Taking a New Generation of

Audiences Through the Universe

In 1980, the first Cosmos series aired on PBS and I was mesmerized by it. Each Sunday night we would settle down in front of the TV and travel through space and time, on a journey led by the late Dr. Carl Sagan. He co-wrote Cosmos with Ann Druyan and Stephen Soter.

It is NO exaggeration to say that between this program and Dr. Sagan’s other writings, I was inspired to go back and study astronomy and space science. It changed my life and truly broadened my universe in the best sense of the word. I would not be the writer and science video producer I am today if it hadn’t been for the inspiration I got from the original series. Cosmos became (for me) a personal journey in more ways than Dr. Sagan and the producers might have intended. Fortunately, I was able to tell Dr. Sagan that and thank him for the inspiration, later on in my career, when we met at a science meeting and had a chance to talk.

On March 9th, 2014, the “next generation” of Cosmos will begin airing simultaneously on FOX Network, National Geographic Channel, FX, FXX, FXM, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, Nat Geo Wild, Nat Geo Mundo, and FOX Life. It’s called Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. I’ve had a chance to see a sneak preview of episode 1 (of 13) and wow, did it provoke a lot of thought!  My first impression is that it’s highly worth watching. I enjoyed the program and it brought back fond memories.

Astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson is our personable host this time around. He’s a good storyteller and he knows his way around astronomy. He is our guide in a show that is tightly scripted, well visualized, and covers a LOT of material in its first episode. Star birth, planetary formation, the population of galaxies in the cosmos, the human history in relation to astronomy — all part of the overall story. The first segment is also provocative, at one point zeroing in on the conflict between science and faith in the 16th century to make a larger point about how science is not bound by dogma or prescribed thought. I particularly liked Neil’s description of meeting with Carl Sagan when he was a young man; it reminded me of experiences I’ve had with astronomers who took the time to share the wonder of the universe. That sort of “pay it forward” is an incredibly powerful educational tool at a time when the need for science literacy is greatest.

If I have any quibbles with this new Cosmos (and this is me speaking with my producer hat on now), it’s that it tries to do a little too much in the first episode. It really seems rushed in places, not giving the audience time to even ponder for a few seconds what they’ve just seen or heard. Astronomy is a fascinating and complex subject. I know what it’s like to want to tell everybody all the cool stuff, but a presentation needs to give viewers some time to let it all sink in. I suppose the producers could make an argument that audiences are now all tuned to instant news via the Internet and social media. But, even so, we still  need time to think about what we’ve learned. That “thinking” is what leads to understanding. Piling it all on, as parts of episode 1 seem to do in a few places, could lead to viewer overload (or, as one producer friend of mine says, the “MEGO” syndrome (my eyes glaze over)). Perhaps this tendency to rush is only in the first episode, where the producers really want to let us know what’s coming in later episodes. 

One of the beauties of the first Cosmos was the absolutely lovely thematic music by Vangelis that threaded through each episode. You knew right away that something special was about to happen, and throughout each episode, the music played an important emotional role. It set the stage for beautiful discoveries.  I don’t find the music in this new reboot to be as memorable. In some places it is very pretty, but in others it’s verging on bombastic. Music is a producer’s decision, of course, but the music in this show was just not as special as it could have been.

Those production differences of opinion, however, are balanced out by the absolutely beautiful space travel sequences that take us from Earth to the limits of the observable universe (and even a little beyond). As a science video producer myself, I really appreciate the care the producers took to make the episode visually appealing. One of the memorable bits of the first Cosmos was the spaceship of the imagination that Dr. Sagan used to explore the universe. That spaceship is back, now in the form of a gleaming metallic, cigar-shaped construct that traverses the stars and galaxies with ease. I like the concept and the continuation of a great idea. Neil inhabits it nicely, and the visuals and science bring a 21st century sensibility to the trip.

In the final analysis, I found episode 1 of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey an entertaining and thought-provoking beginning to what I hope is a memorable series. As I watched, I realized that I wasn’t the same woman who sat mesmerized by Cosmos in 1980. This Cosmos covers ground I have studied and written about and lectured about and shared with many people. And, now, I know it will do for someone else what Carl and the original series did for me: light a fire in their minds, and guide them to learn more about this wonderful cosmos we live in.

I think every generation deserves a Cosmos to do that for them.  

Astronomy and Astrology

Okay, so some Americans (and others in the world) apparently think that astronomy and astrology are the same, or that astrology is somehow “scientific”.  In actual fact, it’s astronomy that is the science. Astrology is… something else.

Let’s talk about that, shall we? (I’m putting on my lead-lined armor now.)

Astrology (as “practiced” today) is a pseudo-scientific “method” for predicting people’s lives based on some magical and heretof0re-unmeasured properties of the Sun and planets that somehow affect people at the moment of their births. It’s based on the position of the Sun in various constellations as seen by ancient stargazers millennia ago.

The problem for astrologers is that time has moved on and due to the precession of Earth on its axis, the constellations the Sun and planets THEY use to predict who you’ll date next week have shifted by a month. So, if you’re a Libra, the Sun was probably actually in Virgo when you’re born, or if you’re a Taurus, the Sun was really in Aries. That’s just one of the problems with astrology as a method for predicting your love life or your work life or whatever it is people turn to it for. (I remember a president’s wife who consulted astrologers…)

Astrologers do not actually physically study the stars to understand how they work. I’m not sure what they study because descriptions of their methods are full of mumbo-jumbo that boggles the mind. I spent quite a bit of time looking around at “real” astrology sites and of course, no two of them agree on methods. That’s not science. It’s obfuscation. And, in many cases, astrologers somehow imply that their mysterious methods are scientific. They’ve hijacked a word that doesn’t belong to their practice and use it to lend what they do a false air of legitimacy.

More to the point, the claims of astrology — such as that the Sun or a given planet somehow had an effect on you on the day of your birth — can’t be checked on. You can’t measure the things astrologers claim are there. That’s because there’s NO unearthly, ethereal connection between the Sun and you on your birth day. Oh, people have argued that the Sun has some sort of mystical force, but it lies a long ways away from Earth. So do most of the planets.  Their distance would actually attenuate any such force because forces fall off as a function of distance.  It could be argued that the person delivering you had MUCH  more of an influence on you, since he or she was much closer to you. But, that doesn’t fly with astrologers, apparently.  Suffice to say, astrology’s claims can’t be tested. It can’t be the science it claims to be.  It CAN be a belief system, and people are welcome to believe in it all they want.  It’s their time and money.  But, as it’s practiced today, it’s not a science and never will be.

Ancient astronomers WERE astrologers, claiming all kinds of mystical things from their divination of the stars. From them we got our star and planetary motion charts. They were pretty good observers. But they weren’t scientists and their interest in the cosmos was as a tool to power and glory, not an explanation of the physical characteristics of the stars and planets. That came much later, when people who really DID want to know how things worked began studying the sky as scientists.

Look, I GET how our minds and spirits are lured by the pull of the mystical. Every child goes through a fairytale phase, a magical phase, a unicorn phase, whatever you want to call it. Our subconscious WANTS to have ghosts and spirits and fairies and wizards for some reason. But, that part of the brain shouldn’t rule the intellect. Eventually, most of us grow up to learn more about the wonders of the cosmos through astronomy. Believe me, it’s more amazing than any sparklepony vampire-glitter fairy-powder tales can explain. The information is there for anyone to study, science can be tested and improved. Astrology’s claims are stuck in the past, and astrologers don’t want them to be tested. There’s power in them thar readings! (Just not the power you expected.)

The job of explaining how the universe works has never been the job of astrologers. That important job belongs to  astronomers — scientists who focus in on the physical characteristics of stars, galaxies, planets, and the cosmos. They have a pretty good idea of what forces are at work in the universe, such as gravity. They know how stars work, at least in general. They have figured out, using observations and measurements, how stars form, how planets are both, what the first stars were like, how galaxies formed. And, they know that there are no magical, mystical forces emanating from stars and planets.

So, there really should be no confusion about what an astronomer does and what an astrologer attempts to do.  The first is based on science and observation. The second is based on mysticism and misunderstanding.  The world has moved on, literally, beyond our need for mystical, magical beings and soothsayers. The universe is more amazing than any sparklepony an astrologer can gin up for you. You just have to want to see that for yourself.