Dear Peter,
Thanks for your questions.
The images are based on LROC images. I am not sure if the detail level is higher than the other atlasses you mentioned, I have not compared them.
You sure are right about the contrast; this is not easy to achieve; I did my best to get the visibility as well as possible, but especially the dorsa in the mare's can be difficult to see. I believe that these are a bit better to see in the digital version.
I did not make special maps on the liberation area's of the Moon and the book is printed on normal paper with a paperback binding.
The aim of this atlas is to provide a source for the hundreds of names that have been discontinued in the 70's such as the greek lettered elevations, double lettered craters (although some do still exist) and Roman numerals for the rimae. These features are often referred to in other publications. There are other sources from that time period, but these are either incomplete, incovenient, inaccessible or inaccurate (not necessarily meaning erreoneously, but often difficult to assertain which feature is meant exactly). Example of different levels of accuracy: comparing the Nasa LAC maps from 1962 with the Nasa AIC maps; the AIC will show features that the Nasa LAC maps do not;
To be fair and complete in my answer; John Moore's book 'Features of the Near Side Moon' does mention the roman numerals for the rimae.
I think that when comparing this atlas to the other mentioned atlasses, or the Rükl Moon atlas [nifty feature: my atlas follows the Rükl maps to make it easier to compare], one will notice that this atlas will tell you more feature names, it will tell you which ones are official and which not and it will tell you what source it was taken from. I have used it at my telescope myself, but it is not a laminated ring bound book. It is made less for use outside; e.g. the Duplex Moon atlas is ring bound and also very useful with SCT's.
To make a comparison with Map 12 which I have shared above with Rükl's map (The only new/modern atlas I have at hand here):
- Rükl's map will show rilles, dorsa, etc better as it is drawn rather than photographed
- Rükl's map 12 has a fewer features labelled (ca. 40 vs ca. 60)
- Rükl's map shows a few unofficial features (e.g. Mons Piton Gamma), but does not distinguish between unofficial and official names.
- Rükl's map shows the landing site of Luna 2, my atlas does not.
- Rükl's atlas provides some information on the main features, my atlas does not
- Rükl's atlas does not have an index on all sub features, only on main features; e.g. for Cassini, the index lists only Cassini on map 12, my index lists 16 features for Cassini and its sub features on map 12 and 13.
Some features not labelled in Rükl and present in this atlas for Map 12, focussing only on the north west part of the map:
- Plato KA
- Alpes B
- Trouvelot G
- Piazza Smith Pi
- Piazza Smith Y
- Piazza Smith W
- Piazza Smith Z
- Piazza Smith Alpha
- Piazza Smith V
- Piazza Smith Beta
- Cassini N
Moving down from there my atlas labels the individual features of Montes Spitzbergen, other modern atlasses do not (to my knowledge).
So to summarise: This atlas will likely have more labelled / named features than other atlasses, it distinguishes between official and unofficial names and links the features to official maps and older sources. It is not made for being out in damp weather and only shows the upright maps.
I think that would be my most honest comparison.
I can only encourage and invite everyone to look at the region shown above in map 12 and compare your/the other atlas with my preview.
Kind regards,
Fredrick
Edited by AstronomyFred, 23 December 2023 - 01:03 AM.
