Talk:Titan (moon)

Given that... On February 13, 2008, scientists announced that, according to Cassini data, Titan hosts within its polar lakes "hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth." The desert sand dunes along the equator, while devoid of open liquid, nonetheless hold more organics than all of Earth's coal reserves. (as stated within the Lakes of Titan Article) Given this fact, what is the explanation for the origin of these great levels of Methane on the moon? If the answer is abiotic processes, who is to say that similar processes are not at work here in the interior of our Earth providing us with our so-called "fossil" fuels. And if the answer is biotic processes, then a great deal of life currentlly exists or existed on the Moon, and is thusly a prime candidate in our search for extra-terrestrial life. In my opinion this is the most interesting question surrounding the Titan.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.86.192 (talk • contribs)

You're right; the article doesn't make the origin of the methane clear; added a few citations to clarify it. Our fossil fuels are very much biotic; some coal even is fossils. Titan is a cold moon, so compounds like methane and water, which have low boiling points, could form a substantial part of its composition. Such materials were too volatile to condense near the Sun, where Earth is. While carbon is one of the commonest elements in the Solar System and the universe, it is one of the least common elements on Earth, with most of it tied up in life. Titan's atmosphere is 1.7 percent methane; the methane content of Earth's atmosphere is 1.7 parts per million, or ten thousand times less. Even if you factor in the "hundreds of times more", that's still hundreds of times less than required to replicate the same phenomenon on Earth. Serendi^podous 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do the boiling points of water and methane have to do with the volume of their precense on the moon? Water is to volitile to condense near the sun?? The article refers to the abundance of methane lakes on titan, so for the atomospheric dynamics of the moon, methane plays the role that water does on earth, and also occupies a similar percentage in the atmosphere. What relevence does the methane precense in the earths atmosphere have? If we are making a comparison between the the two bodies, then the methane abundance within the earth's crust should be the figure of reference. What phenomenon are you refering to?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.70.199 (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Water could not have been part of Earth's internal structure in its formation, and thus must have been delivered later from the outer Solar System. Serendi^podous 08:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Anyone else? ...that doesn't want to subvert the premise?

"Subvert the premise"? Someone tries to help you out, and you insult them for their trouble? Why should anyone else bother with you?

The boiling point is entirely relevant, because it appears that light volatile molecules such as methane, ammonia, and water were "boiled off" from the warm inner Solar system, due to the proximity of the Sun. That is, the early Earth appears to have been dry, like Luna. Water is thought to have been reintroduced in large amounts by comets from the colder outer Solar system, where volatiles condensed into planetesimals, planets, and moons. There still isn't much ammonia on Earth, except for that produced biologically from nitrogen. (Ammonia is reactive and doesn't stick around long.) Methane is similar. Mercury, Venus, Luna, and Mars are all low in methane and other organics, as is Earth, in comparison to the outer Solar system. There used to be a fair amount of debate over how much of our hydrocarbon deposits could be abiotic; unless I'm badly out of date, the current consensus is very little. Titan is an entirely different story: with large amounts of primordial methane remaining from the formation of the Solar system, methane has been sitting around in the atmosphere for billions of years getting zapped into heavier organics by Solar radiation. kwami (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the discovery of an atmosphere on Titan, the article reads: "The presence of a significant atmosphere was first discovered by Gerard P. Kuiper in 1944 using a spectroscopic technique that yielded an estimate of an atmospheric partial pressure of methane of the order of 100 millibars (10 kPa)."

While Kuiper was the first to spectroscopically prove that Titan had an atmosphere, the presence of this atmosphere had been suspected and demonstrated (though not conclusively) about 40 years prior. I think that this section of the article could benefit from including a reference to J. Comas Solá, a Spanish astronomer who demonstrated significant limb darkening on Titan in 1903, thereby giving the first indications that Titan might have an atmosphere.

Source: Moore, P.; Hunt, G.; Nicolson, I.; Cattermole, P., (1990). The Atlas of the Solar System. Mitchell Beazley Publishers. ISBN 0-517-00192-6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.12.234 (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK; needed to confirm it with another source, but yes it appears correct. Added. Serendi^podous 10:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Lorenz, Ralph; Jacqueline Mitton (2008). 'Titan Unveiled'. Princeton University Press SBN 978-0-69-12587-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.31.178 (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the description of the position could be more clear. It says it's the twentieth most distant moon, which to me means there are 19 moons farther from Saturn. However I think what's meant is it's the twentieth closest moon, meaning there are 19 closer. Likewise with sixth most distant spheroidal moon. I actually couldn't easily find any online reference clearly indicating the order of Saturn's moons, so I'm not sure which is correct, but IMO it's really not clear from this text. If there are 19 closer moons, I think just "twentieth moon of Saturn" would be clear, or if that's not explicit enough "twentieth closest" or perhaps "twentieth moon from Saturn". Can anyone confirm which is the correct meaning? Nasch (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your last suggestion is best, I think. kwami (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, except that there are 200 moons that are closer. Titan is the 20th named moon from Saturn. kwami (talk) 00:05, 21

September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there are about 200 trillion moons that are closer. Serendi^podous 07:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

In spite of being freezing cold, Titan May support life. Having a hot core may create oasis’s around volcanic arias that are warm enough to harbor bacteria. Also, an ammonia-water mixture regularly sprouts up on the surface. The ammonia acts as an antifreeze. So, to sum it up, Titan, as I said earlier, Titan may harbor life.

Hacker72296 8:01 Pm Janurary 21, 2009

It actually says that in the article. Serendi^podous 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is always the possibility of Microbial life existing there but if there is microbial life it would have to had evolved some means to protect itself from the intense radiation emiting from Saturn. Is this mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.2 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone add any knowledge about winds or ocean currents? I'd be interested to know if there would be significant wave motion in Titanian seas...what it would look like given the different viscosity, temperature, and atmospheric conditions. Or, would Titanian seas be stock still, like the surface of a billiard ball? Tidal motion and potential for pooling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.30.235 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Problem is we don't yet know how deep the lakes are, or even (really) if they exist at all, though the evidence is mounting. Titan's atmosphere is denser than Earth's, and the gravity is weaker, so fluid motions would probably be very different from Earth. Serendi^podous 20:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Titan is a popular young moon. Would it be possible to drink the water? 80.44.254.148 (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Titan's water is frozen solid. But I suppose you could take one of its rocks back to the ship and let it melt. Serendi^podous 14:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

wave action is little compared to earth. winds are like small breezes to significant gusts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trnthood1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The sentence "The hydrocarbons are thought to form in Titan's upper atmosphere in reactions resulting from the breakup of methane by the Sun's ultraviolet light, producing a thick orange smog." should have the following reference: J. H. Waite, Jr., D. T. Young, T. E. Cravens, A. J. Coates, F. J. Crary, B. Magee, and J. Westlake, 2007. The Process of Tholin Formation in Titan's Upper Atmosphere. Science 316 (5826), 870. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1139727]. Thanks Jwestlak (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

added. :-) 04:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could the atmosphere section be partially split off into an Atmosphere of Titan article. Fotaun (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Possibly, but it isn't really big enough. You couldn't do it at the moment without losing crucial information. The climate section was partially split off a while back, but this led to massive confusion for readers, who kept asking where the seasonal information had gone, so it had to be put back. Eventually, the article will be big enough to countenance a split, but it's not there yet. Serendi^podous 21:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you write a summary that preserves the crucial bits for this page, I'll create the sub-page. It would go nicely with the other atmosphere articles. Fotaun (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I could probably condense that section by, say, a third, but not enough to make splitting practical. Serendi^podous 22:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Alright, no sense in splitting it now then. Fotaun (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Titan gains a magnetic field when it leaves Saturn's magnetosphere. Can we have this added:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features/feature20080911.cfm

This article talks of Titan carrying off a portion of Saturn's magnetosphere, this is wrong headed, it is more likely Titan's magnetic field only exists once the moon has passed out of Saturn's magnetosphere. Which may, in turn, point to the cause of planetary magnetic fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.8.128 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well spotted. Added. :-) Serendi^podous 17:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've asked in the german Wikipedia, but got not satisfying answer, so I try here. I'm very curious about the development of Titan. 1) Was the moon "created" in the original dust, which formed also Saturn or was the moon caught later by Saturn 2) Why is on Titan such an amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere? 3) Why is Titan so many times bigger than the second biggest Saturn moon? In other words: Why is no moon with 2, 3 ord 4000 km Diameter (compare with Jupiter, which have four big sized moons). Apparantly Titan contains 95% of all moon Mass that of the Saturn moons. Many thanks in advance for possible answers and best regards, --FrancescoA (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

There should be an origins section to this article. I might create it. As regards Titan's origin, it is a regular satellite, meaning that it orbits with Saturn's rotation and is not inclined to Saturn's equator. This means that it likely formed the same way the planets did; from a disc of dust and gas around the planet. Titan's large mass relative to the other moons in the system could be due to a number of factors: first, that Saturn formed farther out than Jupiter, where solar nebula was less dense, leading to it having far less material from which to form moons; second, Saturn is believed to have formed after Jupiter, which means Jupiter had already sucked up most of the available material; third, Saturn's moon system is highly dynamic, and was likely subject to many collisions early in its formation, which would have blasted many moons to pieces. All these are just guesses though. According to Atmospheric evolution of Titan, Titan's atmosphere formed through outgassing of ammonia, which was then broken down by the Sun into N and H3. The hydrogen escaped into space, leaving the nitrogen. Serendi^podous 18:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many, many thanks for your interesting answer. As for Information: We took a great deal from (your) english Titan Article to transfer it to the german Titan. Thank you also for that big resource, that you people made an excellent work. We are in the process to run for a status as featured article, so I asked here for additional information. regards. --FrancescoA (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

In http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602512 is talk about captured moon rather than a common origin in the primordial dustcloud. --62.47.39.22 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

As this is written, the article suggests that Titan will have near-habitable temperatures in 6 billion years or so when the Sun becomes a giant. Consider the current distance of Titan from the Sun -- about 9.5 AU. This means that Titan gets a little more than 1% of the solar energy Earth receives. Only when the Sun is radiating around 100 times its present energy will Titan have habitable temperatures. But as a red giant, the Sun will be up to 5200 times brighter than it is today[1]. Even accounting for expansion of Saturn's orbit due to tidal interaction and decreasing solar mass, it still seems likely that Titan and other members of the Saturn system will roast under far more solar energy than Mercury now receives. The intense heat will drive off volatile matter to such a degree that all of Saturn's satellites, even the most titanic, will look like comets.Tony (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

It could. Xdr5tfc (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've just uploaded an audio recording of the article. Please let me know if I've mispronounced anything. :-) ~Mangst

In the first sentence of the third paragraph ("Titan is primarily composed of water ice and rocky material."), is the word "water" there to specify that the ice is solid H2O, or should there be a comma there? I was going to change it, but then I realized maybe that was not a mistake. Thanks, Bob the ducq (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just added the date of the Huygens landing to the 1st sentence, then made the former end of the sentence a new sentence. I got the date from the Wiki Huygens probe page-- so the date of the landing should be independently verified.

While doing that, I noticed that the 1st & 2nd paragraphs have some redundancies. I think they should be reworded & combined.

I also think there should be a sentence on the date range for the Huygens probe images-- this should be a 2nd paragraph in the section if more than one sentence; if only one sentence, it should be added to the 1st paragraph. Something like: 'The Huygens probe began photographing the surface of Titan on... . It remained operational and continuted to transmit images until... .

The date for the image used in this section should be researched & added.

The last sentence in this section, on the re-naming of the probe landing site, should remain a separate paragraph as it discusses an event at a later point in time from the landing.SaturnCat (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

From the text:

Huygens attributes his discovery of Titan "partly to the quality of his telescope and partly to luck".

referencing Huygens Ring, Cassini's Division & Saturn's Children, by A. van Helden. On page 10 of the PDF (page 16 of the document), the text reads:

We may ascribe this discovery partly to the quality of his telescope and partly to luck.

The "we" the author refers to, however, is not Huygens, but the author himself and his reader. Therefor the quote is incorrectly attributed to Huygens. Anrie (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

In scientific literature pronoun "we" is commonly used to refer to authors of the paper. In no way it refers to readers. Ruslik_Zero 13:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I didn't know that. Still, the quote isn't attributed to Huygens. Anrie (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply