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

Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dead.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!