[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Standardized Meteor Shower Designations (was Re: (meteorobs) Non-IMO Showers)
I also agree that IAU Comm 22 would be the natural standardizing body.
Of course, before either a naming convention or a standard name list could be
decided on, the standards body would need to standardize on what a meteor shower
is! Is it enough to have a certain number of meteors reported over time from a
given radiant? Or would a certain number of observers have to have reported
them? Or a certain number of plots?
Or would there have to be a certain number of SPORADIC-DISTINCT counts produced
by the shower, from different observers, locations, etc? (To avoid systematic
bias.) Or would more stringent requirements be appropriate: at least one set of
orbital elements derived from two-station observation?
Part of the problem now, it seems, isn't so much how showers are designated as
that ALPO considers one shower to exist, while IMO doesn't, or DMS, or NMS, or
smaller groups who follow Cook's list, etc. Of course, there need not be ONE set
of criteria for what showers "really exist" or are worth gathering data on: an
integral part of the naming convention might be designations for suspected minor
showers, possibly periodic showers, etc.
Robert, what scope is there now in the context of IAU for such standardization?
Clear skies and nomenclatures all!
Lew Gramer
===============
Lew Gramer asked:
>>>Who assignes Meteor Shower three-letter acronyms and how are name
>>>conflicts avoided?
And Bob Lunsford responded:
>>As for who who assigns the three letter acronyms, Rainer Arlt is the
>>acronym master for the IMO but as his counterpart in the AMS (visual
>>program coordinator) I'm sure he is open to a few suggestions from me.
>>The DMS has separate shower designations.
To which Jim Bedient added:
> With the gradual computerization of meteor observation databases, it might
> be a worthy project for someone to step in and specify a set of standard
> shower names and acronyms. The variable star community works from a
> standard set of constellation abbreviations, and a standardized system for
> naming new variables, making it fairly easy to discuss individual stars and
> search the literature for info on a given star, etc. Perhaps we should
> join them in a similar system for naming meteor showers.
>
> The logical body to decide specifics and approve such a system would be IAU
> Commission 22, much as the Small Bodies Names Committee, a committee of IAU
> Division III, handles minor planet and comet names and designations. CBAT
> and the MPC act as agents for IAU in the actual administration of these
> naming programs. Some similar body would need to step forward and accept
> responsibility for administering a similar standardizing program for meteor
> showers.
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html
References: