APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
User avatar
APOD Robot
Otto Posterman
Posts: 3390
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:27 am

APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by APOD Robot » Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:08 am

Image Love and War by Moonlight

Explanation: Venus, named for the Roman goddess of love, and Mars, the war god's namesake, came together by moonlight in this lovely skyview, recorded on February 20 from Charleston, South Carolina, USA, planet Earth. Made in twilight with a digital camera, the three second time exposure also records earthshine illuminating the otherwise dark surface of the young crescent Moon. Of course, the Moon has moved on from this much anticipated triple conjunction. Venus still shines in the west though as the evening star, third brightest object in Earth's sky, after the Sun and the Moon itself. Seen here within almost a Moon's width of Venus, much fainter Mars approached even closer on the following evening. But Mars has since been moving slowly away from brilliant Venus, though Mars is still visible too in the western twilight.

<< Previous APOD This Day in APOD Next APOD >>
[/b]

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Nitpicker » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:52 am

Nice one.

marson

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by marson » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:25 am

Pretty for something so simple.

To pick a nit, why say "digital camera" instead of "camera"? Digital is default today.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 14072
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Chris Peterson » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:53 pm

marson wrote:To pick a nit, why say "digital camera" instead of "camera"? Digital is default today.
Habit by those who grew up with film? I prefer "electronic camera" since the sensors which have replaced film are fundamentally analog devices, not digital ones.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

bactame
Ensign
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:25 am

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by bactame » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:04 pm

Yes this image is great but doesn't show enough of the dark side. Anybody seen the Netflix film "Aliens on the Moon"? It shows quite a bit and raises the question of an extended family of man on the dark side. Most of it is provocative at best but raises the question that we might have friends out there.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 14072
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Chris Peterson » Thu Feb 26, 2015 2:17 pm

bactame wrote:Yes this image is great but doesn't show enough of the dark side. Anybody seen the Netflix film "Aliens on the Moon"? It shows quite a bit and raises the question of an extended family of man on the dark side. Most of it is provocative at best but raises the question that we might have friends out there.
The dark side? What's that? The Moon has no permanently dark side. It's night on part of the surface we see here, but that's always changing. Maybe you mean the far side of the Moon? We have many images of that, although we obviously can't make any from the Earth.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Ron-Astro Pharmacist
Resistored Fizzacist
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:34 pm
AKA: Fred
Location: Idaho USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Ron-Astro Pharmacist » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:03 pm

Is it difficult to predict when Venus may occult Mars as seen from Earth? They were obviously very close February 22nd but I can't find a future prediction for another occultation of that type.

A Wiki search of "History of Mars observation" lists the below.
"On October 13, 1590, the German astronomer Michael Maestlin observed an occultation of Mars by Venus…"
From: Breyer, Stephen (March 1979). "Mutual occultation of planets". Sky and Telescope 57 (3): 220.

http://www.seasky.org/astronomy/astrono ... rrent.html
Make Mars not Wars

User avatar
Indigo_Sunrise
Science Officer
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: SoMd

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Indigo_Sunrise » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:16 pm

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Is it difficult to predict when Venus may occult Mars as seen from Earth? They were obviously very close February 22nd but I can't find a future prediction for another occultation of that type.

A Wiki search of "History of Mars observation" lists the below.
"On October 13, 1590, the German astronomer Michael Maestlin observed an occultation of Mars by Venus…"
From: Breyer, Stephen (March 1979). "Mutual occultation of planets". Sky and Telescope 57 (3): 220.

http://www.seasky.org/astronomy/astrono ... rrent.html

I just read an article about this very thing, (Venus occulting Mars, as seen from Earth). IIRC, it seems as though it is so infrequent, as in 'lining up' only every thousand years or so. I'll see if I can find where I was reading it.......


ETA: From here:

An occultation involving two planets is extremely rare, however. For instance, the last time Venus occulted Mars was on October 13, 1590, and the next time will be June 4, 2327.
This image is an awesome-almost-occultation! :lol2:
Last edited by Indigo_Sunrise on Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Forget the box, just get outside.

User avatar
MarkBour
Subtle Signal
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:44 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by MarkBour » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:19 pm

All's fair in this image !
Especially Venus, with so many radiating lines.
Mark Goldfain

User avatar
Ron-Astro Pharmacist
Resistored Fizzacist
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:34 pm
AKA: Fred
Location: Idaho USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Ron-Astro Pharmacist » Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:52 pm

Indigo_Sunrise wrote:
Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Is it difficult to predict when Venus may occult Mars as seen from Earth? They were obviously very close February 22nd but I can't find a future prediction for another occultation of that type.

A Wiki search of "History of Mars observation" lists the below.
"On October 13, 1590, the German astronomer Michael Maestlin observed an occultation of Mars by Venus…"
From: Breyer, Stephen (March 1979). "Mutual occultation of planets". Sky and Telescope 57 (3): 220.

http://www.seasky.org/astronomy/astrono ... rrent.html

I just read an article about this very thing, (Venus occulting Mars, as seen from Earth). IIRC, it seems as though it is so infrequent, as in 'lining up' only every thousand years or so. I'll see if I can find where I was reading it.......


ETA: From here:

An occultation involving two planets is extremely rare, however. For instance, the last time Venus occulted Mars was on October 13, 1590, and the next time will be June 4, 2327.
This image is an awesome-almost-occultation! :lol2:

Thanks Indigo – it's funny that the article mentions the "dark side" of the moon; meaning the side opposite the bright crescent. Which brings up another phenomenon - that the bright crescent appears larger, out of proportion, to the rest of the moon? My wife commented on it the other night. It's more apparent "live" but some photos also seem to appear that way. Wonder why?
Moon Crescent.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Ron-Astro Pharmacist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Make Mars not Wars

Boomer12k
:---[===] *
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:07 am

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Boomer12k » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:01 pm

An amorous rendezvous to be sure.…..

:---[===] *

FloridaMike
Science Officer
Posts: 413
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:21 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by FloridaMike » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:08 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
The dark side? What's that?
It can only be seen from the dark continent....
Certainty is an emotion. So follow your spindle neurons.

User avatar
Ron-Astro Pharmacist
Resistored Fizzacist
Posts: 889
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:34 pm
AKA: Fred
Location: Idaho USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Ron-Astro Pharmacist » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:13 pm

FloridaMike wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
The dark side? What's that?
It can only be seen from the dark continent....
And "if seen" suddenly from Earth is liable to leave one "in-continent". Yes - probably the dark version. :cry:
Make Mars not Wars

TonyT

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by TonyT » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:34 am

No chance this will happen again, she'll be long dead. I doubt whether she has another title left in her...

philhart
Ensign
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:46 am

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by philhart » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:31 am

Would love to see a link to Kevin Bourque webpage with exposure details for this. A search doesn't reveal anything obvious?

Lovely image!

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Nitpicker » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:14 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
marson wrote:To pick a nit, why say "digital camera" instead of "camera"? Digital is default today.
Habit by those who grew up with film? I prefer "electronic camera" since the sensors which have replaced film are fundamentally analog devices, not digital ones.
Electronics can be analog or digital. (I used to own an electronic film camera.) The kind of image produced by a "digital" camera is a "digital image". Other names with more or less the same meaning are "raster image" or "bitmap image". They are all images formed by a 2-D array of pixels, rather than a light sensitive photographic emulsion.

Clutching at straws, perhaps the use of the term "digital camera", rather than just "camera", also implies a certain level of image processing and/or computing capability.

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2553
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by rstevenson » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:18 pm

Nitpicker wrote:Electronics can be analog or digital. (I used to own an electronic film camera.) The kind of image produced by a "digital" camera is a "digital image". Other names with more or less the same meaning are "raster image" or "bitmap image". They are all images formed by a 2-D array of pixels, rather than a light sensitive photographic emulsion.
I think you'd have to add to your definition, nit, that the array of pixels be regular. After all, those tiny crumbs of silver in film emulsions are discrete bits themselves, just not very regularly arrayed. (I seem to recall that one innovation, perhaps in the 70s, was to get the silver grains to spread more evenly and to lie flatter, resulting in a faster, more fine-grained appearing film.)

Rob

floyd51

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by floyd51 » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:37 pm

I'm familiar with diffraction spikes, but why does Venus have eighteen of them?

The wide field, about eleven full moons, suggests the photograph was "camera only", no telescope.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 14072
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Chris Peterson » Fri Feb 27, 2015 4:54 pm

floyd51 wrote:I'm familiar with diffraction spikes, but why does Venus have eighteen of them?

The wide field, about eleven full moons, suggests the photograph was "camera only", no telescope.
Because the lens had a 9-leaf iris.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Nitpicker » Fri Feb 27, 2015 9:18 pm

rstevenson wrote:
Nitpicker wrote:Electronics can be analog or digital. (I used to own an electronic film camera.) The kind of image produced by a "digital" camera is a "digital image". Other names with more or less the same meaning are "raster image" or "bitmap image". They are all images formed by a 2-D array of pixels, rather than a light sensitive photographic emulsion.
I think you'd have to add to your definition, nit, that the array of pixels be regular. After all, those tiny crumbs of silver in film emulsions are discrete bits themselves, just not very regularly arrayed. (I seem to recall that one innovation, perhaps in the 70s, was to get the silver grains to spread more evenly and to lie flatter, resulting in a faster, more fine-grained appearing film.)

Rob
Whilst the pixels are normally arranged in a regular fashion (which is all but implied in the word "array"), the more important difference is that the pixels are all individually addressable.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 14072
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:33 am

Nitpicker wrote:Whilst the pixels are normally arranged in a regular fashion (which is all but implied in the word "array"), the more important difference is that the pixels are all individually addressable.
Even more important is that there actually are pixels. Film grains are not even close to being the equivalent of pixels. They are binary, and respond to light in clusters. The result is that film has fairly poor resolution, and worse, has a MTF that is highly dependent on contrast. CCDs and other electronic sensors have pixels that are independent of each other, so their frequency response is independent of contrast.

(Very few electronic sensors have individually addressable pixels... but perhaps you meant something different by that terminology.)
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Nitpicker » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:05 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
Nitpicker wrote:Whilst the pixels are normally arranged in a regular fashion (which is all but implied in the word "array"), the more important difference is that the pixels are all individually addressable.
Even more important is that there actually are pixels. Film grains are not even close to being the equivalent of pixels. They are binary, and respond to light in clusters. The result is that film has fairly poor resolution, and worse, has a MTF that is highly dependent on contrast. CCDs and other electronic sensors have pixels that are independent of each other, so their frequency response is independent of contrast.

(Very few electronic sensors have individually addressable pixels... but perhaps you meant something different by that terminology.)
All I really meant was that the value recorded by each pixel on a digital image sensor, can be converted from an analog signal, to a digital value, and stored in the digital computer memory on board the camera.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 14072
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:08 am

Nitpicker wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:(Very few electronic sensors have individually addressable pixels... but perhaps you meant something different by that terminology.)
All I really meant was that the value recorded by each pixel on a digital image sensor, can be converted from an analog signal, to a digital value, and stored in the digital computer memory on board the camera.
I suspected something like that. Of course, this is analogous in many ways to digitally scanned film.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
Nitpicker
Inverse Square
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:39 am
Location: S27 E153

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by Nitpicker » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:21 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
Nitpicker wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:(Very few electronic sensors have individually addressable pixels... but perhaps you meant something different by that terminology.)
All I really meant was that the value recorded by each pixel on a digital image sensor, can be converted from an analog signal, to a digital value, and stored in the digital computer memory on board the camera.
I suspected something like that. Of course, this is analogous in many ways to digitally scanned film.
But without all the time, fuss and expense of the chemistry (and yes, with improved resolution, etc, too).

User avatar
MarkBour
Subtle Signal
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:44 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: APOD: Love and War by Moonlight (2015 Feb 26)

Post by MarkBour » Sat Feb 28, 2015 11:37 pm

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote: . . . Which brings up another phenomenon - that the bright crescent appears larger, out of proportion, to the rest of the moon? My wife commented on it the other night. It's more apparent "live" but some photos also seem to appear that way. Wonder why?
There is the following : http://blog.pnas.org/?p=1484
In the article, neurologist Jens Kremkow describes it as an illusion that has an explanation in the neurons in the retina.

I'm not at all sure it's the only thing going on, though. It could well be that some cameras are also "spreading the light" in some circumstances.
Mark Goldfain