Sie sind auf Seite 1von 55

Vol.

3 1993 October ISSN 1041-5440

DIO
Special Triple Issue

Tycho’s 1004-Star Catalog


The First Critical Edition
2 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 3

Dedication
To my stepfather, John Williams Avirett 2nd , who died prematurely at age 91, just 4 days
Tycho’s Star Catalog: the First Critical Edition
after this work’s essential completion and first printing (1993/10/19). My wife Barbara and
he were the only confidantes who then knew of DIO’s catalog D project. His optimism,
loyalty, civic-mindedness, courage, and high standards of intellectual excellence will live
forever in our family. Neither wealth nor power, but only knowledge, alone, endures.
At his death, a little note from his Godmother was discovered, which he had evidently
kept privately in his desk, all his working life. Dated 1909 Christmas, when he was 7 years
old, the note spoke with the exemplary simplicity of an antique era:
To John Avirett, a brave boy who will grow up to be a useful man.
A KiloPerfectionism
A1 Tycho Brahe, author of that inspirational and knowing prediction1 of his own im-
Dennis Rawlins, DIO mortality, issued his still-legendary “Thousand Star Catalog” in 1598. Cat D2 (as we will
henceforth call it, here) was one of history’s outstanding attempts at mass-perfection3 in the
search for knowledge, pioneering & exemplifying postmedieval scientists’ realization that
the accord of knowledge with reality — and the accord of prediction with reality’s future
— must be based upon the most precise & persistent attention to present reality.
Table of Contents Page: A2 This DIO triple-issue represents the first formal critical edition of catalog D (epoch
1601.03), which has until now been the only great pretelescopic star catalog not thusly made
available to modern scholars. Provided for the first time: a numbered listing of all 1004
Tycho’s Star Catalog: the First Critical Edition stars’ cat D positions (O) with their real (C) positions (mean E&E 1601.03), as well as their
O−C errors (in both ecliptical & equatorial frames). Our cat D establishes new standards
§A KiloPerfectionism 3 for modern editions of antique star catalogs, including in particular: [a] Identification of
§B Spherical Trig: Precision by Brainpower 4 every single one of the 1004 star-entries (Table 21). [b] Listing each star’s (null dust&water)
§C The Catalog’s Misunderstood Accuracy 9 culmination-postextinction magnitude µ (also Table 21). [c] Spotlighting of all stars where
§D Error Medians 10 µ > 6 (Table 18). [d] Providing (Tables 21-23) the great-circle O−C errors for non-
§E Error Standard Deviations 11 great-circle coordinates (longitude λ & right ascension α). [e] Computation of not only
§F Least-Squares Analyses of Errors 11 error standard deviations (Tables 5-17) but error medians (Tables 1-4). [f] Tabulated
§G Principal-Star Error Trends 15 least-squares-fits (of constant & of 3-unknown-sinusoid) to catalog errors (Tables 9-12).
§H Exceptional-Star Error Trends 15 [g] Individual investigation (by consultation of original field data) of every4 cat D equatorial
§I Select-Star Error Trends 15 position error exceeding a tenth of a great-circle degree (c.200 cases: §M). [h] Rigorous sph
§J Discussion of Error Tables 18 trig computation (from the original raw observational data) of all of Tycho’s long-murky
§K Total Star Count 22 Final Fifty stars (1596-1597: Tables 19&20). [i] Weeding out stars that are nonexistent,
§L How Dim Was Tycho’s Magnitude Limit? 23 hybrid, fishy, forced, fake, and-or mere repeats (of earlier entries), in order to arrive at an
§M Discussion of Individual Stars’ Errors [& List of Abbreviations] 27 accurate count of the number (965) of distinct outdoor stars Tycho recorded (§K4).
§N The Final Fifty Stars: Complete Sph Trig Reconstructions 45 1
See also §O3.
§O Tycho’s Rank 53 2
Tycho’s ecliptical 1004-star “cat D” (OO 3:341-373) is to be distinguished from the briefer “cat C” published
§P Preface to Full Tabulation of Catalog D’s 1004 Stars & 100 Select Stars 53 posthumously in his Progymnasmata & later by his chief assistant, Christen Longberg (“Longomontanus”): the less
error-plagued 777 star version (OO 2:258-280), which excludes the stars taken late in TB’s career. See Dreyer 1890
p.266 & Rawlins 1992T §B1. Longomontanus claimed that he was the supervisor of star cataloging at Hven. See
Thoren 1990 p.297 n.133, which also includes a useful numerical breakdown of cat C’s evolution. Note that Tycho
himself definitely claimed in 1598 that he had observed 1000 stars: Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 p.112.
Upcoming 3
It is little known that, after cataloging nearly 1000 stars within c.120◦ of the celestial North Pole (i.e., those
visible from Denmark), Tycho inevitably longed to tackle the stars around the South Pole. (See his plea for support
of the project: Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 p.114-115.) The 20th century arctic explorers Peary&Amundsen were
In Future Issues of DIO: similarly inspired, after magnificent northern achievements, to turn their attention to the Antarctic; and the latter man
ultimately discovered the South &North Poles (DIO 2.2&DIO 10). Much like Tycho, Peary forcefully proposed to
Columbus’s Plana Landfall. lend his equipment & hard-earned expertise to an antarctic venture that unfortunately never materialized. (D.Rawlins
Hipparchos at Lindos & Cape Prassonesi. Peary . . . Fiction Wash DC 1973 p.189.) Thus died Peary’s last hope of genuinely reaching a geographical pole.
4
I have computed & listed (Tables 19&20) all the errors in the Final Fifty stars (§N), but I have not attempted
to explain every instance, since much of these pstns’ underlying math is (within Occamite constraints: fn 41)
multiply-corrupt beyond any possibility of convincing resurrection.
4 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 5

A3 Tycho Brahe was driven — one might even say made alive — by the intensity of his Uraniborg11 (“SkyCastle”) and next-door Stjerneborg (“StarCastle”), both on Hven isle,
extraordinary perfectionism. In cat D, he fell short, not only (needless to say) of perfection, situated in the strait between modern Sweden & Denmark. The island is easily visible
but even of his own announced high standards. However, anyone, examining cat D’s raw from atop my brother Bill’s north Copenhagen home, Toad Hall. Hven was a fateful gift
data and appreciating the ever-rippling ocean of scrupulous observations and calculations to Tycho, granted (at the generous instigation of Wilhelm IV of Cassel) on 1576/5/23 by
which went into its construction, must come away overwhelmed by the undiscourageable foresighted Frederick II, who, by this one act, assured forever his remembrance as the most
force, persistence, pains, and dedication with which Tycho battered5 for twenty years against important monarch in the intellectual history of Denmark. (See Dreyer 1890 pp.84-87.)
a mass-precision challenge unique6 in the history of pretelescopic astronomy. B2 Tycho’s star catalog is a monument of far greater magnificence than is now generally
A4 The §M discussion preceding this edition of cat D will trace every error in it exceeding realized. In it, Tycho achieved, on a mass scale, a precision far beyond that of earlier cata-
0◦ .1 — thus, it will be a compendium of imperfections in Tycho’s drive at perfection. But logers. Cat D represents an unprecedented confluence of skills: instrumental, observational,
these errors are exactly what Tycho’s star-catalog program would have eliminated, had he & computational — all of which combined to enable Tycho to place most of his hundreds of
been able to finish the work according to the same scrupulous standard by which so much of recorded stars to an accuracy of ordmag 10 ! Accomplished, incredibly, without telescope,
it was accomplished. It is one of science-history’s tragedies that Tycho was (due to teenie- reliable timepiece, or logarithms,12 cat D thus represents a kind of science-labor miracle —
minded Christian IV, the new Danish kinglet) denied that chance: ungrateful7 eviction and but, perversely, the soon-after onset of all three of these marvelous inventions swiftly made
death prevented his carrying out his program — and even drove his school to add a few cat D obsolete.13 Which largely accounts for its modern neglect — even disparagement.14
fabricated stars at the very end, to fake cat D’s completion as a 1000 star achievement. Indeed, cat D is so neglected, that DR is only the second scholar just to count its stars (§K1).
A5 I have no doubt that Tycho would have double-checked all errors — in much the And DIO has the undisputed honor to publish herewith the first full critical edition15 of
spirit of DR’s analyses below (§M). Thus, in a sense, I am merely continuing Tycho’s cat D, identifying16 every star in it. (Other editions will someday follow; but the various
work. I consider it a matter of luck & of privilege to be the first to unravel every one of his here-solved mysteries of identity & misplacement in cat D represent a breakthrough which
stars. And, further (despite the inevitable dogwork8 component), I’ve immensely enjoyed can never again be accomplished afresh — and they were the particular inductive challenge
this investigation, both as personal detective-work (the wildly-misplaced stars handed me a that attracted DR to a task that would otherwise be almost pure drudgery.) Below, we
well-stuffed treasure-chest of tricky induction-mysteries, which I especially enjoy) — and will number the stars with the prefix “D”, since: [a] We are calling this Danish catalog
as a sort of reincarnation-experience. (I trust that no one will take this expression of happy “cat D”. [b] We are depending upon the OO 3:344-373 edition17 (taken from the original
admiration too literally, since I am an utter nonmystic.)
11
Geographical latitude 55◦ 540 2500 N & longitude 12◦ 410 5500 E of Greenwich (c.50m 48s ). (See OO 10:XXVI.
Thoren 1990 p.226 has latitude 55◦ 540 2600 N.) Height above sea-level about 50 m. (See Dreyer 1890 p.93, R.Newton
1979-84 p.33. Modern charts make it 45 m, and that is exactly the figure cited by the Tycho Museum’s Karin Hindfelt
B Spherical Trig: Precision by Brainpower at Hven during our family’s 1994/5/28 visit there. Note: Hven Isle now belongs to Sweden, not Denmark.) All calcs
of refraction & extinction here are for sealevel P = 1013 mb & T = 283◦ K, both adjusted for hgt = 50 m.
B1 Cat D was first9 distributed on10 1598/1/2, from Wandsbeck (outside Hamburg, 12
However, use of a clever identity (known to the Arabs) converted multiplication of trig functions (a staple of
Germany), where Tycho had temporarily settled after his unhappy 1597 emigration from sph trig) into mere addition of same. (See Dreyer 1890 p.361 & Thoren 1990 p.282. See latter source’s n.65 for
Denmark. Cat D comprised 1004 stars’ celestial longitudes & latitudes, almost all of them discussion of Tycho’s trig tables.) Since this is just the advantage of log-trig tables, we see that Tycho did have some
log-like math capabilities at his disposal. The identity (which follows from Ptolemy’s Theorem, known 300y before
based upon accurate & original observations made at Tycho’s longtime observatory-homes, Ptolemy: DIO 1.3 fn 234): sin A sin B = [cos(A − B) − cos(A + B)]/2. From this, one may easily derive
cos A cos B = [cos(A − B) + cos(A + B)]/2 and other such rules.
5
That Tycho was a forceful, dominant personality is most simply demonstrated by the loss of part of his nose 13
It’s no coincidence that this great naked-eye star catalog occurred merely a decade before the telescope’s
in a famous 1566/12/29 duel with fellow Danish noble M.Parsbjerg. Also: Tycho [married only morganatically the invention. Science was awakening all over Europe. The machined instruments (fn 37) that made possible Tycho’s
lifetime companion he left several children by. (See Dreyer 1890 pp.26-27 & 70f & Christianson 2000 pp.10f.)] The unprecedented precision (in reduced observations, not just raw vision) were, like Tycho, part of that burst of curiosity
duel-injury was lucky in one sense: ponder how close Parsbjerg’s swinging sword must have come, to the eyeballs of & creativity. So were logs & the pendulum clock. I.e., the very revolutionary wave, which brought in Tycho on its
him who was about to revolutionize observational science. crest, swept on and left him in its wake. Such is ever the lot of he who pursues the chimera: Bestness.
6
It should be noted that Tycho’s correspondent, Wilhelm IV of Cassel (whose observatory included C.Rothmann, 14
See Thoren 1990 p.295 (n.123) on the slight “disappointment” at cat D expressed by OO’s editor, J.Dreyer.
P.Wittich, & J.Bürgi), produced a 1586 star catalog with less random error than Tycho’s (Rybka 1984 Chap.4), but 15
Thoren 1990 p.295: “How accurate the observations for Tycho’s catalogue were has never been investigated
with a 60 systematic error (many times Tycho’s) — on which, see Dreyer 1890 p.352-353. The Wilhelm catalog was systematically.” Actually, except for one subset (the long-troublesome Final Fifty stars: Tables 19 & 20, below), DR
neither completed nor contemporaneously published (ibid p.353 n.2). Rybka 1984 pp.188f cites 378 Wilhelm IV has not systematically analysed all TB’s thousands of extant individual raw δ, h, g, & other data (though numerous
stars, of which he analyses all but 6 of the 306 he found in the modern FK4 catalog. specific cases are evaluated in §M). This for several reasons. [a] Some of the orig records are lost, while the cat D
7
See Tycho’s 1597 lament at OO 13:102-104. pstns survive. [b] The large labor involved would hardly throw proportionally more light upon Tycho’s achievement
8
Even the mechanical part of DR’s work on cat D imparted a feeling of reliving the Tycho school’s travails — than the present work. [c] Comparing error-spreads of Tycho observation-sets of the same phenomenon on different
which, I am happy to say, were not borne silently. One of the aggravations of dealing with Tycho’s star data is the occasions often reveals systematic discrepancies exceeding an arcmin or so. Only by averaging such repetitions
bewildering spectrum of names used for the same star in too many cases. So, on the night of 1589/10/28 (OO 11:370), could Tycho shrink his ultimate measurement error. (See fn 37.) Studying such data today would primarily be an
a classically-educated Tycho employee rebelled, and — during an obs series of Psc stars’ g vs. Aldebaran, his exercise in cataloging [i] his various instruments’ characteristic errors (e.g., mounting, zero-pt, arc-nonuniformities,
frustration reeled off a catalog of synonyms for this Principal star: oculum Tau, Aldeboram, Palilicium, lucidißimam, weather-dependence, etc), as well as [ii] unaccounted-for effects of refraction, aberration, & nutation. (See at fn 120.)
lucidiß. in capite Tau, lampadiada, ingentam & rutilam, taurou splendidissimam, ophthalmon Tauri, maxime splendet Such analyses I gladly leave to a hardy future researcher.
in Tau, in capite Tau maxime conspicua, insignem. It’s rare & gratifying to find humor — and pointedly useful 16
According to Thoren 1990 p.296 n.130, J.Dreyer stated in 1917 (before publication of OO 10-13) that he had
humor, at that — in a record of numerical data. (As the only modern scholar ever to plow through most of these data, “traced the causes of fifty-five errors out of a thousand stars”. Our present investigation far exceeds that number; but,
correlating them to the cat D pstns, I wearily share the reaction of this longago astronomer. Such experiences are the keep in mind that Dreyer’s dedicated work lacked the assistance of electronic computers. Note also that several of
nearest actual approach to the durable illusion of soul-immortality.) Dreyer’s initial misidentifications in his edition of cat D were later corrected by him when he came to examine the
9
Sent out in ms form to a few high officials in order to encourage their then-desperately needed fiscal generosity original data. An example is D961, which he at first (OO 3:372) identified with 9 Crt — but later (OO 13:72) realized
towards astronomy, i.e., Tycho. (A not-much-exaggerated equation at this time.) Later printed by Kepler (1627). See was 29α Mon. See below at fn 158.
Dreyer 1890 pp.265-266 & Thoren 1990 pp.383-384. 17
Readers are urged to consult OO 12:53, where Dreyer provides a photocopy of the kind of scrawl he had to
10
Throughout, all dates here are in the Julian calendar, which was at this time used by Tycho and by Denmark & render into print (which he does, in this instance, at OO 12:52). Multiply this decipherment by thousands of such
other Protestant nations. challenges. My gratitude to Dreyer needs no further explanation.
6 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 7

manuscripts in Copenhagen), which is that left us by the scrupulous and herculean efforts B5 Tycho’s zero-point was of course the Vernal Equinox, which required relating the
of astronomer J.Dreyer. (The stars are here numbered exactly in the order in which they Sun’s position to the stars. Lacking pendulum chronometry,26 Tycho effected this through
appear in the unnumbered Dreyer compilation.) [c] The journal publishing this edition day-night observations of Venus — instead of the Moon, which was Hipparchos’ relatively
is DIO. [d] The stars’ numbering and the present critical edition of the catalog are due crude (see, e.g., Rawlins 1982C Appendices) celestial stepping-stone for relating stellar
to Dennis R. (Besides expressing here my debt to Dreyer, I must also do so to the late positions to solar. (Venus is far better: [a] punctal, [b] slower in motion, [c] smaller
Victor Thoren. It was wonderful good luck for DR that the now-dominant Tycho biography parallax.) By this means, his sole Fundamental star, Hamal (α Ari) was firmly27 secured
Thoren 1990 appeared during my 1987-1993 cat D researches, and equally good fortune in right ascension (α). (The error in its 1601.0 explicit α was merely −00 .1: Table 22,
that Thoren lived just long enough to finish the task. But I regret that his sudden death star S12. I have shown elsewhere here — Table 9 — that the entire 1601.0 cat D’s α
deprived me of the chance to thank him personally for creating such a monument to Tycho error was +00 .2. Note that both errors are less than 1 timesec. Considering the necessity
— and likewise prevented him from enjoying DR’s completion here of another monument, for two persons making the observations, with the resultant need for near-simultaneous
which Thoren also desired.18 Thoren disagreed with my view of ancient astronomy; but I cooperation,28 we see here an instance of the sort of care which represented a quantum
trust that this would not have prevented his appreciation19 of valid new accomplishments in leap above ancient work.) Then, based upon Hamal, Tycho reared a growing network of
his favorite field. As to how often the occasional knowledgeable remarks contained in the multiply-observed reference (“ref”) stars. First, a collection of nine Principal stars was
current publication are actually due to Thoren: that will be evident to anyone who merely carefully established. (Eqt & ecl coords listed, for epoch 1586.0, at OO 2:207&211, resp.
counts the number of citations of Thoren 1990 that appear below.)20 Errors evaluated at Dreyer 1890 pp.387-388 and here in Table 13.) Next, a somewhat fuller
B3 The only previous21 original precise & massive star catalogs (now surviving) were list of twenty-one Exceptional stars’ 1586.0 eqt & ecl coords was formed (OO 2:233).
those of Hipparchos (epoch −127) & Ulugh Beg (epoch 1437). Each was taken by ecliptical Ultimately, a larger collection of Select stars (§I) gave Tycho the ability to compare any one
armillary astrolabe, and each has mean errors in both coordinates (longitude λ & latitude β) of his c.1000 quarry stars to as many conveniently-placed reference objects as he desired.
of about 1◦ /3. Tycho proceeded differently and achieved an accuracy about ten times better, Exactly 100 Select stars’ 1601.0 & 1701.0 eqt coords were listed by TB — including
even though still in the naked-eye & crude-chronometer22 era of Hipparchos & Ulugh Beg. differential equatorial precession29 rates — in an appendix to his cat D, at OO 3:375-377.
(Note: the Hist.sci crowd has decreed it declassé merely to “hand out medals to those who See here in Tables 22&23; also Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 p.114. However, a few stars used
‘got it right’.” See JHA 11.2:145, 1980. Hmmmm. Tycho’s workers, night after night, as Tycho ref objects were not on any of the aforementioned Tycho lists. (E.g., see β UMi
poured out their life’s vitality, for decades, taking pains to achieve the greatest possible = Kochab at fn 179, & β Vir at D168 in §M3; and note that, for the observations cited,
precision, luckily for Kepler, Newton, & us. Thought-experiment: imagine the Tycho confusion reigned.) The rest of cat D’s stars were placed by depending largely upon this
team’s exhausted shades now encountering a mod paradigmal priest of Hist.sci, whose ref-star network of 100 Select stars. When the process of placing stars is discussed below,
inspirational litany is the field’s ritual shrug: who cares about rightness & wrongness?)23 we will distinguish between these “ref stars”, vs. those positioned with respect to them,
B4 A key difference in Tycho’s approach was his exploitation of sph trig’s full powers, by referring to the latter as “quarry stars”. (And, keep in mind throughout that Hamal’s
instead of depending upon the automatic analog-computer ringed-astrolabe of his prede- foundation-α, OO 2:197-198, was — along with Tycho’s equally excellent30 determination
cessors. (He describes his plan at Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 p.113, understating the math of Hven’s latitude — the basis for all the hundreds of real star positions in cat D.)
as “cumbersome”.) Generally, the results were of greatly improved accuracy, though there B6 The standard procedure was to combine: [a] an observation for the quarry star’s
were some downsides:24 [a] more labor (thus expense: Tycho spent royal monies in Wag- declination δ (found either from a meridian altitude or a direct reading off Tycho’s equatorial
nerian style), [b] greater chance of large-scale foul-up — the number of grossly misplaced armillary) and [b] a sextant measure of the great-circle (gt-circ) distance g between the
stars in cat D is much greater than in those of Hipparchos or Ulugh Beg. However, the quarry star and a conveniently chosen reference star (customarily about due east or west of
math accuracy of Tycho’s sph trig has not hitherto been realized. One particularly difficult the quarry star). From g, the quarry star’s δ, and the ref star’s already-known31 δr , sph trig
calculation was good to 300 accuracy.25 will (by eq. 6: §N6) yield α − αr , the difference between the quarry star’s α & the ref star’s
18
Thoren 1990 p.295. See fn 15 here.
19
Thoren seems to have felt the strong weight of evidence that Ptolemy probably stole the Ancient Star Catalog at those stars, in §M4.) High-accuracy trig tables go back much further than most laymen are aware. [See DIO 1.2-3
from Hipparchos. (See, on this, Thoren 1990 p.155 n.23, p.172-174 n.52, & p.299 n.141.) But Thoren held that this fnn 99, 234, 283.] The 2nd century Almajest tables are remarkable. And the 15th century tables of Ulugh Beg are
didn’t make Ptolemy a poor scientist. And Thoren seemed (at least in 1979) to have a low estimate of those who better yet.
didn’t agree with this curious opinion. (See Rawlins 1987 n.12.) But Thoren’s fallibility here: [a] is merely human, 26
Fn 22. See Thoren 1990 p.294 and thereabouts (pp.287f) for Thoren’s valuable account of the trials & techniques
and [b] is in itself no cause for my doubling the error by aping it. of putting the star catalog together.
20
This is not to slight the dedicated labors of Dreyer, whose 1890 biography and later massive OO laid the 27
See list of 15 impressively consistent determinations (of Hamal’s 1586.0 α) at OO 2:197. (Comparing these
groundwork for all future Tycho researches — and at a level of astronomical expertise inevitably higher than excruciatingly hard-wrought outdoor data to Ptolemy’s trivially indoor-faked star-data at Almajest 7.3-8.1: it takes
Thoren’s. consummate nerve to elevate both men to roughly equivalent stature as scientific immortals. Teaching this kind of
21
Regarding an independent 13th century 40-star catalog, see Thoren 1990 p.297 n.134. nerve is something which History-of-science dep’ts can do right.)
22
Tycho’s trials of & by his clocks are recounted at Thoren 1990 p.157f. Meantime, J.Bürgi (working for 28
See Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 pp.74-75 (& suggestion at fn 178). Note that our best available estimate (DIO 1.1
Wilhelm IV at Cassel: fn 6) instead rightly applied the pendulum to chronometry. (This was before Galileo. ‡6 §G4) of pstn-error caused by non-simultaneity in ancient armillary-astrolabe observation-correlation is: 19 s ±8s .
Likewise, Bürgi was developing logs before Napier. See Dreyer 1890 pp. 352, 361-362.) Less than a century after This is over an ordmag cruder than Tycho’s results, which is a ratio roughly consistent with other comparisons of
cat D, J.Flamsteed (1st Astronomer Royal) was first to exploit fully the combined advantages of pendulum chronometry Tycho’s accuracy to that of previous mass-star-catalogers.
& telescope for massive sky-mapping — ensuring the primacy henceforth of eqt coords for such pursuits. (In the 29
Among Tycho’s numerous epochal contributions to science was his discovery that precession was nearly constant
now-dawning space age, this primacy could wane.) (Moesgaard 1989 p.311). This critical finding was based upon his realization that the “Ptolemy” star catalog’s enor-
23
See similarly at DIO 1.1 ‡7 §G4. (See also J.Hysterical Astronomy 1.2 fn 36.) mous discord (vs. all other star records) was due to the −1◦ .1 net bungle that resulted when Ptolemy stole this
24
I find that Thoren 1990 p.294 independently sets out the problems with Tycho’s approach and does so both thousand-star catalog from Hipparchos (fn 141) by precessing all λ for 2 2/3 centuries at the false rate, 1 ◦ /100y . TB’s
learnedly & clearly. adopted value, 5100 /yr (tabulated OO 3:374), was only ordmag 1% higher than the correct 1601 value, 5000 .19/yr.
25
Kochab’s two-g-based pstn (where, sadly, the underlying obs data were in error by about 30 ); see fn 179. Note
30
Both errors ordmag 00 .1. On Hven’s latitude, see fn 11. Hven latitude error = +00 .1−.
also the ordmag 1000 acc of the two-g calcs that may (fn 128) underlie the D585-586 pstns. (See discussion below, 31
Ref star eqt coords in 1601.0 S list (Table 22) or 1589.0 catalog at OO 12:231f.
8 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 9

already-known αr . Simple addition or32 subtraction will then yield the quarry star’s α. (An C The Catalog’s Misunderstood Accuracy
example, for star D569, is provided below at §N6.) We will call this: the “δ&g method”.
B7 An alternate method for finding α (used, e.g., for stars D199-206) was simply to C1 While the high accuracy of Tycho’s observations of the Sun and of his Principal
read the equatorial difference, α − αr , directly off an equatorial armillary. (Tycho’s eqt stars is well known, the accuracy of most stars in cat D is generally regarded as not nearly
armillaries are described in Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 pp.56-67. Fig. at p.64 reproduced so good. E.g., H.Pledge, Science Since 1500 (1939) p.291 repeats the widely believed
at Thoren 1990 p.175.) contention that Tycho’s mean error was 40 . The mean errors37 (a little smaller than 30
B8 Mathematically, the most interesting method was what I’ll call the “two-g method”. in each coordinate for nonbright stars) found in the excellent 1984 study, by the highly
It required an observation of the gt-circ arc g vs. each of two ref stars, star a & star b. experienced & capable stellar astronomer Przemysław Rybka, are much better,38 if perhaps
(See, e.g., D343-4 at OO 13:76, or D448-454 at OO 13:63. Note that the two-g placement- slightly high. A main result of the present analysis will be to find a correct value for cat D’s
method was applied almost exclusively to far northern33 stars: UMi, UMa, Dra, & Cep. average positional error (see Table 5 & §J1) — and thereby render full justice to the Tycho
Rare, evidently-inadvertent exception: D836. Also D904.) Given the resulting data ga and school’s immense & painstaking labors.
gb (as well as the already-known Table 21 ref-star data: λa & βa and λb & βb ), the quarry 37
Cited at Thoren 1990 pp.296-297 n.130. By contrast, Thoren 1990 p.299 n.139 notes that Tycho himself
star’s λ & β may then be computed via sph trig. However, especially in a pre-log era, the (fn 40) & modern A.Pannekoek believed the stars’ accuracy was 10 . But Pannekoek’s view was evidently based upon
math-labor involved was staggering.34 Such elaborate sph trig represents the pinnacle of Tycho’s or upon the wellknown study, of TB’s nine Principal stars, by Dreyer 1890 pp.387-388. There is a common
Tycho’s historic triumph — by sheer brainpower — over an army of imposing obstacles suggestion, repeated by Thoren 1990 loc cit, that cat D’s faint stars are less accurate than the brighter ones. (Actually,
(§B2) to the creation of the best star catalog possible in his day. Indeed, the math is so the extensive OO records of repeat-observations of raw data seem roughly as consistent for 4th magnitude stars —
and even most of the dimmer ones — as for 1st magn: the data-spread is almost always just a fraction of an arcmin,
complex that no previous Tycho historian has mastered it. E.g., while Dreyer 1890 (p.353) except, notably, when the data are simultaneously taken on different instruments. This obvious point seems somehow
& Thoren 1990 (p.294 n.120 & p.498 Fig. A.4.5) describe the relatively simple δ&g method to have escaped previous commentators.) Of course, at some faint magnitude such an accuracy falloff must begin
(§B6), neither performs Tycho’s two-g math. Realization that the two-g method was applied to be true; but dim cat D stars also seem less accurate because: [a] they were repeatedly-observed (doubled) less
by Tycho to many dozens of stars only enhances our amazement at the effort and dedication often than the brightest stars, & [b] the rushed late-1596-early-1597 Final Fifty stars (Tables 19&20) are naturally
all rather dim ones (the bright stars having long since been cataloged). See here at §J4 & fn 15. It is my contention
that went into cat D. (On the negative side: too many35 two-g-based stars were placed that the greater part of the errors in cat D are not due to ocular causes but rather to: instrumental mis-sets, screrr
via nearly parallel g, when, obviously, the optimal situation is perpendicularity. These & misrd, atm refr, temperature effects on instruments. Tycho was perhaps the first scientist who fully understood
are the “flab” cases we will encounter here&there in cat D, e.g., D345-348, D585-587, that ultrascrupulous attention to instrumental-mounting, checks, & zero-points, plus data-crosschecking by persistent
D611-614. Had the observers been knowledgeable — or knowledgeably forewarned — observational repetition were his main weapons in eliminating errors from these sources. (J.Bradley & G.Piazzi were
later to benefit from the same wisdom & drive.) It is initially tempting, for those unfamiliar with instrumental work,
about such procedure, these stars’ cat D places would have been far more reliable. Instead, to find nothing remarkable in Tycho’s 10 -acc results, figuring that this is roughly the naked eye’s ability, so naturally
their coordinates’ errors are ordmag 1◦ . Some flab cases arose just from bad luck. Arc g of Tycho could measure objects’ pstns this well. To the contrary, Tycho’s prime miracle WAS his ability to produce
the §B6 standard method is preferably oriented E-W; but, if two g & no δ were observed, ultimate (reduced) results, with an accuracy comparable to the original raw data’s. For a 1000 star catalog, this could,
then those g remained as the sole basis of the star’s cat D position — and the usual E-W theoretically, have been done by anyone from the 2nd century BC onward (since armillary instruments were certainly
in use by then) — that is, by anyone who possessed Tycho’s burning desire (which exemplifies science) to: [a] match
configuration ensured flabbiness in the N-S direction. E.g., D836’s α is OK, but δ is off by reports & concepts accurately to reality, and [b] discover reality through accurate observation. But no one before
over 1◦ 1/2 southerly, due to observing errors of but a few arcmin, in a flabby configuration. Tycho possessed this desire so intensely. And we must not neglect to give a nontrivial share of the credit for cat D to
This star should not have been in cat D. Sadly, it is also included in cat C, as star C667. the instrument-makers of Tycho’s day, who made for him, e.g., carefully fashioned rings of a quality far superior to
And even in the 1589.0 catalog appended to TB’s 1592 obs, at OO 12:259. Which suggests those probably available to Hipparchos. See Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 and Thoren 1990 pp.150f, 162f, 189f, 281.
38
that TB’s inclusion-standards for star-positions were slipping well before 1595-1598.) Occurring merely as a kind of extended footnote to an excellent critical edition of Hevelius’ 1661.0 star catalog,
Rybka 1984 is the only previous astronomically sound mass-study of Tycho’s star-cataloging errors. (Rybka 1984 has
B9 Finally, there is what I call the “lineup” method of placing a quarry star. In very flab not gotten the recognition it deserves. I thank Thoren for bringing it to my attention, though I do not think his remarks
cases, where the ref stars & quarry star are about on the same gt-circ, TB sometimes (see do it justice.) Rybka’s coords (expressed to the nearest half-arcmin) are meticulously accurate. The mean errors he
D345-348, D587, D611-613, D645-647) just quietly put the star on the gt-circ between the finds are similar to DR’s, and I suspect that nontypo discrepancies have 2 primary causes. [1] Different sampling
two ref stars. (Note that this requires sph trig use of but one36 of the two observed g data.) procedure. Rybka cautiously analysed barely 1/2 the stars in cat D: those in the modern FK4 star catalog which he
could reliably correlate to cat D positions. (Our entire-catalog samples are c.3/4 of cat D for means, c.8/9 for medians,
Naturally, the results were inferior; but in some highly flab cases (as well as stars where & 100% for Table 21.) [2] Rybka used (without reprinting it) Kepler’s unreliable (& alloyed) edition of Tycho’s
only one g got observed, e.g., D348), this was a tempting method — and full calculations stars, not Dreyer’s (OO). Some further criticisms of Rybka 1984: [a] Best to provide subsample-sizes in tables.
might not improve much upon it. [b] Performing full-catalog error analyses (Rybka 1984 pp.193-194, 202: Tables 30-37 & Table 54) exclusively in the
ecl system is risky (cats C&D were mostly compiled in eqt coords), due to [i] TB’s large obliquity errors and [ii] the
gross numerical-asymmetry for deep southern stars in the regions of the 2 solstitial colures. (The latter criticism
32
Note that this method formally yields two solutions, just as does the two-g method. (See fn 181.) However, the
must apply, at least in part, to any analysis of the southern part of cat D, including DR’s.) [c] Some superficial
only WCP case in cat D which results from any but the latter is D789. See its discussion in §M4 & fn 192.
typos. At p.191, both percentages are mistaken; at p.195, for 97.7% read 96.7%. [d] At p.192, there is an impeccably
33
I believe that the standard δ&g method would work well for far northern stars. (Though, culmination-obs would computed Table 30, exhibiting large TB errors (epoch 1661.0) for stars: D811, D944, D585, PK918, D143, D677,
be tedious.) But, near the Pole, where ∆α becomes artificially inflated, TB evidently felt it wiser to use the two-g D368, D369, D164. However: D585 (actually 50 Cas) is misidentified as 40 Cas, due to nonconsultation of the orig
approach. See further discussion (of the two-g method) at §N12 & §N14. OO obs data, which reveals Tycho’s WCP. And π Hya (Rybka Table 30’s 4th star) was never obs by Tycho. It is
34
It is possible that Tycho used an equivalent of the simpler St.Hilaire method. (See also special-case shortcut from Kepler’s augmentation of cat D (Kepler GW 10B[1969]:135 line 40) & is obviously based upon the ancient HP
suggested at fn 128.) My own computations have used rigorous sph trig in all cases. (E.g., for the “Obs” columns of catalog. (The cited β is that of Hipparchos: PK918, which is 49π Hya.) D677 (one of Tycho’s fakes) is superficially
Table 20.) For sole math-easement connected to two-g method, see §N14. misidentified as υ Sgr (Table 30’s 6th star) & TB’s 19th Ser star (both wrong), though the coords Rybka computes are
35
I suspect that the problem was simply: it was physically easier not to have to swing the sextant around 90◦ both absolutely accurate and are for the correct star, 42θ Sgr. For 4 of the other stars, eqt analyses would have revealed
frequently — if both ref stars & the quarry star were nearly on the same gt-circ, this seemed convenient to one who virtually null error in one coord: α for D143, and δ for D368, D369, & D164. These nulls provide broad hints as
didn’t have to deal with the math mess that results. (The suggestion is strong that at least some of the observers — to what went wrong with the reductions. See under these stars in our §M. It should be pointed out that Rybka’s
especially in 1597 — were not computers & indeed had surprisingly primitive knowledge of spherical astronomy.) Table 30 is the first source to correctly identify D143 as 41 LMi — which suggests that he noted the agreement in
36
The other may enter additively. Unless a list of gr between ref-stars was in regular use by Hven computers, a one eqt coord. Considering that Rybka’s exam of cat D was actually just an extension of his study of Hevelius, his
shortcut method for obtaining gr during a lineup calc would be simply to set gr = ga + gb . DR’s lineup calcs here omissions are more than understandable, and I am much impressed by the high quality of his analysis: Rybka 1984
assume this approach. See §N17. should always be remembered as the first serious appraisal, ever, of the accuracy of Tycho’s star catalog.
10 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 11

C2 Doing right by Tycho is also a motive for the pains taken here to track down every These will be Tables 1-4.
cat D implicit39 equatorial error exceeding40 0◦ .1 (gt-circ). In no other way would it be D2 The two left columns cite each row’s post-extinction magnitude bounds, µb (bright-
possible to show the true accuracy of the work, since if, e.g., a few merely-computational est) & µd (dimmest). (In each row, stars’ µ are entirely within the range µb < µ < µd .)
botches41 are tossed in with the great majority of properly-prepared stars, a deceptively- The 3rd column, n, lists the number of stars falling within these bounds. The next 4 columns
inflated mean error will naturally result. Note: in this DIO edition (Table 21) of cat D, list the medians of, respectively, Γλ, ∆β, Γα, ∆δ. (See fn 185 and fn 103 for our definition
some scribal errors in ecliptical (not equatorial) coordinates will be restored,42 with the of Γ.)
mark “r” (or “R”) in Table 21’s column x, to indicate that. (See §P4. Note that all these
stars are dropped from the large statistical analyses below, though D98 & D222 are retained
in the smaller sample of §H, for reasons discussed in §M3.) E Error Standard Deviations
C3 Therefore, DIO has first, in §D, tabulated the medians of the gt-circ errors’ absolute E1 We then present (Tables 5-8) normal root-mean-square (rms) averages of coordinate-
magnitudes (instead of the rms errors of §E) for the positions in cat D. In §D, we have errors, based upon the very same data for which we found the medians of §D — except
dropped out of each sample those stars marked as problem-cases (in our Table 21 edition that, in this case (unlike §D), it is absolutely necessary to eliminate the gross errors.
of cat D) in column x. (For the codes used in col.x, see §P4.) Sole exception: D699, which E2 Thus, in addition to the 118 stars already removed at §C3 (leaving 886), we here
is marked “d” since it is doubled by D701; the latter star (marked “D”) is dropped, but not also drop all the remaining stars for which either equatorial coord gt-circ error (Γα or ∆δ)
the former. (See fn 191.) exceeds absolute magnitude 60 . (Anyone familiar with Tycho’s star work will know that a
C4 Of cat D’s 335 zodiacal stars, 481 northern stars, & 188 southern stars, our median TB error as large as 60 is not due to random causes.) So, eliminating also these 125 stars, we
samples (filtered as described in §C3) include 324 stars, 390,43 & 172, resp. The sum is now have a net sample of 761 stars (not all distinct objects: fn 77) which have survived the
886 stars. In the next section (§D) we set out the median errors in 4 tables. Following that, foregoing filters. (This is somewhat smaller than the total of 777 stars in cat C.)46 Notice
we will (§E) similarly tabulate the conventionally-defined mean errors. Finally, in §F, we that each coordinate’s rms standard deviation (stdev), σ0 , is roughly proportional47 to the
will provide the results of least-squares analyses upon cat D’s errors, again in 4 tables. corresponding value obtained previously (§D) by the median method.

D Error Medians F Least-Squares Analyses of Errors


D1 For the entire 886 star total and each of the three sections of cat D, we now provide In Tables 9-12, we next present the results of several least-squares analyses upon cat D’s er-
tables of all 4 coordinates’ absolute-magnitude |O−C| median-errors (great-circle), for each rors, using precisely the same 761-star sample as in §E (Tables 5-8). Each table will provide
post-extinction magnitude, essentially44 from µ = 1 to µ = 6. (Recall from §A2 — and see σi , the random error stdev of a single datum, where i = no. of unknowns simultaneously
§L8 & fn 188 — that µ is computed here on the assumption of zero atmospheric dust.)45 being sought via least-squares, setting i = 0, 1, & 3, successively. First, the tables here list
(in the 2nd column) σ0 , the zero-unknowns least-squares solution, which of course must be
39
I.e., the eqt pstn calc (with TB’s obliquity  = 23◦ 310 1/2 or 23◦ 310 , depending: see fn 190) from the ecl pstn identical to the §E analyses’ corresponding “All”-row result (Tables 5-8). Second, we seek
given in cat D. In several places, TB provides hundreds of explicit eqt coords (which our Table 21 does not use), & tabulate each coordinate’s mean systematic error a (1 unknown) and its stdev, σa , and the
e.g., OO 3:375-377 (our Tables 22&23), OO 11:383f, OO 12:231f, OO 13:61f. Most TB explicit eqt coords agree
acc with the implicit ones of Table 21. (Though, there are several exceptions, e.g., D621.) Besides the data provided
random-error single-datum stdev for this case, σ1 . Finally, we thread a 3-unknown sinusoid
here in Tables 22&23, many of these explicit eqt coords are cited in our §M discussion. See also §I & §J6. through each coordinate’s errors, least-squares-fitting the expression b + A sin[λ − θ] to
40
Tycho himself might be almost insulted at such slack brackets, since he held that cat D was acc to 10 or better. the ecliptical errors, and b + A sin[α − θ] to the equatorial errors. (Convenient check:
(See fn 37 & Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 p.112.) σ02 ≈ σ12 + a2 ≈ σ32 + b2 + A2 /2.) Tables 9-16 here list for the 3-unknown case: constant
Cat D is affected by numerous 1◦ errors of math or of table-entry (e.g., D487). There are also a large number b & its stdev σb , amplitude A & its stdev σA , phase θ & its stdev σθ , and random-error
41

of 1◦ /2 errors (e.g., D530, D619). (Sometimes both occur for the same star’s calcs, e.g., D500.) The frequency of
1◦ /2 calc errors suggests that some of the Hven computers (fn 12) were occasionally using ancient tables of chords,
single-datum stdev σ3 . Again, our tables start with the whole cat D (Table 9), then attend
not just modern trig functions (as, e.g., those of Copernicus 1543 1:12). The traceability here of so many such slips to each section: zodiac (288 stars, Table 10); north (322 stars, Table 11); south (151 stars,
suggests that, while the calcs were perhaps doubled (see the intelligent & informative discussion at Thoren 1990 Table 12). However, this time, we stratify each table by coordinate (not magnitude bounds,
p.297 n.131), the recording & transmissal of data were not. In most cases, cat D errors were evidently not due to as for Tables 1-8), in the vertical order: λ, β, α, δ.
calc. Even for D914, where an error in the calc process is suggested below (§M5), the proposed slip is scribal not
arithmetic. For a few misplaced stars in cat D, I may have set forth scribal error-explanations that are uncertain —
perhaps partly because, for an arithmetic error, there are usually too many possible explanations, to permit our giving
exclusive credence to any particular theory. Nonetheless, it usually seemed better to offer a hypothesis (or two) rather
than none. Without supporting evidence at intermediate steps, explanations were generally avoided if they would
have to involve (see, e.g., fn 4) several special assumptions. (Exceptions: D566 & D938.) That is, Occam was ever
in mind.
42
The 28 stars with ecl scribal errors restored here (Table 21) are: D14, D82, D98, D200, D222, D342, D429, D555,
D567, D595, D599, D607, D657, D682, D737, D758, D782, D798, D808, D832, D890, D908, D954, D959-961, Note Ptolemy’s detailed testimony, cited at §L8. And, fortunately, the sheer dimness of the Tycho stars collected in
D978, D1000. Table 18 has confirmed the clarity of ancient skies. See especially fn 95 (four Cen stars from Wandsbeck) and §L10.
43
All of the here-dropped Final Fifty entries (§N) are northern. 46
While the two samples (§E2’s 761 stars & cat C’s 777 stars) are not independent, they are at the same time far
44
The 1st magn row = all stars with µ < 1.5; the 2nd magn row = all stars with 1.5 < µ < 2.5; similarly down to from identical.
th 2
6 magn = all stars with 5.5 < µ. 47
Since half the area under the curve e−σ /2 lies in the range ±0.67σ, §F’s straight rms averages σ0 should
45
See fn 188. (I also assume dry air, which is not uncommon in Danish winters.) By dust (or aerosols), I refer naturally be somewhere around 3/2 bigger than the corresponding medians found in §D. And the ratio 3/2 is indeed
to the nongaseous atmospheric obstructors of light. In recent centuries, manufacturing & vehicular pollution has crudely valid here (very crudely for the tinier subsamples), despite [a] the differences in sampling procedure, & [b] the
spewed so much dust into the entire Earth’s atmosphere that one ought to remove this factor from modern calculations highly nonGaussian tails of the cat D error curves. This confirms the propriety of our trimming (from samples), stars
of ancient extinction, in order to approximate pre-industrial air transparency in a reasonable and definable fashion. with eqt errors greater than 60 .
12 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 13

Table 1: Median Errors by Magnitude: Entire Cat D Table 5: Mean Errors by Magnitude: Entire Cat D
µb µd n Γλ ∆β Γα ∆δ µb µd n Γλ ∆β Γα ∆δ
−∞ 1.5 12 00 .6 10 .2 00 .6 00 .8 −∞ 1.5 12 00 .85 10 .59 00 .84 10 .23
1.5 2.5 33 10 .3 00 .7 00 .8 10 .2 1.5 2.5 31 20 .07 10 .86 10 .49 10 .73
2.5 3.5 95 10 .5 10 .4 10 .4 10 .1 2.5 3.5 82 10 .95 10 .87 10 .74 10 .57
3.5 4.5 280 10 .5 10 .6 10 .5 10 .3 3.5 4.5 244 20 .12 20 .09 20 .05 10 .78
4.5 5.5 391 10 .5 10 .4 10 .4 10 .5 4.5 5.5 336 20 .06 20 .03 10 .87 10 .93
5.5 ∞ 75 10 .9 20 .1 10 .8 20 .1 5.5 ∞ 56 20 .46 20 .58 20 .35 20 .40
All 886 10 .5 10 .4 10 .4 10 .4 All 761 20 .09 20 .07 10 .93 10 .87

Table 2: Median Errors by Magnitude: Zodiac Table 6: Mean Errors by Magnitude: Zodiac
µb µd n Γλ ∆β Γα ∆δ µb µd n Γλ ∆β Γα ∆δ
−∞ 1.5 3 00 .5 10 .3 00 .3 00 .1 −∞ 1.5 3 00 .51 10 .78 00 .30 10 .25
1.5 2.5 8 00 .9 00 .9 00 .9 00 .4 1.5 2.5 8 10 .08 10 .69 00 .95 10 .02
2.5 3.5 20 10 .3 10 .6 10 .3 10 .2 2.5 3.5 18 10 .68 20 .12 10 .68 10 .50
3.5 4.5 89 10 .4 10 .1 10 .3 10 .3 3.5 4.5 85 10 .88 10 .86 10 .70 10 .80
4.5 5.5 152 10 .3 10 .2 10 .3 10 .6 4.5 5.5 135 10 .93 10 .88 10 .79 10 .88
5.5 ∞ 52 10 .9 10 .9 10 .5 20 .0 5.5 ∞ 39 20 .49 20 .54 20 .34 20 .49
All Zodiac 324 10 .3 10 .3 10 .3 10 .5 All Zodiac 288 10 .96 10 .99 10 .81 10 .91

Table 3: Median Errors by Magnitude: North Table 7: Mean Errors by Magnitude: North
µb µd n Γλ ∆β Γα ∆δ µb µd n Γλ ∆β Γα ∆δ
−∞ 1.5 5 00 .5 10 .8 00 .5 00 .6 −∞ 1.5 5 00 .85 10 .84 00 .83 00 .57
1.5 2.5 18 10 .6 00 .6 00 .9 10 .5 1.5 2.5 16 20 .52 20 .22 10 .57 20 .09
2.5 3.5 58 10 .9 10 .5 10 .5 00 .9 2.5 3.5 47 10 .98 10 .90 10 .62 10 .51
3.5 4.5 143 10 .8 20 .3 10 .6 10 .1 3.5 4.5 119 20 .33 20 .38 20 .27 10 .69
4.5 5.5 156 20 .0 20 .1 10 .6 10 .6 4.5 5.5 127 20 .39 20 .47 20 .04 20 .12
5.5 ∞ 10 20 .1 20 .8 20 .2 20 .4 5.5 ∞ 8 20 .57 20 .92 20 .48 10 .89
All North 390 10 .8 20 .0 10 .6 10 .2 All North 322 20 .31 20 .35 20 .05 10 .87

Table 4: Median Errors by Magnitude: South Table 8: Mean Errors by Magnitude: South
µb µd n Γλ ∆β Γα ∆δ µb µd n Γλ ∆β Γα ∆δ
−∞ 1.5 4 1 .1 1 .0 1 .1 10 .1
0 0 0
−∞ 1.5 4 1 .02 0 .98 1 .09 1 .73
0 0 0 0

1.5 2.5 7 00 .4 00 .7 00 .3 10 .3 1.5 2.5 7 10 .74 00 .87 10 .76 10 .41


2.5 3.5 17 10 .4 00 .9 10 .2 10 .6 2.5 3.5 17 20 .13 10 .48 20 .09 10 .78
3.5 4.5 48 10 .3 10 .2 10 .7 10 .5 3.5 4.5 40 10 .91 10 .55 20 .01 10 .97
4.5 5.5 83 10 .3 10 .1 10 .4 10 .4 4.5 5.5 74 10 .65 10 .34 10 .71 10 .67
5.5 ∞ 13 20 .3 20 .2 20 .3 20 .0 5.5 ∞ 9 20 .20 20 .42 20 .28 20 .45
All South 172 10 .3 10 .1 10 .4 10 .5 All South 151 10 .81 10 .48 10 .87 10 .81
14 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 15

G Principal-Star Error Trends


In this section, we examine the pattern of great-circle errors in the nine Principal star
Table 9: Mean Errors by Coordinate: Entire Catalog D (761 Stars) 1586.03 positions (§B5) upon which cat D was (ultimately) founded. These stars were (in
Err σ0 a ± σa σ1 b ± σb A ± σA θ ± σθ σ3 order of increasing rt asc): α Ari (D3 = S12), α Tau (D66 = S19), µ Gem (D79), β Gem
(D66 = S36), α Leo (D117 = S43), α Vir (D163 = S55), δ Oph (D694 = S65), α Aql
Γλ 2 .09 0 .31±0 .07 2 .06 0 .28±0 .07 1 .08±0 .10 255◦ ±05◦
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 .93
0
(D736 = S79), α Peg (D783 = S95). Upon these stars’ equatorial coordinate errors, we will
∆β 20 .07 00 .51±00 .07 20 .00 00 .80±00 .06 10 .69±00 .08 179◦ ±03◦ 10 .61 now perform the same sorts of least-squares analyses just completed in §F for all of cat D
Γα 10 .93 00 .23±00 .07 10 .92 00 .23±00 .07 00 .31±00 .10 218◦ ±18◦ 10 .91 (1601.0). The results, presented in Table 13, are for 1586.0 equatorial coordinates, with the
∆δ 10 .87 00 .92±00 .06 10 .63 00 .89±00 .06 00 .25±00 .08 325◦ ±20◦ 10 .63 table’s rows assigned successively to: [a] αP & δP of the Principal stars (P list) given by
Tycho at OO 2:207 (Dreyer 1890 p.387); [b] αS & δS of the same 9 stars, taken from his
cat D-appended list of 100 Select stars (the S list, at OO 3:375-377) and precessed by TB’s
rates (idem) from 1601.03 to 1586.03 (only eight S stars are used in Table 13, since µ Gem
is not on the S list),48 [c] αD & δD implicit49 (for 1586.03) in the cat D ecliptical positions
for the nine stars.

Table 10: Mean Errors by Coordinate: Zodiac (288 Stars) H Exceptional-Star Error Trends
Err σ0 a ± σa σ1 b ± σb A ± σA θ ± σθ σ3 We next present tables that summarize, for the 21 Exceptional stars (see OO 2:233 or §B5),
Γλ 10 .96 00 .25±00 .11 10 .95 00 .31±00 .10 10 .35±00 .14 236◦ ±06◦ 10 .70 the same type of analyses50 carried out in the previous section (for the 9 Principal stars).
∆β 10 .99 00 .53±00 .11 10 .92 00 .78±00 .10 10 .53±00 .15 184◦ ±05◦ 10 .64 These are Tables 14-15. The Exceptional stars (E list) are the 9 Principal stars (specified
Γα 10 .81 00 .21±00 .11 10 .81 00 .29±00 .10 00 .98±00 .15 220◦ ±08◦ 10 .68 at §G, & their coordinates changed not a jot here), plus the dozen stars: γ Ari (D1 = S7),
∆δ 10 .91 00 .99±00 .10 10 .63 10 .01±00 .10 00 .28±00 .14 229◦ ±30◦ 10 .63  Tau (D36 = S18), γ Gem (D81 = S32), γ Cnc (D98 = S39), γ Leo (D115 = S45), γ Vir
(D156), β Lib (D191 = S61), α Sco (D214 = S66), o Sgr (D222), γ Cap (D253 = S88),
β Aqr (D262 = S87), α Psc (D318 = S11). In addition to Table 14 (paralleling Table 13 for
the P list), we also present Table 15, based upon the E list ecliptical coordinates.

I Select-Star Error Trends


I1 At the end of cat D appears (OO 3:375-377) what we will call the “S list”: Tycho’s
Table 11: Mean Errors by Coordinate: North (322 Stars)
100 Select (or “particularly important”: Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 p.114) stars, already
Err σ0 a ± σa σ1 b ± σb A ± σA θ ± σθ σ3 noted here in §B5. These 100 stars’ coordinates & centennial precession rates (entirely
Γλ 20 .31 00 .12±00 .13 20 .31 -00 .09±00 .12 10 .46±00 .18 248◦ ±06◦ 20 .11 equatorial) are provided for 1601.03 & 1701.03. All 400 coordinates & their O−C errors are
∆β 20 .35 00 .87±00 .12 20 .19 00 .68±00 .10 10 .94±00 .13 179◦ ±04◦ 10 .68 fully listed later here in our Tables 22&23. With respect to our earlier remarks on Tycho’s
Γα 20 .05 -00 .05±00 .11 20 .05 -00 .29±00 .13 00 .82±00 .16 163◦ ±13◦ 10 .98 perfectionist passion for predictivity (§A1), note the boldness of his S list for 1701: for the
∆δ 10 .87 00 .66±00 .10 10 .75 00 .71±00 .11 00 .21±00 .13 326◦ ±45◦ 10 .75 first time in history, an astronomer was able to predict the tropical positions of hundreds of
celestial bodies to near naked-eye accuracy (ordmag 1 arcmin) — a century into the future.
(For Tycho’s just pride at his ability to do this, see Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 p.114.) The
achievement was a startling initial gleam at the morn of the age of high-precision science.

Table 12: Mean Errors by Coordinate: South (151 Stars) 48


Originally, TB (1586) must’ve chosen D79 = µ Gem for its proximity to S.Solstice. But, at 3rd magn, it was the
dimmest of the nine; being so near numerous much-brighter objects, µ Gem was naturally not a commonly-used ref
Err σ0 a ± σa σ1 b ± σb A ± σA θ ± σθ σ3 star in practice; so it got dropped from the Select star list.
Γλ 10 .81 00 .84±00 .13 10 .61 00 34±00 .32 00 .69±00 .39 354◦ ±20◦ 10 .60 49
As elsewhere here, our transf-calcs use (in §G & §H) a different TB obliquity for zodiacal stars, as against that
∆β 10 .48 -00 .27±00 .12 10 .46 00 .86±00 .27 10 .56±00 .32 172◦ ±08◦ 10 .35 used for northern or southern stars. See fn 190.
50
The Select stars used in Table 14 are only 18 in number. This is because, though stars D79 (fn 48), D156,
Γα 10 .87 00 .86±00 .14 10 .66 00 .35±00 .39 00 .74±00 .40 334◦ ±27◦ 10 .64 & D222 are on the Exceptional star list, they did not make the Select star list. None are bright; indeed, D222 =
∆δ 10 .81 10 .31±00 .10 10 .25 10 .38±00 .30 00 .18±00 .29 238◦ ±93◦ 10 .26 39o Sgr is merely 4th magn, and I theorize that its original appearance on the E list was due to its α being precisely
280◦ 000 . This has long been the traditional mark of the Sun’s position at New Year. (The definition of the start of
the long-standard Besselian year was the mean Sun’s crossing α = 280◦ .) Since the Julian calendar had drifted away
from this mark, there is a hint here that Protestant Tycho was privately attracted to the Church’s then-newfangled
(barely 3y old!) but obviously more-accurate Gregorian calendar. (Designed by C.Clavius, S.J.)
16 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 17

I2 A previously unnoted oddity about the S list: not one of these 100 stars had negative
precession in α. Indeed, there is not even a column51 for α precession’s sign in Tycho’s
Table 13: Mean Errors of the 9 Principal Stars’ 1586.0 Equatorial Coordinates original S list at OO 3:375-377. Since Kochab’s α precession was negative, this could well
have been the cause of the strange omission of this major star from the table. (Kochab
Err σ0 a ± σa σ1 b ± σb A ± σA θ ± σθ σ3 = β UMi was frequently used as a reference star for cat D data, and it was itself more
assiduously observed than most of the S list stars.)
ΓαP 00 .53 -00 .26±00 .16 00 .49 -00 .30±00 .16 00 .33±00 .23 028◦ ±040◦ 00 .48
I3 I am particularly impressed by the fact that not a single member of the 100 Select
∆δP 10 .01 00 .87±00 .18 00 .54 00 .86±00 .20 00 .28±00 .29 067◦ ±056◦ 00 .58
Stars had either equatorial coordinate in error by as much as 60 — an astonishing Tycho
ΓαS 00 .79 00 .09±00 .30 00 .84 00 .10±00 .34 00 .23±00 .48 130◦ ±120◦ 00 .97
achievement. Yet, curiously, the mean ecliptical σ0 of this seemingly impeccable list is
∆δS 10 .00 00 .56±00 .31 00 .88 00 .55±00 .36 00 .29±00 .50 061◦ ±099◦ 10 .01
little better than that of the larger cat D. Indeed (as also noted at §J12), its σ0 for β is not
ΓαD 00 .40 -00 .17±00 .13 00 .38 -00 .16±00 .14 00 .17±00 .21 100◦ ±064◦ 00 .42 quite as good as that for the South section of cat D. (Compare the ecliptical σ0 of Table 16
∆δD 00 .93 00 .39±00 .30 00 .90 00 .39±00 .35 00 .14±00 .51 108◦ ±201◦ 10 .04 to those of Table 12.) However, the S list’s a, for Γα or Γλ, are about the same as those
of cat D, with the lone exception of North’s Γα, where a = −00 .05 (Table 11), a fine result
(presumably assisted by small refraction-influence — and some luck, since TB’s precession
error was 800 /decade).
I4 Comparison of the S list’s 3-unknown Γα error curve (Table 16) to that of cat D
Table 14: Mean Errors of the 21 Exceptional Stars’ 1586.0 Equatorial Coordinates (Table 9) suggests that the S list (not the P or E stars) was effectively the direct source for
the reference-stars used by Tycho during the outdoor collection of the quarry stars he set
Err σ0 a ± σa σ1 b ± σb A ± σA θ ± σθ σ3 into his cat D. (See §J2.) The most superficial perusal of the raw observations will confirm
this realization: many dozens of stars, most not Principal (& some52 not even on the S list)
ΓαE 10 .27 -00 .46±00 .27 10 .21 -00 .42±00 .25 00 .73±00 .35 196◦ ±28◦ 10 .14 are used as reference objects.
∆δE 10 .59 10 .21±00 .23 10 .06 10 .26±00 .21 00 .77±00 .29 194◦ ±22◦ 00 .94 I5 The question arises as to whether the equatorial precession-rate data in the S star
ΓαS 10 .19 -00 .45±00 .27 10 .13 -00 .40±00 .26 00 .67±00 .37 188◦ ±31◦ 10 .09 list were merely post-sph-trig 1701.0−1601.0 arithmetic differences, or were found from
∆δS 10 .46 10 .06±00 .24 10 .04 10 .09±00 .24 00 .56±00 .34 208◦ ±35◦ 10 .01 differential sph trig. The probable answer is: some of both. Facts:
ΓαD 10 .04 -00 .28±00 .23 10 .03 -00 .23±00 .20 00 .77±00 .28 195◦ ±21◦ 00 .91 [a] All 200 of the additions&subtractions on the S list were perfectly done.
∆δD 10 .59 10 .04±00 .27 10 .24 10 .09±00 .25 00 .86±00 .34 199◦ ±23◦ 10 .12 [b] Despite mostly 10 rounding, the S list column for δ centennial precession dδ/dT
suffers not a single zigzag. (See OO 3:375-377.) I.e., every dδ/dT value between the
Vernal Equinox & the Autumnal Equinox is less than or equal to the dδ/dT before it; and
vice-versa. This obviously-deliberate neatness (also commonly found in ancient tables)
strongly suggests Tycho’s awareness53 of the simple differential sph trig rule (possibly
Table 15: Mean Errors of the 21 Exceptional Stars’ 1586.0 Ecliptical Coordinates known as long ago as the 2nd century)54 for computing the δ precession rate dδ/dT :

Err σ0 a ± σa σ1 b ± σb A ± σA θ ± σθ σ3 dδ/dT = δ̇ = p sin  cos α (1)


ΓλE 1 .20
0
-0 .30±00 .27
0
1 .19
0
-0 .26±00 .21
0
1 .09±00 .30
0
229◦ ±15◦ 0 .95
0
where T = time in centuries, TB’s  = obliquity (fn 190), p = TB’s precession = 85 /cy 0

∆βE 20 .19 00 .89±00 .48 20 .05 10 .10±00 .19 20 .52±00 .26 192◦ ±06◦ 00 .86 (fn 29).
ΓλS 10 .25 -00 .09±00 .30 10 .28 -00 .04±00 .25 10 .15±00 .35 217◦ ±17◦ 10 .04 [c] As noted (§I3), all 100 stars’ 1601.03 coordinates are correct within 60 .
∆βS 20 .10 00 .78±00 .47 20 .01 10 .02±00 .21 20 .50±00 .29 190◦ ±07◦ 00 .87 [d] However, of the 1701.0 stars in the same S list, five55 (1 in 20) of the positions show
ΓλD 10 .17 -00 .17±00 .26 10 .19 -00 .11±00 .20 10 .18±00 .28 224◦ ±13◦ 00 .89
∆βD 20 .13 00 .88±00 .43 10 .98 10 .08±00 .20 20 .39±00 .28 193◦ ±07◦ 00 .93
51
Similarly, the S list also lacks any star which is so situated, near the equator, that it would suffer a δ sign change
during the 17th century. (Again, the S-star table does not provide a column to deal with such cases.) However, I have
noticed no such star prominent enough to be a likely S list candidate. The brightest cat D stars that were crossed by
the actual celestial equator (between 1601 & 1701): D899 = 22δ Mon (m = 4.15) & D306 = 18λ Psc (m = 4.50).
52
See §B5 & fn 179.
53
I note that, during the tiny α gap between stars S52&53 (δ Vir &  UMa), the S list’s dδ/dT shifts from −34 0
to −330 — precisely as it should do, if Tycho were computing differentially. However, the S list as a whole does not
Table 16: Mean Errors of the 100 Select Stars’ 1601.0 Positions (presumably due to neatness-rounding) consistently provide such simple suggestion of the differential hypothesis.
54
DR’s speculation of diff sph trig’s antiquity is consistent with the 160 AD Almajest 7.3 precession discussion’s
dependence upon 6 stars’ α (eq. 1) instead of λ (not in eq. 1). (Note perplexity of Toomer 1984 p.333 n.63
Err σ0 a ± σa σ1 b ± σb A ± σA θ ± σθ σ3 [“Sic!”], unaware that Ptolemy is, highly exceptionally, not using λ.) [Note added 1998/4: The more historically
ΓλS 10 .86 -00 .02±00 .19 10 .87 -00 .10±00 .17 10 .33±00 .24 260◦ ±10◦ 10 .65 supported (if longer) non-calculus method of Manitius 1912-3 (2:20f; presumably understood by Graßhoff 1990 p.75)
∆βS 10 .84 00 .63±00 .17 10 .74 00 .86±00 .11 10 .84±00 .15 180◦ ±05◦ 10 .12 achieves accuracy nearly equal to eq. 1’s by using (polar) longtd µ & decl ν of ecl pt having star’s α. (∆ν/∆µ =
sin [∆(sin µ)]/[∆(sin ν)] ≈ sin  cos µ/ cos ν = sin  cos α.) Our thanks to H.Thurston here.]
ΓαS 10 .62 -00 .06±00 .16 10 .63 -00 .08±00 .16 00 .27±00 .24 227◦ ±48◦ 10 .63 55
The five S list stars with 1701.0 gt-circ errors exceeding 60 : S15 (D621 = α Per), S30 (D651 = β Aur), S65
∆δS 10 .48 10 .01±00 .11 10 .08 10 .02±00 .11 00 .16±00 .15 026◦ ±57◦ 10 .09 (D694 = δ Oph), S69 (D699 = η Oph), S71 (D509 = δ Her). Note that S65 is one of Tycho’s original nine Principal
stars. As for the −380 error of S69: it may have been a hurried, unchecked transf-calc attempt to use eq. 4, where
S70’s δ was inserted instead of S69’s. See §I7.
18 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 19

great-circle errors larger than 60 . (See Table 23.) Some of these errors can provide clues to J2 It has long been believed (e.g., Dreyer 1890 p.353) that the 1586 lists of Principal
Tycho’s procedure in precessing stars from 1601 to 1701. stars & Exceptional stars (OO 2:207&233 or §G&§H) are the immediate basis of cat D.
I6 Given Tycho’s tools, the most efficient method for precessing the S stars would have Difficulties with this presumption:
been something like the following. Call the 1601 coordinates: α◦ , δ◦ , λ◦ , β◦ — and call [a] There are nontrivial discrepancies — some exceeding an arcmin60 — in the Tycho
the 1701 coordinates: α, δ, λ, β. To find the latter from the former: compute the 1701 δ by positions for stars in his 4 samples of data (P, E, S, & D). These are from: [i] needless
obtaining centennial precession dδ/dT via eq. 1 and just add it to the 1601 δ◦ : errors or roundings during precession-calculations and-or transformations (almost certainly
the case for the slight discrepancies in α Ari’s position), and-or [ii] creditable empirical
δ = δ◦ + δ̇ (2) attempts at position-improvement,61 during the years following 1586.
[b] Examining the critical ∆α sinusoid62 for cat D (Table 9), we see that the greatest
Obtaining 1701 λ & β is easy: resemblance63 is to the corresponding sinusoid (note θ in particular) for the Select (S) stars
(Table 16), not the Principal (P) or Exceptional (E) stars (Tables 13 & Table 14). This
λ = λ◦ + 850 β = β◦ (3) therefore confirms the likelihood that the cat D positions are based directly upon the S list,
for those quarry stars placed by the δ&g method (§B6). (The positions in cat D itself were
The 1701 α then follows from the shortcut equation (effective so long as the star is not too used for quarry stars located by the less common two-g method: §B8.) The 3-unknown
near the equinoctial colure): error α curve for the S list is weakly defined, but its phase & amplitude resemble64 those
of cat D (Zodiac, North, & Entire). The effects approximated by our error-sinusoids may
cos α = cos λ cos β/ cos δ (4) have arisen from net effects of refraction upon g data, due to unintentional observing biases
which is alot simpler than the standard equation (which doesn’t use δ): (favored side of the sky, time of day, time of year, etc)65 — influences which were too
tenuous to be statistically significant in a 100 star sample, but were so in the larger samples
of cat D.
tan α = cos  tan λ − sin  tan β/ cos λ (5)
J3 Though the Principal stars seem not to mesh with cat D, it should be kept in mind
I7 Above (fn 55), we noted that 5 stars on the 1701 S list (Table 23) have gt-circ errors that cat D’s evolution was not one-step. One should follow the known chronological order,
exceeding 60 — which is larger than any error in the 1601 S list (Table 22). Two stars are checking the sinusoids of P stars vs. E stars, then E stars vs. S stars, & finally S stars vs.
of particular interest: S15 (D621 = α Per) & S30 (D651 = β Aur). Both are OK for 1601 cat D stars. Then, one sees that there is no statistically significant inconsistency at any of
but have outsize 1701 errors, and these latter are in close accord with the 1601 errors of, the three segues (from one sample to the next). And, as one might expect, ∆α’s rms error
not the S list, but: cat D. This circumstance would make no sense if the precessions were σ0 steadily increases at each stage: 00 .53 (P), 10 .27 (E), 10 .62 (S), 10 .93 (D). However, σ0
computed strictly by differential calculus. But it is perfectly consistent with the procedure for the original nine stars does not steadily degrade (and the best figure is the final one,
laid out above, since, at the 1701 data development’s crux (eqs. 3-4), the key coordinate cat D): 00 .53 (P-E), 00 .79 (S), 00 .40 (D). Moreover, the ∆α systematic error-wave amplitude
(east-west)56 will be the 1601 cat D’s ecliptical λ◦ , not the 1601 S list’s equatorial α◦ (which A = 00 .31±00 .10 for cat D is about as low as the earlier samples’ A (00 .33±00 .23 for P &
is not used at all in the §I6 equations). Thus, the peculiar errors of D621 & D651 provide 00 .27±00 .24 for S). By contrast, the E list indicates the worst A for ∆α: 00 .73±00 .35. This
double suggestion57 that Tycho indeed used the (not entirely differential) procedure58 we
have proposed (§I6), when he computed the 1701 S list.
60
In rt asc, the S values (OO 3:376-377) of δ Oph & α Peg disagree with the P values (OO 2:207 or Dreyer 1890
p.387) by +10 1/3 & +10 1/4, resp.
61
We need not speculate on this point, since at D585-587 of §M4, we have shown that Tycho altered his pre-cat D
position of β UMi (a common TB ref-star). Indeed, the star’s original TB position is accurately reconstructed at
J Discussion of Error Tables idem, to 10 precision. See also (in §M3) the cases of D98 & D222, both of which were altered by ordmag 10 as they
went from [a] the 1586.0 Exceptional star list, to [b] the 1589.0 catalog (OO 11:383f), to [c] cat D.
J1 The cat D single-star median accuracy,59 — about 10 to 10 1/2 — is better than most 62
Though our least-squares fits (§F) of sinusoids through the data have helpfully suggested correlations of data-sets
earlier investigators have concluded. (See, e.g, fn 37.) The mean cat D rt asc single-star (§J2), the curves are not very firm. E.g., note that in Table 9, the σi for α are pretty constant regardless of the selection
error (σ0 for Γα) is 10 .93. (See Table 5, last row; or Table 9, 2nd column.) Moreover, the of i. (We have 10 .93, 10 .93, & 10 .91 for i = 0, 1, & 3, resp.) That is a symptom of an unconvincing, almost superfluous
mean 1601 systematic rt asc error (a) of the entire cat D is an astounding +00 .23±00 .07 ! fit. The error waves in the Ancient Star Catalog are far more informative (see Rawlins 1982C & DIO 2.3 ‡8 §C).
But that is precisely because Tycho’s cat D is so much the superior of the older Catalog: Tycho’s mean errors are so
(See Table 9; the Ancient Star Catalog’s mean longitude error is c.1 1/2 ordmags bigger, tiny, and reflect so clearly the extreme care he took in eliminating errors, that one’s disappointment at being unable
−90 ±20 : DIO 1.1 ‡6 §G4. And that error is definitely systematic, not random.) to draw much information out of the small mean-error-trends in the data is counterbalanced by delight at the success
of a unique scientist’s passion for accuracy.
56
All five Table 23 errors cited here are east-west: α. This is consistent with use of simple differential eq. 2. 63
When comparing a & b values (Γα) of Table 9 vs. those of Table 13, keep in mind that the error in TB’s
57
The other three 1701 errors also indicate consistency with the hypothesis. S65 (D694 = δ Oph) is off +70 in slightly oversized precession (5100 /yr vs. real 1601 precession 5000 .19/yr) creates a mean discrepancy of +00 .2 in
α. We find elsewhere (fn 41) that 300 misargs are common in Tycho’s star math. Assuming that such occurred here lngtd (similar for mean rt asc) during the 15y from 1586.0 to 1601.0. (I.e., one must add such an amount to the 1586
in eq. 4, δ = 17◦ 490 misargf 17◦ 190 produces λ = 239◦ 480 , just the value in Table 23. S69 (D699 = η Oph) has a or b, before comparing to the 1601 values.) Curiously, TB’s fundamental star α Ari, was off by −00 .21 in 1586,
by far the worst error in Table 23. Acc calc (via §I6) would give α = 253◦ 200 .7 & δ = −15◦ 170 . A typical Tycho but was almost perfectly accurate by 1601, due to his precession error.
misinv (§M2) for α makes it 252◦ 390 .3, which is very close to the grossly erroneous Table 23 value, 252◦ 400 . For 64
The least-squares results vary slightly with time. (However, not enough to melt those phase-incompatibilities
S71 (D509 = δ Her), acc calc (via §I6), would have α = 255◦ 420 . An ordinary −100 slip suffices to account for the noted in §J2.) To illustrate, we provide the last two rows of Table 14, computed at 1601.03, instead of 1586.03.
Table 23 value, 255◦ 320 . For ΓαD : 10 .00, −00 .08±00 .22, 10 .02, −00 .04±00 .20, 00 .73±00 .28, 193◦ ±23◦ , 00 .91. For ∆δD : 10 .60,
58
However, one could also argue that the 1701 S list was computed purely nondifferentially via straight spherical 10 .05±00 .27, 10 .23, 10 .10±00 .25, 00 .87±00 .34, 204◦ ±23◦ , 10 .12.
trig, starting at eq. 3. (Against this is the far greater labor involved per star. See also fn 56 & fn 57.) What has been 65
If observers tended to work post-sunset more often than pre-sunrise, this would produce asymmetries in
established by §I7 is that Tycho’s calc of equatorial Table 23 was not purely a differential extrapolation from the observations. Also, keep in mind that, in the Danish summer, it never gets completely dark (see Tycho’s comments
equatorial data of Table 22. on this at Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 p.113, cited Rawlins 1992T §F3), a factor which produces further asymmetric
59
From sample to sample, the steadiest error is ∆δ, which TB usually found most directly (see §B6). difficulties in accessing certain constellations.
20 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 21

suggests66 that the actual evolution of cat D was effectively: P-to-S-to-D.


Table 17: Mean Declination Errors’ Dependence on Declination (761 Stars)
J4 We find (contra previous commentators)67 that accuracy was not much degraded by
stellar dimness, so long as the star’s µ was brighter than about 5th magnitude. Indeed, δ1 δ2 n σ1 a σa rT r ∆r h
what our tables show is that from68 3rd to 5th magnitude, there is no statistically significant 75◦ 90◦ 7 30 .53 00 .79 10 .34 0 -00 .46 00 .46 65◦ 580
decline in accuracy — a startling finding for orthodox scholars, but one which is in fact 60◦ 75◦ 30 20 .15 -00 .16 00 .39 0 -00 .18 00 .18 79◦ 380
quite consistent with what one ought to expect after examining69 Tycho’s raw stellar data. 45 ◦
60 ◦
70 1 .85
0
0 .84 0 .22
0 0
0 0 .08 -00 .08 85◦ 560
0
Note the case (see D95 in §M3), of the 6th magnitude Beehive (“Praesepe”), about whose 30◦ 45◦ 91 10 .45 00 .67 00 .15 0 00 .34 -00 .34 71◦ 030
position Tycho was so confident that he even put it on his Select star list (Table 22) — and, 15 ◦
30 ◦
173 1 .69
0
0 .91 0 .13
0 0
0 00 .64 -00 .64 56◦ 380
indeed, its accuracy is better than the average of the S list. 0◦ 15◦ 182 10 .34 00 .83 00 .10 0 10 .02 -10 .02 41◦ 390
J5 A seeming peculiarity: the ratio, of ∆β’s σ0 to ∆δ’s σ0 , swings from unity-plus to -5 ◦
0 ◦
32 1 .24
0
0 .98 0 .22
0 0
0 10 .56 -10 .56 31◦ 470
unity-minus, as we go southward. The reason: in the north, where refraction is trifling near -10◦ -5◦ 46 10 .16 10 .17 00 .17 0 10 .96 -10 .96 26◦ 190
upper culmination, δ was nearly correct, while TB’s error in obliquity  vitiated rotation- -15 ◦
-10 ◦
46 1 .69
0
1 .53 0 .25
0 0
0 20 .46 -20 .46 21◦ 270
transformation-calculated β. But, as we shift our attention to the zodiac and then into the -20◦ -15◦ 41 10 .99 10 .55 00 .31 10 .99 30 .15 -10 .16 17◦ 010
southern part of cat D, refraction becomes more important. However, since TB’s error70 in  -25 ◦
-20 ◦
34 1 .53
0
1 .09 0 .26
0 0
4 .56
0
40 .52 00 .04 11◦ 540
is +20 , we find that, while many primarily refraction-caused errors in δ stand uncorrected,71 -30◦ -25◦ 8 10 .72 10 .04 00 .61 60 .92 60 .67 00 .25 7◦ 530
the errors which they cause in calculated β are somewhat compensated for by the obliquity -31 43
◦ 0
1 —– 2 .90
0
—– 13 .60 15 .48 -1 .88
0 0 0
2◦ 380
error, in the part of the sky around the winter solstitial colure. (See fn 71. However,
around the summer solstitial colure, the errors tend to reinforce each other.)72 The effect
of refraction also makes itself felt in another surprising way: except for the north (trivial
refraction), ∆α’s σ0 is generally smaller than ∆δ’s σ0 .
J6 A final DR observation here concerns the ∆β sinusoidal results: all θ solutions are . Also, in §F: Zodiac & North74 A are within σA of 10 .5 & 20 .0, the errors ∆ in the
within σθ of 180◦ , except for the E sample (§H), where the discrepancy is nonetheless obliquity  adopted for these respective sections of the sky. (Similar correlations of ∆ with
within 2σθ . Of course, this is simply a natural73 byproduct of Tycho’s erroneous obliquity ∆β’s A will readily be discerned in other tables here.)
J7 To conclude this section, I provide Table 17: declination-error means a = ∆δ,
66
Another possibility: Tycho’s use of large measured arcs (unlike Hipparchos: Rawlins 1982C p.373 & Rawlins vertically stratified by declination bounds, using 15◦ -thick intervals for positive δ, 5◦ -thick
1991H §F-§G) somewhat melted A while (due to nonbias in the arcs’ direction) keeping θ little changed. Comments: intervals for negative. The solutions (based upon the same 761 stars used in §E & §F) are
[a] the mean size of arcs g (roughly 30◦ ) is not enough to cause this big a dent in A; [b] the ∆α error-sinusoid for designated as were the 1-unknown least-squares results of §F: single-datum stdev σ1 , mean
the cat D zodiacal (Table 10) & cat D northern (Table 11) stars is consistent with E (Table 14), though the cat D
southern stars’ sinusoid (Table 12) is nearer P’s (Table 13). [c] The raw observations (OO 10-13) record use of so
a, and its stdev σa . For the mean δ of each row, I also list (in the rightmost columns) for
many ref-stars not on the P or E lists — but nearly all on the S list — that the relation already noted (§J2 item [b]) Hven culmination: Tycho’s tabular refraction75 rT (interpolated from his table at OO 3:377),
between the S list & cat D sinusoids (Tables 9&16) is perfectly reasonable. corresponding real refraction r, & their difference, ∆r = rT − r; the last column is the
67
However, the table at Rybka 1984 p.202 presages our finding here, despite his using m (to 0.1 precision) not µ mean of the apparent altitudes h of all the stars in the row.
values: it reveals little difference between TB errors at m = 4 & 5. (Rybka would have found the same for 3 rd magn,
had he not merged these stars with all the brighter stars.) J8 Now, if all δ were based upon upper transit observations, corrected by Tycho’s
68
While for most samples the 2nd magn stars have more acc pstns than those dimmer, there is an anomaly in refraction table (fn 107), one would expect to find a resembling −∆r: varying from about
the North: in Table 7, the errors for the 2nd magn stars (16 stars) are outsize (compared to other samples’ errors at −00 .7 at δ = 90◦ , to near-null at δ = 56◦ (Hven zenith), swooping to an absolute maximum
2nd magn). However, since (at 2nd magn, 18 stars), the North medians’ size is not out of line (Table 3), the oddity of about +20 .7 at δ = −14◦ (h = 20◦ , where the TB refraction table’s error ∆r peaks at
in Table 7 is probably just due to a few large (& probably interdependent) errors in a small sub-sample. (Another
peculiarity: in Tables 1-4, ∆β is smaller for µ = 2 than for µ = 1 — perhaps due to accid cancellation of refr & obliq
−20 .7), then quickly flattening-out further south, since the TB refraction table becomes
errors. Note ignoring of refr for Sirius: fn 71.) accurate to about 10 , from h = 17◦ until very near the horizon. (The error again becomes
69
Fn 37. On the other hand, note §N19. serious between h = 3◦ and 0◦ . But, in cat D, only one star lies in this range: D299 =
70
The error introduced, by TB’s false oversized (ancient) adopted parallax plus his ignoring of polestar refraction, Fomalhaut, with 1601.03 δ = −31◦ 430 . See last row of table.)
is about 20 .8, which approximately accounts for the +20 error in his . TB rejected [a] the Almajest 1.12 method J9 However, a in the actual table here does not at all so behave, in the north. The
(measuring double- between the solstices) in favor of [b] measuring the less refraction-affected complement of
 (the angle between pole & S.Solstice). (See Thoren 1990 pp.226-227.) I suspect that the ancient astronomer 7 farthest north stars (δ > 75◦ ) of our sample have no consistent error, certainly not a
Hipparchos experienced exactly the reverse conversion: starting with method [b] (though crudely using a gnomon negative one. Reason: not one of these 7 stars’ places are based (even in part) upon
for the Sun, resulting in rounded  = 23◦ 11/12 — roughly 1◦ /5 high in his era: see Rawlins 1982C pp.367-368), but observations for δ. If we include even stars with large errors & those marked in col.x, we
later switching to method [a], which produced far better  = 23◦ 2/3 (slightly shrunk by differential solar refraction). have 33 stars whose δ > 70◦ — but the cat D position of only one of them (γ UMi =
71
E.g., D933 = Sirius: ∆δ = +30 .0. This is precisely the refraction for h = 17◦ 550 . Odd, because the 10 .3
correction, found in TB’s refraction table (OO 3:377) for this h, would have eliminated nearly half of the δ error.
D342) appears to be based upon observations of h or δ. Moving away from the celestial
Clearly this correction was not applied to Sirius. (Presumably, Sirius’ pstn was long-established for Tycho well pole: though the stars between δ = 60◦ & 75◦ show a very slight (utterly insignificant,
before he began accounting for refr.) In connection with DR’s observation at §J5, note that, for this southern star, statistically) negative mean error a, the zenith stars have a steady positive error of c.10 .
∆β = +10 .0 is much smaller than ∆δ. Here, in the transf-calc, TB’s +20 .0  error cancelled (full-impact, so near
the winter solstitial colure) 2/3 of the +30 .0 error caused by refraction.
72
Thus, since there are more stars around the summer solstitial colure in the northern portion of cat D, ∆β tends 74
And, for ∆β, the southern stars’ A is within 1.4σA of 20 .0.
to be larger than ∆δ. But, there being more stars around the winter solstitial colure in the southern portion of cat D, 75
Tycho’s refraction rT is computed for the mean apparent altitude, h (Table 17’s last col), of the n cat D stars
the reverse tends to be true. in the decl interval; real r is the mean of the real refractions of the n stars, computed (overprecisely, especially for
73
See fn 39 here; also DIO 2.3 ‡8 §C14. The expected latitude-error curve due to an obliquity-error ∆: ∆β = low h) from DR’s refraction formulae (Rawlins 1992T fn 17). Since refraction is not a linear function of h, these
−∆ sin λ = ∆ sin(λ− 180◦ ). definitions are slightly inconsistent, but not at a level that will sensibly affect the present analysis.
22 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 23

J10 As we head south of the celestial equator, the behavior of a is more nearly what fishy. Third, D566&567 are nonexistent-hybrid disasters (§N8 & Table 19). So we subtract
we expected (§J8): [a] Between δ = 0◦ (Hven h = 34◦ ) and δ = −15◦ (Hven h = 19◦ ), a 27 from 1004 and conclude that cat D lists real attempted observations of 977 stellar objects.
is equal to about 60% of refraction. [b] The peak error indeed (§J8) occurs very near δ = Fourth, dropping 12 hybrids78 (cat D entries calculated via data not from the same star), we
−14◦ (Hven h = 20◦ ), but again with about 60% of the expected strength. [c] Between δ = have 965 real, distinct stars cataloged (though not always with TB’s intended accuracy).
−25◦ & −30◦ , where one anticipates nearly null error (since the TB refraction tables are K5 For our statistical investigations, we include non-identical repeats (fn 77), but delete
accurate in this range), we instead find steady a = +10 . fishy, fake, hybrid, or non-existent objects (§K4). We also eliminate (as in §C3, for §D) not
J11 In brief, then, vs. expectations (§J8), we find a: [i] off by +10 for h = 90◦ (δ = only hybrids but lineup-calcs (§B9), here-restored scribal-errors (fn 42), wrong-choices-of-
56 ), [ii] off by +10 1/2 for h = 20◦ , [iii] off by +10 for h = 10◦ . It is initially tempting

pair (WCP: fn 181), & the iffy Final Fifty, etc. — i.e., all the problem-stars cited in col.x of
to suppose that the sample was polluted by two-g stars. However, virtually no non-north Table 21. The number remaining is then: 886 stars (§C4). Further weeding out (§E2) the
stars were positioned in cat D by that method. (See §B8.) The most likely actual causes: stars with either implicit 1601.03 equatorial coordinate error exceeding 0◦ .1, we are left
instrumental pole-misplacement, too-frequent neglect of refraction-correction (prominent with 761 stars for which Tycho gave reliable positions.
example at fn 71), and non-transit δ observations (by equatorial armillary) performed too
far off meridian. (Note: no single one of these factors will explain the entire a profile of
Table 17.) L How Dim Was Tycho’s Magnitude Limit?
J12 I conclude this section with a particularly surprising finding: The most accurate
L1 Of the 1004 stars of cat D, not one’s pre-extinction79 visual magnitude m unam-
(smallest σ0 ) of the 3 main sections of cat D is not the North or Zodiac section (as I would
biguously exceeds 6.00. I have checked80 out several cases where it seemed81 that Tycho
have expected), but the South part. (In the Ancient Star Catalog, the southern stars are
perhaps had recorded a star dimmer than m = 6.00: D168, D194, D247, D257, D327,
the worst.) As a comparison of Table 12 to Table 16 shows, the southern ecliptical σ0 are
D408, D524, D598, D603.
actually smaller (especially for β) than those of the elite S list. (Though, see §I3.) Likely
reason: generally speaking, the order of (pre-Final-Fifty) observation was zodiac, north, L2 The cases of D257, D408, D598, & D603 turned out to be mere confusions en-
south. So southern stars tended to be cataloged when TB’s techniques & instruments were gendered by cat D position-errors. D168 is a hybrid entry (see §M3), partly based upon
at their peak. observations of a triple star, HD121444 (m = 7.6) + HD121481 (m = 6.8) + HD121496
(m = 6.85): combined m = 5.83. The magnitude of D247 (HR8087, 25χ Cap) would at first
seem to exceed 6.00. But the Yale Bright Star Catalogue (Hoffleit & Jaschek 1982) magni-
K Total Star Count tude m of HR8087 is false (m = 6.03 vs. m = 5.28 in SkyCat2000; either a luminosity-error
by a factor of 2 was made, or the magnitude & B−V of a variant of HR8086’s data leaked
K1 Before DIO, perhaps only one scholar (Francis Baily)76 had even attempted an into HR8087). The magnitude of D327 (65i Psc = HR230-1) is a binary of combined m =
accurate count of cat D’s stars (§B2). DIO finds that the total is not 1000 (as commonly 6.3 according to the Yale BSC, but from the 1940 edition of the Yale BSC (p.6), we see that
stated) but exactly 1004. this is just Yale’s Castor-Pollux gaffe (fn 87) in reverse: combined m confused with indi-
K2 The final 4 stars (D1001-1004), tacked onto cat D at the last minute, are those of vidual m (both 6.29), so true combined m = 5.54. (Amazingly, SkyCat2000 1991 follows
Cen. (All 4 stars’ longitudes λ are faked, as first pointed out at Rawlins 1992T Table 2 — this error, which may be corrected by a moment’s eyeball exam of the real sky, comparing
where we also discovered that the first 6 stars of Oph, D675-680, are entirely faked.) magnitudes of the stars in the little triangle formed by D325-7. It may seem incredible that,
K3 Tycho was numerologically determined to complete his long-promised thousand late in the 20th century, a naked-eye star’s magnitude could be mistaken by a factor of two
star project. (Hipparchos & Ulugh Beg had each also cataloged just over 1000 stars.) Thus in both of the prime catalogs which astronomers consult for magnitudes. But this is in fact
the vastness of the achievement. Thus also the motive to pad a bit at the very end, as Tycho the case for 65i Psc. It is even more remarkable that this error was revealed by its conflict82
was evicted from Hven just a few stars short of the magic desired total. (Details at Rawlins with the magnitude limit which DR had found for Tycho’s naked eye cat D. Indeed, DR
1992T §C9 f.) was sufficiently confident, of the reality & nature of this error, that he distributed 2 copies83
K4 A hitherto unknown number: how many separate stars did Tycho place in cat D? Not of the present edition of cat D before even checking the sky to confirm 65i Psc’s magnitude
1004. Not even 1000. First, 12 stars are listed more than once — two of them thrice; thus, — which he did at home, 1994/6/3 3:41 EDT. Note: while Yale University’s BSC and
14 entries are repeated77 stars (2 of them exact). Second, 11 further stars are fake or (D971) the SkyCat2000 both err on 65i Psc’s m, by contrast the rough m indicated for this star is
correct in the latest rendition of the popular Norton’s, edited by Ian Ridpath.) Nonetheless,
76
In his Mem.R.A.S. 13 (1843) version of cat D, Baily skips stars D94, D675, & D913, while appending 2 stars to
Sgr and 2 novae to Cyg & Cas, resp, resulting in a total of 1004 − 3 + 4 = 1005 stars. A more defensible candidate (marked as such in col.x in Table 21) can contain pieces of data based on stars already listed (elsewhere in cat D).
for a 1005th star is 24ω Her (HR6117, m = 4.57), which was cataloged at m = 5 (OO 13:76) in TB’s Appendix to Such invasive hybrids include: D277, D566, D567, D854, and maybe D647 & D747.
his 1596 observations, but (apparently inadvertently) omitted from cat D, a fact first remarked by Dreyer (OO 13:76 78
The twelve hybrids are: D73, D168, D224, D255, D277, D291, D358, D364, D484, D491, D854, & D938.
n.1). It is the sole Tycho star, previously cataloged by him, which is not in cat D. Its pstn is acc to less than 10 in
See fn 170. D566-567 are hybrid-bungles (§N8), already dropped as nonexistent stars. D647 is a lineup-calc-bungle
both eqt coords. However, since it isn’t in cat D, I don’t include it in this edition of cat D. (Had its acc been awful,
data-hybrid; it is eliminated from our statistically-analysed samples on several other grounds, anyway. A few other
it would have been dropped; so it would be statistically improper to include it post hoc.) The cat D coords (& real
entries might be hybrid (e.g., D504); but, absent firm indication, §M treats each as just a flawed single-star position.
coords for 1601.03): implicit αD = 241◦ 450 .8 (450 .7) & δD = 15◦ 000 .5 (000 .7); explicit λD = 235◦ 580 .5 (590 .1) &
βD = 35◦ 140 .8 (130 .3); post-extinction magn µ = 4.75.
79
The post-extinction magnitudes µ of several stars exceed 6.00. (See §L9 & Table 18.)
77
The repeated stars: D94 = D102 (10µ2 Cnc, HR3176), D256 = D257 (51µ Cap, HR8351), D345 ≡ D600
80
Indeed, I have even examined the sky directly with my 500 RFT refractor for D168, D194, D327, & D524.
(11-12 Cam, HR1622-3), D348 = D644 (A Cam, HR0985), D550 = D565 = D569 (13θ Cyg, HR7503-4), D554 =
81
Yet another instance is the hybrid star D491, whose δ is of Com 22, which has m = 6.29; but, again, a nearby
D568 (54λ Cyg, HR7963), D684 = D704 (53ν Ser, HR6446), D685 = D705 (55ξ Ser, HR6561), D686 = D706 (56o star enhanced the effective magnitude: see below at D491 in §M4.
Ser, HR6567), D687 = D707 = D696 (57µ Oph, HR6567), D699 ≡ D701 (35η Oph, HR6378), D907 = D913 (26π
82
Were the modern catalogs’ value (m = 6.3) correct for 65i Psc, then D327 would be by far the dimmest real star
Eri, HR1162). (Due merely to zodiac-sign misprints, D976 & D982 falsely appear to be repeats of D961 & D960, in cat D, with µ = 6.44, more than 0.2 magns dimmer than any other. (See Table 18: D234.)
resp.) I have dropped cat D’s two exact repeats, D600 & D701 (D345 ≡ D600 & D699 ≡ D701) from my samples 83
To Curtis Wilson 1994/5/11 (from BWI Airport) & to Hanne Dalgas Christiansen 1994/5/28 (at the Tycho Brahe
because they are superfluous. (D600 was deleted on other grounds anyway: fn 191.) Note also that hybrid stars Museum, on Hven Isle, a few meters from where all cat D’s fully genuine stars were observed).
24 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 25

two cat D entries still looked potentially dimmer than µ = 6: D194 (HR5703, 29o Lib) and Tycho’s m are original, a few may occasionally88 be derivative. E.g., TB follows Hipparchos
D524 (HR6641, Her). Both cat D positions agree well with those of actual dim stars. in, oddly,89 assigning magnitude m = 2 to Pollux (β Gem) = D66 (m = 1.14) and magnitude
L3 D194 was just 70 north of HR5703 (magn 6.30 in Yale Cat & SkyCat2000), and m = 1 to Denebola (β Leo) = D136 (m = 2.14). As with the modern SAO Catalog: the
D524 was only 50 (great-circle) east of HR6641 (magn 6.43 in the same 2 sources). But a main goal was to determine stellar positions, not brightnesses.90
closer look muddies the situation. HR5703 is indeed listed as 6.30 by the Yale Cat & by L8 For this edition of cat D (§P), it was decided to list not only each star’s pre-extinction
SkyCat2000 1:371, but then SkyCat2000 2:94 (1985) says it is a double star (HD136407) real magnitude m, but also its real91 null-dust post-extinction magnitude µ, for culmination
whose components have magnitude 6.2 & 8.4 (combined magnitude 6.07), which is con- at Tycho’s Hven observatory. The last (µ) is found by a 21-band integration of atmospheric
sistent with the older catalogs’ magnitude 6.1 (SAO 159191, Albany 12396). Moreover, extinction, stellar spectrum, & human ocular sensitivity curve, as described at Rawlins
the 7.4 magn star HD136406 (SAO 159188 & Albany 12395 have it m = 7.5) was only 110 1992T fn 18. The null-dust assumption (fn 45) for pre-industrial astronomy has been
distant for Tycho; merging its magnitude with 6.07 yields84 magn 5.8. needlessly controversial. In the incomparable Journal for the History of Astronomy, Evans
L4 As to D524: yes, HR6641 is m = 6.43 in Yale & SkyCat2000; but HD162299 (m = 1987 (64pp!) attacks, at astounding length, the Ptolemy star catalog analysis of Rawlins
7.0) is just 90 (gt-circ) to the east. (That the 2 stars may have been seen together is suggested 1982C — charging that it didn’t use modern skies’ standard extinction model. This model
by the fact that for D524, Tycho writes “nebulous” instead of specifying a magnitude. There entails 11 magnitudes92 of extinction at a sealevel horizon, as perhaps first noted in Rawlins
are a few other dimmer stars in the immediate neighborhood: e.g., SAO 46947.) Merging 1992T. So, to finally curb this odd debate, we here produce a surprise witness: Claudius
these two stars’ m produces net m = 5.93 — which wipes the last 6th magnitude hopeful Ptolemy. His Planetary Hypotheses 1.2.6 states93 (as brought to my attention by an excellent
off our list. new Springer book: Thurston 1994E p.173) that 1st magnitude stars were (in antiquity)
L5 For both D194 & D524, the Tycho position is near the center of the actual pair, visible on the horizon even during twilight. (When solar h = −15◦ . That is: sky 3◦ brighter
which suggests that the observer indeed saw both stars together. than JHA refereeing.) Since 1 + 11 = 12, the esteamed JHA ($140/yr to institutions) has
L6 It should be noted that, for Hven transit, since the pre-extinction magn m of D194 expended 64 of its extremely handsome pages on a Ptolemy-apology requiring that he saw
was between 5.8 & 6.0 (§L3 & fn 84), post-extinction magn µ was between 6.2 & 6.4; 12th magnitude objects. (There will never be another JHA. Treasure it.)
thus, the possibility that Tycho recorded the unfaked δ of D1001-1004 (µ = 6.0 to 6.5) L9 I now separately tabulate (without exclusions, even for fakery) those 14 stars in
from Hven (rather than Wandsbeck) cannot be said to have been utterly disproven here. cat D whose null-dust post-extinction magnitudes were dimmer than µ = 6. Four are
However, Tycho’s magnitude limit85 is so consistent & reliable (see fn 83!) that the odds fakes (D1001-1004), and three are dim parts of hybrid94 cases (D168, D484, & D491).
against Hven are convincingly high.
A warning regarding cat D’s published magnitudes m: they are crude86 and often However, the m in cat D are frequently different from other catalogers’. According to a semirandom DR count
88
L7
of 74 stars, roughly 30% of Tycho’s m do not equal the m of any of the earlier 1000 star catalogs (whose m are closely
inaccurate. (Not that modern catalogs are always beyond reproach. E.g., it’s official: interdependent): Hipparchos-Ptolemy, Al Sufi, Ulugh Beg, Copernicus. Two comments: [a] The fraction of fresh
Castor is brighter than Pollux! It says so, right there on p.119 of the authoritative 1982 Yale m data is the highest in any catalog at least since Hipparchos. [b] Given that experienced astronomers — observing
Catalog87 [error preserved at Graßhoff 1990 p.292].) And, though a surprising number of completely independently — will concur on most stars’ magnitudes, 30% may be about the fraction of disagreement
expected in a case of virtually zero dependence upon another naked-eye astronomer’s starlist.
84
But from 1991 SkyCat2000 p.410: 6.32 & 7.4; comb m = 5.98.
89
Both stars are commonly visible simultaneously. The differential magnitude error here — Pollux’s [m −m]
85
This limit also bears upon one’s natural initial hope that Tycho might have accidentally observed Uranus near minus Denebola’s [m −m] — is precisely 2, which corresponds to a relative brightness error of 6.3. (More, if atm
the border between Aqr & Psc, during his 1589 (& 1590) Autumn sweeps (OO 11:363-371 & OO 12:79-80, 405-412) extinction accounted for.) Repeating such a gross error independently would be virtually impossible for an outdoor
of that region, when the planet’s m = 5.7. At the 1589/9 start of these observations, Uranus was retrograding near observer.
20 Psc, a slightly brighter object. Other Psc stars in the vicinity which were a little brighter than Uranus: 27, 29,
90
There is one surely-nonderivative aspect to Tycho’s recorded magnitudes m, namely his designation “ne. ” for
30, 33. (All 4 are in Hipparchos’ & Ulugh Beg’s catalogs: PK708-711 & UK705-708, resp.) Yet, curiously, none of “nebulous”. (We use just “n” in our §P edition of cat D.) Only 5 stars in cat D are designated “ne.” They are: D95
these 5 stars were observed by Tycho. In brief, Tycho did not observe Uranus. (When TB was observing the zodiac (Beehive), D235, D236, D238, & D524. All are dim bunches of stars, not nebulae. (E.g., the Orion Nebula, D870,
stars, he only very rarely — e.g., 67k Psc = D326 = PK700 — recorded a star as dim as Uranus. And, during this is not called nebulous but is just rated at m = 3. Rather bright, considering that Betelgeux, D841, is listed as m = 2 !
period, he was generally not intending to observe stars unlisted by Hipparchos-Ptolemy.) The HP values were, respectively 2 2/3 & 1 1/3: PK735 & PK764.) Evidently, the term “nebulous” referred primarily
86
Largely integral m, though he occasionally adopted (Dreyer 1890 p.354), in effect, the ancient system — which to position, not brightness — i.e., to star-patches that seemed so ill-defined (to the observer) that determining precise
used thirds of magnitudes. coords was problematical. However, it must be said that, of the 10 nonfake stars with µ > 6 (Table 18), two are
marked “ne”: D236 & D524. (That’s 40% of all the “ne” stars in cat D. And it’s 20% of Table 18 — which is a
87
Lest one get the curious idea that flaws in star lists are strictly an oldtime problem, let’s have a few words on
fraction about 60 times higher than the 0.3% of the rest of cat D which is marked “ne”.) Note that D236 has one of
the long-standard 1982 Yale Bright Star Catalogue — which contains so many glitches that even my spotty use of it
the dimmest µ in cat D.
(barely 10% of its stars) turned up roughly a score of slips. A compact list follows. HR230-1 p.13 (65i Psc = D327):
see §L2. HR553 p.26 (D2): for 6ι Ari read 6β Ari. HR1592 p.449: 4 Aur not listed = ω Aur (as at p.66). HR2890-1
91
Actually, the standard 3 mm value for the ozone layer is not a rigid value: it varies around that average. (See
p.119 (Castor = D65): two prior estimates of comb m evidently taken as components’ individual m, so 1.58 + 1.59 = B.Rensberger’s anti-ozone-panic article, Washington Post 1993/4/15 pp.1,18-19.) But the effect is minor compared
0.83, brighter than Pollux (m = 1.12, HR2990 = D66); again, Yale 1940 edition p.60 renders both m values correctly, to that of the average amount of dust in the modern atmosphere.
2.85 & 1.99, for comb m = 1.58, which we use here (Johnson has 2.95 + 1.97 = 1.60). HR3447 p.140 o Vel: 10 error in
92
See Rawlins 1992T fn 18 (& fn 65). Same result: B.Schaefer “Astronomy & the Limits of Vision” Vistas in
1900.0 δ. (For −52◦ 340 0000 read −52◦ 350 0000 . Obviously a rounding error permitted by the underlying computer Astronomy 1994 (Table 3 and eqs.4b, 5b, & 6b for dry winter sealevel sky). For null-dust, horizon extinction = c.4
program — suggesting that other such errors may lurk for rounded-up 0000 endings.) HR4399 p.178 (D132): for magns. Thus, the difference between the standard model & the DIO (null-dust) model is 11 − 4 = 7 magns, a factor
78κ Leo read 78ι Leo. HR4691 p.190: huge δ error. For 1900.0 δ = 1◦ 370 1100 read −21◦ 370 1100 . HR4729-4731 of ordmag 1000 !
p.193 (α Cru). Error of +0.2 in comb m. (Rare miscue here in SkyCat2000 1982 p.311: HR4731 δ off by +1◦ .)
93
The wonderful recovery of Planetary Hypotheses 1.2 was by (Muffioso) B.Goldstein 1967. See p.9 for Ptolemy
HR5233 p.213: discrepancy of c.0.7 in m of HR5233. (Yale has m = 6.19; SkyCat2000, m = 6.9.) HR5264 p.214 on visibility of 1st magnitude stars at the horizon. [Some “defenders” of Ptolemy’s honesty on the Catalog-authorship
(D181): for 93ρ Vir read 93τ Vir. HR5459-5460 pp.222-223 (α Cen). Pstns 1900.0 vs. 2000.0 inconsistent in think his statements here and at Almajest 8.6 & (with diagrams) 13.7-8 were falsehoods: he didn’t really see stars at
3 dimensions with motion & distance data. HR7254 (2 slips) p.294: for β CrA read α CrA; & p.466: for α Cra read the horizon. If one assumes his horizon-stars-dishonesty to prove his Catalog-stars-honesty, there is another problem:
α CrA. HR7730&5 p.312 (D558): for 30 Cyg read 30o1 Cyg (OK at p.451). HR7751 p.314 (D559): for 31 Cyg Ptolemy (PlanHyp loc cit) gives parallel acronycal rising&setting data for outer planets, and such cannot be defined
read 31o2 Cyg (OK at p.451). HR8087 p.327 (25χ Cap = D247): another brightness-error by factor of 2. (See except for planets (invisible by JHA atmosphere: fn 92) seen right on the horizon.]
above at §L2.) HR8402 p.340 (D261): for o Aqr read 31o Aqr (OK at p.448). HR8592 p.346 (59υ Aqr = D278): 94
Note that, for each hybrid listed in Table 18, no more than one of the two listed pstn errors applies to it. For the
disastrous error of over 37◦ (gt-circ). (All HR8592 pstn coords are those of HR8593.) HR9045 p.364 (D582): for δ&g method, usually one coord is nearly correct (especially δ), but for a star that is two-g-placed, there is no such
71η Cas read 7ρ Cas. [HR339 p.16 (D330): for 81φ3 Psc read 81ψ3 Psc.] guarantee — as the D484 errors in Table 18 dramatically attest.
26 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 27

all, not appropriate to (pre-polluted-sky)97 early star catalogs, or [b] the case that Tycho
Table 18: Cat D Stars with Hven Null-Dust µ Dimmer Than 6 faked the four Cen stars’ longitudes (a shocker first announced in DIO: see Rawlins 1992T
D m m µ µJ Γα ∆δ x δ Name Table 2) is strengthened by the stars’ great dimness (demanded by adoption of the JHA
157 6 5.79 6.04 6.17 -80 .8 40 .4 -1˚.6 44k Vir extinction formula instead of DR’s: fn 95). The insuperable problem here is that agreeing
168 6 5.83 6.13 6.27 50 .6 110 .9 h -7˚.6 HD121481 to either [a] or [b] would require JHA admission that DIO contributes to academe. But
194 6 5.80 6.19 6.38 00 .0 70 .7 -14˚.0 29o Lib even such a minimal, undeniable truth has long been verboten in that curious journal, where
234 6 5.85 6.23 6.42 120 .6 30 .1 -13˚.7 2ξ2 Cap editorial integrity & impersonal equity still have the same priority they have always had.
236 n 5.52 6.06 6.33 10 .9 00 .6 -19˚.8 12o Cap
326 6 6.00 6.16 6.24 -10 .8 -50 .8 25˚.0 67k Psc
484 5 5.99 6.15 6.23 -550 .4 2000 .7 h 23˚.3 39 Com
M Discussion of Individual Stars’ Errors (& Occasional Oddities)
491 4 5.92 6.08 6.15 -340 .4 20 .6 h 26˚.5 22 Com M1 We will now scrutinize every substantial position-error in cat D. This will be
524 n 5.93 6.07 6.14 5 .1
0
00 .6 47˚.8 HR6641 accomplished according to the same order in which the stars appear in cat D (OO 3:344f).
896 5 5.84 6.05 6.15 20 .3 10 .7 5˚.1 12 Mon All star positions with errors98 greater than 0◦ .1 (gt-circ) in either α or δ will be analysed
1001 5 4.19 6.47 7.98 -59 .5 0
80 .4 f -32˚.4 2g Cen below. These limits are established in equatorial coordinates, in order to avoid the slight
1002 5 4.73 6.23 7.07 -710 .2 160 .4 f -29˚.9 4h Cen ecliptical position errors caused by TB’s erroneous obliquity (usually  = 23◦ 310 1/2 —
1003 5 4.23 6.02 7.05 -580 .4 30 .8 f -31˚.0 1i Cen inaccurate by +20 .0, a remarkably large error for a TB fundamental constant: see fn 190).
1004 5 4.32 6.13 7.17 -730 .7 190 .6 f -31˚.0 3k Cen Below, one will note frequent errors in the arcmin tens place of coordinates. I take this to
be the result of creditable concentration upon acquiring acc readings in the arcmin units &
fractions.
M2 Abbreviations (besides standard IAU99 3-letter abbrevs for constellations) & terms
Thus, only 7 stars (less than 1%) of cat D are entirely based upon stars whose µ > 6. adopted in §M (and elsewhere here):
In Table 18, I list in columns each star’s: catalog number D & catalog magnitude m, its “acc” = accurate(ly) to within c.10 (gt-circ), limit 10 .5;
actual pre-extinction magn m; its minimal post-extinction magn µ correctly computed; the “accid” = accident(ly), inadvertent(ly);
same quantity computed (µJ ) according to the over-opaque95 extinction formula basic to the α = right ascension;
disastrous J.Evans 1987 attack upon DR published by the jest-folks running the precious “arcmin” = arcminutes;
JHA; the gt-circ equatorial position errors (Γα & ∆δ); the mark “x” (see §P4); the real “arg” = argument;
1601.0 δ (rounded to the nearest degree-tenth); & the star’s Name. β = celestial latitude;
L10 Even taking Wandsbeck (fn 95) for the Cen stars’ observation-site, note that JHA “C” = prefix of star’s cat C number, e.g., “C153” is 153rd star in cat C (fn 2);
extinction still puts the 6 dimmest stars in cat D (HD121481, 29o Lib, 2ξ2 Cap, 12o Cap, “calc” = calculate (calculated, calculating);
2g Cen, & 4h Cen) low in the sky; by contrast, DR’s null-dust extinction model requires “comb” = combined100 (magnitude of multiple star);
no such curious δ-µ correlation. Unless we accept that Tycho’s eyes got sharper at low “config” = configuration (refers to angle of two g arcs at quarry star);
altitudes, this again (as at §L8 & fn 95) confirms the preferability of the latter model, for “coords” = coordinates;
evaluating older96 observations. “corr” = correct (corrected, correction);
“culm” = star’s culmination (transit);
L11 A fantasy as comment. If the JHA were an honest journal, it would acknowledge
the unevadable: either [a] the extinction formula with which it hyper-attacked DR is, after “D” = prefix denoting star’s cat D number (Table 21), e.g., “D123” is 123rd star in cat D;
“dbld” = doubled or repeated (obs re-taken to check against error);
δ = declination;
95
If the JHA’s formula is right, then Tycho saw to c.8th magnitude. (And Ptolemy to 12th : §L8!) See D1001 in
Table 18 & fn 97. (This star’s µ is given as 7.95, in Rawlins 1992T §H7 & fn 18 and DIO 2.3 ‡8 fn 25, because
97
To justify applying a modern dust-factor to its formula for atm extinction, the JHA echoes Reagan’s delightful
I there adopted 271◦ K, mean Copenhagen T for Jan, as well as epoch 1591 and latitude 55◦ .91, following Evans trees-are-pollution-culprits fantasy: “Industrial pollution and automobile exhaust were not factors in Antiquity, but
1987 p.168, to show what a continuation of his table there would have found for Cen.) DR proposed (Rawlins 1992T cooking over wood fires must have been a considerable source of haze.” (Evans 1987 p.269. Look it up.) Note also
§C8&§G2) that declinations of the four Cen stars were observed at Wandsbeck, 1598.0. The respective µ would there that the JHA extinction formula breaks down for low h (where the Cen stars resided); for a normal 1.2 km-scale-hgt
have been: 5.66, 5.81, 5.46, 5.56. Reasonable values. However, the respective JHA µJ are (again for Wandsbeck): dust layer [of the same net 0.2 mags/atm opacity presumed by the JHA, the correct respective 1601.03 Hven Cen µ
6.51, 6.38, 6.12, 6.23. [Nonsimplified computing with JHA presumed dustload makes it: 6.46, 6.35, 6.08, 6.19.] (integrated by DR for hgt = 50 m, with sealevel T = 283◦ K, P = 1013 mb) would be about: 7.99, 7.02, 7.01, 7.13,
Thus, even assuming observations from the more southerly site (Wandsbeck), D1001 would be still be the dimmest not the µJ found] in the last 4 rows of Table 18. (While the numbers of atmospheres used to figure Rayleigh, ozone,
star in cat D, by the JHA formula — and most of the Cen stars’ µJ would still rank in the dimmest 1% of cat D. (If & dust extinction are indeed roughly equal for high h, the problem is that this equality collapses near the horizon:
the light of 1ξ1 Cap, 1◦ /3 distant at m = 6.34, is comb with that of 2ξ2 Cap, then comb m = 5.32 — and all four Rawlins 1992T fn 18. Thus, the lower the star, the less applicable Evans’ 1-dimensional formula becomes.)
Cen stars would be in the dimmest 1% of cat D.) Not the case for DR’s just-cited µ values. Which again speaks for
98
See discussions of ∆ & Γ at: fn 185 & fn 103.
adopting the null-dust model when analysing pre-industrial star data. See also §L10. 99
I have attempted to assign the IAU constellation to each star, which in cases of contradiction, generally meant
96
DR has additionally analysed 30 far-southern stars in Hipparchos’ catalog: those of Rawlins 1982C Table II preference to Bayer over Flamsteed; e.g., Flamsteed numbers neglected in Table 21: 51 Lib = D203; 54 And = D806;
(for nonexistent ν Car, read υ Car; error copied by Evans 1987 n.42) plus ι Car (PK887) & minus µ Vel (DIO 4.3 31 Mon = D958; 2 Crt = D978; 4 Crt = D979; 9 Crt = D982. (See fn 150 & fn 155.)
‡14). The results uncertainly suggest sparse aerosols on the clearest Rhodos nights, when Hipparchos rush-observed 100
I have not usually paid close attention to adding in very dim nearby stars’ magnitudes unless the uncomb m
his most southern stars (during their slim daily above-horizon period). [Note: on ordmag 1/10 of clear nights, the exceeded 6 (since, at §L, I examine closely the question of whether any such stars were recorded). Thus, I expect
nocturnal aerosol boundary layer is lower than hills at Lindos & Cape Prassonesi.] Taking modern standard dustload that a few star-bunches are listed here with m a little dimmer than they actually appeared to the observer. (However,
(Rawlins 1992T fn 18) as unity (& using Rawlins 1982C Table I), DR’s formal CapeP sea-level result: 1/3 ± 1/6. nearby stars of m = 6-7 will not add seriously to most stars’ m.) For the Beehive, see D95 at §M3.
28 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 29

∆ = error or differential (not necess gt-circ: see fn 103 & at Γ below in this glossary); “misrd” = misread instrument;
“diff” = difference, different, or differential; “misrdf” = [was] misrd for;
 = obliquity (fn 190); “miswr” = miswrite, miswritten;
“E&E” = equator & ecliptic; “miswrf” = [was] miswr for;
“ecl” = ecliptical; “neg” = negative;
“eq” = equation; “nms” = no math solution (see §N16);
“eqt” = equatorial; “obs” = observ(ed,er,ation);
“err” = error, erroneous; “ordmag” = order-of-magnitude (ordmag agreement = to nearest power of 10);
“esp” = especially; “OK” = angular error in range 10 1/2 to 50 (gt-circ);
“exagg” = exaggerate(d); “OO” = TB’s Opera Omnia (e.g., “OO 11:399” = Opera Omnia vol.11 p.399);
“flab” = φ = csc γ (see γ, below in this glossary), a crude101 measure of error of pstn “orig” = original;
calc from two near-parallel g arcs (e.g., D440, D586, D836), which exagg (transversely)102 “perp” = perpendicular(ity);
errors of g & of ref stars’ pstns (flab can also degrade standard δ & g method of §B6, when “PK” = star-number in Peters & Knobel 1915 edition of HP’s Ancient Star Catalog;
g too nearly north-south, e.g., D342); “pstn” = position (mean E&E of date106 unless otherwise stated);
g = gt-circ arc between quarry star & ref star (§§B6&B8); “pos” = positive;
γ = angle of intersection of two g arcs (see above at “flab” φ, also fn 176); “prob” = probable(ly);
Γ = gt-circ differential or error (novel103 notation, needed here only for α & λ diffs, “quarry” = star whose pstn is being determined via ref stars;
since ∆δ & ∆β are gt-circ); “r” subscript denotes coord of ref-star;
“gt-circ” = great-circle, where (for non-gt-circ coords) gt-circ diffs are here denoted by “real” = modern-calc reconstruction (sign convention here: error = obs-minus-real);
using Γ (see fn 103) rather than the customary ∆; “ref” = reference (as in ref star: §B5);
h = altitude above horizon (at transit unless otherwise specified, in the present work); “refr” = atmospheric refraction;107
“HD” = star’s Henry Draper catalog number (primary numbering used by Sky Publ “resp” = respective(ly);
Corp’s excellent SkyCat2000); “restor” = cat D error (“r” in col.x, Table 21) restored here (in this edition) to orig;
“HP” = Hipparchos-Ptolemy, i.e., Ptolemy’s update-plagiarism of Hipparchos’ Ancient “S” = prefix denoting star’s number in Tycho’s S list (Select stars: Tables 22&23), e.g.,
Star Catalog: see below at “PK” & at fn 141; “S55” is the 55th star (α Vir or Spica) on the S list;
“HR” = Harvard Revised Photometry star# (used by Yale Catalog); “SAO” = [star’s no. in] Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Star Catalog 1966;
“hybrid” = cat D star pstn inadvertently based upon measures from 2 distinct stars,104 “screrr” = scribal error;
though believed by Tycho to be same star (e.g., D168, D854); “screrrf” = [was] screrr for;
λ = celestial longitude; “SkyCat2000” = Sky Catalogue 2000.0, Sky Publ Corp 1991 (highly recommended);
“lineup” = calc (“u” in column x of Table 21) of quarry star pstn (e.g., D345-348) not “solst” = solstice or solstitial;
by rigorous two-g math but merely by putting quarry star’s catalog pstn on gt-circ between “sph trig” = spherical trigonometry(tric);
2 ref stars (tempting to do this in flab cases); “SS” = Summer Solst;
m = star’s magn according to cat D; “subseq” = subsequent;
m = real pre-extinction magn; “subtr” = subtract(ed,ing);
µ = real post-extinction magn (see fn 45 & §L8); “transf” = transformation (rotational) calc of eqt pstn to ecl pstn or vice-versa;
“magn” = magnitude; “two-g” = pstn determination, or sph trig calc, based upon two arc measures g (§B8);
“misarg” = misperceived arg of (trig) tables, entering or leaving; “TB” = Tycho Brahe;
“misargf” = [was] misarg for; “undbld” = not dbld, as best cat D obs regularly were (many late cat D obs undbld);108
“misinv” = confusion of x◦ +y 0 with (x+1)◦ −y 0 or (occasionally) x◦ −y 0 , a common “vs. ” = wrt (usually) ref star cited, from which (usually) g was measured;
special105 case of misarg (e.g., D348, D411, D523, D627, D832, S69) or misrd (see D353); “WCP” = wrong choice between pair of solutions resulting from sph trig (§P4 & fn 181);
“misinvf” = [was] misinv for; “wrt” = with respect to.
101
The length of the g arcs is also obviously a factor in gauging flabbiness. To illustrate by extreme cases: [a] if 106
Effects of aberration, refraction, & nutation are not included in real places provided here unless I explicitly so
both g are very short, flabbiness is effectively trivial, while [b] if both g are 90◦ & γ = 0◦ or 180◦ , then all points state, as, e.g., for the g of D370-371&379-380. For multiple stars, I generally list the pstn of the brightest component,
on the gt-circ locus of pts 90◦ from both ref-stars will satisfy both g. though sometimes the mean pstn if the m of a pair are nearly equal. (I have not been systematic about this. See
Problem similar to explorer attempting longitude-determination strictly via meridian sextant shots. See fn 172, fn 174.) In our full §P edition of cat D, the 1st star in rt asc is listed in the HR column — while, in Table 20, the
102

DIO 2.2, Wash Post 1993/6/1 p.3, Science 260:1587 (1993/6/11). In a near-parallel two-g case (where the g are not brightest component is listed in the HR column.
tiny: fn 101), errors in either g will be exagg (in eventual calc pstn) by ordmag flab φ. 107
Tycho’s refraction table appears at OO 2:287 & OO 3:377. (Note alteration at h = 19◦ . Perhaps an earlier version
103
Γ (fn 185) is a notation designed to bring long-awaited relief to the needy Historian-of-science, since certain of the table tailed off to nullity more gradually.) Tycho’s 1598 statement seems (Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 p.114) to
Hist.sci archons are easily bewildered by undergrad math. See, e.g., the disastrous 1992 JHA confusion of ∆ & Γ. cast some doubt on the now-common perception that he believed refraction was zero for h > 20◦ . (See Thoren 1990
Achievement suitably honored in the Journal for Hysterical Astronomy section of DIO 2.3 (‡8 fn 31), 1992. p.301 n.153.) A question in a different direction: is it coincidental that this, the first extant astronomically-useful
104
List of all cat D hybrids at fn 78. For hybrids, the star listed in our DIO edition (Table 21) of cat D is generally refraction table, originated at a high northern latitude? (The much-later long-canonical Pulkovo tables raise the same
the one whose δ corresponds to the cat D pstn. An exception can be: if that star has already been cataloged elsewhere. question.) There are some advantages to making refraction-measurements in the far north — though, not too far:
(See D854.) Specific instances are listed at fn 77 & fn 170. obviously, at the Pole itself, no stellar diurnal variation in refraction could be detected.
105
In trig cases, misinv would figure to be more common with small-angle cosine or large-angle sine. 108
Dreyer 1890 p.227 notes that most 1597 stars are undbld. Same true of much of 1596 stars at OO 13:61f.
30 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 31

M3 Zodiacal Star Errors: (OO 11:396 & OO 12:177). For ecl pstn’s acc transf-calc, this & α = 189◦ 300 (OO 11:396
& OO 12:237) evidently used. Each’s accuracy beneath TB’s standards.
D14 (43σ Ari). Acc α, δ, & λ; but (OO 11:384 n.1, 12:231) −100 miscue in β. Restor.
D164 (79ζ Vir). OO 11:358-359 (1589/3/11,14,&15) acc δ; acc g vs. β Leo & g
D38 (106 l Tau). Unused OO 11:386 β = 3◦ 300 1/2 screrrf 2◦ 300 1/2 (C38 & D38). vs. β Lib. Acc δ & OK α in first 1589.0 catalog (at OO 11:397); but, in transf, α =
D39 (102ι Tau). Acc 1589.0 eqt pstn at OO 11:386, but misconceived transf. Evidently 198◦ 230 2/3 misarg by +1 in arcmin tens place, thus resultant ecl coords imperfect. Later
absolute magn of acc109 calc110 β = −1◦ 140 3900 1/2 (calc only off by +200 ) accid added to α = (see OO 3:412), otherwise-OK re-calc of α used g (vs. β Leo) with −1◦ misarg in g,
69◦ 390 1300 , produced false λ = 70◦ 530 5200 , which is given to unusually overdone precision producing α off by −1◦ 1/3. Final cat D ecl coords then acc transf from these defective eqt
at OO 11:386. Acc β = −1◦ 140 3900 1/2 then perhaps miswr (losing 2 digits) β = −1◦ 490 1/2. coords. (See OO 12:239.)
D52 (23 Tau). At OO 12:78, acc measures of g = 22◦ 420 & 22◦ 430 (vs. Hamal, real D168 (95 Vir & HD121481). Hybrid, unsuccessful attempt to place HP’s Vir #20. Acc
g = 22◦ 410 .4); but latter value then accid repeated as δ. Ecl place (D052) then acc transf 95 Vir δ = −7◦ 190 recorded 1591/1/23 at OO 12:177 (real 1591.1 δ = −7◦ 190 .3), precessed
from this false eqt pstn. for 1589.0 to −7◦ 180 (OO 11:398 & OO 12:237). (Real 95 Vir 1589.0 coords: α = 206◦ 160
D73 (64&65b Gem). Hybrid of acc g = 40◦ 260 3/4 for 64b1 Gem (vs. Regulus) and & δ = −7◦ 180 .7.) Yet, for determination of α, both recorded 1591.1 g are not of 95 Vir
acc δ = 28◦ 450 (OO 12:233; epoch 1589) of center of pair 64b1 Gem & 65b2 Gem; both but are instead acc g of nearby dim star HD121481, whose real 1591.1 coords were: α
raw data at OO 12:76. (Arc g from Aldebaran to mean place of pair explicitly recorded at = 203◦ 340 .0 & δ = −7◦ 310 .1. At OO 12:175, from β Vir, g = 33◦ 140 1/2 (real 1591.1 g
OO 12:75, g = 41◦ 340 , tho never used.) Ecl-to-eqt transf calc acc. = 33◦ 140 .1). At OO 12:177, from β Lib, g = 20◦ 000 1/2 (real 1591.1 g = 20◦ 020 .0). The
D74 (27 Gem). Orig obs δ (OO 3:412) & α both acc, but δ = 25◦ 380 misarg by +1 former g was used with 95 Vir’s δ = −7◦ 180 for OK subseq calcs of α & then transf-calc
in arcmin tens place before transf to ecl catalog. See 1589/1/3 & 2/9 obs (OO 11:348, 350, of ecl coords appearing as D168. Three further oddities: [a] On 1590/3/31 (OO 12:76), g
390 n.1). = 21◦ 550 1/6 was measured from β Lib, and the star was “believed to be” HP’s Vir #20 (see
D82 (31ξ Gem). Acc α, δ, & β; but (OO 11:390-391 n.1, 12:234) λ misarg by −1 in OO 12:76 n.1). (Datum not used.) This is actually an acc g of 90p Vir (D176 = HP’s Vir #27),
arcmin tens place. Restor. whose real 1590.3 g from β Lib was 21◦ 550 .9. [b] At OO 12:237, 1589.0 α = 203◦ 370 of
D95 (Praesepe). Beehive. Dreyer (OO 3:347) equates D95 with 41 Cnc111 = HR3429. OO 11:398 is rendered as 206◦ 370 . This alteration may be screrr, but it chances to place the
This seems superficially reasonable, since HR3429 is the brightest bee in the hive, at m OO 12:237 eqt pstn close to (merely 180 east of) 95 Vir. Regardless, the pre-altered eqt pstn
= 6.30. But the +80 .4 pstn discrepancy is serious, especially for a star on Tycho’s S list was input for transf-calc of disastrous final ecl pstn. [c] HD121481’s pre-extinction magn
(S38): D95 is 80 .4 to the north of HR3429. However, 80 to the north of HR3429, there is m = 6.8, which is far dimmer than anything else in cat D. Yet both (astonishingly precise)
a pair only 10 apart, HR3428 & HD73709, with a brighter comb m = 6.44 + 7.70 = 6.14. g agreements with reality are proof that the star was seen. The answer to this seeming
(Hevelius’ position for Praesepe is also near HR3428 — indeed, his β agreed with D95’s paradox appears to lie with two nearby stars,114 HD121496 (m = 6.85) & HD121444 (m =
to ordmag 10 . See Rybka 1984 p.64.) Tossing in 50 distant HD73785 (m = 6.85), we have 7.6). Trio’s comb magnitude m = 5.83. Since HD121481 & HD121496 were then precisely
total comb magn m = 5.69. Tho entire hive’s comb magn m < 5, I will (in our tables) use as separated as Mizar & Alcor now are (110 .8), one may question how well the stars’ light
the triplet’s comb magn (5.69), and will use the pstn of HR3428. This is by far the dimmest merged for the observer, but there is no other normal explanation for the strikingly acc two-g
star on the S list (marked “nebulous”) — yet its pstn’s accuracy is better than most S stars’. observation of such a dim star. (Tho not listed in the Harvard Revised or Yale catalogs, the
D98 (43γ Cnc). C93 & D98 β = 3◦ 080 screrrf 1589.0 β = 3◦ 090 (OO 11:392), restor. star appeared in the 1959 edition of A.Norton’s Star Atlas, for which its current tabular m
However, another possible explanation: TB simply averaged his 1586.0 Exceptional-star is far too dim. By the 1989 edition, it had vanished from Norton.)
list β (3◦ 070 , OO 2:233) with the 1589.0 value (3◦ 090 ) for D98’s β = 3◦ 080 . The latter theory D187 (61 Vir). Error of 1 in δ arcmin tens place produced δ = −16◦ 120 1/2 at OO 13:70.
is lent credence by its success in also explaining D222’s β (see below). Due to their shaky Actual 1596.0 δ = −16◦ 020 .4.
pasts, D98 & D222 have been marked “r” and dropped from the larger samples here, tho D190 (7µ Lib). Error of −120 in δ (OO 11:399); 1590/2/5 (OO 12:75) OK g vs. Spica,
both are retained In §H&§J since we are there probing for the effects of just such shakiness. not used.
D99 (47δ Cnc). Unused OO 11:392 (n.1) β “South” screrrf corr “North”. D193 (21ν Lib). Acc α & OK δ; OK β calc therefrom (OO 11:400), λ off by −460 in
D125 (46 Leo). Obs (OO 11:355-356) & calc entirely acc,112 except: acc calc α − αr = calc, possibly from entering cos table at 9◦ 140 instead of 1◦ 140 when using eq. 4 to find λ.
43 240 − subtracted from αr of δ Vir, not α Vir, causing hitherto unexplained (OO 11:394

D194 (29o Lib). For comb m = 5.8, see §L3.
n.1) gross −7◦ 1/6 error in α. (Similar slip likely at D368-9 & D377-8.) D200 (45λ Lib). Acc α (from 29γ Vir = D156 & 13ζ Oph = D700, via eqt armillary) &
D137 (6h Leo). Slightly err α calc from acc g (OO 12:74) & δ (OO 12:395). acc δ & acc calc β at OO 13:75 (epoch 1596.0); but λ = 234◦ 590 screrrf acc calc 234◦ 490 :
D138 (2ω Leo). Acc α but 1589.0 δ = 10◦ 400 (OO 12:395) screrrf 10◦ 500 (real 10◦ 470 ). +100 error, restor.
D143 (41 LMi). Acc eqt pstn (OO 13:64), but then +4◦ error intruded: δ = 29◦ 180 D210 (5ρ Sco). Prob error in tens place of α − αr during α determination.
misargf113 25◦ 180 in transf-calc of ecl pstn. (Rybka 1st to know D143 = 41 LMi: fn 38.) D215 (23τ Sco). Acc eqt pstn (OO 11:401, 12:76), but δ = −27◦ 140 misarg as −27◦ 040
D157 (44k Vir). From β Lib, two discordant g records, acc 34◦ 350 1/2 (OO 11:359 & for transf-calc of ecl pstn.
396 n.1) 1589/3/14 & inacc 34◦ 420 1/8 (OO 12:177) 1591/1/23. (Actual 1591.1 g = 34◦ 330 .) D216 (13c2 Sco). Undbld α determination (via 58η Ser = D724) off by +50 . See
Acc calcs of α would yield (using β Lib coords of OO 11:399), resp (1589.0): α = 189◦ 370 OO 11:401.
& 189◦ 290 1/4. OO 11:396 records two α: 189◦ 260 & 189◦ 300 . Observed δ = −1◦ 300 D219 (34σ Sgr). Eqt pstn OK at OO 11:401, but δ = −26◦ 410 1/2 misarg as −26◦ 510 1/2
in transf-calc of ecl pstn.
109
Contra slightly erroneous calc ecl pstn at OO 3:412 & OO 11:386 n.2.
110
From α = 69◦ 390 1300 , δ = 20◦ 560 1/3, &  = 23◦ 310 . 114
The pstns & magns of HD121444, HD121481, & HD121496 are taken from pp.375-376 of the 1991 ed. of
111
Was Bayer’s  Cnc = 41 Cnc (HR3429) or D95 (HR3428 + HD73709)? SkyCat2000, by A.Hirshfeld, R.Sinnott, & F.Ochsenbein; this relatively recent publication of the semi-popular Sky
112
OO 12:74 g vs. β Gem (1590/1/5) evidently not used. Publishing Corporation is, it should be emphasized, generally much superior in accuracy to the famous Bright Star
113
See §N15 for similar confusion. Catalogue issued for decades by Yale University. (See fn 87.)
32 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 33

D222 (39o Sgr). C193 & D222 β = 0◦ 590 screrrf 0◦ 580 (OO 12:402), restor. But this D257 (57µ Cap). OK λ, but β misarg by +1◦ /2. (Rejected OO 11:363 δ = −17◦ 120 1/2
may well be a case similar to D98 (see above). Both stars are on the small Exceptional star prob D255 repeat with −4◦ screrr. These 1589/10/30 records consecutive & both labelled
list (OO 2:233), and both’s β can be explained as averages of the β of that list (1586.0) and “nebulous” in orig record, tho not in cat D’s magn column.)
the 1589.0 catalog (OO 11:383f). In this case: averaging 0◦ 580 2200 (precise transf-calc of D277 (68 & 66g1 Aqr). Hybrid. OO 12:79 g OK of 68 Aqr (vs. ι Cet), not used in calc;
eqt coords at OO 11:402) and 0◦ 590 (OO 2:233) yields 0◦ 590 , which is D222’s β. OO 12:80 acc g of 66g1 Aqr (D279) vs. δ Cap input instead. OO 12:79 δ OK of 68 Aqr (h
D224 (43d Sgr & HR7249). Hybrid. Acc g twice (OO 11:402) of 43d Sgr (m = 4.96) screrr by −1◦ /2, not used); but misarg by +1◦ in transf-calc of ecl pstn.
for α. From 49δ Cap (D254), g = 35◦ 370 (OO 12:77), & real g = 35◦ 380 . From 64ν Oph D279 (66g1 Aqr). OO 12:79 g OK (vs. ι Cet), used for calc; OO 12:80 g acc vs. δ Cap,
(D697), g = 21◦ 040 (OO 12:78), while real g = 21◦ 070 . But acc δ = −19◦ 500 (OO 11:402) but misassigned to D277 (see above). OK δ at OO 12:79 & 241; α misarg by +100 for
was of nearby HR7249 instead (m = 5.54). Real 1589.0 δ: −19◦ 340 .8 (43d Sgr) & transf-calc of ecl pstn. Note: at OO 12:79, g for D277-279 all said to be vs. β Cet, tho ref
−19◦ 500 .8 (HR7249). star actually ι Cet.
D230 (52h2&51 Sgr). Acc 52h2 Sgr g (vs. 49δ Cap = D254) & δ at OO 12:402. But D282 (83h Aqr). OO 12:79 δ = −9◦ 540 3/8 acc 1590/10/8; but, in transf-calc of ecl pstn,
00 12:78 g = 9◦ 370 1/2 (vs. 9ξ2 Sgr = D221) is for mean pstn of 51&52 Sgr (real mean g = TB instead adopted (OO 11:407 n.3, OO 12:242) 1589/11/20 δ = −9◦ 350 (OO 11:367),
9◦ 370 .6); & +240 calc error produces poor α (error +220 ) from latter g. Averaged with acc misarg by +200 .
prior value to produce mean α, in error by +100 (90 gt-circ). D291 (i Aqr). Hybrid; α OK for 107i2 Aqr, δ OK for 106i1 Aqr. (See OO 12:242.)
D232 (8ν Cap). Obs δ = −13◦ 450 1/4 (OO 11:403) affected by +30 refr (unaccounted D298 (86c1 Aqr). OO 11:367 (later refr-corr) & 409 n.1 (also OO 12:242) 1589/11/16
for, since TB did not apply refraction when h > 20◦ ) & +100 recording error. Real 1589.0 δ = −25◦ 070 screrrf acc −25◦ 570 . Vs. δ Cap, OO 11:366 g = 20◦ 110 1/8 OK 1589/11/1.
δ = −13◦ 590 . (Real g = 20◦ 130 .) OK calc α − αr = 20◦ 1/4, added to δ Cap’s 1589.0 αr = 321◦ 1/6
D234 (2ξ2 Cap). See OO 12:403 n.3; α error +1◦ /4, largely from poor g obs vs. δ Cap (OO 12:240) yields α = 341◦ 1/3, the false result recorded (OO 11:409 & OO 12:242).
(OO 12:79), error −100 . OO 12:77 OK g vs. ν Oph (D697) unused. (Error +500 in δ threw calc of α off by +180 .) Though α − αr (OK) calc repeated after
D235 (10π Cap). OO 12:77 δ misrd by −100 . OO 11:403 α from 64ν Oph (D697) δ refr-corr (OO 11:409), OO 11:366 OK g = 23◦ 200 vs. β Cet unused (or silently rejected
OK, while α from β Cap off by −1◦ /3; crude adopted mean α off by −100 . (Note: HP’s due to irreconcilable α produced).
Cap star-numbering accid reversed by TB for D235&D236.) D304 (17ι Psc). OO 11:409 (n.2) & 12:243 α or λ off by +1 in arcmin tens place.
D238 (7σ Cap). OO 11:403 g (vs. 64ν Oph) & δ acc, but OO 12:79 g vs. δ Cap is off
D312 (86ζ Psc). OO 12:410 eqt pstn OK, but α misarg by +2◦ in calc of β.
by −140 (star rated “nebulous”), main cause of mean α error +80 . OO 11:403 δ OK, but
D329 (79ψ2 Psc). OO 11:411 & 12:243 δ prob screrr by −1 in arcmin tens place.
calc slip causes −60 error in β.
D242 (18ω Cap). OO 11:404 δ off −70 , tho acc orig at OO 12:77 (1590/8/15, screrr as D334 (91 l Psc). OO 12:244 δ off −70 .6; obs prob screrr by −100 , as for D329.
1589 at OO 11:404 n.2): δ = −28◦ 220 1/4 (real δ = −28◦ 230 1/4). OO 12:77 g vs. π Sgr off
−130 , & α off same. OO 12:79 g vs. δ Aqr off −40 , & α off +70 . (Note: this is one of the M4 Northern Star Errors:
lowest stars in cat D.) D340 (21η UMi). OO 12:166 g vs. α Per acc, g vs. γ Dra off −50 . Non-perp of these
D243 (24A Cap). OO 12:77 δ OK; but OO 11:404 altered, so error = −60 . (For both g exagg error, thus Γα = −80 .
D242&D243, it may be that refr-corr was unwittingly applied twice.)
D341 (7β UMi). Neither eqt coord error exceeds 0◦ .1, but both too large for star
D247 (25χ Cap). OO 12:404 δ OK. But α via β Cap off −230 ; averaging with a later
sometimes used as ref star (even if not on S list). See below at D585-587 & fn 179.
OK α (via δ Aqr) gave adopted α, off (as noted OO 11:404 n.4) by −130 (−120 gt-circ).
D248 (22η Cap). OO 11:404 δ OK, but both of two α hit within 10 of adopted α = D342 (13γ UMi). OO 12:81-8 δ obs acc. OO 12:166 g vs. γ Dra OK, but used instead
310 220 , which is +90 off. OO 12:79 g (vs. 76δ Aqr = D275) is off just −30 . Agreement
◦ (for calc of α) acc g vs. α Per (D621). (OO 12:166 screrr as g of β UMi.) This g too nearly
north-south, so tiny errors exagg (flab situation): α off +12’ (gt-circ). Acc calc from eqt
strange. (Precessed twice?)
coords (OO 12:244), but λ screrr by −1◦ , restor.
D251 (39 Cap). As realized at OO 11:404 n.5, TB’s eqt coords are acc, but calc (from
them) of ecl coords err, esp in α. D343 (5 UMi). OO 13:76 g (vs. α UMa) off +80 .4, causing similar Γα.
D255 (48λ & 42d Cap). Hybrid. OO 11:405 δ = −13◦ 130 acc for 48λ Cap (Dreyer’s D345-355. From Final Fifty. See Table 20 (which lists all g data). The pstns of
identification): real 1589.0 δ = −13◦ 120 .8. But 1590/10/7 (OO 12:79) g = 20◦ 230 1/2 (vs. D345-348 (all Cam) are mere lineup calcs (based on 1597.1 data of OO 13:98), using the
α Cap) acc instead for 42d Cap. (Real 1590.8 g = 20◦ 230 for 42d Cap; 21◦ 400 for 48λ Cap.) g from α UMi in all cases. D347 is (as Dreyer was first to realize, OO 13:98 n.6) 9α Cam.
All subseq calcs OK. Note: 42d Cap is HP’s Cap #25 (TB’s intended), while 48λ Cap is Its g vs. α UMi was acc — but screrr by +3◦ . The g vs. α Aur was OK. D348 (intended
HP’s Cap #27 (which TB confused with 51µ Cap: see below at D257). to be HR1527, which in fact was not observed, evidently due to imperfect visibility) is
D256 (57µ Cap). Simply D257 with δ diff by 10 (misrd by −100 , as noted OO 11:405 actually just based (since lineup calc needs but a single g) upon one OK g (vs. α UMi). It’s
115
n.2) & α miscalc twice from g vs. α Cap: 1589/10/30 (OO 11:363) g = 23◦ 150 1/8 & the same star (HR0985) later observed (OO 13:99) as D644, and whose coords are listed
1590/10/7 (OO 12:79) g = 23◦ 090 1/2. (Real g = 23◦ 110 then.) Common error perhaps due on same page (OO 13:98) as D348’s g data. Calcs from lineup hypothesis & obs g fit all
to accid use (in eq. 6) of β Cap’s δr = −15◦ 580 1/4 instead of α Cap’s δr = −13◦ 420 (both 4 cat D pstns (D345-348) to a precision of about 10 . (For D348, g = 23◦ 180 misinvf obs
1589.0 data at OO 11:403) in both calcs of α − αr . (Nonetheless, agreement of two calcs 23◦ 420 .) The cat D pstns for these 4 stars fit best with use of βr = 66◦ 050 (not cat D’s
to 3000 curious, since founding g disagree by nearly 0◦ .1: see above. Maybe accid used value) for α UMi — which is more consistent with acc obliquity116 , than with Tycho’s 
earlier g for both calcs of α − αr & possibly in 2nd calc accid used β Cap’s δr for both ref (20 high). D349-355 are entirely two-g cases, based upon mixed-acc g data for semi-flab
& quarry stars’ δ.) configs. Further discussions of a few individual stars of this set follow.
115
OO 11:363 δ recorded at about −15◦ 320 (1589/10/30); corr for 10 1/4 TB refr & 1y precession gave δ = −15◦ 340 116
Also more consistent with the pre-Tycho standard obliquity of 23◦ 280 (used by, e.g., Copernicus 1543 2.2f).
(OO 11:405). See Thoren 1990 p.226.
34 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 35

D345 (11-12 Cam). Identical to D600 (Tables 20 & 21): lineup calc. See §B8-§B9, (real four stars vs. real α Per) and reconstructed g (cat D pstns vs. highly erroneous D621)
fn 77, fn 133, §N11, §N16, fn 174, fn 191. is gratifying: the mean (O−C) discrepancy is +10 .1±00 .7. (To understand how neatly
D350 (HR4646). OO 13:100 two-g: both g poorly observed; g = 29◦ 360 vs. η UMa indicative this confirmation is, note121 that D621 = α Per has the 2nd largest gt-circ ecl122
(real 1597.2 g = 29◦ 430 ), but taken to be 39◦ 360 in two-g calc (+10◦ misarg). error of any of TB’s 100 Select stars: 130 . The finding here, that our four UMa quarry stars’
D351 (HR285). OO 13:100 two-g: obs g = 42◦ 130 vs. α Aur & obs g = 44◦ 210 vs. errors mimic123 α Per’s peculiar cat D error, suggested the connection to α Per.) For the
η UMa; both OK. But for two-g calc, former g taken as from α Per, latter was accid taken four g vs. α CMa (whose δ error is +30 ): there is an admirably consistent systematic mean
as g = 39◦ 360 , which was the η UMa-based g not of D351 but that already used for D350. discrepancy (O−C) of +10 .7±00 .1. Thus, the two discrepancies (mean error of four α Per
D353 (HR8702). OO 13:100 g = 44◦ 460 (vs. α Aur, 1597.2) may be misinv of acc g = g & mean error of four α CMa g) are both slightly positive (between +10 & +20 ) and are
45◦ 140 — or just a confusion of g with its complement. After two-g calc of pstn, resulting λ statistically compatible. Note: six of eight g are greater than 60◦ ; thus, these data were
= 67◦ 220 & β = 67◦ 430 were reversed — just possibly after glance at sky and-or observer’s observed (not with a sextant, as usual, but) with an instrument whose arc was larger than
diagram (OO 13:100) revealed mixed-up pstn to be more acc than orig calc pstn! a sixth of a circle, presumably Tycho’s nonazimuthal semicirculus.124 Use of nonstandard
D356 (1o UMa). Evidently two-g-based pstn (no eqt coords at OO 12:245): g from (seldom-used) instrument may be the cause of the data’s misfiling.
α Aur & from η UMa, with resp g errors +50 & −40 . Flab: δ off −100 . D377 (34µ UMa). Similar to D367-9: acc δ, but α off −440 (not gt-circ). Perhaps
D358 (3π1 & 2A UMa). Hybrid. OO 12:174 g of 3π1 UMa vs. α Umi, & OO 12:172 α − αr calc from g (vs. ζ UMa) & δ but then added to Spica’s αr (adjacent OO 3:376),
g of 2A UMa vs. α Aur; both acc. But of diff stars. which differs (1589.0) by −530 (−500 at OO 12:237 & 245) from ζ UMa’s αr .
D361 (24d UMa). OO 12:174 g vs. α UMi & vs. α Gem. Both OK except both screrr D378 (52ψ UMa). Acc δ, but α off −520 .1. Presumably same process as D377.
by −1◦ & input thus for transf-calc of ecl pstn. D379-380 (54ν UMa & 53ξ UMa). See above at D370-1.
D362 (16c UMa). OO 12:172 g vs. α Aur (acc) & η UMa (OK). But flab: δ off −170 . D384 (12α CVn). OO 12:226 acc δ and g vs. α Leo & α Boo. Last unused. OO 12:245
D363 (23h UMa). OO 12:172 OK δ = 64◦ 470 3/4, OK g = 38◦ 360 5/8 vs. α Aur, & acc α and OK (unprecessed) δ; β OK, but λ miscalc.
acc g = 36◦ 220 1/3 vs. η UMa. First two data used for pstn, but either [a] with g screrr as D392 (21 LMi). OO 13:73 acc g vs. α UMa, but g vs. η UMa off +460 ; subseq two-g
about 36◦ 310 , or [b] with g of 14τ UMa (D364) vs. η UMa confused with (proximate) g of calc OK.
23h UMa (D363) vs. α Aur. Causes most of −70 α error (gt-circ). D394 (30 LMi). OO 13:73 OK g vs. α UMa & η UMa; errors −10 .5 & −20 .9, resp.
D364 (14τ & 5 UMa). Hybrid. OO 12:172 entirely accurate 14τ UMa δ and g vs. both Two-g miscalc by just +100 in λ, but −1640 (perhaps partly from 3◦ misarg) in β. (Precise
α Aur & η UMa. But both these g ignored; g of 5 UMa vs. η UMa instead used as if g vs. 1601.03 two-g calc would yield: λ = 139◦ 470 , β = 22◦ 150 .)
α Aur. D396 (42 LMi). OO 13:73 acc g vs. α UMa & OK g vs. η UMa; errors +00 .4 & +20 .3,
D367 (25θ UMa). For all 3 stars D367-9, δ acc or OK. But α low by c.1◦ 3/4 (non-gt- resp. Two-g miscalc by +500 in λ, −190 in β. (Precise 1601.03 two-g calc would yield: λ
circ): −1060 .7, −1090 .7, & −970 .5, resp. Common error evidently due to −1◦ 3/4 slip in = 145◦ 190 , β = 21◦ 030 .)
α of ref star g measured from. Presumably ζ Leo (not far distant, & listed as Select star D399-D410. From Final Fifty. See §N, Table 20 (which provides all g data). All calcs
at OO 3:375, immediately next to Regulus) was used for g & its δ for calc; but α − αr two-g & WCP. Extreme confusion as to ref stars used for obs and for calc: see §N20.
then added to Regulus’ αr , which differed (1589.0) from ζ Leo’s α by −1090 (−1070 on (Also, calc of D408 used misinv g: fn 180.)
OO 12:235). (Similar mixup at D125, and likely at D368-9 & D377-8.) D411 (26 UMa). See §N4.
D368 (9ι UMa). See D367. D416 (33γ Dra). Error +20 .9 in δ, not exceeding 0◦ .1, but nonetheless curiously
D369 (12κ UMa). See D367; evidently additional +1 error in α arcmin tens place. overlarge for ref star. Cause: finding δ = 51◦ 370 (OO 3:377, OO 12:246) from non-refr-corr
D370-371 (15f UMa & 18e UMa) & D379-380. These four are the only pre-1597/3/15 lower culm, e.g., OO 11:300-301, OO 12:84-85, 164-165. (Note −1 error in arcmin tens
cat D stars for which DR found no data117 in OO. Indeed, there are no pstn data for these place at OO 12:84.) In TB’s day, actual δ = 51◦ 340 .
stars even in the epoch 1589.0 catalog appended to Tycho’s 1592 obs. (See OO 12:245.)
They appear in posthumous cat C, at OO 2:267, as stars C328-329 & C337-338. (It would not far from its culmination value. I here include effects of aberration & refraction. (Nutation is too epoch-dependent
require a search of the orig mss of his long-evolving Progymnasmata to determine when to be assigned, and it has no effect upon g anyway — beyond a supertrifling influence upon refraction.) On this basis,
these four stars were entered.) All four cat D places have error vectors of roughly the same real g were as follows. For α Per: 51◦ 130 .7 (15 UMa = D370), 50◦ 460 .6 (18 UMa = D371), 80◦ 480 .1 (54 UMa =
direction & (for 3 of 4) the same size; since these relate to the odd error of α Per, we can D379), 82◦ 010 .0 (53 UMa = D380). For α CMa: 74◦ 570 .5 (15 UMa = D370), 77◦ 320 .4 (18 UMa = D371), 81◦ 490 .0
(54 UMa = D379), 81◦ 090 .0 (53 UMa = D380). (Again: these DR-calc g are not very sensitive to assumed epoch.)
reconstruct all eight of the observations on which these four cat D pstns are founded. The 121
See below at fn 136.
four errors are consistent with two-g placement via arcs g measured vs. ref stars α Per & 122
The eqt pstn for α Per is acc. (See §I7, & see contrasts at D621 in §M4.) Thus, we have independent confirmation
α CMa. The eight reconstructed obs118 arcs g follow, expressed to the nearest quarter- that two-g sph trig underlies the cat D pstns of the four stars D370-371&379-380, since the standard δ & g method
arcmin. From α Per: 51◦ 040 1/2 (D370),119 50◦ 450 (D371), 80◦ 510 1/2 (D379), 82◦ 030 operates with ref star’s eqt coords — which, for α Per, would not carry the large 0◦ .2 error (of D621) that here solved
(D380). From α CMa: 74◦ 590 1/4 (D370), 77◦ 340 (D371), 81◦ 500 3/4 (D379), 81◦ 100 3/4 the mystery of our four quarry stars’ 0◦ .2 pstn-errors.
(D380). For the four stars (with D370 restor: fn 119), the close agreement of real120 g Not that there are no alternate explanations. E.g., it is possible that the four stars were observed & placed in the
123

usual δ & g fashion, the latter vs. α CMi, and the former affected by +100 systematic error (as that found, e.g., for
1591/11/11 obs of several UMa stars, OO 12:173). Obviously, such a δ error is rather ad hoc, and the ultimate fit is
117
The orig data could be among those missing from c.1596.0, remarked at OO 13:59 n.1 & 61 n.2. I suppose that less neat than that here primarily proposed — but the δ & g scenario cannot be utterly ruled out.
the four stars were obs sometime between then & TB’s 1597.2 departure from Hven. But the analyses that follow are 124
Ræder & Strömgrens 1946 p.96 (not pp.40-43). A universal mounting would be required for these obs. The size
pretty epoch-insensitive, since they are based largely upon g data, whose secular variation is entirely due to stellar of most of the eight reconstructed g superficially suggest use of a quadrant. Comments: [a] The quarry stars would
proper motion — a minor factor in ordmag a decade. probably be taken at high altitudes. (At least 60◦ ; D370-371 likely near zenith.) So, since ref stars’ h were seldom
118
The reconstructions assume TB’s two-g math acc. low, g could hardly much exceed 90◦ (and, in these 4 cases, fell short of even that). [b] I do not believe that TB ever
119
This g miswrf 51◦ 140 1/2. possessed a quadrant universally mounted. But his infrequently-used semicirculus was. It was constructed c.1588
120
I use 1597/1/1 local Hven midnight, when h of α Per & the four UMa stars all exceed 45◦ , and α CMa’s h is (Thoren 1990 p.177), indicating that the four stars’ g data were probably not observed before that date.
36 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 37

D428 (31ψ1 Dra). Two-g. OO 12:167 acc g = 34◦ 190 vs. η UMa, & OO 12:168 acc g D493 (23k Com). OO 12:228 δ 1592.2 error −50 .3, but +10 .1 precession-corr ignored
= 18◦ 190 1/3 vs. α UMi. But latter misarg by −1◦ in two-g calc, causing effectively −1◦ when entered into 1589.0 catalog at OO 12:265; thus, net D493 δ error = −60 .4.
error in δ. Calc acc. Indeed, acc modern two-g calc yields λ = 96◦ 350 & β = 83◦ 060 , very D494 (43β Com). OO 12:228 (1592.2) α acc & δ OK. But precession again ignored
close to listed D428 pstn. (If gb restor to 18◦ 190 1/3, acc two-g calc yields λ = 97◦ 420 & (OO 12:228 δ same as 1589.0 δ at 12:265); λ OK, but large calc error left net +180 error in
β = 84◦ 060 . Real coords: λ = 98◦ 010 & β = 84◦ 070 , so potential placement acc = ordmag β. OO 12:265 β = 32◦ 460 tho acc calc β = 32◦ 250 .
10 .) Note: OO 13:98 acc but unused g = 32◦ 400 vs.  UMa. See Table 20. D495 (41 Com). OO 12:265 α at least OK, but OO 12:228 δ off by −70 , an unusually
D429 (44χ Dra). Screrr λ by +20◦ , restor. high obs error for TB. Note: [a] 41 Com is just west of 43β Com, & [b] the next cat D star
D436 (14η Dra). OO 12:102 OK δ, OO 12:166 acc g vs. η UMa; calc OK except δ (D496) is 31 Com. It is possible that the δ of the latter’s just-west neighbor, 30 Com (m =
misarg by +100 . 5), was observed (instead of 41 Com). In that case, the 1592.2 discrepancy in δ = −40 , size
D437 (13θ Dra). OO 12:101 OK δ, OO 12:168 acc g (vs. γ Dra) except −1 error in more credible (for TB obs error).
arcmin tens place; δ misarg by −1◦ /2 in calc. Two errors virtually cancel effects on α, D499 (4θ CrB). OO 12:95 δ acc 1590/10/7, but g vs. α Her off +1 in arcmin tens
which ends up OK. place. This slip & calc error result in α off by about −1◦ /2.
D440 (11α Dra). OO 12:170 acc g vs. α UMi & η UMa; but very flab (also wrt acc D500 (9π CrB). OO 12:170 δ acc 1591/9/29, but calc based on slips of −1◦ /2 in this,
OO11:382 lower transit), so ordmag 10 errors explode into error Γα = +1◦ /3. as well as +1◦ in α.
D441 (5κ Dra). OO 12:170 acc g vs. α UMi & η UMa; but flab, so ordmag 10 errors D504 (14ι CrB). OO 12:95 g = 27◦ 360 3/4 vs. α Oph 1590/10/9 & OO 12:99 g = 26◦ 110
trigger error Γα = −1◦ /6. (uncertain) vs. α Boo 1591/12/18. (Resp errors −40 & +100 .) Serious subseq error, since
D448-D454 are entirely two-g cases (in Cep). Individual comments follow. while D504 pstn is 27◦ 400 (acc, perhaps accid) from D688 (α Oph), it’s 25◦ 210 from D469
D448 (23 Cep). OO 13:63 OK g vs. β Cep off −40 .7; acc g vs. γ Cas misarg with −1 (α Boo), disagreeing by −500 with obs (& by −400 with real 1591.0 g). OO 12:95 record
slip in arcmin tens place. Combined effect of both errors pulls pstn +120 off in λ. incomplete & OO 12:99 marked doubtful (dawn-light).
D449 (27δ Cep). OO 13:63 acc g vs. α UMi, thus acc δ. But OK g vs. β Cas screrr by D512 (103o Her). OO 12:169 δ off +20 (1591.4) & miscopied by +10 at OO 12:249;
−1◦ (error −610 .6); thus, +640 gt-circ error in α. OO 12:169 g vs. α CrB (D497) off +20 . Using D497’s OO 12:248 eqt coords, D512’s α
D450 (3η Cep). OO 13:63 acc g vs. γ Cas; OK g vs. β UMi, but latter’s 0◦ .1 error is = 38◦ 320 + 229◦ 180 . Arithmetical error in arcmin tens place produced 268◦ 000 for 1589.0
prime cause of +0◦ .1 error in δ. All calcs acc. (OO 12:249). Ecl calc acc from there. (OO 12:94 g vs. α Aql acc 1590.8, but unused.)
D451 (2θ Cep). OO 13:63 acc g vs. γ Cas; OK g vs. β UMi, but latter’s 0◦ .1 error is D523 (82y Her): OO 12:171 acc δ (error +10 ), tho g vs. α Lyr off by +110 . Eqt
prime cause of +70 error in δ. All calcs acc. (Virtual repeat of D450.) pstn 1589.0 at OO 12:249 repeats acc δ, and provides α = 261◦ 040 1/4, calc to ordmag 10
D454 (35γ Cep). OO 13:63 acc g vs. β Cas & β UMi, OK g vs. α Cep. But first g precision from δ, g, & α Lyr’s coords (αr = 275◦ 460 & δr = 38◦ 270 1/2, precessed from
screrr by −1 in arcmin tens place (and last g not used); thus, −70 .5 error in δ. All calcs acc. OO 3:377). This α in error by −0◦ .4. Subseq transf-calc (1589.0) of D523 ecl pstn acc
D460 (42β Boo). OO 12:171 δ acc & several g acc or OK. OO 12:247 1589.0 eqt pstn until β misinv as 71◦ 130 1/2 instead of acc calc = 71◦ 460 1/2. (Making this corr at OO 12:249
OK, but implicit cat D 1601.0 α poor. gels all four D523 coordinates there.)
D464 (25ρ Boo). OO 12:167 OK δ, acc g vs. β Leo, but latter misarg by +1 in arcmin D524 (HR6641 & HD162299). Comb magn m = 5.93 (overprecise). Table 21 lists
tens place for transf-calc of ecl pstn, causing similar Γα. pstn of HR6641. D524 α within 10 of center of pair, slightly (50 gt-circ) east of HR6641
D481-482. Members of Final Fifty. See §N, Table 20. (m = 6.43), evidently affected by HD162299 (m = 7),125 90 gt-circ east.
D484 (36&39 Com). Hybrid. OO 12:228 36 Com g = 37◦ 410 1/3 vs. γ Leo 1592/3/7 D530 (30g Her). OO 12:171 1591/10/8 δ acc, & g vs. α Lyr OK. But α misarg by 1◦ /2:
(real 1592.2 g = 37◦ 410 .4); 39 Com g = 34◦ 120 1/4 vs. α CrB 1592/3/21 (real 1592.2 g = α − αr = −31◦ 340 − (instead of acc calc −32◦ 040 −). Added to Vega’s α = 275◦ 470 1/2
34◦ 120 .3). Inadequate two-g sph trig calc (entirely ecl). Acc two-g calc: λ = 177◦ 480 , (precessed for 3y after OO 12:250 1589.0): α = 244◦ 140 (α & δ entered into 1589.0 catalog
β = 29◦ 110 . (The cat D pstn is nearly 50 further from each ref star than the OO 12:228 at OO 12:250 without backward precession-corr).
recorded values for g.) Even if all obs & math acc, flab would vitiate outcome, esp in δ D541 (14γ Lyr). OO 12:96 g vs. β Peg acc (1590.9), & OO 12:250 δ acc 1589.0. But
(where D484’s errors are indeed much worse than in α). The implicit eqt errors of D484 α miscalc by −1 in arcmin tens place. Acc calcs thereafter. Note oddity (also for D542)
wrt 36 Com (Table 21): +520 (Γα) & +4250 (∆δ); wrt 39 Com (Table 18): −550 (Γα) & that TB was so looking ahead to epoch 1601.0 that he precessed OO 12:250 eqt pstn to
+2010 (δ). However, while criticizing the failures connected to D484, one must note the then, tho this catalog is 1589.0 (& the D541 ecl pstn is 1589.0).
astonishing successes: recording the g arcs of two (moving) dim stars — one of them 6th D542 (15λ Lyr). OO 12:171 (1591.8) δ acc, & g vs.  Cyg acc but misarg (in calc
magnitude! — down to a fraction of an arcmin in both cases, lasting testimony to the skill of α) with −1 slip126 in arcmin tens place. Remaining calcs acc, tho one finds the same
& dedication to correctness of the Tycho school at Hven. mixed-epoch situation as for D541.
D486 (16 Com). OO 12:227 δ either screrr by +2 in arcmin tens place or result of D555 (64ζ Cyg). Screrr λ by +1 in arcmin tens place, restor. (See OO 12:251 for corr
confused differential result vs. 14 Com. (Record shows 14&16 Com were being observed 1589.0 λ.)
together & comparatively.) OK g vs. γ Leo. All calcs OK. Errors: Γα = −60 & ∆δ = D562 (78µ Cyg). OO 13:61 OK g vs. γ Peg, & OK δ = 27◦ ; but δ misarg by −1◦ in
+180 . calc of α. All calcs acc.
D487 (17 Com). OO 12:227 δ screrr by −1 in arcmin tens place, then misarg by +1◦ D564 (16 Lyr). OO 13:61 g vs. γ Cyg off by −30 , & δ off by +20 . Combined gt-circ
in transf-calc of ecl pstn; g = 30◦ 090 7/8 vs. γ Leo. (Real 1592.2 g = 30◦ 150 .8. So error = effect on α = +40 , which accounts for most of error Γα = +60 .
−60 .) All calcs OK. Eqt errors: Γα = −110 & ∆α = +480 . D565-569. See §N (§N5-§N10 & Table 19).
D491 (21-22 Com). Hybrid. OO 12:228 g vs. γ Leo acc of Com 21, while δ is 125
Pstn & m from SkyCat2000.
OK of Com 22; latter’s m = 6.29, but within 100 is HD109282 (SAO 82377), m = 7.26 126
Note also that α Cyg (D548) is off in the degree units place for both eqt coords at OO 12:251, tho the cat D
(SkyCat2000 1991 p.348), so comb m = 5.92. place is acc.
38 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 39

D585-587 (50, 48A, & 46ω Cas). These 3 stars (& D345-348, D611-613, & D836) are points 33◦ 150 7/12 distant from D585 (50 Cas) or 34◦ 430 5/12 distant from D586 (48A Cas).
among the flabbiest two-g configs anywhere in cat D; esp D587. The real g pairs intersect (The two loci cited under [b] are nearly parallel, separated merely by ordmag 1000 ; so the
at angles γ equal to: 7◦ , 7◦ , & 6◦ , resp. For the cat D coords of these stars & the ref-stars intersection of [a]&[b] will be virtually identical regardless of the [b] option selected.) For
α Ari (Hamal) & β UMi (Kochab), γD equals:127 4◦ , 2◦ , & 140 , resp. (For the reconstructed epoch 1587.2, that intersection is (within 10 ): λ = 127◦ 250 & β = 72◦ 590 . (Eqt pstn: α =
orig Kochab pstn, the last γD obviously becomes 00 in this lineup instance.) For such flabby 223◦ 280 & δ = 75◦ 490 .) For cat D’s epoch (1601.03): λ = 127◦ 370 & β = 72◦ 590 . (Eqt
cases, rigorous sph trig two-g calcs would have to be performed128 to ordmag 1000 acc, for pstn: α = 223◦ 260 & δ = 75◦ 460 .) This completes our reconstruction of TB’s pre-cat D
10 pstn precision to be achieved.129 These 3 stars appear on a 1573.0 list (OO 11:238) of pstn for Kochab. As a check, we perform two-g calcs of D585-586 & lineup calc of D587,
all Cas pstns. (Cas’ stars having already thus been provided separately, Cas is the sole TB with both Kochab places. For cat D Kochab: λ = 51◦ 060 & β = 56◦ 340 (D585, two-g), λ =
observed constellation which is not included in TB’s 1589.0 catalog at OO 12:231-265.) 50◦ 350 & β = 55◦ 020 (D586, two-g), λ = 52◦ 070 & β = 52◦ 060 (D587, lineup from Hamal).
The obs data are given nearby. OO 11:231 (1587/2/17) g vs. α Ari: 48◦ 530 7/8 (D585), For D585&586, the λ discrepancies (vs. cat D) are ordmag a degree. By contrast, for orig
47◦ 230 1/4 (D586), 45◦ 100 1/2 (D587). OO 11:233 (1587/2/21) g vs. β UMi (mislabelled130 Kochab we find: λ = 52◦ 230 & β = 56◦ 130 (D585, two-g), λ = 52◦ 280 & β = 54◦ 290 (D586,
as Capella): 33◦ 150 7/12 (D585), 34◦ 430 5/12 (D586), 36◦ 540 (D587). (Note 36◦ 150 7/12 two-g), λ = 51◦ 580 .2 & β = 52◦ 080 .4 (D587, lineup from Hamal). The agreements with
screrrf 33◦ 150 7/12 at OO 11:233, where the order of the records is also confused.131 The the cat D places of D585-587 are within 30 (gt-circ) for all 6 coords — roughly 10 times
six real g were, resp, 48◦ 560 .5−, 47◦ 260 .0, 45◦ 140 .3, and 33◦ 140 .7, 34◦ 440 .3, 36◦ 530 .5− better fit than the places we just calc using the cat D pstn for Kochab. I display the last pstn
(1587.2). The resp six errors (O−C) were: −20 .6, −20 .7, −30 .8, and +00 .9, −00 .9, +00 .5+. to the nearest tenth-arcmin — deliberately to highlight the perfect match with D587 (to its
The six resp diffs (O−D) between obs g & cat D g, resp: −20 .6, +00 .6, −00 .1− and +40 .1, precision, half an arcmin). Note that the orig Kochab pstn’s α error is not much diff from
+40 .3, +30 .7. Impressive. However, despite the TB school’s wonderful observational D341’s (tho of diff sign), but the δ error is far smaller (fraction of 10 ) than D341’s δ error
consistency and scrupulously precise sph trig calcs, the D585-587 results are all mistaken (+60 ).
by ordmag 1◦ . The prime132 reasons: both cases D585-586 are WCP, and D587 is simply D590 (28υ2 Cas). Precession-corr134 evidently neglected, thus −1 error in λ arcmin
a lineup-calc133 (which can only be corr by a fluke — & there was no fluke in this case), tens place, while β very acc. (D596 is similar case.)
in which the pstn is just g = 45◦ 100 1/2 from α Ari, along the gt-circ connecting α Ari D595 (20π Cas). Cat D screrr β by −1 in arcmin tens place; corr in cat C (C487), so
to β UMi (neglecting the datum g vs. β UMi). (Thus the inevitable near-null O−D for restor.
D587’s g vs. α Ari.) The foregoing data enable us to place TB’s pre-cat D pstn for Kochab D596-614. From Final Fifty. See §N, Table 20 (which imparts all g data and acc
(β UMi). We merely find the intersection of two loci, both determined purely by the coords thereof). OO 13:98-99 (1597.1-1597.2). All are two-g calcs. Remarks on individual cases
in cat D: [a] the gt-circ containing D003 (α Ari) & D587 (46ω Cas), and [b] the locus of follow:
D596 (HR743). Similar to D590.
127
Since 4◦ & even 2◦ may seem superficially unflabby, I must comment on a stimulating oddity here, namely: D597 (HR932). Error +130 in g vs. α Aur.
if either of D585’s implicit cat D g (i.e., the g between cat D places, not obs or real g) had been just another 5 0 on D598 (γ Cam). Large error in two-g calc.
the low side of reality, the star’s two-g placement would not have been solvable. For D586, the margin was even D599 (HR1138). Screrr −2◦ in λ, restor.
narrower: merely 10 difference (slightly less in fact) would destroy the two-g solution. Note: for D587, a two-g
solution (using cat D’s D003 & D341 as ref-star coords) would have failed, had either g been only 100 shorter! (To D600 (11-12 Cam). Identical to D345 (Tables 20 & 21): lineup calc.
be precise: about 2/3 of an arcsec.) In a context of ordmag 0◦ .1 errors, this is obviously ludicrous — and was the D601-610. Mostly OK g, but two-g calcs mostly not OK. See Final Fifty, Table 20.
symptom which proved to DR that D587 was a lineup-placed pstn (see fn 133), and (since the gt-circ from D003 D607 (M Cam). Screrr +100 of g vs. γ Cas at OO 13:99, but OK two-g calc used orig
extended through D587 did not hit D341) thus verified DR’s already-waxing suspicion (fn 129 & fn 179) that the
β UMi pstn formerly used (by the 1587 computer of D587’s pstn) was not the same as the eventually published pstn
value (32◦ 030 1/2). Screrr resultant β by +1◦ , restor.
(D341). (The occasional mutability of TB’s ref-star pstns is basic to understanding their relation to the quarry stars D611-613. Among flabbiest configs in cat D: γD = 300 , 1090 , & 750 , resp. Impossible
that largely comprise cat D. See §J2 & §J12.) two-g calcs, since (for all 3 stars) sum of both g = less than cat D gt-circ angle (57◦ 110 .4)
128
It is possible that the D585-586 calcs were not done by rigorous two-g math (see fn 34), but instead by merely between the two ref-stars. Thus, TB’s computer was forced to use lineup calcs.135 Accu-
shooting a short perpendicular (at the point given by lineup solution) off the gt-circ between the two ref stars. In such rately done (using fn 36 method), the results for cat D’s 1601.03 epoch would have been
flabby cases as D585-586, this ploy can achieve all needed acc via 10 -precision math. Indeed, despite the simplicity
of the approach, the resultant acc will be better than will be yielded by the rigorous two-g approach, unless (fn 25) the values listed in Table 20. The discrepancies wrt cat D are ordmag 100 , which is not out
the latter is taken to an ordmag higher precision. of line for the Final Fifty, of which these stars are part.
129
Before finally locating the raw g data in OO, DR determined the ref stars (tho leaving open the outside possibility D614 (HR4892-3). Both obs g poor. WCP.
that γ And might be the one on the vernal side of the pole) and reconstructed all 6 of the g observations. These DR- D619 (18τ Per). OO 12:98 misobs h produced δ off +0◦ .1, which in turn threw off α
reconstructed g follow. From α Ari: 48◦ 540 (D585), 47◦ 230 (D586), 45◦ 110 (D587). From β UMi: 33◦ 110 (D585),
34◦ 390 (D586), 36◦ 500 (D587). Comparing the 1st three reconstructed values’ close agreement with the actual obs (in δ&g calc) by similar negative error. Acc transf-calc, but λ misarg by −1◦ /2.
g (§M4 at D585-587) inspires increased admiration for the pre-1597 Hven computers’ scrupulous dedication to D621 (33α Per). Spectacularly large136 error for a member of TB’s Select stars (S list):
precision. (Had the work been at the level of the Final Fifty, DR’s reconstructions here could not have worked — ∆λ = −140 for 1589.0 catalog (OO 12:252) & cat D; virtually same (∆λ = −130 ) for S list
see, e.g., the sloppy math even in simple lineup calcs at D611-613 in Table 20.) And the consistency of the latter 1701 (Table 23, star S15). Yet, ∆α of 1589.0 catalog & S list for 1601 are both rather trivial
reconstructed trio’s −40 disagreements with the obs merely show that (as suggested in fn 127 and as we are about to
see in detail): in 1587, TB was using a different & more acc pstn for β UMi (Kochab) than later ended up in cat D as (−10 & −30 , resp). By contrast, implicit 1589.0 catalog ecl coords ∆α = −190 , & S list
D341. (On D341’s curious inacc, see fn 179.) 1701 ∆α = −180 (Table 23). Orig error in 1589.0 catalog: presuming −200 α slip (43◦ 310
130
For another (nonsuperficial) TB mislabelling ref star Kochab (as Alkaid in that case) in a two-g situation, see
fn 179. 134
By TB’s 5100 /yr, precession from 1589.0 to 1601.0 would be +100 .2.
131
Note: the numbering of some Cas stars at OO 11:235 differs from that at OO 11:238. 135
It is also possible that instead of doing lineup calc, the computer just quietly stretched the obs g data in order to
132
Other reasons: flabbiness & errors in ref star pstns. make a standard two-g calc possible. But, why go to so much trouble to get a result that will be no better than that
133
See also, e.g., D345-346. If the sum of the two observed quarry-to-ref g data is less than the g between the cat D given by far simpler lineup calc?
places of the two ref stars, then clearly no rigorous two-g sph trig solution is possible. Such situations obviously 136
However, this large error luckily permits our reconstruction of the founding data for the only 4 stars in cat C
invited the lineup-solution approach. See §N16. where these data are missing: see fn 121.
40 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 41

misargf 43◦ 510 ) in transf-calc produces ecl pstn λ = 56◦ 070 (precisely that at OO 12:252) D675-680. Utter fakes.143 See Rawlins 1992T (§C1-§C5, §F, & Table 1).
& β = 30◦ 080 , while acc calc yields β = 30◦ 030 . (The β = 30◦ 050 at OO 12:252 may be an D681-687. Rawlins 1992T §F argues that all 7 pstns were from frantic final (eviction-
average.) See §I7. eve) Hven obs session (1597/3/15-16), the record of which has been destroyed. (Record
D627 (28ω Per). Acc 1589.0 eqt coords & β at OO 12:252, but (during transf-calc) would have revealed failure to obs D675-680, a lapse which had necessitated later faking
misinv λ error: 50◦ 390 read as 50◦ 210 . all 6 stars indoors.) Onset of dawn ruined D681, and haste degraded D684, D686, D687.
D641 (HR1314). OO 12:163 (1591.0) acc h = 86◦ 330 1/2 wrongly taken as north culm Individual-star comments follow.
(actually south); with 300 screrr, yields δ = 59◦ 500 1/2 (OO 12:253), instead of acc calc & D681 (45d Oph). Evidently calc from crude δ = 30◦ and equally-crudely-adopted λ =
real δ = 52◦ 280 . Calc used this δ & evidently crude g = 39◦ from α Ari to calc 1591.0 256 5/6 from α Oph. All calcs acc: on the nose. Same β sign-screrrf-restor as D682.

α after precessing δ to 59◦ 510 and (using OO 3:375 diffs) precessing α Ari’s OO 12:231 D682 (3 Sgr). Sign β north screrrf south, restor. See Rawlins 1992T §E4.
coords (1589.0) to αr = 26◦ 040 2/3 & δr = 21◦ 300 . Calc gave α − αr = 9◦ 590 1/2. Adding to D687 (57µ Oph). Sloppy pstn of same star very acc recorded (1596.0) at OO 13:76 (&
α Ari’s α & subtr 20 1/4 precession yielded 36◦ 010 11/12 (OO 12:253), off (1589.0) by over thus acc pstn at D707).
−20◦ . Acc transf. D696 (57µ Oph). Ditto. OO 12:170 (1591.8) OK obs g = 34◦ 500 vs. β Lib; but misiden-
D644-647. From Final Fifty. See §N16 & Table 20 (which lists all real g and corre- tified as ref star in Ser, so later computer — finding one Ser star yielding near-fit to D696’s
sponding TB errors). OO 13:99 (1597.2): D644137 was OK two-g calc. But, since flab known vicinity — assumed it was γ Ser. OK subseq calcs proceeded on this premis, using
config, other 3 are lineup calcs, OK in precision but crude & confused in execution. (The acc 1591.8 δ, with misarg g (deliberate or no) by +1◦ , as 35◦ 500 . Only acc coord: δ.
evidently inadvertent order at OO 13:99 is D646-647, D645, [D647], D644.) D645&646 D699 (35η Oph). Identical to D701: fn 77. See §C3, fn 55, fn 57, fn 157, fn 191.
are on gt-circ between α UMi & D644: D645 is 20◦ 240 2/3 from former; D646 is 19◦ 010 D701 (35η Oph). Identical to D699.
from it. (OO 13:99 corr has both these g as distances from α Aur, not α UMi.) D647 D714 (38ρ Ser). Screrr δ by +1◦ (OO 12:254).
is on gt-circ between α UMi & β Per,138 14◦ 510 (33◦ 520 − 19◦ 010 )139 from former. All D717 (35κ Ser). OO 12:169 acc 1591/9/7 g = 47◦ 180 1/12 vs. ζ Aql, & OO 12:94 OK
g data misused140 for D645-647. (These three pstns fit best for α UMi’s β = 66◦ 000 , the 1590/10/6 δ = 19◦ 300 1/3. Latter misarg (by −1 in degree-tens place) as g = 9◦ 300 1/3, so
Hipparchos141 & Copernicus value.142 But Table 20 computes them, in all 3 cases, using calc α = 233◦ 280 . Otherwise, all calcs acc. (Transf acc to within 00 .1 in both ecl coords.)
the cat D coords of the adopted ref stars, and the misbegotten g values cited above in this D722 (32µ Ser). Obs δ = 2◦ 020 2/3 & obs g = 30◦ 040 5/6 vs. γ Oph (real 30◦ 100 .6) both
paragraph.) at OO 12:89. And both vitiated by 50 1/4 of refr at h = 11◦ 250 . The δ component is 40 ; TB
D651 (34β Aur). OO 12:97 OK g = 41◦ 480 3/4 vs. γ And (real 1590.9 g = 41◦ 460 .1) tried removing this from δ, rounded & left δ = 2◦ 000 (OO 12:254). But he applied wrong
& δ = 44◦ 500 (real δ = 44◦ 480 ); calc gave OK 1590.9 α = 82◦ 280 . (Precession to 1589.0: sign since δ orig (OO 12:89) screrr north (really south). (Otherwise would have been acc,
82◦ 260 at OO 12:253.) But α = 82◦ 320 (misinvf 83◦ 280 ) into transf, resulting in subpar λ. since real 1590.6 δ = −2◦ 060 .7.) Refr also artificially affected g by −20 1/2, but this not
D652 (37θ Aur). OO 12:253 OK 1589.0 eqt pstn, but α = 82◦ 550 misarg by −1◦ /2 in removed by TB. Subseq calcs acc.
transf to ecl pstn. See §I7. D723 (57ζ Ser). Poor OO 12:171 1591.8 δ = −3◦ 280 1/2 used for 1589.0 δ at OO 12:255
D653 (7 Aur). Calc α = 68◦ 100 1/2 (1589.0) misarg by −1 in arcmin tens place at (where α = 26◦ 430 4800 screrrf 264◦ 430 4800 ). Precession no problem, but some of +60 error
OO 12:253. in δ is from 20 -30 of uncorr refr. Without refr: obs, calcs, & pstn OK. (No mention of low
D657 (35π Aur). OO 13:65 β = 27◦ 270 screrrf 22◦ 270 , restor. h in 1591/10/10 record at OO 12:171. By end of twilight at 18:44 Uraniborg Mean Time,
D659 (15λ Aur). OO 13:65 OK δ; OK g vs. α Per & acc g vs. α Gem. Calcs yield α star was only 1h past culm.)
= 72◦ 400 & 72◦ 360 , resp, mean 72◦ 380 at OO 13:65. (Real 1596.0 α = 72◦ 430 .) Then α D737 (54o Aql). OO 12:255 screrr λ by −1◦ , restor. (OO 12:169 notes clouds
precession to 1601.03 neglected, so D659 pstn based upon 1596.0 α (OO 13:65). interrupted obs.)
D666 (24φ Aur). Oddity. OO 13:65 δ and g vs. α Per & g vs. α Gem. All acc except D739 (61φ Aql). Screrr −2◦ in otherwise acc α; δ & calcs OK. Data at OO 12:169-170.
last, misrd by −1◦ , causing similar error in λ, since ecl pstn from it & δ. But eqt pstn from D747 (41ι Aql or Ani).144 Misrd δ by +100 or hybrid (D746’s δ). See OO 12:88&256.
δ & other g. All calcs acc. D756 (6β Del). OO 12:88 acc 1590.6 δ = 13◦ 130 .9. OO 12:91 g = 35◦ 070 5/6 (vs.
α Lyr) evidently screrrf OK g = 35◦ 570 5/6. (Real g = 35◦ 520 .8, so: less than 50 off. But err
137
For the same star’s prior appearance in cat D, see above at star D348.
exagg by steep angle of g wrt E-W direction, thus α off by over +0◦ .1.) As confirmed by
138
The observer’s scrawl (on his sketch of these 4 stars, reproduced at OO 13:99), identifying the bright star near perfect check with math of D762, TB used at this time α Lyr 1589 eqt coords compatible
HR1046, was probably intended to say “lucid. lat. Per” (i.e., α Per). It looks instead like “lucid. lalg Per” & so with final D533 ecl pstn; eqt pstn: αr = 275◦ 440 .7 & δr = 38◦ 270 1/2. (Later, α altered by
evidently was later taken to refer to Algol. (In the depiction at OO 12:99, the “t” is not crossed, though it is faintly +10 .3, tho ecl pstn unchanged.) Calc with this & above δ (only precessed later) & g gave
semi-crossed in the orig TBmss: see Gl. kgl. Samling 316 fol., microfilm 546, p.127b.) 1589 α = 304◦ 410 .6, conventionally rounded to 304◦ 410 1/2 at OO 12:256. Transf acc.
139
I.e., the difference between the two D646 g data (vs. α Aur & vs. α UMi, resp)! See fn 140.
D758 (11δ Del). The λ = 13◦ 360 1/2 screrrf 12◦ 360 1/2, restor.
140
If the reconstruction here of D647 is corr, then the g data for the 3rd star at OO 13:99 were never used in cat D
(thus the brackets in the foregoing text), while the data for the 1st star were used twice. See fn 139. D782 (68υ Peg). OO 12:257 (1589.0) λ = 356◦ 560 screrrf 356◦ 160 (not acc calc via
141
The Ancient Star Catalog, C.Ptolemy’s massive (amateurishly fumbled) plagiarism of c.1000 stars from Hip- usual145 eq) but acc calc via eq. 4 (surprising to find latter eq used so near null λ); adding
parchos, is found at Ptolemy’s Almajest 7.5-8.1. For summary of proofs that Hipparchos was the true observer,
see e.g., DIO 2.3 ‡8 §C, and more to come in DIO 4. The 1st public charge that Ptolemy had stolen (“usurped”) Rawlins 1992T §F7 proposes that a star record of about 1597/3/15 was destroyed, since it showed failure to
143

Hipparchos’ star catalog was right in the preface to Tycho’s own cat D, at OO 3:337. Note: Historians-of-science observe the eventually-faked stars D675-680. I note that there is a −1 alteration of pagination in the (not consistently
often mention Tycho’s epochal discovery of the constancy of precession — but they do not tell their readers the blunt chronological) Final Fifty section of the original TBmss. (See altered numbers in upper-right corners of leaves in Gl.
truth: this discovery would never have occurred without the discovery it was squarely based upon, namely, Tycho’s kgl. Samling 316 fol., microfilm 546.) This occurred before or during Dreyer’s 1923-1926 publication of the mss,
realization of Ptolemy’s catalog-thievery. (See fn 29.) I.e., it is no coincidence that both discoveries were made by since he uses the post-alteration pagination. (See, e.g., OO 10:XVIII.)
the same astronomer. Just another instance of horrified modern Ptolemists’ promulgation of skewed history, in order 144
Tycho used two constellations, Antinoüs & Argo (see below at D954&955), which are not (presently) recognized
to suppress public awareness of their hero’s dishonesty & scientific ineptitude. by IAU convention. (See DIO 1.1 ‡8 §F2.)
142
Almajest 7.5 (PK1) & Copernicus 1543 2.14 (p.46b). 145
See below at star D908 in §M5.
42 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 43

12y precession gave λ = 357◦ 060 for cat D’s 1601.0 epoch. Restor to 400 less. g intersect at D836 at an angle γ = 1◦ , but the cat D bulge in this two-arc-join is so great
D788 (2 Peg). OO 13:62 δ acc, but (this being a late TB obs), g undbld; g = 23◦ 440 1/2, (from the slight excess of each obs g over real g) that the cat D implicit angle (γD ) is 6◦ .
off by over 0◦ .1 vs. α Peg (real 1596.0 g = 23◦ 500 .6) — which causes α error exceeding D844 (61µ Ori). In transf, δ = 8◦ 340 2/3 misargf 9◦ 340 2/3 OO 12:260.
+0◦ .1. All calcs acc. D845 (74k2 Ori). In otherwise acc transf, δ = 12◦ 010 1/12 misargf OK 12◦ 210 1/12
D789 (9 Peg). OO 12:485 δ OK (& see OO 13:62 n.1); acc g = 19◦ 200 1/2 vs. α Peg. OO 12:260.
(Real g = 19◦ 210 .7.) But WCP produced α off by over +15◦ ! (Sole instance in cat D of D854 (33n1 & 23m Ori). Hybrid. OO 12:176 g vs. α CMi is for 33n1 Ori; but, despite
WCP for any but two-g-based star. See fn 32.) All calcs acc. obs’s description, δ is for 23m Ori (D879). (Compare acc raw δ data OO 12:177 vs. 178.)
D795 (27ρ And). Either bad 1590.7 obs δ = 35◦ 350 1/3 (complaint in OO 12:93 record) Which accounts for apparent −90 discrepancy in δ.
or accid arcmin repeat of degree arg. Real 1590.7 δ = 35◦ 410 .8. All calcs acc. D878 (48σ Ori). OO 12:177 OK g vs. γ Eri off +20 .5 (obliquely), & ref star α off
D796 (17ι And). OO 12:92 δ = 40◦ 000 1/4 screrrf acc 41◦ 000 1/4. (Real 1590.7 δ = same, so D874 total error (Γα) slightly exceeds +0◦ .1.
41 000 .6.) So, two-g calc of necessity, using OK g = 31◦ 140 3/8 vs. α Cyg (OO 12:92) & g

D887 (18 Ori). OO 13:67 OK 1596.0 δ & g = 35◦ 560 1/4 vs. α CMi, but misarg from
= 26◦ 360 5/12 vs. γ And (OO 12:93). Real 1590.7 g, resp, 31◦ 170 .6 & 26◦ 320 .3. An oddity: screrr 35◦ 500 1/4 (& g’s obliqueness) threw α calc well off to east.
these real g more closely equal the g between the real ref stars & the cat D pstn, than do the D889 (14i Ori). OO 13:67 very acc 1596.0 δ & not-quite-OK g = 11◦ 060 vs. α Tau.
reported g. This may reflect ref-star pstns subseq alterations, or slightly imprecise math. (Real g = 11◦ 110 .4.) Obliqueness of g exagg effect on Γα to −70 , which accounts for most
Regardless, −0◦ .1 δ error partly function of: [a] −30 error in γ And’s α, & [b] some flab of α error.
in config. D890 (5γ Mon). OO 13:67 OK δ (& α) but β = −29◦ 310 1/3 screrrf acc −29◦ 410 1/3
D798 (20ψ And). OO 12:93 acc 1590.7 δ & g vs. γ And. OO 12:257 acc 1589.0 calcs (1596.0), restor. (Also: β slightly misrounded to whole-arcmin instead of to expected
but β = 42◦ 80 screrrf 42◦ 580 , restor. standard half-arcmin.)
D800 (34ζ And). OO 12:91&93 acc 1590.7 δ & g vs. α Ari. OO 12:258 acc 1589.0 D891 (11β Mon). OO 13:68 α very acc 1596.0 & δ OK — except, in (acc) transf, δ =
calcs but used δ = 22◦ 150 screrrf 22◦ 10 500 . −6◦ 180 5/6 misargf −6◦ 480 5/6.
D803 (37µ And). OO 12:89 1590.7 δ = 37◦ 160 11/12 screrrf acc 36◦ 160 11/12; δ = D893 (8 Mon). OO 13:68 acc 1596.0 δ & OK α = 90◦ 370 5/6. Transf gave acc
37◦ 170 & OK 1590.7 OO 12:93 g (vs. α Cyg) used in OK 1589.0 calcs at OO 12:258. β, but λ = 91◦ 030 3/4 (off by +0◦ .4 gt-circ). Perhaps just a simple yet unrecoverable
D808 (50υ And). OO 12:258 (1589.0) λ = 4◦ 550 1/2 screrrf λ = 2◦ 550 1/2, restor. math slip (tho the result is patently incompatible with α). However, it instead may be an
D811 (1o And). Final cat D pstn awful (despite all obs & calcs acc), due to 2 huge, outrageously-freakish error. (Acc calc λ = 90◦ 360 3700 . Real 1596.0 λ = 90◦ 350 .5.) Weird
separate146 screrrs. OO 12:93 acc 1590.7 h = 74◦ 120 2/3 (yielding OO 12:258 acc 1589.0 hypothesis follows. Computer, confused in problem very messy so near solst (where tan
δ = 40◦ 070 1/3), & acc g = 25◦ 170 5/8 vs. α Cyg (real 1590.7 g = 25◦ 180 .9). Using these & sec explode), ended up accid equating148 λ with sec α or tan α (virtually identical here),
data & ref star’s 1589.0 eqt coords (at OO 12:251 — & each misprinted there in degrees for α interpolated (interpolation error −500 ) from table at effectively 90◦ 370 3/4, the sec of
unit place), acc calc gave α = 340◦ 450 1/3, which OO 12:258 reverse-digits-screrrs into: which is −91.0625 (& cos of which is 3900 32000 , sexagesimally). Abs mag of resulting trig
α = 304◦ 450 1/3. Acc transf-calc of this & δ into false ecl pstn, λ = Aqr 23◦ 490 2/3 & β function confused for angle, so 91.0625 taken as 91◦ 030 3/4. This hypothesis agrees with
= 57◦ 180 5/6. Then, Psc screrrf Aqr at OO 12:258 & cat D — perhaps just a clumsy late OO 13:68 false λ, within a small fraction of an arcsec. (Note: if x is taken literally in
patchup-attempt to get D811 back somewhere roughly near where it belonged. Not restor. degrees, then 90◦ 370 5600 is the smallest possible positive solution to the highly sensitive
(This is Ptolemy’s And #23, so its approx pstn was pre-known.)147 transcendental eq: x + tan x = 0.)
D904 (57µ Eri). Similar to D836 (except less flab): OO 12:180 (1591.1) two acc E-W
M5 Southern Star Errors: g used for pstn, but not δ. Two-g solution imperfect calc leaves +30 slack, so bulge pushes
D904 southward over 0◦ .1. Computer later noticed OK δ obs after all at OO 12:180, & so
Header for Southern Section of 1589.0 catalog reads (OO 12:258): “On the South Side calc eqt pstn. No transf of this, since already possessed (non-acc) two-g-based ecl pstn.
of the Equator” — screrr for “Ecliptic”. (OO 12:262 ecl & eqt pstns thus incompatible.)
D822 (87µ Cet). OO 12:259 λ miscalc. From OO 12:105 δ and from mean of α based D908 (23δ Eri). OO 12:262 eqt pstn acc 1589.0. Calc β OK, but λ = 44◦ 570 1/3 screrrf
upon g vs. α Tau & g vs. γ Peg, 1591.0 α = 35◦ 440 2/3 (acc, as is 1589.0 α at OO 12:259). 45 070 1/3, result of precise calc via tan λ = cos  tan α + sin  tan δ/ cos α (fn 148).

If acc transf gave 1591.0 λ = 36◦ 120 1/2 (real λ = 36◦ 120 .1), & 150 2/3 (screrrf 10 2/3 = 2y Restor. An odd −100 error, unless made in epoch 1601.0 list — which suggests that, as
precession) subtracted, then false 1589.0 λ = 35◦ 560 5/6 ensued (OO 12:259). early as 1591 (OO 12:179), TB was arranging some results with that round epoch in mind.
D832 (31η Cet). OO 12:182 δ OK, & OO 12:259 α & calcs acc — except β = −16◦ 550 D914 (39A Eri). OO 13:62 eqt pstn OK (δ obviously influenced by non-corr for refr
misinvf −16◦ 050 , restor. 20 .4), & λ calc OK. But err calc gave β = −30◦ 250 (tho real −30◦ 570 .5), either 1◦ /2 slip
D836 (53χ Cet). OO 12:103 acc g = 22◦ 190 vs. ι Cet & OO 12:176 OK g = 50◦ 340 7/8 or possibly as follows: sin β = cos  sin δ − sin  sin α cos δ = − (0.171181 + 0.335052)
vs. β Ori. (Real g, resp, 22◦ 180 .1 & 50◦ 320 .1.) Flabby two-g calc imperfect (D836 is = sin(−30◦ 250 ), where 0.171181 screrrf 0.179181.
22◦ 190 .2 & 50◦ 360 .1 from D833 & D874, resp). Since both g are virtually E-W & no obs D920 (3ι Lep). OO 12:176 h = 21◦ 540 misrf OK 21◦ 440 (off by 1 in arcmin tens place);
for δ was taken (see comments at §B8), the pstn is flabby in the N-S direction. The two net positive δ error, largely from this & non-corr for refr 20 .5: δ = +140 .
D922 (7ν Lep). OO 12:176 δ = −12◦ 430 1/2 OK obs (off +20 .6), sullied by uncorr refr
146
Which is why Dreyer was mystified by D811, merely quasi-proposing it might be 81π2 Cyg (OO 3:368). 20 .6; & β calc off by +30 . These slips account for most of implicit δ error in D922 ecl pstn:
147
In the entire period before TB’s final 1595-1598 rush to complete cat D, this is virtually (though see D971) +80 .
the only pstn, uncovered by DR, involving possible undue-influence of previous scholars upon TB. (Pretty mild.)
Which is perfectly reasonable, according to the hypothesis that TB only deceived when he felt his career & livelihood D934 (14θ CMa). OO 12:263 eqt coords & acc calc β OK, but λ miscalc by +0◦ .3.
threatened. He is not the last scholar so to behave. Would that his present-day counterparts, in such desperate resorts,
possessed a fraction of his talent & productivity. 148
Eqs for λ: sec λ = sec α sec δ/ sec β (eq. 4), or tan λ = cos  tan α + sin  tan δ/ cos α.
44 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 45

D937 (20ι CMa). OO 12:263 δ 1589.0 miscalc by 1 in arcmin tens place from 1592.2 D988 (12δ Crt). OO 12:182 (1591.3) δ (slight refr error) OK & g (vs. α Hya) acc;
h = 17◦ 330 at OO 12:227; used in transf. OK 1589.0 eqt pstn OO 12:264. Calc of α acc; but β miscalc by +80 , presumably from
D938 (8ν3 & 7ν2 CMa.). Hybrid. OO 12:180&227 acc h data for 8ν3 CMa, while − sin  cos δ sin α = −0.1005 screrrf −0.1025 in sph trig calc (eq at D914, above) of sin β.
OO 12:227 g (vs. β Ori) acc for 7ν2 CMa. The 2 stars plainly confused at OO 12:180&227. D1000 (8η Crv). OO 13:70 acc δ & OK α, acc transf; but β = −11◦ 270 3/4 screrrf
Acc calc produced OO 12:263 eqt pstn (1589.0); tho ecl pstn discrepant, possibly based −11◦ 370 3/4, restor.
upon flawed separate reduction: for finding α (via §B6 method), 7ν2 CMa g (vs. β Ori, D1001-1004. All λ faked;156 δ evidently obs (crudely), presumably Wandsbeck. See
OO 12:227) = 22◦ 550 misargf 22◦ 450 , then transf-calc δ = −18◦ 480 misargf −18◦ 580 . (Acc Rawlins 1992T §C8, §G2, & Table 2. Hven post-extinction µ > 6 for all 4 of these stars
OO 12:180&227 obs of 8ν3 CMa’s h unused.) (Table 18), but at Wandsbeck µ < 6 for all 4 (fn 95). See also here at Table 21.
D941 (16o1 CMa). OO 12:263 α acc; but δ off +120 , due to 1591/2/9 h = 10◦ 340 2/3
(OO 12:179), prob misrdf 10◦ 240 2/3.
D944 (1ζ CMa). OO 12:179 acc 1591/2/9 g vs. α Hya. Acc h = 4◦ 210 1/4, with −110 N The Final Fifty Stars: Complete Sph Trig Reconstructions
TB-refr-corr, should’ve led to acc δ = −29◦ 550 . Instead, TB accid used δ = −28◦ 150 , N1 I have made a special examination (see further details at Rawlins 1992T §D) of the
perhaps a refr-uncorr version of previous star, D943 (OO 12:263). Because g (this low last fifty157 stars Tycho recorded, since these have posed some hitherto-unsolved problems
in sky) was nontrivially tilted wrt the preferred E-W direction, δ error severely affects for earlier investigators. (At least 20% of these stars have never before been correctly
(otherwise OK) calc of α as well. identified.)158 Additionally, I note that prior scholars have not completely understood the
D945 (31η CMa). OO 12:263 δ acc & OO 12:180 g vs. α Hya OK; errors −10 .5 & two-g observational technique used for Tycho’s last stars (Table 20), nor the complexity of
−20 +, resp. Ref star’s α off +10 .2 & δ off +10 .5. (As for D944, δ error affects calc α, due the sph trig employed for proper reduction. (See §B8. And, of course, we have seen that
to tilt of g.) Sum effect of these errors accounts for over 50 of the +60 .2 error in D945’s α. the two-g method was used aplenty prior to the Table 20 stars, largely in the northern part
D954 (19 Pup or Arg).149 OO 13:72 α OK & δ acc 1596.0. However, OO 13:72 λ = of cat D.)
124 020 1/3 screrrf 123◦ 020 1/3. Restor.

N2 In September of 1596 (Dreyer 1890 pp.230-231, Thoren 1990 p.367), Tycho learned
D955 (16 Pup or Arg). OO 13:72 eqt pstn acc 1596.0. But δ in acc transf: [a] refr-uncorr that his fiscal throat was being slit by the new kinglet. Almost immediately, Tycho returned
& [b] misarg by 1 in arcmin tens place. to recording stellar positions, in hopes of reaching the millennial mark he had set for himself.
D959 (29ζ Mon). OO 13:72 λ = Leo 29◦ 210 2/3 screrrf150 Cnc 29◦ 210 2/3, restor; α OK He was able to observe about 50 objects before leaving Denmark. Below, in Tables 19 &
& δ acc except for −0◦ 510 1/2 screrrf −1◦ 510 1/2. Transf acc. 20, we will identify every one of them. Thus, henceforth, all 1004 of cat D stars’ identities
D960 (C Hya). OO 13:72 α OK, δ acc, & acc transf. But in cat D, λ = Vir 4◦ 200 1/2 will be known.
screrrf Leo 4◦ 200 1/2, restor. N3 The first set of Tycho’s Final Fifty stars occurred on 1596/10/5. (See OO 13:59-60.
D961 (26α Mon). OO 13:72 Leo 23◦ 400 1/4 screrrf Cnc 23◦ 400 1/4, restor. Original TBmss data at: Gl. kgl. Samling 316 fol., microfilm 546, p.163b. An atypically
D971 (31τ 1 Hya). Fishy151 λ. OO 12:104 (1590/11/25) reports obs of δ and g; δ messy page.) These data, set out here in Table 19, produced 8 star places in cat D: D411,
acc for 1590.93, but three reported g obs152 from 2 different directions (vs. 2 distinct ref D550, D554, & D565-569 — this despite the fact that observations of merely 3 quarry stars
stars) consistently place D971 west153 of real 31τ 1 Hya by 1◦ /8, four standard deviations! were involved! The first object (D411) was correctly identified (OO 3:356) by J.Dreyer as
Dbld154 obs g (vs. α CMi) = 28◦ 220 3/4 (tho real g = 28◦ 300 .8). Undbld obs g (vs. γ Vir) = 26 UMa, a star of pre-extinction magnitude m = 4.50. As for the other seven 1596/10/5
48◦ 180 (tho real g = 48◦ 110 .3). Acc calcs. places (D550, D554, & D565-569), there are no correct identifications at OO 3:360 or
D978 (φ3 Hya).155 OO 12:264 entirely acc obs & calcs, except 1589.0 λ = 162◦ 310 1/3 OO 13:59-60. (Though, see fn 158.)
screrrf 162◦ 210 1/3, restor. N4 An example will assist in understanding Table 19. The cat D ecliptical position
D984 (45ψ Hya). OO 13:69 δ off −70 1596.0 (prob accid repeat-measure of D983’s for D411 is: longitude λ = 121◦ 410 , latitude β = 35◦ 400 . Subtracting 30 .6 from λ (for
δ), & α = 192◦ 110 , off +190 . But acc transf used OK α = 191◦ 560 & (prob) pre-refr-corr δ TB’s 5100 /yr: fn 29) precesses159 the position in cat D (1601.03) to the observations’ epoch,
= −20◦ 590 . This α acc calc from OO 13:69 g = 48◦ 450 1/2 vs. δ Oph. Thus, after this eqt 1596.79 (1596/10/5). Then, by rotational transf-calc, using obliquity  = 23◦ 310 1/2, we
pstn transf to ecl pstn, former later recalc — with +1◦ /4 error in α, 2nd time around. find that this corresponds to the implicit equatorial coordinates: rt asc α = 136◦ 410 , decl
149
See fn 144. 156
Only if performed at Wandsbeck could obs have been even partially real. So, it says something for how proud
150
All three zodiac-sign errors here (D959-961) were restor by Dreyer. (See OO 13:72 nn.1-3.) Dreyer’s names was the party responsible for them, that: the record is missing. (This is highly exceptional. See §P4 under “m” &
for D958&960 were, resp, Flamsteed’s 31&30 Mon, where we use Bayer’s names, resp, F&C Hya, since both stars see fn 136.) The extant Wandsbeck observations before 1598/1/2 (when cat D was first distributed) are published
are well within the modern IAU bounds for Hya. (I.e., there is no Dreyer misidentification here, merely a difference at OO 13:105-113. They contain no data whatsoever for adding stars to cat D — neither in Cen nor in any other
of naming-convention.) See also fn 99 & fn 155. constellation. As to why the λ were faked (while δ obs via cross-staff): Tycho had no fixed instruments mounted at
151
Oddity 1st noted 1994/4/6. (See also the oddities at D248 & D256.) Wandsbeck before 1598/1/2. (See Dreyer 1890 p.258.) See Rawlins 1992T §G2 & Table 2 for fuller discussion.
152
At the predawn time of the TB obs, 31τ 1 Hya (m = 4.60) had µ >5, & solar h > −15◦ : not total darkness. 157
Due to repeats, the Final Fifty stars (starting 1596/10/5) produce fifty-six cat D places, not counting D428 but
153
Hipparchos’ λ error for same star PK903 (PK p.93) is in the same direction by (within 10 ) the same amount counting both D345 & D600 (identical): 8 places (3 stars) on 1596/10/5 and 48 places (47 stars) in 1597.
— whether figured absolutely, or differentially: 2◦ 1/6 west of previous star, D970 (PK902 = 35ι Hya). Direct 158
The previously-unidentified or incorrectly-identified stars of Tycho’s Final Fifty (in temporal order of observa-
consultation of the original manuscript record, by DR & Hanne Dalgas Christiansen (Royal Library, Copenhagen, tion): D565 (13θ Cyg, tho this possibility is suggested at OO 3:415), D566 (hybrid-nonexistent), D567 (ditto), D568
1994/5/26), reveals that the latter g (48◦ 180 vs. γ Vir) has been altered. (In TBmss, see: Gl. kgl. Samling 312b fol., (54λ Cyg), D569 (13θ Cyg), D596 (HR743), D597 (HR932), D603 (12 Lyn), D403 (15&17 CVn: see fn 174), D407
microfilm 539.2, p.299a.) The final “8” has been anciently written in, over another digit (which is not now reliably (HR5110), D408 (25 CVn), D409 (HR5186), D410 (HR5214-5215). Considering the relative resources available to
recoverable). The least awful explanation of D971: after the D971 pstn was computed (by the Hven team) from the Tycho-editor Dreyer, compared to those astronomers have at hand today, I think he did a creditable job in his attempts
false 1st g = 28◦ 220 3/4 (vs. α CMi), the 2nd g was forced to accord with this place. at star-identification. See fn 16.
154
Individual data: 28◦ 230 1/4 & 28◦ 220 1/4. 159
The TBmss record (Gl. kgl. Samling 316 fol., microfilm 546, p.163b) suggests that at least some Table 19 TB
155
Dreyer (OO 3:373) designates D978&9 as 2&4 Crt, resp. These are just the Flamsteed numbers of Bayer’s calcs here were either orig done for E&E 1601.0, or were not later precessed. E.g., the rt asc for D569 is there
φ3&ν Hya, resp. See fn 150. displayed as α = 291◦ 260 1/2, which agrees precisely with the implicit cat D value. (See at D569 in Table 21.)
46 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 47

Table 19: Tycho Stars 1596/10/5 (Mean E&E of Date) cos[α − αr ] = [cos g − sin δ sin δr ]/[cos δ cos δr ] (6)
catD# Star m catDδ Obsδ Realδ r* Obsg Realg catDα Obsα Realα
gave Tycho’s computer α = 341 06 − 49 41 = 291 25 . (This result is found in the last
◦ 0 ◦ 0 ◦ 0

D411 26 UMa 4.50 54˚100 53˚520 53˚470 α Aur 41˚170 41˚190 136˚410 136˚380 136˚390 row of Table 19, in the cat Dα column.) Transf-calc of this eqt pstn to ecl pstn, adding 4y
D567 26 UMa 4.50 53˚520 53˚520 53˚470 η UMa 38˚510 38˚510 137˚360 136˚320 136˚390 of precession to λ, produced λ = 313◦ 180 , β = 69◦ 420 . These are precisely the λ & β of
D550 13θ Cyg 4.48 49˚230 49˚230 49˚190 α Cyg 11˚560 11˚570 291˚260 291˚270 291˚240 D569. (Other Final-Fifty stars were similarly computed — only rarely this accurately.)
D554 54λ Cyg 4.53 35˚050 35˚050 35˚030 β Peg 29˚500 29˚500 307˚560 307˚570 307˚560 N7 An explanation of some of the headings in Table 19: “catDα” & “catDδ” are the
D565 13θ Cyg 4.48 49˚180 49˚230 49˚190 α Lyr 15˚290 15˚340 291˚360 291˚110 291˚240 mean E&E-of-date implicit equatorial coordinates corresponding (see §N4) to the ecliptical
D566 nonexistent 11˚400 11˚560 α Cyg 35˚050 322˚080 323˚460 position in cat D (epoch 1601.03); and “Obsα” refers to the rt asc α accurately deduced
D567 nonexistent 11˚560 11˚560 α Cyg 35˚050 321˚400 323˚460 from the observed δ, the observed g, and Tycho’s own163 equatorial coordinates (precessed
D568 54λ Cyg 4.53 35˚050 35˚050 35˚030 α Lyr 25˚460 25˚49 303˚040 307˚530 307˚560
0 at 5100 /yr from 1601.03 to 1596.79) for the chosen ref star (Select ref stars’ 1601.0 eqt coords
D569 13θ Cyg 4.48 49˚230 49˚190 49˚230 β Peg 44˚430 44˚420 291˚250 291˚250 291˚240 listed at Table 22). It will easily be seen from Table 19 that the main source of error in these
cat D places is not observational but computational. (Remember: the work was last-minute
and done without logs.) Whereas not one of the numerous 1596/10/5 observations’ errors
exceeds 50 , the calc & scribal slips produce errors as high as c.5◦ in the deduced pstns.
N8 The strangest errors by the antique computer of these places: D566 & D567 are not
outdoor stars at all. Rather, they are merely the issue of inadvertent data-inversion: the
δ = 54◦ 100 . Actual 1596.79 place of 26 UMa: α = 136◦ 390 , δ = 53◦ 470 . (See the “Real” observed g between 13θ Cyg164 and Deneb (α Cyg) was taken to be an observed δ, while
columns in Table 19.) The α match (Γα = +10 ) is acc, and D411’s discordant δ must be the δ of 54λ Cyg was taken to be g measured from Deneb! (In Table 19: for D566&567, the
merely a slip (see §M2 at “misinv”), since the observed & recorded δ = 53◦ 520 (OO 13:59) “Obs” data for δ & g are listed exactly as the mixed-up computer would have listed them,
is also an OK match (O−C = ∆ = +50 ) to that of the real 26 UMa for 1596.79. The g obs and italics distinguish the data misunderstood & thus mis-classified by Tycho’s computer.)
were taken vs. reference stars (“r*” in Table 19) α Aur & η UMa. Acc DR calcs from these N9 We will next attempt165 to speculate-reconstruct a few of the other, less gross errors
data give D411’s rt asc α = 136◦ 380 (acc) & 136◦ 320 (poor), so these values are placed in D565-D568.
under the column-heading “Obsα” in Table 19. D565 is based (badly) upon OK g = 15◦ 290 vs. Vega. Computer started by conventional
N5 The other seven 1596/10/5 places (D550, D554, & D565-569) are largely or entirely calc (§B6 & eq. 6), using obs δ = 49◦ 230 & TB-precessed Table 22 eqt coords for S75 =
(see at D567 in §N9) based on observations of just 2 stars, 13θ Cyg (“upper wing of Vega (OO 3:377), αr = 275◦ 500 & δr = 38◦ 280 . He acc got α = 291◦ 120 , & acc transf-calc
Cygnus”) & 54λ Cyg (“lower wing of Cygnus”). D569 is the same star as D550 & D565. then yielded β = 69◦ 450 , miswr as 69◦ 350 . Unchecked (unusual for TB) use of eq. 4 gave λ
(All three cat D places are near-identical.) D567 may be a miswr repeat of nonexistent = 312◦ 270 , misarg (by +1◦ ) as 313◦ 270 , which (after adding 4y of TB precession) became
D566. And D568 (despite a nearly −5◦ misarg160 in α) is the same star as D554. Thus 313◦ 310 .
(adopting option [a] in §N9), we appear to have but 3 distinct cat D places; taking the last For nonexistent-hybrid D566, the first slip was −1◦ /4: δ = 11◦ 410 (perhaps 1◦ /2 miswr
cat D pstn in each case, these are: D567, D568, D569. We convert D567-569 (as in §N4) of D567’s 11◦ 110 ), permanently misargf 11◦ 560 (which is actually 13θ Cyg’s g vs. Deneb
from cat D to 1596.79 eqt coords (−30 .6 precession in λ). For declination δ, we find: here & in transf). Assuming g = 35◦ 050 1/2 (actually 54λ Cyg’s δ) vs. Deneb (Table 22’s
11◦ 560 (D567), 35◦ 050 (D568), & 49◦ 230 (D569). The data 11◦ 560 , 35◦ 050 ,161 49◦ 230 1/4 S85, 1596.79 TB: αr = 306◦ 550 , δr = 43◦ 520 1/2), the computer found (via eq. 6) α =
are found right in the brief 1596/10/5 record (OO 13:59-60). 306◦ 550 + 16◦ 120 , which he misadded by −1◦ , getting 322◦ 070 . Acc transf-calc upon this
N6 These stars are based upon data taken by Tycho’s common method (§B6): [a] mea- & δ = 11◦ 410 produces (to 10 ) the ecl coords of D566.
sure δ (we note that the 1596/10/5 declinations exhibit a systematic positive error of c.40 ); As for D567, two different explanations ([a]&[b]) produce pstn. Possibly both con-
then, [b] find α by sextant observation of the quarry star’s gt-circ distance g from a well-fixed tributed. (Table 19 exhibits both, while Table 21 adopts [a].) [a] Latitude β = 35◦ 350 screrrf
ref star. E.g., 13θ Cyg was observed (OO 3:59) to be (mean)162 g = 44◦ 430 1/8 (acc) from 25◦ 350 , restor. Similar to D566, but δ temporarily misarg (arcmin confused for degrees) in
Scheat (β Peg). (Real g then = 44◦ 420 .) Using g = 44◦ 430 1/8, quarry star δ = 49◦ 230 1/4, & eq. 6 (but not in transf) as 11◦ 110 . Acc subseq calc yielded 14◦ 460 + 306◦ 550 = 321◦ 400 .
the S list (Table 22) eqt pstn (precessed) for ref-star Scheat (αr = 341◦ 060 , δr = 25◦ 540 2/3), (See 7th row of Table 19.) Acc transf-calc upon this & δ = 11◦ 560 yields D567’s ecl coords
sph trig computation via the standard equation (from law of cosines) to 10 . [b] Latitude β = 35◦ 350 is from calc166 for 26 UMa (D411) found in TBmss at Gl.
kgl. Samling 316 fol., microfilm 546, p.163b (35◦ 340 1/2). The λ = 328◦ 220 got its arcmin
from same calc (122◦ 210 2/3), while the degrees were from λ of D566.
160
The error in D568’s α occurred as misarg during calc of ecl place, since its α is written as 307 ◦ 560 (the 7
distorted & the 6 obscured), a nearly corr value, in the pre-calc TBmss record: Gl. kgl. Samling 316 fol., microfilm
163
See fn 171.
546, p.163b. But this datum was probably misrd there as 303◦ 050 , which is within 10 of the implicit cat D α for 164
Consultation of the data-record’s verbal text leaves no question about what occurred. Right after several g data
D568. (See at D568 in Table 21.) for 54 λ Cyg (“lower wing of Cygnus”), OO 13:60 states that measures of 35◦ 050 & 35◦ 060 are “declinations of
161
Also 35◦ 060 . The average (35◦ 050 1/2) is rendered as 35◦ 050 in Table 19, tho 35◦ 050 1/2 was used in the table’s same”. Then, immediately following these data, the observer says he returns to measure the g of 13θ Cyg (“upper
underlying computations. Similarly, the mean obs g for D565 was 11◦ 550 7/12, which was obviously rounded by the . . . wing again”) from Deneb. Note that the places of D566 & D567 make no sense as they stand, since they are
computer to 11◦ 550 1/2 — and is rounded in Table 19 to 11◦ 560 . entirely outside of Cygnus, in Pegasus!
162
The g of 13θ Cyg from Scheat was observed twice: 44◦ 430 & 44◦ 430 1/4. Here, throughout, we average such
165
The several explanations attempted here are based on the assumption that the computer’s detailed sph trig steps
repeated values into one datum, for purposes of tabulating and counting. The exact mean was used in calculations for were OK. The premis is far from solid, at this point in the history of TB’s school.
Tables 19&20, but the values entered into those two tables are uniformly rounded to the nearest arcmin. Occasional 166
Explanation [b] appears in the 2nd row of Table 19, with the TBmss ecl pstn’s implicit eqt coords in italics.
10 apparent discrepancies (compared to the g of OO 13:98-100) are merely due to rounding of real g and ∆ before Coords in TBmss: α = 136◦ 350 (precise rendition: 136◦ 340 5000 ) & δ = 53◦ 520 , λ = 122◦ 210 2/3 & β = 35◦ 340 1/2.
listing in Table 20 here. Obvious −1◦ slip: α = 136◦ 350 misargf 137◦ 350 .
48 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 49

D568 is based on calc from OK g (vs. Vega) & δ; but very poor α = 303◦ 050 , based
upon misrd (fn 160). Table 20: Tycho Stars 1597/2/8-1597/3/10 (Mean E&E 1601.03)
N10 The upshot: [a] All the 8 places (D411, D550, D554, & D565-569) have been catD# HR γD r* Realga ∆ Realgb ∆ catDλ Obsλ Realλ catDβ Obsβ Realβ
traced here, even though [b] only 3 actual outdoor stars are the basis of these data. I
will leave the reader to judge whether or not this was deliberate data-padding. (Given the D596 0743 57˚ 0,1 16˚270 −020 32˚150 +060 061˚460 061˚580 062˚020 53˚160 53˚190 53˚150
sloppy math exhibited throughout these reductions, I don’t find it absolutely necessary to D597 0932 45˚ 0,1 14˚530 −020 31˚270 +130 066˚120 066˚260 066˚490 53˚320 53˚380 53˚290
assume anything conscious about the process. But, given the rarity of such TB-school D598 1148 60˚ 0,1 17˚590 −030 27˚180 +020 060˚110 069˚070 069˚050 52˚040 49˚360 49˚340
mass-bungling, it is suspicious that this occurred at the very time when unique pressure was D599 1138 40˚ 0,1 18˚260 +030 26˚590 +010 066˚450 068˚350 068˚430 49˚080 49˚090 49˚100
on, to produce as many stars as possible.) Regardless, these places’ accuracy is far below D428 6636 7 32˚400 −000 096˚340 nms 098˚000 83˚040 nms 84˚070
the high standard of Tycho in his heyday. D345 1622 250 0,1 30˚280 −030 13˚010 −030 077˚170 077˚190 075˚550 35˚500 35˚480 35˚530
D346 1603 150 0,1 28˚590 −040 14˚320 −040 077˚280 077˚310 075˚420 37˚200 37˚170 37˚230
N11 We turn now to consider the star data taken in 1597 (OO 13:98-100). The dates are D348 0985 200 0,1 23˚380 +040 078˚030 078˚080 062˚200 42˚560 42˚300 45˚120
1597/2/8,167 2/10, 3/3, 3/4, 3/5, 3/9, 3/10. At the head of these data appears the statement D347 1542 180 0,1 23˚040 −010 20˚310 −030 077˚450 077˚500 075˚250 40˚130 40˚090 43˚220
(OO 3:98; see also OO 10:xviii), “Need 60 [more stars] to complete the thousand.” But only D646 1046 46˚ 0,1 33˚500 +020 19˚080 −070 064˚410 064˚500 059˚270 49˚270 49˚300 35˚100
47 stars are recorded. (How the deficit of 13 was made up has been analysed in Rawlins D645 1040 48˚ 0,1 30˚250 +050 20˚290 −040 064˚020 063˚580 060˚440 48˚070 48˚130 38˚260
1992T §D4-§F7.) The 6th object in Table 20 is a repeat entry: D345 ≡ D600. (Thus, its D647 1035 45˚ 0,1 29˚210 +020 21˚040 −030 066˚150 066˚210 061˚020 53˚370 53˚390 39˚290
cat D & HR numbers are italicized in Table 20.) And the 5th observation in Table 20 is an D644 0985 53˚ 0,1 23˚380 +040 25˚050 −020 062˚180 062˚180 062˚200 45˚100 45˚080 45˚120
incomplete168 record of 31ψ1 Dra (HR6636-6637). (The observation may have been left D601 2238 17˚ 2,3 37˚590 −050 34˚200 +010 087˚190 087˚210 087˚320 35˚480 35˚270 35˚340
incomplete when it was realized that this star had been earlier fully observed & recorded as D602 2560 24˚ 2,3 42˚030 −030 31˚330 −070 092˚330 093˚180 093˚340 34˚490 35˚070 35˚240
D428.) Thus, including 31ψ1 Dra, there were 48 stellar objects recorded in 1597, all listed D603 2470 17˚ 2,3 40˚190 −040 33˚010 −090 093˚000 091˚180 091˚410 30˚220 35˚510 36˚150
here in Table 20. D604 2490 37˚ 2,3 35˚490 −040 40˚230 −010 090˚450 091˚060 091˚110 44˚100 44˚190 44˚230
N12 For the 1597 stars, Tycho switched over to his alternate observing procedure: D605 2511 40˚ 2,3 35˚190 +020 41˚340 +010 090˚570 091˚270 091˚180 45˚320 45˚460 45˚430
instead of (as usually before: §B6 & §N6) taking, for each quarry-star, a declination δ by D606 2209 35˚ 2,3 32˚230 −070 43˚110 +100 086˚150 086˚460 086˚490 45˚430 46˚010 45˚530
transit instrument (or eqt armillary) and a great-circle arc g (from a ref star) by sextant, he D607 2527 54˚ 2,3 31˚590 +050 49˚150 −020 090˚100 090˚160 090˚050 53˚430 53˚460 53˚470
began taking two g arcs (from two different ref stars) by sextant (§B8). The procedure- D608 2401 58˚ 2,3 30˚280 −060 51˚590 +060 087˚450 088˚040 088˚100 56˚150 56˚210 56˚180
alteration of switching to two-g observations was not due to loss of ability to make transit or D609 3082 62˚ 2,3 33˚450 −060 51˚300 −020 094˚130 094˚170 094˚270 56˚550 57˚000 57˚050
declination observations. (Many such data for the Sun, Moon, & planets date from the same D610 2742 65˚ 2,3 31˚150 +070 54˚240 +000 089˚580 090˚280 090˚110 59˚180 59˚250 59˚230
time period, as we see from OO 13:78-98.) I suppose that the two-g star-taking process D611 3751 300 1,4 40˚550 −050 16˚240 −130 097˚540 097˚440 098˚530 60˚470 61˚030 60˚380
was simply less complicated (observationally) and less subject to misidentification169 of D612 4084 02˚ 1,4 42˚590 −160 14˚190 −130 100˚140 100˚110 099˚410 62˚040 62˚490 62˚520
now-uniformly dim (thus more easily confused)170 quarry stars. See also fn 33’s remark D613 4062 750 1,4 43˚060 −130 14˚230 −080 099˚370 100˚000 096˚310 62˚460 62˚410 63˚480
that the two-g method was frequently applied to northern stars. (All Final Fifty stars are D614 4893 21˚ 1,4 46˚510 −100 10˚410 +290 110˚580 111˚080 101˚070 63˚170 63˚220 67˚030
northern.) D399 5154 56˚ 4,6 20˚410 −020 51˚190 +130 111˚290 111˚430 163˚390 53˚080 53˚160 57˚500
N13 However, the §B8 reduction of stars from such data is far more complex, mathe- D400 5023 52˚ 4,6 26˚220 −070 46˚110 −010 113˚550 113˚590 164˚390 47˚140 47˚190 51˚470
matically, than the usual process. In Tycho’s day, before log tables’ general availability, D401 5112 59˚ 4,6 26˚260 −010 48˚250 −000 109˚490 109˚500 168˚450 47˚300 47˚390 52˚520
the work would have been formidable. As we will see, it is too much (given TB’s rush) to D402 4943 58˚ 5,9 46˚270 −070 15˚320 −150 143˚170 143˚020 172˚460 46˚500 46˚460 38˚540
expect that each of these stars would be computed via rigorous sph trig. D403 4971 39˚ 5,9 48˚110 +000 12˚440 −040 153˚580 153˚450 171˚590 47˚550 47˚560 41˚400
N14 In only one sense would the math be easier than the usual: there was now no reason D404 4997 37˚ 5,9 49˚270 −030 10˚570 +060 156˚000 155˚470 171˚390 48˚400 48˚500 43˚270
to revert (at any stage of reduction math) to the equatorial frame. Thus, the computer was D405 5017 41˚ 5,9 50˚170 +070 10˚130 −020 156˚300 156˚240 172˚130 49˚420 49˚460 44˚120
spared the customary final equatorial-to-ecliptic transformation process. D406 5032 41˚ 5,9 50˚380 −180 10˚210 −050 156˚190 156˚180 173˚080 49˚420 49˚420 44˚070
N15 In Table 20 here, I provide the 1597 Tycho stellar data, in the ecliptic frame D407 5110 55˚ 4,5 38˚050 +400 52˚260 +370 169˚050 169˚120 178˚340 49˚000 48˚580 43˚000
(longitude λ & latitude β). The main Table 20 data are: the “catD” coordinates, the “Obs” D408 5127 53˚ 4,5 38˚530 −030 52˚450 +190 168˚010 169˚040 179˚490 49˚270 49˚030 42˚300
D409 5186 64˚ 4,5 36˚240 +210 55˚070 −070 175˚420 176˚040 180˚320 48˚110 48˚060 45˚240
167
Misprinted as 1597/2/4 at OO 13:98. (Error revealed by direct 1994/5/27 Dennis & Barbara Rawlins exam of
microfilm of original TBmss: Gl. kgl. Samling 316 fol., microfilm 546, p.127a.) The ecl places listed there for 2/8
D410 5215 52˚ 4,5 40˚080 +010 55˚080 −030 166˚020 165˚590 184˚090 52˚250 52˚270 42˚270
& 2/10 are (except for D644) merely reductions of observed 2/8 & 2/10 data, respectively, printed on the same page. D349 4126 19˚ 1,9 43˚150 +000 32˚370 +080 111˚380 109˚580 110˚360 57˚550 58˚540 58˚340
Thus, they do not add to the star-total. D350 4646 48˚ 1,9 48˚080 −120 29˚430 −070 081˚550 082˚090 113˚540 70˚420 70˚390 64˚120
168
One cannot of course compute a place from a single g datum (which is all that was recorded for the 5th star of D351 0285 56˚ 1,9 42˚180 −050 44˚230 −020 084˚310 075˚590 075˚530 69˚080 65˚030 65˚100
Table 20), but the cat D & real positions for D428 are included here anyway so that the accuracy of all the 1597 sextant
g data can be comprehended together. (However, the position of D428 in cat D is not based upon 1597 observations;
D352 8546 60˚ 1,9 45˚090 +010 43˚050 −020 075˚070 075˚030 075˚060 68˚040 68˚000 68˚000
indeed, this star appears in cat C as C359.) Note that there is obviously a −1◦ error in D428’s β. (See under D428 D353 8702 64˚ 1,9 45˚140 −280 45˚440 +010 067˚220 067˚430 067˚010 67˚430 67˚170 67˚440
in §M4.) And note that the apparently huge −860 error (CatD−real) in λ is merely −90 in great-circle measure. D354 8748 62˚ 1,9 44˚480 +000 44˚560 −130 069˚570 070˚390 070˚080 67˚220 67˚300 67˚290
169
Thoren 1990 p.295 describes the process: g one night, δ another. For dim objects, the possibilities of confusion D355 2609 48˚ 1,9 41˚350 +030 40˚520 +150 086˚300 086˚190 087˚180 63˚550 63˚560 63˚470
causing hybrid catalog “stars” are obvious — and became real on occasion (fn 170).
D481 5618 23˚ 0,8 43˚050 −040 29˚530 +070 191˚490 192˚330 192˚120 60˚400 60˚460 60˚350
170
Cat D has some stars which I call “hybrid”. (See fn 78 for list of all.) Most of these are based upon δ of one
star, g of another. But, for two-g based stars, such errors are rarer (D358, D484, & perhaps D647), since the two data D482 5627 24˚ 0,8 42˚350 +220 30˚260 −190 192˚330 192˚430 192˚020 60˚570 60˚540 61˚070
were taken consecutively on the same instrument by the same observer.
50 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 51

coordinates (deduced by DR via precise sph trig from the raw two-g data, combined with the Table 20’s Realλ Realβ columns list only (see fn 106) the position of the brightest
ecliptical cat D positions for the chosen ref stars),171 and the real coords (computed by DR component. (And its HR# alone is cited there.) The ref stars (“r*”) — most of them
from modern tables). All pstns are given for E&E 1601.03, cat D’s epoch. Several obvious found on Tycho’s list of Select stars — are specified (in the order a, b, corresponding to
whole-degree scribal slips are accounted for or restor (indicated by italics in Table 20’s ∆ the measured gt-circ arcs ga , gb , respectively), according to the code: 0 = Polaris (α UMi),
column). E.g., for D402, g = 19◦ 170 (vs. Alkaid) screrrf 15◦ 170 . (See D143 in §M3 for 1 = Capella (α Aur), 2 = γ Cas, 3 = Pollux (β Gem), 4 = Kochab (β UMi), 5 = Regulus
another case of 5 mistaken for 9.) For D347, g = 26◦ 030 1/2 (vs. Polaris) screrrf 23◦ 030 1/2. (α Leo), 6 = Algieba (γ Leo), 7 = Alioth ( UMa), 8 = Arcturus (α Boo), 9 = Alkaid
And, in the two-g calc of D350’s pstn, a +10◦ error occurred: g = 39◦ 360 (vs. η UMa) (η UMa). Also, instead of repeating here Tycho’s mean observed g data (which are printed
misargf 29◦ 360 . Similarly, for D407&D408, evidently 36◦ screrrf 38◦ . In the ∆ (O−C) at OO 13:98-100), I list in Table 20 just real g and obs g’s error ∆ (O−C).175 Table 20 also
entries of Table 20, the above-cited restorations are adopted (denoted by italics). However, lists γD , the angle176 of intersection of Tycho’s two cat D g arcs. Note that flabbiness φ =
in all such cases, the unrestor g were used for DR’s sph trig computation of the “Obs” csc γ (fn 102). Thus, if γ is a small angle, severe pstn inaccuracy is expected. For cases
coordinates, in order to permit meaningful comparison of these positions to the adjacent of single g, “nms” indicates the obvious: no-math-solution possible. For cases of lineup
“catD” column. (See also §N20.) calcs by Tycho, the “Obs” coords are in italics: these coords are precisely what acc sph trig
N16 For some cases, the “Obs” coordinates were impossible to compute via two-g math, lineup calcs177 would have given. (For details of individual lineup calcs, consult entries for
because (fn 133) the sum of the two g values was a trifle less than the great-circle distance those stars, in §M4. For D348, see also fn 177, here. Note: in Table 20, D348’s italicized
between the two ref stars. For these cases (also high-flab cases D347-348 & D645-647), 2nd ref star was supposed to be Capella, but the intended g did not materialize.) It will be
TB resorted to lineup calcs. Our acc lineup calcs for these cases are provided in the “Obs” seen from Tables 19&20 that most of the Final Fifty raw observed Tycho star data (δ & g)
column. The use of lineup math is indicated by italics there. For single-g D428, Table 20 constitute OK naked-eye measurements of dim objects.
simply lists “nms” (no-math-solution) in the column for “Obs” coords. For such objects as N18 The samples displayed in Tables 19&20 are difficult to study statistically, given
D348, Tycho gives a cat D position, nonetheless. (See under “u” or “U” at §P4.) This set the nonuniform conditions governing the work, both indoor & outdoor. But a few general
of cases provides several valuable insights: [a] It confirms the use of lineup calc since there observations can be made without sophisticated analysis. One surprising result: a few of
is no other way to calc a pstn from a single g. [b] For some quarry stars, the 2 ref stars the Table 20 stars (particularly D644 & D352), taken in such notorious haste — and by
were so badly chosen (quarry star virtually on their great circle) that a mere few arcmin evidently inexperienced observer(s) — are comparable in accuracy to the main body of
of observational error rendered rigorous sph trig solutions either [i] flabby in the direction Tycho’s cat D. And for both Tables 19&20, we see that by far the greatest source of errors
roughly perpendicular to the gt-circ connecting the two ref stars, or [ii] mathematically in these stars’ positions was computational, not observational — the inverse of the usual
impossible. Item [b] indicates that the observer was lacking172 in scrupulousness and-or situation in cat D. Indeed, under the panic-circumstances, the observational accuracy is
providentiality. Item [a] is verified by the obvious use of the “lineup” method (see above at impressive more often than not. Though there are indeed a few gross misfires,178 the median
§B9 & fn 36) for several sets of these stars: D345-348, D611-613, D645-647. (Each set is ∆ is 40 — and for dim stars, averaging fifth magnitude, recorded with rapacious rapidity
discussed in §M4.) Stars D644-647 are an especially curious bunch. D644 is based upon in the bare-eyeball pre-telescopic era. This supplies yet another (unexpected) testimony to
initial careful two-g calc of pstn — and then D645&646 were supposed to be just lineup- the accuracy-advance Tycho’s school had made, beyond every one of several millennia of
placed with respect to Polaris along the gt-circ connecting Polaris to the D644 anchor, with prior astronomers. Ancient astronomers’ single-datum mean error of first magnitude stars’
D647 placed likewise except using β Per instead of D644. But, in this revealing case, the δ (a simpler measurement) is no better.
extrapolator got confused about the order of the 4 stars. (Note that their listing in cat D N19 Another surprising feature of the Final Fifty: every one of the (pre-extinction)
is, exceptionally, not in the same order in which they were observed.) So, when using magnitudes m is in the modest range 4.03 to 5.60. Not one of these 50 stars’ post-
the rough observer’s diagram (reproduced at OO 13:99), he went in the wrong direction extinction magnitudes was greater than about 5 3/4. (Four stars of the set have m ≥ 5.50:
with his differential placements. (Thus, D644 is the only star of the four that is accurate. D613, D406, D409, D482. None has both g accurate.) This refutes the natural expectation
See full details in §M4 at D644-647. The g used in the calcs for placing D645-647 are that Tycho went after very dim stars during his last desperate weeks at Hven. Which argues
there reconstructed; these g are adopted here in our lineup calcs, whose results are listed — powerfully against the Hven team having tried for 2g Cen (D1001), since its post-extinction
italicized — in the “Obs” columns of Table 20.) magnitude was µ = 6.47 at Hven (Table 18) or µJ = 6.51 at Wandsbeck (fn 95). By
N17 Several devices are used here to save space in the already-overdense Table 20. E.g.,
the cataloged173 stars (some of which lack Bayer or even Flamsteed tags) are uniformly 175
∆ = O−C = Observed-minus-Calculated, where “O” is TB-observed g & “C” is real g, the latter modernly-
identified by Harvard Revised Photometry (“HR”) number. For each multiple174 star, Calculated for 1601.03. I here neglect the tiny differential effects upon g due to refraction, aberration, & nutation.
176
See definitions of γ and “flab” φ (= 1/cos γ) in §M2. (See fn 101-fn 103.) For Table 20, we calc γD purely
171
Same approach as at §N7: the “Obs” coordinates computed here (α in Table 19, λ & β in Table 20) are those from Tycho data: the observed g and the cat D coords of the two ref-stars.
which Tycho himself would have deduced (assuming perfect mathematics), from his observed data for the quarry star 177
See fn 36. Acc two-g calc of D347 pstn would yield (λ & β, resp): 75◦ 580 & 43◦ 180 . If D348’s g misinv
& for the ref star(s). (§M4) not restor to OO 13:98 obs value (23◦ 410 19/24, used in Table 20), then acc lineup calc (§B9) would yield (λ
172
Choosing ref stars on the same great circle through the quarry star is analogous (both mathematically & follywise) & β, resp): 78◦ 080 & 42◦ 530 , which is close to the cat D pstn.
to steering for a geographical pole with nothing but meridian (noon-or-midnight) observations. (See fn 102 & DIO 2.3 178
The large errors are unrandomly clumped in time. Some are presumably from bad weather which, under less
‡8 §B.) And this is centuries before National Geographic. . . . strained circumstances, would have caused the observer to cease. (Perhaps cloud-obscuration was a cause of what
173
An instance of the insanity of English-language convention: according to the indications (under “catalog” & appears to be mere data-repetition in the series D407-409. Another possible interpretation: all the data D407-409 are
“catalogue”) of one of the Big modern dictionaries, it is prahpah to use “cataloger” (u optional) but not “cataloged” of HR5214-5, with 55◦ sometimes miswritten as 53◦ , and the record augmented by repeated transit observations of
or “cataloging”, where the u is demanded. If my universal to-hell-with-u attitude on this point offends anyone, I refer this star’s declination; its real δ was 36◦ 430 .) It is apparent that the number of large ∆ tends to grow, as the day of
said superpedant to my wife, a professional cataloger, who hasn’t used the u in decades. departure from Hven approaches. It does not require a psychologist to guess that the observations were increasingly
174
Multiple stars in Final Fifty: D345 (same as D600) = HR1622-1623 (Cam 11-12), D428 = HR6636-6637, D614 rushed and thus became less reliable. Alternate explanation: some of the observations were perhaps made by a
= HR4892-4893, D403 = HR4967&4971, D410 = HR5214-5215. E.g., D403 is CVn 15&17, where m1 = 6.28, m2 single person — contra Tycho’s proper explicit specification (fn 28) that its accurate use required 2 observers working
= 5.91: thus, comb m = 5.33. At OO 13:100 n.1, Dreyer set D403 = just CVn 15, which (at magn 6.28) is too dim cooperatively. (Note the problems with errors in the records of 18th century astronomer P. Lemonnier, who did
for Tycho to have bothered with it, if it were a lone star. massive positional astronomy by himself: Rawlins 1981L.)
52 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 53

contrast, DR’s atm model yields a much more credible Wandsbeck µ = 5.81 (fn 95) for least some of these swift, final-days, two-g-based star positions were computed by rigorous
4h Cen (dimmest of the 4 stars, there). sph trig. The computation of such a sizable sample of stars thusly at this late, confused
N20 The oddest 1597 cases are D399-410. From Tycho’s crude diagrams, Dreyer stage of Tycho’s career shows that a remnant of its prior crest’s skills & drive lived yet.
turned out an admirably flawless set of identifications of D399-406. He was prevented N21 However, one cannot evade the fact that very few of the Final Fifty stars here
from going further only because the data-record neglects to state that the g data for D407- considered (1596/10/5-1597/3/10, Tables 19&20) are up to Tycho’s standard, when cat D
410 are not from the same ref stars as those immediately preceding (D402-406), which coordinates are compared to the real coordinates — which is naturally the crucial test. Only
were measured from Alkaid (η UMa) & Regulus (α Leo). After observing D406, the three cat D places of Tycho’s Final Fifty stars were accurate to within 50 of great-circle
observer just (continuing to use Regulus as his other ref star) quietly exchanged Alkaid distance: D596, D644, & D352. (And two potentially accurate stars were apparent victims
for Kochab179 (β UMi), though making no note of this in the record. (See concluding of whole-degree misprints: D599 & D607. Also, D410 would have been accurate to c.50
suggestion in fn 178.) Worse: the contingent pstns (D407-410) were then computed180 as gt-circ, but for the computer’s use of a wrong ref star.) Thus, Longomontanus’ decision to
if the ga observations were measured from Denebola (β Leo) instead of Kochab! (Thus, omit the last-gasp stars is vindicated, though (as noted at Rawlins 1992T §E5), he went too
in Table 20, for these four observations, the Kochab star code is italicized. In Table 21, far in also jettisoning the less-hastily gathered 156 stars of Tycho’s 1596 Appendix, which
the obs are marked “c” for confusion.) Worst: for all the other stars (D399-406) of this DR has found (idem) are roughly as accurate as the rest of cat D.
dozen, as well as for the preceding star (D614), the computer took the wrong member of
the pair181 of solutions one inevitably obtains (via pure math) from such data. (Which is
why both ref-star-codes are italicized in Table 20 for these nine stars: D614-406. Such O Tycho’s Rank
wrong-choice stars are called “WCP” in §M, and the two-g instances are marked “w” in I conclude this extended introduction to DIO’s rendition of cat D by citing 3 thoughts which
col.x of our Table 21.) Thus, not one of the star places D399-410 corresponds to a real star. succinctly sum up my own view of Tycho and his achievements:
In Table 20, for D614 & D399-410, I have listed the wrong182 solutions under both “Obs” O1 Dreyer 1890 (p.363) ends his devoted account of Tycho’s life with an appraisal by
& “catD”, in order that one may gauge the accuracy of the math, which (for pre-log work) no less than F.Bessel, setting Tycho high upon a throne as “a king among astronomers”.
is the most historically interesting part of the process. (E.g., Table 20’s “Obs” coordinates O2 Tycho’s grand successes were based upon an intertwining of extraordinary ability
for D407-410 are calculated by DR on the false assumption that the 2nd ref star was indeed & intensely hard work; a TB credo, printed on the wall of the modern Tycho Museum at
Denebola. Policy similar to that of §N15.) Note that some of these misbegotten solutions Hven, was pointed out by Hanne Dalgas Christiansen (during our 1994/5/28 family visit to
are accurately computed (e.g., D405, D406, & D410). They are among the class of excellent Hven): it’s not what you seem, but what you are.
calculations here (see also such examples as D644 & D352) which prove positively that at O3 Finally, I return, for deliberate emphasis, to the apt Tycho motto (Thoren 1990
p.184) which prefaced this DIO volume and which has long been DR’s guide:
179
Not Kochab’s 1st appearance as improperly-identified ref star. (See fn 130.) Actually, it is peculiar that Kochab “Neither wealth nor power, but only knowledge, alone, endures.”
would be used as a ref object at all: [a] Its equatorial cat D position (D341) is off by 70 (gt circ): ∆α = −160 (−40
gt circ), ∆δ = +60 . (The gt circ error is 90 in the ecliptic frame. In cat D, ecliptic errors are generally larger than
equatorial, due to the +20 error in Tycho’s adopted obliquity.) This is an astonishingly large error for a Tycho ref star
(tho α Per’s ecl error is larger yet), and the 70 error naturally affects all the stars measured from it, e.g., in Table 20.
[b] Kochab is not on the list of 100 Select-stars whose eqt coords (& Tychonic precession rates) are appended to
cat D. (See here at §I & Table 22.) This may be due to its negative α precession. (See §I2.) [c] Moreover, despite
exceedingly numerous Kochab meridian & declination measures (e.g., OO 11:102-3, 106-9, 117&119, 216-222,
12:81-88, 100-102, 163), its eqt coords were never published by Tycho. (See OO 3:376 & 12:244. TB’s old pre-cat D P Preface to Tabulation of Cat D’s 1004 Stars & 100 Select Stars
Kochab pstn, reconstructed here at D585-587 of §M4, was probably eqt, but it was not recorded in a catalog.) This
suggests that the cat D position (D341) was calc from 2 gt circ arc-measures g. And this two-g hypothesis turns out We now turn to DIO’s 42pp Table 21 edition of cat D itself which — with Tables 22&23
to be correct; the data are: ga = 29◦ 360 1/2 vs. γ Dra (D416) and gb = 25◦ 450 1/4 vs. η UMa (D383). (Both g are
for the Select Stars — follows a few brief comments & aids-to-the-user.
found at OO 12:166. The OO 12:84 g vs. Schedar was not used.) To within 300 (an astonishing testament to math
skills at Hven!), each of the two obs g arcs fits its respective implicit cat D g (the D341-D416 arc g & the D341-D383 P1 All coords are provided in arcmin, to tenth-arcmin precision. Errors (Γ or ∆)
arc g). Thus, the unusually large error in D341’s pstn arises, not from sph trig miscues, but from +3 0 obs errors in likewise; following183 modern convention, they are rendered O−C (obs-minus-calc, i.e.,
ga and in the tabular δr of both D416 & D383. cat D-minus-real). On facing pages, I provide ecl (even page) & eqt (odd page) coords &
Despite these confusions, the two-g sph trig turns out to have been pretty good for all four pstns. The D408 errors. The ecl page also assigns marks for special cases, while the eqt page lists magnitudes.
180

calc’s poorness is simply due to (two-g) calc use of g = 37◦ 100 misinvf 36◦ 500 obs. Note: rows (at the same vertical position) on facing pages correspond to the same star —
181
Remember (from fn 32) that, whether one’s outdoor technique is standard (§B6 for Table 19) or the swifter
two-g method (§B8 for Table 20), the raw data will mathematically produce 2 solutions later, indoors. (That is, eq. 6 thus, in effect, each pair of facing pages are a joint single table, with a row (for each star)
has two solutions, just as does the §B8 technique.) To avoid the wrong-choice-of-pair (WCP) pitfall, the observer extending across both pages, in one long horizontal line of data (19 columns wide).
must record sufficient information, additional to arc-angles, which will later enable the computer to choose the correct
one. Thus the regular use of diagrams, of the sort displayed by Dreyer at OO 13:98-100. In truth, these are not
photocopies of TB’s diagrams, as close comparison to the TBmss shows: see Gl. kgl. Samling 316 fol., microfilm
546, p.127a-130b. Presumably, the published diagrams are Dreyer’s hand-copies, based upon the TBmss originals.
(The same is true for the drawings of constellations. E.g., the Aries depiction at OO 11:340 is not quite the same as
the original: Gl. kgl. Samling 312b fol., microfilm 539.2, p.211a.))
182
For each of these 13 cases, the correct “Obs” place accurately computed (from the observed g and the Tycho
αr & δr of the actual ref stars used) has been found by DR (λ & β, resp): 097◦ 400 & 67◦ 360 (D614), 163◦ 530 &
57 59 (D399), 164◦ 180 & 51◦ 520 (D400), 168◦ 360 & 52◦ 540 (D401), 176◦ 500 & 35◦ 320 (D402), 171◦ 490 &
◦ 0

41◦ 450 (D403), 171◦ 390 & 43◦ 220 (D404), 172◦ 210 & 44◦ 150 (D405), 172◦ 200 & 44◦ 100 (D406), 177◦ 550 &
44◦ 180 (D407), 178◦ 020 & 44◦ 150 (D408), 180◦ 400 & 45◦ 070 (D409), 184◦ 020 & 42◦ 280 (D410). All for epoch
1601.03. 183
Note: Rybka 1984 uses C−O.
54 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 55

P2 Each even (ecl) page’s columns are, in order (left to right): P4 The meanings of column x codes are provided in this section.
λD = cat D celestial longitude. Confusion of ref star = “c”.
βD = cat D celestial latitude. Duplicate191 place = “d” or “D”.
λS = Select Star celestial longitude. Fishy, forced, or partially fraudulent = “f”.
βS = Select Star celestial latitude. Totally fraudulent = “F”.
λ = real (i.e., modern-calc184 for 1601.03) mean celestial longitude. Accid obs-hybrid = “h”. Calc-bungle-hybrid = “H”. (See fn 78.)
β = real mean celestial latitude. Member of the set of 21 stars for which DR found no obs data in OO = “m”. Note that
Γλ = gt-circ185 error of λ in arcmin. every single one of the 10 stars (1% of cat D) which were surely faked resides in the mere
∆β = error186 of β in arcmin. 2% of cat D which is marked m.
x = mark of exceptional entry (see §P4 for x codes). Restor = “r”. H&r combined = “R”.
Name = Flamsteed number and-or Bayer187 letter, and IAU constellation. Lineup-calc = “u”; u&d (or u&D) combined = “U”.
D = number in cat D. WCP (§M2) = “w” for two-g ecl case, or “W” for δ&g eqt case.192
P3 Each odd (eqt) page’s columns are, in order (left to right): Member of the Final Fifty193 places = “z”.
HR = “Harvard Revised” number (used by, e.g., Yale Catalog). P5 The order of the catalog is much like that of Hipparchos-Ptolemy & Ulugh Beg,
m = real pre-extinction magn (from Yale Catalog and-or SkyCat2000). except that (instead of their North-Zodiac-South sequence) cat D’s order is: Zodiac-North-
µ = real Hven culmination post-extinction magn.188 South. (This is, crudely194 speaking, the order of TB’s observation of the stars, a point
m = Tycho’s assigned magn (note: §L7), where “n” stands for “nebulous”. which affects the accuracy of the data & the accuracy of their reduction.)195 Since the
αD = cat D right ascension.189 following table contains no breaks (except between pages), I will point out that the first star
δD = cat D declination. of the northern section is D336, and the first star of the southern section is D817. Note
αS = Select Star right ascension. that TB expressed all196 his cat D pstns either to arcmin or half-arcmin precision (Ræder &
δS = Select Star declination. Strömgrens 1946 p.112); however, outside the zodiac (Gem 5 stars), all separately-headed
α = real right ascension. lists of informes or pertinent places exhibit strictly whole-arcmin precision: UMi (11),
δ = real declination. UMa (13), Boo (2), Cyg (5), Cas (19), Per (4), Oph (13). All 67 of these pstns are northern.
Γα = gt-circ error of α (see fn 103) in arcmin. (There are no unformed-star lists attached to cat D southern constellations.) All 47 of the
∆δ = error of δ in arcmin. 1597 late-rush pstns (purely unformed), Table 20, have whole-arcmin coords. So do all 10
(Note: adopted Zodiac stars’  = 23◦ 310 , North & South stars’  = 23◦ 310 1/2.)190 of those fake stars whose alleged data are missing. (By contrast: every other reasonably
definable set of stars in cat D — even Crt & Crv — includes at least one star with at least
one coord expressed to half-arcmin.)
184
Mean E&E pstns, generated from data of Yale Catalog (Hoffleit & Jaschek 1982) — with occasional help from
the superior SkyCat2000 (Hirshfeld, Sinnott, & Ochsenbein 1991), e.g., for D278 (see fn 87) — using Newcomb’s P6 Our 42pp-tabulation of the entire catalog D now begins.197 Following it, 8pp more
traditional precession constants. One could improve slightly upon the places thus found, but not to a degree appropriate are devoted to the 1601.03 (Table 22) & 1701.03 (Table 23) versions of Tycho’s equatorial
to analysing a naked-eye catalog. Select Star list (S list: 100 stars) which he appended to cat D (OO 3:375-377). The column
185
Setting λD − λ = ∆λ (not gt-circ), we have gt-circ Γλ = ∆λ cos β. Similarly, setting αD − α = ∆α (not headings are the same as for Table 21, except that: [a] we also give (last column of ecl page)
gt-circ), we have gt-circ Γα = ∆α cos δ. (See fn 103.) Note that this differential approach breaks down for large
differentials (where sph trig must be used to gauge the actual O − C disagreement) — see, e.g., the apparent gross the star’s number (S) on the Select stars list, while [b] dropping the x column, (since not one
contradiction of the ecl & eqt error-vectors for D401. (This is most obviously due to, e.g., use of δ — ignoring δD of the 100 Select stars suffered a mark). Note: the Tycho implicit ecl pstns (even pages),
— in our definition of Γα. The distinction is trivial in most cases — but not when ∆β and-or ∆δ are ordmag 10◦ , of Tables 22&23, are calc from the eqt pstns of the S list (odd pages), using, as before (in
as for D401 & a few other stars in this messy little corner of cat D.) the reverse case, fn 39), the appropriate value of the obliquity  in the transf. (Again: for
186
Again, sign is O−C, or: cat D pstn minus real pstn.
the zodiacal stars, adopted  = 23◦ 310 ; for the northern & southern stars, 23◦ 310 1/2.)
187
I have depended heavily upon Dreyer & PK for minor stars’ Bayer letters.
188
§L8 summarizes how µ is calc. For full details, see Rawlins 1992T fn 18. Both m & µ here calc for cat D
epoch 1601.03. Zero dust presumed, for reasons discussed here at §L8 & at Rawlins 1992T fn 18, fn 65, fn 66. 191
Repeat stars are listed in fn 77. Note that only 2 repeats are precise duplicates: D345 ≡ D600 & D699 ≡ D701.
189
Remember (see fn 190): Table 21 eqt coords are implicit. (Likewise: ecl coords are implicit in Tables 22&23.) The code here for such cases is: mark the 1st appearance as “d” (in col.x) and all later appearances as “D” — and
190
Recall from fn 39 that what is here taken to be the “obs” eqt pstn is that implicit in cat D, i.e., transf-calc by DIO drop all “D” cases from the samples analysed here. But, this scheme was only required for one case: D699 is “d”
(using the above-cited appropriate TB value for obliquity ) from λD & βD . And keep in mind that the obliquity and D701 is “D”. (Same procedure would have been applied to D345 & D600 — however, both these (identical) stars
 used in these transf-calc is slightly different for the zodiac (D1-D335) than for the northern & southern stars had already been previously eliminated from the samples anyway, on 2 other grounds each.) See §C3.
(D336-D1004). Again, see fn 39. According to Thoren 1990 p.298 n.138, an unpublished study by K.Moesgaard 192
As noted at fn 32, D789 is the sole “W” case in cat D.
finds that, despite publicly adopting  = 23◦ 310 1/2, Tycho actually used 23◦ 310 for cat D. To check the matter, I 193
OO 13:59-60 & 98-101 (1596/10/5 & 1597/2/8-3/10). See §N.
computed rigorously the implicit  for over 50 ordinary stars (Tau, Gem, Cnc, Sco, Sqr, Dra, Her, Lyr, Cyg, Aur, Oph,
Ser, Aql, Ori, Lep, CMa, & Pup) where TB provides both eqt & ecl coords — and repeated the test on all 37 Select
194
However, note that Tycho’s most unreliable class of real stars (the Final Fifty of §N) were entirely northern.
stars (of TB’s OO 3:375-7 list: our Tables 22-23) whose α was within 30◦ of the solstitial colure. The findings: both
195
Recall that the obliquity adopted later in TB’s career differed from his earlier (25% better) value. See fn 190.
 values are used frequently, but there are statistical correlations, revealing which  was generally used for eqt-to-ecl
196
At OO 3:350, D218’s β is printed 2◦ 270 1/3. However, at OO 2:262, the same star (C189) has β = 2◦ 270 1/2.
transf: 23◦ 310 for zodiac & much of Ori & Oph, 23◦ 310 1/2 for pretty much the remainder of cat D. (There are, (Identical β at OO 11:401.) So I’ve corrected this trifling misprint & left D218 in the sample of stars analysed.
however, numerous individual & regional deviations. Moreover, the fact that Ori & Oph were each eqt as well as ecl 197
I am confident that, whatever the initial reception of this edition of cat D, it will ultimately assist in establishing
suggests that use of 23◦ 310 may be as correlated to eqt proximity as to zodiacal.) Since the zodiac was observed permanent appreciation, at last, of Tycho’s long-underestimated star labors. (Note that I merely say: assist. See
first, it seems that TB did indeed switch over to the latter figure for his post-zodiac cat D calculations, as he stated. fn 13.) An irony: DR does not pretend to be a scholar specializing in Tycho studies. However, far from wishing to
The Thoren 1990 p.298 remarks on TB’s alleged pretense to scrupulousness thus seem unjustified in this instance. obscure that fact, I am stressing it here — precisely because this edition of cat D illustrates that scholars can make
But the sunnier Thoren 1990 p.226 n.16 evaluation is completely confirmed. The present DR edition of cat D will be lasting contributions to scientific history without going the orthodox History-of-science route. There are certain
consistently based upon  = 23◦ 310 for the Zodiac section of cat D, 23◦ 310 1/2 for the North & South sections. Historians of science who could attain medically beneficial calm by coming to accept this.
56 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 57
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
27˚370 .0 7˚08 .5 27˚37 .1
0 0
7˚08 .8 -0.1
0
-0.3 5γ Ari 1 0545 4.04 4.21 4 22˚56 .5 17˚18 .6 22˚57 .0 17˚18 .2 -0.4
0 0 0 0
0.3
28˚230 .0 8˚290 .0 28˚240 .2 8˚280 .2 -1.2 0.8 6β Ari 2 0553 2.64 2.81 4 23˚090 .7 18˚500 .2 23˚110 .6 18˚490 .3 -1.8 0.9
32˚060 .0 9˚570 .0 32˚050 .2 9˚570 .2 0.7 -0.2 13α Ari 3 0617 2.00 2.16 3 26˚130 .4 21˚320 .9 26˚130 .1 21˚320 .1 0.2 0.8
32˚340 .0 7˚230 .0 32˚320 .9 7˚220 .5 1.1 0.5 17η Ari 4 0646 5.27 5.44 6 27˚400 .1 19˚190 .2 27˚390 .6 19˚170 .6 0.4 1.5
33˚200 .0 5˚420 .5 33˚180 .6 5˚430 .2 1.4 -0.7 22θ Ari 5 0669 5.62 5.79 6 29˚020 .7 18˚010 .3 29˚010 .5 18˚000 .7 1.1 0.6
27˚570 .0 5˚240 .0 27˚570 .0 5˚260 .0 -0.0 -2.0 8ι Ari 6 0563 5.10 5.27 5 23˚560 .0 15˚480 .7 23˚550 .6 15˚500 .0 0.3 -1.3
38˚360 .0 6˚070 .0 38˚340 .5 6˚070 .8 1.5 -0.8 32ν Ari 7 0773 5.30 5.47 6 34˚060 .5 20˚110 .7 34˚050 .1 20˚110 .2 1.3 0.6
42˚570 .0 4˚080 .5 42˚560 .1 4˚080 .0 0.9 0.5 48 Ari 8 0887 3.88 4.05 5 39˚080 .9 19˚430 .1 39˚080 .6 19˚410 .3 0.3 1.8
45˚150 .0 1˚460 .5 45˚160 .2 1˚470 .2 -1.2 -0.7 57δ Ari 9 0951 4.35 4.52 4 42˚130 .3 18˚090 .5 42˚140 .7 18˚090 .5 -1.3 -0.0
46˚240 .0 2˚500 .0 46˚220 .9 2˚510 .3 1.1 -1.3 58ζ Ari 10 0972 4.89 5.06 5 43˚030 .2 19˚300 .4 43˚020 .1 19˚300 .3 1.1 0.1
47˚500 .5 2˚360 .0 47˚490 .6 2˚340 .1 0.9 1.9 61τ 1 Ari 11 1005 5.28 5.45 6 44˚350 .3 19˚410 .9 44˚350 .4 19˚380 .8 -0.1 3.1
41˚220 .0 1˚120 .0 41˚200 .3 1˚100 .2 1.7 1.8 46ρ3 Ari 12 0869 5.63 5.80 6 38˚310 .8 16˚250 .8 38˚310 .0 16˚220 .6 0.8 3.2
39˚350 .0 1˚070 .0 39˚340 .2 1˚060 .0 0.8 1.0 42π Ari 13 0836 5.22 5.40 6 36˚470 .8 15˚470 .3 36˚470 .8 15˚450 .1 0.1 2.1
39˚230 .0 -1˚200 .0 39˚220 .4 -1˚190 .8 0.6 -0.2 r 43σ Ari 14 0847 5.49 5.68 6 37˚240 .4 13˚240 .1 37˚240 .1 13˚230 .2 0.3 0.9
37˚520 .0 -0˚390 .0 37˚500 .7 -0˚370 .0 1.3 -2.0 37o Ari 15 0809 5.77 5.95 6 35˚420 .3 13˚330 .8 35˚400 .6 13˚340 .3 1.6 -0.6
38˚460 .0 4˚01 .0 38˚45 .9
0 0
4˚010 .5 0.1 -0.5 34µ Ari 16 0793 5.69 5.86 6 35˚000 .5 18˚160 .1 35˚000 .6 18˚150 .6 -0.1 0.5
31˚410 .0 9˚130 .0 31˚410 .0 9˚130 .1 -0.0 -0.1 12κ Ari 17 0613 5.03 5.20 6 26˚050 .9 20˚420 .9 26˚060 .4 20˚420 .4 -0.5 0.6
40˚350 .0 10˚50 .5 40˚34 .2
0 0
10˚510 .2 0.8 -0.7 33 Ari 18 0782 5.30 5.46 5 34˚240 .3 25˚180 .2 34˚230 .8 25˚170 .7 0.5 0.5
41˚230 .0 11˚160 .0 41˚220 .4 11˚160 .4 0.6 -0.4 35 Ari 19 0801 4.66 4.82 4 35˚040 .1 25˚580 .0 35˚030 .9 25˚570 .4 0.2 0.7
42˚400 .0 10˚240 .0 42˚380 .3 10˚250 .3 1.7 -1.3 41 Ari 20 0838 3.63 3.79 3 36˚420 .4 25˚330 .8 36˚400 .7 25˚330 .6 1.5 0.2
42˚510 .0 12˚250 .5 42˚470 .7 12˚270 .5 3.2 -2.0 39 Ari 21 0824 4.51 4.66 4 36˚090 .3 27˚320 .1 36˚050 .8 27˚320 .1 3.1 0.1
48˚000 .0 -5˚570 .0 48˚010 .2 -5˚570 .6 -1.2 0.6 5f Tau 22 1066 4.11 4.29 5 47˚130 .0 11˚310 .8 47˚140 .5 11˚300 .5 -1.5 1.3
47˚300 .0 -7˚290 .0 47˚310 .2 -7˚290 .0 -1.2 -0.0 4 Tau 23 1061 5.14 5.34 6 47˚090 .4 9˚550 .2 47˚100 .8 9˚540 .4 -1.4 0.8
46˚180 .0 -8˚490 .5 46˚200 .1 -8˚500 .2 -2.1 0.7 2ξ Tau 24 1038 3.74 3.94 4 46˚22 .5
0
8˚18 .1 46˚24 .9
0 0
8˚160 .9 -2.3 1.2
45˚350 .5 -9˚220 .5 45˚360 .0 -9˚220 .3 -0.5 -0.2 1o Tau 25 1030 3.60 3.80 4 45˚510 .2 7˚340 .7 45˚510 .8 7˚330 .9 -0.6 0.7
51˚460 .0 -8˚410 .0 51˚460 .5 -8˚410 .1 -0.5 0.1 30e Tau 26 1174 5.07 5.27 5 51˚360 .8 9˚520 .2 51˚370 .5 9˚510 .0 -0.7 1.1
55˚010 .0 -8˚030 .0 55˚030 .9 -8˚000 .4 -2.9 -2.6 35λ Tau 27 1239 3.47 3.66 4 54˚37 .9 11˚15 .7 54˚40 .3 11˚170 .7 -2.4
0 0 0
-2.0
57˚590 .0 -12˚130 .5 58˚000 .5 -12˚130 .8 -1.4 0.3 49µ Tau 28 1320 4.29 4.49 4 58˚270 .8 7˚500 .7 58˚290 .4 7˚490 .4 -1.6 1.3
54˚190 .0 -14˚300 .5 54˚200 .7 -14˚290 .9 -1.7 -0.6 38ν Tau 29 1251 3.91 4.13 4 55˚28 .7
0
4˚49 .3 55˚30 .3
0 0
4˚490 .0 -1.6 0.3
64˚090 .0 -9˚320 .0 64˚100 .6 -9˚330 .0 -1.5 1.0 90c1 Tau 30 1473 4.27 4.46 5 63˚570 .3 11˚400 .2 63˚590 .2 11˚380 .1 -1.8 2.1
63˚110 .0 -11˚480 .0 63˚130 .2 -11˚470 .0 -2.1 -1.0 88d Tau 31 1458 4.25 4.45 5 63˚250 .2 9˚160 .1 63˚270 .3 9˚160 .1 -2.0 0.0
60˚120 .0 -5˚460 .5 60˚130 .5 -5˚460 .6 -1.4 0.1 54γ Tau 32 1346 3.65 3.83 3 59˚160 .3 14˚360 .6 59˚180 .0 14˚350 .5 -1.6 1.1
61˚160 .5 -4˚020 .0 61˚170 .4 -4˚000 .8 -0.9 -1.2 61δ1 Tau 33 1373 3.76 3.93 3 59˚590 .6 16˚310 .9 60˚000 .6 16˚310 .9 -0.9 -0.0
62˚220 .0 -5˚530 .0 62˚220 .9 -5˚530 .0 -0.9 0.0 78θ2 Tau 34 1412 3.40 3.58 4 61˚280 .7 14˚550 .8 61˚290 .8 14˚540 .7 -1.1 1.2
64˚120 .5 -5˚310 .0 64˚130 .0 -5˚290 .7 -0.5 -1.3 87α Tau 35 1457 0.85 1.02 1 63˚160 .5 15˚370 .9 63˚160 .9 15˚370 .9 -0.4 0.0
62˚530 .0 -2˚360 .5 62˚530 .1 -2˚360 .7 -0.1 0.2 74 Tau 36 1409 3.53 3.70 3 61˚210 .1 18˚140 .6 61˚210 .5 18˚130 .1 -0.4 1.5
68˚120 .0 -3˚400 .0 68˚100 .7 -3˚410 .0 1.3 1.0 97i Tau 37 1547 5.10 5.27 6 67˚020 .9 18˚070 .5 67˚010 .9 18˚040 .9 0.9 2.6
72˚130 .5 -2˚300 .5 72˚120 .7 -2˚310 .0 0.8 0.5 106 l Tau 38 1658 5.29 5.46 6 71˚040 .8 19˚500 .7 71˚040 .2 19˚480 .6 0.6 2.1
71˚040 .0 -1˚490 .5 71˚120 .8 -1˚140 .7 -8.8 -34.8 102ι Tau 39 1620 4.64 4.81 4 69˚450 .7 20˚220 .0 69˚500 .1 20˚560 .2 -4.1 -34.2
79˚120 .0 -2˚140 .0 79˚130 .0 -2˚140 .7 -1.0 0.7 123ζ Tau 40 1910 3.00 3.17 3 78˚260 .5 20˚510 .0 78˚270 .8 20˚480 .8 -1.2 2.1
66˚350 .0 0˚400 .0 66˚350 .2 0˚390 .9 -0.2 0.1 94τ Tau 41 1497 4.28 4.44 5 64˚350 .7 22˚080 .1 64˚360 .2 22˚060 .7 -0.5 1.4
76˚590 .5 5˚20 .0 77˚00 .4
0 0
5˚210 .1 -0.9 -1.1 112β Tau 42 1791 1.65 1.80 2 75˚160 .2 28˚110 .1 75˚170 .2 28˚100 .9 -0.9 0.3
62˚540 .0 1˚040 .0 62˚550 .4 1˚030 .8 -1.4 0.2 69υ Tau 43 1392 4.28 4.44 5 60˚360 .7 21˚510 .1 60˚380 .5 21˚490 .8 -1.7 1.3
62˚380 .0 0˚35 .0 62˚37 .6
0 0
0˚350 .0 0.4 -0.0 65κ1 Tau 44 1387 4.22 4.38 4 60˚260 .0 21˚190 .6 60˚250 .8 21˚180 .2 0.1 1.4
57˚510 .0 1˚120 .0 57˚520 .8 1˚130 .2 -1.8 -1.2 37A1 Tau 45 1256 4.36 4.52 5 55˚160 .9 20˚540 .8 55˚180 .8 20˚550 .1 -1.8 -0.3
60˚280 .5 -0˚46 .5 60˚29 .8
0 0
-0˚470 .7 -1.3 1.2 50ω2 Tau 46 1329 4.94 5.11 6 58˚280 .3 19˚330 .5 58˚300 .2 19˚310 .3 -1.8 2.2
60˚040 .0 5˚160 .0 60˚050 .7 5˚160 .4 -1.7 -0.4 44p Tau 47 1287 5.41 5.57 6 56˚380 .3 25˚220 .3 56˚400 .4 25˚210 .8 -2.0 0.5
59˚450 .5 7˚550 .0 59˚440 .3 7˚540 .1 1.2 0.9 42ψ Tau 48 1269 5.23 5.38 5 55˚380 .4 27˚530 .2 55˚370 .8 27˚500 .8 0.5 2.4
62˚340 .0 3˚570 .0 62˚320 .9 3˚580 .5 1.1 -1.5 59χ Tau 49 1369 5.37 5.53 5 59˚370 .9 24˚360 .7 59˚360 .8 24˚360 .6 1.0 0.1
62˚250 .5 5˚45 .5 62˚20 .9
0 0
5˚450 .6 4.5 -0.1 52φ Tau 50 1348 4.95 5.10 5 59˚040 .2 26˚210 .2 58˚590 .6 26˚190 .1 4.1 2.1
58 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 59
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
53˚500 .0 4˚110 .0 53˚50 .7
0
4˚08 .9 -0.7
0
2.1 17 Tau 51 1142 3.70 3.86 5 50˚18 .6 22˚50 .4
0 0
50˚20 .3 22˚47 .4 -1.6
0 0
3.0
54˚030 .0 4˚020 .0 54˚070 .9 3˚540 .8 -4.9 7.2 23 Tau 52 1156 4.18 4.34 6 50˚340 .7 22˚450 .0 50˚420 .2 22˚380 .1 -7.0 6.9
54˚240 .0 4˚000 .0 54˚250 .5 4˚000 .6 -1.5 -0.6 25η Tau 53 1165 2.87 3.03 3 50˚57 .2 22˚48 .4
0 0
50˚590 .1 22˚480 .1 -1.7 0.3
54˚470 .0 3˚550 .0 54˚470 .3 3˚520 .5 -0.3 2.5 27 Tau 54 1178 3.63 3.79 5 51˚220 .7 22˚490 .3 51˚240 .1 22˚450 .8 -1.3 3.5
49˚570 .0 -13˚300 .0 49˚58 .9 -13˚300 .5 -1.8
0
0.5 29 Tau 55 1153 5.35 5.57 6 51˚06 .5
0
4˚45 .5
0
51˚080 .5 4˚440 .3 -2.0 1.2
60˚100 .0 -12˚020 .0 60˚110 .0 -12˚010 .6 -1.0 -0.4 66r Tau 56 1381 5.12 5.32 6 60˚320 .0 8˚280 .5 60˚330 .0 8˚270 .7 -1.0 0.8
61˚580 .5 -8˚410 .0 61˚580 .8 -8˚400 .8 -0.3 -0.2 79b Tau 57 1414 5.03 5.22 5 61˚38 .3 12˚06 .5
0 0
61˚38 .7 12˚050 .4 -0.4
0
1.1
61˚420 .0 -6˚560 .5 61˚430 .1 -6˚570 .0 -1.1 0.5 73π Tau 58 1396 4.69 4.87 5 61˚010 .1 13˚450 .9 61˚020 .5 13˚440 .3 -1.3 1.6
63˚280 .0 -7˚040 .5 63˚280 .2 -7˚050 .3 -0.2 0.8 86ρ Tau 59 1444 4.65 4.83 5 62˚490 .1 13˚570 .9 62˚490 .6 13˚550 .8 -0.5 2.1
64˚550 .0 -6˚170 .5 64˚55 .8
0
-6˚120 .8 -0.8 -4.7 92σ2 Tau 60 1479 4.69 4.87 5 64˚08 .2 14˚59 .7
0 0
64˚080 .3 15˚030 .0 -0.1 -3.4
75˚020 .5 -1˚040 .0 75˚000 .3 -1˚030 .2 2.2 -0.8 109n Tau 61 1739 4.94 5.10 6 73˚530 .0 21˚360 .9 73˚500 .7 21˚350 .9 2.1 0.9
76˚550 .5 -1˚200 .0 76˚55 .7
0
-1˚200 .6 -0.2 0.6 114o Tau 62 1810 4.88 5.05 6 75˚55 .6 21˚32 .7
0 0
75˚560 .1 21˚300 .6 -0.4 2.0
47˚330 .0 -9˚340 .5 47˚330 .8 -9˚300 .8 -0.8 -3.7 6t Tau 63 1079 5.77 5.97 6 47˚460 .9 7˚550 .2 47˚460 .8 7˚570 .8 0.1 -2.6
59˚220 .5 6˚330 .0 59˚220 .3 6˚330 .1 0.2 -0.1 41 Tau 64 1268 5.20 5.36 5 55˚34 .4 26˚28 .1
0 0
55˚34 .6 26˚260 .9 -0.2
0
1.3
104˚410 .0 10˚020 .0 104˚410 .2 10˚030 .7 -0.2 -1.7 66α Gem 65 2890 1.58 1.73 2 107˚140 .9 32˚400 .3 107˚150 .1 32˚400 .6 -0.1 -0.2
107˚430 .0 6˚380 .0 107˚42 .8
0
6˚390 .3 0.2 -1.3 78β Gem 66 2990 1.14 1.29 2 110˚120 .1 28˚540 .7 110˚110 .7 28˚540 .6 0.3 0.1
95˚320 .0 10˚580 .0 95˚330 .2 10˚590 .1 -1.2 -1.1 34θ Gem 67 2540 3.60 3.75 5 96˚350 .1 34˚210 .4 96˚360 .4 34˚200 .9 -1.1 0.5
99˚540 .0 7˚430 .0 99˚520 .6 7˚420 .6 1.4 0.4 46τ Gem 68 2697 4.41 4.56 4 101˚260 .7 30˚500 .4 101˚240 .9 30˚480 .6 1.5 1.7
103˚240 .0 5˚420 .5 103˚240 .0 5˚430 .3 0.0 -0.8 60ι Gem 69 2821 3.79 3.94 4 105˚120 .9 28˚310 .1 105˚120 .8 28˚300 .4 0.1 0.7
105˚470 .0 5˚100 .0 105˚46 .6
0
5˚100 .9 0.4 -0.9 69υ Gem 70 2905 4.06 4.21 5 107˚490 .1 27˚420 .6 107˚480 .5 27˚420 .0 0.5 0.5
108˚060 .0 3˚030 .0 108˚060 .0 3˚020 .3 0.0 0.7 77κ Gem 71 2985 3.57 3.72 4 110˚040 .2 25˚180 .6 110˚030 .8 25˚160 .5 0.4 2.1
103˚180 .0 2˚560 .0 103˚17 .5
0
2˚550 .4 0.5 0.6 57A Gem 72 2808 5.03 5.18 6 104˚460 .8 25˚460 .1 104˚460 .1 25˚440 .0 0.7 2.1
104˚100 .0 6˚000 .5 104˚120 .2 6˚030 .6 -2.2 -3.1 h 64-5b Gem 73 2857 4.28 4.43 6 106˚060 .9 28˚440 .0 106˚090 .6 28˚450 .3 -2.3 -1.3
94˚220 .0 2˚110 .0 94˚22 .3
0
2˚010 .3 -0.3 9.7 27 Gem 74 2473 2.98 3.13 3 94˚500 .4 25˚370 .6 94˚500 .3 25˚260 .3 0.1 11.3
99˚260 .0 -2˚060 .5 99˚250 .4 -2˚050 .3 0.6 -1.2 43ζ Gem 75 2650 3.79 3.95 3 100˚060 .6 21˚040 .6 100˚060 .0 21˚040 .4 0.6 0.2
102˚560 .0 -0˚130 .5 102˚570 .3 -0˚130 .5 -1.3 -0.0 55δ Gem 76 2777 3.53 3.69 3 104˚020 .2 22˚390 .7 104˚030 .4 22˚380 .1 -1.1 1.6
103˚130 .0 -5˚410 .0 103˚13 .1
0
-5˚400 .7 -0.1 -0.3 54λ Gem 77 2763 3.58 3.75 3 103˚460 .7 17˚120 .1 103˚460 .7 17˚100 .9 -0.0 1.2
87˚530 .0 -0˚580 .0 87˚520 .6 -0˚560 .3 0.4 -1.7 7η Gem 78 2216 3.28 3.44 4 87˚420 .5 22˚320 .0 87˚420 .0 22˚320 .1 0.4 -0.2
89˚440 .0 -0˚530 .0 89˚43 .7
0
-0˚510 .6 0.3 -1.4 13µ Gem 79 2286 2.88 3.03 3 89˚42 .7 22˚38 .0
0 0
89˚420 .3 22˚370 .9 0.3 0.1
91˚140 .0 -3˚080 .0 91˚140 .2 -3˚060 .3 -0.2 -1.7 18ν Gem 80 2343 4.15 4.32 4 91˚180 .8 20˚220 .7 91˚190 .0 20˚220 .8 -0.2 -0.1
93˚310 .0 -6˚480 .5 93˚32 .0
0
-6˚470 .3 -1.0 -1.2 24γ Gem 81 2421 1.93 2.11 2 93˚380 .7 16˚390 .8 93˚390 .8 16˚390 .4 -1.0 0.4
95˚390 .5 -10˚090 .0 95˚390 .3 -10˚070 .9 0.2 -1.1 r 31ξ Gem 82 2484 3.36 3.54 4 95˚430 .3 13˚150 .2 95˚430 .2 13˚140 .8 0.1 0.5
97˚560 .0 -9˚410 .0 97˚540 .8 -9˚390 .9 1.2 -1.1 38e Gem 83 2564 4.65 4.83 6 98˚02 .8 13˚36 .7
0 0
98˚010 .6 13˚360 .3 1.1 0.4
96˚230 .5 -1˚120 .0 96˚230 .5 -1˚110 .5 0.0 -0.5 36d Gem 84 2529 5.27 5.43 6 96˚540 .1 22˚090 .8 96˚540 .1 22˚080 .8 0.1 1.0
98˚370 .5 1˚310 .0 98˚380 .3 1˚290 .6 -0.8 1.4 42ω Gem 85 2630 5.18 5.34 6 99˚300 .1 24˚440 .9 99˚300 .8 24˚410 .9 -0.6 3.0
109˚420 .0 5˚440 .0 109˚400 .6 5˚440 .3 1.4 -0.3 83φ Gem 86 3067 4.97 5.12 6 112˚160 .1 27˚440 .1 112˚140 .3 27˚430 .2 1.6 0.9
107˚040 .5 7˚240 .0 107˚020 .7 7˚250 .7 1.8 -1.7 75σ Gem 87 2973 4.28 4.43 5 109˚350 .8 29˚450 .5 109˚330 .7 29˚460 .0 1.8 -0.5
103˚290 .0 9˚420 .0 103˚300 .2 9˚440 .4 -1.2 -2.4 62ρ Gem 88 2852 4.18 4.33 5 105˚480 .6 32˚280 .6 105˚500 .0 32˚290 .4 -1.2 -0.8
85˚220 .0 -0˚130 .0 85˚22 .8
0
-0˚120 .8 -0.8 -0.2 1 Gem 89 2134 4.16 4.32 4 84˚570 .4 23˚130 .1 84˚580 .3 23˚110 .8 -0.8 1.3
107˚020 .5 -5˚520 .0 107˚010 .4 -5˚500 .5 1.1 -1.5 68 Gem 90 2886 5.25 5.43 6 107˚420 .7 16˚360 .3 107˚410 .6 16˚360 .5 1.0 -0.2
108˚060 .0 -3˚480 .5 108˚060 .5 -3˚470 .4 -0.5 -1.1 74f Gem 91 2938 5.05 5.21 6 109˚040 .9 18˚300 .8 109˚050 .4 18˚300 .4 -0.5 0.5
109˚300 .5 -2˚420 .0 109˚31 .8
0
-2˚410 .1 -1.3 -0.9 81g Gem 92 3003 4.88 5.04 6 110˚420 .8 19˚250 .2 110˚440 .1 19˚240 .5 -1.2 0.8
111˚280 .0 -0˚570 .5 111˚290 .0 -0˚550 .3 -1.0 -2.2 85 Gem 93 3086 5.35 5.52 6 113˚030 .1 20˚510 .1 113˚040 .3 20˚510 .8 -1.1 -0.7
113˚540 .0 1˚180 .5 113˚54 .4
0
1˚180 .9 -0.4 -0.4 10µ2 Cnc 94 3176 5.30 5.46 6 116˚020 .4 22˚410 .0 116˚020 .6 22˚400 .0 -0.2 1.0
121˚460 .5 1˚140 .0 121˚460 .1 1˚150 .3 0.4 -1.3 Praesepe 95 3428 5.69 5.85 n 124˚200 .1 21˚010 .8 124˚190 .7 21˚020 .0 0.4 -0.1
119˚490 .0 1˚310 .5 119˚50 .6
0
1˚320 .2 -1.6 -0.7 33η Cnc 96 3366 5.33 5.49 5 122˚210 .2 21˚440 .7 122˚220 .7 21˚430 .8 -1.4 0.9
120˚090 .5 -0˚470 .5 120˚100 .0 -0˚480 .0 -0.5 0.5 31θ Cnc 97 3357 5.35 5.51 5 122˚100 .9 19˚240 .5 122˚110 .0 19˚220 .6 -0.1 1.9
121˚570 .0 3˚090 .0 121˚580 .7 3˚090 .5 -1.7 -0.5 r 43γ Cnc 98 3449 4.66 4.82 4 124˚590 .3 22˚510 .5 125˚000 .9 22˚500 .3 -1.5 1.1
123˚080 .0 0˚040 .0 123˚090 .0 0˚030 .8 -1.0 0.2 47δ Cnc 99 3461 3.94 4.10 4 125˚270 .7 19˚350 .1 125˚280 .3 19˚330 .5 -0.6 1.6
128˚030 .5 -5˚080 .0 128˚04 .4
0
-5˚060 .8 -0.9 -1.2 65α Cnc 100 3572 4.25 4.43 3 129˚070 .6 13˚200 .9 129˚080 .6 13˚200 .7 -0.9 0.2
60 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 61
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
120˚440 .0 10˚23 .0 120˚46 .4 10˚23 .5
0 0 0
-2.4 -0.5 48ι Cnc 101 3474 3.92 4.07 5 125˚33 .2 30˚10 .4 125˚35 .5 30˚09 .1
0 0 0 0
-2.0 1.3
113˚560 .0 1˚150 .5 113˚540 .4 1˚180 .9 1.6 -3.4 10µ2 Cnc 102 3176 5.30 5.46 5 116˚030 .9 22˚370 .7 116˚020 .6 22˚400 .0 1.2 -2.3
115˚040 .0 -7˚050 .0 115˚030 .6 -7˚050 .6 0.4 0.6 8 Cnc 103 3163 5.12 5.30 5 115˚420 .2 14˚130 .1 115˚410 .6 14˚110 .1 0.7 1.9
115˚450 .5 -2˚180 .5 115˚450 .9 -2˚170 .8 -0.4 -0.7 16ζ Cnc 104 3208 4.64 4.81 4 117˚180 .1 18˚470 .6 117˚180 .5 18˚460 .8 -0.3 0.7
118˚120 .5 -1˚040 .0 118˚120 .7 -1˚020 .4 -0.2 -1.6 20d Cnc 105 3284 5.80 5.97 6 120˚050 .9 19˚320 .5 120˚060 .1 19˚320 .7 -0.2 -0.2
126˚470 .5 -1˚540 .0 126˚480 .7 -1˚520 .6 -1.2 -1.4 62o1 Cnc 106 3561 5.20 5.37 6 128˚420 .0 16˚470 .8 128˚430 .3 16˚470 .6 -1.2 0.1
130˚360 .0 -5˚360 .0 130˚360 .4 -5˚360 .1 -0.4 0.1 76κ Cnc 107 3623 5.24 5.43 5 131˚300 .5 12˚140 .5 131˚300 .7 12˚130 .2 -0.1 1.3
125˚270 .0 7˚140 .0 125˚280 .3 7˚150 .0 -1.2 -1.0 69ν Cnc 108 3595 5.45 5.61 6 129˚470 .5 25˚580 .2 129˚480 .7 25˚570 .7 -1.0 0.5
127˚360 .5 5˚200 .0 127˚380 .4 5˚230 .3 -1.9 -3.3 77ξ Cnc 109 3627 5.14 5.30 6 131˚310 .5 23˚340 .5 131˚340 .0 23˚360 .1 -2.3 -1.5
129˚410 .5 10˚23 .0 129˚43 .4 10˚230 .9
0 0
-1.9 -0.9 1κ Leo 110 3731 4.46 4.61 4 135˚160 .7 27˚510 .5 135˚180 .5 27˚500 .7 -1.5 0.7
132˚160 .5 7˚520 .0 132˚180 .1 7˚510 .7 -1.6 0.3 4λ Leo 111 3773 4.31 4.46 4 137˚100 .8 24˚420 .4 137˚110 .9 24˚400 .6 -0.9 1.8
135˚510 .0 12˚210 .0 135˚520 .4 12˚200 .0 -1.4 1.0 24µ Leo 112 3905 3.88 4.03 4 142˚270 .7 27˚520 .8 142˚280 .2 27˚500 .5 -0.4 2.3
135˚050 .0 9˚400 .0 135˚080 .1 9˚410 .3 -3.0 -1.3 17 Leo 113 3873 2.98 3.13 3 140˚420 .4 25˚340 .6 140˚450 .4 25˚330 .9 -2.8 0.7
141˚570 .5 11˚500 .0 141˚590 .1 11˚500 .4 -1.6 -0.4 36ζ Leo 114 4031 3.44 3.60 3 148˚330 .7 25˚230 .1 148˚340 .9 25˚220 .1 -1.1 0.9
143˚590 .0 8˚470 .0 144˚000 .1 8˚470 .7 -1.1 -0.7 41γ Leo 115 4057 2.30 2.46 2 149˚260 .6 21˚490 .9 149˚270 .4 21˚490 .4 -0.8 0.5
142˚200 .0 4˚520 .0 142˚200 .0 4˚500 .5 -0.0 1.5 30η Leo 116 3975 3.52 3.69 3 146˚220 .7 18˚420 .5 146˚210 .8 18˚400 .2 0.9 2.3
144˚170 .0 0˚260 .5 144˚170 .2 0˚270 .1 -0.2 -0.6 32α Leo 117 3982 1.35 1.53 1 146˚450 .3 13˚530 .2 146˚450 .4 13˚520 .8 -0.1 0.4
144˚500 .5 -1˚250 .5 144˚510 .2 -1˚250 .9 -0.7 0.4 31A Leo 118 3980 4.37 4.55 5 146˚390 .4 11˚560 .4 146˚390 .6 11˚540 .9 -0.3 1.5
141˚430 .5 0˚000 .5 141˚460 .3 0˚010 .8 -2.8 -1.3 27ν Leo 119 3937 5.26 5.44 4 144˚070 .0 14˚190 .1 144˚090 .9 14˚180 .5 -2.8 0.6
137˚540 .5 0˚160 .0 137˚550 .1 0˚190 .4 -0.6 -3.4 16ψ Leo 120 3866 5.35 5.52 5 140˚270 .1 15˚460 .0 140˚280 .4 15˚480 .1 -1.3 -2.1
136˚070 .0 -3˚100 .0 136˚050 .3 -3˚100 .4 1.7 0.4 5ξ Leo 121 3782 4.97 5.15 4 137˚370 .2 13˚020 .0 137˚350 .1 13˚010 .1 2.0 0.9
138˚400 .0 -3˚470 .0 138˚410 .8 -3˚460 .5 -1.8 -0.5 14o Leo 122 3852 3.52 3.71 4 139˚540 .9 11˚400 .8 139˚560 .5 11˚390 .7 -1.6 1.1
143˚460 .0 -3˚550 .0 143˚450 .1 -3˚550 .9 0.9 0.9 29π Leo 123 3950 4.70 4.89 4 144˚470 .2 9˚560 .6 144˚450 .7 9˚550 .2 1.4 1.4
150˚480 .0 0˚080 .0 150˚490 .3 0˚080 .0 -1.3 0.0 47ρ Leo 124 4133 3.85 4.04 4 152˚54 .9 11˚21 .0 152˚55 .9 11˚190 .8
0 0 0
-1.0 1.2
142˚240 .0 2˚100 .0 148˚530 .7 4˚330 .8 -388.5 -143.8 46 Leo 125 4127 5.46 5.63 6 145˚300 .4 16˚080 .3 152˚410 .9 16˚090 .3 -414.4 -1.0
152˚060 .0 5˚560 .0 152˚050 .3 5˚550 .5 0.7 0.5 52 Leo 126 4209 5.48 5.65 6 156˚190 .1 16˚170 .4 156˚170 .8 16˚160 .6 1.3 0.8
154˚050 .0 2˚49 .5 154˚06 .7
0 0
2˚480 .2 -1.7 1.3 53 Leo 127 4227 5.25 5.44 6 157˚020 .3 12˚400 .3 157˚030 .1 12˚370 .9 -0.8 2.4
153˚140 .0 12˚530 .0 153˚160 .6 12˚530 .9 -2.5 -0.9 60b Leo 128 4300 4.42 4.58 5 160˚110 .2 22˚180 .6 160˚130 .5 22˚180 .0 -2.1 0.6
155˚410 .0 14˚200 .0 155˚420 .9 14˚190 .7 -1.8 0.3 68δ Leo 129 4357 2.56 2.72 2 163˚100 .3 22˚430 .1 163˚110 .4 22˚410 .6 -1.0 1.5
157˚500 .0 9˚410 .5 157˚510 .0 9˚400 .4 -1.0 1.1 70θ Leo 130 4359 3.34 3.51 3 163˚180 .1 17˚370 .4 163˚180 .1 17˚350 .6 -0.0 1.8
159˚080 .0 7˚500 .5 159˚030 .7 7˚520 .3 4.2 -1.8 73n Leo 131 4365 5.32 5.49 6 163˚470 .4 15˚250 .2 163˚430 .6 15˚280 .1 3.6 -2.8
161˚580 .5 6˚070 .0 161˚580 .4 6˚050 .9 0.1 1.1 78ι Leo 132 4399 3.94 4.13 3 165˚460 .8 12˚440 .2 165˚450 .9 12˚420 .9 0.9 1.3
163˚080 .5 1˚40 .0 163˚08 .8
0 0
1˚410 .8 -0.3 -1.8 77σ Leo 133 4386 4.05 4.25 4 165˚070 .1 8˚110 .0 165˚070 .8 8˚120 .1 -0.7 -1.1
165˚570 .0 -0˚330 .0 165˚560 .5 -0˚330 .5 0.5 0.5 84τ Leo 134 4418 4.95 5.16 4 166˚510 .7 5˚030 .1 166˚500 .9 5˚020 .5 0.7 0.6
169˚270 .0 -3˚020 .5 169˚280 .4 -3˚030 .0 -1.4 0.5 91υ Leo 135 4471 4.30 4.53 4 169˚06 .80
1˚23 .5 169˚07 .8
0 0
1˚220 .2 -1.1 1.3
166˚030 .0 12˚180 .0 166˚050 .1 12˚170 .8 -2.0 0.2 94β Leo 136 4534 2.14 2.32 1 172˚080 .1 16˚490 .0 172˚090 .6 16˚470 .9 -1.4 1.2
136˚320 .0 -4˚480 .0 136˚350 .5 -4˚410 .0 -3.5 -7.0 6h Leo 137 3779 5.07 5.25 6 137˚310 .9 11˚210 .0 137˚370 .2 11˚250 .6 -5.2 -4.6
136˚010 .5 -5˚430 .0 135˚580 .4 -5˚350 .1 3.0 -7.9 2ω Leo 138 3754 5.41 5.60 5 136˚450 .9 10˚370 .4 136˚450 .1 10˚440 .7 0.8 -7.4
150˚140 .0 10˚170 .0 150˚150 .0 10˚150 .1 -1.0 1.9 51m Leo 139 4208 5.49 5.65 6 156˚120 .1 21˚000 .9 156˚110 .7 20˚580 .1 0.3 2.7
136˚130 .0 10˚470 .5 136˚130 .4 10˚450 .4 -0.4 2.1 22g Leo 140 3900 5.32 5.48 6 142˚160 .8 26˚170 .3 142˚150 .8 26˚140 .3 0.8 3.0
165˚530 .5 -7˚390 .0 165˚560 .0 -7˚380 .5 -2.4 -0.5 74φ Leo 141 4368 4.47 4.72 4 164˚030 .2 -1˚280 .2 164˚050 .7 -1˚290 .1 -2.5 0.9
168˚500 .0 -5˚410 .0 168˚480 .7 -5˚420 .2 1.3 1.2 87e Leo 142 4432 4.77 5.01 5 167˚300 .7 -0˚470 .8 167˚290 .1 -0˚480 .8 1.6 1.0
146˚220 .5 17˚400 .0 147˚550 .1 13˚570 .0 -89.9 223.0 41 LMi 143 4192 5.08 5.24 5 155˚250 .9 29˚150 .7 155˚230 .4 25˚150 .0 2.2 240.8
149˚570 .0 16˚300 .0 149˚550 .8 16˚290 .0 1.1 1.0 54 Leo 144 4259 4.31 4.47 5 158˚300 .0 26˚520 .4 158˚270 .6 26˚510 .3 2.1 1.1
154˚540 .5 16˚470 .0 154˚530 .8 16˚460 .6 0.7 0.4 72 Leo 145 4362 4.63 4.78 5 163˚290 .2 25˚150 .8 163˚270 .6 25˚150 .2 1.4 0.6
163˚220 .0 17˚190 .0 163˚240 .4 17˚180 .6 -2.3 0.4 93 Leo 146 4527 4.53 4.69 4 171˚480 .0 22˚270 .3 171˚490 .5 22˚250 .9 -1.3 1.5
158˚580 .0 1˚200 .5 158˚580 .4 1˚210 .0 -0.4 -0.5 63χ Leo 147 4310 4.63 4.83 4 161˚050 .4 9˚280 .6 161˚050 .7 9˚280 .4 -0.3 0.1
158˚300 .0 -0˚09 .5 158˚26 .6 -0˚120 .7
0 0
3.4 3.2 59c Leo 148 4294 4.99 5.19 5 160˚04 .80
8˚15 .7 160˚00 .2
0 0
8˚130 .5 4.6 2.3
159˚200 .0 -2˚290 .0 159˚210 .1 -2˚310 .5 -1.1 2.5 58d Leo 149 4291 4.84 5.05 5 159˚580 .8 5˚470 .7 159˚580 .7 5˚440 .4 0.0 3.3
167˚440 .0 6˚060 .5 167˚450 .3 6˚060 .7 -1.3 -0.2 2ξ Vir 150 4515 4.85 5.04 5 171˚090 .1 10˚280 .7 171˚100 .1 10˚280 .2 -1.0 0.5
62 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 63
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
168˚330 .0 4˚37 .0 168˚34 .9
0 0
4˚36 .3
0
-1.9 0.7 3ν Vir 151 4517 4.03 4.22 5 171˚18 .60
8˚47 .2 171˚19 .8
0 0
8˚45 .6
0
-1.2 1.6
172˚070 .0 8˚330 .5 172˚080 .6 8˚310 .9 -1.6 1.6 9o Vir 152 4608 4.12 4.31 5 176˚120 .3 10˚590 .2 176˚120 .8 10˚570 .0 -0.5 2.2
171˚580 .0 6˚100 .0 171˚590 .1 6˚090 .5 -1.1 0.5 8π Vir 153 4589 4.66 4.86 5 175˚050 .5 8˚510 .3 175˚060 .1 8˚500 .3 -0.5 1.0
171˚320 .0 0˚430 .0 171˚300 .5 0˚410 .4 1.5 1.6 5β Vir 154 4540 3.61 3.83 3 172˚300 .7 4˚010 .6 172˚280 .6 4˚000 .5 2.1 1.0
179˚160 .0 1˚25 .0 179˚16 .1
0 0
1˚220 .7 -0.1 2.3 15η Vir 155 4689 3.89 4.12 4 179˚530 .6 1˚350 .5 179˚520 .7 1˚330 .3 0.8 2.2
184˚350 .5 2˚500 .0 184˚370 .8 2˚490 .6 -2.3 0.4 29γ Vir 156 4825 2.91 3.15 3 185˚200 .3 0˚460 .1 185˚220 .2 0˚450 .0 -1.9 1.1
189˚280 .5 2˚23 .5 189˚38 .4
0 0
2˚220 .6 -9.9 0.9 44k Vir 157 4921 5.79 6.04 6 189˚380 .6 -1˚340 .1 189˚470 .5 -1˚380 .5 -8.8 4.4
192˚370 .0 1˚450 .0 192˚400 .2 1˚460 .1 -3.2 -1.1 51θ Vir 158 4963 4.38 4.65 4 192˚170 .0 -3˚230 .3 192˚200 .5 -3˚230 .3 -3.5 -0.1
185˚550 .0 8˚410 .0 185˚550 .9 8˚390 .2 -0.9 1.8 43δ Vir 159 4910 3.38 3.58 3 188˚530 .0 5˚360 .7 188˚520 .9 5˚340 .9 0.0 1.8
179˚530 .0 13˚36 .5 179˚55 .2 13˚330 .4
0 0
-2.2 3.1 30ρ Vir 160 4828 4.88 5.07 5 185˚240 .7 12˚300 .3 185˚250 .1 12˚260 .8 -0.4 3.5
181˚520 .0 11˚370 .0 181˚510 .8 11˚340 .7 0.2 2.3 32d2 Vir 161 4847 5.22 5.41 6 186˚230 .3 9˚530 .9 186˚210 .9 9˚520 .1 1.4 1.8
184˚230 .5 16˚150 .5 184˚230 .3 16˚130 .7 0.2 1.8 47 Vir 162 4932 2.83 3.01 3 190˚35 .90
13˚08 .6 190˚34 .6
0 0
13˚070 .3 1.3 1.3
198˚160 .0 -1˚590 .0 198˚160 .7 -2˚010 .5 -0.7 2.5 67α Vir 163 5056 0.98 1.30 1 196˚040 .3 -9˚010 .0 196˚040 .3 -9˚030 .2 0.1 2.2
195˚220 .5 8˚100 .0 196˚350 .5 8˚400 .1 -72.1 -30.1 79ζ Vir 164 5107 3.37 3.60 3 197˚180 .2 1˚270 .8 198˚360 .4 1˚280 .3 -78.1 -0.5
197˚580 .5 3˚110 .0 198˚010 .6 3˚090 .3 -3.1 1.7 74 l2 Vir 165 5095 4.69 4.95 6 197˚470 .2 -4˚070 .8 197˚490 .6 -4˚100 .1 -2.4 2.3
201˚090 .5 1˚450 .5 201˚090 .0 1˚440 .3 0.5 1.2 82m Vir 166 5150 5.01 5.29 6 200˚12 .30
-6˚39 .1 200˚11 .6
0 0
-6˚390 .5 0.7 0.5
199˚440 .0 -0˚190 .5 199˚410 .1 -0˚230 .6 2.9 4.1 76h Vir 167 5100 5.21 5.51 6 198˚040 .9 -8˚020 .6 198˚000 .9 -8˚040 .9 4.0 2.2
204˚440 .0 2˚240 .5 207˚100 .7 3˚200 .5 -146.5 -56.0 h 95 Vir 168 5290 5.46 5.76 6 203˚470 .5 -7˚220 .2 206˚250 .9 -7˚220 .3 -157.1 0.1
207˚490 .0 11˚020 .5 207˚480 .9 11˚030 .5 0.1 -1.0 102υ Vir 169 5366 5.14 5.38 5 209˚450 .7 -0˚240 .5 209˚460 .0 -0˚220 .8 -0.2 -1.7
208˚090 .0 7˚180 .5 208˚120 .5 7˚160 .6 -3.5 1.9 99ι Vir 170 5338 4.08 4.35 4 208˚45 .10
-4˚01 .1 208˚47 .9
0 0
-4˚030 .4 -2.7 2.3
208˚510 .0 2˚570 .5 208˚550 .7 2˚550 .9 -4.7 1.6 98κ Vir 171 5315 4.19 4.49 4 207˚510 .9 -8˚200 .1 207˚550 .9 -8˚220 .6 -4.0 2.5
209˚510 .5 11˚480 .0 209˚530 .5 11˚480 .0 -1.9 0.0 105φ Vir 172 5409 4.81 5.05 4 211˚540 .1 -0˚230 .9 211˚550 .9 -0˚230 .8 -1.8 -0.1
211˚220 .0 0˚310 .5 211˚230 .2 0˚310 .4 -1.2 0.1 100λ Vir 173 5359 4.52 4.87 4 209˚230 .4 -11˚290 .7 209˚240 .8 -11˚290 .5 -1.4 -0.2
214˚300 .0 9˚490 .0 214˚320 .1 9˚440 .3 -2.1 4.7 107µ Vir 174 5487 3.88 4.15 4 215˚310 .6 -3˚480 .3 215˚320 .0 -3˚520 .5 -0.5 4.2
181˚210 .0 10˚260 .0 181˚210 .6 10˚250 .3 -0.6 0.7 31d1 Vir 175 4829 5.59 5.79 6 185˚260 .0 9˚010 .3 185˚260 .0 9˚000 .5 -0.0 0.8
201˚370 .5 9˚400 .5 201˚370 .3 9˚370 .9 0.2 2.6 90p Vir 176 5232 5.15 5.38 6 203˚350 .4 0˚310 .4 203˚340 .2 0˚290 .7 1.2 1.7
177˚450 .5 4˚590 .5 177˚480 .4 5˚050 .3 -2.9 -5.8 16c Vir 177 4695 4.96 5.17 6 179˚560 .5 5˚280 .2 180˚010 .4 5˚320 .4 -4.8 -4.2
188˚250 .0 16˚140 .0 188˚280 .2 16˚130 .6 -3.1 0.4 59e Vir 178 5011 5.22 5.41 6 194˚120 .3 11˚330 .1 194˚140 .7 11˚310 .9 -2.4 1.2
190˚110 .0 12˚400 .5 190˚120 .6 12˚400 .0 -1.6 0.5 60σ Vir 179 5015 4.80 5.00 5 194˚21 .20
7˚36 .4 194˚22 .2
0 0
7˚350 .7 -1.0 0.7
194˚460 .0 12˚340 .5 194˚480 .7 12˚330 .5 -2.7 1.0 78 Vir 180 5105 4.94 5.15 6 198˚270 .4 5˚450 .6 198˚290 .3 5˚440 .2 -1.9 1.5
202˚110 .0 13˚070 .5 202˚100 .1 13˚050 .5 0.9 2.0 93τ Vir 181 5264 4.26 4.48 5 205˚220 .7 3˚310 .5 205˚210 .0 3˚300 .7 1.7 0.9
172˚560 .5 3˚220 .5 172˚570 .8 3˚210 .2 -1.3 1.3 7b Vir 182 4585 5.37 5.58 6 174˚520 .0 5˚540 .5 174˚520 .5 5˚520 .6 -0.5 1.9
186˚380 .0 -3˚25 .5 186˚35 .8 -3˚260 .8
0 0
2.2 1.3 26χ Vir 183 4813 4.66 4.94 5 184˚430 .3 -5˚470 .1 184˚400 .9 -5˚470 .3 2.4 0.2
190˚390 .0 -3˚230 .0 190˚380 .3 -3˚240 .7 0.7 1.7 40ψ Vir 184 4902 4.79 5.08 5 188˚260 .6 -7˚200 .3 188˚250 .4 -7˚210 .3 1.2 1.0
194˚080 .5 -3˚130 .5 194˚100 .7 -3˚140 .4 -2.2 0.9 49 Vir 185 4955 5.19 5.49 5 191˚440 .5 -8˚330 .9 191˚460 .4 -8˚350 .2 -1.9 1.4
197˚130 .0 -7˚510 .0 197˚110 .6 -7˚520 .3 1.4 1.3 53 Vir 186 4981 5.04 5.43 5 192˚450 .9 -14˚010 .1 192˚440 .4 -14˚010 .4 1.4 0.3
199˚350 .0 -9˚160 .0 199˚300 .7 -9˚070 .0 4.2 -9.0 61 Vir 187 5019 4.74 5.17 5 194˚250 .1 -16˚140 .4 194˚250 .2 -16˚040 .1 -0.1 -10.3
200˚350 .5 -6˚160 .5 200˚350 .6 -6˚170 .4 -0.1 0.9 69 Vir 188 5068 4.76 5.14 5 196˚340 .5 -13˚520 .2 196˚340 .6 -13˚520 .7 -0.1 0.5
219˚310 .0 0˚260 .0 219˚310 .4 0˚230 .0 -0.4 3.0 9α Lib 189 5530 2.64 3.04 2 217˚140 .6 -14˚170 .8 217˚140 .4 -14˚190 .9 0.2 2.0
218˚420 .0 1˚550 .0 218˚360 .3 2˚040 .5 5.7 -9.5 7µ Lib 190 5523 5.31 5.67 5 216˚560 .0 -12˚370 .9 216˚530 .8 -12˚260 .1 2.1 -11.8
223˚480 .0 8˚35 .0 223˚48 .6
0 0
8˚320 .6 -0.5 2.4 27β Lib 191 5685 2.61 2.92 2 223˚540 .8 -7˚490 .8 223˚540 .8 -7˚510 .2 0.0 1.4
219˚400 .5 8˚180 .5 219˚430 .0 8˚170 .4 -2.5 1.1 19δ Lib 192 5586 4.92 5.22 4 219˚540 .3 -6˚520 .0 219˚560 .5 -6˚520 .9 -2.2 0.9
222˚260 .5 1˚140 .0 223˚120 .4 1˚140 .5 -45.9 -0.5 21ν Lib 193 5622 5.20 5.59 5 220˚220 .2 -14˚260 .8 221˚070 .8 -14˚390 .2 -44.2 12.4
226˚190 .0 2˚580 .5 226˚210 .2 2˚500 .0 -2.2 8.5 29o Lib 194 5703 5.80 6.19 6 224˚420 .9 -13˚550 .2 224˚420 .9 -14˚020 .9 0.0 7.7
229˚330 .0 4˚280 .0 229˚330 .7 4˚250 .7 -0.7 2.3 38γ Lib 195 5787 3.91 4.28 3 228˚190 .8 -13˚220 .4 228˚200 .1 -13˚230 .7 -0.3 1.2
231˚480 .5 4˚040 .0 231˚470 .2 4˚030 .1 1.3 0.9 44η Lib 196 5848 5.41 5.81 4 230˚270 .7 -14˚200 .8 230˚260 .4 -14˚200 .1 1.3 -0.7
229˚270 .0 2˚210 .0 229˚270 .0 2˚160 .8 0.0 4.2 35ζ4 Lib 197 5764 5.50 5.92 4 227˚380 .7 -15˚230 .2 227˚370 .8 -15˚260 .1 0.9 2.9
225˚460 .0 8˚070 .0 225˚460 .6 8˚060 .4 -0.6 0.6 31 Lib 198 5723 4.94 5.25 4 225˚390 .7 -8˚500 .0 225˚400 .3 -8˚490 .7 -0.6 -0.3
232˚110 .0 0˚020 .5 232˚110 .5 0˚020 .4 -0.5 0.1 43κ Lib 199 5838 4.74 5.21 4 229˚450 .9 -18˚200 .0 229˚460 .7 -18˚190 .1 -0.7 -0.9
234˚530 .5 0˚070 .0 234˚540 .5 0˚080 .1 -1.0 -1.1 r 45λ Lib 200 5902 5.03 5.54 4 232˚330 .1 -18˚560 .3 232˚340 .8 -18˚540 .2 -1.6 -2.1
64 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 65
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
234˚160 .0 3˚33 .0 234˚17 .8
0 0
3˚30 .1
0
-1.8 2.9 46θ Lib 201 5908 4.15 4.56 4 232˚47 .3 -15˚27 .4 232˚48 .6 -15˚29 .3
0 0 0 0
-1.3 2.0
234˚480 .0 6˚100 .0 234˚490 .8 6˚080 .1 -1.8 1.9 48 Lib 202 5941 4.88 5.26 4 233˚570 .9 -13˚020 .5 233˚590 .5 -13˚030 .6 -1.5 1.0
235˚410 .5 9˚190 .0 235˚440 .5 9˚170 .1 -2.9 1.9 ξ Sco 203 5977 4.16 4.49 4 235˚350 .4 -10˚110 .0 235˚380 .0 -10˚120 .2 -2.6 1.2
237˚190 .0 10˚570 .0 237˚210 .2 10˚550 .4 -2.1 1.6 15ψ Sco 204 6031 4.94 5.26 5 237˚320 .5 -8˚560 .9 237˚340 .3 -8˚570 .6 -1.9 0.7
225˚080 .0 -7˚370 .0 225˚070 .8 -7˚350 .7 0.2 -1.3 20σ Lib 205 5603 3.29 3.97 3 220˚130 .0 -23˚410 .6 220˚130 .8 -23˚390 .3 -0.7 -2.3
225˚270 .0 -1˚480 .0 225˚260 .4 -1˚480 .1 0.6 0.1 24ι1 Lib 206 5652 4.54 5.03 3 222˚240 .9 -18˚140 .5 222˚240 .7 -18˚130 .3 0.2 -1.1
237˚360 .0 1˚050 .0 237˚370 .3 1˚030 .5 -1.3 1.5 8β Sco 207 5984 2.50 3.00 2 235˚340 .3 -18˚380 .0 235˚350 .6 -18˚380 .5 -1.2 0.5
236˚590 .0 -1˚540 .5 237˚000 .3 -1˚560 .1 -1.3 1.6 7δ Sco 208 5953 2.32 2.92 3 234˚120 .2 -21˚240 .2 234˚130 .5 -21˚240 .8 -1.2 0.6
237˚250 .0 -5˚220 .5 237˚220 .5 -5˚250 .4 2.5 2.9 6π Sco 209 5944 2.89 3.69 3 233˚460 .4 -24˚520 .5 233˚430 .4 -24˚530 .5 2.8 1.0
237˚430 .5 -8˚270 .5 237˚350 .0 -8˚320 .9 8.5 5.4 5ρ Sco 210 5928 3.88 5.01 4 233˚160 .9 -27˚560 .5 233˚060 .7 -27˚580 .5 9.1 2.0
239˚030 .5 1˚420 .0 239˚040 .6 1˚410 .1 -1.1 0.9 14ν Sco 211 6026 3.89 4.38 4 237˚120 .9 -18˚210 .2 237˚140 .1 -18˚210 .0 -1.1 -0.2
238˚070 .0 0˚140 .0 238˚060 .1 0˚160 .3 0.9 -2.3 9ω1 Sco 212 5993 3.96 4.49 5 235˚540 .2 -19˚340 .6 235˚540 .1 -19˚300 .9 0.0 -3.7
242˚110 .0 -3˚550 .0 242˚140 .0 -3˚590 .1 -3.0 4.1 20σ Sco 213 6084 2.89 3.66 4 239˚130 .7 -24˚300 .1 239˚160 .4 -24˚330 .4 -2.4 3.3
244˚130 .0 -4˚270 .0 244˚110 .8 -4˚310 .0 1.2 4.0 21α Sco 214 6134 0.96 1.76 1 241˚180 .2 -25˚250 .6 241˚160 .4 -25˚280 .0 1.7 2.4
245˚530 .0 -5˚500 .0 245˚530 .5 -6˚040 .0 -0.5 14.0 23τ Sco 215 6165 2.82 3.86 4 242˚490 .9 -27˚050 .8 242˚470 .9 -27˚180 .3 1.8 12.5
240˚460 .5 -6˚370 .5 240˚400 .9 -6˚370 .7 5.6 0.2 13c2 Sco 216 6028 4.59 5.57 5 237˚040 .3 -26˚510 .1 236˚580 .5 -26˚480 .8 5.1 -2.3
270˚470 .5 -2˚000 .0 270˚450 .3 -2˚030 .8 2.2 3.8 22λ Sgr 217 6913 2.81 3.64 4 270˚520 .6 -25˚300 .9 270˚500 .2 -25˚330 .2 2.2 2.3
267˚410 .5 2˚270 .5 267˚380 .7 2˚230 .6 2.8 3.9 13µ Sgr 218 6812 3.86 4.44 4 267˚310 .7 -21˚020 .3 267˚280 .7 -21˚040 .6 2.8 2.3
276˚510 .0 -3˚310 .0 276˚490 .0 -3˚230 .6 2.0 -7.4 34σ Sgr 219 7121 2.02 2.99 4 277˚400 .1 -26˚510 .0 277˚370 .3 -26˚420 .2 2.5 -8.8
274˚400 .0 -3˚500 .0 274˚360 .4 -3˚540 .2 3.6 4.2 27φ Sgr 220 7039 3.17 4.21 5 275˚140 .4 -27˚150 .9 275˚100 .5 -27˚180 .7 3.5 2.8
277˚560 .5 1˚440 .5 277˚520 .8 1˚420 .8 3.7 1.7 37ξ2 Sgr 221 7150 3.51 4.10 4 278˚320 .3 -21˚320 .4 278˚280 .4 -21˚320 .8 3.7 0.4
279˚280 .0 0˚580 .0 279˚250 .1 0˚550 .0 2.9 3.0 r 39o Sgr 222 7217 3.77 4.39 4 280˚130 .9 -22˚120 .8 280˚100 .9 -22˚140 .5 2.8 1.7
280˚430 .0 1˚310 .0 280˚410 .1 1˚290 .4 1.9 1.6 41π Sgr 223 7264 2.89 3.49 4 281˚310 .8 -21˚340 .2 281˚290 .8 -21˚340 .5 1.9 0.2
282˚440 .0 3˚060 .5 282˚470 .0 3˚180 .5 -3.0 -12.0 h 43d Sgr 224 7304 4.96 5.47 6 283˚310 .7 -19˚480 .6 283˚330 .6 -19˚340 .9 -1.7 -13.7
283˚540 .5 4˚170 .0 283˚530 .2 4˚160 .1 1.3 0.9 44ρ1 Sgr 225 7340 3.93 4.42 4 284˚380 .6 -18˚310 .6 284˚370 .2 -18˚310 .1 1.3 -0.5
284˚110 .0 6˚090 .5 284˚090 .8 6˚080 .7 1.2 0.8 46υ Sgr 226 7342 4.61 5.05 5 284˚430 .8 -16˚380 .0 284˚420 .4 -16˚370 .5 1.3 -0.5
289˚080 .5 5˚08 .0 289˚05 .2
0 0
5˚110 .8 3.3 -3.8 55e2 Sgr 227 7489 5.06 5.51 6 289˚580 .6 -17˚030 .7 289˚540 .5 -16˚590 .0 3.9 -4.7
292˚520 .5 5˚120 .0 292˚520 .5 5˚080 .4 0.0 3.6 61g Sgr 228 7614 5.02 5.46 6 293˚480 .3 -16˚260 .4 293˚480 .7 -16˚280 .6 -0.4 2.2
289˚240 .0 1˚25 .0 289˚22 .2
0 0
1˚270 .6 1.8 -2.6 56f Sgr 229 7515 4.86 5.41 6 290˚470 .6 -20˚420 .4 290˚450 .1 -20˚380 .6 2.3 -3.7
286˚260 .0 -3˚080 .0 286˚160 .3 -3˚120 .6 9.7 4.6 52h2 Sgr 230 7440 4.60 5.47 6 288˚150 .3 -25˚360 .7 288˚050 .0 -25˚410 .0 9.3 4.3
298˚180 .0 7˚020 .5 298˚170 .3 6˚580 .4 0.7 4.1 6α2 Cap 231 7754 3.57 3.95 3 298˚570 .7 -13˚400 .0 298˚570 .6 -13˚420 .8 0.1 2.9
298˚510 .0 6˚530 .0 298˚520 .1 6˚370 .1 -1.1 15.9 8ν Cap 232 7773 4.76 5.15 6 299˚320 .7 -13˚420 .9 299˚360 .8 -13˚560 .9 -4.0 14.0
298˚310 .0 4˚410 .0 298˚280 .7 4˚370 .8 2.3 3.2 9β Cap 233 7776 3.08 3.50 3 299˚390 .5 -15˚560 .2 299˚370 .6 -15˚580 .4 1.8 2.2
297˚080 .0 7˚160 .0 296˚540 .9 7˚140 .0 13.0 2.0 2ξ2 Cap 234 7715 5.85 6.23 6 297˚440 .9 -13˚400 .0 297˚310 .9 -13˚430 .1 12.6 3.1
298˚570 .0 0˚48 .5 299˚08 .8
0 0
0˚560 .5 -11.8 -8.0 10π Cap 235 7814 5.25 5.78 n 300˚550 .5 -19˚380 .7 301˚050 .7 -19˚270 .1 -9.6 -11.6
299˚410 .0 0˚280 .0 299˚390 .0 0˚260 .5 2.0 1.5 12o Cap 236 7829 5.52 6.06 n 301˚450 .7 -19˚490 .6 301˚430 .7 -19˚500 .2 1.9 0.6
299˚370 .0 1˚20 .0 299˚36 .0
0 0
1˚140 .4 1.0 5.6 11ρ Cap 237 7822 4.78 5.29 6 301˚300 .0 -18˚590 .6 301˚300 .0 -19˚030 .9 0.0 4.3
297˚130 .0 0˚240 .0 297˚060 .6 0˚290 .9 6.4 -5.9 7σ Cap 238 7761 5.28 5.81 n 299˚120 .2 -20˚230 .5 299˚040 .0 -20˚170 .6 7.7 -5.8
302˚490 .0 3˚25 .0 302˚43 .8
0 0
3˚230 .4 5.2 1.6 14τ Cap 239 7889 5.22 5.66 6 304˚180 .1 -16˚150 .9 304˚130 .0 -16˚170 .4 4.9 1.5
302˚060 .0 0˚150 .0 302˚050 .9 0˚150 .8 0.1 -0.8 15υ Cap 240 7900 5.10 5.60 6 304˚190 .0 -19˚300 .7 304˚180 .4 -19˚280 .7 0.6 -2.0
301˚470 .0 -6˚58 .0 301˚35 .8 -6˚580 .4
0 0
11.1 0.4 16ψ Cap 241 7936 4.14 5.09 6 305˚470 .1 -26˚360 .5 305˚340 .7 -26˚380 .3 11.1 1.8
302˚280 .0 -9˚020 .0 302˚230 .2 -8˚550 .5 4.7 -6.5 18ω Cap 242 7980 4.11 5.23 6 307˚050 .1 -28˚270 .2 306˚570 .5 -28˚200 .8 6.6 -6.4
306˚130 .0 -8˚080 .0 306˚160 .5 -8˚030 .9 -3.5 -4.1 24A Cap 243 8080 4.50 5.40 6 310˚520 .3 -26˚380 .5 310˚540 .3 -26˚320 .4 -1.8 -6.1
311˚240 .5 -6˚560 .0 311˚210 .8 -6˚570 .6 2.7 1.6 34ζ Cap 244 8204 3.74 4.46 5 315˚580 .7 -24˚030 .9 315˚550 .9 -24˚050 .2 2.5 1.3
312˚000 .0 -6˚290 .0 311˚590 .8 -6˚310 .8 0.2 2.8 36b Cap 245 8213 4.51 5.20 6 316˚270 .0 -23˚270 .8 316˚270 .3 -23˚290 .5 -0.2 1.7
309˚230 .0 -4˚250 .0 309˚270 .2 -4˚290 .6 -4.2 4.6 28φ Cap 246 8127 5.24 5.86 6 313˚060 .4 -22˚130 .0 313˚110 .7 -22˚150 .1 -4.9 2.1
307˚310 .0 -4˚270 .0 307˚420 .8 -4˚300 .8 -11.7 3.8 25χ Cap 247 8087 5.28 5.94 6 311˚100 .5 -22˚440 .9 311˚230 .5 -22˚440 .3 -11.9 -0.6
307˚180 .0 -3˚010 .0 307˚100 .5 -2˚570 .2 7.5 -3.8 22η Cap 248 8060 4.84 5.43 5 310˚320 .7 -21˚250 .3 310˚230 .5 -21˚220 .4 8.6 -2.9
308˚210 .0 -0˚290 .0 308˚160 .1 -0˚320 .5 4.9 3.5 23θ Cap 249 8075 4.07 4.57 5 310˚550 .3 -18˚420 .1 310˚510 .0 -18˚450 .6 4.1 3.5
312˚070 .0 -1˚160 .5 312˚060 .6 -1˚200 .0 0.4 3.5 32ι Cap 250 8167 4.28 4.76 5 314˚580 .3 -18˚260 .4 314˚580 .6 -18˚280 .8 -0.3 2.4
66 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 67
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
314˚250 .0 -4˚480 .0 314˚37 .6
0
-4˚56 .7 -12.5
0
8.7 39 Cap 251 8260 4.68 5.27 4 318˚23 .8 -21˚08 .7 318˚39 .0 -21˚12 .3 -14.2
0 0 0 0
3.6
316˚060 .0 -4˚490 .0 316˚030 .5 -4˚480 .3 2.5 -0.7 43κ Cap 252 8288 4.73 5.28 5 320˚060 .8 -20˚390 .1 320˚030 .6 -20˚380 .2 3.0 -0.9
316˚140 .0 -2˚260 .0 316˚120 .2 -2˚310 .1 1.9 5.1 40γ Cap 253 8278 3.68 4.17 3 319˚280 .5 -18˚200 .5 319˚270 .9 -18˚250 .0 0.6 4.5
318˚000 .0 -2˚290 .0 317˚570 .4 -2˚320 .0 2.6 3.0 49δ Cap 254 8322 2.87 3.35 3 321˚150 .5 -17˚500 .8 321˚130 .5 -17˚530 .5 1.9 2.7
318˚140 .0 2˚220 .0 319˚260 .5 1˚570 .5 -72.5 24.5 h 48λ Cap 255 8319 5.58 5.96 5 319˚560 .2 -13˚090 .7 321˚140 .4 -13˚090 .7 -76.2 0.0
320˚270 .0 -0˚140 .5 320˚130 .9 -0˚380 .8 13.1 24.3 51µ Cap 256 8351 5.08 5.50 5 322˚560 .8 -14˚560 .9 322˚510 .6 -15˚230 .2 5.0 26.3
320˚160 .0 -0˚100 .0 320˚13 .9
0
-0˚380 .8 2.1 28.8 51µ Cap 257 8351 5.08 5.50 6 322˚440 .5 -14˚560 .1 322˚510 .6 -15˚230 .2 -6.8 27.1
319˚540 .0 4˚170 .0 319˚500 .9 4˚140 .2 3.1 2.8 46c1 Cap 258 8311 5.09 5.42 6 320˚570 .0 -10˚490 .5 320˚540 .7 -10˚520 .2 2.3 2.7
322˚260 .5 15˚230 .0 322˚240 .2 15˚220 .3 2.2 0.7 25d Aqr 259 8277 5.10 5.33 6 319˚510 .0 0˚300 .0 319˚490 .1 0˚290 .6 1.9 0.4
327˚490 .5 10˚420 .0 327˚47 .6
0
10˚410 .0 1.9 1.0 34α Aqr 260 8414 2.96 3.21 3 326˚200 .3 -2˚120 .5 326˚180 .8 -2˚130 .3 1.5 0.8
326˚360 .0 9˚110 .5 326˚320 .8 9˚110 .2 3.2 0.3 31o Aqr 261 8402 4.69 4.96 5 325˚420 .5 -4˚020 .1 325˚390 .5 -4˚020 .6 3.0 0.5
317˚510 .0 8˚420 .0 317˚49 .9
0
8˚380 .7 1.0 3.3 22β Aqr 262 8232 2.91 3.20 3 317˚370 .5 -7˚140 .3 317˚370 .3 -7˚160 .7 0.1 2.5
318˚380 .0 6˚000 .5 318˚320 .7 5˚590 .5 5.3 1.0 23ξ Aqr 263 8264 4.69 5.01 5 319˚110 .5 -9˚340 .3 319˚060 .5 -9˚350 .8 4.9 1.6
310˚510 .0 4˚500 .0 310˚49 .4
0
4˚480 .1 1.6 1.9 13ν Aqr 264 8093 4.51 4.87 5 311˚570 .9 -12˚540 .9 311˚560 .6 -12˚550 .9 1.3 1.1
307˚280 .5 8˚190 .0 307˚290 .5 8˚160 .8 -1.0 2.2 6µ Aqr 265 7990 4.73 5.06 5 307˚440 .5 -10˚240 .7 307˚450 .9 -10˚250 .3 -1.4 0.7
306˚120 .0 8˚100 .0 306˚09 .5
0
8˚070 .3 2.5 2.7 2 Aqr 266 7950 3.77 4.11 4 306˚320 .0 -10˚510 .8 306˚300 .0 -10˚530 .8 1.9 2.0
331˚100 .0 8˚170 .5 331˚080 .4 8˚150 .4 1.6 2.1 48γ Aqr 267 8518 3.84 4.11 3 330˚160 .0 -3˚200 .1 330˚150 .2 -3˚210 .9 0.8 1.8
333˚040 .5 10˚310 .0 333˚020 .3 10˚290 .3 2.2 1.7 52π Aqr 268 8539 4.66 4.91 5 331˚140 .6 -0˚350 .4 331˚130 .1 -0˚370 .0 1.5 1.6
333˚230 .0 8˚520 .5 333˚190 .6 8˚510 .9 3.4 0.6 55ζ Aqr 269 8558 3.75 4.00 4 332˚060 .7 -2˚000 .9 332˚030 .8 -2˚020 .0 3.0 1.1
334˚530 .0 8˚100 .0 334˚500 .1 8˚100 .2 2.8 -0.2 62η Aqr 270 8597 4.02 4.28 4 333˚450 .1 -2˚080 .6 333˚420 .4 -2˚080 .8 2.8 0.2
327˚450 .0 2˚460 .0 327˚410 .2 2˚440 .0 3.8 2.0 43θ Aqr 271 8499 4.16 4.48 4 328˚580 .8 -9˚410 .7 328˚550 .6 -9˚440 .1 3.1 2.4
328˚310 .0 2˚290 .5 328˚27 .7
0
2˚230 .5 3.3 6.0 46ρ Aqr 272 8512 5.37 5.70 6 329˚480 .3 -9˚410 .4 329˚470 .0 -9˚470 .4 1.3 6.0
329˚530 .0 -1˚100 .0 329˚490 .2 -1˚120 .4 3.8 2.4 57σ Aqr 273 8573 4.82 5.19 5 332˚240 .8 -12˚380 .5 332˚210 .7 -12˚410 .3 3.0 2.9
323˚130 .0 -2˚000 .0 323˚08 .9
0
-2˚030 .0 4.1 3.0 33ι Aqr 274 8418 4.27 4.70 4 326˚150 .1 -15˚420 .6 326˚110 .7 -15˚460 .0 3.2 3.3
333˚220 .0 -8˚100 .0 333˚180 .2 -8˚100 .5 3.7 0.5 76δ Aqr 275 8709 3.27 3.75 3 338˚240 .4 -17˚530 .8 338˚200 .6 -17˚550 .2 3.7 1.3
333˚050 .0 -5˚370 .0 333˚010 .6 -5˚380 .8 3.4 1.8 71τ 2 Aqr 276 8679 4.01 4.42 5 337˚080 .6 -15˚380 .1 337˚050 .6 -15˚400 .4 2.9 2.3
329˚400 .0 -9˚400 .0 330˚15 .1 -11˚000 .3 -34.4 80.3 h
0
68 Aqr 277 8670 5.26 5.85 6 335˚240 .1 -20˚380 .9 336˚290 .9 -21˚400 .1 -61.1 61.2
326˚550 .5 -10˚480 .5 326˚560 .9 -10˚510 .4 -1.4 2.9 59υ Aqr 278 8592 5.20 5.85 5 333˚080 .9 -22˚410 .8 333˚100 .9 -22˚430 .3 -1.8 1.5
329˚500 .0 -9˚570 .5 329˚390 .8 -9˚560 .3 10.1 -1.2 66g1 Aqr 279 8649 4.69 5.25 6 335˚400 .8 -20˚510 .5 335˚290 .8 -20˚530 .4 10.3 1.9
333˚520 .0 4˚080 .5 333˚510 .8 4˚080 .1 0.2 0.4 63κ Aqr 280 8610 5.03 5.31 4 334˚150 .8 -6˚150 .7 334˚150 .7 -6˚150 .5 0.1 -0.2
336˚040 .0 -0˚190 .5 336˚000 .3 -0˚220 .6 3.7 3.1 73λ Aqr 281 8698 3.74 4.05 4 337˚58 .60
-9˚37 .0 337˚56 .1
0 0
-9˚400 .7 2.5 3.7
339˚000 .0 -1˚240 .0 338˚490 .3 -1˚400 .3 10.7 16.3 83h Aqr 282 8782 5.43 5.76 6 341˚080 .6 -9˚310 .1 341˚040 .5 -9˚490 .7 4.0 18.6
341˚380 .0 -1˚000 .0 341˚34 .5
0
-1˚010 .4 3.5 1.4 90φ Aqr 283 8834 4.22 4.52 5 343˚270 .2 -8˚080 .8 343˚240 .2 -8˚110 .0 2.9 2.2
341˚330 .0 -2˚490 .0 341˚290 .6 -2˚500 .0 3.4 1.0 92χ Aqr 284 8850 5.06 5.37 5 344˚040 .8 -9˚510 .4 344˚010 .8 -9˚530 .2 3.0 1.8
340˚430 .0 -3˚580 .5 340˚42 .0
0
-3˚580 .5 1.0 0.0 91ψ1 Aqr 285 8841 4.21 4.55 5 343˚450 .1 -11˚140 .7 343˚430 .9 -11˚140 .7 1.2 -0.0
341˚110 .0 -4˚100 .5 341˚090 .4 -4˚160 .4 1.6 5.9 93ψ2 Aqr 286 8858 4.39 4.74 5 344˚160 .1 -11˚150 .1 344˚160 .6 -11˚200 .7 -0.5 5.6
341˚140 .5 -4˚440 .0 341˚13 .5
0
-4˚460 .2 1.0 2.2 95ψ3 Aqr 287 8865 4.98 5.34 5 344˚320 .6 -11˚440 .6 344˚320 .2 -11˚460 .6 0.4 2.0
344˚070 .0 -10˚590 .0 344˚050 .1 -11˚010 .5 1.9 2.5 102ω1 Aqr 288 8968 5.00 5.44 5 349˚460 .4 -16˚220 .4 349˚450 .2 -16˚250 .2 1.2 2.8
344˚380 .0 -11˚330 .0 344˚360 .7 -11˚360 .2 1.3 3.2 105ω2 Aqr 289 8988 4.49 4.94 5 350˚290 .7 -16˚410 .4 350˚290 .4 -16˚440 .6 0.3 3.2
343˚030 .0 -14˚290 .0 343˚010 .8 -14˚300 .5 1.2 1.5 104A2 Aqr 290 8982 4.82 5.35 5 350˚150 .4 -19˚590 .8 350˚140 .3 -20˚010 .3 1.0 1.5
343˚460 .0 -15˚160 .5 343˚220 .8 -15˚090 .9 22.4 -6.6 h 106i1 Aqr 291 8998 5.24 5.80 6 351˚160 .5 -20˚260 .2 350˚510 .2 -20˚290 .1 23.7 2.9
344˚440 .0 -16˚230 .0 344˚420 .7 -16˚260 .5 1.2 3.5 108 Aqr 292 9031 5.18 5.77 6 352˚400 .1 -21˚030 .9 352˚390 .9 -21˚070 .4 0.2 3.5
337˚540 .5 -14˚450 .0 337˚530 .6 -14˚460 .3 0.9 1.3 98b1 Aqr 293 8892 3.97 4.59 5 345˚290 .4 -22˚140 .7 345˚280 .5 -22˚150 .9 0.9 1.2
338˚210 .0 -15˚300 .0 338˚200 .2 -15˚330 .6 0.8 3.6 99b2 Aqr 294 8906 4.39 5.03 5 346˚140 .3 -22˚450 .7 346˚140 .5 -22˚490 .0 -0.2 3.3
339˚500 .0 -16˚310 .0 339˚480 .9 -16˚300 .5 1.1 -0.5 101b4 Aqr 295 8939 4.71 5.39 5 348˚060 .1 -23˚060 .9 348˚040 .2 -23˚060 .5 1.7 -0.3
334˚250 .0 -14˚250 .5 334˚250 .8 -14˚280 .6 -0.8 3.1 88c2 Aqr 296 8812 3.66 4.33 5 341˚590 .1 -23˚170 .1 342˚000 .6 -23˚190 .2 -1.4 2.1
334˚020 .0 -15˚400 .0 334˚000 .1 -15˚410 .6 1.8 1.6 89c3 Aqr 297 8817 4.69 5.46 5 342˚080 .8 -24˚340 .3 342˚070 .0 -24˚360 .1 1.6 1.8
333˚170 .0 -15˚530 .0 332˚440 .9 -16˚340 .1 30.8 41.1 86c1 Aqr 298 8789 4.47 5.33 5 341˚300 .6 -25˚030 .3 341˚160 .4 -25˚520 .7 12.8 49.4
328˚110 .5 -21˚000 .0 328˚140 .7 -21˚050 .1 -3.0 5.1 24α PsA 299 8728 1.16 3.24 1 338˚460 .2 -31˚390 .9 338˚510 .0 -31˚420 .8 -4.0 2.9
343˚020 .0 9˚040 .0 343˚010 .5 9˚030 .6 0.5 0.4 4β Psc 300 8773 4.53 4.76 5 340˚530 .9 1˚410 .5 340˚530 .6 1˚410 .5 0.3 0.0
68 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 69
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
345˚500 .5 7˚17 .5 345˚48 .8
0 0
7˚17 .5
0
1.7 -0.0 6γ Psc 301 8852 3.69 3.92 4 344˚08 .80
1˚07 .3 344˚07 .3
0 0
1˚07 .1
0
1.5 0.2
347˚300 .5 8˚540 .5 347˚270 .6 8˚530 .0 2.8 1.5 7b Psc 302 8878 5.05 5.27 6 345˚020 .4 3˚150 .1 345˚000 .5 3˚130 .1 1.9 2.0
349˚420 .0 9˚030 .0 349˚380 .7 9˚020 .0 3.3 1.0 10θ Psc 303 8916 4.28 4.49 5 346˚580 .8 4˚130 .9 346˚560 .3 4˚110 .9 2.5 1.9
351˚560 .5 7˚130 .5 352˚030 .9 7˚120 .8 -7.3 0.7 17ι Psc 304 8969 4.13 4.35 6 349˚440 .7 3˚250 .8 349˚510 .8 3˚280 .3 -7.1 -2.5
347˚210 .0 4˚270 .0 347˚200 .1 4˚260 .9 0.9 0.1 8κ Psc 305 8911 4.94 5.19 5 346˚380 .0 -0˚540 .9 346˚370 .2 -0˚550 .0 0.8 0.1
351˚050 .0 3˚250 .0 351˚020 .6 3˚250 .6 2.4 -0.6 18λ Psc 306 8984 4.50 4.74 5 350˚270 .9 -0˚240 .4 350˚250 .5 -0˚240 .5 2.4 0.2
357˚020 .0 6˚230 .5 357˚000 .7 6˚220 .5 1.3 1.0 28ω Psc 307 9072 4.01 4.22 5 354˚430 .7 4˚400 .7 354˚430 .0 4˚390 .4 0.7 1.3
358˚270 .0 7˚270 .0 358˚250 .0 7˚310 .6 1.9 -4.6 32c2 Psc 308 9093 5.63 5.84 6 355˚350 .8 6˚120 .7 355˚320 .3 6˚160 .2 3.4 -3.5
2˚290 .0 5˚280 .0 2˚250 .0 5˚270 .6 4.0 0.4 41d Psc 309 0080 5.37 5.57 6 0˚050 .3 6˚000 .1 0˚010 .9 5˚580 .2 3.4 2.0
8˚360 .0 2˚11 .0
0
8˚34 .5
0
2˚100 .1 1.5 0.9 63δ Psc 310 0224 4.43 4.63 4 7˚010 .7 5˚250 .5 7˚000 .8 5˚240 .0 0.9 1.6
11˚580 .0 1˚050 .5 11˚570 .9 1˚040 .1 0.1 1.4 71 Psc 311 0294 4.28 4.49 4 10˚340 .1 5˚450 .0 10˚340 .8 5˚430 .4 -0.7 1.6
14˚190 .0 0˚570 .5 14˚180 .0 -0˚130 .4 1.0 70.9 86ζ Psc 312 0361 4.89 5.10 4 12˚470 .8 6˚320 .7 13˚140 .7 5˚260 .7 -26.8 66.1
12˚250 .0 -1˚310 .0 12˚220 .9 -1˚300 .2 2.1 -0.8 80e Psc 313 0330 5.52 5.74 6 12˚000 .5 3˚310 .5 11˚580 .3 3˚310 .1 2.2 0.4
13˚460 .0 -4˚19 .5
0
13˚450 .5 -4˚170 .1 0.5 -2.4 89f Psc 314 0378 5.16 5.39 6 14˚200 .7 1˚270 .8 14˚190 .3 1˚290 .4 1.4 -1.6
17˚330 .0 -3˚030 .0 17˚320 .2 -3˚040 .3 0.8 1.3 98µ Psc 315 0434 4.84 5.05 5 17˚200 .6 4˚050 .5 17˚200 .4 4˚030 .6 0.1 1.9
19˚560 .0 -4˚400 .5 19˚560 .2 -4˚430 .3 -0.2 2.8 106ν Psc 316 0489 4.44 4.65 5 20˚090 .9 3˚290 .3 20˚110 .3 3˚260 .3 -1.4 3.0
21˚570 .5 -7˚560 .0 21˚560 .6 -7˚570 .1 0.8 1.1 111ξ Psc 317 0549 4.62 4.85 5 23˚150 .0 1˚130 .0 23˚140 .7 1˚110 .0 0.4 1.9
23˚470 .5 -9˚04 .5
0
23˚480 .1 -9˚050 .3 -0.6 0.8 113α Psc 318 0595 3.94 4.18 3 25˚21 .4
0
0˚49 .3
0
25˚22 .3
0
0˚480 .0 -0.8 1.2
22˚120 .0 -1˚380 .5 22˚090 .9 -1˚390 .0 2.1 0.5 110o Psc 319 0510 4.26 4.46 5 21˚080 .0 7˚080 .9 21˚060 .5 7˚070 .1 1.6 1.8
21˚160 .0 1˚51 .5
0
21˚210 .2 1˚510 .7 -5.2 -0.2 102π Psc 320 0463 5.57 5.76 5 18˚55 .9 10˚02 .6
0 0
19˚01 .0 10˚040 .3
0
-5.0 -1.7
21˚160 .0 5˚210 .0 21˚150 .0 5˚210 .1 1.0 -0.1 99η Psc 321 0437 3.62 3.80 4 17˚340 .7 13˚160 .4 17˚340 .0 13˚150 .7 0.6 0.7
21˚360 .5 9˚24 .0
0
21˚31 .3
0
9˚210 .9 5.1 2.1 93ρ Psc 322 0413 5.38 5.55 5 16˚17 .1 17˚08 .5
0 0
16˚130 .5 17˚040 .1 3.4 4.4
23˚150 .0 22˚000 .0 23˚140 .2 21˚580 .7 0.7 1.3 82g Psc 323 0349 5.16 5.31 6 12˚190 .5 29˚180 .6 12˚200 .2 29˚160 .8 -0.6 1.8
22˚490 .5 20˚430 .0 22˚450 .6 20˚430 .1 3.6 -0.1 83τ Psc 324 0352 4.51 4.66 5 12˚310 .6 27˚580 .7 12˚280 .7 27˚560 .9 2.6 1.8
19˚220 .5 20˚550 .0 19˚210 .0 20˚560 .5 1.4 -1.5 68h Psc 325 0274 5.42 5.57 6 9˚080 .1 26˚480 .5 9˚060 .8 26˚490 .1 1.2 -0.6
18˚060 .5 19˚240 .0 18˚100 .3 19˚290 .0 -3.6 -5.0 67k Psc 326 0262 6.00 6.16 6 8˚380 .6 24˚560 .0 8˚400 .6 25˚010 .8 -1.8 -5.8
17˚030 .5 20˚240 .0 17˚040 .3 20˚300 .2 -0.8 -6.2 65i Psc 327 0230 5.54 5.70 6 7˚110 .4 25˚250 .5 7˚100 .0 25˚310 .3 1.2 -5.8
17˚560 .5 13˚210 .0 17˚520 .6 13˚200 .6 3.8 0.4 74ψ1 Psc 328 0310 4.69 4.86 5 11˚090 .9 19˚200 .9 11˚060 .9 19˚180 .8 2.9 2.2
18˚020 .5 12˚210 .5 18˚040 .9 12˚280 .5 -2.3 -7.0 79ψ2 Psc 329 0328 5.55 5.72 6 11˚400 .8 18˚280 .8 11˚400 .6 18˚350 .8 0.2 -7.0
18˚090 .0 11˚210 .0 18˚040 .1 11˚170 .6 4.8 3.4 81ψ3 Psc 330 0339 5.55 5.72 6 12˚120 .3 17˚350 .8 12˚090 .6 17˚300 .5 2.6 5.3
23˚180 .0 17˚26 .0
0
23˚130 .9 17˚260 .3 3.9 -0.3 90υ Psc 331 0383 4.76 4.92 5 14˚290 .5 25˚100 .1 14˚260 .1 25˚080 .5 3.1 1.6
20˚580 .5 15˚300 .0 20˚540 .2 15˚280 .8 4.1 1.2 85φ Psc 332 0360 4.65 4.81 5 13˚070 .0 22˚300 .0 13˚040 .1 22˚260 .9 2.7 3.1
19˚000 .0 12˚27 .5
0
18˚580 .3 12˚250 .1 1.7 2.4 84χ Psc 333 0351 4.66 4.83 5 12˚320 .6 18˚560 .7 12˚320 .5 18˚530 .5 0.1 3.2
24˚110 .0 18˚310 .0 24˚110 .9 18˚390 .4 -0.8 -8.4 91 l Psc 334 0389 5.23 5.38 6 14˚510 .4 26˚300 .0 14˚490 .2 26˚370 .6 2.0 -7.6
21˚410 .0 23˚030 .0 21˚390 .8 23˚030 .4 1.1 -0.4 69σ Psc 335 0291 5.50 5.65 6 10˚180 .5 29˚380 .9 10˚180 .0 29˚380 .5 0.4 0.4
83˚020 .5 66˚020 .0 82˚590 .4 66˚030 .2 1.2 -1.2 1α UMi 336 0424 2.02 2.18 2 5˚450 .7 87˚090 .9 5˚560 .6 87˚080 .7 -0.5 1.2
85˚360 .0 69˚500 .5 85˚370 .5 69˚530 .9 -0.5 -3.4 23δ UMi 337 6789 4.36 4.52 4 293˚540 .1 86˚150 .5 293˚340 .8 86˚140 .6 1.3 0.9
93˚240 .0 73˚500 .0 93˚320 .0 73˚520 .3 -2.2 -2.3 22 UMi 338 6322 4.23 4.38 4 262˚400 .7 82˚330 .3 262˚250 .2 82˚320 .6 2.0 0.7
111˚290 .0 75˚00 .0 111˚440 .2 75˚040 .6
0
-3.9 -4.6 16ζ UMi 339 5903 4.32 4.47 4 240˚050 .0 79˚020 .6 240˚050 .0 78˚580 .5 -0.0 4.2
114˚520 .0 77˚380 .5 114˚410 .4 77˚480 .6 2.2 -10.1 21η UMi 340 6116 4.95 5.09 5 246˚590 .0 76˚410 .5 247˚340 .3 76˚380 .1 -8.2 3.5
127˚160 .5 72˚510 .5 127˚370 .8 72˚570 .4 -6.2 -5.9 7β UMi 341 5563 2.08 2.22 2 222˚590 .2 75˚520 .6 223˚130 .6 75˚470 .0 -3.5 5.6
135˚410 .0 75˚230 .5 135˚520 .5 75˚120 .9 -2.9 10.6 r 13γ UMi 342 5735 3.05 3.19 3 231˚130 .9 73˚150 .1 230˚310 .7 73˚150 .1 12.2 -0.0
122˚540 .0 71˚230 .0 122˚440 .8 71˚130 .6 3.0 9.4 5 UMi 343 5430 4.25 4.39 4 217˚230 .1 77˚230 .7 216˚340 .4 77˚280 .9 10.6 -5.2
117˚200 .5 70˚180 .0 117˚100 .0 70˚170 .2 3.5 0.8 4 UMi 344 5321 4.82 4.96 5 213˚100 .8 79˚200 .4 213˚000 .3 79˚250 .1 1.9 -4.7
77˚170 .0 35˚500 .0 75˚540 .7 35˚520 .8 66.7 -2.8 Uz 11-2 Cam 345 1622 4.76 4.90 6 70˚020 .5 58˚280 .6 67˚570 .5 58˚170 .7 65.7 10.9
77˚280 .0 37˚200 .0 75˚420 .3 37˚220 .8 84.0 -2.8 uz 10β Cam 346 1603 4.03 4.16 6 69˚490 .5 59˚580 .8 67˚050 .2 59˚440 .2 82.8 14.6
77˚450 .0 40˚130 .0 75˚250 .0 43˚220 .0 101.8 -189.0 uz 9α Cam 347 1542 4.29 4.43 6 69˚110 .9 62˚510 .4 63˚460 .3 65˚310 .9 134.9 -160.5
78˚030 .0 42˚560 .0 62˚190 .9 45˚120 .5 664.5 -136.5 uz A Cam 348 0985 4.84 4.98 6 68˚300 .1 65˚330 .9 41˚290 .6 64˚060 .1 707.8 87.8
111˚380 .0 57˚550 .0 110˚350 .7 58˚330 .6 32.5 -38.6 z Dra 349 4126 4.84 4.98 6 149˚400 .9 76˚530 .3 149˚350 .0 77˚420 .9 1.3 -49.6
81˚550 .0 70˚420 .0 113˚540 .4 64˚120 .1 -835.3 389.9 z Cam 350 4646 5.14 5.29 6 301˚130 .1 84˚510 .3 178˚020 .8 79˚500 .2 1304.1 301.2
70 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 71
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
84˚310 .0 69˚08 .0
0
75˚52 .8 65˚10 .0
0 0
217.6 238.0 z Cep 351 0285 4.25 4.40 6 305˚24 .7 86˚38 .0
0 0
6˚33 .8 84˚04 .8
0 0
-378.4 153.1
75˚070 .0 68˚040 .0 75˚060 .0 68˚000 .2 0.4 3.8 z Cep 352 8546 5.27 5.42 6 337˚440 .5 84˚030 .0 338˚390 .3 84˚030 .9 -5.7 -0.9
67˚220 .0 67˚430 .0 67˚010 .2 67˚430 .5 7.9 -0.5 z Cep 353 8702 4.74 4.89 6 341˚380 .1 81˚090 .3 341˚440 .7 81˚020 .1 -1.0 7.2
69˚570 .0 67˚220 .0 70˚070 .8 67˚290 .4 -4.1 -7.4 z Cep 354 8748 4.71 4.86 6 344˚210 .4 82˚070 .5 343˚420 .9 82˚120 .5 5.2 -5.0
86˚300 .0 63˚55 .0
0
87˚170 .8 63˚470 .2 -21.1 7.8 z Cep 355 2609 5.07 5.22 6 58˚320 .9 87˚030 .1 66˚060 .6 87˚030 .0 -23.3 0.0
107˚360 .5 40˚020 .5 107˚250 .3 40˚120 .8 8.6 -10.3 1o UMa 356 3323 3.36 3.49 4 119˚190 .5 61˚460 .8 119˚050 .6 61˚570 .1 6.5 -10.3
107˚100 .0 43˚550 .5 107˚130 .9 43˚580 .9 -2.8 -3.4 4π2 UMa 357 3403 4.60 4.73 4 120˚580 .8 65˚360 .5 121˚050 .4 65˚370 .1 -2.7 -0.7
106˚080 .0 44˚220 .0 106˚440 .6 44˚340 .9 -26.1 -12.9 h 3π1 UMa 358 3391 5.64 5.78 5 119˚320 .4 66˚140 .4 120˚410 .3 66˚170 .7 -27.7 -3.3
108˚250 .0 47˚500 .5 108˚220 .8 47˚540 .3 1.5 -3.8 8ρ UMa 359 3576 4.76 4.89 4 126˚210 .8 69˚020 .7 126˚180 .5 69˚050 .1 1.2 -2.4
109˚440 .5 47˚440 .5 109˚420 .3 47˚470 .6 1.5 -3.1 13σ2 UMa 360 3616 4.80 4.94 4 128˚330 .8 68˚370 .8 128˚290 .8 68˚390 .6 1.4 -1.8
114˚420 .5 51˚360 .5 110˚440 .6 51˚120 .0 149.1 24.5 24d UMa 361 3771 4.56 4.70 5 141˚460 .7 70˚420 .3 134˚220 .8 71˚300 .0 140.8 -47.7
113˚500 .0 42˚300 .0 113˚410 .4 42˚470 .5 6.3 -17.5 16c UMa 362 3648 5.13 5.27 5 130˚300 .6 62˚420 .1 130˚280 .5 62˚590 .1 1.0 -17.1
115˚020 .0 45˚030 .0 115˚120 .7 45˚070 .1 -7.6 -4.1 23h UMa 363 3757 3.67 3.81 4 134˚280 .8 64˚440 .6 134˚450 .8 64˚430 .9 -7.3 0.7
118˚000 .0 46˚210 .5 111˚590 .3 44˚320 .0 257.1 109.5 h 14τ UMa 364 3624 4.67 4.81 5 140˚120 .5 65˚030 .6 129˚150 .0 65˚030 .0 277.3 0.6
120˚380 .0 42˚360 .0 120˚410 .9 42˚380 .5 -2.9 -2.5 29υ UMa 365 3888 3.80 3.94 4 140˚220 .5 60˚510 .6 140˚270 .3 60˚510 .4 -2.3 0.2
123˚380 .5 38˚150 .5 123˚450 .3 38˚130 .3 -5.3 2.2 30φ UMa 366 3894 4.59 4.73 4 141˚000 .2 55˚570 .8 141˚050 .0 55˚520 .4 -2.7 5.4
120˚320 .5 34˚340 .5 121˚450 .8 34˚570 .1 -60.1 -22.6 25θ UMa 367 3775 3.17 3.30 3 134˚380 .4 53˚270 .2 136˚240 .5 53˚260 .2 -63.2 1.1
115˚560 .0 29˚150 .5 117˚150 .5 29˚340 .4 -69.2 -18.9 9ι UMa 368 3569 3.14 3.28 3 126˚020 .7 49˚340 .7 127˚510 .9 49˚320 .2 -70.9 2.5
117˚100 .0 28˚380 .0 118˚210 .2 28˚560 .7 -62.3 -18.7 12κ UMa 369 3594 3.60 3.74 3 127˚220 .2 48˚400 .9 128˚590 .5 48˚390 .8 -64.2 1.2
117˚070 .0 33˚300 .0 117˚320 .7 33˚250 .3 -21.4 4.7 m 15f UMa 370 3619 4.48 4.62 5 129˚330 .1 53˚210 .1 130˚030 .0 53˚080 .6 -17.9 12.6
117˚260 .0 36˚060 .0 117˚430 .0 36˚030 .5 -13.7 2.5 m 18e UMa 371 3662 4.83 4.97 5 131˚230 .6 55˚440 .3 131˚430 .1 55˚350 .8 -11.0 8.4
129˚340 .0 49˚400 .0 129˚350 .6 49˚390 .6 -1.0 0.4 50α UMa 372 4301 1.79 1.92 2 159˚360 .9 63˚540 .5 159˚340 .3 63˚520 .8 1.1 1.6
133˚430 .5 45˚030 .5 133˚490 .0 45˚050 .7 -3.9 -2.2 48β UMa 373 4295 2.37 2.51 2 159˚110 .7 58˚300 .8 159˚170 .1 58˚290 .8 -2.8 0.9
145˚250 .5 51˚370 .0 145˚250 .4 51˚370 .6 0.0 -0.6 69δ UMa 374 4660 3.31 3.45 2 178˚510 .5 59˚140 .7 178˚480 .8 59˚150 .2 1.4 -0.5
144˚450 .0 47˚060 .5 144˚500 .8 47˚060 .7 -4.0 -0.2 64γ UMa 375 4554 2.44 2.58 2 173˚030 .1 55˚560 .9 173˚060 .1 55˚540 .6 -1.7 2.4
133˚560 .5 29˚510 .5 133˚580 .5 29˚520 .0 -1.7 -0.5 33λ UMa 376 4033 3.45 3.59 4 148˚090 .1 44˚530 .3 148˚090 .9 44˚520 .0 -0.6 1.3
135˚040 .5 28˚450 .0 135˚390 .3 28˚580 .1 -30.4 -13.1 34µ UMa 377 4069 3.05 3.18 4 148˚490 .0 43˚290 .0 149˚330 .1 43˚280 .1 -32.0 0.9
142˚330 .0 35˚140 .0 143˚130 .1 35˚310 .2 -32.6 -17.2 52ψ UMa 378 4335 3.01 3.14 4 160˚510 .3 46˚390 .2 161˚430 .1 46˚380 .6 -35.6 0.5
150˚550 .0 26˚140 .0 151˚040 .0 26˚080 .7 -8.1 5.3 m 54ν UMa 379 4377 3.48 3.62 4 164˚050 .8 35˚240 .2 164˚100 .6 35˚150 .3 -3.9 8.8
151˚360 .0 24˚540 .0 151˚460 .1 24˚470 .3 -9.2 6.7 m 53ξ UMa 380 4374 3.86 4.01 4 164˚050 .1 33˚560 .0 164˚100 .4 33˚450 .5 -4.4 10.5
153˚100 .0 54˚180 .0 153˚160 .8 54˚170 .8 -4.0 0.2 77 UMa 381 4905 1.77 1.91 2 189˚010 .0 58˚100 .9 189˚030 .0 58˚080 .4 -1.1 2.5
159˚560 .5 56˚220 .0 160˚020 .1 56˚210 .8 -3.1 0.2 79ζ UMa 382 5054 2.06 2.20 2 196˚540 .5 57˚030 .5 196˚550 .3 57˚010 .8 -0.4 1.7
171˚120 .0 54˚250 .0 171˚180 .6 54˚230 .9 -3.8 1.1 85η UMa 383 5191 1.86 2.00 2 202˚540 .5 51˚220 .3 202˚550 .8 51˚190 .8 -0.8 2.5
167˚430 .5 40˚060 .0 168˚590 .3 40˚070 .7 -58.0 -1.7 12α CVn 384 4914 2.81 2.95 2 188˚130 .3 40˚570 .5 189˚180 .3 40˚290 .3 -49.4 28.1
148˚100 .0 41˚300 .0 148˚040 .2 41˚310 .8 4.4 -1.8 63χ UMa 385 4518 3.71 3.84 4 171˚160 .1 49˚550 .6 171˚090 .4 49˚590 .1 4.3 -3.5
141˚020 .0 33˚010 .0 140˚550 .1 33˚020 .2 5.8 -1.2 45ω UMa 386 4248 4.71 4.85 5 157˚480 .3 45˚140 .4 157˚390 .8 45˚170 .3 6.0 -2.9
126˚170 .0 17˚550 .0 126˚170 .3 17˚560 .0 -0.3 -1.0 40α Lyn 387 3705 3.13 3.27 3 134˚070 .7 36˚010 .8 134˚070 .4 36˚010 .3 0.3 0.5
128˚100 .0 20˚420 .0 128˚140 .2 20˚420 .8 -3.9 -0.8 10 LMi 388 3800 4.55 4.69 4 137˚180 .6 38˚080 .7 137˚220 .4 38˚060 .8 -3.0 1.9
125˚000 .0 20˚050 .0 124˚590 .3 20˚040 .7 0.7 0.3 38 Lyn 389 3690 3.82 3.96 4 133˚280 .0 38˚270 .4 133˚260 .0 38˚250 .8 1.6 1.6
121˚570 .0 20˚510 .0 121˚580 .0 20˚510 .5 -0.9 -0.5 Lyn 390 3612 4.56 4.70 4 130˚120 .6 40˚000 .3 130˚120 .9 39˚580 .9 -0.2 1.4
119˚420 .0 23˚410 .0 119˚440 .1 23˚420 .9 -1.9 -1.9 Lyn 391 3579 3.97 4.11 4 128˚340 .1 43˚180 .0 128˚360 .1 43˚170 .7 -1.5 0.3
134˚120 .0 21˚530 .0 135˚250 .1 22˚040 .1 -67.8 -11.1 21 LMi 392 3974 4.48 4.62 4 144˚300 .9 37˚230 .6 145˚540 .3 37˚080 .8 -66.4 14.8
138˚550 .0 25˚040 .0 138˚570 .6 25˚030 .2 -2.3 0.8 31β LMi 393 4100 4.21 4.35 4 151˚060 .9 38˚450 .6 151˚070 .8 38˚430 .0 -0.7 2.6
139˚570 .0 24˚590 .0 139˚490 .5 22˚130 .1 7.0 165.9 30 LMi 394 4090 4.74 4.88 5 152˚100 .6 38˚190 .2 150˚410 .8 35˚470 .6 72.1 151.6
143˚220 .5 21˚380 .0 143˚150 .5 21˚360 .7 6.5 1.3 37 LMi 395 4166 4.71 4.85 5 154˚090 .5 34˚000 .8 154˚000 .4 34˚010 .1 7.5 -0.4
146˚090 .0 20˚440 .0 145˚190 .1 21˚020 .9 46.6 -18.9 42 LMi 396 4203 5.24 5.39 5 156˚350 .1 32˚100 .6 155˚510 .9 32˚450 .4 36.4 -34.8
145˚190 .0 24˚580 .0 145˚150 .8 24˚560 .0 2.9 2.0 46 LMi 397 4247 3.83 3.97 4 157˚460 .8 36˚210 .9 157˚410 .2 36˚200 .4 4.6 1.4
162˚160 .0 40˚300 .0 162˚120 .2 40˚330 .0 2.9 -3.0 8β CVn 398 4785 4.26 4.40 5 183˚420 .1 43˚270 .9 183˚390 .0 43˚320 .1 2.3 -4.2
111˚290 .0 53˚080 .0 163˚390 .1 57˚490 .6 -1666.7 -281.6 wz 83 UMa 399 5154 4.66 4.79 6 138˚460 .3 73˚000 .8 201˚220 .3 56˚430 .4 -2060.8 977.4
113˚550 .0 47˚140 .0 164˚380 .6 51˚470 .0 -1882.9 -273.0 wz 21 CVn 400 5023 5.15 5.29 6 134˚540 .9 67˚030 .2 195˚160 .5 51˚480 .0 -2239.6 915.1
72 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 73
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
109˚490 .0 47˚30 .0 168˚45 .3 52˚51 .6 -2135.1 -321.6 wz
0 0 0
24 CVn 401 5112 4.70 4.84 6 128˚26 .9 68˚23 .2 199˚30 .3 51˚04 .8 -2678.5
0 0 0 0
1038.4
143˚170 .0 46˚500 .0 172˚460 .0 38˚540 .1 -1376.6 475.9 wz 14 CVn 402 4943 5.25 5.39 6 171˚180 .2 56˚180 .3 191˚440 .4 37˚570 .1 -966.9 1101.2
153˚580 .0 47˚550 .0 171˚580 .7 41˚400 .2 -807.3 374.8 wz 15-7 CVn 403 4967 5.33 5.47 6 182˚310 .4 52˚550 .8 192˚540 .0 40˚380 .3 -472.5 737.5
156˚000 .0 48˚400 .0 171˚380 .5 43˚270 .2 -681.3 312.8 wz CVn 404 4997 4.92 5.06 6 185˚030 .6 52˚430 .2 193˚520 .4 42˚170 .2 -391.2 626.1
156˚300 .0 49˚420 .0 172˚120 .6 44˚110 .8 -675.8 330.2 wz 20 CVn 405 5017 4.73 4.87 6 186˚320 .1 53˚200 .6 194˚520 .9 42˚410 .6 -368.0 638.9
156˚190 .0 49˚420 .0 173˚080 .1 44˚060 .7 -724.5 335.3 wz 23 CVn 406 5032 5.60 5.74 6 186˚220 .7 53˚240 .9 195˚340 .7 42˚160 .0 -408.5 669.0
169˚050 .0 49˚000 .0 178˚330 .6 42˚590 .6 -415.9 360.4 cz CVn 407 5110 4.98 5.12 6 196˚120 .8 47˚510 .9 199˚130 .3 39˚150 .1 -139.8 516.8
168˚010 .0 49˚270 .0 179˚490 .0 42˚290 .6 -522.0 417.4 cz 25 CVn 408 5127 4.82 4.96 6 195˚450 .9 48˚380 .4 199˚540 .7 38˚210 .0 -195.2 617.3
175˚420 .0 48˚110 .0 180˚320 .2 45˚230 .6 -203.8 167.4 cz CVn 409 5186 5.50 5.64 6 200˚430 .8 44˚410 .5 202˚250 .7 40˚330 .9 -77.3 247.6
166˚020 .0 52˚250 .0 184˚080 .6 42˚270 .0 -801.8 598.0 cz CVn 410 5214 5.44 5.58 6 197˚020 .0 51˚450 .2 203˚210 .9 36˚420 .5 -304.5 902.7
121˚410 .0 35˚400 .0 121˚500 .5 35˚190 .6 -7.7 20.4 z 26 UMa 411 3799 4.50 4.64 6 136˚460 .1 54˚090 .0 136˚430 .9 53˚450 .8 1.3 23.2
228˚560 .5 76˚170 .0 229˚070 .8 76˚160 .4 -2.7 0.6 21µ Dra 412 6369 5.06 5.20 4 254˚140 .1 55˚010 .3 254˚170 .0 55˚010 .5 -1.6 -0.2
244˚140 .5 78˚140 .5 244˚390 .7 78˚110 .1 -5.2 3.4 24-5ν Dra 413 6554 4.12 4.26 4 260˚590 .9 55˚310 .6 261˚060 .3 55˚280 .7 -3.6 2.8
246˚190 .5 75˚210 .0 246˚210 .6 75˚190 .7 -0.5 1.3 23β Dra 414 6536 2.79 2.92 3 260˚220 .2 52˚370 .2 260˚220 .0 52˚370 .7 0.1 -0.6
259˚030 .0 80˚210 .5 259˚070 .6 80˚190 .5 -0.8 2.0 32ξ Dra 415 6688 3.75 3.88 4 266˚390 .3 56˚570 .7 266˚400 .0 56˚570 .6 -0.4 0.0
262˚240 .0 75˚030 .5 262˚240 .8 74˚580 .6 -0.2 4.9 33γ Dra 416 6705 2.23 2.36 3 266˚510 .1 51˚370 .0 266˚500 .6 51˚340 .1 0.3 2.9
287˚040 .0 81˚530 .0 286˚460 .4 81˚490 .0 2.5 4.0 39b Dra 417 6923 4.98 5.12 5 274˚330 .9 58˚370 .8 274˚310 .2 58˚350 .4 1.4 2.4
294˚310 .0 77˚570 .0 294˚260 .2 77˚540 .6 1.0 2.4 46c Dra 418 7049 5.04 5.18 5 278˚430 .5 55˚100 .3 278˚430 .4 55˚090 .8 0.0 0.6
290˚330 .5 79˚510 .5 290˚150 .6 79˚480 .1 3.2 3.4 45d Dra 419 6978 4.77 4.90 5 276˚290 .0 56˚470 .9 276˚250 .4 56˚450 .9 2.0 2.1
309˚290 .0 80˚530 .5 309˚310 .0 80˚500 .3 -0.3 3.2 47o Dra 420 7125 4.66 4.79 4 281˚140 .9 58˚550 .9 281˚190 .1 58˚550 .3 -2.2 0.7
358˚230 .0 81˚510 .0 358˚080 .1 81˚490 .6 2.1 1.4 58π Dra 421 7371 4.59 4.73 4 289˚330 .8 64˚570 .7 289˚360 .6 64˚570 .2 -1.2 0.5
12˚260 .5 82˚490 .0 11˚530 .9 82˚520 .6 4.0 -3.6 7δ Dra 422 7310 3.07 3.20 3 288˚120 .2 66˚590 .5 288˚030 .6 66˚570 .6 3.4 1.8
15˚210 .0 78˚090 .5 14˚590 .3 78˚080 .5 4.5 1.0 67ρ Dra 423 7685 4.51 4.64 4 300˚080 .3 66˚470 .3 300˚100 .7 66˚440 .5 -0.9 2.8
27˚470 .0 79˚25 .0
0
27˚200 .0 79˚280 .1 4.9 -3.1 63 Dra 424 7582 3.83 3.97 3 297˚220 .3 69˚180 .2 297˚160 .6 69˚140 .9 2.0 3.3
45˚180 .0 83˚050 .0 44˚580 .8 83˚110 .1 2.3 -6.1 52υ Dra 425 7180 4.82 4.96 4 284˚550 .6 70˚480 .0 284˚440 .8 70˚440 .9 3.6 3.2
49˚400 .5 80˚380 .0 49˚290 .2 80˚380 .7 1.8 -0.7 60τ Dra 426 7352 4.45 4.59 4 290˚360 .6 72˚350 .4 290˚400 .0 72˚350 .4 -1.0 0.0
26˚440 .0 80˚540 .0 26˚160 .0 80˚550 .3 4.4 -1.3 61σ Dra 427 7462 4.68 4.81 4 293˚140 .5 69˚010 .6 293˚140 .0 68˚580 .9 0.2 2.7
96˚340 .5 83˚040 .5 98˚000 .7 84˚060 .9 -8.8 -62.4 31ψ1 Dra 428 6636 4.27 4.41 4 267˚140 .4 73˚200 .2 267˚180 .2 72˚190 .1 -1.1 61.1
71˚280 .0 83˚280 .5 71˚020 .7 83˚300 .0 2.9 -1.5 r 44χ Dra 429 6927 3.57 3.71 4 276˚550 .0 72˚320 .7 277˚020 .3 72˚320 .2 -2.2 0.5
65˚310 .0 84˚480 .5 65˚380 .4 84˚490 .8 -0.7 -1.3 43φ Dra 430 6920 4.22 4.36 4 276˚380 .6 71˚050 .0 276˚350 .5 71˚060 .3 1.0 -1.3
149˚440 .5 81˚040 .5 149˚290 .8 81˚010 .6 2.3 2.9 15A Dra 431 6161 5.00 5.14 3 247˚260 .7 69˚330 .1 247˚170 .5 69˚370 .7 3.2 -4.6
126˚260 .0 86˚530 .0 126˚280 .9 86˚530 .3 -0.2 -0.3 28ω Dra 432 6596 4.80 4.94 4 264˚510 .2 68˚540 .3 264˚500 .9 68˚560 .0 0.1 -1.7
178˚210 .0 83˚180 .0 178˚520 .5 83˚180 .3 -3.7 -0.3 19h1 Dra 433 6315 4.89 5.03 5 253˚290 .1 65˚460 .7 253˚300 .6 65˚450 .1 -0.6 1.6
178˚220 .0 81˚410 .0 178˚280 .9 81˚380 .3 -1.0 2.7 18g Dra 434 6223 4.83 4.96 5 249˚420 .9 65˚210 .1 249˚350 .8 65˚210 .3 3.0 -0.1
176˚510 .5 84˚460 .0 177˚160 .7 84˚460 .2 -2.3 -0.2 22ζ Dra 435 6396 3.17 3.31 3 256˚570 .0 66˚120 .8 256˚570 .3 66˚120 .6 -0.1 0.3
187˚550 .0 78˚320 .0 188˚420 .7 78˚270 .4 -9.5 4.6 14η Dra 436 6132 2.74 2.87 3 244˚410 .2 62˚340 .8 244˚410 .6 62˚260 .1 -0.2 8.7
192˚280 .5 74˚110 .5 191˚060 .9 74˚270 .4 21.9 -15.9 13θ Dra 437 5986 4.01 4.15 3 238˚430 .9 59˚100 .4 238˚380 .3 59˚390 .2 2.8 -28.8
179˚220 .0 71˚040 .0 179˚140 .3 71˚060 .1 2.5 -2.1 12ι Dra 438 5744 3.29 3.42 3 229˚040 .7 60˚180 .6 229˚020 .8 60˚230 .4 0.9 -4.8
149˚170 .0 65˚180 .0 149˚150 .1 65˚210 .0 0.8 -3.0 10i Dra 439 5226 4.65 4.78 5 204˚550 .4 66˚390 .8 204˚560 .6 66˚420 .9 -0.5 -3.1
152˚100 .5 66˚360 .0 151˚470 .2 66˚210 .0 9.3 15.0 11α Dra 440 5291 3.65 3.79 2 209˚120 .4 66˚160 .4 208˚240 .6 66˚180 .2 19.2 -1.9
130˚260 .0 61˚330 .0 130˚370 .4 61˚440 .0 -5.4 -11.0 5κ Dra 441 4787 3.87 4.01 3 183˚250 .3 71˚580 .2 183˚580 .5 71˚590 .8 -10.3 -1.6
124˚370 .5 57˚070 .0 124˚420 .7 57˚120 .5 -2.8 -5.5 1λ Dra 442 4434 3.84 3.98 3 166˚260 .0 71˚290 .8 166˚380 .8 71˚310 .2 -4.1 -1.3
1˚040 .0 77˚310 .5 0˚490 .4 77˚290 .9 3.2 1.6 64e Dra 443 7676 5.27 5.40 5 299˚130 .5 63˚440 .8 299˚150 .8 63˚430 .0 -1.0 1.8
30˚130 .0 71˚070 .0 30˚050 .5 71˚070 .2 2.4 -0.2 8β Cep 444 8238 3.23 3.37 3 320˚460 .3 68˚500 .2 320˚470 .8 68˚490 .2 -0.5 1.0
7˚130 .0 68˚540 .0 7˚180 .1 68˚540 .6 -1.8 -0.6 5α Cep 445 8162 2.44 2.58 3 317˚100 .9 60˚510 .8 317˚140 .9 60˚550 .0 -1.9 -3.2
27˚530 .5 62˚35 .0
0
27˚470 .2 62˚350 .2 2.9 -0.2 32ι Cep 446 8694 3.52 3.65 4 338˚550 .6 64˚080 .5 338˚550 .3 64˚070 .0 0.1 1.5
8˚290 .0 61˚030 .0 8˚280 .9 61˚070 .9 0.0 -4.9 21ζ Cep 447 8465 3.35 3.48 4 329˚200 .4 56˚110 .0 329˚160 .8 56˚150 .4 2.0 -4.5
7˚530 .5 59˚590 .0 7˚290 .4 59˚570 .5 12.1 1.5 23 Cep 448 8494 4.19 4.33 4 330˚180 .0 55˚130 .1 330˚070 .1 55˚040 .6 6.2 8.4
13˚390 .0 58˚460 .0 12˚070 .3 59˚310 .4 46.5 -45.4 27δ Cep 449 8571 3.75 3.88 4 335˚330 .0 56˚230 .5 333˚370 .7 56˚230 .6 63.8 -0.1
359˚210 .0 71˚490 .0 359˚000 .4 71˚430 .8 6.5 5.2 3η Cep 450 7957 3.43 3.57 4 309˚120 .6 60˚250 .3 309˚150 .6 60˚180 .6 -1.5 6.7
74 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 75
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
359˚540 .0 74˚00 .5 359˚27 .7 73˚55 .8
0 0 0
7.3 4.7 2θ Cep 451 7850 4.22 4.36 4 305˚38 .8 61˚47 .3 305˚41 .2 61˚400 .3
0 0 0
-1.1 7.0
18˚460 .0 65˚420 .0 18˚420 .2 65˚440 .3 1.5 -2.3 17ξ Cep 452 8417 4.29 4.43 5 328˚060 .8 62˚410 .1 328˚040 .1 62˚420 .2 1.2 -1.1
57˚330 .0 75˚270 .0 57˚340 .8 75˚260 .4 -0.4 0.6 1κ Cep 453 7750 4.39 4.54 4 305˚040 .6 76˚260 .0 305˚110 .1 76˚280 .3 -1.5 -2.3
54˚230 .0 64˚280 .0 54˚320 .6 64˚360 .6 -4.1 -8.6 35γ Cep 454 8974 3.21 3.35 3 351˚110 .6 75˚170 .1 350˚540 .7 75˚240 .6 4.3 -7.5
174˚090 .5 58˚530 .0 174˚170 .5 58˚530 .9 -4.1 -0.9 17κ Boo 455 5328 4.40 4.54 4 209˚430 .3 53˚420 .2 209˚470 .1 53˚410 .0 -2.2 1.1
175˚330 .0 58˚510 .0 175˚290 .0 58˚500 .9 2.1 0.1 21ι Boo 456 5350 4.75 4.89 4 210˚350 .0 53˚110 .9 210˚290 .9 53˚140 .2 3.1 -2.3
176˚590 .5 60˚050 .0 176˚560 .1 60˚100 .0 1.7 -5.0 23θ Boo 457 5404 4.05 4.19 4 212˚520 .8 53˚370 .5 212˚540 .0 53˚430 .4 -0.7 -5.9
181˚180 .0 54˚400 .0 181˚220 .2 54˚390 .4 -2.4 0.6 19λ Boo 458 5351 4.18 4.32 4 210˚170 .1 47˚580 .0 210˚170 .5 47˚570 .1 -0.3 1.0
192˚050 .5 49˚330 .5 192˚040 .1 49˚330 .8 0.9 -0.3 27γ Boo 459 5435 3.03 3.17 3 214˚020 .0 40˚030 .5 213˚590 .8 40˚050 .3 1.7 -1.8
198˚430 .5 54˚150 .5 198˚370 .4 54˚100 .9 3.5 4.6 42β Boo 460 5602 3.50 3.64 3 221˚520 .4 42˚010 .0 221˚430 .8 42˚000 .2 6.4 0.8
207˚290 .5 49˚010 .0 207˚310 .3 49˚000 .3 -1.2 0.7 49δ Boo 461 5681 3.47 3.61 3 224˚510 .5 34˚500 .5 224˚510 .4 34˚500 .8 0.1 -0.3
202˚290 .5 40˚400 .0 202˚300 .5 40˚390 .2 -0.8 0.8 36 Boo 462 5505 2.59 2.74 3 216˚530 .9 28˚470 .7 216˚530 .4 28˚470 .8 0.4 -0.2
198˚160 .0 42˚110 .0 198˚160 .4 42˚080 .8 -0.3 2.2 28σ Boo 463 5447 4.46 4.61 4 214˚210 .3 31˚320 .0 214˚190 .4 31˚310 .0 1.6 0.9
197˚170 .5 42˚350 .5 197˚110 .8 42˚280 .1 4.2 7.4 25ρ Boo 464 5429 3.58 3.72 4 213˚480 .7 32˚130 .2 213˚390 .3 32˚090 .6 8.0 3.6
207˚260 .5 27˚570 .0 207˚260 .4 27˚540 .6 0.1 2.4 30ζ Boo 465 5477 3.86 4.04 3 215˚330 .3 15˚300 .1 215˚310 .9 15˚290 .0 1.4 1.0
193˚420 .0 28˚090 .0 193˚430 .9 28˚080 .2 -1.7 0.8 8η Boo 466 5235 2.68 2.84 3 203˚540 .6 20˚260 .4 203˚550 .2 20˚250 .8 -0.6 0.6
192˚250 .0 26˚330 .0 192˚230 .8 26˚330 .1 1.1 -0.1 4τ Boo 467 5185 4.50 4.67 4 202˚060 .1 19˚270 .3 202˚040 .4 19˚280 .5 1.6 -1.3
193˚370 .0 25˚140 .0 193˚370 .3 25˚130 .1 -0.3 0.9 5υ Boo 468 5200 4.07 4.24 4 202˚340 .2 17˚480 .6 202˚330 .5 17˚480 .5 0.7 0.1
198˚390 .5 31˚020 .5 198˚400 .1 31˚000 .7 -0.5 1.8 16α Boo 469 5340 -0.04 0.12 1 209˚230 .2 21˚180 .5 209˚220 .3 21˚170 .7 0.9 0.8
206˚130 .5 30˚270 .5 206˚150 .8 30˚230 .6 -2.0 3.9 29π Boo 470 5475 4.54 4.71 4 215˚300 .1 18˚130 .5 215˚290 .9 18˚100 .3 0.1 3.1
207˚110 .0 31˚220 .0 207˚130 .5 31˚170 .7 -2.1 4.3 35o Boo 471 5502 4.60 4.77 4 216˚390 .9 18˚450 .4 216˚390 .7 18˚410 .8 0.2 3.6
207˚520 .0 33˚520 .0 207˚550 .9 33˚480 .4 -3.2 3.6 37ξ Boo 472 5544 4.55 4.71 4 218˚130 .9 20˚510 .4 218˚150 .0 20˚480 .1 -1.1 3.3
208˚110 .0 40˚140 .5 208˚120 .3 40˚120 .6 -1.0 1.9 41ω Boo 473 5600 4.81 4.96 5 221˚100 .2 26˚380 .5 221˚090 .6 26˚370 .8 0.5 0.8
209˚400 .0 40˚310 .5 209˚400 .7 40˚300 .7 -0.5 0.8 45c Boo 474 5634 4.93 5.09 5 222˚270 .4 26˚270 .7 222˚260 .9 26˚280 .2 0.5 -0.4
207˚530 .0 42˚160 .0 207˚550 .6 42˚120 .6 -1.9 3.4 43ψ Boo 475 5616 4.54 4.69 5 221˚500 .8 28˚350 .4 221˚500 .4 28˚320 .9 0.3 2.6
209˚160 .0 41˚550 .0 209˚190 .7 41˚550 .7 -2.7 -0.7 46b Boo 476 5638 5.67 5.82 6 222˚450 .4 27˚510 .6 222˚470 .8 27˚520 .5 -2.1 -0.9
209˚340 .5 45˚060 .0 209˚360 .7 45˚050 .1 -1.6 0.9 48χ Boo 477 5676 5.26 5.41 5 224˚260 .8 30˚410 .5 224˚270 .2 30˚410 .4 -0.3 0.1
211˚260 .5 46˚520 .0 211˚290 .9 46˚500 .6 -2.3 1.4 2η CrB 478 5727 5.05 5.20 5 226˚400 .0 31˚470 .2 226˚410 .0 31˚460 .5 -0.9 0.7
207˚320 .0 53˚270 .5 207˚350 .1 53˚270 .1 -1.9 0.4 51µ Boo 479 5733 4.17 4.31 4 227˚200 .7 38˚480 .8 227˚210 .5 38˚490 .1 -0.6 -0.3
212˚350 .0 54˚000 .0 212˚390 .4 53˚580 .9 -2.6 1.1 7ζ CrB 480 5833 4.69 4.83 4 231˚040 .2 37˚590 .0 231˚050 .6 37˚580 .5 -1.1 0.5
191˚490 .0 60˚400 .0 192˚120 .3 60˚340 .8 -11.4 5.2 z 44i Boo 481 5618 4.76 4.90 6 222˚320 .2 49˚240 .1 222˚390 .7 49˚140 .4 -4.9 9.6
192˚330 .0 60˚570 .0 192˚010 .7 61˚070 .4 15.1 -10.4 z 47k Boo 482 5627 5.57 5.71 6 223˚140 .3 49˚240 .8 223˚030 .5 49˚430 .6 6.9 -18.8
168˚170 .0 28˚250 .0 168˚170 .9 28˚240 .6 -0.8 0.4 15γ Com 483 4737 4.36 4.51 3 181˚440 .5 30˚300 .3 181˚430 .9 30˚290 .6 0.5 0.7
178˚150 .0 28˚320 .0 180˚490 .3 21˚470 .2 -143.3 404.8 h 36 Com 484 4920 4.78 4.94 5 190˚420 .5 26˚390 .5 189˚470 .3 19˚340 .7 52.1 424.9
168˚420 .0 27˚240 .0 168˚400 .9 27˚270 .1 0.9 -3.1 14 Com 485 4733 4.95 5.10 4 181˚350 .5 29˚250 .9 181˚340 .9 29˚290 .2 0.5 -3.2
168˚460 .0 27˚200 .0 169˚020 .1 27˚060 .8 -14.3 13.2 16 Com 486 4738 5.00 5.15 4 181˚370 .0 29˚200 .7 181˚430 .8 29˚020 .6 -5.9 18.2
169˚190 .0 27˚070 .0 169˚550 .3 26˚290 .3 -32.5 37.7 17 Com 487 4752 5.29 5.44 4 182˚000 .4 28˚560 .0 182˚130 .1 28˚070 .8 -11.2 48.2
168˚250 .0 25˚510 .0 168˚300 .8 25˚470 .4 -5.2 3.6 12 Com 488 4707 4.81 4.96 4 180˚320 .6 28˚090 .5 180˚350 .0 28˚040 .0 -2.2 5.5
168˚490 .0 26˚070 .0 168˚470 .7 26˚110 .8 1.2 -4.8 13 Com 489 4717 5.18 5.33 4 181˚020 .6 28˚140 .2 181˚020 .7 28˚190 .1 -0.1 -4.8
168˚000 .0 23˚300 .0 168˚020 .8 23˚280 .3 -2.6 1.7 7h Com 490 4667 4.95 5.10 4 179˚000 .0 26˚120 .8 179˚000 .7 26˚100 .1 -0.7 2.7
171˚100 .0 25˚160 .0 171˚030 .2 25˚290 .2 6.1 -13.2 h 21 Com 491 4766 5.46 5.62 4 182˚450 .5 26˚320 .3 182˚440 .8 26˚460 .9 0.6 -14.6
170˚510 .0 24˚560 .0 170˚550 .4 24˚550 .1 -4.0 0.9 18 Com 492 4753 5.48 5.64 4 182˚180 .4 26˚210 .9 182˚210 .0 26˚190 .4 -2.3 2.5
172˚520 .0 24˚000 .5 172˚510 .7 24˚070 .4 0.2 -6.9 23k Com 493 4789 4.81 4.97 4 183˚410 .2 24˚430 .8 183˚430 .3 24˚500 .2 -1.9 -6.4
178˚580 .5 32˚460 .0 178˚540 .7 32˚280 .4 3.2 17.6 43β Com 494 4983 4.26 4.41 4 193˚310 .5 30˚080 .9 193˚170 .7 29˚550 .2 12.0 13.7
177˚490 .0 31˚420 .0 177˚470 .7 31˚500 .0 1.1 -8.0 41 Com 495 4954 4.80 4.95 4 191˚570 .3 29˚390 .1 191˚590 .3 29˚470 .1 -1.7 -8.0
174˚170 .0 30˚160 .0 174˚160 .4 30˚120 .7 0.5 3.3 31 Com 496 4883 4.94 5.09 4 188˚060 .0 29˚460 .0 188˚020 .5 29˚430 .6 3.0 2.4
216˚380 .5 44˚230 .0 216˚400 .3 44˚220 .0 -1.3 1.0 5α CrB 497 5793 2.23 2.38 2 229˚270 .1 28˚060 .2 229˚270 .3 28˚060 .4 -0.2 -0.1
213˚370 .0 46˚080 .0 213˚320 .5 46˚050 .3 3.1 2.7 3β CrB 498 5747 3.68 3.83 4 227˚560 .3 30˚310 .4 227˚500 .9 30˚310 .6 4.6 -0.2
213˚100 .5 48˚250 .0 213˚500 .5 48˚350 .4 -26.5 -10.4 4θ CrB 499 5778 4.14 4.29 5 228˚390 .9 32˚440 .5 229˚120 .9 32˚450 .1 -27.8 -0.6
218˚020 .0 50˚210 .0 216˚350 .4 50˚300 .4 55.0 -9.4 9π CrB 500 5855 5.56 5.70 6 233˚020 .0 33˚180 .1 232˚040 .3 33˚490 .3 48.0 -31.3
76 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 77
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
219˚140 .5 44˚33 .0 219˚17 .4 44˚32 .7
0 0 0
-2.1 0.3 8γ CrB 501 5849 3.84 4.00 4 231˚28 .8 27˚36 .0 231˚30 .2 27˚36 .6
0 0 0 0
-1.2 -0.6
221˚250 .0 44˚520 .0 221˚260 .1 44˚480 .9 -0.8 3.1 10δ CrB 502 5889 4.63 4.78 4 233˚140 .3 27˚220 .0 233˚130 .3 27˚200 .4 0.9 1.6
223˚320 .0 46˚090 .5 223˚310 .6 46˚070 .2 0.3 2.3 13 CrB 503 5947 4.15 4.30 4 235˚180 .2 28˚050 .5 235˚160 .5 28˚050 .0 1.6 0.4
223˚020 .0 48˚240 .0 223˚240 .8 49˚120 .2 -14.9 -48.2 14ι CrB 504 5971 4.99 5.14 6 235˚470 .6 30˚190 .1 236˚220 .3 31˚010 .1 -29.7 -42.0
250˚310 .0 37˚230 .0 250˚340 .8 37˚200 .0 -3.0 3.0 64α Her 505 6406 3.31 3.48 3 254˚040 .8 14˚560 .0 254˚070 .3 14˚540 .6 -2.4 1.4
235˚270 .5 42˚480 .0 235˚310 .0 42˚450 .2 -2.6 2.8 27β Her 506 6148 2.77 2.93 3 243˚140 .9 22˚260 .5 243˚160 .6 22˚250 .0 -1.5 1.5
233˚360 .0 40˚050 .5 233˚380 .1 40˚030 .1 -1.6 2.4 20γ Her 507 6095 3.75 3.92 3 241˚040 .7 20˚090 .8 241˚050 .3 20˚080 .8 -0.6 1.0
230˚060 .5 37˚190 .0 230˚080 .1 37˚150 .7 -1.2 3.3 7κ Her 508 6008 4.70 4.87 4 237˚310 .6 18˚110 .8 237˚310 .6 18˚100 .0 0.0 1.8
249˚100 .0 47˚470 .0 249˚110 .1 47˚450 .3 -0.8 1.7 65δ Her 509 6410 3.14 3.30 3 254˚390 .9 25˚210 .9 254˚400 .1 25˚220 .0 -0.2 -0.1
254˚220 .0 49˚230 .0 254˚190 .6 49˚200 .6 1.6 2.4 76λ Her 510 6526 4.41 4.56 4 258˚410 .9 26˚280 .3 258˚390 .6 26˚280 .1 2.0 0.2
259˚360 .0 51˚160 .5 259˚420 .3 51˚140 .4 -3.9 2.1 86µ Her 511 6623 3.42 3.57 4 262˚390 .0 28˚010 .0 262˚430 .2 28˚000 .6 -3.6 0.4
267˚190 .0 52˚190 .0 267˚080 .2 52˚140 .1 6.6 4.9 103o Her 512 6779 3.83 3.98 4 268˚070 .7 28˚480 .5 268˚000 .0 28˚450 .8 6.7 2.7
263˚570 .0 53˚460 .0 263˚530 .5 53˚400 .8 2.1 5.2 94ν Her 513 6707 4.41 4.56 4 265˚510 .7 30˚190 .7 265˚480 .9 30˚160 .6 2.4 3.1
263˚380 .0 52˚470 .0 263˚370 .0 52˚440 .4 0.6 2.6 92ξ Her 514 6703 3.70 3.85 4 265˚350 .2 29˚210 .4 265˚340 .3 29˚200 .8 0.8 0.6
236˚020 .0 53˚100 .5 235˚570 .9 53˚070 .6 2.5 2.9 40ζ Her 515 6212 2.81 2.96 3 246˚380 .3 32˚220 .8 246˚340 .1 32˚220 .5 3.6 0.3
242˚450 .5 53˚210 .0 242˚440 .9 53˚170 .8 0.4 3.2 58 Her 516 6324 3.92 4.07 3 251˚170 .5 31˚350 .2 251˚150 .8 31˚340 .0 1.4 1.2
246˚210 .5 59˚380 .0 246˚290 .1 59˚360 .1 -3.8 1.9 67π Her 517 6418 3.16 3.30 4 255˚130 .9 37˚190 .1 255˚170 .8 37˚180 .5 -3.1 0.7
247˚190 .0 60˚110 .5 247˚220 .6 60˚090 .1 -1.8 2.4 69e Her 518 6436 4.65 4.79 3 255˚570 .9 37˚460 .3 255˚590 .1 37˚450 .5 -1.0 0.8
249˚470 .5 60˚130 .5 249˚470 .9 60˚100 .6 -0.2 2.9 75ρ Her 519 6484 4.14 4.28 4 257˚300 .0 37˚340 .6 257˚290 .2 37˚330 .7 0.6 0.9
262˚560 .0 60˚470 .0 262˚540 .8 60˚440 .2 0.6 2.8 91θ Her 520 6695 3.86 4.00 3 265˚400 .0 37˚210 .9 265˚380 .9 37˚210 .1 0.9 0.8
254˚170 .0 69˚220 .0 254˚180 .6 69˚190 .0 -0.6 3.0 85ι Her 521 6588 3.80 3.94 3 262˚030 .7 46˚160 .6 262˚030 .6 46˚150 .5 0.1 1.0
247˚050 .5 71˚200 .0 247˚000 .9 71˚150 .0 1.5 5.0 77x Her 522 6509 5.80 5.94 6 259˚070 .5 48˚400 .5 259˚030 .1 48˚380 .0 2.9 2.6
251˚070 .0 71˚130 .5 251˚580 .2 71˚490 .0 -16.0 -35.5 82y Her 523 6574 5.37 5.50 6 260˚590 .6 48˚170 .5 261˚330 .5 48˚510 .3 -22.3 -33.8
258˚000 .0 71˚050 .0 257˚450 .9 71˚010 .7 4.6 3.3 Her 524 6641 5.93 6.07 n 264˚140 .5 47˚470 .9 264˚060 .9 47˚470 .3 5.1 0.6
233˚080 .5 60˚220 .5 233˚100 .0 60˚200 .6 -0.7 1.9 44η Her 525 6220 3.53 3.67 3 247˚190 .3 39˚430 .8 247˚180 .8 39˚430 .6 0.4 0.1
227˚390 .5 63˚140 .0 227˚370 .5 63˚120 .1 0.9 1.9 35σ Her 526 6168 4.20 4.34 4 245˚220 .1 43˚170 .8 245˚190 .2 43˚180 .2 2.1 -0.4
218˚430 .5 65˚550 .0 218˚440 .9 65˚520 .0 -0.6 3.0 22τ Her 527 6092 3.89 4.03 4 241˚590 .4 47˚190 .3 241˚570 .0 47˚180 .2 1.6 1.2
215˚570 .0 63˚510 .0 216˚000 .1 63˚480 .8 -1.4 2.2 11φ Her 528 6023 4.26 4.40 4 239˚040 .5 46˚020 .1 239˚030 .6 46˚010 .3 0.6 0.8
212˚430 .0 64˚230 .0 212˚430 .0 64˚210 .3 -0.0 1.7 6υ Her 529 5982 4.76 4.90 4 237˚380 .7 47˚100 .8 237˚360 .3 47˚110 .0 1.6 -0.2
226˚320 .0 62˚290 .0 225˚550 .3 62˚200 .9 17.0 8.1 30g Her 530 6146 5.04 5.17 5 244˚200 .1 42˚470 .5 243˚530 .7 42˚480 .2 19.4 -0.7
212˚280 .5 60˚150 .5 212˚340 .6 60˚150 .1 -3.0 0.4 1χ Her 531 5914 4.62 4.76 4 234˚410 .2 43˚360 .8 234˚430 .5 43˚360 .7 -1.7 0.1
207˚060 .0 57˚150 .5 207˚010 .0 57˚100 .6 2.7 4.9 52-3ν Boo 532 5763 4.27 4.41 4 229˚230 .7 42˚170 .3 229˚160 .1 42˚150 .9 5.6 1.4
279˚430 .0 61˚470 .5 279˚430 .6 61˚450 .2 -0.3 2.3 30α Lyr 533 7001 0.03 0.17 1 275˚500 .9 38˚270 .9 275˚510 .6 38˚270 .6 -0.6 0.2
283˚140 .0 62˚270 .0 283˚050 .4 62˚240 .5 4.0 2.5 4-5 Lyr 534 7051 3.83 3.97 5 277˚510 .8 39˚170 .2 277˚470 .3 39˚160 .2 3.5 1.0
282˚260 .0 60˚260 .0 282˚340 .1 60˚230 .3 -4.0 2.7 6-7ζ Lyr 535 7056 4.09 4.23 5 277˚400 .1 37˚140 .4 277˚450 .7 37˚140 .2 -4.4 0.2
286˚100 .5 59˚260 .0 286˚080 .3 59˚210 .8 1.1 4.2 12δ2 Lyr 536 7139 4.30 4.44 4 280˚080 .9 36˚280 .7 280˚080 .5 36˚260 .4 0.3 2.3
294˚320 .5 60˚460 .0 294˚320 .5 60˚430 .1 -0.0 2.9 20η Lyr 537 7298 4.39 4.53 5 285˚010 .6 38˚310 .2 285˚020 .8 38˚300 .3 -1.0 0.9
295˚020 .0 59˚410 .0 295˚000 .5 59˚360 .5 0.8 4.5 21θ Lyr 538 7314 4.36 4.50 5 285˚370 .3 37˚300 .8 285˚380 .0 37˚280 .2 -0.6 2.6
283˚160 .5 56˚050 .0 283˚200 .8 56˚010 .9 -2.4 3.1 10β Lyr 539 7106 3.45 3.60 3 278˚470 .1 32˚570 .8 278˚500 .5 32˚570 .1 -2.9 0.8
283˚030 .5 55˚160 .0 283˚030 .4 55˚140 .3 0.1 1.7 9ν2 Lyr 540 7102 5.25 5.40 6 278˚440 .7 32˚080 .3 278˚450 .0 32˚080 .6 -0.3 -0.3
286˚110 .0 55˚060 .0 286˚230 .3 55˚030 .6 -7.0 2.4 14γ Lyr 541 7178 3.24 3.39 3 280˚510 .6 32˚110 .1 281˚000 .5 32˚110 .7 -7.5 -0.5
286˚200 .0 54˚310 .5 286˚360 .2 54˚290 .0 -9.4 2.5 15λ Lyr 542 7192 4.93 5.07 6 281˚030 .0 31˚370 .6 281˚140 .6 31˚380 .4 -9.9 -0.8
290˚520 .0 58˚060 .0 290˚400 .8 58˚030 .8 5.9 2.2 18ι Lyr 543 7262 5.28 5.43 5 283˚220 .5 35˚320 .6 283˚160 .1 35˚310 .4 5.2 1.2
295˚440 .0 49˚020 .0 295˚430 .1 49˚000 .6 0.6 1.4 6β Cyg 544 7417 2.92 3.07 3 288˚390 .6 27˚100 .1 288˚390 .6 27˚100 .5 -0.0 -0.5
299˚200 .0 50˚420 .0 299˚240 .3 50˚390 .5 -2.7 2.5 12φ Cyg 545 7478 4.69 4.84 5 290˚500 .4 29˚170 .0 290˚540 .5 29˚170 .1 -3.6 -0.1
307˚330 .0 54˚190 .0 307˚250 .3 54˚180 .7 4.5 0.3 21η Cyg 546 7615 3.89 4.03 4 295˚240 .8 34˚040 .0 295˚200 .3 34˚040 .2 3.7 -0.2
319˚250 .0 57˚090 .5 319˚200 .6 57˚090 .1 2.4 0.4 37γ Cyg 547 7796 2.20 2.34 3 302˚000 .7 39˚000 .9 301˚580 .9 39˚010 .3 1.4 -0.4
329˚530 .5 59˚560 .5 329˚500 .7 59˚550 .4 1.4 1.1 50α Cyg 548 7924 1.25 1.39 2 306˚570 .6 43˚530 .5 306˚570 .8 43˚530 .5 -0.1 -0.0
310˚530 .0 64˚280 .0 310˚450 .0 64˚260 .7 3.5 1.3 18δ Cyg 549 7528 2.87 3.01 3 293˚100 .6 44˚120 .5 293˚070 .6 44˚110 .8 2.2 0.6
313˚210 .0 69˚420 .0 313˚090 .1 69˚370 .6 4.2 4.4 z 13θ Cyg 550 7469 4.48 4.62 4 291˚270 .9 49˚230 .8 291˚250 .9 49˚190 .9 1.3 3.9
78 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 79
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
312˚390 .5 71˚31 .0 312˚29 .8 71˚28 .3
0 0 0
3.1 2.7 10ι2 Cyg 551 7420 3.79 3.93 4 289˚56 .1 50˚56 .6 289˚54 .4 50˚54 .8
0 0 0 0
1.1 1.9
309˚360 .5 73˚500 .5 309˚260 .7 73˚490 .6 2.7 0.9 1κ Cyg 552 7328 3.77 3.90 4 287˚000 .6 52˚390 .8 286˚570 .9 52˚390 .8 1.6 -0.0
322˚090 .5 49˚260 .0 322˚090 .2 49˚250 .8 0.2 0.2 53 Cyg 553 7949 2.46 2.60 3 307˚300 .7 32˚290 .9 307˚310 .4 32˚310 .2 -0.6 -1.3
324˚180 .0 51˚410 .5 324˚140 .2 51˚380 .2 2.3 3.3 54λ Cyg 554 7963 4.53 4.68 4 307˚580 .6 35˚060 .3 307˚580 .5 35˚030 .9 0.1 2.4
327˚330 .0 43˚440 .0 327˚310 .4 43˚430 .2 1.2 0.8 r 64ζ Cyg 555 8115 3.20 3.35 3 314˚000 .0 28˚370 .6 313˚590 .9 28˚370 .9 0.1 -0.3
330˚320 .0 54˚590 .0 330˚380 .5 54˚550 .9 -3.7 3.1 58ν Cyg 556 8028 3.94 4.08 4 310˚270 .8 39˚390 .7 310˚350 .0 39˚400 .1 -5.6 -0.5
335˚210 .5 56˚360 .0 335˚180 .4 56˚350 .7 1.7 0.3 62ξ Cyg 557 8079 3.72 3.85 4 312˚370 .4 42˚210 .9 312˚360 .9 42˚220 .3 0.4 -0.4
322˚500 .0 63˚370 .0 322˚350 .5 63˚370 .5 6.5 -0.5 30-1o1 Cyg 558 7730 3.44 3.57 4 300˚230 .6 45˚340 .8 300˚160 .1 45˚340 .1 5.3 0.7
324˚340 .5 64˚170 .5 324˚190 .3 64˚180 .5 6.6 -1.0 32o2 Cyg 559 7751 3.98 4.11 4 300˚550 .2 46˚320 .0 300˚470 .1 46˚310 .5 5.5 0.5
333˚030 .5 50˚330 .0 333˚020 .5 50˚310 .9 0.6 1.1 65τ Cyg 560 8130 3.72 3.86 4 314˚420 .7 36˚220 .6 314˚430 .6 36˚220 .8 -0.8 -0.2
334˚530 .5 51˚310 .0 334˚500 .6 51˚300 .4 1.8 0.6 67σ Cyg 561 8143 4.23 4.37 4 315˚270 .4 37˚450 .5 315˚260 .9 37˚450 .5 0.4 -0.1
334˚330 .0 38˚390 .0 334˚540 .4 39˚320 .9 -16.5 -53.9 78µ Cyg 562 8309 4.45 4.60 4 321˚410 .8 26˚010 .2 321˚350 .3 26˚580 .6 5.8 -57.3
289˚570 .0 66˚150 .0 289˚420 .5 66˚120 .9 5.8 2.1 13 Lyr 563 7157 4.04 4.17 4 280˚550 .0 43˚280 .9 280˚480 .0 43˚270 .8 5.1 1.2
294˚490 .5 68˚520 .0 294˚290 .6 68˚500 .0 7.2 2.0 16 Lyr 564 7215 5.01 5.15 4 282˚410 .3 46˚260 .2 282˚320 .3 46˚240 .5 6.2 1.7
313˚310 .0 69˚350 .0 313˚090 .1 69˚370 .6 7.6 -2.6 z 13θ Cyg 565 7469 4.48 4.62 6 291˚370 .3 49˚180 .9 291˚250 .9 49˚190 .9 7.4 -1.0
328˚440 .0 25˚110 .0 324˚140 .2 51˚380 .2 167.4 -1587.2 Hz 54λ Cyg 566 7963 4.53 4.68 6 322˚100 .6 11˚410 .6 307˚580 .5 35˚030 .9 697.5 -1402.3
328˚220 .0 25˚350 .0 324˚140 .2 51˚380 .2 153.8 -1563.2 Rz 54λ Cyg 567 7963 4.53 4.68 6 321˚430 .1 11˚570 .2 307˚580 .5 35˚030 .9 674.9 -1386.7
318˚150 .0 53˚120 .0 324˚140 .2 51˚380 .2 -223.0 93.8 z 54λ Cyg 568 7963 4.53 4.68 6 303˚060 .5 35˚050 .8 307˚580 .5 35˚030 .9 -239.0 1.9
313˚180 .0 69˚420 .0 313˚090 .1 69˚370 .6 3.1 4.4 z 13θ Cyg 569 7469 4.48 4.62 6 291˚260 .5 49˚230 .4 291˚250 .9 49˚190 .9 0.4 3.4
29˚350 .0 44˚400 .5 29˚320 .2 44˚410 .3 2.0 -0.8 17ζ Cas 570 0153 3.66 3.80 4 3˚490 .0 51˚420 .0 3˚480 .1 51˚410 .4 0.5 0.6
32˚170 .5 46˚350 .5 32˚150 .2 46˚350 .6 1.6 -0.1 18α Cas 571 0168 2.23 2.36 3 4˚350 .4 54˚210 .2 4˚350 .9 54˚200 .2 -0.3 1.0
34˚380 .0 47˚05 .0
0
34˚370 .3 47˚050 .4 0.5 -0.4 24η Cas 572 0219 3.44 3.57 4 6˚220 .0 55˚410 .1 6˚230 .8 55˚400 .9 -1.0 0.2
38˚270 .5 48˚460 .0 38˚240 .0 48˚460 .7 2.3 -0.7 27γ Cas 573 0264 2.47 2.61 3 8˚200 .6 58˚330 .4 8˚190 .6 58˚320 .3 0.5 1.1
42˚210 .0 46˚220 .0 42˚210 .6 46˚230 .1 -0.4 -1.1 37δ Cas 574 0403 2.68 2.82 3 15˚040 .3 58˚070 .2 15˚060 .9 58˚070 .8 -1.4 -0.6
49˚130 .5 47˚290 .0 49˚130 .4 47˚300 .4 0.1 -1.4 45 Cas 575 0542 3.38 3.52 3 21˚370 .9 61˚390 .2 21˚390 .6 61˚390 .6 -0.8 -0.4
56˚390 .0 48˚540 .0 56˚410 .2 48˚550 .8 -1.4 -1.8 ι Cas 576 0707 4.52 4.66 4 29˚170 .2 65˚310 .3 29˚210 .7 65˚320 .6 -1.9 -1.3
36˚140 .5 43˚060 .5 36˚140 .2 43˚050 .9 0.2 0.6 33θ Cas 577 0343 4.33 4.47 4 11˚470 .7 53˚010 .3 11˚500 .6 53˚000 .2 -1.7 1.1
35˚160 .0 43˚280 .0 35˚180 .6 43˚260 .7 -1.9 1.3 30µ Cas 578 0321 5.18 5.31 5 10˚280 .9 52˚560 .5 10˚350 .4 52˚560 .1 -3.9 0.4
24˚390 .0 49˚240 .5 24˚360 .7 49˚220 .9 1.5 1.6 8σ Cas 579 9071 4.88 5.02 6 354˚450 .3 53˚340 .1 354˚470 .7 53˚320 .1 -1.4 2.0
37˚060 .0 52˚140 .0 37˚040 .7 52˚140 .5 0.8 -0.5 15κ Cas 580 0130 4.16 4.30 4 2˚430 .1 60˚430 .4 2˚440 .8 60˚430 .2 -0.8 0.2
29˚350 .5 51˚140 .5 29˚320 .9 51˚140 .1 1.7 0.4 11β Cas 581 0021 2.27 2.40 3 357˚040 .6 56˚580 .2 357˚050 .9 56˚560 .9 -0.7 1.3
25˚340 .0 51˚080 .0 25˚320 .2 51˚080 .5 1.1 -0.5 7ρ Cas 582 9045 4.54 4.67 6 353˚420 .1 55˚170 .1 353˚420 .9 55˚160 .9 -0.5 0.1
25˚320 .0 52˚390 .0 25˚310 .7 52˚380 .8 0.2 0.2 5τ Cas 583 9008 4.87 5.00 6 351˚560 .3 56˚260 .1 351˚590 .3 56˚260 .1 -1.7 -0.0
49˚280 .0 52˚480 .0 49˚240 .9 52˚490 .2 1.9 -1.2 36ψ Cas 584 0399 4.74 4.87 6 14˚440 .5 66˚010 .7 14˚430 .5 66˚000 .9 0.4 0.8
52˚210 .0 56˚130 .0 58˚010 .3 54˚200 .3 -198.4 112.7 w 50 Cas 585 0580 3.98 4.12 6 11˚570 .3 69˚410 .1 22˚470 .0 70˚260 .1 -217.6 -45.0
52˚330 .0 54˚270 .0 56˚220 .9 53˚100 .4 -137.8 76.7 w 48A Cas 586 0575 4.54 4.68 6 15˚330 .7 68˚280 .2 22˚410 .1 68˚550 .1 -153.7 -26.9
51˚580 .0 52˚080 .5 53˚360 .7 51˚380 .5 -61.2 30.0 u 46ω Cas 587 0548 4.99 5.13 6 18˚42 .7 66˚28 .2
0 0
21˚340 .7 66˚400 .6 -68.1 -12.4
42˚570 .5 44˚570 .5 42˚530 .4 44˚580 .2 2.9 -0.7 39χ Cas 588 0442 4.71 4.84 6 17˚100 .8 57˚100 .6 17˚080 .5 57˚090 .0 1.2 1.6
40˚000 .0 45˚040 .5 39˚580 .6 45˚030 .5 1.0 1.0 34φ Cas 589 0382 4.98 5.11 6 13˚520 .3 56˚080 .2 13˚540 .6 56˚060 .4 -1.3 1.8
36˚520 .0 47˚310 .5 37˚040 .8 47˚310 .5 -8.6 -0.0 28υ2 Cas 590 0265 4.63 4.76 6 8˚070 .1 56˚550 .6 8˚220 .9 57˚000 .4 -8.6 -4.8
29˚100 .0 45˚380 .0 29˚080 .1 45˚380 .0 1.3 -0.0 14λ Cas 591 0123 4.73 4.87 6 2˚32 .5 52˚19 .5
0 0
2˚330 .4 52˚180 .6 -0.5 0.8
29˚320 .0 41˚15 .0
0
29˚280 .6 41˚140 .9 2.6 0.1 25ν Cas 592 0223 4.89 5.03 6 6˚400 .9 48˚480 .3 6˚390 .9 48˚460 .6 0.6 1.7
27˚570 .0 41˚250 .5 27˚560 .7 41˚240 .9 0.2 0.6 19ξ Cas 593 0179 4.80 4.94 6 5˚010 .0 48˚190 .5 5˚030 .5 48˚180 .7 -1.6 0.8
26˚560 .0 39˚150 .5 26˚550 .8 39˚160 .9 0.2 -1.4 22o Cas 594 0193 4.54 4.68 6 5˚420 .4 46˚040 .3 5˚430 .2 46˚050 .2 -0.6 -0.9
25˚540 .5 38˚190 .0 25˚530 .4 38˚170 .9 0.9 1.1 r 20π Cas 595 0184 4.94 5.08 6 5˚240 .7 44˚510 .3 5˚260 .4 44˚490 .7 -1.2 1.6
61˚460 .0 53˚16 .0
0
62˚020 .3 53˚140 .8 -9.8 1.2 z Cas 596 0743 5.16 5.30 6 29˚590 .1 70˚560 .1 30˚300 .7 70˚590 .7 -10.3 -3.7
66˚120 .0 53˚320 .0 66˚490 .2 53˚290 .2 -22.1 2.8 z Cas 597 0932 4.87 5.01 6 36˚310 .3 72˚380 .1 37˚440 .4 72˚460 .4 -21.7 -8.2
60˚110 .0 52˚04 .0
0
69˚050 .3 49˚340 .2 -346.5 149.8 z γ Cam 598 1148 4.63 4.77 6 29˚40 .9 69˚24 .0
0 0
47˚270 .1 69˚590 .0 -365.0 -34.9
68˚450 .0 49˚080 .0 68˚430 .4 49˚100 .0 1.0 -2.0 rz Cam 599 1138 5.44 5.58 6 47˚190 .9 69˚310 .1 47˚180 .5 69˚310 .1 0.5 0.1
77˚170 .0 35˚50 .0
0
75˚540 .7 35˚520 .8 66.7 -2.8 Uz 11-2 Cam 600 1622 4.76 4.90 6 70˚02 .5 58˚28 .6
0 0
67˚570 .5 58˚170 .7 65.7 10.9
80 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 81
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
87˚190 .0 35˚48 .0
0
87˚32 .0 35˚34 .2
0 0
-10.6 13.8 z 2 Lyn 601 2238 4.48 4.62 6 85˚44 .2 59˚17 .1
0 0
86˚06 .0 59˚01 .7
0 0
-11.2 15.4
92˚330 .0 34˚490 .0 93˚340 .1 35˚240 .1 -49.8 -35.1 z 15 Lyn 602 2560 4.35 4.48 6 93˚590 .2 58˚180 .4 95˚370 .4 58˚490 .4 -50.9 -31.0
93˚000 .0 30˚220 .0 91˚410 .3 36˚140 .6 63.4 -352.6 z 12 Lyn 603 2470 4.87 5.01 6 94˚230 .4 53˚500 .7 92˚420 .1 59˚430 .1 51.1 -352.3
90˚450 .0 44˚100 .0 91˚110 .3 44˚220 .8 -18.8 -12.8 z 42 Cam 604 2490 5.14 5.28 6 91˚250 .0 67˚410 .3 92˚150 .2 67˚510 .7 -18.9 -10.4
90˚570 .0 45˚320 .0 91˚180 .5 45˚430 .1 -15.0 -11.1 z 43 Cam 605 2511 5.12 5.26 6 91˚510 .7 69˚030 .1 92˚340 .3 69˚110 .8 -15.1 -8.7
86˚150 .0 45˚430 .0 86˚480 .9 45˚520 .8 -23.6 -9.8 z L Cam 606 2209 4.80 4.94 6 82˚370 .8 69˚080 .7 83˚430 .0 69˚180 .1 -23.1 -9.3
90˚100 .0 53˚430 .0 90˚050 .1 53˚470 .0 2.9 -4.0 rz M Cam 607 2527 4.55 4.69 6 90˚260 .8 77˚140 .5 90˚130 .6 77˚160 .5 2.9 -2.0
87˚450 .0 56˚150 .0 88˚100 .5 56˚170 .5 -14.1 -2.5 z Cam 608 2401 5.45 5.60 6 82˚580 .8 79˚430 .2 84˚180 .0 79˚440 .8 -14.1 -1.6
94˚130 .0 56˚550 .0 94˚270 .0 57˚050 .3 -7.6 -10.3 z Cam 609 3082 5.38 5.53 6 103˚410 .7 80˚140 .4 104˚340 .5 80˚210 .2 -8.8 -6.8
89˚580 .0 59˚180 .0 90˚110 .0 59˚230 .0 -6.6 -5.0 z Cam 610 2742 4.96 5.11 6 89˚510 .8 82˚490 .5 90˚450 .1 82˚520 .4 -6.6 -2.9
97˚540 .0 60˚470 .0 98˚530 .1 60˚380 .4 -29.0 8.6 uz Dra 611 3751 4.29 4.44 6 125˚150 .0 83˚190 .5 128˚010 .2 82˚560 .3 -20.4 23.2
100˚140 .0 62˚040 .0 99˚400 .7 62˚510 .8 15.2 -47.8 uz Cam 612 4084 5.26 5.41 6 139˚550 .2 83˚450 .3 143˚040 .0 84˚290 .7 -18.1 -44.4
99˚370 .0 62˚460 .0 96˚310 .3 63˚480 .3 82.0 -62.3 uz Cam 613 4062 5.50 5.66 6 142˚260 .6 84˚280 .0 138˚220 .5 86˚090 .2 16.4 -101.3
110˚580 .0 63˚170 .0 101˚070 .5 67˚020 .9 230.3 -225.9 wz Cam 614 4892 4.78 4.94 6 169˚590 .6 80˚350 .9 192˚060 .1 85˚350 .2 -102.1 -299.3
48˚310 .0 39˚000 .5 48˚280 .7 38˚570 .1 1.8 3.4 9i Per 615 0685 5.17 5.31 6 28˚450 .6 54˚020 .7 28˚480 .0 53˚570 .9 -1.4 4.8
53˚090 .5 37˚28 .5
0
53˚090 .1 37˚260 .2 0.4 2.3 15η Per 616 0834 3.76 3.89 4 35˚30 .3 54˚13 .7
0 0
35˚330 .6 54˚100 .3 -1.9 3.4
54˚260 .5 34˚300 .0 54˚280 .2 34˚290 .0 -1.4 1.0 23γ Per 617 0915 2.93 3.06 3 39˚020 .4 51˚540 .0 39˚070 .1 51˚520 .3 -2.9 1.7
49˚040 .5 31˚340 .5 49˚040 .8 31˚350 .6 -0.2 -1.1 13θ Per 618 0799 4.12 4.25 4 34˚200 .1 47˚280 .7 34˚210 .6 47˚280 .8 -1.0 -0.0
51˚500 .0 34˚260 .5 52˚210 .7 34˚190 .5 -26.2 7.0 18τ Per 619 0854 3.95 4.08 5 35˚530 .3 51˚010 .2 36˚380 .0 51˚030 .8 -28.1 -2.6
53˚330 .0 30˚360 .5 53˚340 .0 30˚380 .3 -0.8 -1.8 ι Per 620 0937 4.05 4.18 4 40˚090 .7 48˚000 .2 40˚110 .6 48˚000 .9 -1.3 -0.7
56˚170 .0 30˚050 .0 56˚310 .4 30˚040 .8 -12.5 0.2 33α Per 621 1017 1.79 1.93 2 43˚450 .2 48˚190 .3 44˚040 .6 48˚210 .9 -12.9 -2.6
57˚040 .5 27˚59 .0
0
57˚030 .0 27˚590 .8 1.3 -0.8 35σ Per 622 1052 4.36 4.49 5 45˚430 .7 46˚330 .5 45˚430 .0 46˚320 .4 0.4 1.2
58˚130 .5 27˚550 .0 58˚110 .2 27˚550 .5 2.0 -0.5 37ψ Per 623 1087 4.23 4.37 5 47˚090 .9 46˚480 .7 47˚080 .4 46˚470 .1 1.1 1.6
59˚150 .0 27˚14 .0
0
59˚140 .5 27˚150 .4 0.4 -1.4 39δ Per 624 1122 3.01 3.15 3 48˚430 .6 46˚260 .1 48˚430 .8 46˚250 .8 -0.1 0.3
52˚060 .0 26˚040 .0 52˚070 .2 26˚030 .5 -1.1 0.5 27κ Per 625 0941 3.80 3.94 4 40˚410 .6 43˚180 .0 40˚440 .7 43˚160 .6 -2.3 1.4
50˚370 .0 22˚220 .0 50˚360 .6 22˚230 .0 0.4 -1.0 26β Per 626 0936 2.12 2.26 3 40˚370 .9 39˚210 .7 40˚380 .3 39˚210 .2 -0.3 0.5
50˚310 .0 20˚540 .0 50˚480 .4 20˚550 .4 -16.2 -1.4 28ω Per 627 0947 4.63 4.77 5 41˚070 .7 37˚560 .6 41˚270 .8 38˚010 .8 -15.9 -5.2
49˚180 .0 20˚330 .0 49˚200 .5 20˚320 .7 -2.4 0.3 25ρ Per 628 0921 3.39 3.53 4 39˚540 .8 37˚140 .6 39˚580 .9 37˚130 .8 -3.3 0.8
48˚200 .0 21˚350 .0 48˚200 .7 21˚410 .5 -0.7 -6.5 22π Per 629 0879 4.70 4.84 4 38˚24 .4 37˚55 .1
0 0
38˚230 .7 38˚000 .2 0.6 -5.1
66˚130 .5 28˚220 .5 66˚140 .9 28˚240 .4 -1.3 -1.9 72b Per 630 1324 4.61 4.75 5 57˚060 .8 49˚120 .7 57˚090 .2 49˚130 .1 -1.6 -0.4
64˚110 .5 28˚50 .0
0
64˚110 .7 28˚500 .4 -0.1 -0.4 47λ Per 631 1261 4.29 4.43 4 54˚170 .5 49˚110 .9 54˚190 .0 49˚100 .6 -0.9 1.3
63˚550 .0 26˚110 .0 63˚560 .1 26˚110 .3 -1.0 -0.3 48c Per 632 1273 4.04 4.18 5 54˚580 .2 46˚340 .5 55˚000 .8 46˚330 .4 -1.8 1.1
65˚140 .0 26˚390 .0 65˚140 .0 26˚390 .5 -0.0 -0.5 51µ Per 633 1303 4.14 4.27 4 56˚280 .3 47˚190 .4 56˚290 .4 47˚180 .2 -0.7 1.2
66˚000 .0 24˚350 .0 66˚030 .3 24˚340 .3 -3.0 0.7 53d Per 634 1350 4.85 4.99 6 58˚090 .7 45˚280 .9 58˚150 .2 45˚270 .2 -3.8 1.7
68˚010 .0 18˚560 .0 68˚010 .1 18˚570 .4 -0.1 -1.4 58e Per 635 1454 4.25 4.39 5 62˚180 .6 40˚210 .7 62˚190 .2 40˚210 .2 -0.4 0.5
58˚110 .0 22˚060 .0 58˚150 .9 22˚060 .3 -4.6 -0.3 41ν Per 636 1135 3.77 3.91 4 49˚290 .3 41˚140 .4 49˚360 .2 41˚140 .4 -5.2 -0.0
60˚080 .0 19˚04 .0
0
60˚060 .9 19˚040 .1 1.0 -0.1 45 Per 637 1220 2.89 3.03 3 52˚500 .7 38˚480 .3 52˚500 .4 38˚460 .5 0.3 1.8
59˚230 .5 14˚530 .5 59˚240 .6 14˚530 .7 -1.0 -0.2 46ξ Per 638 1228 4.04 4.19 5 53˚170 .7 34˚350 .1 53˚190 .7 34˚330 .9 -1.6 1.2
55˚330 .0 12˚080 .0 55˚340 .8 12˚080 .3 -1.8 -0.3 38o Per 639 1131 3.83 3.98 4 49˚500 .2 30˚570 .9 49˚520 .9 30˚570 .1 -2.3 0.8
57˚360 .0 11˚170 .5 57˚330 .6 11˚170 .2 2.4 0.3 44ζ Per 640 1203 2.85 3.00 3 52˚200 .8 30˚390 .9 52˚190 .0 30˚370 .4 1.6 2.5
56˚450 .0 42˚260 .0 66˚450 .2 31˚410 .7 -510.6 644.3 Cam 641 1314 5.19 5.33 5 36˚140 .4 59˚530 .1 56˚300 .5 52˚300 .7 -740.1 442.4
62˚320 .0 29˚310 .0 62˚300 .2 29˚320 .7 1.5 -1.7 43A Per 642 1210 5.28 5.42 5 51˚520 .1 49˚270 .4 51˚500 .5 49˚270 .0 1.0 0.4
46˚160 .0 20˚530 .0 46˚150 .7 20˚550 .1 0.3 -2.1 16 Per 643 0840 4.23 4.37 4 36˚250 .8 36˚360 .3 36˚250 .8 36˚370 .0 -0.0 -0.6
62˚180 .0 45˚100 .0 62˚190 .9 45˚120 .5 -1.3 -2.5 z A Cam 644 0985 4.84 4.98 6 41˚260 .1 64˚040 .6 41˚290 .6 64˚060 .1 -1.5 -1.5
64˚020 .0 48˚070 .0 60˚430 .9 38˚260 .4 155.2 580.6 uz Cam 645 1040 4.54 4.67 6 40˚530 .7 67˚150 .0 44˚410 .4 57˚240 .5 -122.7 590.5
64˚410 .0 49˚270 .0 59˚270 .3 35˚100 .2 256.5 856.8 uz Cam 646 1046 5.09 5.23 6 40˚160 .4 68˚370 .9 45˚020 .5 53˚590 .3 -168.2 878.6
66˚150 .0 53˚370 .0 61˚010 .7 39˚290 .0 241.8 848.0 uz Cam 647 1035 4.21 4.35 6 36˚270 .2 72˚430 .3 44˚220 .7 58˚270 .7 -248.7 855.5
83˚380 .0 32˚150 .0 83˚340 .4 32˚130 .0 3.0 2.0 30ξ Aur 648 2029 4.99 5.13 6 80˚27 .2 55˚33 .8
0 0
80˚220 .7 55˚290 .6 2.6 4.2
84˚140 .0 30˚500 .0 84˚200 .4 30˚480 .4 -5.5 1.6 33δ Aur 649 2077 3.72 3.85 4 81˚310 .3 54˚110 .3 81˚410 .2 54˚080 .1 -5.8 3.2
76˚160 .0 22˚500 .5 76˚170 .2 22˚510 .6 -1.1 -1.1 13α Aur 650 1708 0.08 0.21 1 71˚480 .7 45˚300 .0 71˚500 .7 45˚290 .3 -1.4 0.7
82 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 83
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
84˚280 .0 21˚27 .5
0
84˚20 .9 21˚27 .4
0 0
6.6 0.1 34β Aur 651 2088 1.90 2.04 2 82˚43 .7
0
44˚50 .6
0
82˚34 .7
0
44˚48 .1
0
6.4 2.5
83˚590 .0 13˚440 .0 84˚220 .2 13˚430 .8 -22.5 0.2 37θ Aur 652 2095 2.62 2.76 4 82˚390 .9 37˚060 .3 83˚080 .3 37˚050 .2 -22.6 1.1
73˚090 .0 20˚520 .0 73˚160 .6 20˚530 .6 -7.1 -1.6 7 Aur 653 1605 2.99 3.13 4 68˚130 .1 43˚070 .3 68˚230 .0 43˚080 .1 -7.3 -0.8
73˚050 .5 18˚080 .5 73˚040 .0 18˚090 .2 1.4 -0.7 8ζ Aur 654 1612 3.75 3.89 4 68˚420 .8 40˚250 .3 68˚410 .5 40˚230 .8 1.0 1.4
73˚490 .5 18˚110 .5 73˚520 .7 18˚140 .4 -3.0 -2.9 10η Aur 655 1641 3.17 3.31 4 69˚360 .5 40˚340 .5 69˚400 .5 40˚350 .9 -3.0 -1.4
71˚040 .5 10˚220 .0 71˚040 .4 10˚240 .3 0.1 -2.3 3ι Aur 656 1577 2.69 2.83 4 67˚470 .3 32˚260 .3 67˚470 .3 32˚260 .7 0.0 -0.4
84˚250 .5 22˚27 .0
0
84˚250 .1 22˚260 .8 0.3 0.2 r 35π Aur 657 2091 4.26 4.39 5 82˚35 .8
0
45˚49 .9
0
82˚35 .6
0
45˚470 .6 0.1 2.3
76˚520 .5 18˚340 .5 76˚560 .1 18˚330 .9 -3.4 0.6 20ρ Aur 658 1749 5.23 5.37 6 73˚200 .4 41˚200 .5 73˚250 .5 41˚180 .3 -3.8 2.1
76˚060 .0 16˚590 .0 76˚130 .6 16˚580 .5 -7.3 0.5 15λ Aur 659 1729 4.71 4.85 5 72˚380 .0 39˚400 .3 72˚480 .0 39˚380 .7 -7.7 1.6
74˚580 .0 15˚21 .5
0
75˚000 .3 15˚220 .9 -2.2 -1.4 11µ Aur 660 1689 4.86 5.00 5 71˚30 .9
0
37˚55 .2
0
71˚33 .9
0
37˚550 .0 -2.4 0.2
77˚090 .0 14˚040 .0 77˚120 .1 14˚070 .0 -3.0 -3.0 21σ Aur 661 1773 4.99 5.13 6 74˚210 .0 36˚530 .6 74˚240 .7 36˚550 .0 -2.9 -1.3
72˚000 .0 15˚03 .0
0
72˚040 .0 15˚030 .6 -3.9 -0.6 4ω Aur 662 1592 4.94 5.08 5 67˚590 .8 37˚120 .3 68˚050 .0 37˚110 .6 -4.2 0.7
82˚120 .5 15˚420 .5 82˚150 .3 15˚420 .8 -2.7 -0.3 29τ Aur 663 1995 4.52 4.66 5 80˚200 .2 38˚580 .3 80˚230 .9 38˚560 .7 -2.9 1.6
82˚440 .0 15˚430 .0 82˚430 .1 15˚400 .1 0.8 2.9 32ν Aur 664 2012 3.97 4.11 5 80˚590 .1 39˚000 .8 80˚580 .5 38˚550 .9 0.5 4.9
82˚350 .0 13˚490 .0 82˚350 .5 13˚500 .0 -0.5 -1.0 31υ Aur 665 2011 4.74 4.88 6 80˚570 .4 37˚060 .5 80˚580 .2 37˚050 .5 -0.7 1.0
76˚390 .5 11˚150 .0 77˚380 .6 11˚100 .8 -57.9 4.2 24φ Aur 666 1805 5.07 5.21 5 74˚090 .0 34˚020 .5 75˚190 .4 34˚020 .5 -58.4 -0.1
78˚340 .0 8˚510 .0 78˚350 .8 8˚500 .3 -1.8 0.7 25χ Aur 667 1843 4.76 4.91 5 76˚400 .1 31˚500 .7 76˚420 .6 31˚480 .2 -2.1 2.5
70˚040 .5 14˚510 .0 70˚070 .5 14˚510 .6 -2.9 -0.6 1 Aur 668 1533 4.88 5.02 5 65˚440 .4 36˚420 .4 65˚480 .5 36˚410 .6 -3.3 0.8
70˚310 .0 14˚020 .0 70˚340 .9 14˚010 .2 -3.8 0.8 2 Aur 669 1551 4.78 4.92 5 66˚260 .0 35˚580 .3 66˚310 .4 35˚560 .3 -4.4 2.1
87˚470 .0 6˚04 .0
0
87˚480 .2 6˚040 .9 -1.2 -0.9 44κ Aur 670 2219 4.35 4.50 4 87˚270 .9 29˚340 .3 87˚290 .4 29˚330 .2 -1.3 1.1
82˚580 .0 4˚060 .0 82˚570 .0 4˚070 .8 1.0 -1.8 136 Tau 671 2034 4.58 4.74 4 82˚050 .4 27˚250 .9 82˚040 .3 27˚250 .7 1.0 0.2
83˚580 .0 2˚26 .0
0
83˚58 .9
0
2˚270 .8 -0.9 -1.8 139 Tau 672 2084 4.82 4.98 4 83˚180 .0 25˚490 .1 83˚190 .0 25˚480 .9 -0.9 0.2
79˚520 .5 2˚280 .0 79˚520 .2 2˚290 .3 0.3 -1.3 125 Tau 673 1928 5.18 5.34 4 78˚460 .2 25˚350 .8 78˚460 .0 25˚350 .1 0.2 0.7
81˚550 .0 1˚06 .0
0
81˚56 .1
0
1˚060 .2 -1.1 -0.2 132 Tau 674 2002 4.86 5.02 4 81˚07 .3
0
24˚22 .5
0
81˚08 .6
0
24˚200 .7 -1.2 1.8
254˚230 .0 2˚120 .0 254˚290 .2 -3˚220 .0 -6.2 334.0 Fm 36A Oph 675 6401 4.56 5.43 4 253˚190 .1 -20˚250 .3 252˚430 .8 -25˚550 .8 31.8 330.5
255˚010 .0 2˚160 .0 255˚180 .6 2˚050 .5 -17.6 10.5 Fm 40ξ Oph 676 6445 4.39 4.95 3 253˚590 .9 -20˚250 .6 254˚170 .6 -20˚360 .0 -16.6 10.4
255˚420 .0 1˚320 .0 255˚490 .7 -1˚470 .3 -7.6 199.3 Fm 42θ Oph 677 6453 3.27 4.05 4 254˚380 .4 -21˚130 .8 254˚230 .8 -24˚300 .9 13.2 197.1
256˚230 .0 0˚200 .0 256˚450 .9 -0˚530 .7 -22.9 73.7 Fm 44b Oph 678 6486 4.17 4.89 4 255˚140 .3 -22˚290 .7 255˚310 .2 -23˚430 .3 -15.5 73.6
257˚120 .0 0˚290 .0 257˚540 .2 -0˚370 .8 -42.2 66.8 Fm 51c Oph 679 6519 4.81 5.52 5 256˚080 .0 -22˚250 .5 256˚470 .1 -23˚340 .0 -35.9 68.5
257˚360 .0 -0˚580 .0 254˚520 .7 -1˚080 .5 163.3 10.5 Fm 39o Oph 680 6424 4.98 5.68 5 256˚250 .0 -23˚540 .4 253˚260 .5 -23˚450 .9 163.4 -8.5
256˚500 .0 -7˚100 .0 257˚180 .6 -6˚330 .7 -28.4 -36.3 rm 45d Oph 681 6492 4.29 5.66 5 254˚520 .3 -30˚000 .0 255˚290 .5 -29˚240 .9 -32.3 -35.2
261˚450 .0 -4˚200 .0 261˚400 .5 -4˚220 .1 4.5 2.1 rm 3 Sgr 682 6616 4.54 5.59 6 260˚420 .6 -27˚350 .5 260˚370 .5 -27˚350 .3 4.5 -0.2
240˚070 .0 23˚340 .0 240˚010 .2 23˚360 .8 5.3 -2.8 m 10λ Oph 683 6149 3.82 4.05 5 242˚470 .5 2˚490 .8 242˚420 .8 2˚550 .4 4.7 -5.6
255˚000 .0 10˚180 .0 254˚430 .5 10˚180 .9 16.3 -0.9 m 53ν Ser 684 6446 4.33 4.69 5 254˚530 .1 -12˚260 .3 254˚360 .7 -12˚210 .8 16.0 -4.6
259˚020 .0 8˚050 .0 258˚590 .0 7˚590 .6 3.0 5.4 m 55ξ Ser 685 6561 3.54 3.95 4 258˚450 .3 -15˚000 .8 258˚410 .9 -15˚030 .9 3.3 3.1
260˚040 .0 10˚400 .0 259˚500 .0 10˚320 .9 13.7 7.1 m 56o Ser 686 6581 4.26 4.63 5 260˚000 .0 -12˚300 .8 259˚450 .5 -12˚340 .9 14.1 4.1
259˚050 .0 15˚160 .0 258˚450 .0 15˚160 .0 19.3 0.0 m 57µ Oph 687 6567 4.62 4.92 5 259˚220 .3 -7˚510 .3 259˚030 .0 -7˚470 .8 19.2 -3.5
256˚500 .0 35˚570 .0 256˚510 .7 35˚540 .7 -1.3 2.3 55α Oph 688 6556 2.08 2.26 3 259˚050 .7 12˚550 .4 259˚060 .7 12˚550 .0 -1.0 0.4
259˚450 .0 28˚010 .0 259˚460 .5 27˚580 .5 -1.3 2.5 60β Oph 689 6603 2.77 2.98 3 260˚550 .8 4˚480 .9 260˚560 .9 4˚480 .3 -1.1 0.6
261˚050 .0 26˚110 .0 261˚040 .1 26˚100 .3 0.8 0.7 62γ Oph 690 6629 3.75 3.98 3 261˚590 .7 2˚540 .4 261˚580 .8 2˚550 .8 0.9 -1.4
244˚590 .5 32˚350 .5 245˚040 .4 32˚330 .5 -4.1 2.0 25ι Oph 691 6281 4.38 4.57 4 248˚430 .9 10˚540 .1 248˚470 .6 10˚530 .3 -3.6 0.8
246˚160 .0 31˚560 .0 246˚170 .0 31˚530 .5 -0.9 2.5 27κ Oph 692 6299 3.20 3.39 4 249˚420 .1 10˚040 .3 249˚420 .4 10˚030 .6 -0.3 0.7
240˚030 .0 23˚390 .5 240˚010 .2 23˚360 .8 1.6 2.7 10λ Oph 693 6149 3.82 4.05 4 242˚450 .0 2˚550 .9 242˚420 .8 2˚550 .4 2.2 0.5
236˚440 .5 17˚190 .0 236˚430 .8 17˚180 .3 0.7 0.7 1δ Oph 694 6056 2.74 2.99 3 238˚230 .5 -2˚370 .3 238˚220 .8 -2˚360 .0 0.7 -1.2
237˚570 .0 16˚300 .5 237˚550 .7 16˚280 .9 1.3 1.6 2 Oph 695 6075 3.24 3.50 3 239˚200 .9 -3˚390 .6 239˚190 .4 -3˚390 .1 1.5 -0.5
259˚030 .0 15˚190 .0 258˚450 .0 15˚160 .0 17.3 3.0 57µ Oph 696 6567 4.62 4.92 4 259˚200 .6 -7˚480 .2 259˚030 .0 -7˚470 .8 17.5 -0.3
264˚130 .5 13˚470 .0 264˚110 .2 13˚430 .8 2.2 3.2 64ν Oph 697 6698 3.34 3.66 4 264˚180 .7 -9˚370 .6 264˚160 .4 -9˚380 .7 2.3 1.0
265˚140 .5 15˚200 .0 265˚130 .3 15˚180 .8 1.2 1.2 69τ Oph 698 6733 4.78 5.09 5 265˚21 .90
-8˚06 .9 265˚20 .7
0 0
-8˚060 .0 1.2 -0.8
252˚240 .0 7˚180 .0 252˚230 .9 7˚140 .3 0.1 3.7 d 35η Oph 699 6378 2.43 2.84 3 251˚540 .0 -15˚070 .3 251˚530 .6 -15˚090 .0 0.4 1.7
243˚390 .0 11˚300 .0 243˚390 .5 11˚260 .3 -0.4 3.7 13ζ Oph 700 6175 2.56 2.89 3 243˚490 .2 -9˚390 .2 243˚490 .1 -9˚410 .1 0.1 1.9
84 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 85
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
252˚240 .0 7˚18 .0 252˚23 .9
0 0
7˚14 .3
0
0.1 3.7 D 35η Oph 701 6378 2.43 2.84 3 251˚54 .0 -15˚07 .3 251˚53 .6 -15˚09 .0
0 0 0 0
0.4 1.7
266˚310 .0 33˚020 .5 266˚360 .3 33˚010 .9 -4.4 0.6 72 Oph 702 6771 3.73 3.93 4 267˚020 .4 9˚330 .2 267˚060 .8 9˚340 .5 -4.4 -1.4
226˚480 .0 26˚360 .5 226˚500 .8 26˚350 .8 -2.5 0.7 27λ Ser 703 5868 4.43 4.63 4 231˚450 .0 8˚390 .4 231˚470 .1 8˚390 .6 -2.1 -0.2
254˚490 .0 10˚210 .0 254˚430 .5 10˚180 .9 5.4 2.1 53ν Ser 704 6446 4.33 4.69 4 254˚420 .4 -12˚220 .2 254˚360 .7 -12˚210 .8 5.5 -0.4
258˚570 .0 8˚040 .0 258˚590 .0 7˚590 .6 -2.0 4.4 55ξ Ser 705 6561 3.54 3.95 3 258˚400 .1 -15˚010 .4 258˚410 .9 -15˚030 .9 -1.7 2.5
259˚480 .0 10˚350 .0 259˚500 .0 10˚320 .9 -2.0 2.1 56o Ser 706 6581 4.26 4.63 4 259˚430 .6 -12˚340 .6 259˚450 .5 -12˚340 .9 -1.9 0.2
258˚450 .0 15˚180 .0 258˚450 .0 15˚160 .0 -0.0 2.0 57µ Oph 707 6567 4.62 4.92 4 259˚030 .1 -7˚470 .8 259˚030 .0 -7˚470 .8 0.1 0.0
240˚570 .0 13˚190 .0 240˚590 .5 13˚150 .7 -2.4 3.3 3υ Oph 708 6129 4.63 4.93 5 241˚320 .7 -7˚220 .5 241˚340 .6 -7˚240 .5 -1.8 2.0
264˚300 .0 27˚550 .0 264˚300 .5 27˚510 .7 -0.5 3.3 66 Oph 709 6712 4.64 4.86 4 265˚070 .6 4˚290 .1 265˚070 .9 4˚270 .8 -0.3 1.3
264˚380 .0 26˚230 .0 264˚360 .8 26˚250 .4 1.0 -2.4 67 Oph 710 6714 3.97 4.20 4 265˚11 .20
2˚56 .9 265˚10 .3
0 0
3˚010 .4 1.0 -4.5
264˚530 .0 24˚500 .0 264˚540 .9 24˚470 .8 -1.7 2.2 68 Oph 711 6723 4.45 4.68 4 265˚210 .4 1˚230 .5 265˚230 .0 1˚230 .3 -1.7 0.2
265˚580 .0 26˚100 .0 265˚550 .1 26˚060 .3 2.6 3.7 70 Oph 712 6752 4.03 4.25 4 266˚220 .6 2˚410 .6 266˚190 .9 2˚390 .9 2.7 1.6
221˚350 .0 38˚120 .0 221˚350 .4 38˚090 .2 -0.3 2.8 21ι Ser 713 5842 4.52 4.69 5 230˚580 .1 21˚010 .7 230˚560 .9 21˚000 .5 1.1 1.2
224˚240 .5 39˚060 .5 223˚550 .8 40˚020 .6 22.0 -56.1 38ρ Ser 714 5899 4.76 4.92 3 233˚310 .1 21˚120 .0 233˚260 .6 22˚130 .8 4.2 -61.8
227˚060 .5 35˚250 .0 227˚060 .5 35˚220 .1 -0.0 2.9 41γ Ser 715 5933 3.85 4.02 3 234˚320 .4 17˚020 .4 234˚310 .2 17˚010 .2 1.2 1.1
224˚210 .5 34˚270 .5 224˚210 .0 34˚220 .3 0.4 5.2 28β Ser 716 5867 3.67 3.85 3 231˚590 .6 16˚460 .7 231˚570 .2 16˚430 .5 2.3 3.2
225˚100 .0 37˚280 .5 224˚110 .3 37˚090 .8 46.8 18.7 35κ Ser 717 5879 4.09 4.25 4 233˚350 .9 19˚270 .8 232˚420 .3 19˚250 .7 50.6 2.1
226˚320 .0 42˚370 .0 226˚320 .3 42˚290 .6 -0.2 7.4 44π Ser 718 5972 4.83 4.99 4 236˚190 .8 24˚030 .4 236˚170 .1 23˚570 .9 2.5 5.4
222˚460 .5 28˚580 .0 222˚450 .9 28˚550 .4 0.5 2.6 13δ Ser 719 5788 3.05 3.24 3 228˚580 .4 11˚560 .4 228˚560 .9 11˚550 .6 1.5 0.8
226˚300 .0 25˚350 .5 226˚280 .7 25˚320 .6 1.1 2.9 24α Ser 720 5854 2.65 2.85 2 231˚120 .2 7˚450 .3 231˚100 .1 7˚440 .3 2.1 0.9
228˚460 .5 24˚050 .5 228˚440 .3 24˚020 .5 2.0 3.0 37 Ser 721 5892 3.71 3.92 3 232˚470 .8 5˚450 .1 232˚440 .9 5˚440 .3 2.9 0.8
230˚260 .5 16˚260 .5 230˚220 .4 16˚170 .3 3.9 9.2 32µ Ser 722 5881 3.53 3.79 4 232˚190 .4 -2˚020 .5 232˚130 .3 -2˚080 .8 6.1 6.3
264˚340 .5 19˚570 .0 264˚320 .7 19˚480 .4 1.7 8.6 57ζ Ser 723 6710 4.62 4.89 3 264˚530 .5 -3˚280 .7 264˚510 .5 -3˚350 .3 2.0 6.6
270˚120 .5 20˚370 .5 270˚110 .0 20˚330 .7 1.4 3.8 58η Ser 724 6869 3.26 3.52 3 270˚110 .7 -2˚540 .0 270˚100 .3 -2˚550 .7 1.4 1.7
280˚100 .0 26˚590 .0 280˚110 .4 26˚550 .4 -1.3 3.6 63θ Ser 725 7141 4.03 4.25 3 279˚040 .2 3˚460 .7 279˚050 .8 3˚450 .3 -1.6 1.5
301˚320 .0 39˚130 .0 301˚290 .6 39˚130 .7 1.8 -0.7 12γ Sge 726 7635 3.47 3.63 4 295˚170 .0 18˚250 .7 295˚150 .3 18˚270 .9 1.7 -2.1
297˚550 .0 38˚580 .5 297˚500 .7 38˚570 .2 3.4 1.3 7δ Sge 727 7536 3.82 3.99 5 292˚27 .00
17˚36 .5 292˚24 .0
0 0
17˚360 .4 2.8 0.1
298˚310 .0 39˚310 .0 298˚290 .8 39˚270 .3 0.9 3.7 8ζ Sge 728 7546 5.00 5.17 6 292˚480 .9 18˚130 .9 292˚490 .0 18˚110 .9 -0.1 2.0
295˚300 .5 38˚530 .0 295˚310 .6 38˚500 .3 -0.9 2.7 5α Sge 729 7479 4.37 4.54 4 290˚320 .4 17˚100 .0 290˚340 .0 17˚090 .3 -1.5 0.6
295˚390 .0 38˚180 .0 295˚390 .7 38˚150 .9 -0.6 2.1 6β Sge 730 7488 4.37 4.54 4 290˚450 .8 16˚360 .7 290˚470 .0 16˚360 .6 -1.1 0.1
300˚130 .0 42˚430 .0 300˚150 .1 42˚420 .2 -1.5 0.8 12 Vul 731 7565 4.95 5.12 4 293˚260 .3 21˚370 .7 293˚280 .5 21˚390 .1 -2.0 -1.4
301˚360 .0 44˚020 .0 301˚300 .0 43˚580 .5 4.3 3.5 13 Vul 732 7592 4.58 4.74 4 294˚110 .0 23˚080 .1 294˚070 .6 23˚050 .6 3.1 2.5
293˚570 .0 46˚030 .0 293˚590 .6 45˚540 .6 -1.8 8.4 6α Vul 733 7405 4.44 4.59 4 287˚570 .9 24˚000 .8 288˚010 .7 23˚540 .7 -3.5 6.0
299˚280 .5 27˚080 .5 299˚280 .9 27˚030 .6 -0.4 4.9 63τ Aql 734 7669 5.52 5.72 6 296˚080 .1 6˚150 .6 296˚090 .5 6˚120 .8 -1.4 2.9
296˚530 .0 26˚490 .5 296˚520 .7 26˚450 .3 0.3 4.2 60β Aql 735 7602 3.71 3.92 3 293˚54 .90
5˚30 .7 293˚55 .5
0 0
5˚280 .4 -0.6 2.4
296˚090 .0 29˚210 .5 296˚080 .9 29˚190 .0 0.0 2.5 53α Aql 736 7557 0.77 0.98 2 292˚490 .0 7˚530 .3 292˚490 .5 7˚520 .7 -0.5 0.6
296˚330 .0 30˚540 .5 296˚390 .1 30˚510 .9 -5.2 2.6 r 54o Aql 737 7560 5.11 5.30 6 292˚520 .8 9˚280 .5 292˚580 .6 9˚280 .8 -5.7 -0.2
295˚260 .0 31˚180 .0 295˚230 .3 31˚170 .2 2.3 0.8 50γ Aql 738 7525 2.72 2.91 3 291˚510 .3 9˚410 .5 291˚490 .3 9˚420 .2 2.0 -0.7
296˚080 .5 31˚590 .0 298˚230 .6 31˚320 .6 -115.1 26.4 61φ Aql 739 7610 5.28 5.47 5 292˚200 .2 10˚280 .2 294˚200 .0 10˚250 .5 -117.9 2.7
291˚160 .5 28˚460 .5 291˚140 .1 28˚430 .3 2.1 3.2 38µ Aql 740 7429 4.45 4.65 4 288˚400 .4 6˚370 .4 288˚380 .8 6˚350 .8 1.6 1.6
292˚140 .0 26˚350 .0 292˚150 .2 26˚310 .1 -1.0 3.9 44σ Aql 741 7474 5.17 5.39 5 289˚50 .70
4˚34 .9 289˚52 .3
0 0
4˚330 .2 -1.7 1.7
284˚150 .5 36˚160 .5 284˚140 .8 36˚140 .6 0.6 1.9 17ζ Aql 742 7235 2.99 3.18 3 281˚460 .5 13˚200 .0 281˚460 .2 13˚200 .0 0.3 -0.1
282˚440 .0 37˚400 .0 282˚430 .1 37˚370 .4 0.7 2.6 13 Aql 743 7176 4.02 4.20 3 280˚230 .2 14˚360 .1 280˚220 .8 14˚350 .4 0.4 0.7
279˚120 .0 43˚320 .5 279˚140 .0 43˚290 .3 -1.5 3.2 110 Her 744 7061 4.19 4.35 4 277˚050 .7 20˚140 .6 277˚070 .6 20˚130 .5 -1.8 1.1
279˚170 .5 41˚050 .0 279˚170 .9 41˚030 .2 -0.3 1.8 111 Her 745 7069 4.36 4.53 4 277˚200 .6 17˚470 .7 277˚210 .2 17˚480 .0 -0.5 -0.3
299˚210 .5 18˚480 .0 299˚210 .2 18˚460 .1 0.3 1.9 65θ Aql 746 7710 3.23 3.49 3 297˚40 .20
-1˚56 .4 297˚40 .2
0 0
-1˚560 .5 -0.0 0.1
290˚170 .5 20˚140 .5 290˚160 .8 20˚030 .4 0.7 11.1 41ι Aql 747 7447 4.36 4.62 3 289˚000 .0 -1˚570 .0 289˚000 .8 -2˚060 .2 -0.8 9.1
289˚170 .0 14˚280 .0 289˚170 .6 14˚230 .5 -0.6 4.5 39κ Aql 748 7446 4.95 5.26 3 288˚490 .8 -7˚480 .1 288˚500 .9 -7˚500 .6 -1.1 2.4
288˚010 .0 24˚560 .0 288˚030 .0 24˚510 .5 -1.8 4.5 30δ Aql 749 7377 3.36 3.59 3 286˚180 .2 2˚250 .5 286˚200 .5 2˚230 .3 -2.4 2.3
294˚500 .0 21˚380 .0 294˚520 .6 21˚340 .0 -2.4 4.0 55η Aql 750 7570 3.90 4.14 3 292˚580 .8 0˚040 .5 293˚010 .8 0˚020 .8 -3.1 1.6
86 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 87
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
281˚460 .0 17˚41 .0 281˚46 .5 17˚37 .4
0 0 0
-0.4 3.6 16λ Aql 751 7236 3.44 3.72 3 281˚15 .2 -5˚22 .9 281˚15 .9 -5˚24 .4
0 0 0 0
-0.7 1.5
280˚290 .0 16˚570 .0 280˚290 .3 16˚530 .9 -0.2 3.1 12 Aql 752 7193 4.02 4.30 4 280˚050 .0 -6˚120 .5 280˚050 .4 -6˚130 .6 -0.4 1.1
308˚320 .0 29˚080 .0 308˚300 .9 29˚060 .6 1.0 1.4 2 Del 753 7852 4.03 4.23 3 303˚320 .5 10˚000 .0 303˚320 .1 10˚000 .1 0.4 -0.1
309˚480 .0 28˚520 .5 309˚460 .3 28˚510 .5 1.5 1.0 5ι Del 754 7883 5.43 5.63 3 304˚410 .8 10˚020 .0 304˚400 .8 10˚020 .3 1.0 -0.3
309˚420 .0 27˚340 .0 309˚390 .9 27˚320 .1 1.9 1.9 7κ Del 755 7896 5.05 5.25 6 304˚570 .2 8˚440 .8 304˚560 .0 8˚440 .2 1.2 0.7
310˚560 .0 31˚570 .5 310˚470 .2 31˚570 .5 7.5 -0.0 6β Del 756 7882 3.63 3.81 3 304˚490 .7 13˚150 .9 304˚420 .5 13˚150 .6 7.0 0.3
311˚500 .5 33˚050 .0 311˚490 .9 33˚030 .4 0.5 1.6 9α Del 757 7906 3.77 3.95 3 305˚160 .3 14˚330 .4 305˚160 .6 14˚330 .4 -0.2 0.0
312˚360 .5 32˚000 .0 312˚340 .7 31˚580 .8 1.5 1.2 r 11δ Del 758 7928 4.43 4.61 3 306˚130 .3 13˚410 .7 306˚120 .5 13˚410 .7 0.8 -0.0
313˚520 .0 32˚470 .0 313˚500 .4 32˚450 .2 1.3 1.8 12γ Del 759 7947 3.87 4.05 3 307˚020 .7 14˚440 .7 307˚020 .3 14˚440 .2 0.4 0.5
310˚170 .0 32˚080 .5 310˚120 .6 32˚110 .3 3.7 -2.8 4ζ Del 760 7871 4.68 4.86 5 304˚130 .9 13˚170 .7 304˚090 .7 13˚210 .1 4.1 -3.3
309˚180 .0 30˚410 .5 309˚160 .4 30˚420 .5 1.4 -1.0 3η Del 761 7858 5.38 5.57 6 303˚470 .5 11˚400 .6 303˚460 .1 11˚420 .8 1.4 -2.3
310˚420 .0 30˚410 .0 310˚400 .5 30˚380 .6 1.3 2.4 8θ Del 762 7892 5.72 5.90 6 304˚580 .8 11˚590 .0 304˚580 .5 11˚580 .1 0.4 1.0
317˚320 .5 20˚120 .5 317˚330 .8 20˚090 .7 -1.2 2.8 8α Equ 763 8131 3.92 4.14 4 313˚550 .8 3˚390 .7 313˚570 .8 3˚380 .8 -2.1 0.9
319˚540 .5 21˚060 .0 319˚520 .7 21˚030 .4 1.7 2.6 10β Equ 764 8178 5.16 5.37 4 315˚460 .7 5˚100 .7 315˚460 .0 5˚090 .1 0.7 1.6
317˚540 .0 25˚160 .0 317˚520 .8 25˚130 .7 1.1 2.3 5γ Equ 765 8097 4.69 4.89 4 312˚440 .1 8˚350 .4 312˚430 .9 8˚340 .4 0.2 1.0
318˚540 .5 24˚520 .0 318˚540 .3 24˚470 .6 0.2 4.4 7δ Equ 766 8123 4.49 4.69 4 313˚440 .2 8˚290 .0 313˚450 .6 8˚260 .2 -1.3 2.8
326˚220 .0 22˚070 .5 326˚200 .0 22˚070 .3 1.9 0.2 8 Peg 767 8308 2.39 2.58 3 321˚100 .3 8˚040 .7 321˚080 .8 8˚050 .2 1.5 -0.5
331˚150 .5 16˚250 .0 331˚150 .0 16˚210 .9 0.5 3.1 26θ Peg 768 8450 3.53 3.75 4 327˚30 .20
4˚18 .1 327˚30 .9
0 0
4˚160 .2 -0.7 2.0
329˚450 .5 15˚430 .0 329˚440 .5 15˚420 .2 1.0 0.8 22ν Peg 769 8413 4.84 5.06 5 326˚230 .6 3˚080 .7 326˚230 .1 3˚080 .7 0.6 -0.0
343˚000 .0 14˚300 .5 343˚000 .4 14˚300 .0 -0.4 0.5 50ρ Peg 770 8717 4.90 5.11 6 338˚46 .60
6˚42 .2 338˚47 .4
0 0
6˚420 .6 -0.8 -0.4
342˚440 .0 15˚430 .5 342˚420 .8 15˚430 .7 1.2 -0.2 49σ Peg 771 8697 5.16 5.36 6 338˚040 .0 7˚430 .6 338˚030 .0 7˚440 .1 0.9 -0.5
340˚390 .5 17˚410 .0 340˚350 .5 17˚410 .6 3.8 -0.6 42ζ Peg 772 8634 3.40 3.60 3 335˚27 .20
8˚46 .5 335˚23 .7
0 0
8˚460 .4 3.4 0.1
342˚250 .0 18˚290 .0 342˚230 .7 18˚280 .3 1.2 0.7 46ξ Peg 773 8665 4.19 4.38 5 336˚420 .4 10˚090 .3 336˚410 .9 10˚090 .0 0.5 0.3
333˚230 .0 36˚420 .5 333˚230 .9 36˚390 .2 -0.7 3.3 10κ Peg 774 8315 4.13 4.29 4 321˚360 .5 23˚520 .3 321˚390 .3 23˚500 .9 -2.6 1.5
338˚500 .0 34˚190 .0 338˚500 .3 34˚160 .6 -0.2 2.4 24ι Peg 775 8430 3.76 3.92 4 327˚050 .4 23˚260 .7 327˚070 .4 23˚250 .7 -1.8 1.0
344˚030 .0 41˚000 .5 344˚010 .8 40˚590 .4 0.9 1.1 29π2 Peg 776 8454 4.29 4.44 4 328˚040 .6 31˚150 .4 328˚050 .3 31˚150 .0 -0.6 0.3
347˚290 .5 28˚490 .0 347˚300 .6 28˚480 .1 -1.0 0.9 47λ Peg 777 8667 3.95 4.11 4 336˚480 .8 21˚280 .9 336˚500 .9 21˚290 .3 -1.9 -0.4
348˚530 .5 29˚240 .5 348˚500 .0 29˚240 .0 3.1 0.5 48µ Peg 778 8684 3.48 3.64 4 337˚440 .4 22˚320 .0 337˚420 .4 22˚310 .0 1.8 1.0
350˚100 .5 35˚070 .5 350˚100 .9 35˚060 .7 -0.4 0.8 44η Peg 779 8650 2.94 3.09 3 336˚040 .2 28˚090 .2 336˚060 .0 28˚090 .4 -1.6 -0.2
349˚250 .0 34˚240 .5 349˚230 .0 34˚250 .3 1.7 -0.8 43o Peg 780 8641 4.79 4.95 5 335˚480 .0 27˚140 .1 335˚460 .8 27˚140 .9 1.0 -0.8
355˚330 .0 25˚350 .0 355˚300 .5 25˚340 .0 2.2 1.0 62τ Peg 781 8880 4.60 4.76 6 345˚150 .8 21˚350 .5 345˚140 .9 21˚340 .2 0.9 1.4
356˚260 .0 24˚500 .5 356˚240 .5 24˚470 .7 1.3 2.8 r 68υ Peg 782 8905 4.40 4.56 6 346˚220 .8 21˚150 .8 346˚230 .6 21˚130 .2 -0.7 2.7
347˚560 .5 19˚260 .0 347˚550 .9 19˚240 .9 0.6 1.1 54α Peg 783 8781 2.49 2.68 2 341˚130 .7 13˚050 .2 341˚140 .1 13˚040 .6 -0.4 0.6
353˚490 .5 31˚070 .5 353˚480 .5 31˚080 .0 0.9 -0.5 53β Peg 784 8775 2.42 2.57 2 341˚080 .3 25˚550 .5 341˚080 .2 25˚560 .2 0.1 -0.7
3˚380 .0 12˚350 .0 3˚360 .0 12˚350 .3 1.9 -0.3 88γ Peg 785 0039 2.38 2.57 2 358˚130 .3 12˚580 .2 358˚110 .8 12˚570 .8 1.5 0.4
336˚280 .0 20˚510 .0 336˚240 .3 20˚510 .8 3.5 -0.8 31 Peg 786 8520 5.01 5.21 4 330˚310 .7 10˚130 .1 330˚280 .4 10˚130 .5 3.2 -0.4
324˚510 .0 33˚210 .0 324˚450 .5 33˚180 .3 4.6 2.7 1 Peg 787 8173 4.08 4.25 4 315˚570 .9 18˚110 .2 315˚540 .8 18˚080 .4 3.0 2.7
328˚470 .0 36˚110 .0 328˚350 .9 36˚090 .7 9.0 1.3 2 Peg 788 8225 4.57 4.73 4 318˚060 .4 21˚590 .0 317˚580 .6 21˚550 .8 7.3 3.2
345˚150 .5 23˚160 .0 329˚270 .8 29˚020 .8 828.5 -346.8 W 9 Peg 789 8313 4.34 4.51 4 337˚160 .8 15˚350 .8 321˚240 .6 15˚330 .5 917.3 2.3
8˚470 .0 25˚420 .0 8˚450 .5 25˚410 .2 1.3 0.8 21α And 790 0015 2.06 2.22 2 356˚590 .0 26˚540 .4 356˚590 .1 26˚530 .2 -0.1 1.2
17˚060 .5 27˚06 .5
0
17˚080 .0 27˚070 .6 -1.4 -1.1 29π And 791 0154 4.36 4.51 5 3˚540 .9 31˚290 .3 3˚570 .0 31˚300 .7 -1.8 -1.4
15˚250 .0 23˚030 .5 15˚240 .9 23˚000 .9 0.1 2.6 30 And 792 0163 4.37 4.52 4 4˚220 .8 27˚100 .6 4˚250 .0 27˚080 .1 -2.0 2.6
14˚580 .0 31˚330 .0 14˚520 .3 31˚340 .6 4.9 -1.6 25σ And 793 0068 4.52 4.67 5 359˚300 .5 34˚350 .0 359˚250 .8 34˚340 .1 3.9 0.9
15˚450 .5 33˚200 .5 15˚400 .3 33˚210 .8 4.3 -1.3 24θ And 794 0063 4.61 4.75 4 359˚110 .4 36˚280 .7 359˚070 .5 36˚270 .7 3.2 0.9
16˚070 .0 32˚140 .5 16˚050 .3 32˚220 .1 1.4 -7.6 27ρ And 795 0082 5.18 5.32 5 0˚090 .9 35˚390 .1 0˚050 .3 35˚450 .2 3.7 -6.0
10˚280 .0 40˚560 .5 10˚330 .4 41˚000 .8 -4.0 -4.3 17ι And 796 8965 4.29 4.43 4 349˚380 .6 40˚570 .9 349˚420 .0 41˚040 .0 -2.6 -6.1
11˚460 .0 41˚440 .0 11˚450 .9 41˚420 .3 0.1 1.7 19κ And 797 8976 4.14 4.28 4 350˚120 .1 42˚090 .0 350˚150 .1 42˚070 .9 -2.2 1.1
14˚230 .0 42˚58 .0
0
14˚250 .0 42˚550 .7 -1.5 2.3 r 20ψ And 798 9003 4.95 5.09 5 351˚320 .6 44˚130 .5 351˚380 .0 44˚120 .6 -3.9 0.9
12˚470 .0 43˚490 .5 12˚460 .8 43˚480 .3 0.1 1.2 16λ And 799 8961 3.82 3.96 4 349˚310 .8 44˚190 .0 349˚340 .5 44˚180 .3 -2.0 0.7
15˚090 .0 17˚480 .0 15˚020 .5 17˚360 .1 6.2 11.9 34ζ And 800 0215 4.06 4.22 4 6˚350 .3 22˚180 .6 6˚350 .3 22˚050 .0 -0.1 13.6
88 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 89
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
16˚530 .5 15˚58 .0
0
16˚49 .6
0
15˚54 .6
0
3.7 3.4 38η And 801 0271 4.42 4.58 5 9˚02 .3
0
21˚19 .7
0
9˚01 .0
0
21˚14 .7
0
1.3 5.0
24˚490 .0 25˚590 .0 24˚500 .7 25˚560 .0 -1.5 3.0 43β And 802 0337 2.06 2.20 2 11˚500 .5 33˚310 .5 11˚550 .0 33˚290 .0 -3.8 2.5
24˚060 .5 30˚330 .5 23˚360 .8 29˚380 .0 25.8 55.5 37µ And 803 0269 3.87 4.01 4 8˚390 .0 37˚200 .4 8˚430 .5 36˚190 .1 -3.6 61.4
23˚360 .0 32˚300 .5 23˚360 .5 32˚320 .2 -0.4 -1.7 35ν And 804 0226 4.53 4.67 4 7˚000 .7 38˚520 .0 7˚010 .8 38˚530 .5 -0.8 -1.4
38˚390 .0 27˚460 .5 38˚400 .4 27˚460 .5 -1.2 0.0 57γ And 805 0603 2.16 2.30 2 24˚530 .7 40˚220 .7 24˚560 .7 40˚220 .3 -2.3 0.4
39˚060 .5 36˚490 .5 39˚030 .0 36˚480 .8 2.8 0.7 φ Per 806 0496 4.07 4.21 5 19˚480 .5 48˚410 .1 19˚470 .4 48˚380 .5 0.8 2.6
36˚520 .0 35˚210 .5 36˚530 .8 35˚230 .5 -1.5 -2.0 51 And 807 0464 3.57 3.70 4 18˚260 .8 46˚320 .6 18˚290 .4 46˚340 .4 -1.8 -1.8
33˚060 .0 28˚590 .0 33˚020 .6 28˚580 .5 2.9 0.5 r 50υ And 808 0458 4.09 4.23 5 18˚270 .5 39˚250 .0 18˚250 .9 39˚220 .7 1.2 2.4
33˚230 .0 27˚540 .5 33˚210 .3 27˚530 .9 1.5 0.6 53τ And 809 0477 4.94 5.08 5 19˚200 .5 38˚330 .2 19˚200 .6 38˚310 .4 -0.1 1.8
30˚560 .0 36˚200 .0 30˚530 .0 36˚200 .2 2.4 -0.2 42φ And 810 0335 4.25 4.39 5 11˚420 .5 45˚060 .9 11˚410 .3 45˚050 .5 0.8 1.4
354˚000 .0 57˚190 .0 2˚150 .5 43˚440 .5 -358.0 814.6 1o And 811 8762 3.62 3.76 4 324˚100 .4 48˚310 .2 340˚560 .1 40˚110 .9 -768.2 499.2
16˚190 .5 24˚20 .0
0
16˚15 .4
0
24˚200 .6 3.7 -0.6 31δ And 812 0165 3.27 3.42 3 4˚360 .0 28˚410 .2 4˚330 .0 28˚400 .0 2.6 1.3
31˚190 .0 16˚490 .5 31˚180 .8 16˚470 .4 0.1 2.1 2α Tri 813 0544 3.41 3.56 4 22˚360 .9 27˚380 .6 22˚380 .6 27˚350 .9 -1.5 2.8
36˚490 .5 20˚330 .0 36˚470 .0 20˚330 .2 2.3 -0.2 4β Tri 814 0622 3.00 3.15 4 26˚320 .8 33˚050 .0 26˚310 .4 33˚030 .4 1.2 1.6
37˚590 .0 19˚240 .0 37˚550 .9 19˚210 .1 2.9 2.9 8δ Tri 815 0660 4.87 5.02 5 28˚150 .7 32˚250 .7 28˚140 .9 32˚210 .0 0.7 4.7
37˚580 .0 18˚57 .0
0
37˚57 .6
0
18˚550 .0 0.4 2.0 9γ Tri 816 0664 4.01 4.16 4 28˚260 .5 32˚000 .3 28˚280 .1 31˚570 .3 -1.3 3.0
39˚310 .0 -7˚500 .0 39˚310 .3 -7˚490 .5 -0.3 -0.5 91λ Cet 817 0896 4.70 4.91 4 39˚360 .4 7˚160 .5 39˚360 .7 7˚150 .8 -0.3 0.7
38˚470 .0 -12˚370 .0 38˚440 .9 -12˚370 .0 2.0 0.0 92α Cet 818 0911 2.53 2.75 2 40˚24 .6
0
2˚30 .3
0
40˚22 .7
0
2˚280 .3 1.9 2.0
33˚530 .5 -12˚020 .5 33˚520 .7 -12˚010 .3 0.8 -1.2 86γ Cet 819 0804 3.47 3.70 3 35˚410 .8 1˚300 .7 35˚400 .7 1˚300 .4 1.1 0.3
32˚020 .0 -14˚320 .0 31˚590 .6 -14˚290 .8 2.4 -2.2 82δ Cet 820 0779 4.07 4.32 3 34˚490 .7 -1˚260 .5 34˚460 .6 -1˚260 .3 3.0 -0.1
31˚540 .0 -5˚520 .0 31˚530 .7 -5˚530 .3 0.3 1.3 73ξ2 Cet 821 0718 4.28 4.49 4 31˚450 .5 6˚400 .0 31˚450 .8 6˚370 .6 -0.3 2.4
36˚070 .0 -5˚360 .0 36˚200 .5 -5˚350 .5 -13.4 -0.5 87µ Cet 822 0813 4.27 4.47 4 35˚390 .5 8˚190 .1 35˚520 .4 8˚220 .8 -12.8 -3.7
28˚290 .5 -4˚190 .0 28˚280 .4 -4˚180 .0 1.1 -1.0 65ξ1 Cet 823 0649 4.37 4.57 4 28˚000 .6 6˚560 .5 27˚590 .4 6˚560 .1 1.2 0.4
24˚090 .0 -25˚17 .0
0
24˚07 .9 -25˚160 .2
0
1.0 -0.8 72ρ Cet 824 0708 4.89 5.28 4 31˚420 .3 -14˚070 .1 31˚400 .6 -14˚070 .8 1.6 0.7
24˚310 .5 -28˚310 .0 24˚310 .6 -28˚330 .1 -0.1 2.1 76σ Cet 825 0740 4.75 5.20 4 33˚170 .6 -16˚590 .2 33˚180 .0 -17˚020 .2 -0.4 3.0
28˚110 .5 -28˚160 .5 28˚100 .1 -28˚160 .7 1.3 0.2 89π Cet 826 0811 4.25 4.67 4 36˚190 .1 -15˚330 .7 36˚170 .5 -15˚350 .5 1.5 1.9
27˚470 .5 -25˚580 .0 27˚440 .8 -26˚000 .2 2.4 2.2 83 Cet 827 0781 4.84 5.22 3 35˚06 .4 -13˚32 .4
0 0
35˚040 .5 -13˚360 .6 1.8 4.1
12˚250 .0 -25˚010 .0 12˚220 .8 -24˚590 .9 2.0 -1.1 52τ Cet 828 0509 3.50 3.98 4 21˚260 .1 -18˚030 .4 21˚230 .1 -18˚040 .0 2.9 0.6
13˚500 .0 -31˚040 .0 13˚490 .0 -31˚020 .8 0.8 -1.2 59υ Cet 829 0585 4.00 4.65 4 25˚200 .0 -23˚020 .5 25˚170 .9 -23˚020 .6 2.0 0.1
16˚250 .0 -20˚190 .0 16˚210 .8 -20˚210 .1 3.0 2.1 55ζ Cet 830 0539 3.73 4.08 3 22˚590 .2 -12˚160 .3 22˚560 .8 -12˚200 .3 2.3 4.0
10˚420 .5 -15˚460 .5 10˚390 .8 -15˚460 .0 2.6 -0.5 45θ Cet 831 0402 3.60 3.92 3 16˚040 .4 -10˚140 .8 16˚010 .5 -10˚160 .0 2.9 1.2
6˚110 .5 -16˚050 .0 6˚100 .1 -16˚060 .6 1.3 1.6 r 31η Cet 832 0334 3.45 3.80 3 12˚080 .8 -12˚160 .6 12˚070 .8 -12˚190 .0 1.0 2.4
355˚230 .0 -10˚01 .0 355˚200 .5 -10˚010 .4
0
2.4 0.4 8ι Cet 833 0074 3.56 3.89 3 359˚480 .6 -11˚010 .1 359˚460 .2 -11˚020 .4 2.4 1.4
356˚560 .0 -20˚470 .0 356˚580 .2 -20˚460 .9 -2.0 -0.1 16β Cet 834 0188 2.04 2.57 2 5˚510 .4 -20˚120 .0 5˚520 .6 -20˚110 .3 -1.1 -0.7
42˚450 .0 -14˚300 .0 42˚430 .3 -14˚290 .6 1.6 -0.4 96κ1 Cet 835 0996 4.83 5.06 5 44˚390 .5 1˚520 .6 44˚370 .9 1˚510 .0 1.6 1.6
15˚040 .5 -21˚550 .0 15˚470 .3 -20˚300 .4 -40.1 -84.6 53χ Cet 836 0531 4.67 5.04 5 22˚270 .3 -14˚140 .2 22˚300 .1 -12˚410 .5 -2.8 -92.7
32˚490 .5 -9˚120 .5 32˚490 .1 -9˚120 .9 0.4 0.4 78ν Cet 837 0754 4.86 5.08 4 33˚450 .7 3˚500 .0 33˚450 .5 3˚480 .4 0.2 1.6
78˚110 .5 -13˚260 .0 78˚080 .3 -13˚250 .3 3.1 -0.7 39λ Ori 838 1879 3.49 3.69 4 78˚210 .2 9˚360 .8 78˚180 .1 9˚350 .3 3.1 1.5
78˚060 .5 -13˚540 .0 78˚020 .3 -13˚510 .7 4.1 -2.3 37ψ1 Ori 839 1876 4.41 4.61 5 78˚180 .7 9˚080 .5 78˚140 .4 9˚080 .5 4.2 0.1
78˚330 .5 -14˚040 .5 78˚330 .0 -14˚020 .9 0.5 -1.6 40ψ2 Ori 840 1907 4.09 4.28 5 78˚460 .0 9˚000 .2 78˚450 .4 8˚590 .7 0.5 0.5
83˚120 .0 -16˚060 .0 83˚110 .1 -16˚040 .8 0.9 -1.2 58α Ori 841 2061 0.50 0.69 2 83˚240 .9 7˚160 .1 83˚240 .0 7˚150 .3 0.9 0.9
75˚230 .0 -16˚530 .0 75˚220 .8 -16˚520 .0 0.2 -1.0 24γ Ori 842 1790 1.64 1.85 2 75˚570 .0 5˚550 .7 75˚560 .7 5˚540 .7 0.3 1.0
76˚470 .0 -17˚220 .0 76˚490 .2 -17˚200 .8 -2.1 -1.2 32A Ori 843 1839 4.20 4.41 5 77˚200 .1 5˚340 .6 77˚220 .1 5˚340 .0 -2.0 0.6
85˚040 .5 -14˚510 .0 85˚020 .2 -13˚500 .4 2.2 -60.6 61µ Ori 844 2124 4.12 4.32 4 85˚110 .1 8˚350 .5 85˚060 .8 9˚340 .0 4.3 -58.5
88˚300 .5 -11˚300 .0 88˚310 .1 -11˚100 .9 -0.6 -19.1 74k2 Ori 845 2241 5.04 5.23 6 88˚300 .3 12˚010 .0 88˚300 .8 12˚180 .1 -0.4 -17.1
87˚230 .5 -9˚150 .0 87˚210 .9 -9˚150 .0 1.6 -0.0 70ξ Ori 846 2199 4.48 4.66 4 87˚200 .6 14˚150 .1 87˚190 .0 14˚130 .0 1.6 2.0
86˚210 .0 -8˚440 .0 86˚170 .1 -8˚420 .5 3.9 -1.5 67ν Ori 847 2159 4.42 4.60 4 86˚160 .2 14˚440 .7 86˚120 .1 14˚440 .0 3.9 0.6
87˚220 .0 -7˚200 .5 87˚210 .1 -7˚190 .7 0.9 -0.8 69f1 Ori 848 2198 4.95 5.13 6 87˚160 .8 16˚090 .5 87˚150 .9 16˚080 .2 0.9 1.3
88˚080 .5 -7˚190 .0 88˚090 .9 -7˚170 .8 -1.4 -1.2 72f2 Ori 849 2223 5.30 5.48 6 88˚040 .8 16˚110 .8 88˚060 .3 16˚110 .0 -1.4 0.8
83˚090 .0 -3˚120 .5 83˚080 .1 -3˚120 .0 0.9 -0.5 54χ1 Ori 850 2047 4.41 4.58 5 82˚420 .8 20˚080 .6 82˚410 .8 20˚070 .0 0.9 1.5
90 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 91
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
85˚210 .5 -3˚21 .0
0
85˚21 .2
0
-3˚20 .9
0
0.3 -0.1 62χ2 Ori 851 2135 4.63 4.80 5 85˚03 .9 20˚05 .7
0 0
85˚03 .7 20˚03 .7
0 0
0.2 2.0
78˚560 .5 -19˚170 .5 78˚560 .1 -19˚160 .3 0.3 -1.2 47ω Ori 852 1934 4.57 4.79 5 79˚320 .8 3˚490 .9 79˚320 .4 3˚490 .1 0.4 0.8
77˚400 .0 -19˚360 .5 77˚370 .6 -19˚340 .3 2.3 -2.2 38n2 Ori 853 1872 5.36 5.58 6 78˚220 .3 3˚250 .1 78˚190 .8 3˚250 .2 2.4 -0.0
76˚460 .0 -19˚520 .5 76˚470 .6 -20˚000 .6 -1.5 8.1 h 33n1 Ori 854 1842 5.46 5.69 6 77˚330 .0 3˚040 .7 77˚350 .2 2˚540 .8 -2.2 9.9
75˚340 .0 -20˚08 .5
0
75˚360 .7 -20˚080 .5 -2.6 0.0 30ψ2 Ori 855 1811 4.59 4.82 5 76˚270 .1 2˚420 .3 76˚290 .7 2˚400 .5 -2.6 1.7
67˚530 .0 -8˚170 .0 67˚550 .4 -8˚160 .3 -2.4 -0.7 4o1 Ori 856 1556 4.74 4.91 4 67˚280 .1 13˚310 .4 67˚300 .7 13˚300 .5 -2.5 0.8
68˚480 .0 -9˚07 .0
0
68˚47 .0
0
-9˚060 .7 1.0 -0.3 9o2 Ori 857 1580 4.07 4.25 4 68˚310 .1 12˚500 .2 68˚300 .2 12˚480 .4 0.8 1.7
68˚100 .0 -11˚060 .0 68˚080 .8 -11˚090 .0 1.2 3.0 6g Ori 858 1569 5.19 5.38 6 68˚110 .5 10˚460 .9 68˚100 .9 10˚410 .9 0.6 5.0
68˚000 .5 -12˚250 .5 68˚010 .3 -12˚240 .2 -0.8 -1.3 7π1 Ori 859 1570 4.65 4.85 4 68˚140 .4 9˚260 .9 68˚150 .1 9˚260 .5 -0.7 0.4
66˚490 .0 -13˚310 .5 66˚470 .8 -13˚310 .9 1.2 0.4 2π2 Ori 860 1544 4.36 4.56 4 67˚150 .1 8˚100 .9 67˚140 .1 8˚080 .5 1.0 2.4
66˚230 .0 -15˚270 .0 66˚180 .0 -15˚250 .8 4.8 -1.2 1π3 Ori 861 1543 3.19 3.40 4 67˚080 .6 6˚120 .9 67˚030 .8 6˚110 .4 4.8 1.5
66˚330 .0 -16˚500 .0 66˚310 .8 -16˚490 .4 1.1 -0.6 3π4 Ori 862 1552 3.69 3.91 4 67˚310 .5 4˚520 .5 67˚300 .3 4˚510 .0 1.2 1.4
66˚580 .0 -20˚020 .0 66˚550 .2 -20˚030 .4 2.7 1.4 8π5 Ori 863 1567 3.72 3.95 4 68˚250 .3 1˚460 .6 68˚220 .9 1˚430 .0 2.4 3.7
67˚570 .0 -20˚550 .5 67˚580 .0 -20˚540 .1 -1.0 -1.4 10π6 Ori 864 1601 4.47 4.70 4 69˚280 .1 1˚020 .2 69˚280 .9 1˚010 .8 -0.8 0.4
76˚500 .5 -23˚380 .0 76˚470 .6 -23˚360 .3 2.6 -1.7 34δ Ori 865 1851 2.21 2.46 2 77˚570 .7 -0˚390 .5 77˚540 .9 -0˚400 .0 2.8 0.5
77˚540 .0 -24˚33 .5
0
77˚530 .7 -24˚330 .5 0.2 0.0 46 Ori 866 1903 1.70 1.95 2 79˚00 .3 -1˚29 .7
0 0
79˚000 .1 -1˚310 .8 0.3 2.0
79˚060 .5 -25˚210 .5 79˚060 .8 -25˚200 .7 -0.3 -0.8 50ζ Ori 867 1948 1.91 2.17 2 80˚090 .7 -2˚120 .4 80˚090 .9 -2˚130 .5 -0.2 1.2
74˚370 .5 -25˚360 .5 74˚350 .3 -25˚350 .1 2.0 -1.4 28η Ori 868 1788 3.36 3.62 3 76˚090 .0 -2˚490 .3 76˚060 .8 -2˚500 .2 2.2 0.8
77˚280 .0 -28˚090 .5 77˚330 .0 -28˚120 .2 -4.4 2.7 45 Ori 869 1901 5.26 5.54 5 78˚550 .5 -5˚060 .9 79˚000 .1 -5˚110 .2 -4.6 4.3
77˚240 .5 -28˚450 .0 77˚240 .8 -28˚430 .9 -0.2 -1.1 41-43θ Ori 870 1893 4.46 4.74 3 78˚550 .5 -5˚420 .6 78˚550 .6 -5˚430 .4 -0.1 0.8
77˚270 .5 -29˚170 .0 77˚250 .7 -29˚150 .2 1.5 -1.9 44ι Ori 871 1899 2.77 3.06 3 79˚010 .0 -6˚140 .2 78˚590 .2 -6˚140 .5 1.7 0.3
76˚200 .0 -30˚37 .5
0
76˚200 .6 -30˚350 .7 -0.5 -1.8 36υ Ori 872 1855 4.62 4.93 4 78˚09 .7 -7˚39 .7
0 0
78˚100 .0 -7˚390 .9 -0.3 0.2
78˚230 .0 -30˚380 .0 78˚210 .0 -30˚350 .2 1.7 -2.8 49d Ori 873 1937 4.80 5.10 5 79˚560 .1 -7˚300 .9 79˚540 .1 -7˚300 .3 2.0 -0.6
71˚170 .0 -31˚11 .5
0
71˚150 .5 -31˚100 .4 1.3 -1.1 19β Ori 874 1713 0.12 0.44 1 73˚52 .6 -8˚42 .7
0 0
73˚510 .1 -8˚430 .8 1.5 1.1
72˚150 .5 -29˚530 .0 72˚160 .7 -29˚530 .3 -1.0 0.3 20τ Ori 875 1735 3.60 3.90 4 74˚330 .1 -7˚180 .5 74˚340 .1 -7˚200 .6 -1.0 2.2
74˚020 .0 -31˚000 .0 74˚000 .5 -30˚580 .1 1.3 -1.9 29e Ori 876 1784 4.14 4.44 5 76˚130 .0 -8˚140 .3 76˚110 .4 -8˚140 .6 1.6 0.3
80˚490 .5 -33˚080 .0 80˚490 .9 -33˚070 .3 -0.4 -0.7 53κ Ori 877 2004 2.06 2.39 3 82˚12 .7 -9˚51 .4
0 0
82˚120 .9 -9˚520 .8 -0.3 1.3
78˚390 .0 -26˚000 .5 78˚310 .7 -25˚590 .0 6.6 -1.5 48σ Ori 878 1931 3.81 4.07 4 79˚480 .0 -2˚530 .1 79˚410 .3 -2˚540 .1 6.7 1.0
74˚340 .0 -19˚40 .0
0
74˚350 .0 -19˚370 .8 -0.9 -2.2 23m Ori 879 1770 5.00 5.23 6 75˚28 .0
0
3˚04 .8
0
75˚280 .7 3˚050 .2 -0.7 -0.3
74˚450 .0 -24˚060 .0 74˚420 .1 -24˚050 .9 2.7 -0.1 27p Ori 880 1787 5.08 5.32 6 76˚060 .2 -1˚180 .6 76˚030 .6 -1˚200 .8 2.7 2.1
73˚590 .0 -23˚32 .0
0
74˚000 .0 -23˚310 .7 -0.9 -0.3 22o Ori 881 1765 4.73 4.98 5 75˚20 .7 -0˚49 .3
0 0
75˚210 .6 -0˚500 .9 -0.8 1.6
74˚570 .0 -21˚230 .0 74˚580 .2 -21˚210 .4 -1.2 -1.6 25ψ1 Ori 882 1789 4.95 5.18 5 76˚000 .2 1˚240 .7 76˚010 .2 1˚240 .4 -1.0 0.2
71˚580 .0 -20˚08 .0
0
72˚000 .1 -20˚070 .6 -2.0 -0.4 17ρ Ori 883 1698 4.46 4.68 4 73˚05 .3
0
2˚20 .1
0
73˚07 .2
0
2˚180 .8 -1.9 1.3
79˚450 .0 -21˚580 .0 79˚430 .1 -21˚560 .6 1.7 -1.4 51b Ori 884 1963 4.91 5.14 5 80˚290 .9 1˚130 .2 80˚280 .1 1˚120 .4 1.8 0.8
82˚250 .5 -21˚390 .0 82˚240 .2 -21˚370 .3 1.2 -1.7 56 Ori 885 2037 4.78 5.00 5 82˚57 .5
0
1˚41 .4
0
82˚56 .3
0
1˚410 .0 1.3 0.4
84˚100 .0 -22˚570 .0 84˚070 .0 -22˚560 .3 2.7 -0.7 60 Ori 886 2103 5.22 5.46 5 84˚370 .8 0˚280 .0 84˚350 .0 0˚260 .5 2.8 1.4
73˚360 .5 -11˚450 .0 73˚260 .1 -11˚430 .8 10.1 -1.2 18 Ori 887 1718 5.50 5.69 6 73˚390 .7 10˚500 .8 73˚290 .4 10˚480 .9 10.1 2.0
71˚330 .5 -13˚080 .0 71˚360 .5 -13˚050 .9 -2.9 -2.1 16h Ori 888 1672 5.43 5.63 6 71˚480 .8 9˚130 .9 71˚510 .6 9˚140 .4 -2.7 -0.5
71˚000 .0 -14˚24 .0
0
71˚070 .4 -14˚230 .1 -7.1 -0.9 14i Ori 889 1664 5.34 5.54 6 71˚26 .2
0
7˚54 .3
0
71˚33 .3
0
7˚540 .1 -7.0 0.1
88˚440 .0 -29˚410 .0 88˚410 .2 -29˚420 .5 2.4 1.5 r 5γ Mon 890 2227 3.98 4.26 4 88˚530 .6 -6˚090 .8 88˚510 .2 -6˚130 .4 2.4 3.6
92˚430 .0 -29˚490 .0 92˚430 .6 -30˚190 .0 -0.5 30.0 11β Mon 891 2356 3.92 4.22 4 92˚220 .3 -6˚180 .8 92˚220 .2 -6˚500 .8 0.0 32.0
92˚220 .0 -28˚04 .0
0
92˚200 .1 -28˚030 .7 1.7 -0.3 10 Mon 892 2344 5.06 5.34 5 92˚050 .7 -4˚330 .5 92˚040 .0 -4˚350 .2 1.7 1.7
91˚080 .0 -18˚470 .0 90˚410 .6 -18˚460 .2 25.0 -0.8 8 Mon 893 2298 4.31 4.53 4 91˚040 .6 4˚440 .2 90˚390 .5 4˚430 .2 25.0 1.1
92˚580 .0 -15˚560 .5 92˚550 .2 -15˚540 .9 2.7 -1.6 13 Mon 894 2385 4.50 4.70 4 92˚520 .6 7˚330 .2 92˚490 .9 7˚320 .9 2.7 0.3
94˚500 .0 -13˚150 .0 94˚480 .1 -13˚130 .5 1.8 -1.5 15 Mon 895 2456 4.66 4.86 4 94˚460 .8 10˚110 .7 94˚440 .9 10˚110 .2 1.8 0.5
92˚580 .0 -18˚24 .0
0
92˚550 .5 -18˚230 .8 2.3 -0.2 12 Mon 896 2382 5.84 6.05 5 92˚490 .6 5˚050 .7 92˚470 .2 5˚040 .0 2.3 1.7
96˚360 .0 -14˚590 .0 96˚340 .1 -14˚570 .2 1.8 -1.8 17 Mon 897 2503 4.77 4.96 5 96˚260 .6 8˚230 .6 96˚240 .8 8˚230 .5 1.8 0.2
97˚140 .5 -20˚330 .0 97˚130 .0 -20˚320 .8 1.4 -0.2 18 Mon 898 2506 4.47 4.69 4 96˚470 .2 2˚480 .2 96˚450 .8 2˚460 .5 1.4 1.7
104˚000 .0 -22˚470 .0 103˚580 .7 -22˚460 .2 1.2 -0.8 22δ Mon 899 2714 4.15 4.39 4 102˚530 .3 0˚060 .9 102˚520 .1 0˚050 .9 1.2 1.1
69˚400 .0 -31˚350 .5 69˚380 .4 -31˚350 .6 1.3 0.1 69λ Eri 900 1679 4.27 4.59 4 72˚320 .8 -9˚170 .7 72˚310 .4 -9˚190 .9 1.4 2.3
92 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 93
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
69˚420 .0 -27˚540 .5 69˚43 .0 -27˚54 .3
0 0
-0.9 -0.2 67β Eri 901 1666 2.79 3.07 3 72˚03 .4
0
-5˚38 .6
0
72˚04 .2
0
-5˚400 .2 -0.8 1.6
67˚390 .0 -29˚520 .0 67˚380 .1 -29˚480 .9 0.8 -3.1 65ψ Eri 902 1617 4.81 5.12 5 70˚330 .4 -7˚500 .6 70˚320 .1 -7˚490 .6 1.3 -1.0
65˚290 .5 -27˚510 .5 65˚280 .5 -27˚500 .9 0.9 -0.6 61ω Eri 903 1560 4.39 4.68 5 68˚21 .2
0
-6˚09 .8
0
68˚20 .1
0
-6˚110 .2 1.1 1.4
63˚450 .5 -25˚340 .0 63˚450 .7 -25˚250 .0 -0.1 -9.0 57µ Eri 904 1520 4.02 4.29 4 66˚250 .6 -4˚100 .3 66˚240 .1 -4˚030 .2 1.5 -7.0
61˚140 .5 -25˚110 .5 61˚140 .4 -25˚100 .4 0.1 -1.1 48ν Eri 905 1463 3.93 4.20 4 64˚07 .0
0
-4˚13 .4
0
64˚06 .6
0
-4˚140 .1 0.4 0.7
48˚180 .0 -33˚130 .5 48˚160 .7 -33˚140 .0 1.1 0.5 34γ Eri 906 1231 2.95 3.34 3 54˚530 .1 -14˚390 .6 54˚510 .9 -14˚420 .0 1.2 2.4
45˚220 .5 -31˚090 .0 45˚220 .3 -31˚100 .0 0.2 1.0 26π Eri 907 1162 4.42 4.78 4 51˚500 .2 -13˚210 .9 51˚500 .0 -13˚240 .5 0.2 2.6
45˚170 .0 -28˚460 .5 45˚150 .9 -28˚480 .1 0.9 1.6 r 23δ Eri 908 1136 3.54 3.88 3 51˚030 .6 -11˚060 .8 51˚020 .9 -11˚100 .2 0.7 3.4
42˚450 .0 -27˚470 .0 42˚420 .1 -27˚470 .3 2.6 0.3 18 Eri 909 1084 3.73 4.06 3 48˚350 .5 -10˚490 .0 48˚320 .8 -10˚510 .7 2.6 2.6
33˚100 .0 -24˚340 .0 33˚090 .9 -24˚330 .4 0.1 -0.6 3η Eri 910 0874 3.89 4.22 3 39˚15 .4 -10˚31 .3
0 0
39˚140 .8 -10˚320 .0 0.6 0.8
35˚360 .0 -23˚580 .5 35˚370 .4 -23˚560 .8 -1.3 -1.7 10ρ3 Eri 911 0925 5.26 5.58 4 41˚100 .6 -9˚130 .3 41˚110 .0 -9˚120 .7 -0.4 -0.6
38˚160 .0 -25˚590 .0 38˚140 .6 -25˚580 .0 1.3 -1.0 13ζ Eri 912 0984 4.80 5.13 3 44˚09 .5 -10˚20 .4
0 0
44˚07 .6 -10˚210 .2
0
1.8 0.8
45˚230 .0 -31˚090 .0 45˚220 .3 -31˚100 .0 0.6 1.0 26π Eri 913 1162 4.42 4.78 4 51˚500 .6 -13˚210 .8 51˚500 .0 -13˚240 .5 0.6 2.7
53˚490 .0 -30˚250 .0 53˚450 .4 -30˚570 .4 3.1 32.4 39A Eri 914 1318 4.87 5.21 5 58˚47 .3 -10˚44 .5
0 0
58˚520 .0 -11˚180 .5 -4.5 34.0
53˚530 .0 -27˚320 .0 53˚510 .0 -27˚300 .6 1.7 -1.4 38o1 Eri 915 1298 4.04 4.34 4 58˚080 .9 -7˚550 .7 58˚060 .7 -7˚560 .4 2.2 0.7
54˚580 .0 -28˚090 .5 54˚580 .0 -28˚090 .0 0.0 -0.5 40o2 Eri 916 1325 4.44 4.74 4 59˚14 .2
0
-8˚18 .6
0
59˚14 .0
0
-8˚190 .9 0.3 1.3
57˚460 .0 -25˚030 .0 57˚440 .5 -25˚010 .5 1.4 -1.5 42ξ Eri 917 1383 5.17 5.45 5 60˚590 .9 -4˚430 .4 60˚580 .1 -4˚440 .0 1.8 0.6
46˚250 .5 -18˚260 .0 46˚240 .9 -18˚260 .1 0.5 0.1 10 Tau 918 1101 4.28 4.52 4 49˚09 .3
0
-0˚53 .6
0
49˚08 .8
0
-0˚550 .4 0.5 1.8
50˚070 .0 -22˚450 .0 50˚020 .9 -22˚460 .0 3.8 1.0 32 Eri 919 1211 4.51 4.78 4 53˚380 .3 -4˚080 .1 53˚340 .8 -4˚110 .7 3.5 3.6
70˚140 .5 -34˚340 .0 70˚100 .8 -34˚460 .2 3.0 12.2 3ι Lep 920 1696 4.45 4.82 5 73˚27 .3 -12˚10 .4
0 0
73˚25 .8 -12˚240 .9
0
1.4 14.4
70˚200 .5 -35˚540 .0 70˚200 .0 -35˚510 .7 0.4 -2.3 4κ Lep 921 1705 4.36 4.74 5 73˚430 .6 -13˚290 .0 73˚420 .7 -13˚280 .7 0.9 -0.3
72˚270 .0 -35˚180 .0 72˚250 .2 -35˚230 .5 1.4 5.5 7ν Lep 922 1757 5.30 5.67 6 75˚23 .4 -12˚39 .8
0 0
75˚220 .5 -12˚470 .4 0.9 7.6
72˚140 .0 -36˚140 .0 72˚120 .4 -36˚140 .4 1.3 0.4 6λ Lep 923 1756 4.29 4.68 5 75˚190 .8 -13˚360 .7 75˚180 .4 -13˚390 .2 1.4 2.5
69˚490 .0 -39˚040 .0 69˚480 .9 -39˚050 .9 0.1 1.9 5µ Lep 924 1702 3.31 3.76 5 73˚45 .7 -16˚40 .6
0 0
73˚450 .7 -16˚440 .4 -0.0 3.8
66˚250 .5 -45˚000 .0 66˚280 .5 -45˚000 .4 -2.1 0.4 2 Lep 925 1654 3.19 3.84 4 72˚070 .0 -22˚560 .0 72˚090 .1 -22˚580 .0 -1.9 2.0
75˚490 .5 -41˚050 .5 75˚480 .6 -41˚060 .6 0.7 1.1 11α Lep 926 1865 2.58 3.06 3 78˚480 .2 -18˚070 .1 78˚470 .4 -18˚100 .2 0.7 3.2
74˚060 .5 -43˚570 .5 74˚060 .1 -43˚570 .4 0.3 -0.1 9β Lep 927 1829 2.84 3.42 3 77˚48 .2 -21˚06 .4
0 0
77˚470 .7 -21˚080 .3 0.4 1.9
79˚210 .5 -45˚490 .5 79˚190 .6 -45˚490 .8 1.3 0.3 13γ Lep 928 1983 3.60 4.25 3 81˚590 .3 -22˚350 .8 81˚570 .8 -22˚380 .3 1.4 2.5
81˚360 .0 -44˚180 .0 81˚340 .1 -44˚160 .6 1.3 -1.4 15δ Lep 929 2035 3.81 4.37 3 83˚34 .3 -20˚57 .8
0 0
83˚320 .7 -20˚580 .5 1.5 0.7
80˚260 .5 -38˚160 .0 80˚250 .3 -38˚160 .1 0.9 0.1 14ζ Lep 930 1998 3.55 3.96 4 82˚140 .6 -15˚000 .0 82˚130 .6 -15˚020 .1 1.0 2.2
83˚270 .5 -37˚400 .5 83˚200 .5 -37˚400 .3 5.6 -0.2 16η Lep 931 2085 3.71 4.10 4 84˚39 .7 -14˚16 .3
0 0
84˚330 .9 -14˚180 .3 5.6 2.0
86˚220 .0 -38˚260 .0 86˚200 .2 -38˚250 .1 1.4 -0.9 18θ Lep 932 2155 4.67 5.08 4 87˚030 .3 -14˚560 .7 87˚010 .8 -14˚570 .9 1.5 1.1
98˚350 .5 -39˚300 .0 98˚350 .4 -39˚310 .0 0.1 1.0 9α CMa 933 2491 -1.46 -1.02 1 96˚53 .6 -16˚10 .9
0 0
96˚530 .5 -16˚130 .8 0.1 3.0
101˚010 .5 -34˚500 .0 100˚380 .9 -34˚450 .9 18.6 -4.1 14θ CMa 934 2574 4.07 4.41 4 99˚130 .4 -11˚390 .7 98˚540 .9 -11˚360 .2 18.1 -3.5
101˚270 .0 -36˚430 .0 101˚290 .5 -36˚420 .3 -2.0 -0.7 18µ CMa 935 2593 5.00 5.37 5 99˚25 .3 -13˚34 .0
0 0
99˚270 .5 -13˚350 .5 -2.1 1.5
104˚060 .0 -38˚020 .5 104˚030 .4 -38˚020 .4 2.0 -0.1 23γ CMa 936 2657 4.12 4.53 3 101˚270 .7 -15˚040 .7 101˚250 .7 -15˚060 .4 1.9 1.7
102˚030 .0 -39˚300 .0 101˚580 .3 -39˚410 .6 3.6 11.6 20ι CMa 937 2596 4.37 4.82 4 99˚400 .0 -16˚220 .8 99˚350 .3 -16˚360 .0 4.5 13.2
96˚320 .5 -42˚120 .5 96˚270 .2 -41˚190 .9 4.0 -52.6 h 8ν3 CMa 938 2443 4.43 4.89 5 95˚060 .9 -18˚480 .0 95˚050 .4 -17˚570 .3 1.4 -50.7
91˚420 .5 -41˚180 .5 91˚370 .9 -41˚180 .3 3.5 -0.2 2β CMa 939 2294 1.98 2.46 2 91˚20 .9 -17˚47 .5
0 0
91˚170 .2 -17˚490 .2 3.5 1.8
105˚300 .5 -46˚090 .5 105˚270 .6 -46˚100 .6 2.0 1.1 24o2 CMa 940 2653 3.02 3.72 5 101˚370 .8 -23˚150 .6 101˚350 .6 -23˚180 .5 2.0 2.9
102˚360 .5 -46˚390 .5 102˚370 .0 -46˚490 .4 -0.3 9.9 16o1 CMa 941 2580 3.87 4.55 5 99˚240 .3 -23˚320 .7 99˚230 .8 -23˚440 .6 0.5 11.9
107˚550 .0 -48˚300 .0 107˚510 .4 -48˚300 .0 2.4 -0.0 25δ CMa 942 2693 1.84 2.70 3 103˚05 .1 -25˚47 .3 103˚020 .7 -25˚490 .0
0 0
2.1 1.6
105˚210 .5 -51˚240 .5 105˚130 .4 -51˚240 .5 5.1 -0.0 21 CMa 943 2618 1.50 2.71 3 100˚490 .9 -28˚270 .7 100˚440 .4 -28˚290 .0 4.8 1.4
91˚070 .0 -51˚460 .5 91˚490 .4 -53˚250 .5 -25.3 99.0 1ζ CMa 944 2282 3.02 4.53 3 90˚470 .1 -28˚150 .2 91˚150 .2 -29˚560 .5 -24.4 101.3
114˚110 .5 -50˚410 .3 114˚000 .3 -50˚390 .1 7.1 -2.2 31η CMa 945 2827 2.45 3.68 3 107˚120 .0 -28˚360 .2 107˚040 .9 -28˚340 .7 6.3 -1.5
106˚390 .5 -13˚330 .5 106˚380 .1 -13˚310 .7 1.4 -1.8 3β CMi 946 2845 2.90 3.10 3 106˚230 .4 9˚010 .2 106˚220 .1 9˚010 .2 1.2 0.0
110˚180 .5 -15˚570 .0 110˚170 .2 -15˚560 .4 1.3 -0.6 10α CMi 947 2943 0.38 0.59 2 109˚360 .8 6˚110 .9 109˚350 .5 6˚100 .8 1.3 1.1
106˚490 .0 -12˚510 .0 106˚470 .5 -12˚520 .1 1.5 1.1 4γ CMi 948 2854 4.32 4.51 6 106˚37 .7
0
9˚42 .4 106˚36 .0
0 0
9˚390 .6 1.7 2.8
106˚420 .5 -9˚460 .0 106˚420 .3 -9˚450 .5 0.2 -0.5 6 CMi 949 2864 4.54 4.72 6 106˚530 .4 12˚460 .8 106˚530 .1 12˚450 .4 0.3 1.4
110˚570 .5 -10˚190 .5 110˚570 .6 -10˚180 .0 -0.1 -1.5 11π CMi 950 3008 5.30 5.49 5 111˚030 .6 11˚400 .5 111˚030 .7 11˚400 .1 -0.2 0.4
94 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 95
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
125˚530 .5 -43˚180 .5 125˚52 .3 -43˚18 .5
0 0
0.9 0.0 15ρ Pup 951 3185 2.81 3.49 3 117˚39 .0 -23˚10 .8 117˚38 .4 -23˚120 .4
0 0 0
0.5 1.6
120˚350 .5 -44˚580 .5 120˚300 .5 -44˚580 .7 3.5 0.2 7ξ Pup 952 3045 3.34 4.05 3 113˚110 .3 -23˚530 .4 113˚070 .8 -23˚540 .7 3.1 1.3
118˚000 .0 -47˚280 .0 117˚550 .7 -47˚270 .4 2.9 -0.6 k Pup 953 2948 3.81 4.70 3 110˚400 .0 -25˚560 .3 110˚370 .3 -25˚560 .9 2.4 0.7
123˚060 .5 -32˚070 .0 123˚010 .5 -32˚070 .0 4.3 -0.0 r 19 Pup 954 3211 4.72 5.07 4 118˚120 .2 -11˚470 .2 118˚080 .1 -11˚480 .1 4.0 0.8
124˚270 .0 -38˚310 .0 124˚250 .3 -38˚210 .1 1.4 -9.9 16 Pup 955 3192 4.40 4.89 4 117˚460 .9 -18˚160 .0 117˚480 .3 -18˚070 .9 -1.3 -8.1
132˚260 .5 -32˚560 .0 132˚250 .0 -32˚550 .2 1.3 -0.8 9 Hya 956 3441 4.88 5.27 6 125˚480 .9 -14˚330 .1 125˚480 .2 -14˚330 .7 0.7 0.6
132˚510 .5 -30˚180 .0 132˚480 .6 -30˚180 .3 2.5 0.3 12 Hya 957 3484 4.32 4.67 4 126˚550 .0 -12˚070 .2 126˚520 .8 -12˚080 .4 2.2 1.2
130˚010 .5 -24˚290 .0 129˚590 .4 -24˚280 .3 1.9 -0.7 F Hya 958 3459 4.62 4.90 4 126˚020 .4 -5˚500 .6 126˚000 .8 -5˚510 .1 1.6 0.5
119˚260 .0 -21˚390 .0 119˚350 .2 -22˚370 .6 -8.4 58.6 r 29ζ Mon 959 3188 4.34 4.59 4 117˚100 .8 -0˚520 .1 117˚070 .7 -1˚530 .0 3.2 60.9
124˚200 .5 -22˚290 .5 124˚180 .5 -22˚280 .9 1.9 -0.6 r C Hya 960 3314 3.90 4.16 3 121˚27 .10
-2˚39 .1 121˚25 .4
0 0
-2˚390 .8 1.7 0.7
113˚440 .0 -30˚300 .0 113˚440 .4 -30˚290 .6 -0.3 -0.4 r 26α Mon 961 2970 3.93 4.24 3 110˚320 .1 -8˚390 .4 110˚320 .6 -8˚410 .0 -0.5 1.5
125˚390 .5 -14˚370 .0 125˚390 .2 -14˚380 .2 0.3 1.2 5σ Hya 962 3418 4.44 4.65 5 124˚28 .40
4˚43 .7 124˚27 .7
0 0
4˚410 .0 0.6 2.7
126˚460 .0 -14˚160 .5 126˚440 .9 -14˚170 .1 1.1 0.6 7η Hya 963 3454 4.30 4.52 4 125˚360 .0 4˚480 .4 125˚340 .7 4˚460 .4 1.3 2.0
126˚480 .0 -11˚080 .0 126˚480 .3 -11˚070 .7 -0.2 -0.3 11 Hya 964 3482 3.38 3.58 4 126˚23 .50
7˚50 .9 126˚23 .7
0 0
7˚490 .5 -0.1 1.4
127˚220 .5 -11˚360 .0 127˚210 .1 -11˚350 .0 1.4 -1.0 13ρ Hya 965 3492 4.36 4.57 5 126˚490 .8 7˚150 .5 126˚480 .5 7˚150 .2 1.3 0.3
129˚000 .5 -11˚010 .0 129˚010 .6 -11˚000 .1 -1.1 -0.9 16ζ Hya 966 3547 3.11 3.31 4 128˚32 .40
7˚25 .5 128˚33 .5
0 0
7˚240 .5 -1.1 1.0
131˚510 .5 -11˚050 .5 131˚500 .2 -11˚030 .7 1.3 -1.8 18ω Hya 967 3613 4.97 5.17 6 131˚140 .5 6˚370 .4 131˚130 .5 6˚380 .0 0.9 -0.6
134˚410 .5 -13˚050 .0 134˚420 .4 -13˚030 .2 -0.9 -1.8 22θ Hya 968 3665 3.88 4.10 4 133˚22 .00
3˚56 .8 133˚23 .2
0 0
3˚560 .8 -1.2 0.0
140˚110 .5 -15˚000 .0 140˚110 .0 -14˚590 .7 0.5 -0.3 32τ 2 Hya 969 3787 4.57 4.81 5 137˚540 .4 0˚320 .8 137˚540 .0 0˚310 .8 0.4 1.0
142˚040 .0 -14˚170 .5 142˚040 .7 -14˚170 .8 -0.7 0.3 35ι Hya 970 3845 3.91 4.14 4 139˚51 .00
0˚39 .3 139˚51 .6
0 0
0˚370 .5 -0.5 1.8
139˚530 .5 -16˚460 .0 140˚000 .9 -16˚430 .8 -7.1 -2.2 f 31τ 1 Hya 971 3759 4.60 4.85 5 137˚050 .5 -1˚020 .9 137˚120 .9 -1˚040 .3 -7.5 1.4
141˚450 .5 -22˚240 .0 141˚440 .0 -22˚240 .6 1.4 0.6 30α Hya 972 3748 1.98 2.26 1 137˚000 .8 -6˚560 .9 136˚590 .5 -6˚580 .4 1.3 1.5
147˚120 .0 -26˚330 .5 147˚080 .2 -26˚370 .0 3.4 3.5 38κ Hya 973 3849 5.06 5.43 4 140˚220 .0 -12˚300 .4 140˚170 .8 -12˚330 .8 4.1 3.4
150˚090 .0 -26˚120 .0 150˚080 .7 -26˚050 .6 0.3 -6.4 39υ1 Hya 974 3903 4.12 4.49 5 143˚020 .1 -13˚050 .7 143˚040 .5 -13˚000 .8 -2.4 -4.9
152˚480 .0 -23˚130 .0 152˚470 .0 -23˚110 .6 0.9 -1.4 40υ2 Hya 975 3970 4.60 4.95 5 146˚250 .6 -11˚100 .4 146˚250 .6 -11˚090 .9 0.0 -0.5
153˚510 .0 -21˚580 .0 153˚500 .3 -22˚000 .6 0.7 2.6 41λ Hya 976 3994 3.61 3.94 4 147˚480 .5 -10˚210 .6 147˚470 .2 -10˚240 .9 1.3 3.3
159˚310 .5 -24˚380 .0 159˚300 .2 -24˚400 .0 1.2 2.0 42µ Hya 977 4094 3.81 4.20 4 151˚430 .9 -14˚470 .3 151˚420 .5 -14˚490 .7 1.4 2.4
162˚310 .5 -23˚310 .0 162˚310 .0 -23˚300 .3 0.5 -0.7 r φ3 Hya 978 4171 4.91 5.31 5 154˚470 .5 -14˚490 .8 154˚470 .8 -14˚490 .8 -0.3 0.0
164˚510 .0 -21˚480 .5 164˚490 .2 -21˚490 .6 1.7 1.1 ν Hya 979 4232 3.11 3.49 4 157˚310 .4 -14˚060 .6 157˚290 .8 -14˚070 .7 1.6 1.1
124˚450 .5 -12˚270 .0 124˚450 .1 -12˚250 .6 0.4 -1.4 4δ Hya 980 3410 4.16 4.37 4 124˚070 .2 7˚020 .3 124˚070 .1 7˚020 .1 0.2 0.2
173˚010 .5 -25˚360 .0 173˚000 .4 -25˚370 .5 1.0 1.5 11β Crt 981 4343 4.48 5.05 4 163˚02 .8 -20˚38 .3 163˚01 .9 -20˚390 .8
0 0 0
0.8 1.5
173˚490 .0 -30˚170 .0 173˚480 .3 -30˚160 .1 0.6 -0.9 χ1 Hya 982 4314 4.94 5.75 5 161˚320 .5 -25˚090 .9 161˚330 .2 -25˚090 .5 -0.7 -0.5
201˚240 .5 -13˚430 .0 201˚270 .4 -13˚430 .3 -2.8 0.3 46γ Hya 983 5020 3.00 3.57 3 194˚170 .8 -21˚020 .2 194˚210 .2 -21˚030 .0 -3.2 0.8
199˚240 .0 -14˚370 .0 199˚170 .2 -14˚320 .7 6.6 -4.3 45ψ Hya 984 4958 4.95 5.51 6 191˚590 .9 -21˚040 .8 191˚560 .1 -20˚570 .8 3.6 -7.0
118˚440 .0 -10˚190 .0 118˚420 .0 -10˚190 .3 2.0 0.3 17β Cnc 985 3249 3.52 3.71 3 118˚440 .4 10˚220 .7 118˚420 .1 10˚210 .0 2.2 1.7
168˚130 .0 -22˚410 .0 168˚120 .1 -22˚420 .6 0.9 1.6 7α Crt 986 4287 4.08 4.50 4 160˚060 .9 -16˚090 .8 160˚060 .0 -16˚110 .6 0.9 1.8
173˚430 .0 -19˚390 .0 173˚410 .8 -19˚390 .5 1.2 0.5 15γ Crt 987 4405 4.08 4.50 4 166˚160 .2 -15˚290 .8 166˚150 .4 -15˚300 .3 0.7 0.5
171˚100 .5 -17˚250 .0 171˚090 .6 -17˚350 .2 0.9 10.2 12δ Crt 988 4382 3.56 3.92 4 164˚560 .4 -12˚280 .5 164˚510 .8 -12˚380 .0 4.5 9.5
170˚410 .0 -13˚300 .0 170˚410 .8 -13˚280 .2 -0.8 -1.8 14 Crt 989 4402 4.83 5.13 4 166˚050 .8 -8˚410 .8 166˚070 .6 -8˚410 .0 -1.7 -0.8
173˚020 .0 -11˚170 .0 173˚020 .5 -11˚170 .9 -0.5 0.9 21θ Crt 990 4468 4.70 5.00 4 169˚070 .0 -7˚340 .8 169˚070 .3 -7˚360 .3 -0.3 1.4
178˚300 .0 -18˚160 .0 178˚300 .9 -18˚170 .2 -0.8 1.2 27ζ Crt 991 4514 4.73 5.15 4 171˚08 .7 -16˚06 .5 171˚09 .5 -16˚080 .3
0 0 0
-0.8 1.8
180˚330 .0 -16˚020 .0 180˚330 .0 -16˚040 .7 -0.0 2.7 30η Crt 992 4567 5.18 5.59 4 173˚570 .3 -14˚530 .3 173˚560 .7 -14˚550 .9 0.6 2.7
174˚550 .0 -14˚090 .0 174˚540 .2 -14˚130 .5 0.7 4.5 24ι Crt 993 4488 5.48 5.82 5 169˚390 .1 -10˚560 .6 169˚370 .0 -11˚000 .8 2.1 4.2
186˚080 .0 -19˚390 .0 186˚070 .4 -19˚390 .4 0.5 0.4 2 Crv 994 4630 3.00 3.54 4 177˚260 .0 -20˚230 .7 177˚260 .1 -20˚230 .9 -0.1 0.2
185˚130 .0 -14˚250 .0 185˚110 .3 -14˚280 .9 1.6 3.9 4γ Crv 995 4662 2.59 3.01 3 178˚530 .6 -15˚160 .4 178˚500 .9 -15˚190 .4 2.5 3.0
187˚550 .0 -12˚070 .0 187˚540 .6 -12˚090 .4 0.4 2.4 7δ Crv 996 4757 2.95 3.35 3 182˚200 .8 -14˚150 .2 182˚200 .0 -14˚170 .1 0.8 2.0
191˚490 .0 -17˚590 .0 191˚480 .8 -18˚010 .2 0.2 2.2 9β Crv 997 4786 2.65 3.23 3 183˚240 .2 -21˚090 .1 183˚230 .8 -21˚100 .8 0.4 1.8
186˚380 .0 -21˚460 .0 186˚410 .1 -21˚440 .1 -2.9 -1.9 1α Crv 998 4623 4.02 4.67 4 176˚550 .1 -22˚300 .5 176˚590 .7 -22˚300 .1 -4.2 -0.4
188˚140 .0 -18˚140 .0 188˚150 .5 -18˚160 .2 -1.5 2.2 5ζ Crv 999 4696 5.21 5.76 5 179˚590 .3 -19˚560 .9 180˚000 .5 -19˚590 .6 -1.1 2.7
188˚210 .5 -11˚380 .0 188˚180 .0 -11˚380 .9 3.5 0.9 r 8η Crv 1000 4775 4.31 4.70 5 182˚570 .4 -13˚590 .3 182˚540 .3 -13˚580 .6 3.0 -0.7
96 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 97
Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Explicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 21: Tycho’s Catalog D, Implicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λD βD λ β Γλ ∆β x Name D HR m µ m αD δD α δ Γα ∆δ
211˚270 .0 -21˚490 .0 212˚28 .6 -21˚33 .9 -57.3 -15.1 fm
0 0
2g Cen 1001 5192 4.19 6.47 5 200˚28 .7 -32˚16 .9 201˚39 .2 -32˚250 .3
0 0 0
-59.5 8.4
210˚590 .0 -19˚080 .0 212˚140 .6 -18˚560 .2 -71.5 -11.8 fm 4h Cen 1002 5221 4.73 6.23 5 201˚150 .5 -29˚380 .8 202˚370 .6 -29˚550 .2 -71.2 16.4
210˚120 .0 -20˚510 .0 211˚100 .2 -20˚320 .1 -54.5 -18.9 fm 1i Cen 1003 5168 4.23 6.02 5 199˚410 .1 -30˚550 .7 200˚490 .2 -30˚590 .5 -58.4 3.8
211˚030 .0 -20˚120 .0 212˚220 .9 -20˚010 .9 -75.0 -10.1 fm 3k Cen 1004 5210 4.32 6.13 5 200˚500 .2 -30˚390 .1 202˚160 .2 -30˚580 .7 -73.7 19.6
98 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 99
Table 22: Tycho’s Select Stars, Implicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 22: Tycho’s Select Stars, Explicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λS βS λ β Γλ ∆β Name D S HR m µ m αS δS α δ Γα ∆δ
32˚170 .7 46˚350 .1 32˚15 .2
0
46˚35 .6
0
1.8 -0.5 α Cas 571 1 0168 2.23 2.36 3 4˚36 .0
0
54˚21 .0
0
4˚35 .9
0
54˚200 .2 0.1 0.8
83˚010 .6 66˚010 .9 82˚590 .4 66˚030 .2 0.9 -1.4 α UMi 336 2 0424 2.02 2.18 2 5˚470 .0 87˚090 .5 5˚560 .6 87˚080 .7 -0.5 0.8
356˚550 .6 -20˚460 .8 356˚580 .2 -20˚460 .9 -2.4 0.2 β Cet 834 3 0188 2.04 2.57 2 5˚51 .0 -20˚12 .0
0 0
5˚52 .6 -20˚110 .3
0
-1.5 -0.7
38˚270 .4 48˚450 .6 38˚240 .0 48˚460 .7 2.2 -1.1 γ Cas 573 4 0264 2.47 2.61 3 8˚210 .0 58˚330 .0 8˚190 .6 58˚320 .3 0.7 0.7
24˚480 .9 25˚590 .6 24˚500 .7 25˚560 .0 -1.6 3.7 β And 802 5 0337 2.06 2.20 2 11˚50 .0
0
33˚32 .0
0
11˚55 .0
0
33˚290 .0 -4.1 3.0
42˚200 .0 46˚220 .2 42˚210 .6 46˚230 .1 -1.1 -0.9 δ Cas 574 6 0403 2.68 2.82 3 15˚030 .0 58˚070 .0 15˚060 .9 58˚070 .8 -2.1 -0.8
27˚360 .7 7˚090 .1 27˚370 .1 7˚080 .8 -0.4 0.3 γ Ari 1 7 0545 4.04 4.21 4 22˚56 .0
0
17˚19 .0
0
22˚57 .0
0
17˚180 .2 -0.9 0.8
16˚240 .9 -20˚180 .6 16˚210 .8 -20˚210 .1 3.0 2.5 ζ Cet 830 8 0539 3.73 4.08 3 22˚590 .0 -12˚160 .0 22˚560 .8 -12˚200 .3 2.1 4.3
28˚230 .2 8˚280 .7 28˚240 .2 8˚280 .2 -0.9 0.5 β Ari 2 9 0553 2.64 2.81 4 23˚100 .0 18˚500 .0 23˚110 .6 18˚490 .3 -1.5 0.7
38˚400 .2 27˚460 .3 38˚400 .4 27˚460 .5 -0.2 -0.1 γ And 805 10 0603 2.16 2.30 2 24˚55 .0
0
40˚23 .0
0
24˚56 .7
0
40˚220 .3 -1.3 0.7
23˚480 .3 -9˚040 .0 23˚480 .1 -9˚050 .3 0.3 1.3 α Psc 318 11 0595 3.94 4.18 3 25˚220 .0 0˚500 .0 25˚220 .3 0˚480 .0 -0.3 2.0
32˚050 .7 9˚570 .2 32˚050 .2 9˚570 .2 0.4 0.1 α Ari 3 12 0617 2.00 2.16 3 26˚13 .0
0
21˚33 .0
0
26˚13 .1
0
21˚320 .1 -0.1 0.9
38˚470 .0 -12˚380 .4 38˚440 .9 -12˚370 .0 2.0 -1.3 α Cet 818 13 0911 2.53 2.75 2 40˚250 .0 2˚290 .0 40˚220 .7 2˚280 .3 2.3 0.7
50˚370 .2 22˚220 .3 50˚360 .6 22˚230 .0 0.6 -0.7 β Per 626 14 0936 2.12 2.26 3 40˚38 .0
0
39˚22 .0
0
40˚38 .3
0
39˚210 .2 -0.2 0.8
56˚300 .2 30˚030 .9 56˚310 .4 30˚040 .8 -1.0 -1.0 α Per 621 15 1017 1.79 1.93 2 44˚020 .0 48˚220 .0 44˚040 .6 48˚210 .9 -1.7 0.1
54˚240 .0 4˚000 .3 54˚250 .5 4˚000 .6 -1.5 -0.3 η Tau 53 16 1165 2.87 3.03 3 50˚57 .0
0
22˚49 .0
0
50˚59 .1
0
22˚480 .1 -1.9 0.9
60˚110 .8 -5˚460 .0 60˚130 .5 -5˚460 .6 -1.6 0.6 γ Tau 32 17 1346 3.65 3.83 3 59˚160 .0 14˚370 .0 59˚180 .0 14˚350 .5 -1.9 1.5
62˚520 .8 -2˚370 .5 62˚530 .1 -2˚360 .7 -0.4 -0.9  Tau 36 18 1409 3.53 3.70 3 61˚21 .0
0
18˚14 .0
0
61˚21 .5
0
18˚130 .1 -0.5 0.9
64˚120 .5 -5˚310 .4 64˚130 .0 -5˚290 .7 -0.5 -1.6 α Tau 35 19 1457 0.85 1.02 1 63˚160 .5 15˚380 .0 63˚160 .9 15˚370 .9 -0.4 0.1
76˚160 .2 22˚500 .5 76˚170 .2 22˚510 .6 -0.9 -1.1 α Aur 650 20 1708 0.08 0.21 1 71˚49 .0
0
45˚30 .0
0
71˚50 .7
0
45˚290 .3 -1.2 0.7
71˚150 .7 -31˚110 .6 71˚150 .5 -31˚100 .4 0.2 -1.2 β Ori 874 21 1713 0.12 0.44 1 73˚510 .5 -8˚430 .0 73˚510 .1 -8˚430 .8 0.4 0.8
76˚590 .4 5˚200 .4 77˚000 .4 5˚210 .1 -0.9 -0.7 β Tau 42 22 1791 1.65 1.80 2 75˚16 .0
0
28˚12 .0
0
75˚17 .2
0
28˚100 .9 -1.1 1.1
75˚240 .0 -16˚530 .8 75˚220 .8 -16˚520 .0 1.2 -1.8 γ Ori 842 23 1790 1.64 1.85 2 75˚580 .0 5˚550 .0 75˚560 .7 5˚540 .7 1.3 0.3
74˚060 .4 -43˚570 .1 74˚060 .1 -43˚570 .4 0.2 0.3 β Lep 927 24 1829 2.84 3.42 3 77˚48 .0 -21˚06 .0
0 0
77˚47 .7 -21˚080 .3
0
0.3 2.3
76˚500 .9 -23˚370 .5 76˚470 .6 -23˚360 .3 3.0 -1.2 δ Ori 865 25 1851 2.21 2.46 2 77˚580 .0 -0˚390 .0 77˚540 .9 -0˚400 .0 3.1 1.0
78˚110 .2 -13˚260 .8 78˚080 .3 -13˚250 .3 2.8 -1.5 λ Ori 838 26 1879 3.49 3.69 4 78˚210 .0 9˚360 .0 78˚180 .1 9˚350 .3 2.9 0.7
79˚110 .5 -2˚140 .4 79˚130 .0 -2˚140 .7 -1.5 0.3 ζ Tau 40 27 1910 3.00 3.17 3 78˚26 .0
0
20˚51 .0
0
78˚27 .8
0
20˚480 .8 -1.7 2.2
77˚540 .7 -24˚330 .8 77˚530 .7 -24˚330 .5 0.9 -0.3  Ori 866 28 1903 1.70 1.95 2 79˚010 .0 -1˚300 .0 79˚000 .1 -1˚310 .8 0.9 1.8
79˚060 .9 -25˚210 .2 79˚060 .8 -25˚200 .7 0.1 -0.5 ζ Ori 867 29 1948 1.91 2.17 2 80˚10 .0
0
-2˚12 .0
0
80˚09 .9
0
-2˚130 .5 0.1 1.5
84˚250 .1 21˚270 .0 84˚200 .9 21˚270 .4 4.0 -0.3 β Aur 651 30 2088 1.90 2.04 2 82˚400 .0 44˚500 .0 82˚340 .7 44˚480 .1 3.8 1.9
83˚130 .1 -16˚060 .2 83˚11 .1 -16˚040 .8
0
2.0 -1.4 α Ori 841 31 2061 0.50 0.69 2 83˚260 .0 7˚160 .0 83˚240 .0 7˚150 .3 2.0 0.7
93˚300 .3 -6˚480 .8 93˚320 .0 -6˚470 .3 -1.7 -1.5 γ Gem 81 32 2421 1.93 2.11 2 93˚380 .0 16˚400 .0 93˚390 .8 16˚390 .4 -1.7 0.6
98˚340 .7 -39˚300 .2 98˚350 .4 -39˚310 .0 -0.5 0.8 α CMa 933 33 2491 -1.46 -1.02 1 96˚530 .0 -16˚110 .0 96˚530 .5 -16˚130 .8 -0.5 2.8
104˚350 .9 10˚010 .6 104˚410 .2 10˚030 .7 -5.2 -2.2 α Gem 65 34 2890 1.58 1.73 2 107˚090 .0 32˚410 .0 107˚150 .1 32˚400 .6 -5.1 0.4
110˚180 .7 -15˚560 .9 110˚170 .2 -15˚560 .4 1.5 -0.5 α CMi 947 35 2943 0.38 0.59 2 109˚37 .0
0
6˚12 .0 109˚35 .5
0 0
6˚100 .8 1.5 1.2
107˚430 .8 6˚370 .9 107˚420 .8 6˚390 .3 1.0 -1.4 β Gem 66 36 2990 1.14 1.29 2 110˚130 .0 28˚550 .0 110˚110 .7 28˚540 .6 1.1 0.4
125˚530 .6 -43˚180 .7 125˚520 .3 -43˚180 .5 1.0 -0.2 ρ Pup 951 37 3185 2.81 3.49 3 117˚390 .0 -23˚110 .0 117˚380 .4 -23˚120 .4 0.5 1.4
121˚460 .4 1˚130 .7 121˚460 .1 1˚150 .3 0.2 -1.6 Praesepe 95 38 3428 5.69 5.85 n 124˚200 .0 21˚020 .0 124˚190 .7 21˚020 .0 0.3 0.0
121˚550 .9 3˚070 .9 121˚580 .7 3˚090 .5 -2.8 -1.7 γ Cnc 98 39 3449 4.66 4.82 4 124˚58 .0
0
22˚51 .0 125˚00 .9
0 0
22˚500 .3 -2.7 0.7
123˚070 .4 0˚030 .3 123˚090 .0 0˚030 .8 -1.6 -0.5 δ Cnc 99 40 3461 3.94 4.10 4 125˚270 .0 19˚350 .0 125˚280 .3 19˚330 .5 -1.3 1.5
141˚450 .7 -22˚240 .0 141˚440 .0 -22˚240 .6 1.5 0.5 α Hya 972 41 3748 1.98 2.26 1 137˚01 .0
0
-6˚57 .0 136˚59 .5
0 0
-6˚580 .4 1.5 1.4
142˚190 .5 4˚510 .3 142˚200 .0 4˚500 .5 -0.5 0.8 η Leo 116 42 3975 3.52 3.69 3 146˚22 .0
0
18˚42 .0 146˚21 .8
0 0
18˚400 .2 0.2 1.8
144˚170 .1 0˚260 .9 144˚170 .2 0˚270 .1 -0.2 -0.2 α Leo 117 43 3982 1.35 1.53 1 146˚450 .5 13˚530 .5 146˚450 .4 13˚520 .8 0.1 0.7
141˚560 .9 11˚490 .7 141˚590 .1 11˚500 .4 -2.2 -0.7 ζ Leo 114 44 4031 3.44 3.60 3 148˚33 .0
0
25˚23 .0 148˚34 .9
0 0
25˚220 .1 -1.7 0.9
143˚580 .0 8˚460 .7 144˚000 .1 8˚470 .7 -2.1 -1.0 γ Leo 115 45 4057 2.30 2.46 2 149˚250 .5 21˚500 .0 149˚270 .4 21˚490 .4 -1.8 0.6
133˚430 .5 45˚030 .8 133˚490 .0 45˚050 .7 -3.9 -1.9 β UMa 373 46 4295 2.37 2.51 2 159˚12 .0
0
58˚31 .0 159˚17 .1
0 0
58˚290 .8 -2.7 1.2
129˚340 .5 49˚390 .7 129˚350 .6 49˚390 .6 -0.7 0.1 α UMa 372 47 4301 1.79 1.92 2 159˚370 .0 63˚540 .0 159˚340 .3 63˚520 .8 1.2 1.2
155˚400 .8 14˚190 .8 155˚420 .9 14˚190 .7 -2.1 0.2 δ Leo 129 48 4357 2.56 2.72 2 163˚10 .0
0
22˚43 .0 163˚11 .4
0 0
22˚410 .6 -1.3 1.4
166˚030 .8 12˚180 .3 166˚050 .1 12˚170 .8 -1.3 0.5 β Leo 136 49 4534 2.14 2.32 1 172˚090 .0 16˚490 .0 172˚090 .6 16˚470 .9 -0.5 1.1
144˚440 .9 47˚060 .5 144˚500 .8 47˚060 .7 -4.1 -0.2 γ UMa 375 50 4554 2.44 2.58 2 173˚03 .0
0
55˚57 .0 173˚06 .1
0 0
55˚540 .6 -1.8 2.4
100 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 101
Table 22: Tycho’s Select Stars, Implicit Ecliptical, 1601.03 Table 22: Tycho’s Select Stars, Explicit Equatorial, 1601.03
λS βS λ β Γλ ∆β Name D S HR m µ m αS δS α δ Γα ∆δ
145˚240 .3 51˚360 .7 145˚25 .4
0
51˚37 .6 -0.7 -0.9 δ UMa
0
374 51 4660 3.31 3.45 2 178˚50 .0
0
59˚15 .0 178˚48 .8
0 0
59˚150 .2 0.6 -0.2
185˚540 .9 8˚410 .3 185˚550 .9 8˚390 .2 -1.0 2.1 δ Vir 159 52 4910 3.38 3.58 3 188˚530 .0 5˚370 .0 188˚520 .9 5˚340 .9 0.1 2.1
153˚110 .1 54˚170 .3 153˚16 .8
0
54˚170 .8 -3.3 -0.4  UMa 381 53 4905 1.77 1.91 2 189˚01 .0
0
58˚10 .0 189˚03 .0
0 0
58˚080 .4 -1.1 1.6
184˚230 .8 16˚150 .0 184˚230 .3 16˚130 .7 0.5 1.3  Vir 162 54 4932 2.83 3.01 3 190˚360 .0 13˚080 .0 190˚340 .6 13˚070 .3 1.3 0.7
198˚150 .7 -1˚590 .1 198˚16 .7
0
-2˚010 .5 -1.0 2.4 α Vir 163 55 5056 0.98 1.30 1 196˚04 .0
0
-9˚01 .0 196˚04 .3
0 0
-9˚030 .2 -0.3 2.2
159˚560 .8 56˚210 .5 160˚020 .1 56˚210 .8 -2.9 -0.3 ζ UMa 382 56 5054 2.06 2.20 2 196˚540 .0 57˚030 .0 196˚550 .3 57˚010 .8 -0.7 1.2
171˚110 .9 54˚240 .6 171˚18 .6
0
54˚230 .9 -3.9 0.7 η UMa 383 57 5191 1.86 2.00 2 202˚540 .0 51˚220 .0 202˚550 .8 51˚190 .8 -1.1 2.2
198˚390 .8 31˚020 .6 198˚400 .1 31˚000 .7 -0.3 1.8 α Boo 469 58 5340 -0.04 0.12 1 209˚230 .5 21˚180 .5 209˚220 .3 21˚170 .7 1.1 0.8
192˚050 .9 49˚330 .0 192˚040 .1 49˚330 .8 1.2 -0.7 γ Boo 459 59 5435 3.03 3.17 3 214˚020 .0 40˚030 .0 213˚590 .8 40˚050 .3 1.7 -2.3
219˚310 .0 0˚250 .8 219˚310 .4 0˚230 .0 -0.5 2.8 α Lib 189 60 5530 2.64 3.04 2 217˚14 .5 -14˚18 .0 217˚14 .4 -14˚190 .9
0 0 0
0.1 1.9
223˚470 .8 8˚340 .7 223˚480 .6 8˚320 .6 -0.8 2.1 β Lib 191 61 5685 2.61 2.92 2 223˚540 .5 -7˚500 .0 223˚540 .8 -7˚510 .2 -0.3 1.2
216˚370 .4 44˚220 .4 216˚400 .3 44˚220 .0 -2.1 0.5 α CrB 497 62 5793 2.23 2.38 2 229˚26 .0
0
28˚06 .0 229˚27 .3
0 0
28˚060 .4 -1.1 -0.4
226˚290 .5 25˚360 .2 226˚280 .7 25˚320 .6 0.7 3.6 α Ser 720 63 5854 2.65 2.85 2 231˚120 .0 7˚460 .0 231˚100 .1 7˚440 .3 1.8 1.7
237˚350 .7 1˚040 .9 237˚37 .3
0
1˚030 .5 -1.6 1.4 β Sco 207 64 5984 2.50 3.00 2 235˚34 .0 -18˚38 .0 235˚35 .6 -18˚380 .5
0 0 0
-1.6 0.5
236˚460 .0 17˚190 .6 236˚430 .8 17˚180 .3 2.1 1.2 δ Oph 694 65 6056 2.74 2.99 3 238˚250 .0 -2˚370 .0 238˚220 .8 -2˚360 .0 2.2 -1.0
244˚120 .9 -4˚270 .4 244˚11 .8
0
-4˚310 .0 1.1 3.6 α Sco 214 66 6134 0.96 1.76 1 241˚18 .0 -25˚26 .0 241˚16 .4 -25˚280 .0
0 0 0
1.5 2.0
235˚270 .4 42˚480 .5 235˚310 .0 42˚450 .2 -2.7 3.3 β Her 506 67 6148 2.77 2.93 3 243˚150 .0 22˚270 .0 243˚160 .6 22˚250 .0 -1.4 2.0
243˚380 .8 11˚300 .2 243˚390 .5 11˚260 .3 -0.7 3.9 ζ Oph 700 68 6175 2.56 2.89 3 243˚49 .0
0
-9˚39 .0 243˚49 .1
0 0
-9˚410 .1 -0.1 2.1
252˚200 .1 7˚170 .8 252˚230 .9 7˚140 .3 -3.7 3.5 η Oph 699 69 6378 2.43 2.84 3 251˚500 .0 -15˚070 .0 251˚530 .6 -15˚090 .0 -3.4 2.0
250˚320 .6 37˚220 .2 250˚34 .8
0
37˚200 .0 -1.7 2.2 α Her 505 70 6406 3.31 3.48 3 254˚060 .0 14˚550 .0 254˚070 .3 14˚540 .6 -1.3 0.4
249˚100 .2 47˚470 .1 249˚110 .1 47˚450 .3 -0.7 1.8 δ Her 509 71 6410 3.14 3.30 3 254˚400 .0 25˚220 .0 254˚400 .1 25˚220 .0 -0.1 -0.0
256˚490 .1 35˚570 .5 256˚510 .7 35˚540 .7 -2.0 2.8 α Oph 688 72 6556 2.08 2.26 3 259˚05 .0
0
12˚56 .0 259˚06 .7
0 0
12˚550 .0 -1.7 1.0
259˚450 .2 28˚010 .1 259˚460 .5 27˚580 .5 -1.1 2.6 β Oph 689 73 6603 2.77 2.98 3 260˚560 .0 4˚490 .0 260˚560 .9 4˚480 .3 -0.9 0.7
262˚260 .1 75˚030 .5 262˚24 .8
0
74˚580 .6 0.4 4.9 γ Dra 416 74 6705 2.23 2.36 3 266˚52 .0
0
51˚37 .0 266˚50 .6
0 0
51˚340 .1 0.9 2.9
279˚440 .9 61˚470 .6 279˚430 .6 61˚450 .2 0.6 2.3 α Lyr 533 75 7001 0.03 0.17 1 275˚520 .0 38˚280 .0 275˚510 .6 38˚270 .6 0.3 0.4
280˚430 .1 1˚300 .2 280˚410 .1 1˚290 .4 2.0 0.8 π Sgr 223 76 7264 2.89 3.49 4 281˚320 .0 -21˚350 .0 281˚290 .8 -21˚340 .5 2.0 -0.5
284˚160 .1 36˚160 .5 284˚140 .8 36˚140 .6 1.1 1.8 ζ Aql 742 77 7235 2.99 3.18 3 281˚470 .0 13˚200 .0 281˚460 .2 13˚200 .0 0.8 -0.0
295˚440 .5 49˚010 .9 295˚430 .1 49˚000 .6 0.9 1.3 β Cyg 544 78 7417 2.92 3.07 3 288˚400 .0 27˚100 .0 288˚390 .6 27˚100 .5 0.3 -0.5
296˚090 .1 29˚220 .2 296˚080 .9 29˚190 .0 0.1 3.2 α Aql 736 79 7557 0.77 0.98 2 292˚49 .0
0
7˚54 .0 292˚49 .5
0 0
7˚520 .7 -0.5 1.3
310˚510 .6 64˚270 .7 310˚450 .0 64˚260 .7 2.9 1.1 δ Cyg 549 80 7528 2.87 3.01 3 293˚100 .0 44˚120 .0 293˚070 .6 44˚110 .8 1.7 0.2
298˚170 .3 7˚020 .6 298˚170 .3 6˚580 .4 0.0 4.3 α Cap 231 81 7754 3.57 3.95 3 298˚570 .0 -13˚400 .0 298˚570 .6 -13˚420 .8 -0.6 2.8
298˚300 .3 4˚400 .3 298˚280 .7 4˚370 .8 1.6 2.5 β Cap 233 82 7776 3.08 3.50 3 299˚390 .0 -15˚570 .0 299˚370 .6 -15˚580 .4 1.3 1.4
319˚260 .2 57˚090 .4 319˚20 .6
0
57˚090 .1 3.0 0.3 γ Cyg 547 83 7796 2.20 2.34 3 302˚010 .5 39˚010 .0 301˚580 .9 39˚010 .3 2.0 -0.3
306˚110 .7 8˚080 .8 306˚090 .5 8˚070 .3 2.2 1.6  Aqr 266 84 7950 3.77 4.11 4 306˚320 .0 -10˚530 .0 306˚300 .0 -10˚530 .8 1.9 0.8
329˚530 .4 59˚560 .6 329˚50 .7
0
59˚550 .4 1.4 1.1 α Cyg 548 85 7924 1.25 1.39 2 306˚570 .5 43˚530 .5 306˚570 .8 43˚530 .5 -0.2 0.0
322˚090 .9 49˚260 .0 322˚090 .2 49˚250 .8 0.5 0.3  Cyg 553 86 7949 2.46 2.60 3 307˚310 .0 32˚300 .0 307˚310 .4 32˚310 .2 -0.3 -1.2
317˚500 .3 8˚410 .5 317˚49 .9
0
8˚380 .7 0.4 2.8 β Aqr 262 87 8232 2.91 3.20 3 317˚37 .0
0
-7˚15 .0 317˚37 .3
0 0
-7˚160 .7 -0.3 1.7
316˚130 .4 -2˚260 .3 316˚120 .2 -2˚310 .1 1.2 4.9 γ Cap 253 88 8278 3.68 4.17 3 319˚280 .0 -18˚210 .0 319˚270 .9 -18˚250 .0 0.1 4.0
30˚120 .4 71˚070 .0 30˚05 .5
0
71˚070 .2 2.2 -0.2 β Cep 444 89 8238 3.23 3.37 3 320˚460 .0 68˚500 .0 320˚470 .8 68˚490 .2 -0.6 0.8
326˚210 .8 22˚070 .9 326˚200 .0 22˚070 .3 1.7 0.6  Peg 767 90 8308 2.39 2.58 3 321˚100 .0 8˚050 .0 321˚080 .8 8˚050 .2 1.2 -0.2
318˚000 .4 -2˚290 .3 317˚57 .4
0
-2˚320 .0 3.0 2.7 δ Cap 254 91 8322 2.87 3.35 3 321˚16 .0 -17˚51 .0 321˚13 .5 -17˚530 .5
0 0 0
2.4 2.5
327˚480 .1 10˚420 .0 327˚470 .6 10˚410 .0 0.5 1.0 α Aqr 260 92 8414 2.96 3.21 3 326˚190 .0 -2˚130 .0 326˚180 .8 -2˚130 .3 0.2 0.3
328˚110 .7 -20˚590 .1 328˚140 .7 -21˚050 .1 -2.8 5.9 α PsA 299 93 8728 1.16 3.24 1 338˚460 .0 -31˚390 .0 338˚510 .0 -31˚420 .8 -4.2 3.8
353˚500 .4 31˚070 .7 353˚480 .5 31˚080 .0 1.6 -0.3 β Peg 784 94 8775 2.42 2.57 2 341˚090 .0 25˚560 .0 341˚080 .2 25˚560 .2 0.8 -0.2
347˚570 .6 19˚250 .3 347˚550 .9 19˚240 .9 1.6 0.4 α Peg 783 95 8781 2.49 2.68 2 341˚150 .0 13˚050 .0 341˚140 .1 13˚040 .6 0.9 0.4
345˚500 .6 7˚170 .2 345˚480 .8 7˚170 .5 1.7 -0.3 γ Psc 301 96 8852 3.69 3.92 4 344˚09 .0
0
1˚07 .0 344˚07 .3
0 0
1˚070 .1 1.7 -0.1
8˚460 .8 25˚410 .6 8˚450 .5 25˚410 .2 1.2 0.5 α And 790 97 0015 2.06 2.22 2 356˚590 .0 26˚540 .0 356˚590 .1 26˚530 .2 -0.0 0.8
29˚350 .6 51˚140 .2 29˚320 .9 51˚140 .1 1.7 0.2 β Cas 581 98 0021 2.27 2.40 3 357˚050 .0 56˚580 .0 357˚050 .9 56˚560 .9 -0.5 1.1
3˚380 .6 12˚340 .5 3˚360 .0 12˚350 .3 2.5 -0.8 γ Peg 785 99 0039 2.38 2.57 2 358˚140 .0 12˚580 .0 358˚110 .8 12˚570 .8 2.2 0.2
355˚230 .4 -10˚010 .1 355˚200 .5 -10˚010 .4 2.8 0.3 ι Cet 833 100 0074 3.56 3.89 3 359˚49 .0 -11˚01 .0 359˚46 .2 -11˚020 .4
0 0 0
2.8 1.4
102 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 103
Table 23: Tycho’s Select Stars, Implicit Ecliptical, 1701.03 Table 23: Tycho’s Select Stars, Explicit Equatorial, 1701.03
λS βS λ β Γλ ∆β Name D S HR m µ m αS δS α δ Γα ∆δ
33˚420 .7 46˚350 .4 33˚38 .3
0
46˚36 .0
0
3.0 -0.6 α Cas 571 1 0168 2.23 2.36 3 5˚58 .0
0
54˚55 .0
0
5˚57 .1
0
54˚53 .5
0
0.5 1.5
84˚290 .0 65˚590 .4 84˚230 .2 66˚040 .0 2.3 -4.5 α UMi 336 2 0424 2.02 2.18 2 9˚460 .0 87˚430 .5 8˚500 .6 87˚410 .9 2.2 1.6
358˚210 .2 -20˚460 .7 358˚220 .5 -20˚470 .0 -1.3 0.3 β Cet 834 3 0188 2.04 2.56 2 7˚080 .0 -19˚380 .0 7˚080 .4 -19˚380 .0 -0.3 0.0
39˚530 .0 48˚450 .9 39˚470 .1 48˚470 .2 3.9 -1.3 γ Cas 573 4 0264 2.47 2.61 3 9˚480 .0 59˚070 .0 9˚450 .1 59˚050 .3 1.5 1.7
26˚130 .9 25˚590 .5 26˚140 .2 25˚560 .1 -0.3 3.4 β And 802 5 0337 2.06 2.20 2 13˚13 .0
0
34˚05 .0
0
13˚16 .9
0
34˚010 .5 -3.2 3.5
43˚460 .6 46˚210 .9 43˚450 .3 46˚230 .4 0.9 -1.5 δ Cas 574 6 0403 2.68 2.82 3 16˚380 .0 58˚400 .0 16˚390 .4 58˚390 .9 -0.8 0.1
29˚020 .3 7˚080 .8 29˚000 .8 7˚090 .0 1.6 -0.2 γ Ari 1 7 0545 4.04 4.21 4 24˚19 .0
0
17˚50 .0
0
24˚18 .1
0
17˚480 .7 0.9 1.3
17˚490 .9 -20˚180 .7 17˚450 .7 -20˚200 .9 3.9 2.2 ζ Cet 830 8 0539 3.73 4.07 3 24˚140 .0 -11˚450 .0 24˚100 .7 -11˚490 .7 3.2 4.7
29˚470 .6 8˚280 .9 29˚470 .8 8˚280 .4 -0.2 0.5 β Ari 2 9 0553 2.64 2.81 4 24˚320 .0 19˚210 .0 24˚330 .1 19˚190 .7 -1.1 1.3
40˚030 .7 27˚460 .3 40˚030 .8 27˚460 .9 -0.1 -0.7 γ And 805 10 0603 2.16 2.30 2 26˚240 .0 40˚530 .0 26˚260 .0 40˚520 .4 -1.5 0.6
25˚120 .9 -9˚040 .4 25˚110 .9 -9˚040 .9 1.0 0.5 α Psc 318 11 0595 3.94 4.17 3 26˚400 .0 1˚200 .0 26˚390 .3 1˚180 .1 0.7 1.9
33˚310 .4 9˚560 .7 33˚290 .0 9˚570 .3 2.3 -0.6 α Ari 3 12 0617 2.00 2.16 3 27˚380 .0 22˚030 .0 27˚360 .2 22˚010 .7 1.7 1.3
40˚070 .9 -12˚370 .7 40˚080 .6 -12˚360 .6 -0.7 -1.1 α Cet 818 13 0911 2.53 2.75 2 41˚400 .0 2˚540 .0 41˚400 .4 2˚530 .4 -0.4 0.6
52˚020 .5 22˚210 .7 52˚000 .1 22˚230 .7 2.2 -1.9 β Per 626 14 0936 2.12 2.26 3 42˚150 .0 39˚470 .0 42˚130 .3 39˚460 .2 1.3 0.8
57˚410 .8 30˚040 .6 57˚540 .9 30˚050 .5 -11.4 -0.9 α Per 621 15 1017 1.79 1.93 2 45˚300 .0 48˚430 .0 45˚480 .1 48˚450 .5 -11.9 -2.5
55˚480 .8 4˚000 .3 55˚490 .2 4˚010 .2 -0.4 -0.9 η Tau 53 16 1165 2.87 3.03 3 52˚260 .0 23˚100 .0 52˚260 .9 23˚080 .7 -0.9 1.3
61˚360 .2 -5˚450 .9 61˚370 .3 -5˚450 .9 -1.1 0.1 γ Tau 32 17 1346 3.65 3.83 3 60˚410 .0 14˚540 .0 60˚420 .5 14˚520 .2 -1.4 1.8
64˚140 .3 -2˚350 .8 64˚170 .0 -2˚360 .0 -2.6 0.2  Tau 36 18 1409 3.53 3.70 3 62˚450 .0 18˚310 .0 62˚480 .2 18˚280 .7 -3.0 2.3
65˚370 .5 -5˚310 .2 65˚360 .7 -5˚290 .3 0.8 -1.9 α Tau 35 19 1457 0.85 1.02 1 64˚430 .0 15˚530 .0 64˚420 .2 15˚520 .2 0.8 0.8
77˚390 .7 22˚500 .6 77˚400 .9 22˚510 .7 -1.1 -1.1 α Aur 650 20 1708 0.08 0.21 1 73˚380 .0 45˚400 .0 73˚400 .2 45˚380 .5 -1.6 1.5
72˚430 .7 -31˚110 .5 72˚390 .2 -31˚090 .7 3.8 -1.9 β Ori 874 21 1713 0.12 0.43 1 75˚070 .0 -8˚330 .5 75˚020 .8 -8˚340 .8 4.1 1.3
78˚250 .6 5˚200 .1 78˚240 .1 5˚210 .6 1.6 -1.5 β Tau 42 22 1791 1.65 1.80 2 76˚53 .0
0
28˚20 .0
0
76˚51 .4
0
28˚180 .6 1.4 1.4
76˚460 .5 -16˚530 .5 76˚460 .4 -16˚510 .2 0.1 -2.2 γ Ori 842 23 1790 1.64 1.85 2 77˚170 .0 6˚030 .0 77˚160 .8 6˚020 .5 0.2 0.5
75˚310 .2 -43˚570 .0 75˚290 .8 -43˚560 .8 1.0 -0.2 β Lep 927 24 1829 2.84 3.41 3 78˚530 .0 -20˚590 .0 78˚510 .7 -21˚010 .7 1.2 2.7
78˚150 .3 -23˚370 .2 78˚110 .3 -23˚350 .5 3.6 -1.7 δ Ori 865 25 1851 2.21 2.46 2 79˚150 .0 -0˚320 .0 79˚110 .3 -0˚330 .4 3.7 1.4
79˚340 .6 -13˚260 .1 79˚320 .0 -13˚240 .5 2.6 -1.6 λ Ori 838 26 1879 3.49 3.69 4 79˚430 .0 9˚430 .0 79˚400 .4 9˚410 .7 2.6 1.3
80˚360 .9 -2˚130 .8 80˚360 .7 -2˚140 .0 0.2 0.2 ζ Tau 40 27 1910 3.00 3.17 3 79˚570 .0 20˚580 .0 79˚570 .0 20˚550 .1 -0.0 2.9
79˚190 .6 -24˚330 .9 79˚170 .4 -24˚320 .7 2.0 -1.2  Ori 866 28 1903 1.70 1.95 2 80˚180 .0 -1˚240 .0 80˚150 .9 -1˚250 .7 2.1 1.7
80˚310 .1 -25˚210 .6 80˚300 .5 -25˚190 .9 0.6 -1.6 ζ Ori 867 29 1948 1.91 2.17 2 81˚26 .0
0
-2˚07 .0
0
81˚25 .3
0
-2˚080 .2 0.7 1.2
85˚520 .8 21˚270 .2 85˚440 .5 21˚280 .2 7.8 -1.0 β Aur 651 30 2088 1.90 2.04 2 84˚350 .0 44˚540 .0 84˚240 .3 44˚510 .9 7.6 2.1
84˚370 .9 -16˚050 .7 84˚34 .8 -16˚040 .0
0
3.0 -1.7 α Ori 841 31 2061 0.50 0.69 2 84˚480 .0 7˚200 .0 84˚450 .0 7˚180 .8 3.0 1.2
94˚550 .2 -6˚480 .3 94˚550 .7 -6˚460 .6 -0.5 -1.6 γ Gem 81 32 2421 1.93 2.11 2 95˚060 .0 16˚380 .0 95˚060 .5 16˚360 .8 -0.5 1.2
99˚580 .3 -39˚290 .9 99˚570 .9 -39˚320 .3 0.3 2.4 α CMa 933 33 2491 -1.46 -1.02 1 98˚000 .0 -16˚150 .0 97˚590 .7 -16˚200 .2 0.3 5.2
106˚050 .6 10˚010 .7 106˚040 .7 10˚040 .3 0.9 -2.6 α Gem 65 34 2890 1.58 1.73 2 108˚530 .0 32˚300 .0 108˚510 .8 32˚300 .0 1.0 -0.0
111˚420 .4 -15˚570 .3 111˚390 .8 -15˚570 .6 2.4 0.3 α CMi 947 35 2943 0.38 0.59 2 110˚570 .0 6˚000 .0 110˚540 .4 5˚570 .5 2.6 2.5
109˚070 .6 6˚370 .9 109˚050 .5 6˚390 .7 2.1 -1.9 β Gem 66 36 2990 1.14 1.29 2 111˚470 .0 28˚430 .0 111˚440 .4 28˚420 .5 2.3 0.5
127˚170 .0 -43˚180 .0 127˚150 .2 -43˚170 .9 1.3 -0.0 ρ Pup 951 37 3185 2.81 3.51 3 118˚430 .0 -23˚260 .0 118˚420 .3 -23˚280 .1 0.7 2.1
123˚100 .8 1˚140 .1 123˚090 .7 1˚150 .9 1.0 -1.8 Praesepe 95 38 3428 5.69 5.85 n 125˚480 .0 20˚430 .0 125˚460 .8 20˚420 .7 1.1 0.3
123˚210 .5 3˚070 .8 123˚220 .3 3˚100 .0 -0.8 -2.2 γ Cnc 98 39 3449 4.66 4.82 4 126˚280 .0 22˚310 .0 126˚280 .7 22˚300 .7 -0.7 0.3
124˚310 .9 0˚030 .2 124˚320 .7 0˚040 .0 -0.9 -0.8 δ Cnc 99 40 3461 3.94 4.10 4 126˚540 .0 19˚150 .0 126˚540 .5 19˚130 .3 -0.5 1.7
143˚100 .6 -22˚240 .0 143˚070 .4 -22˚240 .2 3.0 0.2 α Hya 972 41 3748 1.98 2.27 1 138˚16 .0
0
-7˚22 .0 138˚13 .4
0 0
-7˚230 .1 2.6 1.1
143˚470 .8 4˚530 .0 143˚430 .8 4˚500 .9 4.0 2.2 η Leo 116 42 3975 3.52 3.69 3 147˚500 .0 18˚140 .0 147˚440 .6 18˚120 .1 5.2 1.9
145˚420 .2 0˚270 .0 145˚400 .5 0˚270 .3 1.6 -0.3 α Leo 117 43 3982 1.35 1.53 1 148˚080 .0 13˚250 .0 148˚060 .0 13˚240 .6 1.9 0.4
143˚230 .5 11˚500 .5 143˚230 .0 11˚500 .8 0.5 -0.4 ζ Leo 114 44 4031 3.44 3.60 3 150˚010 .0 24˚540 .0 149˚590 .7 24˚530 .4 1.2 0.6
145˚230 .7 8˚470 .4 145˚240 .5 8˚480 .0 -0.8 -0.6 γ Leo 115 45 4057 2.30 2.46 2 150˚510 .0 21˚210 .0 150˚510 .3 21˚200 .2 -0.3 0.8
135˚080 .8 45˚030 .8 135˚130 .4 45˚060 .3 -3.3 -2.5 β UMa 373 46 4295 2.37 2.51 2 160˚490 .0 57˚590 .0 160˚520 .4 57˚580 .4 -1.8 0.6
130˚590 .6 49˚390 .7 130˚590 .8 49˚390 .9 -0.1 -0.2 α UMa 372 47 4301 1.79 1.92 2 161˚180 .0 63˚220 .0 161˚130 .2 63˚210 .2 2.1 0.8
157˚100 .9 14˚200 .4 157˚070 .1 14˚190 .8 3.7 0.7 δ Leo 129 48 4357 2.56 2.72 2 164˚370 .0 22˚090 .0 164˚320 .2 22˚090 .2 4.5 -0.2
167˚280 .7 12˚170 .9 167˚280 .2 12˚170 .4 0.5 0.5 β Leo 136 49 4534 2.14 2.32 1 173˚280 .0 16˚150 .0 173˚260 .6 16˚140 .5 1.3 0.5
146˚090 .9 47˚060 .2 146˚150 .4 47˚070 .2 -3.8 -1.0 γ UMa 375 50 4554 2.44 2.58 2 174˚260 .0 55˚230 .0 174˚280 .4 55˚210 .3 -1.4 1.7
104 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 Dennis Rawlins Tycho’s Star Catalog 1993 October DIO 3 105
Table 23: Tycho’s Select Stars, Implicit Ecliptical, 1701.03 Table 23: Tycho’s Select Stars, Explicit Equatorial, 1701.03
λS βS λ β Γλ ∆β Name D S HR m µ m αS δS α δ Γα ∆δ
146˚500 .4 51˚370 .2 146˚50 .2
0
51˚38 .1
0
0.1 -0.9 δ UMa 374 51 4660 3.31 3.45 2 180˚10 .0
0
58˚41 .0 180˚06 .3
0 0
58˚41 .8
0
1.9 -0.8
187˚200 .6 8˚410 .0 187˚190 .0 8˚380 .6 1.6 2.4 δ Vir 159 52 4910 3.38 3.59 3 190˚110 .0 5˚030 .0 190˚080 .3 5˚010 .8 2.7 1.2
154˚350 .6 54˚170 .7 154˚410 .8 54˚180 .1 -3.6 -0.4  UMa 381 53 4905 1.77 1.91 2 190˚100 .0 57˚370 .0 190˚110 .1 57˚350 .4 -0.6 1.6
185˚490 .2 16˚150 .5 185˚460 .7 16˚130 .3 2.4 2.1  Vir 162 54 4932 2.83 3.01 3 191˚530 .0 12˚350 .0 191˚490 .4 12˚340 .5 3.5 0.5
199˚400 .7 -1˚590 .1 199˚40 .3
0
-2˚010 .9 0.4 2.8 α Vir 163 55 5056 0.98 1.31 1 197˚23 .5
0
-9˚33 .5 197˚22 .5
0 0
-9˚350 .3 1.0 1.8
161˚210 .7 56˚210 .9 161˚270 .2 56˚220 .0 -3.0 -0.1 ζ UMa 382 56 5054 2.06 2.20 2 197˚570 .0 56˚310 .0 197˚570 .1 56˚290 .8 -0.0 1.2
172˚370 .4 54˚250 .0 172˚43 .1
0
54˚230 .8 -3.3 1.2 η UMa 383 57 5191 1.86 2.00 2 203˚560 .0 50˚510 .0 203˚550 .7 50˚490 .1 0.2 1.9
200˚040 .5 31˚020 .3 200˚030 .8 30˚560 .6 0.6 5.7 α Boo 469 58 5340 -0.04 0.12 1 210˚340 .5 20˚490 .0 210˚300 .5 20˚450 .4 3.7 3.6
193˚300 .3 49˚330 .9 193˚280 .2 49˚330 .6 1.4 0.3 γ Boo 459 59 5435 3.03 3.17 3 215˚040 .0 39˚360 .0 215˚000 .4 39˚380 .0 2.8 -2.0
220˚550 .7 0˚250 .5 220˚550 .0 0˚220 .3 0.8 3.2 α Lib 189 60 5530 2.64 3.04 2 218˚370 .5 -14˚450 .0 218˚360 .2 -14˚460 .4 1.3 1.4
225˚120 .9 8˚340 .9 225˚120 .1 8˚310 .9 0.8 3.0 β Lib 191 61 5685 2.61 2.92 2 225˚160 .0 -8˚140 .0 225˚140 .6 -8˚150 .0 1.4 1.0
218˚020 .9 44˚230 .5 218˚040 .8 44˚210 .3 -1.3 2.1 α CrB 497 62 5793 2.23 2.38 2 230˚310 .0 27˚450 .0 230˚300 .6 27˚440 .7 0.3 0.3
227˚550 .2 25˚360 .3 227˚520 .8 25˚320 .1 2.1 4.2 α Ser 720 63 5854 2.65 2.85 2 232˚270 .0 7˚250 .0 232˚230 .6 7˚230 .7 3.4 1.3
239˚010 .2 1˚040 .8 239˚01 .0
0
1˚020 .8 0.2 2.1 β Sco 207 64 5984 2.50 3.01 2 237˚020 .0 -18˚570 .0 237˚010 .8 -18˚570 .0 0.2 0.0
238˚140 .8 17˚190 .8 238˚070 .5 17˚170 .4 6.9 2.4 δ Oph 694 65 6056 2.74 2.99 3 239˚480 .0 -2˚550 .0 239˚400 .8 -2˚530 .5 7.2 -1.5
245˚370 .7 -4˚270 .6 245˚35 .4
0
-4˚310 .8 2.2 4.2 α Sco 214 66 6134 0.96 1.78 1 242˚500 .0 -25˚420 .0 242˚470 .2 -25˚430 .7 2.5 1.7
236˚510 .9 42˚480 .4 236˚540 .8 42˚440 .5 -2.2 4.0 β Her 506 67 6148 2.77 2.93 3 244˚200 .0 22˚120 .0 244˚200 .8 22˚100 .2 -0.7 1.8
245˚030 .6 11˚290 .8 245˚030 .2 11˚250 .6 0.4 4.2 ζ Oph 700 68 6175 2.56 2.89 3 245˚120 .0 -9˚540 .0 245˚110 .1 -9˚550 .5 0.9 1.5
253˚090 .6 7˚130 .8 253˚470 .6 7˚130 .7 -37.7 0.1 η Oph 699 69 6378 2.43 2.85 3 252˚400 .0 -15˚170 .0 253˚190 .0 -15˚180 .9 -37.6 1.9
251˚550 .9 37˚230 .0 251˚58 .5
0
37˚190 .3 -2.1 3.7 α Her 505 70 6406 3.31 3.48 3 255˚140 .0 14˚470 .0 255˚150 .5 14˚450 .8 -1.4 1.2
250˚210 .1 47˚460 .4 250˚350 .0 47˚440 .2 -9.3 2.1 δ Her 509 71 6410 3.14 3.30 3 255˚320 .0 25˚140 .0 255˚410 .5 25˚130 .2 -8.6 0.8
258˚150 .1 35˚560 .7 258˚150 .6 35˚530 .6 -0.5 3.1 α Oph 688 72 6556 2.08 2.27 3 260˚160 .0 12˚490 .0 260˚160 .1 12˚480 .6 -0.1 0.4
261˚070 .8 28˚010 .0 261˚100 .1 27˚570 .9 -2.0 3.0 β Oph 689 73 6603 2.77 2.98 3 262˚090 .0 4˚440 .0 262˚100 .8 4˚430 .6 -1.8 0.4
263˚500 .8 75˚030 .2 263˚48 .3
0
74˚570 .8 0.6 5.4 γ Dra 416 74 6705 2.23 2.36 3 267˚270 .0 51˚350 .0 267˚250 .2 51˚320 .4 1.1 2.6
281˚080 .1 61˚470 .9 281˚070 .6 61˚440 .9 0.3 3.0 α Lyr 533 75 7001 0.03 0.17 1 276˚420 .0 38˚320 .0 276˚420 .3 38˚310 .8 -0.3 0.2
282˚080 .2 1˚310 .0 282˚040 .8 1˚280 .6 3.4 2.4 π Sgr 223 76 7264 2.89 3.49 4 283˚030 .0 -21˚270 .0 282˚590 .4 -21˚270 .5 3.4 0.5
285˚440 .8 36˚160 .9 285˚380 .2 36˚130 .8 5.3 3.1 ζ Aql 742 77 7235 2.99 3.17 3 283˚000 .0 13˚280 .0 282˚550 .1 13˚270 .0 4.8 1.0
297˚080 .9 49˚010 .8 297˚060 .3 49˚000 .0 1.7 1.8 β Cyg 544 78 7417 2.92 3.07 3 289˚410 .0 27˚210 .0 289˚400 .1 27˚210 .5 0.8 -0.5
297˚370 .9 29˚210 .1 297˚33 .5
0
29˚180 .8 3.8 2.3 α Aql 736 79 7557 0.77 0.97 2 294˚060 .0 8˚070 .0 294˚020 .8 8˚060 .6 3.1 0.4
312˚170 .7 64˚280 .0 312˚070 .6 64˚260 .2 4.3 1.8 δ Cyg 549 80 7528 2.87 3.01 3 293˚580 .0 44˚260 .0 293˚540 .5 44˚250 .3 2.5 0.7
299˚420 .1 7˚010 .8 299˚410 .0 6˚570 .7 1.1 4.1 α Cap 231 81 7754 3.57 3.94 3 300˚220 .0 -13˚240 .0 300˚210 .4 -13˚260 .3 0.5 2.3
299˚560 .0 4˚400 .0 299˚520 .4 4˚370 .2 3.6 2.8 β Cap 233 82 7776 3.08 3.50 3 301˚060 .0 -15˚400 .0 301˚020 .6 -15˚410 .5 3.3 1.5
320˚490 .5 57˚090 .5 320˚43 .2
0
57˚080 .7 3.4 0.8 γ Cyg 547 83 7796 2.20 2.34 3 302˚550 .0 39˚190 .0 302˚520 .6 39˚190 .2 1.8 -0.2
307˚290 .6 8˚090 .1 307˚330 .1 8˚060 .7 -3.5 2.4  Aqr 266 84 7950 3.77 4.11 4 307˚480 .0 -10˚340 .0 307˚510 .8 -10˚330 .7 -3.8 -0.3
331˚170 .9 59˚560 .6 331˚13 .1
0
59˚550 .2 2.4 1.4 α Cyg 548 85 7924 1.25 1.39 2 307˚490 .0 44˚140 .0 307˚480 .8 44˚130 .8 0.2 0.2
323˚340 .1 49˚260 .4 323˚330 .3 49˚250 .6 0.5 0.7  Cyg 553 86 7949 2.46 2.60 3 308˚310 .0 32˚510 .0 308˚310 .9 32˚520 .3 -0.8 -1.3
319˚150 .8 8˚420 .0 319˚13 .5
0
8˚380 .2 2.2 3.8 β Aqr 262 87 8232 2.91 3.20 3 318˚580 .0 -6˚490 .0 318˚560 .8 -6˚510 .8 1.2 2.8
317˚390 .2 -2˚260 .6 317˚360 .1 -2˚310 .7 3.1 5.1 γ Cap 253 88 8278 3.68 4.16 3 320˚540 .0 -17˚550 .0 320˚520 .0 -17˚590 .4 1.9 4.4
31˚360 .3 71˚070 .0 31˚27 .4
0
71˚070 .7 2.9 -0.7 β Cep 444 89 8238 3.23 3.37 3 321˚080 .0 69˚160 .0 321˚090 .6 69˚150 .2 -0.6 0.8
327˚490 .7 22˚060 .2 327˚430 .4 22˚070 .0 5.9 -0.8  Peg 767 90 8308 2.39 2.58 3 322˚280 .0 8˚310 .0 322˚220 .5 8˚310 .4 5.4 -0.4
319˚250 .8 -2˚290 .2 319˚21 .3
0
-2˚330 .0 4.5 3.9 δ Cap 254 91 8322 2.87 3.33 3 322˚41 .0 -17˚24 .0 322˚37 .2 -17˚270 .7
0 0 0
3.6 3.7
329˚140 .6 10˚420 .0 329˚110 .1 10˚400 .6 3.5 1.4 α Aqr 260 92 8414 2.96 3.21 3 327˚390 .0 -1˚440 .0 327˚360 .2 -1˚450 .3 2.8 1.3
329˚360 .2 -20˚590 .8 329˚390 .1 -21˚050 .9 -2.7 6.1 α PsA 299 93 8728 1.16 3.03 1 340˚110 .0 -31˚080 .0 340˚150 .5 -31˚110 .7 -3.8 3.7
355˚140 .6 31˚070 .8 355˚120 .1 31˚080 .1 2.1 -0.3 β Peg 784 94 8775 2.42 2.57 2 342˚210 .0 26˚280 .0 342˚200 .0 26˚280 .2 0.9 -0.2
349˚220 .1 19˚250 .3 349˚190 .4 19˚240 .8 2.6 0.5 α Peg 783 95 8781 2.49 2.67 2 342˚300 .0 13˚370 .0 342˚280 .4 13˚360 .3 1.5 0.7
347˚150 .0 7˚170 .7 347˚130 .5 7˚170 .0 1.4 0.7 γ Psc 301 96 8852 3.69 3.92 4 345˚260 .0 1˚400 .0 345˚250 .0 1˚390 .4 1.0 0.6
10˚110 .7 25˚410 .8 10˚080 .9 25˚410 .1 2.5 0.7 α And 790 97 0015 2.06 2.22 2 358˚160 .0 27˚280 .0 358˚150 .3 27˚260 .3 0.6 1.7
31˚000 .2 51˚140 .6 30˚560 .5 51˚130 .8 2.3 0.8 β Cas 581 98 0021 2.27 2.41 3 358˚200 .0 57˚320 .0 358˚220 .1 57˚300 .0 -1.2 2.0
5˚020 .0 12˚350 .3 4˚590 .5 12˚350 .5 2.4 -0.2 γ Peg 785 99 0039 2.38 2.57 2 359˚300 .0 13˚320 .0 359˚280 .3 13˚310 .2 1.6 0.8
356˚480 .5 -10˚010 .1 356˚440 .3 -10˚010 .4 4.1 0.3 ι Cet 833 100 0074 3.56 3.89 3 1˚07 .0 -10˚27 .0
0 0
1˚02 .8 -10˚290 .0
0
4.2 2.0
106 Dennis Rawlins 1993 October

DIO
Tycho’s Star Catalog DIO 3

DIO: The International Journal of Scientific History [www.dioi.org] is published by


DIO, Box 19935, Baltimore, MD 21211-0935, USA.
References Telephone (answering machine always on): 410-889-1414.
Almajest. Compiled Ptolemy c.160 AD. Eds: Manitius 1912-3; Toomer 1984. [Email: dioi@mail.com.]
John Christianson 2000. On Tycho’s Island: TB & His Ass’ts, Cambr U. Research & university libraries may request permanent free subscription to DIO.
Copernicus 1543. De Revolutionibus. Repr. Bruxelles 1966. Each issue of DIO will be printed on paper which is certified acid-free. The ink isn’t.
DSB = Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Ed: C.Gillispie, NYC.
J.Dreyer 1890. Tycho Brahe: a Picture of Scientific Work in the 16th Century, Edinburgh. Publisher: Dennis Rawlins (DR), address above.
J.Evans 1987. JHA 18:155 & 233. DIO is primarily a journal of scientific history & principle. However, high scholarship
J.Evans 1998. History & Practice of Ancient Astronomy, Oxford U. and-or original analytical writing (not necessarily scientific or historical), from any quarter
B.B.Goldstein 1967. Arabic Version of Ptolemy’s PlanHyp, AmPhilosSocTrans 57.4. or faction, will be gladly received and considered for publication. Each author has final ed-
Gerd Graßhoff 1990. History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue, NYC. itorial say over his own article. If refereeing occurs, the usual handsome-journal anonymity
A.Hirshfeld, R.Sinnott, & F.Ochsenbein Sky Catalogue 2000.0, 2nd ed. Cambridge 1991. will not, unless in reverse. No page charges. Each author receives 50 free offprints.
D.Hoffleit & C.Jaschek Bright Star Catalogue, 4th ed. Yale U 1982. The circumstance that most DIO articles are written by scholars of international repute
Johannes Kepler Gesammelte Werke. Eds: Caspar, etc., Munich 1937-. need not discourage other potential authors, since one of DIO’s purposes is the discovery
Karl Manitius 1912-3, Ed. Handbuch der Astronomie [Almajest], Leipzig. & launching of fresh scholarly talent. Except for equity&charity reply-space material,
K.Moesgaard 1989. Centaurus 32:310. submissions will be evaluated without regard to the writer’s status or identity. We welcome
R.Newton 1979-84. The Moon’s Acceleration . . . , Johns Hopkins U. papers too original, intelligent, and-or blunt for certain handsome journals. (Dissent &
Norton’s 2000.0 Star Atlas & Reference Handbook. Ed: I.Ridpath, NYC 1989. controversy are per se obviously no bar to consideration for DIO publication; but, please:
OO = J.Dreyer, Ed. Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera Omnia 15 vols Copenhagen 1913-1929. spare us the creationist-level junk. I.e., non-establishment cranks need not apply.)
PK = C.Peters & E.Knobel 1915. Ptolemy’s Catalogue of Stars, Carnegie Inst., Publ.#86. Other journals may reprint excerpts (edited or no) from any issue of DIO to date,
Planetary Hypotheses. Comp. Ptolemy c.170 AD. Eds: Heiberg 1907; B.Goldstein 1967. whether for enlightenment or criticism or both. Indeed, excepting DIO vols.3&5, other
H.Ræder & E.&B.Strömgren 1946, Eds. TB’s Descr[1598]Instrs&Sci Work, Copenhagen. journals may entirely republish DIO articles (preferably after open, nonanonymous refer-
D.Rawlins 1981L. Astronomy 9:24. eeing), so long as DIO’s name, address, & phone # are printed adjacent to the published
D.Rawlins 1982C. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 94:359. material — and to all comments thereon (then or later), noting that said commentary may
D.Rawlins 1987. American Journal of Physics 55:235. well be first replied to (if reply occurs at all) in DIO’s pages, not the quoting journal’s.
D.Rawlins 1991H. DIO 1.1 ‡6. DIO invites communication of readers’ comments, analyses, attacks, and-or advice.
D.Rawlins 1992T. DIO 2.1 ‡4. Written contributions are especially encouraged for the columns: Unpublished Let-
Przemysław Rybka 1984. Katalog Gwiazdowy Heweliusza, Warsaw. ters, Referees Refereed, and regular Correspondence (incl. free errtime for opponents).
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Star Catalog Smithsonian Inst 1966. Contributor-anonymity granted on request. Deftly or daftly crafted reports, on apt can-
Victor Thoren 1990. Lord of Uraniborg, Cambridge U. didates for recognition in our occasional satirical J. for Hysterical Astronomy will of
Hugh Thurston 1994E. Early Astronomy, NYC. course also be considered for publication.
Gerald Toomer 1984, Ed. Ptolemy’s Almagest, NYC. Free spirits will presumably be pleased (and certain archons will not be surprised)
TBmss = Tycho Brahe orig records, Royal Library, Copenhagen. to learn that: at DIO, there is not the slightest fixed standard for writing style.
Yale Catalog = D.Hoffleit & C.Jaschek 1982. Contributors should send (expendable photocopies of) papers to one of the following
DIO referees — and then inquire of him by phone in 40 days:
Acknowledgements: for constant encouragement, I thank my family. For assistance and Robert Headland [polar research & exploration], Scott Polar Research Institute, University
advice, I am grateful to Barbara Rawlins, Keith Pickering, Hanne Dalgas Christiansen, of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1ER, UK; tel (44) 1223-336540.
Hugh Thurston, Francesco Paresce, Mary Beverungen, Michael Svellov, Karin Hindfelt, Charles Kowal [celestial discovery, asteroids], Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics
and, finally, an eminent scholar and old friend of our family, the late Johns Hopkins Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Road, Laurel, MD 20707. [Since deceased.] Keith Pickering
University classicist, Jimmy Poultney. [navigation, exploration, computers, photography, science ethics],
10085 County Road 24, Watertown, MN 55388; tel 952-955-3179; fax 952-955-2398.
E. Myles Standish [positional & dynamical astronomy], Jet Propulsion Laboratory 301-150,
Cal Tech, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099. Ret. Tel 864-888-1301.
F. Richard Stephenson [ancient eclipses, ∆T secular behavior], Department of Physics,
University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK; tel (44) 191-374-2153.
Christopher B. F. Walker [Mesopotamian astronomy], Dep’t of Western Asiatic Antiquities,
British Museum, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3DG, UK.
c
1993 DIO Inc. ISSN 1041-5440. This printing: 2018\3\18.
A Fresh Science-History Journal: Cost-Free to Major Libraries

Telephone 410-889-1414 DIO


DIO — The International Journal of Scientific History.
dioi@mail.com

Deeply funded. Mail costs fully covered. No page charges. Offprints free.
• Since 1991 inception, has gone without fee to leading scholars & libraries.
• Contributors include world authorities in their respective fields, experts at, e.g., Johns
Hopkins University, Cal Tech, Cambridge University, University of London.
• Publisher & journal cited (1996 May 9) in New York Times p.1 analysis of his discov-
ery of data exploding Richard Byrd’s 1926 North Pole fraud. [DIO vol.4.] Full report
co-published by University of Cambridge (2000) and DIO [vol.10], triggering History
Channel 2000&2001 recognition of Amundsen’s double pole-priority. New photographic
proof ending Mt.McKinley fake [DIO vol.7]: cited basis of 1998/11/26 New York Times
p.1 announcement. Nature 2000/11/16 cover article pyramid-orientation theory: DIO-
corrected-recomputed, Nature 2001/8/16. Vindicating DR longtime Neptune-affair charges
of planet-theft and file-theft: Scientific American 2004 December credits DIO [vols.2-9].
DIO-opposites mentality explored: NYTimes Science 2009/9/8 [nytimes.com/tierneylab].
• Journal is published primarily for universities’ and scientific institutions’ collections;
among subscribers by request are libraries at: US Naval Observatory, Cal Tech, Cornell,
Johns Hopkins, Oxford & Cambridge, Royal Astronomical Society, British Museum, Royal
Observatory (Scotland), the Russian State Library, the International Centre for Theoretical
Physics (Trieste), and the universities of Chicago, Toronto, London, Munich, Göttingen,
Copenhagen, Stockholm, Tartu, Amsterdam, Liège, Ljubljana, Bologna, Canterbury (NZ).
• New findings on ancient heliocentrists, pre-Hipparchos precession, Mayan eclipse math,
Columbus’ landfall, Comet Halley apparitions, Peary’s fictional Crocker Land.
• Entire DIO vol.3 devoted to 1st critical edition of Tycho’s legendary 1004-star catalog.
• Investigations of science hoaxes of the −1st , +2nd , 16th , 19th , and 20th centuries.
Paul Forman (History of Physics, Smithsonian Institution): “DIO is delightful!”
E. Myles Standish (prime creator of the solar, lunar, & planetary ephemerides for the pre-
eminent annual Astronomical Almanac of the US Naval Observatory & Royal Greenwich
Observatory; recent Chair of American Astronomical Society’s Division on Dynamical
Astronomy): “a truly intriguing forum, dealing with a variety of subjects, presented often
with [its] unique brand of humor, but always with strict adherence to a rigid code of scientific
ethics. . . . [and] without pre-conceived biases . . . . [an] ambitious and valuable journal.”
B. L. van der Waerden (world-renowned University of Zürich mathematician), on DIO’s
demonstration that Babylonian tablet BM 55555 (100 BC) used Greek data: “marvellous.”
(Explicitly due to this theory, BM 55555 has gone on permanent British Museum display.)
Rob’t Headland (Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge University): Byrd’s 1926
latitude-exaggeration has long been suspected, but DIO’s 1996 find “has clinched it.”
Hugh Thurston (MA, PhD mathematics, Cambridge University; author of highly ac-
claimed Early Astronomy, Springer-Verlag 1994): “DIO is fascinating. With . . . mathe-
matical competence, . . . judicious historical perspective, [&] inductive ingenuity, . . . [DIO]
has solved . . . problems in early astronomy that have resisted attack for centuries . . . .”
Annals of Science (1996 July), reviewing DIO vol.3 (Tycho star catalog): “a thorough
work . . . . extensive [least-squares] error analysis . . . demonstrates [Tycho star-position]
accuracy . . . much better than is generally assumed . . . . excellent investigation”.
British Society for the History of Mathematics (Newsletter 1993 Spring): “fearless . . . .
[on] the operation of structures of [academic] power & influence . . . much recommended
to [readers] bored with . . . the more prominent public journals, or open to the possibility
of scholars being motivated by other considerations than the pursuit of objective truth.”