Talk:Exomoon

Relevence

While the article is aimed at Extrasolar Moons, I think that the writer went a little off the target with this.

I concur, this has exceeded its reach. Also the www.space.com article is long outdated (eg. 100 planets now 270+), and I am still searching for a reference to the Roman Numeral suggestion in the Nomenclature (??). - GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Info

Hello, I just read this article and I attempted to insert some of the information about how to detect exomoons. I did not know how to insert a reference. Can someone do this?

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=3856

72.141.173.208 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Changes

Hello. I have added the reference as requested above.

I have expanded the section on detection methods to include a brief summary (one or two sentences) about each technique.

I have also added an image of an exomoon from Aurelia and Blue Moon article. This is the only image I could find of an exomoon within the Wikipedia Commons... 19:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Habitable zone moon

Two high profile sources cited in the Canup & Ward (2006) Nature article referenced in this article are below:

[38] Williams, D. M. & Kasting, J. F. Habitable moons around extrasolar giant planets. Nature 385, 234–236 (1997)
[39] Barnes, J. W. & O'Brien, D. P. Stability of satellites around close-in extrasolar giant planets. Astrophys. J. 575, 1087–1093 (2002)

I think the concept of an earth sized moon existing within the habitable zone of a star is a very important one. It is clearly an established hypothesis. Certainly something that should be expanded. Polyamorph (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your going to go down this route, the possibility of upper limiting masses on both the satellite system and the individual satellites themselves should definitely be raised. And remember, our own solar system does contain a planetary satellite with a mass comparable to the Galilean moons squarely inside the habitable zone... Icalanise (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All very good points but my point is that there are reliable sources (including Nature papers) which support the theory of "Habitable moons around extrasolar giant planets". I'm absolutely not suggesting we conduct any form of original research. Polyamorph (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other issue is how such a topic should be distinguished from general considerations of planetary habitability, and whether we can find reliable sources which discuss the issues that may be specific to habitability of planetary satellites (e.g. tidal effects or the interaction with radiation belts associated with the parent planet). As for the issue of formation, both those papers appear to discuss the issue of habitability in the event that such moons exist, rather than the consideration of forming such massive objects around a gas giant planet in the first place. Bear in mind that Jupiter's satellite system is more massive than Saturn's, in accordance with the scaling laws for gas giant satellite systems, but it formed multiple massive satellites rather than a "super-Titan". Icalanise (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do get your points and don't want to give any theory an undue weighting. Perhaps just a small expansion of the current statement in the "characteristics" section, expanding the key points given by Williams and Kasting, i.e. that the moons must be of sufficient size, have a suitable atmosphere and a magnetic field, posess a suitable orbit etc. Then wikilink to planetary habitability would be sufficient. Polyamorph (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, as I recall Jupiter and Saturn are believed to have formed multiple generations of satellite systems and the earlier "systems" fell/migrated into the parent planet. The Galilean moons are all relatively large because they formed in the same cycle, but Titan is suspected of possibly being the lone survivor of the previous "formation cycle". -- Kheider (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting possibility is that the differences between the architectures of the Jovian and Saturnian satellite systems arose because Jupiter managed to open up a gap in the solar nebula but Saturn did not. See [1]. Icalanise (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

Is there any proposal for a system of naming exomoons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.204.245 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because no exomoons were discovered yet, there is no naming convention for such moons. I think such moons will be designated by the host star designation and a lower-case letter making an exoplanet designation followed by an Arabic number, e.g. HD 28185 b1 and Upsilon Andromedae d6. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 00:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another candidate?

According to NASA, another possible exomoon has just been spotted. They're not sure yet (and not sure if or when they will be sure, as far as I can tell), so I'm not sure if this is worth adding or not. I'll just leave the link here: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-109 Xtifr _tälk 01:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same candidate that was announced last December but it's in the news now. I've added mention in the article about different announcement and news dates. Astredita (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-brown dwarf with planet or Rogue planet with moon

Even if MOA-2011-BLG-262 is a planetary-mass object that doesn't necessarily mean its companion should be called a moon. Free floating planetary-mass objects can form from interstellar clouds just like stars and brown-dwarfs do. In which case they are sub-brown dwarfs. The satellites of sub-brown dwarfs could be considered planets just as the satellites of stars and brown dwarfs are planets. That MOA-2011-BLG-262 has a companion makes it unlikely to be a rogue planet that has been ejected from orbit around a star. Although The Survival Rate of Ejected Terrestrial Planets with Moons by J. H. Debes, S. Sigurdsson suggests it's not impossible for ejected planets to hold on to their moons, so the presence of a moon doesn't necessarily mean the main object is a sub-brown dwarf. Astredita (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another detection method

Radio emission http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/791/1/25 I tried to add this to the article, but I could not manage the programming. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.25.32 (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exomoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060916161707/http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html to http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extrasolar...

Extrasolar planet are planets outside the Solar system, that is, planets that circle other stars than Sol.

This article, however, does not seem to be about ANY moon found outside the Solar system. Rather it seems to be about satellites of rogue planets, satellites of planet-sized objects that are not part of a Stellar system.

It is a bee in my bonnet. People sometimes refer to "other solar systems", when there is, and can be, only one Solar system.

The Solar system is the system of planets, comets, asteroids, etc, that orbit the Sun we call Sol. A system of planets, comets etc, that circle another star, would be a stellar system, not "another solar system".

This article was renamed from extrasolar moon in 2013. Yeah. I think it should never have had that name, maybe Extrastellar moon.

"It seems to be about satellites of rogue planets."

No? This article is about extrasolar moons, i.e. satellites of planets (either star-orbiting or free-floating) outside of the Solar System. For example, Kepler-1625b I is a candidate exomoon of a star-orbiting exoplanet. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extrasolar refers to any object outside of the solar system. 146.168.31.85 (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merging exomoon candidates into articles on their planets

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge Kepler-1708 b I, keep Kepler-1625 b I. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This doesn't affect the exomoon article, but I'm using this talk page as a central place to propose two exomoon-related merges. The merge proposal can be moved elsewhere if necessary.

There are currently two articles on specific exomoon candidates, Kepler-1625b-i and Kepler-1708b-i. I would propose merging these into the articles on their planets, Kepler-1625b and Kepler-1708b - for one, these are candidate objects that are not confirmed, but also the existence of 1625b-i has been challenged, and this recent paper challenges both exomoons. Real or not, I don't think there's a need for articles on these exomoon candidates separate from those on their planets. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. All 4 articles are tiny anyway. A merger would make sense. Dhrm77 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as these articles have little information, which can easily be merged into the article on their respective planets. Furthermore, these exomoons are unconfirmed and their existence is disputed by some studies. So i support the merging. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC) oppose merging Kepler-1625 I, the topic is already notable enough, the article has substantial content and it received 1241 pageviews in the last month. The Kepler-1708b I can be merged instead, it is very small and the number of pageviews is much smaller than that of Kepler-1625 I, just 146 in the last 30 days. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.