The Sky at Night

[faulksy]

34 minutes ago, grahamf said:

I feel that Stargazing Live over three nights on the main BBC channel is the best way of attracting people who are not already actively interested in Astronomy. The people science projects involve and attract newcomers. S@N on BBC4 is not really mainstream and should, in my view,  be  primarily directed at those of us already interested in the subject. Even Stargazing Live had more science in it than this episode. 

As for presenters I like Pete, Lawrence Paul Abel, Chris Lintott, Chris North, and Lucie Green but I find head nodding Maggie with her stuccato voice really irritating. Yes she is clearly knowledgeable and I respect her for that but she is not to my mind an engaging presenter. Have there been any experts on recently? Seemed to be more when Patrick was involved - perhaps it was down to his personal contacts.

 

to be honest with you, anything to do with the nightsky on tv is worth watching, but at least you don't moan about it

[r3i]

I think the main problem is that what can you hope to cover when you have just 30 minutes to play with each month. Astronomy is a huge subject, with participants who have wide variations in both expertise and areas of interest.  

Shame it isn't on for an hour each week, but I realise there are far more important demands on the BBC's resources, like <insert your least favourite reality TV show here>.  

[Davey-T]

Be careful what you wish for 

Dave 

 

[cotterless45]

Sorry , but sky at night is getting as irrelevant as deep sea trawling is to coarse fishing.

It's such a shame , a few useful guides on what's up there and how to get prepared to observe might give folk the nudge they need.

It's doubly disappointing that the S@N magazine has got to the state where I can't understand the first half and I'm not going to looking for galaxies and planetary nebulae with a 16" scope ! 

Theres so much interest out there , it seems the Beeb are missing an opportunity,

old Nick.

[DaveS]

I just watched the extended version of Pete's guide to telescope, which was much more cohearent and made much more sense.

I wonder what else got lost in the edit?

[popeye85]

6 hours ago, Gina said:

I agree that Maggie's voice could do with being more fluid but I do like her.

Generally I like Maggie I just find her fake smiles and laughter a bit much sometimes-her jaws must be aching by the end of each show!

Also agree with cotterless about the magazine- fraid I just get lost with what most is getting written about in it now. Of course doesn't help that I am a bit of a thicko!!

[triton1]

I generally thinks it’s ok but I think Maggie should ease off on all that coffee she must drink.It will never be as good and informative as it used to though.

[barkis]

What is it with some of you people?  The lady you seem to dislike ought to be shown a bit more respect. 
She has worked damned hard to get where she is, and her her place on the Sky at Night on merit.
Her CV would put most of her dissenters to shame.
No one can make people like any one they dislike, but for the sake of that lady's dignity, this forum is going to do what is
necessary to ensure the childish digs against  are stopped once and for all.

So take heed, any more unnecessary taunts against her, will cost whoever writes them.
She can't defend herself directly, but I'm sure some of the adverse  comments may have  been passed on to her, If she herself hasn't read them.
So please refrain all you people who feel the compulsion to besmirch her, it isn't pleasant, and it certainly isn't fitting for this forum
There is no free speech here, so don't use the space here to voice personal gripes against anyone.
The whole of the Moderator team are united in this too.

[Paul73]

Well said.

Although the Maggie bashing does seem to be subsiding a bit.

Respect does seem to be building. Loved the thread a few months back where a careless poster described her as an ‘idiot’. The many outraged responses were good to see.

Perish the thought that an obviously passionate, larger than life individual with vast knowledge of the subject could bring astronomy to life for the masses!!! ???

I quite enjoyed the show. Damn right about the colours being misleading. Most surprising.

Paul

[RayD]

I must admit I find Maggie's enthusiasm for a subject she clearly loves very warming.  I feel the same as her on the inside, but have nothing like her apparent levels of energy.....or intelligence for that matter.

Missed the show but will catch it on iPlayer later.  Thanks for the reminder Gina.

[andrew s]

I watched on catch up while getting some spectra last night. I was disappointed that when talking about colours and using Betelgeuse and Rigel as examples they talked about Hydrogen fusion as the energy source. While this is true of Rigel, Betelgeuse has left the main sequence and is now core burning He into heaver elements plus some shell buring. This could have been very simply added in my view. I don't mind simplifying the science (well I do but I understand the need) but why get it wrong when there is no need to. Why no simple graphics to illustrate what they were saying and no spectra just 3 silly lamps and a poor photo of a coloured double star. 

Regards Andrew 

PS it was so cold last night the "cooler" that maintains the temperature of my spectrograph stable was having to heat it! The CCD camera inside it was not giving out enough heat to maintain its temperature. Glad it is all automated so I can keep warm inside! 

[Gina]

I think it's great to see women on TV talking about science subjects and particularly astronomy   When I was young astronomy was very much a male dominated subject and I felt a bit out of place.  Same with science and engineering but that's a different subject.  There is the ethnicity issue too and I get really annoyed when I see racial prejudice!  There are a few social issues which really annoy me.  Hope I can say that on here.

[Macavity]

To me Maggie comes across as "yer typical scientist" - And being of that ilk
I find her style engaging! Anyone who is / was a STEM student / graduate
will have come across a "variety" of presenting styles? lol. I gave odd talks
to auditoriums of Particle Physicists -- including odd (sic!) Nobel Laureates.
If you think "you're fired" Alan Sugar is SCARY to ain't met my ex "boss".

But much was driven by his desire to further science... It was not personal!
If you don't like my "style", remember this is not (completely) the real me...
Personally, I love (Scientist) "characters". I "hate" boring & conventional!  

Love or loath, The S@N "team" are a lot like my personal
experience of "Scientists". (Atheist) "Gawd Bless us all"! 
It seems 8, 9 & 10 y.o "Budding Astronomers" don't care?

P.S. I do like to have the odd "pop" at Brian Cox... But mostly because he 
does seem to like being "controversial"... Has a few "pops" at others etc.

[Mr Spock]

Well, I for one would love to spend a couple of hours or so chatting with Maggie about astronomy and science. There's a lot more to her than what you see on S@N.

[Astro Imp]

Well said @barkis , I'm just surprised a similar post hasn't appeared before.

Going back to the program under discussion I viewed it on the iPlayer earlier and enjoyed it but thought the item with Chris wandering around in the dark was a bit overdone. 

We shouldn't be too critical but be glad the Beeb continues with S@N.

[Guest]

I liked it. A bit of good old fashion , down to earth astronomy.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I missed it but will catch the replay on Thursday night (i think). Its not a show i watch, but good old basic observing is worth a watch.

[Paz]

I just caught up with this having recorded it. A great show I thought, and well pitched to encourage newcomers to get out there and try it.