Return to Home Page
Hi all,
The "old" systems for cataloguing stars, by declination zone (or
constellation) has always been very handy, from my point of view, for
enabling the reader to very quickly put the star into context, for himself.
For example, if I read that star BD+58 XYZ had been discovered to be
variable, it may be of some interest, but would not be observable due its
high northern declination. On the other hand, if I read that CD-30 9950 (a
fictitious example) were announced as a very peculiar star, I would use
prior knowledge of the fact that the -30 deg zone in the CD has nearly 20000
stars to roughly guesstimate its position as 12h, -30deg, ie in the
constellation Hydra. This is an idealized example of quickly putting a star
in context.
Maybe this is an "old fashioned" way of looking at the sky, but is
nevertheless maintained in some quarters, eg the naming of variable stars
still uses constellation names as the primary key to organizing these
objects. The vast majority of modern all-sky catalogues completely
disregard constellations and declination zones. If someone were to ask me
in which constellation (or even in which hemisphere) does GSC 5817-0945 lie,
I would not have a clue. It is always going to be harder to relate to a
long string of numbers. Constellations name are an important part of the
history of astronomy, and serve to remind us that astronomy is not simply a
number-crunching exercise (is it?). It helps to maintain the human
element in a discipline which is said to be the oldest known.
Regards,
Mati
morel@ozemail.com.au
Return to the Daisaku Nogami
vsnet-adm@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp
