Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hydrocarbon Rain Swells Titan's Lakes

Posted by kdawson on from the singin'-in-the-methane dept.

Rob Carr writes "According to the Cassini team, 'Recent images of Titan from NASA's Cassini spacecraft affirm the presence of lakes of liquid hydrocarbons by capturing changes in the lakes brought on by rainfall.' The northern lakes are now larger following a period in which hydrocarbon clouds covered their skies. (The research was published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.) This change adds to the evidence these areas are indeed hydrocarbon lakes. But this discovery raises several more questions: where is the methane in the atmosphere coming from, and how long can this complex hydrocarbon cycle on Titan go on? The new evidence emphasizes the need for another mission to Titan."

110 comments

  1. inb4... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    inb4 people suggesting that we transport hydrocarbons from Titan to use as fuels on earth.

    1. Re:inb4... by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the real issue is Republicans suggesting that we need to send in the armed forces to liberate the oppressed Titanians from their evil terrorism-supporting dictator.

      --
      I hate printers.
    2. Re:inb4... by davester666 · · Score: 1, Funny

      > I think the real issue is Republicans suggesting that we need to send in the armed forces to liberate the oppressed Titanians from their evil terrorism-supporting dictator.

      Don't forget, this liberation will wind up costing the US nothing, because the Titanians will pay the costs back for liberating them, from the sale of hydrocarbon's to Earth.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:inb4... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another thought though, in terms of long-term space exploration where there's space stations, habitats on other moons, etc., this would be interesting. The Jupiter system is pretty unsuitable, I think the radiation levels are too high. Saturn system? Some nearby fossil fuels could help, for instance, solar is good but you might need some fuel to help build the initial solar collector.

    4. Re:inb4... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 0

      One or two trillion... tops.

    5. Re:inb4... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      Now if you could just find the oxygen necessary to use those hydrocarbons...

    6. Re:inb4... by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      ... so we can get the fuel to transport to Earth.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
  2. Another "planet" with resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...to wage war over. It'll happen.

    1. Re:Another "planet" with resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You must be a nut to think that "Dubya" will be a single, isolated incident in the history of mankind.

    2. Re:Another "planet" with resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...to wage war over. It'll happen.

      It is kinda disappointing to read about interesting places in the solar system and realize that war or no, our race will only be interested enough to get there when the profit motive is clear.

    3. Re:Another "planet" with resources... by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Well no Arabs live there so we can just walk in and take it.

    4. Re:Another "planet" with resources... by ogdenk · · Score: 0

      I can see Dubya now.... "I'm da War Presodent! We need to liberate the Titaniums from their Carbohydroid-hoarding oppressorers!"

      Hell if Perot got elected those years back before Clinton we'd probably have already found a profitable way to mine it.

    5. Re:Another "planet" with resources... by spazdor · · Score: 1

      You have successfully bummed me out, AC.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    6. Re:Another "planet" with resources... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Let's be honest... What other motive would you come up with that wouldn't boil down to "we'll do it when we benefit from it", for some definition of "benefit"?

  3. What's playing on Titan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's raining CH4, Hallelujah!

  4. Now all we need... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...is fossil oxygen in liquid form reachable by drilling.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:Now all we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...is fossil oxygen in liquid form reachable by drilling.

      Isn't that located on Mars?

    2. Re:Now all we need... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      LOL That would get REAL exciting REAL quick. You might see that from your back yard.

    3. Re:Now all we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might need to warm up the fuel first.

    4. Re:Now all we need... by jmv · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The funny thing is that doing that might cause global cooling because CO2 is much less effective at trapping heat than methane.

      --
      Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
    5. Re:Now all we need... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes I though about that. CO2 will actually have zero warming effect because it is a solid at Titan surface temperatures. Environmentalists may complain about carbon fog.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  5. It's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    raining BEER!!

  6. They've got WMDs! by pianoben · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...they've got to be around there somewhere, I just know it! Send in the troops!

  7. ... Timing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how long can this complex hydrocarbon cycle on Titan go on?

    Until I get there with my big hose.

  8. Obvious source of the methane... by jimbudncl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Uranus.

    1. Re:Obvious source of the methane... by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obvious source of the methane...
      Uranus

      No, Uranus.

    2. Re:Obvious source of the methane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't you mean Urrectum?

    3. Re:Obvious source of the methane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell is this a troll? Go watch Futurama!

    4. Re:Obvious source of the methane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn and Jupiter probably are mostly methane. All of them exibit red spots, which is indicative of methane in their lower atmosphere.

      This indicates that hydrocarbons on earth and elsewhere is very old, older than our solar system itself, produced by a previous solar system.

    5. Re:Obvious source of the methane... by TheCybernator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HydroCarbons and Titan and only one Uranus joke? it must be Sunday today!

      --
      Eclipse PDE and Me
  9. Nothing New ! by AmigaMMC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had already read that in Stephen Baxter's novel "Titan" - That guy is always so right! :)

    1. Re:Nothing New ! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Or Imperial Earth by ACC.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  10. HOORAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    lets bring it back to earth and burn it!

    1. Re:HOORAY by 278MorkandMindy · · Score: 2, Funny

      That would be cool, titan on fire in orbit, never have a night!
      That IS what you were talking about???

  11. bad modding by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    You've been modded funny, but historically, the vast majority of wars seem to have been fought over resources like land (mainly for growing populations) and oil etc. I'd tend to agree that this will happen on other planets eventually, except that we might end up running out before that's feasible, and having to come up with an alternative resource type (fuel type) instead.

    1. Re:bad modding by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You 99%correct. Wars are normally fought over resources. It was land as farms weren't that good. Near Future wars will be over oil. Howver far into the future the mainstay resources will shift. Currently oil literally drives us. It used to be food(people, horses ,etc). It will probably be the element that enables FTL.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:bad modding by Slur · · Score: 4, Funny

      It will probably be the element that enables FTL.

      Imagination?

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
    3. Re:bad modding by nmb3000 · · Score: 1, Informative

      You've been modded funny, but historically, the vast majority of wars seem to have been fought over resources

      I see this stated as a given fact all the time, but when I stop and think about it, I'm not sure it's really the case. Sure, the lack of resources makes a great scapegoat, and it's been used for some conflicts, but most modern wars seem to be about something else.

      Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I came up with off the top of my head. (I don't consider a goal of "take over the world" as a need for resources. At some point, even if they say it is, resources isn't a valid argument anymore.)

      • Crusades - Religion, not resources
      • American revolution - not resources (at least not entirely, Britain probably did want access to North American resources)
      • War of 1812 - trade restrictions might be considered resources, but more comes down to one nation interfering with another
      • World War I - Not resources, largely due to a domino effect of alliances
      • World Ward II - Not resources, though Germany and others claimed they wanted "room to grow", true goal was larger than that. That said, Japan might have a valid claim to resources
      • Cold War - Not resources, primarily ideological
      • Vietnam - Not resources, also largely ideological

      I think "classic" wars, that is ones > 2000 years ago, were largely about resources. There was a lot of new and unclaimed (or tentatively claimed) land that was pretty much up for grabs. However, since the political layout of the world has settled somewhat, people are also finding new reasons to kill each other. Resources is still a reason used (

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    4. Re:bad modding by tukkayoot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Howver far into the future the mainstay resources will shift. Currently oil literally drives us. It used to be food(people, horses ,etc). It will probably be the element that enables FTL.

      FTL may not even be possible. I think our likely "far future" will be shaped by the development of strong artificial intelligence and the realization of a technological singularity. It's hard to predict what will follow that, almost by definition ... but it's hard for me to imagine that it will involve humans fighting wars over material resources. Which is not to say such conflict won't be replaced by something even more appalling.

    5. Re:bad modding by nmb3000 · · Score: 1, Informative

      ...whoops. I was saying:

      Resources is still a reason used (almost anything in the Middle East since 10,000 BC, for example), but to say that 99% of conflicts are due to resources as someone did isn't true. It's just a scapegoat people and countries try to use since it sounds valid (but we need this!) but it belies the true intent.

      Didn't even get a chance to read the previous post before submitting. Oh well.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    6. Re:bad modding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will probably be the element that enables FTL.

      Imagination?

      Spice.

    7. Re:bad modding by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      religous or political differences are the main drivers for wars. we generally have all the resources we need, and those that don't are too poor to fight a war anyway

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    8. Re:bad modding by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Informative

      The official reason for the Crusades may have been religion, but it's amazing how many crusading knights ended up as major land owners in the Holy Land. The Pacific section of WW II was all about resources, as Japan's Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere should make clear. Asia ruled by Asians instead of Europeans was just a veneer to cover over the way the Japanese were grabbing control of the iron, coal and oil their economy needed, and the rice to feed their people.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    9. Re:bad modding by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I thought most wars could be summed up 'my god is better than your god nyanyah!'

    10. Re:bad modding by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wouldn't say wars are driven by a need for resources so much as a desire for them by those in power. Power/control could be considered a resource for those driven by desire for more of it.

      Those brutally nasty wars based on warped and twisted religious/political/ethnic ideology funneled massive profits into the hands of supporters, be they from looting during the Crusades or manufacturing contracts during contemporary times. A war for resources is not so much about helping a population in general as about enriching those in power. I can't think offhand of a war that has occurred where that was not true.

      All those wars you cited ended up enriching the antagonist victors (the very definition of "a war for resources"), and would have enriched those antagonists who lost had they instead emerged victorious.

    11. Re:bad modding by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Interesting, the majority of the truly vicious wars were really about things other than resources. I guess if your fighting over resources there comes a point where the effort involved exceeds the value of the resources desired and this is a restraining factor.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    12. Re:bad modding by drolli · · Score: 1

      Why? Is our solar system that big? I was under the impresssion, that even with conventional drives, it would be possible to reach any planet in our system in a reasonable time. Even c/1000 would be fine, i guess.

      And excuse me: i firmly assume that c is the limit.

    13. Re:bad modding by vantar · · Score: 1

      I disagree on your "not resources" for the American revolution. Money is a resource and taxation was the catalyst that lead the the fighting. While it is true that the idea of unfair representation was a significant factor, the ideologies of the two sides are comparable to those found in a dispute over the mining rights to an area. However this really doesn't make a significant difference to the point you are making, it is just a small thing that was bugging me that I felt the need to point out.

    14. Re:bad modding by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you have it upside down, resouces are the PRIME reason regardless of any percieved 'need'. When you talk about enforcing "ideology" you are talking about political/religious control of a particular territory and consequently all the resouces within it.

      Wars are never just between the two sides in the headlines, there are all sorts of factions at all sorts of levels. The underlying motivation for war comes from our shared territorial instincts. I'm sure priests, politicians and crusaders would disagree but IMHO religion and politics is just the sales pitch.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:bad modding by Darby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      and would have enriched those antagonists who lost had they instead emerged victorious.

      Often it did regardless. Those residents of the losing antagonist nations who got quite rich were often the ones promoting the wars to their nation while avoiding actually sacrificing anything for it. Victory, while desired, wasn't really the main goal. As long as they could avoid getting killed, they could quite happily loot their own nation at the expense of the blood of the people they don't give a shit about. Just look at Cheney and the rest of the chicken hawks and America's recent disastrous to all but a few, "wars".

      As long as you're not dumb enough to enlist and are lacking enough in basic ethics as to happily have the fools who are dumb enough killed for your benefit, you can make quite a healthy profit doing so. Hell the families of those who you murdered to get rich will support you because to not support you would be to admit that they were dumb enough to get duped and that their loved ones are dead for nothing except your profit. Licking your boots is preferable to basic honesty and respecting their lost family to most people. The power of self delusion should never be underestimated.

    16. Re:bad modding by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      That's the justification, not the cause. Same as how children fight, and then use silly excuses like "she started it".

    17. Re:bad modding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as how children fight, and then use silly excuses like "she started it".

      That is NOT a "silly excuse". If a kid is being picked on, and actually has the guts to stand up and fight back, they should be reprimanded ONLY for what was above and beyond the necessary amount to defend themselves. With attitudes like yours being the norm, no wonder kids these days are growing up as spineless wimps.

    18. Re:bad modding by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Of course it's a silly excuse. They shouldn't be fighting at all; they should be learning to work together. Next I suppose you'll be telling me a wife is justified in cutting off her husband's nuts because he started a fight, or that all that guantanamo stuff is fine.

    19. Re:bad modding by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Howver far into the future the mainstay resources will shift. Currently oil literally drives us. It used to be food(people, horses ,etc). It will probably be the element that enables FTL.

      You've got a point, but in the intermediate future - after the oil wars have declined because there simply isn't enough of it to fuel a military-industrial complex (let alone domestic vehicles) - I'd suspect that the driver for wars will be something relatively prosaic. (BTW, I write this as an oil geologist, and "intermediate future" is within my lifetime and therefore quite likely within your lifetime. Worry about this.)

      That "something" will be fresh water. Or lack of fresh water. Or you and your neighbour having access to different amounts of fresh water. Don't worry about your neighbour's neighbours, because you're going to have to go through your neighbour to get access to their resources.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    20. Re:bad modding by peragrin · · Score: 1

      your quite right. though I don't worry about fresh water. I sit at the edge of Lake Ontario. If worst things come I can just start charging enough to build an army to defend the great lakes. Sometimes living in the right spot is good. while not limitless, it can support several large populations, and is itself a reservoir with the infrastructure in place to use it.(wisely is another choice)

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    21. Re:bad modding by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Aww ... aren't you precious! Like Gizmo's kids, after the change ... really cute, in a messed up and evil sort of way ...

      I always wonder whether people who come up with such twisted fantasies are able to imagine them because they have vivid imaginations ... or because, given enough power, they themselves would act in that manner. Either way, I'm glad that people like you never seem to amass any real power within our societies.

    22. Re:bad modding by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      When you talk about enforcing "ideology" you are talking about political/religious control of a particular territory and consequently all the resouces within it.

      What you're doing there is rephrasing the question in such a way that your argument becomes the only answer which fits. You're saying "since the winners of a conflict control all resources, resources must be the cause of the conflict". Using the same logic we could say that sweating is the primary reason for sex, since everyone involved in the activity ends up sweating a lot. Or alternately, we could argue that cheese is the prime reason for all wars, since whoever wins the war always ends up with control of all the cheese.

      You're taking one of the results of an action, ignoring all other results, and then claiming that the one result you picked must be why the action occurred. It's a silly way to argue, and it's not at all logical.

      Of course, if you break down motivations far enough, you'll always end up being able to justify every human action as a desire to control resources. That's because "resources" are anything and everything that we use or could possibly use in order to survive and prosper. You could say that eating, breathing, and breeding are all directly related to a desire to control resources, and you'd be completely right. In that sense, sure, wars are about resources ... but what isn't?

    23. Re:bad modding by Darby · · Score: 1

      Aww ... aren't you precious! Like Gizmo's kids, after the change ... really cute, in a messed up and evil sort of way ...

      Who?...What?... Whatever, dude.

      I always wonder whether people who come up with such twisted fantasies are able to imagine them because they have vivid imaginations ... or because, given enough power, they themselves would act in that manner

      You might consider picking up a history book. Really, you should if you think reality is just a "twisted fantasy". Seriously, dude, pay a little bit of attention to the world and how it's always worked.

      Well, either, you're completely delusional, or you're some wacko hippy who thinks the world has always run on unicorn farts and happy thoughts....but I repeat myself. Put down the bong, hippy. Seriously, what are you, like 12?

  12. source http://www.esa.int by Saysys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The question of how much liquid is on the surface is an important one because methane is a strong greenhouse gas on Titan as well as on Earth, but there is much more of it on Titan. If all the observed liquid on Titan is methane, it would only last a few million years, because as methane escapes into Titan's atmosphere, it breaks down and escapes into space.

    If the methane were to run out, Titan could become much colder. Scientists believe that methane might be supplied to the atmosphere by venting from the interior in cryovolcanic eruptions. If so, the amount of methane, and the temperature on Titan, may have fluctuated dramatically in Titan's past.

    1. Re:source http://www.esa.int by Cally · · Score: 5, Informative

      I actually shelled out $9 to read the Geophysical Review Letters paper (I take my armchair planetary science geekery pretty seriously, but sadly not enough to justify journal subscriptions.) One possibility mentioned is sub-surface reservoirs as a possible source keeping the atmosphere topped up. (Note that unlike on earth, where methane has an atmospheric lifetime measured in weeks, at Titan it's millions or tens of millions of years.) Another interesting thing is the description of GCMs (global circulation models) and evidence of classical, earth-style Hadley cells, a major feature of earth's climate.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    2. Re:source http://www.esa.int by ogdenk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it would only last a few million years, because as methane escapes into Titan's atmosphere, it breaks down and escapes into space.

      Does that suggest that Titan itself is rather young compared to the planet it orbits? Or was Titan much more active and possibly larger 50 million years ago?

      I'm not a geologist or astrophysicist so I'm rather ignorant in this department.

    3. Re:source http://www.esa.int by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If all the observed liquid on Titan is methane, it would only last a few million years, because as methane escapes into Titan's atmosphere, it breaks down and escapes into space.

      Doesn't sound right. At a glance, from Wikipedia, if I assume methane is an ideal gas, the average velocity of methane gas is roughly:

      v = sqrt(3kT/M).

      Here, T = 94K, k =1.38*10^-23 m^2 kg/ (s^2 K), and M = 2.32*10^-26 kg (mass of a molecule of methane). Crunching the numbers I get that the average velocity of methane is roughly 400 m/s. In comparison, escape velocity from Titan's surface is 2.65 km/s. Titan's radius is more than 2,500 km. As I understand it, escape velocity scales as the square root of radius. So you'd have to be above 6,000 km radius in order to get escape velocities down to 400 m/s. But the atmosphere is nowhere near 3500 km thick. I just don't think this is a credible option for methane loss.

      The second possibility is decomposition of methane due to UV light. Using the above formula, H2, which has a seventh the mass of methane has an average velocity of under 1100 m/s. That's not escape velocity until you're at a radius of 4,000 km. Plus, being on average 9.5 AU from the Sun, means that solar influx is far lower than on Earth. So you get something like 15 W/m^2 compared to 1300 W/m^2 at Earth. Hydrogen loss on Earth is pretty minuscule too. Plus, we're probably well below methane's freezing point by the time we get to the upper atmosphere (which I'd guess is probably mostly nitrogen with traces of other molecules). So just like water vapor freezes at high altitudes, I imagine that little methane reaches the upper atmosphere.

      Solar wind doesn't play a role since apparently Titan is just inside Saturn's magnetosphere. The linked paper indicates that the dominate mass wasting process is the atmosphere's interaction with Saturn's magnetosphere.

      To summarize, I just don't see the process that's going to eliminate most methane from Titan's atmosphere on the order of millions of years.

    4. Re:source http://www.esa.int by AaronLawrence · · Score: 3, Informative

      As I read the FA, the methane from the atmosphere is lost to the surface, not into space. It evaporates from lakes but rains back again and forms "methane derived haze particles"... they think these two forms are more than evaporation... ergo there should be not much methane in the atmosphere over the long term.
      This point wasn't terribly clear in the article however.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    5. Re:source http://www.esa.int by WalkingWounded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The critical thing you have there is that you are calculating the average velocity, not the fraction that is trotting along at > 2.65km/s. That will be e^(- (2.65km/s / 400m/s)^2), or about 1 in 1e19 methane molecules will have escape velocity. In the case of H2 that'd be a full 0.3% of molecules having escape velocity.

      The actual loss rate will depend on a few other things, such as the mean free path of the molecules (i.e. how likely are they to bump into another before escaping, and how frequently they get their energies reset to a function of the average).

      Look up Boltzmann distributions for more.

    6. Re:source http://www.esa.int by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

      jeez dude, you should really search, uhmmm this thing called the interwebs before letting yourself get raped by the ABSURDLY high prices these journals demand for a single paper! look. here. FREE! If you're an American YOU ALREADY PAID FOR THIS research. that's why it's on a NASA site for free. even when it isn't taxpayer funded research it's still VERY common to see a paper from a peer reviewed journal also up on a professor's personal page as a preprint or whatever.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    7. Re:source http://www.esa.int by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

      A few points of contention:
      1) methane is not an ideal gas at the average temperature of Titan.
      2) your velocity is root mean square not the velocity of all methane molecules in the atmosphere. The velocity of gas molecules is that of a bell curve not a concrete quantized single quantity. The fact is that although small by comparison, there's going to be a few methane molecules that have the velocity required to escape Titan's gravity no matter what the temperature. Granted the number of methane molecules capable of escaping increases dramatically with temperature... there should be enough that can escape to make millions or billions of years a fair approximation as to the average length of time a methane molecule stays bound in Titan's gravity well. THis is of course neglecting ionization of methane molecules caused by external radiation sources which reduce the lifetime of methane molecules captured.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    8. Re:source http://www.esa.int by Cally · · Score: 1

      D'oh!! I'm not an American, but if I'd thought the fulltext would be up somewhere I'd've searched for it. I just kinda assumed prestigious journals like GRL would have an embargo on such "leaks", precisely to protect their presumably miniscule $9 income stream. Well, live and learn, I'll know next time. Thanks!

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    9. Re:source http://www.esa.int by khallow · · Score: 1

      they think these two forms are more than evaporation

      I think that's a bit lax with the language. You can't sink more of a nonnegative quantity than you source. Having said that, it sounds similar (to no one's surprise) to to those mechanims on Earth that regulate water vapor density (aside from dew absorption by plants).

      The original poster was claiming though that methane was being lost to space. That was what I was analyzing. Given that methane is extracted from the atmosphere so readily, this really doesn't make much sense. Methane loss can't be that great.

    10. Re:source http://www.esa.int by khallow · · Score: 1

      1) methane is not an ideal gas at the average temperature of Titan.

      I'm aware of that. The additional vibration modes lower the average velocity of methane. So my approximate of methane as an ideal gas was deliberately conservative.

      your velocity is root mean square not the velocity of all methane molecules in the atmosphere.

      I'm aware of that as well. I wasn't aware that this resulted in a high loss rate for hydrogen. I thought the difference would be more significant.

    11. Re:source http://www.esa.int by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never under estimate the power of an evil genius.

      At this very moment I have a large probe on a direct course with your prescious methane resources. Attached to the probe is an industrial variant of the bic lighter!

      Unless I receive 100 dollars I will detonate the device!

  13. Dinosaurs? by vvaduva · · Score: 1, Funny

    The more important question really is: What killed the dinosaurs on Titan?

  14. The post-1/20/2009 zeitgeist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I speak for all Americans when I ask, "Who?"

  15. chocolate rain by evwah · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hydrocarbon rain? Snooze. Call me when it becomes chocolate rain.

  16. OMGWTFBBQ by xonar · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Old news is old.

  17. Space Oil Tanker... by meson2439 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Methane in Titan will be the start for a new age of space exploration. Since alternative energy still sucks, we might just siphon all of Titan methane to earth. Titan is just a few planet further from earth.

    The future oil tanker might not look like death star but the size should be comparable. It will need to carry a lot of oil due to the infrequent trip (Since lightspeed travel is impossible).

    1. Re:Space Oil Tanker... by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So not only do we fill our atmosphere with the CO2 produced from burning our own hydrocarbons, but then we fill our atmosphere with the CO2 produced by burning an entire other planet's worth of hydrocarbons. Brilliant!

      I suppose we could build sequestration plants on Titan and pump all the exhaust back up there though.

    2. Re:Space Oil Tanker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be cheaper to mine methane clathrate from the bottom of the ocean, if we seriously get that desperate for fuels. Which we won't, as we can always burn more coal (there's a TON of it left in the ground), environment be damned.

    3. Re:Space Oil Tanker... by Dersaidin · · Score: 1

      Bring the people to the resources, not the other way around.

    4. Re:Space Oil Tanker... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm wondering how you land all that methane back on earth.

      It may be a liquid on Titan, but as you get it back closer to earth and let the sun start to warm the skin of the spaceship, it's going to start turning into gas and take up a lot more volume.

      But let's assume you figure out a way to keep it liquid. How do you get it back down to earth? A space shuttle sized spacecraft is only going to be able to bring back a tanker truckload or so. You'll use much more energy than that just to relaunch some spacecraft to go get more.

      It's a terrible idea anyway, but also impractical.

    5. Re:Space Oil Tanker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course that would only work if you could massively reduce the energy costs for the trip itself, otherwise it would be prohibitively expensive.

      It might be more feasible to put a linear accelerator launch station on Titan and drop unmanned resource pods into a flight path that would eventually drop it into earth or lunar orbit for easy retrieval. Still massively expensive, and reliant on two things. (Or it gets even more expensive.)

      First, the launcher uses Titan based resources for energy production.

      Second, the resource packages are built and refined on Titan from Titan based resources.

      Realistically, unless we have a VERY cheap method of space travel, it's a worthless endeavor. As such, the energy potential of the hydrocarbons is pretty much blown out by the energy costs to do this, so the only thing they would be good for is the chemicals industry. This tends to indicate that we would no longer be on a hydrocarbon based energy system.

      Great for cheesy space opera, but lousy for real world issues.

    6. Re:Space Oil Tanker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space elevator or a space pipeline. You are not thinking outside the... shuttle!

    7. Re:Space Oil Tanker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Considering that we currently have problems getting back to the Moon, I am not expecting any Shell executives making their rounds with a flag any time soon.

      Lastly, I still remember the protests over Casini. Apparently people had problems with using uranium in space. God forbid the radiation were to leak out. Think about all the space-deer.

    8. Re:Space Oil Tanker... by meson2439 · · Score: 1

      Nope they would store the oil in space, convert it into electricity and transmit the energy using microwaves through a series of geostationary satellites.

      Since there is no requirement to land on earth, the cost would be significantly reduced (the space launch and landing is expensive, the space flight isn't). Extending the ISS is the first step. The only thing left is for a massive lobbying of all major government.

  18. VIZORIUM!!!! by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    Lovley Angels, aka Dirty Pair

  19. New NASA Exploration Policy: by Narnie · · Score: 1

    NASA press release headlines- NASA Excepts New Mission: Drill Baby Drill!

    --
    greed@All_Evils:~#
    1. Re:New NASA Exploration Policy: by Sebilrazen · · Score: 2, Funny

      NASA press release headlines- NASA Excepts New Mission: Drill Baby Drill!

      Actually, since they're easily accessible in the form of lakes on the surface wouldn't it be easier to Suck baby, suck?

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    2. Re:New NASA Exploration Policy: by bytethese · · Score: 1

      "She's gone from suck to blow!"

    3. Re:New NASA Exploration Policy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Suck baby, suck" - are you suggesting that we send Congress?

    4. Re:New NASA Exploration Policy: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA press release headlines- NASA Excepts New Mission: Drill Baby Drill!

      So, are they sending a drilling mission or not? They're doing everything 'except' it? Parse error.

    5. Re:New NASA Exploration Policy: by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      One would like to think that NASA's PR department have learned the meaning of the phrase "spelling checker". Might I recommend a browser family called FireFox? They have an integrated spelling checker which you can use. You can even tell it which languages you speak, or are attempting to write, and it will try to correct your errors. Oh, I see the problem.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  20. Abiogenic Hydrocarbons by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The question of where all of Titan's hydrocarbons come from might cause the theory of abiogenic petroleum to be revisited. Much to the chagrin of the peak oil proponents.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  21. Wouldn't it be crazy... by Metasquares · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If there were life on Titan using hydrocarbons as we use water?

    I'm sure there are several reasons why this is chemically infeasible, but I just wanted to throw the possibility out there. We tend to get into bad habits of assuming that extraterrestrial life would function just as terrestrial life would.

    1. Re:Wouldn't it be crazy... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least we would never have to worry about being invaded. A flamethrower would be the ultimate weapon against them in our atmosphere.

    2. Re:Wouldn't it be crazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe they have cars which run on water?

    3. Re:Wouldn't it be crazy... by anilg · · Score: 1

      Heh.. but what if fire isn't a life threatening force to them as it is to us.. burning is probably how they reproduce.

      --
      http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
    4. Re:Wouldn't it be crazy... by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Funny

      "burning is probably how they reproduce"

      So you're saying Titan porn is hot?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Wouldn't it be crazy... by anilg · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, but it's the "cold" stuff these guys like.

      --
      http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
    6. Re:Wouldn't it be crazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, maybe, OK? Breaking your leg hurts like hell, OK? Hel. They do it below the knee, lo. "Hel-lo," get it? They do it twice - twice, two. "Hello to." And the jigsaw must mean "you." "Hello to you"!

    7. Re:Wouldn't it be crazy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would make great suicidal jihadists though.

    8. Re:Wouldn't it be crazy... by az-saguaro · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reason that Titan is of such great interest (aside form the fact that Cassini-Huygens is giving us reams of data that we could never see from Earth), is that its chemistry is considered comparable to Earth in the pre-biotic eras. Our current hydro-nitrox environment evolved slowly due to abiotic and biotic chemistry starting with something that may be similar to what Titan now has. Somewhere in the distant past, biotic chemistry had to start in something that had high methane or other hydrocarbons. Even now, earth has extremophile niche organisms, some of which might well survive conditions comparable to Titan, to a degree.

      But, there are crucial differences. Biotic chemistry and the formation and evolution of life depend on complex molecules interacting in a solution. The ionic or soluble molecules, with nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur, as well as C-H, which define life as we understand it, need water as the solvent. On Titan, it may exist at some thermal boundary far below the surface, but not at the top (the same reason that Jupiter's Europa, which does have water and ionic solutions in oceans near the surface is of such great interest as to the possibility of life).

      Titan is probably too cold to permit evolution. Atmospheric ionizations, lightening, deep geothermal chemistry, and so on may indeed have generated some biotic precursors - complex organics, amino acids, carbohydrates, or nucleic acids - but the chances of them being able to interact the gazillions of times needed to randomly find stable and regenerative molecules is unlikely at its ambient temperatures.

      However, the possibility that, at the right temperatures and thermodynamics, that these molecules could assemble and evolve in a methane solvent, is not beyond theoretical possibility, as long as enough nitrogen, oxygen, other atoms, (water), and energy are there to evolve the complexity of the molecules. This is what is presumed to have happened on earth.

      It is possible that current Titanic atmospheric chemistry is converting CH4 into larger hydrocarbons and other molecules, which would sequester the methane, making it "disappear". Since these molecules would be denser than methane, they might be below the observable surface, and we would not know about them. It is possible though that far enough below, where warmer, that the chemistry has become very complex, possibly pre-biotic, or perhaps even biotic. Of course, that is the point of this original article, that the hydrocarbons are there in mass quantities, so some sort of long term chemistry is going on.

      It would be interesting to take Titan's chemistry, as we have learned about it from Cassini-Huygens, put it in a laboratory bioreactor, adds some "lightening", heat, and so forth, and see what happens. In an old original Outer Limits episode from the 60's, they did just that, and some spooky creature evolved - how prescient!

    9. Re:Wouldn't it be crazy... by Rob+Carr · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I did a calculation a while back, assuming that the rule of thumb on earth held on Titan: reaction rates drop 50% for 10 degree drop in temperature. Using an estimate for the time required to develop life on Earth, the calc indicated it would be unlikely to have developed on Titan within the lifetime of the universe.

      Of course, there are quite a few problems with that analysis:
      1. Different chemical system might make the reaction rate different.
      2. That's a long way to push a law that obviously fails at the freezing temp of water.
      3. If life formed on Earth much sooner than the estimate I used, again the number might be off.

      Then again, what would be the information molecule? DNA is a polymer with subunits that can encode information. There aren't a lot of methane-soluble polymers that would make for good information storage.

      Then again, maybe I'm not thinking outside the box and something radically different would be used.

      Life on Titan is unlikely, but I think we'd be making a big mistake assuming it's impossible.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
  22. Sponsored by Tom cruz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This study must have been funded by the church of Scientology.

  23. Re:How will this dreck get modded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post is so unfunny I don't even understand it.

  24. American Rebellion by argent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    American revolution - not resources (at least not entirely, Britain probably did want access to North American resources)

    It was totally about resources - the American colonies taking control of the sugar/rum/slave trade triangle from Britain.

    And don't forget Bush's little oil war.

    1. Re:American Rebellion by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      And don't forget Bush's little oil war.

      You know ... even though I don't smoke it, I've always been a proponent of legalizing marijuana. I always thought it was silly to ban an activity which cannot be effectively policed, and which doesn't really harm anyone. But then I see comments like yours .... and I have to stop and re-think my position. Clearly it's got some rather severe long-term effects, so how can I support it's decriminalization with a clear conscience?

      It really is a tough call ...

    2. Re:American Rebellion by argent · · Score: 1

      I suppose you're talking about the pot Dubya smoked in his younger and wilder days before he became a Born Again Fundie. While I don't smoke, myself, I don't think we can really blame marijuana for what he's done as president.