Seeing Mars

What is the minimum aperture needed to see surface detail on Mars?

I.M. Yerkinov [heh --brian] wrote:
What is the minimum aperture needed to see surface detail on Mars?

For a telescope, you can probably see Syrtis Major (the most prominent
albedo feature on Mars) with a 60 mm telescope. But I'd say that you'd
want at least 100 mm (4 inches) to see interesting detail on Mars, and
6-8 inches unless you're an experienced planetary observer.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

I.M. Yerkinov asked:

What is the minimum aperture needed to see surface detail on Mars?

Don't know. 89mm works for me, though.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

In article , Brian Tung wrote:
I.M. Yerkinov [heh --brian] wrote:
What is the minimum aperture needed to see surface detail on Mars?

For a telescope, you can probably see Syrtis Major (the most prominent
albedo feature on Mars) with a 60 mm telescope.

Syrtis Major is easy in a 60 mm scope under good conditions (= steady air,
and Mars near opposition). It's probably visible in a 50 mm and perhaps
even 40 mm scope as well, particularly near a perihelic opposition.

But I'd say that you'd
want at least 100 mm (4 inches) to see interesting detail on Mars, and
6-8 inches unless you're an experienced planetary observer.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

"I.M. Yerkinov" wrote:

What is the minimum aperture needed to see surface detail on Mars?

10-12 inches in a bad scope. 76mm in a good scope.

On Jan 11, 4:18 am, gas wrote:
"I.M. Yerkinov" wrote:
What is the minimum aperture needed to see surface detail on Mars?

10-12 inches in a bad scope. 76mm in a good scope.

You'll have to define "bad."

wrote:
On Jan 11, 4:18 am, gas wrote:
"I.M. Yerkinov" wrote:
What is the minimum aperture needed to see surface detail on Mars?
10-12 inches in a bad scope. 76mm in a good scope.

You'll have to define "bad."

Drinks too much, smokes around kids...

I can see some detail in my 66mm. Polar cap, some surface features
(sorry, don't know names). My 15 " is better though :-)


Shawn

"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..


You'll have to define "bad."

Drinks too much, smokes around kids...

I can see some detail in my 66mm. Polar cap, some surface features
(sorry, don't know names). My 15 " is better though :-)



I have a sneaking suspiciion that my brother in law wanted to see "Mission
to
Mars". I
haven't read one good thing about it even though tim Robbins is in it

This by far is the funniest things I have read about it so far

Forum: rec.arts.animation
Thread: Regarding famed jazz musician Buzz Aldrin...

Subject:
Regarding famed jazz musician Buzz Aldrin...
Date:
03/10/2000

HOLLYWOOD (Variety)--Buzz Aldrin couldn't quite find the right words to
describe Touchstone's "Mission to
Mars."

The former astronaut (he moon-walked in 1969) was at the
picture's El Capitan premiere Monday and then commanded an after-party

table in the adjacent Masonic Hall.

Aldrin began by describing the film as "jam-packed full of
space..."
and then paused for a minute before
saying: "jam-packed full of space activities."

Not exactly the pull-quote the marketing department will be
highlighting in print ads, but still relatively
positive.

The former astronaut (and current novelist: his THE RETURN debuts
in
May) overall reaction to the film
was: "lacks a little reality at times."

"I'm afraid there's a few things in this movie that couldn't quite

happen," Aldrin said. "Having people in
space take their helmets off is wonderful drama but..."

At this point Aldrin made no attempt to finish the sentence. He
merely roled his eyes. Clearly this is an
astronaut who keeps his helmet firmly tightened while in outer space.

However, he did think "Mission" would be a big hit with UFO buffs
and
believers in alien life.

Among those believers at the premiere were stars Tim Robbins, Gary

Sinise, Don Cheadle, Kim Delaney
and Connie Nielsen; and guests including Wesley Snipes and Tim
Allen.

On Jan 10, 9:59*am, "I.M. Yerkinov" wrote:

What is the minimum aperture needed to see surface detail *on Mars?

While some details can be seen with smaller apertures, I would agree
with Brian's suggestion that you would most likely want to consider 4-
inches as a practical, minimum aperture. A *high quality* 5-inch
telescope on a solid mount can provide some very nice views of Mars.

I just came inside from a quick observing session with an inexpensive,
mediocre quality, 80mm f/5 achromat. Some details were visible at
105x, but it would have taken me a while to put those details on paper
with any degree of accuracy. The details visible with this telescope
were neither "sharp" nor easy to pinpoint in position (It didn't help
that I was using the scope on a 'quick look' alt-az mount designed for
low-power use). Filters such as a #23A Light Red can be quite helpful
if for no other reason than to reduce the planet's brilliance. I
found it significantly easier to see details with the ST-80 when I
used the Light Red filter.

Whenever one speaks of minimum aperture, it may be worth noting that
increased observer experience and higher telescope quality can lower
the limit, while decreased experience and lower telescope quality can
result in a need for greater aperture.

Bill Greer
To sketch is to see.