Talk:Titan (moon)/Archive 1

message: (Doradus) Does it make sense to have a false-colour image as the image for this article?
:IMO, the "primary" image for a planet or moon should be as close to true-colour as possible. I recall there was a similar discussion over the image for Venus (planet) a while back, and while the current primary image isn't true-colour (it's in the ultraviolet, a true-colour image of Venus is pretty much featureless) it's still closer than the Magellan radar map that was there for a little while. Bryan 02:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the old image should be put back and the new false colour image should replace the older, low-quality one at the bottom which has now been superseded. I'd do it myself but I've got to go to work!! The Singing Badger 12:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: False-colour image

message: I couldn't find anything in the article about the interior of Titan- did I miss it, or have we missed it out?   This BBC report suggests that the interior is a rather exciting place: "However, models of Titan's interior show there should be an ocean about 100km deep at around 300km below the surface."  If the models are correct, this ocean would be composed mostly of liquid water with about 15% ammonia at a temperature of about -80C. Mark1 06:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think ESA and NASA has information about Titan's interior...yet.--puk 01:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interior 

message: Is the magnitude mentioned Apparent or Absolute? Just wondering...
The magnitude is apparent.  For the absolute magnitude (using the definition for planets, not stars), I get something around 3. The Reflection 04:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnitude 

message: Some useful sources for this article:
* http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-0703.html
* http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/titan.cfm
* http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/titan-atmosphere.cfm
* http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/titan-surface.cfm
* http://www.solarviews.com/eng/titan.htm (Is this a usable source?????)
* http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-Huygens/
Some more sources:
*http://huygensgcms.gsfc.nasa.gov/Titan.htm - physical data, mainly. 
 JesseW 22:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put it as a footnote from the table section headings.  Mozzerati 20:21, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
This article is no longer the biweekly special article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check.  In the two weeks that it was, this article got 22 references! -Frazzydee|✍ 18:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check]]

message: A positive consequence of referencing facts in an article is that it is easy to spot errors.  Below is a list of errors found by the Fact and Reference Check team.
*Saturni Luna: I believe that Titan was called Luna Saturni, and not Saturni Luna when first discovered.  There's a NASA site and a book reference on the article page.  There was one PDF file (titled 'mythology of titan') that claimed it was 'saturni luna', but a google search seems to show more for luna saturni.  Also, another NASA page writes it as Luna Saturni, and a published book also has it as Luna Saturni. I think it's fairly safe to say that Wikipedia was wrong, but please correct me if you disagree, because the answer is not completely clear. -Frazzydee|✍ 05:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: Some sources say  that Titan's atmosphere was "discovered by [Josep] Comas i Sola in the early 20th century", namely at 1908. Has somebody more info about this? --surueña 14:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
*I just worked on this article today for the Portuguese language :pt:Titã (satélite),and I used the English, Spanish and French wikipedias, and other sources: paper and internet. And the Spanish wikipedia was the only with that info - so I didn't include it. And I've investigated history, because there's not a lot (relevant). The English language article exaggerates on the Kuiper findings, although he appears a lot, but not with this importance. He discovered an atmosphere of Methane. Voyager discovered a dense atmosphere of nitrogen, it's different. This last reasoning is the one I used. BTW in the English article, there are many facts contradicting facts (lakes namely)... the Spanish and the French language are the most developed. Although the Portuguese language one is now the best. IMO :P -Pedro 19:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of the atmosphere 

message: Is Titan still Saturn VI? even with the discovery of new "moons" (a.k.a. debris) around Saturn? Where I can get a full listing with all this kind of numbering moons... ---Pedro 05:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here: Saturn's natural satellites
** thx. -Pedro 14:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Titan still Saturn VI

message: I'm using this article to expand the Portuguese language one, and I was thinking... is there any plan by NASA or ESA to send a rover to Titan like those on Mars? I'm just reading doubts and more doubts... It is a very interesting planet. My fav. :) Those rovers on Mars are so successful...--Pedro 14:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rover mission

message: Whats with the crapy picture you chose for the main picture? there are better pictures now that Cassini is there. I order (kidding) someone to change that picture....maybe I'll find one myself.Nick Warren 16:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! But read the discussion about false color images, at the top! Awolf002 16:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture. 

message: This article could use revamping based on results from RADAR, VIMS, Huygens, and ISS WRT to the geology of Titan.  Much of the information on the surface dates from the early encounters or early news articles on the Huygens landing.  I propose revamping the "Overall Topography section and turning it into a geology section, much like the way the Enceladus article is organized.  I leave to others to work on the atmosphere section.
This new Geology section would follow the atmosphere section.  It would consist of the following sub-headings:
*General Geology
**Bright-dark terrain
**Latitudinal variations
*Impact craters
*Liquids on the surface
**Possiblity of liquids
**Fluvial erosion (channels, shoreline, from RADAR)
*Cryovolcanism (based on the current hotbeds section)
*Aeolian landforms
*Tectonic landforms
The section not addressed in all this is "Features at the Huygens landing site".  I propose that a seperate article be written on the landing site itself and the general area as seen from Huygens.
Volcanopele 20:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After not dealing with this article too much, I have now begun to transform the Physical Characteristics section to something resembling the above outline.  I'm not going to follow this exactly, but it should look similar. For now, I have rearranged some text, but haven't really added too much, yet.  But you can kinda see what I have in mind. --Volcanopele 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Barring any unforeseen happenings tomorrow, I'm going to try to clean-up this article.  After reading through it this evening, it definitely needs it. --Volcanopele 05:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: Please someone remove the 3.5MB animation, as it delays loading of the rest of the page.  It would be OK to have it as a linked resource, or as a still image.
: Done. Sign you comments with ~~~~. --JamesHoadley 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3.5MB animation 

message: The source of methane in Titan's atmosphere may have been found. See this link. Interesting read, could be implemented in the article.--Jyril 17:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for atmospheric methane 

message: What I don't understand is why the images taken of the surface so low-resolution and in black and white?
This page claims that it is taken in Titan's atmosphere, but why is it in color and in great detail?
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image-details.cfm?imageID=1512
--vex5 05:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the Huygens images, the probe's camera having no filters could not take color images. Additionally, Huygens' bandwith was so limited that the images had to be compressed considerably. In the case of Cassini, Titan's atmosphere is opaque to visible light. The surface is visible only in infrared light. So no realistic color images can be taken of the surface. Although some surface features can be seen through the atmosphere, smaller details are lost due to haze even in the wavelengths Cassini camera uses. Cassini's VIMS can see clearly through the atmosphere in longer wavelengths, but it has very limited resolution. Cassini's radar has the best resolution, but radar images have nothing to do with visual or infrared light images (that is, the radar brigth or dark areas doesn't have to be bright or dark in visible light).--Jyril 16:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm no expert on space probes, but I don't understand why it would be so difficult to implement a hefty flash memory device that would take high-resolution pictures, if not full scale color videos and simply transmit them to the satellite, just as the satellite transmits them back to Earth? --vex5 23:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Earth-orbiting satellites are a bit closer than Cassini. It requires a lot more energy to send data from the distance of Saturn. Still, although the probe could probably send a lot more data, but nobody can listen it. The Deep Space Network which receives Cassini's data must also share its time with other probes. For example, in the case of Magellan Venus probe, lots of collected data was lost because it was not possible to receive it all.--Jyril 09:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't know, if you ask me, I just think that a lot of time and effort is not properly assigned. I mean, how much more difficult could it be to produce images that are a little better than washed out 200 pixel black and whites? Billions of dollars at work and we get photographs of some pebbles that we can't make out. --vex5 01:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be noted that the fact that Huygens had any camera at all is because 1: It had to be made very small, 2: It had the survive the firce conditions, which at the time of design were completly unknown, and 3: The public wouldn't care if all they saw was squiggly-line graphs and spectra, which are only intresting for scientists. Look at why the Jupiter probe carried by the Galileo spacecraft had no camera, it wouldn't have seen anything but random pretty pictures of clouds, and no one hears anything about it's scientific discoveries (Except the scientists). Photographs of Jupiter's "surface" i.e. cloud tops, weren't thought to have as much scientific output as the spectrometers, interferometers, and other such things, and thus a camera wasn't included. Don't forget as well, that Huygens carried 5 other instruments then just the camera.--Planetary 07:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read that the dense atmosphere prevents light from passing through to the surface, so could someone tell me where the shadow in the pebble picture comes from since it's obviously not from a "flash" from the probe since the lightsource is seemingly from the top left of the photo?--Bas 05:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a clouded day if you look up and try to find the sun you will not find it because the direct light is scattered in the optically dense clouds. The same on Titan. An all other planets and moons except Venus and the gas giants you see the sun!--Stone 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Nominated for Collaboration of the week --Volcanopele 21:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Collaboration|Astronomy Collaboration of the Week]] 

message: Wow! http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA08630 I think that seriously improves prospects of liquid on Titan? I'll add it now.--Planetary 22:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet, I added a little note in the Dark Areas section too, because before Cassini they were thought to be oceans, then Cassini found they were dunes, so that kind of completes the cycle of discover. I'll add the image as :Image:Titan_North_Pole_Lakes_PIA08630.jpg. --JamesHoadley 22:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good.--Planetary 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see I'm late. :) 
In case further references are needed, this article may be of use. --Xanthine 09:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this. --Planetary 19:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lakes! 

message: Can anyone provide a reference for this?  It seems unlikely.  Do we know this for sure or do we just not have enough data to say? DenisMoskowitz 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I now see that many (all?) of the major moons have axial tilt of zero, synchronous orbits, and <1° orbital inclination from the parent equator. DenisMoskowitz 17:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axial tilt: zero? 

message: What does this mean? "It is also larger by diameter than the planet Mercury, though Mercury is more than twice as massive." It seems like a contradiction to me
:A basketball is larger in diameter than a bowling ball, but the bowling ball is more massive, because it has a higher density. Mercury is made of heavy elements, Titan largely of water ice, which is much less dense.--Curtis Clark 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction?