Talk:Mintaka

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mintaka article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Use in navigation

From Eric Hiscock's Cruising Under Sail, Third Edition, 1981, Ch 22 "Navigation", pg 443:

Incidentally, the star at the upper end of ORION's belt rises due east and sets due west of an observer anywhere in the world.

He must be describing Mintaka, with its declination of −00° 17′ 57″. -- ToE 09:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distance

Is the distance correct? The German article gives 916 ly which confirms to http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/mintaka.html with 915 ly and Stellarium with 916.17 ly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.233.221 (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distance is uncertain, although neither of the values you mention is current. I added text to explain. Lithopsian (talk)

We can add to another discrepancy about the distance. Near to the 1200ly value is also written 380pc. If we calculate the exstimated distance in parsecs (1pc = 3.26ly) we have about 1230ly and not even 916. Considering 300ly as a big error who can give an expalanation to these differences? It is important to make correct star maps. Just to give another example, in an old astronomy book "Guide to planets and stars" from Ian Ripdath and Wil Tirion from 1984 (ISBN 88-7021-650-0) they gives a distance of 2200ly for the mintakian system. So it is a real mistery this big difference in a few years and lot of books on the matter.

Question about image

I think the photo is of Orion's sword. Not his belt. Note that the nebula is clearly visible but that is not located in the belt. I am not an expert but was sure enough to try flagging this possible error 121.79.220.1 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the belt – three stars in a line, and all that. The nebula is the Horsehead, next to Zeta Ori. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. I see now that the whole area is rife with nebulae. I should have looked deeper before commenting. thank you 121.79.220.1 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Thank you for raising the question. Skeptic2 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

How long has the name Mintaka been used, and in what cultures? As the "Nomenclature" section is written, one might conclude that the name was first assigned in 2016, but the USS Mintaka was commissioned in 1943. ajad (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many stars?

The lede says its multiple but not how many stars in total. The description section lower down is unclear which doesn't help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a five star system.

Note that δ Ori A is composed of three stars itself (Aa1, Aa2, and Ab).

You should have looked at the infobox. Not the description section. Aminabzz (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aminabzz But most people look at the written description, and it should be clear. My reading made me think there were 6 stars. Most stellar articles clearly delineate each star - Aa and Ab, B, etc. and this article needs to be rewritten so that it is clear to a layperson reading it. Mastakos (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I count six stars, but who knows if they are actually all part of a single gravitationally-bound system. Not all are shown in each section of the starbox. HD 36485 (component C) is a binary, but the components are not shown separately anywhere in the starbox. A picture might help? Lithopsian (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NASA says five. -- Beland (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the article cites [1] which in 2010 said HD 36485 or Delta Ori C, is itself a binary, which would make 6. The NASA article above counts 5, and was published in 2015. It is possible that this paper was disproven, or that the NASA author wasn't aware of it or hadn't accepted it or made an error? I do hope everyone is using the same naming conventions. Additional sources may help resolve the confusion. -- Beland (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-major axis

Why is the semi-major axis in the orbit part of the infobox written in respect to the radius of the Sun? Wasn't it better for it to be written in respect to the astronomical unit (e.g. the distance between the Earth and the Sun)? Well, it's about the distance between two celestial objects. But the radius of the Sun isn't relevant. The astronomical unit is. Aminabzz (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-major axis can be in any units, inches, km, or solar radii. Probably best in most cases if the same units are used as in the reference. However, in this case I'm struggling to match up the given reference to the data in the starbox. I think that orbit came from somewhere else and now has the wrong reference. Lithopsian (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. I've fixed the reference in the article. It gives the axis in solar radii, so I think we should stick with that. Lithopsian (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are now Wikipedia guidelines as to these units: Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Style advice#Units. -- Beland (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]