As there isn't any topic on pointing out interesting TV-programmes, I'll start one ...
Topic works on both sides of the Ocean

For the Europeans:

Just wanted to inform that BBC television has another space-related Horizon documentary entitled ' Bye Bye Planet Pluto ' ... airing Thursday 22nd June at 09:00 GMT

Ah, good -- we in the States will likely be seeing it, re-edited and with an American narrator substituted for the original Brit, run under another name on the Discovery Science Channel in about six months... *sigh*...

-the other Doug

I have found a nice way around that. I buy the PAL-format DVD's from amazon.co.uk. Then I play them on my Oppo DVD player, which is region-free and does a wonderful job of video resampling. I just finished watching Space Race this way. Great fun, even if it took a lot of liberties with historical accuracy.

If only BBC would consider to make theme-related DVDs of their excellent HORIZON documentaries ( every year there're at least 2 space-related Horizon documentaries, be it planetary, manned or astronomy related ) which could be offered for sale on a theme DVD-set

Overall an 8/10 documentary, best images were taken at KECK observatory and those of Dr Alan Stern at the New Horizons launch pad were good indeed... didn't know about the 'Pluto Underground'

Not a bad Horizon but
1) not enough science.
2) too much "special" camera work - shaky, zoomey focus stuff.
3) too much footage of scientists cycling to work and of Dr Stern driving around in... WHAT was that monster truck? Haven’t you heard of global warming?

Really close-up views of the stack though, which was great - thanks Alan.

I say not bad, 6/10.

I would love to see the old Horizons - better music, lots of weirdy beardys - great!.

Nick

Just watched the "Bye Bye Pluto" Horizon, and after an hour of unimpressive computer graphics, painfully-trendy shake-and-track camera work that I thought went out with "The Tube" and "NYPD Blue", and annoyingly trite voiceover by rent-a-narrator Ian Holm (well, made a change from Martin Jarvis I suppose!), one question was left burning in my mind...

No, not Is Pluto a planet after all? Not So how many objects in our solar system deserve to be called a planet? Not even Is it the law in the US that astronomers have to drive people carriers?

No. It was What the *&^*&$£!!! was astrologer Jonathan Cainer doing on it?!?!?!

This was ridiculous!! Horizon's meant to be a science program. The subject was astronomical - the debate over Pluto's status in the solar system, and the hunt for other objects in the solar system's outer reaches; there was no need to even mention astrology in it, never mind give over a chunk of the programme to the views of an astrologer - they even gave him the last lines of the programme! Unbelievable.

It would have been bad enough having ANY astrologer on the programme - every second devoted to astrology was a second that could have been better spent on going more deeply into the astronomy - but they used an astrologer - from the Daily Mail - who seems to think he is not only qalified to tell his readers in the paper's WEEKEND magazine about how they will meet tall, dark handsome strangers or come into money, but is also qualified to tell them about goings on in the night sky, such as planetary conjunctions, eclipses, etc. Worse still, he has frequently given misleading or just plain wrong information, for example, telling his readers they can see Saturn's rings and Jupiter's Great Red Spot through binoculars, and suggesting they scan the evening sky for Mercury with the same binoculars EVEN BEFORE THE SUN HAS SET!!!! And no, I'm not joking. ( I've written to the Mail several times "suggesting" very strongly that they rein him in and get him to restrict his column's content to astrology and leave astronomical observations and events to someone who might have at least a clue what they're on about, but they don't seem to care...)

Seriously, this was ridiculous. The program itself was quite poor, I thought... yet another dumbed-down, featherweight treatment of a fascinating and serious scientific issue, cut up into bitesize soundbite chunks of video so viewers wouldn't have to see the same image for longer than a few seconds. They must think we all have the attention span of goldfish. There were some good things - always a joy seeing and hearing Neil deGrasse Tyson speaking so pasionately about astronomy (he should have his own show, definitely) and Alan Stern's contribution was very informative and insightful ( and yep, it was interesting to see a mighty Atlas rocket from beneath... great shot of the rocket as seen from right below the engines..!) but on the whole it was very disappointing, I thought.

Horizon used to be the best science magazine show on TV. Sadly, that's no longer the case; most of Channel 4's and the Discovery Channel's documentaries are now far superior. And if they keep doing stoopid things like using astrologers on astronomy-related programmes, they're going to make a mockery of their past achievements.

I was at the BAA Exhibition meeting in Cambridge today....and most agreed - and many even turned off at the point the astrologer first appeared - totally and utterly inappropriate in every way.

Tyson was quite funny ( I don't agree with his point of view ), but Alan was great as ever, and infact the shots from the base of the Atlas were indeed stunning.

Doug

Oh, but don't y'all think that it's essential to encourage the debate by presenting *all* points of view when it comes to cosmology?

:::ducking quickly:::

Seriously, guys, while it makes for poor television, we can do with this what we do with other pieces of mass-media fluff that masquerade as informational programming -- ignore it. Assign one of us as a guinea pig to watch any new Horizons episodes and let the rest know if it's worth watching in re-runs. If we can spread this into a large-scale network, we can affect the one thing that *will* bring about change -- the show's ratings.

Besides, none of that astrology stuff can shake my very firm world-view, so I don't see any of it as any kind of threat to my beliefs. Which, of course, all derive from the fact that it's turtles all the way down...

-the other Doug

oDoug:

After the elephants, of course: Great A'Tuin, the star turtle, carries the four giant elephants (named Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon, and Jerakeen) on her back, and the world rests in turn upon them.

Bob CMOT Shaw

Well, I enjoyed the programme - and that's despite sharing the general allergy to today's anachronistic astrologers so fervently expressed by others here. I think an important point was made that the word 'planet' comes to us from an age when there was no distinction between the science and the hocus-pocus. Also, since the ancients were ignorant of both the physical nature of the 'heavenly bodies' and their places within the hierarchy of orbital dynamics, their terminology did not have to reflect these distinctions. What is entertaining is seeing otherwise rational people getting worked up over the definition of a 2500 year old word and the BBC picked up on this very well, I thought. We might as well be arguing about whether galaxies are male or female - something perhaps best left to the astrologers.

Not the best space-related Horizon for sure ... so looking forward to a better 'science' version on the New Horizons subject in 9 years time ?

I actually think this debate is very important. As more and more objects are found around our own Sun and other stars, we really will need to decide which are and which aren't planets, for two reasons. Firstly, to allow us to map these planetary systems, give their members appropriate names, and just keep everything astronomically neat. Things are just a mess out there right now! We have planet-sized moons, moon-sized planets, moon-sized asteroids... crazy... I really don't think Pluto will be demoted, especially now it has a trio of recognised moons, and I really don't think that they'll declare Ganymede, Titan or any other large planetary satellite to be a planet either, but we need to tidy up the confusion on the solar system's edge because we're just going to find more and more KBOs etc and not tackling the definition issue is just burying our heads in the methane ice. Someone needs to be brave and just tackle this once and for all.

Secondly - and I think possibly more importantly, actually - we need to tackle this to allow us, astronomers, space enthusiasts, whatever, to communicate better with the public, who look to us for information about things astronomical. Even if we aren't particularly bothered, they need clarity in this matter, because the day will come when an Earth-like object is found "Out there" orbiting around another star, and then the media will go (briefly) crazy, declaring the discovery of "New Earth" etc... by then we will have to have a clear definition of what a planet is, what a moon is, etc, just to enable us, the "space buffs" who give public lectures, go into schools, write for the media etc, to respond accurately at the time, and to do all the corrective Outreach work which will be necessary at the time.

So what's the answer? Well, I don't think this issue can be resolved simply by looking at size, because then Pluto isn't a planet but some existing major moons are. I think there has to be some nod to history, tradition and sentimentality when it comes to Pluto because we've all grown up with it lodged in our minds and hearts as a "planet" and demoting it now would be pretty pointless in my opinion. Let's just leave Pluto alone in honour of its long history and the amazing achievement of Clyde Tombaugh who discovered it. It's thought of by everyone on the planet (except for a few grumbling astronomers... and the ever-cheerful Neil Tyson!) as "a planet", and demoting it would cause more confusion than it's worth, especially now we know it has at least 3 moons. But after that, well, that needs looking at. I'd personally go with acknowledging anything Pluto-sized or bigger as a planet, as long as it orbited the Sun independantly, had sufficient mass to make it round, and an orbit that didn't make it look more like a comet. If it has one or more moons, then all the better. I know this might lead to the solar system having a dozen or so planets in the future, but that's inevitable anyway, surely, as we look deeper and deeper into space with better and better instruments, we're bound to find previously unseen bodies out there. It's called discovery! It's a good thing!

And let's face it - the public must be thinking (in fact they ARE thinking, I know that for a fact, with all the talks I do) "hell, if they can't tell us how many planets the Sun has, how can we trust them about black holes and dark matter and multiverses, stuff like that?"

But astrologers definitely have no place in this debate. They want it all ways, want to attribute "powers" and "influence" to something as small as Pluto, yet ignore larger bodies like Ganymede and Titan. They attribute "powers" and "influence" to comets like Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake - but only when they're being reported in the general media, never before, and never help us discover them in the first place. They bang on about how eclipses and conjunctions affect us and our destinies and behaviour, yet never suggest gamma ray bursts and supernovae - events which literally affect our planet and our bodies by increasing the radiation exposure they have - are of any consequence. That's why the BBC's inclusion of an astrologer in its HORIZON program was so galling.

So I think we need to just draw a line now and live with it, just so we can move on and prepare for the deluge of discoveries that's waiting just around the corner.

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

You can't stop people using words the way they want to. Earth-sciency people are always going to think of 'planet' differently from people primarily concerned with orbital dynamics. The IAU is not god. I predict that whatever definition they come up with will not enjoy general consensus and will be obsolete within 10 years. The general public are less deferential now than in 1930 and will not meekly accept the fiat of the IAU. In my view it's the idea that it's possible to make and enforce a new bomb-proof definition that risks making the profession look ridiculous, not the fact that the word 'planet' has become useless as a precise scientific term. The answer to the question "How many planets?" is simple: "Depends what you call a planet."