S&T and the State of ATMing

[Peter Abrahams <telscope@europa.com>]

I was imprecise and too brief in my earlier posting regarding S & T.  I
wrote that they had a staff of 21 editors, and that they could use their
considerable resources for exploring recent innovations in ATM work, if
they chose to do so.  Jeff corrected me, noting that editors are not
necessarily journalists.  Stephen asked if the articles I cited from 1968
were written by staffers.  During 1968, S & T had 5 editors, and now they
have 21, although Robert Cox (who 'conducted' the Gleanings) isn't listed
as an editor, so it would seem that there were more than 5 people
performing that function. (Walter Houston isn't listed either.)  But they
were clearly working with a smaller staff, so the comparison between then &
now isn't totally valid.  I still should have noted that none of the
articles on ATM from 1968 were by people listed as staff on the title page.
 However, I do stand by my original point that S & T has the resources and
the staff (including part-time 'contributing editors') to cover this field
if they choose.  Jeff doubts that they have travel funds; but a cross
country trip to a star party is a very inexpensive business trip, and S & T
staff have been at Riverside & at Stellafane for at least most of the
recent conventions; though coverage of these events has been minimal.

I'm sure that the internet has a lot to do with this change, the people who
would write are now putting it on line.  I do think that anyone would agree
that it is more prestigious to appear in S & T than on your own web site,
though some don't care much for prestige.  I wouldn't go as far as Bill, "
it is awfully hard for them to know what cool new ideas are out there if no
one tells them", I find the ideas at every star party I go to & all over
the internet.  Bill continues, "they have a legitimate point that we should
be the ones to take the initative", yes it's a point, but S & T publishes a
magazine & is responsible for its content.  They are professionals and are
paid for their work, and we pay for their product.  If they were interested
in the many innovative ATM projects now underway, they would find it very
easy to track down the ATMs and either solicit an article or write it
themselves.  But we do have to be more interactive with them.

It is beginning to dawn on me that ATMs do have to accept _some_ of the
responsibility for the lack of coverage in S & T.  Most of the articles
that we were inspired by in previous decades, were in fact written mostly
by people who were in the position that we're in now (advanced amateurs,
but also professional optical engineers).  It would be of interest to know
Robert Cox's role in assembling those articles, did he solicit them, assist
the authors, offer payment, or just wait for them to arrive?  

I imagine that if S & T made public its needs, and especially if they
offered to pay for articles, that they would get more response.  There
certainly are more productive ways to solicit input than this: " If you
have an article idea or proposal, have you sent it in to us?.... what have
YOU done to promote the hobby?"

Greg does not recall hearing a request for article submissions from S & T.
I have been attending 4 west coast events for 10 years, and reading the
magazines, e-lists, & newsgroups, and also have never heard of anyone who
has been asked by S & T for an article, until Jeff said that he'd been asked.

Bill responded, some of these changes are because people are building big
Newtonians now, not small Maks, D-Ks, etc, so there will be less coverage
of these exotic designs.  I'm with Greg here, I like to learn about unusual
configurations.  But even sticking with Newtonians, there is no shortage of
innovations & new uses for old tools....reducing weight, mirror cells, thin
or meniscus blanks, composite materials, shrouds & baffles, ever larger
mirrors, appropriate tests for large, fast mirrors, etc.  

Jeff doesn't want "S&T to regurgitate ATM list stuff as articles,".... that
does make it sound unsavory, but we're talking about taking the mention of
some project in an e-mail post & turning it into a cogent, edited article,
perhaps with images, tables, specifications, and references.  Jeff adds, "I
can't imagine an S&T editor slinking around star parties hoping to grab a
few snapshots of an interesting telescope while pretending to write an
article that says something substantial about how to build it, and hoping
they get it right!"  I don't know where you got that image, certainly it
wasn't implicit in anything you were replying to, personally I _can_
imagine it but I don't anticipate it.  I certainly can see (in my mind, not
having seen it in real life) an S & T staffer making a point of attending
an event with the purpose of finding some of the new ideas; then
interviewing, photographing, writing an article, submitting it to the maker
for corrections, and then to S & T for publication.  I'm sure this would
have happened if the magazine had hired a writer to do as much.

I do agree with Gary:  "In my opinion, we are in another Golden Age of
telescope making.  Never before has so much information been so readily
available."  I think that the S & T 'guest editorial' on the demise of ATM
was very poorly researched, poorly written, and at best reflected what was
happening in the author's town.  It read like a 'back of the envelope'
scribble, not given much thought and not intended as a pronouncement from
high......but it was published in a forum for serious discussion and will
inevitably carry some influence.  So the question remains, why did S & T
print it?  Articles that bemoan the death of some activity do in fact
_harm_ that activity, by discouraging beginners and encouraging those who
like to claim that it is irrelevant (which is exactly what happens to ATM
on lists like sci.astro.amateur.)  What effect does it have on writers who
might want to submit an article on ATM to S & T, knowing that it might
appear next to an article saying that it is irrelevant?

Gary, I hope you'll save this discussion & forward it to the editor in
chief.  Even the people who denigrate S & T, care about the direction it goes.

_______________________________________
Peter Abrahams   telscope@europa.com