a scientist, sitting in a lab, that just happened to be strapped to a rocket.

The advantage of having the principal investigator physically present in that environment cannot be overstated. When we rely solely on automation, we are assuming an environment will behave perfectly predictably. But Farrell was able to take critical physical actions that automated systems could easily fail at.

What kind of actions?

Well, he was observing the fixation process firsthand. When he activated the KSC tubes, he could physically verify that the chemical preservative properly coated the biological samples.

I want to pause on that, because the fluid dynamics aspect is a perfect example of where automation fails. On Earth... If an automated pump squirts a liquid fixative into a tube, gravity pulls the liquid to the bottom, covering the sample perfectly.

Right. We take that for granted.

But in microgravity, liquids form spheres due to surface tension. They cling to the walls of the tube. An automated pump might release the chemical. The optical sensor registers that the liquid was dispensed, and the computer logs sample preserved.

That happens all the time.

But in reality, the liquid might be hovering a millimeter away from the leaf. The computer thinks it's succeeded. But the researcher gets the tube back a week later, and the plant is completely degraded.

That is precisely the failure mode. But because Ferl was physically holding the tubes, he could look at the sample, see if surface tension was preventing the liquid from coating the leaf, and instantly correct it.

Oh, wow.

He could flick the tube, shake it, and use physical force to break the surface tension, ensuring rapid and complete chemical preservation. Beyond physical manipulation, he was able to record qualitative, real-time observations about the timing and the physical environment that sensors might miss.

But let me play devil's advocate for a second, because I look at the cost and the danger of manned spaceflight, and I look at the incredible advancements of robotics. We have closed-loop AI systems. We have robotics performing microscopic surgery. Sure. Is it truly worth the immense financial cost and the sheer danger of putting a fragile human being on top of a controlled explosion? just so they can shake a tube if a bubble forms. If an algorithm fails, couldn't we just code a better algorithm with more visual sensors?

This raises an important question regarding the limits of algorithmic systems versus human heuristic adaptability. Ferl addressed this very philosophy in a perspective column titled The Long Arc of Scientists in Spaceflight.

Okay, what does he argue?

He argues that direct, first-hand observation generates insights that remote data collection cannot replicate. Putting the personal researcher into the loop creates fundamentally better science and better scientists.

Because an algorithm only solves the specific problem it was mathematically modeled to solve. It has no peripheral vision.

That is the crux of it. A sensor only measures what you programmed it to look for. If an unexpected anomaly occurs, say the acoustic vibration of the rocket hits a frequency that causes the liquid to froth rather than form a sphere, an automated sensor doesn't know what it is looking at.

It either fails to execute, Or it records bad data. Exactly.

But a scientist possesses heuristic intuition. A scientist can synthesize unexpected variables instantly. They feel the temperature drop in the cabin. They hear the pitch of the vibration change.

They can process the holistic reality of the spacecraft environment in real time, allowing them to contextualize how those unseen variables might be skewing the data. Yes.

It is the difference between a rigid protocol and an adaptable intelligence. You can build the most advanced optical sensor in the world, but it doesn't have the simple intuitive reaction to just tap the glass when a bubble forms. It doesn't have common sense. And proving that the human element is viable and necessary on these flights is what validates commercial suborbital spacecraft as serious, essential platforms for rigorous academic research.

It opens up so many doors.

It signals a democratization of space science. We are transitioning from an era where the laboratory in orbit was the exclusive domain of government-selected generalists to a future where the actual academics, the researchers who have spent 30 years studying one specific genetic pathway and one specific plant, can physically travel to the edge of space to conduct their own work.

So what does this all mean? We started this discussion by imagining the shock of walking out of a quiet room directly into a hurricane. And the assumption that biology just passively endures that violence. Right. But through a flawlessly synchronized 15-minute suborbital flight, that assumption has been completely dismantled.

We now see that acclimation is not a simple switch that flips when you reach orbit. It is a brilliant, progressive, highly complex biological symphony.

It really is a symphony.

A tiny Arabidopsis plant essentially rewrites the expression of 1,200 genes, managing the Gravitropism in its roots and mechanotransduction in its leaves, actively navigating the physical chaos of the launch profile. And crucially, we proved irreplaceable value of human intuition, showing that the most advanced scientific instrument we can send into space is still the mind and the hands of the researcher themselves.

Well said.

As commercial space access expands, understanding this rapid onset of biological shock is going to dictate how we design everything from agricultural systems for Mars colonies, to the medical protocols for human passengers.

It absolutely will. The immediate biological baseline is the foundation upon which all long-term space exploration must be built. Which leaves us with a profound avenue for speculation.

Okay, lay it on me.

We have mapped how a simple Thale Crest plant possesses the staggering genetic architecture to actively reshuffle 1,200 genes in the mere seconds it takes to leave Earth's gravity. It forces us to look inward. If a plant can react with such instantaneous, microscopic complexity to the violent starting gun of spaceflight, what immense, invisible genetic cascades are triggering deep within our own human cells, flipping thousands of survival switches we don't even know exist yet, the exact moment we cross the threshold into space.

Wait, really? It is genuinely humbling to realize that the most complex reactions to spaceflight might be happening inside of us before we even have time to register the view out the window. Thank you so much for exploring the hidden mechanics of those first few minutes in space. And to you listening, keep questioning the universe around you.

What Happens to Plants in Space? New Research Reveals Surprising Changes

Kapitelklicken springt direkt hin

Shownotes

Transkriptvom Podcast bereitgestellt · Zeitmarken springen hin