Neil deGrasse Tyson and Audience

     Neil deGrasse Tyson is of but few writers who can display their point effectively to a variety of audiences. In his "The Case for Space Tyson is very technical and much more of a "scholar" whereas in "The Astronaut Session" he is more laid back and has multiple people there with him to throw in their two sense about the topic. While in both situations it is all very research based, his approaches differ. In both pieces Tyson backs his idea up that we as a nation no longer have the same intentions for space advances as we once did. This is important to him because our nation made history in this field and although it was claimed that our government (which funded research and space exploration) has pride in these advances that pride is a surface cover for other intentions. The government was really just trying to compete with other countries at a time of war through technological advances to prove to them that we are a leading nation in these areas. He backs this statement up more in "The Case for Space" than his other piece.

     In Tyson's "The Case for Space" he writes in a persuasive manner and uses more information and descriptions. Also he creates valid concerns for the public. One of those concerns is that advances in space technologies also means advances for the everyday world we live in. Familiar and important examples he uses are advances in cancer detection using digital imaging, implantable pacemakers, collision-avoidance systems on aircraft and precision LASIK eye surgery. Tyson discusses the importance of advances "With the help of funding from the National Science Foundation, the Lombardi researchers adapted the techniques that the Hubble scientists were using to analyze the telescope's blurry images and applied them to mammography, leading to significant advances in the early detection of breast cancer. Countless women are alive today because of efforts to fix a design flaw in the Hubble Space Telescope." I believe he has done this so that funding for NASA, which is a very prestigious association, can feel like a more "close to home base" issue. He raises another, among many, concerns when he brings the issue into it that because it has lost its spark many foreign scholars are abandoning the field and taking their knowledge back to their home countries to apply it there, which is problematic.

     His next piece "The Astronaut Session" is a more public, comedic and laid back approach with a live audience. I believe this is due to his audience's attention span, the setting, mood and lack of time. He wanted to catch their interest as well as get them to remember the things they are speaking about.
 What is notable about this piece is that Tyson has other people with him speaking on the topic as well. One of the people is a former Astronaut and Tyson uses that guests point of view to demonstrate to the public that this is a real issue and affects people as individuals not just associations. To me this is like an archaeologist bringing an important and interesting artifact they are going to speak about. Once again, it brings the topic closer to home for the audience and they can get a better understanding of the topic.

     His main purpose for doing two different pieces in different styles was to appeal this topic to people of other fields and the general public.Tyson wanted to spark the interest of not just the science community at large but many communities. His concern in both pieces is that the leaders of the nation have lost interest in funding these advances in present day society. The American people are prideful of our success within the history of space advances so much that they do not recognize present day that we are no longer advancing due to the lack of funds and interest from the government, and other countries are catching up to us.. Tyson in both pieces is pointing to the bigger issue: that the government only funds for war related advances in space technology. Even more potential advances in American medical science is not enough to push for the interest or funds of the political world.  In both pieces jokes about a statement that backs up his. He states that " I have joked with colleagues that the United States would land astronauts on Mars in a year or two if only the Chinese would leak a memo, that revealed plans to build military bases there." Neil in both pieces jokes about a this same exact statement that is more of a serious statement than it is a joke. I think this statement says more about our countries poorly thought out, but heavily funded, competitive interests in warfare, than it does anything about politicians own interests in the greater good of our society.