Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

See The Supermoon Tonight

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the wear-no-kryptonite dept.

Moon 102

watermark writes "About every 28 years a 'supermoon' occurs. This is when the moon's orbit is closest to earth at the same time as a full moon. Saturday night will be the biggest, brightest full moon you will see in the next 28 years." The buzzkills at Space.com explain though that (For North Americans at least) you'll actually only be seeing a "waning gibbous moon," but it should still be spectacular.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (3, Insightful)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35541930)

Does anybody research these things?? It's not that THAT unusual. Slashdot is turning into Digg.
Do a Google search on "supermoon hype" and read the links!

Arrrggghhh

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (5, Informative)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35541948)

The best popular link I could find is from Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" blog:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/18/kryptonite-for-the-supermoon/ [discovermagazine.com]

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

BlortHorc (305555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542236)

The best popular link I could find is from Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy" blog:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/18/kryptonite-for-the-supermoon/ [discovermagazine.com]

Good old Bad Astronomy, love that site.

Gotta say, looking up at the full moon right now, clear skies, and sure, nice full moon, nothing visibly spectacular at all, beyond being a massive lump of rock in the sky. Nothing breeds contempt like familiarity.

And I do so hope /. does not become Digg.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544324)

I will say that I noticed the moon looked exceptionally bright last night at around 11pm, when it was overhead, even if the supermoon thing isnt noticable (hadnt heard about it till now).

Could there have been any particular reason for that, or would it just have been because it was an exceptionally clear night?

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

doccus (2020662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35554976)

I noticed too..and i hadn't heard of such a thing either.. anyways, does it mean if the moon is 3% closer that it's only going to be 3% brighter, or does it work on some other ratio?

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

HPXX (1189589) | more than 3 years ago | (#35548870)

Here's a fresh post by Richard Nolle too. Next occurance of this phenomena, April 18th. http://www.astropro.com/features/articles/supermoon/ [astropro.com]

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (5, Insightful)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542046)

Heh, this reminds me of when Mars came close back in `03.
http://www.v-r-a.org/ppp/Mars/Mars.htm [v-r-a.org]

Folks quickly started misquoting the prediction and saying that Mars would appear larger than the full moon to the naked eye. Websites started yelling at the space programs of the world to launch rockets, wanting to put men on Mars "while it was closer than the moon".

People believe anything these days.... Would anyone like to buy some anti-radiation pills? Only $800 a box.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

jacobsm (661831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542112)

I have some magic moon dust to sell also.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

Picardo85 (1408929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542578)

im sticking to Rad-X and RadAway, thank you :)

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544636)

what you have anti-radiation pills, I will take what ever you have left!!!!!!!!!

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542180)

What about the summary was incorrect?

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542210)

What about the summary was incorrect?

Specifically? That it's anything "Super". it's going to be quite ordinary...just a little bigger. when I use the adjective "super", I mean something extraordinary.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (3, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542234)

But it is called a supermoon [wikipedia.org] , by definition. Perhaps the name is misleading to those who don't know what it is. There will certainly be a supermoon tonight.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (2)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542406)

Alright bunratty... you win... THIS time
(Thomas skulks off to his volcano hideaway)

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542454)

I'm picturing a paper sign on the door leading down to your parent's basement with the following scrawled in crayon:

"TOMMY'S VOLCANO HIDEAWAY!!! KEEP OUT!!! NO GIRLS ALLOWED (except Mom)!"

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542526)

I'm picturing a paper sign on the door leading down to your parent's basement with the following scrawled in crayon:

"TOMMY'S VOLCANO HIDEAWAY!!! KEEP OUT!!! NO GIRLS ALLOWED (except Mom)!"

Yeah... and your point is....?
by the way, do you have still have my Boba Fett action figure you borrowed from me last week?

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542666)

do you have still have my Boba Fett action figure you borrowed

Good luck with that. He still has my Jabba the Hut inaction figure.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542828)

quote: "The name SuperMoon was coined by astrologer..."

aaaaand that's where I stopped.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

dotsandlines (2021270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543842)

Quote from wiki: "The name SuperMoon was coined by astrologer..."

aaand that's about as far as I need to read.

It's 14% larger than its smallest possible size. 1.4% larger than it was last month. There is absolutely nothing 'super' about this. You won't be able to tell the difference without a measuring device.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543942)

I particularly like the "debunking" of the natural disasters, which amounts to "It can't be related to the supermoon since both tsunamis were when the moon was at apogee". Okay, then is it possible that something bad happens geologically when there is an apogee-syzygy?

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35558264)

But it is called a supermoon [wikipedia.org] , by definition. Perhaps the name is misleading to those who don't know what it is. There will certainly be a supermoon tonight.

You know, I hate it when people don't read the article, but I've grown used to it. I've also grown used to people who don't even read the summary.
But I can't just sit by when people don't even read their own citations:

The term supermoon is not widely accepted or used within the astronomy or scientific community, who prefer the term perigee-syzygy.

Doh! In fact,

The name SuperMoon was coined by ASTROLOGER Richard Nolle in 1979

Now, go read some tea leaves, or get naked and dance around in the woods with some Patchulli or whatever it is you Mystics like to do during the "Supermoon", as you folks like to call it.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (0)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542258)

Yeah, considering {1} and {1,2}, the latter is extraordinary compared to the first, because it is a superset.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542446)

What about the summary was incorrect?

The video embedded in TFA said this "apogee" orbit along with a full-moon phase happens about every 18 years or so... Not 28 years...

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542494)

The video also said the moon will appear bigger and brighter than any time since 1983, which was 28 years ago. The phrase "about every 18 years" is different from "exactly every 18 years". Sorry, try again.

turning into Digg? (Bury) (0)

bityz (2011656) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542256)

that's overstating it a bit... have you got a suggestion for varying the mod mechanism or are you just enjoying hyperbole?

Not so special after all (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542346)

Yeah, the last time this happened was as recently as 2008, according to the article. The moon was five miles closer than it will be today.

It appears this event happens every 3 years of so. Not that big a deal. Astronomy is fun but I like my boss's attitude, when he goes telescope-gazing: "My neighbor's wife walks around naked and never closes the curtains. That's where the real show is at." ;-)

Re:Not so special after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35543060)

But was that a full moon?

Re:Not so special after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35543206)

No, but I saw a waxing crescent a while back.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

watermark (913726) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542430)

OP here. May I offer my formal "Whoopsies."

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (3, Insightful)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542738)

Stupid things and mistakes are submitted to Slashdot on an hourly basis. Blame timothy for actually posting it to the front page.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35545120)

Stupid things and mistakes are submitted to Slashdot on an hourly basis. Blame timothy for actually posting it to the front page.

If I hadn't already posted to this story, you would get a mod point. (I have 11 left! woohoo!)
yes, I blame Timothy, not the original poster

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

JeanInMontana (2020420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542892)

Does anybody research these things?? It's not that THAT unusual. Slashdot is turning into Digg. Do a Google search on "supermoon hype" and read the links!

Arrrggghhh

Practice what you preach perhaps? http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/16mar_supermoon/ [nasa.gov]

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35545656)

Let's be more specific. It is absolutely true that the moon is (nearly) full at perigee. It is absolutely true that that doesn't happen every day. It is true that it may appear a bit larger (just a bit, most wouldn't notice without news hype).

All the other gloom, doom, and significant annoyances being warned about are complete bunk.

It's much more a geek thing (like pi day) than anything else which is why it DOES belong on /. As was pointed out at the bottom of the Bad Astronomy write-up:

But I’ll add that the Moon will actually be a bit closer than usual, and while you might not notice the size or brightness difference by eye, the full Moon is always a lovely and compelling sight in the sky. So I urge everyone to go out and take a look. And while you’re looking think on this: a dozen men have walked on the Moon, dozens of probes have been sent there, and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is still snapping away, mapping our friendly satellite and taking dazzling images of its surface.

So there you go. Have a look, give it a thought and if you like, hoist a beer or two with a friend.

Re:No No No !!!!! It will be BARELY noticable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35546238)

I can attest to the contrary, after having seen the moon while I was driving earlier 8PM EST
in the D.Cthat is quite noticable, and frankly the largest red moon I've ever seen in my life.

close enough for jazz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35541940)

It looked pretty big and round last night.

Re:close enough for jazz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542128)

It looked pretty big and round last night.

Yeah, but so does your mom

Look, unless there's an outbreak of Weres... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35541942)

then I don't care! And since we only have one moon to worry about, it won't be a big deal.

Let me know when we get an extra moon or something.

Crash (0)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35541960)

I was reading this in the newspaper a few days ago and it really does look bigger. Almost as if it might crash into us.

So the moon spins around us in an ellipsis, where it's closest to us at perigee and furthest at apogee. Apparently it's blamed for the tsunami [dailymail.co.uk] .

Re:Crash (1, Informative)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35541976)

Apparently I meant farthest.

Re:Crash (4, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542014)

So the moon spins around us in an ellipsis, where it's closest to us at perigee and furthest at apogee. Apparently it's blamed for the tsunami [dailymail.co.uk]

Well, if it's in the Daily Mail it *must* be true...

Actually, I'm not convinced that's the real Daily Mail. If it was, it would mention that the Japanese earthquake was caused by illegal benefit-scrounging immigrants to the UK, and that it stands a real chance of affecting house prices here. Oh yeah, and that we're all going to die from the 0.5cm-high remainder of the tsunami when it hits the UK and the only solution is this week's wonder food that'll let us all live to 179.

Re:Crash (3, Funny)

theBully (1056930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542168)

You are waaaay off. The Japanese earthquake as well as the Haitian earthquake are all caused by the LHC to set in motion the end of the world in 2012 when the LHC will finally give birth to a black hole as well as a planet and a wormhole which will hit the earth and change it's direction of rotation. East will become sunset and nobody will survive except a U.S. family (obviously from L.A.). This family will also stop the attack of the invading aliens pouring through the wormhole. It's all out there. Just read the news.

Re:Crash (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542588)

Actually I believe it is Gods wrath at the way society is going to the dogs...

Re:Crash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542088)

The moon was absolutely, categorically, not responsible in any way for the earthquake or resulting tsunami. the moon was at apogee on March 6th; more here (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/18/kryptonite-for-the-supermoon/), specifically debunking that nasty little article in the mail.

It's the worst kind of illogical nonsense, and we should avoid turning slashdot into a house of lies. If phases of the moon caused earthquakes *we'd be able to predict earthquakes*.

Re:Crash (1)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542132)

Actually...the tides caused by the moon occur both in the water and the land (to a lesser extent) and do contribute to the energy (heat) and motion of the ground. This could, in principle, happen in such a way to act as a trigger as a fault teeters on the edge of movement. It could also act to enable small slippages, and relieve stresses before catastrophic events occur.

So don't be absolutely, categorically sure about something so complicated and interrelated. Even if you might, possibly, but not certainly, correct.

It is pretty fucking certain... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542396)

Here's a clue: Moon orbits Earth (coming closer and then moving away again) EACH MONTH. [wikipedia.org]

So... Unless you are experiencing major earthquakes EACH MONTH at about the same time, but NOT during the rest of the month... There is no correlation whatsoever.
Bonus points for Moon actually being closer to its FURTHEST point in its orbit around the Earth (apogee) [discovermagazine.com] at the time of the recent earthquake in Japan.
Oh and... Take a look at this. [wikimedia.org]
Each pixel in that photo is about 500 kilometers. During this particular perigee Moon will be ENTIRE 12 PIXELS CLOSER.

Re:It is pretty fucking certain... (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542992)

Yes, the moon reaches perigee once a month (well, actually 29.5 solar days). But it does not always do this when it is FULL. The lunar-phase cycle and the lunar-distance cycle are slightly different, so the two coincide much less often.

Furthermore, the moon is not the only thing that makes tides: the sun does it too. Solar tides are about half as big as lunar tides because the sun is much farther away. When the moon is either new or full, the sun, earth and moon form a straight line and we get the highest (and lowest) tides: the effects of the sun and moon add up.

Now if the moon is at apogee when it's full, the lunar tide is a little stronger than at any other time, so all three of these influences add up and you get the maximum possible tidal effect.

This is not to say the "supermoon" caused the quake -- there are plenty of factors saying it didn't -- but "The moon gets closer once a month...no correlation" only rates a D as compared to Bill O'Reilly's F.

rj

Re:It is pretty fucking certain... (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543988)

Oopsie, perigee not apogee.

rj

Re:It is pretty fucking certain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544326)

Yeah, except that you get the same effect every month at full moon, and the difference at perigee and apogee is negligible.

You do realize... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35545822)

That the full Moon and any other Moon have the exactly same mass, gravitational pull etc.? We just don't see a part of it - it is still there.
Also, solar and lunar tides combined come out to about 5% increase in the tides [discovermagazine.com] - NOT "half as big as lunar tides".

When the moon is either new or full, the sun, earth and moon form a straight line and we get the highest (and lowest) tides: the effects of the sun and moon add up.

You DO realize that such conditions occur EVERY TWO WEEKS. [wikipedia.org]
So much for "the maximum possible tidal effect" and its correlation to earthquakes.

only rates a D as compared to Bill O'Reilly's F.

It wouldn't be fair of me to grade you at all. Clearly you didn't even take a look, let alone read, any of the fine links I provided above.
It would be like grading someone who didn't even take the course. While stealing candy from a baby. Seal.

Re:You do realize... (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 3 years ago | (#35551838)

Yes, the 3-body alignment occurs every two weeks...but it does not coincide with a lunar perigee every two weeks.

Yes, the full moon and any other moon have the same mass -- but only the full and new moons are in alignment to maximize the combination of solar and lunar tides.

And a perigee moon and an apogee moon have the same mass -- but not the same distance, and there's this little Newton gravitation thing that makes the moon gravity inversely proportional to the square of that distance.

Thus the coincidence of full moon and lunar perigee gives the greatest possible tidal effect. The 5% figure in your Discover link is the difference between full moon at lunar perigee and a typical full moon.

rj

Re:Crash (4, Funny)

PseudonymousBraveguy (1857734) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542134)

Apparently it's blamed for the tsunami [dailymail.co.uk] .

Yeah, and everyone was blaming it on the earthquake. But it was the moon all along! And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for that meddling kids!

Re:Crash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35543252)

No, its the CO2.

Re:Crash (1)

Peil (549875) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542152)

Did you even read the article you linked to?

The author says the idea has been debunked, and even explains hoe a tsunmai is formed.

Nice rant, but for once, the Mail gets this one right

Re:Crash (0)

ChrisDolan (24101) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542154)

Minor nit: you mean "ellipse", not "ellipsis". An ellipsis is three dots used as punctuation like this...

But I disagree that it will look "if it might crash into us". It will be reportedly 14% larger than it's smallest appearance (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/03/what_the_hell_is_a_supermoon.php), or I'd guess about 7% larger than normal. Not sure if that's areal size or diameter. Most people probably won't be able to tell the difference.

Re:Crash (0)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542254)

Woops.

I do that all the time with homophones.

Re:Crash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542996)

Don't bring the iPhone into this.

Re:Crash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35544062)

Woops.

I do that all the time with homophones.

Damn homophones, they shouldn't be hating gays!

Re:Crash (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35566720)

An ellipsis is three dots used as punctuation like this...

That wasn't an ellipsis, that was three periods. An ellipsis is this: â¦

(option-; on a Mac, though option-period would have made more sense.)

Re:Crash (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35566848)

Argh.. Should have hit preview. Nope, doesn't work HTML formatted either. D'oh.

Re:Crash (-1, Flamebait)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542162)

I was reading this in the newspaper a few days ago and it really does look bigger. Almost as if it might crash into us.

So the moon spins around us in an ellipsis, where it's closest to us at perigee and furthest at apogee. Apparently it's blamed for the tsunami [dailymail.co.uk] .

That's erripse not erripsis.

BTW the tsunami was caused by grobar walming.

Re:Crash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542164)

> I was reading this in the newspaper a few days ago and it really does look bigger.

Maybe it was the Sunday edition... it used to be bigger, I don't know nowadays...

Re:Crash (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542660)

Apparently it's blamed for the tsunami.

Not likely. The tsunami (actually, the quake that caused it) occurred just over a week ago. The moon was nowhere near perigee then.

Re:Crash (1)

hotdoghead (1577461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542938)

Apparently it's blamed for the tsunami [dailymail.co.uk] .

No it's not. I'm no fan of the Mail, but the headline "Did tonight's super moon cause Japan's tsunami?" leads to "And yet there is not a shred of evidence to support this."

It's on nights like these (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542052)

That dreamers look up and say Wow.... we should be back there.

Great civilizations are remembered for what they left behind.

That's no moon... (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542054)

I'm kind of ashamed to be posting that meme, but at last it's somewhat appropriate.

Re:That's no moon... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542108)

I'm kind of ashamed to be posting that meme, but at last it's somewhat appropriate.

Well, if that is a space ship, we're doomed.

Re:That's no moon... (2)

gblues (90260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543324)

I did the calculations, and the volume of New Jerusalem that is described as descending to Earth toward the end of Revelation is roughly half the volume of the moon. Thus the "moon turning to blood" earlier in Revelation is, in fact, New Jerusalem breaking out of its lunar shell and beginning its descent through the atmosphere.

I for one will have my telescope setup (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542120)

... and pointed at my sexy neighbor's window while everyone is distracted by the SuperMoon

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says Otherwise... (5, Informative)

delmierda (1220360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542174)

From Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Facebook post (http://www.facebook.com/#!/neiltyson): "SuperMoons? A hoax spread by the under-educated on the under-informed claiming the Moon causes quakes. Saturday's full Moon is also closest to Earth in its oval orbit. Perigee happens once per month. Full Moon+Perigee coincide every 2 or 3 years. Last one: Dec 2008. Size? Saturday's moon is 7% larger than average. The difference between a 15 & 14-inch pizza. You are now better informed than the Press."

Re:Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says Otherwise... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542986)

The difference between a 15 & 14-inch pizza.

A difference dwarfed by Moon illusion, twice a day... (if the sky is clear close to moonrise and moonset)

Even better: via binoculars, DSLR with appropriate lens, or a telescope.

Re:Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says Otherwise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35545670)

Full Moon + Perigee + Moonrise, coeval I believe is the idea.

Neil is missing the point (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35546364)

A supermoon occurs when the moon goes on a bender and accidentally puts on it's underwear on the outside.

It's been raining where I live so no supermoon. I did get to see the moon through clouds one night before and showed it to my 2 yr old son. I knew what Neil had written beforehand so I don't think I've missed anything but it still would have been a nice excuse to gaze up if the clouds weren't lousy!.

Time-Lapse of Moonset over the Colorado Rockies (5, Interesting)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542230)

Here's a time-lapse of the Moonset setting over the Colorado Rockies in early/2010 [komar.org]

I may venture out at O-dark-30 to shoot it again this year to see if it truly looks any bigger.

Re:Time-Lapse of Moonset over the Colorado Rockies (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542696)

Here's a time-lapse of the Moonset setting over the Colorado Rockies

Very nice.

All the 'earthquake causing' arguments aside (1)

Seizurebleak (2020360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542276)

I think seeing a slightly larger, brighter moon will be nifty. "Extreme supermoon" may be selling it a bit much, but I'm looking forward to having a look tonight.

28 years? (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542292)

That was either
1) a typo
2) bad math

Option 1 is the less embarrassing one..

Thats no moon! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35542470)

Its a

What now? (1)

Dodgy G33za (1669772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542584)

It's raining. I'll wait until next time.

Up in the air! (1)

Megahard (1053072) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542690)

It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Superman flying upside down with his pants down!

Is this when the creepers get to eat? (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542762)

Every 28 years, it gets to eat for 28 days?

In this part of North America (1)

aegl (1041528) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542866)

I'll actually be seeing clouds ... forecast says no supermoon for us, just rain and more rain.

Different timezone (1)

Santzes (756183) | more than 3 years ago | (#35542990)

The moon has been up there for 8 hours already here in Thailand.. I guess it did look kinda biggish. How much (%) is the difference of the full moon between now and a month (or a year) ago, I'd like to know if my big moon sighting was confirmation bias or is it really noticeable difference.

The last time I remember this... (1)

ittybad (896498) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543090)

The moon did not appear any bigger in the sky, but I do recall that the night was VERY bright. I could see better then than I tend to be able to right after dusk most days (we live in a steep canyon). I could see all the surrounding terrain and all the way down my street that has heavy tree coverage. It was pretty cool. Today, however, we have clouds and rain. :(

Moon pull (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35543160)

The moral condition of humanity controls gravity; so stop mooning.

When does it get cloudy in Kansas? (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543180)

Whenever there is anything remotely interesting happening in the heavens.

Not for Northern California, it won't! (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543280)

We're socked in with a huge rainstorm; we won't see the Moon for at least a week and a half, damnit.

Doubly whammy conspiring against my sleep (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543288)

I woke up to the sound of a hailstorm at 3 or 4 AM. I went back to get some sleep, rolled over at 5 AM and the Moon was out. It just happened to be in the right position to be right in my eye. It was indeed very bright. I thought it might be twilight combined with the Moon, but I don't think we are having twilight at 5 AM yet.

I ended up sleeping in until 10:30.

Surprised me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35543454)

I wasn't aware of today's supermoon but I did notice the moon was slightly bigger and brighter than normal when it was about 45 degrees above the Horizon this evening.

So? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543534)

So, it's that bowl of chili and not the scary supermoon that's giving me gas?

aaaahhhoooooooo!!!!! (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543624)

Everyone seems to be talking about the physical effects the moon will exhibit, yet no one is talking about the effects on that quirky body of water, the human being. Last night at the local pizza joint it was packed and crazy. Tonight, the night of the full moon, how much crazier can it get?
note to self: stay outta the bars.

similar hype about Mars couple years back (3)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35543938)

It was based on a germ of truth: Mars was to be the closest to earth and brightest in a century a couple of Augusts ago. But by the time it got garbled in the New Age Media, some people expected Mars to be bigger than the Moon and a sign of the apocalypse. And for some reason this idea gets revived every August now.

Not tonight I won't! (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35544748)

It's going to be a cloudy night, so no moon for me.

That's okay; it was nearly full last night and I got some great photos of it.

Re:Not tonight I won't! (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#35545454)

I'm looking at it now.
It looks suspiciously like every other full moon.

Supermoon?!? (1)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 3 years ago | (#35547832)

Will it be blue with a red cape?

Picture of the difference (1)

Dr La (1342733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549248)

A picture of what it amounts to in size difference here:

http://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2011/03/march-19-2011-super-full-moon.html [blogspot.com]

Both images were taken with the same lens, on during an "average" size full moon, the other yesterday. While indeed notably bigger yesterday in comparison, it really isn't that impressive in absolute terms...

By the way, contrary to the opening lines of the Topic Poster, it is about once each 18 years, not 28 years.

Re:Picture of the difference (1)

Dr La (1342733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35549270)

By the way, contrary to the opening lines of the Topic Poster, it is about once each 18 years, not 28 years.

...or in fact even more often (I was mixing two things up in my mind): every few years or so.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?