# Lunar Eclipse problem

uzless
Posers and Puzzles 05 Mar '07 17:21
1. uzless
The So Fist
05 Mar '07 17:21
If a full lunar eclipse occurs when the earth passes between the moon and sun, then why does the moon appear copper coloured?

If the Earth is blocking the sun, then no light should be reflecting back from the moon. Why are we able to see the moon at all?
2. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
05 Mar '07 18:01
Originally posted by uzless
If a full lunar eclipse occurs when the earth passes between the moon and sun, then why does the moon appear copper coloured?

If the Earth is blocking the sun, then no light should be reflecting back from the moon. Why are we able to see the moon at all?
If the earth had no atmosphere, we would not be able to see the moon at all during an eclipse. With an atmosphere, some of the longer wavelegth light (red's mostly) get refracted just enough to skip out of the atmosphere and hit the moon, thus giving that ghostly light to it. Green's and blue's refract TOO much and go off either deep into the atmopshere or just gets sent skipping out at too great an angle and miss the moon entirely.
There is a study of earthlight on the moon during times of gibbous or crescent moon, where the sun is off at an angle but we can still see the part not illuminated by the sun because some of the sun's light reflects off the top of the atmosphere and hits the moon and we therefore see it dimly by this reflected light. So if you make long term neasurements of this dim reflection, you can learn things about the long-term cloud cover of the entire earth, something very difficult to do with satellites or planes, both of which are too close, can't see the forest for the trees kind of thing. The reflected moonlight is an integrated version of the entire earth's cloud cover at one go.
3. 05 Mar '07 18:30
Seeing the Earth from the Moon during a total moon eclipse is among the most beautiful views you can get. The Sun is totally behind the Earth so the surface of the Earth is completely black, exept for the artificial lights. But you see the edge of the Earth flaming red, more or less around the globe. A magnificent sight!

This is a view no one yet has seen...
4. 05 Mar '07 18:40
Originally posted by uzless
If a full lunar eclipse occurs when the earth passes between the moon and sun, then why does the moon appear copper coloured?

If the Earth is blocking the sun, then no light should be reflecting back from the moon. Why are we able to see the moon at all?
Obviously it is magic.
5. 06 Mar '07 09:18
Originally posted by FabianFnas
Seeing the Earth from the Moon during a total moon eclipse is among the most beautiful views you can get. The Sun is totally behind the Earth so the surface of the Earth is completely black, exept for the artificial lights. But you see the edge of the Earth flaming red, more or less around the globe. A magnificent sight!

This is a view no one yet has seen...
It would have been nice if one of the Saturn missions had done that. Probably wasn't practical because of the rather exact timing, unfortunately. But I'd have loved to have seen the photos.

Richard
6. uzless
The So Fist
06 Mar '07 15:581 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas
Seeing the Earth from the Moon during a total moon eclipse is among the most beautiful views you can get. The Sun is totally behind the Earth so the surface of the Earth is completely black, exept for the artificial lights. But you see the edge of the Earth flaming red, more or less around the globe. A magnificent sight!

This is a view no one yet has seen...
why didn't they put a camera on the moon to take photos of the earth when they were there?

I mean, they took a freakin' car but they can't take a camera??
7. 06 Mar '07 17:38
Originally posted by uzless
why didn't they put a camera on the moon to take photos of the earth when they were there?

I mean, they took a freakin' car but they can't take a camera??
When were we there the last time? In the 70's? Did the CCD-cameras exist in those days? And how about sending the pictures back to home with good colour quality? What was the source of energy back then, to make the equipment function over long time? I don't know...

They had a camera with them, a Hasselblad, and they took a lot of pictures. But it was chemical films that was developed back home in a laboratory.

It was an astonishing achievement to get to the moon, bringing astronauts with it, with a technology that seems to be stone age today. Since then astronauts have only orbiting the earth, nothing more.
8. uzless
The So Fist
06 Mar '07 21:141 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas
When were we there the last time? In the 70's? Did the CCD-cameras exist in those days? And how about sending the pictures back to home with good colour quality? What was the source of energy back then, to make the equipment function over long time? I don't know...

They had a camera with them, a Hasselblad, and they took a lot of pictures. But it was c ...[text shortened]... seems to be stone age today. Since then astronauts have only orbiting the earth, nothing more.
Dude,

They built a CAR to drive around on the moon. They couldn't figure out how to make a camera take a few pics now and then?

Hell, they could have just stuck a crummy old satellite to orbit the moon and take some pics by now. Could have dropped one off on their way to Mars.
9. 06 Mar '07 21:21
Originally posted by uzless
Dude,

They built a CAR to drive around on the moon. They couldn't figure out how to make a camera take a few pics now and then?

Hell, they could have just stuck a crummy old satellite to orbit the moon and take some pics by now. Could have dropped one off on their way to Mars.
I think NASA did the correct decisions to make most of the budget to collect most scientific data possible. Pictures of the Earth during a total lunar eclips is just fancy pictures with little scientific value.

The car cost a lot of money, yes, but they could go to the sites with more scientifically interest places. Again, they optimized the value of the budget.

In the 70s, technology wasn't that sophisticated as it is nowadays.
10. uzless
The So Fist
06 Mar '07 21:47
Originally posted by FabianFnas
I think NASA did the correct decisions to make most of the budget to collect most scientific data possible. Pictures of the Earth during a total lunar eclips is just fancy pictures with little scientific value.

The car cost a lot of money, yes, but they could go to the sites with more scientifically interest places. Again, they optimized the value of the budget.

In the 70s, technology wasn't that sophisticated as it is nowadays.
I know, i'm just takin the piss outta nasa.
11. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
08 Mar '07 17:49
Originally posted by FabianFnas
When were we there the last time? In the 70's? Did the CCD-cameras exist in those days? And how about sending the pictures back to home with good colour quality? What was the source of energy back then, to make the equipment function over long time? I don't know...

They had a camera with them, a Hasselblad, and they took a lot of pictures. But it was c ...[text shortened]... seems to be stone age today. Since then astronauts have only orbiting the earth, nothing more.
Not because we couldn't, but because politics stuck its ugly head in.
Nixon, for instance, was probably thinking something like, 'I ain't going to let this @#\$\$#@ democratic Apollo program go on, it wassn't started by a repulican, so it's dead'.
12. 09 Mar '07 08:24
Originally posted by sonhouse
Not because we couldn't, but because politics stuck its ugly head in.
Nixon, for instance, was probably thinking something like, 'I ain't going to let this @#\$\$#@ democratic Apollo program go on, it wassn't started by a repulican, so it's dead'.
To place a camera on the Moon to record the Earth during a lunar eclipse is a minor thing. It has nothing to do with politics. Rather technology, expence, weight, scientific benefits or other reasons.
13. 09 Mar '07 14:09
Originally posted by FabianFnas
To place a camera on the Moon to record the Earth during a lunar eclipse is a minor thing. It has nothing to do with politics. Rather technology, expence, weight, scientific benefits or other reasons.
And you don't think expense is a political issue?
14. 09 Mar '07 14:35
Originally posted by mtthw
And you don't think expense is a political issue?
No, not within the budget.