Talk:Rings of Saturn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Solar System
Solar System Portal

This article is within the scope of the Solar System WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Solar System.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Keeler Gap width

Keeler Gap says its width is 42 kilometers which is not consistent with this table… Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.51.1 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Has there been a reply to this? The table indicates 35 km; the page text indicates 42 km (I am assuming the 42 is more accurate -- only because it isn't rounded to the nearest 5). Or is the Gap jagged and approximate (sort of how the F Ring is "bumpy and lumpy"? Tesseract501 30 May 2006
The Keeler gap's width is variable, so quoting a single number is probably futile. --CheshireCatCO (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I've merged the ring pages together here. However, now there's a lot of duplicated images of this page, although the captions may be different. I'm not sure what's the clearest way to present them. Also, the layout of the F Ring images needs work, maybe we can just have one image for F Ring? Ewlyahoocom 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the simplest thing is to delete the duplicated images and rewrite the caption of the one you keep.
I agree about the F-Ring but I can't actually decvide which should go. The Singing Badger 18:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I made them a gallery. Rmhermen 17:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hirn's theory

What was Gustave-Adolphe Hirn's theory? Cutler 11:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No mention of thickness? I was actually looking for that information but it is not here, I think this should be included. From http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Saturn&Display=Rings "a thickness of about 1 kilometer (3,200 feet) or less," Vespine 04:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ring B Composition

Unless it's an astronomical/physical term I'm unfamiliar with, I'm going to guess that whoever said "B ring is made of snot" just has a very bad sense of humor. -- Raveled

[edit] Huygens Gap

This is a great page to get detail information on the ring systems of Saturn. This is the best detail that I have found. Thank you for putting so much effort and info into it. It is appreciated. I have a questions about the Huygens Gap. The page text may indicate that the Huygens Gap separates the B Ring from the Cassini Division. If so, I am confused by the distances reflected on the table. The table shows the Cassini Division beginning where the B Ring ends. Doesn't the Huygens Gap begin where the B Ring ends and the Cassini Division begin when the Huygens Gap ends? If so, then the distances and widths may need to be updated. In addition, the widths indicated for the Huygens Gap (even the lesser at 285 km) seem to conflict with the outer boundary of the B Ring (i.e., the B Ring would overlap the gap). BTW: The table indicates 4700 for the Cassini Gap width, but the text indicates 4800. Thanks again for a great page. It has been very helpful to me. Tesseract501 30 May 2006

[edit] Four new rings

IAUC 8759[1] (subscription required) lists four new rings of Saturn (R/2006 S 1, R/2006 S 2, R/2006 S 3, R/2006 S 4). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyril (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thickness of rings

Can someone add information about how thick each rings is as well as the average particle size (and distance between particles) within each ring? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.199.241.212 (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

(moved from below - Spiral Wave) Thickness of the rings: It seems necessary to explain the extraordinary thinness of the rings. It is not surprising that tidal effects from Saturn bring satellites into the equatorial plane but it seems that this effect is not enough to rationalise the thinness. Is there a text book or paper that gives the physics of the ring geometry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.203.129 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see there is already some information on thickness; even the thicker rings are about 100 metres deep; regarding how they got that small, it's just conservation of angular momentum and vertical settling. Saturn's oblateness probably helps too. I'll see if I can dig something up regarding this and the particle size. Spiral Wave 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. Conservation of angular momentum tries to keep the orbits of the particles on their original, inclined states. Collisions between particles, however, average out angular momenta and tend to put the ring's orbits into the planet's equatorial plane. In the absence of such collisions, you get a thick ring. You can find a discussion of the process in Stewart et al. in Planetary Rings (University of Arizona Press). 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheshireCatCO (talk • contribs)

[edit] Future of the rings

I saw on a BBC documentary that Saturn is going to lose its rings in about 100 million years. Are there any sources to confirm this? Serendipodous 11:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All ring systems vanish eventually; that timescale sounds about right, at a guess. Saturn's system is pretty unusual though - there's some weird dynamics going on that keeps everything in place, and one or two rings are apparently still being refreshed by satellites (eg Enceladus). I'll look into this too, since the article seems not to draw too much attention. Was the programme The Sky At Night, Horizon, or something else? Knowing their source might be a good starting point. Spiral Wave 02:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

well maby the rings gravitational force will eventually pull parts of them together, maby forming several moons, or even eventally one large moon. Its just a theory, but does anyone know of any evidance to support it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.224.1.14 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. That won't happen. i kan reed 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional details

There's quie a bit on the Saturn page that it would be nice to see here. Formation hypotheses and estimated time, the bit above about ring decay over 100 million years. What's the total mass of the rings? I read in Analog that Saturn had no rings during the Mesozoic. What's the going hypothesis on when the formation happened? What will be their ultimate fate? Anyway, broad overview stuff (as well as the details of particular rings). --Aranae 17:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circular orbit?

I'm writing a blurb on conic sections for a science museum (in Guatemala City). I want to use orbits as one example. It's easy to find examples of elliptical and hyperbolic orbits, but what about circular ones? It seems obvious just from some of the better pictures that some (frictional?) process has all but eliminated any eccentricity from the rings - I'd wager that in general they're as perfectly circular as just about any precision-machined doodad, and that any deviations are more like ripples from the moons than like elliptical eccentricity. Can anyone back me up (or shoot me down) on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.56.47.173 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The orbits of Saturn's ring's particles are circular to about 1 part in 10 million in the main rings, if that helps you any. Collisions work against the effects of gravitational encounters to find an equilibrium. 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheshireCatCO (talk • contribs)

[edit] Locked rings?

Apparently, Saturn's rings will be locked with the Earth by 2009, i.e. we won't be able to see them as they will be directly side-on to us. Some astronomers at the University of Melbourne told me this. Has anyone heard of this or is there any evidence elsewhere to prove or disprove this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.149.30 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Because Saturn's tilted on its axis like the Earth is, as it goes through seasons, it leans different directions. Since the rings are along Saturn's equator, they tilt different ways with the seasons. I don't know off the top of my head if we'll be seeing them edge on in 2009, but it is very possible, as it has happened before. However, they won't be 'locked' in place, and will continue tilting, until they're more visible again. --Patteroast 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are the panoramic images too "overwhelming"? Please comment or "vote" below.

In my view, the panoramic image that I have added to the beginning of the article is the only one in the whole article that does the subject justice. However, I'd be happy to have it deleted if the consensus is against me. WolfmanSF 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Images says to "be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." We currently have four global views of the rings before we even get to images illustrating particular aspects of the ring system. I personally think that your addition of PIA08389 is much better than PIA07874, but I would suggest choosing one of them and putting it in the place where you put PIA08389. The size and placement of PIA07874 (as it now stands) is a particular problem, as it greatly reduces the prominence of the lead section.
Finally, only half of this "panoramic image" is actually an image. The bottom half is constructed from one-dimensional radio occultation data by assuming azimuthal symmetry. --BlueMoonlet 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree with you the vertical height of the image was excessive for placement at the beginning of the article. Having reduced it, I note that the image would appear to still be in violation of the image size guidelines. However, it seems to me that for some subjects (such as the Grand Canyon and the present one) a little bending of the rules might be appropriate. I think you are confusing "image" and "photograph" - the computer-generated radio occultation image complements the photo on top rather than detracting from it. Any further comments? WolfmanSF 19:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The current version of Grand Canyon does not bend the rules at all, IMO. What I object to the most is having a picture above the lead text, rather than to the side. I don't think your reduction helps much. --BlueMoonlet 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the panorama to the end of the intro. I suspect you'll still object, but I'd like to get feedback from at last a few more individuals before deciding whether to delete the image. The Grand Canyon article does have an 1111-pixel-wide image, in excess of the suggested width limit of 300 pixels. WolfmanSF 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in your suspicion.  :) Move extra-wide images below the first subject heading (as is done in the Grand Canyon article) and choose one of the two to exceed the width limit (I vote for PIA08389), and I'll be satisfied. --BlueMoonlet 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That looks fine. --BlueMoonlet 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How about making PIA08389 vertical and putting it on the right like at Mira, and remove PIA06536? -- Jeandré, 2007-10-26t19:48z

The pictures make this one of the most fascinating and awesome Wikipedia articles I've ever seen, don't change a damn thing. GrimmC (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age

Nothing is said about the age of the system. Cassini has shed some light on this, and if I remember correctly the system is now thought to be ancient. Anyone care to add something? kwami 12:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some new ideas as to how the rings could be ancient, but the matter is hardly settled. This is one of several topics that should be discussed in the article, which currently is almost exclusively about ring structure. Others include particle size, chemical composition, numerical simulations of ring structure, and more. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enceladus and Ring A

Saturn's Giant Sponge (NASA, 02.05.08) the paper is Farrell et al. Mass unloading along the inner edge of the Enceladus plasma torus, doi:10.1029/2007GL032306. Circeus (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)