Science Friday - Vocal Fry, Indigenous Tribes And The Colorado River, Year In Space. December 10, 2021, Part 2

Episode Date: December 10, 2021

The Why Of Vocal Fry For decades, vocal fry lived a relatively quiet existence. A creaky or breathy sound that occurs when your voice drops to its lowest register, this phenomenon was long known to linguists, speech pathologists, and voice coaches—but everyday people didn’t pay much attention to it. Then in 2011, people started noticing it everywhere. So, what happened? What’s going on in our vocal chords when we fry? And why does it bother so many people so very much? “Science Diction” host Johanna Mayer explains the history of vocal fry, and looks at languages where fry is a feature, not a bug.   Tribal Concerns Grow As Water Levels Drop In The Colorado River Basin Lorenzo Pena pulls off the highway and into a drive-through water distribution center on the Southern Ute Indian Tribe reservation in southwest Colorado. He parks his truck and connects the empty tank it’s hauling to a large hose and thousands of gallons of water quickly rush in. Pena, who works for the Southern Ute Indian Tribe’s hauled water program, has made this trip countless times to deliver water to tribal members who don’t have clean water piped to their homes from the local utility. “It’s pretty dry around here,” Pena said. “So if people have wells, they’re real slow or the wells aren’t really producing much water.” If a family on the reservation doesn’t use well water or lives outside of town, they have to haul water to fill their cistern to flow through their home.   The Colorado River is the lifeblood for the Southern Ute and dozens of federally recognized tribes who have relied on it for drinking water, farming, and supporting hunting and fishing habitats for thousands of years. The river also holds spiritual and cultural significance. Today, 15 percent of Southern Utes living on the reservation in southwest Colorado don’t have running water in their homes at all. That rate is higher for other tribes that rely on the Colorado River, including 40 percent of the Navajo Nation. Native American households are 19 times more likely to lack piped water services than white households, according to a report from the Water & Tribes Initiative. The data also show Native American households are more likely to lack piped water services than any other racial group. Leaders of tribes who depend on the Colorado River say the century-old agreement on managing a resource vital to 40 million people across the West is a major factor fueling these and other water inequalities. State water managers and the federal government say they will include tribes in upcoming Colorado River policymaking negotiations for the first time. Read more at sciencefriday.com.   Space Tourists, Asteroids, And Anti-Satellite Tests, Oh My! Space has been a busy place this year. In February, NASA’s Perseverance rover landed on Mars and embarked on its mission to collect samples, alongside the first ever helicopter to fly on the Red Planet. July and September saw the launches of billionaires, space tourists, and civilian astronauts to various elevations above the Earth. Human beings are arriving to the International Space Station via Cape Canaveral for the first time since the discontinuation of the shuttle program in 2011. In November, NASA launched a mission to test our ability to deflect dangerous asteroids. And China, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia have all continued to make their way through the solar system as well. But what about the continued concerns astronomers have about the steep rise and future plans for fleets of private telecommunications satellites in low Earth orbit, like SpaceX’s StarLink? Will the increasing footprint of private industry in space exploration have potential drawbacks for science? And what about that Russian anti-satellite test, which disrupted operations at the International Space Station for several days after? Ira and a trio of star space reporters—WFME’s Brendan Byrne, Axios’ Miriam Kramer, and The Verge’s Loren Grush—round up 2021’s out-of-this-world headlines. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. You know, when you work in radio, you get a lot of comments about your voice. It sort of comes with the territory. Every now and then, someone says to me, you know who you really sound like? Alan Alda. I get that all the time, and you know what? I will take it. But once in a while, when the speaking voice is that of a woman, the comments have a different tenor to them. Usually they have to do with something called vocal fry. Someone who gets these kinds of comments a lot, is your comments. Johanna Mayer, host of our podcast Science Diction. Hey, Johanna. Hey, Ira. Okay, Vocal Fry. What exactly is it? It's when your voice drops down into a lower register. And it takes on almost a creaky quality, kind of like this.

And a lot of people really, really do not like it. Huh. You know, I hear lots of people speaking with Vocal Fry, but it's never really bothered me. Well, that's the thing. It's not like Vocal Fry is anything new. Linguists have been studying it for decades, but it's really just in the past few years that everyday people have started paying attention to it and hating on it. So when I started getting all of these emails and angry tweets about my voice, it got me thinking, where did this fixation on Vocal Fry come from? And also, is there anything maybe good about it?

Which brings us to your story. Before the last decade, Vocal Fry lived a relatively quiet, existence. It was known to linguists, speech and language specialists, maybe the occasional vocal coach, but it really didn't get much public attention. I mean, it was around. The Kardashians were a few seasons steep. Brittany was post-circassar had just done her get-sleezy worldwide tour. But then, in 2011, a study came out. A team of linguists at Long Island University looked at 34 college students, all of them women, and found that about two-thirds of them used vocal fry. And I don't know exactly what it was about this study, because it wasn't like there

hadn't been studies on vocal fry before. Maybe it was just timing, that it was giving a name to this thing that people had suddenly started noticing. But something about this study struck a chord. It's something called vocal fry that is creeping into the speech patterns of young women. NBC's chief medical editor, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, is here to explain. Explain away because I've never heard of this. Well, it's a new term, Matt. A lot of people, I think, probably haven't heard about it. At the time of this Today Show episode, Vocal Fry was still a pretty obscure term,

but that was about to change. Have you ever looked at a FedEx truck and noticed how the blank spaces between the E and the X make a little arrow? After I noticed that for the first time, I could not unsee it. That's what this newfound. fascination with vocal fry was like, it had existed in plain sight for years and people just hadn't really noticed it. But once they did, they realized they hated it. It's girls who talk like that and adopt that, but it's not their fault. You mean like grown women? Grown women and it's they're victimized. They have fallen prey to something. Yeah. It's annoying. I mean, it's really annoying.

It's so it's talking really high And then it's also the affectation, which is the fry And I'm talking The general consensus was that vocal fry Was a trendy thing That young women were basically just trying to sound like Britney Spears and Kesha And then in 2015, there was an episode of fresh air Let's get to the glottal fry

Also known as the vocal fry demonstrated for us It's when you're kind of down here. Typically, it occurs at the end of a sentence when you're finishing what you're saying. Terry Gross is interviewing Susan Sankan, a speech and language pathologist, and they're talking about all the different issues she helps her clients address. The pathologist is clearly not a fan of the fry and how it makes women sound, but she actually takes it a step further. What they don't realize is how harmful it could be to your vocal cords. You're really fatiguing and straining them. You're putting them in an unusual position. And it'll be interesting

to see in the near future how many of these women end up in E&T offices with vocal pathology. So vocal fry, not just annoying, not just sabotaging your career, it's actually doing you physical harm. And that's when the linguists all got involved. Lisa Davidson is the chair of the linguistics department at NYU. And in fact, that's when I joined Twitter because I wrote a letter to fresh air at the time. And that's, yeah, that's when I decided it was probably a smart time for me to join social media. In her letter, Lisa argues that Focal Fri is actually not a problem at all. And that this pathologist and other people who hate it, they're just intolerant of how young women speak. And actually, pretty ill-informed about the basics of Fry. So let's clarify that. What is it?

Like, what's happening in my throat when I use vocal fry, also known as creaky voice? The vocal folds are vibrating much more slowly. They're vibrating more irregularly and somewhat more loosely. Sometimes this just happens when you're running out of air. So a lot of times where we find creaky voice, especially in a language like English, is at the end of a sentence. Now, as to the allegation that it's damaging the vocal cords, well, it's pretty interesting. considering all the languages that actually use Vocal Fry. In many Southeast Asian languages and indigenous languages in Central America, vocal fry isn't a bug. It's a feature.

In some languages, just adding a tiny bit of fry changes the actual meaning of a word. Or languages like Cantonese, where the pitch of a word changes its meaning. Vocal Fry can help speakers reach those lower tones. and it can help listeners understand which tone is being used. Just makes it a little more distinctive. But what about in English? When linguists first described it in English, it wasn't about women at all. It was about men.

In fact, according to a linguist in the 60s, it was something that upper-class British men did, presumably to convey their superior social standing. And judging solely by this one clip, of Benedict Cumberbatch, this is still very much a thing. I've got a brother who's worried about you, but you won't go to him for help because you don't prove with him possibly because he's an alcoholic, more likely because he recently walked out on his wife, and I know that your therapist thinks your limp psychosomatic quite correctly, I'm afraid.

I mean, that was basically one long, confident croak. And in the UK, historically at least, it seems vocal fry wasn't happening nearly as much in women. In the 80s, one survey found that it was as much as 10 times more common in men, and again, specifically upper-class types. And yet, note the curious lack of public outrage or fretting over whether Benedict Cumberbatch could secure any more acting work, afflicted as he is with the voice of a fancy frog. In the U.S., there's evidence that young women use vocal fry more than men, at least among college students in the small studies, that have been done. And as we know, people are very much complaining about it. So maybe it's how

North American women are using fry that's getting people worked up. In English, vocal fry obviously doesn't change the actual meaning of a word the way it can in other languages. But it might convey other meanings, subtler ones. There's some research on this, and none of it is conclusive. Some studies suggest that women use vocal fry when talking about emotional topics. Others say it's a thing we do when we're bored, or even when we're trying to project authority. So why do people hate it? Maybe they hate when women sound emotional, bored, or authoritative. That's one theory. But here's a simpler one. Sexism. When we criticize the way someone's voice sounds, not what they're actually saying, It's because on some level, we just don't like who they are, their age, their class, their race, their gender.

To me, criticizing vocal fry just feels like making fun of someone's accent, like a cheap shot. When we say, I can't tolerate the sound of her vocal fry, it sounds to me like what we're really saying is, I can't tolerate the sound of a young woman talking on the radio. But you might want to get used to it, because how women talk, it tends to catch on. Many years of sociolinguistic research has shown that just about every change that you see in language is found first in women, right? Often young women. This is widely accepted among linguists and sociologists. When it comes to speech and language, young women tend to be ahead of the curve.

And that's been true for centuries. In the early 2000s, two linguists looked at thousands of letters from the early modern period and found that women were way more likely than men to mix things up with new linguistic forms. Like dropping the ye. Women started using you earlier than men. And half, women switched to the modern has earlier too. If there's one rule of language, it's that it changes. And if there's another rule of language, it's that some people get,

very annoyed when it does. So what to do? Do I get a voice coach? Do we hire Benedict Cumberbatch to croak on my behalf? Do listeners who don't like my voice just turn it off? I'd like to propose another solution. Look inward. Why is it that a simple creak in my voice sounds immature, stupid, grading, or like, quote, a spoiled teen? Why is how I say a, more important than what I say. And if your answer is, well, look, I like women and I don't want to find this annoying, but I just truly, genuinely do, I'd like to prescribe this solution. Exposure. Because there's nothing inherently wrong or annoying about Fry. If there was, much of Denmark would have to collectively turn off their ears. Yes, creaky voice is a feature of

Danish. Like most things in life, we get used to him with exposure. So if you're looking to solve this problem, here's my offer. Just listen. Listen to the radio. Listen to podcasts, to audiobooks, to Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian and women on the radio. Listen to your niece, your brother, your boss. Listen to yourself. And listen to voices like mine. Because in time, I think you're I think you'll start to hear us a little differently. And you might even like what we have to say. That piece was produced by Kevin McLean, Johanna Mayer, and Ella Fedder. And you can hear more stories like this on our podcast, Science Diction.

Thank you, Johanna. Thank you, Ira. This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. And now it's time to check in on the state of science. This is KERNO. St. Louis Public Radio News. Iowa Public Radio News.

Local science stories of national significance. If you live out west, water has probably been on your mind a lot over the last few years. States have had to deal with drought conditions, and a world where there's not enough water to go around seems to be getting more real every day. If you're part of a Western tribal nation, the issue of water access is even more dire. That's because indigenous peoples have long been left out of conversations about how, to divvy up resources. In the Colorado River Basin, leaders from 20 tribal nations are now asking the federal government for a seat at the table. Joining me today to break down the complications

of water rights in the West is my guest, Michael Elizabeth Sackas, Climate and Environment Reporter for Colorado Public Radio based in Denver. Welcome to Science Friday. Thanks for having me. Let's start with a little context, if you will. Who are the players that get their water from the Colorado River Basin? The Colorado River starts in the rocky mountains of Colorado, and it flows through the southwest until it reaches Mexico. And along the way, seven states and 30 federally recognized tribes use this water for ranching and recreation and, of course, drinking water. And even cities outside of the Colorado River basin, like Denver and Los Angeles, rely on this water, which in total supplies around 40 million people. It also provides electricity for the west through the turbines that spin at hydroelectric.

dams along the river. Wow, so people really are dependent on the river. Tell us what the state of the river is now. What's happening in the basin is quite alarming. The two largest reservoirs in the United States are of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. They're both filled with Colorado River water, and they both hit their lowest levels on record this year. The water levels dropped so low, the federal government declared the first ever shortage on the Colorado River in 2021, which means cuts to some water users next year. The average flow of the Colorado River has dropped about 20% since the 1900s, and roughly half of that decline is due to climate change. And these hotter attempts have helped fuel a 20-year megadrout across the West. A megadrout is essentially a drought that can last

decades. And this rapid decline in the river could soon cause problems between the states that share this water. Now, wasn't there an agreement almost 100 years ago from managing the water that was created? I mean, what does this agreement say? And is it still relevant? Yeah, the agreement is called the Colorado River Compact, and it essentially divided up the water in the river. So each state knew how much water it could use to fuel their growth and development. The states in the upper part of the basin get this much, and the states in the lower part of the basin get this much. And the agreement says those upper basin states have to keep a certain amount of water in the river so it can flow to those downstream states.

But of course, this was crafted long before droughts caused by climate change was a reality, right? Yeah, right. When this combat was signed 100 years ago, the states didn't consider that the climate could change and that the river would dry up as much as it has. And when the states divided up this water, they didn't use percentages. They actually used fixed numbers on how much water each state could use. I spoke with Brad Udall, a water and climate scientist with Colorado State University, and he said that's what might soon cause the issue. between the states. The fatal flaw of the compact is currently written are these fixed numbers in there. You can't have fixed numbers in a declining system. That's going to unduly impose pain on a party that's completely undeserving and never signed

up for that. Because the river has dried up so much, there's a chance that part of that 100-year-old agreement between the states could be broken soon, because it might mean the states in the upper part of the Colorado River Basin can no longer send down the amount of water to the lower basin states as agreed to in the compact. That could lead to court battles between states and some water users being cut off from the river. Speaking about broken agreements, let's talk about the indigenous tribes from the very beginning. Were they included in this agreement? No, when the compact was signed, the 30 tribes in the basin were not included in the

agreement. And tribal leaders say the legacy of that racial injustice continues to hurt their members today. Bidde Becker is a member of the Navajo Nation and an associate attorney for the tribe's utility. Tribal people living on reservations didn't even get the right to vote in Arizona until 1948, you know, a whole generation or two after the compact sign. So even this concept of who are tribes, what are tribal people, how do they fit into our system? I think they were unresolved then, and I think that's what we're still trying to resolve to this day. Since the compact was signed, states have had to renegotiate how to better manage the Colorado River in a drier reality. And the tribes have been excluded from those river negotiations as well.

Speaking of the tribes, I know there's also this additional layer of American Indian treaty rights. What did treaty rights say about how much water from the Colorado River Basin should go to tribes? It wasn't until the early 1900s that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that tribes in the Colorado River basin had reserved water rights. Essentially, that meant that these tribes had the right to use Colorado River water to meet the needs of their reservation. But how much water is that? That wasn't clarified until the 1960s when the Supreme Court adopted a standard that said tribes get as much water as they would need to irrigate their land. By this point, Lakes Powell and Mead are built and they're filling with water for the states to use, and the tribes are going to court to figure out

how much of that water is theirs. Now at this point, it's estimated that the tribes hold rights to use a quarter of what flows through the Colorado River, that's more than what Arizona gets. And this amount is only expected to grow as more tribes figure out how much water is theirs to use. And what are the tribes then asking for right now as the water situation gets more dire? Because the river is drying up, the states have to renegotiate how to manage the river in a new climate. Those new rules have to be adopted by 2026. So the negotiating of those rules have unofficially already started and are expected to officially start soon. And the tribes want to be included in this process, recognized as sovereign governments and as equals to the states.

Lorelei Cloud is a member of the Southern Ute Tribal Council and a leader of the Water and Tribes Initiative. Here she is speaking at a recent event at the University of Colorado Boulder. We've been stewards of this water for such a long time and we need to make sure that we're always in the conversations of how much water that we are using to make sure that we have. all can have sustainable water. Cloud grew up on the Southern Ute Reservation in Southwest Colorado with no running water. Native American households are more likely to lack piped water services than any other racial group. So a big part of why the tribes want this formal seat at the negotiation table on Colorado River policy is to make changes that can mean clean water for their members.

There really is an interesting new wrinkle now, and by that I mean that for the first time, the U.S. has a Native American secretary of the interior, Deb Hallen. Did the tribal members you talk to say if this changes anything? Yeah, I spoke with Manuel Hart, the chairman of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in the Four Corners region. We have Secretary Holland, who's a Native American from the Pueblo tribe, and she understands the region here. She comes from this region, so she knows what we're feeling and what we're going through. So that is a plus on our side.

Hart said he feels an overall shift, the states and the federal government are listening to tribes more now on the issue of water. The states have said tribes will be included in the upcoming negotiations, but promises aren't enough for these tribes. They want to see legal change from the federal government to ensure their inclusion. Okay, so let's play. What if a formal shortage is declared? What's the plan? I mean, is there one? It's unclear what those states in the upper Colorado River basin will do if they aren't able to send enough water to the downstream states. And that's a big problem. because Brad Udall, the water and climate scientist,

says there's a chance that Colorado River system could reach that crossroads in the next five years with the way things are going with the hydrology. That will be a day of reckoning for the upper basin, and frankly, I think you probably never, ever want to get there. You want to cut demands or have an agreement or somehow not get into a violation of that where all of a sudden all bets are off on how it gets resolved.

What could happen is the new, newest water users, with water rights that are less senior, could be cut off from the river, or all water users are cut back an equal amount, so more water can flow downstream. But a formal shortage might never happen. The Upper Basin states could possibly successfully argue in court that they're not at fault for the drop in the river, that it's climate change, not overdevelopment or anything like that. Interesting argument. I mean, are there any Colorado River management negotiations on the calendar right now, or are we in a wait and see moment? Informal negotiations have already started between states and water commissioners, but formal

negotiations don't have a set start day just yet. That's really interesting. Thank you for taking time to be with us today. Thanks for having me. Michael Elizabeth Sackis, Climate and Environment Reporter for Colorado Public Radio based in Denver. Michael's reporting on this was part of a collaboration with the Institute for Nonprofit News on power, justice, and water in the West. And we'll be talking a lot about water in 2022, so we want to hear from you, our listeners.

What are your biggest concerns about water for our warming planet? Are you pessimistic? Is there technology you're hopeful about? We want to hear about it. Let us know on our SciFri Vox Pop app, and you can get that wherever you get your apps. And now we turn to space,

because 2021 has been a happening year in space, space exploration, experimentation, and entertainment. NASA unveiled a new mission to Venus. We got another rover perseverance safely onto the surface of Mars. The U.S. sent the aptly named Dart spacecraft to smash into an asteroid, while Russia smashed up a satellite spewing debris into the path of the International Space Station. And is this finally the year we see the James Webb Space Telescope launched? Stay tuned.

Then there's all the people riding, perhaps joy riding into space. Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, William Shatner, Mercury 13 veteran Mary Wally Funk. How about the first ever team of civilian astronauts which orbited the Earth for three days during SpaceX's Inspiration for Mission? Not to mention the United Arab Airmen's joining the Mars Party with its first mission to the red planet. Who would have thunk? Let me catch my breath after all and introduce my stuff. our studded cast of space journalists to talk through this year's news beyond the stratosphere.

Brendan Burns, space reporter for WMFE in Orlando, Florida. Great to have you, Brendan. It's great to be here, Ira. Miriam Kramer, space reporter for Axios. She's based in Nashville. Hey there, Miriam. Hi, Ira. Thanks for having me. Nice to have you. And Lauren Grush, space reporter for the verge. She joins us from Austin. Welcome back, Lauren. Thanks for having me, and happy Friday. Happy Friday. Speaking of which, let me invite you, Let me invite all of our listeners to vote for the biggest or most important space news this year or stuff that we missed.

What do you think was big in the year for space news? Give us a call. 844-724-8255-8-44-Sy-Talk, or you can tweet us at Sci-Fi. Miriam, first thing, let's talk about people in space on commercial spacecraft. You know, I just went through a list of the tests and launches we saw putting people with all experience levels high above the ozone. You made a whole podcast about one of those missions, the Inspiration for Mission from SpaceX.

What made this such a groundbreaking story in your mind? Yeah, well, so yeah, thank you, the plug. The second season of how it happened on Axios is all about the inspiration for mission. And for me, I think the thing that really caught my eye with the mission was just sort of how different it felt than many of the other. crude launches that we've been seeing. So the ones that get the big headlines tend to be, you know, the big NASA launches, the cosmonauts going up on Soyuz, SpaceX flying astronauts to the space station. But for this one, I mean, this was a group of relatively ordinary people that were sent up to

space for three days and lived in a tiny tin can altogether. They were complete strangers before the mission happened. And then they, you know, went through this incredibly quick astronaut. training and manage to fly and do it safely. So it was, I think, one of those moments where you can look at what the future of space and spaceflight in particular might be. Lauren, and on top of what Miriam's been saying, there was a big year for space tourism. I mean, in July, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Virgin Galactic had Richard Branson, you had various celebrities all going into space or nearly to space. Right?

Yes, you've actually touched on a big ongoing debate within the space community. But yes, I'd actually say this is the year that probably space tourism crossed into the public mainstream more so than ever. I mean, for me and my colleagues here on the channel right now, you know, we've been covering Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic for years, and they've always been proclaiming that their first human space flights are just around the corner. They'll be later this year. They'll be later this year and then they keep getting pushed back and push back. But then finally, this year we actually saw them send their founders into space, Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos.

And obviously they got a lot of attention because they were billionaires themselves. And that, you know, it ignited a lot of conversations about, you know, whether or not these trips are worth it, you know, whether these billionaires should be doing this with their time. It was definitely a very volatile time, I would say. for the space industry, but also a really big milestone and one that we've been waiting for for a really long time. This is Science Friday from WNYC Studios. Talking about space travel with your questions, our number 844-8255.

Brendan, meanwhile on the space coast, you had launches of crude spacecraft again for the first time since the discontinuation of the shuttle program in 2011. Why is this such a big deal? Yeah, this was a welcome edition. to the space coast. We miss seeing our humans leave the planet from our backyard here. And it's real nice now. I mean, I hate to say it, use the word routine, because spaceflight definitely is not routine, but let me say spaceflight is definitely consistent now from Florida. It seems like every six months we have humans coming back or leaving this planet.

And this is, I mean, this is super important, right? I mean, we're back to flying astronauts again. It's been almost a decade between the last space shuttle launch and SpaceX's DM mission that sent Bob and Doug. And now we're getting every six months, crews of four heading up to the space station and another crew of four coming back down. Real great to see. And we also had our first splashdown, didn't we, in a long time? That's right. I mean, you'll recall, Ira, that the space shuttle landed at the space shuttle landing facility sometimes here in Florida and sometimes. elsewhere. But yeah, it splashed down off the coast of Florida. And then those astronauts come back,

and sometimes they go to Kennedy Space Center. Often they head out to, back to Johnson Space Center. But yeah, the capsules splash down off of Florida, which is really cool. Let me invite our callers. Remind them that our phone number is 844-8255. If you'd like to join us and talk about what your favorite space moments are. 844-Sight-Talk. We're talking about the year in review in space with our guests who have a lot of space knowledge. Brendan Byrne from WMFE in Orlando, Miriam Kramer from Axios, and Lauren Grush from The Verge. So we have to take a break. Stay with us. We'll be right back with lots more space talk. Stay with us.

Hey, Ira here with an exciting message. Science Friday currently has a dollar-for-dollar donation match in effect. This means that any donation made through December 31st will be doubled, including including yours. Now, I don't have to tell you that the need for Science Friday is stronger than ever. So please head over to ScienceFriday.com slash support to make a gift. We depend on the generosity of fans and listeners. Again, that's Science Friday.com slash support. And thanks. You're listening to Science Friday. I'm Ira Flato. We're rounding up 2021 space headlines with some of this out-of-world space reporters that we have going with us there, really, from out of this world.

WMFF in Orlando's Brendan Byrne, Miriam Kramer, Vaxios, and Lauren Grush from the Verge, our number, 844-8255. And as always, when we talk about space, there are so many people that want to get in on the conversation, and we love that. So let's go to Germantown, Wisconsin, with Milwaukee. Is that correct? It's Malachi. Malachi.

ahead. So I was wondering, with all these anti-satellite missile tests, at what point do we have to start actually worrying about Kessler syndrome, you know, in space debris, you know. Yeah, I've seen the movie. Yeah, let's talk about that. The Russians, they exploded one of their satellites. Did they not? Yes, it was the worst Monday morning for every space reporter here. Phyllis. Yeah, so essentially what they did was they conducted an anti-satellite test or what is known as an ASAT test. And they sent a kinetic missile to destroy one of their own satellites in orbit.

And these are pretty widely condemned by the space community because it did exactly what we knew it would do. It created thousands of pieces of debris in Earth orbit. And something to keep in mind, these pieces of debris aren't just floating up there. They're moving at many thousands. of miles per hour and they can't be controlled right so if they were to run into an active satellite that could potentially damage or destroy a functioning satellite in orbit and so what our caller brings up is the Kessler syndrome which is gets batted around a lot

it's this idea that that's going to eventually create this cascading effect of space debris that's just going to make low Earth orbit unusable you know I'm not sure I just necessarily think that's the future we're headed toward, but I think we are working, we're looking at a future where we're not sure where everything is in space all the time. We have a lot of different opinions of where everything is. And the more we add to that environment, the more confusing that becomes and harder to understand if our spacecraft is safe or not. And I think that's the bigger concern and the future that we're headed toward. Brenda, does everybody do this? I remember years ago when the Chinese blew up one of their own satellite. Yeah.

This has been done before. The Chinese have done it. India has also done it. You probably know this, Ira, but it's not really a good idea to blow things up in space. You think? You think? As Lauren outlined the reasons for it. You know, I think one thing that was really interesting that came out of this ASAT test was that, you know, the U.S. largely condemned this. Russia downplayed the issue. But at a recent National Space Council, meaning the Department of Defense basically came out and said, we have to put an end to this. And that's, that was, you know, that was a kind of a novel thing for someone from the DOD to say, because usually we want to reserve these kind of weapons for ourselves or these tests for ourselves.

So the fact that the U.S. is coming out there and saying, you know, we need to put an end to this, shows the importance of it. And we've seen other leaders come out. The head of the European Space Agency recently talked about how we really do need to start getting a handle on space traffic because it could very well be an issue for not just the astronauts on the ISS, but as Lauren mentioned, all of these space-based assets that we have out there are GPS systems, or communication systems. All of that stuff is, it could possibly be threatened by any sort of debris,

and especially debris that's caused intentionally. Marion, before the break, we talked about the big leaps in human space travel this year, tourists, the civilian astronauts, Florida launches with some help from SpaceX. All of this seems to me to suggest private space flight has really come into its own this year. Is that going to benefit the scientific community that needs access to space? Yeah, absolutely. I think that with more providers, more folks launching like SpaceX, like whoever it might be, you will get the chance to have more scientific instruments flying. I mean, there's even talk right now of a privately sent mission to Venus that's working with scientists to actually figure out exactly the questions they want to answer and then using sort of an off-the-shelf satellite to try to answer them by sending it to Venus. So it's opening up this. new possible regime of exploration scientifically and, you know, human-wise as well. But I think that it can only mean good things in many ways for science to even get in on the action, too. And of course,

the International Space Station is on its last leg, so to speak. It's been up there for quite some time. It's not going to last forever. And NASA's been looking for private alternatives for future space stations, correct? Yeah, absolutely. So, So most people think that the space station will have to end by 2030 at the latest, maybe a little bit earlier than that. But right now, NASA is in the process of basically trying to figure out where their astronauts are going to go in low Earth orbit after and before even the space station ends, hopefully before.

So they put out this call for private space station ideas, and they just recently awarded some multi-million dollar contracts to three different teams of... of private companies. So it should be really interesting to see what designs they come up with, who gets funding. I mean, it's going to be a pretty volatile couple of years, I think. On the other hand, if we're talking space, we're over the radar, not flying under the radar, the Chinese are very active in building a new space station, aren't they? Brendan? Yeah, they are. And, you know, I don't follow it too closely. They also don't share too many

details about that. But yeah, they've got a space station and have a crew on board. And, yeah, their civil space, their civil space station is coming together. And it is interesting. And that's also another driving force for, you know, some U.S. politicians to say, hey, we need to make sure that we can, we have something up there for, as Miriam mentioned, you know, the end of life for the International Space Station, which will be this decade. So having those commercial platforms up there for us to do science. but also signal to an adversarial country like China,

hey, we still have a presence in space is very important for the U.S. Let's go to Mark in Aurora, Illinois. Hi, Mark. Welcome to Science Friday. Yes, I find it interesting that when William Shatner played Captain Kirk, he was often accused of being an over-the-top actor, and now that he's got himself into space, he's been criticized for being an over-the-top spender.

And here's another piece to that. I think that it's interesting that as Captain Kirk, he talked almost complacently about visiting various planets, almost as if it was like visiting the corner grocery store. But when he actually went out into space, he was almost at a loss for words, and he was on the edge of tears. Space was no longer something to be complacent about when he actually traveled into it. Okay, let me get some comments because a lot of people had opinions about whether they liked William Schatner going into space or not happen, don't they? Yeah, I mean, I for one, watched his commentary afterwards in real time, and I thought it was quite genuine. I will say, though, that I believe that William Schatner was a guest on that flight, so I don't actually think he spent any money on his ticket. Blue Origin has been inviting celebrity guests. onto their missions to, you know, get some hype around them.

And I think they, unlike mere mortals like us, they don't have to pay anything. Although if they want to take a journalist, I'm sure one of us would be more than that. Oh, yeah. But don't send me a bill because I can't afford it. Let's go to Mars, a very place a lot of people to be, because I called it a Mars party before my introduction. because there are a lot of folks from different countries on Mars, you know. China sent their own mission to Mars this year. They have a rover there.

The United Arab Emirates has a hope orbiter, you know, in Mars orbit. Wow. I mean, suddenly people you didn't think are countries you would not expect to actually find interest in Mars are all doing it. What do you think, Brendan? I think it's awesome. I really followed the hope orbiter. It was the first interplanetary mission for a brand new space agency out of the UAE. And it sent back some really stunning images.

I recall, if I recall correctly, because what is time these days, I think it was the first one to get there and just sent back these incredible photos. And it's really collecting some amazing science that they're sharing with the science community. So the Hope Orbiter is really cool. And of course, there's perseverance. I mean, who doesn't love a NASA rover on the surface of Mars? And the little helicopter that hitched a ride with in ingenuity. I think all of us are rooting for that helicopter, you know, that little stowaway.

So Mars years are always so exciting in space, and it was, you know, exponentially exciting with three missions arriving this year. Speaking of the Space Coast, let's go to Jacksonville, Florida. Ha! Welcome to Science Friday. Hi, thank you. I just wanted to give a shout out, as we always try to remember those who have come before us. And Commander David Scott, who was the commander for Apollo 15, drove the lunar rover vehicle, discovered the Genesis Rock, and proved Galileo's theorem that a falcon feather can fall at the same velocity as a metal hammer on the moon. And we had a 50th anniversary in San Diego, at San Diego Air and Space Museum this summer.

And I think, you know, less we forget those who, you know, really sacrificed their lives. And he also placed the astronaut thing on the moon, remembering those who have perished in the space race. But I think the 50th anniversary of Apollo 15, since he's the only commander left on the Earth that walked on the moon, I think there are four other people who walked on the moon. But that's something, you know, for us to remember while the commercial space programs go around the Earth, The moon is very, very far away. Very well put. Thank you for that remembrance, because, yes, we do stand on the shoulders of giants.

And our panelists certainly are aware of the history of the space program, correct? Yeah, oh, yeah. I have the chance to chat with David Scott, and he's very happy to talk about that mission, even 50 years on. So, yeah, the foundation. I just watched the video of that the other day when I was really, researching this, and it was an incredible demonstration of a hammer, you know, this metal hammer and a feather being dropped to the moon surface at the same time. It's like,

pshu, mind-blower, because you know it should happen, but you're sitting here saying, I hope this happens. I hope this happens. Let's go back, let's go back to the phones, and let's see who we, oh yeah, let's talk about this, because this was a big topic earlier in the year. Shannon, Cornwell, Connecticut. Hi, welcome to science. Friday. Sean, go ahead. Hi. Hi there. So before I get into my topic, you guys had a really great conversation so far. I know you mentioned the Russian anti-satellite test that happened. I don't think anybody mentioned the Chinese hypersonic missile test, which allegedly went around the Earth's orbit, and they weren't too transparent about that. So that's another thing that's

going on in lower Earth orbit. But my topic in particular was there were a lot of stories about UFOs this year. And it seems like the consciousness, the national consciousness on this issue has gone from something that would be considered to be tabloid fodder to something that's, well, it's already been admitted by the government to be something that is credible. It's long been alleged that the U.S. government and different corporations have a number of unacknowledged special access projects that deal with this issue from the mundane to the exotic. So I just was wondering what you guys' opinion was on the UFO situation. Okay, before we get into UFOs, a quick reminder, this is Science Friday from WNYC Studios.

Who wants to tackle UFOs? Who wants to wait in today? It's UAPs. Yes, right. They changed the name of the UAE. No, Miriam, tell us about that. Oh, boy. Lauren, what is a UAP?

You know what? I've actually been on book leave. I've forgotten. Somebody enlightened me. I forgot what the acronym means. It's unidentified aerial phenomenon. Yes, exactly. But is it aliens, Miriam?

Is it aliens? You know what, Brendan, my favorite line, it's never aliens. It's never aliens. So I just want to say, like, I think UFO, the UFO, like, discourse is really fascinating and so interesting. But I personally see it as more of a national security story and less of a space story, at least right now. I see it as a transportation story. It's an air traffic story. not a space story.

And by insinuating that it's a space story, we're insinuating that it's aliens, which, Miriam, is it aliens? It's never aliens, Lawrence. Let's take her off the hot seat. Okay. Let's move on to a story that really has an international impact, and that is, speaking of impact,

there was no pun intended. I'm talking about the Dart mission to deflect, sort of push an asteroid away from a potentially dangerous orbit that launched just last month. How will it get to be, you know, how long is it going to be out there? And what exactly is its mission?

Who would like to tackle that one? I can, I told you earlier. Oh, go for it, Lauren. No, it's just, it's, it's, it's, I love it because of its simplicity, right? It's essentially, we are going to push or boop an asteroid off of its path, just ever so slightly, just to see if we can actually do it. the idea is that we would use a similar scenario if we were to ever find an asteroid that could potentially be catastrophic heading towards Earth someday.

And it's a very simple task, but it really could have dramatic effects. But the target that we're doing with Dart is one that poses absolutely no threat to Earth. It's actually an asteroid moonlit that's orbiting around another asteroid. and we're going to ram into it with a spacecraft. One of my sources called it an intentional smithering event. And I truly love that. And yeah, we're just going to see how that affects that moonlets orbit. And then if that works, then potentially we could try it on a hazardous asteroid someday.

Let me before. I have about a minute left before. I don't want to let the year go by without we talking about the James Webb Space telescope that maybe, maybe finally going to launch? I mean, is it going to get up there, Brendan? What do you think? I sure hope so because I am sick and tired of being nervous about this mission. It just needs to launch at this point. And I think my colleagues will agree. It's just, it's so complex. And, you know, there's so many things that could go wrong. Everything needs to go right. So I'm happy that the teams are taking their time. But it looks like we're moving towards

that. And I cannot wait to see some of the first. science that comes back from that, you know, just brilliant observatory. The launch date? Do we have one, our schedule? Sometime by Christmas time, maybe. Oh, it should be the 22nd right now. I think that's where we're at the moment. So hopefully, hopefully, before Christmas, for all of our seats. Present for everybody. Thanks, please.

Knowing NASA, it'll be a holiday launch. Oh, yeah. All right. In the middle of the night. That's about the time we have to put our own space party to bed here. Brendan Byrne, a space reporter for. for WMFE in Orlando, Miriam Kramer, Space Reporter for Axios in Nashville,

Lauren Grush, Space Reporter for The Virgin Austin. Thank you all, and happy holidays to all of you. Happy holidays. In case you missed any part of the program, you'd like to hear it again. Of course, you can subscribe to our podcast or ask your smart speaker to play Science Friday and say hi to us on social media,

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, send us a voice memo on the SciFRI Vox Pop app. And, of course, we also like to hear from you. sci fry at science friday.com. Have a great weekend. I'm Iriflato in New York.