From: "Shane LaPierre" 
To: atm{at}shore.net
Reply-To: "Shane LaPierre" 


Tom,

Your thoughts are interesting.  I also read your later post on the subject
clarifying your thoughts on the judging of telescopes.

One thing I feel is relevant is that there are 3 basic categories of
judging at Stellafane in particular:
1) Craftsmanship
2) Design
3) Optical Performance

The beautiful scope that was mentioned won the Craftsmanship award, and you
could make a strong argument that the result was not even subjective.  It
was hands down the most compelling example of craftsmanship on the field. 
I suppose that is still an opinion.  Overall, it is a subjective award with
enough qualified judges to weigh in and produce a good result.

The design category is interesting.  My understanding and observation is
that the Stellafane judges have preferences for long focal ratios and
multi-mirror designs (non-newts).  I have no idea if this is true, but the
lowely newt (unlike this year's winner of the design category) often fails
to win.  This is another largely subjective area, and I think that this is
the one area whose considerations should be more governed by criteria.
Furthermore, the criteria should be published to entrants ahead of time.
But don't be confused; the judges & entrants are qualified ATMers in
their own right, and have a good understanding of the latest issues in
improving telescopes.  I am impressed year by year (thought I am not THE
authority) and careful considerations on import observation-time issues are
always considered through the design & development of the scopes.  The
scopes that win this category are always very desireable mechanically, very
sound and stable.  It is true, however, that there is no way to measure the
effectiveness of various implementations (cooling for example).  But at
least you are rewarded for having brought a new or inventive solution to an
existing problem.

The Optical Performance category is the star test by multiple judges.  This
is about as fair as it could be without expensive and cumbersome equipment.
I'm satisfied with this method of evaluation.

Take care,
Shane LaPierre
http://www.ct-astronomer.com


>From: "Tom Krajci" 
>Reply-To: "Tom Krajci" 
>To: 
>CC: "'Kochetkova, Irina'" 
>Subject: Re: ATM Stellafane 2003 photos
>Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 11:03:24 +0500
>
>
> >From: Guy Brandenburg 
>
> >That wooden scope that took 1st place for craftsmanship is a marvel.
> > http://www.ct-astronomer.com/images/stellafane_2003_10.jpg
>
>It appears that the maker of this telescope lives in a very cloudy
>climate...or else is not using this scope much for observing, but
>perhaps decorating the living room with it.
>
>In some ways this reminds me of the Dark Ages practice when monk/scribes
>made copies of 'classic' works in math, philosophy, astronomy, etc.  The
>copies were ornately decorated.
>
>Rubbish.  The important part was the information in the text.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5