Celestia Forums

Jorge wrote:And I wander if all that thoughtfulness is worth the trouble. After all, a couple of centuries from now all the names of astronomical bodies will be just that: names. Very few people will know, and practically nobody will care, about the origins and meaning they carry.

Many of the stars have names that already are thousands of years old. I had the impression that quite a few people find the histories of those names quite fascinating.

selden wrote:Many of the stars have names that already are thousands of years old. I had the impression that quite a few people find the histories of those names quite fascinating.

People with a non-trivial interest in astronomy? Sure. The public at large? Not at all. They coundn't care less, even when they know that there's a star called Sirius in the sky.

Interesting stories come from the strangest places, by the way. I can see a family in 2564 (assuming there's still families in 2564) being bored to death by an enthusiast daddy that went "and then there was a group of wise men who gathered together a few times every year to discuss the names of planets and stars and who, after ponderous thoughts, decided to give the name Aesculapius to the thirs planet of Epsilon Eridani because they thought that blah blah blah", and another fascinated by something like "and back in the XXth century there was a thing called TV and people used to watch it and the stories it brought to their homes, and one of those stories was a tale, in episodes, about a warrior princess with supernatural skills by the name of Xena, who had a friend and helper called Gabrielle, and that's why the planet Xena and its moon are now called Xena and Gabrielle".

Don't get me wrong, though: I don't oppose the strictness in naming per se. I just think that astronomers might have better things to give their attention to and that a speedier naming system wouldn't be a bad thing. And also that we will get to a point when it's either allowing for some things that are big no-nos today or being stuck with those 2000 YY-like things for all eternity. Even if a bit silly, between Xena and 2003 UB313, I choose Xena without bliking.

Jorge wrote:...I just think that astronomers might have better things to give their attention to and that a speedier naming system wouldn't be a bad thing...

Considering the over all set up of the IAU (12 scientific Divcisions with 37 specialized Commissions and a full 90 or so working and program groups), I don't think having a Commision in charge of designations and nomeclature is at all distracting from the work of other astronomers.

Of course, those astronomers that have discovered the object can suggest a name, but the final designation must be approved by the Committee on Small Body Nomenclature. It is always possible that Xena and Gabrielle might stick, but considering that the names (at least Xena; Gabrielle was only a logical foloow-through), according to the discoverers, were never meant for public consumption, odds are something else will eventually be chosen.

...John...

Okay, now I'm really curious...

Why are "Xena" and "Gabrielle" foolish names for a planet and a moon?

If you look at the locations on Venus, you'll see a very wide variety of female
names for the planet's features - excepting, of course - the Maxwell Mons.

There's "Cleopatra," "Eve," and "Venus" herself. What's wrong with "Xena"
and "Gabrielle?" I like the sound of those names one helluva lot better than
2003 UB313.

Thanks

Hey Bob...

Normally, I wouldn't consider them silly. And indeed, in a few years, or decades, they may simply be regarded as a part of popular modern mythology. But for right now, they refer to a campy tv show called Xena: Warrior Princess. I didn't mind the show too much, but if the names for KBO's are to be a bit more formal than many typical asteroid names, then I don't think they are appropriate.

Of course, if the KBO names are not going to be that formal, then I guess there's no problem. After all, there are some pretty silly asteroid names out there!

...John...

Dollan wrote:But for right now, they refer to a campy tv show called Xena: Warrior Princess.

Ah... So it's the TV show that people don't like. Hmm... Well, I didn't
care much for Elizabeth Taylor as "Cleopatra," but I don't mind that Venus
has that name for one of its features. Hell, there's a crater named "Silvia"
and that name was approved. Interesting how a TV show could be
the demise of a name for an object in space.

Thanks for the information though.

John,

It's not the others: it's the guys who are in the naming commissions (there are several: Nomenclature for Fundamental Astronomy, Solar and Interplanetary Nomenclature, Small Bodies Nomenclature, Planetary System Nomenclature and Binary and Multiple System Nomenclature). I'm probably wrong, but this strikes me as a waste of expertise. These guys don't seem to be doing real science, after all.

This said, I must add that I have no idea how these commissions actually work: how many people are involved, how often they meet and/or discuss things and if they do other work when they aren't working in the commission. In any case, when I see the time it takes to agree on some names and conventions, I can't help imagining long and stubborn discussions about this or that name that end up becoming a big waste of time, considering the attention the public at large pays to these things.

BrainDead,

The difference, of course, is that Cleopatra and Silvia (or, better, Sylvia) are names of mythological or historical characters whereas Xena is not. Cleopatra actually existed. It's not just a Hollywood movie with Lizzy Taylor playing a peculiarly american egyptian queen. For the IAU that makes all the difference.

I should prefer Laurel and Hardy

Jorge wrote:John,

It's not the others: it's the guys who are in the naming commissions (there are several: Nomenclature for Fundamental Astronomy, Solar and Interplanetary Nomenclature, Small Bodies Nomenclature, Planetary System Nomenclature and Binary and Multiple System Nomenclature). I'm probably wrong, but this strikes me as a waste of expertise. These guys don't seem to be doing real science, after all.

I don't think they spend all their time figuring out names. They still do "real science" most of the time.

You should see the name of some of the asteroids. We've had them named after the Beatles, and a lot are just full names strung together (IIRC a former orbital dynamics lecturer of mine has one named after him, called "Carlmurray").

Here's a list of asteroid names:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/MPNames.html

Apparently a maximum of two months are devoted to confirming the name of a new body... but I highly doubt that daily meetings exceed more than a couple of hours. I can't say for sure, of course....

...John...

And there's still no Jorge asteroid. Darn!

BTW: I think it should be forbidden to give the same name to asteroids and satellites. Once I tried to go to asteroid Io in Celestia and there was no way, apart from the solar system browser. Following the list (what do you call it? The one you get to by hitting enter) or typing the name got always to the satellite. This could perhaps be considered a bug, since there were two instances of "Io" in the list, and they both leaded to the jovian system...

And back to asteroids and the naming commissions: OK, if commission members don't devote all their time to the commissions, then there's no waste. But comparing the number of named asteroids to the number of numbered asteroids one has to get to the conclusion that the system needs updating. It might have worked fine before automatic searches of the sky uncovered thousands and thousands of minor worlds, but since the number of known asteroids exploded it began lagging behind very seriously.

Jorge wrote:BrainDead,

The difference, of course, is that Cleopatra and Silvia (or, better, Sylvia) are names of mythological or historical characters whereas Xena is not. Cleopatra actually existed. It's not just a Hollywood movie with Lizzy Taylor playing a peculiarly american egyptian queen. For the IAU that makes all the difference.

I appreciate what you're saying, but to me - It seems that a popular name
would go a long way towards getting the general public involved in space
travel. Hell, give it the name "Xena." The average bloke on the street (You
know - the people whose taxes pay for these scientific excursions into
the unkown) should have some leverage on the naming schemes
shouldn't they?

By the way, it is indeed the "Silvia Corona" - not "Sylvia" on Venus.
You can check it at http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/venus/venucoro.html if you
like.

Take care.

BrainDead wrote:By the way, it is indeed the "Silvia Corona" - not "Sylvia" on Venus.

Oh, I thought you were referring to the asteroid. Sorry about that.

Jorge wrote:And there's still no Jorge asteroid. Darn!

BTW: I think it should be forbidden to give the same name to asteroids and satellites. Once I tried to go to asteroid Io in Celestia and there was no way, apart from the solar system browser. Following the list (what do you call it? The one you get to by hitting enter) or typing the name got always to the satellite. This could perhaps be considered a bug, since there were two instances of "Io" in the list, and they both leaded to the jovian system...

Yeah, it sounds liek, somehow, there are two entries in your directory for Io. Possibly the result of some sort of add-on that you installed?

As for the asteroid Io, this is one of the main reasons why the IAU has a commission for naming. In fact, I'm surprised that an asteroid *was* named Io, unless it was named before the IAU had such a commission (and being asteroid 85, this is quite likely).

Oh, yeah... and there's no "John" either. You'd think a generic name like that would have made it! On the other hand, there is no "Dollan". I wonder if I could petition to have an asteroid named after my family? Hmmm....

And back to asteroids and the naming commissions: OK, if commission members don't devote all their time to the commissions, then there's no waste. But comparing the number of named asteroids to the number of numbered asteroids one has to get to the conclusion that the system needs updating. It might have worked fine before automatic searches of the sky uncovered thousands and thousands of minor worlds, but since the number of known asteroids exploded it began lagging behind very seriously.

Well, the Naming Commission for Minor Bodies spends all of its time on this; heck, that's why it exists, and why, I presume, people were hired to it. In fact, I'm not even certain if those on the commission would all be astronomers per se. Also, who knows what kind of personnel rotation they have? Maybe they *are* astronomers on there, but their tour of duty as it were is only a limited amount of time.

In the end, I can only say that if serving on this Commission wasted time and kept astronomers from their other, more immediate work, then the odds are there *wouldn't* be such a Commission.

...John...

Dollan wrote:As for the asteroid Io, this is one of the main reasons why the IAU has a commission for naming. In fact, I'm surprised that an asteroid *was* named Io, unless it was named before the IAU had such a commission (and being asteroid 85, this is quite likely).

Well, apparently they can't call Planet 10 "Persephone" because there's already a main belt asteroid with that name.

Personally, I'm kinda getting used to Xena and Gabrielle. They work. I could almost see the IAU taking so long to decide on an official name (or ending up with a name that is in such an obscure language that nobody can pronounce it) that in popular parlance the Xena/Gabrielle names would stick anyway...

I wonder if I could petition to have an asteroid named after my family? Hmmm....

Don't think you can... but if you discovered an asteroid yourself then you get first dibs on naming it whatever you want.

BrainDead wrote:I appreciate what you're saying, but to me - It seems that a popular name would go a long way towards getting the general public involved in space travel. Hell, give it the name "Xena." The average bloke on the street (You know - the people whose taxes pay for these scientific excursions into the unkown) should have some leverage on the naming schemes shouldn't they?

I suppose you have a point here. When you think about it, many of the Shakespearian names are derived from what may well have been the "pulp fiction" of that era (and yes, there are several Shakespeare students here at my university that would hang me for saying that!). At the very least, Xena could qualify as the television equivalent of that!

I guess that, given the apparent size and relative importance of this new discovery, I thought that these worlds should have names that were more refined, somehow. I suppose this comes from a deep seated fear that some of the new planets being discovered in other systems will eventually gain official whimsical names, similar to some of the nicknames they already have (planet Golidlocks? Ugh).

...John...

Malenfant wrote:Don't think you can... but if you discovered an asteroid yourself then you get first dibs on naming it whatever you want.

Bugger. I'd better get that telescope I've always wanted!

...John...

Dollan wrote:I guess that, given the apparent size and relative importance of this new discovery, I thought that these worlds should have names that were more refined, somehow. I suppose this comes from a deep seated fear that some of the new planets being discovered in other systems will eventually gain official whimsical names, similar to some of the nicknames they already have (planet Golidlocks? Ugh).

...John...

Isn't there one in Larry Niven's sf universe called "Wemadeit"?

Frankly, I think the latin names - certainly for locations on bodies - will go out of the window if and when people actually colonise those worlds. Especially if they get there before the IAU makes up its mind about names. You can see that happening on Mars with the rovers - the names of features are pretty mundane and not based on obscure latin rules.

Dollan wrote:I suppose you have a point here. When you think about it, many of the Shakespearian names are derived from what may well have been the "pulp fiction" of that era (and yes, there are several Shakespeare students here at my university that would hang me for saying that!). At the very least, Xena could qualify as the television equivalent of that!

John,

All I'm really saying is that if scientists can catch the imagination of a few
more tax-payers with something as simple as a catchy name, then they
should go for it. How many people in the world know the name "2003 UB313?"
Hell, I didn't remember it until I followed the previous posts
to some of the science sites.

Thanks.

Malenfant wrote:Frankly, I think the latin names - certainly for locations on bodies - will go out of the window if and when people actually colonise those worlds. Especially if they get there before the IAU makes up its mind about names. You can see that happening on Mars with the rovers - the names of features are pretty mundane and not based on obscure latin rules.

All of the names used by the MER teams, from the Columbia Hills to the names given to specific rocks, are not official, and are used only for easy reference, both on the team and when dealing with the public. Sure, they stick (and in some instances I think should be made official), but I doubt that any official names will ever be given to them.

...John...