2025-02-20, 03:27 PM
(2024-10-06, 01:00 AM)cwlamison@sbcglobal.net Wrote:(2022-11-11, 10:16 PM)SteveGoldberg Wrote: ver 4.0j R19 Visual Pro
When doing a Designation Search for Pismis 27, in the "Search Results" box it returns Pismis 27, further down in "Data for Currently Selected Target" shows NGC 6882.
However, using the Designation Search tool for NGC 6882, it cannot find it. The top entry in the "Search Results" box is NGC 6885.
And looking at the Info for 6885, it shows the "Also Known As" NGC 6882.
In the Harold Corwin's NGC list he has 6882 and 6885 equal to each other.
Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, NGC numbers are basically in RA hour order. 6882 is near the end of the hour order at 20H. And Pismis 27 is at hour 6H
So, should Pismis 27 be linked to NGC 6882 as an Alternate ID?
Steve Goldberg
<Hoping he got that right, and understandable>
Version 4.0.11.12
More NGC 6882 strangeness: see SkyTools finder chart attached showing NGC 6882 in the Monkey Head Nebula, NGC 2175, in Orion.
Craig Lamison
Hi everyone.
I see that the location of NGC6882 in Skytools 4 showing up in the environment of the nebula NGC2175 is still there.
According to the following sources NGC6882 should be located at
Wolfgang Steinicke 18 October 2024 update RA 20 11 40.6 Dec+ 26 32 54
Harold Corwin August 2021 update RA 20 11 48 DEC +26 42.5
Steve Gottlieb's NGC notes RA 20 11 58 DEC+26 29 00
SIMBAD RA 20 11 48.0 DEC+26 49 00
CDS RA 20 11 48.000 +26 49 1.20
NED RA 20h11m55.8s +26d29m20s
In Wolfgang Steinicke 18 October 2024 update he lists NGC2175S with the location of RA 6 10 54.0 DEC + 20 36 36 which is pretty much where Skytools 4 puts NGC6882.
If You search SIMBAD for NGC2175S you come up with Cl Pismis 27 -- Open Cluster located at RA 06 10 52.6 DEC+20 37 01 which sends us back to Steve's original question at the top of this thread regarding Pismis 27.
If you search for Pismis 27 in Skytools 4, it places it at RA 06 10 54 DEC +20 36 00 and also labels it as NGC6882.
So, is there a reason why is NGC6882 is still showing up in a location that contradicts all these other sources?
Thanks
Nick