Turns out HD 110184 is 501 ly from HIP 60415, so inaccessible for now. I suppose I should have checked using
https://spansh.co.uk/nearest ahead of time, but I did get some first footfalls on the way and got to see Rackham's Peak, so it wasn't for naught.
Many thanks for that. I thought I had carefully checked the coordinates of all these stars.
But the ones for HD 110184 were out by 51ly. So apologies for that.
That is a big error, normally they are within +/- 2 ly on each axis, so the maximum error should be 3.5 ly.
So when the search program finds anything within 10ly of 500ly, I check it more carefully.
But this is such a big error it obviously didn't get checked.
I have no explanation as to why there is such a big error. It doesnt look like a typo, getting the wrong sign or misreading the direction of the axes, they are the usually things.
Anyway, good luck on your journey to HD 155803. I just checked the coordinates of that star again and this time got (-1433,3317,17757) which is out by 13ly in the z-axis. Fortunately this error is in the direction of the closest star, so the separation should now be less than 409ly. It would be interesting to see if your estimate of the coordinates matches mine.
I have previously suspected, and am now convinced, that these coordinates move around until someone visits them.
edit: Turns out I do have an explanation.
I really did have the correct coordinates in the unreachable stars reference file. As I had checked those very carefully.
But - the nearest star finder program needs the star names by slice, so there is an intermediate step to add the slice numbers for that process.
That is what I forgot to run - so the coordinates were the old ones. And not just HD 110184, although HD 155803 should be ok.
Will have to run the whole suite again.
Will do that tomorrow when the new version of spansh data is available, and includes HD 76952 which I'll get to this evening.