<p>It is possible to see the moon and <em>any other star</em> in the sky simultaneously. No matter where you are on earth, you can see half of the sky, and there is nowhere on earth from which it is impossible to see the moon (any vantage point can see one hemisphere of sky, and any orbit passes through both hemispheres of sky). There is no resonance between the moon's orbit and the earth's rotation that would complicate matters - given any night sky, you'd just need to wait a maximum of a couple weeks until the moon appears as part of it.</p>
<p>Barring unusual phase timing, from the surface of any planet, it's always possible to view a satellite in the sky at the same time as any other star - there is nothing unique about the earth, Polaris or the moon in this regard.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T21:00:48.070Z
I don't think you can ever see Polaris from the South Pole, so I don't quite understand this answer.
wizzwizz4
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-10T06:08:51.763Z
You should qualify your first sentence. From half of the Earth's surface Polaris cannot be seen AT ALL.
g.kertesz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-10T12:20:41.300Z
@wizzwizz4 If you can see a star from someplace on earth, within +/- 2 weeks, you will still be able to see that star, and you will *also* be able to see the moon. I'm not saying you can always see every star, I'm saying there is no such thing as a star which cannot appear in sky at the same time as the moon. The question isn't if the moon and Polaris are *always* visible together, it's if they are *ever* visible together. The answer is that the moon and every *other star*, not just Polaris, are at some point visible together - if you can see the star, sooner or later you'll see the moon.
Nuclear Hoagie
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-11T07:51:33.243Z
How this answer addresses OP's _"both the North Star and the moon visible in the sky **at the same sighting**?"_ ? From a reputable source I have ["A normal visual field of each eye usually spans over 120 degrees horizontally and 90 degrees vertically."](https://www.aao.org/education/image/normal-vision-field#:~:text=A%20normal%20visual%20field%20of,horizontally%20and%2090%20degrees%20vertically.)
gboffi
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-11T13:11:02.747Z
@gboffi The title question only requires same time, not same sighting. But at any rate, in the right season, the moon traces an arc of more than 180 degrees across the sky every night. That means the moon always comes within 90 lateral degrees of any star visible that night, and can't be more than 90 vertical degrees away. It is possible to have the moon and any arbitrary star not just in the sky at the same time, but also within the same field of view.
Nuclear Hoagie
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-08T14:31:35.810Z
2024-07-08T14:31:35.810Z
Nuclear Hoagie
<p>The moon and Polaris will be visible in the night sky at the same time.</p>
<p>It is possible to have them in the <em>field of view</em> at the same time.</p>
<p>However, an <em>accurate illustration/picture</em> displaying more than just the sky will be difficult.</p>
<p>Polaris will be at a declination of 45° to the north (at 45° latitude).
And the moon will always be in a southern direction in this area (north of 28.6° N, due to earth's inclination of 23.5° and the moon's inclination of 5.2° against earth's rotation). Their angular separation will be <em>at least</em> 60° (with the moon very high up in the sky). With this separation, neither of them could be in visual focus, while the other is still in the field of view (about 120x90 degrees as pointed out by @gboffi).</p>
<p>If you want to show both at the same time (and not annoy pedants), you'd need to look mostly upwards. If you want to have a meaningful amount of landscape visible in the picture (like a panoramic view as in <em>Starry Night</em>), you'll probably have to annoy them.</p>
<p>A good tool to test this out would be <em>Stellarium</em>. Set the time to the northern summer for the minimum separation (the +-5° variation due to the lunar orbit inclination can be tested via trial and error). For the location, Milano is a good one at 45°N.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-05T01:32:12.630Z
Polaris has declination of +89° 15′ 50.8″, so at latitude 45° its elevation (or altitude) angle is almost 45°.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-08T17:21:55.330Z
2024-07-11T08:46:12.467Z
2024-07-11T08:46:12.467Z
Chieron
<p>Yes, this is possible from anywhere in the Northern hemisphere.</p>
<p>In addition to what <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/58052/2934">Nuclear Hoagie has already described</a> with regards to satellites (such as the moon,) the North Star (Polaris) is pretty much always above the horizon in the Northern hemisphere.</p>
<p>So, any time (a) you can see the moon, (b) you're in the Northern hemisphere, and (c) the sky is dark enough to see Polaris (i.e. night,) then both will be simultaneously visible in the night sky, assuming there aren't clouds, trees, buildings, mountains, or some other such thing blocking your view of the relevant portion of the night sky.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-08T15:13:29.910Z
2024-07-15T17:30:13.340Z
2024-07-15T17:30:13.340Z
reirab
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>I see this often from. Northern Europe.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-08T07:37:57.233Z
2024-07-08T07:37:57.233Z
Anders Sandberg
<p>Anywhere above the equator, the North Star is visible all the time. It never moves in the sky, day or night. So the question boils down to, how often is the moon visible at night?</p>
<p>Everywhere on Earth, the moon is visible at some time, every day. Half of that time is at night.</p>
<p>So the moon and Polaris are both visible in the night sky  half of the the time, everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere.</p>
<p>EDIT: Someone complained that this is slightly incorrect because it doesn't include a trivial correction factor for atmospheric refraction.</p>
<p>That seems a little pedantic, but okay.</p>
<p>You asked for it.</p>
<p><em><strong>...It is actually slightly more,</strong></em> because the moon is visible below the horizon for two minutes due to atmospheric refraction. The same thing makes the sun visible before it rises and after it sets. That extra four minutes a day adds a full extra day of moon &amp; Polaris every year.</p>
<p><em><strong>...But it is actually slightly more,</strong></em> because 4 minutes * 365.24219 is an extra 24 hours and 21 minutes per year.</p>
<p><em><strong>...But it is actually slightly more,</strong></em> because Polaris isn't exactly 90 degrees from the equator. It peeks down over the equator by 44' 9.2&quot;. So those lucky few that far below the equator can join this geek party.</p>
<p><em><strong>...But it is actually slightly more,</strong></em> because atmospheric refraction allows people slightly farther south than that to see Polaris.</p>
<p>How much farther South? Well, we already know that atmospheric refraction drags the sun and  moon back up over the horizon when it's actually two arcminutes below. So add two extra arcminutes to the distance below the equator.</p>
<p>So the answer is, the moon and Polaris are both visible to everyone north of 46' 9.2&quot; below the equator, for 12 hours and 4 minutes a day.</p>
<p><em><strong>...But it is actually slightly less,</strong></em> because Polaris orbits the North Pole once a day, so half that time, people below the equator see it sink below the horizon. Figure out that correction yourself.</p>
<p><em><strong>...But it is actually slightly less,</strong></em> because even though the equator is circular, the curve connecting the poles is not. The Earth is flatter at the top and bottom. It's more steeply curved  at the equator, making Polaris not peek quite as far south.</p>
<p>That requires calculating how fast the rate of change of curvature changes. It's easy because it's beautiful, but it requires calculus.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-06T04:27:56.053Z
"Everywhere on Earth, the moon is visible at some time, every day." Except for those places where it is not visible for many days in a row. Call that pedantic or trying to be accurate.
JohnHoltz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-05T09:29:14.747Z
2024-12-05T20:37:55.600Z
2024-12-05T20:37:55.600Z
Miss Understands
<p>Wanting to have some artwork done for a story I've written. It doesn't happen in the story, but for the artwork, is it realistic to have both the North Star and the moon visible in the sky at the same sighting? This would be in the northern hemisphere, in a northern latitude (around 45 degrees) in the fall, winter or spring. Thank you!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-08T05:14:01.863Z
The North star is _always_ above the horizon for almost all points in the Northern hemisphere, day or night. There are limits on how _close_ the Moon and the North Star can appear;  what angle between them are you requiring?  Do you expect readers to object about the accuracy of the night sky on the book cover?
notovny
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-08T12:33:54.563Z
You might use a "real" sky configuration, check out Stellarium, it will show you the sky from any location at any time.  As Notovny said above, if you're in the Northern hemisphere, they will both be visible at the same time on most days. https://stellarium.org/
Greg Miller
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-08T16:08:49.150Z
they are never in the sky at the same time if you live much south of the equator :-D
Tony Ennis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-08T22:25:59.800Z
If it's just for story art, I don't think you're gonna get any pushback for inaccuracies unless you're featured on CinemaSins
Darth Pseudonym
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T01:40:27.543Z
I hesitate to ask. How will the viewer know it is the North Star in the artwork, compared to any other star?
JohnHoltz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T06:11:04.873Z
To reinforce what @JohnHoltz says, apart from its location, the North Star is visually unremarkable. It’s only about the 48th most bright star in the sky (it’s variable, so it can be a little brighter or dimmer).
Neil Tarrant
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T06:52:42.883Z
Wow! Thank you all so much! Very helpful! And thank you for letting me flaunt my ignorance here! Yes, I guess I should have known better. But I searched in vain trying to find an image, with no luck. I suspect now it's because of the dimness of the North Star plus the distance between it and the moon that this is not something usually depicted, as you guys have explained. I thank you again!
Hopeful1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T06:59:32.240Z
Will there be objections about the accuracy... hmmm... good question. I guess it is I who would object! haha! Being reminded that, of course, the North Star is always there answers the feasibility part. The angle, hmm. probably where the fudge factor will come in?! Thank you!
Hopeful1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T07:00:44.063Z
Not knowing how to respond to you individually, I am just writing these multiple comments here, my apologies. Thank you Mr. Miller for the link to stellarium!
Hopeful1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T07:04:36.927Z
Interesting about the North Star not being visible "much south of the equator". I don't NEED to know when that happens exactly. By definition, it is nearly overhead at the north pole, so gets closer to the horizon as one ventures south, yes, so like you say, would go below the horizon close by/around the equator?
Hopeful1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T07:06:53.830Z
As far as how the viewer will know it is the North Star, the artist will have to make that apparent, either exaggerating its brightness or size, I would think? I didn't realize that it's not such a bright star, so thank you for pointing this out!
Hopeful1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T13:45:16.740Z
The only way I can think of to make it clear that it's the North Star is to include the entire Little Dipper. Since your artist is drawing the night sky anyway, it would certainly make sense to do that. You'll have to decide how much you want to fudge the apparent sizes and distances. At one extreme, you could depict all of that exactly correctly using a desired projection (rectilinear or fisheye), but the picture will look distorted and the moon will look very small. At the opposite extreme, you could shove everything into a small region with no regard for the actual apparent distances.
Sophie Swett
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T15:40:45.267Z
@Hopeful1 Yes, the north star is only visible north of the equator (similarly, the Southern Cross is not visible from e.g. Europe, being too far south). And it is not the most remarkable star (though it is the brightest start near the celestial pole). To make it clear, which star it is supposed to be, the rest of Ursa Minor should also be enhanced. You might even want to hammer the point home by adding the imaginary connecting lines.  And even then, people likely will mistake it for Ursa Major.
Chieron
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T18:10:24.133Z
Welcome @Hopeful1 great question.  the very simply answer is **"sure, of course, BUT they are a long way apart ..."**
Fattie
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T18:12:23.120Z
guys surely, there is a WEB SITE that just brings up star maps at given time etc, and one of you geniuses can simply link it to show ????  (ie that would be easier for OP than using stellarium or whatever)
Fattie
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T19:36:43.103Z
@JohnHoltz. There will be a little dotted line from the big dipper
Mad Physicist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T19:38:07.397Z
@Fattie. First thing that came up when I searched "sky map online": https://www.skymaponline.net/. You can set location, time, etc
Mad Physicist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T19:40:57.073Z
Stellarium has a browser version: https://stellarium-web.org/
Mad Physicist
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-07-09T19:41:33.713Z
There's also google sky and numerous others
Mad Physicist
<the-moon><polaris>
Are the North Star and the moon ever visible in the night sky at the same time?
Hopeful1
# Are the North Star and the moon ever visible in the night sky at the same time?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-07-08)

Wanting to have some artwork done for a story I've written. It doesn't happen in the story, but for the artwork, is it realistic to have both the North Star and the moon visible in the sky at the same sighting? This would be in the northern hemisphere, in a northern latitude (around 45 degrees) in the fall, winter or spring. Thank you!

**Tags:** the-moon, polaris

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The North star is _always_ above the horizon for almost all points in the Northern hemisphere, day or night. There are limits on how _close_ the Moon and the North Star can appear;  what angle between them are you requiring?  Do you expect readers to object about the accuracy of the night sky on the book cover?  
> **username_2**: You might use a "real" sky configuration, check out Stellarium, it will show you the sky from any location at any time.  As Notovny said above, if you're in the Northern hemisphere, they will both be visible at the same time on most days. https://stellarium.org/  
> **username_3**: they are never in the sky at the same time if you live much south of the equator :-D  
> **username_4**: If it's just for story art, I don't think you're gonna get any pushback for inaccuracies unless you're featured on CinemaSins  
> **username_5**: I hesitate to ask. How will the viewer know it is the North Star in the artwork, compared to any other star?  
> **username_6**: To reinforce what @username_5 says, apart from its location, the North Star is visually unremarkable. It’s only about the 48th most bright star in the sky (it’s variable, so it can be a little brighter or dimmer).  
> **username_0**: Wow! Thank you all so much! Very helpful! And thank you for letting me flaunt my ignorance here! Yes, I guess I should have known better. But I searched in vain trying to find an image, with no luck. I suspect now it's because of the dimness of the North Star plus the distance between it and the moon that this is not something usually depicted, as you guys have explained. I thank you again!  
> **username_0**: Will there be objections about the accuracy... hmmm... good question. I guess it is I who would object! haha! Being reminded that, of course, the North Star is always there answers the feasibility part. The angle, hmm. probably where the fudge factor will come in?! Thank you!  
> **username_0**: Not knowing how to respond to you individually, I am just writing these multiple comments here, my apologies. Thank you Mr. Miller for the link to stellarium!  
> **username_0**: Interesting about the North Star not being visible "much south of the equator". I don't NEED to know when that happens exactly. By definition, it is nearly overhead at the north pole, so gets closer to the horizon as one ventures south, yes, so like you say, would go below the horizon close by/around the equator?  
> **username_0**: As far as how the viewer will know it is the North Star, the artist will have to make that apparent, either exaggerating its brightness or size, I would think? I didn't realize that it's not such a bright star, so thank you for pointing this out!  
> **username_7**: The only way I can think of to make it clear that it's the North Star is to include the entire Little Dipper. Since your artist is drawing the night sky anyway, it would certainly make sense to do that. You'll have to decide how much you want to fudge the apparent sizes and distances. At one extreme, you could depict all of that exactly correctly using a desired projection (rectilinear or fisheye), but the picture will look distorted and the moon will look very small. At the opposite extreme, you could shove everything into a small region with no regard for the actual apparent distances.  
> **username_8**: @username_0 Yes, the north star is only visible north of the equator (similarly, the Southern Cross is not visible from e.g. Europe, being too far south). And it is not the most remarkable star (though it is the brightest start near the celestial pole). To make it clear, which star it is supposed to be, the rest of Ursa Minor should also be enhanced. You might even want to hammer the point home by adding the imaginary connecting lines.  And even then, people likely will mistake it for Ursa Major.  
> **username_9**: Welcome @username_0 great question.  the very simply answer is **"sure, of course, BUT they are a long way apart ..."**  
> **username_9**: guys surely, there is a WEB SITE that just brings up star maps at given time etc, and one of you geniuses can simply link it to show ????  (ie that would be easier for OP than using stellarium or whatever)  
> **username_10**: @username_5. There will be a little dotted line from the big dipper  
> **username_10**: @username_9. First thing that came up when I searched "sky map online": https://www.skymaponline.net/. You can set location, time, etc  
> **username_10**: Stellarium has a browser version: https://stellarium-web.org/  
> **username_10**: There's also google sky and numerous others  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_11 on 2024-07-08. Score: 25

It is possible to see the moon and *any other star* in the sky simultaneously. No matter where you are on earth, you can see half of the sky, and there is nowhere on earth from which it is impossible to see the moon (any vantage point can see one hemisphere of sky, and any orbit passes through both hemispheres of sky). There is no resonance between the moon's orbit and the earth's rotation that would complicate matters - given any night sky, you'd just need to wait a maximum of a couple weeks until the moon appears as part of it.

Barring unusual phase timing, from the surface of any planet, it's always possible to view a satellite in the sky at the same time as any other star - there is nothing unique about the earth, Polaris or the moon in this regard.

> **Comments:**
> **username_12**: I don't think you can ever see Polaris from the South Pole, so I don't quite understand this answer.  
> **username_13**: You should qualify your first sentence. From half of the Earth's surface Polaris cannot be seen AT ALL.  
> **username_11**: @username_12 If you can see a star from someplace on earth, within +/- 2 weeks, you will still be able to see that star, and you will *also* be able to see the moon. I'm not saying you can always see every star, I'm saying there is no such thing as a star which cannot appear in sky at the same time as the moon. The question isn't if the moon and Polaris are *always* visible together, it's if they are *ever* visible together. The answer is that the moon and every *other star*, not just Polaris, are at some point visible together - if you can see the star, sooner or later you'll see the moon.  
> **username_14**: How this answer addresses OP's _"both the North Star and the moon visible in the sky **at the same sighting**?"_ ? From a reputable source I have ["A normal visual field of each eye usually spans over 120 degrees horizontally and 90 degrees vertically."](https://www.aao.org/education/image/normal-vision-field#:~:text=A%20normal%20visual%20field%20of,horizontally%20and%2090%20degrees%20vertically.)  
> **username_11**: @username_14 The title question only requires same time, not same sighting. But at any rate, in the right season, the moon traces an arc of more than 180 degrees across the sky every night. That means the moon always comes within 90 lateral degrees of any star visible that night, and can't be more than 90 vertical degrees away. It is possible to have the moon and any arbitrary star not just in the sky at the same time, but also within the same field of view.  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2024-07-08. Score: 19

The moon and Polaris will be visible in the night sky at the same time.

It is possible to have them in the *field of view* at the same time.

However, an *accurate illustration/picture* displaying more than just the sky will be difficult.

Polaris will be at a declination of 45° to the north (at 45° latitude).
And the moon will always be in a southern direction in this area (north of 28.6° N, due to earth's inclination of 23.5° and the moon's inclination of 5.2° against earth's rotation). Their angular separation will be *at least* 60° (with the moon very high up in the sky). With this separation, neither of them could be in visual focus, while the other is still in the field of view (about 120x90 degrees as pointed out by @username_14).

If you want to show both at the same time (and not annoy pedants), you'd need to look mostly upwards. If you want to have a meaningful amount of landscape visible in the picture (like a panoramic view as in *Starry Night*), you'll probably have to annoy them.

A good tool to test this out would be *Stellarium*. Set the time to the northern summer for the minimum separation (the +-5° variation due to the lunar orbit inclination can be tested via trial and error). For the location, Milano is a good one at 45°N.

> **Comments:**
> **username_15**: Polaris has declination of +89° 15′ 50.8″, so at latitude 45° its elevation (or altitude) angle is almost 45°.  

---

### Answer by username_17 on 2024-07-08. Score: 8

Yes.

I see this often from. Northern Europe.


---

### Answer by username_16 on 2024-07-08. Score: 7

Yes, this is possible from anywhere in the Northern hemisphere.

In addition to what [username_11 has already described](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/58052/2934) with regards to satellites (such as the moon,) the North Star (Polaris) is pretty much always above the horizon in the Northern hemisphere.

So, any time (a) you can see the moon, (b) you're in the Northern hemisphere, and (c) the sky is dark enough to see Polaris (i.e. night,) then both will be simultaneously visible in the night sky, assuming there aren't clouds, trees, buildings, mountains, or some other such thing blocking your view of the relevant portion of the night sky.


---

### Answer by username_18 on 2024-12-05. Score: 2

Anywhere above the equator, the North Star is visible all the time. It never moves in the sky, day or night. So the question boils down to, how often is the moon visible at night?

Everywhere on Earth, the moon is visible at some time, every day. Half of that time is at night.

So the moon and Polaris are both visible in the night sky half of the the time, everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere.

EDIT: Someone complained that this is slightly incorrect because it doesn't include a trivial correction factor for atmospheric refraction.

That seems a little pedantic, but okay.

You asked for it.

***...It is actually slightly more,*** because the moon is visible below the horizon for two minutes due to atmospheric refraction. The same thing makes the sun visible before it rises and after it sets. That extra four minutes a day adds a full extra day of moon & Polaris every year.

***...But it is actually slightly more,*** because 4 minutes \* 365.24219 is an extra 24 hours and 21 minutes per year.

***...But it is actually slightly more,*** because Polaris isn't exactly 90 degrees from the equator. It peeks down over the equator by 44' 9.2". So those lucky few that far below the equator can join this geek party.

***...But it is actually slightly more,*** because atmospheric refraction allows people slightly farther south than that to see Polaris.

How much farther South? Well, we already know that atmospheric refraction drags the sun and moon back up over the horizon when it's actually two arcminutes below. So add two extra arcminutes to the distance below the equator.

So the answer is, the moon and Polaris are both visible to everyone north of 46' 9.2" below the equator, for 12 hours and 4 minutes a day.

***...But it is actually slightly less,*** because Polaris orbits the North Pole once a day, so half that time, people below the equator see it sink below the horizon. Figure out that correction yourself.

***...But it is actually slightly less,*** because even though the equator is circular, the curve connecting the poles is not. The Earth is flatter at the top and bottom. It's more steeply curved at the equator, making Polaris not peek quite as far south.

That requires calculating how fast the rate of change of curvature changes. It's easy because it's beautiful, but it requires calculus.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: "Everywhere on Earth, the moon is visible at some time, every day." Except for those places where it is not visible for many days in a row. Call that pedantic or trying to be accurate.  

---

