SPM and the Sky at Night

[ikorodu]

I have only recently got involved in observing but often watched SAN over the last 15 or so years for its good balance of science and practicality.

I am finding that being able to understand SPM's delivery has become more tricky over the last couple of years.

He is a wonderful ambasador for the hobby of astronomy and I really feel that the reason the programme has endured is that its presented from the point of view of a hobby, although this has perhaps changed to some degree over the years. I feel that if the programme is to continue to be sucessful then showing people what can be seen with modest equipment must be the main focus.

Back in the day more time was spent talking about how to find and see things for yourself as well as the actual research/science, at least that is my memory.

[dellboy78]

I thought Dara O'brien did a good job presenting Stargazing Live alongside Brian Cox. Maybe they could one day link up to host Sky at Night? Speaking of Stargazing Live, I think that it should also be a regular program. Would love to see it on once a month as well as the 3 night special that they do annually at the moment.

[notaclue]

Personally I would have Stargazing every quarter. The main thing about it would be what is in the sky for the coming quarter and what would be the best highlight to get people interested.

[Peter Drew]

I would add Pete Lawrence to the frame. Keen amateur, excellent imager, understated presence, good allrounder. I also like the suggestion of multi-presenters provided that they were suitably knowledgeable in their field.

[Black Knight]

I would add Pete Lawrence to the frame. Keen amateur, excellent imager, understated presence, good allrounder. I also like the suggestion of multi-presenters provided that they were suitably knowledgeable in their field.

Indeed. I don't think there's much wrong with any of the current presenting team, and I also think that a team of presenters works well, especially where these guys have demanding day-jobs to juggle as well as duties on SatN..

[jonathan]

But who would present it next? No doubt there are quite a few people who want presenting roles but can any of them carry the show?

Kate Humble.

[jason.p]

My thoughts go back to "Tomorrow's World" with Raymond Baxter. I used to love that programme. Then it was gradually dumbed down to nothing with celebrity presenters (Maggie Philbin, Kate Humble etc) until it finally disappeared ten years or so. And nothing has replaced it. I fear that once Sir Patrick has gone the same will happen. The Beeb, like all other programme poducers, are only interested in viewing figures and at the risk of sounding snobby that requires dumbing down to the masses. The show has only lasted so long because of SPM as you call him, once he's gone I'm afraid the show will go too, and that will be tragic.

[murgen]

Kate Humble.

Yeh, Kate Humble, Richard Hammond and Bill Oddie.

Do stop it!

What about some of the Time Team cast offs?

[glowjet]

After reading the foregoing there is quite a diverse cross section of criticism and opinion, quite simply if there are those having trouble watching the program, you do have the opportunity to switch it off. In the fullness of time we all may not have a program to watch, it will then become just a distant memory, like the first men on the Moon

John.

[MontyUK]

It's called 'dumbing down' .

Speciality of the Beeb.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Both Patrick and S@N are national institutes. Its hard to imagine the show without Patrick, but that day will come (if the show continues after Patrick). Of all the names mentioned to fill his shoes, i personally would pick Brian Cox. He passion for the science/hobby is infectious. Also i think Pete Lawrence has a great persona about him which works really well on camera. Paul Able is enjoyable to watch and listen to also.

Those 3 would make a great presenting team.

Its a serious show and there is no place for impressionists,musicians (apart from Cox) or saturday night talkshow hosts.

IMHO.

p.s.~~~i refrained for calling Patrick "SPM", as i usually do, because i know he is not one bit fond of being called "Sir". He does deserve all the reverence he is awarded.

Honestly........how many of us would be in this hobby today if it were not for Patrick Moore?

[Cath]

All this talk of replacing dear Patrick and not being able to understand what he says when he's still very much here and most likely still enjoying being on the program. It really isn't a nice thing to be doing to him you know.

I only hope Patrick doesn't get to see threads like this. I wonder how any of you guys would feel if everyone was to start publically talking about replacing you with someone else in whatever it is that you've done all your life for people.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I really do agree Cath. Lets keep enjoying him for as long as possible. Its not the first time this kind of thread has popped up and most likely not the last. My comments on such threads are always in support of Patrick and while never wishing his demise......................are realistic/honest about the future of his legacy.

Actually not so much about his legacy, because that is his and his alone. I mean the future of the show.

[glowjet]

I have watched Patrick since his first episode on a small black and white telly, with my Late Father, who also had a passing interest in Astronomy. His enthusiasm for the subject knows no bounds and is totally infectious, he alone must be responsible for bringing thousands and thousands of people into the hobby over the years. The retailers of Astronomy equipment must owe him a big debt of gratitude. In a few days we can all look forward to another program with the great man, lets enjoy it and not think about the future, lets face it, good things never last forever, so watch it while we can

John.

[notaclue]

I remember those cheap (well cheap now) diagrams they had of star constellations. 36 years ago I watched one and Patrick said "If you look north you will see Bootes and...." So me and my brother ran to the window and looked. Could not see a thing. For it was clouded over and it was daytime. And I was 6 years old.

When I was 12 or so I could point out Orion and say to my friends what that one was as well as some of the northern constellations. It impressed them thanks to his books for juniors.

[Mikejh]

Someone ask Patrick what he thinks!

[Tiny]

Not Brian Cox.

Have an apres PM lineup of Pete Lawrence and his mate Abel. They seem to work well together, are enthusiastic, [removed word] but nerdy enough to fit in but still hold interest. Chris Lintott could do his bits but he is too serious to deliver the program in the current age. Do the whole thing from Farthings in the preserved study complete with PM in full sized form looming from a glass case in the corner complete with cat. Run it in its current slots. Then take it from there.

[lulu57]

I like the way that the BBC have not just dumped Patrick Moore because he is old. It seems to me that only he and David Attenborough are valued in this way. Their wisdom and breadth of experience seem to count. I can't think of any more old presenters...especially female old presenters.

Shame.

As for John Culshaw - I like him. I quite fancy him actually (especially when he mimics Russell Crowe in Roman armour...nice ).

And Pete Lawrence and Paul Abel are my favourite astro-hobbits. I like to see them sharing a pot of tea in SPM's hobbit-hole/observatory, whilst admiring Paul Abel's colouring book - "Well done, Paul, you've coloured in the great red spot really neatly!" It's geeky and convivial and it feels just right. More of those two, please!

[GlassWalker]

Since someone mentioned the Hamster already, let's take that idea and run with it. Give Sky At night a Top Gear style makeover. How hard can it be? Keep Patrick as "the old one" but add a couple of regular presenters to bounce off. Cox could do as "the nice looking one" then we just need to find the "weird one" to make up a trio. Segments in the show could include "Star in a reasonably priced scope".

Ok, I'll be quiet now

[notaclue]

If Partick decides to hang up his TV slot I guess there will be a vacuum that can not be filled. Many of the fans of the show will miss the way it is done but like the progress of computers S@N will change. We have presenters who now are on the show. They are established and with that safeguarded the show.

I think it will continue regardless of who presents it. There is no scientific programme that long running for TV anywhere in the world. It is even older that Doctor Who. Maybe S@N was waiting for TV to be invented just so it could appear on it. It is that show where everyone has watched it at some point even if they are not into astronomy and will wonder about it years from now if it was taken off air. It is a cornerstone of TV and regardless of who presents it, the show is just one thing that makes the BBC watchable.

[M4lcs67]

For my two pence worth. I would like to think that Patrick Moore will go on until they remove him in a pine box. As others have stated his enthusiasm as a keen amateur are beyond reproach. The man is a legend and as a regular watcher I find it amazing that he has carried on for so long. It is worrying that each month you can see a noticeable depreciation in his speech and it is good that the Beeb have lots of other people around him to help take the weight off him a little.

It will be a sad sad day when he finally goes. For those who say Kate Humble????? Are you joking????? What the hell does she know about astronomy????? For the S@N to remain relevant and credible it needs someone who is knowlegable about astronomy and I for one would certainly recommend one of the current co presenters. They are all good in their own way or have them all doing a little bit themselves.

With regards to Brian Cox I am a huge fan of his and they way he conveys things is brilliant, but as others have stated he is a physicist not an out and out astronomer.

[notaclue]

If Brian Cox became a co presenter but not a regular one, it would be nice to have him say something aobut the subject that would make you sit back and think. I was watching most of the repeats on Eden today and if he did that on S@N then it could not only make our viewing more better but provide non amateurs a window as to what astronomy really is.

To me the format has changed. It has for the better. But in all it will continue as it is the cornerstone of TV. I would not have it any other way and to be honest, anyone amateur or not would miss Moore as would impressionists. But the people now on the show will be the ones to carry it on. And long may it do so.

[sologuitarist61]

The saints preserve us! John Culshaw presenting the S@N would be an unmitigated disaster, the man is too full of himself and has never come across as creditable to me on his previous appearances

But being TV they probably feel they have to trot out a 'celebrity' to offer us banal comments. What is needed is an astronomer with a wealth of knowledge and good basic presenting skills, not someone who feels they have to constantly play up to the camera.

[notaclue]

As a quick point to this thread.

S@N is 40 minutes long and 1 hour on Thursday night. They are doing the Trasnsit of Venus so if it is this long then it could be a decent programme.

[MikeWilson]

Patrick has a passion *FOR AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS* and practical astronomy. It's not a slot that can be filled by any of the existing regulars except perhaps for the venerable Peter Lawrence who himself is a passionate amateur astronomer and involved with the amateur community.

I don't think anyone can replace him. Another show, another presenter maybe but not the S@N.