Re: [APML] Science in Astrophotos

["Tom & Lou Krajci" <krajcit@3lefties.com>]

From: "Chuck Vaughn" <aa6g@aa6g.org>

> Since the discussion has once again turned to art or science in
> astrophotography, I have some questions for all of you.
>
> What sort of an astrophoto would qualify as science in your opinion?
>
> How does one recognize an astrophoto that qualifies as science
> compared to one that does not?

It depends on what kind of science you are trying to do.

A film image is typically not very accurate for photometry, but if it's a
widefield image that is used to announce first detection of a
nova/supernova/comet...then I'd say it has scientific value...even if the
astrometric accuracy is not very good...at least it gets the rest of the
astronomy community alerted to a potentially valuable sorce of data, and
scopes/detectors of various sizes are slewed in the right direction.

But yes, there is some 'filtering' going on as to what objects are worthy of
scientific study.

Why do I do time-series, unfiltered photometry?  Two overlapping factors:
1.  It's within my budget/technique/sky conditions   and   2.  CBA and VSNET
still are doing science with such data that I collect.  (There are plenty of
cataclysmic variables to do photometry on...but CBA and VSNET 'filter' and
direct our efforts on types of stars that are likely to provie 'new'
science.  For example, WZ Sge is a star that has an orbital period that
doesn't match our 'models' of minimum orbital periods.  WZ Sge is the second
known example of this type of CV, but the first one is 18th magnitude, and
in the southern sky...putting it out of reach of amateur instruments.
So...WZ Sge is worth imaging to get 'new' science, such as refine current
models, or overturn/disprove current models.)

The pro scientists tend to have a science question...then
design/fund/construct the detector system.  I'm a cheapskate amateur.  I
cobbled together a CCD system...and then went searching for a science field
that fell within my capabilities.

> Are the many HST color images we see science? If so, why are they
> science and ours are not science, especially our CCD images?

We mostly see the PR effort, but color planetary images can help us
understand more of the workings of Jupiter/Saturn's atmosphere...the
dynamics of it, refine the models we use, etc.

Tom Krajci


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