In the LPOD of December 1, 2007 I proposed that a group of imagers could contribute a consistent set of images that would become the core of a new Observer's Photographic Atlas of the Moon. This page is a forum to collect ideas and comments about the need for a new atlas, its desired characteristics, and other relevant topics. This is a wiki so its easy for you to add text to this page or to use the "discussion" tab above for more lengthy comments. Jump in! Chuck Wood

This page might be the spark which ignited the creation of the wonderful and handy 21st Century Atlas of the Moon by C.A.Wood and M.Collins.- DannyCaes DannyCaes Sep 30, 2013

Questions:

1: Is there a need for a new photographic lunar atlas?

Yes. The currently available ones (table below) all were created to satisfy their authors, but they don't work for me for the reasons listed as comments. In the table "Sections" is the number of pieces the Moon is divided into, and "Pages" is the number of pages showing the Moon (multiple illumination views). "Names" means that the atlas identifies named craters, and "Letters" means it also shows lettered craters. "Copernicus" is the diameter in mm of Copernicus to indicate scale. Rükl's non-photographic Lunar Atlas is added for comparison.
Table to be completed/added to.
Author
Sections/Pages
Page Size
Copernicus
Names
Descriptions
Comments
Hatfield
16/~80
8.5X11"
17 mm
letters
no
low res images, convenient size
Legault & Brunier
25/95
14X10.5"
7 mm
many
some
small scale, too large
Chong, Lim & Ang
30/82
9.5X12"
5 mm
names
yes
small scale, some overexposed images
Rükl
76/76
8.5X11.5"
37 mm
letters
all
large scale, selected closeups
Westfall
141/188
8.5x11"
16 mm
names
some
poor res, awkward arrangement
Bussey & Spudis
144/144
9.5X11"
36 mm
letters
no
inconstant illumination, spacecraft view
Viscardy
220/440
11.5X13"
43 mm
letters
some
heavy, expensive, large scale, variable scale

In reviewing these atlases it seems my greatest problems with them are scale and resolution - half have too small of scale (image size) and others are too large, and resolutions are too low for most. The last four divide the Moon into too many sections - especially awkward at the telescope. Hatfield seems the best in terms of image (except for resolution), and Legault & Brunier is best for layout (except too big).

2: What are desired characteristics of a new observer's photographic atlas?

Consistent scale
Moderate to high resolution
Consistent lighting
Single view adequate (and more do-able)
Names, not letters
30-40 sections
Sections have geologically significant boundaries
Smaller scale synoptic map of each basin
Closeup images of selected features
Good descriptions of selected features
Lat/Long - not necessary - maybe?
Good libration supplemental limb views
Spiral binding (to open flat)
Long axis vertical - along terminator
Coated paper to prevent moisture damage - c17h27no3 c17h27no3 Dec 1, 2007
Normal and mirror-reversed views? - JimMosher JimMosher Dec 3, 2007
Slight overlap of maps with a spiral binding as in S&T's Pocket Sky Atlas

More ideas are in the August 4 LPOD.

Other Ideas?
I would imagine that the central sections of the atlas would produce good images which show shadow relief views of the surface features. What about the areas towards the limb. I should imagine that these areas would need to be of multiple images over a number of days as the terminator crosses the Moon? Dave Storey. 3rd Dec. 2007

Are you interested in acquiring suitable images of the quality needed of these areas - or whatever ones are decided on?
Certainly would like to do some areas but I do lack the equipment that some of LPOD observers use and they do produce excellent images.
Dave Storey. 3rd. December 2007


OPAM-map.jpg