Sad news re Hubble !

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:17:18 GMT, David Harris
wrote:

OK, hows this then - any HTML this time ? Ive stripped my posts down to the barest minimum that
Netscrape will allow....

Any, my posting HTML wasnt reall the main issue, have you all had a look at the article about Hubble
?

http://SkyandTelescope.com/news/article_1017_1.asp


Perfect!

Trouble is it's drawing a fine line between being a 'netcop' and
keeping quiet. Keeping quite means that often interesting information
will go unseen. I've seen a number of your previous posts appear with
the explorer icon and no info. However, I guess attitudes are
mellowing as no one has mentioned it to you before ;-)

Worrying article!

--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy

Pete Lawrence wrote in
:


Anyone else having problems with David's posts (it could be me of
course but everyone else's posts appear fine to me.).

My reader (Xnews) don't like it.

And apart from that, there's a good reason for deprecating html in text
newsroups, so I don't see why I should find a n/r that decodes html

mike r

Pete Lawrence wrote in
:


Anyone else having problems with David's posts (it could be me of
course but everyone else's posts appear fine to me.).

My reader (Xnews) don't like it.

And apart from that, there's a good reason for deprecating html in text
newsroups, so I don't see why I should find a n/r that decodes html

mike r

Pete Lawrence wrote in
:


Trouble is it's drawing a fine line between being a 'netcop' and
keeping quiet. Keeping quite means that often interesting information
will go unseen.

Worrying article!

I'm NOT mellowing :-)

I just don't believe in jumping down anyone's throat right away, but in the
end, it has to be mentioned, if only to widen the posters audience

mike r

Pete Lawrence wrote in
:


Trouble is it's drawing a fine line between being a 'netcop' and
keeping quiet. Keeping quite means that often interesting information
will go unseen.

Worrying article!

I'm NOT mellowing :-)

I just don't believe in jumping down anyone's throat right away, but in the
end, it has to be mentioned, if only to widen the posters audience

mike r

Mike Ring wrote:

Pete Lawrence wrote in
:

Anyone else having problems with David's posts (it could be me of
course but everyone else's posts appear fine to me.).

My reader (Xnews) don't like it.
And apart from that, there's a good reason for deprecating html in text
newsroups, so I don't see why I should find a n/r that decodes html
mike r

Dear Mike, and anyone else who feels offended by my inadvertant HTML posts of recent times.....

I'm sorry ! No-one else bothered to tell me until today and I am not bloody psychic .... so a BIG
thanks to Pete who had the common decency to do the right thing and tell me I was being a prat.

I wasn't aware of any problems, until Pete pointed it out to me. I have been posting to NGs for
several years (yes, bloody years) and no-one has ever moaned before today .... However, it *should*
now be OK, and should stop any further whining, if not, tough.

Clear Skies,

and best Regards,

DH

Mike Ring wrote:

Pete Lawrence wrote in
:

Anyone else having problems with David's posts (it could be me of
course but everyone else's posts appear fine to me.).

My reader (Xnews) don't like it.
And apart from that, there's a good reason for deprecating html in text
newsroups, so I don't see why I should find a n/r that decodes html
mike r

Dear Mike, and anyone else who feels offended by my inadvertant HTML posts of recent times.....

I'm sorry ! No-one else bothered to tell me until today and I am not bloody psychic .... so a BIG
thanks to Pete who had the common decency to do the right thing and tell me I was being a prat.

I wasn't aware of any problems, until Pete pointed it out to me. I have been posting to NGs for
several years (yes, bloody years) and no-one has ever moaned before today .... However, it *should*
now be OK, and should stop any further whining, if not, tough.

Clear Skies,

and best Regards,

DH

David Harris wrote:
OK, hows this then - any HTML this time ?

Nope, it's clean.

Best,
Stephen

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

David Harris wrote:
OK, hows this then - any HTML this time ?

Nope, it's clean.

Best,
Stephen

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Can I throw a spanner in the works and ask why you wish to keep Hubble?

The Gemini telescope has started producing images of Hubble quality already
and at a fraction of the running costs.

Will it be long before ground based telescopes are producing even better
quality images than Hubble can?

If losing Hubble by the end of the decade means a new, better space
telescope that surpasses ground based telescopes can be launched, and we
have better than Hubble by the end of the decade anyway, then in my eyes, so
be it.

We would all mourn the loss of what has proved to be an unmitigated disaster
and a fantastic success, but what about progress? All I hope is that when it
is de-comissioned, it could be brought back down in one piece.

don's flame-proof jacket and braces himself!

Darren