Discussion
popeyewhite said:
Eric Mc said:
The cameras on Mars rovers and landers are not optimised for night sky imaging. The human eye is much, much better at that.
The human eye would only see the Earth as one star out of many, and certainly not as a blue/green planet.The Earth would shine much brighter than any star in the martian sky by quite a wide margin. It would likely shine brighter than Venus does when viewed from Earth too depending on the proximity, since Earth and Mars get much closer. Venus can be quite spectacular at it's brightest. You would also be able to discern a distinct colour to it - just as you can with Mars from Earth.
Your eye may just be able to resolve the Earth into a disk if you had 20/20 vision, the angular size of the earth would be close to 1 arc minute - but even if you couldn't, you certainly wouldn't need a "powerful telescope". Any off the shelf spotting scope, binoculars and even a DSLR kit lens with a reasonable focal length would be able to resolve it.
You would also be able to see the moon as a distinct entity too - being marginally brighter than the star Rigel in Orion (the star at bottom right of Orion's 'skirt') and would see both the Earth and Moon moving together from night to night against the background stars.
From Focus magazine this month talking about Mars "No-one has ever experienced what it's like to look on the Earth as a tiny blue speck in the sky" - Prof Nick Kanas, psychologist and NASA adviser.
So there you go. I just have a knack for these things, though it's obvious to anybody with more than half a dozen brain cells.
So there you go. I just have a knack for these things, though it's obvious to anybody with more than half a dozen brain cells.
Moonhawk said:
You would definitely be able to tell it was Earth and not just another star.
The Earth would shine much brighter than any star in the martian sky by quite a wide margin. It would likely shine brighter than Venus does when viewed from Earth too depending on the proximity, since Earth and Mars get much closer. Venus can be quite spectacular at it's brightest. You would also be able to discern a distinct colour to it - just as you can with Mars from Earth.
Your eye may just be able to resolve the Earth into a disk if you had 20/20 vision, the angular size of the earth would be close to 1 arc minute - but even if you couldn't, you certainly wouldn't need a "powerful telescope". Any off the shelf spotting scope, binoculars and even a DSLR kit lens with a reasonable focal length would be able to resolve it.
You would also be able to see the moon as a distinct entity too - being marginally brighter than the star Rigel in Orion (the star at bottom right of Orion's 'skirt') and would see both the Earth and Moon moving together from night to night against the background stars.
Absolutely.The Earth would shine much brighter than any star in the martian sky by quite a wide margin. It would likely shine brighter than Venus does when viewed from Earth too depending on the proximity, since Earth and Mars get much closer. Venus can be quite spectacular at it's brightest. You would also be able to discern a distinct colour to it - just as you can with Mars from Earth.
Your eye may just be able to resolve the Earth into a disk if you had 20/20 vision, the angular size of the earth would be close to 1 arc minute - but even if you couldn't, you certainly wouldn't need a "powerful telescope". Any off the shelf spotting scope, binoculars and even a DSLR kit lens with a reasonable focal length would be able to resolve it.
You would also be able to see the moon as a distinct entity too - being marginally brighter than the star Rigel in Orion (the star at bottom right of Orion's 'skirt') and would see both the Earth and Moon moving together from night to night against the background stars.
If ordinary people tens of thousands of years ago could tell the Mars wasn't just any old star - you would be pretty damn sure that a clever astronaut would pick out and identify Earth in the Martian sky with no difficulty whatsoever.
RegMolehusband said:
From Focus magazine this month talking about Mars "No-one has ever experienced what it's like to look on the Earth as a tiny blue speck in the sky" - Prof Nick Kanas, psychologist and NASA adviser.
So there you go. I just have a knack for these things, though it's obvious to anybody with more than half a dozen brain cells.
Unlike you then. I believe you said "blue and green pixels" So there you go. I just have a knack for these things, though it's obvious to anybody with more than half a dozen brain cells.
BTW, insults will always make you look big and clever, please carry on.
Moonhawk said:
you certainly wouldn't need a "powerful telescope". Any off the shelf spotting scope, binoculars and even a DSLR kit lens with a reasonable focal length would be able to resolve it.
OK, you're the telescope expert. I retract 'powerful telescope' and replace it with 'spotting telescope'. Good grief.
RobDickinson said:
Wasnt Mars known as the wanderer because of its weird motion, wonder what the earth would do in Mars's sky
ALL the planets were known as "wanderers". The word "planetes" means "wanderer" in Ancient Greek.Having said that, Mars exhibits the most dramatic series of manoeuvers as seen from earth due to the fact that its orbit is the most elliptic of the planets and earth overtakes it from time to time as it travels faster in its inner track orbit around the sun.
From Mars, the path of earth in the sky would look different - more like the way Venus looks from earth. This is because from Mars, earth is closer to the sun so will appear as a morning "star" and an "evening" star at different times of the Martian year.
Just got round to watching this as the young un is with grandparents.
Thoroughly enjoyed it however this may be the first time I've said this about a film, I think it was appallingly cast.
Daniels was garbage, his first speech completely insincere. Wiig - just wtf. And Sean Bean was bloody terrible!
That said I enjoyed the other performances and the Mars landscape was captivating.
Good movie.
Thoroughly enjoyed it however this may be the first time I've said this about a film, I think it was appallingly cast.
Daniels was garbage, his first speech completely insincere. Wiig - just wtf. And Sean Bean was bloody terrible!
That said I enjoyed the other performances and the Mars landscape was captivating.
Good movie.
Just read all 26 pages of this thread.....
Watched the film a couple of weeks ago. Came home, got the book on my Kindle.
Enjoyed both hugely. I agree the book could have gone into more detail on the Mars landscape than it did but both were good.
Not bothered too much about the science as it's make believe but they had to evacuate Mars six days in as the MAV was about to be blown over. However, this MAV, like the one he used at the end of the film/book had stood unsupervised for years beforehand through all the storms Mars threw at it. A bit too unbelievable....
Watched the film a couple of weeks ago. Came home, got the book on my Kindle.
Enjoyed both hugely. I agree the book could have gone into more detail on the Mars landscape than it did but both were good.
Not bothered too much about the science as it's make believe but they had to evacuate Mars six days in as the MAV was about to be blown over. However, this MAV, like the one he used at the end of the film/book had stood unsupervised for years beforehand through all the storms Mars threw at it. A bit too unbelievable....
I'd certainly be looking to design a more squat and stable form of MAV.
Another plot weakness is the strength of Martian winds. Even though they can reach over 100 mph at times, the atmosphere is terribly thin - so I'm not sure how much force there is in a Martian storm.
Anybody able to work it out?
Another plot weakness is the strength of Martian winds. Even though they can reach over 100 mph at times, the atmosphere is terribly thin - so I'm not sure how much force there is in a Martian storm.
Anybody able to work it out?
Eric Mc said:
I'd certainly be looking to design a more squat and stable form of MAV.
Another plot weakness is the strength of Martian winds. Even though they can reach over 100 mph at times, the atmosphere is terribly thin - so I'm not sure how much force there is in a Martian storm.
Anybody able to work it out?
50 - 70 mph typical apparently, as you say Eric 100mph max.Another plot weakness is the strength of Martian winds. Even though they can reach over 100 mph at times, the atmosphere is terribly thin - so I'm not sure how much force there is in a Martian storm.
Anybody able to work it out?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2012/oct/12/weathe...
Although [quote]http://www.space.com/30663-the-martian-dust-storms-a-breeze.html
Have to remember the film is a work of fiction so some bending of the truth is allowed
Edit - can't get a link to work in the spoiler, just cut 'n' paste it.
Edited by Blaster72 on Saturday 24th October 09:30
I was reading a novel set on Mars a few years ago (NOT "The Martian") where the hero is caught in a Mars dust storm when out driving his rover vehicle and even though the wind creates a racket with whining and whistling, the rover is hardly buffeted at all because of the thinness of the atmosphere.
That sounds like a more realistic scenario to me.
That sounds like a more realistic scenario to me.
Eric Mc said:
Doesn't bode well for interest in any future ACTUAL manned Mars missions if people aren't impressed unless there's a disaster during the mission.
Does it matter what excites on film as long as there is interest in the real thing?ScFi as a kid got me interested in the space program.
NASA have had a lot of mileage out of this movie, considering they are not allowed to advertise or promote themselves this has worked well , putting the idea of a Mars mission into the worlds mind. Its something we could do, in a few years, if we put the effort in. If NASA doesnt then someone else will.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff