BBC - Astronomers 'must make own case'

Martin Brown wrote:

I wonder about Patrick Moore's outburst regarding the BBC being run by
girls with no interest in science. Other contacts have said much the

Not just the girls. Same in government. Very few of them are trained
scientists, a few are medics and the rest are lawyers who appear to
deliberately convolute legislation to help their compatriots in law
firms make more money.

same thing, though not quite so bluntly. Something along being told "SF
is for kids and we'd rather be doing grown-up programming".

Torchwood is SF and doesn't exactly look like a childrens programme
(in fact it has proved too racy to be a success on the US channels).

The thing is there's a rule that there has to be a gay kiss in every
episode. Given that gay marriage is pretty much on the "culture wars"
front line in the US, that's obviously going to cause trouble. Russell
Davies probably likes the idea of that but I bet the BBC Sales Team
doesn't.

Doctor Who seems to be going from strength to strength now.

That one with the gas masks is the only really interesting SF plot
they've done so far.

My bet is that it'd be a lot easier to persuade the public than to
persuade the luvvies. Patrick Moore has undoubtedly done a sterling job
in the face of intractable odds there.

But he is getting a bit long in the tooth. Eventually a successor will
have to take over. Some are being groomed, but when PM eventually
drops out of the frame Sky at Night will be vulnerable to
obliteration.

Yes, I share that worry. Whoever replaces him is going to have to make
themselves quickly popular with the general public if it's to survive.
That's not so easy with a show that goes out in the early hours.

Still, if that's the folks whose money astronomers want, then they're
the folks astronomers have to get interested no matter how difficult the
task.

Unclear. The public did not want us to invade Iraq, but the government
did so anyway. Persuading politicians is at least as important as
appealling to the lowest common denominator TV couch potato. And I am
not sure they can be swayed unless we invent some way of harvesting
cheap alcohol from nearby nebulae.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time and all that. Reckon
they'd get away with invading Iran now? Convincing the politicians and
going over people's heads may work in the short term but astronomers
want this money year in and year out. To achieve that, they neeed to
convince the owners of the money.

If they stick to just lobbying politicianss and grant bodies then the
end result will be that at a timee of low cash rserves, the nurses get
the money instead.

Arts and music do slightly better on the airwaves because many in the
media industry are Arts graduates. Science is typically *******ised.
"Horizon" is now a shadow or its former self and "Tomorrows World" is
history (John Dankworth blames the change in the theme tune from his
original jazz score to a funky heavy metal version for starting its
demise). Popular science programs are very thin on the ground.

Spot on. So is it that science graduates won't go into the media or is
there a conspiracy of arts graduates to prevent them?

I think most of the ones I have known end up as sound engineers or
technicians behind the scenes. Very few want to be in front of the
cameras.

I'm not sure either are the ones deciding on the programming.

True, but it's understandable if the politicians are more worried about
a repeat of the 1930s and think that saving banks is a better way to
prevent it than saving science. Like it or not, there's going to be a
lot less tax money available in the next decade and a half (credit

I agree. But I am not sure that saving Northern Rock (or Bear Stearns)
will have the desired effect.

It won't. That's been money down the drain. Credit bubbles have a
certain aftermath and by the time they've burst, it's too late to
prevent it. If governments want to alleviate the pain, they need to keep
their powder dry until things hit bottom. History indicates they never
learn though. Governments are probably doomed to become part of the
problem and to make things worse rather than better as things play out.
See my comments on uk.finance for details.

Banks can have their cake and eat it.
When they gamble recklessly and win they get to keep the profits and
when they lose the taxpayer has to bail them out because they are "too
big to fail". BoE calls it "moral hazard".

That it's unfair, surely nobody doubts? few governments have the guts to
just let a debt-deflation run though, even though a World Bank study
says that those that do will have vastly cheapeer cleanup costs than
those that interfere.

But if you stop and think for a moment one of the main reasons that Prof
Pillingers ill fated Beagle2 Mars lander mission failed was that he had
to spend so much time out on the streets begging for the money to build
it.

Unless he was going to build it out of squeezy bottles, what choice
was there? There are a few folks like Bill Gates who could sponsor such
things but by and large that much money is always going to be hard to
come by.

The amount they needed to do it properly was small in the aerospace
business.

That's always been a risky business. At least there are some companies
now building spaceplanes to capture the tourist market. Ultimateely that
will gain astronomy more than all ESAs and NASAs missiles. Could take a
while though.

Their idea was very neat but was starved of funding in such
a way as to practically guarantee failure. Heroic failure is now one
thing that the UK does extremely well.

Sadly so, but there is indeed something heroic about it.

I fully expect the 2012
Olympics to be every bit as toe curlingly embarrassing as the T5
fiasco.

Oh yes. You and me both. I'm rather enjoying the variants of the new
Olympic sport: we've had Capture the Flag and Manhunt so far. If I
recall my Paintball days correctly, Ambush should be interesting...

FoFP

--
Perhaps one day he will be considered a free thinker with radical views
and deep insight. However today he is seen more as "not all there"
-- Comment in the Evening News

On Apr 10, 12:52*pm, M Holmes wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

Doctor Who seems to be going from strength to strength now.

That one with the gas masks is the only really interesting SF plot
they've done so far.

Oh I don't know apart from the Daleks and Cybermen (enemies of old)
but executed with modern digital technology and a much much larger
budget. Did you see the wimpish Daleks of the first series repeated in
the Verity Lambert memorial on BBC4 this week?

Of the recent ones I reckon Blink was pretty good, 42 (Burn with me,
was OK), the Black Hole demon trap was so-so - plot was OK but physics
was screwed to blazes. Black holes are not cosmic vacuum cleaners and
the last passive stable orbit around a Schwarchild black hole is at
3R.

persuade the luvvies. Patrick Moore has undoubtedly done a sterling job
in the face of intractable odds there.

But he is getting a bit long in the tooth. Eventually a successor will
have to take over. Some are being groomed, but when PM eventually
drops out of the frame Sky at Night will be vulnerable to obliteration.

Yes, I share that worry. Whoever replaces him is going to have to make
themselves quickly popular with the general public if it's to survive.
That's not so easy with a show that goes out in the early hours.

I can remember as a child SaN used to go out almost a peak viewing
time. Certainly well before the watershed.

Still, if that's the folks whose money astronomers want, then they're
the folks astronomers have to get interested no matter how difficult the
task.
Unclear. The public did not want us to invade Iraq, but the government
did so anyway. Persuading politicians is at least as important as
appealling to the lowest common denominator TV couch potato.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time and all that. *Reckon
they'd get away with invading Iran now?

In the UK probably not, but in Merkinland anything is possible.

If they stick to just lobbying politicianss and grant bodies then the
end result will be that at a timee of low cash rserves, the nurses get
the money instead.

I doubt the nurses will be so lucky. More likely it will be friends of
politicians that benefit the most.

I'm not sure either are the ones deciding on the programming.

There was an old joke at my university amongst the classics students
which ran "why be a scientist when you can be a scientists boss?", the
scientists answer was because science is more fun, but the problem
still remains that adminstrators without the first clue about
scientific reasoning pack the higher echelons of Whitehall. Do you
never wonder why all our major government computer projects are
monumental failures?

(The same problem does not exist in Germany and Japan where scientists
and engineers are well respected and do not hit a glass ceiling in
industry or government)

I agree. But I am not sure that saving Northern Rock (or Bear Stearns)
will have the desired effect.

It won't. That's been money down the drain.

We might eventually get it back. But the fragility of market forces
was amply demonstrated by the way the 3G spectrum auction managed to
completely eviscerate the UK mobile phone industry. They have still
barely recovered from the greed, more greed and even more greed vs
risk vs reward equation going pear shaped on them.

Banks can have their cake and eat it.
When they gamble recklessly and win they get to keep the profits and
when they lose the taxpayer has to bail them out because they are "too
big to fail". BoE calls it "moral hazard".

That it's unfair, surely nobody doubts? few governments have the guts to
just let a debt-deflation run though, even though a World Bank study
says that those that do will have vastly cheapeer cleanup costs

One of those curious things. Politicians will always tend to do what
it takes to get re-elected rather than what is optimal for the
country.

That's always been a risky business. At least there are some companies
now building spaceplanes to capture the tourist market.

I think you are unduly optimistic. Although I quite like Starchaser
and Virgin I cannot see any of the privately developed spaceplanes
ever being safe enough to be tourist attractions. A few super rich
hyper risk takers and adrenoline junkies may, but it will probably get
banned after they crash one into a major city centre.

Ultimateely that
will gain astronomy more than all ESAs and NASAs missiles. Could take a
while though.

Unmanned science probes are the way to go. Robotics are progressing
fast enough that we dont need to risk lives to explore the nearby
planets at all. At least until we run into something that the robots
cannot be made to handle.

Their idea was very neat but was starved of funding in such
a way as to practically guarantee failure. Heroic failure is now one
thing that the UK does extremely well.

Sadly so, but there is indeed something heroic about it.

YES. I agree. Please don't interpret this as any criticism of
Pillinger or his excellent team. What they nearly pulled off with a
string and sealing wax implementation borders on incredible, but if he
had been given access to the right funding in a timely fashion they
would almost certainly have succeeded. That is the difference.

I fully expect the 2012
Olympics to be every bit as toe curlingly embarrassing as the T5
fiasco.

Oh yes. You and me both. I'm rather enjoying the variants of the new
Olympic sport: we've had Capture the Flag and Manhunt so far. If I
recall my Paintball days correctly, Ambush should be interesting...

And Tibet is just about perfect for it...

"May you live in Interesting Times" is an ancient Chinese curse.
(change was considered to be a very bad thing)

That is why they have such a fabulous set of records for comets, nova
and supernovae. Anything changing in the constant sky was worthy of
being recorded and expected to have implications for the empire. Their
indiginous astronomers had become bone idle and completely lost the
plot by the time the Jesuits arrived in China.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:52*pm, M Holmes wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

Doctor Who seems to be going from strength to strength now.

That one with the gas masks is the only really interesting SF plot
they've done so far.

Oh I don't know apart from the Daleks and Cybermen (enemies of old)
but executed with modern digital technology and a much much larger
budget. Did you see the wimpish Daleks of the first series repeated in
the Verity Lambert memorial on BBC4 this week?

I've been watching all the old Doctor Whos anyway. A friend has
everything its possible to have related to it including a remote-control
Dalek. Some of them come off OK and Hartnell is much more like
Quatermass than any of the modern Doctors. He definitely has an
occasional air of malevolence about him in the early series.

Of the recent ones I reckon Blink was pretty good, 42 (Burn with me,
was OK), the Black Hole demon trap was so-so - plot was OK but physics
was screwed to blazes. Black holes are not cosmic vacuum cleaners and
the last passive stable orbit around a Schwarchild black hole is at
3R.

Heh. yes, I'd forgotten about Blink. That was quite excellent in fact.

I'm not sure either are the ones deciding on the programming.

There was an old joke at my university amongst the classics students
which ran "why be a scientist when you can be a scientists boss?", the
scientists answer was because science is more fun, but the problem
still remains that adminstrators without the first clue about
scientific reasoning pack the higher echelons of Whitehall. Do you
never wonder why all our major government computer projects are
monumental failures?

No, but then I'm in the industry.

Banks can have their cake and eat it.
When they gamble recklessly and win they get to keep the profits and
when they lose the taxpayer has to bail them out because they are "too
big to fail". BoE calls it "moral hazard".

That it's unfair, surely nobody doubts? few governments have the guts to
just let a debt-deflation run though, even though a World Bank study
says that those that do will have vastly cheapeer cleanup costs

One of those curious things. Politicians will always tend to do what
it takes to get re-elected rather than what is optimal for the
country.

I think Brown has seen that he's going down in history as an unelected
Prime Minister. He looks like a deer in the headlights. What's funny is
that they really don't have a clue what they can do about "the credit
crisis" and they're starting to realise that.

That's always been a risky business. At least there are some companies
now building spaceplanes to capture the tourist market.

I think you are unduly optimistic.

It's a fault of mine.

Although I quite like Starchaser and Virgin

I think Virgin will get the job done and that there will quickly be at
least two other players in the market.

I cannot see any of the privately developed spaceplanes
ever being safe enough to be tourist attractions. A few super rich
hyper risk takers and adrenoline junkies may, but it will probably get
banned after they crash one into a major city centre.

Spaceplanes are the only possibility of space tourism. You just cannot
do tourism with one-shot missiles. I agree though that the industry
will be significantly held up by the first accident.

Ultimateely that
will gain astronomy more than all ESAs and NASAs missiles. Could take a
while though.

Unmanned science probes are the way to go. Robotics are progressing
fast enough that we dont need to risk lives to explore the nearby
planets at all. At least until we run into something that the robots
cannot be made to handle.

The thing is that it runs against human nature not to get humans out
exploring.

Their idea was very neat but was starved of funding in such
a way as to practically guarantee failure. Heroic failure is now one
thing that the UK does extremely well.

Sadly so, but there is indeed something heroic about it.

YES. I agree. Please don't interpret this as any criticism of
Pillinger or his excellent team. What they nearly pulled off with a
string and sealing wax implementation borders on incredible, but if he
had been given access to the right funding in a timely fashion they
would almost certainly have succeeded. That is the difference.

It's very sad.

FoFP