Starship Asterisk*

Supermoon Total Lunar Eclipse and Lightning Storm

Explanation: What's more rare than a supermoon total lunar eclipse? How about a supermoon total lunar eclipse over a lightning storm. Such an electrifying sequence was captured yesterday from Ibiza, an island in southeastern Spain. After planning the location for beauty, and the timing to capture the entire eclipse sequence, the only thing that had to cooperate for this astrophotographer to capture a memorable eclipse sequence was the weather. What looked to be a bother on the horizon, though, turned out to be a blessing. The composite picture features over 200 digitally combined images from the same location over the course of a night. The full moon is seen setting as it faded to red in Earth's shadow and then returned to normal. The fortuitous lightning is seen reflected in the Mediterranean to the right of the 400-meter tall rocky island of Es Vedra. Although the next total eclipse of a large and bright supermoon will occur in 2033, the next total eclipse of any full moon will occur in January 2018 and be best visible from eastern Asia and Australia.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

There was a time when eclipses were eclipses, whether at the perigee or not, and we didn't need to add an extra meaningless super- in front of everything. But then some people discovered that popularity contests are more profitable than science and everything went downhill.

Just sticking my head in the door to say, "Thanks!"

We were totally socked-in here in the Southeast (zip, zero, nada, naught),
but I knew you guys would come through with a killer image to ease the pain.

If this is a scientifically accurate photo why the stars don't trail along with the moon and why a few stars are inside Moon's diameter in the seventh photo?
The answer is obvious. This is what it is. A photoshop composite.

what strange geography : ' Ibiza, an island in southeastern Spain.' i know about the rain in spain, never about an island in spain - and southeast?

I have set your daily astronomy picture as my default home-page, it has such informative info and lovely pictures.
However, the type face is too small to read, and when I make the page larger, the description enlarges and reformats to the size of the page, which is exactly what's needed.
But the picture does not and I can no longer see it all. So please make the picture resize to the page width just as the text does.
Many thanks, this will make your page far more user-friendly.
warm regards, Cris

Guest wrote:If this is a scientifically accurate photo why the stars don't trail along with the moon and why a few stars are inside Moon's diameter in the seventh photo?
The answer is obvious. This is what it is. A photoshop composite.

It was stated as being a composite, which is a legit astrophotography technique.
There was a lot of work going into making this image, but I'd still call it astrophotography not art imagery.

It's a truly wonderful, beautiful image.
I'd like to know the camera and len(s) used.

These were taken same night, in USA.

This is my 1st composite of the night, taken on fixed tripod, these are 2 minutes apart, 10:44pm - 11:06pm EDT. Canon 70D, 70-200mm L @ f2.8, ISO 3200, 1/15 sec each. Stacked. The faint "dots" are stars that showed up in the capture.
Hartland, Michigan, USA.



This is my 2nd composite of the night, taken on fixed tripod, these are 2 minutes apart, 11:10pm - 11:34pm EDT. Image is taken as leaving totality, so you can see the transition. Canon 70D, 70-200mm L @ f2.8, ISO 800, 1/8 sec each. Stacked. The faint "dots" are stars that showed up in the capture.
Hartland, Michigan, USA.

mtbdudex wrote:

Guest wrote:If this is a scientifically accurate photo why the stars don't trail along with the moon and why a few stars are inside Moon's diameter in the seventh photo?
The answer is obvious. This is what it is. A photoshop composite.

It was stated as being a composite, which is a legit astrophotography technique.
There was a lot of work going into making this image, but I'd still call it astrophotography not art imagery.

I have no doubt that there was a lot of photoshop work going on into making this image.
I don't have anything against composites but I'm certainly against art imagery presented as astrophotography.
Real astrophotography holds a scientific value. From the start of totality to finish the Moon's position (azimuth) changed by 12 degrees. The Moon's apparent diameter is half degree. Practically this means that from start to end of totality, 12 x 2 = 24 Moon diameters would fit into that space. (Actually even more because the Moon's altitude changed as well). In your shot, the distance between the first and the last totality Moon could barely fit 9 times the Moon's diameter.

Also, the Moon during maximum totality was at 33 degrees altitude. The maximum totality altitude in your photo is no more than 10 degrees, indicating a misplaced, misleading, inaccurate presentation.
In order to capture a scientifically accurate astrophoto you would need a wider lens and the result would be totally different, apparently not that eye catching. I have shot the same subject, the same night. This is how the phenomenon sequence really looks like:
http://greeksky.gr/gallery/eclipses_transits/?image=855

old dude wrote:There was a time when eclipses were eclipses, whether at the perigee or not, and we didn't need to add an extra meaningless super- in front of everything. But then some people discovered that popularity contests are more profitable than science and everything went downhill.

The evolution of language and use of new word combinations is nothing new. It happened before you learned language and it will continue to happen. I'm sure some even older, deader dudes would be annoyed at your own generation's use of language. It is kind of hokey, but there's no sense crying about it at this point.

Nice looking sequence in my humble opinion, even if not "scientifically" accurate or whatever...

Observers were chanced with unusually pure skies for the season here in western France,
during the night of the eclipse.

It had been stated that the brightness and color of the Moon during the total phase
would serve as rough indicators of the atmosphere's global state of pollution.

What is the experts' take on this state, after watching the phenomenon ? I found the
"super" moon was rather dull during totality, but hey! my sight is not good and obviously I haven't seen hundreds of "super red moons" in my life lapse so far.

Czerno o wrote:What is the experts' take on this state, after watching the phenomenon ? I found the
"super" moon was rather dull during totality, but hey! my sight is not good and obviously I haven't seen hundreds of "super red moons" in my life lapse so far.

It was one of the darker total lunar eclipses I've seen.

A truly gorgeous image, many many thanks!

This is one of the fakest things I've seen on this website. I am disappoint.

jimtealiii wrote:This is one of the fakest things I've seen on this website. I am disappoint.

I understand the sentiment. It is portraying a real event, however. Please know that nothing on APOD is ever intended to deceive or trick you, outside of a good-humored April Fool's joke once a year.

Rare image

There is nothing 'new' in this usage of the language here. "Super-" is a parasite word. It does not convey meaning, does not explain the phenomenon properly, and, consequently, there is no value in using it. The only reason to use it is the focus on sensationalism and the need to dumb down everything, so that the consumer doesn't have to use their head. Probably totally appropriate on Pinterest, Bloomberg or Huffpo, though.

old dude wrote:There is nothing 'new' in this usage of the language here. "Super-" is a parasite word. It does not convey meaning, does not explain the phenomenon properly, and, consequently, there is no value in using it. The only reason to use it is the focus on sensationalism and the need to dumb down everything, so that the consumer doesn't have to use their head. Probably totally appropriate on Pinterest, Bloomberg or Huffpo, though.

Super does convey a meaning in this case, which it has taken on through popular use, just as every word takes on meaning through its most common use. However it makes you feel, it is clear that it has come to mean that the moon is close to perigee and is somewhat larger in the sky. By all means, Don Quixote, continue to assault the windmills as it pleases you.

I so enjoyed the recent APOD from DSCOVR (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150807.html).

I wonder if it can ever catch a lunar eclipse. I know it sits in between Sol and Earth, but it's a little bit off of perfect (varying amounts), so it might sometimes be in position to see at least a partial shot of it. But I imagine that Luna in our shadow would be so dim in comparison with Earth that it might well be invisible.

APOD draws interest from a wide range of viewers but the vast majority of the most vocal seem to be pedantic semanticists. I like APOD, I think the photos are cool (whether classified as artistic or scientific) and the science is often mind blowing. What do you want for nothing, a rubber biscuit?

Fruity fer sher wrote:APOD draws interest from a wide range of viewers but the vast majority of the most vocal seem to be pedantic semanticists. I like APOD, I think the photos are cool (whether classified as artistic or scientific) and the science is often mind blowing. What do you want for nothing, a rubber biscuit?

Pedantry and semantics, along with grammar and general use of language are topics of interest for the community here at Asterisk. Birds of a feather, I suppose. You'll find very different and much less picky responses at other venues, such as Facebook. It is what it is!

While multi slacking, "What is a supermoon?" I found a blog of new words entering the English language.

Perigee may have been on September 27th (oops) but it was still a "pretty supermoon" last night. Maybe that'll make the next list though peri-shrinkflation might be more descriptive of a moon that still "tastes great" but is "less-filling".

It is a pain that in a place like this under the name NASA are selected absolutely false images designed with the sole intention of using the impact of lying to get attention of impressionable unwary. Here is an example of a REAL image obtained in the minute of totality from 140 miles N-NW of Ibiza.

https://twitter.com/TeslaWeather/status ... 08?lang=es

Composites belong on spacecraft. Real photos belong in the real world. Is apod part of the real world or not?

FAKE_finder wrote:It is a pain that in a place like this under the name NASA are selected absolutely false images designed with the sole intention of using the impact of lying to get attention of impressionable unwary. Here is an example of a REAL image obtained in the minute of totality from 140 miles N-NW of Ibiza.

https://twitter.com/TeslaWeather/status ... 08?lang=es

Here's a composite (400 seconds between frames) with a fixed camera location and lens, no different scaling between different parts of the image. Is it scientific or purely aesthetic? Would you call it "fake"?

(Shot from Colorado, moon rising above Pikes Peak and well lit mines at Cripple Creek.)

Nice shot....

:---(===) *