Re: [APML] Science in Astrophotos

[steve banbury <banburys@sonic.net>]

The intensity (luminosity?) of an image taken through a bandpass filter
allows examination of the universe at specific wavelengths.
Whether this image is subsequently presented for visual review with a color
commensurate with the wavelength of the 
incident photons has no impact on the scientific significance of this
amplitude data. 

Didn't Clementine use gamma ray spectroscopy in identifying surface
elements on the moon? 
What do we learn from a visible spectrum only color photograph of the same
area?
 
SteveB

At 07:39 PM 2/13/02 -0800, you wrote:
>Well, if you saw a B&W photo that showed mars' poles were slightly shaded,
>you'd think there was some dirt over the ice. But if you saw a color image
>showing green poles, maybe you'd think algae? Or at least be a bit curious
>about why it was green? Of course being green doesn't prove it's algae, but
>it would give you a more compelling reason to check further.
>
>Color imaging helps science. All data is helpful in examining a hypothesis.
>This is why we examine the universe in different wavelengths. Color, as
>considered by us astrophoto geeks, is but a piece of that spectrum.
>
>Or maybe I've missed the point of this thread.
>
>Steve...
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "steve banbury" <banburys@sonic.net>
>To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:51 PM
>Subject: Re: [APML] Science in Astrophotos
>
>
>> I believe the scientific benefit from planetary probe photos is
>independent
>> of their color.
>>
>> Unless a physical significance is associated with the "pretty" color
>> pictures e.g.: plots of magnetic field strength and polarity, or emission
>> spectra,
>> the color itself is devoid of any meaning.
>>
>> Any "science" could have been obtained equally well from a grey scale
>image
>> where the spectral responsivity of the detection medium is known.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> At 03:18 PM 2/13/02 -0700, you wrote:
>> >On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Chuck Vaughn wrote:
>> >
>> >> Frank,
>> >>
>> >> > science is done to improve and fit a theory. magnitude of stars can
>be
>> used to
>> >> > determine stellar lifetimes and hence stellar evoution. the exact
>> color of an
>> >> > object does nothing except create a pretty picture on a computer.
>> nice, might
>> >> > be art, but not science.
>> >>
>> >> So would you and Torsten also say that color images assembled from data
>> >> returned from various planetary spacecraft are just pretty pictures and
>no
>> >> science can had from them?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not a fair comparison- planetary probe photos are useful because they get
>> >close enough to their targets that details not even resolvable from Earth
>> >can be seen easily. Plus other measurements (magnetic field, etc) can be
>> >made that can't be done remotely.
>> >
>> >Torsten
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>> >             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>>
>
>
>--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
> 


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>