Talk:Moons of Haumea

Haumea-Hi'iaka eclipse data from 2009
Found Namaka 6 hrs later than it is supposed to be. But it is transiting across the face of Haumea. Also found Namaka a 2nd night. Also 6 hrs late. -- (2010 Aug 19 Mike Brown and Emily Schaller at Nordic Optical Telescope in the Canary Islands) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheider (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Small categorization problem
The category hierarchy is: The problem is that Moons of Haumea were discovered in 2005, not 2004. What's the standard procedure for fixing something like this, if it's worth fixing? I'll post this at WP:ASTRO in a few days, if no response here. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 2004
 * Category:Haumea (dwarf planet) (1 C, 5 P)
 * 1) Category:Moons of Haumea (3 P)
 * 2) Moons of Haumea

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moons of Haumea. 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/20090111105134/http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~fabrycky/EL61/ to http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~fabrycky/EL61/
 * Added tag to http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/viewAbstract.asp?CKey=%7BDC1A2D7A-1E8E-4C58-A2AB-F0FA8673515C%7D&MKey=%7B35A8F7D5-A145-4C52-8514-0B0340308E94%7D&AKey=%7BAAF9AABA-B0FF-4235-8AEC-74F22FC76386%7D&SKey=%7B545CAD5F-068B-4FFC-A6E2-1F2A0C6ED978%7D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718182107/http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/viewAbstract.asp?CKey=%7B421E1C09-F75A-4ED0-916C-8C0DDB81754D%7D&MKey=%7B35A8F7D5-A145-4C52-8514-0B0340308E94%7D&AKey=%7BAAF9AABA-B0FF-4235-8AEC-74F22FC76386%7D&SKey=%7B545CAD5F-068B-4FFC-A6E2-1F2A0C6ED978%7D to http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/viewAbstract.asp?CKey=%7B421E1C09-F75A-4ED0-916C-8C0DDB81754D%7D&MKey=%7B35A8F7D5-A145-4C52-8514-0B0340308E94%7D&AKey=%7BAAF9AABA-B0FF-4235-8AEC-74F22FC76386%7D&SKey=%7B545CAD5F-068B-4FFC-A6E2-1F2A0C6ED978%7D
 * Added tag to http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/08600/08636.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) 08:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Data inconsistency re: Hi'aka diameter
In different places in the article, Hi'aka is stated as having either a 310km, 320km, or 350km diameter (or 160km radius), and I don't see much that implies any of those figures being more reliable than the others; indeed few if any are even cited, so where did they come from? It is after all a nearly 13% (so, more than 1/8th) variation from smallest to largest, which is fairly significant, and which one you end up thinking it is could depend entirely on what bit of the article you randomly skim. Which of them should we standardise on, if indeed we shouldn't instead go with "330km +/- 20km"? Note that this would also seem to affect the size of Namaka given that most of its stated dimensions are simply derived from an educated guess that it's "about 1/10th the mass" of Hi'aka and about the same density... 51.7.16.171 (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Secondary thought: looking at the most recent (2009!) citation, which is where the (most likely?) "320km" estimate seems to come from, the sizes seem to be derived from the (still somewhat loose, due to poor observation SNR, difficultly resolving Namaka at all, and the complex mutual interactions of the three bodies' gravity) orbit-determined masses and an assumed and density, and secondarily from observed magnitude and assumed albedo. Seeing as both of those have been shown to be incorrect for Haumea itself by a recent (2017) occultation survey, what might that mean for the sizes of the satellites, assuming they're made of similar stuff to their parent given that the Haumea system and the Haumids in general are all one big collisional family? The lower-than-expected albedo would seem to pull the size estimates upwards, but at the same time the revised density (reduced for Haumea itself, but still ~1.8x the "pure water" 1.0g/mL assumed for its satellites, thus a considerable increase) would seem to pull them downwards... 51.7.16.171 (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Your figure "330km +/- 20km" probably vastly underestimates the uncertainty, which is actually many tens of percent (it's more like "330 +/- 200"). Compare this recent study by Hastings et al. (2016). The Wiki article in its current form does say that the size is uncertain, but you are right that one figure for its size should be agreed on for the purpose of clarity. Given that the 2016 paper I linked states a radius of 150 km (+/- tens of percent), maybe this should be the value used here. It is important to understand that our knowledge of the physical properties of these objects is very preliminary. Arguing over a difference of a few tens of km's is pointless. The value of 300 km is likely right to one significant figure. Also, this isn't anything specific to Haumea's satellites. Our size estimates of most small Solar System bodies are uncertain! To avoid the impression that our knowledge of Haumea's moons is somehow more uncertain that other objects, this point shouldn't be given more room in this article than in others. Renerpho (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)