Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Some Hickson Clusters

Expand Messages
  • Uwe Glahn
    Hi Bill, some very interesting observations and sketches of the Hickson clusters. HCG 69 and the surrounding galaxies looks pretty good. I will try it the next
    Message 1 of 21 , May 1, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Bill,

      some very interesting observations and sketches of the Hickson
      clusters. HCG 69 and the surrounding galaxies looks pretty good. I
      will try it the next months.
      During the last two years I also tried some Hickson clusters with my
      16" (HCG 55 with 24")

      HCG 55: http://www.gotodobson.de/Sternenfreunde/Zeichnungen/HCG55i.htm
      HCG 56:
      http://www.gotodobson.de/Sternenfreunde/Zeichnungen/NGC3718_HCG56i.htm
      HCG 57: http://www.gotodobson.de/Sternenfreunde/Zeichnungen/HCG57i.htm
      HCG 61: http://www.gotodobson.de/Sternenfreunde/Zeichnungen/HCG61i.htm
      HCG 68: http://www.gotodobson.de/Sternenfreunde/Zeichnungen/HCG68i.htm

      clear skies, Uwe
      www.sternenfreunde-eichsfeld.de


      --- In amastro@yahoogroups.com, "billferris2003" <BillFerris@...> wrote:
      >
      > Last night before turning the 18-inch to comet 73P's multiple
      > personalities, I had a look at a couple of Hickson clusters.
      >
      > Hickson 67: http://members.aol.com/billferris/hickson67.html
      > Hickson 69: http://members.aol.com/billferris/hickson69.html
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Bill in Flagstaff
      >
    • billferris2003
      Greetings Uwe, The linear arrangment of the galaxies in Hickson 55 is interesting. And I imagine seeing that distant cluster sharing the same field as NGC 3718
      Message 2 of 21 , May 1, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings Uwe,

        The linear arrangment of the galaxies in Hickson 55 is interesting.
        And I imagine seeing that distant cluster sharing the same field as
        NGC 3718 must be impressive. When I observed NGC 3718 and NGC 3729
        with my 10 inch (25 cm), I did not detect any of the faint Hicksons.

        I should mention that, when writing up my notes on Hickson 69, I
        found several discrepencies between galaxy ID's in MegaStar5 and
        NED. Mostly, the differences were a lack of agreement between IC and
        PGC designations...if that makes sense. Anysay, I decided to use the
        NED designations and (hopefully) made the necessary corrections. If
        any veteran Hickson observers find errors--or what you believe to be
        errors--in the designations I use, I would appreciate hearing from
        you. Thanks.

        Well, with summer almost upon us, I may soon change gears and go
        after some Abell planetaries or Palomar globulars :o)

        Regards,

        Bill in Flagstaff

        --- In amastro@yahoogroups.com, "Uwe Glahn" <deepsky@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Bill,
        >
        > some very interesting observations and sketches of the Hickson
        > clusters. HCG 69 and the surrounding galaxies looks pretty good. I
        > will try it the next months.
        > During the last two years I also tried some Hickson clusters with
        my
        > 16" (HCG 55 with 24")
        >
        > HCG 55:
        http://www.gotodobson.de/Sternenfreunde/Zeichnungen/HCG55i.htm
        > HCG 56:
        >
        http://www.gotodobson.de/Sternenfreunde/Zeichnungen/NGC3718_HCG56i.ht
        m
        > HCG 57:
        http://www.gotodobson.de/Sternenfreunde/Zeichnungen/HCG57i.htm
        > HCG 61:
        http://www.gotodobson.de/Sternenfreunde/Zeichnungen/HCG61i.htm
        > HCG 68:
        http://www.gotodobson.de/Sternenfreunde/Zeichnungen/HCG68i.htm
        >
        > clear skies, Uwe
        > www.sternenfreunde-eichsfeld.de
        >
        >
        > --- In amastro@yahoogroups.com, "billferris2003" <BillFerris@>
        wrote:
        > >
        > > Last night before turning the 18-inch to comet 73P's multiple
        > > personalities, I had a look at a couple of Hickson clusters.
        > >
        > > Hickson 67: http://members.aol.com/billferris/hickson67.html
        > > Hickson 69: http://members.aol.com/billferris/hickson69.html
        > >
        > > Regards,
        > >
        > > Bill in Flagstaff
        > >
        >
      • Steve Gottlieb
        Here are my notes on the HCG 69 field. The main identification problem is that HCG 69B was misidentified as IC 4345 in the RC3 and subsequently the PGC.
        Message 3 of 21 , May 1, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Here are my notes on the HCG 69 field. The main identification
          problem is that HCG 69B was misidentified as IC 4345 in the RC3 and
          subsequently the PGC. This, of course, causes problems with sky
          plotting software that rely on the (original) PGC as a galaxy
          database. Javelle discovered the 7 IC galaxies in the field
          including IC 4345, but missed the HCG galaxies! I've done my best on
          the aliases, but can't guarantee these are all correct.

          Steve Gottlieb

          IC 4342 = MCG +04-33-021 = CGCG 132-039 = PGC 49425
          13 54 22.1 +25 09 11
          Size 0.8x0.3

          17.5" (6/8/96): very faint, very small, round, 20" diameter. Located
          just S of a small group of stars including mag 8.8 SAO 83071 3.3' NNE
          and mag 9.2 SAO 83068 4' N. First in a group of 7 IC galaxies and
          HCG 69!
          ************************************************************

          IC 4343 = MCG +04-33-024 = CGCG 132-044 = PGC 49470
          13 54 55.8 +25 07 22
          Size 0.7x0.4

          17.5" (6/8/96): very faint, small, slightly elongated, 30" diameter,
          very weak concentration. Nearly collinear with two mag 10-11 stars
          6.5' and 9' S. In a group of 7 IC galaxies as well as HCG 69.
          ************************************************************

          IC 4344 = MCG +04-33-026 = CGCG 132-045 = Ho 556b = PGC 49492
          13 55 12.6 +25 01 18
          Size 0.9x0.8

          17.5" (4/13/96): very faint, very small, round, 25" diameter, low
          even surface brightness. Located 1.8' S of brighter IC 4344 and 1.1'
          following a mag 11.5 star. Also in field with HCG 69 group 5' E.
          ************************************************************

          IC 4345 = MCG +04-33-025 = CGCG 132-046 = Ho 556a = PGC 95536
          13 55 13.4 +25 03 07
          Size 0.9x0.9

          17.5" (4/13/96): brightest member of a cluster including HCG 69 close
          following. Fairly faint, fairly small, slightly elongated SSW-NNE,
          0.8'x0.6'. Sharp concentration with a very small bright core.
          Located 2.3' NNE mag 11.5 star. Forms a pair with IC 4344 1.8' S.
          HCG 69 is less than 5' E. RC3 and PGC misidentify IC 4345 with HCG 69b.
          ************************************************************

          HCG 69A = UGC 08842b = MCG +04-33-027 = CGCG 132-047 = VV 281 = PGC
          49502
          13 55 29.9 +25 04 26
          V = 14.8; Size 1.3x0.5; Surf Br = 14.1

          17.5" (4/13/96): this galaxy is the brightest member of HCG 69 group
          (triple system). Very faint, small, elongated 2:1 E-W, very low even
          surface brightness. Requires averted vision and concentration to see
          elongation clearly. HCG 69B lies 1.5' S. Located 4.5' ENE of
          brighter IC 4345.

          17.5" (6/8/96): HCG 69a was resolved from extremely faint 69c which
          forms the third of the triple system just 0.6' following. Surrounded
          by a cluster of faint IC galaxies and viewed IC's 4342, 4343, 4344,
          4345, 4346, 4348, 4349.
          ************************************************************

          HCG 69C = UGC 08842c = MCG +04-33-028 = PGC 49505
          13 55 32.6 +25 04 28
          Size 0.3x0.2

          17.5" (6/8/96): HCG 69C appears extremely faint and small, round, 10"
          diameter. Just glimpsed at moments with averted vision 0.8'
          following HCG 69A. Faintest of three viewed in the group.
          ************************************************************

          HCG 69B = CGCG 132-048 = VV 281 = MCG +04-33-028? = PGC 49507
          13 55 34.4 +25 02 59
          V = 14.8

          17.5" (4/13/96): HCG 69B appears extremely faint, very small, round,
          15" diameter. Located 1.5' S of brighter HCG 69A (which is a close
          pair with fainter 69C). Situated just following the midpoint of a
          line connecting two mag 15 stars 0.8' S and 0.9' NW. The northern of
          these stars has an mag 15.5 companion 15" SW.

          17.5" (6/8/96): visible steadily with averted vision. The mag 15
          double star close NW was easily resolved.
          ************************************************************

          IC 4346 = MCG +04-33-029 = CGCG 132-049 = PGC 49523
          13 55 40.6 +25 09 11
          Size 0.8x0.5

          17.5" (6/8/96): very faint, very small, round, 20" diameter, low even
          surface brightness. First of three in a close trio with IC 4349 1.3'
          E and IC 4348.
          ************************************************************

          IC 4348 = MCG +04-33-030 = CGCG 132-050 = PGC 49531
          13 55 45.1 +25 12 11
          Size 0.3x0.3

          17.5" (6/8/96): faint, small, round, 25" diameter, even surface
          brightness. Located 3.1' N of IC 4386 and furthest N in a group of 7
          IC galaxies and HCG 69. Very compact CGCG 132-055 at 15.7z lies 5.5'
          E (not seen).
          ************************************************************

          IC 4349 = MCG +04-33-032 = CGCG 132-051 = PGC 49530
          13 55 46.4 +25 09 06
          Size 0.8x0.4

          17.5" (6/8/96): brightest and largest of a close trio within the IC
          4345 cluster. Faint, small, elongated 3:2 NW-SE, 40"x25". IC 4346
          lies 1.3' W and IC 4348 3.1' N.
          ************************************************************


          On May 1, 2006, at 11:14 AM, billferris2003 wrote:

          > I should mention that, when writing up my notes on Hickson 69, I
          > found several discrepencies between galaxy ID's in MegaStar5 and
          > NED. Mostly, the differences were a lack of agreement between IC and
          > PGC designations...if that makes sense. Anysay, I decided to use the
          > NED designations and (hopefully) made the necessary corrections. If
          > any veteran Hickson observers find errors--or what you believe to be
          > errors--in the designations I use, I would appreciate hearing from
          > you. Thanks.



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Brian Skiff
          ... Is the implication that NED is correct, or as good as can be inferred from the source observations? Brian
          Message 4 of 21 , May 1, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            >> > found several discrepencies between galaxy ID's in MegaStar5 and NED.

            >> I've done my best on the aliases, but can't guarantee these
            >> are all correct.


            Is the implication that NED is correct, or as good as can be
            inferred from the source observations?


            \Brian
          • pensack1
            An unusual marine layer blanket of clouds covered nearly all of the light dome of the Los Angeles basin on the evening of Sunday, April 30. As a result, the
            Message 5 of 21 , May 1, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              An unusual marine layer blanket of clouds covered nearly all of the light
              dome of the Los Angeles basin on the evening of Sunday, April 30. As a
              result, the darkness at Mt. Pinos achieved a level not seen for many
              years, reaching magnitude 21.69 at around 2am.
              It explains why the observation of M101 in my 12.5" was substantially
              more detailed than ever in my prior observations. M101 presented a
              mottled, eccentric, spiral pattern; with numerous knotty, probably OAB,
              associations (or large HII regions).
              In the process of my observation, though, I noted a distinct asymmetry to
              the spiral pattern, with a distinctly off-center core. The previous photos
              I'd seen of M101 showed SOME asymmetry, but not too much.
              In my notes I remarked what I thought was a "wayward spiral arm"
              extending out from the rest of the the galaxy.
              Today, I spent a few minutes looking at photos of M101--photos that
              show the asymmetry I noted, as well as the odd spiral arm.
              Here is a link to a few photos that show its odd structure:
              http://www.seds.org/messier/more/m101_more.html

              I presume the unusual shape is due to interaction with other galaxies?
              And, have others seen this same eccentric shape?
              I simply can't recall reading anyone's notes on this galaxy that mention
              seeing such oddly shaped structures.
            • pensack1
              Sorry, forgot to sign the post. Don Pensack Los Angeles ... light ... a ... to ... photos
              Message 6 of 21 , May 1, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Sorry, forgot to sign the post.
                Don Pensack
                Los Angeles

                --- In amastro@yahoogroups.com, "pensack1" <Pensack1@...> wrote:
                >
                > An unusual marine layer blanket of clouds covered nearly all of the
                light
                > dome of the Los Angeles basin on the evening of Sunday, April 30. As
                a
                > result, the darkness at Mt. Pinos achieved a level not seen for many
                > years, reaching magnitude 21.69 at around 2am.
                > It explains why the observation of M101 in my 12.5" was substantially
                > more detailed than ever in my prior observations. M101 presented a
                > mottled, eccentric, spiral pattern; with numerous knotty, probably OAB,
                > associations (or large HII regions).
                > In the process of my observation, though, I noted a distinct asymmetry
                to
                > the spiral pattern, with a distinctly off-center core. The previous
                photos
                > I'd seen of M101 showed SOME asymmetry, but not too much.
                > In my notes I remarked what I thought was a "wayward spiral arm"
                > extending out from the rest of the the galaxy.
                > Today, I spent a few minutes looking at photos of M101--photos that
                > show the asymmetry I noted, as well as the odd spiral arm.
                > Here is a link to a few photos that show its odd structure:
                > http://www.seds.org/messier/more/m101_more.html
                >
                > I presume the unusual shape is due to interaction with other galaxies?
                > And, have others seen this same eccentric shape?
                > I simply can't recall reading anyone's notes on this galaxy that mention
                > seeing such oddly shaped structures.
                >
              • Steve Gottlieb
                I just double checked NED and it s in agreement with the aliases in my notes. The one question I had was MCG +04-33-028, which I listed as HCG 69C, though
                Message 7 of 21 , May 1, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  I just double checked NED and it's in agreement with the aliases in
                  my notes. The one question I had was MCG +04-33-028, which I listed
                  as HCG 69C, though with a possible equivalence with HCG 69B instead.
                  NED equates MCG +04-33-028 with HCG 69C. I'm not sure what
                  discrepancies Bill found with MegaStar and NED, though IC 4345 may
                  have been on the list.

                  Steve


                  On May 1, 2006, at 8:59 PM, Brian Skiff wrote:

                  >>>> found several discrepencies between galaxy ID's in MegaStar5 and
                  >>>> NED.
                  >
                  >>> I've done my best on the aliases, but can't guarantee these
                  >>> are all correct.
                  >
                  >
                  > Is the implication that NED is correct, or as good as can be
                  > inferred from the source observations?
                  >
                  >
                  > \Brian
                • Kenneth Drake
                  Bill, I attempted to observe what appeared to be a dark lane in Hickson 69a from the 95 TSP in my 24 incher (f/5.6) with total failure. The previous Fall I
                  Message 8 of 21 , May 2, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bill,

                    I attempted to observe what appeared to be a dark lane in Hickson 69a from
                    the '95 TSP in my 24 incher (f/5.6) with total failure. The previous
                    Fall I had
                    easily detected the lane in NGC134 (2 mags brighter) and thought it would be
                    possible to snag a dark lane in an obscure galaxy.

                    You drawing is supurb and I see that the id of the trio of galaxies
                    north of 69a
                    has been mangled in MegaStar5. My observation from '95 only mentions the
                    two bright galaxies just west of 69a not the trio north. I was using
                    using 420x
                    with a 6 minute field to exclude the "bright" IC4345.

                    Kenneth Drake

                    billferris2003 wrote:

                    >Greetings Uwe,
                    >
                    >The linear arrangment of the galaxies in Hickson 55 is interesting.
                    >And I imagine seeing that distant cluster sharing the same field as
                    >NGC 3718 must be impressive. When I observed NGC 3718 and NGC 3729
                    >with my 10 inch (25 cm), I did not detect any of the faint Hicksons.
                    >
                    >I should mention that, when writing up my notes on Hickson 69, I
                    >found several discrepencies between galaxy ID's in MegaStar5 and
                    >NED. Mostly, the differences were a lack of agreement between IC and
                    >PGC designations...if that makes sense. Anysay, I decided to use the
                    >NED designations and (hopefully) made the necessary corrections. If
                    >any veteran Hickson observers find errors--or what you believe to be
                    >errors--in the designations I use, I would appreciate hearing from
                    >you. Thanks.
                    >
                    >Well, with summer almost upon us, I may soon change gears and go
                    >after some Abell planetaries or Palomar globulars :o)
                    >
                    >Regards,
                    >
                    >Bill in Flagstaff
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    --
                    No virus found in this outgoing message.
                    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                    Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/328 - Release Date: 5/1/06
                  • billferris2003
                    Hi Steve, Thanks so much for sharing your detailed notes and shedding some light on misidentifications in the Hickson 69 field. Regarding the discrepancies
                    Message 9 of 21 , May 2, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Steve,

                      Thanks so much for sharing your detailed notes and shedding some
                      light on misidentifications in the Hickson 69 field. Regarding the
                      discrepancies between MegaStar5 and NED, after triple-checking the
                      two sources, here's what I found.

                      Hickson 69 Field

                      MegaStar5 ID's
                      IC 4343 (13 54 55.8, +25 07 21)
                      = CGCG 132-44, MCG +4-33-24, PGC 49470
                      ============
                      IC 4344 (13 55 12.6, +25 01 17)
                      = CGCG 132-45, MCG +4-33-26, PGC 49492
                      ============
                      IC 4345 (13 55 13.4, +25 03 06)
                      = HCG 69B, CGCG 132-46, MCG +4-33-25, PGC 49507
                      ============
                      IC 4346 (13 55 46.4, +25 09 06)
                      = CGCG 132-49, MCG +4-33-29, PGC 49523
                      ============
                      IC 4348 (13 55 50.9, +25 08 34)
                      = CGCG 132-50, MCG +4-33-30, PGC 49531
                      ============
                      IC 4349 (13 55 45.1, +25 12 11)
                      = CGCG 132-51, MCG +4-33-32, PGC 49530
                      ============
                      HCG 69A (13 55 29.9, +25 04 26)
                      = CGCG 132-47, MCG +4-33-27, PGC 49502
                      ============
                      HCG 69C (13 55 34.4, +25 02 59)
                      = CGCG 132-48, MCG +4-33-28, PGC 49505
                      ============
                      HCG 69D (13 55 28.3, +25 04 25)
                      = PGC 49499
                      ============
                      CGCG 132-55 (13 56 09.3, +25 11 43)
                      = PGC 49556
                      ============
                      CGCG 132-54 (13 56 07.4, +25 01 54)
                      = PGC 49546

                      NED Discrepancies
                      IC 4345: Does not equal HCG 69B, nor PGC 49507
                      ============
                      IC 4346: Position: 13 55 41, +25 09.2
                      = MegaStar5 does not give an ID for the galaxy at these coordinates
                      ============
                      IC 4348: Position: 13 55 45, +25 12.2
                      = MegaStar5 identifies the galaxy at these coordinates as IC 4349
                      ============
                      IC 4349: Position: 13 55 46, +25 09.1
                      = MegaStar5 identifies the galaxy at these coordinates as IC 4346
                      ============
                      GIN 332: Not listed in MegaStar5

                      Boy, did I have fun sorting through these the other night ;o)

                      Bill in Flagstaff
                      --- In amastro@yahoogroups.com, Steve Gottlieb <steve_gottlieb@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > I just double checked NED and it's in agreement with the aliases
                      in
                      > my notes. The one question I had was MCG +04-33-028, which I
                      listed
                      > as HCG 69C, though with a possible equivalence with HCG 69B
                      instead.
                      > NED equates MCG +04-33-028 with HCG 69C. I'm not sure what
                      > discrepancies Bill found with MegaStar and NED, though IC 4345
                      may
                      > have been on the list.
                      >
                      > Steve
                      >
                      >
                      > On May 1, 2006, at 8:59 PM, Brian Skiff wrote:
                      >
                      > >>>> found several discrepencies between galaxy ID's in MegaStar5
                      and
                      > >>>> NED.
                      > >
                      > >>> I've done my best on the aliases, but can't guarantee these
                      > >>> are all correct.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Is the implication that NED is correct, or as good as can be
                      > > inferred from the source observations?
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > \Brian
                      >
                    • Steve Gottlieb
                      A quick check of the original IC positions (or better yet, Javelle s positions) confirms that MegaStar5 has mixed up the identifications of IC 4346, 4348 and
                      Message 10 of 21 , May 2, 2006
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        A quick check of the original IC positions (or better yet, Javelle's
                        positions) confirms that MegaStar5 has mixed up the identifications
                        of IC 4346, 4348 and 4349 as well as misidentifying HCG 69B as IC
                        4345. As I mentioned before, the last problem originated from the
                        RC3 and PGC, neither of which have a listing for the real IC 4345.
                        But LEDA has now assigned IC 4345 to PGC 95536. NED has the
                        identifications sorted out correctly. Hope this makes sense. Thanks
                        for making these comparisons, Bill.

                        Steve


                        On May 2, 2006, at 12:48 PM, billferris2003 wrote:

                        > NED Discrepancies
                        > IC 4345: Does not equal HCG 69B, nor PGC 49507
                        > ============
                        > IC 4346: Position: 13 55 41, +25 09.2
                        > = MegaStar5 does not give an ID for the galaxy at these coordinates
                        > ============
                        > IC 4348: Position: 13 55 45, +25 12.2
                        > = MegaStar5 identifies the galaxy at these coordinates as IC 4349
                        > ============
                        > IC 4349: Position: 13 55 46, +25 09.1
                        > = MegaStar5 identifies the galaxy at these coordinates as IC 4346



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Susan French
                        Folks, Is Aladin busted? I ve been unable to retrieve Aladin images for several days. Clear skies, Sue
                        Message 11 of 21 , May 4, 2006
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Folks,

                          Is Aladin busted? I've been unable to retrieve Aladin images for several
                          days.

                          Clear skies, Sue
                        • Kent Wallace
                          Hi Sue, The Aladin Previewer off SIMBAD is working now. It was acting weird a couple days ago. Clear skies! Kent ... From: Susan French
                          Message 12 of 21 , May 4, 2006
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Sue,

                            The Aladin Previewer off SIMBAD is working now. It was acting weird a
                            couple days ago.

                            Clear skies!

                            Kent
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Susan French" <scfrench@...>
                            To: <amastro@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 10:52 AM
                            Subject: [amastro] Aladin


                            > Folks,
                            >
                            > Is Aladin busted? I've been unable to retrieve Aladin images for several
                            > days.
                            >
                            > Clear skies, Sue
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > This message is from the AmAstro mailing list. To unsubscribe, send a
                            > blank e-mail to amastro-unsubscribe@....
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Dana Patchick
                            Hi Sue, Seems to be working fine. Must be those pesky sunspots again : ) Best regards, Dana
                            Message 13 of 21 , May 4, 2006
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Sue,

                              Seems to be working fine. Must be those pesky sunspots again : )

                              Best regards,
                              Dana
                            • Brian Skiff
                              I think they had some disc and/or database software problems that went over last weekend and early this week. Things seemed to be smoothed out by Wednesday.
                              Message 14 of 21 , May 4, 2006
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I think they had some disc and/or database software problems
                                that went over last weekend and early this week. Things seemed to
                                be smoothed out by Wednesday.


                                \Brian
                              • Len Philpot
                                ... I still get lots of field errors, although I m now getting at least a few images from the Aladin server (which is more than the zero I could get two days
                                Message 15 of 21 , May 4, 2006
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Susan French said the following on 5/4/2006 12:52 PM:
                                  > Folks,
                                  >
                                  > Is Aladin busted? I've been unable to retrieve Aladin images for several
                                  > days.
                                  >
                                  > Clear skies, Sue

                                  I still get lots of field errors, although I'm now getting at least a
                                  few images from the Aladin server (which is more than the zero I could
                                  get two days ago).

                                  --

                                  ---- Len Philpot -------- len@...
                                  ------- ><> ------------- http://members.cox.net/lenphilpot/
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.