Jon Pike wrote:
(eyelessgame) wrote in news:e707421e.0308291539.37b6e076
@posting.google.com:

Mars, at the moment, is about 25 arcseconds in apparent diameter.
This is close to 1/70th the diameter of the full moon (and several
times too small to show anything but a point to the unaided eye).
Good binoculars (e.g. 10x50) should show an extremely tiny disk.

A magnification of 70x will show Mars to be about the apparent
diameter of the full moon. How big is this? You'll be surprised.
For most people, it's approximately the size of your little
fingernail held at arms length. (No one, and I mean *no one*,
believes that until they test for themselves. Go ahead and try --
the sun is the same apparent size as the moon; go outside, hold your
arm out straight, and cover the sun with your pinkie. Careful --
don't look directly at the sun; I have to say this because you're
all under four years old and don't know this yourselves.)

Of course, you have the problem that Mars will probably 'swim' a bit
in your eyepiece, particularly in the early evening when Mars is low
in the sky -- this is because the atmosphere plays a lot of havoc
with the light coming here from Mars, and wiggles it around, making
the image hard to see clearly. Patience is rewarded.

Oh, and those $99 telescopes you bought at Costco that promised 700x
magnification? They're pieces of crap, and you shouldn't expect to
see a thing.

eyelessgame


Good that someone mentioned this, because I -was- wondering.
However, mine isn't a 99$ telescope from costco. It's a Dynamax 8
(8"). I figure it should be good enough, especially with the best
eyepiece. Am I wrong?

YES!! I bought a Dynamax 8 and I couldn't even see the moon! No I jest,
but it was the worst scope I've ever owned. Mind you they aren't costly
and can get you started.

----------
Chunks