|WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
There is an official NASA naming convention for discoveries made by using data of the Kepler mission.
For details see section 3.1 of the following paper by Borucki et al.: http://kepler.nasa.gov/files/mws/FebDataRelease_revised_020211.pdf
- That is a naming system the Kepler team use themselves, it is not official (the cited source doesn't claim it is), and to describe it as such is incorrect. There is only one body that can legally officially name exoplanets, the International Astronomical Union, and it at present refuses to officially recognise exoplanet names. See IAU Extrasolar Planets. The Kepler team's name is no more official than PH1, KIC 4862625ABb etc, it's simply an alternate designation. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, ChiZeroOne, the PlanetHunters community deserves a really great deal of respect for PH1`s discovery ... But ALL planets discovered so far using Kepler data, both from the Kepler team BUT also ALL independent research teams from all over the world respected the Kepler naming convention proposed by NASA's Borucki AS described in the paper mentioned above. Therefore, I restore the previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- You have not addressed the point above. What has this got to do with "respect for PH1's discovery"? If we are talking personally I prefer the systematic designation. The simple fact is it is incorrect and misleading to call "Kepler-64" an official designation. It is an alternate designation, indeed perhaps usually a commonly used one (though certainly not in this specific case which is why the article is at PH1), but it is not officially recognised.
- On a side note the Kepler designation is retroactively assigned by the Kepler science team to discoveries by other teams, who are free to and do call them what they like (I suggest you actually read the discovery papers), so saying the independent teams respect the Kepler convention is absolute nonsense. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Funnily, you seem to accept both the KIC convention (also proposed by Borucki et al.) and the KOI convention (see also Borucki paper above). Of course, the Kepler designation has to be assigned retroactively by the Kepler mission team, this is the standard process.
As described in section 3.1 of the Borucki paper, for planets discovered by using Kepler data: 1. Designation of the star system with its Kepler input catalog number KIC 2. When candidate status is achieved, naming by KOI (Kepler object oft interest) and/or KIC. 3. When planets are confirmed, a Kepler designation is retroactively assigned. In the case of PH1 it is Kepler64b. Meanwhile, this designation took place according to reference 7.
And this standard process is normally followed and recognized also by research groups that have independently from the Kepler mission team discovered planets using Kepler data. The usage of KIC is not an alternate designation, but only the first step in the process.
Such an independent research team is also the Planet Hunters community. And of course, it is impossible that the discovery paper of an independent team contains the final Kepler name which somehow "seals" the existence of the planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- What has this got to do with accepting? They are free to call things what they like, they're just no more official than any other name. Indeed I think you'll find most of the stars Kepler is looking at already had other catalogue names before KICs, they are no more official than those which is why you'll find multiple names listed in astronomy catalogues for most of them, so again you are talking nonsense. Why you think I "accept" those and not Kepler- I don't know since I haven't mentioned them.
- So you agree that the independent teams have nothing to do with how the Kepler team refer to their finds? That the Kepler convention is a unilateral in-house system? So why are you also claiming some nonsense about them "respecting the convention" when they clearly don't when they name the planets in their paper depending on their preference? They could easily contact the Kepler team beforehand (in fact they often are in some level of discussions).
- Are you even going to respond to the fact that there is no official exoplanet naming system, and therefore there is no such thing as an official standard procedure in the first place? ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- According to WPAST's naming conventins, we should use the title of the star that the planet orbits. In this case, it would appear from looking at SIMBAD that the star only has two official designations: the 2MASS one and the KIC one. SIMBAD does not list the PH designation or the Kepler designation as a valid alternative for this star, unlike the star Kepler-22, so therefore we should be either the 2MASS or the KIC designation. For which one of those should be used, we would have to determine which is more commonly used in literature. By looking at the extrasolar planet encyclopedia here, it would appear that the KIC designation is the most common, and therefore should be used as the title. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but to be clear this isn't about the article title, but with regards to "Kepler" names, e.g. Kepler-1 b etc, being described as the "official" name. Just to point out though w.r.t to the title, naming conventions states "Only if the planet is purposely cataloged differently than its parent star (e.g. GSC 02652-01324 → TrES-1) should the planet article be named differently." This is the case here, also being named after the search project. Besides, it is by far the commonname. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing "official" about being designated a name in the Kepler object list, other than that's what the convention is for that mission. I'm actually unsure what the motive for the dispute is. The change to "also known as" instead of "official" was a reasonable edit that was reverted, for not any good reason that I can see. Is this a point of pride by the IP making the arguments? AstroCog (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
According to the data in this article, the second binary totals more than three quarters of the combined mass of the first binary. Therefore the barycenter of the two pairs must be some hundreds of AUs outside the first binary, around which in turn CH1 orbits. It would be untrue to say that the second binary orbits the first binary. Isn't the continual wobble of both binaries observed? [Brian C, 14 October 2017]