Talk:Earthrise

light and dark
I don't know that much about space, but don't the light and dark side of the earth represent night and day in the course of 24 hours, instead of being similar to lunar phases? Could anybody who knows verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.242.174 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The light and dark side of the earth represent an earth day as the earth rotates about itself relative to the sun. A lunar phase is exactly same as as the moon rotates about itself (and orbits the earth) relative to the sun. So while the moon always has one face to the earth, it still has night and day relative to the sun. njaard (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the calculation used for the Lissajous figure that the Earth would "draw" above the Moon's surface? --Aewold (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the part saying that the day/night cycle of the sun on the Earth would take a month like the phases of the moon is definitely wrong. I'm not sure what to replace it with, or if it should be completely removed, but it is definitely wrong. 80.44.248.117 (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not wrong, but perhaps poorly explained: Although the moon keeps the same face to the Earth, the Earth does not keep the same face to the moon. The 'phases' of the Earth (from the moon, & vice versa) have nothing to do with the 24hr spin of the Earth, nor the 28day 'spin' of the Moon. The phase of the Earth has to do with the direction from which the moon (or lunatic) is looking at the Earth during its monthly orbit, & the Sun is shining on the Earth. In a sense, the Earth phases viewed from the Moon, are the opposite of the Moon phases viewed from the Earth. When the moon is between the Earth & Sun, the Earth is full, and the Moon is new. But two weeks later, when the Moon has swung to the dark side of the Earth, the Moon is full, and the Earth is new. When the Moon and Earth are 'side-by-side' with respect to the Sun, each is half lit when viewed from the other, & one is waxing as the other wains. (Is that any better?) 173.66.81.65 (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Laymen's Terms
Hi all. I would love to see the "Geometry of Earthrise" rewritten in a way to make it more accessible to the greater audience. Most of the terms there left me stymied. Cheers. Shiningheart (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify Earthrise orientation
I agree it is confusing, to me. No matter the orientation of the camera, I would call a line perpendicular to the horizon and thru Earth, as "UP". From the surface of the moon, that should be 'obvious' to everyone. And because I presume the spacecraft orbits (and landings) are fairly equatorial (they don't have to be), the Earth equator should also be aligned with 'up'. (but some of the composite pics (accidentally?) show Earth's equator as almost horizontal! This should only occur if the photo is taken from near a lunar pole!  BTW: Because the moon wobbles a bit, Earth, wherever it can be seen from the moon's surface, wobbles around by about 1/4deg (called nutation), which would only be noticeable from the small areas on the moon, where Earth is close to the horizon (also describable as near the 'edge' of the moon as seen from Earth).  173.66.81.65 (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've always been unclear on the meaning of "original orientation" in this context. Is it relative to the label on the camera? Relative to the astronaut's head? Which astronaut? Spiel496 (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Geometry of Earthrise is Irrelevant
Apollo 8 was in orbit round the Moon, in the plane of the Earth-Moon system. That meant that they saw an "Earthrise" every orbit as they came around the Moon to the Earth-facing side

Add to biblography
Earthrise: How Man First Saw the Earth by Robert Poole https://www.amazon.com/Earthrise-How-Man-First-Earth/dp/0300164033/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1465743007&sr=1-3&keywords=earthrise rumjal 15:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs) The discussion of visibility of Earthrises from the Moon's surface is all very interesting, but it's not what was happening here.Steve Graham (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to post the exact same comment, but since you already did I'll just say that I agree. If the article were about the general concept of the Earth rising over the Moon's horizon, it would be relevant. But this article, at least according to the note at the top, is supposed to be about a specific photograph that was taken from orbit. Still, the information is interesting and perhaps could be framed more explicitly as a digression. --Itub (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Which Way is Up?
It's notable that the image is almost always shown rotated 90 degrees compared to how Anders framed and took it. As far as he was concerned, the spacecraft was orbiting around the "waist" of the Moon, and "up" and "down" were aligned with the Moon's axis.

Borman, however, framed his shots as though they were flying over the Moon's surface as in an aircraft. See http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/earthrise.htm Steve Graham (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this debate on how the photo should be oriented. I can see the sun rise while sitting on a beach in Sydney. If I lie down, I will see it side on. If I take the photo while sitting up, the horizon will be shown as running right to left across the screen. If I lie down and take piccie, it will show horizon running up and down. What's the diff? Myles325a (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are confusing "up" with north, a common misconception. In freefall, "up" is somewhat arbitrary, but should be defined as normal to the surface of the object being orbited, or opposite to the local gravitational vector. --96.236.44.24 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

origins of the idea
The idea for such a photograph seems to have came to one from a psychedelic state. I have read it in a quite-recent book about psychedelics, the title of which I cannot remember right now. If anyone gets more information about this, feel free to post more. Twipley (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're trying to say. The photo was not planned at all. ColinClark (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The user is directly referring to the overview effect and indirectly to the original book upon which it is based, namely, The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution (1987). When the overview effect is discussed, the Earthrise photograph is often used as an example.  According to the literature on this subject, when astronauts look back upon Earth from space (or in this case, from the Moon), they experience what has been described as an epiphany and a feeling of unity.  This experience is often described as a cognitive shift in awareness, and people who take psychedelic drugs (or entheogens) report similar experiences, except their physical bodies are on Earth not in space.  Stranger still, much of the drug literature describes the sensation of flying through space, flying through what can only now be described as "wormholes", seeing the Earth from above like a flying bird, and viewing the planet from space.  Anecdotally (and stranger even still), certain specific drugs may even produce visions of space travel, with users coming away from the experience with an imperative to begin planning the trip!  This was exactly what happened to Timothy Leary and others when they started promoting their beliefs in SMI2LE (space migration, intelligence increase and life extension).  Four decades later, this is all mainstream now, with companies like Google funding Google X and Calico.  For more information, see psychonautics. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Conflict in NASA of who said what
The transcript according to NASA's video here is different then their official transcript here, which is what this article uses. Is it safe to assume the most recent iteration is the correct one (the youtube video)? — TimL • talk 09:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Listening carefully to the Youtube video it would seem that the last we here from Cmdr. Borman is about the roll maneuver, everything else sounds like it is said by either Anders or Lovell. So there seem to be multiple misattributions, both in the Youtube video, PDF and the article itself. Borman not only has a distinctive voice but also a distinctive microphone setup which I simply don't hear after his "roll" announcement. As a commander he was probably very focused on the roll maneuver and not too interested on the "eye candy" occurring outside. I do realize this is all OR and contradicts Borman's own account of what happened. — TimL • talk 10:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Also I agree with the statement in the article "Had Borman as mission commander said such a thing, the color photograph likely would never have been made". Borman was in charge of the ship and was definitely the "voice of authority". This makes me wonder if Borman's own account of what happened is a bit of self-aggrandizement (wanting to take credit for that which he played no role in, except for the coincidence of making the roll maneuver at that particular time). — TimL • talk 10:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There seems to have been a change in the last few years to this article which removed the skeptical approach to Chaikin's attribution of voices. The PBS transcript originally cited here (but no longer) differs in eg. the assignment of the remark "that's not scheduled" from the Youtube video... which happens to have been created by Chaikin, not that the reference indicates this. Borman's self-aggrandizement is not really the issue here: his autobiography contains errors, they are minor and the result of lapses in memory over decades. The revision of history by Chaikin is rather more pernicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.26.247 (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody cares about Earthsets
please add Earthset paragraph and photos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4105:7600:5E8:7D50:B437:AB62 (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect picture?
An editor inserted some material in the body of the article which I move here. He wrote: "incorrect picture shown at top, apollo 8 picture shows australia as only continent visible, I believe picture shown at top of page is apollo11 shot, here is apollo8 shot: ". I do note that the link filename is "apollo11_earthrise_1920x1200.jpg"... editors may make of this what they will. Herostratus (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * a8uh9ucR 143.89.191.90 (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Earthset page? or make a more generic title
earthset: γεωβασίλεμα (Greek) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4109:D400:1114:E515:7861:ABD (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Simulation error
The description of a simulation video (section 2013 simulation video), purporting to show what the mission crew saw as they came around the moon, is wrong. The orientation of the view seen by the astronauts was 90° to the left of the usual, misleading orientation of the published Earthrise picture. The actual view seen, and the original image photographed, shows the earth to the left of the moon, not above it. When NASA released the image to the public, they rotated the image 90° to the right to make it resemble a familiar terrestrial photograph. Therefore, contrary to the claim in the article, the simulation video does not in fact show the view as the astronauts witnessed it. — O'Dea (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Relative apparent size of Earth as seen from the Moon
I've never understood why the apparent size of the Earth from near the Moon, and showing the Moon's horizon for context in the famous Earthrise photo, appears to be no larger – or perhaps even slightly smaller – than the Moon appears to be in the sky from the surface of the Earth. One would naively think the Earth should appear much larger in the Moon's sky. Does anyone have an explanation for this illusion? Milkunderwood (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From this true-size comparison it seems to be accurate. But the same question from the opposite perspective: I've wondered why, compared to Earthrise, the Earth looks so large in this image. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I suspect Milkunderwood is influenced by the size of the body relative to the frame. This is just a framing/cropping decision.  Too compare sizes, first ensure that you have similar perspectives (image taken from a low orbit satellite), and pay attention to the curvature of the horizon. Compare Earthrise with this for example.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Dark and light
The boundary between day and night on our planet appears quite abruptly in this picture. It must be less than half an hour from totally day to darkest night. Why appears that on the image like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C3:8700:C4E6:B8FE:9BA4:6358:F89F (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Orientation in space
Is there a record of what direction in space the camera is pointing at? If you enhance the background, some stars are visible, and presumably some constellation could be identified. Barnyard fowl (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Western Sahara / Mauritania
People seeing this photo may try to identify the part of the earth not hidden beneath the clouds. I had hoped to find that info on this Wikipedia page, but eventually found the answer on Google Earth. It's the coast of Western Sahara and Mauritania: https://earth.google.com/web/@4.31023303,-12.11909962,-3708.76404606a,14619651.75135612d,35y,-137.1775918h,1.69205241t,-0r/data=OgMKATA. Perhaps a nice addition, then? R08-42 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)