My Manifesto

I read an article by Mark Allison recently, entitled "Stop Renaming the Sky"¹, that really struck a chord with me. He noted the confusion that can arise when authors, observers (and even Go To telescopes!) use a variety of names for the same deep sky object.

It reminded me of a slightly different problem, with the way stars are referenced. For example, on p. 50 of the same magazine issue², we are referred to the double star, Dunlop 21. I wasn't personally familiar with the stars in the catalogue, so I was unenlightened.

Using catalogue numbers as primary designations can be confusing. Someone familiar with HD numbers, for example, now read about HIP this and HIP that. Next time a satellite goes up, we'll need to learn a new system. Do we use BL Ceti, Luyten 726-8, or Gliese 65? Different authors cannot concur, and so we continually need to cross-index designations.

My thesis is that we need a nomenclature that:

1. references a large number of stars;
2. entends an existing and accepted system;
3. is simple and accessible (unlike, for example, CCDM J01388+1758A!).
   

I propose an extension of the Flamsteed numbering system to meet this need. This system has the advantage of containing the constellation name, and a simple sequence number (allocated in order of Right Ascension). This extension would continue the numbering in the same way, making successive sweeps across the constellation, each time numbering fainter stars (with occasional exceptions to preserve well known Gould designations, e.g. 82 G. Eridani would be just 82 Eridani, even if this number puts it out of RA sequence). These phases could be, for example:

1. assign numbers to all HR stars in the Bright Star Catalogue without existing Bayer or Flamsteed designations (the HR catalogue has 9096 stars in total);
2. do the same for those stars in the Boss General Catalogue not previously assigned (33,342);
3. Hipparcos Catalogue;
4. HD/HDE/HDEC.

How many stages would be feasible or useful is open to debate, but just completing stage 1 (BSC) would assign simple, recognisable names to almost 6000 further stars. On this site I'll post some designations to get the ball rolling, starting with Andromeda.

What do you think? Let's start the debate!

1. Australian Sky & telescope, Jan/Feb 2007, p96.
2. Ibid., p50.