Return to Home Page
> An imaginary example would be the spectroscopic binary that's also a > Be star, that's also a UV-bright and IRAS source, etc. Why not just > use the good ol' HD number and to heck with the rest? Thank you! (Such convoluted situations do exist - some Be stars are binaries are IRAS sources.) > I consider every star to be variable: that it doesn't have a GCVS > name merely means nobody has looked at it carefully yet. That a particular > star happens to be a variable is often of no particular interest (can I > say that on these lists?!), so proliferating added names when it becomes > known as variable is not really desireable---though it's done (for now) > as a bookkeeping measure, deriving from the days when variable stars > were really unusual. How will we look at things when there are hundreds > of thousands of catalogued variables in each constellation (even Equuleus)? Thank you again! Thom
Return to the Powerful Daisaku
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
