🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2i8o1b$452@hermod.uio.no> jarleb@leda.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann) writes:

>In article <mcdonald.1105.2D47DF4F@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>,
>mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:

>|> More than that. If I were in power in the NASA or STSCI I would do the
>|> following:
>|>
>|>
>|> I would designate a certain amount of telescope time ...  perhaps 0.5 or
>|> 1% ... as for "general interest subjects" which would be determined by
>|> three methods:

><Warning seriousity mode on>

>This is quite a way from being a good idea. These kind of pictures are
>equally well taken from the ground.

You did not read what I said!!! I did **NOT** say "JUST PRETTY IMAGES",
though presumably the ones chosen by the geneneal public would include such
things. The ones chosen by the astronomers would include objects of
general interest to astronomers and, I would guess, would be heavy on
spectra rather than images.


>There is no need to take "nice" pictures
>from Hubble.

This is to the flamish poster responding to my original post:

Flame mode on:

Did you **READ** my suggestion? Do you speak English well enough and know
enough astronomy  to know that UV spectra are not "pretty pictures"?

Did the words "pretty pictures" appears in my post? NO!

Flame mode off.

Doug McDonald