Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.4 $; site uiucdcs Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!authorplaceholder From: friedman@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: "Where no man has gone before" Message-ID: <12500119@uiucdcs> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 12:47:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.12500119 Posted: Wed Jul 3 12:47:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 09:22:14 EDT References: <2422@topaz.ARPA> Lines: 18 Nf-ID: #R:topaz.ARPA:-242200:uiucdcs:12500119:000:861 Nf-From: uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA!friedman Jul 3 11:47:00 1985 > Though as for the naming of the newly discovered planets, they seemed to > follow a naming system using first the name of the constellation in which > the sun was found, a Greek letter specifying the particular sun (possibly > by absolute magnitude), and a number specifying the planet of that sun. It was never stated where they got the constellation names and Greek letters, but the simplest explanation is that these were taken from Earth's constellations and the standard star-naming scheme in use on Earth, in which the brightest star (apparent magnitude) in a given constellation is alpha, the next is beta, etc. Of course, there were maverick names throughout the series. For example, one planet is called "Ingraham B". I like to think that "Ingraham" might be a gas giant with an inhabitable satellite in the second position from the giant.