The Milky Way will be visible this weekend. Here's how to see it
"The best time to see the Milky Way in (Massachusetts) is from March to September," according to the Capture the Atlas website.
The best part? You don't need any fancy telescopes or equipment to view it.
The Milky Way is our home galaxy with a disc of stars that spans more than 100,000 light-years. Because it appears as a rotating disc curving out from a dense central region, the Milky Way is known as a spiral galaxy.
Our planet sits along one of the galaxy's spiral arms, about halfway from the center, according to NASA.
The Milky Way sits in a cosmic neighborhood called the Local Group that includes more than 50 other galaxies. Those galaxies can be as "small" as a dwarf galaxy with up to only a few billion stars or as large as Andromeda, our nearest large galactic neighbor.
The Milky Way got its name because from our perspective on Earth, it appears as a faint, milky band of light stretching across the sky.
The Capture the Atlas website states that, "from July to August: The Milky Way is visible during the middle of the night."
Though the Milky Way is generally always visible from Earth, certain times of year are better for stargazers to catch a glimpse of the band of billions of stars.
But because visibility from Earth depends on the latitude, the further south you go, the longer the Milky Way season will last. For instance, in the Northern Hemisphere, which includes the continental United States, the best time to see the Milky Way is generally from March to September, according to Capture the Atlas.
What you're looking at when the Milky Way is visible is the bright center of our galaxy, "seen edge-on from our position within the galaxy's disk," Preston Dyches, who hosts NASA's "What's Up," a monthly video series that describes what's happening in the night sky, wrote for NASA.
The center of the Milky Way, which Dyches refers to as "the core," became visible in June and is expected to shine every night through August as it gets higher in a darker sky.
Typically, the sky is darkest from about midnight to 5 a.m., according to Capture the Atlas. You can check sunrise and sunset times at your location using the website TimeAndDate.
"This doesn't mean that as soon as the sun goes down you can see the Milky Way," writes Dan Zafra, co-founder of Capture the Atlas. "Even if it's in the sky, the Milky Way will be barely visible during blue hour, so you'll have to wait at least until the end of the astronomical twilight to see all the details of the Milky Way."
Stargazers can observe the Milky Way galaxy by looking for the Summer Triangle, a shape formed by "three bright stars" that spans across the Milky Way, according to science news website LiveScience.
In the Northern Hemisphere, the Milky Way rises in the southeast, travels across the southern sky and sets in the southwest, according to Weather.com.
The Milky Way can be seen clearly with the naked eye.
But in a past interview with USA Today Network, Tim Brothers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology technical Instructor and observatory manager, said with any case of stargazing, it's much better if you're using a good telescope or a pair of binoculars.
Eric Lagatta contributed to this report. He is the Space Connect reporter for the USA Today Network.
This article originally appeared on wickedlocal.com: You'll be able to see the Milky Way this weekend. Here's how
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 minutes ago
US should put nuclear reactors on moon before other countries do, acting NASA administrator says
Nuclear power on the moon is critical to the United States' space exploration and national security goals, and the U.S. government should "move quickly" to build reactors there before its terrestrial rivals, according to a directive issued by Transportation Secretary and acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy, which was obtained by ABC News. One full "day" on the moon is two weeks of light followed by approximately two weeks of darkness (in Earth time). Nuclear energy, referred to as fission surface power, or FSP, in the directive, is a "sustainable" and "high-powered" energy source that can survive through the lunar night and be deployed on other celestial bodies, like Mars, according to Duffy. "Since March 2024, China and Russia have announced on at least three occasions a joint effort to place a reactor on the Moon by the mid-2030s," Duffy said in the directive. "The first country to do so could potentially declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first." When reached for comment by ABC News, NASA said, "We'll let these directives speak for themselves." The directive, dated July 31, calls for a "Fission Surface Power Program Executive" to be named within 30 days who will implement and oversee the project and will report directly to the NASA administrator. It does not say what exactly the nuclear reactors would power on the moon. Politico was the first to report on this directive. A second directive, issued on the same day by Duffy, aims to speed up the development of replacements for the International Space Station, which is set to retire by 2030. While NASA has never used a fission nuclear reactor in space, it has been using nuclear material to power spacecraft since the 1960s. Known as radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or RTGs, these systems use the heat generated by the decay of plutonium-238, a nuclear element, to create electricity for powering spacecraft and rovers. Currently, NASA's Curiosity rover on Mars is using an RTG system for its power. In recent years, billions of dollars have been spent developing a new kind of nuclear reactor called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These reactors produce less power than traditional reactors, but are significantly smaller in size. SMRs are still being developed in the U.S. and there are no units currently in operation.
Scientific American
37 minutes ago
- Scientific American
NASA's Plan for a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon Could Be a Lunar Land Grab
NASA could soon go nuclear on the moon. The space agency's acting administrator, Sean Duffy, has issued a directive to expedite building a nuclear reactor on the lunar surface. Duffy, a former Fox News host, is also head of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and he took over leadership of NASA in July after the Trump administration pulled its nomination of the private astronaut and businessman Jared Isaacman. The directive, first reported by Politico, would accelerate NASA's long-simmering —and, to date, largely fruitless—efforts to develop nuclear reactors to support space science and exploration. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The space agency has pursued various projects over the years, most recently in 2022, when it by awarded three $5 million contracts to companies crafting designs for small, space-ready reactors meant for lunar operations in the mid-2030s. Inspired in part by a space policy directive issued by President Trump during his first term, those were intended to produce 40 kilowatts of power—enough to sustain a small office building—and would weigh less than six metric tons. Duffy's directive is more ambitious, calling for NASA to solicit proposals for reactors that would yield at least 100 kilowatts of power and be ready for launch by late 2029. The space agency is tasked with appointing an official to oversee the effort within 30 days, and to issue its solicitation within 60 days. Lunar nights are very long—two Earth weeks—and perilously cold, making nuclear power desirable for surface operations. But according to the directive the greater impetus for the fast-tracked plan is a burgeoning partnership between China and Russia to build a nuclear-powered outpost near the moon's south pole by the mid-2030s. The sun never crests high above the horizon there, leaving some craters in permanent shadow—and valuable deposits of water ice lacing their eternally dark floors. Despite its cryogenic chill this lunar region is hotly contested, with NASA's Artemis program also targeting crewed landings there as early as 2027 as part of the Artemis III mission. Besides providing abundant electricity for surface operations, a nuclear reactor on the moon could also allow for a strategic lunar land grab. Ownership of otherworldly territory is prohibited according to the U.N. Outer Space Treaty, but the treaty also obliges spacefaring powers to exercise 'due regard' in their activities, meaning that they should not encroach on or interfere with sensitive infrastructure built there by others. A nuclear reactor placed on the lunar surface, therefore, could allow the declaration of what Duffy's directive calls a 'keep-out zone.' Although the Trump administration's acceleration of NASA's nuclear-power efforts may be welcomed by many space-exploration advocates, it comes alongside other proposals from the White House that seek to radically reshape the space agency and could be at cross purposes. These include plans for extraordinarily deep cuts to NASA's science programs, as well as an active and ongoing culling of the space agency's work force. The president's budget request for fiscal year 2026 notably zeroes out funding for a joint program between NASA and the Department of Defense to develop nuclear rocketry; it would also wind down the space agency's ability to build and deploy radioisotope power sources, which offer nuclear-derived heat and electricity sans complex and heavy reactors for robotic missions to the outer planets and other sunlight-sparse parts of the solar system. The biggest question facing NASA's latest nuclear foray, however, may be what these notional new reactors would actually power. Many experts say a 2027 launch for Artemis III is unlikely, citing factors such as the ongoing difficulties of developing a requisite lunar lander based on SpaceX's Starship rocket. With each logistical misstep or schedule delay, additional Artemis missions that would put more meaningful and power-hungry infrastructure on the moon slip further over the horizon, potentially making the entire program more vulnerable to additional rounds of budget cuts—or even outright cancellation by future administrations. It's Time to Stand Up for Science Before you close the page, we need to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and we think right now is the most critical moment in that two-century history. We're not asking for charity. If you become a Digital, Print or Unlimited subscriber to Scientific American, you can help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both future and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself often goes unrecognized.
Gizmodo
37 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Acting NASA Chief Tells Agency to Build a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon, Before China Does It First
NASA's acting administrator Sean Duffy is fast-tracking the agency's plans to build a nuclear reactor on the lunar surface, a move that highlights the Trump administration's focus on human spaceflight and establishing a long-term presence on the Moon. Duffy issued a directive to expedite the timeline for the reactor, aiming for a launch date to the Moon by 2030, Politico first reported. In the directive, Duffy mentions China and Russia's joint plan to put a nuclear reactor of their own on the Moon in the mid-2030s, citing a concern that the two countries could 'potentially declare a keep-out zone' that would hinder NASA's ability to do the same. 'To properly advance this critical technology to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,' Duffy wrote in the directive, which was sent out on Thursday, July 31. NASA has been working on a Fission Surface Power System for the Moon since 2022, when the agency awarded three $5 million contracts to its commercial partners to develop initial concept designs for a small reactor. At the time, NASA specified that the reactor should stay under 6 metric tons and be able to produce 40 kilowatts of electrical power, enough to power around 33 households. In the new directive, however, Duffy not only wants NASA to move fast on its project, but he also specified that the reactor should produce 100 kilowatts of power, enough for about 80 households. With the ongoing Artemis program, NASA wants to establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon. Building a habitat on the lunar surface would prove tricky without power, and relying on solar energy alone would likely be insufficient. The day-night cycle on the Moon lasts for about a month, with roughly two weeks of sunlight followed by two weeks of darkness that would leave solar arrays without its energy source. On the other hand, fission reactors can operate around the clock, even in the Moon's shadowy craters and during the long lunar nights. Establishing a power source on the Moon is crucial for human exploration, an aspect of NASA's objectives that the current administration is especially keen on. NASA is preparing for severe budget cuts under the White House's proposed budget for 2026, which threaten several of its robotic missions to space. Under the proposed budget, NASA's planetary science budget would drop from $2.7 billion to $1.9 billion. On the other hand, the agency's human space exploration budget would receive an additional $647 million compared to the 2025 budget. The recent directive is part of the administration's push to send humans to the Moon and Mars and to establish dominance in the new space race with China and Russia. The directive orders NASA to designate an agency official to oversee the project within 30 days and for it to issue a request for proposals from commercial partners within 60 days.
