21st Century Atlas of the Moon
Posted 19 January 2013 - 10:33 AM
Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:01 PM
Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:25 PM
Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:03 AM
Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:49 PM
I like it. Even though it might have a short run once all the Lunatics get their copies, and the value might climb like a Rukl, I'm still putting mine in the equipment bag for in-the-field Moon viewing. The Atlas is spiral bond, and though the pages aren't laminated, they look like they should stand up pretty well to dew and usage in the real world.
The individual maps are numbered and also labeled by a significant feature on the map, for example, "Iridum 20," or "Crisium 2." This is a nice touch, very Rukl-like, and should make quick reference easier.
Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:51 PM
Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:27 AM
Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:08 PM
ohhh duh, I was on that page erlier and totally missed the buy now link, hmmmmm new glasses maybe or more coffee
Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:03 PM
Posted 05 February 2013 - 09:34 PM
True dat!!....what about Coke????
....ok, ok.....I mean...PEPSI!!!!!!
Posted 06 February 2013 - 11:37 AM
Will still buy this book.
And this puts the topic on track again.
The best M-Object in the Universe is M00n!
Posted 07 February 2013 - 09:20 AM
Posted 07 February 2013 - 12:16 PM
Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:45 PM
Posted 10 February 2013 - 12:04 AM
Also, same question for the Cambridge atlas, if someone has a second...
Posted 10 February 2013 - 02:57 AM
If you're a beginner, the best thing you could do is to get the S&T/Rukl field map, which has four foldable quadrants. That is bar-none the best value in a lunar map today, and the one I would keep over all others if I had to choose.
Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:04 AM
Thanks Rick- I'll add that I'm midway through the Astronomical League's Lunar I & II programs. Doing'em simultaneously and hoping to find a detailed atlas to use outside. I've been using Rukls, but the sections have been cut a bit small for me at this time in my observing. I'm looking into the Cambridge atlas and it seems a good fit between the 21st and Rukl. Not as many sections as Rukl but more than the 21st.. Any thoughts?