Re: ATM "The New S&T": A suggestion.

[Mark Cowan <cowanm@open.org>]

Dave Wilkinson wrote:
> 
> A suggestion:

> Since they are unlikely to pay large amounts of money for reader
> submissions, then it unlikely that cost is a major factor in their
> decision... 
> 
> Now, maybe if we sent, or suggested that we might send our own
> *submissions* for the column, then they might start taking an interest.
> This would not only indicate our support, but also provide them with
> material for the column.  Why complain about the content when we could
> have some control over what appears.
> 
>

Indeed...  The March 1995 "S&T's Author's Guide" says they will pay an
honorarium (10-25 cents/word) for feature articles (those not appearing
in the departments).  Therefore I expect to receive absolutely _nothing_
for an article I'm still working on about my first 'scope!  ('Though
they say they make exceptions for "exceptional contributions." ;) )

But there's still a darn good reason to do it...precisely the kind of
thing I've seen decried in this list--the decline of interest in doing
it yourself.

ATM is a fascinating (maybe _too_ fascinating) hobby.  You get to spend
far more time building stuff that really _works_ then you can ever
really justify in dollars and sense.  But...by God...you built it
yourself!  If it doesn't work right you know exactly who to blame. 

And when it does work right, and that low-passband filter we call the
atmosphere cooperates, you get to see stuff!  Amazing, thrilling,
wonderful stuff!

It's just that that big step from "Gee, wouldn't it be great to build a
telscope" to actually doing it is so daunting.  It wasn't until I took
John Dobson's class a few years ago that this dream I had as a kid when
I bought the '63 paperback edition of Texereau for $1.45 came true.  

We only had three weeks from glass to first light.  But Dobson'd
simplified the whole thing--and that made it possible!  Besides--he told
great stories.  

Later on you start to get into the finer details--according to the
limits of your interests, your patience, and your ability to detect the
results of those details.
But by then it's far too late...you've been hooked.

So I'm trying to work that sense of getting hooked into a description of
how I built my 8" f6 out of a lot of stuff that (besides the glass) was
never intended to be used for what I did with it.  But oh my my, how it
works!!!


All that said, here's my take on this whole S&T makeover thing. While I
was waiting for my first mirror to come back from coating, I read all
the back issues of S&T our local libraries had.  My impression of the
science content of S&T is that it has improved steadily.  Compared to
"Science", say, it's fairly light going--but it's generally accurate. 
At least it's on the scale, unlike, say, some other publication I could
name.  
I do notice a decline in the ATM orientation over the last decade.  But
I don't think it's steady, and I don't think it's deliberate.  Since,
yes, they do rely on reader submissions, and yes, they do want to sell
magazines (duh), I think what they've been lacking is interesting
general-audience submissions.  

I find it curious that my S&T renewal arrived one week before the July
issue (today).  But what I'm going to do is send them a query letter
(which they request) about this article, and see if they still want that
kind of thing.

And if there's no place in the "New S&T" for one amateur's tale of
reaching those giddy heights the child could see but the adult
postpones, well, then I'll think about whether I want to renew it or
not.

Anyway,         "Keep elevating your visual transducers in a vertical
direction"

-Mark Cowan