# Deep space images - usefulness **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 21, 2007, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783 "2007-01-21T02:35:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783/1 "2007-01-21T02:35:27Z")
Many amatuer astronomers nowadays can image the Running man, the Ring nebula etc. and pretty cool the results look too. My question is do we get any useful info from these long exposure images or does the useful data come from infrared, xray and whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783/2 "2007-01-21T02:44:57Z")
[McNeil’s Nebula](http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap040219.html) > [@](#): > > 2004: > It was a clear, cold western Kentucky night on January 23rd as seasoned amateur astronomer Jay McNeil tried out his recently acquired 3-inch refracting telescope by imaging the area around a familiar object, the M78 reflection nebula in Orion. Days later while processing the images, he noted a substantial but totally unfamiliar nebulosity in the region! [Amateur Finds New Nebula with Small Telescope](http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040223.html) [Chandra’s Take on McNeil’s Nebula: X-ray Outburst from a Young Star](http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/mcneil/) ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783/3 "2007-01-21T02:48:24Z")
The images are quite stunning sometimes, but they can only tell us so much. The most useful information we get using visible light comes not from images, but from spectra; these can tell us about the composition of stuff out there, and how it’s moving relative to us. And visible light is just a tiny, tiny slice of the electromagnetic spectrum. These days, most astronomy happens either in the radio or in the high-energy end of the spectrum: x-rays and gamma rays. ---
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783/4 "2007-01-21T02:58:39Z")
Yeah, but what has McNeil done lately? ---
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783/5 "2007-01-21T03:10:51Z")
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.] The images are quite stunning sometimes, but they can only tell us so much. The most useful information we get using visible light comes not from images, but from spectra; these can tell us about the composition of stuff out there, and how it’s moving relative to us. And visible light is just a tiny, tiny slice of the electromagnetic spectrum. These days, most astronomy happens either in the radio or in the high-energy end of the spectrum: x-rays and gamma rays. [/QUOTE] So it’s as I suspected? Most of these amatuers are just repeat imaging things simply to cross them off a list of things that have already been imaged? Weird. I wonder if there is another branch of the sciences that has so many amatuers repeating the results of others for no apparent gain in overall knowledge? ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783/6 "2007-01-21T03:17:52Z")
[QUOTE=legion] Weird. I wonder if there is another branch of the sciences that has so many amatuers repeating the results of others for no apparent gain in overall knowledge? [/QUOTE] Uh, isn’t anyone who reads a book just repeating the results of other for no apparent gain in overall knowledge? Increasing one’s own knowledge is a prerequisite for expanding humanity’s. Plus, you seem to disregard the benefits of repeating/replicating experiments and observations. This is where much of real science happens: verifying that what we think we know is what we actually do–and in any field, it’s the part that amateurs are most easily able to contribute to. And as others have linked, occasionally these observations show we were WRONG (or insufficiently right) – and that’s where the fun starts, setting science apart from pseudoscience and religion. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783/7 "2007-01-21T03:19:34Z")
Well, you can probably consider amateur astronomy to be a separate hobby than astrophotography, although there’s quite a bit of overlap between the two. Amateur astronomers do the same kinds of astronomy that pros do such as spectrometry and radio astronomy. By taking multiple photographs of the same region of sky, they can find comets, asteroids and other objects in motion in the heavens; in fact, amateurs have discovered more than 75% of all known comets. Amateurs have even discovered extrasolar [planets](http://skytonight.com/news/3309506.html?showAll=y&c=y). ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783/8 "2007-01-21T04:43:07Z")
[QUOTE=legion] I wonder if there is another branch of the sciences that has so many amatuers repeating the results of others for no apparent gain in overall knowledge? [/QUOTE] Amateur astronomy is not a branch of science. It’s a _hobby_. Amateurs do astrophotography because it’s very satisfying to solve technical challenges and create beautiful images. I suppose bird watching and scuba diving are similar to astronomy; amateurs do it for fun, not research. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783/9 "2007-01-21T04:53:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Weird. I wonder if there is another branch of the sciences that has so many amatuers repeating the results of others for no apparent gain in overall knowledge? Chemistry, for starters. How many millions of kids have mixed baking soda and vinegar, just because it’s cool? ---
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deep-space-images-usefulness/388783/10 "2007-01-21T05:07:15Z")
Great answers. I get it now. Thanks.