Celestia Forums

Ive been looking for Wolf 359 which is about 7.8 ly from sol but I dont think its in the database.
OtherNames are GJ406.
Ive read that it is from the Yale database.

Other missing nearby stars

GJ905 Ross248
GJ65 LHS 10 (B) , Luyten 726-8

And there are more.
http://www.nbso.org/NSDB26_German.html

Any chance that these can be included in the database?

If there near by stars you'd think they'd be there.


Mike M.

I was also trying to find Wolf 359 once and couldn't. I figured it had a different name but if someone else can't find it... I have a National Geographic map that came out sometime in 1999 or 2000 of the Milky Way which has some more missing stars on it.

You can now add the stars in manually using the stc format...They are saved like an ssc file in the Extras directory...

Heres is sample code used in a stc file....



You will however have to add the name in starnames.dat like so

300001:Sirius B

I want to point out yet again that Celestia only contains (by default) the stars that appeared in the Hipparcos database.

This did not include Wolf 359 and a large of other nearby stars because they were too faint.

Then maybe its time to add another catalog...


Mike M.

Where do you find .stc files? Are they associated with one of Celestia's files itself?

I tried to do this on my own; I added a file named Wolf359.stc to the extras folder, with the following information in it:

# Wolf 359
300006 {
RA 10.941389
Dec +7.0019445
Distance 7.78
SpectralType "M6Ve"
AppMag 13.53
}

(I think those values are pretty close to right, anyway).

But for some reason it won't show up in Celestia when I run it. Can anyone help?

did you edit the starnames.dat file (as mentioned above)?

Yes, I tacked "300006:Wolf 359" at the end of the file (no quotes)

It's the "+" in front of the Declination value that's causing it to fail.
just get rid of that one character and all will be happy.

That really seems like a bug in Celestia to me.

sigh.

That worked, thanks!

I erred in my calculations (thanks, seldon, for that explanation of RA in another thread). Check my math, but I think this should be the correct file info:

The info I found for Wolf 359 is a RA of 10:56:29 and a Dec of +07:00.7 N. I originally calculated RA as degrees when it should have been calculated as hours. ( n00b)

Here's what I'd like to do:

- Make parser accept the + character should be accepted as a valid numeric character

- Create an .stc version of the Gliese catalog. It has quite a few stars that are missing from the HIPPARCOS catalog. There is some overlap, so we'd have to be careful not to duplicate any stars.

- Allow star names to be speficied in .stc files; requiring starnames.dat to be changed is ridiculous.

--Chris

Chris,

That'd be great!

I've been wondering if a format like

might be not too outrageous.

As a user, I'd prefer
of course.