Nice RGB sequence showing Enceladus passing in front of Titan:
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/imag...8/N00049968.jpg
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/imag...8/N00049967.jpg
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/imag...8/N00049966.jpg

Here the aligned RGB combination:

Beauty! I don't suppose that you have a version large enough for wallpaper...?

Sorry, unless you have a 2" monitor...

Thank you for posting dilo, it was a good reminder for me what a small world Enceladus really are - amazing it can have all that activity.

Yep, I remember this composite of Britain and Enceladus from a while back:

Not all that big, really!

Ugh. I do not like these sorts of comparisons between three-dimensional objects and two-dimensional surfaces; they are very deceptive. Yes, Enceladus would "fit inside" the island of Great Britain -- but only if it were half embedded in the earth's crust with the rest of it towering into the sky!

A better comparison is of surface area to surface area, not of spherical diameter to surface area. If you could unroll Enceladus surface onto the surface of earth, it would occupy an area slightly smaller than France and Germany combined; that is, the parts of Enceladus we can directly observe are a good deal bigger than Great Britain.

Here's my take on the very cool image, magnified 2x for Your viewing pleasure:
Click to view attachment

While I'm at it, here's another RGB shot of Titan taken a few weeks ago:
Click to view attachment

that is a much better comparison. At some talks I've given, I compared the surface area to that of Turkey. I'll dig up the graphic.

That's a helluva size for a chicken!

GM Rhode Island Red?

Bob Shaw

The size comparison points are valid, and of course surface area, rather than volume, is the relevant statistic when seeking to do anything with the surface (pin down a vent location, search for a possible landing site, et cetera). Still, keep in mind that according to these standards, Cassini's original picture on the thread is a bad comparison - nowhere does it show relative areas!
Because of the negative reaction to the "comparing a two-dimensional plane to a three-dimensional object," I decided that this time I'd show both as three-dimensional objects (well, as best one can on a flat screen). This way, they'll be equally misrepresented!