A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Naming a Star companies; NOT officially recognized



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th 04, 06:26 PM
Brian Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 13th 04, 07:48 PM
Greg Crinklaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 13th 04, 07:55 PM
Brian Tung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 13th 04, 10:03 PM
Francis Marion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 14th 04, 01:07 AM
mark palmquist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 14th 04, 02:14 AM
David Knisely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 14th 04, 02:52 PM
P. Edward Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 14th 04, 06:16 PM
Greg Crinklaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 14th 04, 06:53 PM
David Knisely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 14th 04, 09:39 PM
Brian Tung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model harlod caufield Space Shuttle 0 December 27th 03 09:12 PM
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model harlod caufield Policy 0 December 27th 03 09:10 PM
Final Death Throes of Nearby Star Witnessed First-Hand Ron Baalke Science 0 November 22nd 03 12:30 AM
Not-Yet-Turned-On Star Is Forming Jupiter-Like Planet Ron Baalke Science 0 November 12th 03 06:16 PM
NEWS: Many, Many Planets May Exist sanman Policy 28 August 1st 03 03:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.