Talk:Mab (moon)

Untitled
Pronunciation [mæb] per various dictionaries.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mab (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.astronomy.com/en/sitecore/content/Home/News-Observing/News/2005/12/Uranus%20second%20ring-moon%20system.aspx

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Radius vs Diameter... AGAIN
Main text says it may have a diameter as large as 24km if it's as dark as Belinda and Puck... sidebar says 24km *radius* (so 48km diameter?) ... also sidebar suggests a minimum of 5km "radius", whilst the text says a brighter albedo could provide the same imagery from a smaller body but doesn't give any figures. So do we think it would actually be a 10km diameter, or 5km (and 2.5km radius)?

Please, everyone, it's not that difficult. Pick one or the other and get it right, as there's a 2x difference between them. Right now it's not at all clear which one is meant, and it's pointless having the data listed on WP because if someone wants the correct figures they're going to have to go research them elsewhere anyway.

And if you can't handle such fundamental mathematical and geometric terminology, stay away from editing materials relating to outer space, because this is the sort of confusion that eventually leads to planetary rovers being turned into metal pancakes.

(Oh, and if the radiameterus is so poorly defined, what is the point of stating a surface area or volume? Given the total variability between the smallest and largest possible figures for that, the SA could be almost 95x different and volume almost 900x different from min to max, far too big a range to be worth making any kind of estimate for; possibly a min-max might be worth stating, or even just a max, but not a set figure with a ~ at the start of it.)

((...on that note, the mass here is given as 1.0 x 10^15 ... on the main list of Uranian satellites, it's 0.01 x 10^18, which works out to 10 x 10^15. So even there, we have a 10x discrepancy even in just two closely hyperlinked parts of the wiki. Do we actually know enough about any of Mab's vital statistics for there to be any value in writing it down at the moment? How were the density, mass, gravity/escape velocity figures generated?)) 209.93.141.17 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)