Do We Really Need the Moon?

[trazor]

Without the moon, their would be no wonderful songs such as this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY6insZjCfU&feature=kp

[LukeSkywatcher]

Without the Moon,Earth would have no tides. Does earth really need tides?. To be honest with the amount of flooding around the world during high tides, i think we would be better off without the Moon. It is pretty though and it is made up of material expelled from Earth during a HUGE impact way back when tv was still B&W. Its like the Earth's child.

[Alien 13]

I am not sure if life would survive for long without the moon probably not but astrophotography would soon become impossible and the erratic wobble created would render a lot of tech useless.

Alan

[sbooder]

I like Maggie's style and I liked the program, both this time and the first time.  Maybe next time they will use Jonathan Woss or Jon Culshaw for those who like real science presenters?

[Oortrageous]

The girlfriend and I watched this some months back, and mutually declared it the most face palm inducing named program ever.

[nightfisher]

Yes we do need the moon..........its the only thing left for me to observe

[Kropster]

Is the big wobbles without the Moon a definite?

Other planets seem to be quite stable without a huge Moon........Mars, Venus?

[C7tsj]

The present science programs fall far short of appealing to those technically minded to really enjoy them. and aimed more at the general populous to have something to talk about in work the following day.

Maggie's documentary about do we need the moon was pitched fairly, but what puts me off is her style of presenting information, too......... short .......... and .......snappy sentences .............. that ........... will try .................. and make you ................... listen!  I am sure she is well renowned and professional, and more than qualified but it does come across as an uncomfortable style

Since the subject has come up about Cosmos, it is not a patch on the original, and I found it tedious after the 3rd / 4th episode as for Neil De Grasse Tyson's performance in cosmos is more about his persona than the science it is attempting to portray.

Absolutely agree with the Cosmos point. Struggling to get through the episodes. Although they are informative, some of the topics covered don't really wet the appetite.

[C7tsj]

Is the big wobbles without the Moon a definite?

Other planets seem to be quite stable without a huge Moon........Mars, Venus?

I think Mars has a wobble, believe Maggie noted this in the show. Perhaps someone who watched this recently can confirm?

[Paul M]

Earth has a wobble too which is both partly caused by and limited by the Moon.

The Precession of the Equinoxes is well known and it's biggest effect is that Polaris is only temporarily our Pole Star. For much of history there hasn't been a significant star at the North Celestial Pole.

Thuban is famous for its periodical tenure as the Pole Star.

The precession  causes all celestial bodies to move relative to the fixed RA and Dec reference frame. Many of my early astronomy books gave stellar positions to epoch 1950. Then epoch 2000 atlases became the norm, a la Sky Atlas 2000.

Modern planetarium software can calculate and plot absolute positions on the hoof so we don't seem to hear much about it these days.

[ollypenrice]

What happens to people when they get behind a microphone or on the telly? Thay can no longer talk normally. They start trying to talk when all you have to do is talk. Think of the bizarre stresses adopted by station announcers. 'The train now arriving AT platform four will BE the nine thirty nine to Newcastle.' Do you talk like that? Does anybody? Nuts. The trouble with the telly is that programme makers live in fear of you flipping channels unless something bizarre happens once every three seconds, so presenters must contort their faces and beam enthusiasm and wonder with very breath. It's both exhausting and distracting. Two minutes of it and I'm back to my book.

Olly