ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Mars hoax lasts five years

Posted: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 5:40 PM by Alan Boyle


Alachua Astronomy Club
E-mail messages perpetuate the
annual August myth that Mars can
look as big as the full moon.

Does anyone still believe that Mars will look as big as the moon this week? Every year, some folks find a forwarded message in their in-box claiming that on Aug. 27, Mars will be as close as it will ever get until the year 2287. That's totally false, and if you were to go outside expecting a monster Mars tonight, you'd be gravely disappointed. But the funny thing is that there's a germ of truth to the "Great Mars Hoax" - and that it's still worth checking out the night sky.

The viral e-mail got its start in August 2003, when Mars really did have its closest encounter with Earth in human history. The planet was a mere 34.6 million miles away - and the next time it's due to come that close will be on Aug. 29, 2287.

Mars mania ruled during the summer of 2003, but even then, the planet's disk wasn't as big as the moon's disk. That part of the e-mail was a garbled version of the true claim that Mars, when seen through a telescope, would look as big as the full moon does to the naked eye.

The e-mail about August's "Mars Spectacular" has made the rounds every summer since then. I wrote about the return of the Great Mars Hoax two years ago, and if you look at the comments appended to the item, you'll see that the virus is still active.

Fortunately, space-savvy debunkers are still active as well: Jane Houston Jones, an outreach specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, has updated her page explaining the Mars e-mail hoax, and you'll find additional reality checks at Snopes.com and the Alachua Astronomy Club's Web site.

The fact is that this is an off year for looking at Mars: Because it takes the Red Planet twice as long as Earth to orbit the sun, close encounters occur every other year. Last year was a good opportunity to see Mars (though not as good as 2003). This year, however, Mars is on the far side of the sun - and is visible only for a short time after sunset.

That doesn't mean it's not worth looking: For the past couple of weeks, Mars has been part of a planetary foursome in sunset skies. If you're incredibly lucky, you can spot three planets - Mercury, Venus and Saturn - just after the sun drops below the horizon, with Mars a little bit above the tight trio. (This sky map provides a guide.)

The star of the show is much higher in the sky: As Houston Jones notes in this month's "What's Up" video podcast, Jupiter and its moons are taking center stage. It's hard to miss Jupiter if you look up into a clear sky after sunset.

If you're more of a morning person, you can catch another "star" before sunrise: Most North American observers will have multiple opportunities this week to see the international space station flying overhead in the predawn hours. Check out NASA's satellite sighting page for times and locations.

Early risers can also enjoy a thin crescent moon in eastern skies on Thursday morning, according to Sky & Telescope's weekly roundup of sky highlights.

Do you still have your heart set on a monster Mars? For now, the closest views of the Red Planet are available via Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter ... or Phoenix Mars Lander ... or the Mars rovers ... or Europe's Mars Express ... or the Hubble Space Telescope.

Mars' next close encounter with Earth won't occur until Jan. 27, 2010. Will the Great Mars Hoax be really, most sincerely dead by then? Stay tuned.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I got this email forwarded to me last year.  It stated flat out that Mars would appear to be the same size as the Moon.  With a minimal bit of math, it is easy to see that the assertion is just plain silly... Let's say that Mars is 10 times larger than the moon (of course it is nowhere near that large) and we know that the moon is a quarter million miles from the Earth... and Mars is so much farther -- let's say 25 million miles away, so Mars is 100 times farther than the moon... now just move the decimal point around and in the above example, Mars only appears 1/10th the size of the moon... and in reality, Mars is nowhere near 10x the moon's diameter and it is more than 25 million miles from Earth, thus making its apparent diameter even smaller.  In summary, with just a hint of planetary background, it is easy to dismiss the Mars apparent size claim.  Moreover, it is quite disappointing that so many folks cannot easily see the plain open silliness of the claim.
Lord have mercy, people are stupid.  This is BS, plain and simple.  How long have you been looking at the sky?  Mars as big as the moon?  Jeez!!!
I was waiting in a line with 100 people to see Mars in 2003 through a university telescope at the top of an ancient building that only allowed 10 people on the stairs at one time. After about an hour of waiting, someone shouted, "I can see it!" and pointed at a glowing red light on the top at an university building some way off. This was well received by the patient crowd that waited for the next 10 people to be allowed into the university tower.  

It was ALL OVER the media, Mike of NJ. Who coulda missed it? What're *you* talking about . .

Matt of MD:  Waves? No. Tides, yes, but not waves.

Steve C: No, there isn't enough magnification to spot anything at any of the Apollo landing sites from earth. There are, however, pictures taken by other lunar orbitting spacecraft that show the the landing sites. I'm sure they're available on the web.

Alec of MO: the moon's recession from earth is due to the gravity of earth's tidal bulge on the moon. Since earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, this bulge 'leads' the moon by a small amount. But this also slows earth's rotation. Eventually earth will become 'tidally locked' (as the moon already is) and the recession will stop.

Harold of Richmond: Science is FULL of cases where so-called "common sense" fails utterly. The physicist who relies on "common sense" will soon find himself bunking under a bridge. There are dozens of examples just in the computer you use.

Roger:  The Flying Spaghetti Monster has nothing against colonizing the moon!

Al of CO: I would add that there are 2 other orbitters as well, for a total of 3 landers 3 orbitters. Yup, the REAL space explorers are hard at work on Mars...

Even when Mars was truly close in 2003 its angular size was just 25 arcSECONDS. The angular size of the moon is 30 arcMINUTES (1/2 a degree).  So mars was still about 60 times smaller in appearance than the moon.  The funny thing was, even when you could magnify Mars at least 60 X's, it didn't appear to be the same size as the moon at all.  

Our brains play a visual trick on us when looking at the full moon. Just as it does with the sun. If you take a normal picture of the full moon you will see what it's real size is. On paper it measures maybe 5  millimeters in diameter. You can also do this with a holding a ruler up to the full moon or the sun (when it is of course obscured by clouds enough to just see the disc.
"I feel really confused b/c last year in August I heard about this around the same time as a lunar eclipse. I woke up at 3am to check it out and it looked like there were two orange moons. Does anyone know what I might have seen (other than the most vivid dream of my life)??"

Perhaps you watched Star Wars last night, and was abducted to Tatooine? My guess is you were seeing things.
Hooray for gullibility!
I live in Florida, and only once back in 1990 did I see a very, and I mean very, large full moon. I thought it was amazing, so much so that I even tried to get a picture...never turned out.
""Space-savvy debunkers" - are these the same people that claimed the universe was "contracting" about 30 years ago when they forgot E=MC2?"

Huh?

I think you might need to back that one up, mate; it's news to me (and I think most of the cosmology community.
Ever notice how there always seems to be this need to say "the year" before a calendar date that starts with 2000? In Alan Boyle's article on the Mars hoax (and believe me, Alan, and hoaxsters, you're not the only ones!) it reads, "Mars will be as close as it will ever get until the year 2287." Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the Twentieth century we NEVER said, "The year 1986" or "the year 1993" when referring to a future date. So, "Mars will be as close as it will ever get until 2287." There. I know, I need a life!
"You can also do this with a holding a ruler up to the full moon or the sun (when it is of course obscured by clouds enough to just see the disc."

ummm... I wouldn't advise that with the sun. If you can see the disk of the sun at all, chances are that plenty of UV radiation is getting through to your eyes. Eyes don't react favorably to large quantities of UV radiation.

and, yeah, I find it pretty amusing that people would believe that Mars would appear as big as the moon to the naked eye. That would be quite a problem indeed. Thankfully, I haven't received this e-mail in a while. Most of my e-mail contacts are engineers or scientists and know better.
Ross, Cookville...ya, wear UV rated sunglasses when the sun is behind those clouds. Or, just wait till the next full moon. Anyway, the whole operation only takes maybe 5 seconds at the most with the ruler.
Qution Iowa and Bob "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

I do not know which came first but I was taught that the phrase "Proof in the pudding" came from Thompsons "Plum Pudding" model created in 1897 and scientifically accepted in 1904 (only to be replaced in 1911 by a the "solar" models)  Note the "proof" of atoms were in the pudding. And thats where that phrase cam from. But I can see two phrases closely related emerging at the same time... or "mixing" together! :-)


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1294160

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google