The best times to view June's strawberry moon in Northern California
A strawberry moon will dazzle skywatchers June 11.
This year's strawberry moon will be a micromoon – which means it will appear dimmer and smaller than usual – and will be at its fullest at 12:44 a.m. PT, according to NASA. But because it's so early in the day, the best time to view the moon will be June 10, when it rises at sunset, according to LiveScience.
The moon is expected to be a shade of gold rather than a vibrant shade of red like a strawberry, if weather conditions allow.
The spectacle marks the last full moon before the summer solstice, when we officially say goodbye to spring. The moon also will appear about 14% smaller and 30% dimmer because it will be near its farthest point from Earth.
Unable to view our graphics? Click here to see them.
According to the Almanac, the name "strawberry moon" comes from the Native American Algonquian tribes, who lived in the northwestern United States. The Ojibwe, Dakota and Lakota tribes also used the name, which marked the wild strawberries in June.June's full moon will be among the lowest in the sky of the year because of its low arc. Its moonlight will reflect the Earth's atmosphere, giving it a yellow or orange tint.
On June 11, the full moon rises in the east shortly before sunset, which makes it the best time to see it from North America. Check the moonrise and moonset times in your location, then pick a site where you can see the eastern horizon at a low angle.
You can use an online tool from The Old Farmer's Almanac to determine the local moonrise and moonset times. Try searching your city or ZIP code here.
The moon takes about 29½ days to revolve around Earth, which is called a lunar cycle, according to the Lunar and Planetary Institute. As the moon moves through its various stages, it experiences several phases of partial light. These range from a banana-shaped crescent moon, a D-shaped quarter moon and a nearly full gibbous moon.
There are seven full moons remaining this year; three will be supermoons.
SOURCE NASA, EarthSky.org, The Old Farmer's Almanac, University of Arizona, Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, USA TODAY Network and USA TODAY research
This story was updated to add new information.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: When is June's full moon? Best times to see strawberry moon
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Plan to Kill Dozens of NASA Missions Threatens US Space Supremacy
(Bloomberg) -- NASA's car-sized Perseverance rover has been roaming the surface of Mars for four years, drilling into the alien soil to collect dirt it places in tubes and leaves on the ground. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Do World's Fairs Still Matter? Engineers designed Perseverance to be the first step in the agency's exploration of the Red Planet. In the future, more robotic spacecraft would arrive to sweep up the capsules and rocket them back to Earth, where scientists could look for signs that Mars once was, or is, a world with life. The wait for answers may be about to get longer. President Donald Trump's proposed 2026 budget for the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration would cancel the planned follow-on mission, potentially abandoning the tubes for decades to Martian dust storms. The White House is calling for a roughly 50% cut to NASA's science spending to $3.9 billion, part of an overall pullback that would deliver the lowest funding level in the agency's history and kill more more than 40 NASA science missions and projects, according to detailed plans released last month. The Trump administration has also left the agency without a permanent leader and without a vision for how America's civilian space policy is going to work with US allies and compete with China and other rivals. The cuts would follow a shift in how the American public thinks about space. NASA has long enjoyed a unique place in US culture, with its exploits celebrated by movies, theme parks and merchandise — but companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX have begun to capture more attention. For decades, NASA's scientific undertakings have provided critical groundwork for researchers seeking to understand the structure of the universe, study how planets form and hunt for evidence that life might exist beyond Earth. Pictures from NASA craft like the Hubble Space Telescope and the recently launched James Webb Space Telescope have inspired and delighted millions. Now, the agency's position at the vanguard of discovery is facing foreclosure. Among the other programs set to lose funding are a craft already on its way to rendezvous with an asteroid that's expected to pass close to Earth in 2029, and multiple efforts to map and explore the acidic clouds of Venus. Researchers worry that abandoning missions would mean investments made by earlier generations might be lost or forgotten. 'Once you launch and you're operating, then all those costs are behind you, and it's relatively inexpensive to just keep the missions going,' said Amanda Hendrix, the chief executive officer of the Planetary Science Institute, a nonprofit research organization. 'So I'm very concerned about these operating missions that are still producing excellent and really important science data.' The Trump administration's narrower vision for NASA comes as it is seeking to reduce waste and jobs in the US government. Critics have faulted NASA over sluggish management of key programs, spiraling costs and delays. Still, the administration is eager to pour more money into putting people in space. It wants to use $7 billion of the $18.8 billion it would allocate to NASA overall to ramp up efforts to return people to the moon, and invest $1 billion more in sending people to Mars. 'This is a NASA that would be primarily human spaceflight focused,' Casey Dreier, chief of space policy for The Planetary Society, a nonprofit that advocates for space science and exploration, said of the proposed changes. 'This is a NASA that would say, 'The universe is primarily the moon and Mars,' and basically step away from everything else.' There are signs that the administration's proposed cutbacks won't satisfy lawmakers who view space as vital to US interests. Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who leads a committee that oversees NASA, has proposed legislation that would would provide nearly $10 billion to the agency. 'American dominance in space is a national security imperative,' Cruz said in a statement to Bloomberg. 'The Commerce Committee's bill carefully invests in beating China to the Moon and Mars — while respecting every taxpayer dollar. It's rocket fuel for the commercial space companies and NASA that are working to keep America ahead of China in the Space Race.' As Trump's spending proposal moves through Congress, NASA has been left without a strong leader who can press its case after the president withdrew his nomination of billionaire commercial astronaut Jared Isaacman to run the agency. In a recent interview on the All-In Podcast, Isaacman appeared to suggest Trump pulled his nomination because of his close ties to Musk, who had a public falling out with the president. Trump threatened to cancel SpaceX's government contracts amid the row, but has since backed down. 'Stopping Jared from becoming confirmed is only going to hurt NASA's ability to push back on budget cuts,' Jim Muncy, a space consultant and lobbyist with PoliSpace, said before Isaacman's nomination was pulled. Spaceflight Shift For decades, NASA handled every step of launching rockets, probes and people into space, from developing, building and launching vehicles, to running missions. Only the government had the resources and the capacity to shoulder the risks without returning a profit. That all changed in recent years with the emergence of a vibrant US space industry dominated by wealthy entrepreneurs with a passion for spaceflight and the financial wherewithal to withstand repeated failure. Over time, NASA has ceded more design, development and production work to those companies. SpaceX is carrying cargo and astronauts to the International Space Station, and sending probes into deep space from a rented launchpad at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. After helping to spur the development of SpaceX hardware, NASA is now one of the company's biggest customers. 'This has kind of been the tension with the rise of commercial space,' said Mike French, a consultant for the Space Policy Group. 'NASA has gone from 'We're operating these things; we're building these things' to 'We've gotten really good at buying these things.'' During Trump's presidency, NASA's transformation into an incubator for private industry is likely to gain speed. Throughout its budget proposal, the White House calls for mimicking past programs that have leaned more on outsourcing to the private sector. 'With a leaner budget across all of government, we are all taking a closer look at how we work, where we invest, and how we adjust our methods to accomplish our mission,' NASA's acting administrator, Janet Petro, wrote in a message accompanying the plan. 'At NASA, that means placing a renewed emphasis on human spaceflight, increasing investments in a sustainable plan to return to the Moon for long-term human exploration and accelerating efforts to send American astronauts to Mars.' NASA declined to comment beyond Petro's statement. NASA contracts remain one of the most significant and steady sources of funding for the space industry, which has allowed the agency to set the direction for many businesses. But that balance of power is shifting, and cuts to NASA's funding could cause its leadership to fade. 'NASA would, in a sense, define access and define the culture of spaceflight and define the ambitions of spaceflight,' Dreier said. 'Now, they have competitors for that, and frankly, some of their competitors are laying out more ambitious programs.' Challenging Missions While NASA has evolved into a technical adviser and financial backer for space companies, pure science has remained part of its mission. NASA's transition to more commercial partnerships was started, in part, to free up money to spend on exotic, challenging missions with no obvious near-term commercial rewards. Pulling back is likely to have consequences. Trump's broader push to curtail funding for science — the administration has choked off money for medical, climate and other research — risks eroding an important source of American soft power. After the end of the Cold War-era space race, NASA became a vessel for international cooperation, proving countries with lofty goals can work together. Many of the NASA missions Trump has proposed canceling or pulling away from entailed collaboration with European allies. The prospect of reduced funding is also causing worry about agency talent. Already, NASA is competing with the private space industry for engineers. Shutting down missions could push agency scientists to seek other opportunities. 'Folks are very worried about what they're going to do now with their lives, and where they're going to go,' said Hendrix, the Planetary Science Institute's CEO. The long-term outlook for NASA is difficult to discern. In the coming years, it is expected to continue its Artemis moon program, and start a new program for human exploration of Mars, with commercial companies at the forefront. But the scientific ambitions that long helped define NASA appear likely to become more limited. 'If we elect to say we no longer want to understand our origins, or we no longer want to challenge ourselves to see if there's life out in the cosmos, that is the equivalent of turning our heads down and burying ourselves in our cell phones when we're standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon,' said The Planetary Society's Dreier. 'We miss something more profound and big and deep that we otherwise have no access to in our modern society.' New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Divorcing SpaceX Just Isn't Possible Right Now
The public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, the world's richest person, was unsettling given the power these two men wield and how their verbal tussle quickly escalated to issues that directly affect national security. Trump floated the cancellation of all NASA and Department of Defense contracts with SpaceX, the space-launch and satellite-internet company Musk founded in 2002. Musk countered that he would withdraw the services of the Dragon space capsule, which is the only option now, except for resorting to the Russians, for ferrying astronauts to the International Space Station.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Science cuts endanger research that improves the economy, national security and your life
Since its creation, the National Science Foundation has partnered with agencies across the government, including those dealing with national security and space exploration. During this 1969 mission to the moon's surface, astronaut Buzz Aldrin deploys instruments to measure the distance to the Earth, as well as to analyze the chemical composition of solar wind and measure the moon's seismic activity. (NASA photo) Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation. No matter where you live, NSF-supported research has also made your life safer. Engineering studies have reduced earthquake damage and fatalities through better building design. Improved hurricane and tornado forecasts reflect NSF investment in environmental monitoring and computer modeling of weather. NSF-supported resilience studies reduce risks and losses from wildfires. Using NSF funding, scientists have done research that amazes, entertains and enthralls. They have drilled through mile-thick ice sheets to understand the past, visited the wreck of the Titanic and captured images of deep space. NSF investments have made America and American science great. At least 268 Nobel laureates received NSF grants during their careers. The foundation has partnered with agencies across the government since it was created, including those dealing with national security and space exploration. The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150% to 300% since 1950, meaning for every dollar U.S. taxpayers invested, they got back between $1.50 and $3. However, that funding is now at risk. Since January, layoffs, leadership resignations and a massive proposed reorganization have threatened the integrity and mission of the National Science Foundation. Hundreds of research grants have been terminated. The administration's proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2026 would cut NSF's funding by 55%, an unprecedented reduction that would end federal support for science research across a wide range of discipines. At my own geology lab, I have seen NSF grants catalyze research and the work of dozens of students who have collected data that's now used to reduce risks from earthquakes, floods, landslides, erosion, sea-level rise and melting glaciers. I have also served on advisory committees and review panels for the NSF over the past 30 years and have seen the value the foundation produces for the American people. In the 1940s, with the advent of nuclear weapons, the space race and the intensification of the Cold War, American science and engineering expertise became increasingly critical for national defense. At the time, most basic and applied research was done by the military. Vannevar Bush, an electrical engineer who oversaw military research efforts during World War II, including development of the atomic bomb, had a different idea. He articulated an expansive scientific vision for the United States in Science: The Endless Frontier. The report was a blueprint for an American research juggernaut grounded in the expertise of university faculty, staff and graduate students. On May 10, 1950, after five years of debate and compromise, President Harry Truman signed legislation creating the National Science Foundation and putting Bush's vision to work. Since then, the foundation has become the leading funder of basic research in the United States. NSF's mandate, then as now, was to support basic research and spread funding for science across all 50 states. Expanding America's scientific workforce was and remains integral to American prosperity. By 1952, the foundation was awarding merit fellowships to graduate and postdoctoral scientists from every state. There were compromises. Control of NSF rested with presidential appointees, disappointing Bush. He wanted scientists in charge to avoid political interference with the foundation's research agenda. Today, American tax dollars supporting science go to every state in the union. The states with the most NSF grants awarded between 2011 and 2024 include several that voted Republican in the 2024 election – Texas, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania – and several that voted Democratic, including Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Colorado. More than 1,800 public and private institutions, scattered across all 50 states, receive NSF funding. The grants pay the salaries of staff, faculty and students, boosting local employment and supporting college towns and cities. For states with major research universities, those grants add up to hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Even states with few universities each see tens of millions of dollars for research.' As NSF grant recipients purchase lab supplies and services, those dollars support regional and national economies. When NSF budgets are cut and grants are terminated or never awarded, the harm trickles down and communities suffer. Initial NSF funding cuts are already rippling across the country, affecting both national and local economies in red, blue and purple states alike. An analysis of a February 2025 proposal that would cut about US$5.5 billion from National Institutes of Health grants estimated the ripple effect through college towns and supply chains would cost $6.1 billion in GDP, or total national productivity, and over 46,000 jobs. America's scientific research and training enterprise has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. Yet, as NSF celebrates its 75th birthday, the future of American science is in doubt. Funding is increasingly uncertain, and politics is driving decisions, as Bush feared 80 years ago. A list of grants terminated by the Trump administration, collected both from government websites and scientists themselves, shows that by early May 2025, NSF had stopped funding more than 1,400 existing grants, totaling over a billion dollars of support for research, research training and education. Most terminated grants focused on education – the core of science, technology and engineering workforce development critical for supplying highly skilled workers to American companies. For example, NSF provided 1,000 fewer graduate student fellowships in 2025 than in the decade before − a 50% drop in support for America's best science students. American scientists are responding to NSF's downsizing in diverse ways. Some are pushing back by challenging grant terminations. Others are preparing to leave science or academia. Some are likely to move abroad, taking offers from other nations to recruit American experts. Science organizations and six prior heads of the NSF are calling on Congress to step up and maintain funding for science research and workforce development. If these losses continue, the next generation of American scientists will be fewer in number and less well prepared to address the needs of a population facing the threat of more extreme weather, future pandemics and the limits to growth imposed by finite natural resources and other planetary limits. Investing in science and engineering is an investment in America. Diminishing NSF and the science it supports will hurt the American economy and the lives of all Americans. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
