But Meanwhile, Earth Is Floating By

Tyson expresses the same purposes in the StarTalk video and in "The Case for Space: Why We Should Keep Reaching for the Stars." His purpose is to cultivate curiosity and genuine concern for space exploration. Specifically, Tyson focuses on what prompted United States' interest in space, and he attributed this to JFK and the space race against the Soviet Union. 

Tyson emphasizes China's involvement in space research as well as its goals to reach Mars by the 2030s. Tyson wonders if the U.S. might be spurred into funding for space programs in response to China's efforts. Really, Tyson is arguing that the U.S. has an ego issue and wants to be better than any other country in specific areas.

The StarTalk audience certainly aims at young adults and adults, but it's specifically tuned to novices. The tone of StarTalk is also the polar opposite of the text piece. Tyson invited three comedians and an astronaut to keep the mood light but informative. The comedians made jokes, but they also asked questions from a layperson's point of view, which offers a reflective voice for the audience. The language, jokes, informal dress, and silly questions reflected a sense of casual learning. 

"Reaching for the Stars" takes a somber tone as Tyson digs deeper into the United States' political and economic problems preventing further funding for space programs like NASA. He specifically refers to several presidents' campaigns including Barack Obama and George Bush. 

He communicates the loss of technological advancement when he mentions all of the technologies and knowledge humans have gained from space research. If funding stops and cuts off space research, humans lose all of the amazing technological advancements in, mainly, the medical field. 

Tyson's audience for the text piece seems to be adults as well as regular citizens. He takes the time to back track through NASA's prior goals and successes and to explain how politics fatally wound space funding. This piece could also be a shout out to researchers and college students pleading with them to consider our future if we don't invest in research and space programs. Tyson's language, tone, and research shows heavily in the text without being overwhelming.

Tyson takes a humorous, comfortable style in StarTalk because he wants to reach a wider audience and show himself as an ordinary person who cares passionately about the universe. When Tyson stands up out of excitement to gesticulate his thinking, and when he stands up to make a joke, he's showing he's a fun guy. This approach better suits visual media because viewers need to be entertained; this isn't a college lecture, and Tyson wants citizens to understand what they're talking about. This best suits his audience with the changing camera shots and to be able to see the guests' talking; sight helps people to understand better.

The text piece follows a pattern. First, we learn about NASA and U.S. history. Next we learn about space research and technological advancements, And then we see the negative sides of America's apparent rejection of funding for NASA. Finally, Tyson ends on the hopeful note about Hubble and investing in our future. 

The text needed to delve further into the topic to help readers understand the broad scale of problems surrounding space programs. Most people don't know the truth, and I was certainly disappointed to read that the two political parties are blind in their fighting against one another. I rather think we should do away with the labels of Democrat and Republican, or else, will we agree on anything? 

The text's formal style and ominous tone suits it well because the reader wants to learn and be interested in the text, but it's not the same as entertaining someone on a web series like StarTalk. The mediums are different, and they need different styles.