Old Moon in 30 somethings arms?

I think it was Norbert (on uk.sci.astronomy) who commented on the fact
that one of my crescent Moon images showing Earthshine was older than
he would have expected to see this phenomenon. I must admit that I
didn't even consider it being visible so late on. Well here's an 8d+
waxing gibbous Moon still showing Earthshine...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.lawrence1/newstuff/Eathshine_8d.jpg

Canon 10D prime focus through a Vixen FL-102s refractor (f/9). 20s @
ISO100. Image taken at 23h26m UT on 29/03/04 (~8.3d Moon).

Here's the normally exposed complimentary version...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.lawrence1/newstuff/623_2326a.jpg
--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Astronomy & digital astroimaging

It looks like a very over exposed image on the sunlit side, therefore the
"Earthlight" side has enough time to register an image on the unilluminated
part. It can't be easily seen with the naked eye, but a camera taking a
timed exposure should have no problems showing what your seeing.

Nothing unusual about this really.

Clear Skies,
F Marion

It looks like a very over exposed image on the sunlit side, therefore the
"Earthlight" side has enough time to register an image on the unilluminated
part. It can't be easily seen with the naked eye, but a camera taking a
timed exposure should have no problems showing what your seeing.

Nothing unusual about this really.

Clear Skies,
F Marion

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:02:53 GMT, "Francis Marion"
wrote:

It looks like a very over exposed image on the sunlit side, therefore the
"Earthlight" side has enough time to register an image on the unilluminated
part. It can't be easily seen with the naked eye, but a camera taking a
timed exposure should have no problems showing what your seeing.

Apart from the fact that I've never been able to personally image
Earthshine this late before (normally overloading the frame with the
lit part of the Moon), the previous older crescent Earthshine image I
took was visible with the naked eye. A bit of research shows that
there is a variation in the albedo of the Earth that peaks towards
spring in the Northern hemisphere (which I didn't know so that makes
it interesting to me at least).

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/12apr_earthshine.htm

Nothing unusual about this really.

Actually there is something unusual here because I was under the
impression that Earthshine required a certain angular condition to
occur before it would appear. This angular constraint would mean that
the Moon would need to appear as a crescent for the appearance of
Earthshine.

A quick Google finds a backup link to this idea...
http://www.astro.umd.edu/education/astro/moon/earthshine.html

I've also not been able to locate any other images of Earthshine apart
from those that feature crescents (although I'm sure someone will be
able to rectify that .

So it *is* unusual enough to make me re-think my ideas about how it
occurs. Of course this is most likely personal indulgence and is
unlikely to be of interest to anyone else.

Nothing unusual about this really.

Blimey, when did we get to the point where we became so smart that we
could dismiss everything so easily?
--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Astronomy & digital astroimaging

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 16:02:53 GMT, "Francis Marion"
wrote:

It looks like a very over exposed image on the sunlit side, therefore the
"Earthlight" side has enough time to register an image on the unilluminated
part. It can't be easily seen with the naked eye, but a camera taking a
timed exposure should have no problems showing what your seeing.

Apart from the fact that I've never been able to personally image
Earthshine this late before (normally overloading the frame with the
lit part of the Moon), the previous older crescent Earthshine image I
took was visible with the naked eye. A bit of research shows that
there is a variation in the albedo of the Earth that peaks towards
spring in the Northern hemisphere (which I didn't know so that makes
it interesting to me at least).

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/12apr_earthshine.htm

Nothing unusual about this really.

Actually there is something unusual here because I was under the
impression that Earthshine required a certain angular condition to
occur before it would appear. This angular constraint would mean that
the Moon would need to appear as a crescent for the appearance of
Earthshine.

A quick Google finds a backup link to this idea...
http://www.astro.umd.edu/education/astro/moon/earthshine.html

I've also not been able to locate any other images of Earthshine apart
from those that feature crescents (although I'm sure someone will be
able to rectify that .

So it *is* unusual enough to make me re-think my ideas about how it
occurs. Of course this is most likely personal indulgence and is
unlikely to be of interest to anyone else.

Nothing unusual about this really.

Blimey, when did we get to the point where we became so smart that we
could dismiss everything so easily?
--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Astronomy & digital astroimaging

Well excuse me for even bothering to comment.

I'll make sure to leave you to your own little world from now on.

Good riddance,

F Marion

Well excuse me for even bothering to comment.

I'll make sure to leave you to your own little world from now on.

Good riddance,

F Marion

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:16:23 GMT, "Francis Marion"
wrote:

Well excuse me for even bothering to comment.

I'll make sure to leave you to your own little world from now on.

Good riddance,

Apart from my last statement, my reply was perfectly balanced (IMHO of
course, but then I would say that). If I misread your reply
incorrectly - I saw it as a dissmissive post - then I apologise.
--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Astronomy and digital imaging website (last update 28-03-04)

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:16:23 GMT, "Francis Marion"
wrote:

Well excuse me for even bothering to comment.

I'll make sure to leave you to your own little world from now on.

Good riddance,

Apart from my last statement, my reply was perfectly balanced (IMHO of
course, but then I would say that). If I misread your reply
incorrectly - I saw it as a dissmissive post - then I apologise.
--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Astronomy and digital imaging website (last update 28-03-04)

It was not my intention to dismiss your posting.

If you would have included, in your initial posting, the information you
provided in your first response to me, I would have understood what your
intrigue was in the first place.

I found your explanation quite interesting and learned a couple of thing
that I didn't realize about the angular constraints required for Earthshine
to occur.

Don't assume that people can understand your interest in a subject by
posting an image with limited descriptive information.

I can often see Earthshine through my telescope for several days after it
has become difficult to see with the naked eye and I assumed (wrongly so)
that that was what you were commenting on.

Apology accepted.

F Marion