Talk:Extraterrestrial sky

message: 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)
replies: text: Time, date and astronomy on Mars#The_color_of_the_sky -- Curps 12:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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:
#	Just above the clouddeck    --  we can take a screenbrage from Star Wars Episode V:  The Empire Strikes Back    and edit out Cloudcity.  ;-)  
#	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.
#	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)
thread_title: 	Improving the article	

message: Checked with the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and retrieved the information.
The eclipse took place on 6 August 1971.
Goto  for details. Note the capcom - crew
discussion at 262:16:48 hours mission elapse time.
Panamango 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo 15 Lunar Rover Camera attempt to observe eclipse. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pluto 

message: 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)
thread_title: Way, way out... Magellanic clouds

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Apparent Magnitudes

message: :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)
thread_title:  Sunrise as seen from Venus - incorrect? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Grammatical error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pluto 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jupiter's and Saturn's sky 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:OR|original source]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Planet's moon section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overconstruction of the page 

message: "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)
thread_title:  The sun from mercury

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Earth From Mars - Visible distance 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Eclipses from the moon 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Twilight on Mars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Night sky of extrasolar planets 

message: 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
thumb|center|Eudocimus Ruber Wading KL
This is butterscotch
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: 
The rest is accurate including mention that sometimes it turns a violet purple colour.
Robert Walker (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Scarlet sky on Mars?

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Earth from other planets 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Undefined refs