Ars Technica: The National Geographic Channel, fresh off its sale to Fox, is now focusing on creating premium original content. Its first effort: a fact-based dramatization of what it might be like to send the first human visitors to Mars in the 2030s. As part of that effort, the company has taken over an empty lot in downtown Manhattan and seeded it with a collection of interconnected domes meant to evoke what the first habitations on Mars might look like.
7 comments:
I haven’t been an avid follower of National Geographic. I just have seen some really cool photos and heard of some interesting things they have been working on and this is one of them. I did not know that we were this far along in trying to get people to mars. There has been a lot of thought into this. Why is it so important to take people to Mars? I understand that as humans we like to discover new things and learn all that we can about the world but what does going on Mars get us? At this time we know there is no water on that planet. If we get people living up there do we have to ship water to them every so often? Is it worth the cost this is going to be? I can imagine the dollar signs growing by the minute. It seems that a lot of people are excited for this but who is going to pay for it? The taxpayers, like always?
I have mixed feelings about this. I love that National Geographic is promoting interest in Mars because it might help cultivate a public excited by and willing to support space travel. I believe deeply in the need for humanity to aspire to a shared goal and in the importance of wonder and exploration to the human spirit. (It was a sad day when the shuttle progam ended. Long live NASA.)
But I’ve been very unhappy and disenchanted with the direction the magazine has taken in the last decade or so and particularly worried about its purchase by Rupert Murdoch (a merger which actually began last year.) I have a lot of attachment to the National Geographic that was. It was a piece of my childhood and helped shape who I am. I loved its dedication to artistry, knowledge, wonder, and those stories it felt needed to be told. Recently, it has become increasingly dumbed down, simplified, and focused on attention grabbing “charismatic” headlines. This publicity stunt feels like an extension of that way of operating. I can only hope that NG returns to its roots: education and wonder, but with Murdoch at the helm, I suspect it will be entirely about money and entertainment.
I find the types of dramatizations often melodramatic and focused on the drama that would arise from the outlandish situation rather than the actual science. Space travel automatically captures the hearts and minds of people around the world, and adding heavy-handed drama doesn't seem like the best way to try to bring the public's attention to Mars. I also struggle with this being specifically US-based, as we are severely lacking in space travel as of late thanks to government defunding of NASA and a general focus on things that are much more short-term (looking at you, Trump.). I've been reading NatGeo since I was a kid and have always found myself inspired by the natural beauty of the world, and I think that it's a good pursuit to move that eye to space, but I also believe that dedicating a new branch of national geographic to space might be the best way to proceed while still providing the classic content that people care about. I also appreciate how everything onsite is immersive virtual reality, as, in the near future, that is the closest way any of us normal-folk will come to going into space, and I hope the content is well-made and really manages to capture the feel of what Mars is like.
I find this experiment very intriguing yet also kind of disturbing as well. The article does little to turn the science behind how the ideas of the future on Mars and 2030 was actually created. How do we know that this is really what life would look like? Are we simply being hoaxed? I was playing what this would look like and how the actual ideas for this experiment and this installation were achieved. Sure there have been drones and others probes sent to mars, but the purpose of this experiment want to show how would be like to humans. So where is the evidence of how we know what life on Mars will be like for humans. I agreed that this is intriguing, probably a money gather and agree big stunt to show that National Geographic is back on the map after combining with Fox. But, discrete idea was not thoroughly thought through and whether that is the fault of the writer of this article or the experiment self I do not know.
This is really cool! At first I was imagining and expecting a fully rendered version of what it would feel like to be in a Mars like environment, not a simulated space where one would sign up to go to Mars. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the rest of the article to learn that this space event used virtual reality in the way that they did. In a way, it was like they created the environment-- just virtually. I believe its a great way to engage the audience and get them excited about the possibility of space travel. On the other hand, I agree so hard with the comment that Rachel made previously in this thread. Nat Geo played a huge part in my childhood in terms of driving my want to see the rest of the world and stay curious. I do feel like they've gotten slightly kitschy in their content nowadays and I would very much like to see them bring back some of their elements from the past. I hope that while this Mars event is a publicity stunt, that it does much more than just promote something as superficial as that.
“The place is set up as if it were a recruitment center for Mars-bound astronauts. And the hardware inside is set up to allow visitors to experience a bit of what it might be like to arrive on Mars through some pretty impressive virtual reality hardware.” Virtual reality is taking over everything! From such a small start with gaming, virtual reality has grown and grown into a technology that seems to be used for anything nowadays. I wouldn’t be surprised if advertising now became virtual reality. I would love to visit this museum, space has always fascinated me, and to be able to “land” on Mars with the help of virtual reality seems like a close step to seeing and feeling what Mars could be like. I’m glad the interest in space has continued long past the moon landing and hopefully into future generations. I hope technology progresses enough for me to potentially go to space in my lifetime.
Going to mars to stay will probably be the most important thing our generation does for humanity, along with halting and hopefully reversing climate change. It seems a little outlandish that we could even consider putting people on mars but it isn’t that farfetched, we know mars has polar icecaps and a CO2 rich atmosphere which could be used to generate CH4, methane. Methane is both a potent source of energy and along with liquid oxygen, also possible to produce on mars, the proposed fuel for Space X’s proposed Interplanetary Transport System. A lofty name for a project startup rocket company, we’ve all seen our fair share of failed space enterprises and you’re right to be hesitant. Space X does have a rather impressive track record however, cutting the cost of a flight to space by nearly 75% in the 10 years they have been in operation and recently beginning their next phase of cost reductions, in the form of landing reusable rockets.
So, given a choice of two futures, one in which we as a species forget our dream of space, and one where we take on the brutal, unforgiving challenge of space colonization I know where I hope we lean. If only as a precaution against extinction but mostly because of everything we don’t know about the universe that we will undoubtedly learn by doing this monumental task. In the face of that choice I only kind of wish National Geographic dared to dream larger with this TV show, which nonetheless is still an awesome step to helping people realize the potential we have to change our future.
Post a Comment