Talk:Titan (moon)

Lakes

A much better picture of the lakes on Titan is now available from NASA. I would add this to the article, but I am a newbie and I don't know how to edit picture references. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA17655 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.17 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Adjective

Wouldn't the adjective "Titanian" collide with Titania (moon)?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It does. Serendi^podous 05:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case the only thing distinguishing them would be the context. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I am guessing that Titanic would be right out. Kortoso (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Titan Lander

Not the last one, but the next one. Where, and when? 67.190.27.217 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in surface pressure?

(7.3 times more massive atmosphere per unit surface)*(surface gravity 0.14g)=(surface pressure 1.02 times that of Earth's), not 1.45 times as it's stated in the section "Atmosphere". Something is wrong. (Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC))

New Photo Released by NASA Today of Kraken Mare

In a rare photo, the Cassini probe cameras were able to see through a thinner-than-usual cloud cover and take a picture of Titan with an unusually clear view of Kraken Mare, one of Titans largest hydrocarbon seas. This photo might be a good addition to the article. Being a NASA photo, if sourced from the original website, it would be a public domain, free use photo. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/28/9074422-could-titans-seas-harbor-life 64.134.58.37 (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

March 25

March 25 might make a good day for front page presentation of this article. What do you think? It should be worth at least 5 points on WP:TFAR. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, in looking through this article, I'm not even sure that it would survive an FAR. Ah well. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

er, why? Serendi^podous 09:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, some concerns:

• "angular distance" is an angle, not a physical distance.
• Short paragraphs.
• Assertions lacking citations. E.g. "...denser due to gravitational compression."
• Unnecessary vagueness. E.g. "interior may still be hot...". Hot as is hot enough to melt methane? Or hot as 10,000 K?
• Weasel wording. E.g. "...are thought to form..." "...are believed to be..."
• Unnecessary uses of the additive "also".
• Part of the first paragraph of "Climate" contains some unclear and/or contradictory statements.
• Inconsistent formatting of the citations.

&c. &c. Plus its getting cluttered up with images and the External links section is bloated. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Water ice?

Methinks this page be missin' a comma. I'm pretty sure that should say "...water, ice..." not "...water ice...". Not like Titan has Pepsi ice (ice made out of Pepsi, as opposed to ice made out of water) on it, LOL. (I noticed it has a lock on it, and I would correct it, but since I'm not registered, I wasn't sure if it would let me or not.) 98.71.131.44 (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "water ice" or frozen water. The temperature is way too low for liquid water. "water ice" as opposed to, say, "methane ice". The surface temperature of −179.5 °C is near the melting point of methane. Jim1138 (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Only one surface image?

Neither this article nor the one on the probe explains why only one image of the surface was photographed. Was there a failure of the probe, or was the surface image simply a "bonus" after the landing? 68.146.70.177 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The surface image from Huygens was a bonus essentially. The camera was designed to take mosaics of the surface as the probe descended to the surface. The camera itself is fixed to the body of the probe so it had to use the rotation of the probe underneath its parachute to image different parts of the surface, again as it descended. Once on the surface, the probe was stationary, so the camera was only able to look at one scene, over and over again. --Volcanopele (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It says: "Huygens in situ image from Titan's surface—the only image from the surface of an object farther away than Mars". Didn't NEAR return an image from the surface of Eros, or was it taken just a few meters above before the actual soft-landing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.98.140 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Summaries of main articles

The article is long as it is, so per WP:SUMMARY I am leaving the required summary and link to its main article: ATmosphere of Titan. DO not revert again without discussion and a logical purpose. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, we keep witting without reading. Please visit [1]

Cheers,

I don't particularly want to do this, as I don't feel there is enough information on Titan's atmosphere and climate to justify a new article. I was actually against the creation of Atmosphere of Titan in the first place. However, if I cannot stop this article from being broken up, then I'd prefer it were done this way. Serendi^podous 18:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, does anyone else not like the current structure, or does the current content summarise it enough for the layman? Serendi^podous 21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do NOT screw around with the structure of the Titan article. It is great. Well-intentioned people trashing good articles is a bigger problem here than vandalism.

HelviticaBold 02:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

sand dunes ... on Titan?

I don't think so! This should be adjusted or removed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

er, why? Serendi^podous 10:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Aren't they made of water ice? --JorisvS (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they're probably made of hydrocarbons. But if they behave in the same way as sand on Earth, I don't see the problem, just as I don't see the problem of calling the water that comes out of cryovolcanoes "lava". Serendi^podous 11:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We should call things what they are, not use words for analogous but different things on Earth. In this instance it is simpler, though: just say "dunes" instead of "sand dunes". --JorisvS (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If the sand dunes are not covered by hydrocarbon lakes then they are sand dunes. I disagree with calling expelled water "lava"; The cryovolcano article names the ejecta as "cryomagma or ice-volcanic melt". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The dunes are not made of sand (rock), hence they are not sand dunes. You're right about what to do about the "lava". --JorisvS (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

'Sand' does not necessary mean rock. And many sources use the term "sand dunes" or generally "sand". Ruslik_Zero 11:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Our article (sand) says it is: rock+minerals. But what would be the added value of saying 'sand dunes' over just 'dunes' anyway? --JorisvS (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just "dunes" is fine; I was just argueing that the lakes are hydrocarbons and the solid surface are dunes. I think the "lava" issue needs addressing though. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Any idea of what the scientists at NASA are calling these structures? Kortoso (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2009/02/cassini-maps-global-pattern-of-titans-dunes

"At Titan there are very few clouds, so determining which way the wind blows is not an easy thing, but by tracking the direction in which Titan's sand dunes form, we get some insight into the global wind pattern," says Ralph Lorenz, Cassini radar scientist at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. "Think of the dunes sort of like a weather vane, pointing us to the direction the winds are blowing." Kortoso (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Miniwikiatlas

Map data has been added for Titan in the miniwikiatlas for displaying geolocation data. I'm not sure how to add it or configure it, but I think that it would make a good addition to the page. Autocorr (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Formation

The article appears to lack any information on its formation and evolution. Surely there are some prominent theories. A recent article here http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_impact_scenario_may_explain_the_unusual_moons_of_Saturn_999.html suggests at least one that could be considered for inclusion. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

added. Serendi^podous 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this article imbalanced?

Thanks to recent edits (to which, I hasten to add, I objected) the most interesting and defining characteristics of Titan (ie, its atmosphere and weather) are now barely discussed, while the most obscure and hypothetical speculations (ie, life) take up almost a quarter of its length. I think some kind of rebalancing is in order. Serendi^podous 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like that has its own article now. Titan is receiving a lot of attention and will probably continue to do so, until the existence of life on its surface is proven or disproven. Kortoso (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Planetary body?

The caption of the surface image says: "[...] the only image from the surface of a planetary body farther away than Mars". Now I understand that Titan is essentially like a terrestrial planet except that it happens to orbit a gas giant and not the sun, and that distinctions between classes of astronomical objects such as (terrestrial) planet and satellite as well as gas giant and star are basically arbitrary and the boundaries fuzzy, with ambiguous cases known, but a planetary body is simply the same as a planet, and according to the well-known current (as well as older) definition of planet, Titan just isn't one. So this description irks me, even if I appreciate the intent. There are further instances where the term planetary is used in the article, but never referring as directly to Titan specifically. To repeat, it does make sense considering the physical characteristics of Titan, so I'm sympathetic and torn in this case (an admittedly minor issue), but astronomers still classify Titan as a satellite and very much not a "planetary body", even if in practice, Titan may be treated as essentially a planet or studied in the context of planetary science (which is sometimes called Lunar and Planetary Science to clarify that it does not exclusively cover planets, but that research concerning natural satellites is also in its scope). Is there a technically correct way to convey the intended idea in the caption? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of the term Planetary nebula; objects which couldn't be further from being "planetary" yet the name remains in use becuase it just "stuck" I guess. In this case though, I agree with your concern. In my opinion "planetary body" not only sounds wrong, but there is no good reason to use it in this way and it should be changed. Suggestions: "Celestial body" - "Celestial object" - "Astronomical object" come to mind, although there may still be something more technically correct or better way of wording the whole thing. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 05:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Here, 'planetary body' is used as a synonym of 'planemo', i.e. it includes all planets, dwarf planets, and gravitationally rounded satellites. We could change 'planetary body' to 'planemo', but the former is more accessible. --JorisvS (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

How about planetary-mass object (and linking the term to planemo), then? (Using planemo is a good idea actually, thanks; exactly what I was looking for.) Planetary body, on the other hand, is a synonym of planet, not of planemo, and I don't think we should sacrifice accuracy for accessibility. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a synonym of 'planet'. Vesta is a planetary body, but not quite a planemo. — kwami (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with using the term celestial object. It is precise and the layman reader can understand it better than planemo...if that is how you spell it. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that celestial object includes not just planemos but also all non-round bodies. That said, the sentence would still remain accurate if "planetary object" is changed to "celestial object" because no non-round objects beyond the orbit of Mars have been imaged from the surface, although 'celestial' has incorrect associations, too. --JorisvS (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, why not simply "astronomical object" then?

Kwami: Vesta is a planetary body? That's news to me. However, if that is really the case, then Planetary body shouldn't redirect to Planet because the terms are not synonymous then. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My objection to using "astronomical object" is that "astronomical" basically means 'of or relating to astronomy' and that the only relation it has to astronomy is that that is generally considered to be the science concerned with studying objects like it (and poorly named for such cases because Titan is not a star), and ... is it still considered 'astronomy' when done by space probes or from the surface of the object in question? --JorisvS (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So, what do you call these thingies that float around in outer space, then? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, good question! When the context is clear, I would just say "object" or "body", but would still have to add "astronomical" or "celestial" (or use more specific terms) if the context isn't. Well, because the context is clear in this article, I guess we could simply say "[...] the only image taken from the surface of an object farther away than Mars" without making the sentence unclear. --JorisvS (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've been bold. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Kwami, your Vesta example has me wondering. What about Saturn's round moons that are currently not quite in hydrostatic equilibrium? --JorisvS (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

File:First topographic map of Titan-CassiniNASA-PIA16849.jpg

This could fit in, but I don't seem to be able to figure out where. :) Rehman 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Awkward prose

This sentence awkward because the reader does not grasp the meaning of "although" until the end:

The surface is geologically young; although mountains and several possible cryovolcanoes have been discovered, it is smooth and few impact craters have been found.

I propose instead:

The surface is smooth, with few known impact craters, although mountains and several possible cryovolcanoes have been discovered.--guyvan52 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How about: "The surface is geologically young and smooth with few known impact craters, although mountains and several possible cryovolcanoes have been discovered."

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC) PS: Never mind. Your edit in the article is quite good. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

tilt of titan's axis

Titan has an axial tilt of 26.7 degrees, which is responsible for Titan having seasons. Yet the axial tilt in the info box says zero. This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.199.155.29 (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That 26.7 degrees isn't Titan's tilt, it's Saturn's. Axial tilt is measured in respect to the plane of a body's orbit. Titan has no tilt in respect to its orbit around Saturn, which is very close to being aligned with Saturn's equator. Saturn has significant tilt in respect to its orbit, however, and as Saturn moves through its seasons, Titan's orbit changes its tilt with respect to the Sun as well. In effect, Titan has the same seasons as Saturn. --Patteroast (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Occam's Razor Citation Not Supplied

The article currently states:

Composition data and transport models need to be substantiated, and per Occam's razor, a physical or chemical explanation is preferred a priori over one of biology (given the simplicity of chemical catalysts versus the complexity of biological forms).[citation needed]

The Occam's Razor claim seemed to me to be thoroughly dodgy (as in my admittedly limited experience most such claims seem to be), so I asked for a citation nearly 6 weeks ago. So far, none has been forthcoming.

Chris McKay's cited paper makes no mention of Occam. But in the discussion about the paper by 'Alliance members' at the current URL (http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/making_sense.php.html ), Occam does get mentioned once, by a Colin Robinson. Unusually, his use of Occam does not seem thoroughly dodgy: [catalysts + organisms] really is an inherently more complex explanation than [catalysts alone], provided we assume that the probability of catalysts and the probability of organisms are independant of each other. But Robinson is merely presenting Occam in order to reject it (he is presumably implicitly saying the two probabilities are not really independant of each other, though he doesn't use that terminology). And Mckay's reply makes no mention of Occam, and seems to be saying 'you may well be right'. Unlike our very different use of Occam, Robinson was clearly talking about the complexity of the explanation, whereas our use seems to substitute the complexity of the physics for the complexity of the explanation (which should be about the number of independent assumptions being made (and their probabilities), and not such things as the number of molecules required in the explanation).

So it seems to me that what we have here is OR (Original Research, which is banned by WP:OR) with no supporting citation 6 weeks after one was requested, and worse, Original Research that is probably wrong (given that when the matter is discussed by experts on the issue, Mckay and Robinson, they use Occam differently and reach a different conclusion).

So without a citation it should be removed, but the question is when. I could leave it for another 6 weeks or so. But I am concerned that I will then forget to remove it and it may hang around for years (as has happened elsewhere), while leaving the 'citation needed' request may also unnecessarily cause doubt in the reader's mind about the first half of the sentence (about composition data and transport models).

So I'm going to delete it now. But if anybody feels more time should be given for a citation to be found, please feel free to revert me, while preferably also indicating how much longer you think we should wait. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Done; + added in replacement wording actually found in McKay's paper.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Logic and biology do not mix. According to the Occam's postulate, life on Earth is so complex and unlikely, it should not even exist. I agree with its removal. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, BatteryIncluded.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I originally forgot to sign my thanks, thus presumably violating the original formulation of Occam by multiplying my edits beyond necessity :) Tlhslobus (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, logic and biology seemingly must mix, and can't be mutually incompatible, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's actually logic and Occam that don't mix :) But unfortunately this is not the place for such a discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Feedback or better re-wording would be appreciated

We currently say: Viewed from Earth, Titan reaches an angular distance of about 20 Saturn radii (just over 1,200,000 kilometres (750,000 mi)) from Saturn and subtends a disk 0.8 arcseconds in diameter.

But the more precise position seems likely to be something like: Viewed from any distance (and whether from Earth or elsewhere), Titan reaches an angular distance of about 20 Saturn radii (just over 1,200,000 kilometres (750,000 mi)) from Saturn, and, viewed from Earth when at its closest to (or furthest from? or average distance from?) Saturn, subtends a disk 0.8 arcseconds in diameter.

However, it may well be that the subtended disk is always approximately 0.8 arcseconds because the Earth-Saturn distance doesn't vary all that much. And, even assuming that the new wording gets made technically correct (by sorting out the closest/average/furthest question), I'm not particularly comfortable with this new wording, which is arguably not particularly relevant, especially as the old wording wasn't necessarily wrong (though arguably confusing, misleading, or distracting - as it has clearly distracted me).

So I'd like at least the chance to hear other opinions or other wordings before deciding whether or not to make any change.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a little technical for general audiences and the introduction of the verb "reach" may imply some sort of movement; maybe "appears to reach" would be a better cue. I'd suggest linking "angular distance" to its article. Kortoso (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Planetary Lake Lander

Add to Proposed_or_conceptual_missions?

http://pll.seti.org/?page_id=5

The Planetary Lake Lander project that will develop an adaptive probe as well as exploration strategies to explore the lakes of Titan, while monitoring the impact of deglaciation on terrestrial lake habitat and biodiversity in the Chilean Andes. In turn, results from this investigation are expected to provide insights into habitability and life potential on Mars during similar geological periods when glaciers were still present at the surface.

- Kortoso (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Pulling back the smoggy veil by Cassini spacecraft

After 10 years endeavors of NASA's Cassini spacecraft, the surface of this giant moon has been appeared. Several regions of this giant moon have been shown. Desert like expanses of sand dunes, hydrocarbon seas have been observed. Many photos have been taken as well. Please refer to this website for more information: [2] MansourJE (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Life is not possible very easily on Titan

Lot's of money were invested by NASA to seek for water on titan but life is not possible as we imagine on titan. Read more: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-life-saturn-moon-titan.html [Note/added s/: Mjesfahani (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2015‎ (UTC)]

Perhaps this could go in the life on Titan article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an important result and should definitely be mentioned. As for 'searching for water on Titan', that has to be a subsurface ocean that rather likely exists. On the deep-frozen surface water is an ice and as hard as rock. --JorisvS (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - interesting - yes - agreed - the noted news item seems worth a mention in the "Life on Titan" article - seems life is basically a chemical that can reproduce itself (if interested, my NYT comment) - this can begin, theoretically at least, with a single instance, somewhere in the Universe and, later (maybe much later?), be transported, by panspermia or related, to receptive host locations elsewhere to develop further - this seems most likely to me atm - the "primodial soup" as it were - is in the vastness of space itself somewhere, not locally - in this way - the host location itself is a secondary, and not a primary, starting point - otoh - life may begin locally, less likely imo, in a location in some de novo way (almost like spontaneous generation?) - and develop from there - seems some (much?) of our thinking about life on Earth - and life on Titan? - assumes such a local beginning - as before - this seems unlikely to me atm - nonetheless, the noted news item seems worth a mention in the "Life on Titan" article imo atm - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

References

If you must include that PhysOrg paper, then describe the extent/limit of their work: a hypothetical model of a membrane analog. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Mistake in surface gravity?

Surface gravity is currently listed as (0.14 g) (0.85 Moons), however it's very prominently stated in the intro text that "Titan's diameter is 50% larger than Earth's natural satellite, the Moon, and it is 80% more massive". Other details also state that Titan's volume is (3.3 Moons) and its mass is (1.829 Moons).

How can it have more mass than The Moon, yet have less surface gravity? Is this a mistake or is there some piece I'm missing here? Jack insomniac1911 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)