This document is a report of the discussion on ‘The future of planetaria’ at the conference Communicating Astronomy with the Public 2013

With kind regards,Franka BuurmeijerDutch Research School for Astronomy (NOVA)

Opening and introduction by with Jeffrey Bout, GroningenI will drop some statements to discuss for which we have a limited number of minutes to discuss. We will discuss the future of planetaria. Some ideas on the future may be: •The number of planetaria will increase•The quality of productions will improve•More opportunities for visualization will be developed•More options competing activities•More possible subjects such as big dataWe can also stay the same. People may still think that astronomy is fascinating. We may keep focussing on the undereducated. We can also rethink the direction in which planetaria will move: the same, historically oriented, live moderated shows or mixed shows.

I’m Jeffrey Bout and I will work at Infoversum in Groningen. Either choice has advantages and disadvantages. We can remain to do the same and be an astronomy planetarium by which the number of visitors may decrease or stay the same. We will not get new audience. By mixed shows we attract people which are not interested in astronomy in the first place. So every choice has good and bad things.

Planetaria are for agronomySusanne, Germany: it may not be true, it is certainly one sided. We have a zero marketing budget. As planetaria we may be considered old-fashioned. We went from 120000 to more than 200000. Focus on astronomy is old fashion. We incorporate music, nature but the numbers are not as high. This may be a matter of marketing. We try to advertise 'chaos and order'. The number of visitors is not as high as standard astronomy or standard music shows. But will numbers really decrease? Maybe we should not consider ourselves as old-fashioned and focus on astronomy.

Thomas, Hamburg. We launched the digital full dome theatre and the number of visitors has been 300000 and for 10 years. We do need to the change the perception of the planetarium. People go to the planetarium twice, once as kids and once with kids. We have the option to change the name of the institution or to change the perception. We, as astronomers, need to take a step back. Our perception is wrong, it is not a theatre. The planetarium is meant to depict a concept of a world, not the world itself. We depict our relation to the universe. It is a high tech model of the universe. We need to put everything in perspective, while astronomy remains the crown jewel. It is the context that is the key, it brings in the people so we have to relate to the human scale.

Australia: We can stick to what we do best. Planetaria are more than just astronomy. Every planetaria should always include the sky and a live show. The rest of a show can be everything.

Ghana: Visitor numbers are going up. Adults want to come and stay late to watch the stars, but this is because they relate it to astrology. School children do not want to astronomy, they want to fly to space. We need to make a link to physics and mathematics.

We need repeated visits. We need more people to come so there is more money to make to keep going.

With mobile planetarium we can go to places if there is electricity. We can come to remote areas. Mobile planetaria will play a big role and should be considered. All equipment is being build for big planetaria. This equipment is too costly, and thereby also for the children. Development of small scale projectors is necessary for remote areas.

United States: You are right about the small systems. We have their educators calling us for shows about different subjects than astronomy. We need to redefine ourselves, we periodically do it. We need to get out off the mindset that we are just a planetarium.

Bruxelles: It is the presentation of the sky and the full dome shows they like. However, the problem of one visit per life remains. Shows can be interactive, you can give the public a choice for example. In this way they can come back and experiment with a new show. You give them the possibility to vote and explore.

Martin: It is a concept that we can deliver to our audiences. These concepts are different today from the centered view of the universe before. We have only been developing the tools of presenting the universe as today about a decade. This is a maturing field and a large community where new people are being introduced with new ideas. We really need to think about the best practices to teach and to show the expansion universe at large such as cosmology. We are at the age to discover the geography of the universe. How do we teach this to convey the large scale over the next decade?

We need to go beyond to bring the universe to people who have different modes of communication. Planetarium shows go beyond scientific methods and facts. We can link astronomy with human expression in art fields such as music. Astronomy is more than a science fact. So yes, astronomy is very important, but it needs a connection to daily live and our creative minds. Let us experiment and use different media. Let us find new ways of combining. Artists can reflect on the structure of the universe. That is most important.

Germany: Maybe lets focus on astronomy, by which I mean the entire universe. What we still have difficulty with is that our audience is not interested in things beyond astronomy. This are the shows that are at first glance unrelated to the universe. Are we in the position to reeducate the people on what they should want?

Another benefit of more artistic pieces is that a complete new audience is attracted. Then they come to see astronomy.

Germany: That is the general hope but the numbers do not really support that.

USA: It is an emergent space and we can choose. But it is partly our purpose to educate the audience.

In a developing country you introduce a new medium, therefore the interest is high. There is more competition in developed countries. As far as entertainment, you can never compete with IMAX.

Spain: I heard about a planetarium that was said to install a 3D planetarium to compete with IMAX. The idea of the planetarium is not to compete with IMAX. That is another medium, therefore comparisons do not hold.

We are becoming competitors with each other.We need to cooperate, but if we cooperate we don not all have an unique selling point.

Germany: We have two planetaria close to each other, about 80 kilometers. We found we do not at all have visitors of each other. Very few come to both. We do do the same the thing and we coproduce. So a better question is: How many kilometers can be between? We do not compete at all.

Tim: What is different in the planetarium? Why should people go to the planetarium? It is the interactive aspect.

The quality to money is better of planetaria. With IMAX you are just looking at the screen. It simply is a big cinema.

No matter how big it is, it is still in front.

It is a different experience.

Planetaria are more immersive, though we might find ourselves in the position to be not immersive anymore because of new technology.

Planetaria are to convey content. The staffs needs to know what they are talking about, but this is not true for all. The bottom line becomes one of the main reasons for existence, but they are losing quality staff. The best places have a knowledgable staff. Success has less to do with technology. Human quality needs to be developed and experienced educators. It is a matter of convincing the administration department.

How to make planetarium software cheaper to small planetaria

…

They need to merge the budget with major organizations.

Coming from the development side, because of the low price of the software we decided to move into selling hardware. The software is actually the most complex part of the system. To bring in the money, we started selling projectors. There is a tension field between non-profit and for-profits. The feed of money needs to increase.

From the side of show production. For the last project we got paid up front. Therefore we could spread the show for free. We were accused of driving down the cost, and causing people to expect free shows. We did so for the love of creating the knowledge, but I felt the capitalist. We should create a level playing field.

Thomas: It becomes easier for the smaller domes. You can be interactive, and you do not need the full shows. One additional element is localization. You need to make it relevant to the region. Visitors like to see something familiar in relationship to their local environment. The human element can be different, while we do need to arrange a workflow from the scientific community to the planetaria. IPS2020 will be included in the next few years. What are the topics? Where do we want to be? Please attend next years conference in Bejing because of internationality of the planetaria. We are heading to planetarium

software and data in clouds. So we need to enhance the human aspect. Remember it is not size that matters in the planetarium, but it is people.

There is a contrast between diversity and standards. There are cultural programs fitting into nations. And concerning the shows, we need people to buy them so we can also spread them in developing countries. Forget the numbers. Conserve the diversity.