Weird Shadow on Moon

Chinese moon probe? Or, for that matter, why not the shadow of whatever satellite took the picture?

I don't think it is a lunar probe.

Although there is no air on the moon, shadows of a distant object will not be perfectly sharp because the sun's disk subtends about 1/2 degree. So if an object is far enough away from the shadow to appear the size of the sun, only the very center point of the shadow will be completely dark (umbra), and if you were standing in the shadow, only at the very center would a circular object completely blot out the sun.

It's hard to tell exactly how sharp the shadow is, but to me it looks pretty sharp, so as seen from the surface of the moon, the object would look a lot bigger than the sun.

Someone who is familiar with the geography of the moon might be able to get a good estimate of the object size by comparing with nearby craters.

All of this is assuming that it is a shadow on the moon. Maybe it's a satellite that just happened to be in the line of sight. I'm sure that someone at NASA would know.

Of course, " someone at NASA would know " but that information might be just above your sensitivity level.

I don't know about that. Some people here are extremely sensitive.

Yup, that's my thought too.

Thanks for the link.

One thing I found a little puzzling (aside for the author believing a softball would be the best representation of a common object 5 cm across) was the same concern for objects in geostationary orbit.

Seems like since objects in geostationary orbit are travelling close to the same directiona pretty much the same speed, collisions would be far less problematic,

Satellites are never in perfect geosynchronous orbit. Even if the orbit altitude were perfect, a slight ellipticity would mean that the satellite would move lower and ahead, then higher and behind, tracing out a circular path around the perfect orbital position. If the satellite position is not exactly above the equator, it will move north and south on every orbit.

So with this moving around, there is a slight chance of a collision with another satellite which is also moving around, and over time the chance of a collision increases. My guess is that satellites are designed for minimum mass and not to withstand collisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellites_in_geosynchronous_orbit

Sure, I realize that...which is why I didn'the say they were traveling the same path or exactly the same direction.

A collision at any speed might cause a problem for a satellite. It seems like the relative speed of two satellites in geosynchronous orbit would be fairly low....certainly not 1000's of kpH (right? Core me if I am wrong). So while it might be problematic for the satellites involved, it isn't a the same time of problem discussed in the article wherein a collision results in 1000s of new pieces of junk likely to trigger additional collisions and more junk and more collisions....

I agree with you, it's probably much safer in geosynchronous orbit.

AFAIK, the only collisions so far have been in low earth orbit.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_collision

"Artificial-satellite collisions[edit]

Three types of collisions have occurred involving artificial satellites orbiting the Earth:

• Intentional collisions intended to destroy the satellites, either to test anti-satellite weapons or destroy satellites which may pose a hazard should they reenter the atmosphere intact:
• Several tests conducted as part of the Soviet Union's Istrebitel Sputnik programme in the 1970s and 80s, involving IS-A satellites intercepting and destroying IS-P, DS-P1-M and Lira target satellites launched specifically for the tests.
• The 1985 destruction of the USA P78-1 solar research satellite during a USA ASM-135 anti-satellite missile test.
• The 2007 destruction of the Chinese Fungyun FY-1C weather satellite during a Chinese anti-satellite missile test.
• The 2008 destruction of the USA-193 military reconnaissance satellite in a decaying orbit by a USA SM-3 missile.
• Unintentional low-speed collisions during failed rendezvous and docking operations:
• The 1994 collision between the manned Soyuz TM-17 spacecraft and the Russian Mir space station.
• The 1997 low-speed collision between the Progress M-34 supply ship and the Russian Mir space station during manual docking manoeuvers.
• The 2005 low-speed collision between the USA DART spacecraft and the USA MUBLCOM communications satellite during orbital rendezvous manoeuvers.
• Unintentional high-speed collisions between active satellites and orbital debris:
• The 1996 collision between the French Cerise military reconnaissance satellite and debris from an Ariane rocket.
• The 2009 collision between the Iridium 33 communications satellite and the derelict Russian Kosmos 2251 spacecraft, which resulted in the destruction of both satellites.
• The 22 January 2013 collision between debris from Fungyun FY-1C satellite and the Russian BLITS nano-satellite.
• The 22 May 2013 collision between two CubeSats, Ecuador's NEE-01 Pegaso and Argentina's CubeBug-1, and the particles of a debris cloud around a Tsyklon-3 upper stage (SCN 15890)^[1] left over from the launch of Kosmos 1666."

E.T. phoned home, flew home, and has now flown back to set up a moon station. The earth invasion begins next year.

My fault. You weren't supposed see that.

That was my new TCM Tech Systems R & D department test run of my ultra fine laminar cohersion beam black lazer.

Despite being able to project a black spot on the moon in broad sunlight from 1/4 million miles away it's still safe to shine it in your eyes!

Just don't shine it up your nose or you will think of the numbers 17 and 6 every time you sneeze for the following week. (We really don't know what that's about yet. WebMD says it's probably cancer. )

SCIENCE!

Swamp gas.

Cheese ball..

They always show up around the holidays.

Damn tribbles!

ξ

Definitely not a shadow on the moon.

It does not change shape nor speed as it should as it crosses the terrain.

It also has steady surface features that are consistent with something rounding moving across the frame of reference with the position of the sun as indicated by moon shadows.

Also, this video was clearly taken from the ground, not a satellite. Atmospheric distortion gves it away.

This is COMPLETELY BOGUS. TOTALLY FAKE.

How do I know? I have a sky program called 'Starry Night' that lets me set the night sky for any time of day, on any date within +/- 2000 years (or more), and at any location.

On December 3, 2016 the Moon was a thin crescent that set soon after sunset -- NOTHING like the video posted which shows the Moon at a quarter or greater (gibbous) phase.

The actual Moon on Dec 3 did NOT look like the Moon in the video.

Here's a screenshot from my Starry Night Program for Dec. 3. The Moon is such a small sliver, it's barely visible.

Here's a blown-up section showing the Moon better

Well, not from the earth. (Which may refute some suggestions.)

Well the Miami Observatory has no telescope, so....

To be fair, the picture's caption does read:

The full moon is seen in the night sky above Sydney, Australia, November 13, 2016, on the eve of the "supermoon" spectacle. Picture taken November 13, 2016 (REUTERS/Jason Reed)

_{^{(Though one wonders why Reuters found it necessary to clarify that the picture was taken on the same date the picture was taken )}}

In the video itself we can just barely see the terminator (no, not that one) in some frames and not far from the limb, so I'm guessing this video was taken when the Moon's phase was about the same as that shown in your diagram.

Oh Miami Australia.....

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/light.html?&month=11&day=13&year=2016&hour=00&min=8&sec=0&n=240&ntxt=Sydney&earth=0

I have always considered the term 'fiance' gender neutral but to have a slight variance in definition depending on which gender you are.

Female to male it means 'My soon to be husband.'

Whereas, Male to female reference means 'Soon to be biggest life regret yet.'

The female version is spelled with two e's, even in (undeteriorated) English.

What picture shows that? The video shows 12/3/2016 twice.

My original thought was object (out of focus) passing through field of view of the observer.

If it was Australia as some have suggested, then 12/3/2016 would be understood to be 12th March 2016. I believe that U.S.A, would interpret that number string to read as December 3rd 2016.

After further consideration, I've revised my opinion.

It's not a 'hoax' per se. It's simply the motion of the GALEX satellite in front of the Moon as seen from a telescope near the vicinity of Homestead, FL, south of Miami.

I re-did my sky program and rotated the image to agree with the telescope view. The GALEX satellite passes in front of the moon as seen in the video at about 6:28 PM.

Too small. Besides, Trump's ego is so massive it has its own gravitational field, enough so to alter the Moon's orbit. You think that Supermoon of a few weeks ago was mere coincidence?

On second thought you may be right: it does look like a black hole, no? They're small yet massive. 'Abandon hope all ye who enter here' sorts of thingos that even light can't escape? Just what we need to make America great again?

Classless unnecessary comment

So is he!

it could be Alice ?? ...or Norton?

Oh you're a riot! A real riot!

its a hoax clip

Then I should have gone with my first impulse: Trump's brain _{^{(on coke)}}.

I dunno, 2.64 million fewer voters can't be wrong.

Enough Lyn! End your snarky political BS rants. They're growing tiring, to say the least. Not funny.

Trump won the Election, so get over it. We've suffered 8 very long years of Emperor Barry, who has left the country in a shambles.

It's amazing how the mere mention of a name can set some people off on a real rant.

Never argue with a fool!

<unsubscribes>

It doesn't even have to be a name. Sometimes even the (proper) use of a word can unambiguously set some people off on a rant.

JSYK, this isn't an argument (I will never. Thanks for the advice.). This is charity.

It is not a UFO. It is also not the earth's shadow on the moon, now is it?

It is a satellite orbiting the moon, one of the surveying craft looking for the best site for our upcoming moon base that will make the final launch of our first mission to Mars.

Yuk yuk ... ((that's almost as bad as some of my OWN "photoshop" efforts)).

Too fast for the naked-eye to catch.......like this.

But , "hey" , if it was on YouTube , it MUST be for real...(?)

[[ Either that, or, it's another scoop of Fake_News ]]

[ Captured / zoomed / cropped ]

Too fast for the naked-eye to catch..

You can add slow motion to youtube...

http://www.youtubeslow.com/

Thanks for that ~ I was unaware. [That does make it easier yet, to pause on the exact frame desired, running at 1/4 speed.]

So, I'll wager "Dollars-to-Doughnuts" that this video was fabricated with just a "smidge" more finesses ... and, in about the same time-frame ... as the video of the 'hitchhiker' jumping into the speeding car

Haven't seen that guy on the forum lately, is he still around?

Vermin still bounces into the personal message system inbox of some readers from time to time.

If it were a circular shadow from a object relatively close to the moon's surface, then there would be some noticeable lengthening and variation of the (shadow ?) on the moon' surface, given the sun's angle darkening only one side of the craters on the moon's surface.

It would seem to be an essentially spherical object significantly closer to the camera than to the moon.

(Uber, perhaps?...)

More likely, just space junk (?)...

Junk, yes, space junk, errrrr, non.

This has to be hoaxed by stupid morning jewels with nothing better to do that mess with people, and get paid for clicks.

Late Breaking News:

An unknown source reports that, when ''pinged'' with the message ''Gort'', the as yet unidentified object returned a signal of ''Klaato barada nikto''...

More film at eleven?...

I don't think it is a shadow on the moon, because as someone else mentioned it doesn't change at all as it passes over moon terrain, and because it is less sharp than the features on the moon, and because a real shadow would be stretched out just like the shadows in the craters in the picture.

Also, if it is a shadow on the moon, the object casting the shadow would have to be really enormous, like a large asteroid or an ice ball (otherwise known as a comet this close to the sun).

I don't believe that it is a satellite passing between the earth and the moon because it is in full sunlight and there is not a single edge or feature that reflects the sun. The shadow is also way, way too big to be a satellite seen by a telescope.

I don't think it is in space at all because its edges are too blurry. No matter how well the telescope is focused on the moon, anything more than a few miles from the telescope on Earth is not going to be that out of focus.

Or it might be an object that is designed to be invisible, black with blurry edges, a stealth satellite.

If it is an object, I think it is much closer to the telescope, close enough to be out of focus, and since the video was taken at night, that would explain why there are no bits shining in the sunlight. Maybe it was a frisbee or feral balloon.

I am also put in mind of the video of the objects flying out of the Denver metropolitan area:

http://kdvr.com/2012/11/08/mile-high-city-mystery-ufo-sightings-in-sky-over-denver/

Actually, I'm going with fake. As Solar Eagle says, there seems to be no Miami Observatory (any more) that has a telescope.

And for another thing, if you look at the full moon from Earth, you don't see shadows. The light is coming almost directly from our point of view. If the photo was taken from Earth, and the atmospheric fluctuations show that it is, then the shadows would not be visible.

'Feral baloons'. I was totally unaware of this phenomena. I mean, it makes sense, we loose them all the time, certainly some must survive and result in populations that eventually return to a more wild nature.

Any idea how long the reversions take?

Is it a cast iron bathtub?