APOD: A Lunar Eclipse Over an Indian Peace... (2011 Dec 14)

[APOD Robot]

A Lunar Eclipse Over an Indian Peace Pagoda

Explanation: Our Moon turned red last week. The reason was that during December 10, a total lunar eclipse occurred. The above digitally superimposed image mosaic captured the Moon many times during the eclipse, from before the Moon entered Earth's shadow until after the Moon exited. The image sequence was recorded over a Shanti Stupa Peace Pagota near the center of New Delhi, India, where the eclipse of the Moon was nearly, but not completely, total. The red tint of the eclipsed Moon was created by sunlight first passing through the Earth's atmosphere, which preferentially scatters blue light (making the sky blue) but passes and refracts red light, before reflecting back off the Moon. Differing amounts of clouds and volcanic dust in the Earth's atmosphere make each lunar eclipse appear differently. The next total lunar eclipse will occur only in 2014.

<< Previous APOD

Discuss Any APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

[Beyond]

Well, that's really neat! We get to see the eclipse in quadriview, if you look closely.

[redcliffe]

I have to take exception to the caption on this one. The shadow of the earth is a cone. If the moon is entirely within this cone, it's a total lunar eclipse. We all get the same view of the moon, and it's not illuminated from the sun differently if you're at a different point on earth. Therefore if it's a total lunar eclipse it should be total everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geome ... clipse.svg <- this illustrates my point.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't a shadow projected on the earth, it's a shadow of the earth projected on the moon, therefore viewer location on earth should not effect what you see. Thanks,

David

[Waysie]

What's quadriview?

Also, what are the other two strings of lights? I'm guessing Jupiter on the right side of the moon, and Sirius on the left. Any experts out there that know for sure?

Thank you,

Waysie

[Waysie]

I believe the term "Indian Peace Pagoda' is a reference to the foreground object, not just which spot on earth that viewers were able to see the lunar eclipse, be it near total, or in totality. It appears that not all of the moon, at the depth of the eclipse, was in the umbra. In other words part of it was in the penumbra, thus in partial light. Also the observer's place on earth does have an effect on what is seen, due to a difference in time. Those on the opposite side of the planet from India would have seen the moon hours later, thus potentially after the moon moon had partially, or completely moved out of the Earth's shadow.

[Chris Peterson]

I have to take exception to the caption on this one. The shadow of the earth is a cone. If the moon is entirely within this cone, it's a total lunar eclipse. We all get the same view of the moon, and it's not illuminated from the sun differently if you're at a different point on earth. Therefore if it's a total lunar eclipse it should be total everywhere.

Yes, it is very odd they would say that in the caption. This was a total lunar eclipse. There were places that saw part of the eclipse, but missed totality because the Moon was below the horizon, but that obviously was not the case here. The Moon is fully eclipsed in this image.

(It is theoretically possible for one part of the world to see a lunar eclipse as total, and another part not to. This is because not every place on the Earth sees the same side of the Moon. So if the Moon passed right on the edge of the umbra, a sliver of the Moon could be in the penumbra, and that sliver could be visible from part of the Earth and not others. But such an eclipse would be very rare- and this eclipse did not meet those conditions.)

[Chris Peterson]

It appears that not all of the moon, at the depth of the eclipse, was in the umbra. In other words part of it was in the penumbra, thus in partial light.

This was a total lunar eclipse, meaning that the Moon was entirely within the umbra. In this case, the Moon was just slightly inside the umbra, which is why totality was short- only 51 minutes- and why the illumination was obviously uneven. But it was total, and seen as such everywhere on Earth where the Moon was above the horizon for some part of those 51 minutes- which includes the location of today's image. In New Delhi, the Moon rose just past the beginning of the eclipse, so virtually the entire thing was visible.

It is not correct to say that this eclipse wasn't total- from India or anyplace else (even if it wasn't visible from every place).

[Beyond]

What's quadriview?

Also, what are the other two strings of lights? I'm guessing Jupiter on the right side of the moon, and Sirius on the left. Any experts out there that know for sure?

Thank you,

Waysie

Quadri, pertains to 4. There are 4-strings of light in the picture. The faintest is between the moon string and the string on the right. Add the string on the left, and presto, four strings of light. Quadriview.

[redcliffe]

It is not correct to say that this eclipse wasn't total- from India or anyplace else (even if it wasn't visible from every place).

So there was a bit of the moon still in the penumbra and it was only visible from certain perspectives being behind the limb of the moon from other spots? Thanks,

David

[Markus]

Hey there,

what do they mean by "where the eclipse of the Moon was nearly, but not completely, total"? A lunar eclipse is total anywhere on the planet, isn't it? Anywhere on the planet where the moon is visible at the time of totality, but that was the case in this spot. So I really don't understand the description...

Best regards

Markus

[RJN]

Thanks, redcliffe and Chris and Markus. My bad. Indeed the phase of a lunar eclipse is the same to everyone who can see it. I just glitched. I fixed the caption to now be correct. Sorry! - RJN

[redcliffe]

Thanks, redcliffe and Chris and Markus. My bad. Indeed the phase of a lunar eclipse is the same to everyone who can see it. I just glitched. I fixed the caption to now be correct. Sorry! - RJN

Cool! I just wasn't sure whether there was something I was completely missing. Thanks!

David

[andy_4t7]

Also, what are the other two strings of lights? I'm guessing Jupiter on the right side of the moon, and Sirius on the left. Any experts out there that know for sure?
Waysie

I think, on the upper right is Jupiter. When the partial phase started, Jupiter was ~47° above horizon and so he was "wandering" out of the pic during the next hours.
The string on the left can´t be Sirius, ´cause the pictures were made towards east, so Sirius would appear on the right side, if he is in FOV. So i think the string is Capella.
And the last one near the moon should be Aldebaran.

There is also another string (3 Points) just right below the 1st Jupiter point. Must have been captured during the total phase, when the exposure was a little bit longer. But at the moment i don´t know, what it is.

André

[orin stepanek]

April 15 in 2014 'til the next full eclipse! That's a pretty long wait.

[Chris Peterson]

So there was a bit of the moon still in the penumbra and it was only visible from certain perspectives being behind the limb of the moon from other spots? Thanks,

I think that's a possible scenario, but it doesn't apply to this particular eclipse. Clearly, at mid-totality, no part of the Moon was in the penumbra.

umbra.jpg (22.71 KiB) Viewed 13384 times

[flash]

What factors explain the shape of the moon's path through this photo? I understand that stars follow circular paths around the pole. Is that it? It is affected at all by the focal length of the camera used? I have this notion that the path of the Sun (and Moon?) through the sky lies in a plane which is always tilted at the same angle relative to the plane of the equator, but which seems to shift to the north in the summer, and south in the winter. At the equator, at equinox, the Sun rises due east, goes vertically straight up to the zenith, and then straight down to set due west. At the solstices, the path is parallel, but in the summer it begins north of due east (misses the zenith by passing north of it, and ends north of due west. In the winter the same is true but south instead of north. Since New Delhi is 28 deg N, and since the arc of the Moon's path in this photo is concave to the upper left, can I presume that north is to the left?

[Chris Peterson]

What factors explain the shape of the moon's path through this photo? I understand that stars follow circular paths around the pole. Is that it? It is affected at all by the focal length of the camera used? I have this notion that the path of the Sun (and Moon?) through the sky lies in a plane which is always tilted at the same angle relative to the plane of the equator, but which seems to shift to the north in the summer, and south in the winter. At the equator, at equinox, the Sun rises due east, goes vertically straight up to the zenith, and then straight down to set due west. At the solstices, the path is parallel, but in the summer it begins north of due east (misses the zenith by passing north of it, and ends north of due west. In the winter the same is true but south instead of north. Since New Delhi is 28 deg N, and since the arc of the Moon's path in this photo is concave to the upper left, can I presume that north is to the left?

I think the easiest way to visualize this is to realize that the path of the Moon is approximately circumpolar. Because of its orbit around the Earth, it does move a little against the background stars, but over one evening this amounts to only a few degrees, so we see it move in pretty much the same way as the stars. Thus, its path looks substantially similar to that of stars captured in the same image. And since this was taken in the northern hemisphere, the north polar axis lies at the center of rotation, so yes, north is to the left. This is also clear by noting that from this location, the Moon rose at the start of the eclipse, so we must be looking in a generally eastward direction.

[RFW]

That structure is a stupa, not a pagoda.

[Chris Peterson]

That structure is a stupa, not a pagoda.

The structure is a shanti stupa (the Delhi Vishwa Shanti Stupa), which should not be confused with what is commonly called the Shanti Stupa in Ladakh (and which the caption somewhat confusingly links to). "Shanti stupa" is usually translated from Sanskrit as "peace pagoda". There is nothing particularly incorrect about calling a stupa a pagoda; they are related structures that exist along a continuum, with no clear boundary marking where one becomes the other. In any case, however, "peace pagoda" is exactly what these stupas are called in English.

[bystander]

That structure is a stupa, not a pagoda.

The image sequence was recorded over a Shanti Stupa Peace Pagoda near the center of New Delhi, India.

A Peace Pagoda is a Buddhist stupa designed to provide a focus for people of all races and creeds, and to help unite them in their search for world peace. Most (though not all) have been built under the guidance of Nichidatsu Fujii (1885–1985), a Buddhist monk from Japan and founder of the Nipponzan-Myōhōji Buddhist Order. Fujii was greatly inspired by his meeting with Mahatma Gandhi in 1931 and decided to devote his life to promoting non-violence. In 1947, he began constructing Peace Pagodas as shrines to World peace.

[geckzilla]

Always double check just to be sure of yourself before coming to the Asterisk with a semantics argument.

[Beyond]

Always double check just to be sure of yourself before coming to the Asterisk with a semantics argument.

WHAT?, and miss all the fun of learning something new?

[revloren]

I'm curious why the lowest image of the moon appears to be more in eclise than the images above it. Is this just a factor of it being low in the sky and thus generally obscured by the atmosphere? The lower left side of the moon in that exposure appears specificaly obscured.

[marvin]

Incidentally, the photographer's first name is 'chander' which is a north indian style spelling of 'chandra' which means the moon.

[geckzilla]

Always double check just to be sure of yourself before coming to the Asterisk with a semantics argument.

WHAT?, and miss all the fun of learning something new?

You'd learn either way, though! One way is a little less humbling.