# Super Moon



## jtee (Mar 19, 2011)

Next time that the Moon is this bright and large will be 2029. This moon is  14% Larger and 30% Brighter .


----------



## molested_cow (Mar 19, 2011)

But but we can't really put both of them side by side for comparison!


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 19, 2011)

"14% larger"?

I call shenanigans on this.  The moon's orbit is ellipitcal, varying between 363,104 and 405,696 km.  That's 11.7% _at best_, and only a paltry 5.8% from it's semi-major axis (average distance).

"30% brighter"?

How?  It's _still_ 150,000 km from it's source of illumination.... the sun.  Earth does not illuminate a full moon. It can't because it's facing the night side of the planet.  If anything, it's brighter during the phase we call New Moon, because it's closer to the sun then.

I hate raining on your parade, but them's the facts.


----------



## jtee (Mar 19, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> But but we can't really put both of them side by side for comparison!


 


480sparky said:


> "14% larger"?
> 
> I call shenanigans on this.  The moon's orbit is ellipitcal, varying between 363,104 and 405,696 km.  That's 11.7% _at best_, and only a paltry 5.8% from it's semi-major axis (average distance).
> 
> ...




LMAO not raining on my parade ....I am just repeating what our local weather lady said .I will leave the tecky stuff alone and let the geek squad do their thing.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 19, 2011)

jtee said:


> LMAO not raining on my parade ....I am just repeating what our local weather lady said .I will leave the tecky stuff alone and let the geek squad do their thing.


 

Seems your weather lady doesn't consider herself a professional and doesn't bother checking the facts like the news reporters do.  My guess is she simply parroted some email that spreads like wildfire during these types of events. I'm sure there's also some nut-case cults that will consider tonight the apocalypse.


----------



## ishafizan (Mar 19, 2011)

the next supermoon will be on November 14, 2016
source: Supermoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this is mine taken just 30m ago


----------



## Snakeguy101 (Mar 19, 2011)

480sparky said:


> "14% larger"?
> 
> I call shenanigans on this.  The moon's orbit is ellipitcal, varying between 363,104 and 405,696 km.  That's 11.7% _at best_, and only a paltry 5.8% from it's semi-major axis (average distance).
> 
> ...



Actually, it is 0% larger and 0% brighter. The mass of the moon is not changing, it is not like it is colliding with an asteroid 30% the size of the moon and it also does not produce any light so it is never bright to begin with. 

It may appear 14% larger and 30% brighter though. Those numbers were given out by NOAA so I am gonna stick with their calculations on this one.  ;-)


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 19, 2011)

Snakeguy101 said:


> Actually, it is 0% larger and 0% brighter. The mass of the moon is not changing, it is not like it is colliding with an asteroid 30% the size of the moon and it also does not produce any light so it is never bright to begin with.
> 
> It may appear 14% larger and 30% brighter though. Those numbers were given out by NOAA so I am gonna stick with their calculations on this one.



The mass of the moon has nothing to do with it.  I'm sure the 'larger' reference is to the angular size of the moon as it appears to an earth-bound observer, and the 'brighter' simply means that since it looks larger, then one can assume it's brighter.  But it's not.

To prove this, go out and take a photo of your car on a sunny cloudless day as close as you can and still get the entire vehicle in the frame.  Use your widest angle lens.  Now note the exposure (ISO, shutter speed, & aperture) needed to produce a nice pix.

Now walk across the street and take another photo.  Is your car any 'darker'?  Do you  need to bump up the ISO, open the aperture, or slow down the shutter?  No.   Is your car any smaller? No, you can still fit into it... it's not one of those toy cars the Shriners drive the parades all of a sudden.

Walk down the block as far as you can and take another photo.  Do you need to adjust any of those settings simply because you're 100 feet away?  No.  Can you sell it on ebay as a Matchbox?  Hardly.

If I was one the moon with a tele lens with enough power to pick your car up where it sits, MY exposure of your car would be exactly the same as yours when you're 10 feet from it.

Fact is, when the astronauts were walking around on the surface of the moon, they used the same EV we would shooting it from here.  If getting closer to the moon somehow makes it brighter, then  all the astronauts who made the trip there (26 by my count) would have been rendered blind.


----------



## Snakeguy101 (Mar 19, 2011)

I never said that size and brightness were related. I was kidding in that post anyways. No need to get combative.


----------



## jtee (Mar 19, 2011)

Snakeguy101 said:


> I never said that size and brightness were related. I was kidding in that post anyways. No need to get combative.



:thumbup:


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 19, 2011)

Snakeguy101 said:


> I never said that size and brightness were related. I was kidding in that post anyways. No need to get combative.


 

Not being combative.. just trying to pass along the truth.  I don't want everyone to rush out tonight thinking the moon's gonna somehow be magical and take up half the sky.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 19, 2011)

No, actually he/she/it looks like normal.






I'll have to wait and see in how far it may affect my sleep tonight - on the way it does every time when the moon is full!!??


----------



## Miladymimi (Mar 20, 2011)

It was a beautiful moon, but not markedly different. It was bright orange just as it was rising, that was interesting.


----------



## chito beach (Mar 20, 2011)

Mijne from last night shot through some Haze causing the tinge of color


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Mar 20, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Not being combative.. just trying to pass along the truth.  I don't want everyone to rush out tonight thinking the moon's gonna somehow be magical and take up half the sky.


 

Classic case of _all _the book sense... and no common.




jtee said:


> Next time that the Moon is this bright and large will be 2029. This moon is  14% Larger and 30% Brighter .



Will it be the same, or nearly the same tonight?


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 20, 2011)

Yep, it was a moon.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 20, 2011)

In Ohio:


----------



## Miladymimi (Mar 20, 2011)

Chito Beach,  I like the crater detail you achieved on the top edge.  What settings and lens did  you use?


----------



## ishafizan (Mar 20, 2011)

another from yesterday


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 20, 2011)

ChristopherCoy said:


> ..............Will it be the same, or nearly the same tonight?



It will basically be the same angular size in the sky, but 99.2% illuminated.  There will be a sliver along the eastern edge that will not be lit.


----------



## Frequency (Mar 20, 2011)

My feelings: Moon is nearly spherical; but we see it as a circular disc. The 11% increase in size means 11% increase in area we see.. We know area= pi x r^2. ; so 11= pi x r^2; so r= 2.1 nearly 
So radius has increased by nearly 2% and in that case diameter has increased by 4% only; so how can there be a visible increase in size, i wonder. 

Even though we see moon as a disc actually we see a hemisphere. the surface area of a hemi sphere is 2xpix r^2
since radius has increased nearly by 2.15 %, the area has increased by  2 x pi x 2.15x 2.15= 30 percent, approx.; Again the increase in the hemi spherical area is visually compressed to a disc and so there is going to be an additional increase in the glow. 

These are contributing factors only 

Approximately yours


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 20, 2011)

What you see is a disc, but it has another measurement..... _angular_ size.  In other words, from your standpoint, how would you measure it in degrees, arcminutes and arcseconds?

As photographers, we're all aware of perspective, and how things 'appear' smaller the further away they are.  The moon doesn't actually get any larger.  It's diameter is still the same.  It is just closer to use, so it _appears_ larger (measured angularly) to us earthlings.

At it's furthest point, the moon is 29.3 arcminutes. At it's closest, it's 34.1 arcminutes.  This is where the "30% larger" claim comes from, although that figure isn't accurate either.  34.1 is only 16.4% 'larger' than 29.3.   29.3 + (29.3 * .164).


----------



## Frequency (Mar 20, 2011)

Good going; by the way, i made a mistake; if radius is +2%, diameter is also +2%

PS: i did not say moon is actually getting bigger; i was mentioning the apparent growth, not the actual The arc minutes increase just because the apparent diameter increase


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 20, 2011)

All this logic and evidence stuff takes the fun out of it.  I'd rather tell people that the moon is swelling because it got an infection when we shot that rocket at it last year.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 20, 2011)

bentcountershaft said:


> All this logic and evidence stuff takes the fun out of it.  I'd rather tell people that the moon is swelling because it got an infection when we shot that rocket at it last year.


EXACTLY!!!!!!


----------



## USM IS (Mar 20, 2011)

It's bigger and brighter cuz jtee handheld the shot and he's bigger than me..............USM IS


----------



## rabman (Mar 20, 2011)

480sparky said:


> "14% larger"?
> 
> I call shenanigans on this.  The moon's orbit is ellipitcal, varying between 363,104 and 405,696 km.  That's 11.7% _at best_, and only a paltry 5.8% from it's semi-major axis (average distance).
> 
> ...



Maybe you should share your theories with NASA.  

Super Full Moon - NASA Science





Above: Perigee moons are as much as 14% wider and 30% brighter than lesser full Moons


----------



## Davor (Mar 20, 2011)

ishafizan said:


> another from yesterday


 
Very beautiful capture.


----------



## jtee (Mar 20, 2011)

USM IS said:


> It's bigger and brighter cuz jtee handheld the shot and he's bigger than me..............USM IS




 LMAO....:lmao:


----------



## Frequency (Mar 21, 2011)

rabman said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > "14% larger"?
> ...


 
That nullifies all my suggestions and sublimates all speculations :thumbsup:


----------



## Frequency (Mar 21, 2011)

ishafizan said:


> another from yesterday



#############################################################################################################################

Such a beautiful image; this should have posted separately to get special attention, i feel; are you not the one who posted "Malaysian Las Vegas? distinction is very apparent !!! :thumbsup:


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 21, 2011)

Frequency said:


> ............Maybe you should share your theories with NASA.  .........



"According to Jeff Chester ," "Says Chester".  

Sounds like NASA is parroting information as well.  At least they should try to get the correct orientation of the moon as well instead of showing it upside-down.


----------



## Conner41 (Mar 21, 2011)

All are great shots.  I was cloudy where I live so I couldn't take any decent photos.


----------



## quiddity (Mar 22, 2011)

shot early evening from back porch last weekend
300mm with kenko 1.4 tc




super_moon by tshesse, on Flickr


----------



## reedshots (Mar 23, 2011)

Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in. 
over the millennia the moons size has not changed, but it has and is still decreasing in VISUAL size as seen from the earth as it moves farther away from the earth. It will appear smaller every year as time goes on.


----------



## Fern (Mar 23, 2011)

It appears bigger and brighter the longer you WAIT for it to show up!


----------



## Buddy Thomason (Mar 23, 2011)

From Denver, Colorado USA 
We had (for Colorado) a fair amount of moisture in the air and a thick layer of low-lying clouds on the Eastern horizon. The moon, very big and orange, rose through the soup (even marginally sharp images not possible) and only then did it become fairly crisp. Maybe it didn't live up to the hype. That doesn't concern me because it's always special when I get to watch the full moon rise! Besides, the full moon is a photographer's test piece - to get a decent shot (by design, not accident) one must have, at a minimum, grasped the manner in which the three main variables (shutter speed, aperture, ISO) interact to produce the optimum exposure. Plus, to get an above average finished image of the full moon, one needs to know about digital noise and how the editing software works to tame it. Some would way a solid working knowledge of sharpening is equally important in this situation and I would agree. 






Canon 1DMKII, 500mm f5.6 L lens with 1.4 extender = 910mm  
ISO 200, f5.6, 1/30s, mirror lock-up w/ 2 sec. delay
Arca Swiss ball head w/ Wimberly Side Kick
Processed in Adobe PSCS5


----------



## OrionsByte (Mar 23, 2011)

rabman said:


> Above: Perigee moons are as much as 14% wider and 30% brighter than lesser full Moons


 
These tell me that this was yet another astronomical story that was only _partially_ reported by the media, which leads to misinformation.

What NASA says: a full moon at perigee (it's closest point to Earth) appears 14% bigger and 30% brighter than a full moon at apogee (it's farthest point from Earth).

What the media says: the super moon will appear 14% bigger and 30% brighter.

What the public assumes: the super moon will appear 14% bigger and 30% brighter than normal.

There's a big difference between the first statement and the last.  Not every full moon occurs at apogee either (in fact, the next full moon at apogee won't be until October).  So while the media's statements are partially true, they're leaving off some crucial bits of information that make people misunderstand the facts.

Also, in regards to the comments earlier about the moon not changing brightness - there's a difference between photographic brightness and astronomical brightness.  When they say the moon will be 30% brighter they're not talking about its reflectivity; they're talking about it's _apparent_ brightness, just like they're talking about _apparent_ size.  If you take a desk lamp and use it to light a scene, and then move that lamp closer to your subject, the lamp will not have changed brightness, but you will also need less exposure on your subject because the light will appear to be brighter to that subject (inverse square law).  Same principle.  Astronomical objects are measured on a magnitude scale that have to do with how we see them, not what their actual brightness is.

This reminds me a little bit of the email hoax that went around a few years ago that said that Mars was going to be the closest to Earth it had been in years, and that it would look as big as the full moon to the naked eye.  At least, that's what people _thought_ it said.  What it _actually_ said was that it would be the same apparent diameter through a small telescope as the moon is to the naked eye.  Sometimes people hear what they want to hear.


----------

