SETI bioastro: Your name in the stars ... or maybe not

From: LARRY KLAES (ljk4_at_msn.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 07:05:12 PST

  • Next message: LARRY KLAES: "SETI bioastro: Fw: HUBBLE RESOLVES A BLAZE OF STARS IN A GALAXY'S CORE (STScI-PRC03-07)"

    Click here to email this story to a friend:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/send-story?2003/0306/p25s01-stss.txt

    Click here to read this story online:
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0306/p25s01-stss.html

    Headline: Your name in the stars ... or maybe not
    Byline: Michelle Thaller csmonitor.com
    Date: 03/06/2003

    Astronomers are terrible at names. It seems like every name we come up
    with, whether for the mind-blowingly huge and complex structures in the
    heavens, or our own telescopes, is either a statement of the obvious or
    a criminally boring catalog number.

    Take our own solar system. There's a titanic storm system on Jupiter so
    large that three Earths would be engulfed in its shrieking winds. It
    has been blowing out of control for at least 400 years (since we humans
    invented the first telescope to see it). What did we call this
    dramatic, celestial wonder? The Great Red Spot.

    Or what about the similar Earth-sized storm on Neptune, which, with
    winds clocked at almost 2,000 miles per hour, has the most violent
    weather ever observed? That would be the Great Dark Spot.

    Under construction in Chile is a new observatory with four telescopes,
    each 25 feet across, that will be able to be combined into a single,
    giant instrument, enabling astronomers to see the first building blocks
    of galaxies billions of light years away, as well as pick out new
    planets orbiting other stars. This wonder has been christened the VLT,
    which stands for - I kid you not - the Very Large Telescope.

    After I show people lovely pictures of colliding galaxies and newborn
    stars, they are justifiable angry when they ask what their names are,
    and I respond: "Well, this star here is HD149404, and I think that
    galaxy is NGC2207 and IC2163." Whatever happened to names like the
    Andromeda Galaxy, or the Magellanic Clouds? Why don't stars still have
    names like Sirius, Rigel, or Zubenalgenub?

    The reason for stars and galaxies, at least, to have boring names is
    actually quite simple. After the advent of the telescope, there are
    simply too many stars to name. Even Galileo, when he first turned a
    crude spyglass to the Milky Way, was startled to find that the dim,
    white glow was actually made of thousands and thousands of tiny stars.
    Too many to count, let alone name.

    Long ago, ancient astronomers named most of the brightest stars in the
    sky, the ones most easily seen with the naked eye. The Arab astronomers
    contributed the largest number of names, and in my opinion, most
    beautiful ones: Algol, Betelgeuse, Spica, Aldebarran, among others.
    Greek astronomers named some (Sirius), and Romans a few more (Regulus).
    But these days, who would have the time (or the desire), to try and
    name the hundreds of billions of stars just in our own galaxy? And
    there are billions of other galaxies. In the best scientific tradition,
    astronomers had to come up with a system to deal with the huge amount
    of data that confronted them.

    These days, stars are designated by a number that functions much like a
    Social Security number. It's a convenient way to track down a specific
    star, out of the millions in the sky. The International Astronomical
    Union (IAU), which is responsible for the naming and cataloging of
    stars, has set up several easy-to-use numbering systems.

    The letters at the beginning of a star's name (like HD149404),
    designate which catalog is being used, and the number identifies the
    individual stars. Even stars with ancient names have been assigned a
    number in the cataloging system. For example, one of the stars I study
    is HD36486. This star is easy to find in the night sky, as it's the
    lower, left-most star in the belt of Orion. The star has an Arabic
    name, Mintaka, and is also called Delta Orionis (delta, being the
    fourth letter in the Greek alphabet, indicates that this is the fourth
    brightest star in Orion). But by and large, astronomers refer to this
    star with its catalog number.

    Now, you may have noticed that I have never mentioned astronomers
    referring to stars named after people, and this is important.
    Officially, The IAU does not recognize stars with personal names
    assigned to them. A number of well-meaning relatives have asked if they
    should purchase for me, as a gift, my very own star. There are several
    companies who, for a fee, will name a star after you. Apparently, you
    get a nice certificate and a star map showing the location of your very
    own star. This seems like a fitting gift for anyone interested in
    astronomy, and a romantic way of preserving your name for posterity.
    I'm sorry to say, however, that the only place your name will ever be
    recorded is on the sales list of the company that took your money. No
    scientists, foreign countries, or official authorities will ever be
    aware that you "bought" your star, or use your name in any way. It's a
    hoax - these companies have absolutely no connection with the IAU, nor
    with any other official astronomical institution. Star names simply are
    not for sale, nor are galaxies, star clusters, or real estate on the
    Moon or Mars.

    In fact, the IAU has very specific rules about such things. The only
    objects that can be named after living people are comets or asteroids,
    which are often named after the people who discover them (like comet
    Shoemaker-Levy, which smashed into Jupiter in 1994). Objects on planets
    (like mountain ranges or craters) can only be named after people who
    have been dead at least three years, are not religious or military
    figures or political figures more recent than the 19th century.

    The modern numbering systems used for stars and galaxies are
    unromantic, but they do make sense. I can't imagine that in billions of
    years, the real timescale of the stars, any human names will remain
    stamped on the infinite universe. The very act of naming stars at all
    is a quaint attempt to make ourselves feel comfortable in all this
    endless space. But the truth is that the universe belongs to each of us
    just as much as the next person. All the money in the world can't buy
    that.

    Michelle Thaller is an astronomer at the California Institute of
    Technology. A massive-star specialist by trade, she dedicates most of
    her time to education and public outreach.


  • Next message: LARRY KLAES: "SETI bioastro: Fw: HUBBLE RESOLVES A BLAZE OF STARS IN A GALAXY'S CORE (STScI-PRC03-07)"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 07:41:45 PST