(You can all start using the word “cosmeme”, if you want, though. It comes from the Greek word for gem–”κόσμημα”–and it means the volume of space that belongs to a star, a replacement for “solar system”. My choice was obvious for its resemblence to “cosmos”, but I was looking at words that mean “gem” because my idea was that cosmemes would be dilineated by perpendicular-bisector planes between pairs of stars, making cosmemes faceted.)

There are things in @uwingusky’s Twitter stream that make me a little uncomfortable, but mentioning Petraeus is not one of them. More wince-inducing is their use of the word “democracy”, because a system where votes cost 99c and you can vote as many times as you like would no doubt appeal to certain politicians but is in fact the opposite of democracy. Also, those boilerplate messages: given the list of recipients they appear to be solicited, so not spam (I would withdraw my provisional support if I heard of any complaints), but it’s very odd, and seems at best a failure to make effective use of the medium.

Allegations that Uwingu is a scam fall into two categories. One: the claim that Uwingu has acquired money by fostering the impression that submitted names are likely to acquire some sort of official (or at least widely-recognised) status. Two: the claim that Uwingu has acquired money by fostering the impression, falsely, that donations are an efficient way to contribute to space science.

With the first claim, we know the names aren’t likely to be used, so the question is whether donors have the impression that they are. With the second claim, we know people have donated money on that understanding, so the question is whether it is true

It’s possible submitted names will be used for something. For example, Uwingu could release planetarium software (or add-ons for existing software) in which exoplanets are represented with donor-contributed names (there are precedents for such things). The planet-naming project is plausibly just something to pass the time before the real projects start. But the market for that would be tiny, and has a boomerang in a black hole’s chance of translating into widespread recognition.

It does bother me that the Uwingu site hardly bends over backwards to give people realistic expectations about the prospect of names. I think they have a duty to be more forthcoming, and find it wrong that articles and blog posts linking to the site are often significantly more so than the site itself. I also think their FAQ should address questions about their financial arrangements — we know that the people behind Uwingu are genuinely dedicated to space science as individuals, and presumably the reason for the for-profit status is that they think this will let them generate more money in the longer term (the Universe Today article dated 22 September said, “Half of all revenue go towards funding space research and education, and the other will go towards the costs of creating what they sell.“). But why aren’t I hearing such explanations from them? It should be their responsibility to provide the go-to page for reasonable questions about their legitimacy, and I do hope they provide it by the time the project goes out of beta.

I’m in two minds about this, much like @Infinite123Lifer above. My support is grounded in my faith in the Phil Plaits and Pamela Gays of this world, but I can’t deny the presence of red flags. However, as I said before, my donations cost me nothing net-budget-wise if I don’t want them to: if I choose I can simply deduct them from money I’d otherwise give to Astronomy Cast. (I could also give back a dollar for every vote I get for Olivigne, now there’s a thought.)

(I note there’s no Uwingu Wikipedia page yet. It would be sure to have a lively Talk page.)

Finally, I’d like to propose that if ever an explanet is named after a libertarian such as Heinlein or Ron Paul (the top two candidates at present), it should be a planet that’s very far away and couldn’t possibly support life…

Don’t turn astronomy into an American Idol of voting for insipid names. Donate your $0.99 to NASA/ESA/JAXA (y’know, a real scientific institution?) instead. If a name as complex as “Alpha Centauri Bb” is not public-friendly enough, then the ignorant masses have no hope of comprehending even the most mundane aspects of extrasolar exploration. Let education catch up before we start handing out planetary labels to everyone with an email address.

AFAIC this is nothing more than the Lunar Real Estate sale. People with no authority selling artificial naming rights that were never for sale to begin with. Leave the hypothetical planet-naming to science fiction authors.

Want to name an extrasolar planet? Get there first. I’m sure mining corporations will get first dibs somewhere in the 23rd century.

Yes. A thousand times yes. Or perhaps “Noitsnotdirtonthelens.”

@18. tracer asked : “Wasn’t 51 Pegasi b already named “Bellerophon” 17 years ago?”

Bellopheron for 51 Pegasi b is one of a handful of semi-official names which have been sort of adopted but not officially so I gather. I hope it and “Osiris ” for HD 209458 b “Polydeuces” for Pollux b and “Methuselah” for PSR B1620−26 b stick among others.

I think some of the significant planet hosting stars need actual names as opposed to numerical designations as well.

I”d suggest “Gadolabove” for HR 8799 from Gamma Doradus (variable) Lambda Bootis (metal poor) Vega (Style IR excess circumstellar disk) – traits that notable planet hosting star unusally combines. Plus Antihelios /Anhelios for PSR B1257+12, the pulsar where the first pulsar planets – and first ever planets were discovered. Following the same reasoning as name Antares – indicating rival of our Sun.