Krillion Recorded answers
30,029 recorded answers
How to approach it
Work from the smallest scale outward rather than trying to recall a single famous object. List the categories that can satisfy the size test — planets, natural satellites, stars, nebulae, clusters, galaxies — and then ask which members of each you can actually name with confidence. Anything with a catalogue number or a Bayer-style letter counts, so you are not restricted to household names; star catalogues alone supply thousands of valid answers. Weigh your options by how distinctive they are, not by how impressive they sound: a well-known giant is safe but widely shared, while an obscure survey object is harder to verify but far less crowded. Before committing, sanity-check the diameter against the lunar baseline so you do not lose the point on a technicality.
Get a hint
Begin at the scale you can picture without effort and then widen the frame, because the answer does not have to be something famous, only something real and large enough to be measured.
A little more
Then think in terms of catalogues, since most qualifying objects are not famous at all: they carry numbers, Greek letters or survey codes instead of memorable names.
One step further
Finally stretch the scale to its extremes, because the biggest candidates can be whole galaxies or gas clouds spanning many times the width of any planet, and those uncommon answers tend to be worth more.
Reveal answers 30,029
- NGC 1705Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1706Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1708Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1709Deep Cut85points
- NGC 171Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1710Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1711Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1712Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1713Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1714Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1715Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1716Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1717Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1718Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1719Deep Cut85points
- NGC 172Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1720Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1721Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1722Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1723Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1724Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1725Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1726Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1727Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1728Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1729Deep Cut85points
- NGC 173Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1730Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1731Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1732Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1733Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1734Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1735Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1736Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1737Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1738Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1739Deep Cut85points
- NGC 174Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1740Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1741Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1741ADeep Cut85points
- NGC 1741BDeep Cut85points
- NGC 1743Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1744Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1745Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1746Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1747Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1748Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1749Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1750Deep Cut85points
Why these answers count
The reveal held 30,029 recorded answers, and the distribution is unusually lopsided: a single entry at 100 points, 29,941 sitting at 85, and 72 scraping 60. That shape tells you most solvers converged on the same safe territory. The 85-point band is dominated by numbered stellar designations such as 1 Aquarii or 10 Andromedae — individually correct, trivially generated, and therefore shared by thousands of players, which caps their value. Bare catalogue codes behave the same way: 0313-192 and 037-B327 are perfectly valid picks, yet they still landed at 85, because hundreds of players reached for the same lists. The lone 100-point answer, Hanny's Voorwerp, is a different animal — a genuinely distinctive, almost quirky object that few would name unprompted, and the scoring rewarded that originality. Answers that fell to 60 were presumably vaguer or even more heavily repeated. The lesson: correctness gets you into the 85-point band, but only a memorable, unexpected object breaks past it.