Link ere! (http://woodandvale.london24.net/woodandvale/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newswoodandvale&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newswoodandvale&itemid=WeED03%20Feb%202006%2014%3A36%3A35%3A070)
If they stuck to giving astronimicaly based shows of the sky at night rather than the stock slide and sound shows then the planetaruim would still have been viable.
edited by Ian, shortened the link mate
pity they've chosen to blame Greenwich rather than their mismanagement. By blaming the new Greenwich planetarium they've basically said that there is a market for astronomical displays that they chose to ignore.
Of course, we can all go to the planetarium after they put in the waxworks and admire Airy, Hershel, Moore, Flamsteed et al. who are the obvious candidates to occupy the space.
Yep. They've chosen not to be in the business of science education, and to waste what could have been one of the best educational facilities in London. Now, where did they put that guillotine? :evil:
Wow guys, I think the reality here is that the people who used to go to planetariums as children etc i.e. people of our age and above are just not there anymore in the 5-25 year bracket and therefore there really is no need for many planetariums to be open any longer. In fact I have taken quite a few kids to Greenwich and I clearly got more pleasure out of being there than they did.
I think this is due to two things, firstly the kids can get access to all the information they need about the night sky on their desktop PC at home and also that they really are not generally interested in sitting in the dark looking at some white dots on the ceiling.
I have to admit it that although I enjoy going to planetariums, the kids i.e. under 30's don't and do not care about this type of science delivery and therefore I personally don't see many planetariums surviving unless there in museums, like Greenwich.
What someone really needs to do is get some of the good astronomy delivered in a way in which it appeals to the household market. Take Hubble as an example, pre-hubble astronomy was a minority hobby for us selected geeks, post Hubble it is now main stream and just about everyone is now aware of what is out there or at least what it looks like and this has lead onto the direct boom in telescope sales and computer imaging.
So in general yes it's a shame, but this is the way things go, I'm positive if anyone invents a 3D model on the PS 360 of the universe where kids can fly through it etc and it be entertaining and contain all the soap stars and big brother as well it will be a best seller and everyone will be educated to some degree.
Shame eh!
I know where you're coming from Chris and you're right. But only because it is owned by an entertainment company. However, I personally feel that it should be considered as part of the Natural History Museum or Science Museum (eg, the Hayden Planetarium in New York) and shouldn't be owned by Tussauds at all.
I appreciate that the Greenwich Observatory planetarium fulfils the education requirement, but it's not as easy to get to.
One thing is certain, with the London Planetarium closed, it is absolutely no one will visit it.
I suppose one question that would be interesting to know the answer to would be, how do ROG feel about the closure? Does it mean an expected rise in visit numbers there, together with an increase in revenue and funding for more good stuff in the future?
True, but the ROG is also closing for a while for maintenance on the Planetarium I think? So I don't think there will be one for a while.
ROG are getting a swanky new planetarium due to open next year I believe, so there is the argument that London doesn't need 2 planetaria. But still, it's a historic building and would attract people I'm sure.
Trouble is, more people would be attracted by waxworks of inconsequential non-entities as featured in Hello magazine. Hence the comment regarding it's commercial operators.
Look I for one like the Hello magazine reading types because it gives me a sense of superiority and makes me think that when the next ice age comes they will be dead very quickly leaving us more food to eat.
Anyway, does it really matter? :o
The big advantage the London Planetaium used to have was the size of its dome. The bigger the dome, the smaller the projected star images can appear and still look star-like. Get that dome well-coated, add a first class planetarium projector, and you'd have pretty much the best indoor environment for teaching astronomy in te UK. It's a great pity it's being thrown away. :roll:
DOES IT REALLY MATTER?!!!!!!??!!!?!????!!!!!!?
Well I suppose not much really. Nothing is forever and I'm sure the building is listed so the dome will remain, so one day it may return.
Incidentally, how big will the new dome be at Greenwich, assuming it will be a new dome?
Hello Magazine readers = golgafrinchians
Time enough for another bath
Quote from: "Ian"Hello Magazine readers = golgafrinchians
"B" Ark Golgafrinchams, please ;)
There's been some discussion of this in uk.people.sf-fans and rec.arts.sf.fandom following it's mention in this month's Ansible. See thread on Google groups (http://groups.google.com/group/uk.people.sf-fans/browse_frm/thread/c69da5c74bdae6ce/5cece9986bf18037?tvc=1&hl=en#5cece9986bf18037)