When will the moon be closest to earth (to photograph it)

(thread started in rec.photo.digital, now including sci.astro.amateur for their
possible brain power)

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:33:31 +0530, "mianileng"
wrote:


"RandyChase" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:35:13 +0530, "mianileng"

wrote:


How do I get closer to the moon?


If your latitude is north of the Tropic of Cancer: wait for the moon to
reach
the zenith while it also coincides with the peak of its perigee during the
Winter Solstice and its orbital inclination to the ecliptic is also most
northerly. Doing so while in a high-altitude aircraft or weather-balloon
will
also slightly decrease your distance. Or move to the equatorial-belt
regions and
wait for the moon to reach the zenith during its perigee. Which provides
for
much greater chance of getting closer than if further north than the
Tropic of
Cancer, or further south than the Tropic of Capricorn.

The closer the moon is to the zenith (the point in the sky vertically
above you)
during its perigee (when the moon is closest to the earth), the closer
you'll
be. Northern and southern inhabitants must wait for the moon's orbital
inclination and its orbit along the ecliptic to coincide with their
latitude to
allow for the moon's passage closest to their zenith. Those living in the
equatorial-belt of earth are not as greatly encumbered by those extra
required
alignments.

Or join one of the many countries' space programs and train to be an
astro/cosmonaut. Hope to get on a waiting list for any upcoming lunar
excursion.
Increase your chances by rallying local governments to support your wishes
to
get closer to the moon.



:-) Oh well, I think I'll just stick with my P&S with its 420mm Leica glass.


Yes, that will also help. But there's a minor correction to the information
above. I now realize that in order to get closest to the moon from a terrestrial
position, along with all the other earth-moon alignment conditions needing to be
met (noted above), you'll have to be on the highest vantage point of the
equatorial-bulge. According to Wiki: "An often-cited result of Earth's
equatorial bulge is that the highest point on Earth, measured from the center
outwards, is the peak of Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador, rather than Mount
Everest." You'll have to move to Ecuador with your Leica lens. Don't forget to
pack a supply of oxygen for that climb.

I wonder if there's an online calculator that predicts, like eclipses, when
you'll be closest to the moon while at your position on earth. Would make for a
fun web-page. It could also let you know when to start packing to get to Mt.
Chimborazo. It might not be 10 centuries from now when all those alignments come
to pass (exactly when the moon is at the zenith of that mountain during the
moon's nearest possible perigee). You'd have plenty of time to get an even
better P&S.

:-)

Come to think of it, this better happen sooner than 10 centuries. The moon is
slowly moving away from the earth every day.

As Alice might say, "This just gets more curiouser and curiouser."

We now know the location, we just have to find out when the moon will be closest
to that mountain-peak as it irrevocably increases in distance.

This could also make for a major day to party. The day the moon will never be
closer to any point on earth. A world-wide "Lunar Bon-voyage Party". With
millions making a pilgrimage to Mount Chimborazo (The tourist industry of
Ecuador should get in on this.). :-)

Anyone care to calculate this exact moment in time?

It might not even be at that location if the moon will be closer to some other
point on earth due to the moon's nearest possible perigee happening over some
other high-altitude point on earth long before it will happen directly over that
mountain. Quite the complex puzzle.

When, and where, will some point on earth never be any closer to the moon again?

Please forward this to someone with more time on their hands than I, who can
also run the best orbital calculations possible. Report back. Thanks.

Forget about "close." To get a good image of the moon you need:
1. A moon phase of 1/2 or so, to record side-lit details.
2. A night of STEADY seeing, where the stars don't twinkle.
3. A camera lens set-up that can at least fill the field of view with the
Moon. Top to bottom, you are looking at a 2000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
4. If possible, a tracking mount to counteract Earth's rotation.
5. Low ISO to preserve tonality, DR and eliminate graininess.
6. Either a DSLR, or a 1 megapixel video camera (where you'd combine a
couple thousand images in a registration software package like Registax.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:01:29 -0500, "RichA" wrote:

Forget about "close." To get a good image of the moon you need:

You never read any post that you reply to, do you. Typical for a
virtual-photographer DSLR-troll online.

The question was more geared to finding out when the moon will be physically
closest to a point on earth, more than it was about photographing it.

Now go hijack some other discussion thread, you troll.

RichA wrote:
Forget about "close." To get a good image of the moon you need:
1. A moon phase of 1/2 or so, to record side-lit details.
2. A night of STEADY seeing, where the stars don't twinkle.
3. A camera lens set-up that can at least fill the field of view with the
Moon. Top to bottom, you are looking at a 2000mm lens on a 35mm camera.
4. If possible, a tracking mount to counteract Earth's rotation.
5. Low ISO to preserve tonality, DR and eliminate graininess.
6. Either a DSLR, or a 1 megapixel video camera (where you'd combine a
couple thousand images in a registration software package like Registax.



I always wonder why people want to take long exposures
of a moon shot.
I get an acceptable picture at 1/50 th second.
I even get problems with dark adaption when looking at the
moon in my telescope.(10 inch Celestron)

"RandyChase" wrote in message
...
(thread started in rec.photo.digital, now including sci.astro.amateur for
their
possible brain power)

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:33:31 +0530, "mianileng"

wrote:


"RandyChase" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:35:13 +0530, "mianileng"

wrote:


How do I get closer to the moon?


If your latitude is north of the Tropic of Cancer: wait for the moon to
reach
the zenith while it also coincides with the peak of its perigee during
the
Winter Solstice and its orbital inclination to the ecliptic is also most
northerly. Doing so while in a high-altitude aircraft or weather-balloon
will
also slightly decrease your distance. Or move to the equatorial-belt
regions and
wait for the moon to reach the zenith during its perigee. Which provides
for
much greater chance of getting closer than if further north than the
Tropic of
Cancer, or further south than the Tropic of Capricorn.

The closer the moon is to the zenith (the point in the sky vertically
above you)
during its perigee (when the moon is closest to the earth), the closer
you'll
be. Northern and southern inhabitants must wait for the moon's orbital
inclination and its orbit along the ecliptic to coincide with their
latitude to
allow for the moon's passage closest to their zenith. Those living in
the
equatorial-belt of earth are not as greatly encumbered by those extra
required
alignments.

Or join one of the many countries' space programs and train to be an
astro/cosmonaut. Hope to get on a waiting list for any upcoming lunar
excursion.
Increase your chances by rallying local governments to support your
wishes
to
get closer to the moon.



:-) Oh well, I think I'll just stick with my P&S with its 420mm Leica
glass.


Yes, that will also help. But there's a minor correction to the
information
above. I now realize that in order to get closest to the moon from a
terrestrial
position, along with all the other earth-moon alignment conditions needing
to be
met (noted above), you'll have to be on the highest vantage point of the
equatorial-bulge. According to Wiki: "An often-cited result of Earth's
equatorial bulge is that the highest point on Earth, measured from the
center
outwards, is the peak of Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador, rather than Mount
Everest." You'll have to move to Ecuador with your Leica lens. Don't
forget to
pack a supply of oxygen for that climb.

I wonder if there's an online calculator that predicts, like eclipses,
when
you'll be closest to the moon while at your position on earth. Would make
for a
fun web-page. It could also let you know when to start packing to get to
Mt.
Chimborazo. It might not be 10 centuries from now when all those
alignments come
to pass (exactly when the moon is at the zenith of that mountain during
the
moon's nearest possible perigee). You'd have plenty of time to get an even
better P&S.

:-)

Come to think of it, this better happen sooner than 10 centuries. The moon
is
slowly moving away from the earth every day.

As Alice might say, "This just gets more curiouser and curiouser."

We now know the location, we just have to find out when the moon will be
closest
to that mountain-peak as it irrevocably increases in distance.

This could also make for a major day to party. The day the moon will never
be
closer to any point on earth. A world-wide "Lunar Bon-voyage Party". With
millions making a pilgrimage to Mount Chimborazo (The tourist industry of
Ecuador should get in on this.). :-)

Anyone care to calculate this exact moment in time?

Not me. If you are so interested in it you do it.

Toby

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:45:38 -0600, RandyChase wrote:
: Yes, that will also help. But there's a minor correction to the information
: above. I now realize that in order to get closest to the moon from a
: terrestrial position, along with all the other earth-moon alignment
: conditions needing to be met (noted above), you'll have to be on the highest
: vantage point of the equatorial-bulge. According to Wiki: "An often-cited
: result of Earth's equatorial bulge is that the highest point on Earth,
: measured from the center outwards, is the peak of Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador,
: rather than Mount Everest." You'll have to move to Ecuador with your Leica
: lens. Don't forget to pack a supply of oxygen for that climb.
:
: I wonder if there's an online calculator that predicts, like eclipses, when
: you'll be closest to the moon while at your position on earth. Would make
: for a fun web-page. It could also let you know when to start packing to get
: to Mt. Chimborazo. It might not be 10 centuries from now when all those
: alignments come to pass (exactly when the moon is at the zenith of that
: mountain during the moon's nearest possible perigee). You'd have plenty of
: time to get an even better P&S.
:
: :-)
:
: Come to think of it, this better happen sooner than 10 centuries. The moon
: is slowly moving away from the earth every day.
:
: As Alice might say, "This just gets more curiouser and curiouser."
:
: We now know the location, we just have to find out when the moon will be
: closest to that mountain-peak as it irrevocably increases in distance.
:
: This could also make for a major day to party. The day the moon will never
: be closer to any point on earth. A world-wide "Lunar Bon-voyage Party".
: With millions making a pilgrimage to Mount Chimborazo (The tourist industry
: of Ecuador should get in on this.). :-)
:
: Anyone care to calculate this exact moment in time?
:
: It might not even be at that location if the moon will be closer to some
: other point on earth due to the moon's nearest possible perigee happening
: over some other high-altitude point on earth long before it will happen
: directly over that mountain. Quite the complex puzzle.
:
: When, and where, will some point on earth never be any closer to the moon
: again?
:
: Please forward this to someone with more time on their hands than I, who
: can also run the best orbital calculations possible. Report back. Thanks.

Note that for any given point on earth or for all points, it's a single day
only in the context of when you begin to count. Since the moon was once much
closer to the earth than it is now, that event must have occurred, for every
point on earth, many times in the past.

But how do you define "every point on earth" anyway? The earth's surface is
constantly changing. Geologic features come and go, and in the time frame
under discussion that could make a considerable difference. For example,
because the Indian subcontinent is crashing into Asia, Mt Everest has been
getting measurably taller. I'm not aware of any ongoing process doing the same
thing to Mt Chimborazo. Is it possible that before the moon gets out of range,
Mt Everest will have caught up?

So much to calculate, so little computing power. And if Mt Chimborazo were to
erupt again, it could all go for naught. ;^)

Bob

Sjouke Burry wrote:
RichA wrote:
Forget about "close." To get a good image of the moon you need:
1. A moon phase of 1/2 or so, to record side-lit details.
2. A night of STEADY seeing, where the stars don't twinkle.
3. A camera lens set-up that can at least fill the field of view with
the Moon. Top to bottom, you are looking at a 2000mm lens on a 35mm
camera.
4. If possible, a tracking mount to counteract Earth's rotation.
5. Low ISO to preserve tonality, DR and eliminate graininess.
6. Either a DSLR, or a 1 megapixel video camera (where you'd combine
a couple thousand images in a registration software package like
Registax.



I always wonder why people want to take long exposures
of a moon shot.
I get an acceptable picture at 1/50 th second.
I even get problems with dark adaption when looking at the
moon in my telescope.(10 inch Celestron)
After all, the moon is lighted by the sun, just like earthbound objects.
The only difference in exposure would be caused by atmospheric
conditions. Also, the variable in distance from Earth is really
inconsequential for photography--maybe like asking a person standing 20
feet from the camera to move a sixteenth of an inch closer. In regard to
the OP's question, perhaps he should buy a cow, wait for a cat playing a
fiddle and a dog laughing; just watch out for a dish and spoon.
Allen

"Sjouke Burry" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
Forget about "close." To get a good image of the moon you need:
1. A moon phase of 1/2 or so, to record side-lit details.
2. A night of STEADY seeing, where the stars don't twinkle.
3. A camera lens set-up that can at least fill the field of view with
the Moon. Top to bottom, you are looking at a 2000mm lens on a 35mm
camera.
4. If possible, a tracking mount to counteract Earth's rotation.
5. Low ISO to preserve tonality, DR and eliminate graininess.
6. Either a DSLR, or a 1 megapixel video camera (where you'd combine a
couple thousand images in a registration software package like Registax.



I always wonder why people want to take long exposures
of a moon shot.
I get an acceptable picture at 1/50 th second.
I even get problems with dark adaption when looking at the
moon in my telescope.(10 inch Celestron)

Since the shots are taken at night, some people instinctively think they
need a long exposure. Others, including personal acquaintances of mine, take
shots on full auto with scene-average metering and their camera tries to
compensate for the mostly-black background, and the overexposed moon comes
out as a blurry white blob. One such know-it-all "explained" to me that the
highest shutter speed on his Nikon D200 was still too slow to compensate for
the rotation of the moon.

I've taken photos of the moon at all shutter speeds from 1/30 to 1/640 sec,
depending on atmospheric conditions, the phase of the moon and its position
in the sky, and *partly* on ISO and aperture settings. Even at the same ISO
and aperture values, the shutter speed required for correct exposure varies
widely. The sunny-16 formula sometimes cited for taking pictures of the moon
cannot be blindly followed. Even at zenith on a fairly clear night,
reflected sunlight from the moon has to pass through the full thickness of
the atmosphere. This subjects the amount of light entering the lens to a
much wider variation than when taking pictures of relatively nearby objects.

"Allen" wrote in message
news
Sjouke Burry wrote:
RichA wrote:
Forget about "close." To get a good image of the moon you need:
1. A moon phase of 1/2 or so, to record side-lit details.
2. A night of STEADY seeing, where the stars don't twinkle.
3. A camera lens set-up that can at least fill the field of view with
the Moon. Top to bottom, you are looking at a 2000mm lens on a 35mm
camera.
4. If possible, a tracking mount to counteract Earth's rotation.
5. Low ISO to preserve tonality, DR and eliminate graininess.
6. Either a DSLR, or a 1 megapixel video camera (where you'd combine a
couple thousand images in a registration software package like Registax.



I always wonder why people want to take long exposures
of a moon shot.
I get an acceptable picture at 1/50 th second.
I even get problems with dark adaption when looking at the
moon in my telescope.(10 inch Celestron)
After all, the moon is lighted by the sun, just like earthbound objects.
The only difference in exposure would be caused by atmospheric conditions.
Also, the variable in distance from Earth is really inconsequential for
photography--maybe like asking a person standing 20 feet from the camera
to move a sixteenth of an inch closer. In regard to the OP's question,
perhaps he should buy a cow, wait for a cat playing a fiddle and a dog
laughing; just watch out for a dish and spoon.
Allen

I'm afraid that's not quite true. Calculations and my own shots show that
the moon looks significantly bigger at perigee than at apogee. The
difference in apparent width of the moon's diameter is more than 10%. That's
like taking shots of the same person from 20 ft and from less than 18 ft.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:32:28 +0530, "mianileng"
wrote:

Even at zenith on a fairly clear night,
reflected sunlight from the moon has to pass through the full thickness of
the atmosphere. This subjects the amount of light entering the lens to a
much wider variation than when taking pictures of relatively nearby objects.

That's not true. The atmosphere doesn't absorb much light at all, except
when you are looking nearly at the horizon. Atmospheric extinction
doesn't reach 1 magnitude (in photographic terms, about one stop) until
you are down to 15 degrees above the horizon. Stars don't look much
different to somebody in space than they do from any good dark site on
the Earth.

The position and phase of the Moon do impact exposure time, but
atmospheric extinction doesn't generally need to be considered, any more
than it does for nearby objects.
_________________________________________________

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