Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-21T15:38:29.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dynamic versus Static Designation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2016

Dimitri Pourbaix*
Affiliation:
Institut d’Astronomie et d’Astrophysique, Universite Libre de Bruxelles

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Should the designation of the components of a system reflect its known hierarchy or rather the history of their discovery? With the recent progress in, say, radial velocity techniques, the old famous order in which components were used to be discovered (inner to outer components for spectroscopic systems) is somehow altered. In the past, capital letters were used for visual companions and lower case letters for spectroscopic components and there was almost no overlap between the two groups. The situation has changed from both ends of the orbital period interval. In some rare cases, we think letters should be re-distributed and re-assigned in order to reflect the structure of the system. With an adequate choice of the data structure, such a change of the companion designation is rather straightforward to implement in modern databases (such as SB9). The only foreseen drawback is related to the cross-reference with some old papers: the letter B would not designate the same component in a 1970 paper and in a 2003 one. For instance, the former secondary of an SB2 system might now refer to the unseen companion and an astrometric triple.

Type
II. Special Scientific Sessions
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of Pacific 2005

References

21 See The 9th Catalogue of Spectroscopic Binary Orbits website: http://sb9.astro.ulb.ac.be/ Google Scholar