Talk:Triton (moon)

liquids and thus possibility of life?

Cosmic Biology: How Life Could Evolve on Other Worlds, Louis Neal Irwin, Dirk Schulze-Makuch, New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer-Praxis Books, 2011, page 266.

http://books.google.com/books?id=b7XhonTq2s8C&pg=PA266&dq=Triton+ammonia&hl=en&ei=snVWT4XhCMnHsQLWp_XtCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=5&ved=0CFEQ6wEwBA#v=onepage&q=Triton%20ammonia&f=false

“ . . tiny water-ammonia-saline ice inclusions within the bulk of water ice that makes up much of the mantle. . ”

“ . . thin films of liquid N2 between overlying frozen N2 and an underlying solid substrate like frozen H2O, or liquid N2 inclusions embedded in frozen N2. The seasonally driven geysers that appear to result from solar heating of underlying volatiles show that liquefaction of frozen N2 happens. Tnin layers of liquid N2, or liquid N2 inclusions, could thus exist.

“ . . The third habitat would be the major one for life beneath the surface of Triton. This would be whatever is left of the global ocean that likely enshrouded the satellite for some time after its capture by Neptune. Circumstantial evidence that liquid water still exists underground on Triton includes the compelling case for cryovolcanism which is probably still occurring, and the cantaloupe terrain, wich is easiest to explain by the dynamic action of subsurface liquid reservoirs. To be sure, the cantaloupe terrain is like no other seen in the Solar System, so whatever gives rise to it might be quite an exotic cocktail of subsurface liquids. But given the amount of Triton’s bulk composition estimated to be water, it must be a water-based cocktail to a substantial degree. . ”

Currently, the last sentence of our Physical characteristics section reads "If present, a layer of liquid water would suggest the possibility, however unlikely, of life.[29]" I'm not sure we know enough about exobiology to make even that qualifying statement of "however unlikely." Using the one example of Earth, the tentative conclusion seems to be that single-cell life is easy and multi-cell life is hard. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's just pure speculation. No one knows the mechanism of how life evolved - they put together organic molecules and sunlight and/or lightning and !poof! life started - but we have NO IDEA of what actually happened billions of years ago, scientists look at the fossil record and geophysical records and guess. All deep-sea life on our planet migrated there from earlier forms in shallow seas, rather than from the "bottom up" - so what happens under kilometers of frozen ice w/o sunlight is anyone's guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The orbit of Triton graphic

"The orbit of Triton ... " graphic is ambiguous in it's presentation of a retrograde orbit (red) compared to a typical moon (green). If the observer sees Triton's orbit as "inside" the example moons orbit, then Retrograde is portrayed. However if the observer see Triton's orbit as "outside" the example moons orbit, then Prograde is portrayed. Clarification could be accomplished by a slight shift of view, such that the orbit or Triton also passes in front of (or behind) Neptune. SquashEngineer (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Upon further review, it is clear that the graphic shows the two orbits going in the same direction but should be showing one going in the opposite direction. SquashEngineer (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Negative orbital period is inconsistent.

The orbital period listed as -5.9 days is inconsistent with an inclination of 157°. If we consider Triton to be orbiting with a negative period, then its total number of orbits completed from a given epoch would be decreasing (this is strange by itself). Therefore, each orbit, counting upward, would be moving back in time, and in a counterclockwise (prograde) direction. So it's either orbiting at 157° in +5.9 days, or 23° in -5.9 days. The page currently shows 157° in -5.9 days. I argue that the former makes much more sense and is less likely to create even more inconsistencies.

Also, if we're using negative numbers for retrograde orbital periods (something I find to be illogical in many ways), what would a perfectly polar (90°) orbit's period be? Positive or negative? Why? "That's irrelevant because it couldn't be perfectly polar" is just avoiding the question.

JustinTimeCuber (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not completely illogical. The negative period makes intuitive sense out of why Triton's orbit is decaying even though it is outside Neptune-synchronous orbit. The tidal bulges raised by Triton on Neptune are behind Triton in its orbit, not ahead of it, and putting a negative number down as Triton's period makes this case of a retrograde period consistent with the other case of tidal deceleration (in which the moon's revolution period is positive, but less than the planet's rotation period). I agree with your point about exactly polar orbits, but this is the sort of question that is usually avoided. As a similar example, the IAU definition of the geographic north pole of a planet refers to which celestial hemisphere the pole is relative to the invariable plane of the Solar System, which presents a problem if it happens to be exactly on the celestial equator (which of course will not happen in reality). Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Paper on various UV observations

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103583710419

©Geni (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Limb of Triton

The term "limb" is used several times in this article and elsewhere, but it seems not to have the usual meaning. I'd be grateful if anyone could explain to me what it means here? ManlyMatt (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on the Relative Size of Triton.

It might make sense to clarify that Triton's status as the second largest moon relative to its host planet is in terms of radius, as by mass Titan would actually take second place. The ambiguity of the article might lead to a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-Aliased-User (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Source for Triton's obliquity

Triton's obliquity (axial tilt) is listed as zero with no source. Oniow (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Replacement suggestion

In infoboxes for planetary bodies, we generally favor images showing the entire body over images that are the highest resolution. This article seems to be the lone exception. Currently we use File:Triton moon mosaic Voyager 2 (large).jpg, which is a mosaic of the 40% of Triton's surface that was imaged in detail by Voyager 2 (and if assumed to be a single image gives a very unrealistic impression of Titan's shape). I propose that this image be moved to the "Surface features" section and replaced by File:Neptune’s Moon Triton Fosters Rare Icy Union (gemini1903a) (square crop).jpg in the infobox, which seems to be the best image we have of the entire moon. Nosferattus (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I made the suggested changes. Nosferattus (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks better :) Healpa12 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nosferattus and Healpa12: This global view of Triton is a copyvio unfortunately. I've nominated it for deletion. I personally do not think this image is suitable for this article either, since this mosaic reprojects the original Voyager 2 images onto a 3D sphere model (which doesn't make it a "real image"), rather than simply stitching the original images together. Nrco0e (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I replaced the copyvio image with an image by NASA/JPL that shouldn't have any copyright problems. Unfortunately, it isn't high resolution, but it does show the whole sphere at least. Nosferattus (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That shows exactly the same face of Triton, and I find it unlikely to be a coincidence. I think we're seeing a case of license laundering here. 2804:214:85E3:6CEC:BDC8:4B0A:BE44:CBB2 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Although the images are very similar, they are not identical. The Oner image has more muted colors, is more detailed, and is brighter around the edges. Maybe A. Tayfun Oner decided to base his rendering on the existing NASA/JPL image. NOIRLab is generally a pretty reliable source. I would be very surprised if they were license laundering someone else's copyrighted image. Nosferattus (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any significant difference around the edges of either image, and the differences in detail and colors can most likely be explained by downscaling/lossy compression the NASA/JPL image has been submitted to from its source file.

See the "notch" at 2 to 3 o'clock, present in both images (albeit less visible in NASA/JPL's version): that clearly is an artifact due to poor coverage at that area. If they're not from the same source, this still would imply that they were produced using the same global map, possibly a copyrighted one.

There aren't many different maps of Triton available on the web: the ones I know of which come directly from NASA are either in a different color scheme, or severely incomplete. Meanwhile, Tayfun's map, of which derivative versions can be found at the personal sites of Wm. Robert Johnston or Steve Albers, has that same feature which shows in both images. It's very unlikely that the map could not be Tayfun's own work, as the Views of the Solar System site has other maps attributed to them, and maps from other sources are attributed correctly. 177.51.84.60 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Downscaling does not change colors, nor would it account for the edges being less bright. Regardless, if you believe the image is copyrighted, please nominate it for deletion. It does no good to argue about it here. Nosferattus (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Nrco0e that I don't think the image is suitable for the infobox, in that it is not actually an image taken by Voyager or even a mosaic, but a digital model with a texture projected onto it. Seeking a full-circle image at the expense of image quality and accuracy isn't necessary, the mosaic is much higher resolution and although it is still in false colour, it gives a better idea as to the surface appearance of Triton. What that one is good for is things like size comparisons and other such content where surface detail isn't the goal and a full disc is valuable. At the very least, the caption needs to be updated so that it does not erroneously claim to be a real image taken by Voyager. It seems this was done as I was writing this. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 08:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any practical difference between a mosaic and a digital model with a texture projected onto it. Why would one be preferable over the other? Nosferattus (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't see any practical difference, why did it need to be changed in the first place? Had the textured model not come at a significant penalty to quality, there would be no issue with it. As stated, the mosaic is significantly higher resolution and although it is still in false colour, it is more faithful to the surface appearance of Triton. This is why the mosaic is preferable in the role of lede image, while a lower quality full-disk can serve well as a point of comparison where such surface detail is not required. This article is not the lone exception in that the best quality image is not full-disc, Venus for instance uses a slightly cropped image in favour of the traditional false-colour radar render. More pertinently, the other moons of Uranus and Neptune use images which are incomplete discs, rather than textured 3D renders. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 07:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I will point out that models often do have issues with accurate color, appearance, and lighting, as Xiphosura partially pointed out. A relatively recent case was with Miranda's former full-disc image, which was a 3D render that was used with little to no disclaimer that it was not a real image/mosaic, even when there were very clear errors which marked the render as, well, a render. One may call it nitpicky, but I would argue that accuracy to a body's appearance in its infobox image here on Wikipedia should be one of the top priorities in terms of article quality control. Wikipedia's influence, particularly amongst the popular understanding of astronomy it seems, is immense; I still see that 3D model of Miranda widely used from astronomy Youtube channels to my own professors' lecture slides. ArkHyena (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Where is it stated that full disk images are preferred over high resolution images? AstroChara (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not stated AFAIK. It's just a convention. Nosferattus (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Triton Vs. Pluto.jpg was derived from the A. Tayfun Oner image. Does anyone want to remake it with the NOIR one? —holly {chat} 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

2nd replacement suggestion

Time to poke this discussion awake again (hopefully). It turns out that in late November 2023, a whole series of newly-processed Triton images were released by M. T. Bland and the USGS—all under CC by 4.0! The details of the licensing, as well as the processing, reasoning behind the endeavor, and other details can be found in this open-access article here.[1]

Anyways, among the images were three full-disc mosaics of Triton. One of them is the "raw" mosaic with all the reseaux and other artifacts (the author eloquently calls it the "ugly" one). The normal and highpass mosaics, however, are fully processed; I've uploaded both to commons. Unfortunately, the highpass mosaic suffers from alignment/stitching issues on its far left side (you can view it here: [2]). The normal mosaic does not suffer from this as much.

Compared to the old full-disc image, the new mosaic does not suffer from the strange, harsh terminator crop that the old one did. Unfortunately, none of the mosaics are in color, but the current infobox image and the old full-disc image are both grotesquely exaggerated in color anyways. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Manual of Style#Images, 3D models like the current infobox image are discouraged, especially when a photograph or photograph mosaic is available (as a note though, the Astronomy MOS is still a draft), so I propose replacing the infobox image with the one I've provided here. ArkHyena (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as there has been no objection over five days, I've gone ahead and replaced the infobox image. ArkHyena (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

FAR

Though currently an FA, this article's only assessment regarding its FA status was an FAC nom from 2008, nearly two decades ago at this point. A quick skim reveals only one tag, but this article is missing some general information on geological characteristics and likely subsurface ocean, and has some confusing wording, such as "The largest crater observed on Triton thought to have been created by an impact is..." and "The black material ejected is suspected to contain organic compounds...". Overall, a FAR may be needed. ArkHyena (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)