Archer IV and planet naming

[F. King Daniel]

According to Mirror!Hoshi's dialogue in "In a Mirror, Darkly", Jonathan Archer has two planets named after him by 2268.
According to the USS Defiant's screengraphic, "He is the only human to have two planets named in his honour; ARCHER'S PLANET in the Gamma Trianguli sector, and ARCHER IV, which orbits 61 Ursae Majoris."

Archer IV was originally mentioned in Next Gen's "Yesterday's Enterprise"

But, surely Archer IV should be the fourth planet in the Archer star system, in the same way Earth and Mars are Sol III and Sol IV? Meaning there are at least four planets and a star named for him?

 

[R. Star]

According to Mirror!Hoshi's dialogue in "In a Mirror, Darkly", Jonathan Archer has two planets named after him by 2268.
According to the USS Defiant's screengraphic, "He is the only human to have two planets named in his honour; ARCHER'S PLANET in the Gamma Trianguli sector, and ARCHER IV, which orbits 61 Ursae Majoris."

Archer IV was originally mentioned in Next Gen's "Yesterday's Enterprise"

But, surely Archer IV should be the fourth planet in the Archer star system, in the same way Earth and Mars are Sol III and Sol IV? Meaning there are at least four planets and a star named for him?

They could have been referring to the stars and just misspoke. Or perhaps just speaking of habitable words. Or they just named the system after a medieval bowman.

Take your pick. Not really worth over analyzing.

 

[Hando]

There are several ways how to explain this.
Archer IV is actually the planet Archer - 61 Ursae Majoris IV. Which shortens to Archer IV.
Or because there was a planet Archer before, they used the IV to differentiate themselves.

Alternatively there could be some 6+ planets named Archer. But the planets in "two planets named after him", may mean important, populated, colonized planets...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Good ideas.

Also, maybe there were other people named Archer who were prominent in Federation history, so that e.g. Archer III was not named in honor of Jonathan Archer.

Another one. The constellation Sagittarius is "the Archer," so naming a planet Archer-something could signify a connection with Sagittarius, as a means to explain e.g. Archer II.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, that doesn't make sense, since Archer II, III, and IV would all be in the same system, planets of the star called Archer.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^Well, that doesn't make sense, since Archer II, III, and IV would all be in the same system, planets of the star called Archer.

Why do you assume they all have to be in the same system?

Incidentally, if we didn't already have reason to think that the star of Archer IV is not named Archer, as it would suggest more planets named after Jonathan, then I would agree with you. The problem is, see the OP.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, that doesn't make sense, since Archer II, III, and IV would all be in the same system, planets of the star called Archer.

Why do you assume they all have to be in the same system?

Because that's what that nomenclature means throughout all science fiction. Starname IV is the fourth planet in orbit of the star Starname. That's the way it's always worked. Look at "Spock's Brain," for instance, where the Sigma Draconis system (a real star) is home to planets called Sigma Draconis III, Sigma Draconis IV, and Sigma Draconis VI. Look at The Wrath of Khan, where Ceti Alpha V and Ceti Alpha VI were clearly meant to be adjacent planets in the Ceti Alpha system. Look at all the countless other planets in Trek that are given the names of real stars followed by Roman numerals -- Omicron Ceti III, Gamma Hydra IV, Deneb V, Rigel II through XII inclusive, etc. You can find the same convention used throughout all science fiction. (Though not reality; real exoplanets are referred to by lower-case letters in the order of their discovery, like 51 Pegasi b, or Gliese 581 b through g. Although there was a time when the moons of Jupiter were referred to by Roman numerals, e.g. Io was Jupiter I, Europa was Jupiter II, etc.)

Incidentally, if we didn't already have reason to think that the star of Archer IV is not named Archer, as it would suggest more planets named after Jonathan, then I would agree with you. The problem is, see the OP.

Plenty of stars have multiple names. Alpha Centauri is also called Al Rijl, Rigel Kentaurus, Toliman, Gliese 559, and others. 40 Eridani is also called Omicron-2 Eridani, Keid, Gliese 166, and others. Altair is also Alpha Aquilae, 53 Aquilae, HD 187642, and others. There's no such thing as a star that has only a common name and no catalog name. So there's absolutely no reason why 61 Ursae Majoris IV couldn't also be called Archer IV.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So there's absolutely no reason why 61 Ursae Majoris IV couldn't also be called Archer IV.

Except that there is; it's given in the OP.

To recapitulate:

If the star of Archer IV is named Archer, then why aren't there at least four planets named after Jonathan Archer, instead of only two?​

 

[Christopher]

But that's not a reason, it's a question. Other possible explanations have been offered, so the mere existence of the question hardly proves that your rather eccentric interpretation is fact.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

First of all, it's a good question.

Second of all, I never said "this is the way I think it is." I only threw out some more alternatives; something's going to give here.

Additionally, what you attribute to me, I get from Hando.

Or because there was a planet Archer before, they used the IV to differentiate themselves.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Here's another idea, maybe Archer I, Archer II, and Archer III are technically dwarf planets.

 

[Pavonis]

Oh, please, no dwarf planet discussions here!

All I can imagine is that Archer's Planet and Archer IV are the inhabited M-class worlds, and that's it remarkable that Jon Archer has two inhabited planets named after him. Archer I through III aren't inhabited, and maybe not even habitable (though throwing a pressure dome down on the surface shouldn't be difficult in the 23rd century).

 

[Christopher]

I agree that the simplest explanation is that the article meant to say "two inhabited planets named in his honor" but the author misspoke. Typos happen all the time. Sometimes fans are too quick to assume that every single word ever spoken or written by every character is absolute, gospel fact, and they go to great lengths to concoct convoluted explanations for the inconsistencies that result. It's often so much simpler to remember that people make mistakes, that the things characters or reference texts state in fiction may simply be inaccurate or erroneous.

 

[T'Girl]

I seem to remember a TV show a while back called "Earth Two." No doubt the second planet out from the star Earth. The planet also carried the poetic name of G889.

 

[Christopher]

Well, naturally Earth is going to be a special case for humans -- though the more common practice in science fiction is for such planets to be named New Earth.

 

[Hando]

Well, naturally Earth is going to be a special case for humans -- though the more common practice in science fiction is for such planets to be named New Earth.

Hm, where have I heard that. Ah, yes, Terra Nova.


What about this explanation there were 4 planets Archer, but 2 were destroyed.

 

[MacLeod]

Could Archer IV be the fourth Moon orbiting a Gas Giant called Archer?

 

[Christopher]

^Well, the text identifies Archer IV as the same planet visited in "Strange New World," i.e. the first one charted by Archer as NX-01's captain. There's nothing in that episode to definitively rule out it being a Jovian's moon, since all the establishing shots of the planet are from pretty close in, but it doesn't seem that that was the intent. There's one shot showing two moons in the sky, which could conceivably be other moons orbiting a Jovian, but they seem too close for that, and are more likely meant to be orbiting the future Archer IV itself -- which would be gravitationally untenable if it were a Jovian satellite.

 

[RPJOB]

Gas giants in a very close orbit about their star, the so called hot Jupiters, were considered impossible just a few years ago. Suddenly, we find out that they're everywhere. Just because we don't know of any jovian moons that have satellites of their own doesn't mean that it's impossible. The universe continues to surprise us.

I can't remember the TNG episode but Picard once showed a hologram on a planet in a very odd, looping orbit. We're not aware of any planets like that either but it was a nifty little throw away bit that showed that we still have much to learn about the galaxy.

Also, the original release of TMP showed Vulcan with a sister planet that also had a small moon. As Spock had earlier told Uhura that Vulcan has no moon then that moon must have orbited the other planet. Such a system would be considered gravitationally unstable based on our current knowledge but it looked cool.

 

[Pavonis]

Are we sure that Spock was taking his Kolinhar on Vulcan? Was he even outside? Was that sky real?