Celestia Forums

Reposted from the dev list...

The following patch will allow you to specify multiple names for solar
system bodies in an ssc file:
http://www.celestiaproject.net/~claurel/celest ... name.patch

As for stars and deep sky objects, the names are separated by colons.
For example:

"Makemake:2005 FY9"
{
...
}

As suggested by my example, one important use for multiple names is to
allow listing both the provisional and official designations of an
object. This can prevent cel: URLs referring to an object from
becoming out of date when an official designation is assigned. Another
usage is giving allowing minor planets to be identified by a name
prefixed with a minor planet number:

"4 Vesta:Vesta"
{
...
}

The first name in the list is treated somewhat specially:
- It is the only name that will be localized (is this a problem?)
- It is the name that is shown in the solar system browser
- The label shown for the object in the 3D window will always be the first name

It is not possible to change the names of an object with Replace and
Modify. The name list given in the first definition of the object is
permanent. I don't see this as a significant restriction, and it
avoids forcing the user to supply a complete name list when an object
is Replaced or Modified.

I think it is important to establish some conventions for minor planet
names. One approach is to list the names in the order # name, name,
provisional designation:

"136472 Makemake:Makemake:2005 FY9"

I've also seen the "(#) name" form used, but the parenthesis to me
seem like just extra typing and clutter for the user. Any other
suggestions for a standard minor planet naming scheme? Are there other
considerations for multiple names that I've overlooked?

--Chris

Chris:
This is good news. It'll be nice to provide the permanent and temporary numerical designators for planetary satellites, too.
Is it possible to get a compiled version with this feature? I can certainly edit the data files, but I would prefer to test the new files before committing the changes.

I'm sure no-one will object to official IAU designators being included in the Celestia distribution. I wonder about informal names, however: some KBOs are reasonably well-known by their "leaked" informal names "Xena", "Santa", etc; and some extrasolar planets have informal names, too, like "Bellerophon" and "Osiris". I have a personal antipathy to such designators, but would be prepared to type them in with gritted teeth if this was felt to be desirable. For instance, some users may come to Celestia with only an informal name, and be unable to find the body in question if these names are omitted.

Grant

Excellent. Many thanks, Chris. I will start implementing its use in my scripted extraction of minor bodies from MPCORB either: 1) next week during a conference if it gets boring, or 2) when I come back, if the conference is cool.I will check how your implementation works and address your questions.
Guillermo

UPDATE October 2008:
The conference was interesting, so some time passed. But finally I implemented multiple names in my MPCORB2SSC tool. In addition, I implemented a "true" prunning by size if the selected asteroids are too many (as opposed to the proxy that kept the first asteroids in the catalog). I think there are other small corrections as well (see the readme for a changelog). Find it at my webpage. Direct links: perl sript, win executable.

granthutchison wrote:I wonder about informal names, however: some KBOs are reasonably well-known by their "leaked" informal names "Xena", "Santa", etc; and some extrasolar planets have informal names, too, like "Bellerophon" and "Osiris". I have a personal antipathy to such designators, but would be prepared to type them in with gritted teeth if this was felt to be desirable. For instance, some users may come to Celestia with only an informal name, and be unable to find the body in question if these names are omitted.

I share this antipathy: if we do include them I would rather have these informal names clearly marked as such and have some way of disabling them. Perhaps such names should be implemented via an InformalNames property rather than in the name list?

ajtribick wrote:

granthutchison wrote:I wonder about informal names, however: some KBOs are reasonably well-known by their "leaked" informal names "Xena", "Santa", etc; and some extrasolar planets have informal names, too, like "Bellerophon" and "Osiris". I have a personal antipathy to such designators, but would be prepared to type them in with gritted teeth if this was felt to be desirable. For instance, some users may come to Celestia with only an informal name, and be unable to find the body in question if these names are omitted.

I share this antipathy: if we do include them I would rather have these informal names clearly marked as such and have some way of disabling them. Perhaps such names should be implemented via an InformalNames property rather than in the name list?

I'd rather just omit these names completely. An InformalNames property is a possibility, but my lack of enthusiasm for such names leaves me inadequately motivated to do the work. We could also add some sort of Alias mechanism so that you could have an ssc entry like:

Alias "Santa" "Sol/2003 EL61"

. . . but, there needs to be a more compelling reason to do this than informal names for KBOs.

--Chris

chris wrote:. . . but, there needs to be a more compelling reason to do this than informal names for KBOs.

Well, there are many informal names for nebulae and galaxies (Sombrero, Pinwheel, California, Dumbbell...). I use them more than the catalog numbers of the same, they are very popular among amateurs, and sometimes I have missed them in Celestia. However, KBO nicknames are only popular among specialists, for the simple reason that, unlike nebulae, they are essentially invisible in amateur equipment.

Guillermo

SIMBAD does list "Osiris" and "Bellerophon" as names for HD 209458b and 51 Peg b. (It does NOT list "the Millennium planet" for Tau Boo b or the woefully-misleading "Goldilocks" for 70 Vir b however). A literature search suggests that "Osiris" is used in some scientific papers, this does not seem to be the case for "Bellerophon" however.

chris wrote:I think it is important to establish some conventions for minor planet
names. One approach is to list the names in the order # name, name,
provisional designation:

"136472 Makemake:Makemake:2005 FY9"

Completely consistent use of this convention would result in Pluto being labelled "134340 Pluto". I have no problems with this, but that number is a little flag for a topic that seems to stir up quite baroquely strong emotions, so I thought I might as well mention it now.

Grant

I'm against the use of the number in front of the name. It's useless and confusing, and would clutter the screen alot if many bodies have a number like this in their name.

Cham wrote:I'm against the use of the number in front of the name. It's useless and confusing, and would clutter the screen alot if many bodies have a number like this in their name.

For what it's worth, I agree completely here.

Of course, I have been following this thread, ( as I follow ALL threads) and I'm afraid that I still don't understand it completely either.
What happens if the IAU does change a designated name? Sorry for the confusion, but you know how I am.

Cham wrote:I'm against the use of the number in front of the name. It's useless and confusing, and would clutter the screen alot if many bodies have a number like this in their name.

I'm not too hot too, but from a professional point f view, if the name is like this, we would have to do with... or not?

BobHegwood wrote:What happens if the IAU does change a designated name?

It happens, and we make the change in Celestia to match. Recently, the IAU had second thoughts on the Saturnian moons Erriapo and Hyrokkin, names which were more correctly rendered Erriapus and Hyrrokkin. They changed the designation, I changed the files. I certainly don't like the idea of retaining old designations as alternates: the catalogue number, the current name and the final temporary designation before cataloguing (as Chris used above) seems like a good mix that'll allow most people to find the objects. One could easily get carried away and stuff the files with name changes and multiple old temporary designators, but I think that would create exactly the sort of clutter Cham is talking about.
For moons, I'd suggest we go with "<name>:<catalogue number>:<temporary designation>". Some of the larger moons will just have "<name>:<catalogue number>"; some of the newer moons will just have "<temporary designation>".
For example, we find all three varieties around Jupiter:
"Io:Jupiter I"
"Adrastea:Jupiter XV:1979 J1"
"2000 J11"

If there's a lot of concern about having numbers cluttering the screen, we could flip Chris's original plan for minor bodies to be a rough match for my suggested moon scheme, so that the data would look like this instead:
"Makemake:136472 Makemake:2005 FY9"
"Pluto:134340 Pluto"

Grant

granthutchison wrote:If there's a lot of concern about having numbers cluttering the screen, we could flip Chris's original plan for minor bodies to be a rough match for my suggested moon scheme, so that the data would look like this instead:
"Makemake:136472 Makemake:2005 FY9"
"Pluto:134340 Pluto"

Thanks very much for that explanation Grant, but I am still perplexed by the selection of these bodies using Celestia's ENTER-TYPE NAME-ENTER method to get to an object.
Are you saying - that with the proposed scheme - that we would have to type in the complete designation? In other words, can I simply type in "Makemake" to get to this object?
Or, if I understand this scheme correctly, we'd have to type the FULL designation as "Makemake:136472 Makemake:2005 FY9." If this is the case, then I absolutely do not like the proposal.

Sorry, but them's my thoughts.
Thanks, Brain-Dead

BobHegwood wrote:

granthutchison wrote:If there's a lot of concern about having numbers cluttering the screen, we could flip Chris's original plan for minor bodies to be a rough match for my suggested moon scheme, so that the data would look like this instead:
"Makemake:136472 Makemake:2005 FY9"
"Pluto:134340 Pluto"

Thanks very much for that explanation Grant, but I am still perplexed by the selection of these bodies using Celestia's ENTER-TYPE NAME-ENTER method to get to an object.
Are you saying - that with the proposed scheme - that we would have to type in the complete designation? In other words, can I simply type in "Makemake" to get to this object?
Or, if I understand this scheme correctly, we'd have to type the FULL designation as "Makemake:136472 Makemake:2005 FY9." If this is the case, then I absolutely do not like the proposal.

Sorry, but them's my thoughts.
Thanks, Brain-Dead

Hi Bob,

don't worry too much, I think either you misunderstood the proposal or me (but I would bet on it that you got it wrong ).

I think it will work just like with the STC files, you can enter EITHER of those names to get it to show up.
So for "Makemake:136472 Makemake:2005 FY9" you could enter:
"Makemake" OR
"136472 Makemake" OR
"2005 FY9"

Otherwise this feature wouldn't make any sense, since nearly nobody would know ALL names of an object, okay except the specialists.

Regards,

Guckytos

BobHegwood wrote:Thanks very much for that explanation Grant, but I am still perplexed by the selection of these bodies using Celestia's ENTER-TYPE NAME-ENTER method to get to an object.
Are you saying - that with the proposed scheme - that we would have to type in the complete designation?

Not at all. Chris tells us this is going to work in the same way as the designator list for stars, so you can check it out for yourself.
The list for Sirius in nearstars.stc is:
"Sirius:Alhabor:ALF CMa:9 CMa:Gliese 244"

Type in any one of those names and you find your way to Sirius: multiple named routes to the same object. Chris also tells us that the browser and on-screen label will use the first name on the list. This happens with the star data, too.
Now, it's customary with minor bodies to refer to them by a compound name built from their catalogue number and name: "1 Ceres" or "(1) Ceres" rather than just plain "Ceres". I doubt if anyone will be unhappy if the name list in the ssc includes "1 Ceres" somewhere, but it sounds like some people would prefer "Ceres" to be first on the list, so that this simple name appears in on-screen labels and the browser. Likewise, although "XV Adrastea" is sometimes used to refer the Jovian moon, I'm guessing people would rather see "Adrastea" in the labels and browser, with the option of searching on "Jupiter XV".

As with the stc files, you'll see all the names displayed at the top of the screen once you've searched up the body of interest by entering one name.

Grant

granthutchison wrote:As with the stc files, you'll see all the names displayed at the top of the screen once you've searched up the body of interest by entering one name.

Ah...
Now I understand.
You see what kind of idiots you are working so hard for?
Sorry my friend... Simply did not understand (as usual)
Thanks to Guckytos too. You will almost always win a bet with me.
I'll stay out of conversations I don't understand from now on. I promise... Well, maybe.

Bob?

STOP APOLOGIZING.

Please.


Grant

granthutchison wrote:Chris:
This is good news. It'll be nice to provide the permanent and temporary numerical designators for planetary satellites, too.
Is it possible to get a compiled version with this feature? I can certainly edit the data files, but I would prefer to test the new files before committing the changes.

I just checked the new code into SVN. If you're not building SVN versions, I'll compile a new binary for you to test with.

--Chris

granthutchison wrote:Type in any one of those names and you find your way to Sirius: multiple named routes to the same object. Chris also tells us that the browser and on-screen label will use the first name on the list. This happens with the star data, too.
Now, it's customary with minor bodies to refer to them by a compound name built from their catalogue number and name: "1 Ceres" or "(1) Ceres" rather than just plain "Ceres". I doubt if anyone will be unhappy if the name list in the ssc includes "1 Ceres" somewhere, but it sounds like some people would prefer "Ceres" to be first on the list, so that this simple name appears in on-screen labels and the browser. Likewise, although "XV Adrastea" is sometimes used to refer the Jovian moon, I'm guessing people would rather see "Adrastea" in the labels and browser, with the option of searching on "Jupiter XV".

As with the stc files, you'll see all the names displayed at the top of the screen once you've searched up the body of interest by entering one name.

This is exactly how it works right now.

As for name priority, I'm partial to standardizing on the compound "number name" form as the primary name for minor planets (with an exception for Pluto.) It's a standard way to refer to these bodies, and the number actually contains some useful information for main belt asteroids: lower numbers generally indicate large objects. But if there are widespread objections to using the numbers in the primary, I don't making the name-only form primary.

--Chris

chris wrote:I just checked the new code into SVN. If you're not building SVN versions, I'll compile a new binary for you to test with.

Life contains so many learning curves, I never got around to building Celestia for myself. So I'd be grateful for the binary, when you can spare the time.

Grant Hutchison