Re: S&T and the State of ATMing

[Bill McHale <wmchal1@umbc.edu>]

On Sun, 27 Dec 1998, Peter Abrahams wrote:

> 
> I wrote that S & T seems to be minimizing its coverage of ATM, and this
> brought the reply, " If you have an article idea or proposal, have you sent
> it in to us?"  I do not think that this is a reasonable response.  When a
> publication has limited circulation and financial support, it is logical to
> expect people to submit articles on subjects they are interested in.  S & T
> has 21 editors, in addition to photographers, publishers, proofreaders, and
> assistants.  They have the resources to assign their paid staff to write an
> article on any subject, and presumably they carefully choose what subjects
> to cover.  Surely the job of editor at S & T does not mean waiting for
> articles to be submitted; but involves research & writing.  No one wants a
> rehashing of material that is already in publication, but there are plenty
> of innovative projects that show up at star parties.  If S & T wished, they
> could assign their editors to interview the makers & photograph the
> telescopes, and not wait for the makers to write their own articles.  They
> could monitor this list & the newsgroups, and follow up on discussions of
> interesting telescopes.
>

I am not sure if you are being really fair to Sky and Telescope here.  Yes
I would like to see more info on ATM, but I think they have a legitimate
point that we should be the ones to take the initative.  Sure they could
give better coverage to star parties, and maybe try to recruit the makers
of some of the more interesting designs there to write articles, but when
push comes to shove, it is awfully hard for them to know what cool new
ideas are out there if noone tells them.
 
> I realize that my post to this list made it seem like I was joining a
> chorus of 'S & T bashing'.  I like the magazine, and support it with my
> subscription.  However, in previous years, more of the articles on ATM were
> substantial, detailed, and useful than those of today.  Examples:
> 
> Here are the articles related to ATM that appeared in 1998, by month.
> 1-folded Gregorian; 2-antique lens in new mount; 3-club observatory &
> scope; 4-focuser, low cost dob; 5-observatory; 6-transparent telescope;
> 7-C8 modified into a coude; 8-dob improvements; 9-observatory; 10-tips, C90
> pipe mount; 11-cassegrain; 12-auto trailer, pipe mount.
> 
> These articles related to ATM were published in a year chosen at random,
> 1968.  1-two observatories; 2-optical aberrations, telescope/spectroscope;
> 3-telescope with video camera, foldable 6 inch Cassegrain, 4 inch Dall
> Kirkham; 4-five observatories, new Catadioptric design; 5-mounts, assorted
> tips; 6-new catadioptric, lens grinding; 7-slow  motion control, camera;
> 8-observatory, clock drive; 9-observatory, mount; 10-scopes at Stellafane,
> Harmann test, homemade astrophotography equipment; 11-another new
> catadioptric design; 12-mounting, drive & slew.

A but I think a lot of the changes in material reflect very real changes
in where ATM's are concentrating their attention.  With Dobsonian being so
prevelant, and many who do turn to ATM doing so to make bigger telescopes,
as a percentage of the hobby, I would have to say that there is less
interest in new optical designs than there was 30 years ago.  Lets face
it, while a 20" inch dob is very doable for an experienced ATM, or even a
less experienced one if he buys the optics, a 20" Mak is not.  In the past
Amateurs looked for the optimal designs for the sizes they could work with
(usually 12.5" and smaller), now they are looking for the absolute largest
mirror they can build/haul around.

Bill

***************************************************************************
Nostalgia is not what it use to be!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************