(Viewed 1,274 times)

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Mars NOT making it's closest Approach this fall...

I have received a couple of emails regarding this false information and seen this propagate over the internet recently.

Mars will not appear as big as the Moon, nor will it be a spectacular sight in the night sky this fall.

This is what is going around...

"The Red Planet is about to be spectacular! This
month and next, Earth is catching up with Mars in an encounter that will culminate in the closest approach between the two planets in recorded history.

The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287. Due
to the way Jupiter's gravity tugs on Mars and perturbs its > orbit, astronomers can only be certain that Mars has not come this close to Earth in the Last 5,000 years, but it may be as long as 60,000
years before it happens again.

The encounter will culminate on August 27th when
Mars comes to within 34,649,589 miles of Earth and will be (next to the moon) the brightest object in the night sky. It will attain a magnitude of -2.9 and will appear 25.11 arc seconds wide. At a modest 75-power magnification Mars will look as large as the full
moon to the naked eye. Mars will be easy to spot. At the beginning of August it will rise in the east at 10p.m. and reach its azimuth at about 3 a.m.

By the end of August when the two planets are
closest, Mars will rise at nightfall and reach its highest point in the sky at 12:30a.m. That's pretty convenient to see something that no human being has seen in recorded history. So, mark your calendar at the beginning of August to see Mars grow progressively brighter and brighter throughout the month."


This is in direct referrence to the close approach of Mars during the spring of 2003...and even the points mentioned were in error.

Now, Mars will make another close pass of Earth this fall, but nowhere near the event of 2003. If Mars ever did appear as big as the full Moon, then...

"Houston, we got a problem"...

[Centaur]

Yes, Joe, I have seen that story being circulated recently on other astronomical message boards. Even a friend of mine, who is semi-astronomically literate, sent it to me in an e-mail. Actually, though, this year's apparition may present even better viewing opportunities for us northerners.

The article is not really bogus - just outdated. Yes, there were some minor factual errors, but not of great import for the general auduence for which the story was originally intended. Although the point about a comparison to the Full Moon was indeed correct, "At a modest 75-power magnification Mars will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye."

The notice makes no mention of the year, so some poor fool must have found it recently, assumed it referred to this year, and started passing it along the grapevine. The trick is to verify such material before re-circulating it. The internet is rife with such junk. Beware. This advice particularly pertains to hoaxes, alleged discoveries, and weakly tested theories, but it can also apply to old news.

Below are the comparisons of Mars' oppositions of 2003 and 2005. The interesting point to note is the final item. Mars will be much higher in the sky this year for northen hemisphere observers. That may actually make for better telescopic viewing in 2005 than 2003 when Mars was riding low across our southern sky.

Opposition:
2003 AUG 28 17:52 UT
2005 NOV 07 07:51 UT

Closest Approach:
2003 AUG 27 09:51 UT
2005 OCT 30 03:25 UT

Least Distance:
2003 0.37272 AU
2005 0.46406 AU

Greatest Angular Diameter:
2003 25.11 arcseconds
2005 20.17 arcseconds

Brightest Stellar Magnitude:
2003 -3.0
2005 -2.4

Declination at Closest Approach:
2003 S 15°43'
2005 N 16°16'

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

I have never been too impressed by imaging Mars, but I am certainly going to target it in October. We were discussing this email that's going around now at the Adler this evening.

We are going to so some public activity at the Adler for the Mars event.

Thanks for the comparative stats.....interesting to see the difference.

[Maddad]

I remember this was pretty big news just about a year ago. I think the article is supposed to mean August 27 of 2004, not this year.,

[Centaur]

maddad said:

I remember this was pretty big news just about a year ago. I think the article is supposed to mean August 27 of 2004, not this year.,

2003 AUG 27, with details in my post above. Time does seem to fly as we get older.