Jump to content


Photo

Some double lists for SkySafari Pro

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 R Botero

R Botero

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1228
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 28 August 2013 - 07:13 AM

Despite its shortcomings in terms of data accuracy and catalogue coverage, SkySafari is an excellent planetarium program particularly if connected to a telescope for "star hopping" in the field.

I have copied a few double star lists from their Yahoo discussion group and have also created some from freely available data on-line. They are attached for anyone who wants to download them and use them (at their own risk! :roflmao:).

Cheers

Roberto

Attached Files



#2 BuffaloTri

BuffaloTri

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 55
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2012

Posted 28 August 2013 - 07:50 AM

Thank you!

#3 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10276
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 28 August 2013 - 09:16 AM

Roberto, I agree Safari has some catalogue discrepancies but its SN overwhelming success as you find too. I now always back up my lists with a gander at stelladopie.com. More over that the search engine at that site allows custom filtering if the data base makes it quite the amazing tool.

It is a little time consuming to translate the safari Desigations to Struve or what have you. Eh.


Pete

#4 R Botero

R Botero

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1228
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 28 August 2013 - 01:01 PM

Pete
Completely agree on Stelle Doppie. I used their filter to create the WDS lists. Problem with SkySafari is that it will only create lists covering the stars already in its database (ie no feeding it with RA and DEC coordinates). Still the hit ratio is pretty high.
As for creating the lists in the format for SS, I usually restrict myself to the stars' identifiers (Name, Bayer, Hyp, WDS, Struve) and paste these in Excel. I have created a short VBA macro that then writes the file out of that list. I wish the developers of SS would provide a simpler import tool.
Roberto

#5 WRAK

WRAK

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1140
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Vienna, Austria, Europe

Posted 28 August 2013 - 01:48 PM

With all due respect - SkySafari is a nice program (I use it myself on my Android phone) but it is no tool for serious double star observing: too many doubles missing, too many errors in the advertised data. The use of known orbits as goodie does not help much here - there are simply too few doubles with orbits compared with the vast rest without.
Wilfried

#6 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Posts: 4778
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 28 August 2013 - 04:41 PM

With all due respect - SkySafari is a nice program (I use it myself on my Android phone) but it is no tool for serious double star observing: too many doubles missing, too many errors in the advertised data. The use of known orbits as goodie does not help much here - there are simply too few doubles with orbits compared with the vast rest without.
Wilfried


Hi Wilfried. I suspect that the WDS itself also has "too few doubles with orbits compared with the vast rest without".......

I will risk this claim about SkySafariPro: Virtually every star that is in the WDS is shown on SkySafari. But not many are listed as double stars. For finding and going to double stars SkySafari is at the top of the range with few equals and for the price it has NO equals...

Dave

#7 R Botero

R Botero

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1228
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 28 August 2013 - 05:22 PM

Wilfried
Completely agree from an accuracy and coverage point of view but my OP was about its use for star hopping. As Dave says it excels in that sense, particularly for the price and the prospect of future software improvements.
If a software program like SkySafari, even with all its deficiencies, encourages more amateurs to consider double stars as worth pursuing, I'm all up for it! :smirk:
Roberto

#8 fred1871

fred1871

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 28 August 2013 - 08:40 PM

I will risk this claim about SkySafariPro: Virtually every star that is in the WDS is shown on SkySafari. But not many are listed as double stars. For finding and going to double stars SkySafari is at the top of the range with few equals and for the price it has NO equals...

Dave


:roflmao: :funny:

#9 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Posts: 4778
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 28 August 2013 - 09:52 PM

I will risk this claim about SkySafariPro: Virtually every star that is in the WDS is shown on SkySafari. But not many are listed as double stars. For finding and going to double stars SkySafari is at the top of the range with few equals and for the price it has NO equals...

Dave


:roflmao: :funny:


I'm not sure how to take this.... a compliment?

I stand by the claim. I'm doing up some 'research' to back it up. Stay tuned.

Dave

#10 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10276
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 28 August 2013 - 10:18 PM

I think that Sky Safari is excellent. For the serious double star observer its excellent too - provided - its backed up by visiting the WDS via stelladoppie.com. If it were every bit as good as stelladoppie - plus its fantastic presentation and graphics in Safari - , it'd be a very very expensive app. Yeah it's not perfect - and double enthusiasts I think are picky by nature, but its too easy and proper to cross reference too. Still I'd like to think one day they'll straighten it out.

Pete

#11 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Posts: 4778
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 28 August 2013 - 10:28 PM

OK. I did a quick survey. I found ten WDS entries very near to RA18h 00m, DEC +25 00. At random. Sky Safari (SS) had every one of them! I suspected as much since SS has the entire TYC and GSC catalogs down to 14th mag or fainter. The WDS doesn't stray much beyond mag 13 for primaries so it is safe to assume that ALL the WDS primaries are in SS.

I'm pasting the list and results below. CN doesn't format this sort of stuff very well.....



18000+2544BRT 32 1897 2002 7 172 173 4.8 5.4 11.2 12.7 180002.57+254249.5
in SkySafari as TYC 2095-1032-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18000+2535HJ 1310AB 1828 2011 10 25 43 6.0 10.3 10.24 11.01 175955.47+253440.7
in SkySafari as TYC 2094-0062-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18000+2449COU 115 1966 2008 20 115 117 0.3 0.3 8.8 8.8 175959.33+244839.0
in SkySafari as TYC 2094-2151-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18009+2646TDT 635 1991 1991 1 229 229 0.6 0.6 11.22 11.71 180055.14+264547.3
in SkySafari as TYC 2099-2668-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18009+2633STF2263 1825 2004 34 162 160 7.5 7.4 8.73 9.93 180055.43+263257.2
in sky Safari with several desig. and as double star.

18009+2432TDT 636 1991 1991 1 195 195 0.5 0.5 10.82 11.00 180051.17+243150.5
in Sky Safari as TYC 2095-1383-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18010+2617BU 1461 1905 2002 3 185 185 23.2 22.9 8.6 11.8 180100.15+261715.8
in Sky Safari with several desig. and as double star
18010+2411POU3339 1905 2002 4 255 259 8.9 8.2 11.6 13.0 180102.38+241045.3
in sky Safari as TYC 2091-1047-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18011+2341POU3340 1905 2001 3 123 129 13.7 15.6 11.27 13.9 180108.31+234028.7
in SkySafari as TYC 2091-1329-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18016+2454POU3341 1905 2002 3 91 81 5.5 5.6 12.7 12.8 180135.99+245335.8
in SkySafari as GSC 2095-0703 no other desig. not listed as double

So my claim may be humorous but it is substantially correct.

Dave

edit: It would be instructive if someone looked up the same 10 WDS doubles in other Planetarium programs like Stellarium etc. to see how they do... Anyone???

DC

#12 fred1871

fred1871

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 28 August 2013 - 11:53 PM

Ummm... Dave, I wondered if your comments were a piece of irony... the idea that SF shows "virtually every star that is in the WDS" but that "not many are listed as double stars", so it was therefore great "For finding and going to double stars" - although they're not listed as double, so how would you know they were? - that I thought an example of irony, and amusing. Perhaps I'm having a bemused day. :question:

My view of Sky Safari for double stars is the same as Wilfried's - too many misses, too much wrong or misleading or out of date data. We've seen a lot of examples of this in these threads by people who use and like Sky Safari.

#13 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Posts: 4778
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 29 August 2013 - 09:22 AM

I use Sky Safari for finding doubles and putting them on an observing list. If I seek a pair like some of them on my list above I use the exact RA DEC info in the WDS and center that spot - there is the star, click on it and enter it into the observing list. It matters little that the pair is listed in SS as a WDS , STF, BU or TYC or GSC star. At the telescope it is as easy as pie to GoTo each double.

I guess other planetarium programs can do this but they don't work on my ultra-portable iPad and they certainly cost more than $49.95...

And I 100% agree that the only place to go for data on mags, sep. and PA is the WDS. I often despair quietly here on CN that some folks don't seem to get their data from the WDS when posting observations or inquiries about this or that double star, instead reporting data from popular books, planetarium programs etc.

Dave

#14 inZet

inZet

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Milan, Italy

Posted 29 August 2013 - 01:58 PM

I tried to import some double star lists in SkySafari with little success. Their WDS is based on 2006 version, I think. VizieR updated their copy just a couple of month ago, and I know the SS guys downloaded all the databases from there...
That said, I have completed an export tool to SkySafari for stelledoppie (not released yet). Because there are no matches with the internal SS database, most doubles are not imported. However the trick you're teaching me is to use a TYC or GSC designation: very well, I have just (???) to import these catalogs in stelledoppie and find a match to WDS records. Oh my god!.

#15 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Posts: 4778
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 29 August 2013 - 03:03 PM

I certainly wasn't suggesting that you import TYC and GSC catalogs..... I was merely mentioning my method for creating an observing list for an evening or a few evenings at a Star Party..... this is done during the day or on a rainy night....

Those catalogs are huge and would be far too cumbersome for your software.....

Dave

#16 inZet

inZet

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Milan, Italy

Posted 29 August 2013 - 03:46 PM

I certainly wasn't suggesting that you import TYC and GSC catalogs.....

No you didn't, but it's the correct way to go. I'm not aware of a recent WDS-TYC matching catalog (no, Fabricius, 2002 is not). It's not difficult for me to create one from scratch, only... it takes time thinking about a solution and implement it.

Those catalogs are huge and would be far too cumbersome for your software.....

It's a challenge? :-)
Cumbersome databases are not these, trust me. Not in 2013.

#17 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Posts: 4778
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Toronto, Ontario

Posted 29 August 2013 - 11:29 PM

Wow! That you can even contemplate this is amazing! Good luck!

Dave

#18 R Botero

R Botero

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1228
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 30 August 2013 - 12:29 AM

Yes, that'd be amazing Gianluca! :bow:

Roberto

#19 WRAK

WRAK

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1140
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Vienna, Austria, Europe

Posted 30 August 2013 - 01:08 AM

Maybe lost effort - remember vaguely that SkySafari will include full WDS in one of the next releases.
Wilfried

#20 inZet

inZet

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Milan, Italy

Posted 31 August 2013 - 12:25 PM

When next version will be released?

#21 R Botero

R Botero

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1228
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2009
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 31 August 2013 - 05:55 PM

Apparently later this year or in the new year (for v4). But the inclusion of the WDS catalog is not certain.
Roberto

#22 btschumy

btschumy

    Vendor - Simulation Curriculum

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2146
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2004
  • Loc: Longmont, CO, USA

Posted 01 September 2013 - 12:04 PM

With all due respect - SkySafari is a nice program (I use it myself on my Android phone) but it is no tool for serious double star observing: too many doubles missing, too many errors in the advertised data. The use of known orbits as goodie does not help much here - there are simply too few doubles with orbits compared with the vast rest without.
Wilfried

I would appreciate it if you would point out any inaccuracies in the SkySafari database. The only issue I know of is that we show the data for the AB pair (the first pair listed) and this is often not the one amateurs are interested in. We are hoping to address this and show information on *all* pairs in SkySafari 4.

With respect to it not having many doubles, are you aware that there are several orders of magnitude more doubles than are in the Double Star list? That list is just some of the best doubles. We really do have most stars in the WDS. The ones we don't have are those that could not be matched up with stars in the Tycho catalog.

We should have orbits for every star in the 6th Orbit Catalog so I don't know what else we can do.

Bill

#23 WRAK

WRAK

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1140
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Vienna, Austria, Europe

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:41 PM

Bill, as non native speaker I may have been not clear enough: The use of orbits is a plus for SkySafari I appreciate but there are too few stars with known orbits compared with the whole WDS catalog to compensate for the many binaries not included in SkySafari. I detected this by chance when exporting an observation plan from AstroPlanner to SkySafari. Surprisingly about 25% of the selected doubles were missing.
If you want examples see simply the list of David Cotterell in this thread.
Next point is that rather often than not the advertised data in SkySafari does not match the data in WDS - see for example BU363 with SkySafari listing 11.8" separation from the Burnham catalog but slightly different magnitudes (6.21 for the primary instead of 6.18) and WDS listing 6.6" separation with 6.18. The different magnitude value may make sense as Hipparco gives 6.21 and Tycho 6.22 but the separation 11.8" is clearly wrong and is listed in the WDS neglected doubles catalog.

It may be difficult with all these catalogs with different data but I think there is a simple solution: All WDS doubles should be in SkySafari, known orbits should be used, known magnitude errors should be corrected, but Tycho is already outdated. Better source would be AAVSO or UCAC4.
Wilfried

#24 btschumy

btschumy

    Vendor - Simulation Curriculum

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2146
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2004
  • Loc: Longmont, CO, USA

Posted 01 September 2013 - 02:11 PM

I detected this by chance when exporting an observation plan from AstroPlanner to SkySafari. Surprisingly about 25% of the selected doubles were missing.
If you want examples see simply the list of David Cotterell in this thread.


Can you please provide the link to this thread?

AstroPlanner has a lot of problems exporting to SkySafari. It often uses the wrong designations of doesn't fill in the information in a way we can locate the object. Just because something exported from AstroPlanner can't be found doesn't mean we don't have it.

Next point is that rather often than not the advertised data in SkySafari does not match the data in WDS - see for example BU363


I'm not sure what to make of this. We grabbed the data directly from WDS. It was several years ago since we last built that database and it is possible it has been updated in the meantime. I will look into this discrepancy. Do you have other examples?

We are doing a new build for SkySafari 4 so hopefully that will address any obsolete data. I really do want to have an excellent double star database in the app.

#25 WRAK

WRAK

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1140
  • Joined: 18 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Vienna, Austria, Europe

Posted 01 September 2013 - 02:58 PM

OK. I did a quick survey. I found ten WDS entries very near to RA18h 00m, DEC +25 00. At random. Sky Safari (SS) had every one of them! I suspected as much since SS has the entire TYC and GSC catalogs down to 14th mag or fainter. The WDS doesn't stray much beyond mag 13 for primaries so it is safe to assume that ALL the WDS primaries are in SS.

I'm pasting the list and results below. CN doesn't format this sort of stuff very well.....



18000+2544BRT 32 1897 2002 7 172 173 4.8 5.4 11.2 12.7 180002.57+254249.5
in SkySafari as TYC 2095-1032-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18000+2535HJ 1310AB 1828 2011 10 25 43 6.0 10.3 10.24 11.01 175955.47+253440.7
in SkySafari as TYC 2094-0062-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18000+2449COU 115 1966 2008 20 115 117 0.3 0.3 8.8 8.8 175959.33+244839.0
in SkySafari as TYC 2094-2151-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18009+2646TDT 635 1991 1991 1 229 229 0.6 0.6 11.22 11.71 180055.14+264547.3
in SkySafari as TYC 2099-2668-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18009+2633STF2263 1825 2004 34 162 160 7.5 7.4 8.73 9.93 180055.43+263257.2
in sky Safari with several desig. and as double star.

18009+2432TDT 636 1991 1991 1 195 195 0.5 0.5 10.82 11.00 180051.17+243150.5
in Sky Safari as TYC 2095-1383-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18010+2617BU 1461 1905 2002 3 185 185 23.2 22.9 8.6 11.8 180100.15+261715.8
in Sky Safari with several desig. and as double star
18010+2411POU3339 1905 2002 4 255 259 8.9 8.2 11.6 13.0 180102.38+241045.3
in sky Safari as TYC 2091-1047-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18011+2341POU3340 1905 2001 3 123 129 13.7 15.6 11.27 13.9 180108.31+234028.7
in SkySafari as TYC 2091-1329-1 no other desig. not listed as double

18016+2454POU3341 1905 2002 3 91 81 5.5 5.6 12.7 12.8 180135.99+245335.8
in SkySafari as GSC 2095-0703 no other desig. not listed as double

So my claim may be humorous but it is substantially correct.

Dave

edit: It would be instructive if someone looked up the same 10 WDS doubles in other Planetarium programs like Stellarium etc. to see how they do... Anyone???

DC

Bill, I simply quote this post - 10 random doubles from WDS, only one listed in SkySafari as double.
Another example for wrong data is Gam Equ - you might be interested in the thread http://www.cloudynig...5777010/page... on this topic including contacting SkySafari support.
Other examples are BU11, BU578, A567, HO389 ... I did not search for these examples, this are simply binaries on one of my lists in exactly this order as I searched for doubles with similar data as 90 Her - this gives the impression that data different from WDS is standard and not exception.
Wilfried






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics