Talk:Hyperion (moon)

message: The main image looks like the one shown on the main Cassini page. Some of the other raw images that were returned a little later have higher resolution, like  and . Just a thought. kwami 01:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, those are better, thanks! (Man, this moon is weird-looking...) The Singing Badger 01:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your term 'sponge-like' captures it perfectly. It looks like what I'd expect a large comet nucleus to look like after large amounts had sublimated fast enough to cary any crust with them. Just bizarre. kwami 03:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, technically I would disaprove of the present image as the 'main' one because it's false-colour. But in practice, it's so gorgeous I'll let it stand. Let's look out for a true-colour one though. The Singing Badger 20:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  Right here  is an approximatly true color photo, but you'll probably have to ask him for permission before we use it. (Photos from NASA press releases are in the public domain, but modification, manipulation and other such things on that forum are that particular author's work. See this note:--Planetary 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I added a photo from a NASA relase, which is ok to use.--Planetary 21:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Nice. The Singing Badger 22:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Hi. I'm the author of the approx. true-color composite in reference 3 and was wondering if you're interested in replacing the primary false color view with my version. Note that I've tweaked it a bit from the version found on UMSF, a more accurate version can be found here . Ugo 09:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say keep the current infobox image and toss out the third image, which appears to be virtually identical, except rotated, smaller, and grayscale.  "True color" is only so in a human-subjective sense, and I don't see any significant added value to justify the bandwidth of the other image; just let people go to the links if they want to see what it looks like in colors visible to the average human. --Scott McNay 05:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Yes, I guess I am being a bit of a jerk, but that's why we have talk pages, so editors can express opinions without inflicting them upon readers. :)  --Scott McNay 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: 'that is, its axis of rotation zupalates so much'
Is this a real term? if so a ref to it's meaning would be useful. Google, Wikipedia and Wiktionary come up empty. --Shoka 20:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: zupalates

message: If Hyperion was orbiting the Sun, it would be a failed dwarf planet candidate, demonstarting some of the issues with having an average diameter less than 300km.  But I notice (ref 5) is showing it to be 410 km x 260 x 220 (geometric mean 286km) while the article shows it to be 360 × 280 km × 225 (geometric mean 283).  Does someone know which dimensions are more current? -- Kheider (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See , which gives dimensions (328 x 260 x 214) km and average radius 133 ± 8 km. See also , which gives for average radius 135 ± 4 km. Ruslik_Zero 17:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Orbiting the Sun

message: I've just uploaded an audio recording of the article. Please let me know if I've mispronounced anything. :-) --Mangst (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Wikipedia recording 

message: "Hyperion is one of the largest highly irregular (non-spherical) bodies in the solar system (second to Proteus)." This doesn't sound right. Haumea is non-spherical, but much larger. Should probably say moons instead of bodies, but I don't know if that's true either. melikamp (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Haumea is regular, it just bulges a lot. Would you call Vega an irregular star as well? 80.101.212.102 (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Shape

message: Good afternoon. I was looking at the Hyperion article and noticed it was out of date. There already is a reference that Hyperion was most likely a fragment of a larger body, and I wanted to add to that. Judging from the size of Hyperion, it is most likely a crustal fragment of the original moon which was probably the size of Dione or Rhea. The spongy terrain is the underside of Hyperion's crust. It is caused by the sudden decompression of the moon's core due to the impact event which destroyed the original Hyperion. 
The impactor was most likely a Phoebe-type centaur. Although Phoebe is smaller than Hyperion, it has almost twice its mass, and is believed be composed of almost 50% rock. An object the size of Phoebe,traveling at supersonic speed, could easily destroy a moon the size of Dione or Rhea. 
In November of 2010 the Cassini orbiter imaged the opposite side of Hyperion from a distance of 73000 km. This area contains many craters that are similar to those found on the other icy moons of Saturn. This terrain is not only most likely all that is left of the original surface of Hyperion, but may also contain the antipole of the impact event.
The debris from Hyperion's destruction can easily explain the "equatorial ridge" found on Iapetus, and may also explain how Titan's surface and atmosphere came into existence. The latter can be explained by the combination of Hyperion's debris with the debris of the impactor, which if it was similar to Phoebe, would have had a large percentage of CO2 and other materials.
All this would put Hyperion's orginal semi-major axis at 2 milliom km, with Iapetus orginally at 3 million km. The loss of Hyperion's mass would draw the fragment nearer to Titan, and cause Iapetus' orbit to change to its present dimensions.
This is how NASA and the IAU are going to describe the creation of Hyperion eventually. They don't know it yet, but they are. Any feedback is welcome, thank you. And please, if they have not said it yet, someone give me credit when they do!  Triton66 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any references for your statement, "Hyperion is most likely a fragment of a much larger, Dione-sized moon that once orbited between Titan and Iapetus early in the Saturn-Titan system formation"?  You need to be careful when ruling out an oblique impact event on your proto-Hyperion. Claiming that proto-Hyperion may have been 1000km in diameter would be much more appropriate. Your statement would need a reliable reference that says proto-Hyperion was most likely Dione-sized (1100km). -- Kheider (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  proto-Hyperion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hyperion (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/20060529165828/http://home.gwi.net/~pluto/mpecs/ss07.htm to http://home.gwi.net/~pluto/mpecs/ss07.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041103232700/http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sat_Hyperion&Display=Facts&System=Metric to http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sat_Hyperion&Display=Facts&System=Metric
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) 14:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :
A layman like me, on the other hand, might foolishly think the unusually low density is a result of the porosity. —Tamfang (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  the cart and the horse 

message: New Horizons data did not support the proposal that Styx and Nyx are tumbling. 98.10.43.6 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniqueness of Tumbling