Slashdot Mirror
Critics Call For NASA TV To "Liven Up"
An article in the LA Times calls NASA out for failing to make broadcasts on their dedicated television network as entertaining as they can be. The author, David Ferrell, complains that fascinating subject matter is often fraught with boring commentary and frequent, extended silences, making most people quickly lose interest. Quoting:
"Witness one recent segment about the recovery of a Soyuz capsule upon its return to Earth. The dark, bullet-like object landed in the featureless steppes of Kazakhstan, about 50 miles outside the unheard-of town of Arkalyk. Coverage consisted of video shot from an all-terrain vehicle approaching it — mostly soundless footage of tall grass going by — with an occasional word by an unnamed commentator. 'You can see the antenna that deployed shortly after landing,' the commentator said in that deadpan tone shared by scientists and golf announcers. The camera chronicled the tedious extraction of three crew members weakened by spending six months in orbit; they were loaded one by one onto stretchers. 'Again, a rather methodical process,' the commentator noted, as if grasping for something — anything — to say. Later: 'The official landing time has been revised to 1:15 and 34 seconds a.m., Central Time. The official time was recorded at the Russian Mission Control Center . . . by the Russian flight-control team.' ... Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?"
... just watch a weather report on American TV. "ZOMG IT'S THE BIG ONE EVERYBODY RUN FOR COVER WINDS WILL REACH 50MPH IN PLACES!" and so on. We don't need it, thanks.
Watch one of David Attenborough's natural history programmes. Get your ideas from that.
Dead.
They should introduce a controversial character into the mix. Maybe have a mouthy Russian hang out with the straitlaced American scientists. Or a breakout character like Puck to pull everyone's strings to the breaking point.
Or they could introduce some kind of challenge that the characters have to overcome. See which astronaut can escape fastest from a burning capsule. Or who can eat the most astronaut food without getting sick.
Science TV is the ultimate reality TV.
Or we can read this article as an indictment of the lack of attention span of the average American TV viewer.
I don't WANT NASA TV to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The Discovery Channel used to be educational... now it's "how can we use science to blow shit up?" MTV used to be music videos... now it's the Shiny Things Network(c). I tune to NASA TV when I actually want to see what's ACTUALLY going on, narrated by someone who actually has some idea of what they're talking about, without going through an "audience is retarded" filter. If you don't find it interesting, fine, wait a few days, and read the brain-dead version in one of the mass media outlets. CNN will be happy to distill six hours of interesting live coverage down to a 30 second clip that you can digest will drinking your Starbucks. NASA TV is what it is for a good reason. The cameras are always on, and when something interesting, but unexpected happens, you get to watch it unfold. Keep your Hollywood ideas off my Nerdovision.
No, thanks.
I already fell like I'm living inside "Idocracy" when I happen to see any given network news show.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
n/t
I like NASA TV the way it is. If you have ADD and need constant sound effects and graphics or everything dumbed down and edited into some fake reality, filled with game shows and so on, then channels like Discovery are for you. I like NASA because of its raw unedited nature and it is more of a direct access thing to NASA data rather than another discovery network. Do I want NASA TV to be another heavily commercialised pop culture discovery channel for people who have short attention spans and few brain cells? No.
Here here! I'm a huge space fan and NASA's broadcasts still put me to sleep... it's like watching some public access broadcast from the 80s. I can't imagine it's doing much for those that need to be convinced space exploration is 'cool.'
Obviously, we need Hollywood to get on board to help liven things up. When they have a movie that doesn't have much of a plot, they turn it into a summer blockbuster by adding two things: Gratuitous explosions and girls in bikinis. Hell, watch the bad "giant crocodile attack" B movies on the SciFi channel sometime. Even those get the occasional explosion, to the extent their budget allows, and always at least a couple of very attractive young ladies wearing as little as they can get away with on a giant crocodile-infested island.
Since bikinis are not conducive to space travel, mostly due to not being compatible with the pressure helmets (although it would certainly make for some lively experimentation as to support issues), the only alternative is explosions. NASA should just make sure that more things blow up on screen. Don't recycle rocket parts, blow them up at the apex of their suborbital flights! Don't pack waste or garbage back to Earth, blow it up in front of a camera!
I hate it when they something completely uninteresting while something interesting is being talked about in the background.
In music, the rests are as important as the notes. This is true elsewhere as well. I hope the people at NASA understand this and keep things the way they are.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
precisely so I won't have to listen to breathless drivel about astronaut hair styles, or some damn thing. Just the facts, ma'am. (Why, yes, I am a scientist. Why do you ask?)
... just watch a weather report on American TV. "ZOMG IT'S THE BIG ONE EVERYBODY RUN FOR COVER WINDS WILL REACH 50MPH IN PLACES!" and so on. We don't need it, thanks.
What alternate universe are you watching American TV in? During regular storms we can get gusts up to 50 mph, and the TV doesn't typically react like that. If you mean hurricanes, which most of you folks other there are clueless as to how rough they can get, yes, they get a little excited, but it kind of makes sense.
Maybe they want it more like this. You know when discovery channel started it was really good. Now discovery is what music is for mtv.
PLEASE don't turn NASA TV into cnn/abc/cbs/fox/pbs etc... I watch the nasa tv channel when something is going on for the opposite reason. THEY SHUT THE F*CK UP! Their comments are only when the ground to space loop is QUIET. They don't talk over the controllers or astronauts. The other "talking heads" think they have to blab 24/7. If I wanted that crap, I'd watch the regular channels.
We don't need NASA TV to end up like Mythbusters TV...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Anybody else read this article and get instantly reminded of the Simpsons episode where Homer became an astronaut?
Episode 1F13 for those who wish to remember.
Modding "-1, Troll" is not a proper response if you disagree with me. Try reason.
The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds. I mean, they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the "brain dead crowd", while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff (which, to non-Slashdotters, is ridiculously boring) on their website. This could probably work quite well for about a year or two under the right management, but unfortunately will inevitably be screwed up by Comcast, much in the same way that G4 screwed up TechTV.
Whenever ESA gets around to streaming something live, it's usually some old guys in suits congratulating themselves of a project that went well. No engineers to tell about the technical problems, no scientists to tell what to expect, and absolutely not a single live image coming straight off the probe or lander.
If they were to get actual scientific or other interesting data, they'll never show it online. They just say "We got first pictures and they're very nice." ARGH.
(For the record: I like NASA TV as it is; I'll rather take boring and accurate than shiny and wrong)
No, he's exactly correct. Anything other than a bog-standard rainstorm gets the 'universe might end' treatment from the idiot weathercaster in most places. Don't know where you live, but it sounds like 1) either you get really bad weather all of the time or 2) your weather desk smokes something pretty good.
Just listen to a big city while traveling next time. You think terrorists are dangerous, do you? They're nothing compared to the Storm boogyman / Global Warming Godzilla.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
THE PRESIDENT of AMERICA! *rockin' music*
.... maybe everyone is just to busy looking at the mess they are in to see, or care, where we are going. including the NASA commentators.
On the bright side, there are less interesting things to be found on youtube but probably get more viewers.
The bright side being, it doesn't, or shouldn't cost a lot for NASA to stream what they do.
Next, he'd be asking that the NASA scientists all be replaced by nubile eighteen year old actresses who do a slow strip while discussing solid-rocket "bustier."
Keep your low-grade opinion to yourself, Hollywood, and buy at least a high-school education and get some math, physics, astronomy and computer skills, so you don't [expletive deleted] insult us with plot devices that are obvious balsa wood and paint pretending to be "Spaceships from 'Planet Voltron' or some such ignorant twadle".
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Just let Rupert and his team manage it...
NEXT on FOX NASA - TERRORISTS IN SPACE
Could Iranian sleeper agents be infiltrating NASA? We'll explore classified documents that show a government cover up of a plot to fly the next space shuttle into DOWNTOWN NEW YORK. Millions of people will be killed, and the government doesn't want you to know. STAY TUNED...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The last time I watched NASA TV was when they did the moon impact back in October. And here's the comment I posted when it was over:
-----
Well, I watched it on NASA TV, and all I have to say is, "Where was the kaboom???"
I saw no plume, no nothing, just a close-up of the crater which never changed, even after they said impact had occurred and started congratulating each other. Only NASA could make crashing something into the moon boring!
Hopefully there will be actual video where I can -see- something posted from somewhere else.
-----
They don't have to go too crazy, but a little color commentary would be nice-- especially when the viewer doesn't get to see anything good.
...isn't NASA TV public domain like other NASA IP? If so, if some dude is unhappy about the broadcasts not being shiny enough, he can just make his own. Hell, if his opinion isn't utter bullshit, he can even profit from it! What is he waiting for?????
of space between the surface and geosynchronous full of garbage and high-velocity shrapnel by blowing shit up when we're done using it.
You [expletive deleted] moron.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
i think they should use the mission control channel on somafm as background music throughout the day.
ôó
That about explains it all for me. Given their budget, does it really surprise anyone that their programming isn't as 'lively' as some of the other networks? In addition, there are people like myself who simply prefer getting the facts, and find more recent programming from networks like Discovery to be somewhat sensational and lightweight in content.
NASA wants the same thing that everyone else does: for their program to encounter some phenomenon so remarkable that it captures our attention.
I suppose they could always fake up a few alien spacecraft for us all and just get the wait over with regarding staring at the sky, but that just wouldn't be sporting, would it?
In other news, deer blind owners complain about the boredom of hunting...
Reality is prettier inside my head...
It sounds like this guy is having difficulty in distinguishing between the two. Maybe the best thing would be to run a few trials on other TV channels. Such as the televising of politics - that could be livened up by dunking congressmen in slime if they lose a vote. How about livening up the footage of trials? It would make quite a good game-show format with every lawyer scoring points (awarded by the judge) for the answers they get to their questions - all with a 30-second time limit. Maybe this illustrates how bad things would be in real-life, with important decisions when the superficial world of entertainment invades these areas.
Still I suppose it would be possible to arrange phone-ins to see who should get voted off the ISS.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Brains and entertaining. Get him to cover big events.
Don't let "TV Pros" anywhere near NASA tv.
How about makeing it HD 24/7 vs very part time?b
In a world that has whole 5 security levels with highest being "severe" and lowest being "low", with only top 3 ever being in use - there is obviously no room for more than 3 levels of distinction.
Whether it is from "smart and boring" TV to "fun TV" or from "our friends" to "our enemies".
And I am not saying that it is somehow the fault of the US government or even culture. Not at all.
People like things that are clear and simple. And 3 possible options are a nice, low, easily remembered number.
There is a reason there are only 3 medals in sport competitions.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
People listen to stories because they entertain in some fashion. NASA and most scientists do not know how to tell a story and even "think" to themselves that a story is fictional or that if it becomes popular, it will lose some cachet.
Perhaps, but politicians know that they can't get funding for stuff that doesn't tell a good story. Any hack ad writer could have written a 2-page in-depth personal profile on what it feels like to return to Earth and have to be carried off in a stretcher. It would demonstrate heroism and stoicism and the dangers and excitement of space and of research in general.
I wonder how those teams competing for X-prizes pitch their idea to venture capitalists (spend 10 million to make 1 million ain't gonna work).
NASA really needs to sex things up. I mean, where's the dancing girls? Where's the musical interlude by Andy Williams?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Maybe NASA can add a rapping dog, or maybe hire Paris Hilton to host the whole channel.
I feel the same way when I hear about 3 inches of snow in New York plastered all over the national news.
That is until they mention the hundreds of car crashes, then I just think New York drivers must be dumbasses. Holy shit! It's snow! Snow is slick! Slow the hell down! ZOMGWTFBBQ! I still don't know why it makes national news though. We get two feet and it only makes local news because the school busses probably couldn't run that day.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
http://www.nndb.com/people/324/000022258/
What do they want ? American newscaster style where they go on and on back to that same old recording with completely mindless commentary ? Some things take time, and if you can't accept that, go back to living inside your game/movie world. Or grow up.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
There is an annoying thing in American media that every second has to have some sort of sound in it. Really, its almost like welfare for sound people that work in media. But honestly, I like that NASA TV goes for long stretches of silence. I don't want talking heads jabbering on about stupid shit. If I want people jabbering and pontificating about stupid shit, I'll just jack into slashdot, and that way I can be one of them.
This is my sig.
Three letters: DVR
I watched a lot, I mean *a lot*, of NASA TV from the time I bought my first ReplayTV in the fall of 2000 until mid-2002 (around the time I met and started dating a woman, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with cutting my TV watching time way down), and I recorded even more than I watched. Whenever the shuttle was up there I was recording 6 hour stretches and playing them back later on fast forward looking for video of interesting things. And when interesting things weren't happening, like the times when it was just a shot from a camera in the payload bay pointing down at Earth, they became interesting--and very beautiful--at higher playback speed. I especially enjoyed trying to figure out what they were flying over now at any given moment, without looking at the tracking map. Sometimes it was easy (like Italy, e.g.) and sometimes it was near impossible. Some things, like shuttle/ISS dockings were worth watching twice, once at normal speed with sound, and once sped up.
I have long since given up Dish Network. I miss NASA TV.
In SoCal, we get "StormWatch 2009!!!" (Exclamation points added because of the way they approach it.) We don't get a lot of rain here, averaging about 15 inches (38cm) per year, and most storms bring less than an inch of rain. Any storm that is expected to bring more than an inch, or any series that combines for that, will usually trigger the StormWatch logos on the local TV stations. We had such a storm recently, and while it was important to have some heightened concern over the possibility of landslides in recent burn areas, the dramatics that were used were really unnecessary.
I've been through some pretty serious storms, even here in SoCal. Every five to ten years, we get something through that really does some damage, overloading the drainage and flood control systems, maybe dropping four or five inches of rain in under 48 hours (and sometimes in less than 24 hours). That is more deserving of dramatics. (Yes, I know that this is a more common storm size in many other places, but factor in what the area usually gets and what we can realistically handle.)
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Why is everyone on here assuming that making the broadcasts 'better' 'spruced up' and 'more interesting' equates to them being dumbed down? This is an incorrect gross generalization.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that NASA TV turns into the Discovery Channel 'hey I wonder how big of an explosion we can make with all that liquid h2 and o2'.
Anyone who thinks that the current version of NASA TV is utilizing resources to the best of their ability is sorely out of touch. There is plenty they could do to make these broadcast a lot more appealing to a wider audience whilst also enhancing their scientific and educational content.
If you just want to listen to the bare minimum commentary video feed only broadcast I'm sure they can still make this available.
They are going to order a new season of "Whose Line is it Anyway." All those boring Floor and Committee sessions... who gives a shit?
Watching humans explore outer space as it happens live is boring but watching humans fight to move a ball up and down a field to some artificial goal is supposed to be exciting? I don't think so.
I would like to see weightless sex please.
He's off doing mad sweet remixes of Cosmos with Stephen Hawking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
I don't think anyone is suggesting that NASA TV turns into the Discovery Channel 'hey I wonder how big of an explosion we can make with all that liquid h2 and o2'.
well they already know that.
I'm of the opinion that the farther away from "Hollywood" it is, the better. Leave it be. And stay off my lawn you damned, dirty hippies!!
You're totally right. I watched a US-made doco about the solar system a while back and was shocked at the over-dramatisation that was used. While the content was (in general) good it had lines like "it's a massive ball of fire, shooting high speed particles at the Earth", etc. In most episodes was a reference to how the subject-matter could destroy life on Earth. The other amazing thing was the rate of video cuts - there was about 1 scene cut per second. It was really distracting, and gave the show an almost hysterical air. I also hated the narrator - sounded like his usual job was voicing movie trailers.
I think it was "the universe" from the history channel.
Live feed when astronaut Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper lost her tool bag!
Nicole Stott's very fine ass in full frame for about 10 minutes as she closed out a hatch!
Ohh ok, I know I am going to hell for that second reference and I know she is smarter then I am, and no I am not denigrating her, but dayum she does have one nice butt!
So there you have it, titillation AND adventure, so leave our channel alone!
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
They're nothing compared to the Storm boogyman / Global Warming Godzilla.
That is a puzzling statement in the topic of science vs dumbed down science. Clue: Scientists agree that humans are impacting the global climate and it's bad.
The dumbed down version would be: It's cold outside so the increased carbon dioxide levels can't be bad.
Hey NASA, if you are reading this then your problem is solved. Hire me. Why you say? Well first off passion. I have been excited by the space sciences since I was a little boy. I am an average Joe with the ability to explain play by play what is happening in a way that could take the NASA TV back to being the hot topic at the office water cooler. I understand technology and can talk about it in a way that would make Carl Sagan proud! I have a talent for show and theater with a creative streak that would reach out to the masses and keep them coming back for more. Need more reasons? I am from the mid-west so not only do I work hard but I get along great with people. Why else... well, I don't have a job to come home to after yet another deployment to Iraq. So in recap: I have passion, knowledge, like-ability, talent, drive, and desperation... what more could you ask for? How about how to contact me? ebnflow at hotmail dot com. I look forward to being your new final frontiersman! -E-
Manhattan drivers are crazy. Turning signals are optional at best, there is no such thing as tailgating, and lane markers are just suggestions. In other boroughs of NYC, drivers are only marginally better, but that's offset by the crazed street layout. Google Map Brooklyn or the Bronx with satellite imagery. It still doesn't do it justice, but turns come up VERY quickly, are more likely than not some arbitrary angle of turn, and the street signs are impossible to read until you're right on top of them. In many cases you'll be driving under train trusses (and having to make a split-second evaluation as to which support pillars the street you need to turn on is between whilst not colliding with one), and lots of one-way streets, so missing a turn is quite a challenge (don't even try to U-turn if you're on a bidirectional street). Add snow and ice to this mixture, and it can get VERY dangerous. Long Island, Westchester, Hudson Valley, and other NYC suburbs are a bit more sane, and are more likely to slow down in the name of safety in adverse weather conditions.
Why does NASA have to enrapture every last television viewer? What if some aren't interested in the subject matter? Does every single show have to strive for 100% viewership? If that's the case, isn't it a contest on who can make the loudest noise and most flashy lights at the cost of the actual content of the program? And we're supposed to encourage this? Why am I asking you?
Twinstiq, game news
But I certainly agree it does not need "EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES". Enthusiasm and fun != "Tomorrow's Rehabilitation promises to be even more better!" For proof, watch Alain De Cadenet on Victory By Design which has a great level of information and entertainment. And while the cars are loud the sequences of him driving are only interrupted by him speaking on occasion with enthusiasm for the car, giving that feeling of negative space in which you are left to drink in a relative silence and just enjoy what's happening on screen.
The Secret Life of Machines is another great example of how a science and history show can be entertaining without having the endless commentary such as is seen with news casters and sports commentators.
I don't think anyone wants to see NASA TV turn into TLC or G4, but watching an hour of mostly silent footage of satellite maintenance is like having conversation with an Ent. Let's keep in mind that the latest Star Trek was pretty well received, so it is not impossible to add a bunch of explosions and still be relevant and good.
Another thing to keep in mind is that many people simply don't have the time to watch an hour of mostly silent satellite maintenance. It's like the frustration I feel when I talk about music to people who have never been exposed to music outside of corporate owned radio station, MTv, movies and Target. It's incredibly frustrating, and while you might feel like these people have chosen to ignore what else is out there - and to be sure, many folks want the Clear Channels of the world to decide what they listen to - the fact remains that most of these people have jobs and families, and simply cannot spend their time digging for new things to be interested in. And considering the state NASA is in with budgets and such, it might just be useful and profitable to attract people to space programming like back in the 50's and 60's.
Is a happy medium too much to ask?
Sounds great to me. My favorite sound is grass going by on a four-wheeler. I love the Russian steppes, The savanna, Serengeti, The tioga, you name it; the big open quiet. I would have watched if I jad know it was like that!
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
I don't know what's worse:
- mission specialists trying to be whimsical (Oooo you brought a Buzz Lightyear action figure up with you to the ISS - that's so funny! That only costs, what, $500 in rocket fuel?)
- fifth-rate commentator/comedian/tv personality types interviewing NASA personnel and defense/space contractors and trying to make relevant jokes ("Boy, I bet you'd have no trouble putting the star on the Christmas tree with that robotic arm, huh?")
- computer-animated "music videos" showing the magic of space.
Etc. etc. etc.
Stick with the science folks. Remember - If you don't have a sense of humor, don't try to be funny!
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
NASA TV or NASA Select, whatever they're calling it these days, is not carried by my local cable company. This is a cable company that serves millions in the NY Metropolitan area (outside of NYC itself). Several of my friends and I have called them requesting that they carry it every few months for years now. Nothing. Before dumbing down the content for the Dancing Survivor crowd they should focus on getting more cable companies to carry the damn channel in the first place.
This is a job for... SAGAN-MAN!
I doubt the commentary would be very relevant, (or heard. :-)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It's the effect of focus groups including the MTV generation(s).
Coming up, we will discuss the ramifications of this. We used to have good, information rich programming and now even PBS (our last bastion of intelligence) has fallen.
Even PBS (our last bastion of intelligence) has stooped to rapid scene cuts,
pan/zoom/wipe fetishes,
and a ridiculous
short attention span
storyboard.
The MTV generation only has about 15 seconds of working memory. Previously, we heard how focus groups have examined this problem.
Even PBS now litters their programs with backward and forward references, to allow you to understand the entire program during a 10 second pause in channel surfing or ADHD spasms.
If you remove every redundant expression of the same fact in our infotainment shows, and just string together the real unique bits in sequence, you have about 10 minutes of novel programming in a one hour broadcast.
Coming up nextime on Nova, we'll learn just how useless a science program is with 10 minutes of novel programming.
Remember, NASA is the Amtrak of space and they need to advertize objectives and constantly engage in consistent public communications to indicate money isn't being wasted. NASA does not generate revenue so take your pick- boy scouts in space doing favors, amtrak etc. Its a gov service that in principle is no different than how the US collects taxes, fights wars or delivers mail. Imagine the postal guys up there trying to turn a torx with fat frigid fingers in zero g. Or maybe some people from DMV to staff the mission control center. Sounds ridiculous, but the difference is merely training and certification. Why have postal guys or volunteers wage warfare? The gov becomes a service provider like any other, only as the default, a really bad one.
The channel first of all doesn't always work. When there is some video it is a placeholder for activity. There is hardly any editing and summarization unless it supports something the agency needs to advertize. Its after all -
-PROPAGANDA FROM SPACE-
Will you actually learn anything new from the video feed? I highly doubt it. Its a hose for space branding and a tit to keep TV culture complacent and uncritical.
Should SpaceTV be entertaining? Should the news be entertaining? Maybe engaging and relevant is a better expectation. And NASA has always had problems in the relevancy department.
But then there is the reality that space is actually not the interesting. After all, its just -
-S P A C E-
Once money wealth and freedom is possible for individuals up there, it will get interesting because then there will be individual superobjective in that context. There is none currently - its like watching the FBI surveil child porn. Protecting the nation - RIGHT - the only reason usenet still exists is so the FBI can swap pix.
NASA definitely has zero g sex tapes - think we can tune into that? Or how about a webcam session in space where the gals face is all puffy from no gravity.
What you get to see on NASA TV is what little they can air that does not make them look like fools. Where is FBI TV or CIA TV? Nowhere because it would only document their mistakes, incompetence and panic.
Space shit on TV all got started with JFK and NASA is still entirely dependent on donations, public opinion and PITY. They don't produce anything and have never made a strong case for why people need to be in space that doesn't ultimately come from fear of other people.
From time to time, when there was shuttle flying and nothing important was happening, they used to simply point the camera at the earth and just broadcast that shot. I would watch it and try to figure out what part of the earth was in view. It is a lot harder than you think.
cleaner robots to latch onto the speeding flotsam and slow it down until gravity can take care of it naturally.
Each "clean-up-crew" robot can even slow the jetsam magnetically in lots of cases and use the exchange in momentum to pick up velocity and extend its own useful lifetime, before it uses its on-board fuel to slow itself down to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
(don't even try to U-turn if you're on a bidirectional street).
As opposed to the U-turn on the one-way streets?
it was like that when I got here.. I wasen't here when that happened... second shift musta done that....
tl;dr
rewriting history since 2109
Turning signals? What are those? If you're referring to the hand-waving, you need to take a closer look at the hands.
Yes, do watch David Attenborogh. At an age when a lot of peoples main hobby is drooling on themselves, he is as engaging as ever. When he commentates on something, you really feel like you are being shown something wonderful. Like being a child and your favourite uncle shows you all the different types of bugs down the bottom of your garden, but the experience doesn't get tired (largely because Attenborough has a camera crew and a budget, and can show you so much more).
He may not cover every frame with speech, he does interject often, and when he does its with excellent deliver and content.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Its very different in the UK: "Today a lady rang the BBC and asked if there was a hurricane on the way, well if you are watching don't worry, there isn't". Guess what happened next.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
We get two feet and it only makes local news because the school busses probably couldn't run that day.
Your lucky then cause if we get four feet of snow in one night school is only delayed 2 hrs at the most some times it will still be on time.
What happened next was that there was no hurricane. There was one of the most severe storms that the south of England had seen in recorded history, but although it gusted at hurricane speed it didn't average hurricane speed so it didn't qualify as a hurricane.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Growing up, the monotony of the NASA channel was always a running joke between my friends and I. The majority of the time, all the channel showed was a wide shot of alot of people in a control center working, with no sound or commentary whatsoever. I don't see how that could be interesting to anyone.
I live in Rochester, and especially early in the season, it seems like some people have forgotten how to drive in those conditions.
And then there are the people who do notice, but overcompensate by driving too slow/too cautiously. I suppose that's better than the alternative, but still...
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Hey give them a break.
Their job isn't to report the weather, it's to sell Snuggies.
They seem to have worked well for MTV....I can see it now. "Who will get voted off of the Space Station this week? Tune in to NASA TV tonight for the season finale of SURVIVOR! Space"
is someone who starts a sentence in the subject and continues in the body.
The new ad-sponsored "exciting" NASA broadcasts:
Narrator: Our astronauts are assissted out of the capsule onto awaiting medical stretchers and swaddled by soft and simple 100% cotton blankets from the Martha Stewart Collection. Folks, these blankets feature a traditional basketweave design for a causal look you'll love to cozy up to after travelling away from home in the coldness of space or settling down at home right here on Earth.
Parched by the dust of stars and daily life in space, the astronauts will replentish vital bodily fluids with a 500ml bottle of Fiji Water. You see, Fiji naturally flavored tropical rain water is filtered for hundreds of years through volcanic stone. Weather you're an astronaut quenching your thirst in the harsh environment of space or working up a thirst right here on Earth, you can taste the purity of Fiji Water in every sip.
Now let's join Phil in the Crew Recovery Vehicle, where our returning astronauts will be examined by NASA physicians and administered body care using Olay Regenerist Daily Regenerating Serum. This skin replentishing treatments containing a concentrated Amino-Peptide Complex and are fragrance free. Each treatment delivers several anti-aging ingredients such as Vitamin B3, Vitamin E, Pro-vitamin B5, green tea extract, and allantoin.
For our folks at home on Earth who are just joining in, all of these exciting products that our honored astronauts are benefiting from can all be ordered direct at Amazon.com with free shipping! Just reference the promotional code "NASA LANDING 2009" before January 1 2010.
Are some of those over energetic sales men who sound like they are getting a blowjob whilst they are reading their manuscript!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
... we need to get someone like Steve Irwing!
"Crikey! Look at the size of that capsule!"
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
I feel the same way when I hear about 3 inches of snow in New York plastered all over the national news.
Hah. You think that's bad, you ought to see what happens here in southern California whenever the weather is anything other than sunny and 74 degrees. Really--when the temperature drops below 60 F, the weather-droids act like it's the beginning of the next ice age.
That is until they mention the hundreds of car crashes, then I just think New York drivers must be dumbasses. Holy shit! It's snow! Snow is slick! Slow the hell down! ZOMGWTFBBQ!
Again, you ought to see what happens here in southern California. A little drizzle and people are spinning off the road all over ten counties. It's pathetic.
(Spoken as someone who comes from a place where it seldom snowed but where it rains more than four times a year.)
This ain't rocket surgery.
Listen to the feeds directly...
I bookmark the NASA feeds directly in VLC on Linux so I can play them without a browser opened. To do so, open the following in VLC or your media player:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/isslivestream.asx
http://www.nasa.gov/178952main_Mission_Audio_UP.asx
I actually have the players embedded into my desktop which has lots of blinken lights, wireframe space animations and krellm monitors on an Apollo background.
I noted the difference in narration on Planet Earth between the North American version (voiced by Sigourney Weaver) and the UK edition by Attenborough. While Weaver did a really good job, I found watching the UK edition somehow more "soothing to the ear".
(don't even try to U-turn if you're on a bidirectional street).
As opposed to the U-turn on the one-way streets?
I don't recommend trying those, either.
There was a more recent DVD about our solar system that I watched a few months ago. The updated graphics and facts were amazing. But I'd never buy it or watch it again because someone (at ABC, IIRC) decided that it had to be more "lively" and dumbed-down. Such a shame. Such a waste of potential -- wasted to make it more appealing to people who aren't that interested in the subject to begin with. It seems to be a problem with most of the American science docos at my (non-US) library. Thankfully there is still the BBC.
The thing that's really awful about such sensationalism in science (especially *space* science) is that the thing they are showing you is *FREAKING OUTER SPACE*. It's already more amazing than pretty much anything a person can say about it. Give us facts, your hyperbole will just pale in comparison. I don't mean it has to be boring, Sagan did a great job of conveying the wonder of science without resorting to idiocracy-level commentary.
The same goes for NASA TV. I don't need some entertainer-posing-as-commentator talking about what's going on every second of a launch or whatever. I'm *WATCHING A SPACESHIP FLY INTO SPACE*. The current level of commentary is about right. There's the audio from mission control ("secondary boosters nominal<chirp>"), and countdowns, then commentary for specific portions of the event, "the rocket has reached escape velocity, and the second stage of the rocket will detach in about 90 seconds. We are 127 seconds into the flight, and the rocket is 192 miles above the Earth." Then silence for ~75 seconds until, "second stage detach in 10 seconds. 10... 9..." you get the idea.
Perhaps there is a middle ground between 20 minutes of silence and MTV NEWSBLAST? What about insightful commentary about the mission, what it means/significance/future projects that involve the mission, or was this already included?
"More lively" does not mean "complete other end of the spectrum." It means "something more engaging and able to garner more public interest, which is the objective of NASA TV," in other words, make it watchable. That's why the submitter mentions Carl Sagan; he was able to mix science, inspiration, and entertainment so that people still watch Cosmos today.
In SoCal, we
Stop. Just stop. If you must bastardise the language like that, at least go find "Brangelina" or "Tomkat" and tell them about it first. In return maybe they'll tell you about what hot new "romcom" they're going to star in next. They may be on "vaca" though, so you might want to call their "rents" to see when they're expected back.
If all that's too much trouble, you could just stop talking like a thirteen year old girl.
That said, I agree. In Atlanta, the merest hint that a light dusting of snow might be in the forecast is greeted with panic-stricken weathermen beating the HOLY EMERGENCY! drum for three days in advance, advising everyone not to drive, and to stock up on essentials. As a result the idiot masses hit the stores and buy enormous quantities of the two most perishable items they can find -- bread and milk, because god forbid you get snowed in for a day or two and don't have those. Of course, in my thirty years here, I've seen actual crippling snow exactly once, and crippling ice exactly once. Otherwise, every year we get maybe one snowfall annually, which amounts to barely an inch and is usually melted by noon the next day. Insanity.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Launch day on NASA TV is outstanding, especially the replays of the engineering views. But the day to day ISS "we are the world" happy talk and video of the pointless activities on the ISS, and the politically correct, diverse, children's educational programming are an utter waste.
an ill wind that blows no good
Here's the set-up: A family of astronauts (father, mother, two teenage girls, and boy) get sent out to, let's say, Alpha Centauri for colonization. Just so that their little gene pool has some chance for diversity, let's go ahead and include a strapping young military astronaut. We can even throw in a robot for various domestic chores.
Now, just to stir the pot up a bit, we can have a scientist sneak aboard the ship and reprogram the robot to destroy it while the colonists are in suspended animation, blissfully unaware of their impending doom. What he doesn't know is that while he's busy with the robot, we'll lock the ship's hatch and launch, trapping him aboard with the family. And even if he's able to undo his sabotage, we can be make sure that something on board the ship blows up anyway, leaving them stranded in deep space, fighting for their survival.
The ultimate reality programming, and it's a perfect fit for the NASA channel. Will they survive, or will they be lost in space forever? I'm telling you, it'll be a hit...
(There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
You clearly have no idea how I talk. I eschew pointless abbreviations like those that you mention, but you choose to pin them on me anyway, knowing nothing about the way that I speak save what you take from a single word. I use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and I know and use many of the nuances of the language that escape others. I can guarantee you that save for an occasional example in conversations about the twisting of the language, and maybe once or twice in a mocking fashion, I have never, ever used any of those words. I have little tolerance for those who do, and will usually end a conversation rather quickly when such language develops.
The abbreviation "SoCal" long predates recent abbreviations such as you mention, going back at least into the 1980s. It certainly is far older than a certain other abominable abbreviation brought about by network television, one shot down with some humor in Arrested Development. Perhaps you could take into account such origins instead of lashing out at people that use any abbreviation whatsoever.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Between budgetary restrictions and the 18 dry NASA workers who run it, I can understand why it's very minimal. However, just like a great teacher or any organization, NASA needs to be able to market to and engage the people who are funding it. That doesn't mean turning it into infotainment, but there certainly needs to be a more human face on NASA endeavors. Dumbing down of some sort is absolutely necessary if NASA hopes to expand its audience and gather more interest and funding in its missions. If only NASA could do this and not cross into the dark side of modern broadcast media.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGrQcQ9fWLc&feature=related
That's enormously pedantic considering 18 people were killed.
It was the Met. Office's defence at the time.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
NASA TV is a live documentary, so perhaps that's how it should be. It's a not a Sci-Fi movie.
yea, Bill Nye is goofy and lame. But at least he would be running around shouting and being excited about science.
As for complaints about NASA TV's quality, when you want professional programs with polish and entertainment you'll have to hire a pretty expensive crew to do so. Instead of the current system where a skeleton A/V crew along with a few managers and scientists manages to put together footage and get it pumped out into international syndication.
Sorry but for the relatively small amount of money spent on NASA TV I dare anyone to do better. Feel free to write your congressperson and double their budget though.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Why is everyone on here assuming that making the broadcasts 'better' 'spruced up' and 'more interesting' equates to them being dumbed down?
Because we have seen that particular experiment done many times, and to expect a different result the next time seems crazy?
When "Robot Wars" first started (back when Jamie H and Grant I were competitors), there were some interesting interviews with the builders. They actually talked about what made their machines work.
After a couple of seasons they hired some former pro wrestler to add "excitement". And they encouraged the contestants to spend most of their time trash talking the opposition.
I stopped watching soon after.
When Junkyard Wars (re-branded versions of the UK Scrapheap Challenge) was first aired, they actually spent some time explaining the history of the type of machines they were trying to build, and talked about the physics and trade-offs of the designs.
After they started producing the US made shows, they upped the trash talk, and cut the "how and why it works" content to about 30 seconds in the hour show.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Problem is that a hundred car crashes makes news sound interesting. They fail to mention that there is over 100 car crashes in New york EVERY SINGLE DAY because the population there is gigantic.
It's called sensationalism, It sells news to the undereducated.
Me? I'm interested if they will get some famouse hip-hop singers to do NASA comentary...
"Yoyoyo everybodyeeeee, this is Emcee Double K givin' you the low down on the out of this world international space station. The bitches up there are having a problem with the toilet plugging up and my crew in the shuttle are installin' new batteries os they can THUMP and give those russians a lesson in how to play music loud."
Next up, The "out of the real world at the ISS" we sent up 6, 20 somethings that are pretty much losers and hate each other to live with the scientists on the ISS for 4 months. Let's see who got shoved out of the airlock this week..... Last week kenny found the oxygen supply valve and was huffing pure oxygen to get high, and Davis puked all over the Japanese research module from the 2 bottles of vodka he stole from the russian moduel....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
he abbreviation "SoCal" long predates recent abbreviations such as you mention, going back at least into the 1980s.
That doesn't make it right, useful, or clever; it just means something stupid has been around a bit longer than something else stupid. Of course, silliness like "rents" and "vaca" have been around since at least the 80s as well, used primarily by teenagers trying to sound cool. Your rationalisation of earlier origins justifies those too.
At no point was I trying to imply that you, personally, use such words as "Brangelina" -- I was using them as examples of how ridiculous these types of portmanteaus can be.
However, I find it interesting that you take such harsh exception to that sort of thing, while claiming that "SoCal" is perfectly acceptable, merely because it slightly predates the other examples.
As for origins, you realise the dunderheads that brought us "Brangelina" are of the same stock as the chowderheads who brought us "SoCal" slightly earlier?
A silly word being invented by media twits in an effort to appear cool is no more legitimate than another silly word being invented by media twits in an effort to appear cool just because the first media twits invented their silly word twenty years prior to the second media twits.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
...they seriously need to ditch the stupid tag lines that they superimpose over the launch of every vehicle.
I mean, really - you have an n-million lb. ship belching n+2-million lbs of fiery loud thrust, shaking toward the heavens faster than a bullet fired out of a gun, and NASA sees this as the *best* time to cut in PR commentary!?! "Liftoff of the Space Shuttle Discovery, delivering the toilet to the ISS to build the true throne room of the Gods!" or some similar nonsense.
I want to see, hear, and feel the launch in full HD surround sound glory, dammit.
Have you seen NASA TV? I have, and I thought it was just a live, unedited satellite feed of, well, something. I'm surprised it has an Executive Producer.
And in SoCal police chasing cars are broadcast on TV. For the purpose ooooof what exactly? I think the NASA broadcaster should have a shot of tequila before going on the air or should have had several the night before. Certainly would make the broadcast a little more fun. Maybe even give it a pulse.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
If you have lived there you might know SoCal and NorCal are simply in the vernacular.
Oh, sorry, this is slashdot. I forgot to add, "you insensitive clod".
If you have lived there you might know SoCal and NorCal are simply in the vernacular, you insensitive clod.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Why would you want to drive in Manhattan?
I love not having a car. It's the main reason I live in the city.
It's cheaper to take the subway, too, even with the increased fares.
It really can also get boring after a while. You see only live video. There are no explanatory diagrams, no alternative camera angles, and prolonged silences of many minutes where almost nothing happens. When there is commentary, it's giving useless minutiae that I couldn't care less about.
NASA TV needs some good prepared commentary to explain what's going on and some good diagrams to go with it. They also need commentators that don't just tell me the obvious or fill in some numbers, but rather make it clear what I'm watching, why it's important, who is involved, and what we're going to learn from it.
This is simple stuff to increase the intellectual value of the content. It's not "dumbing it down". If you want dumb "educational" content, watch today's Discovery, TLC, etc.
Have you watched NASA TV when they aren't launching?
I've watched it at various times, including when the Sojourner rover landed at some early hour of the night, when Cassini entered orbit around Saturn, portions of several space walks, and even idle times during shuttle missions. Some things have been very fun and exciting, such as the Sojourner landing, but by and large it's dreadfully boring even for an avid NASA/aerospace fan, especially during large portions of space walks (which is just inherent to the careful and tedious activity they're doing).
While watching the activity live is a great option, they could really use some MythBusters style time lapse editing more often than not.
They don't need to blow things up all the time like MythBusters, but they are in sore need of post-editing of the live video in order to present it in a way that is more accessible to an average viewer and can skip the less interesting parts (such as the 10-20 minutes it takes to move the shuttle's robotic arm, or the slow work of the astronaut, etc).
NASA tries to do outreach and has a budget for it, although I'm sure it's rather small. I'm sure if they could just do more professional programs on NASA TV rather than relying so heavily on raw live footage they could get a lot more people excited about space science.
It would be nice if the NASA channel did not display and on screen logo...
...of course this came from the LA Times, where they like the shiny things most of all.
Sometimes, real science...and real work...includes stretches of time without sound or pictures. In space operations, there are times when lack of obvious activity is a desired state.
is that you?
They're the Met office. Pedantic is their job.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
For an example of what NASA TV should have as filler between live stories, try this http://www.vimeo.com/7852885 The first few minutes are slow-paced, then it's all action.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Sure, add some OMGPONIES track if you think that will give you more viewers, thus exposure, thus money. But please please please let the nerdy rest of us keep the simple fact version.
If they are driving towards a Soyuz, I don't need someone telling me that. I can see it. Some call it boring, I call it blissful silence.
As someone who actually possesses an attention span, I cannot watch Mythbusters without being aggravated over the formatting.
I submit that it's far better to be boring, than to be actively annoying.
Kid-proof tablet..
I'd love to comment on the format of nasaTV. I'd love to just watch it. But they don't support ANY non-proprietary formats, nor do they support watching in a browser under linux.
Major fail, especially given their inherent nerd appeal.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
While SoCal is nowhere near as grating as the other abbreviations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
I would argue instead that "Southern California" is long enough, and commonly used enough, to justify an abbreviation (who writes or says "United States of America," for example?), while the celebrity couple abbreviations are not commonly used enough (unless you're a total idiot, in which case the point is moot), and "parents" and "vacation" aren't short enough.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
+1, it really disappoints me when they high-speed-montage through the more interesting stuff, and I don't like the way they try to do all the myths in parallel just to decrease the chance of viewers changing the channel. Also their censoring of the ingredients of explosives is one of the most offensive things I've ever seen on TV.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Oh, how I wish it were only that bad. At least blowing shit up is rooted firmly in science. Now they're the channel of phony-science ghostbusting.
I had a similar experience with The History Channel. I saw a doco about Nikola Tesla - and whilst the content seemed like it had legs (the subject matter is interesting, the research was solid and the interviewees seemed to know their stuff), the presentation was appalling. I simply couldn't stomach more than 10 minutes of it. It was as you describe - exposition-al, dramatic, inaccurate and hysterical. It boggles my mind - if you wanted "pizzazz", why would you watch an educational TV show (moreover, how could educational TV hope to compete with regular TV in terms of "pizzazz")? Surely the core audience (boring farts like me) would be alienated by this, and with all the MTV-heads watching MTV and whatnot, they'd end up with a net loss of viewers?
Thank you. I've tried to do some searches for older uses of the terms, but unfortunately, they're so widespread that it's pretty much impossible. I wish I still knew the guy at the LA Times that would occasionally do archive searches on pointless things for me. He might have been able to find some really old examples, at least in headlines, well before the 1980s.
I should run it past one of the guys at work tomorrow. He's been surfing California beaches since at least the 1970s.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I wouldn't mind a 5 minute highlight video of the best NASA events of the day. I also don't mind the current NASA TV coverage. There's room for improvement without making it MOREAWESOMEHUGER!!! That shouty motorcycle show is a good bad example. There's plenty of interesting stuff that goes into fabricating a bike. You don't really need to punch it up with histrionics and screaming. But that's exactly what they do and the information content rapidly approaches zero. The tech podcasts are a good positive example of how it can go. You've got personable hosts who can present good, solid information in an engaging fashion. Techzilla, Geekbrief, Security Now, This Week in Tech, nice info-nuggets to digest. If you want exacting detail, there's websites to read for the nitty gritty. But those shows are excellent digests that will let you know a topic even exists so that you can then go research it more thoroughly.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I live in Rochester, and especially early in the season, it seems like some people have forgotten how to drive in those conditions.
Hell, I live in Alberta, where there's snow on the ground from November - April, and the drivers *here* forget how to drive to conditions on the first snow day.
What really burns my biscuits is that if that first-day snow melts, and a week later it snows again, everyone's already forgotten. Arrggh.
Thank you, I agree with your point.
No one said to make it sensationalistic or stupid. But there is so much potential for really interesting stuff that they clearly don't take advantage of.
I started watching NASA TV when the Rovers first landed. That was probably the most exciting thing they've ever had on NASA TV, yet the whole time I thought how much better it could all be done. NASA TV really looks like my suburb's local programming channel. Very amateurish.
It's worse when THEY try to make it "interesting."
Because they are not good at all. But this is all such a false choice in these comment threads.
I still would rather have a Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman than my boring ass talentless science teacher. You can 'stick with science' and not make it seem like watching accounting.
This is the precise reason why everyone is so science illiterate. People love science until science educations starts, then any attraction is frozen out of us, until we think the only choice is boring or idiotic.
I submit that it's far better to be boring, than to be actively annoying.
Better in what way? There are hours of time during shuttle missions when there may be 5-10 minutes of talking over the course of each hour. The viewer can't really see what's going on because they can't see the instrument panels but can only watch things from afar from stationary cameras placed in the mission control center and on the shuttle.
I didn't say they needed to duplicate MythBusters, but they definitely need editing in a big way. Personally, I don't have the time to watch an entire 3 to 4 hour spacewalk but would be interested in watching a summary of the spacewalk along with a narration of what they were doing at each step.
MythBusters is probably the highest rated show on Discovery of all time and is certainly getting more kids involved in science (and has won praise from various educational groups). The goal wouldn't be solely to show exactly what a real scientist would do in the lab with unedited video because that would be extremely boring to most people, much less kids--it's simply to get them excited and outline some basic concepts in a way that's fun yet still educational (something MythBusters has gotten much better at over the years).
It's rather well-accepted that critics know the least about making good TV, rather just how to point-out bad TV.
Now, I'll give them the basic gist; NASA-TV is a yawn-fest. The LCROSS press conferences have been an excellent example of this. Aside from live events, the produced segments also leave quite a bit to be desired. (TFA puts the point nicely with the Soyuz bit)
We don't need Simon Cowell or Ryan Seacrest to make it interesting. Here's an idea; take the producers from any of the "Most [insert hyperbolic and/or categorical adjective] Videos" shows and let them have at it. They have all the video-toaster effects down, they have an "extreme" narrator and they're well versed at making spilled milk into a world-shaking event. Ba-da boom, NASA-TV becomes as over-hyped as the rest of basic cable, blending in perfectly.
It's not science, people. It's just good TV.
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
Well, all the major news outlets are based out of New York City, so anything that happens in New York tends to make the national news as it's a big deal to those running the news networks. The power outage a few years back was a good example of this - it was plastered on all the major channels, that's all they talked about the whole time the power was out, and the reporters were going on like it was the end of the world or something. Meanwhile, an ice storm can knock the power out to half of "flyover country" and it will barely get a mention in the nightly news.
It's 'critic', not 'critics'. And picking on a bunch of scientists and engineers for not being talking heads is just too straw man for me. You've got pencil pushers pushing penciled in numbers. Aren't the numbers enough? Well, for some things, no. So maybe they shouldn't try to cover everything.
NASA is constantly battling itself over budget. How are they supposed to hire on-air personalities without someone having to decry having their mission scrubbed?
Maybe if they had a decent following they could get some talent, as well as get regular news coverage. But the US lost its love affair with space while Walter Cronkite was still sitting at that folding table inland from pad 39. If memory serves, it was only Apollo 13 (pre-explosion) when the US TV networks started neglecting the NASA feed in favor of scheduled programming.
On the other hand there have been some decent NASA programs in the past. One of the Firesign Theatre guys at the Voyager Neptune fly by for instance. Even then he was pressed into service after having been given a ticket into JPL by one of the mission operators.
If and when, if and when..... should NASA ever find it in their pockets to hire on air talent (which would by necessity require writing and editing), only one possibility comes to mind, complete with connections to James Oberg and other space pros and amateurs of note: Alan Boyle. He could not only cover the space stuff, but other relevant science stuff, and he has a lot of people to draw on to fill slots with.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Better because I like it that way.
I don't care what's popular -- I could give two shits what you, for instance, enjoy watching. Honestly.
If I wanted to hear people talk, I'd turn on the radio. A TV, however, is showing me 30 pictures per second, each one of which might be worth a thousand words. All I can think when I see a ballgame, or practically anything on Discovery these days is this: Shut the FUCK up unless you have something that's actually meaningful to add to the pictures on the screen.
I don't care if you think it's boring.
Kid-proof tablet..
News Flash! NASA hires Nancy Grace!
Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
Oh. You've got the high-speed stuff, but that's not even the real problem as I see it.
The consists of this: One or two minutes of actual work. And then some previews. And then a commercial. And then some review of the stuff we just bloody saw. Then, it's onto the other team's project for a minute or two. And some previews. And a commercial. More review. Back to the first project for a minute or two. Then, eventually, a kaboom, a splash, or a crash. Followed by more review.
Rinse, repeat. Blah, blah, blah.
The whole show could be linearized, stripped of commercials and redundancy, and be reduced to approximately 8 minutes total without losing any content at all.
Kid-proof tablet..
The drama is there because they are selling advertising.