Talk:Triton (moon)/Archive 1

Archive 1

I dispute the sentence

One day it will approach Neptune's Roche limit and it will be torn apart by tidal forces, forming a spectacular planetary ring system much like Saturn's.

The zero-strength Roche limit for Triton is only 28600 km, by my quick computation. This is only ~4000 km above Neptune cloud tops. And, Triton won't break up at the Roche limit --- it has some internal strength. So, it seems likely to me that Triton will eventually run into Neptune's atmosphere, get atomspheric drag, and smash into Neptune: the mother of all impact events.

Am I off-base here? Comments? -- hike395 18:05, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are a bit off base. For a body the size and mass of triton atmospheric drag is irrelevant. It will definetly help in breaking loose the upper layers of triton, but over a long period of time and only as a bonus to tidal breaking. The "impact" will probably last thousands of years until triton is completly destroyed. During that time Neptune's atmosphere will be hot, probably red-hot. It will be quite a show, but it won't be a huge impact event.

Rnbc -- 2005 December 20

Ain't both tidal braking and (more influental at later stages) atmospheric drag effects rise exponentially? If so, even a large body like Triton will deorbit relatively quickly (a few years to few tens of years once drag becomes observable (bolide phase)).

Tilt isn't Obliquity

There is a widespread error that seems to have propagated slowly through the various Wikipedias: whoever first entered the physical characteristics of the various moons misunderstood the meaning of "Tilt" in the JPL Solar System Dynamics tables (there is no doubt that this is where the figures came from, as the digits are/were identical).

A careful reading of the aforementioned pages reveals the Tilt is the angle between the local Laplace plane and the primary's equatorial plane. It has nothing to do with the moon's Obliquity (which would be the angle between its axis of rotation and the normal to its orbital plane). By definition, any moon in synchronous rotation has an obliquity of zero, which is why I twigged to this mistake the first time.

This is why I've been deleting these entries as I go. (I just hope I won't have to repeat this comment for every moon article...)

Urhixidur 04:37, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

Please don't delete the row itself from the table; it's part of the standard template over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical Objects. Instead, either put the correct value in there, or leave the data cell blank. Bryan 04:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tidal Heating?

Whoever wrote about tidal heating seems off base. Triton's eccentricity is zilch, there are no other major moons around, and its orbit's tilt with respect to the local Laplace plane is a mere 0.511°. Any tidal heating is only going to come from the very small libration this tilt introduces. Sources, please?

Urhixidur 15:24, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Whoops... sorry. I am a "fan" of astronomy, but by no means an expert. I had simply been surprised that the article had no mention of the fact that Triton is sometimes put forward as a "candidate" for life outside of Earth. I knew that tidal heating is often mentioned in regard to Europa, and this article itself does in fact mention tidal heating, so I made a rather uneducated assumption. As I now reread the sentence where tidal heating is mentioned in this article, I understand it to mean that such heating may have occured long ago in Triton's history, shortly after its capture by Neptune.

Perhaps a whole section isn't even appropriate for this topic? A single sentence somewhere in the main flow of the article might be better, as the possibility of life on Neptune isn't actually considered to be all that likely. AdmN 04:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Only 100 million years left for Triton?

On June 13, 2004, 80.202.77.137 inserted the following statement into the Triton page:

Due to its retrograde motion, Triton's already-close orbit is slowly decaying further from tidal interactions, and it is predicted that in about 100 million years, it will be smashed by Neptunes gravitational field and end up as a gigantic ring around its mother planet.

100 million years is a pretty small time into the future in terms of postualted solar system history.

Hike395, earlier on, gave the Roche limit of Triton at 28600 km.

Check the Mean Orbital Radii of the following moons of Uranus:

Miranda - 129,390 km Ariel - 191,020 km Umbriel - 266,300 km Titania - 435,910 km Oberon - 583,520 km

The Mean Orbital Radius of Triton is now 354,800 km.

Can anyone provide links or references, to the exact figure of only a hundred million years left, for Triton?

-Edital Edital ZZ:ZZ, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

It's not right. See the paper [1]. Triton will be around either 1.8 or 3.6 Gyr, depending on its orbital state. hike395 15:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The mentioned paper is based old data, prior to the Voyager probe. Some assumptions are incorrect, some data is missing, the method might not be the most accurate by present standards. I've found far more mentions ranging from 10^7 to 10^8 years. I think this needs a specialist to come in our help. Rnbc 00:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Potential for life

This caption looks wildly speculative. Suggested by who? Any reference? Do we need speculations, especially in a fact article like this? Secondly, I'm not sure that Neptune's magnetic field is very dangerous. There are not much charged particles available and the magnetic field is not nearly as powerful as Jupiter's magnetic field. Please correct if I'm wrong. Thirdly, Triton is way too cold to support liquid water. There may be (and probably are) nitrogen etc. liquids, but not water. --Jyril 22:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of speculation lately about subsurface oceans of water, or a mixture of water or something else, in many of the satellites in the outer solar system. We suspect there probably is one under the surface of Europa from tidal heating; Galileo found evidence for an ocean in Callisto's interior as well. Typically, these oceans would be heated from tidal heating, or natural radioactivity from within, not from the Sun. For Triton and other bodies very far from the Sun, it is speculated that these would not be pure water oceans, but, for example, water mixed with ammonia, lowering the melting point. For example, see: [[2]] (Specifically about some evidence for an ocean under Triton). Or this abstract: [[3]] Or this BBC article: [[4]] And the reasoning goes, where there is liquid water, there could be life. As far as the magnetic field goes... I don't know how hostile Triton's surface is in that regard. Any life that exists now on Triton would be well underground, presumably shielded by kilometers of ice. However, it may have had implications for life if Triton was captured by Neptune, an event which could heat up the moon so much that it had surface oceans. The Reflection 06:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Life on Earth is based on carbon, but on Triton, life could be based on silicates.

I removed this sentence, because it looks way too speculative. Please add it back if you have a credible source for this.--Jyril 17:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The Portuguese sentence said that other scientific ideas say that although Earth's life is based on carbon, Triton's life, could be based on silicate compounds. Given that this very speculative, it is best to keep that out. I am just the translator...--Adam ^(talk) 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not see why silicate-based life is more likely on Triton than on any other body consisting mostly of silicates. I do not see how the low temperature on triton would help silicate life operate. Polonium 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

adjectival form

The adj. form 'Tritonic' in the OED suggests the demonym would be Tritonian. The n can be seen to be part of the root in the taxonomic family Tritonidæ as well. This is confirmed in Liddell & Scott's with the Greek genitive trītōnos and plural trītōnes. kwami 2005 June 30 07:59 (UTC)

improvements from the Portuguese version

I will add some information from the Portuguese featured article: pt:Tritão (satélite)--Adam ^(talk) 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made all the changes. Go ahead and review and correct. Perhaps this article can be brought up to featured status as the Portuguese one was.--Adam ^(talk) 14:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have a change becoming a featured article if it lacks references.--Jyril 00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Otherwise, it is good to see the geology section much better covered than before.--Jyril 01:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is trye'-tun intended to be pronounced? To me it looks like it's saying ['trajtun] or even ['trajtu:n]. What forms of English are there that actuall articulate the second vowel? As far as I know both Brits and Americans would pronounce the second syllable with just a syllabic [n].

Peter ^Isotalo 11:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why I prefer IPA, because it is not ambiguous. Of course, if the pronunciation depends on the form of English you're using, it is harder to justify one pronunciation over the other on a culturally neutral subject as this moon.--Jyril 12:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We've added schwa to the spelling pronunciations, so I changed that. Also linking to the key though the satellite template. kwami 19:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

But is it even a schwa? Isn't it pronounced like "button" with a syllabic nasal in both American and British English?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine, though it's a theoretical claim with a phonemic notation. I didn't want to make the transcription too narow. There's no phonemic distinction between schwa-C and C as far as I know, so people would automatically make the /n/ syllabic. The IPA-for-English usage in Wikipedia adds lots of schwas that I would never use in transcribing my own pronunciation, and I was trying to maintain some consistancy with that, but go ahead make it syllabic if you like. kwami 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right. Phonemic is better for English. I was just curious whether any dialects actually pronounce that second vowel.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think some Caribbean dialects might, but I don't know for sure. kwami 17:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

11% ammonium in Earth's moon?

The article states that 'The Earth's Moon contains approximately 11% ammonium'. I have never heard about that before, and there is no mention about it on the Moon page. What is the source of that information, and is it correct? I find that hard to believe, unless it is buried somewhere below the surface, because I guess it would evaporate quickly. (Oliver)

• Sorry- incorrect translation (From Portuguese, where much of the text came from)- I was sleepy when I did it. I will take care of it. That sentence should read: Triton is very bright, reflecting 60-95 % of the sunlight that reaches it while Earth's moon reflects only 11%. I don't even remember putting in that it contained ammonium, but in short I will replace that sentence.--Adam ^(talk) 03:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the word you were looking for was "albedo"?--Syd Henderson 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced article

I think this article is already a pretty good one, but it is almost devoid of references. Please provide them.--Jyril 20:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, is it really necessary to ask for a citation of the comparison of Triton's surface area compared to Earth? You can calculate this by hand in a few seconds if you know Triton's and Earth's radii.--Syd Henderson 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Tidying up the "History of observation and exploration" section

I've just been tidying up the "History of observation and exploration" section, and as I'm not an expert in this area, there are a couple of things that the experts here might want to review:

The original text read: "Lassell started to search for the satellites and discovered Triton eight days after beginning to search, on 10 October, 1846, only 17 days after having discovered the planet Neptune. Even though Neptune has rings, they were so faint and dark that what Lassell saw was probably an illusion. " implying that Lassell claimed to have observed rings, but failing to state this. I have taken the liberty of stating the implication, since it clearly reads better, but if this is factually incorrect, than please remove.

I've expanded "and it is very inclined" (the orbit) to try and make it a bit clearer, however I fear I may still have failed to be sufficiently accurate in my terminology. Again expert review would be appreciated.

Have removed "and it was decided to overfly the moon even if it affected the trajectory of Voyager 2." as it's irrelevant.

Couldn't make anything of "Even though the properties of Triton had been defined almost correctly in the 19th Century, little was known about Triton until Voyager 2 arrived at the end of the 20th Century." - if anyone else wants to have a go or feels confident enough simply to delete it, be my guest.

"In the 1990s, different observations from Earth were made of the limb of Triton using the occultation of stars by Triton." Is 'limb' correct terminology or a mistranslation, and if the former, would an explanation be in order? --Brianpie 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Citations needed

Greetings. The text

Triton's surface area is 23 million km² (4.5% of Earth, or 15.5% of Earth's land area).

has been labelled "citation needed".

Known facts:

1. The surface area of Earth is known to be 5.10×10¹⁴ m².
2. Of Earth's surface area 29.2% is land (often approximated as ¼ = 25%).
3. Triton's mean diameter is known to be 2706.8±1.8 km.
4. The value for Triton's surface area quoted in the table is 2.3018×10¹³ m².

From these facts we can easily compute

1. 4.5% of "the surface area of Earth" equals 2.2950×10¹³ m².
2. 15.5% of "Earth's land area" equals 2.30826×10¹³ m².

What citation would be required?

Wikiborg 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The {{fact}} template referred to the unsourced geyser activity part. Fixed.--JyriL ^talk 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections needed

Magnetosphere, and interaction with Neptune's magnetosphere

interior

Serendi^podous 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Link #16: "TRITON, PLUTO, CENTAURS" isn't working for me. -- Kheider (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Serendi^podous 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these two articles should be included: [5] and [6]. Ruslik (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Added. I hope I'm reading them right. Seriously, I think I'm losing my touch with these things. Serendi^podous 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think so? Ruslik (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Geologically active moons

In the intro it states: "Triton is one of a number of geologically active moons in the Solar System." Should this be "Triton is one of the FEW moons KNOWN to be geologically active in the Solar System." Or should it simply say "Triton is one of a number of MOONS SUSPECTED TO BE geologically active in the Solar System." I think "FEW moons KNOWN" reads most accurate. The current lead makes it sound like a lot of moons are known to be recently active. -- Kheider (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it would be stretching the definition of suspected it say that Io is suspected of geological activity, so I would say known. Serendi^podous 00:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Capture image

If someone could create a free-to-use duplicate of this image from Nature, I think it would greatly benefit this article. Serendi^podous 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

GA passed

It is a good article and furfills all the requirements. Here are some suggestions if you are thinking for a future FA:

• I would add a short explanation after retrograde orbit, especially since it is in the second sentence.done
• the crust statement in teh intro should be referenced Triton consists of a crust of frozen nitrogen over an icy mantle believed to cover a substantial core of rock (probably containing metal). done
• the word tenous in the last sentence of the intro is very vague.

Why is it vague?

How tenous? Compare it to something or give the exact pressure.Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

done

• retrograde motion as proof of capturing of a Kuiper belt object.latter scenario is the least likely with Triton and it is therefore .. is confusing. why is it least likely? (mass?)

Can't read the source. Need someone with full access to the site (university computer)

done

• would be useful if image captions would include year and mission that took those pictures.

There has only ever been one mission to Triton; Voyager 2 in 1989. All the pictures on this page are from that mission.

There are no pictures taken from Hubble or anything else? Seems strange since it is one of the biggest moons. Nergaal (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's this. Not sure if it adds much though. Serendi^podous 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Triton in popular culture section? (or maybe it is not the case)

Popular culture sections are being annihilated across Wikipedia. No point in introducing another one.

• The article might be underlinked. I added a few links myself.
• There is a lot of technical information about the presence of water, but there is no statement about the significance of this presence. Anybody thought as using it for a base, or something like it?

Well, in general, the presence of liquid water suggests the possibility, however remote, of life. Serendi^podous 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Life ref added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipodous (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• As an overall impression: the article is very technical, which is very good. But the article might not be engaging enough for an FA. For GA is more than enough.

Hope it helped. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd wording

This theory has several notable advantages,... - weird. Wouldn't word it that way but I am stumped to think of an alternative. I know what you mean though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

replaced with this hypothesis is supported by several lines of evidence. Serendi^podous 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Calculated from other parameters

To improve the article, all the "Calculated from other parameters" cites could be updated to notes which give the exact calculation so that they could be confirmed by anyone else. For example, see Andromeda Galaxy Notes. WilliamKF (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

done. I think. Serendi^podous 20:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, how about this one too? It is also more massive than all the Solar System's 159 known smaller moons combined. WilliamKF (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Serendi^podous 08:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the "more massive than 159 smaller moons" is a strange and pointless statistic. If it was more massive than ALL other moons combined then you'd have something worth mentioning, but otherwise this is just begging to be misread. 7th most massive is plenty. So says this random guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.118.74 (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Translated Portuguese FA article

Here is a Google link to the Portuguese FA translated:

Triton from Portuguese

Maybe we can benefit from this version of the article to improve this one? WilliamKF (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This article already had much translated material from the Portuguese article in it. I spent over a week cleaning it up. None of the material was sourced, and some was apparently unsourceable. I've tried to contact the person who I believe wrote most of the Portuguese article to determine his sources, but he hasn't responded. Serendi^podous 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cause of volcanos appear contradictory

First the article states:

This volcanic activity is thought to be driven by seasonal heating from the Sun, unlike the tidal heating responsible for the volcanoes of Io.[27]

But later it seems to contradict:

This volcanic activity could be related to tidal heating from when Triton was captured by Neptune, similar to the way in which volcanoes on Io are powered today.[35]

This needs to be looked into and the apparent contradiction resolved.

WilliamKF (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote it -may have been me, I don't remember :0) - misread the source. I located the original source quoted in the ref and it didn't mention tidal heating. Serendi^podous 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite pages

I just noticed that recent changes did things like this:

165-166 to instead be 165–66 (also changes a - to be –)

Just want to make sure this is intentional and if so what is the rule, why not instead 165–6?

WilliamKF (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving pronunciation to talk page

(/ˈtraɪtən/ trye'-tən, or as Greek Τρίτων),

Note: dictionary.reference.com gives /ˈtraɪtɒn/ for the IPA pronunciation, which (superficially at least) appears different from this (to a non-IPA-expert like me). It'd be good to have a reference citation.—RJH (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That pronunciation refers to a subatomic particle related to Tritium. All subatomic particles are pronounced with the "-on" strongly enunciated (viz. "Proton" "neutron"). The mythological pronunciation, which is the one we're after, is below the advertising, and uses " /ˈtraɪtn/", with the second syllable clipped. However, dictionary.com uses a different IPA than standard, which employs a distinct letter, ə, to represent the schwa, rather than omitting a letter, as dictionary.com does. Serendi^podous 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you check dictionary.com, you'll get both. It's common for unstressed English vowels to be reduced, and in this case I've never heard it not reduced. kwami (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then I'll use dictionary.com as a source, but keep the schwa. Serendi^podous 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. How does this help? If it doesn't match then the reference is just specious, and somebody is liable to come along, catch the difference and then correct it.—RJH (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK fine. Schwa dropped. Though now it just looks weird. Serendi^podous 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And now it disagrees with the help key that it is linked to. kwami (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the FAC

Just noticed today. I still think this needs a ce (eek!).

That the orbital properties were nearly completely known in the 19th century doesn't really jibe with discovering a retrograde orbit in 1930. Marskell (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what was determined in 1930 wasn't the orbit of Triton, which was already known, but the direction of rotation of Neptune. I haven't been able to locate a source that goes into this in any detail though. Serendi^podous 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, although it jangles.

That Voyager only imaged 40% of the surface definitely needs to be moved up; indeed, I think it could be mentioned in the lead. You wouldn't have to do it at every mention, but "surface imaged so far" or similar could be subsituted for "surface" in handful of places to remind the reader. Marskell (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't think it needs to be in the lead, but it should be mentioned in the first para of "Surface features". Serendi^podous 08:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cryovolcanism and Geysers

I am currently working on Geyser and i would like to know whether inclusion on the so - called geysers on Triton should be included in the Geyser article. There is already one section on it. I wanted to know whether it is appropriate or not. Reply awaited. Thank you. Indianescence (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we don't know the mechanism, we can't say how similar they are to geysers on Earth. But then we call Titan a moon, even though it isn't the Moon, and doesn't even resemble it. These names are just a matter of convention. I'm not sure they'd be cryovolcanos either, so then where do we put them? kwami (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if they weren't geysers, then they would be cryovolcanoes. Serendi^podous 08:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So ultimately what is the discussion. These cryovolcanoes are geysers or not? I think they will suit the article Cryovolcano than geyser. Any opinions? Indianescence (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

IN GEOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGY-
GEYSER is defined as a hot spring characterized by intermittent discharge of water ejected turbulently and accomplished by a vapor phase.
since the geyser LIKE structures on triton erupts nitrogen and not water it no longer remains a geyser technically. geyser is completely based upon the concept of hydraulic circulation due to geothermal energy. i would like to suggest that the term geyser should be replaced by geyser like structures in this very article and the section on geysers on triton on geyser page needs to be discussed. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a terrestrial definition with no consideration given to anything elso. The question is how similar two phenomena have to be to be included under one label. If you have the same mechanism involving a different fluid, would that not also be a geyser? kwami (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, if we are dealing with an eruption of cryomagma, (ie if the material ejected from the crust is identical with the fluid within the mantle), then it is a cryovolcano. If the fluid is simply a pool of liquid within the crust that is heated by magma below and then erupts, it is a geyser. Triton is mostly water and rock, so its cryomantle is probably made of water. Nitrogen is far more volatile than water and so needs to be a lot colder to stay liquid. Given that, I'd say they are geysers. Serendi^podous 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow this link please they have termed those mounds as nitrogen geysers. if you guys want the section on geysers on triton then please use this as your source. and please term it as nitrogen geyser and not just geyser. the concept of the plumbing system and the intense heat source of the geysers have been considered in the article though water itself plays a vital component. anyway i think i have made my justification. Sushant gupta (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but among these technical talk, i failed to locate the final decision. Lets have a voting here. Geysers on Triton should be included in the article or not? Indianescence (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cryovolcanism would be the most general term that doesn't necessarily imply any mechanism for creation, unlike geyser. Another possibility would be Plumes on Triton, which is again general. Volcanopele (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

i would say, have Nitrogen geysers on triton as the subsection in place of geysers of triton. geysers on triton follow the general mechanism of geyser but don't have water as its component. Sushant gupta (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cryovulcanism, though perhaps general, has connotations of water lava. I prefer geyser, and of course nitrogen geyser at least the first time to disambiguate, though not necessarily in the section header. kwami (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nitrogen geysers, I guess, maybe, but again that implies processes that aren't known at this point (same argument goes for why the word geyser shouldn't be used to for the Enceladus plume(s)). Cryovolcanism doesn't imply water lava, it can involve both explosive (which is the case here), intrusive, or effusive (cryolava if you will) processes and can involve water, nitrogen, methane, etc. The problem I point out is that new studies by Schenk et al., which suggest that Triton's surface is very young (< 5 million years old) indicating that the plumes might be related to internal volcanic processes. So I would call the section Cryovolcanism and refer to the features as Plumes. Volcanopele (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't claim that cryovolcanism could only involve water. I suggested that it most likely involved water on Triton, since Triton's interior is mostly water/rock. Since nitrogen is far more volatile than water, it seemed more likely to me that nitrogen plumes would be geysers, rather than volcanoes in the classical sense, otherwise Triton's cryomantle would be composed of liquid nitrogen. Serendi^podous 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

atm. pressure

the info box states that the atm. P ranges up to 9kP. I assume what was meant was that the last digit of the pressure is estimated between 4 and 9, but don't want to change it w/o knowing. kwami (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It states that the pressure is between 0.0014 and 0.0019 kPa or 14–19 μBar. Ruslik (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will fix. kwami (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Physical Characteristics

The article states: "Triton is the seventh largest moon in the Solar System and is larger than the dwarf planets Pluto and Eris. It is also more massive than all the Solar System's 159 known smaller moons combined." I find the second sentence to be ambiguous. Which moons are on that list of 159, and which moons are excluded? Is the sentence supposed to say " ...than all the Solar System's 159 known moons smaller than Triton combined."? If so, that is a surprising statistic. You can read the original sentence that way, but you can also read it to mean that there is a list somewhere of 159 "smaller moons" in the solar system, smaller than a certain limit, e.g., smaller than Mimas. Also, does the sentence refer only to moons orbiting planets, or does it include asteroid moons and TNO moons? Can someone (who knows the answer) please clear that up. Rodney420 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

It means all moons smaller than Triton. As for asteroid moons, there are only a few dozen known, and if you mushed them together they wouldn't make more than a speck. Serendi^podous 21:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, and the edit... It does clear things up a lot, especially about the mass, but I'm going to get a little bit nitpicky on the number 159, so please bear with me. Certainly that sentence is worth keeping in the article: It's interesting, and amazing to me, that Triton is more massive than all moons smaller than itself, considering the smaller moons include fairly large ones like Rhea, Iapetus, Dione, Tethys, Titania, Oberon, etc., etc. And I agree that asteroid moons are neglible in mass. However the number 159 still seems unclear. You're saying the 159 does not include asteroid moons I take it. Does it include Charon? What about Dysnomia, Hi'aka, S/2005(90482)1, and other TNO moons? I'm assuming that even if no, the additional mass of those moons does not invalidate the statement overall, but maybe the number 159 itself could be better qualified ( e.g. "moons of the 8 major planets", or "moons of the major and dwarf planets" ) or just dropped altogether? After all, new tiny moons are discovered with regularity these days, and 159 is bound to change soon anyway. Rodney420 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

Yes, it includes Charon. I can't remember if I factored Dysnomia, Hi'iaka and Namaka into my calculations when I did the initial count, but those moons are so tiny it hardly matters anyway. EDIT: I removed the number. It's likely to date, even if that fact is not. Serendi^podous 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that calculation was based off of the JPL's Planetary Satellite Physical Parameters list of moons that includes the "9 planets". This would include 1 Earth, 2 Mars, 61 (38+23) Jup, 49 (31+18) Sat, 24 Uran, 13 Nept, and 3 Pluto. There are other small moons but they are negligible when compared to Triton. There are also about 180 asteroids known to have moons. -- Kheider (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Solid-state convection

This sentence makes no sense:

There is enough rock in Triton's interior for solid-state convection to be occurring within its mantle, powered by radioactive decay.

There is no such thing as solid state convection. The convection, if it occurs, occurs in the fluid mantle. The heat powering the convection comes from the rocky core. I reworded the sentence as follows:

There is enough rock in Triton's interior for radioactive decay to power convection in the mantle.

--Fartherred (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you're wrong about solid state convection Serendi^podous 13:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Atmospheric pressure

I do not find 1/70,000th of Earth's atmosphere at sea level in the reference given. The average of the range of atmospheric pressure given in Pascals is 1.65, or about 1/61,000th of Earth's atmosphere at sea level. 1.4 Pa corresponds to 1/72,000th Atm. and 1.9 Pa corresponds to 1/53,000th Atm. The reference for 1/70,000th Atm. may be out of date and could be dropped, along with the fractional representation in two places. --Fartherred (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference added for binary Kuiper Belt Objects

It does not seem to me that the reference I added on the 17th of September supports exactly what is stated in the text, but I am not expert enough to know if it is an adequate reference. It is not dead like the one that H3llBot marked. --Fartherred (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolute Magnitude

This page lists the absolute magnitude of Triton in H to be -1.2 -- this is clearly wrong, as it is brighter than the Sun's absolute magnitude. Using the apparent magnitude given (which I assume to be bolometric), I estimate M ~ 38. 129.49.95.14 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)MZ

looking closer, H is not H band, but a different definition of absolute magnitude. Confusing at first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.95.14 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Solar system bodies (H) are not measured the same way as stars (M). Absolute magnitude (H) is also very different from apparent magnitude (m). -- Kheider (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency between this article and Atmosphere of Triton

This article states "Unlike other atmospheres, Triton's has no stratosphere..."; the article Atmosphere of Triton says "There is a pronounced stratosphere...". I don't have the sources to know which statement is correct. M bodenhamer (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Triton is the second largest moon of the planet Neptune..."

The first sentence seems to be factually incorrect. Triton is Neptune's largest moon, isn't it?

"Triton is the second largest moon of the planet Neptune..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.37.18 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Too much comes from one source

should have a variety of sources, not just the opinion of one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manny may (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate it when this happens

a fly-by-night editor posts some potentially useful info with a malformed source, and I'm not even sure if the source itself is valid, but of course I can't ask him because he never comes back.

"In fact, because other large moons in the solar system orbit more or less in their planets' equatorial planes, astronomers thought for many decades that the same was the case for Neptune, and that its axial tilt was similarly oblique and upside-down, especially given that Uranus really does have a similar strange tilt.<ref>Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1929 edition</ref>"

Of course this citation needs a publisher and (more importantly) a page and volume number, but is citing another encyclopedia valid anyway? I have no idea. It would also need to clarify whether the encyclopedia is actually saying that particular fact, or if it is saying that Neptune orbits upside down and the editor is therefore inferring that particular fact from that. Serendi^podous 05:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Tidal heating during eccentric phase

It says "Triton's eccentric post-capture orbit would have also resulted in tidal heating of its interior, which would have kept Triton liquid for a billion years". But wouldn't Triton still have had a solid surface the entire time? And what about the possibility of there still existing liquid water below Triton's surface? --JorisvS (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Captured what?

Captured KBO, captured asteroid, captured moon have all been used to describe it. But how about "captured dwarf planet". That is clearly what it is, how can it not be the same class of object as Pluto when it's virtually identical to it? Who knows, one of the other dwarf planets out there might have been Triton's Charon. Walshie79 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Like our Moon, Triton was a dwarf planet until it entered into orbit around Neptune. Moons are not currently accepted as planets. -- Kheider (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The predominant theory is thay the Moon formed in orbit around Earth after the impact of Theia, which means that the Moon never was a (dwarf) planet (and it is actually big enough to clear its orbit were it in direct solar orbit here, so it would have been a major planet). --JorisvS (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Debatable. Dwarf planet Theia failed to clear Earth from its orbit. -- Kheider (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, proto-Earth and Theia had to have been in a co-orbital relationship for Theia to become as big as Mars and to later be able to only barely hit Earth. Now, co-orbitals have to be considered with care with regard to clearing their orbit, it is actually a special case of clearing its orbit. Two gas giants can be in stable, crossing orbits if they are in a mean-motion resonance (e.g. 1:2), but this hardly means that one or both are not planets. (Similarly, Pluto is dwarf planet not because of its orbital resonance with Neptune, but all the other KBOs around its orbit.) A 1:1 mean-motion resonance is also possible. Janus and Epimetheus are in a stable exchange-a co-orbital configuration. If, for example, Venus and Earth were in such a configuration, it would again be unreasonable that this would preclude them from planethood, because each still clears its orbit, just like with those gas giants. Trojans are a little trickier. Having them is again simply a matter of a special case of clearing its orbit, with the Jupiter and Neptune trojans as examples in point. However, trojans can only have up to ~1/25th the mass of the heavier orbit before their orbits become unstable, but this does not appear to say much about their planethood. Were the Moon (with a mass less than Theia's) in solar orbit, its Λ would be 23.2 (k = 0.0043 for units of 10²¹ kg and AU), and as Soter states "A heliocentric body with Λ > 1 has cleared a substantial fraction of small bodies out of its orbital neighborhood"[7]. --JorisvS (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Orbital distance

The infobox should have the Periapsis and Apoapsis of Triton, that's pretty useful information even if it has a small eccentricity. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm blind as a bat. —Atvelonis (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)