stargazers live.... thoughts?

[EntropyStar]

Perhaps they should call it "Cosmology Live" then? I can just imagine what that would do to the viewing figures

James

Or as I said ....'Ohhh...I luv space me - LIVE'

[Matt Scunthorpe]

Yes all that would of been nice. And pretty helpful.

But they are trying to get everyone to watch it. People who have no real interest in physical stargazing, and more likely to keep watching if there are reports from NASA and info/pics from the rovers, rather than a mount and accessoriies that they have no interest in.

Its a hard situation to be in for the BBC really. Trying to cater for a selected audience without handing ITV the other viewers.

[Mansnake]

I'll certainly be watching the others but i feel they need to mix it up a bit with stargazing/science. like others have said, have a couple of sections talking about how to start out and explaining what to look for in a bit more detail. Also mix in some science to fill up time if the weather is poor.

I don't think a few videos of pre-recorded stargazing would be a problem, at least beginners could actually see what something looks like through an EP and not a processed image etc..

just my opinion

[Mansnake]

But they are trying to get everyone to watch it. People who have no real interest in physical stargazing,

Then why would they be watching a program called 'Stargazing Live' ?

[Matt Scunthorpe]

So you've never watched a program about something your not really into?

[EntropyStar]

Yes all that would of been nice. And pretty helpful.

But they are trying to get everyone to watch it. People who have no real interest in physical stargazing, and more likely to keep watching if there are reports from NASA and info/pics from the rovers, rather than a mount and accessoriies that they have no interest in.

Its a hard situation to be in for the BBC really. Trying to cater for a selected audience without handing ITV the other viewers.

I agree....I know the BBC has to 'sell' the programme to the uninterested (as we're a given audience anyway), my beef is why call it something that it is isn't!! In all seriousness a more appropriate title would simply be 'Space - Live' and leave it at that. There was a few token nods to actual stargazing but they were in the minority compared with the rest of the content.

I did chuckle at one point where BM was stood in the field with the observers and someone asked a question which scope the people in the field should be looking at to buy as a starter scope .....BM said something along the lines of 'well these guys already know what they're doing' with a slight disdain and kinda 'why are you asking these guys that?' attittude. The bloke stood behind him had something like a LX200 which is clearly a serious bit of kit and not your £50 argos jobby. It was just cringe!!

[Astrosurf]

Yes, that's my opinion too. If there had been a little less science and some annoying background music it could have been any one of many episodes of Horizon. Just generic "Stuff about space"

Nah, not Horizon. The cameraman wasn't drunk enough! Only a little deliberate wobble here and there!

[Matt Scunthorpe]

I thought Brian May was the only one really talking about stargazing, he mentioned about what the planets look like through the scope, light pollution etc. Does need to do something with his hair though lol.

[David Galvin]

I'd be amazed if there weren't actually. In the after show, you could see Brian Cox had removed his earpiece.

Sent from my mobile using Tapatalk, so please excuse the speeling and granma!

His earpiece was faulty and Dara is constantly being updated as which direction the programme is moving. The programme is live!

[EntropyStar]

I thought Brian May was the only one really talking about stargazing, he mentioned about what the planets look like through the scope, light pollution etc. Does need to do something with his hair though lol.

Defo agree on BM, he seemed the only one (of the main presenters) thinking of things in terms of the amateur astronomer. I do like the fact he had the balls to stand by his opinion we are the only ones (the fermi paradox) then tow the popular studio line the odds are so great we 'can't' be alone (even if I don't agree!).

He seems to be going for the Issac Newton look with his grey barnet....looks...erm...interesting :-)

[Mansnake]

I thought Brian May was the only one really talking about stargazing, he mentioned about what the planets look like through the scope, light pollution etc. Does need to do something with his hair though lol.

Yep..i agree with this also.

[Alkaid]

But they are trying to get everyone to watch it. People who have no real interest in physical stargazing, and more likely to keep watching if there are reports from NASA and info/pics from the rovers, rather than a mount and accessoriies that they have no interest in.

Yes, I agree, they ARE trying to get as many people to watch it as possible. TV programs are based upon ratings, and these tend to be in the hundreds of thousands, not hundreds. Although sometimes the program isn't quite scientific enough for seasoned observers, we have to remember that this program would not be broadcast at all if only 100 people watched it.

We have to remember that many people who watch this program just have a passing interest, and don't own a telescope. Much as I'd enjoy a more technical discussion myself, telling the general public about RA and Dec would just have them switch off.

The great thing about Stargazing Live is that it gets the general public interested in what we do. About 20% of them might go out and get a scope and start seeing for themselves, then learning the technical stuff later. And that's good enough for me...

[cotterless45]

For beginners ,I think that they lost a golden opportunity to stimulate . Thrusting science which has little to do with stargazing will put folk off.

I had expected the same format as Springwatch , full of practical involvement.

Brian May got the closest praising Dobs ( hurrah !), but there was no Dob in site or explanation.

There is so much to see in the skies that just pointing the camera at a field full of folk and ages on Curiosity doesn't do the trick. Hoping that they'll come up with something inspiring.

For a NASA and a science fan , great !

Nick.

[damnut]

After all the trouble that the local astro groups went to I was left a bit flat!. This did nothing to promote astronomy in any shape or form.

When we held our own event last year our back up was showng how to use planetarium software, star hopping , different telescope types etc.

[EntropyStar]

Yes, I agree, they ARE trying to get as many people to watch it as possible. TV programs are based upon ratings, and these tend to be in the hundreds of thousands, not hundreds. Although sometimes the program isn't quite scientific enough for seasoned observers, we have to remember that this program would not be broadcast at all if only 100 people watched it.

We have to remember that many people who watch this program just have a passing interest, and don't own a telescope. Much as I'd enjoy a more technical discussion myself, telling the general public about RA and Dec would just have them switch off.

The great thing about Stargazing Live is that it gets the general public interested in what we do. About 20% of them might go out and get a scope and start seeing for themselves, then learning the technical stuff later. And that's good enough for me...

This is where we differ I feel.....

I think broadcasters such as the beeb would rather chase the extra 100'000 viewers than stick to the titled premise of the show. I think you're doing the general public a disservice in suggesting they'd turn off if things were too technical. A few people would no doubt turn over, but not to the level I think you're implying. We see no end of comments/complaints from people saying science shows are too dumbed down, we rarely (if ever) see complaints shows are too intellectual. It'd be nice if the BBC took a risk and went for programmes pitched above the mental age of 8 year olds for a change and left people seeking that bit more information out.

I'm doing a degree in astrophysics and it riles me that my friends are forever trying to get me to explain things in 'laymans' terms, somethings require level of understanding and you can't be an 'instant expert' which is what I feel these shows are trying to package and sell to people. No wonder people come into the hobby and disappear just as quickly when they realise it takes a bit of effort. I see it even more in the academic world where people are scared off all too quickly when they realise there's a lot more to it than flashy graphics and pretty pictures.

By all means have a populist programme on space, but to called it 'Stargazing-Live' with little emphasis on stargazing I feel is wrong.

[EntropyStar]

One more point to add.....we keep saying isn't it great there's somethign different on to Xfactor, dancing on ice etc......but they very people this programme is aimed at are those viewers!!!

[cantab]

Liked the Mars stuff and I never really appreciated the size of Curiosity it's a monster of a vehicle

I felt the same actually, I was like "That's huge!". Even though I 'knew' it was 'the size of a car', I'd never really apprehended that before.

While it would of been a nice feature to go over a scope and what is good for what, but then they get into all the brand vs brand and stuff, which i can see them wanting to avoid.

Top Gear don't have any problems with mentioning specific products, and nor did Tomorrow's World back in the day. I really don't think there'd be any issue with naming specific telescope models.

[Astrosurf]

It's a difficult one this. I did find there was too much general astronomy and too little actual stargazing. They have very little time so have to rush. I would have preferred a longer programme with more emphasis, as so many have said, on practical astronomy with different types of scope, what you can expect to see with each and not to expect Hubble images through the EP! It would be good to emphasise just how long the photons take to get to your eye and to fire the imagination. Seeing a whole programme of fuzzy, wobbling images and talking scope types etc would have been too boring, so the 'horizon' element was very interesting, but I would have preferred less. I agree that, with the weather being so unpredictable, a few 'here's one we made earlier' fall-back actual observing would have been much more appropriate. A nod to simple AP, showing what you can achieve with a compact cameras, webcams, mobile phones and cheaper DSLRs would have been good. Showing brilliant pics taken with expensive equipment (as it seemed to me) could be misleading and possibly seem unattainable for many?? I’m waffling as I had only an hour’s sleep last night so I’ll stop!

Alexxx

[Connect2space]

I thought it was too chatty, boring & irrelevant to what I love ie stargazing. It wouldn't have got me interested in astronomy.

We had clear skys here, the first for 3 weeks, so I switched it off half way through & went outside with my scope & had a wonderful evening searching for star clusters.

Its funny really because Stargazing Live last year is what got me into astronomy haha, I guess its just peoples taste.

[EntropyStar]

It's a difficult one this. I did find there was too much general astronomy and too little actual stargazing. They have very little time so have to rush. I would have preferred a longer programme with more emphasis, as so many have said, on practical astronomy with different types of scope, what you can expect to see with each and not to expect Hubble images through the EP! It would be good to emphasise just how long the photons take to get to your eye and to fire the imagination. Seeing a whole programme of fuzzy, wobbling images and talking scope types etc would have been too boring, so the 'horizon' element was very interesting, but I would have preferred less. I agree that, with the weather being so unpredictable, a few 'here's one we made earlier' fall-back actual observing would have been much more appropriate. A nod to simple AP, showing what you can achieve with a compact cameras, webcams, mobile phones and cheaper DSLRs would have been good. Showing brilliant pics taken with expensive equipment (as it seemed to me) could be misleading and possibly seem unattainable for many?? I’m waffling as I had only an hour’s sleep last night so I’ll stop!

Alexxx

I defo agree re astrophotography....one the lads I work with was saying how that 5 hr nebula image was stunning etc and was quizzing me how it's done. He was quite shocked when calculating the cost of the equipment in his head and the sheer effort going into a single image like that. He was surprised how much a mount would be just to hold the scope in place and how much they cost to buy. I think people would find a 5 min segway on how it's done very interesting. They could even up tap up Oily Penrice and co for the 'luxury' options in home AP. The world of AP is a dark art to some and very much worth a look at, even if a cursory peek at some examples. You could take an image of M51 for example and by explaining the types of filters being used (eg Ha filter) use that to explain about ionization and how that is present in stellar processes, one question leads to another sort of thing.

That image close up of Jupiter was great, completely unachievable without a scope though, why wasn't that mentioned? There's countless photographers in this country and going down the AP route could prove more fruitful in bringing people to the world of 'stargazing' than going down the visual route.

[pete_l]

Top Gear don't have any problems with mentioning specific products, and nor did Tomorrow's World back in the day. I really don't think there'd be any issue with naming specific telescope models.

The thing about TG is that it was a long running show, so every manufacturer would get a fair crack of the whip in the fullness of time. With only 3 * 1 hour shows, it would be difficult to make any commercial name-dropping NOT sound like an endorsement.

Also there are many different media outlets for cars, so a recommendation or slagging would just be one (not always taken seriously) voice among many - as the BBC manage with film reviews: they can name films and express a view as it's accepted that there are different opinions (and that most critics are mostly wrong ). With no other astro programmes, around if SGLive said "Televue are grrrrreat!" then everyone would be asking for "you know, that thing that was mentioned on the telly" and scorning all others.

Maybe the Gadget Show could do a telescope review - though they'd probably only blow them up

[cantab]

IIRC the gadget show DID do a scope review. They tested three, I think two were GoTos and the third was a Dob. With the observing target being the full Moon the Dob didn't go over as well as if they'd been able to go hunting for DSOs.

The PDF guide on the Stargazing Live website that was previously linked to in the thread outright says "Brands to look for when buying a first scope include

Bresser, Celestron, Konus, Meade, Orion and Sky-Watcher."

[Connect2space]

Just wish to add that although the more experienced astronomers might not of liked it this exact program is what brought me here in the first place and now im hearing people talking about stargazing and astronomy when im out and about, and I don't even have to raise the subject!!

Although I do agree with whoever said the name 'Stargazing Live' is misleading 'Space Live' or 'Planetary Science live' doesn't really sound that great.

[JB80]

I loved the start, it made me laugh.

I think it's the new promo shot for the remaining episodes.

[DBushell]

For those who wonder where the Mars Science Laboratory (Curiousity Rover) photographs are, well a quick google of MSL produces:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/