What's wrong with The Discovery Channel?

In summary, the program is about a manned voyage to 5 of the 9 planets and close pass by the sun, a voyage that alone takes over 1200 days. The outragous events that take place include a woman collecting rock and soil samples on Venus, going through the asteroid belt, landing on a comet, and returning to the ship.
  • #1
Entropy
478
0
Seriously, did anyone see their most recent program called Voyage to The Planets and Beyond? It's totally ridiculous! The program is about a manned voyage to 5 of the 9 planets and close pass by the sun, a voyage that alone takes over 1200 days. I'll list some of the outragous events that take place.

1. The CREW, yes the crew, land on Venus and are able to walk around and explore it in space suits. The surface of Venus is over 900F and the pressure is several hundred times greater than the pressure on Earth's surface. No space suit, let alone any probe, could survive more than a few minutes on the surface. Someone couldn't even survive on Venus, even wearing a suit, for more than a few seconds. This is CRAZY!

2. Another things, one of the fictional biologists states it might be possible for life to be on Venus because they is life in hot springs on Earth. ARGH! The is a huge difference between 180F water and 900F sulfuric acid!

3. Another part, the spaceship travels through the asteriod belt. Yes, they travel throught it! No mission would ever dare doing this! The ship wouldn't stand a chance! In the program they show small chuncks of rock just foating around minding their own bussiness. They seem to forget all about the pea sized rocks flying around at 80,000+ mph. The ship would have been bombarded to death with thousands of these little bullets.

4. Then they go into Saturn's Rings! One of the crew member's even goes out to capture some sample rocks! As stated in #3 they would have been killed by the little shards of rock buzzing around at 80,000 mph!

5. Finally, they land on a Comet and it explodes. The ship is hit with car sized boulders and the ship isn't even dented or even bumbed off coarse a little. The landing craft was even hit with a car sized rock and the rock bounced right off! Even ignoring the fact that in real life the rocks would being going at several hundreds of mph, this is completely inane.

Is anyone else suprised Discovery would air this trash? I think my favorite channel is slowly going down the drain.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Entropy said:
Seriously, did anyone see their most recent program called Voyage to The Planets and Beyond? It's totally ridiculous!
I tuned into it late and for 10 minutes all that happened was some woman in a space suit was collecting rock & soil samples, and for ten minutes the dialogue went something like

woman: must...get...samples

person on spaceship: there is too much radiation, return to the ship

woman: rocks...ack...ack

person on spaceship: there is too much radiation, return to the ship

woman: must...ack...get...rocks...ack

other person on spaceship: there is too much radiation, she must return to the ship

person on spaceship: we're losing her!

woman: ack...

I couldn't take it any longer and changed channels, obviously not a show about science. :mad:
 
  • #3
Plain and simple, the Discovery Channel has expanded it's channel so much it can not keep up with the demand to fill all of it's time slots. It's the same thing that happens on all of those super lame stations like the DYI channel. Because they need to fill the time, they will take just about anything that looks like it means something.

Who do you think works for these stations and is the gatekeeper of what gets shown? It's not anyone with any kind of scientific/technological background.
 
  • #4
I think Discovery Channel is suffering the same problem as many highly educational channels - lack of viewers. Realistically how many people actually KNOW how ridiculous some of the things in that show were (aside from everyone on this forum :wink: )? In order to get their ratings up they are required to either 'dumb down' some of their programming or replace it with 'entertaining' garbage for the masses. If they have to do something to stay on the air I'd rather they do this than dumb down the good programs to make everyone happy. At least I can avoid dumb shows like this one or erase them from the DVR!
 
  • #5
I didn't think it was *that* bad. Sure it was a little overly fanciful and the science wasn't always the best, but maybe it will get some peoples' imaginations going.

The girl in the suit was guilty of bad acting, to be sure. As for nearly dying in the suit, that doesn't seem all that unprecedented. As I recall, some of the first Gemini astronauts that performed EVA's (not sure if it was Ed White or someone after him) nearly killed themselves trying to work in zero G. I imagine if I had spent 2 years in a spaceship and I was only going to get a few hours on a Io for the whole trip, I'd be out there nearly killing myself too.

1. The CREW, yes the crew, land on Venus and are able to walk around and explore it in space suits. The surface of Venus is over 900F and the pressure is several hundred times greater than the pressure on Earth's surface. No space suit, let alone any probe, could survive more than a few minutes on the surface. Someone couldn't even survive on Venus, even wearing a suit, for more than a few seconds. This is CRAZY!

I'm not sure the Venus thing was super unrealistic. The suit looked like a deep sea diving suit (a Jim suit) which can take ~100 atm of pressure IIRC. Of course you've got the caustic atmosphere and heat to deal with as well, but I wouldn't say we could *never* do it, at least for the hour or so they were on the surface.

4. Then they go into Saturn's Rings! One of the crew member's even goes out to capture some sample rocks! As stated in #3 they would have been killed by the little shards of rock buzzing around at 80,000 mph!

If you're in roughly the same orbit as the rocks, they should be still relative to you. Of course there will be some random motion going on from collisions and such, but the relative speeds would be nowhere close to 80k. An EVA may still be terminally stupid though, but maybe not.
 
  • #6
Grogs said:
The girl in the suit was guilty of bad acting, to be sure. As for nearly dying in the suit, that doesn't seem all that unprecedented. As I recall, some of the first Gemini astronauts that performed EVA's (not sure if it was Ed White or someone after him) nearly killed themselves trying to work in zero G. I imagine if I had spent 2 years in a spaceship and I was only going to get a few hours on a Io for the whole trip, I'd be out there nearly killing myself too.
Did they get the samples back to the ship? When I changed channels she was ditching the samples.

I was hoping the show might be something similar to the "Cosmos" tv series for PBS Sagan did years ago. This was too melodramatic. Or maybe I just tuned in at the worst moment. ack :wink:
 
  • #7
Evo said:
Did they get the samples back to the ship? When I changed channels she was ditching the samples.

No. :cry: I think that was the point though. Even with all the money and planning that went into the trip, sometimes 'stuff' just happens and we're at its mercy.

Probably the *most* melodramatic moment was when they did an EVA in the middle of the exploding comet to get back to the ship though.
 
  • #8
I thought it was a cross between 2001 and that movie where the mission to Mars ended up being a fart joke and the guy saying, "hey look, I'm the first person to ______ on Mars!...and I'm the first person to ____ on Mars too!" It's the one where the chimp outfoxed one guy and snagged his cryo-chamber and the guy wound up eating all the food or painting with it. I don't care who you are, fart jokes = funny, space chicks = hotness(mostly). For those of you still wondering, I'm talking about the whole...zero gravity...thing. Use your imagination.
 
  • #9
I think the movie you're talking about is Rocketman! i love that movie. anyone who hasn't seen it... its hilarious. i love it. the best part was when they get everyone to sing "he's got the whole world, in his hands." or when he sings "when you wish upon a star." i like that part too...

Anyways, i like the discovery chanel thingies. I don't take them seriously or anything, they're just entertaining. And at least its still better than MTV or the other inane shows on television. i didn't see the special you all are talking about... but i always think its funny when people will watch with me, and be like "hey, you're into this stuff... what if...? or is it possible to..?" and I'm just like, "its television..."
 
  • #10
Who has seen few months ago program about dragons on Discovery Channel ?
 
  • #11
Entropy said:
Seriously, did anyone see their most recent program called Voyage to The Planets and Beyond? It's totally ridiculous! The program is about a manned voyage to 5 of the 9 planets and close pass by the sun, a voyage that alone takes over 1200 days. I'll list some of the outragous events that take place.

1. The CREW, yes the crew, land on Venus and are able to walk around and explore it in space suits. The surface of Venus is over 900F and the pressure is several hundred times greater than the pressure on Earth's surface. No space suit, let alone any probe, could survive more than a few minutes on the surface. Someone couldn't even survive on Venus, even wearing a suit, for more than a few seconds. This is CRAZY!

2. Another things, one of the fictional biologists states it might be possible for life to be on Venus because they is life in hot springs on Earth. ARGH! The is a huge difference between 180F water and 900F sulfuric acid!

3. Another part, the spaceship travels through the asteriod belt. Yes, they travel throught it! No mission would ever dare doing this! The ship wouldn't stand a chance! In the program they show small chuncks of rock just foating around minding their own bussiness. They seem to forget all about the pea sized rocks flying around at 80,000+ mph. The ship would have been bombarded to death with thousands of these little bullets.

4. Then they go into Saturn's Rings! One of the crew member's even goes out to capture some sample rocks! As stated in #3 they would have been killed by the little shards of rock buzzing around at 80,000 mph!

5. Finally, they land on a Comet and it explodes. The ship is hit with car sized boulders and the ship isn't even dented or even bumbed off coarse a little. The landing craft was even hit with a car sized rock and the rock bounced right off! Even ignoring the fact that in real life the rocks would being going at several hundreds of mph, this is completely inane.

Is anyone else suprised Discovery would air this trash? I think my favorite channel is slowly going down the drain.


Slowly? Its been nothing but the auto-shop channel for almot two years. Nothing slow about it. How did it take you this long to notice?
 
  • #12
Gale17 said:
Anyways, i like the discovery chanel thingies. I don't take them seriously or anything, they're just entertaining. And at least its still better than MTV or the other inane shows on television.

So is going to the zoo and watching monkeys throw their own poo. But i wouldn't advise wasting time doing that either. Just my opinion.

i didn't see the special you all are talking about... but i always think its funny when people will watch with me, and be like "hey, you're into this stuff... what if...? or is it possible to..?" and I'm just like, "its television..."

I get really annoyed when they do that. not so much because they're asking, but because i was already really annoyed at the program in the first place.
 
  • #13
franznietzsche said:
So is going to the zoo and watching monkeys throw their own poo. But i wouldn't advise wasting time doing that either. Just my opinion.



I get really annoyed when they do that. not so much because they're asking, but because i was already really annoyed at the program in the first place.

well, i tend to be a very tolerant person. i'll appreciate things as best i can. all things considered, i don't think the discovery chanel is the worst thing out there. you know how they say, "imitation is the highest form of flattery." at least discovery is... erm.. imitating science.. eh?
 
  • #14
you just have to take look at US television programs on other channels, what you see is simply crap ! maybe not all of it but 95 %.
european version of discovery channel is much better by the way.
 
  • #15
You know, I was going to whine about their program Alien Planet

I'm no Biologist, but even I knew that those concepts they presented were completely, I mean ridiculously far fetched. And what's worse? Mikio Kaku appeared on that program. I mean who does Kaku think he is, really, to give his opinion on when and how the technology will be available? He is a physicist - not an engineer, not a sponsor for NASA or an indepedent aerospace company, not even a Computer Scientist to talk about robots and their capabilities. On the other program he was talking about robots that would be used to have sex with humans. Imagine a Physicist in Hyperspace/String Theory getting involved in real science.
 
  • #16
stoned said:
you just have to take look at US television programs on other channels, what you see is simply crap ! maybe not all of it but 95 %.
More like 97%. My only problem with Discovery Channel is that I can't watch it. I don't get cable. It might very well be garbage, but I'd like a chance to determine that for myself.
 
  • #17
The discovery channel is pretty much a bunch of crap. But they do own a lot more channels like animal planet, which also sucks. They do own the science channel which is actually good. It is pay-per-view though
 
  • #18
franznietzsche said:
Slowly? Its been nothing but the auto-shop channel for almot two years. Nothing slow about it. How did it take you this long to notice?
I agree. I'm just plain sick and tired of "American Choppers" and "Motorcycle Mania." I miss the good days when Discovery aired truly educational things about science and technology. Now I rely on History Channel's "Modern Marvels" and extended channels on my Comcast Digital Cable like Discovery's "The Science Channel." Regular Discovery just plain isn't up to par with my interests anymore. It's a shame, really.
 
  • #19
cronxeh said:
You know, I was going to whine about their program Alien Planet

I'm no Biologist, but even I knew that those concepts they presented were completely, I mean ridiculously far fetched. And what's worse? Mikio Kaku appeared on that program. I mean who does Kaku think he is, really, to give his opinion on when and how the technology will be available? He is a physicist - not an engineer, not a sponsor for NASA or an indepedent aerospace company, not even a Computer Scientist to talk about robots and their capabilities. On the other program he was talking about robots that would be used to have sex with humans. Imagine a Physicist in Hyperspace/String Theory getting involved in real science.
Have you ever read Michio Kaku's book, Visions? Visions takes the reader through a wondrous tour of science and technology yet to come. Going through the three main scientific pillars of the 20th century, the computer revolution, the biological revolution, and the quantum revolution, Michio Kaku explains in detail where these revolutions in science will lead us in the 21st century and beyond.

Do you know how Michio Kaku is able to write about computers, advanced composites, robotics, genetics, biology, medicine, astronautics, aeronautics, and more? He is able to write about all of these various fields on science and technology because he has had the pleasure of interviewing over 150 leading scientists, technicians, engineers, researchers, and specialists. The insights of all of these individuals were then summarized in the crowning achievement, Visions. Michio Kaku explains this on the first page of the Preface in his book.

Of course, no one person can invent the future. There is simply too much accumulated knowledge, there are too many possibilities and too many specializations. In fact, most predictions of the future have floundered because they have reflected the eccentric, often narrow viewpoints of a single individual.

The same is not true of Visions. In the course of writing numerous books, articles, and science commentaries, I have had the rare privilege of interviewing over 150 scientists from various disciplines during a ten-year period.
As you can see, Michio Kaku can give people insight into what the future holds on store for us because he has interviewed people leading the forefront revolutions. Of course, there is no better person who can give a better explanation on something specific other than the individuals leading the revolutions themselves, but Michio Kaku surely does have credence enough to be a spokesperson of technological progress, whether or not his specialty lies in theoretical physics.
 
  • #20
Sempiternity said:
he has had the pleasure of interviewing over 150 leading scientists, technicians, engineers, researchers, and specialists.
The same might be said of Isaac Asimov. He was undoubtedly a brilliant man, who did wonders for bringing an understanding of science to the masses, but his field of expertise was biochemistry. It was his network of equally learned people in other areas that enabled him to espouse upon all subjects in his columns and books. (And even then, he made a few mistakes.)
 
  • #21
each of the 150 interviewed will have an error of uncertainty in their predictions and assumptions, and when multiplied by 150, the whole conclusion is off
 
  • #22
cronxeh said:
each of the 150 interviewed will have an error of uncertainty in their predictions and assumptions, and when multiplied by 150, the whole conclusion is off
I'm not sure that the correlation holds. Each one will only be off within his/her own field. Therefore the overall error should remain at the individual level rather than being cumulative.
 
  • #23
not so

each one within their field will have an across the board error in assumptions - in biology, in chemistry, in physics, etc, and thanks to the peer review system we will have a majority of scientists who will beat their chests in one unison and tell exact same thing to their students - across the world

but now you will say there is experimental evidence, etc. I'm not arguing that! I'm talking about theoritical scientists who have their assumptions based on models - inputs of which are based on other models' outputs. Somewhere down the line there will be an error, and as that error propagates it will find its way into major assumptions

There has been cases in history of this and I do believe we have those errors today, particularly in String Theory of which M. Kaku is a strong advocate
 
  • #24
I think it's safe to say that no matter how much of a specialty a person may hold, they cannot know the future entirely and cannot make accurate, precise predictions of what will come. A geneticist can make a good prediction about what the future of genetics might be like, but they may ultimately be incorrect in specific points, especially if they fail to account for advances in computer science and physics. There are many factors playing into the progress of science and technology, politics especially. But, it's reasonable to be able to make good, logical, long-term predictions of what may arise in the future based on the limitations that physics places (for example, the fact that quantum computers are probably inevitable since the silicon revolution will soon die at the .1 micron barrier, where quantum computers are the most reasonable replacements). Not only that, but predictions may also be amended or appended as needed.

And, string theory has yet to be proven or disproven. If it is conclusively disproven, I believe many string theorists would likely move to another field. It hasn't been found to be true yet, but it hasn't been found to be false. It's simply the best candidate for a GUT/TOE so far.
 
  • #25
I think you have to look at prediction of the future in the mirror of past predictions. Has anyone ever seen those old films/black and white cartoons from the fifties? They show things like everyone having their own aircar, great rotating space stations in Earth orbit and families running down to the local spaceport for a vacation on the moon. Generally, the date for these 'visions of the future' was some far off date like 1999 or 2001. I don't blame those people for being completely wrong (although I do want my aircar!) They were just making a guess (and that's really all it can be) based on their then-current technologies.
 
  • #26
kaku wasnt the only one on that show. hawking himself even appeared on it. they even got george lucas on there. i didn't really like the show that much though.

and as for the discovery channel, i think it sucks now compared to what it used to be. the only thing worth watching now is mythbusters on wednesdays. every other day of the week its those retarded car/garage shows which get looped like 6 times through the day. i wish i had the science channel but directtv sucks and you have to pay extra for it
 
  • #27
cronxeh said:
each one within their field will have an across the board error in assumptions - in biology, in chemistry, in physics, etc,
I wasn't referring to repercussions after the fact. I also didn't factor in overlap of fields. What I meant was that if a biologist is 10% wrong, and a physicist is 10% wrong, and a sociologist is 10% wrong, the overall error is still 10%.

Grogs said:
Has anyone ever seen those old films/black and white cartoons from the fifties? They show things like everyone having their own aircar, great rotating space stations in Earth orbit and families running down to the local spaceport for a vacation on the moon. Generally, the date for these 'visions of the future' was some far off date like 1999 or 2001.
Your time scale is a bit off. I have 'Popular Science' magazines from the 60's that predict these things for the 80's. And dammit, I want an aircar too!
 
  • #28
Evo said:
woman: must...ack...get...rocks...ack

person on spaceship: we're losing her!

woman: ack...

I couldn't take it any longer and changed channels, obviously not a show about science. :mad:
Well I should hope so. Eaves dropping on me like that. :tongue:

It's the sad truth. No one watches education, news, or any meaningful programs anymore. To compete with real TV, Desperate Housewives, or what have you, the Discovery Channel and TLC have both become more of the same garbage. I now pay extra for the Science Channel (which sometimes has old Discovery programs), and there is still PBS.
 
  • #29
a lot of what I was going to mention was already said, but what really killed what could have been my willingness to give the Discovery Channel a second chance was the 3 "Science of Star Wars" specials...

somehow, helicopters were equated with "star wars spy droids," monks "use the force just like Luke" and modern soldiers are "just like the storm troopers". It was agonizing to hear the constant narration trying to equate modern technology with the futuristic technology portrayed in Star Wars.

To say the specials were god-awful would be an understatement. I'll stick with NOVA, as they aren't pressured as much in putting out specials if there isn't a story.
 

What is The Discovery Channel?

The Discovery Channel is a cable and satellite television channel that focuses on educational and documentary programming related to science, nature, history, and technology.

Why do people criticize The Discovery Channel?

Some people criticize The Discovery Channel for straying from their original focus on educational and informative content and instead airing more sensational and entertainment-based shows.

What are some examples of controversial shows on The Discovery Channel?

Some examples of controversial shows on The Discovery Channel include "Man vs. Wild," which was accused of being staged, and "Mermaids: The Body Found," which was criticized for presenting fictional information as fact.

Has The Discovery Channel responded to criticism?

Yes, The Discovery Channel has responded to criticism by stating that they are always looking to provide a balance between educational and entertaining programming and that some shows are meant to be more entertainment-focused.

Is The Discovery Channel still a reliable source of information?

While The Discovery Channel has received criticism for some of its shows, it still remains a reputable source of information on many topics. It is important for viewers to critically evaluate the information presented and seek out additional sources for a well-rounded understanding.

Similar threads

  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
4
Replies
118
Views
5K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
0
Views
627
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
853
Replies
1
Views
932
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top