Talk:Earthrise

light and dark

I dont know that much about space, but don't the light and dark side of the eart 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 a earthican 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)

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)

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.

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.