Don't write or post stories about stuff like this until after it's basically a done deal. The more air time and attention it gets, the more it reaches the public consciousness of the unwashed masses. Unfortunately, a significant portion of those unwashed masses includes supporters of climate change deniers in congress with the power to continually reject funding for such scientific endeavors. Once this rabid supporter base gets a taste of something like this it has a good chance of spreading to become an epidemic, basically forcing the aforementioned deniers in power to move against it.
So, please, for the love of science, keep stories like this on the down low until their basically about to launch (most of the funding is already spent), sharing it with only your closest and most trusted scientific allies. Let your giddy fancy slowly evolve to the point of nerdgasm as a close precursor to the final objective. Then, and only then, is it safe to share this news with those who cannot or will not appreciate it.
Google grows. Google more and more often takes business steps that are increasingly monopolistic, duh.
I, for one, would be interested to see some sort of psychological study to see at what point on the spectrum from start up to monopoly the general population considers a company to be more a monopoly than just your standard, run of the mill company.
Personally I think Google has crossed that mark. They are certainly not a textbook monopoly, but they behave far too close to one for me to have a positive view of them despite all their positive innovation.
...South American countries such as Chile and Mexico.
This just it, basic geography skills also lacking.
Iapetus has only a fraction of Earth's gravity (Iapetus radius 735 KM, Earth radius 6371 KM, you do the math, after figuring out the relative density for yourself). Wouldn't a hugely smaller gravity significantly affect the angle of repose they carry on about in that referenced scientific paper? I doubt you can compare the angle of repose of rounded particles (or snow and hail) on Earth with that of a very small _and airless!_ moon.
But I'll leave that to the astrophysicists to work out.
From the references in that exact article you criticize (but clearly didn't read):
"Kleinhans, M. G., Markies, H., de Vet, S. J., in 't Veld, A. C., Postema, F. N., 2011. Static and dynamic angles of repose in loose granular materials under reduced gravity. Journal of Geophysical Research 116, E11004."
So, yes, I'd say they did take into account the low gravity.
Never trust anyone who says money is no object.