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 1943Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1944Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1945Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1946Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1947Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1947 GroupDeep Cut85points
- NGC 1948Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1949Deep Cut85points
- NGC 195Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1950Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1951Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1953Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1954Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1955Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1956Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1957Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1958Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1959Deep Cut85points
- NGC 196Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1961Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1962Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1963Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1964Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1965Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1966Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1967Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1968Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1969Deep Cut85points
- NGC 197Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1970Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1971Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1972Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1974Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1978Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1979Deep Cut85points
- NGC 198Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1983Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1984Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1985Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1986Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1987Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1988Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1989Deep Cut85points
- NGC 199Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1990Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1992Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1993Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1994Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1995Deep Cut85points
- NGC 1996Deep 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.