S&T Table of Contents: 1941 – 2013

The editors of Sky & Telescope have a great collective memory, but individually we're often a little fuzzy on the details. One of us will say, “I know we published a great article on that recently,” and then after some research we’ll discover that the article in question was written 15 years ago. Such are the hazards of working for decades at one of the world’s best astronomy magazines!

We know we’re not the only ones who need a little guidance tracking down coverage of a history-making celestial event or finding the latest article about astronomy basics such as observing with computers. To help us (and you) in such cases, we have compiled a unified table of contents to all the articles we published from the first issue in November 1941 — after The Sky merged with The Telescope — through December 2013. We're making it available in two forms:

An Excel spreadsheet
A text file with tab-separated fields

If you want to read lots of articles from our archives, your best bet money-wise is to purchase our Seven Decade DVD Collection, which includes all issues from November 1941 through December 2009. We also issue yearly updates, currently from 2010 through 2013.

If you would rather not buy the entire collection, browse our online store for individual back issues.

7 thoughts on “S&T Table of Contents: 1941 – 2013

  1. Frank ReedFrank Reed

    Thank you. This is extremely useful! ….. There is a small issue with the text version. It appears that the file was saved with the standard text-encoding which loses some characters (if the line at 2013 6 79 shows missing characters in the author’s name, Pérez, José Joaquín, then there is a problem; if not, it’s been fixed). Select "Save As…" and "Unicode Text" in Excel to fix this.

  2. Frank ReedFrank Reed

    In case anyone’s puzzled, the text-encoding problem I mentioned earlier today has been fixed.

  3. Faye_Kane_girl_brainFaye Kane, girl brain

    ==-
    It freaked me out when I looked at "25 years ago in S&T" and saw the cover of an issue I had in high school. I dropped the magazine on the floor. That was spooky.

    Now, in four years, I’ll recognize issues in "S&T 50 years ago". That’s scary. So is seeing pictures of my S&T editor-friends (the only friends I had in high school), and they turned into OLD MEN. Seeing Dennis made me particularly sad, as I had a crush on him soooo long ago.

    I started to read the TOC from ’69, but I couldn’t do it. Sure, it was pleasant to remember when Jupiter had 12 moons, Saturn had six rings, and there were 9 planets. I felt secure, safe. God was in his heaven, and all’s right with the world.

    But in the TOC, seeing the state of astronomy then, the small-aperture "giant" telescopes on mountains, the common things we didn’t know, like pulsars and grav lenses… Too much time has passed, and that scares me too.

    But what scares me to death is that in my whole life, from when I was a baby girl to when I’m an old lady in my last hospital bed, the galaxy I’m in, which has wound itself into a tight spiral, will have rotated only 300 milliarcseconds.

    Where will I be in a quarter-billion years, when it rotates around to here again?

    What are you, black Monolith? What are WE? Why did you make us? Where is this place, this 14 billion light-year wide bubble? What’s outside it… besides YOU?

    But it only stands, as it always has, unmoving and mute — its origin and purpose, still, a TOTAL mystery.

    faye kane ♀ girl brain
    sexiest crazy homeless astrophysicist you’ll ever see naked
    tiny url dot com slash kanescave

  4. Mike W. Herberich

    Dear Faye, thank you for that account of yours of -basically- what time (and space, and space-time) is and why it sort of scares us all, in a way. Let me grab this occasion to stress, likewise, how absolutely marvelous and wonderful it is, at the same time. Complete and utter awe towards actually everything in the universe may be perceived as intimidating, but at the same time as absolutely elevating and breathtakingly ravishing … at least to me (and, may I say, I am not religious)! It might be that, the less we understand of it, the more we’re intimidated by it, but not necessarily so, or not in all cases. I could enumerate knowledge of mine that did not take away from the awe and admiration, but rather add to it. All in all, if you are more sad than happy, Faye, I would like to take this chance and try to encourage you to see the bright side (of almost anything) by means of this little paragraph. Lastly, it is our own judgement whether we deem something bad, sad or negative, or the opposite … or, as is probably closest to the truth (if that exists at all), to find our way through the middle of it somewhere, somehow and somewhen.

  5. Richard L. Davis

    We just saw the play "Silent Sky" and my wife is interested in more information about Henrietta Leavitt. I saw and article about her, but I can’t remember when. How do I find it?

    Thanks. rld. davisrlav@aol.com.

Comments are closed.