Talk:Extraterrestrial sky

Name of article

surely it should be called Skies of other planets? Deus Ex

Surely everything on this page is/ought-to-be covered on the individual planets' pages? Also, the Moon is not a planet. Jonel

I disagree. Paranoid 11:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What colour can be the skies of other planets? Paranoid 11:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Time, date and astronomy on Mars#The_color_of_the_sky -- Curps 12:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gas Giants

I think this is an interesting page that deserves more work. Does anyone have any knowledge of what the sky colour would be on the gas planets? The Singing Badger 18:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is hard to say. Because of the Rayleigh scattering, One would expect a blue sky. Add a little methane and one gets a cyan sky. The clouds vary from white to pink or yellow. (chemically stained). -- Ŭalabio 16:36, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Since gas giants don't have surfaces, how can one see a "sky" at all from below the cloud tops? 70.168.32.250 06:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Name of article

Over on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Alkivar suggests that since we include the perspective from moons, comets, asteroids, et cetera too, we should move the article to a more appropriate name. ¿Does anyone have any suggestions? I have some ideas, but I want to sleep on them.

--

Ŭalabio 11:02, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I slept on it and have decided to run with my idea:

Extraterrestrial skies

If none object, I shall move the article tomorrow. On another note, If you follow the link at the top of the page, you can see what the objections are to this being a featured article and fix it.

--

Ŭalabio 16:36, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I support this name change. The Singing Badger 17:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well now, it is the next day, and 100% of all respondents approve the move. I shall move the article now.

I moved the page, fixed the redirects, fixed the AddSectionCode, fixed moved the section on { { fac } }, et cetera. I probably missed something.

Improving the article

The following is a list of comments made on a discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates by Alkivar (I removed some that are made redundant by changing the name of the article). I would like to work more on this article but (a) I'll be away for a few weeks and (b) I've reached the limits of my scientific knowledge. However I've added some comments to Alkivar's comments to aid futuire editors.

- Lead in WAAAY too brief Yup. Needs a discussion of what a 'sky' actually is, what factors affect its colour, and what kinds of things (moons, rings, stars) one might expect to see in the sky of a planet.

- Information on Mercury reads stilted and broken. I'll see if I can fix this.

- Information on Venus is 2 lines?!?!! Since Venus's sky is basically, erm, orange smog, there's only so much one can say!

- Mars section needs reformatting badly Yes, there are probably too many pictures which should be deleted and/or rearraned so they're not all in a line.

- Jupiter needs serious work as 90% of its content regards its moons. Material could be added on the varying cloud layers on JUpiter, perhaps?

Hope this helps, The Singing Badger 17:46, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added another paragraph to the introduction. Now it is merely too brief instead of way too brief. ;-) -- Ŭalabio 22:14, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

---

I have an idea about how we can solve the Venusian problem:

As The Singing Badger states, "Since Venus's sky is basically, erm, orange smog, there's only so much one can say!" It appears to me that Venus has three skies:

1. Just above the clouddeck -- we can take a screenbrage from Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and edit out Cloudcity.  ;-)
2. A point halfway between the bottom of the clouds and the surface showing the bottom of the clouddeck and the surface, as well as the horizon.
3. The surface view.

We could treat Titan the same way. Although Jovian planets lack a point 3, we can explain their points 1 and 2. We can explain that the clouds of Venus and the jovian planets might have bacteria in them and, as an historical note, point out that after the idea of bacterial life in the atmosphere of Jupiter arose, some people got carried away, and imagine giant improbable monsters living in the clouds. ¡We have not even begun to get into the skies of extrasolar worlds yet!

• Yes, I agree and it should have more source cited. For Venus, yes it is completely cover with orange smog, then the sky is orange or coral. For Mars we can only say it is cover with the rust, so the sky should resemble same colors of medium orangeish-brown color, since it's atmosphere is 100 times thinner than ours. For Jupiter and Saturn I'm not sure if the sky is blue at the highest layers, since Satun is heavily cover with haze, then the sky above the cloud must still be yellow. I think Jupiter's sky is still orange or vermilion right above the clouds, and they may have some white, pink, and blue in lower layers. For Uranus and neptune, the sky color should be easier to tell since it is composed mainly methane gas, it's sky is judged to be different degrees of blues, and possibly some white elvels. yes, I think the gas giants's sky is not black right bove the clouds, but by the time we get to anything solid which would be the core, the sky is VERY Black.--69.111.84.134 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• And also all spacecrafts only use grayscale images-black and white only, 90% of images they took is hopelessly wrong, and only true colors is the most accurate ones. First when Voyager 2 took neptune, it looks way too blue than it actually is. But the planet's color outside has nothing to do with it, sky is what you normally see inside on the surface.--69.111.84.134 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article is ours -- in a few months.

---

I am very proud of all of you. I stumbled across this article in middecember. I could tell that this article is ready for featured article. Unfortunately, this time of year was just to hectic. We all put in as much time as we could trying to work out the last few snags, but, we just did not have the time.

I suggest that we meditate about how to improve the article such as explain the physics better and go over theoretical skies instead of just the ones in our solar system. After coming up with some ideas, we can get some help from peer review, in February. In March we can resubmit this to featured article candidates, where it will succeed this time.

Understandably, if any of you have any other ideas, I defer to you, because you people built this article into the fine state in which I found it. ¡You people are paragons of the wikiway! --

Ŭalabio 06:50, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

---

This should be added

Write more about the sky seen from Venus above the clouds, the appearance of Mercury and Venus from Mars, the sky seen from big asteroids as Ceres

Isn't this all somewhat theoretical and/or speculative, and not quite factual, describing findings or hard data, as an encyclopedia should do?

Sylvia

Why is the Sylvia section notable? I am all for it being here if it is notable enough, but why is it more notable than say planetoids like Ceres, Quouar, Ixion, etc.? It seems "fluffy" and unnecessary.

Size of the moon as it appears to be as seen from the earth

I want to carry out a scientific experiment regarding the cosmic bodies in the space in order to broaden my knowledge on matters regarding the solar system as well as astronomy. Can you please provide me with the really size of the moon, it,s distance from the earth as well as the size it appears to be when seen from the earth in order to enable me to carry out this experiment / investigation.You can send me this data via my e-mail.

1) 17 2)8 billion 3)about 4

Apollo 15 Lunar Rover Camera attempt to observe eclipse.

Checked with the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and retrieved the information. The eclipse took place on 6 August 1971. Goto [1] for details. Note the capcom - crew discussion at 262:16:48 hours mission elapse time. Panamango 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Gary Fearon

Pluto

As Pluto is no longer considered a planet, shouldn't that be added to it's section on this article? --KCMODevin 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Way, way out... Magellanic clouds

I posted a question on Talk:Magellanic Clouds about where would be appropriate for a description of the sky on a planet in the Magellanic clouds. How would our galaxy appear? GBC 18:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparent Magnitudes

How do we know things like the apparent magnitude of Earth from Venus? For that figure, assuming the article means maximum brightness, the magnitude that I calculated differed from the given one by .5. Many other apparent magnitudes from non-Earth skies are also given. My point is, either these magnitudes have been measured, in which case a source should be cited, or they have been calculated, in which case the calculation should be made explicit or cited. If no one answers within a couple of days, I will mark those things as requiring citations. Kier07 18:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure thay've been calculated by someone rather than measured; some footnote from whoever calculated them would be good, I agree. Deuar 10:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The thing is, this calculation depends on certain data. For instance, I haven't seen any confirmed, reliable data on the apparent magnitude of a full Earth as seen on the moon. One possibly accurate web site (debunking the notion that the moon-landing was a hoax) said that a full earth is 68.4 times brighter than a full moon, making it magnitude -17.33 at the brightest. I've also seen "at least 50 times brighter." When I consider the albedo of the Earth and Moon, and the difference in their sizes, I calculate that a full Earth should only be 41 times brighter than a full Moon. If we knew the brightness of the Earth on the Moon, we could do it at any distance, e.g. from Venus. The same is true of the other magnitudes as well... the calculation is simple once we have a little bit of information at hand. It's important to see where we get this information; maybe it's available in some kind of astronomical reference book. Anyway, I've marked these parts in the article with "citation needed"; hopefully someone will be able to find that information. Otherwise, I think it wise for me to delete those claims in a week or so until some substantiation can be found. Kier07 14:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That, or round them off to the nearest sensible magnitude and indicate that they are approximate. Regarding e.g. the moon, the calculation becomes more tricky the more accurate you want to be. For example albedo tends to depend on the solar phase angle, and spikes upward when airless bodies are viewed with the Sun directly behind you − the "opposition effect" which makes the full moon so markedly brighter than an "almost full" gibbous moon. Deuar 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sunrise as seen from Venus - incorrect?

If the Sun could be seen from Venus' surface, it would appear to rise and set in a 243 day cycle

This is incorrect. Venus has a retrograde rotation, which causes the rotation to "catch up" with the Sun. The period between one sunrise and the next on Venus is about 120 Earth days. I don't know the exact period as I don't remember the formula for calculating it for retrograde planets. --B.d.mills 09:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A comment about the section about the Sun as seen in the Venusian atmosphere

The atmosphere of Venus is so thick that the Sun is not distinguishable in the daytime sky, and the stars are not visible at night. Being closer to the Sun, Venus receives about 1.9 times more sunlight than Earth, but due to the thick atmosphere, only about 20% of the light reaches the surface.[6][7] Color images taken by the Soviet Venera probes suggest that the sky on Venus is orange.[8] If the Sun could be seen from Venus's surface, the time from one sunrise to the next (a solar day) would be 116.75 Earth days. Because of Venus's retrograde rotation, the Sun would appear to rise in the west and set in the east.[9]

The first sentence says the Sun is not distinguishable. The last sentence says the Sun (if it could be seen??) would rise in the West/set in the East.

The objection is twofold -- the Sun as a disc is not distinguishable, but generally as a large/widespread smudge of light in the atmosphere. One could certainly see the lighter smudge and distinguish it from, say, the other parts of the sky. And so the last sentence -- though perhaps intended as hypothetical -- is also realistic as the smudged area would be seen to move in the sky. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeing stars from the Moon during the day

It should be possible to see the brightest stars and planets from the surface of the moon when the Sun is visible. The trick is knowing where to look. Under favourable conditions, the brightest stars can be seen from the surface of the Earth during the daytime with the naked eye. Venus is particularly easy to see during the day if one knows where to look and the viewing conditions are favourable. There should not be great impediment to seeing the brightest stars and planets from the surface of the moon. --B.d.mills 10:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From the moon, yes. But Earth? Never heard of that and it sounds wrong. IvoShandor 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Despite the date, it is not an April Fools' hoax. Under favourable conditions, I have seen Venus, Jupiter and Sirius with the Sun above the horizon. At this time of the year, Sirius can be observed just before dusk. The trick is knowing where to look. To facilitate this, go outside shortly after dusk and wait until Sirius is visible. Line it up with a prominent object such as a power pole or tree and mark your position carefully on the ground. Note the time. Then go outside 7 days later, but 28 minutes earlier in the day. Stand in the position you marked, and Sirius should be visible in the same place but with the Sun above the horizon. It's tricky to see because one must look in exactly the right place, but once you do find it, it is not hard to see.

It is easier to view bright stars or planets in the daytime in the morning, because one can get up before sunrise and then simply follow the bright planet or star in the sky as the sun rises.

References: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/homework/s95616.htm

--B.d.mills 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think a casual observer on the moon (daytime) would notice any stars or planets? That is, if they weren't specifically looking for them, just walking around? Sometimes I wonder how people do this.. I can barely see 2nd magnitude myself, in the middle of the night. Sagittarian Milky Way 21:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • suggestion**

If the Sun is just barely above the horizon -- it is likely not the Sun but the residual reflected image of the Sun that is in the atmosphere for the final minutes after physical Sundown. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical error

Under the title "Extrasolar Planets," there is a sentence which begins with the words, "An hypothetical." The usage of "an" with regard to words beginning with an "h" is considered pedantic (H.W. Fowler, 1926). This concept is derived from the British "Cockney accent" where speakers don't pronounce the "h", beginning the word with the vowel sound instead. I have corrected it, guvnah. 72.92.22.124 06:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

H-dropping is not limited to Cockney at all; it used to be much more general in English formerly, especially in those cases when the syllable starting with h is unstressed. Some people still pronounce historical and presumably hypothetical with a silent h; see Wiktionary. It is recommended to adapt the use of a vs. an to your own pronunciation: if you pronounce the following word as starting with a vowel, use an, else a. (Are you even sure yourself that when you pronounce a hypothetical in running speech that you pronounce the [h] clearly and do not tend to voice/weaken or completely drop it?) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Pluto

The Pluto section should be updated. I still think it's informative, and so shouldn't simply be removed. But Pluto's demotion to mere space-junk should be worked in.72.92.22.124 06:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see more space-junk written into the article. After all, the article is "extraterrestrial skies", not "skies of other planets". So if anyone can dig up info on Ceres or Vesta or Hale-Bopp or whatever, go right ahead and add to the awesomeness! (Because, in case you didn't notice, this article is AWESOME!) 79.138.129.212 (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A note to the creator

Um, I know this isn't exactly helping the betterment of this article, but whoever came up with the idea is a flipping genius. Thank you, whoever it is. You made planetary astronomy not just interesting but fascinating. This happens to be an interest of mine and I am always disappointed that most of the written sources on the subject are full of boring academic dribble and fail to capture just how fascinating our solar system is for the average Joe. Little articles like this help a lot. They make it real. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 08:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I completly agree, this is was a great idea to create such an article. Thank you all!--FrancescoA (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Still some questions:

• The Sun is a G2 yellow dwarf. The light visible on the moon is not filtered by atmosphere. Why seem the sun appear white and not a (bit) yellowish?
• What would be the apparent luminousity of the full earth? full moon is about -12,7^m The earth is about 3,5 times larger than the moon, this ^2 would be ~ 12, larger albedo, so say 20 bis 30 times brighter. Ah I remember the difference seen from mercury -5,2 and -1,2, so the earth should be about -16,7^m. Very bright indeed. One should easily read the newspaper, isn't it?
• What would be the "brightness" of the new earth (only shine by full moon)? I estimate 0 to -2^m. Am I far away?
• Mars would appear from Phobos 2,500 * brighter than the full moon. Wow. This means about over the middle of full moon and sun, about -21^m? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancescoA (talk • contribs) 20:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• How bright would Phobos appear from the mars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancescoA (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hurricane. This is the most fascinating article I have ever read on Wikipedia. I don't have the relevant expertise to add anything myself, but I hope that others keep adding new content. I'd also like to know more about the views from different asteroids/planetoids. Also, about Venus: since there are few visual references available apart from the Venera photographs, I wonder if the sky there doesn't change color with the time of day or other conditions like it does on Mars. 90.157.234.124 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

There might be a contradiction on the apparent diameter of parent planets from their moons. Someone claims that:

"Metis, the innermost moon, would see Jupiter's apparent diameter bloated to a stupefying 68° (130 times the visible diameter of our Moon, covering 18% of Metis' sky); no other known moon of the solar system enjoys a more awe-inspiring spectacle."

Yet earlier in the article, during Mars:

"From Phobos, Mars appears 6,400 times larger and 2,500 times brighter than the full Moon as seen from Earth, taking up a quarter of the width of a celestial hemisphere."

Does this mean that Mars would cover 25% of Phobos' sky, or am i just being thick? Thisnamestaken (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean Mars would cover 25% of Phobos's sky. The "quarter of the width of a celestial hemisphere" refers to angular diameter, specifically one of 45°, which of course is less than the 68° for Jupiter from Metis. Transformed to area, Mars would "only" cover about 7.6% of Phobos's sky. 85.8.12.78 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I was confused by exactly the same thing. Perhaps it should be reworded. 90.212.120.95 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter's and Saturn's sky

How blue is Jupiter and Saturn's sky. Indigo, dark blue? light blue? Saturn's disc is actually dull blue from outer space. Anyways.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 03:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a Cassini image that shows the rings of Saturn and Mimas from Saturn's upper atmosphere (far above the cloud decks). It shows the blue color very well. 68.183.215.34 07:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

**** Regarding "Blue" skies on Saturn

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/17feb_bluesaturn.html#:~:text=%22Saturn%20is%20supposed%20to%20be,golden%20hue%2C%22%20explains%20West. If you've ever looked at Saturn through a backyard telescope, you know it's true: Yellow is the dominant color of Saturn's thick clouds. "Sunlight reflected from those clouds is what gives Saturn its golden hue," explains West.

But Cassini saw something different. Close to Saturn, the spacecraft was able to photograph the clear air above the planet's clouds. ("Air" on Saturn is mostly hydrogen.) The color there is blue.

"Saturn's skies are blue, we think, for the same reason Earth's skies are blue," says West. Molecules in the atmosphere scatter sunlight. On Earth the molecules are oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2). On Saturn the molecules are hydrogen (H2). Different planets, different molecules, but the effect is the same: blue light gets scattered around the sky. Other colors are scattered, too, but not as much as blue. Physicists call this "Rayleigh scattering."

End of story? Not quite.

"There are some things we don't understand," says West. For example, while Saturn's northern hemisphere has blue skies, Saturn's southern hemisphere does not. The south looks yellow. It could be that southern skies on Saturn are simply cloudier, yellow clouds making yellow skies. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

original source

For gas planets ec. of Jupiter, Saturn, uranus, and Neptune, we don't have a clear answer to their fixed sky color becuase the planet is essentially gas, lacking of solid surface and the Voyager programs do not have a place to land. However Neptune's sky is judge to be like ocean blue, and Uranus sky must be light blue like ours. With the gas giants moon most of them must be black only traces of atmosphere. We should merge all sections of jupiter, Saturn, uranus, and neptune's skies because all four of them have nearly the same colour. This does not matter because none of those gas giants have solid surface and place for space probes to land.--I-405 (Freeway) 23:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The inner planet's subsection seems fine. Except Venus is completely wrapped by orange smog all the time so the sky on tropospere is orange. Above it Venus is cloud layers, which is yellowish white.--I-405 (Freeway) 23:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

From this site they mention Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, neptune's atmosphere layers. From them the sky must be classes of blue. Voyagers never seen the sky, though they know what's beenath it by some signals to let them see what's below the cloud, and they found no solid surface at all. Even Uranus and Neptune is way differ from our inner planets. Instead they are made of layers of gases. Does not matter, there is nowhere to land. let's at least have some source for gas giant parts. Jupter-Neptune all have to write it over by merging each planet's fact together. First we don't know how blue is jupiter and Saturn's sky-they are moslty hydrogen and helium basically sun's gas. Uranus and neptune's degrees of blue colors is just from methane gases. Saturn is blue too.--I-405 (Freeway) 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• See Talk:Extraterrestrial skies#Overconstruction of the page outline.--57Freeways 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Planet's moon section

Phobos, and outer planet's moons section does not cite any sources at all. Most of it's sky is black little or none atmosphere.--I-405 (Freeway) 22:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Overconstruction of the page

Contents [hide]
1 Planets 
1.1 Inner planets 
1.1.1 Mercury 
1.1.2 Venus 
1.1.3 Mars 
1.2 Gas giants 
2 Other bodies in the Solar System 
2.1 Natural satellites 
2.1.1 Titan 
2.1.2 Triton 
2.2 Pluto 

This would be a proper outline for the page. Seriously, mostly this poorly cites--I-405 (Freeway) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sun from mercury

"an average of 2.5 times larger " was before, now the an average is erased. I think, the first point is right, because the orbit of meryury is highly excentric. --FrancescoA (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Earth From Mars - Visible distance

The line "The maximum visible distance between the Earth and the Moon would be about 25′, at inferior conjunction of the Earth and the Sun" makes no sense at all. I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentonetc (talk • contribs) 06:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rough translation: The maximum angular separation of the Earth and Moon, seen from Mars, would be about 25 arcminutes (almost half a degree), at the time of closest approach of Mars and the Earth. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Eclipses from the moon

"In summary, whenever an eclipse of some sort is occurring on the Earth, an eclipse of another sort is occurring on the Moon. Eclipses occur for both Earth and Lunar observers whenever the two bodies and the Sun align in a straight line."

This is false. Only one eclipse can occur at a time because only one body can have the other's shadow cast onto it. Thrashbarg (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are right. An eclipse of the sun from earth (the moon's shadow on the earth) is an eclipse of the earth from the moon. And vice versa. Borock (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Twilight on Mars

I've just removed a photo ostensibly imaged by the Curiosity rover of twilight on Mars. This photo, while very nice, is not an actual photo of Martian twilight -- it is an artistic rendering by Damia Bouic. While art is all well and good, it is my feeling that photos here should be of actual Martian skies, particularly since we now have such photos, rather than artistic renderings.

For reference, the photo is here: File:MarsCuriosityRover-TwilightAtYellowknifeBay-Sols170-176.jpg.

Furthermore, I'm a bit concerned about the copyright justification for this photo. At the link above the NASA copyright blurb justifies it being on WP because it is "solely the work of NASA", but this is not the case. The photo was painstakingly assembled, modified, the sky added, etc by Damia from many different photos produced by MSL Curiosity over a period of days.

All of this is probably a misunderstanding, because the source for the photo is some random person's blog, not Damia Bouic's own site, in which she explains the processing done to produce it (here). I do not know what Damia's position on WP copyright is, but at any rate the current copyright justification for that picture is not correct.

Eniagrom (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - added File:Martian-Sunset-O-de-Goursac-Curiosity-2013.jpg which may have a better copyright status than the earlier File:MarsCuriosityRover-TwilightAtYellowknifeBay-Sols170-176.jpg image - nonetheless, please revert if not ok for some reason - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Brief followup - may wish to visit commons for several updated comments re the images noted above - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Night sky of extrasolar planets

This was mentioned about the night sky of a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri.

However, there are some notable differences; for example, Sirius would appear about one degree from the star Betelgeuse in the constellation Orion. Also, Procyon would appear in the constellation Gemini, about 13 degrees below Pollux.

How has such position of those stars been derived? 95.79.0.150 (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Scarlet sky on Mars?

Great article. Just a minor correction. The article says "It is now known that during the Martian day, the sky is a scarlet or bright orangeish-red color." - I've never heard the Mars sky described as scarlet. It's usually described as butterscotch in colour

This is scarlet

Eudocimus Ruber Wading KL

This is butterscotch

Butterscotch-Candies

I suggest it is just corrected to "It is now known that during the Martian day, the sky is usually yellow brown "butterscotch" color." As here: [2]

The rest is accurate including mention that sometimes it turns a violet purple colour.

Robert Walker (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extraterrestrial skies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040810170442/http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/faq/sky.html to http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/mgcm/faq/sky.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Differences in how the sun appears can be visualized with this chart:"

No it can't. The image shows the size of celstial objects as seen from earth. As the description states. --StYxXx (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Per discussion, WP:NCPLURAL does not apply here. Hadal (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Extraterrestrial skies → Extraterrestrial sky – Per WP:SINGULAR, the article should use the singular title, and the current plural title should then become an {{R from plural}} redirect to the singular title, reversing the current {{R to plural}} redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SINGULAR. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:NCPLURAL because this is a class of specific things (distinct skies on each planet in the solar system). "Extraterrestrial sky" is an awkward title: just think it were named differently with a singular (say "Sky of other planets)", it would sound even more awkward. WP:SINGULAR has exceptions, folks. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't seem to limit itself to the skies of planets of the solar system. The first line just says "from the surface of an astronomical body other than Earth". It also has sections on views from various moons, asteroids, comets, extrasolar planets, and the Large Magellanic Cloud. Seems like an open class to me, rather than a closed one. Colin M (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, per comments by User:Animalparty above - Enjoy :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SINGULAR. I don't think the WP:NCPLURAL exception invoked by Animalparty above applies - the article does not seem limited to a specific fixed set of extraterrestrial skies. Colin M (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Support: Per nom. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 07:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Earth from other planets

During an outreach event, I was asked by someone how bright the Earth would appear from Jupiter. While I can easily use a planetarium simulation software (which I forgot to do when asked the question, d’oh!), and see that the Earth would be around magnitude -0.2 as seen from Jupiter (with a maximum elongation from the Sun of about 9–10°, so probably invisible anyhow!), I would like to know how to calculate this. I was hoping to find formulas here or on other Wikipedia pages, but nothing…

Can someone point me in the right direction?

Given the information, it would then be easier to add to this article the visual magnitude and maximum Sun elongation of the Earth as seen from various Solar System bodies.

Thanks!

CielProfond (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Undefined refs

@Nsae Comp: yesterday you added some refs named "Miles" and "Forbs", but forgot to define them. Could you fill in those sources please? Thanks! -- Fyrael (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fyrael: Sorry and thank you. It was a salvage cut/paste from Timeline of first images of Earth from space and I forgot about the named refs. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)