Re: ATM Demise

[Atmj1@aol.com]

Regarding my request for information concerning amateur innovation finding
their way to professional
manufacturers,  Mike Peck wrote:

>>Aren't you assuming what you're trying to show? That's a no-no in scientific
inference. Of course it's fine for a pamphleteer, which I guess is what you're
doing here.<<

That is not what I am EXACTLY doing here. I am well versed in scientific
methods. I frequently get upset when my children come home from school
spouting any number of scientific "theories" as fact simply because someone
"scientific" said so. Scientists say "We believe….because." Those who are
quick to spout theory as fact are not scientists by definition.

It was for that very reason I asked for input to support what I already know
to be true. I do not want the weight of the article I propose to be made up of
what I know. I want it to be made up of what OTHERS, from all over the world,
know. 

Mike continues:

>>OK, one more bit of devil's advocacy. As far as I can tell most optical
innovations in the commercial marketplace right now are the products of
professional optical designers. One possible exception - those nice Russian
Maksutov-Cassegrains appear to be Rumak configurations. At least they use
separate secondaries mounted near the corrector plate, which is the primary
distinguishing characteristic of the Rumak cass. But perhaps the Russians
discovered that design independently.<<

Galileo was an ATM. Newton was an ATM. Cassegrain was an ATM. To bring things
up to date: Tom Johnson who made the first Celestrons is an ATM. Roland
Christen is an ATM. Al Nagler is an ATM. We all know how popular Edmund
Scientific's Astroscan has been over the years. Yet, had it not been for ATM
Norman James' articles in Maksutov Club Circulars 167, 168, and 171 and his
presentation at Stellafane, would the Astroscan or Portaball exist today? I
can think of any number of astronomical gadgets that were homebrewed before
the "professionals" got involved. Once again, I do not want that input to come
from me. Others out there have seen no less than myself. It is that input I
solicited.

As for the Rumak: Harrie has done a fine job on designing the Rumak. However,
he would be the first to tell you that the idea of a suspended secondary
predates his design by many years. Please see his book (co-authored by Martin
van Venrooij) Telescope Optics, Evaluation and Design, Willmann-Bell
Publishing, page 104 and Allan Mackintosh's Advanced Telescope Making
Techniques Vol. 1, (also Willmann-Bell) pp. 161,176, 177, 179, 188, and 192
for additional examples.    

>>Amateurs, and amateurs turned pro, have been far stronger in mechanical
innovations in recent years, and in that area I'm sure you're right.

Mike Peck<<

That was the point I was trying to make in the first place.

In my next post, I thanked those responding to me - on the list and off with:

>Boy....you folks were great!<

Mike responded

>>Well, there were some interesting posts during what would have been a slow
traffic time but I don't recall seeing many actual data points. Instead
there were a collection of anecdotes and predictably boosterish "ATM is so
alive and well" type comments. I have no reason to think otherwise, but I
will make one observation as a bit of devil's advocacy.<<

Allow me to be such an advocate first. Earlier Mike said that I might have
been assuming too much. Mike, is it possible that you have assumed that all
the input offered to me would also have been posted on the list. That would be
a logical assumption, but alas,no Cigar. Rest assured that IF I write the
article and IF S&T chooses to publish it, it will be as full of data as I can
make it. 

>>In Kriege & Berry's book "The Dobsonian Telescope" - arguably the ATM
publishing event of 1997 - Kriege rather strongly urged readers *not* to
make their own mirrors. And he has a legitimate point. The primary for a 15
or 20 cm telescope that was pretty much the standard for amateur astronomy
30 years ago is a very do-able mirror making project for anyone with a
corner to spare and a modicum of diligence. A 15 or 20 *inch* mirror on the
other hand is a major project, and imo not one for the first timer.<<

>>I think ATM'ing would be in big trouble if the view that optical work is
best left to the pros ever became prevalent. Fortunately I don't see any
sign of that from traffic on this list, but I wonder if anyone else sees
the trend towards really large amateur telescopes as an entry barrier to
would be ATM's.

Mike Peck<<

I am in total agreement with Dave. A fellow called up the other day wanting to
know where he could get a "48-inch lens" with which to make a telescope. When
he finally came to from my giving him the approximate cost of a 48-inch piece
of BK7 and F4, we started talking Pyrex, reflectors, and reality. This poor
man wanted to make a 48-inch FIRST TELESCOPE!!! (Frankly, I would rather kiss
a rattlesnake on the lips than take on such an endeavor). 

Now I cover my rear with both hands and type with my nose to say that I don't
think big telescopes are going to hold their mystique for the masses during
the years to come. C. Plath has been making the world's finest sextants since
the 1830's. However, while a top of the line C. Plath sextant will sell for
nearly $3,000 a $150 GPS is faster, easier to use, and more accurate. I love
to repair fine sextants and octants. However, they are going away. I do not
like that, but that's just how it is. 

There will always be folks will to make the sacrifices necessary to be able to
view the heavens with a telescope 25 or more inches in aperture. I solute
them. (I want to make that perfectly clear. Every time I say anything that can
even vaguely be construed as being against large telescopes or Dobsonian
telescopes I get chastised by those who forget that I use a Dobsonian in a
paper tube as my primary instrument.) Even so, the average ATM is not going
that route. Three months ago, in smoggy L.A., I saw galaxies captured with ONE
SECOND exposures using Celestron's Ultima 2000 and CCD technology. And, like
the hand held GPS, CCD technology is not going away. In fact, it is improving
at every turn.

>From my vantage point, the tide is already turning back to quality from
aperture. Sure there will always be die-hards who will stay the course. I
heard of one big Dob owner who once walked out onto an observing field and
stood amid a cluster for fine refractors from Tele Vue, Takahashi, Zeiss, and
Astro-Physics to announce, "You boys ought to come over here and have a look
through a REAL telescope." 

I think this kind of thinking is hazardous to the brotherhood that should
exist between us. Big Dobs, small refractors, medium sized Yolos are all
telescopes and the all have their place. It would seem to me that as the
pendulum of popularity shifts, we should take pleasure in our own choices
without making fun of our neighbor for his. As editor of ATM Journal, I can
stick my chest out with pride and say without reservation that my favorite
telescope is a 6 to 40-inch Apomaksurefractograin on a Schmidtsonian mount.

Just a thought,

Bill Cook
Editor / Publisher, Amateur Telescope Making Journal