Neil deGrasse Tyson bringing back Sagan's Cosmos next year (1 Viewer)

[Steve Tasker]

I can't even fathom how Voyager is still sending transmissions back to us, and will be until about 2025. I don't recall if he touched on that, but I don't think he did. The whole thing is just increible to me.

 

[Sarnoff]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

 

[B-Deep]

I did not think it was overly anti religious either. Bruno, remember, was not advocating against god, he was advocating for a larger view. they made that very clear. I thought the inclusion of Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed on the cosmic calendar was nice as well. If there are religious people who think that discussing the inquisition is anti religious that's kind of a them issue, the inquisition happened.

 

[Rove!]

I enjoyed it. I think the difference between the awe and wonderment of the first one and perhaps not so much on this one is the fact that we have science channels now. The graphic journey through the planets I've seen already is different ways from The Universe to the other science shows my kid watches. But this show isn't supposed to be geared towards people that watch all that other stuff. It is was it would be a science channel show. It's on a network because it's geared towards people who haven't seen this stuff before. At least, IMO.

I thought it was all well done. The animation part I thought was exceptional and not anti religious at all. IT was anti Catholic, but that isn't the same thing. To me.

I look forward to the next one.

I think the intent was anti-closed mindedness or more towards the idea of allowing people to express ideas that are not commonly held. The Catholic church just happened to be the focal point due to the nature of the subject.

irony, considering today's scientific climate...

 

[Sarnoff]

I enjoyed it. I think the difference between the awe and wonderment of the first one and perhaps not so much on this one is the fact that we have science channels now. The graphic journey through the planets I've seen already is different ways from The Universe to the other science shows my kid watches. But this show isn't supposed to be geared towards people that watch all that other stuff. It is was it would be a science channel show. It's on a network because it's geared towards people who haven't seen this stuff before. At least, IMO.

I thought it was all well done. The animation part I thought was exceptional and not anti religious at all. IT was anti Catholic, but that isn't the same thing. To me.

I look forward to the next one.

I think the intent was anti-closed mindedness or more towards the idea of allowing people to express ideas that are not commonly held. The Catholic church just happened to be the focal point due to the nature of the subject.

irony, considering today's scientific climate...

Exactly. Lots of scientists get shouted down even to this day. Tell anyone you question global warming and they'll burn you at the stake.

 

[B-Deep]

I just saw a stake burning the other day

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I can't even fathom how Voyager is still sending transmissions back to us, and will be until about 2025. I don't recall if he touched on that, but I don't think he did. The whole thing is just increible to me.

Voyager 1&2 timeline and some linked facts

The total cost of the Voyager mission from May 1972 through the Neptune encounter (including launch vehicles, radioactive power source (RTGs), and DSN tracking support) is 865 million dollars. At first, this may sound very expensive, but the fantastic returns are a bargain when we place the costs in the proper perspective. It is important to realize that:

1. on a per-capita basis, this is only 8 cents per U.S. resident per year, or roughly half the cost of one candy bar each year since project inception.

 

[jon_mx]

I just saw a stake burning the other day

Stakes are meant to be eaten rare. Anyone who burns a stake is doing it wrong.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Loved watching this with my son (almost 8). I thought the best part was the personal anecdote at the end of Tyson's meeting with Sagan.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I didn't love the first episode for a couple of reasons. It certainly felt less unique considering all the other shows on the science channels now. But I think it was mostly a matter of the first episode trying to accomplish too many things.

The central theme of the episode seemed to be trying to orient the viewer to the scale of the program, to the sheer immensity of space and time. That's a good place to start, but the show was also trying to introduce how the "Starship of the Imagination" was going to work, and it was trying to pay some tribute to Sagan.

And then the Giordano Bruno stuff, which was ostensibly still about scale, ended up seeming like a detour because Bruno was not a scientist, but rather a mystic.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Didn't watch it because of True Detective but I will try to catch a repeat.

 

[B-Deep]

Didn't watch it because of True Detective but I will try to catch a repeat.

it is on tonight on nat geo

 

[matuski]

I can't even fathom how Voyager is still sending transmissions back to us, and will be until about 2025. I don't recall if he touched on that, but I don't think he did. The whole thing is just increible to me.

Voyager 1&2 timeline and some linked facts

The total cost of the Voyager mission from May 1972 through the Neptune encounter (including launch vehicles, radioactive power source (RTGs), and DSN tracking support) is 865 million dollars. At first, this may sound very expensive, but the fantastic returns are a bargain when we place the costs in the proper perspective. It is important to realize that:

1. on a per-capita basis, this is only 8 cents per U.S. resident per year, or roughly half the cost of one candy bar each year since project inception.

1986 Jan. 24 Voyager 2 has the first-ever encounter with Uranus

 

[bigmarc27]

I enjoyed it. I think the difference between the awe and wonderment of the first one and perhaps not so much on this one is the fact that we have science channels now. The graphic journey through the planets I've seen already is different ways from The Universe to the other science shows my kid watches. But this show isn't supposed to be geared towards people that watch all that other stuff. It is was it would be a science channel show. It's on a network because it's geared towards people who haven't seen this stuff before. At least, IMO.

I thought it was all well done. The animation part I thought was exceptional and not anti religious at all. IT was anti Catholic, but that isn't the same thing. To me.

I look forward to the next one.

I didn't even think it was anti-catholic. It's just history - I don't see why mistakes made centuries ago preclude the modern-day iteration of religion or a church from being a good thing. I don't blame modern day Germans for Hitler.

 

[zed2283]

I like Neil deGrasse Tyson, and I will watch it, but Cosmos should be Carl Sagan.

What does Neil deGrasse Tyson know anyway? He doesn't even think Pluto is a planet.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

That isn't true at all. In the time since the moon landing, we've built semi-permanent space stations, greatly improved our satellite technology, and put up orbital telescopes. All of that stuff has more scientific value that having people play golf on the moon.

 

[17seconds]

Tyson's personality didn't really come through on the show. He's better in lectures and on discussion panels because his charisma is in what he says (his wit), not in his delivery like Sagan.

 

[Wooderson]

Any repeats of the original being aired again?

 

[joffer]

Tyson's personality didn't really come through on the show. He's better in lectures and on discussion panels because his charisma is in what he says (his wit), not in his delivery like Sagan.

He's good, but agree he's not Sagan. The other guy I thought would be good for something like this is the British physicist Brian Cox.

 

[B-Deep]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

That isn't true at all. In the time since the moon landing, we've built semi-permanent space stations, greatly improved our satellite technology, and put up orbital telescopes. All of that stuff has more scientific value that having people play golf on the moon.

of course we as in the USA now needs to have Russia give us rides us to the permanent space station, as we lack the ability to get there.

 

[Bobcat10]

Tyson's personality didn't really come through on the show. He's better in lectures and on discussion panels because his charisma is in what he says (his wit), not in his delivery like Sagan.

He's good, but agree he's not Sagan. The other guy I thought would be good for something like this is the British physicist Brian Cox.

Glad they didn't go Brit...sometimes those guys are tough to understand!

I thought Tyson did a nice job. I like hearing him on the other science shows, so I knew I'd be pleased.

 

[Sarnoff]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

That isn't true at all. In the time since the moon landing, we've built semi-permanent space stations, greatly improved our satellite technology, and put up orbital telescopes. All of that stuff has more scientific value that having people play golf on the moon.

I'll grant you the telescopes, but our "space stations" aren't in space.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

That isn't true at all. In the time since the moon landing, we've built semi-permanent space stations, greatly improved our satellite technology, and put up orbital telescopes. All of that stuff has more scientific value that having people play golf on the moon.

I'll grant you the telescopes, but our "space stations" aren't in space.

a. In everyday English, yes they are.

b. So?

 

[bigbottom]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

Mars rover down?

 

[Sarnoff]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

That isn't true at all. In the time since the moon landing, we've built semi-permanent space stations, greatly improved our satellite technology, and put up orbital telescopes. All of that stuff has more scientific value that having people play golf on the moon.

I'll grant you the telescopes, but our "space stations" aren't in space.

a. In everyday English, yes they are.

b. So?

Just that, given the incredible march of progress mankind accomplished in such a short time, the amazing feat of going from the Wright Brothers to Neil Armstrong in like 60 years, it's pretty disappointing that the 50 years since, the best we've been able to do is keep one "space station" afloat in our own atmosphere.

 

[B-Deep]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

Mars rover down?

https://twitter.com/SarcasticRover

@SarcasticRover hopes not!

 

[Sarnoff]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

Mars rover down?

I don't think the technological advance from Apollo to a rover is equal to the advance required to go from the Wright Flyer to Apollo.

 

[bigbottom]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

Mars rover down?

I don't think the technological advance from Apollo to a rover is equal to the advance required to go from the Wright Flyer to Apollo.

You have an odd understanding of the phrase "we ain't done ####."

 

[joffer]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

Mars rover down?

And Cassini/HuygensJuno

Rosetta

Dawn Probe

New Horizons

Maven

Osiris

Chandra

WMAP

Spitzer

James Webb

Hubbel

We've done a lot, although I agree a manned mission to Mars needs to happen

 

[B-Deep]

If the argument is should we be doing more I'll answer a resounding HELL YES!

but that does not mean we are not doing a lot, and the people we have are doing amazing things. I just wish it was more of a priority. Maybe a show like this is the start of changing that. Maybe our kids will grow up understanding the value of discovery and exploration.

A trip to mars might also make that spark, something to get behind, but I think we lack the conviction to get behind something like that (at least financially)

 

[bigbottom]

A manned mission to Mars would be really cool and would likely have a bunch of intangible benefits from an "inspiring the imagination of the nation" standpoint. That said, it seems like the additional resources that would be necessary for a manned mission aren't worth it, even within an expanded budget for space exploration.

 

[B-Deep]

A manned mission to Mars would be really cool and would likely have a bunch of intangible benefits from an "inspiring the imagination of the nation" standpoint. That said, it seems like the additional resources that would be necessary for a manned mission aren't worth it, even within an expanded budget for space exploration.

I can see that, but you could make the same argument about the manned mission to the moon. I am not 100% certain the gained benefits form a human vs a rover. But I think you also have to see it as a waypoint. In my opinion we have to become a species that can travel the stars. You have to do that in steps and Mars is the next step. I lso think a moonbase is a great idea though, so i am kind of on the fringe.

 

[matuski]

Geared towards kids? Umm i might not catch this afterall

No insult intended, but with your demonstrated posting here, a "101" might be extremely helpful for you.

Dont assume you know how smart people are in real life just by their posting styles online. This board is meant as an escape for some (ie me) and I dont take it as seriously as I guess you do.

I know where you are on these topics well enough from your posts here.

Having said that, there isn't a person here that I wouldn't have a beer with.

ok what do I do IRL?

What in the world are you talking about? The type of post that leads one to reiterate:

Point blank.. you have demonstrated a below average understanding of these topics here for some time now.

I don't know what that has to do with what you do or whether I'd have a beer with you.

WTF do I ever post in science threads? NCC do you ever see me in science threads? Youre just being a ####in jackass now. All I know is I recorded this series because it interested me a great deal. Someone said it was geared towards kids. I have the first episode saved on my DVR and I expressed disappointment that it was geared towards kids and might not watch it. I dont feel like spending an hour watching PBS for kids or Sprout. I spend enough of my time watching kids shows with my son. As others said, it wasnt geared toward kids and so Ill probably watch it afterall. Then I get insulted from two different people basically calling me a moron just because they follow my posts on this site, as if my posting style on these boards has anything to do with the way I am in real life. I guarantee you the occupation I have an idiot cannot do.

Yea, so I was mistaking you for shader this whole time.

My apologies for the mix-up... and I'm sure you can see where I was coming from given said mix-up.

 

[shadyridr]

Apology accepted. I was wondering where the attack came from

 

[matuski]

Apology accepted. I was wondering where the attack came from

Really wasn't attacking anyone.. given I thought you were shader, suggesting the show might help is a sincere effort.

eta - i can see how you would receive it as such.

 

[Slapdash]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

Had the same thought. It is obvious that our progress has decelerated greatly. The ambition to explore space is seriously lacking and woefully underfunded.

 

[shadyridr]

This bruno stuff is miserable

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

Had the same thought. It is obvious that our progress has decelerated greatly. The ambition to explore space is seriously lacking and woefully underfunded.

I think it depends on how you define progress. Obviously if you measure by manned flights to various parts of the solar system we haven't advanced at all, but I personally don't think that's a great measure. Most of what we're doing right now is more significant in terms of studying the universe, and setting a foundation for future intra-solar system missions.

 

[joffer]

New episode of Through the Wormhole about to start on the Science channel

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

Had the same thought. It is obvious that our progress has decelerated greatly. The ambition to explore space is seriously lacking and woefully underfunded.

I think it depends on how you define progress. Obviously if you measure by manned flights to various parts of the solar system we haven't advanced at all, but I personally don't think that's a great measure. Most of what we're doing right now is more significant in terms of studying the universe, and setting a foundation for future intra-solar system missions.

I also don't think we should limit scientific progress to just space exploration. Scientific progress in general -- computing, DNA sequencing, etc. -- has been constantly accelerating.

 

[Bob Magaw]

The end was a bummer. "It took man only 400 years to go from first seeing the moon through a telescope to setting foot on it." It also took man only 60 years from inventing the airplane to flying to the moon. And in the 50 years since, we ain't done ####.

Had the same thought. It is obvious that our progress has decelerated greatly. The ambition to explore space is seriously lacking and woefully underfunded.

I think it depends on how you define progress. Obviously if you measure by manned flights to various parts of the solar system we haven't advanced at all, but I personally don't think that's a great measure. Most of what we're doing right now is more significant in terms of studying the universe, and setting a foundation for future intra-solar system missions.

I also don't think we should limit scientific progress to just space exploration. Scientific progress in general -- computing, DNA sequencing, etc. -- has been constantly accelerating.

I was just about to say that. There is outer space and inner space. Decoding the genome was a monumental achievement. Deep Blue was an example of advances in AI. Soon we will have Skynet. Wait, what?

 

[jon_mx]

We just discovered Pluto was not really a planet in 2006.

 

[Gawain]

Voyager's actually getting closer to us at the moment.

 

[joffer]

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/03/11/3389411/degrasse-tyson-religion/

Neil deGrasse Tyson has been called many things. Groundbreaking astronomer. Dynamic communicator. Sexiest astrophysicist alive.

But what about public theologian?

It might sound crazy, but the recent reboot of the television show Cosmos: A Personal Journey Carl Sagans classic 1980s exploration of all things science, this time starring the charismatic Tyson and renamed Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey is already attracting more attention for what it says about religion than astrophysics.

The show, which premiered Sunday night, begins roughly as expected, with Tyson guiding viewers through a humbling and special-effect laden tour of our seemingly infinite cosmos. But things abruptly shift gears as the program enters its middle segment, with Tyson narrating an animated retelling of the life of Giordano Bruno, a 14th century Dominican friar who dared to make the bold claim that our universe is not confined to the solar system (with the sun at the center), but in fact home an infinite number of suns besides our own, each surrounded by worlds populated with intelligent beings.

Predictably, Brunos ideas werent exactly popular with the religious leadership of his day. Scene after scene shows him mocked and exiled for his passionate embrace of an infinite universe, and Bruno is eventually imprisoned and tortured by the religious thought police. Ultimately, despite Brunos repeated assertion that his controversial conviction is fueled by his deep love in the Creator, we see him burned at the stake for his beliefs.

Brunos story makes for fantastic drama, but one cant help but feel that his narrative seems a little out of place in Cosmos. Throughout the programs hour-long runtime, Tyson repeatedly champions the merits of science and the scientific method; science is powerful, Tyson argues, because it operates using empirically verifiable evidence. Yet Brunos belief in an infinite universe was born not out of the evidence or scientific fact, but out of a fantastical vision. Tyson even says as much at the close of the segment: Bruno was no scientist. His vision of the cosmos was a lucky guess, because he had no evidence to support it. Like most guesses, it could well turn out wrong. But once the idea was in the air, it gave others a target to aim at, if only to disprove it.

So why tell Brunos story? Some have interpreted the segment as an excuse to make a wholesale attack on religion. Spurred by an explosion of people who use religion deny the existence of climate change, the public wing of the scientific community has been more aggressive towards religion recently, with Bill Nye even going so far as to debate the merits of Creationism with Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Thus, maybe Cosmos, produced by vocal atheist Seth MacFarlane, is using the drama of Brunos story to implicitly shame religious Americans by highlighting an example of oppression enacted by religious hierarchy.

But a closer look at the segment reveals that Tyson and company may have in fact divised a far more effective way of disarming the science-v.-religion debate by venturing into what religious scholars sometimes classify as public theology. Others have rightly noted that the core message of the Bruno narrative isnt that God doesnt exist, but rather your God is too small. The your here is directed not at believers at large, but instead implicitly pointed at the small minority of conservative Christians who continue to doggedly insist that science is somehow incompatible with religion.

And make no mistake, they are a minority. Although it receives less airtime than fundamentalist theological strains, scientifically-informed theology is norm not the exception among modern American Christians. For every conservative pundit or elected official who tries to use the Bible to deny climate change, polls show that there are millions more religious Americans (read: the majority of almost every faith major faith tradition) who agree that the recent string of natural disasters were the result of climate change. In fact, a recent study conducted by Rice University found that not only do roughly half of American evangelicals believe that science and religion can work together and support one another, but that evangelical scientists actually practice their religion more than evangelical Protestants in the general population.

Roman Catholicism has come a long way since Brunos day as well. Although admittedly embarrassingly late to the science game, the Vatican issued a formal apology to Galileo, who was also imprisoned for his scientific beliefs, in 1992, and now employs an official Vatican astronomer. There is even an entire book published by the Vatican dedicated to the discerning the theological challenges of life on other worlds (which is also the subject of some fantastic science fiction), and multiple popes have listed climate change as a primary concern for the church. And lest we forget, the Big Bang Theory was originally developed by none other than Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist, astronomer, and Catholic priest.

Tyson himself has made a point of praising this more nuanced brand of religious thought. In a recent interview on WNYCs Brian Lehrer Show, he spoke about the Bruno segment and noted that the real problem isnt religion per se, but the use of narrow theology to restrict the new ideas.

The issue there is not religion versus non-religion, or religion versus science, Tyson said. The issue is ideas that are different versus dogma.

To be sure, Tyson who like Carl Sagan before him, describes himself as an agnostic, although not an atheist isnt likely to be writing theological tomes anytime soon. But perhaps Tysons Cosmos can continue to use stories like Brunos to assert a simple theological truth that millions of Christians have known for centuries: science might be a threat to intolerant religious people, but God and science are anything but incompatible. At its best, firm theological conviction like Brunos can actually work with science to produce fantastic, world-changing ideas some of which might even be worth retelling in television shows hundreds of years down the line.

Amen to that.

 

[Fennis]

It made me laugh that Bruno spoke English with an Italian accent.

 

[Fennis]

It seemed like it was made to be shown on the ceiling of a planetarium.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

We just discovered decided Pluto was not really a planet in 2006.

Better

 

[joffer]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/12/oklahoma-fox-station-removes-evolution-from-cosmos-by-cutting-only-15-seconds/

Had to be an editing error

 

[Wingnut]

Who the hell is this Neil DeGrasse Tyson guy? Never heard of him until about a month ago.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Who the hell is this Neil DeGrasse Tyson guy? Never heard of him until about a month ago.

He's been awesome for a long time.