I've responded roughly point-by-point: On 8/9/11, Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote:
As amateurs, we enjoyed many technological advances in the hobby over the last 20 years. The cost of quality optics, both in telescopes and eyepieces, the increase in automation, and the dramatic change in camera technology have revolutionized the hobby. But the benefits that we have enjoyed are not only technology driven: they are also result of economics. If there is no market, then the advances will not continue.
I won't argue that in general, except the price of primary mirrors, which has skyrocketed in the larger sizes. I would argue that the tech benefits are in the eye of the beholder. People have forgotten the simplicity of setting up a non-electronic driven mount/scope. Even Dobs are largely headed in the GoTo direction, sadly. The camera advances only benefit imagers. The vast majority of amateurs are still visual observers. Is there an umbrella effect for the hobby over-all? Perhaps, but I come from a generation that largely made their own equipment. It's not that hard.
Even with these advances, amateur astronomy participation, at least at telescope use level, continues decline, as evidenced by the continual aging of club membership.
I don't see this as a bad thing. The club was a handful of people when I joined and we had a blast. My enjoyment has never been dependant on large numbers, although I know a lot of current members enjoy the crowds. I don't feel any personal responsibility to proselytize. If someone asks for help directly, I'm happy to do so, but am not inclined to just hang out a "free astronomy lessons" sign.
Conversely, given rising light pollution, one of the most frequent uses of our state and national parks by citizens is stargazing, without telescopes. One way to increase participation is to streamline everything for new market entrants. The editor deleted portions of my letter to the ST editors, concerned that if since they changed ST to better appeal to new entrants, the editors should also take the simple, common sense step of making their articles easier to use with GOTO telescopes. I also noted in a deleted sentence that if the ST editors can't act, their advertisers should advocate for the change.
I really, really hope that advertisers NEVER get to determine editorial content of a magazine such as S&T. I'm probably in heavy denial, but I'd rather read what the writer wants to offer; not a manufacturer. The magazines are heavy with equipment reviews as it is.
While some young people are engrossed in the cultures of personality and consumer technology, for most potential new entrants and myself, it is more a matter of available leisure time. For example, you periodically leave and return to this listserv claiming that work is taking up all of your time and that you have no leisure time for astronomy anymore. Setting up, tearing down and checking out a couple of objects takes an hour after work. Anything that streamlines things and cuts that time down will help the hobby.
You don't know the whole story. I was without internet access at home for a couple of months, and usually post to this website at the office. If you worked alongside me for a day or two, you wouldn't be going out after work, either, or you'd only get 3 hours of sleep and miss your dinner. Again Kurt, I just don't see the motivation to streamline a hobby that is already being handed to novices on a platter, compared to the "old days". Honestly, sometimes the club mindset approaches a religious style and that turns me off.
It's about being practical in an economics driven world.
Pick your windmills carefully. The hobby works just fine as it is. It will evolve at the pace it's supposed to evolve at.
That was last winter's project.
So you're covered. Did you call attention to it in your letter to S&T? With a less aggressive approach, I'm sure they'd call attention to it so others could use it. Problem solved, without ruffling a lot of editor's and publisher's feathers.