Mars Closest To Earth In Nearly 60,000 Years

Ananova ^ | 8-13-2003

[blam]

Mars closest to Earth in nearly 60,000 years

The wandering of the planets is bringing Mars closer to Earth than at any time in nearly 60,000 years.

Just 34.6 million miles of space will separate the two planets on August 27.

Mars was five times as distant just six months ago, and won't be as close again until August 28, 2287.

Already, Mars has begun to loom large in the late evening sky, its rusty twinkle apparent in the south east.

Aldo Vitagliano, of the University of Naples in Italy, calculates that Mars has not had as close a brush with Earth since September 12, 57617 BC, when Neanderthals ruled but modern man had begun to make inroads.

The Red Planet will still seem small to the naked eye - having the apparent diameter of a small coin seen from 500 feet away. Even though Mars is twice the size of the moon, it will be 145 times as distant.

With binoculars or a telescope, observers can start to pick out details on the planet's surface. The view from even a modest telescope should reveal the planet's southern ice cap.

Next week, astronomers will send radio waves from antennas on Earth that will bounce off Mars to study the terrain where one of the two Nasa rovers is targeted to land in January.

The close proximity will improve the resolution of the radar images, says Albert Haldemann, deputy project scientist for the rover mission.

Planetariums around the world are planning Mars-gazing parties beginning on the evening of August 26, and the Hubble Space Telescope is expected to take a close-approach portrait of the planet.

[Prodigal Son]

Often a good pair of binoculars will serve you better.

I have heard this as well. Thanks.

[dr_lew]

Often a good pair of binoculars will serve you better. Especially the 60-80mm (or larger) ones with a tripod mount.

Often, perhaps, but I don't think in this case. With my Celestron 9x63's Mars appears as a dazzling star. I think you need something like 100X magnification to get an appreciable view of the disk. This is not like comet observing, where you need aperture to get a bright image. With Mars you need the magnification just to dilute the brightness of a 60mm objective.

For under 100$, I don't think you can do better than a "beginner's" refractor.

[RadioAstronomer]

For under 100$, I don't think you can do better than a "beginner's" refractor.

Hope so. Most of the links said they were a mistake. I don't have enough personal data to make an informed decision. (Why I posted the links)

[RadioAstronomer]

See post #60 :-)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Nice hardware!

[dr_lew]

For under 100$, I don't think you can do better than a "beginner's" refractor.

Hope so. Most of the links said they were a mistake. I don't have enough personal data to make an informed decision. (Why I posted the links)

Right. But this is not a contradiction of what I said. E.g. from the "absolutebeginners" site:

"For a few hundred dollars more you can purchase a scope that will bring years of enjoyment and delight. Department store scopes will only lead to boredom and frustration."

See? He's talking "a few hundred dollars more" and I'm talking $70 . The idea is that if you try to embark on a career as a serious amateur observer, you will wish you had put the $70 towards a $300 or $400 'scope. Maybe so, but if you want to see Mars on your on for cheap, you can do it with the $70 Walmart Meade. Don't spring for the $150 version of the same thing with the computer controlled mount. By me, that's a mistake!

[Aric2000]

Thanks Radioastronomer, that helped a great deal.

Will keep looking. ;)

[zeebee]

I wonder what the smallest scope would be that you could get a good look would be?

Here's a shot taken with a $200 60mm (2-1/2") zoom spotting scope and a coolpix digicam:

[RadioAstronomer]

Like I said, I don't know much about small scopes and the viewing quality. Thanks for the info.

[Aric2000]

Placemarker