Is it me or is presentation of astronomy getting worse?

[trumptor]

I went to a planetarium show a couple months ago and took my family hoping that my kids would be "wow"ed their first time at a planetarium as much as I was. I was dissapointed, to say the least. Everything was presented with a techno soundtrack in the background. And the presentation itself was pretty cut and dry and uninteresting. When I used to go to the planetarium they'd have some grand symphony music that would sound mysterious and awe-inspiring. The material would present the cosmos as awesomely large and full of mysteries that we didn't know about.<br />I've bought a couple of astronomy books for my kids as well and I seem to run into the same problem. Comparing the wording and explanations of everything to old books that I have again leaves me feeling like there wasn't that great of an appreciation for the immensity and mysteriousness of the cosmos. Did I just pick the wrong books and planetarium show or is this the way things are getting? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

Astronomy simply isn't as exciting as it was back in the pioneer days. You know, back before the giant government run operations when men were real men, and the astronomers were actually allowed to touch the telescopes.

 

[enigma10]

It could be because some of the wow factor associated with planetariums was in the technology used. These days, you get more "wow" factor out of bundling the message of a planetarium into a movie and spitting it out to the IMAX's. Couple that with easily accessable software to cover the interreaction normally one would find at the planetarium, and you've got a planetarium out of date in concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[l3p3r]

Perhaps the presentation of astronomy is being marred in the same way that other sciences are - by the religious right. An organized yet subtle dumbing down of the sciences to support dubious religious ends. Sound familiar?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[silylene old]

I think a large majority of the people find planetariums boring. I do. For the reasons stated in the above posts.<br /><br />I much prefer the real night night sky away from a city, pair of binoculars, my wife next to me, a mug of hot coffee, a tent and campfire. That is astronomy! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[dragon04]

In some ways, I think we're also victims of our own successes in space.<br /><br /><b>My</b> generation was blown of its feet by Hubble. 9 year olds grow up in the world Hubble provided.<br /><br />Social conditions have changed as well as technology. Somehow, and unfortunately, our kids have been conditioned to be "entertained" as opposed to educated.<br /><br />I also think that Astronomy needs a Spokesman. While I was always interested in Astronomy as far back as I can remember, two things really ignited me:<br /><br />Apollo 11 and Carl Sagan.<br /><br />Astronomy needs a Champion that can popularize it. Astronomy needs an avenue into an environment where it can compete with Nickelodeon and Disney.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

{deposit 2 cents}<br /><br />I prefer the real sky myself, but in so many places, light pollution has rendered that useless. For someone that lives in NYC, the sky is pretty much not visible, so the shows at the Hayden planetarium are the best they can do. Last time I saw it, their show was pretty good. Full of "the cosmos as awesomely large and full of mysteries that we didn't know about." <br /><br />Our Central Jersey planetarium (RVCC) does both regular planetarium shows, and LASER ROCK EXTRAVAGANZAS.<br /><br />Guess which has the better attendence?<br />You can only put on shows that the audience wants. <br />What are the most propular TV shows? Crap like American Idol, Survivor, etc. So what do commercial stations broadcast? Of course.<br /><br />That's why at my NJAA observatory we get to entertain the public under the REAL night sky, where the sky is still dark enough to see something. I try and engage the young people to get them interested in the real sky. Hopefully, it has some effect.<br /><br />To me, Sky and Telescope and Astronomy are much more useful, and engaging at capturing the immensity and mysteriousness of the cosmos, since we discover new things every day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[rybanis]

I think I might actually have this book!<br /><br />Now I have to go dig around for it... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I have to disagree with some of the constellations.<br />The magnificent Orion the Hunter looks like one to me. The same with Leo the Lion, and Ursa Major ("The Great Bear")<br />Even the asterism contained within, the Big Dipper looks like one to me. The asterism, the Little Dipper looks like one, and is the key to orienting yourself in the whole sky (in the NH) since the north star is at the end of the handle. Day or night, January or July, Polaris is always at the same spot. A planetarium can teach this.<br />The asterism in Sagittarius "The Teapot" sure as heck looks like one, in fact, if you're below 30 deg Latitude and see the whole Archer, Sagittarius of well named. Right next door is Scorpio, which sure looks like a scorpion. A planetarium can show the whole constellation so a person can understand the name.<br /><br />Yeah Sextans isn't likely to be recognized, but how many casual sky watchers have used, seen, or even know what a sextant is? But still, some of the great Constellations are well named.<br /><br />And Jupiter? What about when S-L 9 crashed it's 20+ pieces into the surface. Then the view was dynamic, changing from day to day. <br /><br />And you've touched on exactly why I love watching meteor showers. A meteor shower is like a box o' chocolates. Sometimes you get some crappy caramel, sometimes an undigestable nut, but sometimes you get a chocolate covered cherry. Yummy!!<br />You can't be sure exactly what to expect, until you watch. This years's Orionids were at least double the normal or expected rate. And I got to watch it, and record useful data. This years Leonids produced a short spike in activity that never would have been expected a decade ago. It was half of the highest predictions. Such a prediction would not even have been attempted 8 years ago. But the data that meteor observers submitted over the last decade, combined with more refined mathematical models derived from those observations, made such a prediction even possible.<br /><br />Of cou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Almost all my observations are naked eye, the same view as a planetarium.<br /><br />I have a telescope, but use it only when I can't watch the meteors. Such a view of the whole sky is what a planetarium is best st <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">The constellations don't really resemble the creatures they're named after <br /><br />You hear people say this a lot, but it's not completely true. </font><br /><br />Actually for the 90% of Americans that live under heavily light polluted skies, the constellations don't look anything like the creatures they're named after. The skies look like a few random dim stars here and there, very hard to see. Nothing more. Even the "little dipper" is almost always invisible.<br /><br />Planetariums don't connect at all to the 90% of American children who have never even seen a dark sky. What they see in the show doesn't have anything at all to do with their lives or what they see between the apartment buildings in the hood when they look up, and it isn't as fun as watching the latest CGI-generated flick. Nothing.<br /><br />The constellations and the "milky way" look like what they are named after only if you are fortunate enough to live somewhere with a very dark sky, and you have become familiar with its appearance, night after night. Something our ancestors used to see in the pre-industrial ages...back then the skies were beautiful and mysterious and intangible.<br /><br />Sad, our youth will never experience this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[trumptor]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make my opening remarks say that planetariums are intereting or uninteresting. I was more or less comparing the presentation of all astronomical material from the past to the present.<br />I have all the enthusiasm in the world when I tell my kids about the practically un-ending reaches of space out there. My boy has been able to point out and name all the planets and some of Jupiter's moons since the age of 3. I've put all sorts of videos including the meteor crash into Jupiter on the computer for us to discuss. I have at least ten different "Cosmos- by Carl Sagan" taped so I can watch it with my kids once in a while when we're not out doing outdoor things and I don't care to watch the same episode of Power Rangers for the 30th time again.<br />My kids love learning about all sorts of things from space to spelling to insects. Its not a matter of their curiosity, it's mine that I'm worried about. When I read the old books and the way they're presented even if they're old and are full of outdated "facts", I can close my eyes afterwards and almost feel like I'm standing out in space watching the enormity of the universe moving about with absolute disregard for our comparatively microscopic and wisdomless existence.<br />The books and everything else now seem to skim over the things which we don't understand and concentrate on the things we do. How interesting is it to read an astronomy book like an atlas, "We're on average 93 milion miles from the sun" or "we're 8 minutes in light speed away" with nothing thought provoking(sp?) following? The new information I see seems so much more cocky and less humble, as if now that we've put the plasma screen TVs in mass production that we are pretty much uninspired by anything out there since we have practically mastered everything. It reminds me of the 18th century (or was it the 19th?) when they thought that they discovered all the major discoveries and all they had left was to perfect what they had. I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"I'm talking about the basic astronomy books that are going to be the seeds of curiosity to todays children like our first experiences were that opened up our minds and curiosities about our universe"<br /><br />reading this thread I thought to point out something missing here, it is that very few children ever get interested in the sky and astronomy (name any field here) in any generation and one shouldn't expect his own children to catch the bug as he (parent) cought his, that's how things go and it is normal<br /><br />second, to get new generation interested in sky/astronomy I think it is more important to have home (family) library where some good astronomy books for laymen are kicking about and which the kids may get their paws on without being prompted (that's like saying (in some parts of world) that a cow won't take medicine if you try to make her but if you leave it laying about like you forgot it, she will gulp it down in no time)<br /><br />I say 'family' library because most astronomy buffs will have some special science library at home of their own where most books can't very well spark interest of the beginers and those that might are virtually burried among them<br /><br />IMO such books in home library can spark more interest than some visits to planetarium but in the end not everybody will get hooked even if the 'conditions' or stimuli are perfect, that's the mysterium of the infinite variability of how people make themselves<br /><br />I myself only looked at sky and pondered the moon and stars through interest in theoretical physics (cosmology) and I must say those named constelations never appealed to me and I don't see them out there because I don't really look for them, that is not to say that I don't see their utility for orientation in sky but I don't look at sky that way as astronomer but more as physicist which doesn't prevent me to feel the sense of mystery and awe of it all<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

Society is much changed from my earliest recollections about 1940, so I am sure Astronomy has also changed. The practical stratagy is to make the best of the way things are. On the rare occasions that we are sure of a better way, we should promote that better way. We however need to realize that our efforts to change society will like produce no noticable improvement. Discouragement will rob of us of effective action for ourselves and others, so it is important not to care too much. Neil