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?"

Comments

If you want to know what's wrong with "lively"...

[Gordonjcp]

... 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.

Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dead.

Re:Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Making an apple pie from scratch.

Re:Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?

[girlintraining]

Dead

He didn't die, he experienced a phase transition and is now at a higher entropy level.

Needs more controversy

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

This ain't MTV!

[bziman]

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.

Re:This ain't MTV!

[DavidTC]

Yes.

Seriously, long boring drives to recovery sites, and dead silence?

Don't they have some, I dunno, science they could be telling us? Like a clip of the launch, or an explanation of the mission, or simulations of the orbit, or something?

People simply aren't interested in seeing every step of a recovery process with nothing else. That is because it is incredibly boring, and, no, that has nothing to do with modern society's short attention span or anything. That much time watching nothing happen, interspersed with short, boring comments, is boring to anyone!

At the very least, do what CNN does when they're waiting for stuff to happen on camera, like someone to come out of a courthouse...have a bunch of random 'experts' sitting around a table in the studio, and cut to them for a few minutes at a time, and back when things actually happen.

Although really NASA should be able to time things better than that. Their uncertainly is usually only a few seconds, except sometimes during launches.

Re:This ain't MTV!

[Dripdry]

I've been watching NASA TV on and off since about 2000. I find the long silences to be Zen-like and relaxing. I can put it on as background in the evening, or while getting work done. Although the mission control screens and drives to recovery sites may be a bit tedious, there is something uniquely majestic about some of the long silences, especially the shots of space. It's the same way I like much of my music. Just because many people are used to action every 5 seconds in the media they consume doesn't mean that long bouts of calm punctuated with occasional fanfare is bad.

Further to that point, it's more like real life. Media just edits out the boring parts of daily existence and puts up the interesting ones to entertain us. What's wrong with consuming something more realistic for a change? That used to be why I put the weather channel on when I wanted to relax. Now it's so wham-bam-OMG-STAY-INDOORS! that I can scarcely stand it for five minutes.

In short, I advocate for a more relaxed media experience, but your mileage may vary.

Re:This ain't MTV!

[Dripdry]

I understand your point point of view and respect it. However, I have a habit of taking a more traditionally eastern point of view with some things like this. One might argue that one's mind is the most important pastime or tool, and having "settings" as a sort of canvas on which to paint a clearer path to a clearer mind may offer more importance than having ideas pumped in without the need for thought.

Yes, I can say that just my mind, a blank room, and NASA TV would be quite enjoyable sometimes(with a pillow to sit on, if you please). I may even turn the TV off just to be still.

NASA TV has been around for a long time, longer than the "new" formats of TV you mention. Although they may not care, as you said, sometimes a hands-off approach is more important and allows the recipient to drive their mind and own their thoughts.

Again, mine is just one point of view, and I also respect your utilitarian pragmatism, however I have met successful, happy people who fall all along this spectrum of thought and urge mere consideration of other points of view in light of that.

Re:NASA TV for Dummies?

[Low Ranked Craig]

See? it's already affected my spelling...

I like NASA TV how it is.

[Eravnrekaree]

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.

Re:I like NASA TV how it is.

[pz]

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.

Moreover, anything that is funded with the public's taxes should be raw, unvarnished truth. No salesmanship. No splashy effects. Just high-quality information, and, potentially, art.

As an educated, voting taxpayer, I *love* that C-SPAN has the uncensored coverage of our congress (at least it used to last time I watched); I *adore* that PBS produces commercial-free high-quality educational and entertainment shows like NOVA (what we were promised TLC would expertly take over and provide), Nature, Sesame Street, and Frontline. It is *imperative* that NASA TV be boring, because most of a mission is like that.

Re:I like NASA TV how it is.

[Eravnrekaree]

I second that. I like the raw unfiltered nature of those things and the educational nature of PBS. PBS programs do use sound and graphics in their programs to make a presentation but they do so in a way not to make it pop culturish and still convey powerful information. One of the favourite things i like about C-SPAN is the call in segements, which unlike CNN and so on which are heavily scripted and fox etc which are blatantly biased, one gets to hear different sides of the issue from real, common people rather than media spin masters. CSPAN does a wonderful job of presenting unedited data and as well allowing for public commentary, nearly missing in the mainstream coverage, which tries to put everything into a manipulated edited package as if to slant peoples perspective on things.

Oh hell no.

[Mononoke]

This critic is the type of person who has destroyed entertainment in general. Sports have become nearly unwatchable with the announcers straining to fill every millisecond with the sound of their voices. Movies are becoming overloaded with audio cues and monologues. Even the news has become a cacophony of zings and bleeps and sweeping noises.

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.

Re:Oh hell no.

[Quantumstate]

When I was visited America I remember trying to watch an american football match replay/highlights. If I ignore the fact that it was 50% adverts cutting in every 3 minutes it was still utterly dreadful. It showed very short clips of bits of play so you had little idea of what was actually going on with some crazy overexcited presenter yelling for the entire thing. Baseball generally seemed much better, ignoring the advert breaks. In the UK, with a football (soccer) match, even if it is on a channel with advertising you only get adverts at half time and before and after the match so there are two 45 minute blocks of uninterrupted football with decent commentators in general.

leave nasa alone

[p51d007]

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.

Re:leave nasa alone

[SBFCOblivion]

Out of curiosity (honestly), what is wrong with pbs? The NOVA stuff is too similar to the other channels for you? Too dumbed down?

multiple feeds?

[cashman73]

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.

Re:multiple feeds?

[ColdWetDog]

Nope. The 'brain dead crowd' has quite enough of their own channels. Give us folks who have yet to flat line at least ONE channel. It's not too much to ask since we, on the average, pay most of the damned taxes anyway.

European Space Agency is much worse

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".

[ColdWetDog]

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.

mission control

[binarybum]

i think they should use the mission control channel on somafm as background music throughout the day.

Budget, etc.

[v1x]

The network's budget -- $1.5 million a year -- is a pittance even compared with certain programs on National Public Radio, he said, and NASA TV's full-time staff of 18 people, based in Washington, D.C., cannot hope to create the sort of polished productions that grace "Nova" and the Discovery Channel.

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.

Re:Budget, etc.

[pclminion]

Yes, what the hell happened to Discovery anyway? Actually, I'm just being rhetorical, it's fairly obvious what happened, and it took several sad years. Watching Discovery turn to shit was like watching a relative die of cancer. The only people left worth watching are Jamie, Adam, and Mike Rowe (Mike Rowe, by the way, should be given a fucking medal and a gigantic bronze statue for the comments he makes about safety fascism in modern America). If these guys had the guts they should start their own channel and give Discovery the big fat finger.

Re:Raw science IS entertaining

[LittleRedStar]

Absolutely agree! Earlier this year I spent hours each day watching the live feed from Hubble repair mission. The occasional info from the 'commentator' was enough. What would be interesting is to have less restrained astronauts. An occasional oh shit! as a wrench flies away would liven things up.

Silence is nice to have.

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Silence is nice to have.

[girlintraining]

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.

You are laboring under the delusion that most broadcasting aims to communicate information. It may do that, but that's not the goal. The goal is to distract you from the dullness of that room you're sitting in. The one with the glowing rectangle and the odd smells. It's there to placate you and entertain you, blinding you to the fact that most of us will waste the forty-odd years of our life working jobs that contribute little or nothing to the betterment of others or the world, that for all those years of work we have a couch, a few trinkets, in some suburban house, while the next generation struggles with answering how they can make a difference -- something that recurs generation after generation, only to perish because society has no real use for it. Television in today's society serves the same purpose that alcohol and recreational drugs serve: To make the pain of mere existance a little more bearable.

The problem isn't that television rots your brain -- the problem is you, like a lot of people on slashdot, have an odd quirk of personality in that novelty is stimulating. For most people, routine is what refreshes and prepares them for the uncertainties, which is the exact opposite of how we interact with the world.

Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".

[Martin Blank]

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.)

Improved broadcasting does not equal dumbed down!

[datadigit]

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.

NASA TV Is NOT boring...

[FlyingGuy]

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!

NASA TV could use a little more

[yerktoader]

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?

Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".

[dragonbutt]

(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?

Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".

[damburger]

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.

Re:If you want to know what's wrong with "lively".

[digitig]

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.