Astronomy / Space Real Space around us?

[Chemist]

OK:
IBootes (actually asellus secundum)
Asellus primus
Chi Herculis
h Draconis (must be double star)
LP 98-132
CM Draconis (must be double plus white dwarf)
Ross 1015 and all other stars by Ross
BD+47 2112


***?!
Ithaka - this is asteroid (1151)

These are not stars, but myth personages
Magec
Naraka
Aganippe
Aulis

The rest are still in question to be real stars...

 

[ScottGust]

And thats not air ur breathing in ur cockpit.

 

[Vandaahl]

And there is no spoon...


Seriously, even the galaxy we get might not be the galaxy we are looking at now. Besides, we are looking at names 1300 year from now. Good chance people lost a few names here and there.

 

[Lobstris]

Stars are a mix of 'manually' entered 'override' stars from catalogues, fictional stars (e.g. Lave and the 'Old Worlds' from the original Elite game) and procedurally generated ones.

And I thought i Boötis was '44 Boötis', rather than 'Iota Boötis/Asellus Secundus/23 Boötis'?

 

[ScottGust]

And there is no spoon...


Seriously, even the galaxy we get might not be the galaxy we are looking at now. Besides, we are looking at names 1300 year from now. Good chance people lost a few names here and there.

Xcellent point

 

[Athan]

Here's what I matched up for the currently reachable game stars:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ad5-6E_Megrjw02RM4oyhCf8wXptDbYJtWUwH0Hi2Vk

 

[Zvanya]

These are not stars, but myth personages
Magec
Naraka
Aganippe
Aulis

The rest are still in question to be real stars...

Those stars have been renamed is all, probably by the systems inhabitants. Problem solved.

 

[Ayo]

The rest are still in question to be real stars...

Most of the stars in the area we are playing in ARE real stars, many have just been given more interesting names than HD 46532918281273

 

[Iain M Norman]

It's perfectly acceptable to me for colonists to have renamed places. It'd be incredibly hard to stop it happening. Common usage and all that.

 

[Chemist]

I can buy any explanation from above but for the general idea, quoted by Mr. David was "Never before has the beauty and scope of our galaxy been so accurately mapped and so completely realized in a virtual world. Every single one of the stars in the real night sky is present in the virtual one, their planetary systems and moons are there just waiting to be explored..."

So it's a crap or intentional fraud.

 

[Ekar]

So it's a crap or intentional fraud.

That's the most absurdly critical thing I've read on the forum to date. :S

 

[WhosYourPappa]

I can buy any explanation from above but for the general idea, quoted by Mr. David was "Never before has the beauty and scope of our galaxy been so accurately mapped and so completely realized in a virtual world. Every single one of the stars in the real night sky is present in the virtual one, their planetary systems and moons are there just waiting to be explored..."

So it's a crap or intentional fraud.

Yes, NEVER BEFORE. Name another space sim game (not a tool for astronomers) that more accurately models the galaxy. Why can't you believe that a few names may have been changed by colonists?

You can believe we can fly faster than the speed of light and that we have space stations millions of light years from earth but you cannot fathom that we dare change a name?

 

[Rhaedas]

I'm not going to lose sleep knowing that a few stars aren't accurately placed.

Most people when they first see that galaxy map and realize that we could go to as many of those stars that we can get to, their first reaction isn't, wait, this one is off an arcsecond from how it would look from Earth.

Missed the forest for the trees, in a big way.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I can buy any explanation from above but for the general idea, quoted by Mr. David was "Never before has the beauty and scope of our galaxy been so accurately mapped and so completely realized in a virtual world. Every single one of the stars in the real night sky is present in the virtual one, their planetary systems and moons are there just waiting to be explored..."

So it's a crap or intentional fraud.

The upper estimate on the number of stars visible with the naked eye is 10,000.

I'm sure I read somewhere that FD have mapped 150,000 of the nearest stars as accurately as they can.

Maybe you should do some research and provide some evidence before calling .

 

[Half Giant]

I can buy any explanation from above but for the general idea, quoted by Mr. David was "Never before has the beauty and scope of our galaxy been so accurately mapped and so completely realized in a virtual world. Every single one of the stars in the real night sky is present in the virtual one, their planetary systems and moons are there just waiting to be explored..."

So it's a crap or intentional fraud.

That is a pretty silly attitude.

Anyone reading that knows that they mean the location and type of stars, the physical bodies, are what is important to the accuracy. Please don't require the game to use incredibly boring, academic codes and numbering systems for stars for no reason. Somebody already flew to Ross 1015 when they meant to go to Ross 1051. They need to keep enough of this to give credit to astronomers but not so much pilots shoot themselves when driven mad by dull names.

I could completely understand someone with an interest in astronomy asking for alternative names in notes. But your post is just silly and I guess I am feeding a troll.

 

[Athan]

FD should perhaps at least ensure that all stars are searchable by their current catalogue names, not just the primary in-game name.

 

[Dr Wookie]

FD should perhaps at least ensure that all stars are searchable by their current catalogue names, not just the primary in-game name.

No reason I can think of . It's a game, not an astronomy tool! And I say this as an astronomy tool er astrophysicist myself !