Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

stargazers live.... thoughts?

garethmob

By garethmob
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 342
  • Created
  • Last Reply
earth titan

earth titan

Posted
Posted

If anyone needs any evidence that the program works, I give you the example of my friends son - aged 11.

According to his mum, he is glued to the program. He now wants to be an astronomer and I think, with his attitude (he often pops round on clear nights with his dad) he might just do it. Evidently his maths has improved since he got an interest from last years episodes (basically cos he's paying attention at school as he knows he needs it) and science is his favourite subject.

He's now pestering his dad for a scope!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EntropyStar

EntropyStar

Posted
Posted

A better effort last night imo, less random segways...

I do wish they'd leave their scopes out to cool properly though! All the prerecorded EP views were horribly affected by thermal interference, on the viewing of Almach it look like the scope had been outside for a whole 10 secs before they started filming!!

I still take issue with the title being 'Stargazing-Live' when the stargazing is the minority element of the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Connect2space

Connect2space

Posted
Posted

I personally think they need to rename the program now. Not quite sure where the link to Stargazing is? There simply is no Stargazing...at all! They just flash to a bloke called Mark, in a field with some bods, he asks if the gang is good and then they go back to talking astrophysics and cosmology. Very disappointing indeed from that perspective.

But that aside what they do talk about is interesting and easy to understand. I normally nod off at the mere mention of 'The Big Bang' but to the show's credit i listended to every word.

Well im afraid I must disagree with you, they showed a video of Jupiter and its moons through a 4'' telescope and various other things which I cant remember on the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
studdedsole

studdedsole

Posted
Posted

If anyone needs any evidence that the program works, I give you the example of my friends son - aged 11.

According to his mum, he is glued to the program. He now wants to be an astronomer and I think, with his attitude (he often pops round on clear nights with his dad) he might just do it. Evidently his maths has improved since he got an interest from last years episodes (basically cos he's paying attention at school as he knows he needs it) and science is his favourite subject.

He's now pestering his dad for a scope!!

It's interesting what you say, there have been some old posts in the past which either criticised or devalued the influence of Brian Cox on the scientific community. Like you appear to experience, my kids have become inspired over the last couple of years and really get BC and are in to his style of presentation and love all of the shows in which he appears. There is no doubt that he is contributing to engaging our youngsters in the love of science based subjects and I'm sure in the future will be acknowledged as having helped inspire a generation of scientists. Do you feel BC is contributing to your sons new inspiration or does he just like the show for what it is, just interested in your take on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spurius

spurius

Posted
Posted

I wish they would leave mars alone. THERES NOTHING THERE!!! GET OVER IT! Another craft to study uranus and/or neptune should be a priority. Most of what we know of them was from 1 fly by and an orbiter mission would probably reveal wicked results of weather systems and moons of those planets. Whats another mars mission gonna reveal? More dusty rocks. As Cox pointed out, Europa may have liquid water and is the next best possibility of finding insignificant life forms. It may cost more money to get there but it would waste less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EntropyStar

EntropyStar

Posted
Posted

It's interesting what you say, there have been some old posts in the past which either criticised or devalued the influence of Brian Cox on the scientific community. Like you appear to experience, my kids have become inspired over the last couple of years and really get BC and are in to his style of presentation and love all of the shows in which he appears. There is no doubt that he is contributing to engaging our youngsters in the love of science based subjects and I'm sure in the future will be acknowledged as having helped inspire a generation of scientists. Do you feel BC is contributing to your sons new inspiration or does he just like the show for what it is, just interested in your take on this.

I think BC is an overwhelmingly positive influence into introducing people into science and piquing their interest, he is defo going down the Carl Sagan route of being remembered for bringing a generation into it. I think the reason some of us more clued up (in the sense of physics/astronomy) than you're average person get frustrated, is that he doesn't explain things fully and the whole 'instant expert' thing that's the forte of science programmes these days. i find my non science friends are interested enough to watch his programmes and pick up tid bits of info, but when you suggest about learning more (ie getting a book out) they're not interested and will only care if it's on tv. I think the overwhelming majority switch off very quickly and have zero inclination for taking it further, but for those that do have that within them to learn more...BC is great at inspiring them to go and do more. I think it's ultimately down to the person and not BC though....

I hear people talking at work about SGL and other BC shows and it's a little hit n miss. One of the women I work with expressed an interest in astronomy and I offered her some further reading, by chance I'd been bought his 'wonders' books as an xmas present and I suggested to her that she could borrow them, which she did. I also brought in other books (ie SPM, CL, and BM's 'Big Bang Book') and she totally turned her nose up at them. When I asked why she wasn't that fuused about them she said she's only really interested in him (as in Brian Cox), I must admit that did hack me off a little. So on one hand it's an interest that wasn't there before, and on the other it's totally superficial in some people.

The positives are that at least it's getting people talking about cosmology and astrophysics which is music to my ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

I wish they would leave mars alone. THERES NOTHING THERE!!! GET OVER IT! Another craft to study uranus and/or neptune should be a priority.

I don't deny that more study of the outer gas giants could be useful, but as the last rocky planet out I think Mars has to have potential for human colonisation and as a staging post for travel to the outer solar system. I think it would be foolish to ignore it and I'm unconvinced that it should have lower priority than the outer planets.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naemeth

Naemeth

Posted
Posted

I wish they would leave mars alone. THERES NOTHING THERE!!! GET OVER IT! Another craft to study uranus and/or neptune should be a priority. Most of what we know of them was from 1 fly by and an orbiter mission would probably reveal wicked results of weather systems and moons of those planets. Whats another mars mission gonna reveal? More dusty rocks. As Cox pointed out, Europa may have liquid water and is the next best possibility of finding insignificant life forms. It may cost more money to get there but it would waste less.

I don't agree that Uranus and Neptune should be a priority, they are simply too expensive and take too much fuel to get to. The only reason we visited them with Voyager 1 and 2 was that there was a rare planetary alignment that allowed us to use gravity assists from each of the Gas Giants. ~ 2 Billion Miles to Uranus and ~3 Billion Miles to Neptune is no easy task.

That's also why we don't visit Venus and Mercury much, it takes a lot of fuel, simply because you have to slow down so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MontyUK

MontyUK

Posted
Posted

It always strikes me as a little sad when scientists try to act 'cool' in order not to come across as geeks. Dara tries to make a joke on every sentence he says and Brian appears over-excited.

And why do they have to drink on the second part - beer from bottles, not really PC but again 'we're cool'. Wonder what the excuse will be tonight.

Why is there a need to bring on so many celebrity-stars, again who try to be cool rather than geeky. As with the "I memorised all the periodic table but now I can't remember any of them."

As a result this is yet another programme that enters the realm of 'tabloid TV'.

Brian's 'this is so simple I can explain it with archaic chalk and blackboard' fell short. I don't think the world at large can deal with the oscillating nature of light. The Beeb has a massive graphics department they use to create adverts, why not use that to produce animated some simple explanations - for example showing the effect of the colour of light related to frequency.

For me the best presenter is Liz in the US. Calm, clear and informative without being excitable or cool. She should take over the whole thing.

Why so many presenters?

I imagine it's a big turn off for most people.

I wonder what the BBC market research shows - if they still do it after all the cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K3ny0n

K3ny0n

Posted
Posted

Generally I think the more Astronomy based TV programs are on the better it will be for this hobby regardless of their criticism. Not everyone is interested in the same subject, they are trying to cover everything so it appeals to more people. The more programs the better in my eyes.

Rob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saturn5

saturn5

Posted
Posted

I will probably get dumped on here but I'm afraid it was boring and I lost the plot very quickly :), I don't know, it just did not do anything for me and the second part I turned off quickly, sorry all.

Jim

Have to agree,bored with the first one,lasted about half way through the second and didnt bother putting it on tonight.Just couldnt get motivated for it ,or by it at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
astro mick

astro mick

Posted
Posted

Quite impressed with the Female presenters.They give the facts,and are really keen to explain what they know.Not on the look out for a quick joke.

Yes well done to them.

Overall though i quite enjoyed the 3 programmes,and hope its repeated next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Capricorn

Capricorn

Posted
Posted
For me the best presenter is Liz in the US. Calm, clear and informative without being excitable or cool. She should take over the whole thing.

If she presented more I would watch less and I didn't watch much of it this time.

Seems to me that it is losing it's way at times by trying to mention all aspects to a small extent, and then discards quite a few with some off hands remark and so covers very little.

The sky at night actually sticks to a fairly narrow remit and that seems to work.

Star Gazing Live was good initially but seems now to be the classic case of having expanded until it is too big and too general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.