|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
For those who have wondered about the various companies that claim you can
name a star and get it recorded in their database, it's simply a private database not recognized by anyone officially. So you'd simply be paying for an expensive certificate and/or a book of others who paid, nothing more. In other words, different companies reuse/rename the different stars but they are not registered for use by the professionals. Here's the official word: http://www.iau.org/IAU/FAQ/starnames.html FYI Brian |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
Brian Miller wrote:
For those who have wondered about the various companies that claim you can name a star and get it recorded in their database, it's simply a private database not recognized by anyone officially. So you'd simply be paying for an expensive certificate and/or a book of others who paid, nothing more. In other words, different companies reuse/rename the different stars but they are not registered for use by the professionals. Well Duh. The thing that people don't seem to realize is that most people who buy stars don't care if it's official or not. It's only us snooty astronomers who give a damn about that! This is a *symbol* not a real thing, just like buying flowers or a Hallmark card. It's the thought that counts, not the piece of paper and not whether or not real astronomers will ever use the name. And it's a nice thought! We shouldn't stomp all over it. The vast majority of people know exactly what they are buying: a piece of paper, nothing more. In the end the stars don't care what the IAU names them either... I'd think astronomers would be the first people to realize that. A million years from now the memory of the piece of paper from a star naming company will be worth exactly the same as any name issued by the IAU: nada. I suggest that we give people some credit and find something more important to get all worked up about. -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools Software for the Observer: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Skyhound Observing Pages: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html To reply remove spleen |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
The vast majority of people know exactly what they are buying: a piece of paper, nothing more. Just curious: How do you know this? I see significant numbers in both groups: people who know what they're getting and people who don't. One less-frequently stated problem is that the value is so poor. Why for $50 (or whatever it is), you should get at least a third-magnitude star. In my day, we wouldn't have dropped 50 cents on a ninth-magnitude punk... :-o Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
Stars aren't the only "piece" of sky you can buy.
Check this out: http://www.lunarregistry.com/?lr_link or http://www.moonestates.com/cat_Products.asp These people are one burrito short of a combination plate!! F Marion |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
Francis Marion wrote:
Stars aren't the only "piece" of sky you can buy. Check this out: http://www.lunarregistry.com/?lr_link or http://www.moonestates.com/cat_Products.asp These people are one burrito short of a combination plate!! F Marion tongue firmly planted in check - ohhh, ohhh I want my own crater can I have the big one with the funny name, 'Copernicus'? I want to rename it to 'BigAssCrater'. Now if someone (Bill Gates, etc) actually ante up a few Billion and go to the moon they can stake a legitimate claim. Maybe they could recoup some of the expense by charging the US and Russian governements for hazmat cleanup of the landing sites? Sue, like Barb Strisand for people photographing your property? that could add up quick my .0000001 cents worth since the rest of my money just bought some bridge in Manhattan. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
It's the thought that counts, not the piece of paper and not whether or not real astronomers will ever use the name. And it's a nice thought! We shouldn't stomp all over it. The vast majority of people know exactly what they are buying: a piece of paper, nothing more. Well, Greg, I know of more than a few planetarium directors (as well as a number of amateurs manning public observing sessions) who would disagree with you on the "majority of people know exactly what they are buying". Some of these people can get downright testy when we can't show them "their" star. Our local planetarium director has been hit more than a few times by these sometimes angry people (the latest one about two weeks ago). They have no clue that the planetarium dome starfield does not go nearly faint enough to catch "their" star, nor do they seem to want to understand when told the truth about that star. We have also gotten visitors to Hyde Observatory who want to see "their star", and are disappointed, heartbroken (yes, I said "heartbroken"), or downright angry when we can't usually do this. Unfortunately, while some do understand the truth about what they bought, more than a few of these people *do* think that "their" star is official in some astronomical form. Even with a patient explanation, they apparently refuse to believe that the name is not really official and that all they bought was an expensive piece of paper. At Hyde Observatory, we have also seen people disappointed and even angry when "their star" is not visible due to any one of four reasons: 1. it's below the horizon during their visit, 2. it's too faint to see easily, 3. it's in the far-southern celestial hemisphere (and thus is *never* visible from Hyde), or 4. it is not precisely locatable due to inaccurate charts or supplied coordinates. We have handouts telling people about the facts of naming stars, but this sometimes just makes them more angry. They go away angry at us for not being able to show them the star, angry at the "star-naming" company, and (sometimes when they finally "get it"), angry at themselves for falling for this scheme. More importantly, we have even seen a few go away nearly in tears when they find out that the star they took the time and money to "dedicate" to a lost loved one is not considered "astronomically official", not to mention not being visible due to one of the above reasons. Most of the stars which are being named are fairly faint and are supplied with coordinates which sometimes do not precisely correspond to real stars (they are often close to one or two, but not "spot on" enought to tell which star is "theirs"). Most of these coordinates are missing the precision in either R.A. or Dec. (or both) needed to locate the star, and few if any of these coordinates are supplied with an Equinox number (ie: 1950.0 or 2000.0). A 12th magnitude star might be visible in our telescopes in some areas of the sky at some time of the year, but when that star is somewhere in a constellation like Cygnus, it can be difficult to impossible to show the person "their star" (especially when we use our C14 with its field-reversing star diagonal). Doing these "requests" also takes observing time away from the other members of the public who came to see the main featured objects we advertised for the evening's viewing. The problem seems to be getting a little worse as the years go by, so the truth about star-naming still isn't quite getting through to some. Our observatory's board of directors have been trying to decide how to deal with this problem, but so far, we don't have a clear strategy. We may try some *inexpensive* but tasteful certificate with a selected star that the visitor can locate for themselves and "dedicate" (but not name) to a loved one on a particular night when they came to the Observatory, but beyond this, the "problem" of these "name a star" schemes remains significant but unsolved. Clear skies to you. -- David W. Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/ ********************************************** * Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir * * http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org * ********************************************** |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
Greg,
Most of these people do not know what they are doing at all! More importantly, it is a dishonest practice but dishonesty has never stopped some from taking the poor or sadly not very intelligent folks. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
Everything I have read so far on this thread only confirms my belief.
This isn't really about crooked star naming companies at all. It's about us astronomers being less than perfect human beings. I know this is a very controversial stance and very few astronomers are going to agree with me (at least publicly). We have heard tales of poor helpless victims coming into planetariums around the country only to be told that they have been duped. Not only is this story somewhat apocryphal, but when it does occur it says far more about astronomers and their human failings than it does about star naming companies. Like so many political issues one's position on this matter begins and ends with one's basic assumption. If you assume a priori that nobody has the right to sell star names then you are led down a chain of logic that ends with the star naming companies taking advantage of large numbers of innocent stooges. One is left with derision not only for the star naming companies but for the idiots who fall for their money making scheme. But I would like to suggest that there is another way to look at the practice of selling star names. When an Aunt buys her nephew a star, why does she do it? Think about it. What motivates people do buy a star? In this case it's an attempt by the Aunt to recognize a special interest the nephew has in science and astronomy. It's like buying a space themed Hallmark card: it says I know who you are are I recognize what is special about you. It's not really about the star at all. And who cares if the same star is named after someone else by another company? That's like saying no two people should ever get the same Hallmark card. It's missing the whole point. Similarly, when a person buys a star in the name of a deceased love one, why do they do it? I suggest that this is commonly done for much the same reason--to recognize the attachment between the sky and the deceased person. Maybe the deceased was an accomplished amateur astronomer, or maybe the giver recalls a special night under the stars many years before. This star name simply serves as a symbol for these things. So are star naming companies evil for fulfilling this symbolic need? The clear answer is no -- not just by the fact that they sell star names. If they cross the line, like any company, into false advertising, then that's another matter. While there have been claims of false advertising, but when I looked at the material offered by the largest company with an open mind I saw only the same level of exaggeration we tolerate in all advertising. Now, I'm not saying that no company has ever falsely said that astronomers would refer to the star by name for all eternity: one can always find specific examples to back up a claim. But let's look at the entirety here. All it takes is one of these companies to operate above board, promising no more than the sell, and the status of these companies as scams is a suspect claim. After all, one person's scam may be another persons thoughtful memorial. If that is what they are buying, why should we stop them? In fact, we ought to be selling stars at planetariums as fund raisers, but this snooty attitude that its a scam has stopped that from happening. What concerns me the most is what happens in those cases where people follow their purchased star to a planetarium, star party, or astronomy club meeting as a means of the beginning their own journey toward a greater understanding of the universe they inhabit. I ask everyone here, when confronted with one of these people which is the best reaction: (1) Tell them that they have been duped and that the star naming companies have merely taken their money, accompanied with the usual doses of disdain and condescension. (2) Welcome their interest in astronomy, recognize that this star is a symbol for something important: a connection to a loved one (dear or deceased) or an attempt to connect to the universe around them. Do our best to find their star for them (even if it's only on an atlas or computer program). Keep our attitude positive and keep our trap shut about the star naming companies being a scam. Because maybe, just maybe, to these people it's not a scam! If we choose (1), even if we are perfectly polite and kind there is no way to get around the fact we are telling them that they have been had and in doing so we turn something that has been a positive force into something to be ashamed of. And worst of all, rather than be respectful of this connection that they are seeking to a loved one or to astronomy, we stomp all over it! Good for us! After all, we are smarter and we know better. Or do we? -- Greg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools Software for the Observer: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Skyhound Observing Pages: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html To reply remove spleen |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Everything I have read so far on this thread only confirms my belief. snip. We have heard tales of poor helpless victims coming into planetariums around the country only to be told that they have been duped. Not only is this story somewhat apocryphal, but when it does occur it says far more about astronomers and their human failings than it does about star naming companies. Greg, did you even bother to *read* what I posted? It is *not* apocryphal. It *does* happen and continues to happen. Like so many political issues one's position on this matter begins and ends with one's basic assumption. If you assume a priori that nobody has the right to sell star names then you are led down a chain of logic that ends with the star naming companies taking advantage of large numbers of innocent stooges. No, I'm afraid you have missed the point. Its not a question of whether some group does or does not have the "right" to sell star names. Its a point of people being mislead into *exactly* what they are buying. Many people who buy these certificates (for whatever reason) are indeed convinced that they are "official" or sanctioned by some astronomical group. The plain and simple fact is that they are not considered valid names by most if not all of the astronomical community. A novelty gift is one thing, but when people believe that these expensive pieces of parchment are more than what they are, there is a problem. We try to be helpful. We *gently* tell people the truth so that they understand what they bought. Its *not* done in a high-brow condescending way as you seem to feel that it is. When these people find out the truth, they often react with substantial disappointment or even anger, sometimes directed at us (especially when the "stars" these people buy can't be found or seen due to the reasons I provided earlier). This is a problem brought on by the star naming companies, since they do not exactly trumpet out that what is being sold has no official recognition. A few years ago, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific "sold" deeds to land on Mercury to raise money. It was made obvious to those who bought these "deeds" that what they had done was contribute money to a worthy cause and had no official validity. The star naming outfits don't play by these rules. Clear skies to you. -- David W. Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/ ********************************************** * Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir * * http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org * ********************************************** |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Everything I have read so far on this thread only confirms my belief. This isn't really about crooked star naming companies at all. It's about us astronomers being less than perfect human beings. Heh heh, there are no perfect human beings. And I do think part of it, though not all, *is* about crooken star-naming companies. We have heard tales of poor helpless victims coming into planetariums around the country only to be told that they have been duped. Not only is this story somewhat apocryphal, but when it does occur it says far more about astronomers and their human failings than it does about star naming companies. I think it's a bit unfair to call them apocryphal--do you contend that they are made up?--but let's suppose they are. Like so many political issues one's position on this matter begins and ends with one's basic assumption. If you assume a priori that nobody has the right to sell star names then you are led down a chain of logic that ends with the star naming companies taking advantage of large numbers of innocent stooges. One is left with derision not only for the star naming companies but for the idiots who fall for their money making scheme. I don't see that most of the respondents have had derision for the people who have bought stars. Frustration, perhaps, but not derision (unless they behave poorly on top of everything else). But I would like to suggest that there is another way to look at the practice of selling star names. When an Aunt buys her nephew a star, why does she do it? Think about it. What motivates people do buy a star? In this case it's an attempt by the Aunt to recognize a special interest the nephew has in science and astronomy. It's like buying a space themed Hallmark card: it says I know who you are are I recognize what is special about you. It's not really about the star at all. And who cares if the same star is named after someone else by another company? That's like saying no two people should ever get the same Hallmark card. It's missing the whole point. It would be missing the whole point if the impression were not given that the star's name is theirs. When you name something after someone, don't we assume that it isn't also named after someone else? For example, the USC Engineering School is now the Viterbi School of Engineering. Certain references to the school now must make mention of Viterbi. For USC press releases, this is simple, since USC directly controls those. But suppose the Los Angeles Times were to offer to you and me the opportunity, at some cost, to name that School after your old friend or my pet fish Hoover, and to apparently legitimize that, mentioned that the names we chose would be recorded in book form in the U.S. Copyright Office. I think many people would conclude that the name was unique (if the example I chose weren't so ludicrous, of course). There are a few posters who would advocate that we immediately tell people that the star name they bought was not recognized by astronomers worldwide, that they were misled by the star-naming company. I don't agree with that, and I think most of the posters here do not, also. I would do my best to show the star, if it were visible from our latitude and at that time of year, and would only describe the naming operation if pressed for it specifically. (I can't quite bring myself to lie about it.) So are star naming companies evil for fulfilling this symbolic need? The clear answer is no -- not just by the fact that they sell star names. If they cross the line, like any company, into false advertising, then that's another matter. While there have been claims of false advertising, but when I looked at the material offered by the largest company with an open mind I saw only the same level of exaggeration we tolerate in all advertising. I don't appreciate deceptive advertising anywhere. However, I can't say that I'm terribly active about any of it. But what I can say is that because I'm more informed about astronomy and how things work there, I can point to specific misleading points in star-naming ads, where with many ads I can only give a general notion as to why I think it's misleading. Why *do* they mention that the names are recorded in book form in the U.S. Copyright Office, if not to give the impression that the names are unique and permanent? There are ways to be deceptive that go beyond simple falsehoods. And the ads have stated this for some time now, and continue to state it. All it takes is one of these companies to operate above board, promising no more than the sell, and the status of these companies as scams is a suspect claim. I suspect that because one of the companies has been very aggressive in pursuing legal action against their critics, the claim has often been advanced as a general one, when it really is against that particular company. Note that I've been pretty careful about not referring to that company in this post. Brian Tung The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/ Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/ The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model | harlod caufield | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 27th 03 08:12 PM |
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model | harlod caufield | Policy | 0 | December 27th 03 08:10 PM |
Final Death Throes of Nearby Star Witnessed First-Hand | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 21st 03 11:30 PM |
Not-Yet-Turned-On Star Is Forming Jupiter-Like Planet | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 12th 03 05:16 PM |
NEWS: Many, Many Planets May Exist | sanman | Policy | 28 | August 1st 03 03:24 PM |