Quote:
Originally Posted by ballaratdragons
There was an article in AS&T (last year I think) about this exact subject.
How objects have too many names. Some have 4 or 5 classifications!!!!
An 'M' number, an 'NGC', an 'IC', an 'MCG' and a common name. Some other objects use differing catalogue numbers and leave out the more common ones ('M', NGC' etc). Then there are PGC's, SAC's, etc.
Then we get to Star catalogues: SAO, TYC2, GCVS, WDS, BossGC, GSC, HD, BD, CD, CPD, HR, Flamsteed, Bayer, and common names!!!!
How is anyone expected to know what is what up there with so many classifications for each object!!!!!
|
I agree, why couldn't the IC catalogue numbers just continue on from the NGC numbers? Why does a Messier object get an NGC number? Why do people have to complicate things?
A case in point is the Caldwell catalogue. As much as I admire an respect Patrick Moore, why did he have to make a whole new catalogue? Well, I know his reason for it, that's commonly known. All these different catalouges, i feel, just make life more complicated!
hoo roo
Steve