Talk:Titan (moon)/Archive 2

Adjective
The adjectival form of Titan is either Titanian (which would include inhabitants) or Titanic. Titanian is shared with the moon Titania.

Life on Titan
I think a section about the possibility of life on titan should be added. Water could exist on Titan in cryovolcanos, and it has been suggested there could be life in those. Also, there were suggestions of life on titan using methane as a solvent (instead of water). Even if there is no life on titan, there are still molecules (like some amino acids) that are on titan. This is why titan is of interest to many biologists. It is notablie, titan often comes up when there is a disscussion of possible locations of life in the Solar System (along with Europa and Mars). Polonium 01:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right if Europa and Mars have a hypothesis section about life Titan should have one because of the cryovulcanism Jupiter and Saturn should have one because of the floaters and flyers described by Sagan and so on ....
 * The hypothesis of life in our solar system was always founded on weak arguments and a really nearrow knowledge of possible biologies, because we only know what we have on earth. All other possibilities even for life on Europa have untill know, neither proof nor a solid hint. The best thing to read is a paper from 1965 of martian biology it looks scientific but nothing written in this paper ever was true, fiction with scientific background. This science fiction was renderd useless wenn Mariner reache Mars and made the first images. Personally I would put this sections all to .... in Fiction, but as with all other planets the urge to have life every where a section on life on titan will be written!--Stone 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some literature to the topic (Raulin F. has worked with C. Sagan and has but a GC on Titan and has on enroute to a comet on Rosetta and is also in the team for MSL09, while Schulze-Makuch writes mostly hypothesis papers about exobiology) :



Two abstracts from a meeting (free for everybody):

Is it theoreticaly possible for human to walk over Titan surface without scafander (wearing oxygen mask and glasses)? Near some source of heat, for example. Pressure seem to allow this. Is so, then Titan is only such body in Solar system except Earth. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 14:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With the information provided no, there is no usable oxygen and the hyrocarbon clouds would probably be lethalFists (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing these refs. I have incorporated most of them; it's a very robust and well-sourced section. Marskell 07:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I still do not understand why it is not considered that life is posible in totaly different atmospheres to ours, our idea of life sustaing environment has changed many times with discoveries of marine life. Why is it not possible for a hydrocarbon or nitrogen sustained life form to exist? Fists (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In thinking about life on Titan, I can't help but wonder if scientists have any ideas about what will happen there in a few billion years when the sun becomes a red giant. Earth is supposed to burn up, of course, but what about Titan? Is there any chance it will assume the so-called "sweet spot" in terms of distance to the sun which Earth now occupies? Berberry (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold
This is on hold for 7 days. Please fix the following: --Rlevse 12:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead is not a summary of the article, please expand some. It's a bit more of a collection of facts at the moment, make it more of a summary.
 * 2) Retrieved dates on refs are highly inconsistent. Make them the same and wikilink them: January 7, 2007. Look over other ref formatting for consistency
 * 3) Placement of footnote numbers is very inconsistent. Fix them so they are like what is currently footnote 7 in "Physical characteristics" -"system after Ganymede(7).
 * 4) Don't link solo years. Unlink things like 1650. It is okay to link decades, like 2000s.
 * 5) The section "Titan in fiction" is one sentence. Expand it or merge it into the main text.
 * 6) Visibility from Earth is only two lines. Can it be expanded?
 * I've worked on the refs/footnotes to hopefully make them more consistent and always after punctuation. I'm not the best person to tackle the other issues though I fear. I expanded "Titan in fiction", but only in a minor way. Cheers SeanMack 15:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved the "Visibility from Earth" info to the top of Surface features. It makes more sense here anyway. SeanMack 05:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * While the lead still needs work, it's improved good enough that I'm passing it. Nice work.Rlevse 12:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The introduction part talks about 8 asteroids but lists only 7 (Vesta, Pallas, Iris, Ceres, Hebe, Juno, Melpomene). [unregistered user]

The section titled Internal structure
Maybe I just don't get it, but isn't the section on Titans internal structure somewhat mismatched by nearly the whole of the rest of the article? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

News stories on lakes
The Cassini spacecraft has found more lakes — possibly seas — on Titan. Since I'm not a subject expert, I'd rather not update the article further myself (I'm afraid I'd accidentally introduce an error, or place undue weight on the new information), but I thought I'd point the regular editors of the article to the news coverage:


 * AP (via Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
 * ScienceDaily
 * MSNBC

Happy editing! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Titan signal
I reverted this because it seems suspicious; I can find nothing on the web about this at all and it would be a pretty big story if true:

SETI researchers claimed in early 2007 to have received a repeating message originating from Titan. Further analysis is being conducted at present, with results tentatively scheduled to be released in June.

-- Etacar11   20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * After doing a search for the IP address it appears that the poster's from Ball State University. I haven't been able to find any reference to any of this anywhere on Google, BSU or SETI, however, the poster does cite SETI Review, which is I believe a magazine given to paid up members of SETI. If this [i]is[/i] true then it'd be very interesting indeed. Spanky Deluxe 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * : Anything ever come up on this? I would REALLY like to know. Zazaban

Well I checked out the Seti review and the issue mentioned did not exist (yet). GB 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nothing has come up to dispel my suspicions of this just being b.s. I doubt a signal would be announced in SETI Review, that's just not how things would work. --  Etacar11   02:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so this is a GA
What would it take to get it up to FA? Serendipodous 22:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a significant reworking of the "Liquids on Titan". Right now, it just reads "First, this was announced.  Then on this date, that was announced."  Too much what I call "article by press release."  Much of the rest of the surface section needs the same work.  --Volcanopele 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't know if that's possible right now, because the story is evolving so quickly. I think the "press release" style is necessary for the time being, because any new information could force us to completely rewrite any "traditional" article from the ground up. Serendipodous 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is an evolving picture, but as long as important sections like "Liquids on Titan" sound like people just attached new sentences to the end of the section every time a new press release comes out, this article should not be a featured article. (I know, perhaps I should rewrite the section myself, as I keep swearing I'll do...)  --Volcanopele 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it would take too much to get this article upto FA standard, if others want to help, ill contribute :) - Nbound 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is indeed good, and I don't believe it would take much to make it a FA, but for one thing. Presumably, more information on Titan will continue to come in over the next months... I'm not sure the article could be stable enough for a FA. Pinkville 11:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC) And the move of the article to Titan (satellite) isn't a good sign in that regard. Pinkville 11:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Instability, as Raul interprets at FAC, means pages that are receiving very rapid updates (recent events) or are subject to serious edit wars; these have a hard time becoming FAs but neither applies in this case. I think it can easily pass with a bit more pushing. Marskell 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the latest from Cassini
[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=24308 Anything we could use? The picture's nice, but I don't see any revelations] Serendipodous 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And here's another frustrating drip feed. Why can't these people take Titan seriously? Serendipodous 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This page was moved from "Titan (moon)" to "Titan (satellite)"
Support the change in article name:
 * 1) Support -

Oppose the change in article name:


 * 1) Oppose - This seems unnecessary, given that every other moon in Wikipedia is followed by "(moon)". The defense given was "technically, the moon is Earth's satellite and calling other bodies moons is incorrect." This is not true. Check any dictionary and you'll find that 'moon' is a perfectly OK shorthand for natural satellite. It also has the advantage of being more easily understandable to the layman, for whom a 'satellite' is a man-made thing in space. Anyone else agree with me? Cop 663 00:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I do. We will talk then move.Kfc1864 02:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - "Moon" is the standard. Every other article on the subject on Wikipedia uses (moon), and Titan should be no different. And anyway, it should be "natural satellite", not "satellite". Serendi pod  ous  06:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - I believe "(moon)" should be kept. (I personally wish that the Moon was called Luna. I mean, it's not like it's the only moon). I will have more to say on this I'm sure.-- Just James   T / C  10:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - The change was pedantic - and without the qualifier "natural", actually more ambiguous than "moon". The word "moon" is good enough for JPL, why not Wikipedia? Pinkville 11:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - What prompted this break with the naming conventions. The result is that the title conveys Titan is some form of lesser satellite unfit to be termed a moon. M urgh  disc.  12:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - satellite gives me the impression that it is an artificial satellite, quite a feasible name for one, so keep the qualifier moon please. GB 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved back as per WP:SNOW Verisimilus  T  12:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we need 'In fiction'?
The section is so brief I'd suggest cutting it and leaving at as a See also. Alternatively, it can be expanded but that often means a random mish-mash of plot summaries and trivia. Marskell 15:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Serial comma problem?
The following confused me:


 * The hydrogen compounds ammonia and methane undergo dehydrogenation, forming complex organic compounds, nitrogen and hydrogen which is lost over cosmological time.

It can be read to suggest that nitrogen and hydrogen are themselves complex organic compounds. Also needs a comma before 'which' and the last verb doesn't agree. Should it be:


 * The hydrogen compounds ammonia and methane undergo dehydrogenation, forming complex organic compounds, as well as nitrogen and hydrogen, which are lost over cosmological time; or simply


 * The hydrogen compounds ammonia and methane undergo dehydrogenation, forming complex organic compounds, nitrogen, and hydrogen, which are lost over cosmological time.

A good argument in favour of the serial comma. Marskell 08:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That entire paragraph is confusing. I'm not really sure what it's trying to say, and I can't access the journal it refers to. I could probably make a sensible argument out of it, but I don't know if it would be the right one. I've invisotexted it for now. Let its originator explain what s/he meant.  Serendi pod ous  14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And this one I find very confusing:


 * At this altitude it is cold enough for ethane to freeze and the detected size of these particles is only 1–3 microns, suggesting again ethane, rather than methane which is also known to condense in the atmosphere of Titan.


 * Not sure how to edit it to make it sensible. Marskell 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about chemistry, but presumably it would make more sense to say "Although methane is known to condense in Titan's atmosphere, this cloud is more likely to be ethane, as the detected size of the particles is only 1-3 microns and ethane can also freeze at these altitudes." Cop 663 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Subbed your far better sentence.  Serendi pod ous  14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A note on clouds
Is the cloud described in the middle of Atmosphere ("The most recent Cassini flyby has suggested the existence of a large cloud over Titan's north pole, at a height of 40 km") the same cloud described at the end of climate ("In December 2006, Cassini imaged a large cloud of methane, ethane and other organics over the moon's north pole")? Not sure, as one is Sept 06 and the other Dec 06. Even if different they should be described at the same time in the article.

Also I dropped the bit about scientists being baffled by the south pole cloud with a description from here. If methane humidity is one possible cause of the cloud it seems scientists aren't ruling out methane within its composition, as our article implied previously. Some can check over my amateur summary (second last para of climate). Marskell 09:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

question re:liquids
The article reads "Titan would be the only world in the Solar System other than Earth to possess open bodies of liquid on its surface." What about the Metallic hydrogen on Jupiter and Saturn? Debivort 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't on the surface.  Serendi pod ous  06:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, Image:Jupiter_interior.png shows rocky core, metallic hydrogen ocean, atmosphere. If that isn't on the surface, how is Titan's liquid on the surface? Enlighten me. Debivort 07:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The same image of Earth shows an iron core, an ocean of liquid rock, a rocky outer envelope, and then the atmosphere. The only difference is that gas giants don't have solid outer crusts. Because they're made of non-rocky materials, there has been a tendancy to describe the liquid inner regions of outer planets and moons as "oceans", when in fact they're better described as mantles. Titan itself probably has a similar ice mantle, made of water and ammonia, but it behaves just like a mantle on Earth- erupting through the surface (which is made of solid ice) as water lava from ice volcanoes.  Serendi pod ous  08:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

re: FAC
As per Volcanopele's objections, I have found an article that may answer some of them. Still, I can't directly access it, so I don't know what its conclusions are. Perhaps someone at a college will have better luck.  Serendi pod ous  08:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And the abstract is of the "here is what we're going to do" rather than the "here is what we've discovered" sort. I'll try and dig it up. Marskell 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rain addition
A recent addition claimed that rain had been observed on Titan, yet the source used, here, says that rain has yet to be directly observed. Some sort of qualification may be in order, but I'm not sure exactly what the source is saying was observed.  Serendi pod ous  05:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's saying that they saw "an enhancement of opacity in Titan's troposphere" that is "consistent with condensed methane". In other words a cloud got more opaque and they're saying "methane drizzle" is the likeliest reason but it hasn't been directly observed. Rubble pile 11:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New info
This info could potentially rewrite most of this article, but I don't want to add it until I get it reviewed by someone with more scientific knowledge than I  Serendi pod ous  00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A University College London announcement is here. This has been forshadowed in earlier observations, so shouldn't have too much effect on the article's layout. kwami (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * --Stone (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tropical Climate
I think this is poorly worded:

"This cell creates a global band of low pressure; what is in effect a variation of Earth's Intertropical Convergence Zone. Unlike on Earth, however, where the oceans confine the ITCZ to the tropics, on Titan, the zone wanders from one pole to the other, taking methane rainclouds with it. This means that Titan, despite its frigid temperatures, can be said to have a tropical climate"

It sounds as though Titan's climate could be characterized as tropical because the ITCZ isn't confined to the tropics, which doesn't make sense. I'm not a scientist so I'm not entirely sure about this, but I think I know what the author is trying to say. I think it could be better said by reversing the order of the last two quoted sentences.Berberry (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Vonnegut novel
Kurt Vonnegut has a novel Sirens of Titan in which the final destination of the protagonist is Titan. I think this is encyclopedic information and would be a good addition to the article. How does that resonate? Leopold Stotch (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See Titan in fiction  Serendi pod ous  10:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere?
"Titan is the only planet in the solar system other than Earth to have a nitrogen rich atmosphere", yet the article Atmosphere of Triton would seem to contradict this? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you got that quote. The closest I can find is, "The atmosphere is 98.4% nitrogen—the only dense, nitrogen-rich atmosphere in the solar system aside from the Earth's—". And yes, that is true; Triton's atmosphere is certainly not dense.  Serendi pod ous  08:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hydrocarbons
The bit about the atmosphere refers to Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, and Cyanogen as hydrocarbons, but they are not as they do not contain Hydrogen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.185.44 (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. I swear that sentence continues to give us pain.  Serendi pod ous  10:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Late Sun years
Does anyone have any predictions for what might happen on titan when the sun becomes a red dwarf. I can imagine it will warm up somewhat. Supposed (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sun will never become a red dwarf. Ruslik (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure he meant red giant, Rus. :-) See here for an interesting bit of speculation.  Serendi pod ous  08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Added it to the article.  Serendi pod ous  09:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's very informative, a pretty interesting paper. Supposed (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Seasonal Variations
Are there seasonal variations in the amount of liquids on Titan's surface? Saturn's orbital period lasts 30 years and due to its eccentricity, its distance from the Sun varies by about 155,000,000 kilometres. As far as I am aware Saturn is currently close to perihelion, which could suggest that the Cassini probe has not seen just how much liquid can appear on Titan's surface.-- Just James  T / C  05:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * see: Climate of Titan.  Serendi pod ous  05:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

re-merge "Climate of Titan"?
I'm not sure why this article was split off from the main; it contains some rather important information, as the query above shows. I've never been entirely happy with its removal, and I think it should be put back. Thoughts?  Serendi pod ous  06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the information concerning seasonal variations in liquid bodies on Titan, and other important points, should be reintegrated into the main article.-- Just James  T / C  10:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I put it back. I suppose I can call this a consensus, and since the section was removed without discussion, one post is better than it got first time round. Some of the references my still be duplicated, I'll need to look into that.  Serendi pod ous  11:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)