Tom L
Reged: 01/07/04
Posts: 29648
Loc: Sunny Oregon
|
|
Christmas is coming and you don't have a lunar atlas. If you could choose just one, which would it be? 
Atlas of the Moon. By Antonín Rükl, $44.95
The Modern Moon: A Personal View, By Charles A. Wood, $44.95
or
The Hatfield Photographic Lunar Atlas, Edited by Jeremy Cook, $44.95
If you would rather choose another, please select other and then post which one you would prefer.
Merry Christmas! 
--------------------
Tom 
12" f/5 DSO Dob
Tele Vue 102mm f/8.6 on an EzTouch
Vixen 80mm f/5 A80SSWT on a grab-n-go mount
|
Tim2723
The Moon Guy
Reged: 02/19/04
Posts: 5107
Loc: Northern New Jersey
|
|
Well, even though it's not specifically an atlas, but more of a guide book, I'm voting for Dr. Wood's book.
Actually, It's hard to decide. I love them all!
--------------------
The crwth will set you free!
|
desertstars
Say What?
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 28624
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
I voted for Rukl's atlas, but there's a good reason Sky Publishing has both books available as a set. They compliment each other beautifully. Look at it as a matter of which one to buy first.
--------------------
Tom W.
SVP8 'She turned me into a 3-legged Newt' EQ
Ralph, the All-Purpose 102mm Refractor
Under the Desert Stars
It is a plain road from the earth to the stars though mortal feet can not tread it. Garret P. Serviss 1888
|
DenisY
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/10/04
Posts: 2048
Loc: Canada / Montréal
|
|
I voted for The Hatfield Photographic Lunar Atlas because i already have the Rulk's Atlas.
--------------------
Denis
I wonder how would the world be different if
Einstein had never lived?
Visit my web site at...
My Astronomical Logbook
Check out
My Astronomical Gear
|
Tom L
Reged: 01/07/04
Posts: 29648
Loc: Sunny Oregon
|
|
Denis, would you say the Hatfield is more than just an atlas also? I shouldn't have said atlas in the post, I should have said lunar guide book or something.
While I know that I would enjoy rukl's immensely, I believe I would enjoy Wood's and Hatfield's just as much. I will most likely get all 3 at one point...plus some others, but I was wondering about the first one to get.
Thanks everyone for voting...
--------------------
Tom
12" f/5 DSO Dob
Tele Vue 102mm f/8.6 on an EzTouch
Vixen 80mm f/5 A80SSWT on a grab-n-go mount
|
qpolaris
member
Reged: 07/28/04
Posts: 32
|
|
Hi Guys,
I'm considering getting an atlas at this point (I already have Woods' book, which I agree is very good).
I was just wondering why get Rukl, which is based on drawings as opposed to one of the other available atlases which are photographic? 
Steve
|
Matthew E
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 01/24/04
Posts: 922
Loc: Whitby, Ontario, Canada
|
|
I think with the hand drawn maps, the craters are drawn in the perspective as we would see them from an earth bound telescope (shadows and all).... the photographic images would be from a satallite (usually have a perspective from overhead) thus some features may look different when you try to identify what you are seeing in your scope.
--------------------
NexStar 114GT
NewStar 10” Dob with Moonlite CR-1
Short Tube 80mm
6mm Radian
14mm Radian
Celestron Ultima Barlow
Celestron NexImage - on order.
Durham Region Astronomical Association
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada - Toronto
|
Tim2723
The Moon Guy
Reged: 02/19/04
Posts: 5107
Loc: Northern New Jersey
|
|
Atlases made from orbiter photos do have the problem Matthew mentions. The Clementine Atlas is the newest example of this. Because of it's orbital perspective, it is seldom recommended as a scope-side atlas, but rather as a research tool.
There are a number of photographic atlases using earth-based photos and perspective that try to solve this problem.
Drawn maps have the advantage of being able to show single angle of libration and a single angle of illumination for the entire surface of the moon at the same time. Many drawn maps can also depict fine details that are less obvious in even the best photos (basically, some lunar features just don't photograph easily). All this aids in identifying features.
Many photogrphic atlases, like the popular Hatfield atlas, use a number of photographic plates of each section of the moon showing different librations and illuminations in order to achieve the same level of certainty for identifications. This has the advantage of showing a view quite close to what is seen in the eyepiece, but may still leave some guesswork on the part of the obsrever.
Oddly enough, the very best drawn maps of the moon do their job well because they represent an unnatural, physically impossible view of the moon. The best photographic atlases do their job by offering many views of the moon, all of which are quite natural and perfectly possible. Orbital atlases depict the greatest detail of all, but from a perspective impossible for the observer to achieve.
There are even combination atlases that use photgraphs that are air-brushed to simulate a fixed angle of illumination for the entire surface. The maps used in LunarMap Pro software use this method, and I believe the Virtual Moon Atlas does as well, though I'm not 100% sure.
In years past, I've gotten into the argument of which is best. One friend suggested that the 'serious' student of the moon should only use photographic atlases. I countered with the point that 'serious' students of any subject use all the resources at their command. I don't know if I was right, but it sure shut him up! 
--------------------
The crwth will set you free!
|
desertstars
Say What?
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 28624
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
Birdwatchers had a similar debate about 20 years ago when the first photographic field guides came into use. One of the weaknesses of the photographic guides was (and is) that whatever photo was chosen to represent a species of bird was a picture of that individual bird at that moment in time. Something similar could be said of photo atlases of the Moon (and has been, I'm sure), to the effect of that's what the Moon looks like at that hour, with that degree of libration, etc.
What happened in the bird watching world was that neither style of guide replaced the other. Those with stylized depictions are often used side by side with photo guides, and the combination offers a joined perspective that really helps with difficult identifications. And so it is with lunar atlases. I'm finding that I often have Rukl's and Hatfield's atlases on the observing table, open to corresponding pages, using both to figure out which obscure lunar pockmark it is that has me excited. Having gotten to this point, I doubt I would want to observe with only one or the other.
--------------------
Tom W.
SVP8 'She turned me into a 3-legged Newt' EQ
Ralph, the All-Purpose 102mm Refractor
Under the Desert Stars
It is a plain road from the earth to the stars though mortal feet can not tread it. Garret P. Serviss 1888
|
Tom L
Reged: 01/07/04
Posts: 29648
Loc: Sunny Oregon
|
|
Quote:
In years past, I've gotten into the argument of which is best. One friend suggested that the 'serious' student of the moon should only use photographic atlases. I countered with the point that 'serious' students of any subject use all the resources at their command. I don't know if I was right, but it sure shut him up!
I think that is the correct answer, Tim, no matter what field of study. Well said.
Quote:
What happened in the bird watching world was that neither style of guide replaced the other. Those with stylized depictions are often used side by side with photo guides, and the combination offers a joined perspective that really helps with difficult identifications. And so it is with lunar atlases. I'm finding that I often have Rukl's and Hatfield's atlases on the observing table, open to corresponding pages, using both to figure out which obscure lunar pockmark it is that has me excited. Having gotten to this point, I doubt I would want to observe with only one or the other.
Excellent information, Tom! With that said, would the Wood's book not fill that need while viewing scope-side or planning a viewing session. I can really see utilizing all 3 (and others) and you study certain aspects for a particular session.
--------------------
Tom
12" f/5 DSO Dob
Tele Vue 102mm f/8.6 on an EzTouch
Vixen 80mm f/5 A80SSWT on a grab-n-go mount
|
desertstars
Say What?
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 28624
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
I'm using Modern Moon to provide background explanations, so that I'm not just looking at a crater and seeing cracks in the floor. I'm gaining an understanding of the processes that shaped old Luna. I haven't used it scopeside (yet), and generally look things up after the fact. For planning I use Rukl's, Grego, and a borrowed copy of Lunar Map Pro, depending on the project I have in mind. At the eyepiece I use Rukl's and Hatfields.
Great thread, Tom! Thanks for starting it. 
--------------------
Tom W.
SVP8 'She turned me into a 3-legged Newt' EQ
Ralph, the All-Purpose 102mm Refractor
Under the Desert Stars
It is a plain road from the earth to the stars though mortal feet can not tread it. Garret P. Serviss 1888
|
Carol L
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 5855
Loc: Tomahawk, WI 45N//89W
|
|
I've found the Clementine Atlas to be a great help when viewing fully illuminated areas. Full Moon usually has its' limits as far as the terminator goes, but this atlas opened up a whole new category for me.
Also, the S&T Quad maps are another great complimentary resource to any atlas.
--------------------
 *Step-by-Step Lunar Sketching*
CN Gallery
Photo Gallery
8"SCT ~ 120achro ~ 90Mak ~ 80ST ~ 11x70s ~ 22x100s
|
Tom L
Reged: 01/07/04
Posts: 29648
Loc: Sunny Oregon
|
|
Thanks Tom, it was the kind of insight I was hoping to get...Rukl's for planning, Wood's for knowledge and more indepth background and Hatfield's for another view. I think they all really sound to be complementary to each other.
Carol, I have read over and over that Clementine is an excellent resource for geologists to get a sense of the relief of the moon and it's features. Would you agree with that assesment? Could you expand just a little bit more on what the Clementine atlas brings to the table? How would it complement the others? (It's #4 on my list! )
--------------------
Tom
12" f/5 DSO Dob
Tele Vue 102mm f/8.6 on an EzTouch
Vixen 80mm f/5 A80SSWT on a grab-n-go mount
|
DenisY
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 01/10/04
Posts: 2048
Loc: Canada / Montréal
|
|
Tom i'm sorry to say that this is really the first time i'll be using an Atlas at the scope, so in a sence i can't point out correctly the right Atlas. But the fact i own Rukl's Atlas and find it very informative and detail i would sugest this one first. I complemented my Moon observation with the Quadrant maps, have been beside me for years, but there kind of just rought sketches, circles and lines. But they have been really useful, i'll still use them. The Rukl is more 3D compare to the Quadrant maps. Should help your observing. The Hatfield looks really interesting, in fact it looks like my quadrant maps side to side to a picture... Looks interesting... And as you, i am seriously consedering getting it also, not sure if i'll be using this one at the scope, the maps and Rulk sure looks like a good combination.
So that being said my next purchase will be the Modern Moon to provide background explanations just like the other Tom. I also think it to be more interesting to know and learn what you actualy see.
--------------------
Denis
I wonder how would the world be different if
Einstein had never lived?
Visit my web site at...
My Astronomical Logbook
Check out
My Astronomical Gear
|
Tim2723
The Moon Guy
Reged: 02/19/04
Posts: 5107
Loc: Northern New Jersey
|
|
I notice that no one's mentioned Westfall or Chong yet.
It sounds to me from the responses so far that lunar atlases and guidebooks are like that brand of potato chips, you can't have just one!
At the risk of infringing on the Stellar Reading forum, would it be profitable to expand this thread into something akin to "The Lunar Observer's Library"? I'm not thinking of a book review section, we already have that elsewhere, but more a running list of printed materials with links to sources, much as we have our lunar links area? There are lots of books, maps, atlases, guides, histories, software, and even things like posters and wall maps that might not be known to many visitors here.
Just a list with entries like:
Atlas of the Moon by Antonin Rulk. See it here , and discuss it here .
Edited by Tim2723 (11/29/04 12:13 AM)
|
Carol L
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 5855
Loc: Tomahawk, WI 45N//89W
|
|
Jmho, it best compliments Chuck Wood's book because it clearly shows many of the features he writes about. The full sphere maps of selected lunar properties like topographic, iron, titanium, etc. fascinate me, but basically it's the first lunar atlas to show the entire surface in a uniform scale [144 images] which in my opinion is cause enough to own it [and the nomenclature database is to die for]. I mostly use it as a reference book but have on occasion [when there's no dew] used it to crater hop just for fun on the sunlit portion of the surface.
In order to use it you need to turn the book sideways so the left page is on top and the right page is on the bottom. The upper half consists of the Clementine full albedo photos, and the bottom half consists of annotated shaded LAC relief images which correspond to the Clementine images above them. These bottom images are the relief images you read about and they're very detailed.
Orientation is naked-eye; 1 cm = approx. 25 km [15.5 miles?].
At the upper left corner of each Clementine page is a small double-sphere guide which covers the front and back of the Moon but only the current page's area is shaded. The first of the albedo/annotated sets is the North Polar region, the last is the South Polar region. In between, the Atlas covers the rest of the Moon in 10 rows, North to South. The first of the 10 rows begins in the Pythagoras area and progresses eastward around the entire Moon until it reaches the point of beginning, then drops down a row and so on.
--------------------
*Step-by-Step Lunar Sketching*
CN Gallery
Photo Gallery
8"SCT ~ 120achro ~ 90Mak ~ 80ST ~ 11x70s ~ 22x100s
|
Tom L
Reged: 01/07/04
Posts: 29648
Loc: Sunny Oregon
|
|
Thank you, Carol. I look forward to actually seeing the Clementine Atlas.
Tim, by all means, start a thread like that. I would use EdZ's sticky threads in the Binoculars forum as a guide for usefulness. His best-of thread is awesome, as is the mini-reviews thread. Pay attention to how he manages it though...he keeps the superflous stuff out of it and is a task master at keeping it on topic. I wish every forum had threads like that.
Tom or I can help you manage it.
--------------------
Tom
12" f/5 DSO Dob
Tele Vue 102mm f/8.6 on an EzTouch
Vixen 80mm f/5 A80SSWT on a grab-n-go mount
|
qpolaris
member
Reged: 07/28/04
Posts: 32
|
|
Thanks for your helpful advice.
I now have a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of each type of atlas.
Now I just have to start observing!
|
desertstars
Say What?
Reged: 11/05/03
Posts: 28624
Loc: Tucson, AZ
|
|
Tim: I've been kicking around the idea of starting and making sticky a lunar bibliography, to compliment our list of internet resources. But I haven't been able to find the time. If you want to put together a list to get us started and post it, I'll stick. I think this would be a great project!
--------------------
Tom W.
SVP8 'She turned me into a 3-legged Newt' EQ
Ralph, the All-Purpose 102mm Refractor
Under the Desert Stars
It is a plain road from the earth to the stars though mortal feet can not tread it. Garret P. Serviss 1888
|
macpurity
super member
Reged: 10/24/04
Posts: 115
Loc: Maryland, USA
|
|
I didn't vote because I have all these atlases and I use all of them. I'd have to say that I probably use the Hatfield most, and then cross reference to the others.
But for a wish list, I'd love to see a book, CD or DVD published that offers the entire near side of the moon at 1:100,000 scale, complete with topographic contours. Something like the LAC series of USGS but at ten times the resolution. Not that the scopes on earth can see that kind of detail, but more for completeness and to inspire our youth to make the return missions.
MacP
--------------------
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
