🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mcdonald.1107.000A0C18@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:
|> ><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.
|> 

Ok, I apologize, but "pretty images" is very much what you would get if you 
want to do observations on "what's hot". When something really hot comes up
like the supernova in 1987 data is distributed out, and extra time is devoted
to that particular event. But if we were to do this on a regular basis, what
you would get out is very much pictures, basically because it's not a good
idea that all astronomers should examine the same data, but of course they 
could give it out, it's just that there is so much to look at and so many
problems to study that one has to pick different problems for your study. 
Then you are back with the public and they usually want pretty pictures, which
is why I responded the way I did.... (I prefer people yelling at me via
the monitor :-) 

So, of course one would like to have all observations public domain, but one
of the biggest problems I see with that is that quick and dirty results will
be published and probably with a lot of screaming and shouting, and in the
end it will turn out to be wrong, this reduces the credibility of science in
the long term. 

If your suggestion were to be used, I guess astronomers would prefer 
observations of one single object with all possible means, Hubble just one
of them. And basically I think that earth based observations would suffice,
Hubble isn't that good at all kinds of observations.

|>Did you **READ** my suggestion? Do you speak English well enough and know 

Yes, dunno (but I thought the problem would lie with my _reading_ of English :-)

|>enough astronomy  to know that UV spectra are not "pretty pictures"?

To me they can be, but then I'm an astrophysicist too :-)

Thanks for the flame though, it's so damn cold up here in the north.

							Jarle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuke the Whales !            |      Jarle Brinchmann,   
                             |  Email: Jarle.Brinchmann@astro.uio.no
International Krill Union.   |    or : jarleb@astro.uio.no