<p>I'm not sure if you can get the VERY latest measurements there, but <a href="http://simbad.cds.unistra.fr/simbad/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Simbad</a> is always good for finding stars by criteria and learning more about existing ones, though it's not the most intuitive site out there in how searching works if you want something more detailed than entering the <em>name</em> of an object. If ever a star's distance is unavailable, you can always calculate it from its parallax:
Let <span class="math-container">$d$</span> be distance in parsecs, and <span class="math-container">$p$</span> the parallax value in <em>milli</em> arc seconds (thus the factor 1000 in this equation):</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$$d = \frac{1}{p/1000}.$$</span></p>
<p>Therefore, going by the latest measurement on <a href="http://simbad.cds.unistra.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=rigel" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Simbad for Rigel</a>, 1/(3.78/1000) = 264.55 parsecs = 862.44 light-years (rounded up), which seems to be corroborated by Wikipedia in this instance.</p>
<p>EDIT: As @ProfRob rightly says below, this is not an exact measurement. I included five figures just to help anyone else trying the formula, since I myself am not good with mathematics.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T12:02:15.460Z
Ok i didn't know what as SIMBAD. I will check that. Thanks a lot
Vincent ISOZ
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T12:54:44.377Z
@kazom +1. But don't be shy with linking these ressources...
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T14:44:03.233Z
Please don't quote 5 significant figures unless you have discussed the uncertainties. The *approximation* that the most probable distance is the reciprocal of the parallax will not be true to 5 significant figures.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T16:52:51.247Z
@ProfRob That's a very good point. I hadn't considered that, sorry.
Kazon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T16:56:29.380Z
@planetmaker You mean where I got the formula from? I admit I forgot; it was a while ago
Kazon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T21:34:04.147Z
No. The formula follows from the definition in this case. I meant: You quote output from Sinbad. Thus link these, your sources, next time like I added them to your answer in this case :) When you quote a paper, link its archive entry etc.
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T11:56:07.517Z
2023-09-22T16:54:38.133Z
2023-09-22T16:54:38.133Z
Kazon
<p>This is a real problem with star distances, and one that isn't well appreciated. We just don't know how far many large, bright, distant stars are.</p>
<p>The values you will find on Wikipedia, which are sourced from measurements of parallax (via Simbad (etc)) are &quot;best estimates&quot;. We can tell the size of a star by measuring it's parallax: the apparent &quot;wiggle&quot; ad it moves around the sun. But this wiggle is exceedingly small, and for a star like Betelgeuse, might be smaller than the disc of the star.</p>
<p>So we can say that Bellatrix is &quot;about 250 light years&quot;. Mintaka and Alnitak are probably about 1200-1300 light years (the Hippcaros measurement is generally agreed to be an under-estimate of the distance) but we don't actually know which one is closer.  Betelgeuse is probably between 500 and 600 light years (but could be further) Alnilam is between 1500 and 2500 light years and so on.</p>
<p>In may parts of astronomy, we are used to being able to make exceedingly precise measurements: we can predict eclipses to the the second, and the distance to the moon in centimetres.  But we simple don't know with any accuracy how far away many common stars are. The values in your list are good &quot;best current guess&quot;.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-25T07:07:54.350Z
It was a discovery for me that it turns out to be quite difficult to determine the distances to stars
ayr
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T23:27:40.670Z
2023-09-22T23:27:40.670Z
James K
<p>The database Augmented Tycho-HYG (v1.0) from <a href="http://www.astronexus.com/hyg" rel="noreferrer">http://www.astronexus.com/hyg</a> uses parallax records from Hipparcos and uses updated Gaia DR3 distances where available. Luckily the records show &quot;dist_src&quot; to see where the value actually comes from. I went through the trouble (Oooh, such trouble!) of fetching them for you:</p>
<div class="s-table-container">
<table class="s-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>name</th>
<th>pc</th>
<th>ly (pc * 3.261598)</th>
<th>dist_src</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Bellatrix</td>
<td>77.3994</td>
<td>252.4457282</td>
<td>HIP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Meissa</td>
<td>336.7003</td>
<td>1098.181025</td>
<td>HIP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Betelgeuse</td>
<td>152.6718</td>
<td>497.9540375</td>
<td>HIP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mintaka</td>
<td>212.3142</td>
<td>692.4835701</td>
<td>HIP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Alnilam</td>
<td>606.0606</td>
<td>1976.726041</td>
<td>HIP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Alnitak</td>
<td>225.7336</td>
<td>736.2522583</td>
<td>HIP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Saiph</td>
<td>198.4127</td>
<td>647.1424655</td>
<td>HIP</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rigel</td>
<td>264.5503</td>
<td>862.8567294</td>
<td>HIP</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p>In case you or anyone else wants to check more distances, my method was importing the csv file from astronexus in a mongodb and then running:</p>
<pre><code>    db.athyg.find({&quot;proper&quot;:&quot;Rigel&quot;},{&quot;dist&quot;:1,&quot;dist_src&quot;:1,&quot;proper&quot;:1})
</code></pre>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T22:11:25.410Z
Far too many significant figures. The distance to Betelgeuse is uncertain by at least 10% and I wouldn't have thought Hipparcos parallaxes would be much better.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-24T03:15:22.403Z
I have immediate access to the HYG dataset from astronexus, so that's where I pulled the numbers from. To know the significant figures, I would have to pull from the original Hipparcos dataset (they provide a Parallax in mas and a Parallax_Error field). The aim of my answer was mostly to provide the sources for said data: Hipparcos and Gaia DR3. Hipparcos is indeed inferior.
DocLeonard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T21:41:42.177Z
2023-09-22T21:52:18.047Z
2023-09-22T21:52:18.047Z
DocLeonard
<p>For a textbook I'm creating a figure depicting the distances of Orion constellation's stars  from Earth.</p>
<p>However i wasn't able to found an Official Scientific catalog of most recent stars distance measurement and when looking on non-scientific websites (including Wikipedia) i found distances that varies most of the time from 50% to 300%............</p>
<p>Do someone know where i can found an official scientific catalog (database) with the latest measurements. Or confirm the following distances below:</p>
<ul>
<li>Bellatrix 244.6 ly</li>
<li>Meissa 1,109 ly</li>
<li>Betelgeuse 500-600 ly</li>
<li>Mintaka 1,240 ly</li>
<li>Alnilam 2,000 ly</li>
<li>Alnitak 1,262 ly</li>
<li>Saiph 650 ly</li>
<li>Rigel 864.3 ly</li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks for your help</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-09-22T12:58:41.893Z
This isn't an answer, but this tool is pretty handy for visualising relative distances of objects in our galaxy: https://ourgalaxy.otherwise.com/
Aaron F
<distances><orion>
Orion stars distance from Earth
Vincent ISOZ
# Orion stars distance from Earth

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-09-22)

For a textbook I'm creating a figure depicting the distances of Orion constellation's stars from Earth.

However i wasn't able to found an Official Scientific catalog of most recent stars distance measurement and when looking on non-scientific websites (including Wikipedia) i found distances that varies most of the time from 50% to 300%............

Do someone know where i can found an official scientific catalog (database) with the latest measurements. Or confirm the following distances below:

* Bellatrix 244.6 ly
* Meissa 1,109 ly
* Betelgeuse 500-600 ly
* Mintaka 1,240 ly
* Alnilam 2,000 ly
* Alnitak 1,262 ly
* Saiph 650 ly
* Rigel 864.3 ly

Thanks for your help

**Tags:** distances, orion

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This isn't an answer, but this tool is pretty handy for visualising relative distances of objects in our galaxy: https://ourgalaxy.otherwise.com/  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_7 on 2023-09-22. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

The database Augmented Tycho-HYG (v1.0) from http://www.astronexus.com/hyg uses parallax records from Hipparcos and uses updated Gaia DR3 distances where available. Luckily the records show "dist_src" to see where the value actually comes from. I went through the trouble (Oooh, such trouble!) of fetching them for you:




name
pc
ly (pc * 3.261598)
dist_src




Bellatrix
77.3994
252.4457282
HIP


Meissa
336.7003
1098.181025
HIP


Betelgeuse
152.6718
497.9540375
HIP


Mintaka
212.3142
692.4835701
HIP


Alnilam
606.0606
1976.726041
HIP


Alnitak
225.7336
736.2522583
HIP


Saiph
198.4127
647.1424655
HIP


Rigel
264.5503
862.8567294
HIP




In case you or anyone else wants to check more distances, my method was importing the csv file from astronexus in a mongodb and then running:
    db.athyg.find({"proper":"Rigel"},{"dist":1,"dist_src":1,"proper":1})

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Far too many significant figures. The distance to Betelgeuse is uncertain by at least 10% and I wouldn't have thought Hipparcos parallaxes would be much better.  
> **username_7**: I have immediate access to the HYG dataset from astronexus, so that's where I pulled the numbers from. To know the significant figures, I would have to pull from the original Hipparcos dataset (they provide a Parallax in mas and a Parallax_Error field). The aim of my answer was mostly to provide the sources for said data: Hipparcos and Gaia DR3. Hipparcos is indeed inferior.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2023-09-22. Score: 8

This is a real problem with star distances, and one that isn't well appreciated. We just don't know how far many large, bright, distant stars are.

The values you will find on Wikipedia, which are sourced from measurements of parallax (via Simbad (etc)) are "best estimates". We can tell the size of a star by measuring it's parallax: the apparent "wiggle" ad it moves around the sun. But this wiggle is exceedingly small, and for a star like Betelgeuse, might be smaller than the disc of the star.

So we can say that Bellatrix is "about 250 light years". Mintaka and Alnitak are probably about 1200-1300 light years (the Hippcaros measurement is generally agreed to be an under-estimate of the distance) but we don't actually know which one is closer. Betelgeuse is probably between 500 and 600 light years (but could be further) Alnilam is between 1500 and 2500 light years and so on.

In may parts of astronomy, we are used to being able to make exceedingly precise measurements: we can predict eclipses to the the second, and the distance to the moon in centimetres. But we simple don't know with any accuracy how far away many common stars are. The values in your list are good "best current guess".

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: It was a discovery for me that it turns out to be quite difficult to determine the distances to stars  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2023-09-22. Score: 7

I'm not sure if you can get the VERY latest measurements there, but [Simbad](http://simbad.cds.unistra.fr/simbad/) is always good for finding stars by criteria and learning more about existing ones, though it's not the most intuitive site out there in how searching works if you want something more detailed than entering the *name* of an object. If ever a star's distance is unavailable, you can always calculate it from its parallax:
Let $d$ be distance in parsecs, and $p$ the parallax value in *milli* arc seconds (thus the factor 1000 in this equation):

$$d = \frac{1}{p/1000}.$$

Therefore, going by the latest measurement on [Simbad for Rigel](http://simbad.cds.unistra.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=rigel), 1/(3.78/1000) = 264.55 parsecs = 862.44 light-years (rounded up), which seems to be corroborated by Wikipedia in this instance.

EDIT: As @username_4 rightly says below, this is not an exact measurement. I included five figures just to help anyone else trying the formula, since I myself am not good with mathematics.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Ok i didn't know what as SIMBAD. I will check that. Thanks a lot  
> **username_3**: @kazom +1. But don't be shy with linking these ressources...  
> **username_4**: Please don't quote 5 significant figures unless you have discussed the uncertainties. The *approximation* that the most probable distance is the reciprocal of the parallax will not be true to 5 significant figures.  
> **username_2**: @username_4 That's a very good point. I hadn't considered that, sorry.  
> **username_2**: @username_3 You mean where I got the formula from? I admit I forgot; it was a while ago  
> **username_3**: No. The formula follows from the definition in this case. I meant: You quote output from Sinbad. Thus link these, your sources, next time like I added them to your answer in this case :) When you quote a paper, link its archive entry etc.  

---

