Starship Asterisk*

Orion and Official Star Names

Explanation: Familiar stars in Orion and constellations across the sky now have official names. Over the past year, the International Astronomical Union, the only body officially tasked with naming stars, approved names already in common use for 227 of the brightest stars, including the most famous stars on the sky Sirius, Polaris, and Betelgeuse. Pictured, the constellation of Orion is shown with several of these now-official star names superposed. Spanning about 30 degrees, this breath-taking vista stretches across the well-known constellation from head to toe (left to right) and beyond. The common names for all three stars in Orion's belt are also now official. At 1,500 light years away, the Great Orion Nebula is the closest large star forming region, here visible just right and below center. Also visible are famous nebulae including the Horsehead Nebula and the Witch Head Nebula. Of course, the Orion Nebula and bright stars are easy to see with the unaided eye, but dust clouds and emission from the extensive interstellar gas in this nebula-rich complex, are too faint and much harder to record. In the featured mosaic of broadband telescopic images, additional image data acquired with a narrow hydrogen alpha filter was used to bring out the pervasive tendrils of energized atomic hydrogen gas like in the arc of the giant Barnard's Loop.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

There are even more stars in Orion that have proper names. Consider Iota Orionis, one of the few O-type stars visible to the naked eye. My software, Guide, has two proper names for it: Na'ir al Saif (The Bright One in the Sword) and Hatysa.

My software suggests an additional name for Rigel, if you get tired of calling it Rigel: Algebar. Meissa, the fascinating O-type star at the "head" of Orion, also has an alternative name: Heka. (At least if you ask Guide, it does.) And while Jim Kaler calls Pi-3 Orionis Thabit or Tabit, Guide uses the same appellation for Upsilon Orionis.

Names, names, names, how do I call the stars by their names?

Ann

What an awesome image... soooo much....
Below the Great Nebula looks like another Fox Nebula. Below that the whole Bernard's Loop looks like another Bat Nebula...

:---[===] *

We humans did not get to choose the location of our Sun in the Galaxy. We are very close to the plane, unsurprisingly. So looking out into the plane to study our neighbors (neighbours) we have to look through the fog of the interstellar medium. But! Great luck! At some distance, a part of the plane has somehow gravitationally been thrust OUT of the plane: Orion! and so we can see it without a lot of intervening stuff making it hard to see clearly. On the same theme, we are lucky indeed that out Sun's immediate surrounds are so very empty, giving us clear views, both North and South, out of the Galaxy and into the Universe. Where would we be, if instead the Sun had happened to be passing through a messy pile of interstellar dreck? So we look at Orion with joy and happiness! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Today's picture is great but appeared already on 16.03.2015.

RedGargoyle wrote:Today's picture is great but appeared already on 16.03.2015.

Lots of APODs get repeated.

What about the sword?

Guest wrote:What about the sword?

Credit: xkcd

Markus Schwarz wrote:

Guest wrote:What about the sword?

Credit: xkcd

Really??? My kids read this!!!

Guest wrote:

Markus Schwarz wrote:

Guest wrote:What about the sword?

Credit: xkcd

Really??? My kids read this!!!

They should get a good snicker, then.

geckzilla wrote:

Guest wrote:

Markus Schwarz wrote:
Credit: xkcd

Really??? My kids read this!!!

They should get a good snicker, then.

At 7 years old? Are you serious? Are you out of you mind? How do I explain this kind of thing to a child?

Guest wrote:

geckzilla wrote:

Guest wrote: Really??? My kids read this!!!

They should get a good snicker, then.

At 7 years old? Are you serious? Are you out of you mind? How do I explain this kind of thing to a child?

Sometimes people see body parts in nebulas and clouds. I'm sorry? It's a body part.

Come on, really. Orion DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THAT.

Please put in the captions SOMEWHERE what the colors mean.

Guest wrote:

geckzilla wrote:

Guest wrote:
Really??? My kids read this!!!

They should get a good snicker, then.

At 7 years old? Are you serious? Are you out of you mind? How do I explain this kind of thing to a child?

If your child is a boy, he already has a dong, and you don't need to explain anything. If your child is a girl, it's high time you started explaining basic facts of anatomy. Heck, I grew up with 3 brothers and 4 sisters, and our parents had no trouble explaining anything to us. Be a parent! (If your child is transgender, I'd say to swap the genders in the first two sentences, except that the type of parent who thinks that knowledge of basic anatomy is damaging to kids probably does not accept the transgender phenomenon.)

Guest wrote:At 7 years old? Are you serious? Are you out of you mind? How do I explain this kind of thing to a child?

The same way you explain where Orion's head or hand are.

Cousin Ricky wrote:

Guest wrote:

geckzilla wrote: They should get a good snicker, then.

At 7 years old? Are you serious? Are you out of you mind? How do I explain this kind of thing to a child?

If your child is a boy, he already has a dong, and you don't need to explain anything. If your child is a girl, it's high time you started explaining basic facts of anatomy. Heck, I grew up with 3 brothers and 4 sisters, and our parents had no trouble explaining anything to us. Be a parent! (If your child is transgender, I'd say to swap the genders in the first two sentences, except that the type of parent who thinks that knowledge of basic anatomy is damaging to kids probably does not accept the transgender phenomenon.)

Time to block this site. Astronomy should be about stars, not dildos. Grow up and be mature...

Ann wrote:There are even more stars in Orion that have proper names.

Yes, but those names are not official. There are many stars in the sky that have traditional names (which may vary between cultures) but which do not have official recognition. You could refer to Beta Orion as Rigel in any publication and have an expectation that you would be understood. You could not refer to it as Algebar, or to Iota Orion as Na'ir al Saif, and have that same expectation.

Names, names, names, how do I call the stars by their names?

By whatever name seems appropriate for the context. In a scientific discussion, that would either be a recognized catalog designation, or one of the IAU recognized proper names.

Guest wrote:Time to block this site. Astronomy should be about stars, not dildos.

You're the only one making that peculiar association.

This is one of the best astroimages of the 21st century! It's a shame it's not north up.

Guest wrote: Time to block this site. Astronomy should be about stars, not dildos. Grow up and be mature...

You could have dug up a dozen of statues and paintings of medieval noblemen with swords and daggers hanging in a similar way to show your kid during the time you spent complaining about things you think are in the picture that are not.

/ just saying

geoffrey.landis wrote:Come on, really. Orion DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THAT.

Please put in the captions SOMEWHERE what the colors mean.

Red means hydrogen gas. Brown means dust. Blue means reflection nebulae as the result of dust reflecting light from blue stars.

geckzilla wrote:

Guest wrote:

geckzilla wrote: They should get a good snicker, then.

At 7 years old? Are you serious? Are you out of you mind? How do I explain this kind of thing to a child?

Sometimes people see body parts in nebulas and clouds. I'm sorry? It's a body part.

Time for some space news.

starsurfer wrote:This is one of the best astroimages of the 21st century! It's a shame it's not north up. :(

Rotating a high aspect ratio field (especially a wide field) in order to maintain a landscape format, which works best with large displays, seems completely reasonable.

Chris Peterson wrote:

starsurfer wrote:This is one of the best astroimages of the 21st century! It's a shame it's not north up.

Rotating a high aspect ratio field (especially a wide field) in order to maintain a landscape format, which works best with large displays, seems completely reasonable.

Or maybe it could be rotated and be portrait?

starsurfer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

starsurfer wrote:This is one of the best astroimages of the 21st century! It's a shame it's not north up. :(

Rotating a high aspect ratio field (especially a wide field) in order to maintain a landscape format, which works best with large displays, seems completely reasonable.

Or maybe it could be rotated and be portrait?

If it were portrait it wouldn't need to be rotated in order to be north up. But I usually target high aspect ratio images to landscape since virtually all large, high resolution displays are that format.