Moon phase today: What the moon will look like on August 13, 2025
The lunar cycle is a series of eight unique phases of the moon's visibility. The whole cycle takes about 29.5 days, according to NASA, and these different phases happen as the Sun lights up different parts of the moon whilst it orbits Earth.
So, what's happening with the moon tonight, Aug. 13?
What is today's moon phase?
As of Wednesday, Aug. 13, the moon phase is Waning Gibbous, and it is 79% lit up to us on Earth, according to NASA's Daily Moon Observation.
Tonight is the second night of the Perseids Meteor Shower peak. The moonlight may dim some of the meteors, but some should still cut through the light as the celestial event flashes through our skies.
Alongside this, with no visual aids on the moon, you can spot the Tycho Crater, Mare Serenitatis, and the Oceanus Procellarum, an "Ocean of Storms" that covers more than 10% of the moon's surface.
With binoculars, you can add the Clavius Crater, Alphonsus Crater, and the Mare Frigoris to your list. And add a telescope to see the Apollo 11, the Rima Ariadaeus, and the Linne Crater.
When is the next full moon?
The next full moon will be on Sept. 7. The last full moon was on Aug. 9.
What are moon phases?
According to NASA, moon phases are caused by the 29.5-day cycle of the moon's orbit, which changes the angles between the Sun, Moon, and Earth. Moon phases are how the moon looks from Earth as it goes around us. We always see the same side of the moon, but how much of it is lit up by the Sun changes depending on where it is in its orbit. This is how we get full moons, half moons, and moons that appear completely invisible. There are eight main moon phases, and they follow a repeating cycle:
New Moon - The moon is between Earth and the sun, so the side we see is dark (in other words, it's invisible to the eye).
Waxing Crescent - A small sliver of light appears on the right side (Northern Hemisphere).
First Quarter - Half of the moon is lit on the right side. It looks like a half-moon.
Waxing Gibbous - More than half is lit up, but it's not quite full yet.
Full Moon - The whole face of the moon is illuminated and fully visible.
Waning Gibbous - The moon starts losing light on the right side.
Last Quarter (or Third Quarter) - Another half-moon, but now the left side is lit.
Waning Crescent - A thin sliver of light remains on the left side before going dark again.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base
Sean Duffy, NASA's interim administrator, proved that the U.S. is serious about establishing a lunar base when he announced the deployment of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The idea, although a sound one, is not without its critics. The announcement that the first element of a lunar base will be a nuclear reactor was logical. Nuclear power, unlike solar, is available 24/7 and thus does not require backup batteries during periods when the sun is not available. That the reactor is first means that every other element of the lunar base can be hooked up and powered up immediately. As NPR notes, a 100-kilowatt reactor on Earth would be able to power 70 to 80 private homes in the United States, so it could power a decent-sized lunar base. It would have to withstand the extremes of heat and cold on the moon, not to mention the possibility of moonquakes and meteor strikes. Instead of water to cool it, the reactor would simply radiate the heat it creates into space. The cost would be about $3 billion. Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon describes some of the legal aspects of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, especially in context of the space race with China. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits claims of national sovereignty on the moon, the establishment of a nuclear reactor, especially with a lunar base attached to it, grants the nation-state that does it some measure of control over the surrounding territory. Its Article IX requires that states act 'with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.' The practical effect of the Article IX provision is that the first country to establish a lunar base on the moon's south pole would be able to claim control over some prime real estate, important where ice mining is likely to be an essential enterprise. Duffy is therefore correct that the U.S. and its allies should be first with a nuclear reactor and a lunar base before China can establish its own and thus exert control. The idea of a nuclear-powered lunar base is not without its critics. For example, a CBS News host opined that colonizing the moon was akin to the colonization of native peoples on Earth by European powers. Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson set him straight by pointing out that no native peoples exist on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond Earth. The exchange elicited eyerolling on the Fox News show 'The Five.' But even there, some griping occurred. Dana Perino, who used to work for President George W. Bush, expressed considerable ennui about the whole concept of space travel. From the perspective of someone who has seen a space shuttle launch in person and watched men walk on the moon live on television, the attitude seems to be bizarre and dispiriting. Tyrus, the former wrestler turned social and political commentator, trotted out the 'let's solve problems on Earth before we go into space' trope that has been around since the beginning of the space age. The obvious answer has always been, 'Do both.' Ross Marchand, writing for Real Clear Science, noted the $37 trillion national debt and then claimed that building a lunar base would be just too expensive. He undermined his argument by comparing the 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear power plant to the 1-gigawatt reactors that exist on Earth and cost $10 billion to build (largely because of permitting and environmental regulation problems). Then he increased the estimated cost by a factor of 10 'or more.' Although NASA projects often do suffer cost overruns, $3 billion to $100 billion would be a little much, even for the space agency with its history of inefficiency. Marchand also trotted out the 'robots can explore space cheaper and better than humans' claim that was soundly debunked by the late, great lunar geologist Paul Spudis. In fact, returning to the moon and going on to Mars also polls well and has bipartisan political support, even it still has its critics. No great endeavor ever undertaken since the beginning of civilization has not had people saying it can't or shouldn't be done. The International Space Station, for example, drew fierce opposition and was almost cancelled more than once. The orbiting space laboratory is currently churning out a stream of scientific discoveries and technological innovations, confounding its early critics, who are long since forgotten. The lunar base and even Elon Musk's planned Mars colony will undergo a similar process. Future generations will find it difficult to imagine a universe where humans just occupied one world. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently,' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Fuel Fill-Ups in Space? Musk and Bezos Are Working on It
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are trying to figure out how to pump gas in space. The billionaire space rivals are working on ambitious missions to the moon or Mars, and a crucial design element for each venture is using spacecraft that take on additional fuel while orbiting Earth. Vehicles that could grab propellants in orbit would be less weighed down at liftoff, letting planners design missions to travel farther from Earth with more cargo, scientific gear or crew members, advocates say.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Astronomers Say They've Finally Solved the 'Little Red Dots' Mystery
When the James Webb Space Telescope first came online in 2022, it immediately spotted something astronomers had never seen before: "little red dots" peppering the ancient expanse of deep space, originating from around when the universe was just one billion years old. Ever since, we've struggled to explain what these faint signals could be. The prevailing theory is that they're some kind of extremely compact galaxy. But at only two percent of the diameter of the Milky Way, the distribution of stars would have to be impossibly dense, perhaps more so than our current laws of physics allow. They're also too faint to be produced by a quasar, a type of supermassive black hole that is actively devouring matter, which it causes to heat up and glow. Moreover, the black holes would be "overmassive" for such a small galaxy, scientists argue. Now, famed Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb (or infamous, depending on how you view his speculative theories regarding aliens) and his colleague Fabio Pacucci believe they have an answer. In a new study published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, the pair reinforce the idea that the family of red oddities are, in fact, galaxies — but are unusually tiny because they haven't started spinning up to speed yet. It's a hypothesis rooted in one of the leading theories for galaxy formation, which holds that these structures form in "halos" of dark matter, the invisible substance thought to account for 85 percent of all mass in the cosmos. While we can't see or interact with dark matter, it does exert a significant gravitational influence, which explains how the largest structures in the cosmos came together and took shape. In the study, the astronomers propose that the diminutive galaxies formed in halos that just so happened to be among the slowest spinning in the cosmos, with 99 percent of halos spinning faster. The idea, in principle, is simple. If you held out a piece of rope in one hand and started spinning in place, the rope would stretch out and reach farther. But if you slowed down, the rope would slump to the ground. This hypothesis would explain why we're only seeing the dots at such a nascent period of the universe. Over time, the halos would inevitably speed up, and their constituent galaxies would expand. "Dark matter halos are characterized by a rotational velocity: some of them spin very slowly, and others spin more rapidly," Loeb said in a statement about the work. "We showed that if you assume the little red dots are typically in the first percentile of the spin distribution of dark matter halos, then you explain all their observational properties." It's a compelling theory — but it's not the only game in town. Recently, two teams of astronomers found clues that what we're witnessing may actually be an entirely new class of cosmic object: "black hole stars." Their work suggests the glowing dots are an active supermassive black hole surrounded by a vast and thick shell of gas. The intense radiation of the black hole heats up the shell, which absorbs most of the emissions, dimming the light to an outside observer. In many ways, it resembles a star blown up to epic proportions — except, instead of nuclear fusion powering the center, there's a voracious black hole churning through matter. Loeb and Pacucci's theory doesn't address whether these slow-spinning galaxies have a black hole at their center, but suggests that they could form one. "Low-spin halos tend to concentrate mass in the center, which makes it easier for a black hole to accrete matter or for stars to form rapidly," Pacucci said in the statement. The luminous red dots, he added, "might help us understand how the first black holes formed and co-evolved with galaxies in the early universe." More on space: Astronomers in Awe of Terrifying "Eye of Sauron" That's Pointed Straight at Earth Solve the daily Crossword
