Cosmos gets a sequel

[VT 1010]

What doesn't get a sequel these day? Fox is an odd choice though and I have no idea why Seth MacFarlane is producing. Nonetheless, if Neil deGrasse Tyson is hosting and Ann Druyan is involved, I'm sure it will be good.

Source: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/08/cosmos-to-get-a-sequel-hosted-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/

[Dynaman]

What doesn't get a sequel these day? Fox is an odd choice though and I have no idea why Seth MacFarlane is producing. Nonetheless, if Neil deGrasse Tyson is hosting and Ann Druyan is involved, I'm sure it will be good.

Source: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/08/cosmos-to-get-a-sequel-hosted-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/

From the title I was wondering how they could do a sequal to Cosmos now that Carl Sagan is gone...

[Duke Togo]

No Carl = no Cosmos

[Arthurius]

oh my god, this is great, not sure if they can do anything as great as Carl Sagan, but if it is even half as good, it will be fantastic!!! But only due to air in 2013, thats way too long!!!!

[VT 1010]

No Carl = no Cosmos

To be fair, Steven Soter and Ann Druyan both worked on the original Cosmos. Despite not having Carl Sagan, it shouldn't be too far off from the original.

[Arthurius]

I hope they use some of the original music in it, or very similar ones, that's very important. Still, I miss not having Carl in it, wish he was still with us.

[azrael]

Sequel? Ok. Stuff has changed since 1980. What was taught 30 years ago isn't exactly the same as today.

Neil deGrasse-Tyson, Ann Druyan, and Steven Soter? Neil ain't Carl, and no one is Carl except Carl. I can live with that.

BUT....Does it have to be Fox who will air it?

[taksraven]

Sequel? Ok. Stuff has changed since 1980. What was taught 30 years ago isn't exactly the same as today.

Neil deGrasse-Tyson, Ann Druyan, and Steven Soter? Neil ain't Carl, and no one is Carl except Carl. I can live with that.

BUT....Does it have to be Fox who will air it?

Between the X-Files and that doco they aired over 10 years ago about the Fake Moon Landing conspiracies, it's clear that Fox has a tinfoil hat approach to science, but the science community can also be it's own worst enemy.

I have heard Sagan discuss in many interviews before he died how when he was making Cosmos, he copped a fair amount of criticism from quite a few in the scientific community who took the attitude that he should be actually doing science research himself rather than "showboating" on his TV show. Carl's more correct view was that if you demystify science and popularise it the general public will be less inclined to either fear it or have an indifferent attitude towards it and ultimately it would make it easier for scientists to get good funding to do research.

[Duke Togo]

Too soon!

[1st Border Red Devil]

I wonder if they're going to keep repeating the lie that comets are icy snowballs or the provide the actual answer that is that despite claims to the contrary, we still know very little about them. Reference Comet Holmes 17P sudden flare-up and Comet Tempel 1 and the Deep Impact Mission where the copper projectile fired at it caused a massive outburst of electromagnetic energy (so powerful that it temporarily overwhelmed the cameras).

[anime52k8]

I wonder if they're going to keep repeating the lie that comets are icy snowballs or the provide the actual answer that is that despite claims to the contrary, we still know very little about them. Reference Comet Holmes 17P sudden flare-up and Comet Tempel 1 and the Deep Impact Mission where the copper projectile fired at it caused a massive outburst of electromagnetic energy (so powerful that it temporarily overwhelmed the cameras).

[VT 1010]

I wonder if they're going to keep repeating the lie that comets are icy snowballs or the provide the actual answer that is that despite claims to the contrary, we still know very little about them. Reference Comet Holmes 17P sudden flare-up and Comet Tempel 1 and the Deep Impact Mission where the copper projectile fired at it caused a massive outburst of electromagnetic energy (so powerful that it temporarily overwhelmed the cameras).

Uh...what? What do mean by "lie?" Comets are basically big, icy snowballs, with some rock and gas thrown in. I'm not sure what you're on about.

[1st Border Red Devil]

Uh...what? What do mean by "lie?" Comets are basically big, icy snowballs, with some rock and gas thrown in. I'm not sure what you're on about.

Sorry, untrue. Tempel 1, just prior to the copper projectile striking it, had an outburst of electro-magnetic energy. This was followed by a second, significantly larger outburst of electro-magnetic energy when the projectile stuck Tempel 1. Significantly greater than would account for an electrically inert hunk of rocky ice. NASA's own predictions did not account for this.

Furthermore, Comet Borelly was found to be hot and dry when looked at spectroscopically.

Scientific intuition tells us that a comet's nucleus should be a frozen mountain of ice and dust. But that's not what Deep Space 1 discovered when it flew past Comet 19P/Borrelly last year. A recently released analysis of spacecraft spectra finds that Borrelly's "icy heart" exhibits no trace of water ice or any water-bearing minerals. Moreover, the nucleus is actually quite hot — ranging from 300° to 345° Kelvin (80° to 160° F).

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3305961.html?page=1&c=y

Comet Wild 2 didn't turn out at all like predicted:

Rockhard Stardust

Comet is Tough Stuff

New photographs of the comet Wild-2 show an unusual and surprising landscape.

Scientists thought most comets were "fluffy" snowballs -- piles of icy rubble that were loosely bound together. But Wild-2 has a solid, cohesive surface carved into lofty pinnacles, deep canyons and broad mesas.

"It's completely unexpected. We were expecting the surface to look more like it was covered with pulverized charcoal," says Donald Brownlee, a University of Washington astronomy professor and Stardust's principal investigator.

Brownlee is lead author of one of the four Stardust papers appearing in the June 18 issue of the journal Science.

When the Stardust spacecraft passed within 236 kilometers (147 miles) of the comet Wild 2 On January 2, 2004, it encountered a storm of dust particles traveling at over 6 times the speed of a bullet. The spacecraft collected some of the hundreds of thousands of particles that impacted each second, and this sample will be returned to Earth in January 2006.

No model can survive predictive failures. Comets are not icy snowballs.

[taksraven]

Sorry, untrue. Tempel 1, just prior to the copper projectile striking it, had an outburst of electro-magnetic energy. This was followed by a second, significantly larger outburst of electro-magnetic energy when the projectile stuck Tempel 1. Significantly greater than would account for an electrically inert hunk of rocky ice. NASA's own predictions did not account for this.

Furthermore, Comet Borelly was found to be hot and dry when looked at spectroscopically.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3305961.html?page=1&c=y

Comet Wild 2 didn't turn out at all like predicted:

No model can survive predictive failures. Comets are not icy snowballs.

In space science it's not uncommon for things not to turn out like they have been predicted. Read the accounts of the scientists who worked on the Pioneer and Galileo missions, and the things they encountered out there that absolutely stunned them. Scientists aren't even sure about exactly how the universe, solar system and even the Earth formed, so don't be surprised that Comets are confusing them. Until a new model is created explaining the origin of comets, the icy snowball concept will have to do.

[F-ZeroOne]

In the UK, we've recently had broadcast a four-part series called "Wonders of the Universe", featuring Professor Brian "Even the guys want him!" Cox. I haven't seen "Cosmos", but from what I've heard about that series, "Wonders" is pretty much a modern day update.

[VT 1010]

Sorry, untrue. Tempel 1, just prior to the copper projectile striking it, had an outburst of electro-magnetic energy. This was followed by a second, significantly larger outburst of electro-magnetic energy when the projectile stuck Tempel 1. Significantly greater than would account for an electrically inert hunk of rocky ice. NASA's own predictions did not account for this.

Furthermore, Comet Borelly was found to be hot and dry when looked at spectroscopically.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3305961.html?page=1&c=y

Comet Wild 2 didn't turn out at all like predicted:

No model can survive predictive failures. Comets are not icy snowballs.

Interesting. Nonetheless, I still fail to see how it's a "lie." This is science we're talking about here. They've made new discoveries and have new data, therefore they change the model. Many of the places or people (myself, for example) are just going by outdated information; they're not lying.

BTW, I never heard of the Tempel 1 outburst. It sounds interesting. Do you have a link?

[1st Border Red Devil]

Interesting. Nonetheless, I still fail to see how it's a "lie." This is science we're talking about here. They've made new discoveries and have new data, therefore they change the model. Many of the places or people (myself, for example) are just going by outdated information; they're not lying.

All I can say is that the late Michael Crichton constantly warned about politicized science and the fact that people whose livelihoods are based on grants tend not to like it when that grant money is threatened. There is also ego involved. People don't like seeing their life's work go up in flames the moment new observations blow gaping holes in their theory. It leads to all sorts of ad hoc alterations to try and cover things up. Its what has given us unobservable drek like Non-Baryonic (Dark) Matter, Dark Energy and other alterations to try and explain why the observed universe doesn't work (according to the math).

BTW, I never heard of the Tempel 1 outburst. It sounds interesting. Do you have a link?

Certainly...

http://deepimpact.umd.edu/results/excavating.html

http://deepimpact.umd.edu/gallery/ITS_PR2-PIA02127.html

http://www.geotimes.org/july05/WebExtra070505.html

http://deepimpact.umd.edu/mission/updates/update-200602.html#lmcfadden

Some other links you might find interesting...

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/comet/news44.html

http://www.universetoday.com/24483/comet-c2007-n3-lulin-a-twist-in-the-tail/#more-24483

[VT 1010]

All I can say is that the late Michael Crichton constantly warned about politicized science and the fact that people whose livelihoods are based on grants tend not to like it when that grant money is threatened. There is also ego involved. People don't like seeing their life's work go up in flames the moment new observations blow gaping holes in their theory. It leads to all sorts of ad hoc alterations to try and cover things up. Its what has given us unobservable drek like Non-Baryonic (Dark) Matter, Dark Energy and other alterations to try and explain why the observed universe doesn't work (according to the math).

I think I understand what you're saying. Indeed, politics and bias can be troublesome at times when they mingle with science; however, that's not always the case. Humans are involved in the process. It certainly does happen on occasion--but not to the commonality or extent you're implying.

Your suggesting frequent coverups and (I think) post hoc alterations (applied selectively or ad hoc) to multiple things. In order for a scientific theory to be accepted, there has to be a consensus. Your claims would have big implications if they're true. It wouldn't be just a handful of individuals, but the whole scientific community involved in these particular areas. Do you have any examples or credible sources showing these to be true?

To make an apropos quote by Carl Sagan (and to stay on topic), "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Certainly...

http://deepimpact.umd.edu/results/excavating.html

http://deepimpact.umd.edu/gallery/ITS_PR2-PIA02127.html

http://www.geotimes.org/july05/WebExtra070505.html

http://deepimpact.umd.edu/mission/updates/update-200602.html#lmcfadden

Some other links you might find interesting...

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/comet/news44.html

http://www.universetoday.com/24483/comet-c2007-n3-lulin-a-twist-in-the-tail/#more-24483

Thank you for providing links. Unfortunately, they don't seem to mention any strange electromagnetic phenomenon you mentioned earlier. Unless you're referring to the infrared and visible light emitted from the impact, which are both part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The comet's composition may seem to be unexpected and unusual, but not Made-out-of-cheese Strange. It's still made out of rock, gas, and ice. Do you have any links with more specificity that can support your claims?

And if I'm wrong in interpreting your statements, please clarify. It could just be a simple misunderstanding.

EDIT: grammatical error.

Edited August 6, 2011 by VT 1010

[Greyryder]

Where are getting your information about an electromagnetic burst? I didn't see anything about it, in the articles you linked to. The bright flash, is light reflecting off the debris thrown out by the impact. One of the articles mentions that it was bright enough to overwhelm the pixels on some of the instruments, but one of the others even says it was close in brightness to what they'd predicted.

[anime52k8]

All I can say is that the late Michael Crichton constantly warned about politicized science.

And the late L. Ron Hubbard constantly warned about the evils of Psychiatry; I fail to see your point.

:edit:

And everyone knows comets are giant snowflake-like clusters of ice crystals and are frequently full of navigable caves. Haven't you ever been on star tours?

Edited August 7, 2011 by anime52k8

[Arthurius]

I will have to see this "wonders of the universe" then, thanks for the tip.

[VT 1010]

For those of us in the US, Wonders of the Universe is airing on the Science Channel this month. I'm going to have to record it.

[1st Border Red Devil]

And the late L. Ron Hubbard constantly warned about the evils of Psychiatry; I fail to see your point.

Crichton, who held a Doctorate of Medicine, MIGHT know a little thing about science, government approval processes/blind studies and grant monies. There is a world of difference between Crichton and Hubbard (who never even finished his Baccalaureate).

VT100 - I haven't forgotten your request. I'm going through and trying to find links to better elaborate on what I was posting on earlier.

Ah, finally got something (Google can be a saviour or a nightmare):

The spacecraft's impactor will collide with comet 9P/Tempel 1 when the comet is near its perihelion, or the closest point to the Sun in its orbit. The 372-kilogram (820-pound) impactor will strike it at a relative velocity of 10.2 kilometers per second (22,800 miles per hour). This will change the comet's velocity by 0.0001 millimeter per second (about 0.014 inch per hour). It will decrease the comet's perihelion distance (the closest it gets to the Sun) by 10 meters (about 33 feet), and decrease its orbital period by far less than one second of time. The net impact on the comet will be undetectable -- the astronomical equivalent of a mosquito running into a 767 airliner.

pp. 12 - 13

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/deep-impact-launch.pdf

That is a significant predictive failure. There is, so far, no explanation for the massive electromagnetic discharge in the standard model. Its only the plasma/electric model of comets that this was predicted (trying to track down the actual registered predictions). I'll get back to ya more on this later.

Edited August 7, 2011 by 1st Border Red Devil

[Arthurius]

Is anyone watching "through the wormhole"? Can learn new science from this as well, no?

[EXO]

LOL. I always watch that show. It's like Cliff notes to physics. I'm into the Wonders of the Universe, which was formerly Wonders Of The Solar System. I love that show. The host is always at exotic locations shot with amazing cinematography and the outer space CG is always awesome. It's less about theories and more about discoveries. But I guess everything is really a theory 'til you land on that planet. Good shows.

Cosmos was good for what it was, I was more into 3.2.1 Contact... back then.

I'll be interested in what they present in the new one, but it's FOX programming... WotU and TtWH is on the Science Channel which is owned by The Discovery Network. But they did run Firefly... stupid FOX!

[BeyondTheGrave]

Cosmos was good for what it was, I was more into 3.2.1 Contact... back then.

That's b/c it had a awesome theme song... Only second to Square One.

[VT 1010]

VT100[sic] - I haven't forgotten your request. I'm going through and trying to find links to better elaborate on what I was posting on earlier...I'll get back to ya more on this later.

I look forward to reading it.

Cosmos was good for what it was, I was more into 3.2.1 Contact... back then.

3-2-1 Contact? Wow, you guys are old. I grew up on Bill Nye the Science Guy.

[Dynaman]

3-2-1 Contact? Wow, you guys are old. I grew up on Bill Nye the Science Guy.

3 2 1 is after my time, I grow up on Zoom. (which technically was not science, but I'm sure that someone was using controlled substances when coming up with the show)

Bill Nye and Beakman's World were great stuff though. Who can forget Bill's theme music? (at least the Bill Nye part...)

[CoryHolmes]

Cosmos was good for what it was, I was more into 3.2.1 Contact... back then.

3.2.1. Contact for the win! *fistbump* I still have very vivid memories of their skit to explain subtraction. The youngest kid was trying to weigh the dog, who was totally not cooperation with sitting nicely on the scale, when the older one told him to weigh himself, weigh himself carrying the dog, and then subtract the former from the latter. I also remember them explaining the pully effect, using multiple pullys to let the youngest lift up the oldest kid. And then there was the Bloodhound Gang shorts at the end of each episode...

For what it's worth, I'm into Naked Science on DiscoveryHD. I think it's awesome but the title is extremely misleading. I feel it should be hosted by my latest crush, Olivia Wilde in the aforementioned naked state. Though I might not learn much if that were the case...