On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:50:20 -0400, Rhino wrote:

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message
...
Rhino wrote:
The star mentioned in the book is identified as "NGS 549672"; if I'm not
mistaken, "NGS" refers to a particular star catalog (National Galactic
Survey?) and "549672" uniquely identifies a specific star.

I work with astronomical catalogs a lot and I'm sorry to say that there
doesn't seem to be any NGS catalog. The number is also way too big for
a catalog from the 50's (remember that's the pre-computer era), so I
think it's safe to say that it was simply made up. You are right about
how it would work though.

Some links if you are still curious:
SIMBAD http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/
NED http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/

Really? The novel, Childhood's End, is by Arthur C. Clarke. I always thought
Clarke had a reputation as a genuine scientist, not just a novelist. I had
expected accuracy from him.

In 1953, looking up something like that catalog number would probably have
been something you could only do at a major metropolitan library or
university with an astrophysics department. I assumed this reference was
basically an inside joke for the readers he had who were actually
astronomers....

Well, I guess I was wrong and the reference is bogus.

Thank you for clearing that up! Your note probably also explains why my
google search on the NGS number failed to work.

Rhino

There's a chance Clarke was using a designation that might have made sense
at the time, based on your speculation that "NGS" could stand for the
National Geographic Society. What is now referred to as the Palomar
Observatory Sky Survey (POSS) had begun in 1949 and was at the time
referred to as the National Geographic Society-Palomar Observatory Sky
Survey (for the sponsor of the survey). Thus Clarke might have used "NGS"
as a catalog designation in anticipation of the publication of a catalog he
might have expected many years in the future (the survey was completed in
1958 but any catalog that might have resulted would have taken many more
years to reduce from the glass photographic plates. No such systematic
catalog was ever produced and I don't think such a project was ever planned
but this could have been something from Clarke's rather fertile
imagination.

This is all speculation and only Clarke could say if there's any truth to
it. Of course, you could always write to him and ask -- there's nothing to
lose by trying but a few minutes of your time. But even if the above was
correct (and it seems like a long-shot) the star designation is clearly
made up.

I wouldn't fault Clarke for that, though. Since he was writing about the
future he could just as easily use a star catalog that had yet to be
developed. His use of it seems to be in line with common usage and the
high number that Greg points out is consistent with future, advanced
technologies. Besides, Clarke undoubtedly was familiar with the problems
associated with naming a real star. He'd probably encountered plenty of
people who take such things literally, assuming that the government is
hiding something that has to do with that star. Many of the rest of us
have encountered such people.

Mike Simmons