Talk:List of nearest stars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Contents 1 numbering the list 2 SO25300.5+165258 3 color table 4 DENIS 1048-3956 5 Preliminary results 6 Maximum distance? 7 Add Magnitude of stars as seen from earth 8 Add Year of Equinox 9 Why is it 5 parsec 10 New Entries 11 Table versus Linked Detail Pages 12 RECONS January 2006 differences from Page 13 New L Dwarf at 4.97 pc 14 "How long would it take for a rocket to fly to the nearest star?" 15 Parenthetical number in distance column ? 16 Bet you find this Interesting? 17 Temperature Data 18 Expand list? 19 Proper motion 20 Proxima whatever 21 Parantheses?

[edit] numbering the list

Suggestion to make this a numbered list. The current bullet list has multiple entries on some lines, so it would need exploding for the numbers to make sense. -- Tarquin 19:04 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

1. Sun - 8 light minutes from Earth
2. Alpha Centauri Star System - Proxima Centauri = 4.22 LY [YH],
3. Alpha Centauri A
4. ... and B, both 4.36 LY [YS].
5. Barnard's Star - 5.96 LY [YH].
6. Wolf 359 - 7.78 LY [Y].
7. Lalande 21185 - 8.29 LY [YH]

Makes sense, since the ordering is actually significant. I'll get right on that. Bryan

There. I did some fancy nested-list stuff with binary stars, since I figured that it would be misleading to explicitly number one or the other as being nearer; using a bulleted sub-list seemed the only fair solution to me. Proxima centauri is an exception, but that's okay because there's still some question about whether it's a member of the alpha centauri star system anyway. It's still not perfect, since the main numbered list counts star systems rather than stars, but it's easy enough to change if need be. Bryan

Cool -- Tarquin

Should the current numbering not be for an article called list of nearest star systems? -- I am Jack's username, 2003-04-01t01:10z

[edit] SO25300.5+165258

According to [1] SO25300.5+165258 may be about 7.8 ly from Sol. It also calls it a "star that may be the third closest to the Sun", but from my reckoning it would be the 5th closest system, and 7th closest star to Sol. -- Jeandré, 2003-05-27t21:07z

[edit] color table

What do folks think of color coding this table? e.g. Displaying the table cells of stars not visible to the naked eye in grey, displaying spectral class in an appropriate color? I'm going to give this a try, but feel free to revert it if seems too cheesy... FelineAvenger 02:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks nice. Question - Do we want to add Teegarden's star to the list? CJewell (talk) 14:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Teegarden's star is already on the list FelineAvenger 08:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The colours look nice but, unfortunately, they're incorrect. The F, G, K, and M representations are all far too red. In reality, the Sun is purely white. Procyon would even be 'more' white! I know, I know, 99% of texts describe F stars as yellow-white, Gs as yellow, Ks as orange, and so on, but it's just not right. Proof? Consider an ordinary incandescent light bulb filament (which radiates at a temperature far less than that of an M-class star) pouring out yellowish-white light. Or look at cloud tops on a brilliantly sunny day--they reflect pure white light, not yellow so often advertised! Suggested reading (this is a HIGHLY interesting site): http://www.vendian.org/mncharity/dir3/starcolor/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DENIS 1048-3956

DENIS 1048-3956 13.2 ± 0.1 light-years away from Sun.

[edit] Preliminary results

A few stars such as Teegarden's star have only preliminary parallax results and it will be a while before their actual distance is nailed down more precisely. Should such stars have their own table, or should they be marked to indicate the results are preliminary? — RJH 19:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

My vote is to include them in the table at their "best guess" location, and mark them as preliminary. FelineAvenger 02:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. — RJH 18:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum distance?

How far out should this table be extended? Something of a convention among tables of nearest stars has been to go out to 5 parsecs, which works out fairly nicely to just under 16 light years. Will that work for everybody? — RJH 18:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the table pushed out to 5 parsecs and a comment was added to introduction. It can always be changed later if this is disagreable. — RJH 18:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Add Magnitude of stars as seen from earth

In this table the value of magnitude at which the star appears on the terestrial sky may not be forgotten! I provided for this important value a column! Please add the values!

[edit] Add Year of Equinox

At the column with right ascension and declination the year of equinox must be added!

Agreed; I'm not sure which of the references was used for the data, or even whether the same epoch is used throughout the table. Ardric47 21:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it 5 parsec

From where did you get the definition of a near star? Why is it 5 parsecs? I would like to add a citation right next to the definition to clarify this question. Thank you. CG 08:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely there are only two ways to do this: list of stars within x parsecs; or list of y nearest stars? Why 5? Well, why not? Would 6, 7, 10... be any better? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an arbitrary value, but consider:

• The number of stars in the list will increase as the cube of the distance. So a list of nearby stars out to 10 parsecs would be about eight times as long. The current list already has over 60 stars. The list would be pushing the limit of what's a disciminate list.
• The accuracy of the parallax value decrease with distance. So it's more difficult to say that a star lies within a certain number of parsecs.
• Faint stars are more difficult to locate the further away you go. The further out you push the limit, the less definitive the list becomes.

You could, I suppose, use the RECONS approach of listing the nearest 100 stars. But that in effect would push you out somewhere between 5 and 6 parsecs. In addition that list changes every time a new nearby star is found. So 5 seemed to me to be a nice round number. Do you have a good counter-argument as to why it should be some other value? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(The following moved by Azriphael 03:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) from what was once its own section, below)

Shouldn't this list be the "100 nearest stars" instead of stars within 5 parsecs? I would think that to the average layman that would be a better figure to use. 132.205.44.128 04:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps the table can be split with whitespace, with stars within 5 parsecs in table one, and stars needed to get to 100 in table two (and reverse it when stars within 5 pc exceed 100) 132.205.44.128 04:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong preference for a list bounded by number of entries versus a list bounded by mean distance to the objects it enumerates, but I am not particularly enthusiastic about the concept of using both systems. I think that selecting one or the other (and being clear about which at the top of the page) is the less confusing option.Azriphael 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Entries

I would like to add SCR 1845-6357 A and B, but I'm not sure which source(s) to use. Ardric47 23:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What sources do you have? Best would be a published paper. Awolf002 00:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is lited in a source that appears to be used for the entire page, [2], and is also mentioned in [3] and [4]. I have a feeling that SCR 1845-6357 might not be the full official name, because SIMBAD says that it is an incorrectly written identifier. Ardric47 00:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The star's name seems to be SCR 1845 and its discovery is referenced as published by Hambly, N.C., Henry, T.J., Subasavage, J.P., Brown, M.A., & Jao, W-C. in 2004, AJ, 128, 437. Would that agree with what you know? Awolf002 01:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait. This seems to be most up-to-date source. I would add a range of distance estimates to the table, though. Things are still 'fuzzy' ;-) Awolf002 01:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how SCR 1845-6357 now harbours the 3rd-nearest known brown dwarf to the Sun - Newly Discovered Failed Star Added to Stellar Neighborhood, looks like it needs to be in there... Tarquin Binary 09:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

SCR 1845-6357 (which does seem to be the name used in literature) has been found to be closer than previously thought: [5]... 3.5±0.3 parsec = 11.4±1.0 lightyears. I wouldn't change this unless RECONS does, though. User:hpa 24 March 2006

[edit] Table versus Linked Detail Pages

This table is really great. It has been very helpful to me. I am amazed how well you keep it updated. Great Job! Regarding the stellar class I noticed a few differences between this table and what is under the tables on the linked detail pages (for each individual star system). I do not know which needs to be updated accordingly (either this table or the detail pages, depending on which data elements are more accurate). You may determine that they are correct on this table and incorrect on the detail pages. If so, tell me if I should note the issues on their applicable detail pages instead of here.

Regardless, the Stellar Class differences that I noticed are as follows (I list the Table's data first and the associated Detail Page's data second ...

1) Proxima Centauri -- M5.5Ve (table), M5.5V (Proxima's detail page), M5 (Proxima's data under the Alpha Centauri detail page).

2) Alpha Centauri B -- K1V (table), K0V (Alpha Centauri detail page -- last year the table had K0V but has since been updated, so maybe the detail page is outdated?

3) Barnard's Star -- M4.0Ve (table), M4.0V (detail page).

4) Luyten 726-8 -- the table has L 726-8 B listed before L 726-8 A (with M5.5Ve for B, and M5.0Ve for A). The detail page has the data reversed (M5.5V for A, and M6.0V for B). In addition, the detail page omits the e in the Ve, and lists the e without the V in the text. The flipped data is not only regarding the Stellar Class. The magnitude is reversed between the table and the detail page as well (possibly the other elements too).

5) Ross 154 -- the table has Ve, the detail page only has V.

6) Ross 248 -- same thing (Ve versus V).

7) Lacaille 9352 -- M1.5Ve (table), M0.5V (detail page -- the Morgan-Keenan number is different as well as the Yerkes V instead of the Ve designation).

8) Ross 128 -- Vn (table), V (detail page omits the n).

9) EZ Aquarii A -- Ve versus V.

10) Procyon A -- the table has the numerals switched as V-IV, and the detail page has them as IV-V.

11) DX Cancri -- Ve versus V.

12) Luyten's Star -- Vn versus V.

13) SC 1845-6357 -- M8.5V versus M8.5 (the detail page does not reflect the V).

14) Kapteyn's Star -- M1.5V (table), sdM1V (detail page -- with the sd included and without the .5).

15) Lacaille 8760 -- M0.0V versus M2Ve (the M2Ve value on the detail page may be outdated because the M2Ve data was in the table last year but has since been updated to the M0.0V value).

16) Kruger 60 B -- V versus Ve (this time, however, the table is missing the e, and the detail page has the e).

17) Ross 614 (LHS 1849) -- M4.5V (table), M4.5VJ (detail page has VJ instead of V).

18) Ross 614 (GI 234 B) -- M5.5V (table), but the detail page omits the Spectral Class. This is just an observation, not a discrepancy.

19) Van Maanen's Star -- DZ7 (table), WDZ7 (detail page). WD may indicate a super nova?

20) G1 1 -- M3.0V (table) versus M1.5V (detail page).

21) Wolf 424 A -- Ve (table) versus V (detail page).

22) Wolf 424 B -- M7Ve (table), M7 (detail page).

23) LHS 288 (Luyten 143-23) -- should the name be written this way? Or should it be Luyten 143-23 (LHS 288) to be consistent with the other name layouts? Ignore this line item if I am incorrect in my assumption (that Luyten 143-23 is the stars given name instead of a designator).

24) GJ 832 -- M3.0V (table) versus M1.5 (detail page).

Tesseract501 3 June 2006

Sources often disagree (sometimes significantly) about spectral types. For some of them, the individual article was originally created with all data from one source. That source was (and still is) noted, but sometimes people update the info but don't indicate the new source. I agree that this needs more discussion to determine which sources have been used and which should be used. Ardric47 07:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For a definitive source on star data I usually look it up in SIMBAD. It seems to be reasonably up to date, but YMMV. — RJH (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RECONS January 2006 differences from Page

The page author referenced the link to RECONS. I noticed what may be differences between RECONS January 2006 data and this page. The page data is probably compiled from numerous sources and based on values that may be best suited for the page … but here are the differences that I noticed (just in case):

1.) The brown-dwarf stars of the Epsilon Indi system Epsilon Indi Ba and Bb (also know as Epsilon Indi B and C, and GJ 845 B and C) were indicated in RECONS as of January 2006. If I am interpreting the January 2006 RECONS data correctly, Epsilon Indi Ba (B) is a class T1.0 and Epsilon Indi Bb (C) is a class T6.0. This Wikipedia page does not reference them. It may be that more up-to-date data ruled them out? Or maybe brown dwarves (Spectral Class of T) not listed on this page because of their properties?

2.) The RECONS data appears to place Teegardens Star (SO 0253-1652) just after Luyten’s Star. This position differs form this Wikipedia page. The RECONS entry flags the entry as preliminary, and the margin of error on Parallax margin-for-error puts the position in question. So the postion reflected may be OK, especially if the page may have the position based on the best of multiple variables beyond RECONS alone. Note: the RECONS data indicates a Spectral Class of M7.0 V (instead of 6.5) but you have been pulling together very comprehensive spectral data so your page may have the latest factor.

3.) RECONS shows SCR 1845-6357 as a binary (A and B). The Wikipedia page reflects A, but B (a brown dwarf) is not listed.

4.) DENS 1048-3956 has already been noted above by another individual. RECONS shows DEN 1048-3956 as a potential M8.5 V star, with Parallax of 0.24771 +or- 0.00155. This would place it at a distance greater than the Kruger 60 System but less than the Ross 614 (GJ 234) System. This appears to be a preliminary entry, so this star is still up-in-the-air (haha). So, you may be holding off on entering this until more solid data comes in?

5.) The placement of Luyten 143-23 (LH 288) appears to differs from the January 2006 RECONS info. It may be at a distance greater than the GJ 412 System and closer than the Groombridge 1618 (GJ 380) System. Parallax 0.20590 +or- 0.00293. Again, this appears to be a preliminary RECONS entry as well (so it has uncertainty factors). You may have positioned it due to the margin of error and in consideration of additional and more recent data. Just wanted to mention it just-in-case.

You’ve done a great job with this page. You are pulling data together and putting it all in one place. Thanks for the extra data on the Spectral Classes that I have been unable to find anywhere. E.g., for Ross 614 B and Wolf 424 :Tesseract501 5 June 2006

There is now a July 1, 2006 update on the RECONS 100 nearest page. The newly discovered L dwarf below is on the new list. The exact order of several systems could be re-arranged depending on the errors, so I wonder about the point of what is the exact order. Also, SIPS 1259-4336(11.8 lys.) and SSPM J1549-3544(12.3 lys) were on the list for a more accurate parallax; has anyone heard any more about these 2 stars?Mytg8 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Scratch the two stars above, at least as far as belonging to this list. I had a personal correspondence with Dr. Todd Henry of RECONS and he stated that SIPS 1259 had a preliminary parallax indicating a distance of 8.2 parsecs and SSPM J1549 was mis-classified: it's a subdwarf, not a white dwarf and therefore was not a nearby object.Mytg8 04:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New L Dwarf at 4.97 pc

Designated DEN 0255-477. See NOAO press release [6]: "The discovery by a team led by Edgardo Costa and Rene Mendez of the Universidad de Chile in Santiago will be published in the September 2006 issue of the Astronomical Journal."

[edit] "How long would it take for a rocket to fly to the nearest star?"

This newly added section is really far away from the scope of this article. And it also skirts WP:NOR since it has no attribution and does its calculation in the text itself. I will delete it, if nobody can explain to me what we need this for, here. Awolf002 01:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed it. We can add it back if somebody cares. Awolf002 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it was put back, in a different form. This statement needs attribution! In its current wording it is not verifiable. Awolf002 01:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The section has currently been added as:

However if the spaceship could only travel at the fastest speed ever actually achieved (by the Helios probes of 252,792 km/h), it would take about 18'000 years to reach the nearest star Proxima Centauri at a distance of 4.22 light years.

This is an incredibly simplistic analysis, as clearly any interstellar craft would keep accelerating for years, so judging by maximum speeds attained within the solar system makes no sense. User:Watercolour won't seem to allow this to be removed, however. Kundor 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kundor, especially since there is still no attribution that this a valid way of calculating the travel time. Awolf002 01:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parenthetical number in distance column ?

What is the number in parentheses in the distance column? For Sol, it is apparently 8 light minutes, 19 light seconds, although the format is a bit confusing. What about the other stars? FelineAvenger 18:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe these numbers are 'uncertainty values', since this is one of the standard methods to quote them. The other would by a 'plus-minus' sign in front of that value. Awolf002 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bet you find this Interesting?

I had a thought the other day. And tried to find this answer to this on Wikipedia and other sources. But as a complete layman became very confused, parsecs/light years ect. This is my thought, we (the human race) have been sending out RF signals of a reasonable strength since 1922, please correct me on this if I have this wrong. Based on this knowledge, I wondered how far and how many star like suns (G class stars) have these RF signals reached by this year, 2007 ? You know where I'm going with this thought, and yes maybe life is not restricted to G class stars, or maybe it is, or maybe only to G2V, and we all known G2V's are capable! Then there's the age of these stars, and then the metallic make up as well. I wish someone with the right knowledge would draw up a list of theses stars. And using the above knowledge. We could then break the list up into the most lightly to the most unlikely places that intelligent life may exist. And that have also received RF signals from us. I believe this list would be helpful to SETI, to reduce their listing down to size, so they can focus on a more broader range of RF signals. As I also believe the RF's they are searching are far too narrow, and I feel a lot of time and money is going to waist at SETI. If anyone can help me with this please do, maybe I've got this wrong as I'm just a layman. But in any case, post me something, its bugging me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.204.128 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't know exactly how many, but I can tell you that our EM signals would thus fill a sphere with a radius of 85 lightyears, which encapsulates a hell of a lot of stars. — Jack · talk · 17:07, Thursday, 26 April 2007

[edit] Temperature Data

Is there an easy way to add temperature data to this table?

I have added a temperature column. Someone else will need to fill in the numbers: I don't have time just now. Michaelbusch 17:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expand list?

Can I ask, why does this list only include 49 stars? I came here to find out the rank of star Gliese 581, which is 20.5 ly away, but the list is way too limited for that. — Jack · talk · 17:09, Thursday, 26 April 2007

Please, read the first sentence that says "...ordered by increasing distance out to a maximum of 5 parsecs...". There needs to be a distance limit, and this one seems just fine. Awolf002 18:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper motion

It would interesting if someone knowledgeable could add a "Proper motion" column to the table. --Occultations 01:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proxima whatever

It appears that an anonymous individual has been adding invented names to some of the star articles. Examples include Proxima Ophiuchi (Barnard's star), Proxima Ursae Majoris (Lalande 21185) and Proxima Ceti A/B (Luyten 726-8). As far as I know these have no historical basis. But they do appear on the following unsigned web site: http://closeststars.com/ . It almost looks as if somebody has an agenda to promote these apparent astronomical neologisms... — RJH (talk)

I've reverted all the ones up to 2007-07-17t20:22:51z by going thru Special:Contributions/HunterTruth. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-22t19:05z

[edit] Parantheses?

In the "Distance from Earth" column, I don't understand what the numbers in parantheses are. Are they digits of uncertainty? I think it should be made more clear, because the current heading Distance from Earth (ly) implies (at least to me) that the numbers in parantheses are the distance in light-years, while the numbers outside are some other form of measurement, presumably parsecs, which is obviously wrong. Sloverlord 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They could also be there to show the less certain digits. (I.e. smaller than the margin of error). But the fact that they are not explained makes them less than useful, or so it seems. Probably it would be better to go back to SIMBAD and get the value with an actual margin of error. — RJH (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)