<p>I am curious as to what star charts would look like, if instead of scaling the size of dots by apparent magnitude, the size of dots were scaled by actual distance from earth.</p>
<p>It would be nice to preserve familiar constellation lines for reference.</p>
<p>For starters, something like this, but with dots sized by distance might be fun.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/thWx6.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/thWx6.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>A detailed chart analogous to Uranometria 2000.0 might be very interesting, for side by side comparisons:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/SWONR.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/SWONR.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Can anyone provide some sample charts like I’m looking for?</p>
<p>Update: Following up on James K’s comments, I imagine these star chart would use larger dots for closer stars, and that in the initial stab at this, only stars that are visible to the naked eye (6.5 magnitude) would be charted. (Although I also imagine side-by-side charts of the Uranometria 2000.0 sample page would be interesting too, up to 9.75 magnitude).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-03T20:20:54.233Z
Issue: does "big" mean close or does "big" mean far?  Either way, there are lots of stars that are below naked eye magnitude but "close", and there are lots and lots of stars that are below naked eye magnitude but "far".
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-03T20:21:22.107Z
Bigger issue: what does this achieve?  What is the point of this proposed map?
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-03T20:26:50.687Z
To expand on the comment by @JamesK we have the ability to display and examine star data on easy to access computers now in 3D views and I'm not seeing a modern purpose for such a chart.  I can't really see any function beyond curiosity.  It's almost like a chart where every star has the same magnitude.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-03T20:28:29.437Z
@James K: I can imagine that a chart like this would provide a means to appreciate the vast distances in space, somewhat analogous to how a long line of streetlights fades into the distance.
Bruce Simonson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-03T20:38:19.590Z
Actually I think would have to compress distances... Eta Carina is 1500 times further away than proxima centuari, but much brighter in the sky. It's hard to grasp such distances.  3c237 (a quasar, not a star) is 600000000 times further than Prox. Cen. but about the same apparent brightness....can you deal with such differences with only different sized blobs.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-04T02:08:32.200Z
It would be fairly simple to take any code that produces the normal map, and just replace magnitude with distance.  My initial guess would be that it'd look pretty familiar.  The first attempts to map the stars in 3d were done by assuming all stars were the same brightness.  And IIRC, they were far off, but not as much as I expected, it worked fairly well.
Greg Miller
<distances><star-maps>
Star charts showing distances instead of apparent magnitudes?
Bruce Simonson
# Star charts showing distances instead of apparent magnitudes?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-04-03)

I am curious as to what star charts would look like, if instead of scaling the size of dots by apparent magnitude, the size of dots were scaled by actual distance from earth.

It would be nice to preserve familiar constellation lines for reference.

For starters, something like this, but with dots sized by distance might be fun.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/thWx6.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/thWx6.jpg)

A detailed chart analogous to Uranometria 2000.0 might be very interesting, for side by side comparisons:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/SWONR.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/SWONR.jpg)

Can anyone provide some sample charts like I’m looking for?

Update: Following up on James K’s comments, I imagine these star chart would use larger dots for closer stars, and that in the initial stab at this, only stars that are visible to the naked eye (6.5 magnitude) would be charted. (Although I also imagine side-by-side charts of the Uranometria 2000.0 sample page would be interesting too, up to 9.75 magnitude).

**Tags:** distances, star-maps
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Issue: does "big" mean close or does "big" mean far?  Either way, there are lots of stars that are below naked eye magnitude but "close", and there are lots and lots of stars that are below naked eye magnitude but "far".  
> **username_1**: Bigger issue: what does this achieve?  What is the point of this proposed map?  
> **username_2**: To expand on the comment by @JamesK we have the ability to display and examine star data on easy to access computers now in 3D views and I'm not seeing a modern purpose for such a chart.  I can't really see any function beyond curiosity.  It's almost like a chart where every star has the same magnitude.  
> **username_0**: @James K: I can imagine that a chart like this would provide a means to appreciate the vast distances in space, somewhat analogous to how a long line of streetlights fades into the distance.  
> **username_1**: Actually I think would have to compress distances... Eta Carina is 1500 times further away than proxima centuari, but much brighter in the sky. It's hard to grasp such distances.  3c237 (a quasar, not a star) is 600000000 times further than Prox. Cen. but about the same apparent brightness....can you deal with such differences with only different sized blobs.  
> **username_3**: It would be fairly simple to take any code that produces the normal map, and just replace magnitude with distance.  My initial guess would be that it'd look pretty familiar.  The first attempts to map the stars in 3d were done by assuming all stars were the same brightness.  And IIRC, they were far off, but not as much as I expected, it worked fairly well.  

---

## 0 answers

