[syousef]

Many problems with this.

Most people can't tell the difference between Sydney Observatory and an official sounding star registry, people selling land on The Moon or Mars. There are a lot more of these organisations who have been peddling their overpriced paper for decades longer than Sydney Observatory. They also, lower down in fine print, tell you the exact limits of how recognized the star you named is.

An official publicly owned observatory lending its name to this practice legitimizes it. And most of the money will go into the pockets of people who prey on ignorance, not towards science research. Hearing that their relative or relative bought a star for a romantic interest or an aggrieved parent, others will go find a better deal without so much as a clue where the money actually went.

It is at odds with what astronomers and science educators have been telling the public for decades. If a legitimate organisation says otherwise it discredits those astronomers.

While it's true that it is a "real" catalog, it is not a current catalog and will be used by no one for anything other than printing fancy certificates. You are buying a fancy piece of paper that due to the organisation selling it happens to be tax deductible.

It is lazy and doesn't educate. People know nothing new having named a star. Compare that to buying star charts, books, instruments like binoculars, scientific toys and models. Even if they are overpriced people come away learning something. Having named a star they will have learned the designation of a single star in a single catalog and perhaps, if they're lucky or pay extra to be shown, have some idea where the star is (but probably not). Instead "name-a-star" plays on ignorance.