Talk:Rhea (moon)

message: Now the flyby has happened, someone with knowledge about this should update the page accordingly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.102.1 (talk • contribs) 
:The results of the flyby are in . MER-C 12:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flyby

message: Someone has vandalised this page. It should be repaired. 83.71.74.125 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed for now. Murghdisc. 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The geometric albedo of Rhea is around 0.65 and not what is written here!
Such very wrong albedo values can be found also in other articles about moons, e.g. Dione etc. Is it vandalism ?
Allgaeuer (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albedo values wrong  

message: ice's density is what, 0.92 - 0.93 g/cm³?--Mongreilf (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the temperature given, the ice density at the surface should be about 0.934 g/cm3. It will be somewhat higher in the center because of compression. Piperh (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "~75% water ice (density 1.000 g/cm³)." 

message: I've created an audio recording of the article for the Spoken Wikipedia project.  Please let me know if I've made any mistakes.  Thanks. --Mangst (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Wikipedia audio recording 

message: also available — kwami (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polar maps 

message: On the 24th of November 2016 at 01:35 hours editor 2604:2000:9907:7800:3c4e:c3b1:a35a:a69b stated in edit summary that Rhea is not fully differentiated claiming that this is stated in the Rhea article.  The text of the article actually states that Rhea is partially differentiated.  The source states that fully-differentiated structure cannot be ruled out.  So, the rational for his edit is false.  Editor 2604:2000:9907:7800:ecff:6804:58ea:ebbe at 17:07 hours on the same day continued to erroneously insist in edit summary that Rhea is not fully differentiated giving as support a web address that is a dead link.  The reliably published source that was removed is still available on the web.  If either of these IP editors (quite possibly the same person) cares to disagree with the disscussion up to this point, they are welcome.  Otherwise the
editing of these editors should be undone.  - Fartherred (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Ceres with an equatorial diameter of 952 kilometers is differentiated it would not seem unlikely that Rhea with and equatorial diameter of 1532 km would also be differentiated.  - Fartherred (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A subsurface ocean on Rhea 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rhea (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/20080310165512/http://www.planetary.org/news/2008/0306_A_Ringed_Moon_of_Saturn_Cassini.html to http://planetary.org/news/2008/0306_A_Ringed_Moon_of_Saturn_Cassini.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701090748/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/the-moon-rings-that-never-were.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/the-moon-rings-that-never-were.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831203603/http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/saturn/rhea.html to http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/saturn/rhea.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I found the opening paragraph a little hard to read. I had to read the second sentence four or five times before it dawned on my what it was saying. I read "It is the second smallest body in the Solar System—after dwarf planet Ceres—for which precise measurements have confirmed a shape consistent with hydrostatic equilibrium." to mean that Rhea is the second smallest body in the solar system. Oh and that precise measurements have been confirmed for Ceres which is the smallest body in the Solar System.
Suggest the sentence be changed to "It is the second smallest body in the Solar System for which precise measurements have confirmed a shape consistent with hydrostatic equilibrium, after dwarf planet Ceres.
or simply to
"It is the second smallest body in the Solar System for which precise measurements have confirmed a shape consistent with hydrostatic equilibrium."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.15.255.228 (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded it according to your first suggestion. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for rewording the opening paragraph 

message: I didn't want to change this, because I'm not certain I'm correct, but aren't all dwarf planets in hydrostatic equilibrium? Makemake and (225088) 2007 OR10 are both smaller than Rhea. The wikipedia page for the Moons of Uranus says the five major moons are massive enough to have reached hydrostatic equilibrium, so that would add Umbriel, Ariel, and Miranda to the list. Maybe I'm not seeing this clearly, so I'll leave it to those with more expertise to determine if this needs to be changed. Sarasotajoe (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The key word here is "confirmed". Makemake, etc. were only assumed to be HE (thus dwarf planets), because of their size. Subsequent study of Saturn's larger moons suggest that it is not a good assumption. Tbayboy (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently the intro writes "smallest body", not second-smallest. Hasn't Ceres been confirmed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium? 2001:4BC9:1F98:DC5D:71BB:9C78:8809:A65F (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Rhea's status as second-smallest body confirmed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium 

message: I was looking into adding a citation for " before the numbering scheme was frozen to prevent further confusion" in the Name section. Based on this note on the Moons of Saturn Page, the first nine moons of Saturn were labeled I - XI in roman numerals based on their distance from the planet. All subsequent moons are labeled based on when they received their permanent designation. This is what I believe the original author meant by frozen to prevent further confusion.
We could add a citation from the note on the Moons of Saturn page. However, based on how the paragraph is worded, we would need to add more information than just this sentence to clearly communicate the complete idea of how the moons of Saturn are labeled.
In my opinion, since this article deals only with the moon Rhea, it would be overkill to add complete information about the labeling of Saturn's moons in this section. It should (again, imo) instead be concerned about its own name/label alone. Hence, I propose the deletion of the phrase " before the numbering scheme was frozen to prevent further confusion". This information is not necessary for the present article.
I haven't done this edit as I am new! Just wanted to check before going ahead with it.
Ytib95 (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature of Labels for the Moons of Saturn