|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
Hi, R.A.F. Let me try to address the points you bring up.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Does anybody here have any idea of how many stars have been named after people, or how many available stars there are? Without knowing this, any opinion that they're currently being recycled, or that they will one day run out is baseless. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Nobody suggested Aurora do his/her homework. That's why I say this argument is one-sided. One side can say anything they want without providing references and go unquestioned. Why do I feel like I'm being trashed? Because people say things like: "I really can't imagine why anyone would defend the star naming scammers" when I never defended them, and "So why are you saying that ISR's scam should be the official scam?" when I never said that either. Don't you see the attitude in your responses "Please point out the "fun" part...I seem to be missing it... "? and "you are going to have to do your own "homework". People could be replying with answers like: *The IAU has the authority because... *Even though more people than just astronomers enjoy the stars, astronomers have the right to designate the official naming body because... Then they would be addressing the questions I asked without putting words in my mouth and aiming their attitudes at me. That's why I feel like I'm being trashed. Quote:
Quote:
In my 8 inch telescope with the 26mm eyepiece I have a field of view of about 0.4 square degrees. I can see stars down to about magnitude 10. Maybe a little fainter if I had a dark sky. When I point my telescope at a patch of sky that appears to the naked-eye as being empty, I can see at least 5 stars in each field of view. If I point my telescope at a random patch of sky, 10 stars is more likely. I can get as high as 200 stars per field of view if I point at a star cluster, or thousands if I point at a globular cluster. Or about 20 if I randomly cruise through the bright Milky Way band. The sky contains 41253 square degrees. So there are 93,378 fields of view in the total sky. If we use 10 as an average number of stars per field of view, That's nearly 1 million stars. This suggests that they have indeed run out of stars magnitude 10 and brighter. Or perhaps they are close to running out if I use a number other than 10. But if they simply use stars as faint as mag 12, there are 10s of millions of stars at their disposal. If they run out of those, the simply swich magnitudes again. They needn't ever run out. |
|
||||
|
Here is the number of stars by magnitude .
[Added: Here is another table showing lower estimates based on greater formulation.]
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh. "The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly. Last edited by George : 31-January-2006 at 01:45 PM. |
|
|||
|
Thank you for that list George. I tried to Google for something similar but couldn't find anything.
Do my homework, part 2 Quote:
http://www.iau.org/BUYING_STAR_NAMES.244.0.html |
|
||||
|
Very appropriate link, tony.
They have some interesting comments in their Q&A that are enjoyable to see. Quote:
![]()
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh. "The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly. |
|
||||
|
Barnard's Star
Kapteyn's Ster Van Biesbroeck's Ster Wolf catalogue Gliese catalogue Henry Draper catalogue Lalande catalogue Can anybody think of other stars that were officially named after people?
__________________
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Last edited by Halcyon Dayz : 08-February-2006 at 01:00 AM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
I have had people bring 12th magnitude stars to our observatory that they had "purchased". There are only about 600,000 stars of 10th magnitude or brighter. (edited number because I read the able wrong). I know that there are multiple companies that sell stars, but I do not know how many have been sold. In a different message I think you stated that ISR had sold more than a million. I suspect that some of their competitors have sold similar numbers, but even if they had sold only half as many then all the stars of 10th mag and brighter would have already been sold multiple times. I have heard stories about even dimmer stars being "sold", down to 14th magnitude. And some of them were not even real stars. Clearly, they sold all the stars on common star charts like Sky Atlas 2000 (which goes down to mag 8.5 if I remember correctly) a long time ago. Actually, there is nothing to prevent ISR from selling the same star to more than one person. I do not know if they have done that yet, but I don't think their adverts say anything that would prevent them from doing that. Edited to add quote from IAU: Quote:
__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward "Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Since I have seen a mag 14 star that was "sold", I would guess they are already past mag 12. Edited to add: Just had a thought, do they only sell stars visible from the Northern Hemisphere? If so, that would reduce the available pool. Although with a magnitude 14 star, it doesn't matter much because most people that buy one will never see it, even if they have a big enough telescope it takes a lot of accuracy to find and identify a mag 14 star.
__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward "Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender |
|
||||
|
this link:
http://home.carolina.rr.com/nirgal/buyastar.html tells the story of an astronomer who had to use a source that went down to 15th magnitude to find the star. More links: http://www.enzerink.net/peter/astronomy/starfaq/ http://www.aoas.org/article.php?stor...612&mode=print Also saw some references to past court cases where one star naming company has sued another.
__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward "Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender |
|
|||
|
Yes, it looks like about 13th or 14th magnitude instead of 12 before the available stars are in the 10s of millions.
That's a good point about northern hemisphere stars. About a quarter to a third of all stars are not visible at all from mid-latitudes, and the number shrinks for higher latitudes where a lot of Europe resides. You'd have to live at the equator for all stars to be technically visible, and even there, your view of the polar stars would not be good. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
This star count table seems to be more accurate. The "Count" column is accumlative and has much fewer stars per magnitude than the prior site. Quote:
).
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh. "The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward "Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender |
|
|||
|
There is a good article on page 28 of
Sky & Telescope, Aug 2000 with an editorial in Sep and letters in Oct. Nothing more beguiling than old S&Ts with half read stories and excellent graphics! Anyway why name a faint star in Draco as Procyon? Thats the certificate they purchased. Last thing, the old saying about no such thing as bad pulicity applies here! |
|
|||
|
I just called the ISR at the phone number on their web site. I asked them if I buy a star, will I be able to see it? They told me I'd need a pretty good telescope. They're currently using stars in the 12-15 magnitude range.
That rules out most back yard telescopes. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
I suppose, their success underscores our desire to connect in some permanent way to the universe, along with our love for ownership for just about everything. Yet I suspect it is some of these same feelings which drive us to want to do more. That is why I like the idea of a IAU sanctioned entity using star naming money to support special projects (e.g. save the Hubble) which might not otherwise receive support. This gives you and I a chance to contribute to a project of our own choice, and still receive the charm inherent in having our own star, though we'll know science will still utilize their superior naming system.
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh. "The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Let's say they started with 9th magnitude stars, eliminating the first 120,000 brighter stars. If they have completed stars through 12th magnitude, this means 2.34 million stars have been sold. If the average price is, say, $75, then sales for ISR alone would be $175 million. If stars through 13th mag. were all sold, the gross revenue is $462 million. If the other companies combined match this, about $1 billion has been collected for star naming. If half is in overhead, that would still generate 1/2 billion bucks that would go to projects that the little people, including me, would feel we were a part of; probably, even more than the more important government funded projects. [quickly added:] What are the chances for Hubble if the IAU sends NASA a check for $500,000,000 dedicated for its service?
__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh. "The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly. |