Re: [APML] Science in Astrophotos

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

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

> First, I think it's quite easy to come up with a question that has not
been
> answered. Let's try one. What would NGC XXXX look like if it could be seen
> in color? (For XXXX insert any number for which no color images of any
kind
> exist.) If an astrophotographer carefully calibrates his system, takes the
> images required through a known filter set, creates a color image, and
> defines how the data was handled, why would this not be science?
>
> OTOH, if one carefully calibrated his equipment, took photometric data of
> SAO XXXXX, and determined the star's magnitude within certain error
limits,
> why is this science?
>
> Why is the first example not considered science and the second example
> considered to be science?

The first example can help answer morphological questions....where are the
star forming regions...pop I and pop II star distributions, etc.  That
sounds like useful science data to me...but I'm not aware of many amateur
efforts to study this stuff.  Maybe this is one sub-field that is 'old' or
established science...unless you can make a good case that we missed
something and need to go over it again.

>...Why continue to take photometric data? In the hope of discovering
> a previously unknown variable?

As I alluded to at http://overton.tamu.edu/aset/krajci/tt-ari.htm   we can
study things photometrically with amateur CCD's today that we couldn't a few
years ago...especially in terms of fast-changing systems...or systems with
light curves near 24 hour period (which is where collaboration with other
amateurs around the globe helps study light curves with near-24 hour
periods).

> Why is photometry elevated to a level above serious astrophotography?

I'd say it just delivers different data.  My cheesy rig, with non-goto
mount...is lousy for supernova patrol (which requires that you image as many
galaxies as possible in short time), but my cheesy rig can 'stare' at the
same field for hours...so I take light curve data of a star that CBA and
VSNET put on their 'target list.'  (Yes, the supernova patrol work is
sexier, but requires more expensive goto mounts, robotic control etc.  I do
what's within my budget and system capabilities.  If I had attempted
supernova patrol with my rig...I'd have set myself up for lots of
frustration...I have the wrong tool for the job.)

> General data taking is a common form of science that doesn't answer any
> particular question. Scientific discoveries are made when no question at
> all was asked by noticing something in existing data. No question in
> particular has to be asked to do science.

I can't do widefield survey work with my tiny CCD.  So...I get the guidance
and focus (sorry about that pun) from CBA on what stars to image.

However, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey is making a huge survey.  After that
terabyte-sized object database is created...folks can start asking questions
of it...and may get some surprising answers.  For example...lets 'clump'
objects based on filter/color/photometry data.  OK, we know about most of
the photometric families or clumps...but some new types will certainly
become apparent in this sort of database mining.

> I think that dismissing all amateur astrophotography as art is a far too
> narrow definition of science.

I agree.

Tom Krajci


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