Talk:Titan (moon)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

NASA has just funded seven far-out space-exploration concepts, including a submarine that would explore the hydrocarbon seas of Saturn's huge moon Titan, an origami energy reflector and rapid space transit with an electric sail.

All of the proposals, including the one for the Titan submarine, have been awarded funding under Phase II of the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts program, or NIAC.

Titan Submarine (Steven Oleson, NASA Glenn Research Center):A submarine, incorporating the latest research into cryogenic engineering and data on Saturn's moon Titan, would probe deep beneath Titan's largest sea, Kraken Mare.

http://www.space.com/29953-titan-submarine-nasa-niac-proposals.html

Primary source: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/titan-submarine-exploring-the-depths-of-kraken-mare

Kortoso (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2015 (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)

Only natural satellite with a dense atmosphere?

This article states that Titan is the only known natural satellite with a dense atmosphere. When I click on the link to 'natural satellite', I am told that moons (because they orbit planets) and planets (because they orbit stars) are 'natural satellites'.

So what's the deal? Is the article wrong about Titan being the only such body, and should be changed to say the only *moon*, or is the definition of 'natural satellite' in the other article wrong? I'm fairly certain Earth and Venus qualify as having 'dense atmospheres', and if they don't the gas giant worlds obviously do. I don't have the qualifications to know what the right answer is, but clearly something is messed up. 74.75.153.248 (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The article makes it abundantly clear in the first lines that a natural satellite is defined as orbiting a planet. Where did you find the rest of your statement? Double sharp (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the word "moon" is used scientifically to refer to only one natural satellite: the one that orbits the earth. Colloquially, of course, a "moon" can refer to a natural satellite that orbits another planet. If you can think of a way to enhance clarity, by all means, be bold.

Kortoso (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2016 (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))

Four years later--does anyone have an answer to this good question? Loraof (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Why would that simple multiplication be an accurate calculation? --JorisvS (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Your response doesn't answer the question--could you explain what additional factors are involved? I'm not an astrophysicist, although the original poster @Oleksiy.golubov: identifies himself as one on his user page, so I take him seriously. His simple multiplication seems plausible to my untrained mind: the amount of mass pressing down on the surface times the surface gravity equals the weight. Is it wrong to say that the surface pressure is not proportional to the weight? Loraof (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have all the answers, but without an explanation, it doesn't look all too credible to me. That's why I responded like that, to get more information about it. I do know that I have never heard anyone say Titan's surface pressure is roughly that of Earth, and hence I suspect that the calculation is wrong or oversimplifies things. --JorisvS (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I found this in Surface pressure:

Pressure (P), mass (m), and the acceleration due to gravity (g), are related by P = F/A = (m*g)/A, where A is surface area. Atmospheric pressure is thus proportional to the weight per unit area of the atmospheric mass above that location.

So the OP's calculations appear to be correctly done, given the inputs. Yet the original source confirms the (contradictory) numbers in our article for pressure, air mass, surface area, and surface gravity. I guess maybe there's a typo in one of the numbers in the source—I don't see how else to explain the discrepancy. Loraof (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe the formula is an oversimplification. I can easily imagine that the cloud deck cases a discontinuity in the pressure profile. The total mass per surface area is rather the integration over the mass profile of the atmosphere, which, in turn, is directly related to the local pressure and temperature via the ideal gas law (to good approximation). --JorisvS (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS:, it doesn't help. I'm speaking of the most basic definition of pressure, P=F/S, and the expression of gravity force, F=mg. Whatever the gas law, the clouds, the composition, - nothing matters. Well, I can propose some mechanisms that will crash my argument, but they all are too exotic. (We must get forces additional to mg. Either centrifugal forces of rapidly rotating atmosphere, or alteration of g with height in a too thick atmosphere. Or we are outside equilibrium because the atmosphere is rapidly evaporating... Problems with averaging of these formulae due to height alterations are also possible, but very improbable as variations of height on Titan are minuscule.) I don't know what is wrong. The origin of the contradiction lies in Table 5.1 in p. 130 in Coustenis. We might want to check the mass of the atmosphere indicated in the table from independent sources. Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Oleksiy.golubov: "Nothing matters"? Seriously? Of course it does. We don't need additional forces at or around the surface to create a deviation from your simple calculation. Planetary atmospheres are not in equilibrium. They are only irradiated half the time and there is differential heating with height due to inhomogenities in composition (e.g. the ozone layer with on Earth, Titan's cloud deck). Figure 5.2 on p. 132 shows that the pressure does not fall off exponentially with height, which is something your simple calculation does assume. I don't know if that's sufficient to explain the inconsistency, but it does show that we need a more sophisticated way of determining whether there is an inconsistency. --JorisvS (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@JorisvS:, seriously, nothing matters. I don't assume exponential density profile. Nor homogeneous composition. It's like when you are standing on weighing scales: you know your mass, you know the surface area of the scales, thus you know the pressure experienced by the scales. All your arguments sound like "You can't know the pressure for sure. It doesn't depend solely on your mass. It depends also on how tall you are an what material your body is composed of". Even if there were vertical motions of the atmosphere (which are by far negligible as |dv/dt| << g), it would be like you jumping on the scales: the mean weight <F> indicated by the scales stays the same, as <F>-mg = <dp/dt> = 0 (p is momentum). Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, your analogy is flawed. It is not about vertical motions in the atmosphere. We're talking about the mass of the atmosphere, which always is the mass in every piece of volume of atmosphere (i.e. density) summed (i.e. integrated) over the relevant volume. And if the density profile deviates from what would be expected from hydrostatic equilibrium, then so would the total mass. However, looking more closely at our source makes it ugly: The surface pressure was measured directly (p. 130) and the total mass of the atmosphere "determined from surface pressure and acceleration due to gravity". They do give the note that "the average conditions are a very complex derivative of these basic parameters, ...". The first part strongly suggests that they simply have made a mistake, but the note seems to suggest that maybe their stated total mass is correct after all, but without any explanation why. Either way, this should definitely be investigated more closely.

In Figure 1 of [3], at low altitudes the pressure can be seen to increase more rapidly than the trend at high altitudes (or should this rather say "at high altitudes the pressure can be seen to decrease less rapidly than at low altitudes"?). Maybe this hints at that the used "average conditions" (ahum; if so this would be a misnomer) from the note deviate quite a bit from the basic parameters (which, of course, we are using). Information on this appears to be rather sparse. Maybe we should contact the authors and ask them about this? --JorisvS (talk) 18:01, 23 November 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)

See surface gravity for explanation. Ruslik_Zero 20:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The surface gravity is indeed correct based on the provided values, using g=m/r², and the values are correct. I would assume, based on the values, that since radius is also used in calculating this, that since Titan may have a higher mass than the Moon, it still has a larger volume. As a result, it has a lower surface gravity. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that atmosphere density, altitude and gravity cohefficient play a role in that too, so I'd like to see a reference if changed. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Atmospheric density is irrelevant. Altitude is always zero at the surface, where surface gravity is measured. As @Exoplanetaryscience: says, the formula is surface gravity = body's mass divided by the square of the body's radius. Thus (with rounding error) with all variables measured relative to the Moon's values, Titan's surface gravity relative to Moon = 1.8 Moon masses ÷ (1.5 Moon radii)² = 0.8, which up to rounding error is the value given in the article. Loraof (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The intuition is that, while Titan is more massive than the Moon, Titan's surface is farther away from the center of gravity (the center of Titan) than is true on the Moon. These two considerations work in opposite directions. Loraof (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Ih"?

What is "I_h" in the following (in sub section Cryovolcanism and mountains)?

... may be caused by ice I_h ...

It is not explained. --Mortense (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is linked in Bulk characteristics. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Battery-NOT-included-in-his-brain removed my bit on PSCs without reading it. This is a talk page pal, not you personal back yard. I put in several mistakes which you did not spot. This article is in a tug of war between several idiots who have no real knowledge on the subject of gravity nor geophysical fluid dynamics. Probably time to report it.27.33.251.24 (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120824195338/http://astrobiology.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Icarus-2010-Strobel.pdf to http://astrobiology.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Icarus-2010-Strobel.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050308093058/http://www.lpl.arizona.edu:80/~kholso/ to http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~kholso/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100601170623/http://sos.noaa.gov/videos/Titan.mov to http://sos.noaa.gov/videos/Titan.mov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Polyimine

New paper mentions polyimine, which does exist, but has no Wiki article yet.

Citing experimental and observational data, the researchers note the abundance of hydrogen cyanide in Titan's atmosphere. This is a hydrogen-bonding molecule that may combine with other molecules on the surface to form polymers, including polyimine. Using quantum mechanical calculations, the scientists demonstrated that polyimine has electronic and structural properties at very cold temperatures that could potentially facilitate prebiotic chemistry in conditions like those on the surface of Titan, especially in tidal pools near the large seas.

The chemistry of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is believed to be central to the origin of life question. Contradictions between Cassini–Huygens mission measurements of the atmosphere and the surface of Saturn’s moon Titan suggest that HCN-based polymers may have formed on the surface from products of atmospheric chemistry. This makes Titan a valuable “natural laboratory” for exploring potential nonterrestrial forms of prebiotic chemistry. We have used theoretical calculations to investigate the chain conformations of polyimine (pI), a polymer identified as one major component of polymerized HCN in laboratory experiments. Thanks to its flexible backbone, the polymer can exist in several different polymorphs, which are relatively close in energy. The electronic and structural variability among them is extraordinary. The band gap changes over a 3-eV range when moving from a planar sheet-like structure to increasingly coiled conformations. The primary photon absorption is predicted to occur in a window of relative transparency in Titan’s atmosphere, indicating that pI could be photochemically active and drive chemistry on the surface. The thermodynamics for adding and removing HCN from pI under Titan conditions suggests that such dynamics is plausible, provided that catalysis or photochemistry is available to sufficiently lower reaction barriers. We speculate that the directionality of pI’s intermolecular and intramolecular =N–H…N hydrogen bonds may drive the formation of partially ordered structures, some of which may synergize with photon absorption and act catalytically. Future detailed studies on proposed mechanisms and the solubility and density of the polymers will aid in the design of future missions to Titan.

Is it any one of these:?

• Polyimide
• Polyamine
• Benzethonium_chloride

Kortoso (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably this entry instead;

• Imine

17:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Too many entries on the channels

A few editors have done entries on the liquid-filled channels, causing repetition on the information. If a main editor can consolidate this info it will be appreciated, otherwise I will delete the redundancies. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the availability of oxygen on Titan?

Looking for more sources relating to the availability of oxygen—atomic, molecular, or in combination with other elements like oxide silicates etc.—on Titan?

With a serious and funded program now underway to develop (at scale) some interplanetary transport technology, the Interplanetary Transport System currently under development by SpaceX, and with Musk having already mentioned potential missions to Enceladus, Europa, and Pluto, am wondering what raw materials might be available for obtaining oxygen on Titan? N2e (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

From the article: "Titan is primarily composed of water ice and rocky material". So, lots of oxygen. The other moons (and rings) are also largely water-ice, with less gravity, so Titan wouldn't be a prime target for water/oxygen. Water is everywhere past the main belt. Tbayboy (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Mountain names

According to JPL, "By convention, mountains on Titan are named for mountains from Middle-earth, the fictional setting in fantasy novels by J.R.R. Tolkien" (jpl.nasa.gov). I'm not sure where to put this little tidbit of information in the article, though. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It could go in the Titan (moon)#Cryovolcanism and mountains section. If there was a mapping paragraph, it could go there, but "mapping" does not exist here yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences at the end of that section. I notice that currently only a couple of features are mentioned, none of them mountains or hills. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ENGVAR

I noticed the article was written in a mixture of spelling dialects. This cannot be. Per this version it seems the article was written in American English. Per MOS:RETAIN it should therefore remain in this dialect unless a conscious decision was made to change it. --John (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead cites

Per WP:LEADCITE I moved cites out of the lead. --John (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a work around lead citations, you can use the WP:REFNAME citation tool, that basically automatically takes redundancies and keeps the citation number the same. Hope that helps.MaximusEditor (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

A "significant" atmosphere

"Titan is the only known moon with a significant atmosphere." What does that mean, a "significant atmosphere"? How high must the pressure be for an atmosphere to be significant? It is true that most moons only have a surface boundary exosphere at best, which can be ignored for most practical purposes. But Triton's atmosphere tells a different story. Its pressure of about 1.5 Pa is rather low, but at least measurable. It is dense enough for the nitrogen in it to behave like a gas. You can see the atmosphere at Triton's horizon. There are even clouds in it. Four things you can't say of the trace atoms surrounding our own Moon or Ganymede. I would definitely call that a significant atmosphere, however tenuous. Steinbach (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427110242/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/cassinifeatures/feature20070601f/ to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/cassinifeatures/feature20070601f/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629185640/http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-190 to http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-190
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/CCLunine1530402.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BMBVOZaS?url=http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/flybys/titan20100621/ to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/flybys/titan20100621/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/617Wd3C7v?url=http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/index.cfm to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/index.cfm
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67tgL2nVf?url=http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/workshops/titan2010/presentations/aharonson.pdf to http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/workshops/titan2010/presentations/aharonson.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311101403/http://blog.nasm.si.edu/2012/03/07/climate-change-in-the-solar-system/ to http://blog.nasm.si.edu/2012/03/07/climate-change-in-the-solar-system/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429204420/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features/feature20070129.cfm to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features/feature20070129.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161118221519/https://discovery.msfc.nasa.gov/news/index.cfml?ID=1034 to https://discovery.msfc.nasa.gov/news/index.cfml?ID=1034

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412005822/http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sat_Titan to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sat_Titan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5