<p>The database used for the above was for Deep Sky Objects, not stars.
When I changed the database the correct one, then the following image is distribution of 120,000 named stars. Thanks for flagging my error.
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ZTUFS.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ZTUFS.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-25T15:36:32.430Z
Hmm, No upvote from me! The answer for the deep sky catalogue is indeed just a duplicate of the Q about the supernova distribution. Maybe this would be better removed altogether.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-25T14:43:11.940Z
2016-07-25T14:43:11.940Z
Francis Hemsher
<p>I'm becoming interested in the currently identified stars in the universe. There is a wide swath where much fewer named stars are shown. Why is this?
The image below is a mollweide projection of the universe, with the earth at its center. It shows about 230,000 named stars located at their right ascension/declination points.
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/6rkMR.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/6rkMR.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-24T23:43:44.840Z
Wait, I find this confusing. In the linked answer, it makes sense that the supernovae we see are coming from other galaxies. But in this plot you show, I'd expect the majority of stars to be in our galactic plane. Therefore the answer might be more involved?
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-25T00:07:21.163Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape - Great, I'd sure like to hear more. Note: I can rotate the Universe to provided different viewing areas of the universe...if needed
Francis Hemsher
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-25T00:16:32.283Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape - Perhaps, it might help to view this universe interactive at my site file: http://www.svgDiscovery.com/N/N3.htm
Francis Hemsher
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-25T00:38:53.313Z
@FrancisHemsher: For more discussion it might be good to know where you got those 230.000 named stars from (which catalogue) and if they are maybe simply selected for extragalactic stars. Because inside of our galaxy (which in your plot shows next to no stars) there should be quite some more stars than that known and classified.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-25T01:16:11.483Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape I obtained them from a csv file called HYG-Full  See :http://www.astronexus.com/hyg It had a nice compact data file that I could modify.
Francis Hemsher
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-25T20:10:47.437Z
@JanDoggen My first experience with this list was initially positive, because I appreciated the comments that guided me to correct the problem. However, your comment is quite negative and immature.
Francis Hemsher
<universe>
Parts of the Universe Shows Fewer Named Stars
Francis Hemsher
# Parts of the Universe Shows Fewer Named Stars

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-24)

I'm becoming interested in the currently identified stars in the universe. There is a wide swath where much fewer named stars are shown. Why is this?
The image below is a mollweide projection of the universe, with the earth at its center. It shows about 230,000 named stars located at their right ascension/declination points.
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/6rkMR.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/6rkMR.jpg)

**Tags:** universe

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Wait, I find this confusing. In the linked answer, it makes sense that the supernovae we see are coming from other galaxies. But in this plot you show, I'd expect the majority of stars to be in our galactic plane. Therefore the answer might be more involved?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 - Great, I'd sure like to hear more. Note: I can rotate the Universe to provided different viewing areas of the universe...if needed  
> **username_0**: @username_1 - Perhaps, it might help to view this universe interactive at my site file: http://www.svgDiscovery.com/N/N3.htm  
> **username_1**: @username_0: For more discussion it might be good to know where you got those 230.000 named stars from (which catalogue) and if they are maybe simply selected for extragalactic stars. Because inside of our galaxy (which in your plot shows next to no stars) there should be quite some more stars than that known and classified.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I obtained them from a csv file called HYG-Full  See :http://www.astronexus.com/hyg It had a nice compact data file that I could modify.  
> **username_0**: @JanDoggen My first experience with this list was initially positive, because I appreciated the comments that guided me to correct the problem. However, your comment is quite negative and immature.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2016-07-25. Score: 0

The database used for the above was for Deep Sky Objects, not stars.
When I changed the database the correct one, then the following image is distribution of 120,000 named stars. Thanks for flagging my error.
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ZTUFS.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/ZTUFS.jpg)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Hmm, No upvote from me! The answer for the deep sky catalogue is indeed just a duplicate of the Q about the supernova distribution. Maybe this would be better removed altogether.  

---

