• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Thoughts about Saturn landings

ThunderSnowolf

Dead Account
I know the glorious giant planet with the most visible rings is pretty much the topic of every space-related media nowadays, but I'm generally confused about the landings on YouTube. You can easily tell that a lot of them were faked because it would take about 7 or so years to physically get to Saturn, and with no solid surface to land on, the only other option is to land on its moons instead. Anyway, one of the most noticeable points in these videos that show they likely aren't real is the fact that Titan's surface is clearly visible from far away which in real life is impossible because of its thick atmosphere. It pretty much just covers up the whole planetoid like a giant, orange blanket.
I don't know, I'd just like to get your input on this, like do you think any of them are real and if so, what are your opinions? I'm pretty curious to know.
 
I

Infrarednexus

Guest
Another likely candidate for life is Jupiter's moon, Europa. They have found a liquid ocean underneath the ice that is kept warm by its core.
 

Slytherin Umbreon

Black Lives Matter
Another likely candidate for life is Jupiter's moon, Europa. They have found a liquid ocean underneath the ice that is kept warm by its core.
And then, sleeping inside:
images
 

Lopaw

Wandering artist weasel
Most people don’t realise Saturn has other big round moons besides Titan such as Rhea and Dione that you could land on in theory.

Along with lots of tiny lumpy moons and ones that don’t even have proper names (only number designator’s) right now.
 

Valaska

Perfectly SFW Crop.
Most people don’t realise Saturn has other big round moons besides Titan such as Rhea and Dione that you could land on in theory.

Along with lots of tiny lumpy moons and ones that don’t even have proper names (only number designator’s) right now.

Just there's not much purpose to landing on Dione of Rhea when Titan is the one that holds such potential for life. Enceladus could have life and is a moon of Saturn so that could be worth exploring, but Europa honestly woul dbe more pragmatic for extensive exploration. Ganymede is a possibility too... potentially Uranus could but we'd never be able to land anything on it to check or harvest it in any meaningful way. Resource extraction should really be our main driving force outside of investigating possible life.
 

ThunderSnowolf

Dead Account
Just there's not much purpose to landing on Dione of Rhea when Titan is the one that holds such potential for life. Enceladus could have life and is a moon of Saturn so that could be worth exploring, but Europa honestly woul dbe more pragmatic for extensive exploration. Ganymede is a possibility too... potentially Uranus could but we'd never be able to land anything on it to check or harvest it in any meaningful way. Resource extraction should really be our main driving force outside of investigating possible life.
Well life on Enceladus could be a bit complicated due to the giant cryovolcanoes. They could possibly blow any form of underground life into space.
Personally, I find the possibility of exploring Rhea to be interesting though, due to the theory that it has a possible ring system just like its orbital parent.
 

Valaska

Perfectly SFW Crop.
Well life on Enceladus could be a bit complicated due to the giant cryovolcanoes. They could possibly blow any form of underground life into space.
Personally, I find the possibility of exploring Rhea to be interesting though, due to the theory that it has a possible ring system just like its orbital parent.

Very neat idea , a moon having its own ring. But I think the major complication with space travel and exploration right now is the lack of practical use for it. If we could erive more practical applications from/for space exploration it would no doubt have a rush of corporate and private dollars into the field... this could open the entire solar system up to exploitation.
 

Moar Krabs

Aight boys
Banned
Some people believe there could be life on gas planets. The wind and violent storms on these planets could propel something that's going to sink into the planet back up. Bacteria could form a creature that is kinda like a kite. Since the winds never stop, it can fly in the clouds of these gas planets. I think there could be things like that living on Jupiter or Saturn right now.
This video explains all of that
 

Connor J. Coyote

¥otie ¥otezer
Saturn is a very pretty planet visually speaking, I must say.. I think some of the landings might be faked, but - I think some of them may be genuine, too.. unless you work at NASA though, it's probably impossible to truly tell. If anything, these landings - either real or fake - stir up people's imaginations, and that in and of itself, might make it all worthwhile. ☺
 

Valaska

Perfectly SFW Crop.
Saturn is a very pretty planet visually speaking, I must say.. I think some of the landings might be faked, but - I think some of them may be genuine, too.. unless you work at NASA though, it's probably impossible to truly tell. If anything, these landings - either real or fake - stir up people's imaginations, and that in and of itself, might make it all worthwhile. ☺

W-what... no... what? No, it's not "impossible" to tell because of the mountains of evidence and matht hat show that they are true, no landings are "faked" that's just... ridiculous mate I'm sorry but holy heck that's on the levels of saying the earth is flat.
 
D

Deleted member 82554

Guest
If current research is anything to go by Jupiters natural conditions are too extreme for anything man made to survive more than a few minutes, so any surface footage is probably fake.
 

Connor J. Coyote

¥otie ¥otezer
W-what... no... what? No, it's not "impossible" to tell because of the mountains of evidence and matht hat show that they are true, no landings are "faked" that's just... ridiculous mate I'm sorry but holy heck that's on the levels of saying the earth is flat.
Ohhkayy...
 

Valaska

Perfectly SFW Crop.
If current research is anything to go by Jupiter's natural conditions are too extreme for anything man made to survive more than a few minutes, so any surface footage is probably fake.

We've never landed anything on Jupiter or Saturn, both missions that sent probes into the atmospheres were lost as planned, but sent back very valuable data. Galileo survived for over an hour while falling into Jupiter's atmosphere and gave us an accurate read on the composition of Jupiter's upper atmosphere, the second craft of the mission was the Galileo orbiter which they simply plunged into Jupiter so it wouldn't risk contaminating any of the satellites nearby.

Cassini (and the Huygens probe sent to Titan) were sent to Saturn and likewise after investigating the Saturn system and likewise were plunged into their respective targets surface. Cassini transmitted for a a breif time before being lost to entry heat of Saturn, where Huygens was successfully landed on and transmitted data back to earth via the orbiter module. This here is a legitimate picture from the surface of Titan;

Huygens_surface_color_sr.jpg

So state any of these landings or missions were fake is to devalue the millions of manhours that have gone into these agencies, NASA, the ESA, they have accomplished so much and to just be waved off with "yeah no, earth's flat ya know" is just insulting to humanity as a whole. There are no official picture of the "surface" of either Saturn or Jupiter, and neither are there any of Neptune or Uranus, no agency on earth that conducts actual space travel has ever attempted to show pictures from the surface of either. Cassini for instance actually burned on entry, where Galileo was a bit of a survivor and took its licks as it plunged.
 

ThunderSnowolf

Dead Account
W-what... no... what? No, it's not "impossible" to tell because of the mountains of evidence and matht hat show that they are true, no landings are "faked" that's just... ridiculous mate I'm sorry but holy heck that's on the levels of saying the earth is flat.

Well a space channel for example tried to make it seem as if they made it to Saturn in only a short amount of time after announcing that they were going and showed us the footage. Doesn't Titan have a thick atmosphere covering the surface from sight? So, why were we able to see it here?
It seems to have gone viral too, being as so many other channels are re-uploading it.

 

Valaska

Perfectly SFW Crop.
Well a space channel for example tried to make it seem as if they made it to Saturn in only a short amount of time after announcing that they were going and showed us the footage. Doesn't Titan have a thick atmosphere covering the surface from sight? So, why were we able to see it here?
It seems to have gone viral too, being as so many other channels are re-uploading it.


... I don't mean to be rude but, are you honestly sourcing something from a youtube channel that has;

Capture.PNG

Because if that were true there'd be a massive migration to Mexico by furries across the world and I haven't seen that yet. Titan does not have clear skies or anything like the colours on that faked video which is obviously in earth atmosphere, Titan's Rayleigh scattering is an orange-brown and it only receives a fraction of the sunlight that we get here on earth due to both distance and massively thick clouds. You would never be able to see Saturn from Titan even on the clearest day and you would barely be able to see the Sun either since it is so dense and thick and this is why Huygen took the pictures it did. Rayleigh could potentially be blue at the upper atmosphere, but Cassini took only downward pictures on descent, not sure why the ESA chose that route but it's what they went with.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov: Titan Images

There are no agencies officially claiming this fake video, and there has never been a video ever taken like it during space travel... Its very quick to find out if something is fake, just search the ESA, NASA, or Wikipedia even. THey all extensively report on any developments on space, JAXA does as well if you can read Japanese. The video you have there is the equivalent of chupacabra vids :x
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    26.8 KB · Views: 53
  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    26.8 KB · Views: 41

Alv

Banned
Banned
I'd reccomend sourcing your information from NASA and educational websites. YouTube is basically the opposite of an educational website.
 

ThunderSnowolf

Dead Account
... I don't mean to be rude but, are you honestly sourcing something from a youtube channel that has;

View attachment 43680
Because if that were true there'd be a massive migration to Mexico by furries across the world and I haven't seen that yet. Titan does not have clear skies or anything like the colours on that faked video which is obviously in earth atmosphere, Titan's Rayleigh scattering is an orange-brown and it only receives a fraction of the sunlight that we get here on earth due to both distance and massively thick clouds. You would never be able to see Saturn from Titan even on the clearest day and you would barely be able to see the Sun either since it is so dense and thick and this is why Huygen took the pictures it did. Rayleigh could potentially be blue at the upper atmosphere, but Cassini took only downward pictures on descent, not sure why the ESA chose that route but it's what they went with.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov: Titan Images

There are no agencies officially claiming this fake video, and there has never been a video ever taken like it during space travel... Its very quick to find out if something is fake, just search the ESA, NASA, or Wikipedia even. THey all extensively report on any developments on space, JAXA does as well if you can read Japanese. The video you have there is the equivalent of chupacabra vids :x

Yeah, that makes sense. I see now.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
It makes me very sad that there were people who didn't realise you could just look up the answer on wikipedia, or nasa's website, until lcs posted. :c
 

ThunderSnowolf

Dead Account
It makes me very sad that there were people who didn't realise you could just look up the answer on wikipedia, or nasa's website, until lcs posted. :c
Well, NASA isn't always truthful or promising when it comes to space travel. They promised to send a probe to the moon, and changed it to an in-orbit satellite instead. It's best to be sure they have valid evidence behind what they say first. I mean hey, they managed to convince all of the planet we live on about what Pluto is, or rather isn't.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
Well, NASA isn't always truthful or promising when it comes to space travel. They promised to send a probe to the moon, and changed it to an in-orbit satellite instead. It's best to be sure they have valid evidence behind what they say first. I mean hey, they managed to convince all of the planet we live on about what Pluto is, or rather isn't.

You can trust nasa's description of completed space missions.
Obviously planned space missions don't always happen, because funding can be lost, mechanical probes can malfunction or be destroyed and so on.
nasa isn't responsible for pluto being downgraded to a dwarf planet. That was the international astronomical union: International Astronomical Union - Wikipedia

Pluto was downgraded because, if pluto fairly met the standards to be a 'planet' then a variety of other objects that we wouldn't fairly consider planets, like Make-Make, would have to be called planets and our solar system would have like, 40 something planets.
 

Valaska

Perfectly SFW Crop.
Well, NASA isn't always truthful or promising when it comes to space travel. They promised to send a probe to the moon, and changed it to an in-orbit satellite instead. It's best to be sure they have valid evidence behind what they say first. I mean hey, they managed to convince all of the planet we live on about what Pluto is, or rather isn't.

Erm, well I'm not sure about the piece of hardware you're talking about specifically but sometimes mission parameters have to change. NASA doesn't lie about things like that, they simply have to deal with limitations, one of the big limitations being their horrifyingly shrinking budget and the collosal tasks they are tackling. They are doing calculations that can place an object where it needs to be across hundreds of thousands, to billions of kilometres away. Sometimes they make mistakes and you can't exactly fault them or accuse them of lying when it is just a mistake. The fact they make mistakes from time to time and have to cut down on missions is further proof what they are doing is legitimate.

And on Pluto... wot? I mean, you realize that NASA had nothing to do with that... like, legitimately NASA had nothing to do with reclassifying Pluto other than a bunch of their people are in the IAU, but they did not make up the majority of the IAU representatives. The IAU also didn't lie or bamboozle anyone, they simply re-examined the arbitrary rules of what makes a stellar body a planet or not and then decided that Pluto didn't fit into the category of a planet.

It's arbitrary of course and if you really want to you can continue to feel that Pluto is not a planet, the IAU feels otherwise and have more authority on the subject. They based it on its size, erratic orbit, and the fact it hasn't cleared its orbital lane... you could argue "but Neptune hasn't cleared itself of Pluto" and while true, Neptune is also very huge with a stable orbit, so it checks several of the criteria that make up a planet. Pluto could be set completely off its orbit if something shifts with virtually any of the planets in the solar system so it has a really weak claim to being a planet.

The biggest nail in the coffin though was observational institutes (not just NASA, actually, mostly not NASA as NASA only has a few large reflectors) was the fact we've found over a dozen Pluto-sized objects in the Kuiper belt so it gets labelled as a Dwarf Planet.
 

ThunderSnowolf

Dead Account
You can trust nasa's description of completed space missions.
Obviously planned space missions don't always happen, because funding can be lost, mechanical probes can malfunction or be destroyed and so on.
nasa isn't responsible for pluto being downgraded to a dwarf planet. That was the international astronomical union: International Astronomical Union - Wikipedia

Pluto was downgraded because, if pluto fairly met the standards to be a 'planet' then a variety of other objects that we wouldn't fairly consider planets, like Make-Make, would have to be called planets and our solar system would have like, 40 something planets.

Personally, I would have been overjoyed at the idea of over 40 planets. But I suppose there's no changing that if most of the world agrees that planets can't have satellites of nearly similar mass as themselves.
 
Top