Celestia Forums

At this stage, my opinion as to whether this should be done is neutral, but what are the odds that this will get added to the extrasolar.ssc file now that we can specify multiple names for planetary bodies?

Naming the extrasolar planets
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.3989

If any of the exoplanets are ever given formal names by the IAU, I'm sure they'll be added.

I'll take that as a "probably not", haha. The IAU doesn't seem to be interested in naming exoplanets, for reasons which I certainly understand.

I disagree strongly that the exoplanets should be given names at this point in time. The majority are very poorly characterised: in particular, systems with only one planet candidate with only radial velocity evidence are very suspicious. Woefully-misleading names are not a good thing: the planet 70 Virginis b was nicknamed "Goldilocks" based on it being located in the habitable zone as calculated using the star's Gliese parallax, but thanks to Hipparcos it turns out to be far too hot, and is at least 7.5 times the mass of Jupiter anyway... not much of a "Goldilocks planet". Much of the non-memorability of the designations could perhaps be resolved by assigning names to the host stars, for which the properties are much more securely known, hence more meaningful names can be given. Even using Bayer/Flamsteed designations in those cases where they are applicable, rather than just HD numbers would improve memorability.

The reason for preferring Greco-Latin names is pretty rubbish as well: essentially seems to boil down to "we've always given precedence to European cultures in the naming conventions, who knows what would happen if we acknowledge other cultures, so let's not bother"...

Let's hope commercial enterprise doesn't get in on the planet naming. Image 100 years from now setting up colonies on planet pepsi or toyota world.