Star Registry.com

[Superluminal]

Why is that company still in business? Or at least take the commercials off the air and make them advetise in UFO mags where the average public wont be exposed to their lies? We had an eldery lady came to a starparty a couple of years ago and wanted to see the star named after her dead son. So one of our members took the coordinates she had with her, pretended to point the telescope, found a small field of faint stars and told her "third one from the left is it." She left happy. But afterwards, we talked about wheather that was the right thing to do. How can they get away with something that is so easy to prove is false? Every time I hear that commercial, I want to put my fist through the radio. After all only the IAU can approve a name for an astronomical object. :x

[Glom]

Surely what they're doing is illegal. The customer is paying to have a star named and the company is lying about delivering.

I sympathise with the moral dilemma. You either tell her that this company exploited her grief or lie about showing her the star.

[Jpax2003]

I looked up the site and while is is misleading, it does say that the names are looked up in their directory and can be found using their coordinates. Nowhere does it say that it's the IAU directory. Now Mattel is in on the action with them, selling star dolls with the registry option included. They probably had a good team of lawyers look at it. I do think they should have a disclaimer. However, inferrence is not implication.

Frankly I think any business should be prohibited from using psuedo-oficial names and terminology in blatant attempts at sleight-of-pen. I hate it when I get mail that looks like official government correspondence only like "RUSH, URGENT, AIRMAIL" and such when it ain't.

Didn't someone have a tax scam using the same IRS initials... didn't they get jailtime or something.

At least this one doesn't imply ownership, like lunar land grabs do.

JPax

[Doodler]

The only one I heard with the IRS was a real doozy where a check made out to IRS became MRS <INSERT NAME HERE IN ALL CAPS>

[tracer]

At least this one doesn't imply ownership, like lunar land grabs do.

No, but they do imply that when you name a star -- even though astronomers won't use the name you give it -- no one else will be able to name that star.

And, of course, even this tepid implication isn't true -- one person can name a star through starregistry.com, and another person can name the same star through starwishing.com. (And who knows how many other star naming "services" there are out there?)

In that sense, they do kinda-sorta imply "ownership" which isn't the case.

[gethen]

So we could all just pick a star and name it, for free, couldn't we? It would have the same import as going through one of those star registry things, unless, of course, you want to see it in print in a big "star registry."

[frenat]

You could always just print out your own registry of one.

[wedgebert]

The worst part is that it's not like there's a shortage of unnamed stars out there.

I can just see the future now:

500 years from now, after developing FTL travel, a group of colonists settle a planet a few hundred light years from Earth. This is the first habitable planet discovered and a big deal is made of it.

Then it is revealed that 500 years prior, one of the leaders of the colony's ancestor named the star using StarRegistrar.com while another leader's named it using StarWishing.com.

Things escalate and war breaks out. It spreads back to Earth and we end up bombing ourselves back into the Bronze Age on both worlds.

[Jpax2003]

[quote="tracer"]

No, but they do imply that when you name a star -- even though astronomers won't use the name you give it -- no one else will be able to name that star.

And, of course, even this tepid implication isn't true -- one person can name a star through starregistry.com, and another person can name the same star through starwishing.com. (And who knows how many other star naming "services" there are out there?)

In that sense, they do kinda-sorta imply "ownership" which isn't the case.

That's what I meant. I bet that they don't name the star twice in their own directory. But then again, maybe they'll decide that so many people want Polaris named after them that they split it into acerage, or maybe sunspots. More likely, the same company will publish a new book periodically, so that each publishing is an independent registry. See, the legal mind at work.

JPax

[AGN Fuel]

So we could all just pick a star and name it, for free, couldn't we? It would have the same import as going through one of those star registry things, unless, of course, you want to see it in print in a big "star registry."

Both of my kids are intensely interested in space (can't imagine where they get that from! ) and both love being outside looking at the starry night sky. To my family, Venus is Jessie's star after my serenely beautiful 6-year old daughter. Sirius is Nicky's star after my bright, colourful, cheerful 4-year old.

Makes them feel special, didn't cost a cent, and has exactly the same validity as StarRegistry. And everyone is free to use exactly the same ones.

Incidentally, at the small observatory where I work, we often come across the problem of people wanting to 'see' the stars that have purchased for their loved ones. Normally, we just smile and nod and train the telescope on the appropriate co-ordinates & hazard a guess at the right star.

However, a few weeks back, a dear old lady came to us who had 'bought' a star for her recently deceased husband of many years. It was 13th magnitude in the starfields of Sagittarius - like looking for a grain of sand on a beach. I trained the telescope onto the jewel that is Canopus and made a mental note that if ever I found one of these shysters, that they would not make another such sale while in possession of their own teeth......

[gethen]

AGN, you obviously handle the new "star owners" with great grace. I'm glad you didn't break the elderly lady's bubble. And if you ever do get your hands on the purveyors of this scam, I would love to help you "reason with them." :wink: I also recall that many, many years ago, when I was young and single, my main squeeze and I, having identified Venus in the evening sky, named the bright star nearest to Venus "Eddie" and considered them "our stars."

[dgruss23]

I haven't really given this issue a lot of thought before. Interesting.

AGN do you think there is harm to the living in naming a star after a dead relative? Was that woman comforted to see a star that was "named" after her husband?

I guess it boils down to the question of false advertising. Do the people who buy these stars understand that the names are not considered official by the astronomical community and therefore it is only "official" in the registry of the company they "bought" the star name from?

I like the idea of privately naming a star for your children. I'll have to take the kids out and do that sometime.
Its free and to a young child it won't matter a bit that its not official.

[Glom]

The issue is not to have a star by which to remember people. The issue is these companies are selling nothing apart from a pretty certificate. The name the company gives to the star is no more valid than if you privately named it yourself. Yet they are giving the impression to the punters that because they've paid $50 (!), all of a sudden it has some kind of legitimacy.

I've been reading the British office.

The star data and newly-given name are sent to our head office in the USA for inclusion in the international register of star names and co-ordinates Your Place in the Cosmos. This is published periodically and Volume VI, currently in preparation, will list all stars and their names registered since August 1999. In addition to the register, the book contains a wealth of astronomical information. Star-namers are notified when the book is published. Copies are also deposited at the Library of Congress in the USA and the British Library in the UK.

They cannot possibly argue that their service involves choosing some star for them to love and cherish. They are definitely giving the impression that the naming is legitimate. I remember a few years ago, the Liquid Helium Queen Anne Robinson hosted Watchdog, a consumer awareness programme, designed to trash on companies that deliver a crap service. There was a section on a star naming company, probably this one, where they pointed out that anyone can publish a book in these types of libraries. That doesn't mean it is IAU approved. Sir Patrick also appeared to trash the company.

[kingneptune8]

Why is that company still in business? Or at least take the commercials off the air and make them advetise in UFO mags where the average public wont be exposed to their lies? We had an eldery lady came to a starparty a couple of years ago and wanted to see the star named after her dead son. So one of our members took the coordinates she had with her, pretended to point the telescope, found a small field of faint stars and told her "third one from the left is it." She left happy. But afterwards, we talked about wheather that was the right thing to do. How can they get away with something that is so easy to prove is false? Every time I hear that commercial, I want to put my fist through the radio. After all only the IAU can approve a name for an astronomical object. :x

Wow... This non-sense has always gone in one ear and out the other, but after reading that I realize... that's really messed up. I think you did the right thing by telling her that, that star was hers. That's sad

[AGN Fuel]

AGN do you think there is harm to the living in naming a star after a dead relative? Was that woman comforted to see a star that was "named" after her husband?

In principle, no - provided that the person is aware that the 'name' has no formal status. But the same result can be achieved by buying a star chart & picking a pretty/interesting/significant for whatever reason star yourself - no-one is going to argue.

Normally with these (at least here in Oz), the stars 'allocated' are 7th or 8th mag and they usually also give a crude star chart - so it is possible to identify the specific star. What annoyed me in this particular case was that the lady had received a 'star' that would have been quite indistinguishable from the countless other stars that would have been in the same FOV - as well as being from a practical perspective unidentifiable from the broad co-ordinates that she had been given. I mean - 13th magnitude, for heaven's sake! :x She had sought something personal and unique, but that's not really what she received.

I must admit also that my motives were not completely altruistic. Sagittarius was still several hours away from rising, whereas Canopus was still a reasonable altitude above the SW horizon, but low enough that it was shimmering & very colourful through an SCT - I just thought at the time (rightly or wrongly) that it would make a better tribute than some 13th mag speck in a sea of specks.

Was she comforted? Don't know. I hope so.

I like the idea of privately naming a star for your children. I'll have to take the kids out and do that sometime.
Its free and to a young child it won't matter a bit that its not official.

Do it - it's fun! And it is a great excuse to get the kids away from the TV and out under a dark sky. 8)

[Jpax2003]

Both of my kids are intensely interested in space (can't imagine where they get that from! ) and both love being outside looking at the starry night sky. To my family, Venus is Jessie's star after my serenely beautiful 6-year old daughter. Sirius is Nicky's star after my bright, colourful, cheerful 4-year old.

Makes them feel special, didn't cost a cent, and has exactly the same validity as StarRegistry. And everyone is free to use exactly the same ones.

You could always go get a blank book and draw your own star chart. You can also put in other important items in it. Then it could be saved and cherished from generation to generation. For all of your descendents, it will have more legitimacy than any purchased name registry. And who knows, maybe in the future, after book-burners have torched all of human history, they could start over with you've saved. Is that how the arab names stayed in usage?

JPax

[dgruss23]

Glom wrote: The issue is not to have a star by which to remember people. The issue is these companies are selling nothing apart from a pretty certificate. The name the company gives to the star is no more valid than if you privately named it yourself. Yet they are giving the impression to the punters that because they've paid $50 (!), all of a sudden it has some kind of legitimacy.

As I said, I haven't really given this issue too much thought before. My initial reaction when I first heard about this a few years ago was that it is a ridiculous scam.

But I want to play devil's advocate here because its possible that we've got a biased view (being oriented toward the science of astronomy).

To use a different example consider flowers. They have common names and scientific latin names. Which is the real name? Well it depends upon your purpose. For the average person they see the "sunflower" while the scientist knows the same plant as Helianthus Annuus. Is the scientists name any more correct than the common name? That really depends upon the purpose. For scientific classification the answer is yes. For the average person the common name is the better name.

Why should it be any different for the stars? The formal scientific names or identifications of stars are useful for scientific cataloging and cross comparisons from different data sources. But what difference does that make to the average person not involved in amateur astronomy or astronomical research?

Ambitious people could certainly name a few stars themselves - or even make up their own constellations. But what these star naming companies are doing is offering a service. They're saying they'll create a "registry" and select specific stars for which people can buy the rights to name those stars in that registry. If we object strongly to the star registry companies aren't we really saying that we think only astronomers have the "right" to name stars? Who authorized astronomers as the sole proprietors of star naming? What harm is being done by companies setting up their own registry for naming stars so that the "little person" on the street can participate in naming the stars up there? The purpose in this case is not scientific.

I think someone could make this argument. As long as the product is not improperly advertised so that the purchaser gets the impression they are buying a government or IAU sanctioned name, is there really a crime here. They aren't suggesting that the people have bought the star itself. Its a business. If there is a market for the product, then it will sell. The product that they're offering is a chance for a person to purchase a personalized name for a specific star in a specific registry that is published even though not affiliated with any government or the IAU.

A productive idea might be to actually evaluate the quality of the product offered by these star naming companies. How much scientific information do they provide about the star? Do they give accurate coordinates, spectral class, surface temperature, color, distance, the official scientific name/number of the star and so on? Do they give the purchaser a choice of certain stellar characteristics? Do they provide a short booklet about the actual scientific naming and basics of stars?

Ok, I've just played devil's advocate and in this case I think I swayed myself to the position that the star registry's should be left alone as long as they're not guilty of false/misleading product advertising. However, they should be encouraged to take an educational approach to their product if they do not already.

[AGN Fuel]

Yes, I take your point, but I think it is more complex than that:

To use a different example consider flowers. They have common names and scientific latin names. Which is the real name? Well it depends upon your purpose. For the average person they see the "sunflower" while the scientist knows the same plant as Helianthus Annuus. Is the scientists name any more correct than the common name? That really depends upon the purpose. For scientific classification the answer is yes. For the average person the common name is the better name.

And a sunflower to you is a sunflower to me is a sunflower to Joe Anybody. The visible stars (at least, the brighter ones) also all have common names - Sirius, Canopus, Antares, Betelgeuse etc etc etc, which date back to antiquity. For the average person looking up at the night sky - I'm afraid that all those stars were claimed by Greek & Arabic shepherds a couple of millenia ago!

Why should it be any different for the stars? The formal scientific names or identifications of stars are useful for scientific cataloging and cross comparisons from different data sources. But what difference does that make to the average person not involved in amateur astronomy or astronomical research?

Not a whit, it is true. But the bright stars are already claimed, so in general we are looking at assigning names for those stars that require binos or telescopes to see. But there are a number of these star registries operating - suppose Star Registry A takes star HD102667 and allocates it as "Bob", while Star Registry B takes HD102667 and calls it "Alice". Who is right?

The short answer is "Who cares". The astronomer will call it HD102667, Bob will call it Bob and Alice will call it Alice. So why do we need the registry at all? Bob & Alice are both free (and free is the operative word!) to just wander out one pleasant summer evening, pick a pretty star and name it after themselves. No-one is stopping them.

Of course, if Bob & Alice want to have a fancy certificate that actually says that HD102667 is now called Bob or Alice, then so be it. But they must be aware that no other human being beyond that specific Star Registry will have any idea that this is now so. The layperson won't bother (who wants to know the name of a star you can't even see?) and the astronomers won't care, because it is an ambiguous nomenclature.

But what these star naming companies are doing is offering a service. They're saying they'll create a "registry" and select specific stars for which people can buy the rights to name those stars in that registry.

Aye, and there's the rub. The naming rights to these stars are not really theirs to sell. Who gave them the authority to sell these rights? Once again, I can go out into the yard and name Venus after my beautiful daughter, with exactly the same validity as these Star Registries.

If we object strongly to the star registry companies aren't we really saying that we think only astronomers have the "right" to name stars? Who authorized astronomers as the sole proprietors of star naming?

But the IAU is not selling the naming rights. Astronomers per se have no more right to name stars than the man in the street. The IAU allocates a nomenclature that is then used by astronomers around the world. If I take the spectrum of good ol' HD102667 and send an e-mail to 20 astronomers around the world to run the same spectrum, I can be confident that we will all be looking at the same object, because we will all be using the IAU catalogues. If I send that e-mail asking them to check out Bob for me, I'll probably get arrested.

What harm is being done by companies setting up their own registry for naming stars so that the "little person" on the street can participate in naming the stars up there? The purpose in this case is not scientific.

There is no harm, provided that the buyer is aware that astronomers at the VLT are not going to be doing interferometry work on Nigel Crutcheon III tonight. The problem is, that the registries make the sale as though the name will have some sort of validity - but that is not so, it cannot be so. The lady I mentioned earlier had (I suspect) paid money to have her beloved husband immortalised in the heavens. A noble and honourable sentiment. Some huckster took her cash, gave her a star that she will never be able to see, a pretty piece of paper and then moved on to the next rube. I'm afraid that I don't see that as harmless entrepreneurialism - I see that as a scam.

As long as the product is not improperly advertised so that the purchaser gets the impression they are buying a government or IAU sanctioned name, is there really a crime here.

But that is exactly how it is pitched.

Its a business. If there is a market for the product, then it will sell. The product that they're offering is a chance for a person to purchase a personalized name for a specific star in a specific registry that is published even though not affiliated with any government or the IAU.

But it comes back to what the buyer is being told. If the buyer is informed that he or she can go out and name their own star with exactly the same validity, but still chooses to purchase a star from the vendor so that they can have their name written in a published registry, then that is their choice. But then they are effectively aware that what they are buying is a certificate and their name in print.

A productive idea might be to actually evaluate the quality of the product offered by these star naming companies. How much scientific information do they provide about the star? Do they give accurate coordinates, spectral class, surface temperature, color, distance, the official scientific name/number of the star and so on? Do they give the purchaser a choice of certain stellar characteristics? Do they provide a short booklet about the actual scientific naming and basics of stars?

By and large, no. If you have a copy of Phil Plait's outstanding tome Bad Astronomy ( :wink: ), note the comment made by one of these registries as to what would happen if a persons duly named star happened to fall from the sky. They indicate that if the star does fall from the sky, they will be only too happy to name another one, free of charge. Little more need be said as to the educative motivations of such people.

[Glom]

Why should it be any different for the stars? The formal scientific names or identifications of stars are useful for scientific cataloging and cross comparisons from different data sources. But what difference does that make to the average person not involved in amateur astronomy or astronomical research?

By the same token, what makes the name of AGN's daughter any better than Venus? The rest of the world will use Venus but AGN and his family are free to use their name. The argument isn't that we should only use the formal scientific names. It is perfectly alright to have someone assign an informal name to a star for sentimental purposes. The problem is that these companies do not to dissuade, or at worst actively promote, the idea that these names are more than just informal gimics, but are legitimate scientific names.

Ambitious people could certainly name a few stars themselves - or even make up their own constellations. But what these star naming companies are doing is offering a service.

Let's review the service. For the £100 you may invest, you get a pretty certificate and a star map showing "your" star. The punters think that these stars are being formally named in a way that will be recognised. It will not be recognised by anyone but the company and the punter. Astronomers won't use it. Amateur astronomers won't use it. Once the company expires (as if that's going to happen soon), the star name will no longer exist. The company is not formally naming the star.

They're saying they'll create a "registry" and select specific stars for which people can buy the rights to name those stars in that registry.

But they don't have the right to formally name those stars. So the company is lying. The punter has the right to informally name those stars, of course, but they didn't need to shell out £100 to these con men for the privilege.

If we object strongly to the star registry companies aren't we really saying that we think only astronomers have the "right" to name stars? Who authorized astronomers as the sole proprietors of star naming?

The IAU is the non-profit organisation, that is recognised by those who study the skies, either as a profession or just as a hobby, that can assign designations to astronomical objects. Anyone has the right to informally name stars, but it is in a way that no-one else will care.

What harm is being done by companies setting up their own registry for naming stars so that the "little person" on the street can participate in naming the stars up there? The purpose in this case is not scientific.

Agreed. But anyone can name their own star. These companies are telling people you have to part with a large sum of money to do it, when in fact you do not.

I think someone could make this argument. As long as the product is not improperly advertised so that the purchaser gets the impression they are buying a government or IAU sanctioned name, is there really a crime here.

Bingo! It is improperly advertised. The star naming done by these companies is nothing more than an informal gimic, but they convey to the punter that the name is officially recognised. This is improper advertising and hence why the ISR was punished for advertising in New York.

They aren't suggesting that the people have bought the star itself.

They aren't suggesting the punter owns the star, no. But they are suggesting that name is official and legitimate, which it is not.

Its a business. If there is a market for the product, then it will sell. The product that they're offering is a chance for a person to purchase a personalized name for a specific star in a specific registry that is published even though not affiliated with any government or the IAU.

But, they could just as easily do it themselves. I could name the entire sky. I think I'll do it now.

This is the Glom Catalog:
Sirius = Conrad named for the astronaut Pete Conrad
Canopus = Yaeger named for the test pilot Chuck Yaeger
Alpha Centauri = Hubble named for the astronomer Edwin Hubble
Arcturus = Newton named for the mathematician Sir Isaac Newton
Vega = Plait named for BA of course
Spica = Hawking named for the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking
Altair = Wilson named for the actor Richard Wilson

I could go on. There it is. Published on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board. These names now have as much legitimacy as the names of the ISR and I didn't con people out of hundreds of pounds to do it.

A productive idea might be to actually evaluate the quality of the product offered by these star naming companies.

Which is a certificate and a star map? I could get that for a tenner.

Ok, I've just played devil's advocate and in this case I think I swayed myself to the position that the star registry's should be left alone as long as they're not guilty of false/misleading product advertising.

They are guilty of false advertising. They are conveying that the star names have some kind of official standing, which they don't beyond the company itself. The name is not recognised throughout the world, despite their assurances that the registry is stored in the Library of Congress and other related institutions.

If people go to the company, aware that they are paying out for nothing more than a gimic, then that's fine. But the punters go there, thinking that the star actually is legitimately named, when in fact it is no more legitimate than if the punter had picked a bright star and named it themselves.

[Gremalkyn]

Re: the list. You just had to "glom" onto those ... :roll:

[Glom]

Re: the list. You just had to "glom" onto those ... :roll:

Naturally.

[Glom]

Here's one for astronomical literacy. I checked the ISR site. At the bottom, they've got the zodiac star signs, not the constellations that inspired them. They missed out Ophiucus, and misnamed Scorpius and Capricornus.

[Josh_imported]

Starwishing does one better by including the actual "registry" online. Stars are listed by their "SAO numbers," and the catalog is the "SAO Catalog," not to be confused with the NGC or Messier Catalogue, or the dozens of others compiled by intense research in recent decades. What is ironic, is that although these sites claim to have exclusive ownership of the catalogues wherein the named stars are listed, they depend on the scientific community to support their business. How else can they claim to attach your original name to a positively identified star? Consider the story of Jim Craig, the director of the Schiele Museum of Natural History.

At least The Star Registry is pretty transparent in its aims-note the first four links in the description on the main page go to the same order form. :roll:

[M_Welander]

To use a different example consider flowers. They have common names and scientific latin names. Which is the real name? Well it depends upon your purpose. For the average person they see the "sunflower" while the scientist knows the same plant as Helianthus Annuus. Is the scientists name any more correct than the common name? That really depends upon the purpose. For scientific classification the answer is yes. For the average person the common name is the better name.

And a sunflower to you is a sunflower to me is a sunflower to Joe Anybody.

But that's not entirely true. In fact, I'd say that's not true at all.

Helianthus annuus might be a "sunflower" to Joe Anybody, but it certainly is not to me, nor is it to most people I know. In fact, to me there is no such thing as a "sunflower" at all.

However, to me, as it is to everyone else in this world, there is a flower called Helianthos annuus. It took me 15 seconds to look it up and see that it is actually the flower I know as "solros".

And that, my friends, is precisely the reason why I feel scientific names are so important, no matter if they are assigned to flowers or stars. In a small, closed community, home made names can certainly make sense. But we don't live in such a world any more. That's why it is so important to always use the proper, scientific name, for both flowers and stars.

May those commercial fake star registies go out of business, and true science win in the end.

[dgruss23]

I've looked at both the ISR and the Star Wishing and I'm afraid I need your help here. Could someone please point to the specific claims made on the websites that constitute false advertising?

I think many of you are hung up on the "authority" end of it:

Glom wrote: But they don't have the right to formally name those stars. So the company is lying. The punter has the right to informally name those stars, of course, but they didn't need to shell out £100 to these con men for the privilege.

What do you mean they don't have the right? Who gave professional astronomers the right? Who gave the Greeks the right? Everybody has the right and if you want to publish your names in a book you can. Its precisely because the name is not formal that I don't see the problem.

Look, as I said they are offering a service. Astronomers don't name stars after people, but these people will. You send them 50 or 100 bucks and they'll pick out a star and publish a book with it listed. They'll provide the coordinates coordinates and a corny certificate and perhaps some little book that may or may not be informative. That is what the people are paying for - to be listed in the registry started by this or that naming company.

You created a list of stars with names you made up and you are correct in that you have as much right as the star registry people to do that. But have you published a book of your names? The Star Registry does. And that is the point. That is what people are paying for. Most people are presumably buying these star names for sentimental or romantic reasons.

I really don't see where anybody has made a compelling case that what these companies are doing is wrong or misleading. I certainly think they could be a little better. They should clearly state that their names are not formally recognized by professional astronomers and they don't do that, but neither do they say anything that would directly give that impression. They should point out that the purchaser will need to go to a local public observatory if they want to see the star. They definitely don't do that either.

But neither of those two issues invalidates their right to offer the service they are offering.

M Welander wrote: And that, my friends, is precisely the reason why I feel scientific names are so important, no matter if they are assigned to flowers or stars. In a small, closed community, home made names can certainly make sense. But we don't live in such a world any more. That's why it is so important to always use the proper, scientific name, for both flowers and stars.

And they publish a book with the names so if somebody really wants to they can go look it up. But most people won't care. The people that buy these star names are only going to care about the fact that they have a star out there that they gave a name to and that somebody has published in a book for them. That name has no more or less validity than the scientific names.

I've seen a lot of debates on the BABB about religion imposing upon science. I've got to say I think people need to step back and look at the other side of this. What business is it of the scientific community to go telling a company that they cannot publish a book with stars named by the average person? This sounds like science imposing upon something that is meant to be a little bit of fun. Or are we saying that only scientists have rights to the universe?

Should we file a complaint with Astronomy and Sky&Telescope magazines for referring to the Lagoon Nebula and the Owl nebula, and the wild duck cluster? They are M-8 and, and M-97, and M-11. Or wait - should we be calling them by their NGC numbers? Do they have other catalog numbers? Which one is correct?

I also seem to recall that it was David Eicher that coined the term "Owl Cluster" for the open cluster NGC 457 (which does look like an owl - very pretty!). Was there something wrong with him doing that? Of course not because it served a specific purpose - it was a catchy way of giving a description of the appearance of the cluster in a backyard telescope. By the same token the star naming companies have a specific purpose they are fulfulling with their service. It is not meant to be scientific. It is not advertised as scientific and I don't see where a case has been made that it is the business of scientists to declare these star naming companies as a scam. From what I can see they are offering the product they claim to be offering - a star named by you the purchaser published in their registry.

[Glom]

dgruss, firstly, we question the value of service. $100 is not a small amount of money to many people. They could look up in the sky, pick the brightest star and name it after their loved one or whatever. That would be just as effective and much, much cheaper. It would be easier to see it and be a greater memorial because you would be able to see this dedicated star everytime you looked up at the clear night sky. The $100 you may pay offers more and less. It does give you a pretty little certificate, possibly framed, that you can hang up on your wall. However, the star you'll get it one you won't be able to see without the help of some good equipment. The starmap wouldn't be required if the stars were brighter.

You assert the value of the registry that they send to Congress. How does this really help? The registry means nothing to the astronomical community.

The real problem we have with these companies is thing you downplay. The misleading service. If they explicitly stated that the registry is not astronomically valid, if they explicitly stated that the names they assign to the stars are not recognised by the astronomical community, if they explicitly stated that the only thing of any substance contained in their "service" is a pretty certificate and other accessories, we wouldn't have a problem. If the punter was fully aware of the limitations of the "service" and if the act of shelling out hard earned dollars for some gimic is appealing to the punter, then go ahead. No harm done.

The problem is that their advertising is misleading. They imply to the punter that the star name is legitimately recognised by the astronomical community. And thus the punter thinks that the star name is a proper name this star will have.

However, judging from stories I've heard from astronomers at planetaria and observatories, when most visitors ask to see "their" star, they don't understand that these companies are not official in any way.

It is this misconception that is serious. It is not a minor thing that they could improve. It is a very serious act of deception.

There is only one organisation that can assign names to astronomical objects: The International Astronomical Union. They are empowered in this way because the astronomers and governments of the world have agreed, by treaties and the like, that the IAU should be given responsability for this task.

[dgruss23]

Glom wrote: dgruss, firstly, we question the value of service. $100 is not a small amount of money to many people.

Then they don’t have to buy it.

They could look up in the sky, pick the brightest star and name it after their loved one or whatever. That would be just as effective and much, much cheaper.

That’s up to the individual to decide. For some people the point is that it is registered somewhere with someone. The book again – some people undoubtably like the idea of the book. They’re willing to pay for that.

It would be easier to see it and be a greater memorial because you would be able to see this dedicated star everytime you looked up at the clear night sky.

If they want that they can do that. The existence of the star registry doesn’t infringe upon anybody’s right to do that.

The $100 you may pay offers more and less. It does give you a pretty little certificate, possibly framed, that you can hang up on your wall. However, the star you'll get it one you won't be able to see without the help of some good equipment. The starmap wouldn't be required if the stars were brighter.

Since there are only about 6000 naked eye stars if the service is offered at all they really have no choice.

You assert the value of the registry that they send to Congress. How does this really help? The registry means nothing to the astronomical community.

We complain about the ignorance of most about astronomy all the time. Do you really think that most people care what the astronomical community thinks about it? Don’t you think some people would like the idea that it is in a published book and just think its kind of neat?

The real problem we have with these companies is thing you downplay. The misleading service. If they explicitly stated that the registry is not astronomically valid, if they explicitly stated that the names they assign to the stars are not recognised by the astronomical community, if they explicitly stated that the only thing of any substance contained in their "service" is a pretty certificate and other accessories, we wouldn't have a problem. If the punter was fully aware of the limitations of the "service" and if the act of shelling out hard earned dollars for some gimic is appealing to the punter, then go ahead. No harm done.

So where on the websites have they made a misleading claim? Both the ISR and the StarWishing websites have phone numbers and e-mail contact information. The buyer beware. They do not say that their names are recognized by astronomers. Anybody that assumes that is being careless. Contact them and ask them. I did that a while ago and I’ll report back what they say. I asked them if their star names are recognized by professional astronomers and then I asked them how easy it would be to find the star and whether or not I would need a telescope. Any consumer could do this. If they mislead in answering those questions, THEN they are guilty of false advertising.

As to the “substance” and limitations of their service I really think you’re overlooking the psychology of the thing. People will like the idea of knowing that their name is in the book. THAT is the value. For some people the fact that a person went out and “bought” them a star name will have sentimental value. Sure, if they just did it on their own that would be special, but to each their own.

The problem is that their advertising is misleading. They imply to the punter that the star name is legitimately recognised by the astronomical community. And thus the punter thinks that the star name is a proper name this star will have.

That is not implied in any way on the websites. Anybody who concludes that has drawn a conclusion with no data to support it. I specifically looked before I made my last post. They refer to “their” registry. They make no mention of professional astronomers.

It is this misconception that is serious. It is not a minor thing that they could improve. It is a very serious act of deception.

I don’t think that case has been made. Taking the quote from the BA’s book for example: How did the people come to the conclusion that their star is officially recognized by astronomers? Did the purchaser jump to conclusions without researching the question. If so that is their fault. They could have contacted those companies just like I did a couple of hours ago. If the person that bought them the star said it was official, then that is not the fault of the company.

I am not downplaying anything. I’m asking for someone to make the case – from the information that is provided on those websites that those companies are intentionally misleading. Here is what the ISR says:

Naming stars since 1979, our list of satisfied customers include celebrities, dignitaries, and individuals worldwide. We have named hundreds of thousands of stars for people from all walks of life. So, whether it be for your sweetheart or your top sales agent, a star name makes a unique and welcome gift.

The International Star Registry gift package includes a beautiful 12" x 16" parchment certificate, available framed or unframed, with the name of your choice, dedication date, and telescopic coordinates of the star. You'll also receive an informative booklet with charts of the constellations plus a larger, more detailed chart with the star you name encircled in red.

Because these star names are copyrighted with their telescopic coordinates in the book, "Your Place in the Cosmos," future generations may identify the star name in the directory and, using a telescope, locate the actual star in the sky.

Click here to name a star online or call 1-800-282-3333 to speak with a customer service representative with questions or to place an order.

Even that last statement about finding the star in a telescope is not misleading. In fact it lets the people know its faint – you’ll need a telescope. If they don’t realize how difficult that will be is that any different than the person that - knowing nothing - buys a telescope and finds out that it takes some practice and knowledge of the sky to locate deep sky objects?

The Starwishing site doesn’t make any erronious claims either.

There is only one organisation that can assign names to astronomical objects: The International Astronomical Union. They are empowered in this way because the astronomers and governments of the world have agreed, by treaties and the like, that the IAU should be given responsability for this task.

The key word here is “agreed”. Is this a law? If so then these companies are not a scam, they are lawbreakers. But that hasn’t been what we’ve been debating. Earlier you said you wouldn’t have a problem with it if they clearly stated that they are not recognized by professional astronomers and that the stars will be faint and difficult to find. So which is it?

Sorry to be a pain about this Glom, but I (1) really don’t have a problem with the concept if it’s correctly done. I think you may be underestimating the value that some purchasers will get from this – sentimentally speaking and (2) I still don’t think a strong case has been made that they are intentionally misleading the customers.

The only questionable part I’ve seen is whether or not they provide enough information. But the customers have some responsibility here. The companies make themselves accessible for additional information. If a person is too careless to seek that additional info that is not the fault of the star registry.

And from my perspective numbers 1 and 2 are separate issues. Number 1 is the idea: For a fee, I’ll select a star and give it a name, and publish that name in a book that will be periodically updated. You’ll get a certificate and a map that shows where the star is in the sky. If people are willing to pay for that then I don’t see the problem.

As for the question of misleading advertising, if it turns out that when you contact them they intentionally mislead the potential customer then that we be enough for me to say that these specific companies are dishonest and should not be dealt with. But that doesn’t mean that someone else would be wrong to try and do it the right way – create a registry, make it educational, be clear about the fact that it is not recognized by astronomers, and that the stars may be difficult to find.

[dgruss23]

Ok, I just called the Star Registry phone number provided on their website:

I asked:

(1) If I bought a star how easy it would be to find: The answer paraphrased:

"The stars we are currently naming have magnitudes from 12-16 so you would need a pretty good telescope to see them. We provide the coordinates and a map with the star circled in red and a map that shows the constellations."
(2) There is a local public obsevatory. If I had trouble finding the star could I ask them for help?

"If they offer that service. We've had some customers that have gone to observatories."
(3) Now I'd be giving the star a name which the astronomers wouldn't know. Would they be able to find it?

"We also provide the catalog number recognized by astronomers so that and the coordinates so they should be able to find it. We get our coordinates from the Hubble Space Telescope data."
(4) So, is your registry recognized by astronomers? Would astronomers be using these names?

"No, its a novelty gift. It is not recognized by astronomers."
(5) So its just meant to be a nice kind of gift for birthday's and that sort of thing?

"Yes"

I've paraphrased both my questions and answers, but you get the idea. They were very honest. After I was done asking questions she was not pushy about actually buying a star. Since they were very upfront I really don't see that they are doing anything wrong. Anybody that buy's a star from them can ask the same questions I asked and will not be misled.

[Glom]

Well that's good to know. If only they made it more explicit on their website, there would be less confusion.

[Jpax2003]

OK, there are several ways to approach this subject. First we keep hearing that only the IAU has the authority to name astronomical objects. So my question is: Are they naming these stars? We know they are assigning catalogue numbers... but that is not a name.

It's like arguing that the VIN number on your car is the car's name. Toyota may call it a Corrolla, you may call it the Blue Bomber. Who is right? Who has the authority? The US has the legal authority to demand an ID# conforming to their conventions. The State has the legal authority to issue a Plate # for identification. The Dealer has their own ID#, as does the manufacturer. Then the bank has it's own set of numbers for the car and the loan. Finally, you, the owner, have the right to call it whatever you want. And if you think this is a joke, consider that some vehicles are officially named (e.g. the monster truck Big Foot), and those names are legally registered and licensed. This also begs the question of what is the legal status of a copyrighted star registry vs another star registry.

It's all a matter of individual sovereignty. Call it what you want. It's official to you and your family, if they will. Hundreds or thousands of years from now, your decendents may be a majority and change the Official name. Maybe even tomorrow the US government may dump the treaty for the IAU and their authority will be greatly diminished. The IAU's legal authority exists only as long as the law exisits. The UN has the authority only as long as we give them recognition of their authority. This is true of all governments and governing bodies.

If you wish for a higher authority, you'll have to ask God. However God may have already given that to the jews when he said Abraham's descendents will be as numerous as the stars.

I for one, am a sovereign individual, I only obey those laws that I feel are applicable to me. This is true of all persons, I simply declare that I know it and take responsibility for it. I think tonight I will go out and start naming stars. Heck, I already started my own calendar reckoning (and alphabet and language and flag and seal). Those names will be official to me and that's all that matters to me. But I'll still use catalogue numbers and common names when talking to anyone else.

So before we argue the names of stars, perhaps we should decide what is the official name for the planet we reside on. Is it Earth, Terra, Gaia...?

JPax