Buzz Slams Trek!

[Temis the Vorta]

He's overestimating the degree to which people think about space exploration at all, as opposed to Britney Spears' latest escapade.

Perhaps real space exploration would be more interesting if they hadn't went on a pointless trip to a lifeless, bland and uninteresting rock just to dick measure with the Soviet Union?

At least dick measuring is a motive. The usual motive for exploration throughout human history - money - has sadly not been operational for space exploration to date. That explains the delay. But if and when it becomes relevant, watch the fuck out! It will be a stampede.

Not very Starfleet of me, I know. But Star Trek's idealized vision of pricey exploration for its own sake has never been anything but a sweet fantasy. In reality, hew-mons are Ferengi.

 

[Dale]

It's a shame Buzz couldn't acknowledge how many people who became involved in the space program were there because they were inspired by shows like Star Trek.

Yeah, that. A vast number of people advancing the space program and myriad other scientific endeavours today were inspired as children by Star Trek.

 

[Navaros]

Buzz should develop his own Hard SciFi show. I'm sure it would be massively entertaining to watch.

 

[jimbtnp2]

From Sci Fi Wire...

12:00 AM, 11-JULY-08

Aldrin Slams SF's Effect On Space

Apollo 11 astronaut Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin Jr. told SCI FI Wire that fantastic space science fiction shows and movies are, in part, responsible for the lack of interest in real-life space exploration among young people.

"I blame the fantastic and unbelievable shows about space flight and rocket ships that are on today," Aldrin said in an interview during an ice cream party held by the National Geographic Channel at the Television Critics Association press tour in Beverly Hills, Calif., this week. "All the shows where they beam people around and things like that have made young people think that that is what the space program should be doing. It's not realistic."

The second man on the moon praised real-world films such as Apollo 13. "And Tom Hanks' series From the Earth to the Moon," Aldrin added. "They were fascinating, because it was reality history, and reality fiction can be good if you stick to reality. But, if you start dealing with fantasy and beaming people up and down and traveling seven times the speed of light, you are doing damage. You're not helping. You have young people who have got expectations that are far unrealistic, and you can't possibly live up to the expectations you have created in young people. Why do they get bored with the space program? That's why."

Aldrin is hosting a show on the National Geographic Channel called Unseen Moon, which uses a high-definition camera on a satellite to explore the same area where he walked during the Apollo 11 flight to the moon in 1969. --Mike Szymanski

I do think that people are so desensitized to accomplishments by NASA and that TV/Movies/Internet likely have impacted that view - along with parenting, the school systems and baby boomers (the most retched form of villany)

 

[Timewalker]

Almost everyone I've ever known in space science was inspired to reach for the stars by science fiction.

As a child, Carl Sagan read Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars books. That was one of the things that inspired him to become an astronomer.

I think he's got a solid point. Education just isn't sexy.

Decades after Carl Sagan's introduction to astronomy, he grew up to be a planetary scientist and he made Cosmos. I was in high school when Cosmos was first shown, and I found the experience quite sexy.

I also found the experience extremely informative. What I learned from that series had a profound effect on how I view life, humans, and our place in the Universe.

Aldrin's got considerable experience, information and had more than enough opportunity to observe all of this over decades. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but every opinion isn't entitled to equal respect. People are rejecting his out of hand because he calls fantasy and immaturity for what it is.

Aldrin has considerable experience, yes. But that's part of the problem: he's already had his grand space adventure. Aside from a few dozen shuttle crewmembers, the rest of us can only dream. For me, what I see when I watch Star Trek just makes me hungry for the real thing. I want to go to the Moon and other planets. I realize it's not going to happen, however, because the people who have the power and money to make it happen would rather spend their time and resources squabbling over weapons and new ways to poison the only place in the Universe where we can live. They can't see beyond the next electoral cycle, whereas real science can only be accomplished by dedication to long-term plans that actually get carried out.

We could have gone to Mars long ago. What a waste.

I wonder if Buzz Aldrin would be in favor of Ben Bova's Grand Tour books being made into movies or miniseries. That's the most realistic of the SF I've read during the past several years.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

There's a reason why Sci-Fi and Fantasy are often grouped together.

 

[MANT!]

Didn't "Flash Gordon" and "Buck Rogers" (as played by Buster Crabbe in the 1930's) help to inspire many of the astronauts of the 60s and 70s? and you can't tell me those were "realistic" in any way.

I simply think that ol' Buzz simply has never seen the modern NASA channel on cable, no one else but NASA's bureaucrats can take the greatest adventure ever attempted and make it so mundane and boring that celebrity news has much higher ratings. Back in the 60s and 70s, actual Hollywood filmmakers and producers were hired to keep the programs exciting to the public. Perhaps Tom Hanks needs to help out NASA with a little volunteer time?

 

[Lynx]

I think he's acting like a boring old man in this matter. And he's absolutely wrong.

The reason for any "lack of interest in real-life space exploration among young people" has nothing to do with any TV series or movie. It has to do with the fact that nothing has happened since the landing on the moon. We aren't even close to landing om Mars yet.

No one is interested because nothing is happening and nothing will happen as long as humanity find it more interesting to produce weapons and make war.

If there's still any interest for space exploring, then we have to thank the different TV-series and movies for that.

 

[Leroy]

Even though people may find real space exploration not as impressive compared to science fiction at times at least you can't dismiss what's accomplished in real life as "that's not real though". Being a Sci-Fi nut is what's kept my interest in real life space exploration. That being said there are plenty of science fiction shows that are more realistic but don't sacrifice their entertainment value like Star Cops, Space Island One, Planetes, the UC Gundam series to name a few.

 

[Chris_Johnston]

I wonder if Buzz has seen this...

Space Odyssey: Voyage To The Planets - Wikipedia

But I'm still amazed at how advanced the concepts presented on Star Trek were, compared to other TV Sci-Fi of the time, like Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, or anything that featured a silver torpedo-shaped rocket with flames shooting out the back (Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, Space Patrol, etc).

• A non-aerodynamic spacecraft, using EM fields for propulsion and defense.
• Point-to-point matter transmission for personnel transport
• (got a bad headache right now, so I'll have to come back to this)

I mean, c'mon, it's 300 years into the future! A lot can happen in the way of Post-Einsteinian physics by then!

 

[PhoenixIreland]

Wow, now that is just cynical...

Can I help it if I prefer cool looking space planes to dull 1960s rockets?

 

[Sector 7]

Defensive, much?

Bitter much?
Please read the opinion thought in my signature.

Star Trek (and Space 1999) gave me fuel for my dreams! (Hey it was all the sci-fi we had back in the 'olden days'!)
I also remember sitting on my Uncle Jerry's lap for most of the first moon landing. We'd go down to the kitchen to eat, take bathroom breaks, then come right back to that tiny little black & white TV set and become absorbed in every aspect of the mission.
It was the last memory I have of him before he passed away that November.
Science and Science Fiction pair well together. Fantasy, not so much. Science Fiction is extrapolated science; whereas, Fantasy is not bound by the rules of science.

 

[pookha]

He's overestimating the degree to which people think about space exploration at all, as opposed to Britney Spears' latest escapade.

Perhaps real space exploration would be more interesting if they hadn't went on a pointless trip to a lifeless, bland and uninteresting rock just to dick measure with the Soviet Union?

At least dick measuring is a motive. The usual motive for exploration throughout human history - money - has sadly not been operational for space exploration to date. That explains the delay. But if and when it becomes relevant, watch the fuck out! It will be a stampede.

Not very Starfleet of me, I know. But Star Trek's idealized vision of pricey exploration for its own sake has never been anything but a sweet fantasy. In reality, hew-mons are Ferengi.

they need to find some unusual spices on the moon and mars

 

[Chris_Johnston]

Mike Brotherton and Phil Plait have weighed in...

Does Science Fiction Dampen Interest in Space Exploration? | Mike Brotherton: SF Writer

Buzz kill | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

 

[Ptrope]

Defensive, much?

Aldrin's got considerable experience, information and had more than enough opportunity to observe all of this over decades. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but every opinion isn't entitled to equal respect. People are rejecting his out of hand because he calls fantasy and immaturity for what it is.

But he doesn't do so - he misinterprets his own opinion for facts, because he personally doesn't appear to find value in these aspects of science fiction. Clearly, and with a great deal of evidence over the decades, science fiction has had a very positive influence on those who make space exploration possible - Mr. Aldrin is just flat out wrong in his assertions, or at least isn't seeing the bigger picture. Maybe real space isn't as glamorous as sci-fi, but that's as much the fault of ignorant governmental policies and poor public relations as it is unrealistic entertainment.

Sorry, but even if people are entitled to their own opinions, no one is entitled to an opinion that is contradicted by facts; then, they're just being ignorant. Even Buzz Aldrin, apparently, can have this flaw.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I blame the fantastic and unbelievable shows about space flight and rocket ships that are on today

Star Trek isn't on today. Buzz isn't slamming Star Trek.

 

[Ptrope]

^^ Not on? Maybe nothing new, but it's definitely on. SciFi is showing TNG, CBS is syndicating TOS-R; I don't know which of the other series are broadcasting right now, but you can definitely see Trek pretty much every week on TV.

Of course, there's also Stargate - even though they're a lot more contemporary, there's still the whole aspect of FTL ships for the U.S. Air Force, and of course, the gates themselves. It's out there - I just don't think people are as credulous as Mr. Aldrin seems to believe.

 

[Chris_Johnston]

I blame the fantastic and unbelievable shows about space flight and rocket ships that are on today

Star Trek isn't on today. Buzz isn't slamming Star Trek.

What's the show "where they beam people around"?

 

[OmahaStar]

I blame the fantastic and unbelievable shows about space flight and rocket ships that are on today

Star Trek isn't on today. Buzz isn't slamming Star Trek.

Loathe as I am to say this, I have to agree with Therin.

First, Buzz doesn't even *mention* Star Trek, so the title of this thread is misleading (and I have to wonder why the OP felt it had anything to do with Trek. Shock value, perhaps?).

Second, there is no Star Trek running in first-run, and hasn't been for a few years.

Looks like the OP and others are simply looking for an excuse to be "offended" when there is none given.

 

[Chris_Johnston]

First, Buzz doesn't even *mention* Star Trek, so the title of this thread is misleading (and I have to wonder why the OP felt it had anything to do with Trek. Shock value, perhaps?).

Second, there is no Star Trek running in first-run, and hasn't been for a few years.

Looks like the OP and others are simply looking for an excuse to be "offended" when there is none given.

I'll repeat the question: What's the show "where they beam people around"?