Slashdot Mirror


Liquid Lakes On Saturn's Moon Confirmed

Riding with Robots writes "Scientists have been using the robotic spacecraft Cassini to explore what looked to be large lakes of hydrocarbons on the surface of Saturn's planet-sized moon Titan. But they couldn't be entirely sure that the features were actually liquid lakes, and not simply very smooth, solid material. Now, new findings seem to confirm that the observations really do show extensive seas of liquid ethane and other hydrocarbons. In fact, Titan seems to have an entire 'water' cycle of ethane evaporation, rain and rivers."

188 comments

  1. Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    This is the official "invade Saturn" thread. Please post all jokes about the united states invading Saturn here, so as not to contaminate more serious discussion.

    On another note, can anyone tell me about the chances of this being a good environment for oil eating bacteria?

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I'd prefer to invade Uranus.

      Robin "roblimo" Miller

    2. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uranus will be invaded without oil!

    3. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by dlgeek · · Score: 0

      I doubt there'd be any bacteria as we know them there, as the surface temperature is -300F. If there were some kind of bacteria, they definitely wouldn't have water-based cells.

      If you're looking for extraterrestrial life, I'd say it's very unlikely. If you're looking for bacteria to help with recycling on earth, I'd say you're SOL.

    4. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by Tongsy · · Score: 1

      Obviously they would be ethane based cells.

    5. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by gsslay · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not "invade". Sheesh, keep to the script why dontcha?!

      Act 1: Locate & Destroy Secret Inter-planetary WMDs
      Act 2: Er, forget that, we never said that, we meant; Liberate oppressed Saturnians
      Act 3: Confuse Saturn For Something Jupiter Did - Meh, they're all gas-giants aren't they?
      Act 4: Ooh, fancy that, you have oil? That we did not know.
      Act 5: Damn Ungrateful Tentacle-heads

    6. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Act 6: ???
      Act 7: Profit!

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's *always* time for lubricant.

    8. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by gdog05 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Professor: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all." Fry: "Oh. What's it called now?" Professor: "Urectum. Here, let me locate it for you."

    9. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you couldn't have tried harder on that...

    10. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by riceboy50 · · Score: 1

      Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
    11. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holding out for the "invade Uranus" thread.

      captcha: jested - Is AI software reading my post and picking captchas?

    12. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      Well, let's send out a robo-sub & find out.

    13. Re:Cheesy Joke Thread, and life on Saturn by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

      Robert Silverberg's novel Invaders From Earth is about Earth invading Ganymede with similar excuses. There were lakes of ethane on the surface.

  2. goody by SirShmoopie · · Score: 1

    If by the time we get out there we've exhausted our own supply of hydrocarbons we know there are plenty waiting for us.

    Given how valuable they are as a raw material I would assume the plan wouldn't be to burn them..

    1. Re:goody by IAAE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Other than burning hydrocarbons, what would you do with them?

      TFA says that theres methane, ethane and other light hydrocarbons. You can make CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs and that kind of fun stuff with methane and ethane, but to make polymers you need ethylene or other hydrocarbons with double or triple bonds.

      It probably wouldn't be feasible to transport hydrocarbons from Titan back to Earth for consumption here, the energy costs alone would be astronomical; that and the whole climate change and tendancy to move away from hydrocarbons... The only thing I can see this being "useful" for is if we wanted a "refueling station" in space where we could just load up a spaceship with what is essentially natural gas. The only problem would be finding oxygen to combust it with...

      --
      I'm critical, not cynical...
    2. Re:goody by Zarf · · Score: 1

      The only thing I can see this being "useful" for is if we wanted a "refueling station" in space where we could just load up a spaceship with what is essentially natural gas. The only problem would be finding oxygen to combust it with...

      ... hellooo... cloud mining Saturn. The obvious discovered!

      --
      [signature]
    3. Re:goody by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      The only problem would be finding oxygen to combust it with...

      Send a giga-shitload of solar panels there, fore into the liquid water layer, do electrolysis, and there you go!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    4. Re:goody by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      Actaully, if there is such an abundance of the stuff we use for power why would it be that impossible?

      Launch rocket from Earth with transport probe.
      Transport probe houses parts for a return rocket and parts for a "shipping container".
      Once it arrives, it fuels the return rocket and loads the shipping container.
      Launch rocket from destination towards Earth.
      As it nears Earth, launch a receiving rocket which aids in safe descent of the shipping container.

      As long as the shipping container is collapsible (something akin to a balloon, but sturdy enough to withstand launch and space) it shouldn't be too bad. Oh, and the contianer has to at least bring back enough to pay for the trip, so I'm not sure how big that container needs to be.

      Layne

    5. Re:goody by IAAE · · Score: 1

      I hope your solar panels work at 93.7 K (-180 C)...

      --
      I'm critical, not cynical...
    6. Re:goody by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Well you could still put them in orbit around Titan and beam the power where needed ;)

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    7. Re:goody by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 1

      Why land? Just hook up a pipeline to the space elevator. :-)

    8. Re:goody by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      Of course if you do that you get Hydrogen and Oxygen which will combust together just fine (and make water again). No need to pollute the universe with hydrocarbon byproducts.

    9. Re:goody by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      You can make CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs and that kind of fun stuff with methane and ethane, but to make polymers you need ethylene or other hydrocarbons with double or triple bonds.

      Where do you think we get ethylene on Earth? It's produced by putting ethane in a steam cracker.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    10. Re:goody by CommunistHamster · · Score: 1

      But then you'll just lose energy (you cant break even, remember?). A: 1. Put energy in to break bonds between oxygen and hydrogen in water to give hydrogen and oxygen 2. Get the same (less, due to inefficiencies) energy out by combusting hydrogen and oxygen forming water. B: 1. Put energy in to break bonds between oxygen and hydrogen in water to give hydrogen and oxygen 2. Get more energy out by combusting the ethane and oxygen, because you're releasing the energy in the ethane bonds which already exists (no need to create them).

    11. Re:goody by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      But then you'll just lose energy (you cant break even, remember?).

      True, but I think you missed this part:

      Send a giga-shitload of solar panels there, fore into the liquid water layer [wikipedia.org], do electrolysis, and there you go!

      As long as you have sun there is always more energy coming in. At least for a little while.

  3. Saturn == LA? by dlgeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    FTA: "[T]hese particles form a ubiquitous hydrocarbon haze that hinders the view."
    Sounds just like LA.

    1. Re:Saturn == LA? by deadmantyping · · Score: 1

      More like Beijing

    2. Re:Saturn == LA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, but American always owns LA so theyll now have to invade another planet

    3. Re:Saturn == LA? by kellyb9 · · Score: 1

      It is ringed by a dark beach, where the black lake merges with the bright shoreline.

      Sounds more like Jersey if you ask me.

    4. Re:Saturn == LA? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like Beijing. Maybe they can hold the next Olympics there.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    5. Re:Saturn == LA? by zonker · · Score: 0

      Yeah it's just as accessible and welcoming of an environment as China.

  4. Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by AtomicSnarl · · Score: 1

    Kewl! I want to go Surfing!

    --
    Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
    1. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Ethane BOILS at -88 C, so skip the zinc oxide and pack some mittens and earmuffs.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by SirShmoopie · · Score: 1

      you just know that sooner or later, even if its centuries from now, someone is going to do exactly that.....

    3. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by e03179 · · Score: 1

      ...just before they go surfing on the surface of the sun.

      --
      -516
    4. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by Osurak · · Score: 1

      Ethane BOILS at -88 C, so skip the zinc oxide and pack some mittens and earmuffs.

      Any intelligent life that developed there would probably use the phase changes of ethane as the basis for their temperature scale, rather than water. So -88 C would become something more like 100 E

    5. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by strelitsa · · Score: 1

      But only at night.

      --
      No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
    6. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heretic! Everyone knows that ethane boils at 212 degrees Ethanheit, just as it freezes at 32 degrees E. 100 E is just a hot day in Titan-Texas.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by Osurak · · Score: 1

      Heretic! Everyone knows that ethane boils at 212 degrees Ethanheit, just as it freezes at 32 degrees E. 100 E is just a hot day in Titan-Texas.

      Yeah, I guess the 0-100 scale doesn't make sense if the hypothetical beings on Titan do not have 10 fingers and therefore do not think in base 10. 32-212 is equally nonsensical to everybody, except maybe an octopus.

    8. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by msbmsb · · Score: 1

      So -88 C would become something more like 100 E

      Or "212 Q".

    9. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      32-212 is equally nonsensical to everybody, except maybe an octopus.

      I think that the Germans would have something to say about that :)

      IIRC, Farenheit used the word "degrees" and thus wasn't worried about a 10-based system. The boiling point of water wasn't known yet, so he used some points that he knew to be constant. Icy salt water (well, ammonium cloride) was known to remain constant, so he used that for zero. Icy pure water was known to remain constant, so he used that for 32. The human body was known to be constant, so he used that for 96. Why he didn't use 0, 1, and 3 is beyond me... maybe he felt like he needed more resolution. I think one theory is that he originally picked 12 - a number that humans seem to like. Later, for whatever reason, he then sub-divided the scale with 8ths. Another is that he just built his scale by quadrupling a previous 0-60 scale and re-calibrating it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by SirShmoopie · · Score: 1

      well obviously only at night. Mind you, all the shops would be shut, so where would you go for a latte afterwards?

    11. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Let's just hope that somebody is lighter than the viscous liquid he plans to surf on or the rescue mission will be somewhat problematic.

    12. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by 32771 · · Score: 1

      >I think that the Germans [wikipedia.org] would have something to say about that :)

      Thanks for reminding me to hide my thumbs.

      But independently of that I never heard much about Fahrenheit when I was young. Instead my grandfather had a thermometer with Celsius and Reaumur scale on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9aumur_scale

      This is probably because France was all the rage over here before the US became the new kid on the block. How you guys got stuck with Fahrenheit is beyond me though.

      --
      Je me souviens.
    13. Re:Low Gravity and Viscous Liquids by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think that it is as mundane as... we inherited it from the British. Like other units of measure, there is no compelling reason for your average consumer to change... why the heck should my mom - a real estate professional - need to suddenly order milk in 4-liter bottles instead of gallon bottles? The scientific and engineering communities pretty much switched over ages ago.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  5. Gas price ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's our chance to lower the gas price and test if the Global warming is a myth. Import it from Saturn.

    On another tought, how about a refuelling station there for space exploration ?

    1. Re:Gas price ? by conteXXt · · Score: 1

      And here we thought the Alaska Pipeline was expensive.... Imagine the stretch on THAT hose?

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    2. Re:Gas price ? by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's our chance to lower the gas price and test if the Global warming is a myth. Import it from Saturn.

      What? Are you saying you want to try to burn ethane gas instead of gasoline? I guess you could, though I wouldn't want to be anywhere near ethane storage if a leak was suspected - mixtures of 3% ethane in atmospheric air can be explosive.
      And of course that's ignoring how much energy and money would be expended to try to bring it to earth from Saturn.

      On another tought, how about a refuelling station there for space exploration ?

      Are you planning to burn the ethane? If so, then you would still need to bring oxygen with you, as there might not be any of it there. Unless you want to try to use it as a propellant on its own...

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:Gas price ? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Stretch space hoes? Weird oceans? Sounds like THHGTTG already.

    4. Re:Gas price ? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I guess you could, though I wouldn't want to be anywhere near ethane storage if a leak was suspected - mixtures of 3% ethane in atmospheric air can be explosive.

      Ethane is part of natural gas, and was burned along with the methane for a long time. Now they take it out because it is valuable, not because it is hazardous. A leak would just vent, since it's lighter than air. Propane scares the hell out of me, especially when I see it inside.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Gas price ? by largesnike · · Score: 1

      can't we just tow Titan back to earth for plundering?

      --
      "Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
  6. what about venus ? by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

    "This makes Titan the only body in our solar system beyond Earth known to have liquid on its surface."

    i thought venus had molten metal rivers on it's surface. or is it just an uncorfimed hypotesis ?

    anyone more knowledged tham me could please step forward ?

    --
    What ? Me, worry ?
    1. Re:what about venus ? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, Venus's surface is a desert. It'd be hard to get a river of metal anyway: only a few metals are liquid on its surface and not even the extremely abundant ones like iron.

    2. Re:what about venus ? by PIBM · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ... beyond Earth ...

      Would not that mean past earth, like mars ++ ?
      Venus is closer to the sun than the earth.

    3. Re:what about venus ? by radarjd · · Score: 1

      only a few metals are liquid on its surface and not even the extremely abundant ones like iron.

      Does that mean there are pools of liquid metal, even if there aren't rivers?

    4. Re:what about venus ? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Actually that makes sense... the heavier metals and minerals that the solid planets (ones having a surface, as opposed to the gas ones) have a lot of would generally tend to be liquids at higher temperatures. (It's not necessarily a rule; mercury is heavy but is liquid at relatively low temperatures for example. For most of the elements it's generally true though.) You wouldn't really expect the farther-out rocky planets to have much of anything in liquid form since they're so cold.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:what about venus ? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      No, there just aren't many metals that I can think of that would both melt and be found in any real abundance. Also, I've certainly never heard of any evidence of such things from my Venus-studying colleagues, although I admit that I don't attend their meetings.

  7. Amazing! by 4D6963 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Please tell me that all these rovers on Mars were just there to train for the real thing on Titan.

    No seriously, picture how awesome it would be to explore Titan with rovers. This place is probably the one place in the Solar system that has the most in common with our planet! The fact that it still has rivers and liquid lakes makes it so much more interesting than Mars, plus it has a thick atmosphere (5 times our atmosphere on the surface) we could probably send a UAV there or a blimp.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
    1. Re:Amazing! by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      OK here's my idea of a fancy mission to Titan. Firstly, an orbiter around Titan, with a nice camera and the appropriate filters to see through the atmosphere like Cassini has, but also so radar thing to map the whole thing , even under its liquid lakes, and gather lots of informations about what must be Titan's unusual geology, and that would serve as a relay between Earth and the various machines on Titan. Then a lander, not necessarily a rover but that could be a plus, mainly designed to study the local geology and weather. Then a robot to explore the lakes, their chemistry, eventual currents, their depth.

      And the fanciest part of all, a UAV-carrying blimp. It would float in Titan's thick atmosphere, low enough to be able to carry heavy weights (remember, on Titan a pressure of 1 Earth atmosphere is pretty high above the ground) and cover a lot of ground, provided there's some wind on Titan. It would obviously study the atmosphere, clouds, winds, chemicals composition, temperature etc extensively, but it would also be greatly placed to study the ground from very close. I said UAV-carrying, what would be more fancy than a blimp that would launch tiny UAVs that would fly around taking lots of pictures and measurements to then return to the blimp?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Amazing! by MrVictor · · Score: 1

      It's too cold. I think it would be extremely difficult to design a rover that can survive extended periods on Titan's surface. Surface temps plunge as low as -290 F. I think most materials used to build a rover would become very brittle at those temps.

    3. Re:Amazing! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cool idea, but the UAV-carrying aspect of the blimp is an expensive disappointment waiting to happen...imagine how disappointing it would be when one or more of the UAVs crashes, and when you try to fly an autonomous UAV around an alien planet, it will happen, and probably in short order. Also in a thick atmosphere, while the aircraft would need smaller lifting surfaces / lift bags they'd also need to be big and heavy so they won't be blown around like a styrofoam take-out box if there's any wind at all, which is exactly what would happen to a tiny UAV (actually they're not a whole lot better off than that on earth in my experience).

      A blimp might work but a blimp that launches fixed-wing UAVs is asking for trouble. Maybe a blimp that can transport mini-rovers would be more useful.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Amazing! by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Well maybe the UAV part isn't worth it considered how complicated it would be rather than just a blimp, but on the other hand it doesn't seem that bad. It seems that near the surface winds are weak (around 0.5 m/s, or 1.8 km/h), so it doesn't matter so much if the UAVs get blown around like storyfoam in that case. It seems however that high altitude winds can reach up to 270 mph, which could be used by the blimp to travel large distances.

      I think the main problem is really how to make a UAV/blimp fly in an atmosphere of nitrogen sometimes colder than 90 K, however I'm not qualified to assert whether or not this would even be possible. By the way I was wrong, the surface pressure isn't 5 bars but 1.46. That's what you get for relying on information you read as a child in books published in the early 1980s. Looks like the pressure reaches 1 bar at an altitude of roughly 6 km.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    5. Re:Amazing! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, considering that they have a hard time getting free fall to work right the first time (both Mars and the Moon have a few man-made craters, *wink*), it would be a real trick to build flying machines (either gasbag or wing contraptions) that worked in a very different (and not even fully understood) atmosphere...

      Actually, joking aside, that would be a really interesting job. Since they don't know what the atmosphere is like they'd probably have to give it a pretty decent margin of error and then use some sort of computer-controlled swing-wing that would sense and deliver the exact amount of lift required... that'd be pretty cool if they pulled it off.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:Amazing! by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      So I guess that then you'd have to stick to a fixed lander, like the one that landed in 2005 except more durable and with more instruments? By the way, why was the Huygens probe even designed to only last a few hours? Or is it all you can get without solar panels?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    7. Re:Amazing! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes, Europa's ice covered ocean is another interesting but difficult target and IMHO is currently the most likely place to find ET.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting sure, but it's going to run into some problems, namely power. Batteries don't work when you get them cold (colder for batteries designed to withstand it, but in principle batteries work on chemical reactions which are slowed dramatically by lack of heat), and there's really not much sunlight that far out to use for solar panels.

      Even nuclear power won't work. Weight effecient nuclear power relies on heat differencials to generate electricity, but when both ends of the bimetal are cooled by a lake of -77C hydrocarbons you can't expect much juice... unless you want to come up with enough fuel to launch a nuke sub to saturn (closed systems should allow enough of a heat buildup to get power).

      I'm sure zero point works there as well as it does here, and lightweight fusion too.

      Actually now that I think about it if there is atmosphere and weather there is almost certainly wind, but tapping that might be an eyesore, and I just saw a "Not in my back yard" bupersticker on a saturn on my drive to work.

    9. Re:Amazing! by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First of all we know Titan's atmosphere way well enough for that (look it up, we're far from completely ignorant about it unlike what you make it out to be), thanks to sending a probe there. And it wouldn't necessarily be hard, it's not because the atmosphere is different that it'd make it hard, it's just a few things about the atmosphere that may make it harder or easier, but there's nothing inherently hard about it.

      Also, I think it might be easier to inflate a blimp during a parachute-slowed decent than to actually land safely. Which makes me wonder, why don't we send blimps everywhere where we can find a dense atmosphere? Can you picture a blimp in the atmosphere of Jupiter, Venus or Neptune? *drool*

      Well, I won't ask you to picture a blimp in Uranus but that would be pretty cool too.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    10. Re:Amazing! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't implying we were completely ignorant of the atmosphere, and a probe that free-fell isn't going to tell us everything there is to be learned about flying in it. There could be stuff the probe didn't pick up, such as weather or variances from what the probe actually encountered. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it'd be a nice trick.

      Blimps have to have a pretty precisely calculated mass-per-volume relative to the atmosphere. I don't know exactly how much we know about the atmosphere, but the safe route is always to give yourself a margin of error, and my guess was that it would be easier to adjust some kind of swing-wing setup in-flight than it would be to tune the buoyancy of a blimp. I could be wrong; I'm not an aeronautical engineer.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    11. Re:Amazing! by street+struttin' · · Score: 1

      Map under the lakes of Titan? We can't even do that with EARTH's oceans yet.

    12. Re:Amazing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I read people talking about harvesting the hydrocarbons. A better reason to go is the presence of a triple point substance. Perhaps there exists life on Titan which uses ethane and methane in the same way life on Earth uses water? I was always under the impression that much of the reason life exists on earth is due to water having a triple point here (existing as solid, liquid, and vapor). Especially rainfall cycles.

    13. Re:Amazing! by treeves · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. They're called charts. Sailors, divers, and others use them every day.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    14. Re:Amazing! by Jaazaniah · · Score: 1

      Well, although it's partly an aeronautics problem to construct aerial vehicles suitable for Titan's atmosphere (vastly more pressure in a gradient steeper than Earth's), but also potentially a larger physics problem. Current aeronautic propulsion technology produces a lot of heat as a by-product, which, given the chemicals in the "air" on Titan, will produce greater forces as the gases contacting hot engines expands at a greater rate than our own air. Talk about afterburners is for another time entirely. And introduction of all this heat will invariably change the weather patterns. Locally at first, but colonizing Titan would do even more.

    15. Re:Amazing! by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Map under the lakes of Titan? We can't even do that with EARTH's oceans yet.

      Get a clue, fool

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    16. Re:Amazing! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      This place is probably the one place in the Solar system that has the most in common with our planet!

      How do you figure that? It may have liquid on the surface but it isn't water, the temperature makes a Canadian winter seem hot and any oxygen would be explosive.
      The surface of Mars or the clouds of Venus are much more similar to Earth, despite the lack of water. In fact it is likely that some types of terrestrial bacteria could survive on Mars. I don't think the same could be said of Titan.
      I agree it would be really interesting to explore Titan and study the effects of the liquid ethane on the surface but that does not make it like the Earth.

    17. Re:Amazing! by DarthStrydre · · Score: 1

      The triple point is not as important as the fact that water expands as it freezes (generally) due to the configuration of the crystals formed. By doing so, it becomes more buoyant, and floats, causing lakes to freeze from the top down. This insulates the lake body from the weather and generally insures that the lake bottom remains warmer than freezing. Ethane and methane would freeze from the bottom up, causing problems to no end for things that would want to live there.

    18. Re:Amazing! by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      It's the only body other than Earth that has running liquids, lakes, shorelines, rivers, water erosion, and an atmosphere about as dense as Earth's (besides giant planets the other bodies either have ridiculously tenuous atmosphere, weak atmospheres like Mars, only Titan and Venus compare but Venus has a surface pressure of 95 bars, Titan only 1.46).

      Besides Titan's atmosphere is 98.4% nitrogen, as the Earth's is 78% nitrogen, and only 1.6% of it is methane, which makes me wonder if it would even react with any eventual oxygen. And some terrestrial bacteria survive everything, even long journeys in space, or stays on the Moon (they did that experiment with Apollo 12).

      The point is, just look at a damn map or aerial photography or Titan, it's the only place reminiscent of Earth, with all these coastlines, lakes, islands, rivers.. it's like a frozen lifeless foggy Earth.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    19. Re:Amazing! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      It's the only body other than Earth that has running liquids, lakes, shorelines, rivers...

      So it looks superficially like Earth but is actually nothing like it. As I said it will be very interesting to explore and study because it does have liquid but it will only look like Earth. It would be like saying that a real apple has more in common with a wax replica than it does with a pear because the two look the same.

    20. Re:Amazing! by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Damnit Roger Moore, I thought you were pretty annoying in your James Bond movies, but you're even worse in reality. And by reality I mean Slashdot.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  8. Tidal Lock by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone know if Titan is in tidal lock with Saturn? Anyone know if there exists a list of which moons are in tidal lock and which aren't?

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Tidal Lock by jeiler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, Titan is tidally locked. The Wikipedia article on Tidal locking may have a good list.

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    2. Re:Tidal Lock by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Informative

      All of the medium to large satellites (Mimas, Enceladus, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, and Titan, Hyperion, Iapetus, and Phoebe), except Hyperion, which has a chaotic spin, and I think Phoebe, which is irregular as heck anyway. All the captured, irregular moons cannot be counted on to spin locked to the planet. The inner small moons (Pan, Daphnis, Atlas, Prometheus, Pandora, Janus, and Epimetheus) are tidally locked according to the data.

    3. Re:Tidal Lock by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Where did you get this list? I'd like to be able to do more research on this, and I'd like a starting point.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Tidal Lock by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Memory (and, ultimately, from talking to the people who do the measurements of spin-states), but the inner moons I mentioned are part of my research, so I'm especially keen on knowing what they're doing.

    5. Re:Tidal Lock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these moons are tidally locked - except Hyperion. Attempt no landings there.

  9. Re:US plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Operation Titan Freedom"??

  10. Presentation by Carolyn Porco (Cassini) @ TED. by Antwerp+Atom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Excellent presentation on the moons of Saturn by Carolyn Porco, leader of the Cassini mission imaging team at the 2007 TED conference. (video)
    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/carolyn_porco_flies_us_to_saturn.html

    1. Re:Presentation by Carolyn Porco (Cassini) @ TED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to porco her

  11. Sorry to bust your dreams... by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Before anyone comes up with the idea to mine the hydrocarbonates on Titan to overcome the oil and energy crisis on Earth, hold your breath!

    The energy necessary to accelerate the mined hydrocarbonates enough to transfer them to Earth is higher than the actual energy equivalent you get by burning the hydrocarbonates. That's because you would have to accelerate the Titan-oil from 9.7 km/sec (orbital speed of Saturn) to 29.7 km/sec (orbital speed of Earth).

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
    1. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Orleron · · Score: 1

      No worries, once oil passes $1000/barrel that will be feasible. We only have to wait until what, next year for that? :)

    2. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Sique · · Score: 1

      No. Not even than. It's a physical barrier, not an economical one. You burn more Earth-oil to haul Titan-oil to Earth than the amount of Titan-oil you actually haul.

      If you have to consume 9 barrel of oil to get 1 barrel of oil, then only a hedgefond or another perverse financial instrument will draw a profit from it. But in the end you just lose 8 barrel of oil.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by WmLGann · · Score: 1

      Seems counterintuitive to me. An object traveling from Titan to Earth would be falling into the Sun's gravity well. Some energy would be required to get the object out of the neighborhood of Saturn but the bulk of the acceleration to 29.7 km/s could occur naturally by falling, no? Not that it would be anything but silly to import methane from ~1 billion miles away.

    4. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      The energy necessary to accelerate the mined hydrocarbonates enough to transfer them to Earth is higher than the actual energy equivalent you get by burning the hydrocarbonates.

      What about transferring oxygen from Earth to Titan?

      Think about it! On Titan, cars don't need fuel injection, they need oxygen injection.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Orleron · · Score: 1

      Hello? Joking. :)

    6. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if one were to build a launch rail up the side of a mountain in a direction complimentary to the spin of the moon. See- How to colonize the galaxy in eight easy steps

    7. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      But how much energy would it take to get it into space where we could use it there?

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    8. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Unordained · · Score: 1

      Why would we burn Earth oil to get Titan oil? We go there, we set up the required refineries, we transform the oil locally, and we use it to extract more of itself. Sure, we'll waste 90% of the oil there on extraction and transmission, but in the end, you still get a trickle of oil coming from Titan, which is more than it currently provides, which makes it oil-positive. You have the initial investment cost of getting equipment there, but that's what you should weigh it against -- not in proportion to itself. If it costs less to send equipment than you will eventually get out of mining Titan, it's worth it, even if it only nets you 10% of the resources that exist there.

    9. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no no, we will just do it a much cheaper way...build a really long pipeline! Of course, we may have to mine some asteroids first to get enough metal for the pipes.

    10. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      I think you would only need to accelerate out of the gravity well of Titan (plus a little more to boost from Titan's orbital speed to Saturn's escape velocity). The rest of the trip is downhill to a parking orbit around the Earth or Moon.

      Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's how it would work.

      Big old sausages full of Titan's Finest, with a few oxygen tanks strapped on, some low power rocket engines, and a good guidance system. Biggest energy drain of the whole trip would be the LEDs that light up the ship's name: on the Earth-facing side of the lead sausage, in letters 1,000 feet high, Chevron Condoleezza Rice (visible in amateur telescopes for most of the trip).

      Yeah, that's prolly going to happen in a hundred years. Feedstock for the orbital factories, very little of Titan's juices would get to Earth itself.

    11. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by luzr · · Score: 1

      Where are you going to get oxygen to burn the oil with?

    12. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Yea, that would be almost as stupid as spending more money to invade a country and secure their entire oil supply than that oil supply is actually worth.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    13. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      That's because you would have to accelerate the Titan-oil from 9.7 km/sec (orbital speed of Saturn) to 29.7 km/sec (orbital speed of Earth).

      Except it doesn't work like that at all. You don't accelerate, otherwise you'll never go down to Earth's orbit, you decelerate to go down, and by doing so you gain speed.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    14. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      Exactly right. It's the old "slow down to speed up" rule in orbital mechanics. Slow down so that you can no longer maintain your orbit, and you fall inwards, gaining speed as you go.

    15. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe Thelasko means to burn the fuel on Titan, and ship the /energy/ back - by shipping oxygen to Titan, he's hoping that the lower mass he's shipping will make it more economical.

    16. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You're going to have to do something to conserve all that angular momentum. As you coast down the sun's gravity well, you're picking up speed, placing you into a higher orbit, so nothing is accomplished. You have to burn fuel to slow down if you're going to get anywhere.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seems counterintuitive to me. An object traveling from Titan to Earth would be falling into the Sun's gravity well. Some energy would be required to get the object out of the neighborhood of Saturn but the bulk of the acceleration to 29.7 km/s could occur naturally by falling, no?

      No, but don't feel bad, it's a common misconception.

      Turns out traveling towards the sun is hard. In fact, it's just as hard as traveling away from the sun. And you should be thankful for that, after all you wouldn't want the Earth to "fall" into the Sun.

      Basically, all the objects in the solar system are in some type of orbit with respect to the sun. Getting closer or farther from the Sun (or from the Earth), means changing your orbit speed, and therefore your orbit. It takes the exact same energy to move to a higher orbit that it does to go from that higher orbit back to the lower orbit. If you're interested in that type of stuff, give orbiter a try.

    18. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      As you coast down the sun's gravity well, you're picking up speed, placing you into a higher orbit, so nothing is accomplished. You have to burn fuel to slow down if you're going to get anywhere.

      There's a quick way to slow down that doesn't involve burning fuel. It's called 'crashing'. All you need to do is find something large, heavy, solid and uninhabited, somewhere conveniently near Earth, and plough straight on into it. A lump of rock in the range of, oh, seventy-four quintillion tons should be enough to stop pretty much anything.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    19. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Bruiser80 · · Score: 1

      Lowest energy transfer procedure (from Mech550-AstroMechanics):

      #1 - Thrust to escape Saturn's gravity well. Line that up with the desired deceleration in relation to the orbit around the sun.

      #2 - Travel in Hohmman Transfer orbital path.

      #3 - Thrust to slow down to match Earth's orbit around sun. This can be in conjunction with entry into LEO.


      Jupiter could be used to further slow your trajectory, although slingshot maneuvers to slow a craft aren't as well documented as speed-up maneuvers (see Voyager I & II, Cassini, etc).


      As others have said, space travel is EXPENSIVE - we won't be mining moons or other planets for a very long time :-)

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
    20. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The energy necessary to accelerate the mined hydrocarbonates enough to transfer them to Earth is higher than the actual energy equivalent you get by burning the hydrocarbonates."

      [Shrug]

      That hasn't done much to stop biofuels from corn, which aren't exactly energy efficient either. Slap enough subsidies on there and the Titan ethane farmers will do fine.

    21. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by d3ac0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where are you going to get oxygen to burn the oil with?

      More importantly, Since when do spacecraft BURN Hydrocarbons to provide propulsion?

      I was under the impression that the primary stages of most space-capable rockets were Liquid Hydrogen-Oxygen fueled, with a solid fuel as a secondary booster stage, and then more liquid Hy/Ox fuel for space-based boosting and maneuvers.

      Since when did we start putting V8's in our rockets?

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    22. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by wfstanle · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that as well. Even is it was economically possible (magic?) to transport the ethane to earth, where would we get the oxygen to burn it? Free oxygen is relatively uncommon in the universe. Surely we don't want to deplete what oxygen we have on earth. After all, we need a certain amount in the atmosphere to live.

    23. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by luzr · · Score: 1

      Well, it is correct that rocket engines often use Hydrogen/Oxygen as it has the best specific impulse, but it is not impossible to use hydrocarbons instead of hydrogen. E.g. see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Transportation

    24. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by silverpig · · Score: 1

      But but... it's raining freaking gasoline there!!! I guess the real industry on titan would be oxygen mining. Seems the grass is always greener...

    25. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      Sliding from a higher orbit (Saturn) to a lower one (Earth) involves an exchange of potential energy for kinetic energy. With appropriate timing and direction of the intial burn (to escape Titan-Saturn gravity wells), our fictional Condoleezza Rice fat sausage ship would only need to make a couple of minor course corrections: it would mostly be free fall. Granted, it would be a long coast, but we've got proven technology for unmanned long term space travel. And we've also got experience in shipping liquified natural gas under far more hazardous conditions than the cold emptiness of interplanetary space: we could scale that up easily. By the time Chevron (or Exxon) is actually able to send its first survey crew out there, we'll have the means to get product back to Earth orbit at a much lower cost than launching organic substrates from Earth into industrial level orbits.

    26. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by SamLJones · · Score: 1

      Why would we burn Earth oil? If there's enough oil on Titan, and the Earth price is high enough, why not burn 9 barrels of Titan-oil to get one barrel to Earth intact?

    27. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't a joke.

      You can tell because jokes are funny.

    28. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Probably won't stop the oil companies from trying, and thus squandering all the record profits they made in the past year.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    29. Re:Sorry to bust your dreams... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      That's because you would have to accelerate the Titan-oil from 9.7 km/sec (orbital speed of Saturn) to 29.7 km/sec (orbital speed of Earth).

      ...but some fraction (most?) of that can be offset from the change in gravitational potential between Titan and Earth. (I agree it is still a stupid idea though!)

  12. Need Coffee / Glasses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone else read the headline as:

    Liquid Snake On Saturn's Moon Confirmed

    Oh my god! A new MGS Game!

  13. Always appropriate by Psychotria · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This was predicted by Nostrodamus. KISS played a song in praise of it: here.

  14. Exxon/Mobil to explore Saturn Pipeline by ekimminau · · Score: 1

    On news today that the surface of saturn is literally covered in a sea of liquid ethane, a combined oil conglomerate of Exxon and Mobil Oil Corp. have announced that they are exploring "pipeline options" to tap into the limitless reserves.

    "Screw the tree hugging liberals" said one un-identified spokesman. "If we can gain access to such a limitless source of fuel for automobiles, we won't have to waste a dime on alternatives. 60 year supply? How about 6000 year supply."

    In other news, the price per barrel of oil has dropped $26.00 per barrel on chinese market trading. John Vaderslooth of Bears Sterns this morning said "I wouldn't be surpised to see us drop ack down into the $50-60.00 per barrel range by close today." It should be an exciting market day today.

    Back to you taco.

    --
    Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    1. Re:Exxon/Mobil to explore Saturn Pipeline by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      As much as you are joking - it would be nice if they actually did take initiative to set up some sort of operation... even if it was something as simple as further exploration of the surface. The oil companies are rolling in dough - enough to make NASA look like a poor family owned toy store - and this is something that would benefit science... perhaps I wouldn't feel as guilty paying so much at the pump.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    2. Re:Exxon/Mobil to explore Saturn Pipeline by thedistrict · · Score: 1

      True but the amount of fuels that would be burned in order to get there to examine more fuels defeats the purpose doesn't it?

    3. Re:Exxon/Mobil to explore Saturn Pipeline by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      Sure its wasteful if the goal is to actually retrieve the fuels, however, to have private investors beginning to put money forth in the name of science will far exceed the possibilities of government funds. America, for example, was explored and found by government funding, but the reason why it grew is because of private investments seeking profit. So what would be the purpose to explore Titan? Probably the same reason NASA is doing it - to find out more about it. It's not about retrieving the fuels, but rather why the fuels are there. I would love to see Exxon give NASA a check to think about sending a rover there or something.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    4. Re:Exxon/Mobil to explore Saturn Pipeline by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      True but the amount of fuels that would be burned in order to get there to examine more fuels defeats the purpose doesn't it?

      Don't they teach chemistry in American high schools? In French high schools they teach you that you need something like oxygen to burn fuel.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    5. Re:Exxon/Mobil to explore Saturn Pipeline by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 1

      I find it rather comical that anyone is giving serious consideration to mining Titan for hydrocarbons for use on Earth. Most of the time I've seen such discussions the use has been for things like fuel for trips outside the solar system.

      We're really reaching a point here on Earth where we need to do a better job considering the entire systems we're connected with: the carbon cycle, the water cycle, proper maintenance of soil, sustainability, etc.

      Although some may wish to argue global warming issues, really nobody should take issue with the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The entire concept of "carbon-neutral" is really trounced when you start importing carbon to shove into the atmosphere.

      Ignoring all the economical issues of transporting hydrocarbons from Titan, does it really make any sense to shift to such a system. Taken to an extreme, over a long period of time this seems a good way to make Earth a bit more like Venus.

    6. Re:Exxon/Mobil to explore Saturn Pipeline by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      Private investment is all about costs vs benefits vs risk. A private investor is not going to invest in something unless this ratio is in their favour. At the moment no (rational) private investor would consider the cost * risk for this kind of venture to be profitable. That is why government investment is required: the government does not have to factor in monetary benefits, therefore they afford to put up the necessary costs. Eventually, government-sponsored science yields enough base data for private investors to begin risking investment costs with the hope of gaining benefits (cf space tourism).

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
  15. What they didn't tell us by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    The actual confirmation was a big ripple when a rock fell into the lake.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  16. I see what you did there... by postermmxvicom · · Score: 4, Funny

    "the energy costs alone would be astronomical" ba dum tis

    --
    One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
  17. Official Official Thread! by Zarf · · Score: 1

    This is the official official thread. All other threads should post under this one if they want to be official. Please post here to avoid contaminating the jokes with non-funny comments.

    Thank you and good day sirs!

    --
    [signature]
  18. Abiogenic oil by luzr · · Score: 1

    What makes me wonder is what these pools of hydrocarbons on Titan say about 'debunked' theory of abiogenic oil.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

    1. Re:Abiogenic oil by db32 · · Score: 1

      Nothing. It just means there was life on Titan!

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    2. Re:Abiogenic oil by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Not much. This isn't oil on Titan, it's simpler compounds. And the chemistry that works on Titan almost certainly doesn't work on the Earth outside the lab since the temperatures are extremely different.

    3. Re:Abiogenic oil by shrubya · · Score: 1

      Doofus. Read the freaking article that you linked. Right there in the page, it shows abiogenic reactions that can produce methane, ethane, and ethylene (short chain hydrocarbons like the ones found on Titan). However, similar methods to create long chain stuff (like the components of terrestrial crude oil) are thermodynamically infeasible.

  19. A little chilly, I'd say by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    For those not familiar with Ethane, it has a boiling point of -86.6 degrees Celsius. Interesting that a moon has cycles in the neighborhood of that temperature range. Though a trip there would make most parts of Antarctica seem like a tropical reprieve.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:A little chilly, I'd say by RobBebop · · Score: 1

      And for people whose minds think in a different temperature system:

      -86.6 degree Celsius = -123.88 degree Fahrenheit

      Luckily, with a spark and some oxygen the liquid ethane will burn gloriously to keep you warm.

      Unluckily, you'll still eventually die.

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
  20. News from the Future by stargazer_55 · · Score: 1

    The first manned mission to Titan ended tragically today as one of the astronauts stepped out onto the surface and lit up a cigarette.

    1. Re:News from the Future by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The first manned mission to Titan ended tragically today as one of the astronauts stepped out onto the surface and lit up a cigarette.

      You'd need oxygen for that.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:News from the Future by utopianfiat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, that didn't last long.

      --
      +5, Truth
    3. Re:News from the Future by DarthStrydre · · Score: 1

      Not all oxidation requires Oxygen. Reference the Na Cl reaction as just one trivial example. However the production of flames rather than kabooms requires something to moderate the reaction. It would be interesting to find what reactions could take place at Titan's STP.

    4. Re:News from the Future by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Not all oxidation requires Oxygen. Reference the Na Cl reaction as just one trivial example. However the production of flames rather than kabooms requires something to moderate the reaction. It would be interesting to find what reactions could take place at Titan's STP.

      It would be rather good if fossil oxidiser could be found on Titan. Perhaps there are deep beds of frozen Nitrous Oxide under the surface just waiting to be dug up and put to use in a new fossil fuel industry.

    5. Re:News from the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, well, have you considered the state of the fellow who endured the "no-smoking" sign all the way there, only to find he couldn't light up?

      Tragic indeed.

  21. cowabunga and such by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

    sgt: Ok, men, wax your boards and hit the surf.

    pvt: Hey, do you think it's safe?

    sgt: Don't worry, Geeblort don't surf!

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  22. So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought we've always had beaten into our heads that hydrocarbons, and oil and gas in particular were the result of decaying biomass from dinosaurs. So, where did these hydrocarbons come from? Was Titan an outpost for some spacefaring dino species, that got wiped out in a strange intergalactic plague? Or is there a much more sane, reasonable answer that I just haven't seen yet?

    1. Re:So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this makes sense the hydrocarbons on Titan are simple - one or two carbon atoms - and form simple chains. Fossil fuels are based on more complex hydrocarbons with more carbon atoms and much longer chains.

    2. Re:So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The hydrocarbons are pretty simple relative to organically-produced ones. You get the more complicated ones on Titan by photo-chemical reactions in the atmosphere. (UV from the Sun breaks bonds which recombine in new and exciting ways.)

    3. Re:So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      > I thought we've always had beaten into our heads that hydrocarbons, and oil and gas in particular were the result of decaying biomass from dinosaurs. So, where did these hydrocarbons come from? Was Titan an outpost for some spacefaring dino species, that got wiped out in a strange intergalactic plague? Or is there a much more sane, reasonable answer that I just haven't seen yet?

      Q: Ethane on Titan comes from:

      A. The decayed, compressed remains of Titanic Dinosaurs.
      A: Xenu dropped his dinosauroid enemies into volcanos on Titan.
      B: The devil planted it there to trick us
      C: Solar radiation hits Methane (CH4), splitting it into (CH3+H), which quickly recombines into Ethane (C2H6)

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    4. Re:So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      > : Solar radiation hits Methane (CH4), splitting it into (CH3+H),
      > which quickly recombines into Ethane (C2H6)

      OK smartypants, so where did the methane come from?
      Or is it turtles all the way down?

    5. Re:So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      I never said (C) was the right answer. Personally, I suspect this is the correct answer

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    6. Re:So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Methane is a natural and expected part of the moons (and planets) in the outer solar system. You'll note that Uranus and Neptune have large methane contents and even Saturn has a noticeable methane haze in its upper atmosphere.

      (You don't see a lot of methane on Earth because we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere and methane has a lifetime in the atmosphere of around a decade.)

    7. Re:So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely A. Or is it A?

      Nuts! I can't decide.

    8. Re:So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space cow farts.

    9. Re:So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of bunk. Someone needs to teach thermodynamics to you kids.

    10. Re:So where did these hydrocarbons come from? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 0

      We have -- that doesn't mean that it's true. There's a good argument that petroleum was actually formed with the planet and in fact has leached upwards. http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Thomas-Gold/dp/0387985468

  23. In other news by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 1

    A consortium of Exxon/Shell/BP/Haliburton have formed the Hydrocarbon Orbital Recovery - Exterra Partners, know as HORE Partners, to being planning for recover of the Titan resources.

  24. What are the chances of life? by theolein · · Score: 1

    The whole "USA invade SATuRn for OiL" thing gets tiring after a while. What are the real chances of a form of life on Titan?

    According to TFA the lakes seem to be a mixture of ethane, methane and other hydrocarbons. From what I've read, he general consensus is that life requires a liquid solvent that can dissolve a vast amount of materials, such as water or ammonia. It seems that ammonia ices and water ices have been ruled out on the surface, leaving only the frozen and non frozen areas of hydrocarbons.

    Given that the ethane is a byproduct of methane breakdown by sunlight on Titan, also producing the chemical haze of its atmostphere, would there be any chance of a life form developing in Titan's lakes? The chemistry seems to be low on energy for life to start, but the same chemistry is also highly reactive.

    Anyone?

    1. Re:What are the chances of life? by cel_of_no_concern · · Score: 1

      Focus on lakes here maybe be a small point in the larger picture. Consider the possibility that organic compounds may be forming into consistent and deliberate reactions in the viscous atmosphere, falling to the planet surface as well. The suspension, theoretically, doesn't necessarily need to be a dense as liquid and who knows, an ATM of 5 and a good dice roll, may be the 'primordial soup' yet unknown.

  25. Don't apologize, It seems your wrong... by postermmxvicom · · Score: 1

    Actually, the energy associated with Saturn's orbit is greater than Earth's. Look at the rotational energy of two objects with the same mass, but give one Saturn's orbital distance and speed and one Earth's. You actually gain energy coming to Earth.

    Think about electron orbitals...it's kinda the same...higher orbits = more energy. Or you can think of an ice skater, when she bring her hands in, she spins faster. It is conservation of momentum not speed.

    --
    One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
    1. Re:Don't apologize, It seems your wrong... by Explodicle · · Score: 1

      Don't tell me that "potential energy" nonsense! It's got to be incredibly simple as the grandparent amazingly discovered! This is Slashdot!

  26. Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA:

    The lake is roughly 20,000 square miles (7,800 square miles) in area

    I see that the good folks at NASA still haven't quite got the hang of it.

    1. Re:Units by volcanopele · · Score: 1

      That should be around 20,000 sq. km (though it probably actually a bit smaller, close to 16,000 sq. km.

      --
      The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
  27. You mean "you're" not "your" you ignorant bafoon! by postermmxvicom · · Score: 1

    Way to be all snarky! you can't even spell!! idiot!

    On reread of my post, I caught my spelling error and it also seems to have a negative tone. I was going for funny with the heading, not condescending. I think I missed the mark. Haha, oh well, jokes on me, not knowing how to spell and all.

    --
    One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
  28. Wrong numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are barking up the wrong tree. The potential energy gains will take care of the acceleration.

    The problems of delivering the goods to Earth are different: (1) exiting Titan's gravity well, (2) exiting Saturn's gravity well, (3) decelerating from Saturn's orbital speed, (4) waiting for the Sun to pull the vehicle in, (5) decelerating onto Earth's orbit and (6) landing on Earth.

    Step (4) will bring the vehicle to the speed of 40 km/s so a deceleration of 10 km/s will be needed.

  29. So the SF Writers Got It Right by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    I remember a teenage SF story (back in the 50's) that had colonists on Titan. They flew around in cute little jet aircraft; only needed to carry an oxidizer (oxygen), since the atmosphere was methane.

    I always thought that interesting; fanciful but interesting.

    1. Re:So the SF Writers Got It Right by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Actually the atmosphere is 1.6% methane, the rest is nitrogen. SF writers in the 50s believed it was mainly methane because methane had been discovered by spectrography in the 1940s, although its quantities were overestimated by an order of magnitude.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  30. Re:US plan by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don' free teh Titans. Perseus is dead.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  31. Chemistry by slew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All the articles mention ethane being the product of methane "broken" by sunlight, it is actually methane CH4 having it's H knocked away by a sunlight reaction to make a methyl CH3 radical and joining with another CH3 to make ethane C2H6. I guess you can call that "broken" into ethane.

    Given that the above reaction has a byproduct of H*, I guess there is an open question if it can somehow combine with the Nitrogen. For example, if you have some natural process of natural Nitrogen fixation (breaking the triple bond of N2 so it could be combined with H), it seems to me that there is at least some chance of life. Unfortunatly, at a very low temperature, this seems like it would be tough to do. But if you had a way to make ammonia (maybe lightning?), then it seems mightly likely that something could use this highly energetic molecule as a basis for life. Other than that, it seem like it's mostly a hydrocarbon stew...

    Many folks think that simple, but highly energetic molecules like ammonia are needed for life. This is basically because it seems hard to evolve in an environment where free uncontrolled energy (like direct ultraviolet light which is what is making all that ethane from methane) is probably tearing down any molecules (like protiens or dna) which proto-life is carefully putting together, so you likely need a small molecule to transfer/store energy from where it is collected to somewhere more protected where you can use it to make more complicated molecules. Of course many folks could be wrong and something else might work just as well.

  32. Confirmed? by dprior · · Score: 1

    "seem to confirm that observations really do show..."

    Yeah. You sound convinced!

    1. Re:Confirmed? by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      Check Netcraft if you're not convinced.

  33. Obligatory by blueforce · · Score: 1

    On soviet Titan, the planet orbits you.

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  34. ooh.. by JackassJedi · · Score: 1

    I want Photos in HD!

    --
    Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
    1. Re:ooh.. by volcanopele · · Score: 1
      So would I. But alas, we have three imaging instruments at Saturn/Titan on-board Cassini that can image the surface. RADAR can sense the surface at around 300 m/pixel, but only in thin noodle strips and of course, using SAR, not reflected sunlight like what you see with your eyes.

      VIMS can see the surface at better than 500 m/pixel, but only on very small postage stamps of the surface during each flyby (and only those flybys when VIMS is prime at closest approach, like during T38). The rest of the time, VIMS images are at much coarser resolution (~10-40 km/pixel). And don't forget that their detector is only 64x64 pixels in size (hardly "high-definition"). VIMS can see at 256 wavelengths simultaneously, but only a handful actually see the surface of Titan due to the haze and methane. VIMS, unlike RADAR, can't see topography unless there is a very tall mountain or depression and the resolution is near its best. The other problem is that Titan's surface is pretty contrasty, so brightness differences can often mimic topographic shading, hampering interpretation (that's the problem with VIMS' so-called "Titan Sierras" announced a couple of years ago).

      ISS (note: my job is to work on ISS images of Titan) can see the surface using one of its filters at 938 nm. It can see the surface fairly well at this wavelength, but the view is generally pretty blurry due to the haze and methane. Because ISS has far more pixels than the VIMS detector (1 MP vs. 4064 pixels), various processing techniques can be applied to the ISS images to vastly improve them so that geologic interpretations can be made. But, like the VIMS images, ISS can't see topographic shading.

      --
      The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
    2. Re:ooh.. by volcanopele · · Score: 1

      Oh, due to the atmospheric scattering, ISS' top resolution is usually around 1-2 km, even if the pixel scale is better than that.

      --
      The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
  35. Thomas Gold on "fossil fuels" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may answer some of your questions.

    http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil-Fuels/dp/0387952535

  36. Sounds like global warming by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 0

    All these dangerous gases! We need to help Al Gore clean up these moons! TAX THE CORPORATIONS!

  37. i.e. it is nonsensical by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    I think one theory is that he originally picked 12 - a number that humans seem to like.

    So nobody is certain exactly where he pulled some of the numbers from to define his scale? Sounds pretty much like the definition of nonsensical to me!

    1. Re:i.e. it is nonsensical by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No, he was actually a very smart and methodical man. The whole CONCEPT of a temperature scale was fairly new, and he simultaneously improved on previous work and used some of the only known constant temperature sources of the time. Newton and Celsius were both able to build upon this later on for their water-based scales (which is equally arbitrary, by the way).

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:i.e. it is nonsensical by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      ...and used some of the only known constant temperature sources of the time.

      Except for body temperature which was known to vary. All units are arbitrary since, at best, nature only defines a single point (like absolute zero, zero force, zero pressure etc). The question is whether the definitions are useful. By basing itself on water at 1 atmosphere and using a metric scale Celsius is undoubtedly more useful than an arbitrary choice of endothermic reaction, body temperature and choices of 32 and 64 because you can divide them by 2 a lot.

      For the early 18th century it was great contribution to science. But we have learnt a lot since then and can define temperature far more accurately using common physical processes like freezing and boiling of pure water. Hence this scale should be, and has been, replaced by almost every country on the planet.

    3. Re:i.e. it is nonsensical by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I agree with you for the most part, except that Celcius is only about 50 years newer than Fahrenheit and is still based on the arbitrary choice of the phase transfer points of water at sea level. Kelvin is newer and includes a sensible zero, but still inherited the arbitrary scale based on an arbitrary molecule.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  38. Sulphuric Acid Rain by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    No, Venus's surface is a desert.

    In that it doesn't have any water. However it does rain pure liquid sulphuric acid from time to time

    1. Re:Sulphuric Acid Rain by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Which does not reach the surface,either.

      To the best of my knowledge, there are no liquids on Venus's surface and no erosional features consistent with liquids to suggest that they've been there since the last resurfacing.

  39. The George Bush realization by ZarathustraDK · · Score: 1

    George Bush: What the hell are these hydrocarbons on Titan people keep talking about?!

    Advisor: It's kinda like oil, Mr. President.

    *Bush-head emits cash-register-sound and a not so bright lightbulb appears above*

    --
    If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
  40. Re:12 by rduke15 · · Score: 1

    12 - a number that humans seem to like

    No. Humans hate it. But they hate non-integer numbers more. So 12 is damn useful. You can divide it by 2, 3, 4 and 6!

    60 is useful for the same reason. You can divide it by 2, 3, 4, 5(giving you 12), 6, 10, 12, 15 and 30!

    Compare that with 10, which you can only divide by 2 and 5.

    If you only want to deal with integers, 12 and 60 are very practical bases.

  41. re: Liquid Lakes On Saturn's Moon Confirmed by jseale · · Score: 1

    Somebody needs to tell Boon Pickens about this one. Great source of motor fuel if we ever need it.

  42. Do you think we will ever want to go into space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think we will ever want to go into space? I think people are too busy here killing each other. There are all these secret government projects to reduce population.