SuperMoon 2012

Look! Up in the air!  It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s SUPER-MOON!

This month’s full moon occurs this Saturday, May 5th at 11:35 p.m.  It coincides with a minimum perigee just one hour earlier, bringing the moon 3 percent closer to Earth than average perigees. The result? The moon will appear 14% larger and 30 percent brighter than other full moons this year – a super moon.

The elliptical shape of the moon’s orbit allows for both a minimum distance and a maximum distance from Earth. The minimum is called ‘perigee’ (‘peri’ - Latin for close to, ‘gee’ - Earth), the maximum is ‘apogee’ (‘apo’ Latin –‘far from’).  The moon’s orbit also slowly rotates around Earth. This means the dates for perigee and apogee gradually slide along the calendar from month to month.

Although an optical illusion already causes the moon to appear unusually large at moonrise, with a minimum perigee 3% closer than average, the full moon will appear even larger when it rises Saturday at 7:49 p.m EDT.

Is it really ‘super’? Only as far as ocean tides are concerned. With this ‘close’ close approach, the moon will exert 42 times more force on tides than it would at the next apogee two weeks later.

Will the close approach cause any disasterous effects? Nope. No earthquakes, tidal waves, crime sprees, heart attacks, or volcanic eruptions. ‘Supermoon’ actually happens once a year, quite frequently when measured in geologic or even astronomical time. And it seems the earth has managed to survive each time.

Then why do we call it ‘super’? As Madison Avenue has directed us, everything should sound more attractive or interesting when supersized! Well, almost everything….  Great time to get a ‘moon-tan’ or blame your drunken walk home Saturday night on the extra gravitational pull of the moon. Enjoy!

Dance of the Planets - March 2012

Observing planets is a great way to begin learning your way around the night sky. This month, it’s particularly easy because all of the planets visible without binocs or a telescope are well-placed for easy viewing. Don't miss the 'Dance of the Planets' in the western sky after sunset over the next two weeks, March 1 - 14. Venus (low and bright) and Jupiter (higher and dimmer) have been visible for months as the sky darkens after sunset. Jupiter is descending daily toward Venus and the two come closest on March 13th. Tiny and elusive Mercury is visible way below Venus around 6:30 p.m., reaching its maximum elevation for this viewing season of 17 degrees on March 5th. Mercury’s a challenge because you need a clear view of the western horizon. It will appear as a bright pinpoint, lowest in the diagonal line coming down from Jupiter through Venus. Because Mercury is the planet closest to the sun, it’s only available for a few days, so try to start finding Mercury now. If you take just a quick peek to the west at 6:30 every clear evening you’ll be able to see the daily change in position of the planets. Unsure about which is a star and which is a planet? It’s easy to distinguish them – stars twinkle but planets don’t.

A little later, by 8 p.m. Mars is well up in the east. Its salmon color is easy to see even under city lights. Mars is closest to Earth this year on March 5^th.  No, it will not be the size of the full moon! That story is an Internet hoax from 2004. It will be visible all night. By 10 p.m., the ringed planet Saturn is also above the horizon in the east and is visible throughout the night. If you do have a telescope but haven’t used it yet or for awhile, here’s a good excuse to get it out, dust it off, and get a good look.

So from sunset to dawn for the next two weeks, you can see all the classical planets in their best view of the year. Want to make it even more fun?  Point them out to a friend or neighbor; they'll think you're a genius. Once you've seen them a few times, you'll begin to recognize them as 'celestial friends' of a sort from season to season.  Enjoy!

To The Moon, Newt!

A viewer of Current TV's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" wrote in to ask what Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich had in mind when he stated that "By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon. And it will be American."

As a contributor to the program for astronomy and space topics, their booking producer asked my opinion of what I thought of Gingrich's declaration. Here's my response to the producer and the viewer who wrote in:

"On one hand, I commend him for two things: 1. Looking for something to ignite the imagination and the enthusiasm of our youth and;  2. Thinking of using our space program as a way to drive tech STEM education and tech development in the US in the future.

On the other hand, let's pretend this story has come up on an episode of  'Mister Rogers' Neighborhood'. Rogers' question would be: "Children, can you say 'pandering'?"

By 2020, huh? Let's add Newt's promise to discussions about the length of time an ice cube could exist in hell, or the possibility of flying pigs, etc.
We currently do not have a plan for the establishment of a lunar base. We don't have the specialty manufacturing base necessary to build the equipment (that hasn't been designed yet). Congress has hasn't been presented with any sort of logical rationale for the enormous expenditure it would take to accomplish such a task in eight years. I'm not saying it couldn't be done BUT such an effort would have to command the direct and complete commitment of Congress to provide a blank check to NASA and require the country to completely re-focus its attention away from overseas conflict, the financial recovery, international terrorism, energy issues and above all, the Washington partisan politics, bickering, backbiting and frozen non-functioning. To do what Newt is suggesting, the country's leadership would have to be convinced that mounting such an effort would do something not only miraculous – like something on the level of how JFK's declaration was meant to squash the Soviet threat – but it would also have to benefit every congressional district or else who but those who have the space industries in their districts would support it?

Newt's tactic here? Tell the Floridians whatever they want to hear to get their vote. He'll just screw them later. It's like coming to Pennsylvania and saying fracking for natural gas will be the nation's new energy policy once he's elected.

If we really hustle, we might get back to the moon by 2020. Permanent base? 2030 if we're really committed at the earliest.

Ad Astra,
Derrick (Still available for tonight) Pitts"

I gave a highly condensed version of this response last night as the No. 1 story on "Countdown".

The scary part is that the other Republican candidates railed against Gingrich's idea but for all the wrong reasons. In last night's debate, a week before the Florida primaries, Mitt Romney vaguely said he supports manned space exploration, then said it's too expensive and admitted he would fire anybody who came to him with a multi-billion dollar proposal to build a base on the moon. Rick Santorum said space is important but exploring space is too expensive. Ron Paul flatly said he doesn't think we should go to the moon, that there are more important issues to deal with here like healthcare, and that space research should be pursued for national defense purposes. None, except Gingrich, mentioned anything about the importance of the space program as a driver of American technological development or world technological and economic leadership. True, at one time, the importance of the space program was primarily for military supremacy but since the end of the Apollo program,  the space industry's importance has become far greater than its military importance for the nation's educational, research, industrial and military complexes.

Three things any presidential candidate must remember about the importance of and need for a robust space program of any sort are: a clear vision is an absolute must, congress will fight you tooth and nail, and it will be beneficial - not during your term or terms as president, but only in the long run, maintaining this country's superiority and security.