<p>Objects aren't named like that.</p>

<p>Either objects are given "names" that have no structure. For example, an asteroid may be named "Vesta".</p>

<p>Or they are given essentially meaningless catalogue numbers. For example, a star might be catalogued as HD 138987. It is number 138987 in the Henry Draper catalogue. Some major stars do have their constellation as part of the name. Alpha Centauri is the brightest star in the Centaurus constellation.</p>

<p>Comets are often just named according to the year of discovery </p>

<p>Other objects are named by their position in the sky, using polar coordinates.</p>

<p>There is no URI-like system in use.</p>

<p>The reason for this is that there is no natural hierarchy. When naming species of animal, they naturally group into genus, family, order, class as a result of evolution. No such structure is found among astronomical objects, so a hierarchical approach is not appropriate.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T17:11:42.313Z
Well don't we group them by gravitative clustering? As I hinted at? Isn't your argument about Vesta a contradiction in itself? (The object Vesta of class Asteroid in Starsystem Sol). The catalog names are there for historic reasons. I am interested in the system  that could address all relevant physical and conceptual objects in the universe for which such a reference would be appropriate. Galaxies, Planets, Moons, Asteroids, lagrangian points between Stars and their Planets, whatever. Rob's approach, basically.
AndreasT
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T17:29:13.007Z
No, we name the dots and fuzzy patches in the sky. Some of these fuzzy patches are gravitationally bound, some are not (M1 is not for example) You asked for an "official classification", and no such exists.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T17:59:26.570Z
I mean I get what you mean, but the last paragraph of your answer seems objectionable-bordering-on-wrong to me, for exactly the reason that there is a hierarchical structuring-by-attraction approach that may be slightly fuzzy around the edges, but probably still more rigid than structuring-by-attraction of prehistoric hominidae.
AndreasT
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-02T10:48:35.580Z
2018-06-02T10:48:35.580Z
James K
<p>There have been a few discussions and opinions offered:</p>

<p>The <a href="http://sherwoodharrington.com/CosAddr.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DeAnza College Planetarium</a> gives it's <em>cosmic address</em> as: Fujitsu Planetarium,  Anza College, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California, U.S.A., Planet Earth, Earth-Moon System, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Observable Universe. - That's somewhat commonly used (or variations thereof), and not a recent / accurate location reference.</p>

<p>A more creditable, certainly shorter, take is offered by Nature.com in their article: "<a href="https://www.nature.com/news/earth-s-new-address-solar-system-milky-way-laniakea-1.15819" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Earth's new address: <strong>'Solar System, Milky Way, Laniakea'</strong></a>" and their paper "<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13674" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Laniakea supercluster of galaxies</a>" (4 Sept 2014), by Tully, Courtois, Hoffman and Pomarède - Free @ <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0880" rel="nofollow noreferrer">arXiv</a>, 2nd <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265337589_The_Laniakea_supercluster_of_galaxies" rel="nofollow noreferrer">source</a>.</p>

<p>Opinion supported by this National Radio Astronomy Observatory news release: September 3, 2014 at 5:00 pm EDT, "<a href="https://public.nrao.edu/news/supercluster-gbt/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Newly Identified Galactic Supercluster Is Home to the Milky Way</a>".</p>

<p>The 'more technical' approach portion of your question involves <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">human taxonomy</a>, we are:</p>

<p>$\begin{array}{ll}
Kingdom: &amp; Animalia \\
Phylum: &amp; Chordata \\
Class: &amp; Mammalia \\
Order: &amp; Primates \\
Suborder: &amp; Haplorhini \\
Infraorder: &amp; Simiiformes \\
Family: &amp; Hominidae \\
Subfamily: &amp; Homininae \\
Tribe: &amp; Hominini \\
Genus: &amp; Homo \; (Linnaeus, 1758) \\
\end{array}$</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T17:22:30.160Z
Holy s**t man, that was an interesting trip down the rabbit hole. Thanks for all of it. Would upvote 10 times if I could. Will probably accept, though I'll wait a little in the hope that a real definitve answer appears (admittedly not likely). Cool that nobody seems to have  _really_ done this, yet. I half expected to get a wikipedia link and a kind of "doh!" reply.... well I was wrong. Thanks.
AndreasT
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T17:29:38.013Z
You can offer a bounty and then award it to your favoured answer.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T17:33:45.173Z
@AndreasT - Glad to help. Decide at your leisure, as long as a good answer comes and you inform us of your preference eventually. Maybe another user will add a bounty on your behalf, James suggestion is OK but you don't have a lot to spare ...
Rob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T17:34:43.140Z
Will do ....and for the taxonomy part of your answer I had to flag it as "Off topic", "Rude or Cheeky", and "in need of humoristic appreciation". Sorry.
AndreasT
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T17:36:09.717Z
Hey, now if someone calls you names you can just agree with them.
Rob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-04T17:45:06.670Z
These comments shall not suffer the indignity of a smiling emoticon.
AndreasT
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-03T20:22:18.497Z
2018-06-03T20:30:49.580Z
2018-06-03T20:30:49.580Z
Rob
<p><strong>Poetic human centric approach:</strong></p>

<pre><code>Universe/Laniakea/Virgo/MilkyWay/Sol/Earth/Humans/AndreasT
</code></pre>

<p><strong>Little bit more technical:</strong></p>

<pre><code>Universe/0/SuperCluster/0/GalaxyCluster/0/Galaxy/0/StarCluster/0/Star/0/Planet/3/../HomoSapiensSapiens/2834929849289
</code></pre>

<p><strong>More ... multiversal?</strong></p>

<p>Or is there something in the spirit of the rebasing of SI units to universal concepts that makes us not be the origin(hah!) of the system?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-02T14:27:26.847Z
I don't think that any similar would exist. I think that maybe some small, but self-supporting human colony on the Moon and on the Mars is realistic in a century.
peterh
<star-systems><naming><ephemeris>
What is the official classification and naming system of objects in the universe(, or what would my URI look like)?
AndreasT
# What is the official classification and naming system of objects in the universe(, or what would my URI look like)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-06-02)

Poetic human centric approach:
Universe/Laniakea/Virgo/MilkyWay/Sol/Earth/Humans/AndreasT

Little bit more technical:
Universe/0/SuperCluster/0/GalaxyCluster/0/Galaxy/0/StarCluster/0/Star/0/Planet/3/../HomoSapiensSapiens/2834929849289

More ... multiversal?
Or is there something in the spirit of the rebasing of SI units to universal concepts that makes us not be the origin(hah!) of the system?

**Tags:** star-systems, naming, ephemeris
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I don't think that any similar would exist. I think that maybe some small, but self-supporting human colony on the Moon and on the Mars is realistic in a century.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-06-02. Score: 3

Objects aren't named like that.

Either objects are given "names" that have no structure. For example, an asteroid may be named "Vesta".

Or they are given essentially meaningless catalogue numbers. For example, a star might be catalogued as HD 138987. It is number 138987 in the Henry Draper catalogue. Some major stars do have their constellation as part of the name. Alpha Centauri is the brightest star in the Centaurus constellation.

Comets are often just named according to the year of discovery

Other objects are named by their position in the sky, using polar coordinates.

There is no URI-like system in use.

The reason for this is that there is no natural hierarchy. When naming species of animal, they naturally group into genus, family, order, class as a result of evolution. No such structure is found among astronomical objects, so a hierarchical approach is not appropriate.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Well don't we group them by gravitative clustering? As I hinted at? Isn't your argument about Vesta a contradiction in itself? (The object Vesta of class Asteroid in Starsystem Sol). The catalog names are there for historic reasons. I am interested in the system  that could address all relevant physical and conceptual objects in the universe for which such a reference would be appropriate. Galaxies, Planets, Moons, Asteroids, lagrangian points between Stars and their Planets, whatever. Rob's approach, basically.  
> **username_2**: No, we name the dots and fuzzy patches in the sky. Some of these fuzzy patches are gravitationally bound, some are not (M1 is not for example) You asked for an "official classification", and no such exists.  
> **username_0**: I mean I get what you mean, but the last paragraph of your answer seems objectionable-bordering-on-wrong to me, for exactly the reason that there is a hierarchical structuring-by-attraction approach that may be slightly fuzzy around the edges, but probably still more rigid than structuring-by-attraction of prehistoric hominidae.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-06-03. Score: 1

There have been a few discussions and opinions offered:

The [DeAnza College Planetarium](http://sherwoodharrington.com/CosAddr.htm) gives it's *cosmic address* as: Fujitsu Planetarium, Anza College, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California, U.S.A., Planet Earth, Earth-Moon System, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Observable Universe. - That's somewhat commonly used (or variations thereof), and not a recent / accurate location reference.

A more creditable, certainly shorter, take is offered by Nature.com in their article: "[Earth's new address: **'Solar System, Milky Way, Laniakea'**](https://www.nature.com/news/earth-s-new-address-solar-system-milky-way-laniakea-1.15819)" and their paper "[The Laniakea supercluster of galaxies](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13674)" (4 Sept 2014), by Tully, Courtois, Hoffman and Pomarède - Free @ [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0880), 2nd [source](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265337589_The_Laniakea_supercluster_of_galaxies).

Opinion supported by this National Radio Astronomy Observatory news release: September 3, 2014 at 5:00 pm EDT, "[Newly Identified Galactic Supercluster Is Home to the Milky Way](https://public.nrao.edu/news/supercluster-gbt/)".

The 'more technical' approach portion of your question involves [human taxonomy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy), we are:

$\begin{array}{ll}
Kingdom: & Animalia \\
Phylum: & Chordata \\
Class: & Mammalia \\
Order: & Primates \\
Suborder: & Haplorhini \\
Infraorder: & Simiiformes \\
Family: & Hominidae \\
Subfamily: & Homininae \\
Tribe: & Hominini \\
Genus: & Homo \; (Linnaeus, 1758) \\
\end{array}$

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Holy s**t man, that was an interesting trip down the rabbit hole. Thanks for all of it. Would upvote 10 times if I could. Will probably accept, though I'll wait a little in the hope that a real definitve answer appears (admittedly not likely). Cool that nobody seems to have  _really_ done this, yet. I half expected to get a wikipedia link and a kind of "doh!" reply.... well I was wrong. Thanks.  
> **username_2**: You can offer a bounty and then award it to your favoured answer.  
> **username_3**: @AndreasT - Glad to help. Decide at your leisure, as long as a good answer comes and you inform us of your preference eventually. Maybe another user will add a bounty on your behalf, James suggestion is OK but you don't have a lot to spare ...  
> **username_0**: Will do ....and for the taxonomy part of your answer I had to flag it as "Off topic", "Rude or Cheeky", and "in need of humoristic appreciation". Sorry.  
> **username_3**: Hey, now if someone calls you names you can just agree with them.  
> **username_0**: These comments shall not suffer the indignity of a smiling emoticon.  

---

