Talk:Saturn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good article Saturn was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision.
Featured topic star Saturn is part of the "Solar System" series, a featured topic which has been identified as one of the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Does the table (with the title Front row seats) at the bottom of the page need to be updated? ChicXulub 17:50, 27 Mar 2004

If you know more dates of opposition to add then by all means go ahead. If the list gets too long it can always be split into its own article somewhere. :) Bryan 03:24, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added a section comparing images of Saturn from Pioneer 11 in 1979 and Cassini spacecraft in March of this year. I noted that the rings look different on the back sides goes into orbit aroun Saturn. --Tomruen 09:13, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] APOD

Today's Astronomy Picture of the Day calendar article on Rhea links to this Wikipedia article. Congratulations everybody! Fire Star 05:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saturn's Picture

I think the old picture for saturn that is currently displayed on the page should be updated with

the new ones taken by cassini. The puplicaly released photos and captions can be found here: http://ciclops.org/view.php?id=483&flash=1

[edit] Requested Move

  • Oppose. I think Saturn Corporation is too significant to permit primary disambiguation. "Saturn car" on Google gets 3 million plus hits. Dragons flight 00:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose weakly. It doesn't matter much, but my personal preference would be for a disambig page first and foremost in all cases, if only because it facilitates serendipitous discovery of other meanings by the casual user (more than a leading disambig paragraph does). Urhixidur 12:05, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
  • Support. I think when people search Saturn in Wikipedia, they usually search Saturn the planet, not the car. Of course, I can be wrong.--Jyril 12:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE 132.205.3.20 16:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Forcing readers through disabig pages because we think it educational is presumptuous. Septentrionalis 19:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Google isn't a good yardstick; no one is trying to make money by selling planets on the Internet. —Michael Z. 2005-08-5 20:02 Z
    • This is true, and why there are nearly twice as many hits for saturn+car as for saturn+planet, but it is also true that I actually thought of the car before the planet, which is sad, but serves to indicate that the planet is not the only important usage in this case, at least in my mind. Dragons flight 20:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. As with other planet names. – AxSkov (T) 07:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The Saturn car is practically unknown outside of the US. Vclaw 14:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as per Vclaw. Pavel Vozenilek 23:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support as per Vclaw. Re: Urhixidur's argument, serendipitous voyages of discovery are best undertaken voluntarily by the user; we should not compel them to go on such a trip. For instance, it is an interesting coincidence that one of the victims of the Mount St. Helens eruption had the name Harry Truman, the same as that of a former President of the United States, but we should still assume that most persons looking up "Harry Truman" want the president and don't necessarily want to take a serendipitous detour to discover the other guy. -- Curps 04:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support per Vclaw and Michael Z. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not see a problem with how things are right now. So what if you have to click on one extra link after typing a query for Saturn? — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 01:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request.

[edit] Moon navigator?

If you look closely at the bottom of the page, there's a Moon Navigator, that is supposed to allow you to navigate from the Saturn page out through all the moons, starting with Pan. While it's a good idea, I think it should be deleted,

  1. It's duplicated in the Saturn Template, which lists all the moons in orbital order. You can easily do the same navigation from this, if you just look for the current page in that list (it is de-linked and bolded), and click to the link immediately to its right.
  2. It's ugly, and improving its look is time consuming, because each page must be updated (unlike the template system).

I propose that it just be deleted, and possibly a note added to the Saturn template that the moons are in order. JamesHoadley 15:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm over it, maybe I'll make a template for it with variables before and after, so its look can be changed more easily, or even incorporate it into the Saturn and its Satellites template. It's kind of cool to follow the moons like that, and other pages have similar nav systems, like the Pioneer program. JamesHoadley 14:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physical data side panel.

The volume given seems to be quite a long way from other values I've encountered, and actually contradicts the maths if you calculate it using the supplied mass and density. It seems self consistant with the Earth comparison next to it, but is different to the values given in the NASA fact sheet linked at the bottom of the article.

I'd edit it myself, but I'm not entirely sure how to...

Mk86 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. I did the calculations using density and mass as well as diameters, and they all agree with the NASA fact sheet. JamesHoadley 22:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The value for equatorial surface gravity is inconsistent with the mass and diameter values given. It should be about 10.4 m/s^2. ([1])

[edit] Infobox

This infobox needs major shrinking. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal in size or vertical in content? Femto 11:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking vertical - much of this would do better in a separate section. Infoboxes are supposed to be short summaries of the subject to give a general idea of what it is, whichg is why they get the upper right "position of honor". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
AAAAHH!! The infobox is as long as half the article!!! I think it needs some major vertical shortening, too.--Firehawk1717 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetosphere?

Could you elaborate more on Saturn's magnetosphere? There are at least two of its attributes I think merit some mention:

1. Since the interior is composed of liquid metallic hydrogen like Jupiter, you would expect the magnetosphere to be large and powerful like Jupiter. However, it is extremely weak--not even detectable from Earth (we did not confirm its existance until the Pioneer 11 mission). 2. The magnetic poles are nearly inline with the geographic poles--the only planet like this in the solar system.

I'm no expert on this subject, or I would edit it myself; I just thought what I read about Saturn's magnetosphere would certainly make an interesting article...

JPL's official Cassini webpage offers more on the subject: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/magnetosphere-formation.cfm Bdoggie 05:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

I removed a duplicate bit about the Oriental Earth Star from the beginning; it's mentioned in more detail later. I also removed a confused fragment from the rings section; it may have been the remmaint of a longer sentence or so that was cut, but I have no idea what the original was. CFLeon 07:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] B-class

It is considered to be a B-class article. Why? NCurse work 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only guess because the one who added the B class template hasn't commented it. But this article doesn't deserve better. Honestly, this article is in a horrible shape. No proper inline citations; four subheaders for rings that have own article; physical properties, the section which should be the most informative part of the article, is badly incomplete. Heck, physical properties of the rings is about as long! Not a word about Saturn's magnetic field! Not even though it is the magnetic field which is used to measure the planet's rotational period. Then there are headers like "Best viewing of Saturn"... etc.--JyriL talk 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moon contradiction

The article on Saturn's moons says there are 56 moons; this article says there are 47; NASA also says there are 47. Someting needs to be done.--Porsche997SBS 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the German Wikipedia says there are 56 moons and the French Wikipedia says there are 47-50.--Porsche997SBS 02:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Saturn currently has 56 known moons. The discovery of nine more small moons was announced by the Minor Planet Center in June 2006. I would guess that the NASA article just has not been updated yet, after all not just anyone can edit it :) Here is a link to data for all of Saturn's known moons and to the issue of the Minor Planet Electronic Circular that announced the discovery in June --Nebular110 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The Jupiter Satellite Page has up-to-date information on the giant planet satellites (despite the name, not just Jupiter's). It is maintained by Scott S. Sheppard, one of the satellite discoverers.--JyriL talk 17:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, should we change this page or not? I am so if anybody has a good reason for reverting it they should post their good reason here.--Porsche997SBS 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visibility Contradiction?

This artical states Saturn is the most distant planet visable to the naked eye but the Uranus article states it is visable to the naked eye. Red1530 00:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Uranus happens to be in that awkward place where someone with 20:20 vision could see it from a good vantage point if they really know where to look, but for most people it is too faint. The fact that Uranus isn't commonly seen is shown by the fact it is one of the more modern discoveries whereas Saturn is a big bright thing, easily observed and has been since antiquity. MilleauRekiir 21:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination with invitation to renominate

I would have liked to have awarded the GA to this article. It shows quite a bit of hard work. Unfortunately it needs more line citations and a section has been flagged for cleanup since April. Please provide at least one citation for each section and renominate when ready. Durova 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who discovered OBLATENESS ?

Many say that the OBLATENESS of Saturn was first discovered by early moon-mapper Grimaldi, but it seems that no one knows where this was actually first recorded. The oblateness of Saturn was probably the first sighted of any planet. Grimaldi's more senior colleague Riccioli mentions much that Grimaldi assisted him with in his Astronomy books and does mention difference between horizontal and vertical diameters but does any one know details of primary sources.

[edit] oblateness query was from -

peter_m_boyd@yahoo.co.uk

[edit] Blue Saturn?

In the interest of article veracity, I'm curious who posted the following comment:

Recent images from the Cassini spacecraft show that Saturn's northern hemisphere is changing colors. It now appears a bright blue, similar to Uranus, as can be seen in the image below. This blue color cannot currently be observed from earth, because Saturn's rings are currently blocking its northern hemiphere. One theory is that this shocking color change is a result of colder temperatures, as the shadows cast by Saturn's rings are blocking out sunlight. This would result in the yellow clouds sinking and Saturn's deeper blue atmosphere being revealed.

Does the poster have a citation for this observation? Who has proposed a theory explaining this shocking color change? Cite? Author?

While it is true that the upper limb of the planet appears blue, this is easily explained as scattering by the upper atmosphere that is clearly visible due to the darker surrounding atmosphere. In addition, this blue color is only limited to the limb itself which is in sunlight. Why does the poster imply this effect has occured over the whole northern hemisphere? This same effect is visible in the southern hemisphere limb as well in the posted image, suggesting the blue color is not due to temperature changes.

This is an important atmospheric effect if it is real. But there is a lot about the paragraph above that makes me think otherwise.

--The Astrogeek 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If no one claims the paragraph I quote from the article, I'm going to remove it. No one has yet claimed authorship of this dubious material nor have citations or explanations been provided. I'll wait a bit longer and remove it.

The Astrogeek 15:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote is a bit overwrought. I would remove the phrase "changing colors", as it is not a time-driven phenomenon but rather the part of Saturn that is shadowed by the rings appears blue. It is not just the limb, but neither is it the entire northern hemisphere, but the part of the northern hemisphere that is in the rings' shadow. I wouldn't call it "shocking", but it is not fully understood as far as I know. None of the images currently in the article show the effect all that well. Better ones are here[2] and here[3]. --Tisco 17:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane

according the the bbc news ther is a hurricane fixed at the sth pole of saturn. i think this would be importnat to mention because it is the only hurricane ever detected on another body 124.182.131.90 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It has already been mentioned in the physical characteristics section. Additionally, it is not a hurricane nor is it the first cyclone-like storm observed on another planet. It is called hurricane-like because it has some similar characteristics such as a well defined eyewall. Cheers.--Burzum 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
sorry. i missed that section. Eevo 20:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotational behavior

The cause of the change is unknown — however, it is thought that this is due to a movement of the radio source to a different latitude inside Saturn, with a different rotational period, rather than an actual change in Saturn's rotation.

This assessment is not right for 2 reasons :

1- The radio sources are in the magnetosphere and not inside Saturn as stated in the sentence. The radio emissions are produced through wave-particle interactions above the polar regions (1 to 3 Saturn radii above the surface)

2- The idea that some "slippage" occurs in Saturn's interior, leading to apparent change in the radio period when the source latitude changes, is one interpretation among others, and I have to admit that it is not the most popular among the specialists. Unfortunately, the two researchers cited in the nasa page are the two main promoters of this interpretation.

I have already written some lines about this in the french wikipedia article about Cassini-Huygens. Here is a translation :

The determination of a planet's sidereal period is essential to study any physical processes associated to that planet, as this period is use to define its longitudinal coordinate system. In the case of the terrestrial planets, observing the rotation the the surface gives the sideral period. The case of the giant planets is more tricky as we can only observe the rotation rate of the highest layers of the atmospere. The rotating core is indeed deeply buried in the middle of the planet. The only phenomenon directly linked to the rotation of the core that can be observed out of the planet, is its magnetic field. The modulations induced by the magnetic field rotation on the natural planetary radio emissions is thus used as a proxy to measure the sidereal rotation period of the planet.
In the case of Jupiter, the sidereal period as been measured this way. The sidereal period has been determined with a great accuracy: 9h 55m 29.68s ± 0.08s (0.0001% accuracy) [1]. In the case of Saturn, the sidereal period was determined first with the Voyager radio data: 10h 39m et 24s (with a 0.02% relative accuracy)[2]. Using Ulysses radio data, scientists showed in 2000 that the radio period of Saturn had changed since the Voyager era[3]. These new measurements were showing periodicities 1% longer than the Voyager ones. The radio measurements obtained with the Cassini/RPWS/HFR instrument confirms the variation of the apparent radio period. Observations conducted during the 3 first years of operation around Saturn (2004-2006) seem to show that the apparent period is slowly varying (a few percents per year).
As the rotation rate of the internal core is very unlikely to vary, the scientists are trying to find a new way of interpreting the the radio modulations.What do we know about this radio emissions ? They are mainly emitted on the dayside of the magnetosphere of Saturn[4] and are strongly correlated with the solar wind dynamic pressure[5]. Several interpretations are under consideration:

  • seasonal effect: the elevation of the Sun over the ring plane may modify the density of free electrons on top of the rings. This interpretation qualitatively fits to the variation of the observed period, but there is no explanation for the link between the 2 phenomena.
  • solar cycle effect: the properties of the interplanetary medium and the solar wind are varying depending on the solar activity. It has been shown that the auroral radio emissions of Saturn are strongly correlated to the solar wind parameters.
  • beating effect[6]: non random fluctuations of the longitudinal location of the radio active region. Simulations showed that it is easy to obtain apparent radio periods shifted from the sidereal period with such fluctuations.
  • convection system in the core of Saturn: theory inspired by the Sun interior dynamics, but very unlikely to be applicable to Saturn.
None of these explanations really describe the observed variabilities, nor provide a way to derive the real sidereal period of Saturn.
The problem of the Saturnian sidereal period definition remains unsolved. It is particularly problematic for the atmospheric science at Saturn: if the measured radio period is actually 1% longer than the one measured at Voyager, all the atmosphere is super-rotating (i.e. rotating faster than the planet core), which is difficult to explane.

Feel free to correct my messy english before including any part of the text in the article.

Bapts 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Planet_infobox_conventions_.28km_vs._AU_vs._miles.29 on standardizing the planet infoboxes, as well as the possibility of changing the planet diameter to radius. If you care about these things, let your opinion be heard there. Lunokhod 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's with the bottom of this page?

It ends then goes on for a while with tons of white space because there's a Saturn symbol at the bottom that can't be removed. Is there any way to fix this? FireSpike Editor Review! 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planet's Distance From the Sun

I really think that we should show how far the planets are from the sun, when people do their reports, they will want it, and they are tired of wandering around Google and Yahoo! typing in different keywords to try to find out. I think someone should go and add the information about how far a planet is from the sun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceboy222 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

The information is provided. Here it is referred to as the semi-major axis, which is half of the long axis of an ellipse. It is also the average of the minimum and maximum distances, the perihelion and aphelion. Saros136 03:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that you guys should also put in the information of the rotation period too.( how long it takes for a planet to go around once on its own axis)

Actually, that's already in the infobox. See "Rotation Period" in the physical characteristics section. It's 0.449 375 days, or 10 hours, 47 min, and 6 seconds. siafu 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query on Images from NASA

Under what copyright should they be uploaded? There's this new photo of Saturn from satellite Cassini released by NASA on March 1, 2007. Is it free under US laws, fair use or what? Berserkerz Crit 11:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Public domain. Add them in, they are good for the article. 65.40.195.176 06:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Public domain with proper attribution. Not giving attribution or giving false attribution is verboten. Michaelbusch 08:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've added it, feel free to relocate the picture where it is appropriate. Berserkerz Crit 08:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telesto cropped?

Am I just missing it, or is Telesto cropped off the image, since it says it is at the top, but I am not seeing it, I figure cropping is the likely reason. CodeCarpenter 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] small remark, hubble on earth??

. This atmosphere, despite being extremely sparse, was detected from Earth by the Hubble Space Telescope. [18]

I always thought the hubble was orbiting earth, so technically it was detected from space no?

[edit] Question

How long is a full day on Saturn? -- User:Atomic Religione

[edit] Suggested reasons for the hexagonal shape of the north pole storm?

In reading about the hexagonal storm at Saturn's north pole today, both here and in the paper, it occured to me that this article is begging the obvious question of explaining why the storm is hexagonal. I think it would greatly improve that part of the article if a brief explanation of plausible reasons why scientists think the storm is shaped that way. The linked abstracts used for references aren't freely accessible so I can't tell if they talk about that subject in detail and could be used for further citation. Or, if there are as yet no good explanations for the storm, then the article should mention that fact.

So either present some possible explanations, or present references indicating that scientists are really stumped on the explanation. Dugwiki 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To follow up, Mac Aavis posted an article describing a very likely sounding explanation for the hexagonal structure. A May 19 2006 Nature article describes a simple experiment that demonstrates how rapidly spinning fluid in a cylindrical bucket forms various polygonal shapes as the water recedes from the center. The shapes change according to the speed of the rotation, with a hexagonal shape at the center appearing at the highest settings the experimenters tested. While this might not be the underlying physical mechanism that's shaping the eye of the storm on Saturn, it seems like a very plausible one. Dugwiki 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/t/Talk%7ESaturn_c528.html"