[sac-forum] Re: Numbers assigned to NGC objects in SAC best of list
- From: AJ Crayon <acrayon@xxxxxxx>
- To: sac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 7:29:23 -0700
Steve, I to read the article to which you refer and wonder where they got that
idea. As far as I know no one has applied new numbers to reference the NGC
numbers in the Best of the NGC. I was going to send them an e-mail but got
side tracked with Sentinel.
Thanks for the reminder,
aj
---- Steve Coe <stevecoe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Howdy all;
>
> Folks, I just finished reading the Focal Point article in the December Sky
> and Telescope. It is on page 142 at the end of that issue.
>
> In this article a many named Mark Allison implores deep sky observers to
> stop "renaming the sky". This is a pet peeve of mine that people keep
> re-assigning numbers to objects that have already been a very useful
> designation by an earlier catalog. It is extremely confusing to have the
> same object have a value given in the Messier, NGC, Caldwell and Levy
> catalogs.
>
> Well, color me surprised when I find that the SAC "Best of the NGC" is part
> of this discussion. When A.J. and I created this list, we made absolutely
> certain that no new designations were added on and that these objects were
> spoken of by their NGC values at all times.
>
> So, my question is: do you know of a place, probably on the Internet, where
> "new" numbers were added onto the SAC Best of the NGC list?
>
> I would like to get in contact with the group or person who did this an tell
> them to "stop it"; in no uncertain terms.
>
> There are not now and never have been "SAC numbers" assigned to these NGC
> objects by us and I don't wish it to continue.
>
> So, please let me know if you know where these numbers came from.
>
> I would appreciate it;
> Steve Coe
>
>
>
Other related posts:
