Exoplanet Naming Conventions Options

[dvandorn]

Excellent. Hopefully more to come out of the dataset,

As something of an aside, I'm thinking that we may need to re-think the final naming convention formula for extrasolar planets. There are now hundreds (eventually thousands?) of planets, around a whole slew of stars, all named Keplernnna, where (from what I can tell) "nnn" is the numerical designation based on order of discovery and "a" is an alphabetic sub-class indicator.

I've got to think that there is a naming convention out there that will eventually be emplaced where the name of the planet somehow references its home star, not just the device used to discover it. I mean, right now if I came up and said that I have exciting new information about Kepler 367b (to pull a number out of the hat), you would more than likely have to look up a table of Kepler planets to figure out which one I was talking about and where in the Galaxy it was located...

I'm also not a huge fan of the naming convention used for non-probe discoveries. It's better than the Kepler planets in that the planets are named for their stars, but the designators for individual planets in a system are in order of discovery, not in order out from the star. Granted, we can't see how many planets some stars have with current sensitivities, but I figure that if we need to amend our planet designations as time goes on and renumber planets as we find new ones within solar systems, well, we've done sillier things. (Hey, I also think that the rings of Saturn ought to be redesignated based on distance from the planet, not on order of discovery, but that's certainly another discussion... )

-the other Doug (with my shield, not yet upon it)

[Hungry4info]

The fewer silly things we do, though, the better. Let's avoid using an exoplanet naming scheme that sometimes requires us to rename planets multiple times. Order of discovery is fine, and is really the only secure, objective thing about the planet that we can use as a systematic naming tool. Orbital periods can be revised and found to be a factor of several off from their original published values, etc.

[remcook]

Perhaps as a comfort: Part of the reason why they are given the Kepler/WASP/etc. names is that these are relatively faint stars. Future planets around closer stars (the ones for which we will have the best information) will probably orbit stars with an already-existing indicator/name that is more commonly used.

[Gerald]

I've got to think that there is a naming convention out there that will eventually be emplaced where the name of the planet somehow references its home star, not just the device used to discover it...

The PHL as well as the IAU have been proposing a public naming process for planetary systems and exoplanets.

I'd think this will be useful, as soon as a planetary system is investigated by an increasing number of probes or telescopes, each with its own catalog and naming convention. Otherwise we'll get growing lists of synonyms.

[J.J.]

The PHL as well as the IAU have been proposing a public naming process for planetary systems and exoplanets.

I'd think this will be useful, as soon as a planetary system is investigated by an increasing number of probes or telescopes, each with its own catalog and naming convention. Otherwise we'll get growing lists of synonyms.

I'm pretty enthused that the IAU is finally (?) considering official exoplanet names, though I'm guessing this has to do almost entirely with public pressure rather than practicality, an unusual thing for them to consider IME.

[JRehling]

In case everyone's not aware, the Kepler process creates synonyms in an almost unavoidable way because different numbering systems are applied at different stages in the discovery pipeline. Kepler targets (nearly 200,000) are assigned numbers, then Kepler Objects of Interest are assigned numbers (a few thousand) and then named planets are given a different designation (currently, hundreds).

For example, Kepler target 8120608 has the KOI K00571.05 which was named Kepler 186-f when it was confirmed as a planet. The star itself, therefore, has three numbers from the Kepler approach, and if you wanted to search for work involving it, you'd have to search all three.

A Kepler target itself is a muddle: It may be a star, a multiple star system, or a star with a coincidental background star in the same pixel, or even a combination of those things. In rare cases, we may think we have one two-planet system, but actually have two one-planet systems and the stars may be a great distance apart, not binaries.

Part of what makes exoplanet designations messy is going to be the fact that unconfirmed discoveries will always outnumber confirmed discoveries and yet they're useful and apt to be the subject of publications. The very nature of confirmation is also messy: The probability of a suspected exoplanet existing doesn't always jump from uncertain to certain, so we may have some 96%-sure planets and some 99%-sure planets.

Right now, the confirmation designation comes from the Kepler team with no higher governing authority, and at least once, there's been a ground shaking change in the confidence of "candidates" being real or not.

If we apply a standard naming convention only to confirmed planets and hold a high standard for confirmation, then more publications will concern almost-confirmed planets which will change names later. So perhaps the cleanest system would be to have a naming convention that applies in identical fashion to unconfirmed planets. I think that will inevitably entail awkwardly long names: See how the example earlier had its number "shrink" from 8120608 to 571 to 186. "Kepler 186-f" may not be a household name yet, but at least it's not burdened with four or five extra digits.