These responses are certainly encouraging, but I must agree with Glom that they could be more explicit on their website. Anecdotally I would say that we get one person per month come looking to see 'their' star. When 'their' star is 13th magnitude in the starfields of Sagittarius, then they are going to be sorely disappointed, and as the poor sap on the end of the telescope have to explain why their star is indistinguishable from the other 10,000 in the FOV. And now they are flogging 16th magnitude stars - heaven help us!! Suggesting that you can identify a 16th mag star with a telescope & a star chart is simply disingenuous:

Technically true, but it probably should be mentioned that the telescope needed is Keck! To me also, the comment that 'future generations may identify the star name in the directory' is also misleading - although they do specify 'in the directory', to the layperson who has no knowledge of how stars are catalogued, this to them may represent some form of official nomenclature. Certainly the reference to 'future generations' implies a permanence of the record.

Look, as I have stated before, I have no objection to the idea in principle, provided the punter is being given all of the facts. If the sales pitch is open & honest (and better still, educational) and the buyer still buys, then that is their informed choice and best of luck to all parties.

By the way - finally made post number 100! \/ \/ \/

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

So far, we've only seen one side of their telephone resonse. They were given to, and paraphrased by, a person who feels the company is not doing something wrong, and are not misleading people.

I'd like to hear someone who feels they are indeed doing something wrong call them, and transcribe their conversiation with the company as well, so we can hear how those of us who take the other point of view would interpret their response.

My guess is it would not be as encouraging as the response transcribed above.

Suppose I pay the fee and have a 13th magnitude star in Blatta the Cockroach named for my late brother-in-law. A century later that star is found to be a supernova easily observable from Earth. Do you think they'll check these records and honor that naming? Yeah, right!

After the Challenger disaster in 1986, some local Florida representative paid the fee to have a star named for the teacher-astronaut (he didn't spring for seven stars). I learned this when they played his floor speech on the radio newscast. He may have meant well, but you have to question his judgmnent.

__________________
Later . . .

I agree that the buyer must be responsible for investigating and otherwise testing the product. I also believe that the companies we have been discussing probably mean no harm, and are not intentionally misleading. Still, there are a couple of things that don't seem right.

The issue of an authority is an important one. John Stuart Mill wrote, “The tendency has always been strong to believe that whatever received a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own." If it is just a novelty, why list stars by "SAO number" (Star Wishing), or include them in the "International Star Registry" in a vault in Switzerland (International Star Registry)? Wouldn't just an alphabetized list be sufficient? Few people would be willing to pay to name a star if they thought the company would fold in ten years. It certainly sounds more impressive, legitimate, and most importantly, permanent if your star has a number, and is "officially registered."

Naming stars may be a novelty, but the websites don't exactly go out of their way to present them as such, using words like "timeless" and "unique," and, "lasting memories are written in the stars," to describe their service, and endowing them with official identities.

International Star Registry came clean when asked the right kinds of questions, but how many people know what to ask? The company is going to give me a map to show me the location of the star, so why should I expect it to be difficult to see? If you know a little something about visual magnitudes (and limiting visual magnitudes), it's easy to understand.

I don't think I would be so bothered by the star-hawking trade if it didn't include memorial gifts.

What "interpreting" do you think is going on here? Take a look at my posts. I have two issues here. First, I have stated that I think there is nothing wrong with a company doing this if it is done correctly. Second, I have not seen a compelling argument that these companies are misleading people. If you look carefully you will see that I specifically said I consider these two separate issues. Even if Star Registry turned out to be misleading people, I still feel a responsible company has the right to sell star names for their own company registry.

Why does that matter? Sure you don't know me, but honesty I take personally. If I was lied to or misled when I made that phone call you can bet I would have told you. I don't give a rats rear about Star Registry specifically. What I wrote above is paraphrased because I will not claim that the exact wording of each sentence is exactly how the conversation went - but the content of the responses is 100% accurate. It is not exaggerated or selectively presented.

I'm capable of giving you and did give you an unbiased account of my conversation with Laura (that was her name) and frankly I don't like your implication otherwise with your last sentence. YOU are implying that I am misleading the people on this bulletin board.

So by all means call them. And I suppose you have the ability to give an unbiased account that you suspect I lack? The more people that call the better. I'd genuinely like AGN fuel to call them because he has spoken with people that have been confused about these star naming services and he's shown a fair approach to this question.

Yes, and nobody has presented evidence to the contrary. I'm a little bothered here that scientifically minded people are willing to characterize these companies without doing the research and having specific evidence to back up their position.

This is the point that I really think people are missing. These companies have the RIGHT to do this. And if they think that putting it in a vault in Switzerland will make their product more marketable then so what? In all this I don't here anybody acknowledging that maybe some people get something positive out of buying these star names. Is it really that hard to grasp that there is a sentimental thing that goes with purchasing a star name? When they acknowledge it is a novelty they are pointing out that they are offering this to people that are not scientists. Why can't there be a "registry" of star names that has nothing to do with SCIENCE? And unless somebody makes a valid claim as to why they shouldn't exist, then ANYBODY that wants to can start one.

Yes and that is the only criticism I have of them, but if you call them you get the full scoop. And the phrases such as "timeless" is a sales pitch. Everybody that sells something tries to come up with these kinds of phrases or similar images.

That certainly must happen, but that is not the fault of the company selling the name and it has nothing to do with the right of these companies to offer a star naming registry. I remember in 6th grade being taught about techniques advertisers use to sell their products. Its not the fault of the ISR if many people lack the common sense to realize that.

And again - most of the people who purchase or receive these star names are getting the sentimental and "ooh that's really neat" benefit. It doesn't matter that its not officially sanctioned by the IAU. It doesn't have to be.

Sorry if I'm not remaining calm :wink: here. But I really think people need to realize that for the average non-scientist this is simply something that is NEAT.

Being smarter than those punters does not mean you are right. Authority only counts to those willing to recognize it. If the unruly masses have the right of franchise in this country (USA) then the people are the over-ruling legal authority. At least that's the principle inheirent in the American Declaration of Independence.

Consider this: Put 100 astronomers in a field with 1000 punters and then you'll see who is "right." I hate to seemingly resort to violence, but that's the unvarnished truth.

What does a 400 lbs gorilla call the pole-star? Anything it wants to.

JPax

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax

Done - I rang posing as a complete astronomical novice requesting information on what services their company provides. The gentleman who took my call was certainly well versed in his subject and clearly had a well-rehearsed spiel, but by the same token he did not tell me anything that was strictly factually incorrect (although he skated close to the edge a couple of times).

Without being prompted, he indicated that the stars in question were below naked eye visibility, but could be seen through a 'domestic' 4" telescope. He said that the stars were from the Hubble Guide Catalogue and as such were unnamed, and represented "the 17,000,000 stars known to man". He indicated that the ISR was the only registry of the names of stars (I'm not sure this is correct...) and that my name (or the name of a loved one) would be recorded 'for posterity'. With the certificate, I would receive a detailed map so I could locate it and scientific details of the star, including type, brightness, etc. He confirmed that I would not be buying the star itself, but buying the naming rights to be included in their registry, so becoming "a gift that's there forever, protected by copyright".

On specific questioning, he stated categorically that astronomers would not use my star's name, explaining that 'astronomers do not use the names of stars, they use the catalogue numbers. The catalogue number does not change when you give your star a name'. I pressed my concerns regarding the brightness of the star and how easy it would be for a novice to find, so he gave me a quick lesson in magnitudes. He stated that the stars sold by the registry are usually magnitude 11-12 (although he stated that there is only about a 10% difference in brightness in the all stars that they sell - that is not correct). He warned that some stars would be harder to find than others, but that with the map, anyone with a telescope should be able to point it out for me (that is probably stretching things a bit).

Rather embarrassingly, when I told him where I lived, he excitedly recommended the observatory where I work as having helped a number of his clients find their stars in the past and he put me on hold for a minute or two so that he could get the telephone number for me! ops:

The cost of the service floored me - $220.00 unframed or $275.00 framed certificate, add another $20 if you want it special delivery.

What I would like to do (probably next week, so as not to arouse suspicion!) is ring again as an astronomer complaining about having to find a 13th mag star in Sagittarius for an elderly lady & see what the response is. However, I must say that the gentleman was helpful, enthusiastic, keen to make a sale (and made a number of references to 'gift that's there forever', 'posterity' and my decendants), but he did not indicate that the name would be in common usage, nor did he make any pretence that I would be able to see the star just by walking out into the backyard.

Bottom line I suppose, is that I am still not convinced that anyone need pay $275.00 for a parchment certificate and your name in a book (my name is already in the White Pages, with about the same level of detail!) and I challenge any city dweller to make out a 12th magnitude star in a dense starfield with a 4" department store telescope, but there was no overt deception.

Your point is taken dgruss23 and I do feel a little kinder towards them than I did an hour ago - however, I would still prefer that they were a bit clearer up front about the validity of the 'name' and that it would not be used by astronomers (it appears on their FAQ, but so does the "falling from the sky" query - I can't believe that hasn't been removed yet after BA's book came out!). $275 also seems outrageously expensive given the name has absolutely no validity outside of their own registry.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

Maybe you could tell him you were thinking of registering stars yourself for less money that Star Registry charges and ask if they have any kind of patent or copyright that would prevent you from doing so. Maybe they'd lie to protect their business and threaten you with a lawsuit.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

Characterize, yes. Outright condemn, no. That's what this board is all about-dialogue, discussion, and I hope, the freedom to change one's mind when new evidence is found or arises.

Nowhere did I state that there was no benefit to be gotten from those services. Who has denied the sentimental value? If it makes any difference, I freely admit that people can and do get satisfaction from purchasing a star name. But I think you too are missing the point. It's not about science at all, but like so much in business, it's about appearances. What am I really buying for $200? Maybe most customers don't care where their star is registered, or whether they can actually see it, as long as they get the goods. It remains a question as to whether they're getting what they expect for their money. Why bother paying $200 for a simple certificate when you can make your own on MS Word or Photo Shop?

I agree completely, and have nothing against creating an independent list or registry. So why do these companies go to such lengths to make the lists look scientific? As I already mentioned, why wouldn't an alphabetized list alone suffice?

Good point, and after reading both your and AGN Fuel's experiences of talking on the phone with company representatives, I am pretty much convinced there is no intentional deception.

The only thing you didn't comment on from my post was the memorials. I'm still curious to know what you (and anyone else of course) think about those.

Condemn - really that is the word I should have used. I think people were condemning these companies as overtly misleading.

With regard to this issue, I did change my mind. I initially reacted to these companies a few years ago as most people here have. But after giving it more thought literally on this thread - I changed my mind.

Sorry - at that point I was responding in general and not to you specifically. Others have said that. And I do think the sentimental value is denied when some emphasize that they don't think people are getting anything for the $200 or whatever it amounts to. That is the consumers choice.

Exactly. Its a business. I don't understand why we would criticize them for using cute little phrases like "timeless" to try and sell a product. That is what businesses do.

Again I think the idea of it being published in a book and recognized by somebody - even if its only this company - is part of the appeal. Don't forget either that when they buy one of these they will see their name along with celebrities and other famous people. Some people like that kind of stuff and its part of what they are forking over the money for.

By doing that doesn't it make people feel that they get more for their money. If they didn't do that wouldn't it be letting down the customers. I also haven't seen a page from their book so I don't know how scientific it actually looks.


I must have missed that on their website. I've got a busy day ahead so I'll have to get back to you on that one. BTW Josh, I wasn't really upset with anything you said specifically so if my response sounded emotion is was more because of the previous response in which it was implied that I was misleading the people on this board about my conversation with the Star Registry.

AGN - Thanks for doing that! And I agree with you - as I've stated in earlier posts - that they could improve their site by clarifying the issues of finding these stars and the fact that they are not recognized by astronomers. You'd also think they could fix the "falling star" item!

Dgruss,

No offense taken. It's been a good debate and I've learned a lot. I also appreciate the fact that you and AGN took the time to research as thoroughly as you did, actually contacting the companies and talking with the employees.

One of the principles of the american system is preservation of the rights of the minority. No "over-ruling" that.

Yes, you are correct. The US system of government is a republic (with democratic tendencies), which tries to balance the rights of the minority with the rights of the majority. Trying to give more justice to one group inevitably becomes a real or perceived injustice to another group. If the US were a true democracy, then the rights of the minority would be non-existent.

Unfortunately you are wrong that there is no over-ruling of the rights of the minority. It occurs, and with alarming frequency, even if it is not so blatant as it used to be (e.g. legal slavery for almost 100 years after the DOI).

I was primarily referencing the US DOI and it's principles and not the US Constitution which is the actual legal contract authorizing the creation of a governing legal authority. The "consent of the governed" is the basis for all human government (whether it is codified or not).

The IAU may be considered a minority in a numerical sense, however it's authority makes it a governing body as opposed to a body of the governed. The IAU has authority in astronomical names because it was given to them. This authority could very easily be revoked and given to Star Registry if the US government decided.

Consider this scenario. A star is named after a living (ex) president. That (ex) president dies and people want to commemorate him. The execs at a star name registry company publicize his star and ask everyone to remember him that way. A sentimental grandmother in a rural part of the US (where this star is visible) writes her congressman asking to make the star's name official. This congressman, seeking a tough re-election campaign, goes ahead with it for the sympathetic vote. Others jump on the bandwagon. Late-night and day-time tv alike have shows on the topic and write-in campaigns ensue. Congress finally decides to vote on it and it passes by a vote of acclamation. (It's not nearly as difficult a vote as removing personal liberties for homeland security.) It's one star down, and a precedent for millions. The IAU's authority is a slow death spiral, or they acknowledge the one time special occasion... until it happens again.

This US legislation would only have jurisdiction in the US, but that would make the number of adhering countries 65, about half of all the countries on earth. Being a major player, it would have a profound effect. Consider the fact that any work published in the US on said star would be legally required to include the star name registry company's copyrighted and congressionally legislated name. Moreover, those current non-adhering countries could legally adopt the star name registry company's list as official without any pesky international treaties to break.

Here in Chicago, Comiskey Park is where the White Sox play and is called that by most people in town. However, TV/radio newscasters and newspapers anywhere are legally required to call it US Cellular Field, under penalty of lawsuit. Even the USPS and Rand McNally, call it by the new name.

I do think the IAU should be the official and internationally recognized authority on astronomical objects today. However, it only stays that way until we change it. Eventually there will be a planetary government, we will become a space-faring people, and the IAU as an separate body will cease to exist. Their days may be long, but they are numbered as the authoritative institution it is today.

JPax

__________________
"Oh no no no I'm a rocket man Rocket man burning out his fuse up here alone." -- Sir Elton John

J Pax