The moon does often appear red but a "an actual blood moon" does not appear very often. When I saw one the other year, it said on the news that was commenting on it, that they don't occur often at all and that it would be years before we see another one.
What is the difference between "a moon that appears red" and a "blood moon"? Are you sure you're not thinking of a "blue moon".
According to NASA's website, October's full moon is called the "Blood Moon."
It says that the pale-white moon will turn pumpkin orange as it plunges into shadow, becoming eerie red during totality.
Well, you'll need to provide a link to that NASA web page as this October's full moon (October 18, 2013) goes through a penumbral lunar eclipse, which means that none of the moon's disk goes through the dark umbra of the earth's shadow, which means that no part of the full moon this October will turn red.
Here is the NASA web site again where this information comes from: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEdecade/LEdecade2011.html
At the risk of sounding less than humble, there is no member of this web forum who knows the science of astronomy better than I.
Again, please provide the link to your NASA web page.
P.S. After doing a little 'googling', I found your NASA web page. It is referring to a total lunar eclpise that occurred NINE
years ago on October 27, 2004.
Here is your web page: http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/13oct_lunareclipse/
You really need to do a better job of checking your facts.
Again, a "blood moon" happens about once every year during a total lunar eclipse, nothing too noteworthy about that. And, again, Jesus makes no mention of a moon "turning to blood" in Matthew 24:29, the authoritative source to go to for the celestial events that shall occur prior His return.