Talk:Moons of Saturn/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

question for you tech geeks out there

Why do so many raw images from Cassini have scan lines that are incomplete on the right side?[1] Is it just that the craft hasn't had time to download the complete pic, or does it mean that the camera didn't fully record it to begin with? Is it recoverable, or a permanent loss of data? kwami (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Those truncated lines are a compression artifact. With lossless compression, a maximum number of bytes for each pair of lines is used. If that number is exceeded, usually as a result of a busy scene like close up images of an icy satellite, the camera stops recording data for that line pair. This results in a truncated line. These truncation are filtered out using image processing. --Volcanopele (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

question

is it possible to see the history of {{Saturnian satellites}} even 1 year after its deletion? Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. Ruslik_Zero 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

better image?

Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"1,000 metres (0.62 mi)"

"1,000 metres (0.62 mi)" looks weird to me, because the things which are usually measured in metres aren't normally measured in miles and vice versa. I'd go with 1,000 metres (3,281 ft) if it's the precise definition of moonlet and with "about 1 kilometre (0.6 mi)" is it's just an order-of-magnitude indication. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 19:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed to 1 km. There is no precise definition of moonlet. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Moons of Saturn 2007.jpg

While it is a nice image, the picture used for Dione is in fact an image of Enceladus. I'm therefore tempted to remove this image on the grounds that it is wrong. Icalanise (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed; now fixed if s.o. wants to restore it to the article. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't anybody noticed the ridiculous masses given on the lower portion of the poster (see the full resolution version)? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Moons_of_Saturn_2007.jpg) It looks like all the exponents have morphed into the base numeral. For example, the "mass" of Iapetus is given as "1.6 x 1021 kg (3.5 x 1021 lbs)". No doubt this is supposed to be 10 to the twenty-first power, not one thousand twenty-one! Somebody really ought to fix the callouts on this image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roricka (talk • contribs) 06:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article - vandalism

Due to the high rate of ridiculous vandalism by some individual that wishes to suggest the moons of Saturn are a prison for Scientologists, I propose the article be semi-protected. --Xession (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism level is rather light, so I'd say no. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars?

Look, there are too many edits on January 15. TGabunia (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Much of it is vandalism from an IP user behind a proxy.--Xession (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
If you look more closely, you will realize that there was a lot of vandalism, and every instance was reverted. This is one of the risks associated with featuring this article on the Main Page... it attracts views, but sadly, it also attracts vandalism. You may be happy to learn that there was and is some protection on this page to prevent more vandalism, but this protection eventually expires, and there might be more vandalism after the expiration of the protection, before someone else protects the page. CielProfond (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Titan's atmosphere

I am concerned at the statement in the opening paragraph that Titan has an "Earth-like" atmosphere. This is not true, and highly misleading in that it implies that it is breathable by humans; while Titan certainly possesses an atmosphere, that atmosphere is definitely not "Earth-like" (no oxygen component, for a start!); can someone kindly correct this. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Titan's atmosphere is indeed "Earth-like". . . IF we talk about the Earth from 3 billion years ago or so. Earth's atmosphere has changed a lot since, for reasons not all known/understood, and there may be a possibility that Titan's atmosphere 3 billion years from now in the future might be similar to the atmosphere of today's Earth. However, we should indeed write that "Earth-like" refers to the past Earth... Sadly, I do not have time to reword the article now (because I'd need to think about how to reword it first), so can someone else please do so? CielProfond (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with Rif Winfield in this case. There is no completely definitive evidence in coring samples that Earth had an atmosphere like that of Titan in the Early history of Earth. It is certainly a very popular hypothesis at this time, but it is far from the only theory of an early terran Atmosphere. Reviewing the sentence in question, the context would seem to indicate whomever added the phrase, was likely intending to portray the thickness and weather capabilities of the Titan atmosphere, rather than comparing compositions. Regardless, the wording should certainly reflect this in some manor as well as the hypothesis that the composition may be similar to that of an early Earth is one of many hypothesis. There is actually enough information at present, that a synopsis comparing an early Earth to a present Titan, could warrant a new section to the article. Many discussions of late have proposed that it may be possible that life first evolved in the upper atmosphere of an early Earth and may be possible on Titan. --Xession (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no problem with the term "Earth-like atmosphere". This could have a lot of meanings and we should not got overly detailed/wordy in the lead section. It is suspected that early Earth had an atmosphere much like Titan today. Even ~1 billion years ago, Earth did not have an Earth-like atmosphere as we known Earth today. This concern seems somewhat like splitting hairs to me. Of the spherical bodies in the solar system, Titan has the most Earth-like atmosphere (IMHO). Mars' atmosphere is too thin, and Venus suffered from a major green conversion. -- Kheider (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
As I stated, that is just one of many competing hypothesis regarding the early atmosphere of Earth. As such, it seems biased and incorrect to leave out the important fact that it is one of many hypothesis. Many scientists feel the early atmosphere of Earth was very likely similar to the atmospheres of Venus and Mars, with an abundance of CO2 coming from volcanoes. Without plants, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere would dwindle greatly and was very minimal until the onset of plants and other CO2 decomposing organisms. Here is an overview from the University of Illinois discussing this type of hypothesis. It is important to provide as much information in these articles as possible, but if we don't accurately report them, then we aren't properly and correctly informing people. Accuracy first. --Xession (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree fully with Xession that it is not a confirmed fact that Earth's atmosphere was, 3 billion years or so ago, similar to that of Titan today (or vice versa!), and that we should stick to the facts. CielProfond (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I am aware the article has not claimed that Titan's atmosphere is like an early Earths. I still do not see a current concern in the article. -- Kheider (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It was edited earlier today to add the "nitrogen-rich" portion of the sentence, but from the first paragraph, "Particularly notable among Saturn's moons are Titan, the second largest moon in the Solar System, with a nitrogen-rich Earth-like atmosphere and a landscape including hydrocarbon lakes and dry river networks, and Enceladus, which emits jets of gas and dust and may harbor liquid water under its south pole region." It doesn't mention a comparison to an early Earth atmosphere and that is part of the problem. It needs to be reworded to say "is the only atmosphere beyond Earth, to have a significant amount of nitrogen" or something similar. Later in the article, a section could be added to discuss similarities between early Earth atmosphere some hypothesises and the current Titan atmosphere. This would seem to be conclusive of all aspects of the relation to the atmosphere on Earth, without being biased or incorrect, while maintaining a high level of quality information. --Xession (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I added the nitrogen-rich modifier. Adding a section on earth's early atmosphere would be an expansion to the article. We would also need reliable references for such statements. -- Kheider (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I would never advocate placing uncited material in the page. There is no shortage of information covering that particular topic however. See my user page if you're interested in researching the topic. Secondly, after another review the page material, it seems that it may be difficult to go into much detail about this topic without being too verbose and outside the general intention of the article. However, a short mentioning of the topic and a link to the atmosphere portion of the Titan article may suffice. It would be more appropriate for a more in depth comparison to be written there (as much of it already describes) than in this overview article. --Xession (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass units in the table

Measuring masses in 1018 kg makes most of the numbers have lots of digits after the decimal point; IMO using 1015 kg would be much better. For example, the second-heaviest, median and second-lightest entries are "2,306.518 ± 0.353", "~0.00023" and "~0.0000001", which according to this proposal would become "2,306,518 ± 353", "~0.23" and "~0.0001". Does anyone have any objections? ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I have no objections, although 1018 kg corresponds to the mass of a body measuring 100 km—a middle sized satellite. Ruslik_Zero 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Moons_of_jupiter#Table uses ^16, Moons_of_Uranus#Table ^18, and Moons_of_neptune#Table ^16. Any conversion should take into consideration all the gas giant moon system articles. -- Kheider (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point... Here's the lightest, the median (if I counted correctly) and the heaviest moon of each list (if I didn't goof):
Name ×1015 kg ×1016 kg ×1018 kg
Ganymede 148,190,000 14,819,000 148,190
Helike 0.090 0.0090 0.000090
S/2003 J 12 0.0015 0.00015 0.0000015
Titan 134,520,000 ± 20,000 13,452,000 ± 2,000 134,520 ± 20
Suttungur ~0.23 ~0.023 ~0.00023
S/2009 S 1 <0.0001 <0.00001 <0.0000001
Titania 3,530,000 ± 90,000 353,000 ± 9,000 3,530 ± 90
Desdemona 180 18 0.18
Cupid 3.8 0.38 0.0038
Triton 21,400,000 2,140,000 21,400
Thalassa 350 35 0.35
Psamathe 37 3.7 0.037

― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 19:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I came to this discussion to point out that the range of masses of the satellites makes it inappropriate to use a single unit and then no exponents in the list. This applies to units of 10^15 kg just as much as to units of 10^18 kg. I suggest that the units be changed to kg, and the value for each satellite be given using the usual scientific notation. Eg, for Titan, 1.3452 ± 0.002 x 10^22 (kg being inferred by the heading of the column). 82.1.148.7 (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That's actually the way it normally works in astronomy: masses are expressed in kg. CielProfond (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That has been tried in other articles such as List of Solar System objects by size and abandoned since its breaks the wikitable-sort. Wikitables can not sort exponents. 55 would sort larger than 1×1016. -- Kheider (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Easily fixed with {{sort}} template if required. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
In Dec 2008 there was no way to sort exponents and List of Solar System objects by size kept sorting Ceres at 9.5, as the most massive object in the Solar System. I'm not sure if a template can be used inside of a template. So using Titan as an example it may need to be listed as: {{sort|134520|1.3452}} {{e|23}}. I just hope that using side-by-side templates will not break the sort. -- Kheider (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the {{sort}} template over-rides anything else in the cell, so you can have {{sort|134520|1.3452}} {{e|23}} without problem. But try it and see. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Future evolution

FWIW, I would be interested if one of you experts could add a section on Expected Future Evolution of Saturn's moon system. If the moons are sweeping up material from the rings, will the rings eventually dwindle, or are they being replenished? (Similarly, are the moons getting bigger, or are they being reset to square-one by regular collisions?) And, lastly, do they look set to remain in their present orbits? Just my thoughts. (Great article, though, in any case). TheAMmollusc (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The long term (billion years +) future of the Saturnian system is still rather hazy. A lot of current models suggest the rings will all eventually disappear as will some of the inner moons. However, to remain unbiased, such a section would be rather long discussing the multitude of proposed models. It certainly is an interesting topic and enough so to even warrant a completely separate article discussing it, but it would be a relatively large, research intensive one as well. --Xession (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
You can can also have a look at the sister article "Rings of Saturn". -- Kheider (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Major Moons

Not that it really matters, but should the major moons be listed by size or by distance from Saturn? Perhaps this should be converted to a sortable list? -- Kheider (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I vote for distance as the default, but should be sortable regardless. — kwami (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

S/2009 S 1

Is it considered to be a moon? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think people have drawn the line at this. Chunks of ice embedded in the rings which are not massive enough to clear a channel in the rings are being called "moonlets" and don't seem to be being enumerated among the moons. — kwami (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with calling this object only a moonlet, but then logic dictates that it should be removed from the "list of moons" in this article, IMO. (Or at least not get a separate entry.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
IMO this is still a good place to present the data. Either that or we expand moonlet to include tables of orbital data. That's problematic in my mind because 'moonlet' isn't a technical term, and we'd end up being arbitrary in what we include. There probably aren't going to be many of these with their orbits worked out well enough to get provisional designations, so they aren't going to overwhelm the table. — kwami (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

question

I seem to be missing a moon... every source I find lists 62 moons now, but the last one on the table is numbered 61. Is S/2009 S 1 (the moonlet) being counted among the 62? Nytebreid (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.62.1 (talk)

How many

"The Saturnian moon system is very lopsided: one moon, Titan, comprises more than 96% of the mass in orbit around the planet. The six other planemo (ellipsoidal) moons constitute roughly 4%, while the remaining 54 small moons, together with the rings, comprise only 0.04%."

OK 1+6+54 = 61 and at the top it says 62. Eregli bob (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. I've fixed it. --JorisvS (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Norse ice giants

In section Naming the following sentence fragment does not seem to make sense.

and after Norse ice giants.

What is a "Norse ice giant"? At the very least some context is missing. --Mortense (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ice giants from Norse mythology. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

source problem

footnote 49: Lakdawalla, E. 2012.

But I can't found the book? --Jarodalien (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Varahamihira's Brihat Samhita

Varahamihira was an ancient Indian Astronomer and Astrologer, who gives complete Ptolemaic mathematical charts and tables in his work and also discovered trigonometric formulas. He associated Jupiter with 65 celestial bodies and Saturn with 60 Celestial bodies in his book Brihat Samhita [1] calling them 'Sons of Jupiter' and 'Sons of Saturn'. I want to include this fact in the Discovery or Early Observations section of the Moons of Jupiter and Moons of Saturn page but some people are undoing this. This needs to be included in this section and it is factually correct. Jai1971 (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not science. That's not even pseudoscience. In the fifth century they didn't even have a clue that celestial bodies can orbit something else other than Earth. Telescopes were far from existing. Also, how do you explain the 51 sons of Mercury? Please stop being immature Tetra quark (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Varahamihira was a follower of Aryabhata who is seen by some historians as stating a heliocentric model. So your contention that they did not have a clue that celestial bodies can orbit something else other than Earth is not correct. Further Varahamihira's observations about other planets may be wrong or have to interpreted differently, but that does not refute the fact that he did associate Saturn with 60 Celestial bodies and Jupiter with 65 which is remarkably close to the modern understanding. The fact that you don't understand how he arrived at his conclusions does not invalidate his observations.
Even Srinivasa Ramanujan claimed inspiration from his family goddess, Mahalakshmi of Namakkal and claimed he had visions of scrolls of complex mathematical content unfolding before his eyes. He did not give proofs for many of his theorems which were later proved to be correct by others. Even now we do not understand how he came up with his theorems. So just because we do not understand his methods does not invalidate Varahamihira's Observations and his observations definitely deserve a place in this page from a historical standpoint.Jai1971 (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
He claimed (from that source) there were 899 comets of them, and that Venus had 84 of them and Mercury 51. All this at a time of naked eye astronomy. Now I don't know what he saw, and I don't even know sufficient of the history of Indian astronomy to know how much was known at this time, let alone the subtle qualities of the translated text we're using. However what is very clear is that these "comets" are not "moons" of planets, as modern astronomy defines those terms. It appears that what he saw (from their numbers alone) must have been fixed stars, as there aren't enough moons or even comets to go round otherwise. That is not relevant for an article discussing moons, and moons alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Jai, looking at the bigger picture does invalidate his claims. Moreover, you're saying that those numbers are 'remarkably close to the modern understanding', and suggesting that that can't be a coincidence. However, it can, and looking at the bigger picture, it is. On top of that, included in the 'modern understanding' is the fact that knowledge is not complete, and that Jupiter and Saturn likely have more moons (in fact, depending on one's conception of 'moon', Saturn can be argued to have hundred or thousands: its rings; Jupiter's rings are not more than dust). --JorisvS (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
JorisvS, your arguments actually back me. Even modern science is not conclusive and its conception / categorization of celestial bodies not final. I agree that we are not completely sure of varahamihira's conception of what is a 'Son of Saturn' or 'Son of Jupiter'. But the fact is he did associate the planets with other celestial bodies and talked about these others moving along with the planet. So it deserves a mention in the Early Observations / Discovery sections even though it may be speculation / imagination. Jai1971 (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
How what that back you?? There is a loophole for you: mentioning it within the proper context as outlined below. --JorisvS (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The argument is counter-intuitive. Just because someone is ignorant of the language translated doesn't make whatever is written wrong or right. If independent application of mind is not perused, the very notion of science loses its significance. Brhat Samhita is a known classical treatise, written by a student to list down his teacher's findings. Just because a reader is unaware of the methodology used doesn't qualify negation of results, if the same results are found to be accurate within a reasonable confidence level. It deserves mention as one of the early attempts in astronomy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.132.155 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What results? Science did not exist in those days and knowledge extremely limited to the most useful in those times and what one could see. Speculation did abound, though. Something can be mentioned in an appropriate article, but without any insight into his methodology, mentioning it here gives undue weight. --JorisvS (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't it be mentioned shortly in a manner similar to how Swift and Voltaire wrote about two Martian moons? There doesn't need to be anything stating that it was more than coincidence. --Patteroast (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Patteroast. The citation of varAhamihira deserves a mention just because of it's sheer closeness to the actual but, need not detail as the proof of concept and methodology are lost and need to be researched. It is these theories that become science upon proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.114.69 (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, something along those line would be fine: 1) calling it "early speculation", 2) explain how this Varahamihira got his results, 3) note also something about what he said about Mercury and Venus, so that it is put into proper perspective. --JorisvS (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Swift and Voltaire are quite different to this situation. They wrote at a time of scientific astronomical observation, not religious astronomy. They discussed "moons" in exactly the same sense the term is used today. They also made reasonable speculations about moons, with some grounding to them. They happened to be right.
Varahamihira is talking about "comets" (we still don't know what he meant by comets). It's inconceivable that he observed any such planetary bodies and counted them. He was completely out of line with his numbers for the inner planets. He was not theorising (i.e. with an explaining theory), he was just making up numbers, probably for numerological reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there's no evidence of real observation here and it seems religiously motivated, but I don't see the harm in including a brief sentence on pre-scientific speculation. It doesn't seem to me that completely made up information from science fiction is any more relevant than this. Then again, I am working under the assumption that this can be well sourced and that the claims about however many comets accompanying the planets was notable for the time period. If not, then it's all moot anyway. --Patteroast (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there any evidence for pre-scientific speculation about moons (as natural satellites)? Comets are not the same thing, and if the author is speculating about comets (which in the Western tradition has an etymological root as "wanderers"), then they're not thinking about them as moons in orbit. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there is harm. It is highly misleading and tendentious. Tetra quark (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Shortcut here: We have a primary source saying something and various editors saying it means various things and giving their opinions about whether their interpretations are relevant to the article. What do independent reliable sources say about his statements in regard to the moons of Saturn? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There are absolute no mention of Varahamihira work on astronomy on the internet. At least nothing related to his psych prediction of the 60 moons Tetra quark (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

61 or 62 moons?

The article says that Saturn has 62 moons, but only 61 are numbered in the table. Including S/2009 S 1 would bring the total to 62, but JPL doesn't include it on the list found here: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?sat_phys_par. If JPL doesn't include the satellite on their list, it didn't seem to be significant enough to be numbered on the table, and it seems very subjective to call it a moon instead of a moonlet, shouldn't the article say 61 moons instead of 62? ScottM84 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that S/2009 S 1 has an orbit that is well-enough known that it got a provisional designation as a satellite and was sometimes referred as such, unlike the A-ring moonlets. (Also, it was numbered in the table as 0.) But many (including JPL) seem to have drawn the line at this, because it's not massive enough to clear a gap in the rings: even the original discovery announcement referred to it as a moonlet. So perhaps it should indeed be demoted and the count changed to 61. Double sharp (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
This would also affect the infobox in Solar System: The source for the number of planetary moons ([2]), gives 62 moons for Saturn. If removed here, the number there also has to be changed, otherwise it would be inconsistent. --JorisvS (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
While calling it a moon is questionable to me, that point is fair, and if that's what the consensus opinion is, that's fine with me. If we're going to keep 62 in the article, however, it seems to me that the table should be updated for consistency's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottM84 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to see some good criterion before deciding what to do. The table lists Polydeuces at 2.6±0.8 km in diameter, Anthe at ~1 km, Aegaeon at ~0.5 km, S/2009 S 1 at ~0.3 km, and "(moonlets)" at 0.04–0.4 km, which would make S/2009 S 1 simply fall in the moonlet range, but why then would Aegaeon not be a moonlet that shouldn't be listed? And even Anthe? After all, they're not that different in size. --JorisvS (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the cutoff is definitely a bit fuzzy. A clear definition of a moon would be nice to have, but I don't see one coming. My personal opinion is that we need to choose a particular source for a listing of moons and use it consistently across the site. ScottM84 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Both JPL and Sheppard show 62. -- Kheider (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Having two sources of such standing in agreement suggests that we should continue to list it and keep the number at 62. Are there any other sources like those around? --JorisvS (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Given the two sources, and especially seeing as JPL (which was the original source of my question) has another link that agrees, I agree that the number should be kept at 62. I would suggest that the table be updated to number it instead of having it marked with a 0. I'll be more than happy to do that myself later if everyone is in agreement with that step. ScottM84 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the table needs to be fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. ScottM84 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The table is default-sorted to semi-major axis (which, of course, makes sense), but now the numbers go from 1 to 0 to 2, 3 etc.. Could that be fixed without breaking the sort? --JorisvS (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
If we reversed the order of the first two rows, that would fix the order of the numbers, but would, of course, slightly throw off the order of semi-major axes, but since the "moonlets" aren't very much further from the planet than S/2009 S 1, that might not be such a big deal. Personally, I think it's a fair question as to whether or not they should even be included on the table at all. They certainly merit a mention in the article, but the table might be a bit much. ScottM84 (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That would, of course, solve nothing. Couldn't the zero just be removed? --JorisvS (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I misunderstood what you were asking originally. Yes, removing the 0 works. I just changed it. ScottM84 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Phoebe

Why is Phoebe shaded as one of the Norse moons? It's named after the Greek Titan, no?

The groups are by orbital characteristics, not names. Phoebe was discovered and named (indeed after a Titan) long before its group was discovered and its members named after Norse gods. --JorisvS (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Should we use this image of Tarvos?

https://www-n.oca.eu/gladman/satan4.html <--- It's the discovery image, it seems. 38.114.203.237 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Wait... it's also circulating around as Ijiraq, including on Wikipedia. Who's right? 38.114.203.237 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

©? JDAWiseman (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Unclear what it is and not particularly useful for readers anyway. --JorisvS (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

Please finish the gallery and unprotect this page

173.21.188.179 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please discuss the changes you would like to make, instead. That type of gallery is generally discouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines. See WP:IG: A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article. If you want to finish the gallery, do so in a sandbox and then bring it up for discussion, but please don't edit war. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream (10/28/2015@2:00pm/et/usa) - "Enceladus FlyBy" Teleconference.

NASA-TV/ustream (Wednesday, October 28, 2015@2:00pm/et/usa)[2] - NASA will detail an "Historic FlyBy" through a "plume of icy spray" of Enceladus - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/details/Brihatsamhita
  2. ^ Dyches, Preston; Brown, Dwayne; Cantillo, Laurie (October 22, 2015). "NASA Teleconference to Preview Historic Flyby of Saturn Moon". NASA. Retrieved October 22, 2015.

The Moons of Saturn

The Moons of Saturn Good evening my name is Chuck Ard, and I would like to complement whoever does the first 2 images on this. An updated version would becom e an Internet sensation! Imagine a movie made of all Cassini data! (Chuck 04:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triton66 (talk • contribs)

{Above moved here from Wikipedia talk:Be bold}: Noyster (talk), 12:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Orbital map request

This article could really use an orbital map to scale, looking down from above the north pole of Saturn. The current map doesn't show major outer moons, and being a lineup may fail to give the impression of circular orbiting to younger readers. Beland (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lede

In this sentence...:

Seven Saturnian moons are large enough to be ellipsoidal in shape, though only two of those, Titan and Rhea, are currently in hydrostatic equilibrium, as well as dense rings with complex orbital motions of their own.

..."as well as dense rings with complex orbital motions of their own" does not make sense. jnestorius(talk) 18:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This belongs to the previous sentence; fixed. Double sharp (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moons of Saturn. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moons of Saturn. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:NEUTRAL

The third line Doesn't look like neutral point of view, come on.I cat tall the dark (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No mention of "Peggy"?

I came here after reading this article and wanted to know more about "Peggy". I arrived at that article after reading an update about Cassini and its course change today which will result in it entering Saturn's atmosphere this coming Friday. That article linked me to the related article, above, which was written in anticipation of learning more in the coming months before the end of the Cassini mission. It says it was discovered by Carl Murray in 2013 on his mother-in-law's birthday, so he unofficially named it after her. But I see no mention of it in this article, even in the "unconfirmed moons" section, or even of any discovery in 2013 except details about Titan. I've been searching a bit but haven't found any updates since that article linked above, from January 2017. The articles I've found regarding its first discovery and when it was seen to have possible broken up make it sound like it is a significant discovery, as it is very "young" and possiblyalready destroyed. Anyone have time to do more research and possibly add it to the list? 64.55.128.122 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It is probably one of the A-ring moonlets mentioned. Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moons of Saturn. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moons of Saturn. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moons of Saturn. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moons of Saturn. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus on hydrostatic equilibrium?

By now there should be either confirmation or rejection of the finding that only Titan and Rhea are in HE. Does anyone know of any followup studies? It's relevant to me because Haumea and Makemake are in the Iapetus–Rhea size range, which given that it's colder out there suggests they're probably not in HE (unless Haumea is still warm from that giant whack that it got) and thus not DPs. In which case, even with the HE definition of a planet, there could be only 11 known planets in the solar system, and probably not many unknown ones. Having an unknown and unmanageably large number of planets was one of the motivating factors for the current IAU definition of a planet. (E.g., having to write in school textbooks that we have no idea how many planets there are in the SS.) If Iapetus is not in HE, then the difference between the two camps just got a lot closer, and that factor disappears. And even Stern's definition, in which our own moon is a planet, wouldn't add a lot more -- just 9 if Oberon makes it. So, anyone have any idea if this finding is still accepted?

— kwami (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Is Phoebe large?

The remaining 38, all small but one, are irregular satellites [...]

Phoebe is large relative to the other irregular moons, but small compared to the other large moons, especially the round 7 (Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, and Iapetus). I don't want to confuse new readers by having them think Phoebe is a giant moon when really it's only 213 km in diameter. I edited the sentence to remove the "but one", got involved in an edit war, asking for consensus. 108.160.125.102 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The sentence has been reworded by User:XYZtSpace to avoid this issue. Thanks. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 00:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Map request

This article could use an orbital diagram showing the orbits of the major moons and rings from above the north pole. -- Beland (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

New moons announced Oct 2019

The numbers differ from Scott Sheppards page - is there a reason for that ? -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The minor planet center hadn't yet announced all of them until recently, and just announced the last 9 moons, which have been included. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my mother tongue is german; my question concerns the values, e.g. there are different values for the semi-major axis, for the period and so on. I have also checked the number of the moons - they are consistent in the wikipedia article and in Scott Sheppard's page. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that. The orbits are slightly different because we don’t know exactly the orbits of the moons. Many of these have orbits of several years, and as none of them hsve more than ~2 years of observation, the exact orbits are still questionable. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I am aware of this situation; which reference has been used for the Wikipedia table (Scott's page or another reference ?) and is it worth waiting for some time with an update ? - Furthermore these irregular moons change their orbital parameters anyway due to the non-negligible influence of sun's gravity, i.e. this is not a 2-body-system anymore (see here and here; these are old papers which might also be of historical interest) in times of the order of several years only, thus the question arises if such updates are making much sense at all. -- Ralfkannenberg (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I’ve been meaning to do some calculations of the subject, but havent got around to it. The orbits are from the announcement MPECs, and I dont think they’ll vary even remotely as much as the orbital uncertainty. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
And now we can wait for Saturn LIV through Saturn LXXV to be numbered, which will surpass Jupiter's numbers that currently stop at Jupiter LXXII! (Twenty-two, since S/2006 S 1 and S/2007 S 2 appear to have been recovered.) Double sharp (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Second image used in article

The second image used in the article, File:Moons of Saturn.jpg, has captions for each moon displayed. Unfortunately, for each moon with a displayed mass, the scientific notation is incorrectly formatted. For example, Dione has, in its caption, a mass given as 1.1 X 1021 kg. This should be 1.1 x 1021 kg . This image does not seem to be built from scratch for Wikipedia, so correcting the malformed scientific notation will be tedious (about fifteen of the 19 moons pictured have the problem. The image should be corrected, replaced, or a disclaimer added. This problem was raised on this talk page in December, 2010. — Neonorange (Phil) 11:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moons_of_Saturn/Archive_2&oldid=1005913841"