Space Exploration: Beyond the Horizon

The Planetary Society and Symphony of Science put together an inspiring video called Beyond the Horizon to highlight how we need to be bold in our dreams about our future in space.  The video contains comments from Bill Nye the Science Guy, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, science writer Emily Lakdawalla, and Dr. Carl Sagan.  As Dr. Sagan noted, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."  Let's go find out.

Star Talk is Now Televised

The National Geographic Channel will start broadcasting the show Star Talk tonight. Based in the radio show of the same name, the new series will feature Neil deGrasse Tyson interviewing guests and most likely opining on many space issues.  The space community has lacked this television platform for some time, and the recent reception to the remake of Cosmos indicates an audience is out there. Let's hope this is the start of even greater things.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Gets HIs Own Show

After last year's successful stint with Cosmos, Dr. Tyson appears to be heading for a show of his own making rather than a remake of someone else's vision. He has already generated a following with his astronomy-related radio program Star Talk, and that will be the name of his new show this April on the National Geographic Channel. 

While Dr. Tyson can be a lightening rod at times when he challenges the prevailing public mood, as was the case with his Christmas tweet, his insights and sense of humor each week via his own program is good for science and the space program overall. I only wish we had more astronomers and astrophysicists scrambling to get such science into every American living room. 

Interstellar and the Critics

Now that a few weeks have passed, it is easier to see what Christopher Nolan created in his film Interstellar.  Beware readers that I may release too many details here, so Spoiler Alert!

I watched Interstellar when it first came out and was somewhat underwhelmed. The underlying premise was a little hard to swallow - mankind had advanced to the point of secretly developing massive spacecraft to take humans to Saturn and beyond, but had completely failed to resolve a climate adjustment and crop development here on Earth. And more to the point, a secret government-funded space program existed side-by-side with a government denying the Apollo missions. This was more unbelievable than wormholes to another galaxy (and why another galaxy when we have hundreds of billions of potential planets in our galaxy? - even the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine wormhole only went to another quadrant of our galaxy). And why choose planets around a black hole?  Billions of potential planets and this is what they have to chose from?   It may make for great drama, but it is a dumb plot. 

Others agree.  David Corn in his Mother Jone's article "What's Wrong with the Science of Interstellar?" noted that he discussed the film with astrobiologist David Grinspoon, who said:

For instance, they describe this ecological disaster on Earth. I like the fact they are talking about that and raising consciousness. It's clear that it's climate change and we screwed up the Earth…That's a good theme. But the specific things they say about it—they say there's this blight [attacking all crops] that's building up the nitrogen [in the atmosphere] and that's going to draw down the oxygen. Anybody who knows about planetary atmosphere is going to sit there at that point and go, "That's a bunch of BS." It's not that that ruins the movie for most people. But why couldn't they have run that by somebody? It wouldn't change the plot…There are aspects to the planets they get to which also don't make sense from basic physics. There's a planet with ice clouds…That's BS…Something like that would fall. Because of gravity! Is that so crucial to the plot? There's a planet around a black hole…Some physicists might quibble whether that's even possible or stable. But one obvious problem is, when they landed there it was daylight. But there's no sun and a black hole doesn't put out light. So where is the light coming from?

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson tweeted incessantly about the film, but most were not very helpful and cited things such as the number of female scientists, as if he had not seen Jodie Foster in the earlier film Contact.  He made up for it later with this video on the film.

Bill Nye the Science Guy had his own view of things in this video, calling it "charming science fiction."  He also challenges us to go to Antarctica before worrying about living on Mars or other planets.  Maybe it makes more sense to fix they Earth than run away to another planet hoping it is better (or livable). 

My favorite review of the film was Ryan Gilbey's piece in The New Statesman where he called the robots "sentient filing cabinets" and noted:

It's hard to care about the future of civilization when we meet so few members of it worth saving...

Movie critic David Denby in The New Yorker probably had the best wrap-up:

...over all, “Interstellar,” a spectacular, redundant puzzle, a hundred and sixty-seven minutes long, makes you feel virtuous for having sat through it rather than happy that you saw it. 

So many times we hear the book was better than the movie. I hope this is the case with Kip Thorne's version of events. 

More Great Television on the Cosmos

So far I am enjoying the Fox/National Geographic update on Carl Sagan's Cosmos, though the commercials can be somewhat annoying when you are in the middle of an interesting discussion.  For instance, during the first episode, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson was telling the story about the Roman Catholic Church's persecution of Giordano Bruno when a commercial break pops up to sell the movie Noah.  That is not something you would see on PBS.  I think I would rather download the program and watch it without such interuptions.

That said, Dr. Tyson has done a good job updating the old Cosmos and paying respect to Carl Sagan in the first few episodes, even noting his meeting with Dr. Sagan and revisiting some of the same iconic locations made famous in the first series. 

What surprised me when I re-watched the first episode of the original Cosmos was how it was at the very edge of new discoveries in 1981.  Dr. Sagan discussed the Viking rovers on Mars in 1976, the discovery of rings surrounding Uranus in 1977, the discovery of Pluto's moon Charon in 1978, and the sighting of lightening on the dark side of Jupiter in 1979.  The solar system was just opening up to us when the show was first broadcast. 

And another part of the show was his concern for humanity's future that ran through the original Cosmos, which made sense then with the Cold War and could be mentioned again with the Russians acting up again.  Dr. Sagan also mourns the loss of the great library of Alexandria, noting the lost knowledge and thousands of years it took us to regain this knowledge.  Of course, I also saw some hopeful items that were not part of the first episode of the new series.  For instance, the program gives us a view of potential civilizations on other planets in the Milky Way, which as before we even discovered the existence of any planets around other suns.

And I would like to make a plug for another terrific series that covers the Cosmos - Wonders of the Universe with Dr. Brian Cox.  Similar to his earlier Wonders of the Solar System, Dr. Cox is a great story-teller that makes science come alive.  And he too discusses our place in this vast cosmos and notes in the first episode that we are at the very beginning of a universe that will last for trillions of years.  All of it is awe-inspiring.  And one interesting bit of information:  at the age of 12, Dr. Cox read Carl Sagan's book Cosmos and this inspired him to become a physicist.  I expect his own program will do the same for other young viewers. 

A New Cosmos is Coming, But Not on PBS

Like millions of people, I am a fan of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series from 1980.  The program, Cosmos: A Personal Journey, brought a fascinating and understandable form of astronomy into America's living rooms.  The program was viewed by more than 750 million people and won both Emmy and Peabody awards. 

Dr. Sagan put the universe, and our place in it, into a context that continues to fascinate today, particularly the cosmic calendar.  The calendar demonstrated that, if all time was condensed to a year, we humans would have first appeared on December 31st during the remaining 8 minutes of the year, with our written history appearing in the last 13 seconds. Certainly a mind-blowing way to show our place in time.

So is it time for an updated version of Cosmos?  It seems the Fox network and the National Geographic Channel feels it is and it has brought in Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, to renew the role of Dr. Sagan.  The new program, to be broadcast next month, is called Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey. You can view a trailer for the show here.

It is a wise choice in terms of a popular scientist who can make the complex fun.  However, I am more comfortable with PBS, the creator of NOVA and Frontline, taking the helm than Fox, the creator of the Simpsons and Fox News.  In fact, Fox is bringing in the animation skills of Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy.  Does this mean a talking dog will explain the process of searching for exoplanets?  I hope not.

The original Cosmos is one of those television jewels that most likely will never be duplicated, but time moves on (yes, that last second of the year) and new stories need to told.  Let's hope Dr. Tyson can create a whole new generation of fans staring at the stars for answers. 

Update:  The new Cosmos series premieres on Fox and the National Geographic Channel on March 9th.